[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60406-60419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23673]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0046; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BA03
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Black Pinesnake
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the black pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi), a subspecies
currently known from Alabama and Mississippi, as a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we finalize this rule as
proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this subspecies and
add it to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 8, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2014-0046,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading,
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2014-0046; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275
Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39214; telephone 601-
321-1122; or facsimile 601-965-4340. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we find that
listing a species is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range is warranted, we are required to
promptly publish a proposal in the Federal Register and make a
determination on our proposal within one year. Listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a
rule. Critical habitat is prudent, but not determinable at this time.
This rule proposes to list the black pinesnake (Pituophis
melanoleucus lodingi) as a threatened species. In addition, we are
proposing a rule under section 4(d) of the Act that outlines the
prohibitions and conservation actions necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the black pinesnake as a threatened species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have found that the black pinesnake warrants
listing as a threatened species due to the past and continuing loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of habitat in association with
silviculture, urbanization, and fire suppression. Population declines
are also attributed to road mortality and intentional killing of snakes
by individuals. These threats, coupled with an apparent low
reproductive rate, threaten this subspecies' long-term viability.
We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. Because we will consider
all comments and information
[[Page 60407]]
we receive during the comment period, our final determination may
differ from this proposal.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of the black
pinesnake, including the locations of any additional populations of
this subspecies.
(2) The black pinesnake's biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the subspecies,
including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy, including interpretations of existing
studies or whether new information is available;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies, its
habitat, or both.
(3) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the
subspecies, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, collection for the pet trade, disease, predation, the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or
manmade factors.
(4) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this subspecies and existing
regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(5) Any information concerning the appropriateness and scope of the
proposed section 4(d) rule provisions for take of the black pinesnake.
We are particularly interested in input regarding timber and forest
management and restoration practices that would be appropriately
addressed through a section 4(d) rule, including those that adjust the
timing or methods to minimize impacts to the species or its habitat.
(6) Any additional information on current conservation activities
or partnerships benefitting the subspecies, or opportunities for
additional partnerships or conservation activities that could be
undertaken in order to address threats.
(7) Any information on specific pesticides that could impact the
black pinesnake or its prey base either directly or indirectly, which
could cause further mortality or decline of the species.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) directs that determinations as to whether any species is
an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times,
and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are seeking the
expert opinions of seven appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the
black pinesnake's biology, habitat, or physical or biological factors,
and they are currently reviewing the status information in the proposed
rule, which will inform our determination. We invite comment from the
peer reviewers during this public comment period.
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the black pinesnake as a Category 2 candidate species
in the December 30, 1982, Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for Listing as
Endangered or Threatened Species (47 FR 58454). Category 2 candidates
were defined as taxa for which we had information that proposed listing
was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule
at the time. The subspecies remained so designated in subsequent annual
Candidate Notices of Review (CNORs) (50 FR 37958, September 18, 1985;
54 FR 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991; and 59 FR
58982, November 15, 1994). In the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596),
we discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as candidates;
therefore, the black pinesnake was no longer a candidate species.
On October 25, 1999, the black pinesnake was added to the candidate
list (64 FR 57534). Candidates are those fish, wildlife, and plants for
which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal,
but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other
higher priority listing activities. The black pinesnake was included in
all of our subsequent annual CNORs (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001; 67
FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11,
2005; 71 FR
[[Page 60408]]
53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176,
December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November
10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21,
2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013). The black pinesnake has a
listing priority number of 3, which reflects a subspecies with threats
that are both imminent and high in magnitude.
On May 11, 2004, we were sent a petition to list the black
pinesnake. No new information was provided in the petition, and we had
already found the subspecies warranted listing, so no further action
was taken on the petition.
On May 10, 2011, the Service announced a work plan to restore
biological priorities and certainty to the Service's listing process.
As part of an agreement with Center for Biological Diversity and
WildEarth Guardians, the Service filed the work plan with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The work plan will enable
the agency to, over a period of 6 years, systematically review and
address the needs of more than 250 species listed within the 2010 CNOR,
including the black pinesnake, to determine if these species should be
added to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. This work plan will enable the Service to again prioritize its
workload based on the needs of candidate species, while also providing
State wildlife agencies, stakeholders, and other partners with clarity
and certainty about when listing determinations will be made. On July
12, 2011, the Service reached an agreement with Center for Biological
Diversity and WildEarth Guardians and further strengthened the work
plan, which will allow the agency to focus its resources on the species
most in need of protection under the Act. These agreements were
approved on September 9, 2011. The timing of this proposed listing is,
in part, therefore, an outcome of the work plan.
Background
Species Information
Species Description and Taxonomy
Pinesnakes (genus Pituophis) are large, non-venomous, oviparous
(egg-laying) constricting snakes with keeled scales and
disproportionately small heads (Conant and Collins 1991, pp. 201-202).
Their snouts are pointed. Black pinesnakes are distinguished from other
pinesnakes by being dark brown to black both on the upper and lower
surfaces of their bodies. There is considerable individual variation in
adult coloration (Vandeventer and Young 1989, p. 34), and some adults
have russet-brown snouts. They may also have white scales on their
throat and ventral surface (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203). In
addition, there may also be a vague pattern of blotches on the end of
the body approaching the tail. Adult black pinesnakes range from 48 to
76 inches (122 to 193 centimeters) long (Conant and Collins 1991, p.
203; Mount 1975, p. 226). Young black pinesnakes often have a blotched
pattern, typical of other pinesnakes, which darkens with age. The
subspecies' defensive posture when disturbed is particularly
interesting; when threatened, it throws itself into a coil, vibrates
its tail rapidly, strikes repeatedly, and utters a series of loud
hisses (Ernest and Barbour 1989, p. 102).
Pinesnakes (Pituophis melanoleucus) are members of the Class
Reptilia, Order Squamata, Suborder Serpentes, and Family Colubridae.
There are three recognized subspecies of P. melanoleucus distributed
across the eastern United States (Crother 2012, p. 66; Rodriguez-Robles
and De Jesus-Escobar 2000, p. 35): the northern pinesnake (P. m.
melanoleucus); black pinesnake (P. m. lodingi); and Florida pinesnake
(P. m. mugitus). The black pinesnake was originally described by
Blanchard (1924, pp. 531-532), and is geographically isolated from all
other pinesnakes. However, there is evidence that the black pinesnake
was in contact with other pinesnakes in the past. A form intermediate
between P. m. lodingi and P. m. mugitus occurs in Baldwin and Escambia
Counties, Alabama, and Escambia County, Florida, and may display
morphological characteristics of both subspecies (Conant 1956, pp. 10-
11). These snakes are separated from populations of the black pinesnake
by the extensive Tensas-Mobile River Delta and the Alabama River, and
it is unlikely that there is currently gene flow between pinesnakes
across the delta (Duran 1998a, p. 13; Hart 2002, p. 23). A study on the
genetic structure of the three subspecies of P. melanoleucus (Getz et
al. 2012, p. 2) showed evidence of mixed ancestry, and supported the
current subspecies designations and the determination that all three
are genetically distinct groups. Evidence suggests a possible
historical intergradation between P. m. lodingi and P. ruthveni
(Louisiana pinesnake), but their current ranges are no longer in
contact and intergradation does not presently occur (Crain and Cliburn
1971, p. 496).
