Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Louisiana Pinesnake, 69454-69475 [2016-24113]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
69454
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
date for a period no greater than 10
years from the final determination,
considering the severity of
nonattainment and the availability and
feasibility of pollution control measures.
Lastly, section 179(d) requires that the
state submit the required SIP revision
within 12 months after the applicable
attainment date. In this case, if the EPA
finalizes the proposed rule, then the
State of California will be required to
submit a SIP revision that complies with
sections 179(d) and 189(d) within 12
months of December 31, 2015, i.e., by
December 31, 2016.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Proposed Action and Request for
Public Comment
Under CAA sections 179(c)(1) and
188(b)(2), the EPA proposes to
determine that the San Joaquin Valley
‘‘Serious’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area has
failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24hour PM2.5 standards by the applicable
attainment date of December 31, 2015.
If finalized, the State of California will
be required under CAA sections 179(d)
and 189(d) to submit a revision to the
SIP for the San Joaquin Valley that,
among other elements, demonstrates
expeditious attainment of the standards
within the time period provided under
CAA section 179(d) and that provides
for annual reduction in the emissions of
PM2.5 or a PM2.5 plan precursor
pollutant within the area of not less
than five percent until attainment. The
SIP revision required under CAA
sections 179(d) and 189(d) would be
due for submittal to the EPA no later
than December 31, 2016.
The EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept
comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days. We will
consider these comments before taking
final action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This proposed action in and of itself
establishes no new requirements; it
merely documents that air quality in the
San Joaquin Valley did not meet the
1997 PM2.5 standards by the CAA
deadline. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does
not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
the SIP obligations discussed herein do
not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this
proposed action will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.
Nonetheless, the EPA has notified the
Tribes within the San Joaquin Valley
PM2.5 nonattainment area of the
proposed action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Ammonia,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 23, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016–24084 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–BB46
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Threatened Species Status
for Louisiana Pinesnake
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis
ruthveni), a reptile species from
Louisiana and Texas, as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act (Act). If we finalize this rule as
proposed, it would extend the Act’s
protections to this species.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
December 5, 2016. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date. We
must receive requests for public
hearings, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by November 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2016–
0121, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041–3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see
Information Requested, below, for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad
S. Rieck, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Ecological Services Office, 646
Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400, Lafayette,
LA; telephone 337–291–3101; facsimile
337–291–3139. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, if we determine that a species
is an endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, we are required to promptly
publish a proposed rule in the Federal
Register and make a determination on
our proposal within 1 year. Critical
habitat shall be designated, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, for any species
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species and designations of
critical habitat can only be completed
by issuing a rule. We have determined
that designating critical habitat for the
Louisiana pinesnake is prudent, but not
determinable at this time, because the
specific information sufficient to
perform the required analysis of the
impacts of the designation is currently
lacking, such as information on areas to
be proposed for designation and the
potential economic impacts associated
with designation of these areas.
This rule proposes to list the
Louisiana pinesnake as a threatened
species. The Louisiana pinesnake is a
candidate species for which we have on
file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support
preparation of a listing proposal, but for
which development of a listing rule had
been, until now, precluded by other
higher priority listing activities.
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 Louisiana
pinesnake is threatened primarily
because of the past and continuing loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of
habitat in association with incompatible
silviculture, fire suppression, road and
right-of-way construction, and
urbanization (Factor A), and the
magnified vulnerability of all the small,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
isolated, genetically compromised
extant populations to mortality from
vehicle strikes and from predators
(Factors C and E).
We will seek peer review. We will seek
comments from independent specialists
to ensure that our designation is based
on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We will
invite these peer reviewers to comment
on this listing proposal.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposed rule will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from other concerned
governmental agencies, Native
American tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The Louisiana pinesnake’s biology,
range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological
requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range,
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both.
(2) Factors that may affect the
continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification
or destruction, overutilization, disease,
predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural
or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to this species
and existing regulations that may be
addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning
the historical and current status, range,
distribution, and population size of this
species, including the locations of any
additional populations of this species.
(5) Information on activities that
might warrant being exempted under
section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.). The Service is considering
proposing such measures before the
final listing determination is published,
and will evaluate ideas provided by the
public in considering whether such
exemptions are necessary and advisable
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69455
for the conservation of the Louisiana
pinesnake.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ‘‘solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Louisiana Ecological Services
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Because we will consider all
comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final
determination may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be
received by the date specified in DATES.
Such requests must be sent to the
address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any
are requested, and announce the dates,
times, and places of those hearings, as
well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
69456
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
we are seeking the expert opinions of
six appropriate and independent
specialists regarding this proposed rule.
The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination is based
on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer
reviewers have expertise in Louisiana
pinesnake biology, habitat, physical or
biological factors, etc., and they are
currently reviewing the status
information in the proposed rule, which
will inform our determination. We
invite comment from the peer reviewers
during this public comment period.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the Louisiana
pinesnake (as Pituophis melanoleucus
ruthveni) as a Category 2 candidate
species in the December 30, 1982,
Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened Species
(47 FR 58454). Category 2 candidates
were defined as taxa for which we had
information that proposed listing was
possibly appropriate, but for which
substantial data on biological
vulnerability and threats were not
available to support a proposed rule at
the time. The species remained so
designated in subsequent annual
candidate notices of review (CNORs) (50
FR 37958, September 18, 1985; 54 FR
554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804,
November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982,
November 15, 1994). In the February 28,
1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we
discontinued the designation of
Category 2 species as candidates;
therefore, the Louisiana pinesnake was
no longer a candidate species.
We added the Louisiana pinesnake (as
Pituophis melanoleucus) to the
candidate list in 1999 (64 FR 57534,
October 25, 1999). Currently, candidate
species are defined as plants and
animals for which the Service has
sufficient information on their
biological status and threats to propose
them as endangered or threatened under
the Act, but for which development of
a listing rule is precluded by other
higher priority listing actions. The
Louisiana pinesnake was assigned a
listing priority number (LPN) of 5, based
on the immediacy and magnitude of
threats to this species.
In the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR
54808), we recognized the Louisiana
pinesnake as Pituophis ruthveni and
retained an LPN of 5 for the species. The
Louisiana pinesnake was included with
an LPN of 5 in our subsequent annual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
CNORs through 2005 (67 FR 40657, June
13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70
FR 24870, May 11, 2005). In 2006, we
changed the Louisiana pinesnake’s LPN
to 8, based on threats of moderate to low
magnitude that were imminent (71 FR
53756; September 12, 2006). In 2007, we
again changed the Louisiana
pinesnake’s LPN, reassigning it an LPN
of 5, based on non-imminent, highmagnitude threats (72 FR 69034;
December 6, 2007). The Louisiana
pinesnake was included with an LPN of
5 in our subsequent annual CNORs
through 2015 (73 FR 75176, December
10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9,
2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010;
76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR
69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR
70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR
72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584,
December 24, 2015).
In August 2000, the Service received
a petition to list the Louisiana
pinesnake as endangered under the Act.
No new information was provided in
the petition, and we had already found
the species warranted listing, so no
further action was taken on the petition.
On May 10, 2011, the Service
announced a work plan to restore
biological priorities and certainty to the
Service’s listing process. As part of an
agreement with one of the agency’s most
frequent plaintiffs, the Service filed the
work plan with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. The work
plan enabled the Service to, over a
period of 6 years, systematically review
and address the needs of more than 250
species listed within the 2010 CNOR,
including the Louisiana pinesnake, to
determine if these species should be
added to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. This work plan enabled the
Service to again prioritize its workload
based on the needs of candidate species,
while also providing State wildlife
agencies, stakeholders, and other
partners with clarity and certainty about
when listing determinations will be
made. On July 12, 2011, the Service
reached an agreement with another
frequent plaintiff group and further
strengthened the work plan, which
allowed the agency to focus its
resources on the species most in need of
protection under the Act. These
agreements were approved on
September 9, 2011. Therefore, the
timing of this proposed listing is, in
part, an outcome of the work plan.
Background
Species Description and Taxonomy
Pinesnakes (genus Pituophis) are
large, short-tailed, non-venomous,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
powerful constricting snakes with
keeled scales, a single anal plate (the
scale covering the cloaca), and
disproportionately small heads (Conant
and Collins 1991, pp. 201–202). Their
snouts are pointed, and they have a
large rostral (tip of the snout) scale, both
presumably contributing to the snakes
good burrowing ability. The Louisiana
pinesnake (P. ruthveni) has a buff to
yellowish background color with dark
brown to russet dorsal blotches covering
its total length (Vandeventer and Young
1989, p. 35; Conant and Collins 1991, p.
203). The belly of the Louisiana
pinesnake is unmarked or boldly
patterned with black markings. It is
variable in both coloration and pattern,
but a characteristic feature is that the
body markings on its back are always
conspicuously different at opposite ends
of its body. Blotches run together near
the head, often obscuring the
background color, and then become
more separate and well-defined towards
the tail. Typically, there are no
noticeable head markings, although
rarely a light bar or stripe may occur
behind the eye. The length of adult
Louisiana pinesnakes ranges from 48 to
56 inches (in) (122 to 142 centimeters
(cm)) (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203).
The largest reported specimen was 5.8
feet (ft) (178 cm) long (Davis 1971, p. 1;
Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203).
The Louisiana pinesnake is a member
of the Class Reptilia, Order Squamata,
Suborder Serpentes, and Family
Colubridae. Stull (1929, pp. 2–3)
formally described the Louisiana
pinesnake as a pinesnake subspecies (P.
melanoleucus ruthveni) based on two
specimens taken in Rapides Parish,
Louisiana. Reichling (1995, p. 192)
reassessed this snake’s taxonomic status
and concluded that the Louisiana
pinesnake was geographically isolated
and phenotypically distinct, and thus a
valid evolutionary species. The
Louisiana pinesnake has subsequently
been accepted as a full species, P.
ruthveni (Crother 2000, p. 69;
Rodriguez-Robles and Jesus-Escobar
2000, p. 46; Collins and Taggert 2002, p.
33). We have carefully reviewed this
taxonomic research for the Louisiana
pinesnake and conclude that the species
is a valid taxon.
Habitat
Louisiana pinesnakes are known from
and associated with a disjunct portion
of the historic longleaf-dominated
(hereafter, ‘‘longleaf’’) pine (Pinus
palustris) ecosystem that existed in
west-central Louisiana and east Texas
(Reichling 1995, p. 186). Longleaf pine
forests (which are dominated by
longleaf, but may also contain other
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
overstory species such as loblolly and
shortleaf pine and sparse hardwoods)
have the most species-rich
herpetofaunal community compared to
other similarly sized and located pine
forest habitat in North America, and
harbor more species that are specialists
of that habitat (Guyer and Bailey 1993,
p. 142). Early accounts of Louisiana
pinesnake collections indicate a strong
affinity for longleaf pine habitat, as most
reports indicated the snakes were
collected within or adjacent to longleaf
pine stands (Fugler 1955, p. 24; Conant
1956, pp. 5, 19, 24; Walker 1965, p. 160;
Thomas et al 1976, p. 253; Jennings and
Fritts 1983, p. 3; Wright and Wright
1994, pp. 622, 623; Jordan 1998, p. 11).
The vast majority of natural longleaf
pine habitat has been lost or degraded
due to conversion to extensive pine
plantations and suppression of the
historic fire regime. As a result, current
Louisiana pinesnake habitat generally
consists of sandy, well-drained soils in
open canopy pine forest, which may
include species such as longleaf,
shortleaf, slash, or loblolly pines with a
sparse midstory, and well-developed
herbaceous ground cover dominated by
grasses and forbs (Young and
Vandeventer 1988, p. 204; Rudolph and
Burgdorf 1997, p. 117).
Abundant ground-layer herbaceous
vegetation is important for the Louisiana
pinesnake’s primary prey, the Bairds
pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps),
which constitutes 75 percent of the
Louisiana pinesnake’s estimated total
prey biomass (Rudolph et al 2012, p.
243). Baird’s pocket gopher depends
mostly on various plant parts of a
variety of herbaceous species (Pennoyer
1932, pp. 128–129; Sulentich et al.
