Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Black Pinesnake With 4(d) Rule

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)

Federal Register Volume 80, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)

Rules and Regulations

Pages 60467-60489

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov

FR Doc No: 2015-25270

Page 60467

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 193

October 6, 2015

Part III

Department of the Interior

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fish and Wildlife Service

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Black Pinesnake With 4(d) Rule; Final Rule

Page 60468

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 With 4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for the black pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi), a reptile subspecies from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The effect of this rule is to add this subspecies to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We are also adopting a rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act (a ``4(d) rule'') to provide for the conservation of the black pinesnake.

DATES: This rule is effective November 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/mississippiES/. Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; by telephone at 601-965-4900; or by facsimile at 601-965-4340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; by telephone 601-965-

4900; or by 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, a species may warrant protection through listing if we determine that it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a rule.

This rule lists the black pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) as a threatened species. It includes provisions published under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the black pinesnake.

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 determined that the black pinesnake is threatened based on four of these five factors (Factors A, C, D, and E), specifically the past and continuing loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat in association with silviculture, urbanization, and fire suppression; road mortality; and the intentional killing of snakes by individuals.

Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We also considered all comments and information we received during two public comment periods.

Previous Federal Action

Federal actions for the black pinesnake prior to publication of the proposed listing rule are outlined in that rule, which was published on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60406). Publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, which closed on December 8, 2014. On March 11, 2015, we published a proposed critical habitat designation for the black pinesnake (80 FR 12846) and invited the public to comment on the critical habitat proposal; the entire October 7, 2014, proposed listing rule; and the draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. This second 60-day comment period ended on May 11, 2015.

We will finalize the designation of critical habitat for the black pinesnake at a later date.

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 (in) (122 to 193 centimeters (cm)) 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.

Page 60469

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 longleaf pine ecosystem that once covered the southeastern United States. Optimal 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. With other habitat types readily available on the landscape, we can infer that these upland habitats were preferred by black pinesnakes. They were rarely found in riparian areas, hardwood forests, or closed canopy conditions. From radio-telemetry studies, black pinesnakes were located below ground 53 to 70 percent of the time (Duran 1998a, p. 12; Yager et al. 2005, p. 27; Baxley and Qualls 2009, p. 288). These locations were usually in the trunks or root channels of rotting pine stumps.

During two additional radiotelemetry studies, individual pinesnakes were observed in 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 used 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 have shown 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 illustrate that black pinesnakes may need access to larger, unfragmented tracts of habitat to accommodate fairly large home ranges while minimizing interactions with humans.

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). Black pinesnakes are known to consume a variety of food, including nestling rabbits (Sylvilagus aquaticus), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) and their eggs, and eastern kingbirds (Tyrannus tyrannus) (Vandeventer and Young 1989, p. 34; Yager et al. 2005, p. 28); however, rodents represent the most common type of prey. The majority of documented prey items are hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), various species of mice (Peromyscus spp.), and, to a lesser extent, eastern fox squirrels (Sciurus niger) (Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 59; Yager et al. 2005, p. 28). During field studies of black pinesnakes in Mississippi, hispid cotton rats 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)) at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, to be 117.4 acres (ac) (47.5 hectares (ha)) using data obtained during their radio-telemetry study. A more recent study conducted at Camp Shelby, a National Guard training facility operating under a special use permit on the De Soto National Forest (NF) in Forrest, George, and Perry Counties, Mississippi, provided home range estimates from 135 to 385 ac (55 to 156 ha) (Lee 2014a, p. 1). Additional studies from the De Soto 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 (Zappalorti in litt. 2015), as the snakes may not have to travel great distances to meet their ecological needs. A modeling study of movement patterns in bullsnakes (Pituophis catenifer sayi) 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 premise that black pinesnake habitat should 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 at Camp Shelby. 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 centrally located within a much larger managed area (over 100,000 ac (40,469 ha)) that provides habitat for one of the largest known populations of black pinesnakes in the subspecies' range (Lee 2014a, p. 1).

No population and habitat viability analyses have been conducted for the black pinesnake due primarily to a lack of essential life-

history and demographic data, such as estimates of growth and reproductive rates, as is the case for many snake species (Dorcas and Willson 2009, p. 36; Willson et al. 2011, pp. 42-43). However, radio-

tracking studies have shown that a reserve area should include an unconstrained (unfragmented) activity area large enough to accommodate the long-distance movements that have been reported for the subspecies (Baxley and Qualls 2009, pp. 287-288). As with many snake species, fragmentation by roads, urbanization, or incompatible habitat conversion continues to be a major threat affecting the black pinesnake (see discussion below under Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence).