Habitat
Black pinesnakes are endemic to the upland longleaf pine forests
that once covered the southeastern United States. Habitat for these
snakes consists of sandy, well-drained soils with an open-canopied
overstory of longleaf pine, a reduced shrub layer, and a dense
herbaceous ground cover (Duran 1998a, p. 2). Duran (1998b, pp. 1-32)
conducted a radio-telemetry study of the black pinesnake that provided
data on habitat use. Snakes in this study were usually located on well-
drained, sandy-loam soils on hilltops, on ridges, and toward the tops
of slopes in areas dominated by longleaf pine. They were rarely found
in riparian areas, hardwood forests, or closed canopy conditions. From
radio-telemetry studies, it has been shown that black pinesnakes spend
a majority of their time below ground: (1) 65.5 percent of locations
(Duran 1998a, p. 12); (2) 53-62 percent of locations (Yager et al.
2005, p. 27); and (3) 70.4 percent of locations (Baxley and Qualls
2009, p. 288). These locations were usually in the trunks or root
channels of rotting pine stumps.
During two additional radio-telemetry studies, individual
pinesnakes were observed using riparian areas, hardwood forests, and
pine plantations periodically, but the majority of their time was still
spent in intact upland longleaf pine habitat. While they will use
multiple habitat types periodically, they repeatedly returned to core
areas in the longleaf pine uplands and used the same pine stump and
associated rotted-out root system from year to year, indicating
considerable site fidelity (Yager, et al. 2006, pp. 34-36; Baxley 2007,
p. 40). Several radio-tracked juvenile snakes were observed using mole
or other small mammal burrows rather than the bigger stump holes used
by adult snakes (Lyman et al. 2007, pp. 39-41).
Pinesnakes may show some seasonal movement trends of emerging from
overwintering sites in February, moving to an active area from March
until September, and then moving back to their overwintering areas
(Yager, et al. 2006, pp. 34-36). The various areas utilized throughout
the year may not have significantly different habitat characteristics,
but these movement patterns support the need for black pinesnakes to
have access to larger, unfragmented tracts of habitat to accommodate
fairly large home ranges while minimizing interactions with humans.
The minimum amount of habitat necessary to support a viable black
pinesnake population (reserve size) has
[[Page 60409]]
not previously been determined, and estimating that value can be quite
challenging, primarily based on the elusive nature of the subspecies
(Wilson et al. 2011, pp. 42-43); however, it is clear that the area
would need to constitute an unconstrained activity area, sufficiently
large enough to accommodate the long-distance movements that have been
reported for the subspecies (Baxley and Qualls 2009, pp. 287-288).
Fragmentation by roads, urbanization, or incompatible habitat
conversion continues to be a major threat affecting the subspecies (see
discussion under Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting
Its Continued Existence).
Life History
Black pinesnakes are active during the day but only rarely at
night. As evidenced by their pointed snout and enlarged rostral scale
(the scale at the tip of their snout), they are accomplished burrowers
capable of tunneling in loose soil, potentially for digging nests or
excavating rodents for food (Ernst and Barbour 1989, pp. 100-101). In
addition to rodents, wild black pinesnakes have been reported to eat
nestling rabbits and quail (Vandeventer and Young 1989, p. 34). During
field studies of black pinesnakes in Mississippi, hispid cotton rats
(Sigmodon hispidus) and cotton mice (Peromyscus gossypinus) were the
most frequently trapped small mammals within black pinesnake home
ranges (Duran and Givens 2001, p. 4; Baxley 2007, p. 29). These results
suggest that these two species of mammals represent essential
components of the snake's diet (Duran and Givens 2001, p. 4).
Duran and Givens (2001, p. 4) estimated the average size of
individual black pinesnake home ranges (Minimum Convex Polygons (MCPs))
on Camp Shelby, Mississippi, to be 117.4 acres (ac) (47.5 hectares
(ha)) using data obtained during their radio-telemetry study.
Observations made during this study also provided some evidence of
territoriality in the black pinesnake. A more recent study conducted on
Camp Shelby provided home range estimates from 135 to 385 ac (55 to 156
ha) (Lee 2014a, p. 1). Additional studies from the De Soto National
Forest (NF) and other areas of Mississippi have documented somewhat
higher MCP home range estimates, from 225 to 979 ac (91 to 396 ha)
(Baxley and Qualls 2009, p. 287). The smaller home range sizes from
Camp Shelby may be a reflection of the higher habitat quality at the
site, as the snakes may not need to travel great distances to meet
their ecological needs. A modeling study of movement patterns in
bullsnakes revealed that home range sizes increased as a function of
the amount of avoided habitat, such as agricultural fields (Kapfer et
al. 2010, p. 15). As snakes are forced to increase the search radius to
locate preferred habitat, their home range invariably increases. The
dynamic nature of individual movement patterns supports the need for
black pinesnake habitat to be maintained in large, unfragmented parcels
to sustain survival of a population. In the late 1980s, a gopher
tortoise preserve of approximately 2,000 ac (809 ha) was created on
Camp Shelby, a National Guard training facility operating under a
special use permit on the De Soto NF in Forrest, George, and Perry
Counties, Mississippi. This preserve, which has limited habitat
fragmentation and has been specifically managed with prescribed burning
and habitat restoration to support the recovery of the gopher tortoise,
is believed to be central to a much larger managed area (over 100,000
acres) which provides habitat for one of the largest populations of
black pinesnakes in the subspecies' range (Lee 2014a, p. 1).
Very little information on the black pinesnake's breeding and egg-
laying is available from the wild. Lyman et al. (2007, p. 39) described
the time frame of mid-May through mid-June as the period when black
pinesnakes breed on Camp Shelby, and mating activities may take place
in or at the entrance to armadillo burrows. However, Lee (2007, p. 93)
described copulatory behavior in a pair of black pinesnakes in late
September. Based on dates when hatchling black pinesnakes have been
captured, the potential nesting and egg deposition period of gravid
females extends from the last week in June to the last week of August
(Lyman et al. 2009, p. 42). In 2009, a natural nest with a clutch of
six recently hatched black pinesnake eggs was found at Camp Shelby (Lee
et al. 2011, p. 301) at the end of a juvenile gopher tortoise burrow.
As there is only one documented natural black pinesnake nest, it is
unknown whether the subspecies exhibits nest site fidelity; however,
nest site fidelity has been described for other Pituophis species.
Burger and Zappalorti (1992, pp. 333-335) conducted an 11-year study of
nest site fidelity of northern pinesnakes in New Jersey and documented
the exact same nest site being used for 11 years in a row, evidence of
old egg shells in 73 percent of new nests, and recapture of 42 percent
of female snakes at prior nesting sites. The authors suggest that
females returning to a familiar site should have greater knowledge of
available resources, basking sites, refugia, and predator pressures;
therefore they would have the potential for higher reproductive success
compared with having to find a new nest site (Burger and Zappalorti
1992, pp. 334-335). If black pinesnakes show similar site fidelity, it
follows that they too might have higher reproductive success if their
nesting sites were to remain undisturbed.
Specific information about underground refugia of the black
pinesnake was documented during a study conducted by Rudolph et al.
(2007, p. 560), which involved excavating five sites used by the
subspecies for significant periods of time from early December through
late March. The pinesnakes occurred singly at shallow depths (mean of
9.8 in (25 cm); maximum of 13.8 in (35 cm)) in chambers formed by the
decay and burning of pine stumps and roots (Rudolph et al. 2007, p.
560). The refugia were not excavated by the snakes beyond minimal
enlargement of the preexisting chambers. These sites are not considered
true hibernacula because black pinesnakes move above ground on warm
days throughout all months of the year (Rudolph et al. 2007, p. 561;
Baxley 2007, pp. 39-40).
Longevity of wild black pinesnakes is not well documented, but is
at least 11 years, based on recapture data from Camp Shelby (Lee, pers.
comm., 2014b). The longevity record for a captive male black pinesnake
is 14 years, 2 months (Slavens and Slavens 1999, p. 1). Recapture and
growth data from black pinesnakes on Camp Shelby indicate that they may
not reach sexual maturity until their 4th or possibly 5th year (Yager
et al. 2006, p. 34).