1991, p. 3). Pocket gopher abundance is
associated with a low density of trees,
an open canopy, and a small amount of
woody vegetation cover, which allow
greater sunlight and more herbaceous
forage for pocket gophers (Himes 1998,
p. 43; Melder and Cooper 2015, p. 75).
Bairds pocket gophers also create the
burrow systems in which Louisiana
pinesnakes are most frequently found
(Rudolph and Conner 1996, p. 2;
Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117;
Himes 1998, p. 42; Rudolph et al. 1998,
p. 146; Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 62;
Himes et al. 2006, p. 107), and the
snakes use these burrow systems as
nocturnal refugia and hibernacula, and
to escape from fire (Rudolph and
Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Rudolph et al.
1998, p. 147; Ealy et al. 2004, p. 386;
Rudolph et al. 2007 p. 561; Pierce et al.
2014, p. 140). From 74 percent to greater
than 80 percent of radio-tagged
Louisiana pinesnake relocations have
been underground in pocket gopher
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
burrow systems (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 389;
Himes et al. 2006, p. 107). In Louisiana,
habitat selection by Louisiana
pinesnakes seems to be determined by
the abundance and distribution of
pocket gophers and their burrow
systems (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p.
117). Active Louisiana pinesnakes
occasionally use debris, logs, and low
vegetation as temporary surface shelters
(Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117;
Himes 1998, p. 26; Ealy et al. 2004, p.
386); however, most Louisiana
pinesnakes disturbed on the surface
retreat to nearby burrows (Rudolph and
Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). Louisiana
pinesnakes also minimally use decayed
or burned stumps, or nine-banded
armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus)
burrows as underground refugia (Ealy et
al. 2004, p. 389).
Baird’s pocket gophers appear to
prefer well-drained, sandy soils with
low clay content in the topsoil (Davis et
al. 1938, p. 414). Whether by choice for
burrowing efficiency or in pursuit of
Baird’s pocket gophers (or likely both),
Louisiana pinesnakes also occur most
often in sandy soils (Wagner et al. 2014,
p. 152). In Wagner et al.’s study,
modelling of Louisiana pinesnake
habitat revealed that in addition to
suitable forest structure and herbaceous
vegetation, specific soil characteristics
are an important determinant of
Louisiana pinesnake inhabitance.
Wagner et al. (2014, entire) developed a
Landscape-scaled Resource Selection
Functions Model of Potential Louisiana
Pinesnake Habitat (LRSF-Model) using
available Louisiana pinesnake location
data with county and parish soil survey
data as independent variables to more
accurately identify the percentage of
certain soil characteristics that were
selected from what was available in the
landscape, indicating preference. The
snakes were found to prefer soils with
high sand content and a low water table
(Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152). In a
separate modelling study, using
essentially the same dataset but a
different study method, Duran (2010, p.
11) also found that Louisiana
pinesnakes prefer sandy, well-drained
soils, confirming the validity of the
LRSF-Model, originally proposed in
2009 (Wagner et al. 2009, entire).
The fire-climax park-like conditions
of typical Louisiana pinesnake habitat
are created and maintained by recurrent,
low-intensity ground fires that occur
approximately every 3 to 5 years. In the
absence of recurrent fire, growth of
woody midstory species is increased,
and conditions supporting the Louisiana
pinesnake’s prey species are lost due to
shading of herbaceous vegetation. Using
radio-telemetry in Bienville Parish,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69457
Louisiana, Himes et al. (2006, p. 107)
recorded wild-caught (i.e., not captivebred) Louisiana pinesnakes (nine adults
and one juvenile) most frequently in
pine forests (56 percent), followed by
pine plantation (23 percent) and clearcuts (9 percent). It should be noted,
however, that across all sites, snakes
appeared to select areas with few large
trees (7 to 9 trees per plot) that were
approximately 0.1 ac (0.04 ha) in size,
resulting in less canopy closure and
more light penetration, which supports
increased understory vegetation growth
and therefore more pocket gophers
(Himes et al. 2006, pp. 108–110; 113)
regardless of the type of wooded land.
In a 2-year (2004–2005) trapping study
of three locations (two were mixed long
leaf/loblolly pine stands being managed
specifically for Louisiana pinesnake
habitat, and one was a loblolly pine
plantation managed for fiber tree
production), Reichling et al. (2008, p. 4)
found the same number of Louisiana
pinesnakes in the pine plantation (n=2)
as one of the mixed pine stands
managed for Louisiana pinesnake (n=2);
however, of all the three trapping
locations studied, the greatest number of
snakes was found in the second mixed
pine stand managed for Louisiana
pinesnake (n=8). In addition, the snakes
found in pine plantation conditions by
Reichling et al. appeared thin or
emaciated (indicating they probably had
not fed recently), and were not
recaptured in that habitat, which may
have indicated they were moving
through these sites (Reichling et al.
2008, pp. 9, 14). Further trapping at the
same sites since the study has produced
17 and 9 more Louisiana pinesnakes for
the first and second beneficially
managed stands, respectively, and only
3 more for the plantation site (Pierce
2015, unpub. data).
Life History
Louisiana pinesnakes appear to be
most active March through May and
September through November
(especially November), and least active
December through February and during
the summer (especially August) (Himes
1998, p. 12). During the winter,
Louisiana pinesnakes use Baird’s pocket
gopher burrows as hibernacula
(Rudolph et al. 2007 p. 561; Pierce et al.
2014, p. 140). In a study conducted by
Pierce et al. (2014, pp. 140, 142), the
species did not use burrows
communally, and they did not exhibit
fidelity to hibernacula sites in
successive years. Louisiana pinesnakes
observed in east Texas appear to be
semi-fossorial and essentially diurnal,
and were also relatively immobile (i.e.,
moved less than 33 ft (10 meters (m)) on
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
69458
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
54.5 percent of days monitored (Ealy et
al. 2004, p. 391). In one study, they
spent, on average, 59 percent of daylight
hours (sunrise to sunset) below ground,
and moved an average of 541 ft (163 m)
per day (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 390). Adult
males in a Louisiana study by Himes et
al. moved an average of 495 ft (150 m)
daily (longest = 3,802 ft (1,159 m)),
adult females 348 ft (106 m), and
juveniles 112 ft (34 m) (Himes 1998, p.
18). Himes et al. (2006, p. 107)
documented an average home range size
of 82 ac (33.2 ha) (range 16 to 267 ac
(6.5 to 108 ha)) for the Louisiana
pinesnake. Himes et al. also found that
adult males had larger average home
ranges (145 acres (ac) (58.7 hectares
(ha))) than females (25 ac (14 ha)) and
juveniles (13 ac (5.5 ha)) (Himes 1998,
p. 18).
Baird’s pocket gopher is the primary
prey of the Louisiana pinesnake
(Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 58), comprising
an estimated 53 percent of available
individual prey records (75 percent of
total prey biomass) (Rudolph et al. 2012,
p. 243). The Louisiana pinesnake
exhibits specialized prey handling
behavior for the burrow-dwelling pocket
gopher not common among constricting
snake species (Rudolph et al. 2002, pp.
59–61). The Louisiana pinesnake is also
known to eat eastern moles (Scalopus
aquaticus), cotton rats (Sigmodon
hispidus), deer mice (Peromyscus sp.),
harvest mice (Reithrodontomys sp.), and
turtle (probably Trachemys scripta) eggs
(Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 59; Rudolph et
al. 2012, p. 244).
Louisiana pinesnake sexual maturity
is attained at an approximate length of
4 ft (120 cm) and an age of
approximately 3 years (Himes et al.
2002, p. 686). The Louisiana pinesnake
is an egg-layer (oviparous), with a
gestation period of about 21 days
(Reichling 1988, p. 77), followed by 60
days of incubation. Having the smallest
clutch size (three to five) of any North
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
American colubrid snake, the Louisiana
pinesnake exhibits a remarkably low
reproductive rate (Reichling 1990, p.
221). However, the Louisiana pinesnake
produces the largest eggs (generally 12
cm (5 in) long and 5 cm (2 in) wide) of
any U.S. snake (Reichling 1990, p. 221).
It also produces the largest hatchlings
reported for any North American snake,
ranging 18 to 22 in (45 to 55 cm) in
length, and up to 3.77 ounces (oz) (107
grams (g)) in weight (Reichling 1990, p.
221). No Louisiana pinesnake nests have
been located in the wild. Captive
Louisiana pinesnakes can live over 30
years, but females have not reproduced
beyond the age of 18 years (Reichling
and Schad 2010, p. 5).
Historical and Current Distribution
The Louisiana pinesnake historically
occurred in portions of northwest and
west-central Louisiana and extreme
east-central Texas (Conant 1956, p. 19).
This area coincides with an isolated,
and the most westerly, occurrence of the
longleaf pine ecosystem and is situated
west of the Mississippi River. Most of
the sandy, longleaf pine-dominated
savannahs historically inhabited by the
Louisiana pinesnake had been lost by
the mid-1930s (Bridges and Orzell 1989,
p. 246; Frost 1993, p. 30). After virgin
longleaf pine was cut, it rarely
regenerated naturally. In some parts of
the Southeast, free-ranging hogs
depredated the longleaf pine seedlings,
and fire suppression allowed shrubs,
hardwoods, and loblolly pine to
dominate (Frost 1993, pp. 34–36). The
naturally maintained open structure and
abundant herbaceous vegetation
characteristic of the historical longleaf
pine forests was diminished or lost, and,
therefore, it is likely that undocumented
populations of this species historically
occurred but were lost before 1930.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
Southern Research Station (SRS),
Wildlife Habitat and Silviculture
Laboratory in Nacogdoches, Texas, has
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
compiled and maintains a historical
records database of all known Louisiana
pinesnake locations (excluding
telemetry data). According to that
database, 267 occurrence records of 235
individual Louisiana pinesnakes have
been verified from 1927 through
December 21, 2015 (excluding
reintroductions), all from Louisiana and
Texas (Pierce 2015, unpub. data). By
comparison, for the Florida pinesnake
(Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus), a
species with a four State range (Ernst
and Ernst 2003, p. 281), there are 874
records of occurrence through 2015 in
the State of Florida alone (Enge 2016,
pers. comm.). Similarly, there are
approximately 395 total records of black
pinesnakes (Pituophis melanoleucus
lodingi) since 1932 (Hinderliter 2016,
pers.comm.).
Based on the Louisiana pinesnake
database, there are records from seven
parishes in Louisiana (Beauregard,
Bienville, Jackson, Natchitoches,
Rapides, Sabine, and Vernon) and 11
counties in Texas (Angelina, Hardin,
Jasper, Nacogdoches, Newton, Polk,
Sabine, San Augustine, Trinity, Tyler,
and Wood) (Figure 1). Previous
Louisiana pinesnake reports that are not
included in this database are: single
records for Calcasieu and Jefferson
Davis Parishes in Louisiana (Williams
and Cordes 1996, p. 35), considered
suspect (Pierce 2015, unpub. data;
Thomas et al. 1976, pp. 253–254; Walls
2008, pers. comm.); a single record from
Cherokee County, Texas, which was
erroneous (Pierce 2009, pers. comm.);
single records from Montgomery and
Walker Counties in Texas reclassified as
Pituophis catenifer (Pierce 2008, pers.
comm.); two records from Rapides
Parish, Louisiana, and one from
Caldwell County, Texas, from the 1960s
considered not verifiable (Reichling
2012, pers. comm.; Thomas et al. 1976,
pp. 253–254).
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Despite being primarily diurnal, the
Louisiana pinesnake’s apparent rarity,
secretive nature, and preference for
occupying pocket gopher burrow
systems has made it difficult to generate
extensive natural history information
(Ealy et al. 2004, pp. 383–384).
Trapping results are functions of trap
location selection, trap success, and true
presence or absence; thus trapping data
only approximate Louisiana pinesnake
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
use of an area, but are the best available
estimate. Currently trapping is the only
standardized and most effective known
method for surveying Louisiana
pinesnakes. While it is the most
effective, it is also expensive and labor
intensive. Trapping for Louisiana
pinesnakes involves the use of multiple
sets of drift fences with box traps in an
area either known to be inhabited by
Louisiana pinesnakes or that appears to
have suitable habitat. Box and funnel
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
traps, with and without drift fences, are
effective in catching snakes similar in
size, and related to the Louisiana
pinesnake, including the bullsnake
(Pituophis catenifer sayi), black
pinesnake, Florida pinesnake, and
northern pinesnake (Pituophis
melanoleucus melanoleucus) (Burgdorf
et al. 2005, p. 424; Fitch 1951, p. 80;
Yager et al. 2005, p. 24; Zappalorti 2016,
p. 7; Enge 2016, pers. comm.).