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 at 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

Page 60470

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). Means (2005, p. 76, and references therein) suggested that longleaf pine is likely to be more important than other southern pine species to animals using stumpholes, because longleaf pine has a more resinous heartwood, deeper taproot, and lateral roots spreading out 50 feet (ft) (15.2 meters (m)) or more.

Longevity of wild black pinesnakes is not well documented, but can be at least 11 years, based on recapture data from Camp Shelby (Lee 2014b, pers. comm.). 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).

Potential 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).

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; however, current records do not support the distribution of black pinesnakes across this entire area. Recently, a black pinesnake was observed in a new county, Lawrence County, Mississippi, where the subspecies had not previously been documented (Lee 2014b, p. 1). However, is not known whether this snake represents a new extant population.

Duran (1998a, p. 9) and Duran and Givens (2001, p. 24) concluded that black pinesnakes have likely 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 likely be extirpated from that county as well.

In general, pinesnakes are particularly difficult to survey given their tendency to remain below ground most of the time. However, a review of records, interviews, and status reports, coupled with a Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis of current suitable habitat, indicated that black pinesnakes likely remain in all historical counties in Alabama and in 11 out of 14 historical counties in Mississippi (Forrest, George, Greene, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar, Marion, Perry, Stone, and Wayne Counties). Black pinesnake populations in many of the occupied counties in Mississippi occur in the De Soto NF. Much of the habitat outside of De Soto NF has become highly fragmented, and populations on these lands appear to be small and isolated on islands of suitable 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. During the development of this listing rule, we used GIS to reassess the habitat suitability of the 14 population segments not determined to be in serious jeopardy of extirpation by Duran and Givens (2001, p. 10). Our estimate of the number of populations was derived by overlaying habitat from a current GIS analysis with the locality record data (post-1990) from species/

subspecies experts, Natural Heritage Programs, State wildlife agencies, and the site assessments of Duran and Givens (2001, pp. 1-35) and Barbour

Page 60471

(2009, pp. 1-36). We used locality records back to 1990, because this date coincides with that chosen by Duran and Givens (2001, pp. 1-35) and Barbour (2009, pp. 1-36) in their comprehensive black pinesnake habitat assessments. Using the 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), 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)). Using our recent assessment, we estimate that 11 of the 14 populations of black pinesnakes remain extant today. Five of these 11 populations occur in Alabama and 6 in Mississippi. However, current data are insufficient to make a determination of the number of individuals that comprise each remaining population.

Our current GIS analysis indicates that 3 of the 11 remaining black pinesnake populations, all located in Alabama and lacking recent records, are not likely to persist long term due to: Presence on, or proximity to, highly fragmented habitat; lack of protection and habitat management for the site; or both. The majority of the known black pinesnake records, and much of the best remaining habitat, occurs 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 was historically occupied by the subspecies. At this time, we believe the six populations in Mississippi (five 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 because of their presence on relatively unfragmented forest and protection or management afforded to the habitat or subspecies.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the proposed rule published on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60406), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by December 8, 2014. We reopened the comment period on the listing proposal on March 11, 2015 (80 FR 12846) with our publication of a proposed critical habitat designation for the subspecies. This second 60-day comment period ended on May 11, 2015. During both comment periods, we also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Mobile Press Register and Hattiesburg American on October 12, 2014, and again on March 15, 2015. We also presented several webinars on the proposed listing and critical habitat rules, and invited all stakeholders, media, and congressional representatives to participate and ask any questions. The webinar information was posted on our Web site along with copies of the proposed listing rule, press release, and a question/answer document. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing within the designated timeframe. During the two comment periods for the proposed rule, we received nearly 300 comments addressing the proposed listing and critical habitat rules. In this final rule, we address only the comments regarding the proposed listing and the associated rule under section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Comments specific to the proposed critical habitat designation (80 FR 12846) for this subspecies will be addressed in the final critical habitat determination at a later date. All relevant substantive information provided during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from six knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the black pinesnake and its habitat, biological needs, and threats, as well as those with experience in studying other pinesnake species. We received responses from all of the peer reviewers.