Predators of black pinesnakes include red-tailed hawks (Buteo
jamaicensis), raccoons (Procyon lotor), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), red
foxes (Vulpes vulpes), feral cats (Felis catus), and domestic dogs
(Canis familiaris) (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager et al. 2006, p.
34; Lyman et al. 2007, p. 39) as well as humans.
Historical/Current Distribution
There are historical records for the black pinesnake from one
parish in Louisiana (Washington Parish), 14 counties in Mississippi
(Forrest, George, Greene, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar, Lauderdale,
Marion, Pearl River, Perry, Stone, Walthall, and Wayne Counties), and 3
counties in Alabama west of the Mobile River Delta (Clarke, Mobile, and
Washington Counties). Historically, populations likely occurred in all
of these contiguous counties. Currently,
[[Page 60410]]
some populations cross county boundaries, but the species is no longer
found in all of these counties. A recent record has been identified in
Lawrence County, Mississippi (Lee 2014b, p. 1), where black pinesnakes
have not previously been documented. However, this is a single capture
and it is unknown if it is part of a larger population.
Duran (1998a, p. 9) and Duran and Givens (2001, p. 24) concluded
that black pinesnakes have been extirpated from Louisiana and from two
counties (Lauderdale, and Walthall) in Mississippi. In these two
studies, all historical and current records were collected, land
managers from private, State, and Federal agencies with local knowledge
of the subspecies were interviewed, and habitat of all historical
records was visited and assessed. As black pinesnakes have not been
reported west of the Pearl River in either Mississippi or Louisiana in
over 30 years, and since there are no recent (post-1979) records from
Pearl River County (Mississippi), we believe them to be extirpated from
that county as well. To our knowledge there are no recent site-specific
surveys from areas west of the Pearl River, and the last record from
Louisiana was from 1965.
In general, pinesnakes are particularly difficult to survey for
given their tendency to remain below-ground most of the time. Most
records are the result of incidental observations from road crossings,
road killed snakes, and other activities that take observers into black
pinesnake habitat such as forestry, unrelated biological surveys, or
recreation.
A review of records, interviews, and status reports indicated that
black pinesnakes remain in all historical counties in Alabama (Clarke,
Mobile, and Washington) and in 11 out of 14 historical counties in
Mississippi (Forrest, George, Greene, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar,
Marion, Perry, Stone, and Wayne). Black pinesnake populations in many
of the occupied counties in Mississippi occur on the De Soto NF. Much
of the habitat outside of the National Forest has become highly
fragmented, and populations on these lands appear to be small and
isolated on islands of suitable longleaf pine habitat (Duran 1998a, p.
17; Barbour 2009, pp. 6-13).
Population Estimates and Status
Duran and Givens (2001, pp. 1-35) reported the results of a habitat
assessment of all black pinesnake records (156) known at the time of
their study. Habitat suitability of the sites was based on how the
habitat compared to that selected by black pinesnakes in a previously
completed telemetry study of a population occupying what was considered
high-quality habitat (Duran 1998b, pp. 1-44). Black pinesnake records
were joined using a contiguous suitable habitat model (combining areas
of suitable habitat with relatively unrestricted gene flow) to create
``population segments'' (defined as ``that portion of the population
located in a contiguous area of suitable habitat throughout which gene
flow is relatively unrestricted'') from the two-dimensional point data.
These population segments were then assessed using a combination of a
habitat suitability rating and data on how recently and/or frequently
black pinesnakes had been recorded at the site. By examining historical
population segments, Duran and Givens (2001, p. 10) determined that 22
of the 36 (61 percent) population segments known at the time of their
study were either extirpated (subspecies no longer present), or were in
serious jeopardy of extirpation.
The black pinesnake is difficult to locate even in areas where it
is known to occur. From the 14 population segments not determined to be
in serious jeopardy of extirpation from the 2001 assessment by Duran
and Givens, we estimate that there are 11 populations of black
pinesnakes today. Our estimate of the number of populations was derived
using record data (post-1990) from species/subspecies experts, Natural
Heritage Programs, State wildlife agencies, site assessments by Duran
and Givens (2001, pp. 1-35), overlain on current Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) analysis of habitat. A population was determined to be
distinct if it was separated from other localities by more than 1.3
miles (mi.) (2.1 kilometers (km)). This buffer radius distance was
chosen based on movement and home range data provided by black
pinesnake researchers (Duran 1998b, pp. 15-19; Yager et al. 2005, pp.
27-28; Baxley and Qualls 2009, pp. 287-288). Five of these 11
populations occur in Alabama and 6 in Mississippi. We are unsure of how
many individuals are within each population, but they may vary in size
from a few individuals to more than 100 in the largest population.
Current GIS analysis of these 11 potential black pinesnake
populations, in addition to the assessments by Duran and Givens (2001,
pp. 1-35), indicates that 3 of the 11 populations, all located in
Alabama, are likely not viable in the long term due to their small
size, lack of recent records in the areas of these populations,
presence on or proximity to highly fragmented habitat, and/or lack of
protection and habitat management for the site. The majority of the
known black pinesnake records, and much of the best remaining habitat,
occur within the two ranger districts that make up the De Soto NF in
Mississippi. These lands represent a small fraction of the former
longleaf pine ecosystem that was present in Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama, and historically occupied by the subspecies. At this time, we
believe the 6 populations in Mississippi (5 on the De Soto NF and one
in Marion County) and two sites in Alabama (in Clarke County) are the
only ones considered likely to persist long term. Protection and
management specifically addressing black pinesnake populations are
covered under the Department of Defense integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) for Camp Shelby in Forrest and Perry Counties,
Mississippi; however, this plan covers less than 10 percent of one of
the Mississippi populations.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of
the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Fire-maintained southern pine ecosystems, particularly the longleaf
pine ecosystem, have declined dramatically across the South. Current
estimates show that the longleaf pine forest type has declined 96
percent from the historical estimate of 88 million ac (35.6 million ha)
to approximately 3.3 million ac (1.3 million ha) (Oswalt et al. 2012,
p. 13). During the latter half of the 20th century, Louisiana, Alabama,
and Mississippi lost between 60 and 90 percent of their longleaf
acreage (Outcalt and Sheffield 1996, pp. 1-10). Recently, longleaf
acreage has been trending upward in parts of the Southeast through
restoration efforts, but these
[[Page 60411]]
increases do not align with the range of the black pinesnake (Ware,
pers. comm., 2014). Southern forest futures models predict declines of
forest land area between 2 and 10 percent in the next 50 years, with
loss of private forest land to urbanization accounting for most of this
loss (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 78). Natural longleaf pine forests, which
are characterized by a high, open canopy and shallow litter and duff
layers, have evolved to be maintained by frequent, low intensity fires,
which in turn restrict a woody midstory, and promote the flowering and
seed production of fire-stimulated groundcover plants (Oswalt et al.
2012, pp. 2-3). Although black pinesnakes will occasionally utilize
open-canopied forests with overstories of loblolly, slash, and other
pines, they are closely associated with natural longleaf pine forests,
which have an abundant herbaceous groundcover (Duran 1998a, p. 11;
Baxley et al. 2011, p. 161; Smith 2011, pp. 86, 100) necessary to
support the black pinesnake's prey base (Miller and Miller 2005, p.
202).