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
EP06OC16.015</GPH>
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
69459
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
69460
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Since 1993, extensive Louisiana
pinesnake trapping has been conducted
at first near recent recorded occurrences
of the species that appeared to be in
suitable habitat, and then more broadly,
in other locations of varying habitat
conditions within the snake’s historical
range (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 464) by
the USFS, the U.S. Army, the Memphis
Zoo, and the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF).
Trapping has been conducted to provide
animals for telemetry studies, to
determine the effects of vehicle-caused
mortality, and for surveys to document
presence of the species (Rudolph et al.
2015, p. 3). A variable number of traps
are operated per year in 10 Texas
counties and seven Louisiana parishes
(Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 3). Through the
years, there have been slight
modifications to some traps, but it is not
considered to have had major impacts
on trap success (Rudolph et al. 2015, p.
3). Additionally, over time, new traps
may be added to locations thought to
contain Louisiana pinesnakes because of
the presence of suitable conditions,
such as preferred soils (Melder 2015, p.
115; Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152).
In total, trapping during 1993–2015
from throughout the historical range of
the Louisiana pinesnake has resulted in
101 unique individual captures.
Supported by rangewide trapping
results and the historical records
database, Rudolph et al. (2006, p. 467–
469) concluded that the failure to
document existing Louisiana pinesnake
populations at known historical
localities, coupled with the degradation
and fragmentation of habitat in those
areas, indicates that the Louisiana
pinesnake had been extirpated from
significant portions of its historical
range. Three parishes (Beauregard,
Jackson, and Rapides) in Louisiana, and
seven counties (Hardin, Nacogdoches,
Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, Trinity,
and Wood) in Texas, are now
considered unoccupied by the Louisiana
pinesnake. Rudolph et al. (2006, pp.
467–469) determined that six occupied
areas were in existence in 2006. In 2007,
an area on the Kisatchie District of the
Kisatchie National Forest (KNF) in
Louisiana was determined to be
occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake.
Based on 2014 analysis (and reaffirmed
by 2016 analysis) of occurrence records
of counties or parishes with multiple
observations since 1993, six natural,
potentially extant, populations of
Louisiana pinesnakes occur in four
parishes (Bienville, Natchitoches,
Sabine, and Vernon) in Louisiana, and
three counties (Angelina, Jasper, and
Newton) in Texas. Louisiana pinesnake
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
habitat currently considered occupied
(based upon 1993–2015 occurrence
data) is primarily concentrated on
public lands controlled by the
Department of Defense (DOD) (Joint
Readiness Training Center and Fort Polk
[Fort Polk] and Peason Ridge), the USFS
(KNF and Angelina National Forest
[ANF]), and privately owned industrial
timberlands in Louisiana and Texas.
There is also a reintroduction
feasibility-study population of
Louisiana pinesnakes that has been
established from captive-bred snakes in
Grant Parish, Louisiana, on KNF lands.
Although single observations were not
used to establish known occupied areas,
single individuals have been
documented in one Louisiana parish
and two Texas counties (see Figure 1,
above). A single Louisiana pinesnake
was observed crossing a road in 1994 in
Tyler County, but no others have been
recorded in that county in the 22 years
since that observation. A single
observation of a Louisiana pinesnake
found dead along a road in 2001
indicates that the current population in
Natchitoches Parish may have extended
into extreme northwestern Rapides
Parish, Louisiana; however, no more
have been sighted in Rapides Parish
since 2001. A juvenile Louisiana
pinesnake was captured in 2008, in
Nacogdoches County near Garrison,
Texas (Pierce 2015, unpub. data),
suggesting that at least some individuals
existed near that site as recently as 8
years ago.
To estimate the size of occupied
habitat areas, all Louisiana pinesnake
records from 1993 to 2015 (Pierce 2015,
unpub. data) containing location data
and meeting the criteria established
below (157 records), were plotted in a
Geographic Information System (GIS).
Using ArcMap (Version 10.2.1), a
minimum convex polygon (MCP) was
drawn around clusters of records, and a
0.6-mile (mi) (1.0-kilometer (km)) buffer
was drawn around each MCP, resulting
in the estimated occupied habitat area
(EOHA) for Louisiana pinesnakes
represented by that group of records.
The MCP was buffered to accommodate
the fact that trap locations were not
placed on the landscape with the intent
of delineating population boundaries. A
0.6-mi (1.0-km) buffer was used because
telemetry data indicate this is a
reasonable approximation of the area
that a Louisiana pinesnake uses during
1 or more years (Rudolph 2008a, pers.
comm.). After discussions with experts,
including Dr. Craig Rudolph and
members of the Association of Zoos and
Aquariums (AZA), the Service
developed criteria to determine the data
and methodology to be used for
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
estimating the boundaries of the
EOHAs.
All Louisiana pinesnake verified
occurrence records were used for EOHA
analysis except for: Those obtained
prior to 1993 (before extensive trapping
began); and records older than 11 years
(from the time of analysis; which is the
estimated Louisiana pinesnake
generational turnover period (Marti
2014, pers. comm.)), when traps within
0.6 mi (1 km) of those records had been
unproductive for 5 years of trap effort
following the date of the records.
That methodology uses records
(including non-trap occurrence)
obtained over a period of intense
surveys during the estimated
generational time of Louisiana
pinesnakes in captivity. However, some
records that are located in areas
potentially still occupied by the species,
where habitat attributes have remained
similar or improved since observed
occurrence, are not used for this
estimation of occupied range because
significant trapping efforts have not
produced any additional records in that
area.
The original purpose of the EOHAs
designation was to match proactive
habitat management activities to areas
most likely to be currently occupied by
the Louisiana pinesnake (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2014, p. 8). Based on
the previously described methodology,
the following EOHAs have been
delineated (Figure 2): (1) The Bienville
EOHA located on privately owned
industrial timberlands in Bienville
Parish, Louisiana; (2) the Kisatchie
EOHA located on USFS lands (the
Kisatchie Ranger District of the KNF in
Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana); (3) the
Peason Ridge EOHA located on DOD
lands (Vernon and Sabine Parishes) and
a small amount of private lands
(inholdings) in Louisiana; (4) the Fort
Polk/Vernon EOHA located on DOD
lands (Fort Polk), USFS lands (the
Vernon Unit/Calcasieu District of the
KNF), and a small amount of private
lands (inholdings) in Vernon Parish,
Louisiana; (5) the Scrappin’ Valley
EOHA located primarily on privately
owned timberlands in Newton County,
Texas; (6) the Angelina EOHA located
on USFS lands (the southern section of
ANF in Angelina and Jasper Counties)
and private lands in Texas; and (7) the
Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility
EOHA located on USFS lands (the
Catahoula Ranger District of the KNF in
Grant Parish, Louisiana). Utilizing the
methods described above, the Winn
Ranger District of the KNF in
Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, and the
Sabine National Forest in Sabine
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
69461
County, Texas, identified in 2008, are
no longer considered occupied.
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
Those EOHAs occur on 30,751.9 ac
(12,444.8 ha) of DOD lands, 47,101.3 ac
(19,061.2 ha) of USFS lands, 499.7 ac
(202.2 ha) of State and municipal lands,
and 67,324.9 ac (27,245.4 ha) of private
lands (Table 1).
TABLE 1—LAND OWNERSHIP IN ACRES (HECTARES) OF ESTIMATED LOUISIANA PINESNAKE OCCUPIED HABITAT AREAS AS
DETERMINED FOR 2016 ACCORDING TO LOCATION RECORDS THROUGH 2015
[Totals may not sum to rounding]
State
Estimated occupied habitat
area
Louisiana .............................
Bienville ..............................
Kisatchie .............................
Fort Polk/Vernon ................
Catahoula Reintroduction ...
Department of
Defense
State and
municipal
Private
Total for estimated occupied habitat
area
0
(0)
1,598.8
(647.0)
0
(0)
34,164.7
(13,826.0)
1,828.5
(739.9)
0
(0)
0
(0)
3,147.3
(1,273.7)
27,601.3
(11,169.8)
0
(0)
363.7
(147.2)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0
(0)
60,727.2
(24,575.5)
0
(0)
0
(0)
222.6
(90.1)
0
(0)
61,090.9
(24,722.6)
1,598.8
(647.0)
3,147.3
(1,273.7)
61,988.7
(25,085.9)
1,828.5
(739.9)
Louisiana Total ............
.............................................
37,592.0
(15,213.0)
30,748.5
(12,443.5)
363.7
(147.2)
60,949.9
(24,665.6)
129,654.1
(52,469.2)
Texas ..................................
Scrappin’ Valley .................
0
(0)
0
(0)
21.3
(8.6)
5,036.5
(2,038.2)
5,057.8
(2,046.8)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
EP06OC16.016</GPH>
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Peason Ridge .....................
U.S. Forest
Service
69462
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—LAND OWNERSHIP IN ACRES (HECTARES) OF ESTIMATED LOUISIANA PINESNAKE OCCUPIED HABITAT AREAS AS
DETERMINED FOR 2016 ACCORDING TO LOCATION RECORDS THROUGH 2015—Continued
[Totals may not sum to rounding]
State
Estimated occupied habitat
area
U.S. Forest
Service
Department of
Defense
State and
municipal
Private
Total for estimated occupied habitat
area
9,509.3
(3,848.3)
3.3
(1.4)
114.7
(46.4)
1,338.6
(541.7)
10,965.8
(4,437.7)
Texas Total ..................
.............................................
9,509.3
(3,848.3)
3.3
(1.4)
136.0
(55.1)
6,375.0
(2,579.9)
16,023.6
(6,484.5)
Total Ownership ...
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Angelina .............................
.............................................
47,101.3
(19,061.3)
30,751.9
(12,444.8)
499.7
(202.2)
67,324.9
(27,245.4)
145,677.7
(58,953.7)
Population Estimates and Status
The Louisiana pinesnake is
recognized as one of the rarest snakes in
North America (Young and Vandeventer
1988, p. 203; Himes et al. 2006, p. 114).
It was classified in 2007 as endangered
on the International Union for
Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN’s) Red
List of Threatened Species (version 3.1;
https://www.iucnredlist.org/).
Most Louisiana pinesnake records
that were used to approximately
delineate occupied habitat for 2016
were acquired by trapping. We
considered each day that a trap was
open a ‘‘trap day.’’ Thus, for an area
being surveyed, all traps in that area
that were open contribute to the number
of trap days (i.e., four traps that are open
for 3 days each equals 12 trap days). The
ratio of trap days and number of unique
snakes captured is called ‘‘trap success’’
(i.e., two unique snakes captured during
2,000 trap days = 1 capture per 1,000
trap days or a 1:1,000 trap success) and
was determined for each population.
Louisiana pinesnake trapping across the
species’ entire range (including areas
outside of EOHAs in Louisiana and
Texas) during 1993 through 2015 has
resulted in 101 unique individual
captures during 448,892 trap days
(1:4,444 trap success) (Pierce 2016a,
pers. comm.). Trapping information can
be compared to similar species to get a
sense of the relative rarity of this species
when compared to a similar species
trapped in a comparable way. For
instance, a Florida pinesnake trapping
effort using similar drift fence trapping
methods in one 30,000-ac (12,141-ha)
section of the species’ range captured 87
unique individuals during 50,960 trap
days (1:585.7 trap success) over a 13year period from 2003 to 2015 (Smith
2016b, pers. comm.). The Louisiana
pinesnake site with the greatest longterm trap success by far, the Bienville
EOHA, which is 61,090.9 ac (24,722.6
ha), has a trap success rate of 1:854.0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
between 1993 and 2015 (Pierce 2016a,
pers. comm.), which is substantially
lower than those found in Smith’s study
of Florida pinesnake. Actual population
densities cannot be reliably estimated
from trapping data because markrecapture analyses cannot be conducted
without sufficient numbers of Louisiana
pinesnake recaptures, but similar
trapping methods have been used by
others to estimate snake abundance.
All Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs
contain at least some suitable habitat,
and experience varying amounts of
beneficial forest management. However,
most populations appear to show either
a decline or no conclusive change in
trap success through time, indicating
that numbers of individuals in most
populations are likely decreasing
(Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 8). Despite
continued effort, some populations have
not experienced trap success or other
occurrence records for many years. For
this reason, as discussed earlier, the
Winn Ranger District of the KNF portion
of the Bienville EOHA and the Sabine
EOHA are no longer considered
occupied. Trapping efforts (all provided
by Pierce (2015, unpub. data)) and
habitat management actions are
presented below for each EOHA.
Bienville EOHA
Based on trap and other occurrence
records (84 occurrences (including trap
recaptures) from 1988 through 2015)
(Pierce 2015, unpub. data), the Bienville
population is widely believed to be the
largest extant Louisiana pinesnake
population (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 465;
Reichling et al. 2008, p. 10). For all
trapping efforts so far (1995 through
2015, not continuous), trap success for
this population was 1:854. While trap
success varies annually, the trap success
in this area has been consistently greater
than for any other population overall.
Trapping on that private timberland has
only recently resumed in 2012, after
cessation in 2009. The Kepler Lake area
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of the Bienville EOHA has produced the
best trap success of any trapping area in
areas currently known to be inhabited
by the species. Consequently, Reichling
et al. (2008, p. 10) believed this site was
critical for the preservation of this
species. Trapping from a previous effort
on the Winn District portion of this
population between 2000 and 2001
provided two captures (in addition to
one recapture). Trap efforts in the same
area from 2004 to 2013 have produced
zero captures in 7,525 trap days, and the
area is now regarded as unoccupied.
Within the privately owned
timberland described above, two
disjunct areas are managed for the
Louisiana pinesnake with thinning,
longleaf pine restoration, targeted
herbicide use, and prescribed burning
(see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce
Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below).
Kisatchie EOHA
Two relatively recent Louisiana
pinesnake occurrence records (one noncapture sighting (2003) and one handcapture (2007)) exist for this population.
No Louisiana pinesnakes were captured
during 12,011 trap days (1997 to 2003)
on the Kisatchie District of the KNF.
However, past trapping did not occur in
the locations of the records mentioned
above. Furthermore, despite the
presence of substantial amounts of
suitable habitat on the Kisatchie
District, past trapping did not sample
the best habitat (Rudolph et al. 2006, p.
469). Trapping resumed within this
population in 2012, in the best habitat,
and has continued through 2015, but no
captures (by hand or trap) have occurred
since the 2007 capture (Pierce 2015,
unpub. data).
Active habitat management for the
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) and the Louisiana
pinesnake occur within and
surrounding the EOHA of this
population (see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Reduce Habitat Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Range,’’ below).
Peason Ridge EOHA
Six occurrence records (from 2003 to
2013, all observed after 2005) exist for
this population; one of which was a
non-trap sighting. The trapping effort for
the last 5 years (2009 to 2013 (8,446 trap
days)) produced four captures, one in
2010, two in 2012, and one in 2013,
with a success rate of 1:2,112 (Pierce
2015, unpub. data).
Active habitat management for the
red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake occurring at this
site has stabilized or increased the
amount of preferable habitat that
exhibits suitable vegetative
characteristics (see ‘‘Conservation
Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Range,’’ below).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Fort Polk/Vernon EOHA
Twenty-two occurrence records from
2003 to 2013, including four non-trap
sightings and four trap-recaptures, exist
for this population. Trap success for this
population over 5 years (2009 to 2013)
is estimated to be 1:2,625 (eight unique
individual captures out of 21,003 trap
days), which includes all recent
unsuccessful surveying on the Vernon
Unit of the KNF. Since 2003, no
captures have occurred on the Vernon
Unit. Excluding trapping on the Vernon
Unit, DOD observed a trap success rate
over 5 years (2009 to 2013) of 1:1,959
(eight unique individual captures
during 15,672 trap days) on DOD
property (Pierce 2015, unpub. data).
Two snakes were trapped in 2014, and
there were three records of occurrence
in 2015 (one hand-captured and two
dead on roads).
Active habitat management for the
red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake has stabilized or
increased the amount of habitat that has
suitable vegetative characteristics (see
‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below).
Scrappin’ Valley EOHA
On this primarily private land, five
occurrence records during 2005 to 2015
exist for this population; however, two
of those were road mortalities, two were
removed from the wild for captive
breeding, and one was sighted but not
captured. There have been no trap
captures since 2009 during 15,628 trap
days within this population and no
other occurrences. During trapping
efforts on this land from 1995 to 1997,
five captures occurred during 2,128 trap
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
days (a success rate of 1:426),
demonstrating a reduction of trap
success at this site (Pierce 2015, unpub.
data).
Active habitat management for the
red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake occurs at this site
(see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce
Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below).
Despite Louisiana pinesnake
occurrences as recent as 2008, and
proactive habitat management by the
former and current private landowners,
the lack of recent trap success when
compared to trap success in the 1990s
suggests that this population has
declined due to prolonged minimal
suitable habitat availability.
Angelina EOHA
Seven occurrence records during 2003
to 2013 exist for this population. Four
were unique trap captures, one was a
trap recapture, one was hand-caught
alive on a road, and one previously
captured and pit-tagged individual was
found dead on a road in 2009. Both the
trap recapture and hand-caught
individual were removed from the wild
for captive breeding. From 2009 to 2013,
no unique trap captures have occurred
within this population during 16,277
trap days. The most recent unique
individual trap capture at this site was
in 2007. However, a recapture did occur
within this population as recently as
2012, and that individual was removed
from the wild for captive breeding. Trap
success rates have shown a steady
decline throughout the effort period:
From 1992 to 1997, success rate was
1:652 (2 captures during 1,303 trap
days); during 1998 to 2005, success rate
was 1:3,420 (2 captures during 6,840
trap days); and during 2007 to 2012,
success rate was 1:5,305 (3 captures
during 15,916 trap days). However, all
trap effort within this population
produced only a total of seven unique
individual Louisiana pinesnakes since
the 1990s (27,656 trap days) (Pierce
2015, unpub. data).
Active habitat management for the
red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake occurs at this site
(see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce
Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below).
Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility
EOHA
An informal committee was
established to oversee and conduct an
experimental reintroduction of the
Louisiana pinesnake in an attempt to
demonstrate the feasibility of
reintroducing a population using
individuals from a captive population,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69463
and establishment of a viable
population in restored habitat. In total,
77 captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes
(11 in 2010, 15 in 2011, 3 in 2012, 15
in 2013, 1 in 2014, 15 in 2015, and 17
in 2016) have been released into the
wild at the Catahoula Ranger District of
the KNF (Pierce 2016, unpub. data;
Pierce 2016b, pers. comm.; Smith 2016a,
pers. comm.). This area is not near any
known Louisiana pinesnake populations
and not within the known historical
range of the species. Detection of
released snakes is occurring within this
EOHA through monitoring of deployed
Automated PIT Tag Recorders (APTRs)
and trapping. Prior to March 22, 2016,
60 snakes have been released, and as of
that date a total of 26 individual snakes
have been detected at least once after
release (detections beginning 1 day after
release): of those, 14 snakes have been
detected alive more than 60 days after
release, of those, 10 have been detected
alive in the year following the winter
after release, of those, 7 have been
detected 2 years (winters) after release,
of those, 3 have been detected 3 years
(winters) after release, and of those, 1
snake has been detected 4 years
(winters) after release (Pierce 2016b,
pers. comm.; Pierce 2016c, pers.
comm.).
Active habitat management for the
red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake occurs at the
Catahoula Ranger District site (see
‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below).
Captive-Breeding Population
The captive Louisiana pinesnake zoo
population established in 1984 was
initially maintained through wild
collection. The AZA Species Survival
Plan (SSP) for the Louisiana pinesnake
was implemented in 2000, to manage
the zoo population (Reichling et al., in
litt. 2015, p. 1). The goals of the SSP are
to: Maintain an assurance colony for
wild Louisiana pinesnake populations,
preserve or increase genetic
heterozygosity into the future, preserve
representative genetic integrity of wild
populations, and provide individuals as
needed for research and repopulation
for the conservation of wild populations
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013,
pp. 32–33). As of March 2016, the
captive-breeding Louisiana pinesnake
population consists of 111 individuals
(51 males, 53 females, and 7 unsexed
individuals) in 18 AZA accredited
institutions and 2 non-AZA partner
institutions (Reichling 2016, pers.
comm.). Initially, three populations
were managed based on their different
geographic origins, which are separated
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
69464
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
by rivers (one from Texas, separated
from Louisiana by the Sabine River, and
two from Louisiana, which are
separated by the Red River) (Reichling
and Schad 2010, p. 1). Recent genetic
analyses showed that all populations
were similar in population structure and
the Texas and southern Louisiana
populations were difficult to separate
genetically (Kwiatkowski et al. 2014, p.
12). Therefore, currently one group is
derived from Bienville Parish,
Louisiana, founders and the other group
is a combination of Vernon Parish,
Louisiana, and eastern Texas snakes
(Reichling 2016, pers. comm.).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
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. In this section, we
summarize the biological condition of
the species and its resources, and the
influences of the listing factors on them,
to assess the species’ overall viability
and the risks to that viability.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Both the quantity and quality of the
natural longleaf pine ecosystem, the
primary historical habitat of the
Louisiana pinesnake, have declined
sharply in Louisiana and Texas since
European settlement. The loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of the
longleaf pine dominant ecosystem was
historically caused by logging,
turpentining, fire suppression, alteration
of fire seasonality and periodicity,
conversion to generally off-site pine
species plantations, agriculture, and
free-range hogs (Frost 1993, pp. 24–30,
31, 35). Virtually all virgin timber in the
southern United States was cut during
intensive logging from 1870 to 1920
(Frost 1993, p. 30). Only about 2.9
percent of longleaf pine forests in
Louisiana and Texas were uncut oldgrowth stands in 1935 (Bridges and
Orzell 1989, p. 246). During the latter
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
half of the 20th century, Louisiana,
Alabama, and Mississippi lost between
60 and 90 percent of their already
reduced longleaf acreage (Outcalt and
Sheffield 1996, pp. 1–10). By the late
1980s, the natural longleaf pine acreage
in Louisiana and Texas was only about
15 and 8 percent, respectively, of what
had existed in 1935 (Bridges and Orzell
1989, p. 246). Those longleaf pine
forests were primarily converted to
extensive monoculture pine plantations
(Bridges and Orzell 1989, p. 246), which
presumably were not primarily managed
for enhancement of herbaceous
vegetation.
In short, the longleaf dominant pine
forest (longleaf pine forest type plus
longleaf pine in mixed species stands)
in the southeastern United States
declined approximately 96 percent from
the historical estimate of 92 million ac
(37 million ha) (Frost 1993, p. 20) to
approximately 3.75 million ac (1.52
million ha) in 1990 (Guldin et al. 2016,
p. 324). Since the 1990s, longleaf pine
dominant forest acreage has been
trending upward in parts of the
Southeast through restoration efforts
(Guldin et al. 2016, pp. 323–324). By
2010, the longleaf dominant pine forest
stands had increased to approximately
4.3 million ac (1.7 million ha) (Oswalt
et al. 2012, p. 10; Guldin et al. 2016, pp.
323–324). A recent estimate for the
extent of longleaf dominant pine forest
in 2015 was 4.7 million ac (2.8 million
ha) (America’s Longleaf Restoration
Initiative 2016, p. 12).
In general, southern forest futures
models predict declines of overall forest
land area in the southeastern United
States between 2 and 10 percent in the
next 50 years (Wear and Greis 2013, p.