We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of black pinesnake. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Four of the peer reviewers specifically expressed their support for the subspecies' listing as a threatened species; a fifth peer reviewer questioned our characterization that the rate of decline had moderated for this subspecies due to conservation actions, and suggested the black pinesnake might actually qualify as endangered. The sixth peer reviewer limited her comments to the critical habitat proposal and did not specifically address the proposed listing rule. Several peer reviewers noted that information was limited on some life-history attributes but stated that, based on the best available information, the Service had presented a compelling case for listing as threatened. Four of the peer reviewers stressed the importance of stump holes and associated root systems to the subspecies and most noted the importance of conserving outlying populations to support conservation genetics of the subspecies. Substantive peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summaries and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

(1) Comment: Peer reviewers provided additional information and suggestions for clarifying and improving the accuracy of the information in the ``Habitat,'' ``Life History,'' ``Historical/Current Distribution,'' Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, and Available Conservation Measures sections of the preamble of the proposed rule.

Our Response: We appreciate these corrections and suggestions, and have made changes to this final rule to reflect the peer reviewers' input.

(2) Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that our characterization of ``open canopy'' as We have provided clarification to take exemptions regarding prescribed burning and invasive species and vegetation control.

We have removed the take exemption for ``restoration along riparian areas and stream buffers'' as there is no need to exempt these activities because these areas are not considered habitat for the subspecies, and, therefore, activities associated with their restoration are unlikely to result in take or promote conservation of this subspecies. Any observations of black pinesnakes in riparian areas are incidental to individuals moving between areas of suitable habitat, typically uplands.

We have broadened the scope of timber management activities exempted from take to include all forest management activities that maintain lands in a forested condition, except for conversion of longleaf-pine-dominated forests to other cover types or land uses, or those activities causing significant subsurface disturbance to the underground refugia for the black pinesnake.

We have removed the requirement that silvicultural treatments exempted from take be performed under a management plan or prescription toward target conditions for optimal longleaf pine forest. Our revised 4(d) rule allows for the management of other open-canopied pine species.

We have modified the list of actions that may result in take under section 9 in light of modifications made to the exemptions in the 4(d) rule, with the focus on protecting this subspecies' underground refugia.

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; however, the footprint of the longleaf pine ecosystem across its historical range continues to contract, primarily due to conversion to loblolly pine (Oswalt et al. 2015, p. 504). Additionally, increases in longleaf pine acreage across the Southeast from longleaf restoration efforts do not overlap completely with the range of the black pinesnake (Ware 2014, pers. comm.); recent outlooks for the southern Gulf region still predict large percentage losses in longleaf pine in many of the areas currently occupied by the subspecies (Klepzig et al. 2014, p. 53). 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 these declines (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

Page 60481

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 there are records of black pinesnakes occurring in open-canopied forests with overstories of loblolly, slash, and other pines, they are historically associated with the natural longleaf pine forests, which have the 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 densely stocked 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 forests to densely stocked pine plantations 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. Some pine plantations have closed canopies and thick mid-stories with limited herbaceous understories during portions of the timber rotation. Site preparation for planting of pine plantations sometimes 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 while the snakes are above ground searching for suitable shelter. Black pinesnakes have persisted in those areas of pine forest, composed of both longleaf pine and other pine species, where the forest structure approximates that which occurred historically in longleaf pine forests, as described above. However, conservation of black pinesnakes requires the long-term availability of these forest structure habitat features, not just in the landscape, but within the subspecies' activity range. If they are required to move from area to area with the change in habitat conditions, as would likely occur on a pine plantation, their fitness and long-term survival will be in question (Yager et al. 2006, pp. 34-36).

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, densely planting off-site pine species (i.e., slash and loblolly pines), bedding, and removal of whole trees during harvesting (including downed trees and stumps), all contribute to degradation of habitat attributes preferred by black pinesnakes. It is likely that the diminishing 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, 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 (e.g., sandy, well-

drained soils with an open-canopied overstory of longleaf pine, a reduced shrub layer, and a dense herbaceous ground cover) 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 overall 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).

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 densely stocked pine plantations, and the associated increases in number of roads. 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).