The current and historical range of the black pinesnake is highly
correlated with the current and historical range of these natural
longleaf pine forests, leading to the hypothesis that black pinesnake
populations, once contiguous throughout these forests in Alabama,
Mississippi, and southeast Louisiana, have declined proportionately
with the ecosystem (Duran and Givens 2001, pp. 2-3). In the range of
the black pinesnake, longleaf pine is now largely confined to isolated
patches on private land and larger parcels on public lands. Black
pinesnake habitat has been eliminated through land use conversions,
primarily conversion to agriculture and pine plantations and
development of urban areas. Most of the remaining patches of longleaf
pine on private land within the range of the snake are fragmented,
degraded, second-growth forests (see discussion under Factor E: Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence).
Conversion of longleaf pine forest to pine plantation often reduces
the quality and suitability of a site for black pinesnakes. Duran
(1998b, p. 31) found that black pinesnakes prefer the typical
characteristics of the longleaf pine ecosystem, such as open canopies,
reduced mid-stories, and dense herbaceous understories. He also found
that these snakes are frequently underground in rotting pine stumps.
Pine plantations typically have closed canopies and thick mid-stories
with limited herbaceous understories. Site preparation for planting of
pine plantations frequently involves clearing of downed logs and
stumps, thereby interfering with the natural development of stump holes
and root channels through decay or from burning, and greatly reducing
the availability of suitable refugia (Rudolph et al. 2007, p. 563).
This could have negative consequences if the pinesnakes are no longer
able to locate a previous year's refugium, and are subject to
overexposure from thermal extremes or elevated predation risk due to
increased above-ground activity.
When a site is converted to agriculture, all vegetation is cleared
and underground refugia are destroyed during soil disking and
compaction. Forest management strategies, such as fire suppression (see
discussion under Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting
Its Continued Existence), increased stocking densities, planting of
off-site pine species (i.e., slash and loblolly pines), bedding, and
removal of downed trees and stumps, all contribute to degradation of
habitat attributes preferred by black pinesnakes. It is possible that
the presence and distribution of decaying stump holes and their
associated rotting root channels may be a feature that limits the
abundance of black pinesnakes within their range (Baxley 2007, p. 44).
Baxley et al. (2011, pp. 162-163) compared habitat at recent (post-
1987) and historical (pre-1987) black pinesnake localities. She found
that sites recently occupied by black pinesnakes were characterized by
significantly less canopy cover; lower basal area; less midstory cover;
greater percentages of grass, bare soil, and forbs in the groundcover;
less shrubs and litter in the groundcover; and a more recent burn
history than currently unoccupied, but historical, sites. At the
landscape level, black pinesnakes selected upland pine forests that
lacked cultivated crops, pasture and hay fields, developed areas, and
roads (Baxley et al. 2011, p. 154). Thus, areas historically occupied
by black pinesnakes are becoming unsuitable at both the landscape and
microhabitat (small-scale habitat component) levels (Baxley et al.
2011, p. 164).
Degradation and loss of longleaf pine habitat within the range of
the black pinesnake is continuing. The coastal counties of southern
Mississippi and Mobile County, Alabama, are being developed at a rapid
rate due to increases in the human population. While forecast models
show that federal forest land will remain relatively unchanged in the
next few decades, projected losses in forest land are highest in the
South, with declines in private forest land from urbanization
accounting for most of the loss (Wear 2011, p. 31). Urbanization
appears to have reduced historical black pinesnake populations in
Mobile County by approximately 50 percent (Duran 1998a, p. 17), with
some areas directly surrounding Mobile thought to be potentially
extirpated by the Alabama Natural Heritage Program. Substantial
population declines were noted throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Mount
1986, p. 35). Jennings and Fritts (1983, p. 8) reported that, in the
1980s, the black pinesnake was one of the most frequently encountered
snakes on the Environmental Studies Center (Center) in Mobile County.
Urban development has now engulfed lands adjacent to the Center, and
black pinesnakes are thought to have been extirpated from the property
(Duran 1998a, p. 10). Black pinesnakes were commonly seen in the 1970s
on the campus of the University of South Alabama in western Mobile;
however, there have not been any observations in at least the past 25
years (Nelson 2014, p. 1).
Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range
When considering whether or not to list a species under the Act, we
must identify existing conservation efforts and their effect on the
species. The Mississippi Army National Guard (MSARNG) has drafted a
candidate conservation agreement (CCA) for the black pinesnake (MSARNG
2013, pp. 1-36). The purpose of this voluntary agreement is to
implement proactive conservation and management measures for the black
pinesnake and its habitat throughout the De Soto NF, which includes the
MSARNG's Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center (Camp Shelby).
Parties to the agreement include the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service; U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Army National Guard;
the Service; and the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks (MDWFP). The goal of the final agreement will be to significantly
reduce the threats upon the black pinesnake to improve its conservation
status. We are currently working with the MSARNG, Forest Service, and
MDWFP to complete the CCA. When conservation efforts defined in the CCA
are implemented, they should help maintain black pinesnake habitat on
Camp Shelby and the De Soto NF.
The largest remaining populations of black pinesnakes (5 of 11)
occur in the De Soto NF, which is considered the core of the
subspecies' known range.
[[Page 60412]]
The black pinesnake likely receives benefit from longleaf pine
restoration efforts, including prescribed fire, implemented by the
Forest Service in accordance with its Forest Plan, in habitats for the
federally listed gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) and red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Additional actions specifically
targeting the conservation needs of the black pinesnake should occur
when the CCA is finalized and implemented. These targeted actions
primarily address the exclusion of stumping (stump removal) during
forestry activities, to maintain the underground refugia utilized by
pinesnakes, and the establishment and maintenance of larger tracts of
suitable habitat to accommodate the home ranges of multiple snakes
constituting a breeding population. The CCA should also include a
monitoring protocol to track the demography and abundance of black
pinesnake populations.
The MSARNG recently updated its Integrated Natural Reources
Management Plan (INRMP) and outlined conservation measures to be
implemented specifically for the black pinesnake on lands owned by the
DoD and the State of Mississippi on Camp Shelby. Planned conservation
measures include: Supporting research and surveys on the subspecies;
habitat management specifically targeting the black pinesnake, such as
retention of pine stumps and prescribed burning; and educational
programs for users of the training center to minimize negative impacts
of vehicular mortality on wildlife (MSARNG 2014, pp. 93-94). The INRMP
addresses integrative management and conservation measures only on the
lands owned and managed by DoD and the State of Mississippi (15,195 ac
(6,149 ha)), which make up only 11 percent of the total acreage of Camp
Shelby (132,195 ac (53,497 ha)), most of which is owned and managed by
the Forest Service. Only 5,735 ac (2,321 ha) of the acreage covered by
the INRMP provides habitat for the black pinesnake. The larger
proportion of habitat on Camp Shelby is managed by the Forest Service
in accordance with their Forest Plan.
Longleaf pine habitat restoration projects have been conducted on
selected private lands within the range historically occupied by the
black pinesnake and may provide benefits to the subspecies (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2012, pp. 12-13). Additionally, restoration
projects have been conducted on wildlife management areas (WMAs)
(Marion County WMA in Mississippi; and Scotch, Fred T. Stimpson, and
Boykin WMAs in Alabama) occupied by black pinesnakes, and on three
gopher tortoise relocation areas in Mobile County, Alabama. These
gopher tortoise relocation areas are managed for the open-canopied,
upland longleaf pine habitat used by both gopher tortoises and black
pinesnakes, and have had recent records of black pinesnakes on the
property; however, the managed areas are all less than 700 ac (283 ha)
and primarily surrounded by urban areas with incompatible habitat.
Therefore, we do not believe they would be able to support more than a
few (i.e., likely less than five) individual pinesnakes with partially-
overlapping home ranges, and likely do not provide sufficient area to
support viable populations. There is beneficial habitat management
occurring on some of these WMAs and on the tortoise relocation areas.