78). The model-projected losses of
natural pine forest in the Southeast
would be mostly the result of
conversion to planted pine forests (Wear
and Greis 2013, p. 79). For the southern
Gulf region, model runs assuming high
levels of urbanization and high timber
prices predict large percentage losses in
longleaf pine in some parishes and
counties of Louisiana and Texas that
were historically and that are currently
occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake,
while two Louisiana parishes in the
current occupied range are expected to
gain (less than the percent decline
predicted in the other parishes and
counties) in longleaf pine acreage
(Klepzig et al. 2014, p. 53). The outer
boundary or ‘‘footprint’’ of the longleaf
pine ecosystem across its historical
range has contracted as recently as the
period of 1990 to 2010, with losses
(primarily due to conversion to loblolly
pine) in western Louisiana and eastern
Texas (Oswalt et al. 2012, pp. 10–14).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Impacts from urbanization are not
consistent throughout the Southeast,
and most population growth is
predicted to occur near major cities
(Wear and Greis 2013, p. 21), which are
generally not near known Louisiana
pinesnake occurrences; however, the
most recent assessment still predicts
decreased use of land for forests (mainly
due to urbanization) in the next 45 years
in all of the parishes (Louisiana) and
counties (Texas) historically and
currently occupied by the species
(Klepzig et al. 2014, pp. 21–23).
High-quality longleaf pine forest
habitat, which is generally characterized
by a high, open canopy and shallow
litter and duff layers, is maintained by
frequent, low-intensity fires, which in
turn restrict a woody midstory and
promote the flowering and seed
production of fire-stimulated
groundcover plants (Oswalt et al. 2012,
pp. 2–3). The Louisiana pinesnake was
historically associated with natural
longleaf pine forests, which were
maintained in good condition by natural
processes and have the abundant
herbaceous vegetation necessary to
support the Louisiana pinesnake’s
primary prey, the Baird’s pocket gopher
(Himes 1998, p. 43; Sulentich et al.
1991, p. 3; Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997,
p. 17). Based on trapping surveys and
location records, it appears that areas
managed with silvicultural practices for
fiber production that do not allow
sufficient herbaceous vegetation growth
do not support viable Louisiana
pinesnake populations (Rudolph et al.
2006, p. 470) because the snake’s pocket
gopher prey requires herbaceous
vegetation for forage.
Rudolph et al. (2006, p. 467) assessed
habitat conditions during 1999 and
2000, at the locations of all historical
Louisiana pinesnake records (n = 118
localities) known at that time. They
found that 70 percent (26 of 37) of the
localities on public lands met their
criteria as excellent or good condition,
whereas only 33 percent (27 of 81) of
the localities on private lands met their
criteria as excellent or good condition.
Due to habitat fragmentation, most sites
with excellent or good habitat were
isolated and small (typically a few
hundred hectares, or less (Rudolph et al.
2006, p. 466)). The distribution of
Louisiana pinesnakes within the current
range was further restricted because
intensive land use activities and the
disruption of natural fire regimes had
decreased the quantity and quality of
the intervening areas as habitat for this
species (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 470).
Based on the low capture rates reported
during trapping from 1993 to 2001, and
the limited habitat availability, Rudolph
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
et al. (2006, p. 468) concluded that
remnant Louisiana pinesnake
populations are not large. In fact, during
this 9-year trapping period, only 24
unique captures of Louisiana
pinesnakes occurred out of 2,372 total
unique snake captures in 101,828 trap
days (a trap success of 1:3,775 for
Louisiana pinesnake). At many sites, no
pinesnakes were captured, but even at
sites where they were captured, the
average trap success was only 1:733
(Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 465).
The disruption of natural fire regimes,
due to fire suppression and inadequate,
infrequent prescribed burning, is the
leading factor responsible for the
degradation of the small amount of
remaining suitable longleaf pine forest
habitat (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p.
118; Rudolph 2000, p. 7). In the absence
of frequent and effective fires, upland
pine savannah ecosystems rapidly
develop a midstory of hardwoods and
other overstory species that suppress or
eliminate any herbaceous understory.
As the presence of pocket gophers is
directly related to the extent of
herbaceous vegetation available to them,
their population numbers and
distribution decline as such vegetation
declines, which in turn directly impacts
the number and distribution of
Louisiana pinesnakes. The use of
prescribed burning has decreased on
private timberlands because of legal
liability and the expense of liability
insurance, the planting of pine species
which have a reduced tolerance to fire,
limited funds and personnel, and smoke
management issues. 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 midstory conditions that
limit herbaceous vegetation growth.
Overstory species other than longleaf
pine can be managed to provide suitable
understory for pocket gophers, but this
is generally more difficult, as these
species lack the physical characteristics
and ecological adaptations to sustain
desired understory conditions during all
life stages, especially when managed
with prescribed fire. Specifically,
longleaf pine is adapted to thrive with
frequent fire during all life stages, which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
allows continual maintenance of
herbaceous communities. Other pine
species lack these adaptations to fire
that allow for frequent fire during all life
stages (especially very young trees).
Non-longleaf pine communities can be
managed to provide suitable habitat
within a stand when burning is not
recommended (e.g., very young trees) by
using herbicides and other techniques.
However, if those techniques alter the
composition or density of the
groundcover vegetation and pocket
gophers decline in response, it is likely
that Louisiana pinesnakes will decline
in response as well (USFWS 2001). In
addition, longleaf pine structure (e.g.,
branch and needle structure) naturally
allows more sunlight penetration at
similar stem densities than other pine
species.
Regardless of the methods used to
promote herbaceous vegetation in the
understory, the amount and types of
herbaceous vegetation are limited by the
amount of sunlight able to reach the
forest floor and, for some species, by the
presence of fire (i.e., to scarify seeds,
promote seed production, and consume
leaf litter). Therefore, conversion and
management of overstory vegetation that
does not provide for continued
maintenance of herbaceous vegetation
in otherwise suitable habitat will further
limit habitat available to the Louisiana
pinesnake.
Habitat fragmentation threatens the
continued existence of all Louisiana
pinesnake populations, particularly
those on private lands. This is
frequently the result of urban
development, conversion of longleaf
pine sites to intensively managed pine
plantations, and an increase in the
number of roads. When patches of
available habitat become separated
beyond the dispersal range of a species,
small populations may become less
resilient because additions of
individuals to the population may
decline along with their potential
genetic diversity contributions, thus
increasing the risk of extirpation (see
discussion under Factor E: Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting
Its Continued Existence).
In summary, habitat loss and
continuing degradation of the Louisiana
pinesnake’s habitat remain a significant
threat to this species’ continued
existence.
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. In this
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69465
section, we describe the extensive
habitat restoration efforts that have
occurred on Federal lands throughout
the range (to a lesser extent on private
lands) that have reduced the threat of
habitat loss for some populations. We
also discuss the lack of a definitive
positive response of the Louisiana
pinesnake to these efforts, at present.
Existing and Planned Conservation
Efforts: As early as the 1980s, forest
restoration and management had been
implemented on Fort Polk, Peason
Ridge, and adjacent USFS lands to
restore and maintain conditions of
widely spaced trees, clear of dense
midstory growth (U.S. Department of
the Army 2014, p. 21). Management
occurred for training suitability and redcockaded woodpecker habitat, and most
recently for Louisiana pinesnake
habitat. The requirements for those
three objectives happen to have
significant overlap, especially the
maintenance of open canopy pine forest.
USFS has also implemented habitat
restoration and management for many
years on Sabine National Forest (SNF),
ANF, and KNF to benefit the redcockaded woodpecker, as provided for
in its land and resource management
plans (USFS 1996, pp. 107–134; USFS
1999, pp. 2–61 to 2–73). In 2003, a
candidate conservation agreement
(CCA) for the Louisiana pinesnake,
which includes the Service, USFS,
DOD, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD), and LDWF, was
completed. Targeted conservation
actions are currently being implemented
as part of that agreement. The CCA is
designed to identify and establish
beneficial habitat management actions
for the Louisiana pinesnake on Federal
lands in Louisiana and Texas, and
provides a means for the partnering
agencies to work cooperatively on
projects that avoid and minimize
impacts to the species. The CCA also set
up mechanisms to exchange information
on successful management practices and
coordinate research efforts. SNF [Sabine
Louisiana pinesnake population
considered extirpated since 2014] and
ANF in Texas, and KNF and Fort Polk
in Louisiana, agreed in the CCA to
continue or start new stem thinning and
prescribed burning operations in
sections of upland pine forests and,
where possible, to convert forests to
longleaf pine (CCA 2003, p. 12–16).
Since completion of the CCA,
beneficial forest management activities
conducted by USFS and Fort Polk have
been formally dedicated to conservation
of the Louisiana pinesnake. Removing
some trees from a dense stand with
heavy canopy cover allows more light to
reach the ground, which can promote
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
69466
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the growth of herbaceous vegetation, an
important food source for the primary
prey of the Louisiana pinesnake.
Prescribed burning helps to control
midstory cover, particularly hardwood
species that compete with pine
seedlings and reduce light penetration.
Converting forests to longleaf pine is
helpful because longleaf pine is better
adapted to fire (and tolerates it at an
earlier age) than other pine species, and
therefore is generally easier to manage
with prescribed fire over multiple
rotations. Historically, Louisiana
pinesnakes were predominantly found
in longleaf pine forests, and that forest
type was historically the dominant type
in the areas that now make up the KNF,
ANF, and Fort Polk.
The CCA was revised in 2013, and
now also includes the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
and the AZA as cooperators (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2013, pp. 7–8).
That agreement updates, supersedes,
and improves upon the 2003 CCA, and
uses significant new information
derived from research, threats
assessments, and habitat modeling that
was not available in 2003 to focus
conservation actions, including
beneficial forest management, in areas
with the best potential to become
suitable habitat for the Louisiana
pinesnake. Those areas are called
habitat management units (HMUs), and
they were delineated based on existing
red-cockaded woodpecker habitat
management areas (HMAs) in upland
pine forests. Those areas were further
defined by the location of preferable and
suitable soils (LRSF-Model) for the
Louisiana pinesnake in order to
dedicate resources to areas the species
is most likely to inhabit. However, the
updated CCA addresses threats from
habitat loss only on Federal lands, and
for the activities performed by NRCS on
private land. The CCA also includes
guidance on practices to reduce impacts
to Louisiana pinesnakes from vehicles
on improved roads and off-road allterrain vehicle (ATV) trails (see
‘‘Conservation Efforts To Reduce
Threats Under Factor E,’’ below).
Thousands of acres of forests on
Federal lands have been treated over
many years with prescribed burning,
and that treatment along with tree
thinning continues to the present. The
following tables summarize recent forest
management activities on Federal lands
where Louisiana pinesnake populations
occur. Values have been rounded to the
nearest acre.
TABLE 2—ACRES (HECTARES) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED IN THE KISATCHIE RANGER DISTRICT
OF THE KNF (KISATCHIE POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (1,599 TOTAL AC [647 HA]) AND THE
LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (36,114 TOTAL AC [14,615 HA])
Prescribed burning
2015
Area
Prescribed burning
2013–2015
963 (390)
4,285 (1,734)
1,980 (801)
24,893 (10,074)
EOHA ...................................................................................................................
HMU .....................................................................................................................
Stocking reduction
(thinning) 2015
0 (0)
193 (78)
TABLE 3—ACRES (HA) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED IN THE VERNON UNIT OF THE KNF (FORT
POLK/VERNON POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (34,487 TOTAL ACRES [13,956 HA]) AND THE
LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (61,387 TOTAL ACRES [24,842 HA])
Prescribed burning
2015
Area
Prescribed burning
2013–2015
12,670 (5,127)
20,734 (8,391)
43,281 (17,515)
74,927 (30,322)
EOHA ...................................................................................................................
HMU .....................................................................................................................
Stocking reduction
(thinning) 2015
1,541 (624)
1,670 (676)
TABLE 4—ACRES (HA) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED AT FORT POLK (FORT POLK/VERNON POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (27,502 TOTAL ACRES [11,130 HA]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING
HMU (29,037 TOTAL ACRES [11,751 HA])
Prescribed burning
2015
Area
Prescribed burning
2013–2015
7,675 (3,106)
9,159 (3,707)
22,628 (9,157)
24,241 (9,810)
EOHA ...................................................................................................................
HMU .....................................................................................................................