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 in many areas and ongoing splitting of land 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 threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) were analyzed, the results suggested that

Page 60482

maintaining populations of this subspecies will require large conservation areas with minimum fragmentation (Breininger et al. 2011, pp. 484-490).

Impacts from urbanization are not consistent throughout the Southeast, and some parts of Mississippi and Alabama may actually experience human population declines (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 21); however, the most recent assessment still predicts increased change in urban land use in the next 45 years in most of the counties occupied by the black pinesnake (Klepzig et al. 2014, p. 23). Urbanization appears to have reduced historical black pinesnake populations in Mobile County by approximately 50 percent (Duran 1998a, p. 17), to the point where pinesnakes are thought to be extirpated from some areas directly surrounding Mobile (Nelson and Bailey 2004, p. 44). 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 likely 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).

Populations on the periphery of the range have conservation value 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), providing future opportunities for population connectivity and augmentation, and contributing to important ecosystem functions (such as maintaining rodent populations) in the ecological communities where they occur (Steen and Barrett 2015, p. 1). 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. Additionally, the footprint of longleaf pine in the Southeast has gone through substantial contraction recently (Oswalt et al. 2015, p. 504), creating even higher susceptibility for these peripheral populations. Although the black pinesnake was thought to be fairly common in parts of south Alabama as recently as 30 years ago, we believe many 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.

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 largest known populations of black pinesnakes (5 of 11) occur in the De Soto NF, which is considered the core of the subspecies' known range. The black pinesnake likely receives benefit from longleaf pine restoration efforts, including prescribed fire, implemented by the U.S. Forest Service in accordance with its Forest Plan, in habitats for the federally listed gopher tortoise, dusky gopher frog, and red-

cockaded woodpecker. (USDA 2014, pp. 60-65). Within the recently revised Forest Plan, black pinesnakes are included on lists of species dependent on fire to maintain habitat, species sensitive to recreational traffic, species that are stump and stump-hole associates, and species sensitive to soil disturbance (USDA 2014, Appendix G-85, G-

92, G-100). The management strategies described within the Forest Plan provide general guidance that states project areas should be reviewed to determine if such species do occur and if so to develop mitigation measures to ensure sustainability of the species, such as, in general, not removing dead and downed logs or other woody debris from rare communities.

The MSARNG updated its INRMP in 2014, 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). However, 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 approximately 10 percent of the total acreage of Camp Shelby (132,195 ac (53,497 ha)). Most of this land is leased to DoD and owned by the Forest Service, which manages the land in accordance with its Forest Plan (see explanation above). Only 5,735 ac (2,321 ha) of the acreage covered by the INRMP provides habitat for the black pinesnake.

Longleaf pine habitat restoration projects have been conducted on selected private lands within the range historically occupied by the black pinesnake and likely 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; Scotch, Fred T. Stimpson, and the area formerly classified as the Boykin WMAs in Alabama) occupied by or within the range of the black pinesnake, and on three gopher tortoise relocation areas in Mobile County, Alabama. The gopher tortoise relocation areas are managed for the open-canopied, upland longleaf pine habitat used by both gopher tortoises and black pinesnakes, and there have been recent records of black pinesnakes on the properties; 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 provide sufficient area to support a black pinesnake population long term. Furthermore, although there is beneficial habitat management occurring on some of these WMAs and on the tortoise relocation areas, these efforts do not currently target the retention or restoration of black pinesnake habitat, which would include management targeted to maintain larger, unfragmented tracts of open longleaf habitat. Stump removal still occurs within the range of the subspecies and is particularly problematic as it removes refugia habitat for the subspecies. We will continue to work with our State and private partners to encourage the incorporation of these practices, where appropriate.

Summary of Factor A

In summary, the loss and degradation of habitat was a significant historical threat, and remains a current threat, to the black pinesnake. The historical loss of habitat within the longleaf pine ecosystem 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 has slowed

Page 60483

considerably in recent years, in part due to efforts to restore the longleaf pine ecosystem in the Southeast. However, habitat loss is continuing today due to due to incompatible forestry practices, conversion to agriculture, and urbanization, which result in increasing habitat fragmentation (see discussion under Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence). 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.