However, these efforts do not currently target the retention or
restoration of black pinesnake habitat, which would also include
reduction in stump removal and management targeted to maintain larger,
unfragmented tracts of open longleaf habitat. We will continue to work
with our State partners to encourage the incorporation of these
practices, where appropriate.
In summary, the loss and degradation of habitat was a significant
historical threat and remains a current threat to the black pinesnake.
The historic loss of longleaf pine upland habitat occupied by black
pinesnakes occurred primarily due to timber harvest and subsequent
conversion of pine forests to agriculture, residential development, and
intensively managed pine plantations. This loss of habitat, which has
slowed considerably in recent years, in part due to efforts to restore
the longleaf pine ecosystem in the Southeast, is still presently
compounded by current losses in habitat due to habitat fragmentation
(see discussion under Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence), incompatible forestry practices,
conversion to agriculture, and urbanization. While the use of
prescribed fire for habitat management and more compatible site
preparation has seen increased emphasis in recent years, expanded
urbanization, fragmentation, and regulatory constraints will continue
to restrict the use of fire and cause further habitat degradation (Wear
and Greis 2013, p. 509). Conservation efforts are implemented or
planned that should help maintain black pinesnake habitat on Camp
Shelby and the De Soto NF; however, these areas represent a small
fraction of the current range of the subspecies. Populations on the
periphery of the range have conservation value as well in terms of
maintaining the subspecies' genetic integrity (i.e., maintaining the
existing genetic diversity still inherent in populations that have not
interbred in hundreds or thousands of years) and providing future
opportunities for population connectivity and augmentation. Many of the
populations on the edge of the range are smaller, which increases their
susceptibility to localized extinction from catastrophic and stochastic
events, subsequently causing further restriction of the subspecies'
range. Although the black pinesnake was thought to be fairly common in
parts of south Alabama as recently as 30 years ago, we believe most
populations have disappeared or drastically declined due to continued
habitat loss and fragmentation. For instance several sites where snakes
have been captured historically are now developed and no longer contain
habitat. Thus, habitat loss and continuing degradation of the black
pinesnake's habitat remains a significant threat to this subspecies'
continued existence.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Although there is some indication that collecting for the pet trade
may have been a problem (Duran 1998a, p. 15), and that localized
accounts of a thriving pet trade for pinesnakes have been reported
previously around Mobile, Alabama (Vandeventer and Young 1989, p. 34),
direct take of black pinesnakes for recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is not currently considered to be a significant
threat. This overutilization would be almost exclusively to meet the
demand from snake enthusiasts and hobbyists; however, the pet trade is
currently saturated with captive-bred black pinesnakes. The need for
the collection of wild specimens is thought to have declined
dramatically from the levels previously observed in the 1960s and 1970s
(Vandeventer 2014). Consequently, we have determined that
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is not a threat to the black pinesnake at this
time.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
Disease is not presently considered to be a threat to the black
pinesnake. However, snake fungal disease (SFD) is an emerging disease
in certain populations of wild snakes, even though specific
pathological criteria for the disease have not yet been established.
[[Page 60413]]
This disease, which has been linked to mortality events, has not been
documented in Pituophis or in any of the States within the range of the
black pinesnake, but is suspected of threatening the viability of
small, isolated populations of susceptible snake species and should be
monitored during all future research activities (Sleeman 2013, pp. 1-
3).
Red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta), an invasive species,
have been implicated in trap mortalities of black pinesnakes during
field studies (Baxley 2007, p. 17). They are also potential predators
of black pinesnake eggs, especially in disturbed areas (Todd et al.
2008, p. 544). In 2010 and 2011, trapping for black pinesnakes was
conducted in several areas that were expected to support the
subspecies; no black pinesnakes were found, but high densities of fire
ants were reported (Smith 2011, pp. 44-45). The severity and magnitude
of effects, as well as the long-term effects, of fire ants on black
pinesnake populations are currently unknown.
Other predators of pinesnakes include red-tailed hawks, raccoons,
skunks, red foxes, and feral cats (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager
et al. 2006, p. 34). Lyman et al. (2007, p. 39) reported an attack on a
black pinesnake by a stray domestic dog, which resulted in the snake's
death. Several of these mammalian predators are anthropogenically
enhanced (urban predators); that is, their numbers often increase with
human development adjacent to natural areas (Fischer et al. 2012, pp.
810-811). However, the severity and magnitude of predation by these
species are unknown.
In summary, disease is not considered to be a threat to the black
pinesnake at this time. However, predation by fire ants and urban
predators may represent a threat to the black pinesnake.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
In Mississippi, the black pinesnake is classified as endangered by
the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks
(Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2001, p. 1). In Alabama, it is
protected as a non-game animal (Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources 2014, p. 1). In Louisiana, the black pinesnake is
considered extirpated (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
2014, p. 2); however, Louisiana Revised Statutes for Wildlife and
Fisheries were recently amended to prohibit killing black pinesnakes or
removing them from the wild (Louisiana Administrative Code, 2014, p.
186), should they be found in the State again. Both Mississippi and
Alabama have regulations that restrict collecting, killing, or selling
of the subspecies, but do not have regulations addressing habitat loss,
which has been the primary cause of decline of this subspecies.
Where the subspecies co-occurs with species already listed under
the Act, the black pinesnake likely receives ancillary benefits from
the protective measures for the already listed species, including the
gopher tortoise, dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa), and red-cockaded
woodpecker.
The largest known expanses of suitable habitat for the black
pinesnake are in the De Soto NF in Mississippi. The black pinesnake's
habitat is afforded some protection under the National Forest
Management Act (NFMA; 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) where it occurs on lands
managed by the Forest Service that are occupied by federally listed
species such as the gopher tortoise and red-cockaded woodpecker. Forest
Service rules and guidelines implementing NFMA require land management
plans that include provisions supporting recovery of endangered and
threatened species. As a result, land managers on the De Soto NF have
conducted management actions, such as prescribed burning and longleaf
pine restoration, which benefit gopher tortoises, red-cockaded
woodpeckers, and black pinesnakes. However, they do not fully address
the microhabitat needs of the black pinesnake, such as restrictions on
stump removal, which is detrimental to black pinesnakes because of the
subspecies' utilization of pine stumps and root channels as refugia
(Duran 1998a, p. 14). They continue to work with the Service and other
partners to develop and implement a CCA.
As discussed under Factor A above, the MSARNG recently updated its
INRMP for Camp Shelby, and outlined conservation measures to be
implemented specifically for the black pinesnake on 5,735 ac (2,321 ha)
of potential pinesnake habitat owned or managed by DoD. These measures
will benefit black pinesnake populations, and include a monitoring
protocol to help evaluate the population and appropriate guidelines for
maintaining suitable habitat and microhabitats.
In summary, outside of the National Forest and the area covered by
the INRMP, existing regulatory mechanisms provide little protection
from the primary threat of habitat loss for some populations of the
black pinesnake. Longleaf restoration activities on Forest Service
lands in Mississippi conducted for other federally listed species do
improve habitat for black pinesnake populations located in those areas,
but could be improved by ensuring the protection of the belowground
refugia critical to the snake.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Fire is the preferred management technique to maintain the longleaf
pine ecosystem, and fire suppression has been considered a primary
reason for the degradation of the remaining longleaf pine forest. It is
a contributing factor in reducing the quality and quantity of available
habitat for the black pinesnake. Some of the forecasts for southern
forests are that land use changes involving fuels management will
continue to constrain prescribed fire efforts, and that safety and
health regulations and increased urban interface will add to those
constraints, making prescribed burning even more challenging in the
future (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 509). Reduced fire frequencies and
reductions in average area burned per fire event (strategies often used
in management of pine plantations) produce sites with thick mid-
stories, and these areas are avoided by black pinesnakes (Duran 1998b,
p. 32). During a 2005 study using radio-telemetry to track black
pinesnakes, a prescribed burn bisected the home range of one of the
study animals. The snake spent significantly more time in the recently
burned area than in the area that had not been burned in several years
(Smith 2005, 5 pp.).