Stocking reduction
(thinning) 2015
430 (174)
586 (237)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 5—ACRES (HECTARES) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED AT PEASON RIDGE (PEASON RIDGE
POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (4,886 TOTAL AC [1,977 HA]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING
HMU (11,265 TOTAL AC [4,559 HA])
Prescribed burning
2015
Area
Prescribed burning
2013–2015
489 (198)
2,651 (1,073)
2,597 (1,051)
7,440 (3,011)
EOHA ...................................................................................................................
HMU .....................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Stocking reduction
(thinning) 2015
0 (0)
100 (40)
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
69467
TABLE 6—ACRES (HA) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED IN ANF (ANF POPULATION) WITHIN THE
2014 DELINEATED EOHA (10,966 TOTAL AC [4,438 HA]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (24,200 TOTAL AC
[9,793 HA])
Prescribed burning
2015
Area
Prescribed burning
2013–2015
2,735 (1,107)
6,702 (2,712)
10,179 (4,119)
18,940 (7,665)
EOHA ...................................................................................................................
HMU .....................................................................................................................
Stocking reduction
(thinning) 2015
0 (0)
0 (0)
TABLE 7—ACRES (HECTARES) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED IN THE CATAHOULA RANGER DISTRICT KNF (CATAHOULA REINTRODUCTION FEASIBILITY POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (1,828
TOTAL AC [740 HA]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (57,394 TOTAL AC [HA])
Prescribed burning
2015
Area
Prescribed burning
2011–2015
784 (317)
8,279 (3,350)
784 (317)
40,419 (16,357)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
EOHA ...................................................................................................................
HMU .....................................................................................................................
Within the Bienville EOHA, the 851ac (344-ha) Kepler Lake and 859-ac
(348-ha) Sandylands Core Management
Areas (CMAs) (approximately 2.8
percent of the EOHA) were voluntarily
established by the landowners at the
time to be managed for Louisiana
pinesnake habitat. According to the
current landowner (Cook 2016a, 2016b,
pers. comm.), in the loblolly-longleaf
pine mixed stands of the Kepler Lake
and Sandylands CMAs, approximately
50 percent (430 ac (174 ha)) and 55
percent (475 ac (192 ha)), respectively,
have been planted with longleaf pine
beginning in 2001. Using a combination
of supplemental funding sources (e.g.,
Service Private Stewardship Grant,
Western Gulf Coastal Plain Prescribed
Burning Initiative), the present
landowner has completed prescribed
burning of hundreds of acres on the
CMAs each year since 2000 (except in
2005, 2008, 2009, and 2012).
Additionally, midstory (hardwood and
shrub) control is achieved in the CMAs
by application of herbicide in narrow
bands alongside the planted trees
instead of broadcast spraying, which
limits damage of herbaceous vegetation.
Most of the 59,380 acres (24,030 ha)
of timberlands surrounding the CMAs of
the Bienville population are managed
with intensive silvicultural practices
that typically preclude continual, robust
herbaceous vegetation growth. Reichling
et al. (2008, p. 10) did not believe that
isolated management areas that were
800 to 1,000 ac (324 to 405 ha) or less
in size were sufficient to support viable
Louisiana pinesnake populations, and
therefore concluded the snakes in the
Kepler Lake CMA were likely
dependent upon the surrounding
habitat. Consequently, Reichling et al.
(2008, p. 10) felt that it was essential to
the conservation of the species to restore
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
and preserve the thousands of hectares
of privately owned, upland, xeric
habitat that surround the Kepler Lake
CMA.
The 5,057.8-ac (2,046.8-ha) Scrappin’
Valley EOHA is located at least partially
within 11,000 acres (4,452 ha) of
privately owned forested land referred
to as Scrappin’ Valley. That area was
managed for game animals for decades
(Reid 2016, pers. comm.), and one
section (approximately 600 ac (243 ha))
was managed specifically for quail.
Prescribed burning was applied only to
the 600-ac (243-ha) quail area annually
and to another 1,500 ac (607 ha) at less
frequent intervals. The remainder of the
property was not beneficially managed
for Louisiana pinesnake habitat. In
2012, the property was subdivided and
sold as three separate properties of
1,900, 1,500, and 7,700 acres (769, 607,
and 3,116 ha), respectively.
On the 1,900-ac (769-ha) property
from 2013 to spring 2016, hundreds of
acres (some acres burned multiple
times) of longleaf dominated pine forest
occupied by the red-cockaded
woodpecker or near red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters were prescribedburned each year; hardwood removal
was conducted on 300 ac (121 ha);
thinning by removal of loblolly and
slash pine trees was conducted
throughout the entire property; and 105
ac (42 ha) of longleaf pine restoration
(removal of existing trees and planted
with long leaf pine) was completed. The
landowner is also currently working
with The Nature Conservancy toward a
perpetual conservation easement on
2,105 ac (852 ha) to protect habitat for
the red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake.
On the 1,500-ac (607-ha) property in
2015, approximately 250 ac (101 ha) of
loblolly pine with dense understory
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Stocking reduction
(thinning) 2015
0 (0)
231 (93)
vegetation was harvested, and 200 ac
(81 ha) of the area was planted with
longleaf pine. The landowner
voluntarily agreed to manage the area to
promote longleaf pine forest over a 10year period through a Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program agreement with
the Service.
On the 7,700-ac (3,116-ha) property,
most of the forest was not burned, so
there is a dense midstory. Several
hundred acres are comprised of young
loblolly pine plantation. In 2014,
approximately 400 ac (162 ha) were
harvested, and in 2015, approximately
205 ac (83 ha) of longleaf pine were
planted. The landowner voluntarily
agreed to manage the area to promote
longleaf pine forest over a 10-year
period through a Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program agreement with the
Service. Additionally, approximately
1,000 ac of this property are prescribed
burned annually.
Overall, less than 50 percent of the
Scrappin’ Valley EOHA is being
managed beneficially for the Louisiana
pinesnake, but more than 50 percent of
the area is covered under safe harbor
agreements (SHAs) for the red-cockaded
woodpecker, which require forest
management that is generally beneficial
to the Louisiana pinesnake.
Longleaf pine forest improvement and
restoration efforts are also currently
occurring within the historical range of
the Louisiana pinesnake on smaller
private properties, especially through
programs administered by natural
resource agencies such as NRCS, and
nonprofit organizations such as The
Nature Conservancy (TNC). NRCS has
provided assistance with thousands of
acres of forest thinning, longleaf pine
planting, and prescribed burning
(Chevallier 2016, pers.comm.).
However, the extent of overlap of
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
69468
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
increases in longleaf pine acreage, due
to this program, with occupied or
potential Louisiana pinesnake habitat
(i.e., preferable or suitable soils) is
unknown because the specific locations
of the projects within the area serviced
are private and unavailable to the
Service. TNC owns 1,551 ac (628 ha) of
land within the Vernon Unit of KNF
that is managed for the red-cockaded
woodpecker and the Louisiana
pinesnake (Jacob 2016, pers. comm.).
The Service and LDWF are currently
developing a programmatic candidate
conservation agreement with assurances
(CCAA) for the Louisiana pinesnake. A
CCAA is intended to facilitate the
conservation of candidate species by
giving non-Federal property owners
(enrollees) incentives to implement
conservation measures. The incentive to
a property owner provided through a
CCAA is that the Service will impose no
further land-, water-, or resource-use
restrictions beyond those agreed to in
the CCAA should the species later
become listed under the Act. If the
species does become listed, the property
owner is authorized to take the covered
species as long as the level of take is
consistent with the level identified and
agreed upon in the CCAA. The CCAA
policy considers that all CCAAs will
provide benefits to covered species
through implementation of voluntary
conservation measures that are agreed to
and implemented by property owners.
The Louisiana pinesnake
programmatic CCAA is intended to
establish a framework for participation
of the Service and LDWF, and enrollees,
through specific actions for the
protection, conservation, management,
and improvement of the status of the
Louisiana pinesnake. Initiation of this
CCAA will further the conservation of
the Louisiana pinesnake on private
lands by protecting known populations
and additional potential habitat by
reducing threats to the species’ habitat
and survival, restoring degraded
potential habitat on preferred and
suitable soils, and potentially
reintroducing captive-bred snakes to
select areas of the restored habitat.
The CCAA is part of an application
for an enhancement of survival permit
(permit) under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Act. The permit, which will be held by
LDWF, will authorize take of the
Louisiana pinesnake during the period
of the CCAA. The permitted take will be
that resulting from activities covered in
the CCAA and the individual
cooperative management agreements
between LDWF and enrollees in
Louisiana who are willing to engage in
voluntary conservation actions for the
Louisiana pinesnake. Take authorization
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
provided by the permit will be extended
to participating enrollees through
certificates of inclusion (COI) issued by
LDWF.
The Louisiana pinesnake
programmatic CCAA has not been
finalized, and thus no enrollment has
been initiated. The extent of landowner
participation and subsequent
conservation benefits are yet to be
determined; therefore no conservation
benefits to the Louisiana pinesnake from
the programmatic CCAA are considered
in this proposed rule.
Concentrating effort by using the
LRSF-Model to guide priorities, LDWF
has been approaching landowners in the
Louisiana pinesnake’s range in
Louisiana to recruit them into the
Natural Areas Registry Program (Gregory
2013, pers. comm.). Landowners agree
to protect the area and its unique
natural elements to the best of their
abilities, and they can receive, free of
charge, an annual ecological check-up
on the health of the plants, animals, or
habitat of special concern, and
preparation of a management plan.
Additional research and survey efforts
are being funded by the Texas
Comptroller’s office as part of the
‘‘Keeping Texas First’’ initiative. The
research is underway and being
conducted by Texas A&M University;
research results are expected to provide
additional information on the species’
habitat requirements in Texas, which
may contribute to future conservation
efforts. Surveyors are expected to access
suitable habitat on private lands that
have previously been unavailable.
Effectiveness of Conservation Efforts:
In summary, forest management
beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake
has occurred across significant portions
of most Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs.
The significant increases in the acreages
of burning and thinning conducted have
improved habitat conditions on many
Federal lands that support Louisiana
pinesnake populations (Rudolph 2008b,
pers. comm.), and reduced the threat of
habitat loss in those areas. On private
land, there has also been habitat
restoration and beneficial management,
but it has not been as consistent and is
generally on a smaller scale (i.e., less
than about 3,000 ac (1,214 ha) in the
Scrappin’ Valley EOHA) than on
Federal lands. The Bienville population,
which appears to be the most abundant,
has only about 1,700 ac (688 ha) of
habitat currently managed specifically
for the Louisiana pinesnake, and the
home range of one Louisiana pinesnake
can be as much as 267 ac (108 ha).
There has been no definitive trend of
increased trap success in Louisiana
pinesnake populations over time
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 33; Pierce 2015,
unpub. data). As just discussed,
extensive habitat restoration efforts have
occurred on Federal lands where the
Louisiana pinesnake occurs. Although
the threat of habitat loss has been
reduced on much of these lands, none
of the populations has shown a
definitive response to forest
management conservation activities.
Those Louisiana pinesnake populations
are already small, and the species has a
low reproductive rate, so recruitment to
the population may not be detected for
several years. However, it is also
possible that increases in snake
abundance may not be captured by traps
currently in operation because some
newly-created suitable habitat may be in
areas farther from the current trap
locations.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, the loss and degradation
of habitat was a significant historical
threat, and remains a current threat, to
the Louisiana pinesnake. The historical
loss of habitat within the longleaf pine
ecosystem occupied by Louisiana
pinesnakes occurred primarily due to
timber harvest and subsequent
conversion of pine forests to agriculture,
residential development, and managed
pine plantations with only intermittent
periods of open canopy. This loss of
habitat has slowed considerably in
recent years, in part due to efforts to
restore the longleaf pine ecosystem in
the Southeast. In areas occupied by the
Louisiana pinesnake on USFS and U.S.
Army lands, mixed longleaf and loblolly
pine forests are managed beneficially for
the species through thinning, and
through prescribed burning of
thousands of acres of forests every year.
However, habitat loss is continuing
today on private land 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).