Impacts from urbanization are not consistent throughout the Southeast, and some parts of Mississippi and Alabama may actually experience human population declines (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 21); however, the most recent assessment still predicts increased change in urban land use in the next 45 years in most of the counties occupied by the subspecies (Klepzig et al. 2014, p. 23). Smaller populations on the edge of the range are more susceptible to localized extinction from catastrophic and stochastic events. Additionally, the footprint of longleaf pine in the Southeast has gone through substantial contraction recently (Oswalt et al. 2015, p. 504), creating even higher susceptibility for these peripheral populations. 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 collection 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 (Vandeventer in litt. 2014). 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 in litt. 2014). Though concern has been expressed that Federal listing may increase the demand for wild-

caught animals (McNabb in litt. 2014), based on current information 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

Snake fungal disease (SFD) is an emerging disease in certain populations of wild snakes, though specific pathological criteria for the disease have not yet been established. The disease has been linked to mortality events for other species, but has not yet been documented in Pituophis or in any of the States within the range of the black pinesnake. While it is suspected of threatening small, isolated populations of susceptible snake species, we currently have no evidence it is affecting the black pinesnake. We know of no other diseases that are affecting the subspecies, and, therefore, disease is not presently considered a threat to the black pinesnake.

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), and have been documented predating snake eggs under experimental conditions (Diffie et al. 2010, p. 294). 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). However, the severity and magnitude of effects, as well as the long-

term effects, of fire ants on black pinesnake populations are currently unknown.

Other potential 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, the pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus spp.) is protected as a non-game animal (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2014, p. 1), and in the 2015 draft of the Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, the black pinesnake is identified as a Priority 1, Species of Greatest Conservation Need (ADCNR 2015, p. 297). In Louisiana, the black pinesnake is considered extirpated (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) 2014, p. 2; Anthony in litt. 2015); however, Louisiana Revised Statutes for Wildlife and Fisheries were recently amended to prohibit killing black pinesnakes or removing them from the wild without a permit from the LDWF (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, 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

Page 60484

longleaf pine restoration, which benefit gopher tortoises, red-cockaded woodpeckers, and black pinesnakes. Within the recently revised Forest Plan, black pinesnakes are included on lists of species dependent on fire to maintain habitat, species sensitive to recreational traffic, species that are stump and stump-hole associates, and species sensitive to soil disturbance (USDA 2014, Appendix G-85, G-92, G-100). The management strategies described within the Forest Plan provide general guidance that states project areas should be reviewed to determine if such species do occur and if so to develop mitigation measures to ensure sustainability of the subspecies, such as, in general, not removing dead and downed logs or other woody debris from rare communities.

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 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. We will continue to work with the Forest Service to design and implement a more aggressive strategy for protecting and monitoring the black pinesnake.

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. According to Wear and Greis (2013, p. 509), southern forests are likely to see increasing challenges to prescribed burning in the future as land-use changes involving fuels management, increased urban interface, and revised safety and health regulations will continue to constrain prescribed fire efforts. Some of these constraints could be in the form of reduced fire intervals or reductions in average area burned per fire event (strategies often used in management of pine plantations), which may not provide adequate fire intensity or frequency to suppress the overgrown understory and mid-

story conditions that black pinesnakes are known to avoid (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.).

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).

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). Additional support for the threat of fragmentation by roads is presented by Steen et al. (2012, p. 1092) who suggested that their modelling study of habitat loss and degradation in snakes provided evidence that fragmentation by roads may be an impediment to maintaining viable populations of pinesnakes.

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 were 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.

Page 60485

Questionnaires have shown that snakes are more likely to be intentionally run over than any other animal (Langley et al. 1989, p. 43), and black pinesnakes represent a large target as they attempt to cross roads, which may increase the frequency of deliberate killing (Whitaker and Shine 2000, p. 121).

On many construction project sites, erosion control blankets are used to lessen impacts from weathering, secure newly modified surfaces, and maintain water quality and ecosystem health. However, this polypropylene mesh netting (also often utilized for bird exclusion) has been documented as being an entanglement hazard for many snake species, causing lacerations and sometimes mortality (Stuart et al. 2001, pp. 162-163; Barton and Kinkead 2005, p. 34A; Kapfer and Paloski 2011, p. 1). This netting often takes years to decompose, creating a long-term hazard to snakes, even when the material has been discarded (Stuart et al. 2001, p. 163). Although no known instance of injury or death from this netting has been documented for black pinesnakes, it has been demonstrated to have negative impacts on other terrestrial snake species of all sizes and thus poses a potential threat to the black pinesnake when used in its habitat.