Habitat fragmentation within the longleaf pine ecosystem threatens
the continued existence of all black pinesnake populations,
particularly those on private lands. This is frequently the result of
urban development, conversion of longleaf pine sites to pine
plantations, and the associated increases in number of roads. Private
forest ownership dynamics in the South are trending towards increased
parcellation (e.g., the splitting up of large tracts of land), which
could lead to greater fragmentation through estate disposal and
urbanization (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 103). When patches of available
habitat become separated beyond the dispersal range of a species,
populations are more sensitive to genetic, demographic, and
environmental variability, and extinction becomes possible. This is
likely a primary cause for the extirpation of the black pinesnake in
Louisiana and the subspecies' contracted range in Alabama and
Mississippi (Duran and Givens 2001, pp. 22-26).
[[Page 60414]]
Private landowners hold more than 86 percent of forests in the
South and produce nearly all of the forest investment and timber
harvesting in the region (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 103). Forecasts
indicate a loss of 11 to 23 million ac (4.5 million to 9.3 million ha)
of private forest land in the South by 2060. This loss, combined with
expanding urbanization and ongoing splitting of ownership as estates
are divided, will result in increased fragmentation of remaining forest
holdings (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 119). This assessment of continued
future fragmentation throughout the range of the black pinesnake,
coupled with the assumption that large home range size increases
extinction vulnerability, emphasizes the importance of conserving and
managing large tracts of contiguous habitat to protect the black
pinesnake (Baxley 2007, p. 65). This is in agreement with other studies
of large, wide-ranging snake species sensitive to landscape
fragmentation (Hoss et al. 2010; Breininger et al. 2012). When factors
influencing the home range sizes of the eastern indigo snake
(Drymarchon corais couperi) were analyzed, the results suggested that
maintaining populations of this subspecies will require large
conservation areas with minimum fragmentation (Breininger et al. 2011,
pp. 484-490).
Roads surrounding and traversing the remaining black pinesnake
habitat pose a direct threat to the subspecies. Dodd et al. (2004, p.
619) determined that roads fragment habitat for wildlife. Population
viability analyses have shown that road mortality estimates in some
snake species have greatly increased extinction probabilities (Row et
al. 2007, p. 117). In an assessment of data from radio-tracked eastern
indigo snakes, it was found that adult snakes have relatively high
survival in conservation core areas, but greatly reduced survival in
edges of these areas along highways, and in suburbs (Breininger et al.
2012, p. 361). Clark et al. (2010, pp. 1059-1069) studied the impacts
of roads on population structure and connectivity in timber
rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus). They found that roads interrupted
dispersal and negatively affected genetic diversity and gene flow among
populations of this large snake (Clark et al. 2010, p. 1059). In a
Texas snake study, an observed deficit of snake captures in traps near
roads suggests that a substantial proportion of the total number of
snakes may have been eliminated due to road-related mortality and that
populations of large snakes may be depressed by 50 percent or more due
to this mortality (Rudolph et al. 1999, p. 130).
A modeling study by Steen et al. (2012, p. 1092) determined that
fragmentation by roads may be an impediment to maintaining viable
populations of pinesnakes. Black pinesnakes frequent the sandy hilltops
and ridges where roads are most frequently sited. Even on public lands,
roads are a threat. During Duran's (1998b pp. 6, 34) study on Camp
Shelby, Mississippi, 17 percent of the black pinesnakes with
transmitters were killed while attempting to cross a road. In a larger
study currently being conducted on Camp Shelby, 14 (38 percent) of the
37 pinesnakes found on the road between 2004 to 2012 were found dead,
and these 14 individuals represent about 13 percent of all the
pinesnakes found on Camp Shelby during that 8-year span (Lyman et al.
2012, p. 42). The majority of road crossings occurred between the last
2 weeks of May and the first 2 weeks of June (Lyman et al. 2011, p.
48), a time period when black pinesnakes are known to breed (Lyman et
al. 2012, p. 42). In the study conducted by Baxley (2007, p. 83) on De
Soto NF, 2 of the 8 snakes monitored with radio-transmitters were found
dead on paved roads. This is an especially important issue on these
public lands because the best remaining black pinesnake populations are
concentrated there. It suggests that population declines may be due in
part to adult mortality in excess of annual recruitment (Baxley and
Qualls 2009, p. 290).
Exotic plant species degrade habitat for wildlife. In the
Southeast, longleaf pine forest associations are susceptible to
invasion by the exotic cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), which may
rapidly encroach into areas undergoing habitat restoration, and is very
difficult to eradicate once it has become established, requiring
aggressive control with herbicides (Yager et al. 2010, pp. 229-230).
Cogongrass displaces native grasses, greatly reducing foraging areas,
and forms thick mats so dense that ground-dwelling wildlife has
difficulty traversing them (DeBerry and Pashley 2008, p. 74).
In many parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, there is a
lack of understanding of the importance of snakes to a healthy
ecosystem. Snakes are often killed intentionally when they are
observed, and dead pinesnakes have been found that have been shot
(Duran 1998b, p. 34). Lyman et al. (2008, p. 34) and Duran (1998b, p.
34) both documented finding dead black pinesnakes that were
intentionally run over as evidenced by vehicle tracks that went off the
road in vicinity of dead snakes. In addition, in one of these instances
(Lyman et al. 2008, p. 34), footprints were observed going from the
vicinity of the truck to the snake's head, which had been intentionally
crushed. As development pressures mount on remaining black pinesnake
habitat, human-snake interactions are expected to increase, which in
turn is expected to increase mortality, especially of adults.
Duran (1998b, p. 36) suggested that reproductive rates of wild
black pinesnakes may be low, based on failure to detect either nests or
mating behaviors during his studies. For long-lived species, animals
are expected to replace themselves over their lifespan in order for the
population growth rate to remain stable or grow; therefore, if
mortality of breeding adults is high, population declines can result.
Thus, the loss of mature adults through road mortality, direct killing,
or any other means increases in significance. As existing occupied
habitat becomes reduced in quantity and quality, low reproductive rates
threaten population viability.
Random environmental events may also play a part in the decline of
the black pinesnake. Two black pinesnakes were found dead on the De
Soto NF during drought conditions of mid-summer and may have succumbed
due to drought-related stress (Baxley 2007, p.41).
In summary, a variety of natural or manmade factors currently
threaten the black pinesnake. Fire suppression has been considered a
primary reason for degradation of the longleaf pine ecosystem; however,
invasive species such as cogongrass also greatly reduce the habitat
quality for the black pinesnake. Isolation of populations beyond the
dispersal range of the subspecies is a serious threat due to the
fragmentation of available habitat. The high percentage of radio-
tracked black pinesnakes killed while trying to cross roads supports
our conclusion that this is a serious threat, and human attitudes
towards snakes represent another source of mortality. Stochastic
threats such as drought have the potential to threaten black pinesnake
populations, and the suspected low reproductive rate of the subspecies
could exacerbate other threats and limit population viability. Overall,
the threats under Factor E may act in combination with threats listed
above under Factors A through D and increase their severity.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present,
[[Page 60415]]
and future threats to the black pinesnake. The black pinesnake is
considered extirpated from Louisiana and three counties in Mississippi.
Threats to the remaining black pinesnake populations exist primarily
from two of the five threat factors (Factors A and E); however,
predation by fire ants and urban predators (Factor C), and limitations
of existing laws and regulations (Factor D) also pose lower-magnitude
threats to the subspecies.