Extensive conservation efforts are
being implemented that are restoring
and maintaining Louisiana pinesnake
habitat for the Fort Polk/Vernon, Peason
Ridge, Kisatchie, and Angelina
populations. Those populations are not
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
threatened by continuing habitat loss.
Portions of occupied habitat of the
Scrappin’ Valley (approximately 50
percent) and Bienville populations
(about 2.8 percent) of the Louisiana
pinesnake are also currently being
managed beneficially through voluntary
agreements. However, future
conservation on private lands, which
can change ownership and management
practices, is uncertain, and the
remaining land in the EOHAs with
suitable or preferable soils is generally
unsuitable habitat because of the current
vegetation structure.
Although the threat of habitat loss has
been reduced in much of the Louisiana
pinesnake’s occupied habitat overall,
the likely most abundant population has
relatively little beneficially managed
land, and none of the populations has
yet shown a definitive response to forest
management conservation activities.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Factor B: Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Ongoing take of Louisiana pinesnakes
in Louisiana for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes has not been previously
considered a threat (Boundy 2008, pers.
comm.). Removal from wild populations
for scientific purposes is not expected to
increase significantly in the future. Any
potential overutilization would be
almost exclusively to meet the demand
from recreational snake enthusiasts.
According to a 2009 report of the United
Nations Environment Program—World
Conservation Monitoring Centre
(UNEP—WCMC 2009, p. 17), captivebred Louisiana pinesnakes were
advertised for sale on four German Web
sites, and two U.S. breeders were listed
on another Web site. However, current
levels of Louisiana pinesnake collection
to support the commercial captive-bred
snake market have not been quantified.
Reichling (2008, pers. comm.) and
Vandeventer (2016, pers. comm.) stated
that there appears to be very little
demand for this species by private
collectors; however, there are at least a
few Louisiana pinesnake breeders, and
the snakes were still featured in
advertisements recently for several
hundred dollars for one adult
(Castellanos 2016, pers. obs.).
Given the restricted distribution,
presumed low population sizes, and low
reproductive potential of Louisiana
pinesnakes, even moderate collecting
pressure would negatively affect extant
populations of this species. Webb et al.
(2002, p. 64) concluded that, in longlived snake species exhibiting low
fecundity, the sustained removal of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
adults from isolated populations would
eventually lead to extirpation.
Non-permitted collection of the
Louisiana pinesnake is prohibited by
State law in Texas and Louisiana, and
most areas in Louisiana where extant
Louisiana pinesnake populations occur
restrict public access or prohibit
collection. In addition, general public
collection of the Louisiana pinesnake
would be difficult (Gregory 2008, pers.
comm.) due to the species’ secretive
nature, semi-fossorial habits, and
current rarity.
Previously in Texas, TPWD has
allowed captured Louisiana pinesnakes
to be removed from the wild by
permitted scientific researchers to help
supplement the low representation of
snakes from Texas populations in the
AZA-managed captive breeding
program. Currently, LDWF does not
permit the removal from the wild of any
wild-caught Louisiana pinesnakes to
add founders to the AZA-managed
captive-breeding program.
Although concern has been expressed
that Federal listing may increase the
demand for wild-caught animals
(McNabb 2014, in litt.), based on the
best available information, we have no
evidence that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is currently a
threat to the Louisiana pinesnake.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
Like many other animals, the
Louisiana pinesnake is potentially
impacted by native and introduced
predators.
Known natural wild predators of
pinesnakes (Pituophis) include
mammals such as shrews, hawks,
raccoons, skunks, and red foxes (Ernst
and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager et al.
2006, p. 34). All of these species are
common in the range of the Louisiana
pinesnake. Several of these mammalian
predators may be anthropogenically
enhanced; that is, their numbers often
increase with human development
adjacent to natural areas (Fischer et al.
2012, pp. 810–811). Birds, especially
hawks, are also known to prey on
pinesnakes (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p.
284; Yager et al. 2006, p. 34). In one
Louisiana pinesnake occurrence record,
the snake was described as being ‘‘in
combat with hawk,’’ presumably a
predation attempt by the bird (Young
and Vandeventer 1988, p. 204; Pierce
2015, unpub. data). Some snake species
prey on other snakes, including
pinesnakes. The scarlet snake
(Cemophora coccinea) has been
documented to prey on northern
pinesnake eggs (Burger et al. 1992, p.
260). This species is found within the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69469
range of the Louisiana pinesnake. An
eastern coachwhip (Masticophis
flagellum flagellum), which is an
abundant species in the Louisiana
pinesnake’s range, was observed
attempting to predate a juvenile
northern pinesnake in North Carolina
(Beane 2014, p. 143). Speckled
kingsnakes (Lampropeltis getula
holbrooki) prey on pinesnakes (Ernst
and Ernst 2003, p. 279), and one caught
in a trap set for the Louisiana pinesnake
was observed to have recently
consumed another snake (Gregory 2015,
pers. comm.).
Pinesnakes also suffer from attacks by
domesticated mammals, including dogs
and cats (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284).
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.
Invasive feral hogs are known to
inhabit some Louisiana pinesnake
EOHAs (Gregory 2016, pers. comm.),
including the Catahoula Reintroduction
Feasibility EOHA (Nolde 2016, pers.
comm.), and are known to prey upon
vertebrate animals, including snakes
(Wood and Roark 1980, p. 508). They
will also consume eggs of groundnesting birds (Henry 1969, p. 170;
Timmons et al. 2011, pp. 1–2) and
reptiles (Elsey et al. 2012, pp. 210–213);
however, there is no direct evidence
that feral hogs prey on Louisiana
pinesnakes or their eggs. Therefore, at
this time, feral hogs are not known to be
a threat to the Louisiana pinesnake. The
Service and USFS are currently engaged
in feral hog population control
throughout Louisiana and Texas.
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). Red imported fire ants also
occur in areas occupied by Louisiana
pinesnakes and are potential predators
of Louisiana pinesnake eggs and
hatchlings (Parris et al. 2002, p. 514;
Beane 2014, p. 142); they have also been
documented predating snake eggs under
experimental conditions (Diffie et al.
2010, p. 294).
While there are no documented
occurrences of successful predation
(excessive or otherwise) specifically on
Louisiana pinesnakes, predation on
pinesnakes has been documented
(Burger et al. 1992, entire; Baxley 2007,
p. 17; Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284;
Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager et
al. 2006, p. 34). Even with the
assumption that the Louisiana
pinesnake is currently subject only to
natural, historical types and rates of
predation without additional pressure
from invasive predators (e.g., feral hogs,
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
69470
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
red imported fire ants), the synergistic
effect of that predation, together with
other known sources of unnatural
mortality on the currently reduced size
of remaining Louisiana pinesnake
populations, constitutes a threat to the
species.
Snake fungal disease (SFD) is an
emerging disease in certain populations
of wild snakes. It has been linked to
mortality events for other species,
including one juvenile broad-banded
watersnake (Nerodia fasciata confluens
[Blanchard]) in Louisiana (Glorioso et
al. 2016, p. N5). The causative fungus
(Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola) (Lorch et
al. 2015, p. 5; Allender et al. 2015, p.
6) and evidence of disease have been
documented in one Louisiana
pinesnake. Symptoms of SFD (e.g., skin
lesions) were found on one Louisiana
pinesnake; scale clippings from the
snake were analyzed and the causative
fungus was positively identified (Lorch
et al., in press). However, while SFD is
suspected of threatening small, isolated
populations of susceptible snake
species, we currently have no evidence
that SFD is negatively affecting
Louisiana pinesnake individuals or
populations. We know of no other
diseases that are affecting the species,
and, therefore, at this time, disease is
not considered a threat to the Louisiana
pinesnake.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
In Texas, the Louisiana pinesnake is
listed as State threatened, and
prohibited from unauthorized collection
(31 Texas Administrative Code [TAC]
sections 65.171–176). As of February
2013, unpermitted killing or removal of
native species of reptiles from the wild
is prohibited in Louisiana (Louisiana
Administrative Code, title 76, part XV,
Reptiles and Amphibians, chapter 1,
section 101.J.3(f)). Collection or
harassment of Louisiana pinesnake is
also specifically prohibited on USFS
properties in Louisiana (USDA Forest
Service 2002, p. 1). The capture,
removal, or killing of non-game wildlife
from Fort Polk and Peason Ridge (DOD
land) is prohibited without a special
permit (U.S. Department of the Army
2008, p. 6; U.S. Department of the Army
2013, p. 51). USFS’s land and resource
management plans (KNF, ANF), the
Army’s integrated natural resources
management plans (INRMPs) (Fort Polk
Main Post and Peason Ridge), and the
Louisiana pinesnake CCA all require
habitat management that is beneficial to
the Louisiana pinesnake for the
Kisatchie NF, Angelina NF, Fort Polk/
Vernon, and Peason Ridge populations
(see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range,’’ above). The
Service has never been informed of any
difficulties in the implementation or
enforcement of the existing regulatory
mechanisms that protect Louisiana
pinesnakes by TPWD, LDWF, or Federal
land managers, and no occurrences of
noncompliance, including killing of
snakes, have been reported to us (see
Factor E discussion, below).
Its habitat requirements being similar
to that of the red-cockaded woodpecker,
the Louisiana pinesnake receives
indirect protection of its habitat via the
protections of the Act provided for the
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker,
where it co-occurs with the redcockaded woodpecker on Federal lands.
These existing regulatory mechanisms
provide no protection from the threat of
Louisiana pinesnake habitat loss and
degradation on privately owned lands,
including those which contain the
Bienville and Scrappin’ Valley
populations of the Louisiana pinesnake.
Private landowners within some
occupied habitat of the Scrappin’ Valley
population have voluntarily committed
to agreements with the Service to
manage those areas with prescribed
burning and to promote the longleaf
pine ecosystem for 10 years.
In summary, although existing
regulatory mechanisms appear to be
adequate to prohibit direct harm to
individual Louisiana pinesnakes across
their entire range, and offer some
protection to habitat on publicly owned
land, they offer no protection to the
already degraded, fragmented, and
declining habitat that exists on private
lands.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
The historical loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of the longleaf pine
ecosystem across the entire historical
range of the Louisiana pinesnake have
resulted in six natural extant Louisiana
pinesnake populations that are isolated
and small. Habitat fragmentation and
degradation on lands in between extant
populations (Rudolph et al. 2006, p.
470) have likely reduced the potential
for successful dispersal among remnant
populations, as well as the potential for
natural recolonization of vacant or
extirpated habitat patches.
Small, isolated populations resulting
from habitat fragmentation are
vulnerable to the threats of decreased
demographic viability, increased
susceptibility of extirpation from
stochastic environmental factors (e.g.,
extreme weather events, epidemic
disease), and the potential loss of
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
valuable genetic resources resulting
from genetic isolation with subsequent
genetic drift, decreases in
heterozygosity, and potentially
inbreeding depression (Lacy 1987, p.
147). Kwiatkowski et al. (2014, pp. 15–
18) found that the wild populations of
the Louisiana pinesnake had lower
heterozygosity and higher inbreeding
than what is expected from a randomly
breeding population. Low genetic
diversity in small, isolated populations
has been associated with negative
effects on reproduction in snakes
(Madsen 1996, p. 116). Recovery of a
Louisiana pinesnake population from
the existing individuals within the
population following a decline is also
uncertain because of the species’ low
reproductive rate (smallest clutch size
[three to five] of any North American
colubrid snake) (Reichling 1990, p. 221).
Additionally, it is extremely unlikely
that habitat corridors linking extant
populations will be secured and
restored; therefore, the loss of any extant
population will be permanent without
future reintroduction and successful
recruitment of captive-bred individuals.
Roads surrounding and traversing the
remaining Louisiana pinesnake habitat
pose a direct threat to the species.
Population viability analyses have
shown that extinction probabilities for
some snake species may increase due to
road mortality (Row et al. 2007, p. 117).
In an assessment of data from radiotracked eastern indigo snakes
(Drymarchon corais couperi), 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).
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 roadrelated mortality (Rudolph et al. 1999,
p. 130). That study found that
populations of large snakes may be
depressed by 50 percent or more due to
proximity to roads, and measurable
impacts may extend up to
approximately 0.5 mi (850 m) from
roads. During a radio-telemetry study in
Louisiana and Texas, 3 of the 15 (20
percent) Louisiana pinesnake deaths
documented could be attributed to
vehicle mortality (Himes et al. 2002, p.