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 as observed during his studies. This observation has not been corroborated in the literature for other Pituophis species; however, if low reproductive rates were common, it would inhibit conservation and recovery.

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, while human attitudes towards snakes represent another source of mortality. Stochastic threats such as drought have the potential to threaten black pinesnake populations, especially considering the possibility of more drastic thermal extremes due to climate change, 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.

Determination

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, 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. Potential threats such as snake fungal disease (Factor C) and entanglement in erosion control blankets (Factor E) represent documented sources of mortality in other snake species, but there is no evidence yet that these have caused mortality in black pinesnakes.

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 parts of the southeastern United States, most of the black pinesnake's original 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. Much of the habitat outside of the De Soto National Forest in Mississippi (the core 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; and intentional killing by humans. Fire suppression and invasive plants result in habitat degradation. Roads surround and traverse the upland ridges, which are primary habitat for the black pinesnake, and these roads cause further fragmentation of the remaining habitat. In addition, roads also increase the rate of human-snake interactions, which likely result in the death of individual snakes. Vehicles travelling these roads cause the deaths of a substantial number of snakes. These threats in combination lead to an increased chance of local extirpations by making populations more sensitive to genetic, demographic, and environmental variability. This is especially true of populations on the periphery of the range, where smaller populations are considerably more vulnerable to the documented contraction of the longleaf pine ecosystem, and where stochastic events are more likely to cause further restrictions of the range of the black pinesnake.

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 and quantity have synergistic effects that may eventually 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

Page 60486

based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats described above.

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 believe it is unlikely that the threats will act on the subspecies in a way that place the subspecies in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. About half of the remaining black pinesnake populations 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 belowground refugia. Additionally, the 5,735 ac (2,321 ha) of suitable pinesnake habitat covered by the Camp Shelby INRMP are under a conservation plan whose objectives include specifically protecting black pinesnake microhabitats and increasing awareness of the human impacts to rare wildlife. Thus, although there is a general decline in the overall range of the subspecies and its available habitat, range contraction is not severe enough to indicate imminent extinction because of these existing efforts on public land and other ongoing restoration activities. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing the black pinesnake as threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Significant Portion of the Range

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 37578; July 1, 2014).

Available Conservation Measures

Other conservation measures 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. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-

Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.

Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the black pinesnake. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at http://www.fws.gov/grants.

Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the black pinesnake. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (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 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. 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

Page 60487

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.

4(d) Rule

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened wildlife. We may also prohibit by regulation with respect to threatened wildlife any act prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act for endangered wildlife. For the black pinesnake, the Service has developed a 4(d) rule that is tailored to the specific threats and conservation needs of this subspecies. Exercising this discretion, the Service has developed a 4(d) rule containing all the general prohibitions and exceptions to those prohibitions; these are found at 50 CFR 17.31 and 50 CFR 17.32. However, as a means to promote conservation efforts on behalf of the black pinesnake, we are finalizing a 4(d) rule for this subspecies that modifies the standard protection for threatened wildlife found at 50 CFR 17.31. In the case of a 4(d) rule, the general regulations (50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71) applying most prohibitions under section 9 of the Act to threatened species do not apply to that species, and the 4(d) rule contains the prohibitions necessary and advisable to conserve that 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 the open pine forests habitat (e.g., the longleaf pine ecosystem), which requires active management to ensure appropriate habitat conditions are present. Therefore, for the black pinesnake, the Service has determined that exemptions authorized under section 4(d) of the Act are appropriate to promote conservation of this subspecies. Foremost in the degradation of this habitat is the decline or absence of prescribed fire, as fire is the primary source of historical disturbance and maintenance, reduces mid-story and understory hardwoods, and promotes abundant native herbaceous groundcover in the natural communities of the longleaf pine ecosystem where the black pinesnake normally occurs. We recognize that forest management activities such as thinning, reforestation and afforestation, mid-story and understory vegetation management, and final harvest (particularly in stands with undesirable conditions) are often needed to maintain and/or restore forests to the conditions that are preferable to black pinesnakes. The primary habitat features that require protection in this ecosystem are the burned-out or naturally decayed pine stump holes that are heavily utilized by black pinesnakes, in association with the development of the herbaceous plant community that provides habitat and forage for prey. Therefore, activities causing significant subsurface disturbance (like those listed below under 3(b)) will not be exempted as these actions are detrimental to maintenance and development of stump holes and root channels critical to this subspecies. Another factor affecting the integrity of this ecosystem is the infestation of invasive plants, particularly cogongrass. Activities such as prescribed burning and invasive weed control, as well as forest management activities associated with restoring and maintaining the natural habitat to meet the needs of the black pinesnake, positively affect pinesnake habitat and provide an overall conservation benefit to the subspecies.