Threats also occur in combination, resulting in synergistically
greater effects. Threats of habitat loss and degradation (Factor A)
represent primary threats to the black pinesnake. While habitat
restoration efforts are beginning to reverse the decline of the
longleaf pine forest in the Southeastern U.S., most of the black
pinesnake's habitat has been either converted from forests to other
uses or is highly fragmented. Today, the longleaf pine ecosystem
occupies less than 4 percent of its historical range, and the black
pinesnake has been tied directly to this ecosystem. For instance, much
of the habitat outside of the National Forest in Mississippi (the
stronghold of the range) has become highly fragmented, and populations
on these lands appear to be small and isolated on islands of suitable
longleaf pine habitat (Duran 1998a, p. 17; Barbour 2009, pp. 6-13).
A habitat suitability study of all historical sites for the black
pinesnake estimated that this subspecies likely no longer occurs in an
estimated 60 percent of historical population segments. It is estimated
that only 11 populations of black pinesnakes are extant today, of which
about a third are located on isolated patches of longleaf pine habitat
that continue to be degraded due to fire suppression and fragmentation
(Factor E), incompatible forestry practices, and urbanization.
Threats under Factor E include fire suppression; roads; invasive
plant species, such as cogongrass; random environmental events, such as
droughts; intentional killing by humans; and low reproductive rates.
Fire suppression and invasive plants result in habitat degradation.
Roads surround and traverse the ridges, which define black pinesnake
habitat, and cause fragmentation of the remaining habitat. Further,
vehicles travelling these roads cause the death of a high number of
snakes. Roads also increase the rate of human-snake interactions, which
likely result in the death of individual snakes. Episodic effects of
drought and low reproductive rates of wild black pinesnakes further
threaten this subspecies' population viability. These threats in
combination lead to an increased chance of local extirpations by making
populations more sensitive to genetic, demographic, and environmental
variability.
The threats that affect the black pinesnake are important on a
threat-by-threat basis, but are even more significant in combination.
Habitat loss has been extensive throughout the black pinesnake's range,
and the remaining habitat has been fragmented into primarily small
patches with barriers to dispersal between them, creating
reproductively isolated individuals or populations. The inadequacy of
laws and regulations protecting against habitat loss contributes to
increases in urbanization and further fragmentation. Urbanization
results in an increased density of roads, intensifying the potential
for direct mortality of adult snakes, and reductions in population
sizes. Reductions in habitat quality have synergistic effects,
compounded by low reproductive rates, to cause localized extirpations.
Threats to the black pinesnake, working individually or in combination,
are ongoing and significant and have resulted in curtailment of the
range of the subspecies.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the black pinesnake meets
the definition of a threatened species based on the immediacy,
severity, and scope of the threats described above. Most of the
longleaf pine habitat within the historical range of the black
pinesnake has disappeared, and the remaining habitat exists primarily
in fragmented patches too small to support a viable population. Current
black pinesnake habitat continues to be lost or degraded due to fire
suppression, incompatible forestry practices, and urbanization, and it
appears this trend will continue in the future. Only 11 populations are
estimated to be extant, and several of these exist in small numbers,
are located on fragmented habitat, or have no protection or management
in place; thus, their potential for long-term survival is questionable.
We find that endangered status is not appropriate for the black
pinesnake because, while we found the threats to the subspecies to be
significant and rangewide, we do not know them to be either sudden or
calamitous. Although there is a general decline in the overall range of
the subspecies and its available habitat, the rate of decline has
slowed in recent years due to restoration efforts, and range
contraction is not severe enough to indicate imminent extinction. A
significant proportion of the remaining black pinesnake populations (45
percent) occur primarily on public lands that are at least partially
managed to protect remaining longleaf pine habitat; management efforts
on those lands specifically targeting listed longleaf pine specialists,
such as the gopher tortoise and red-cockaded woodpecker, should benefit
the black pinesnake as well, especially if measures are employed to
protect below-ground refugia. Additionally, the 5,735 ac (2,321 ha)
covered by the Camp Shelby INRMP are under a conservation plan
specifically protecting black pinesnake microhabitats and increasing
awareness of the human impacts to rare wildlife. The CCA currently
under development with the Forest Service, MDWFP, and MSARNG should
provide an elevated level of focused conservation and management for
the black pinesnake on their lands. Because of these existing efforts
and management plans, this subspecies does not meet the definition of
an endangered species. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the black
pinesnake as threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1)
of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that black
pinesnake is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of its
range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the definitions of
``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See the Final Policy
on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37577).
Available Conservation Measures
Several conservation efforts already exist for the black pinesnake.
The MSARNG recently updated its INRMP and outlined conservation
measures to be implemented specifically for the black pinesnake on
lands owned by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the State of
Mississippi on Camp Shelby. Planned conservation measures include:
Supporting research and surveys on the subspecies; habitat management
specifically targeting the black pinesnake, such as retention of pine
stumps and prescribed burning; and
[[Page 60416]]
educational programs for users of the training center to minimize
negative impacts of vehicular mortality on wildlife (MSARNG 2014, pp.
93-94). The INRMP addresses integrative management and conservation
measures on the lands owned and managed by DoD and the State of
Mississippi (15,195 ac (6,149 ha)), which make up 11 percent of the
total acreage of Camp Shelby (132,195 ac (53,497 ha)), most of which is
owned and managed by the Forest Service.
The Mississippi Army National Guard (MSARNG) has also drafted a
candidate conservation agreement (CCA) for the black pinesnake (MSARNG
2013, pp. 1-36). The purpose of this voluntary agreement is to
implement proactive conservation and management measures for the black
pinesnake and its habitat throughout the De Soto NF, which includes
Camp Shelby. While the black pinesnake benefits from actions taken in
these areas for other listed species, additional actions specifically
targeting the conservation needs of the pinesnake should occur when the
CCA is finalized and implemented.
Longleaf pine habitat restoration projects have been conducted on
selected private lands within the range historically occupied by the
black pinesnake and may provide benefits to the subspecies (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2012, pp. 12-13). Additionally, restoration
projects have been conducted on wildlife management areas (WMAs)
(Marion County WMA in Mississippi; and Scotch, Fred T. Stimpson, and
Boykin WMAs in Alabama) occupied by black pinesnakes, and on three
gopher tortoise relocation areas in Mobile County, Alabama. These
gopher tortoise relocation areas are managed for the open-canopied,
upland longleaf pine habitat used by both gopher tortoises and black
pinesnakes, and have had recent records of black pinesnakes on the
property.