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule

See Summary of Changes to the Proposed Rule, above, for changes to the 4(d) rule based on information we received during the public comment period.

This 4(d) rule exempts from the general prohibitions at 50 CFR 17.31 take incidental to the following activities when conducted within habitats currently or historically occupied by the black pinesnake:

(1) Prescribed burning, including all fire break establishment and maintenance actions, as well as actions taken to control wildfires.

(2) Herbicide application for invasive plant species control, site-

preparation, and mid-story and understory woody vegetation control. All exempted herbicide applications must be 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) All forest management activities that maintain lands in a forested condition, except for: (a) Conversion of longleaf-pine-

dominated forests (>51 percent longleaf in the overstory) to other forest cover types or land uses; or (b) those activities causing significant subsurface disturbance, including, but not limited to, shearing, wind-rowing, stumping, disking (except during fire break creation or maintenance), root-raking, and bedding.

We believe these actions and activities, while they may have some minimal level of harm or temporary disturbance to the black pinesnake, are not expected to adversely affect the subspecies' conservation and recovery efforts. They will have a net beneficial effect on the subspecies. When practicable and to the extent possible, the Service encourages managers to conduct the activities listed above in a manner to: Maintain suitable black pinesnake habitat in large tracts; minimize ground and subsurface disturbance; promote a diverse, abundant native herbaceous groundcover; and allow for the natural decay or burning of pine stumps. It should be noted that harvest of longleaf pine (and other species) is included in the exemption, as long as the longleaf pine forests are not converted to other forest cover types. Should landowners undertake activities in these areas (e.g., such as converting from longleaf to loblolly) that are not covered by the exemptions above and are likely to result in take (as described below), they would need to consult with the Service to find ways to minimize impacts to the subspecies before proceeding with the activity.

We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the subspecies, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

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. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of

Page 60488

the effect of a final listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed species. Based on the best available information, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 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., stumping, root raking, bedding) that results in significant subsurface disturbance or the destruction of pine stump holes and their associated root systems used as refugia by the black pinesnake, or that impairs in other ways the subspecies' essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering; and conversion of occupied longleaf-pine-dominated forests (>51 percent of longleaf in the overstory) to other forest cover types or land uses.

(4) Unauthorized use of insecticides and rodenticides that could impact small mammal prey populations, through either unintended or direct impacts within habitat occupied by black pinesnakes.

(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). We encourage any landowner who is concerned about potential take of the pinesnake on their property from an action that is not covered under the 4(d) rule to consult with the Service on conservation measures that would avoid take or the process for obtaining an incidental take permit under a safe harbor agreement or habitat conservation plan.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, 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).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. There are no tribal lands located within the range of the subspecies.

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 final 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.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

   Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

   0

2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Pinesnake, black'' in alphabetical order under REPTILES to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

   Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

   * * * * *

   (h) * * *

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   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 861 NA 17.42(h)

   melanoleucus

   lodingi.

   * * * * * * *

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Page 60489

   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. Incidental take of the black pinesnake will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act if the take results from:

   (i) Prescribed burning, including all fire break establishment and maintenance actions, as well as actions taken to control wildfires.

   (ii) Herbicide application for invasive plant species control, site-preparation, and mid-story and understory woody vegetation control. All exempted herbicide applications must be 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.

   (iii) All forest management activities that maintain lands in a forested condition, except for:

   (A) Conversion of longleaf-pine-dominated forests (>51 percent longleaf in the overstory) to other forest cover types or land uses; and

   (B) Those activities causing significant subsurface disturbance, including, but not limited to, shearing, wind-rowing, stumping, disking (except during fire break creation or maintenance), root-raking, and bedding.

   * * * * *

   Dated: September 28, 2015.

   Stephen Guertin,

   Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

   FR Doc. 2015-25270 Filed 10-5-15; 8:45 am

   BILLING CODE 4333-15-P