Other conservation measures which would be provided to species
listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition,
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in
public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local
agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed,
in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. If the
species is listed, a recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan would be made available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered) and from our Mississippi Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the subspecies' habitat that may
require conference or consultation or both as described in the
preceding paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the Forest Service or on
National Wildlife Refuges managed by the Service; issuance of section
404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; construction and maintenance of gas pipeline and
power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration; land management practices supported by programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Environmental
Protection Agency pesticide registration; and projects funded through
Federal loan programs which may include, but are not limited to, roads
and bridges, utilities, recreation sites, and other forms of
development.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies. 50 CFR 17.31
generally applies the prohibitions for endangered wildlife to
threatened wildlife, unless a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act
is adopted by the Service.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
[[Page 60417]]
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to threatened and endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued
for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act, if the species is
listed. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on proposed and ongoing activities
within the range of species proposed for listing. The following
activities could potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the
Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the black pinesnake, including
import or export across State lines and international boundaries,
except for properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least
100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon the black pinesnake;
(3) Unauthorized destruction or modification of occupied black
pinesnake habitat (e.g., clearcutting, root raking, bedding) that
results in ground disturbance or the destruction of stump holes and
their associated root systems used as refugia by the subspecies or that
impairs in other ways the subspecies' essential behaviors such as
breeding, feeding, or sheltering;
(4) Unauthorized use of insecticides and rodenticides that could
impact small mammal prey populations, though either unintended or
direct impacts within habitat occupied by black pinesnakes; and
(5) Actions, intentional or otherwise, that would result in the
destruction of eggs or cause mortality or injury to hatchling,
juvenile, or adult black pinesnakes.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Mississippi
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Proposed Special Rule
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has
discretion to issue such regulations as she deems necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. The
Secretary also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation with
respect to a threatened species any act prohibited by section 9(a)(1)
of the Act. Exercising this discretion, which has been delegated to the
Service by the Secretary, the Service has developed general
prohibitions that are appropriate for most threatened species at 50 CFR
17.31 and exceptions to those prohibitions at 50 CFR 17.32. While the
prohibitions at 17.31 and 17.32 apply for this species, some activities
that would normally be prohibited under 17.31 and 17.32 are necessary
for the conservation of this species, because the longleaf wiregrass
ecosystem requires active management to ensure appropriate habitat
conditions are present. Therefore, for the black pinesnake, the Service
has determined that a section 4(d) rule may be appropriate to promote
conservation of th this species. As discussed in the Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section of this rule, the primary threat to this
subspecies is the continuing loss and degradation of habitat. Foremost
in the degradation of this subspecies' habitat is the absence of
prescribed fire, which reduces the forest mid-story and promotes an
abundant herbaceous groundcover. Fire is a natural component of the
longleaf pine ecosystem where the black pinesnake occurs. Another
factor affecting the integrity of this ecosystem is the establishment
of exotic weeds, particularly cogongrass. Activities such as prescribed
burning and noxious weed control, as well as timber management
activities associated with restoring and improving the natural habitat
to meet the needs of the black pinesnake, would positively affect
pinesnake populations and provide an overall conservation benefit to
the subspecies.
Provisions of the Proposed Special Rule
This proposed 4(d) rule would exempt from the general prohibitions
in 50 C.F.R. 17.32 take incidental to the following activities when
conducted within habitats currently or historically occupied by the
black pinesnake:
(1) Prescribed burning in the course of habitat management and
restoration to benefit black pinesnakes or other native species of the
longleaf pine ecosystem.
(2) Noxious weed control, mid-story hardwood control, and hazardous
fuels reduction in the course of habitat management and restoration to
benefit black pinesnakes or other sensitive species of the longleaf
pine ecosystem, provided that these activities are conducted in a
manner consistent with Federal law, including Environmental Protection
Agency label restrictions; applicable State laws; and herbicide
application guidelines as prescribed by herbicide manufacturers.
(3) Restoration along riparian areas and stream buffers.
(4) Intermediate silvicultural treatments (such as planting of
longleaf seedlings on existing agricultural or silvicultural sites
where mature longleaf stands do not currently exist) performed under a
management plan or prescription that is designed to work towards one or
more of the following target conditions:
(a) Mature, longleaf-dominated forest with <=70 percent canopy
coverage;
(b) Hardwood mid-story reductions resulting in <10 percent mid-
story coverage;
(c) Abundant, diverse, native groundcover covering at least 40
percent of the ground.
All of the activities listed above should be conducted in a manner
to maintain connectivity of suitable black pinesnake habitats, allowing
dispersal and migration between larger forest stands; to minimize
ground and subsurface disturbance by conducting harvests during drier
periods when the ground is not saturated, by using low-pressure tires,
or both; and to leave stumps, dead standing snags, and woody debris.
We believe these actions and activities, while they may have some
minimal level of mortality, harm, or disturbance to the black
pinesnake, are not expected to adversely affect the subspecies'
conservation and recovery efforts. They would have a net beneficial
effect on the subspecies.
Like the proposed listing rule, this proposed special rule will not
be finalized until we have reviewed comments from the public and peer
reviewers.
Based on the rationale above, the provisions included in this
proposed 4(d) rule are necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the black pinesnake. Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule
would change in any way the recovery planning provisions of section
4(f) of the Act and consultation requirements under section 7 of the
Act or the ability of the Service to enter into partnerships for the
management and protection of the black pinesnake.
Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as ``(i) the
specific areas
[[Page 60418]]
within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is
listed . . . on which are found those physical or biological features
(I) Essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may
require special management considerations or protection; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed . . . upon a determination by the Secretary that
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.'' Section
3(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(3)) also defines the terms
``conserve,'' ``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' to mean ``to use and
the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to this chapter Act are no longer
necessary.''
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of
the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity,
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or
(2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to
the species.
There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to
collection or vandalism under Factor B for this species, and
identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to
initiate any such threat. Therefore, in the absence of finding that the
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, a finding
that designation is prudent is warranted. Here, the potential benefits
of designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of
the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus
where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is
unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential
features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or
county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from
causing inadvertent harm to the species.
Because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat
will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may
provide some measure of benefit, we determine that designation of
critical habitat is prudent for the black pinesnake.
Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical
habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following
situations exists: (1) Information sufficient to perform required
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; or (2) the
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 require the Service to ``make
available for public comment the draft economic analysis of the
designation'' at the time the proposed critical habitat rule publishes
in the Federal Register. At this point, a careful assessment of the
economic impacts that may occur due to a critical habitat designation
is still ongoing, and we are still in the process of acquiring the
information needed to perform this assessment. Accordingly, we find
designation of critical habitat to be not determinable at this time.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of NEPA, need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Pinesnake, black'' to
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order
under REPTILES to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 60419]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
REPTILES
* * * * * * *
Pinesnake, black................. Pituophis U.S.A. (AL, LA, MS) Entire............. T NA 17.42(h).
melanoleucus
lodingi.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.42 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.42 Special rules--reptiles.
* * * * *
(h) Black pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi).
(1) Prohibitions. Except as noted in paragraph (h)(2) of this
section, all prohibitions and provisions of Sec. Sec. 17.31 and 17.32
apply to the black pinesnake.
(2) Exemptions from prohibitions. (i) Incidental take of the black
pinesnake will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act if
the take results from any of the following when conducted within
habitats currently or historically occupied by the black pinesnake:
(A) Prescribed burning in the course of habitat management and
restoration to benefit black pinesnakes or other native species of the
longleaf pine ecosystem.
(B) Noxious weed control in the course of habitat management and
restoration to benefit black pinesnakes or other sensitive species of
the longleaf pine ecosystem, provided that the noxious weed control is
conducted in a manner consistent with Federal law, including
Environmental Protection Agency label restrictions; applicable State
laws; and herbicide application guidelines as prescribed by herbicide
manufacturers.
(C) Restoration along riparian areas and stream buffers.
(D) Intermediate silvicultural treatments (such as planting of
longleaf seedlings on existing agricultural or silvicultural sites
where mature longleaf stands do not currently exist) performed under a
management plan or prescription that is designed to work towards the
following target conditions:
(1) Mature, longleaf-dominated forest with <=70 percent canopy
coverage;
(2) Hardwood mid-story reductions resulting in <10 percent mid-
story coverage;
(3) Abundant, diverse, native groundcover covering at least 40
percent of the ground.
(ii) Forestry practices (i.e., selective thinnings or small group
selection cuts) conducted for the activities listed in paragraph
(h)(2)(i) of this section must be conducted in a manner to maintain
connectivity of suitable black pinesnake habitats, allowing dispersal
and migration between larger forest stands; to minimize ground and
subsurface disturbance by conducting harvests during drier periods, by
using low-pressure tires, or both; and to leave stumps, dead standing
snags, and woody debris.
* * * * *
Dated: September 23, 2014.
David Cottingham,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23673 Filed 10-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P