686). Approximately 16 percent (37 of
235) of all documented Louisiana
pinesnake occurrences were on roads,
and about half of those were dead
individuals (Pierce 2015, unpub. data).
During Duran’s (1998, pp. 6, 34) study
on Camp Shelby, Mississippi, 17
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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). In Louisiana
and Texas, areas with relatively large
areas of protected suitable habitat and
controlled access such as Fort Polk,
KNF, and ANF, have several roads
located within Louisiana pinesnake
occupied habitat, and there have been a
total of eight known mortalities due to
vehicles in those areas (Pierce 2015,
unpub. data).
In addition, Dodd et al. (2004, p. 619)
determined that roads fragment habitat
for wildlife. 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, and was
likely due to mortality and avoidance of
roads (Clark et al. 2010, pp. 1059, 1067).
Malicious killing of snakes by humans
is a significant issue in snake
conservation because snakes arouse fear
and resentment from the general public
(Bonnet et al. 1999, p. 40). Intentional
killing of black pinesnakes by humans
has been documented (Duran 1998, p.
34; Lyman et al. 2008, p. 34). The
intentional killing of Louisiana
pinesnakes by humans is not unlikely,
but because of the species’ relatively
low abundance and secretive nature, it
likely happens very infrequently and,
therefore, is not considered a threat at
this time.
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, the commonly used
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; Zappalorti 2016, p.
19). 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 Louisiana
pinesnakes, it has been demonstrated to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
have negative impacts on other
terrestrial snake species of all sizes and
thus poses a potential threat to the
Louisiana pinesnake when used in its
habitat.
Exotic plant species degrade habitat
for wildlife, and in the Southeast,
longleaf pine forest associations are
susceptible to invasion by the exotic
cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). That
plant species 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 for some
animals, and forms thick mats that
restrict movement of ground-dwelling
wildlife; it also burns at high
temperatures that can kill or injure
native seedlings and mature trees
(DeBerry and Pashley 2008, p. 74;
Alabama Cooperative Extension System
2005, p. 1). Its value as forage for pocket
gophers is not known. Currently,
cogongrass is limited to only a few
locations in Louisiana and Texas, and is
not considered a threat to the Louisiana
pinesnake. However, cogongrass has
significantly invaded States to the east
of Louisiana, such as Alabama and
Mississippi (Alabama Cooperative
Extension System 2005, p. 1–4; USDA
NRCS Plant Database 2016, p. 2), where
it occurs in pine forests on Camp Shelby
(Yager et al. 2005, p. 23) potentially
impacting the habitat of black
pinesnakes found there.
The effects of climate change are
predicted to have profound impacts on
humans and wildlife in nearly every
part of the world (International Panel on
Climate Change [IPCC] 2014, p. 6). One
downscaled projection for future
precipitation change within the
historical range of the Louisiana
pinesnake varies between increasing
and decreasing, but the average change
is between 0.1 in (0.254 cm) drier and
1.1 in (2.8 cm) drier from 2020 to 2039
(Pinemap 2016, entire). Precipitation is
projected to decrease even more for the
20 years following 2039. Additionally,
the average summer temperature in the
species’ historical range is expected to
increase by 2.7–3.5 degrees Fahrenheit
(Pinemap 2016, entire). Increasing
temperature and decreasing
precipitation could potentially affect the
pine forest habitat of the Louisiana
pinesnake due to drought stress on
trees, and the snake itself may be
susceptible to injury from higher
temperatures or from decreased water
availability. However, the Service is not
aware of any information that would
substantiate those effects or how the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69471
Louisiana pinesnake might adapt to
those potential environmental stressors.
Effects of native phytophagous (planteating) insect species on Louisiana
pinesnake habitat may increase due to
the effects of climate change. In a study
that modeled the effects of the southern
pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis)
related to environmental variables,
southern pine beetle outbreak risk and
subsequent damage to southern pine
forests were substantially increased
when considered for four separate
climate change scenarios (Gan 2004, p.
68). In the openings left in the beetledamaged pine forests, hardwoods may
become the canopy dominants, and
invasive vegetation may be more likely
to colonize (Waldrop 2010, p. 4;
Coleman et al. 2008, pp. 1409–1410),
both of which can decrease the amount
of herbaceous vegetation that the
Louisiana pinesnake’s primary prey
(Baird’s pocket gopher) depends upon
for food.
The Service considers the effects of
increased temperatures, decreased
precipitation, and increased insect
impacts on the Louisiana pinesnake and
its habitat due to climate change to be
a potential threat in the future; however,
because of the uncertainty of the rate,
scale, and location of impacts due to
climate effects, climate change is not
currently considered a threat to the
species.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Threats
Under Factor E
Efforts to reduce Factor E threats
would have to address increasing the
resiliency of individual populations by
increasing abundance and decreasing
mortality, or preferably both. Currently,
there are ongoing efforts to reduce at
least some types of mortality and to
study the potential of increasing the
number of wild Louisiana pinesnakes
via introduction of captive-bred
individuals.
As discussed above under Population
Estimates and Status, efforts to
reintroduce Louisiana pinesnakes have
been conducted only at the KNF
Catahoula District site, where the
Louisiana pinesnake is not known to
have historically occurred. So far, there
have been no attempts to augment
existing populations of Louisiana
pinesnakes with captive-bred
individuals. Reintroduction, with
improved success, done in multiple
populations where appropriate habitat
is available, has the potential to
eventually increase the number of
individuals and populations, increase
genetic heterozygosity, and alleviate
presumed inbreeding depression in the
populations, making them more
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
69472
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
resistant to threats described for Factor
E.
As outlined in the CCA, the U.S.
Army has committed to avoiding use
erosion control blankets, and USFS is
committed to trying to locate ATV
routes outside of the boundaries of
Louisiana pinesnake occupied habitat.
Additionally, some improved roads on
National Forests are also closed to the
public during certain times of the year
(e.g., September to February at ANF
[U.S. Forest Service 2015, entire]),
which should reduce the number of
pinesnakes potentially killed by vehicle
traffic during those times.
In summary, a variety of natural or
manmade factors, alone and in
combination with other factors,
currently threaten the Louisiana
pinesnake. Fire suppression has been
considered a primary reason for
continuing degradation of the pine
forests in Louisiana and Texas. Roads
and rights-of-way, and fragmented
habitat, isolate populations beyond the
dispersal range of the species. Mortality
caused by vehicle strikes is a threat
because there are many roads bisecting
Louisiana pinesnake habitat, and the
remaining populations appear to be
small and declining. The species’ small
clutch size may limit its ability to
effectively counteract mortality. Other
potential threats to Louisiana
pinesnakes include SFD, erosion control
blankets, insect and invasive vegetation
effects on habitat, and malicious killing
by humans. Overall, the threats under
Factor E may act together and in
combination with threats listed above
under Factors A through D and increase
their severity.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the Louisiana
pinesnake. Threats to the six known
remaining Louisiana pinesnake
populations exist primarily from: (1)
Historical and continuing habitat loss
and fragmentation (Factor A) primarily
through land-use changes or
degradation caused by fire suppression;
and (2) synergistic effects from mortality
caused by vehicle strikes and by
predators acting on vulnerable, reduced
populations (Factor E and Factor C).
Portions of habitat occupied by two
Louisiana pinesnake populations on
private land are currently being
managed beneficially for the species
(some through formal agreements with
the Service), and conservation efforts on
Federal lands, such as KNF and ANF,
and U.S. Army lands at Fort Polk and
Peason Ridge through a CCA in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
existence since 2003, have been
extensive and successful in restoring
suitable Louisiana pinesnake habitat.
However, the lack of a definitive
positive response by the species’
populations indicates that habitat
restoration may take much longer than
expected to increase snake abundance,
especially when they are subjected to
negative effects associated with small
populations of animals (i.e., reduced
heterozygosity, inbreeding depression)
and mortality pressure from vehicles
and predators.
A captive-breeding population of
Louisiana pinesnakes is also being
maintained across 18 AZA accredited
institutions and 2 non-AZA partner
institutions. This captive population,
established in 1984, has been managed
under an AZA Species Survival Plan
(SSP) since 2000. As of March 2016, this
captive-breeding population consists of
111 individuals (51 males, 53 females,
and 7 unsexed). Since 2010, this
population has provided 77 captivebred Louisiana pinesnakes for release
into the wild at the Catahoula Ranger
District of the KNF. This reintroduction
feasibility effort has shown that at least
one of the 77 captive-bred Louisiana
pinesnakes has survived for at least 4
years after release in optimal habitat.
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 Louisiana pinesnake
meets the definition of a threatened
species based on the severity and
immediacy of threats currently
impacting all populations of the species
throughout all of its range. The species’
overall range has been significantly
reduced, populations have apparently
been extirpated, and the remaining
habitat (on private lands) and
populations are threatened by factors
acting in combination to reduce the
overall viability of the species.
We find that the Louisiana pinesnake
does not meet the definition of an
endangered species due to the existence
of multiple populations within the
species’ range; the extensive habitat
restoration and management efforts to
benefit the species ongoing within
occupied areas currently being managed
by the USFS and U.S. Army, as well as
similar efforts ongoing (albeit generally
smaller and to a lesser extent) within
occupied areas currently being managed
on private lands; and reintroduction of
captive-bred animals into the wild,
which has shown some limited success
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(see Catahoula Reintroduction
Feasibility EOHA, p. 32).
Since completion of the CCA in 2003,
beneficial forest management activities
conducted by USFS and the U.S. Army
have been formally dedicated to
conservation of the Louisiana
pinesnake. Extensive habitat restoration
efforts have occurred on USFS and U.S.
Army lands where the species occurs,
and those populations are no longer
threatened by continuing habitat loss.
The resulting increases in snake
abundance may not be reflected in
captures by traps currently in operation
because some newly-created suitable
habitat may be in areas farther from
current trap locations. While it is
difficult to show an increase in
population size with a species that is so
difficult to detect, it is reasonable to
assume that these populations will
benefit from improved habitat
management over time.
The Louisiana pinesnake captivebreeding population provides some
capability for population augmentation
or re-establishing populations in areas
with suitable habitat through the SSP.
The goals of the SSP are to: Maintain an
assurance colony for wild Louisiana
pinesnake populations, preserve or
increase genetic heterozygosity into the
future, preserve representative genetic
integrity of wild populations, and
provide individuals as needed for
research and repopulation for the
conservation of wild populations. While
reintroduction as a conservation tool is
not universally accepted as effective for
all animals, and the results of current
reintroduction pilot efforts remain
uncertain, the number (77) of captivebred Louisiana pinesnakes released into
the wild since 2010 demonstrates that
captive-propagation efforts are
successful, and provides the
opportunity for reintroduction/
augmentation to benefit the
conservation of the species.
The Louisiana pinesnake is likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable
future because the remaining
populations are small, isolated, subject
to ongoing natural and unnatural
mortality pressure, and to date have not
shown a definitive positive response to
habitat restoration. The species
currently has almost no potential for
natural recolonization between
populations, and multiple significantly
affected populations may be unable to
recover even with the restoration of
appropriate habitat. Half (three) of the
known natural extant populations (i.e.,
Kisatchie, Scrappin’ Valley, and
Angelina EOHAs) have had no captures
in several years and it is likely that they
will be considered extirpated in 7 years
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
or less based on our population
determination criteria, unless
occurrences are documented in those
areas before then.
Future conservation of the two extant
populations on private lands, which can
change ownership and management
practice, is uncertain. Portions of the
occupied habitat on these private lands
are being managed beneficially for
Louisiana pinesnake, but there is no
permanent commitment from the
current landowners to continue such
efforts; the other portions with suitable
or preferable soils are generally
unsuitable habitat because of the current
vegetation structure. The Scrappin’
Valley population is at risk of being
considered extirpated, as discussed
immediately above. The Bienville
population is one of the two largest
populations; should the ownership of
those lands change or the commitment
to current habitat management efforts on
lands supporting the population cease,
it is likely that this large population
would decline and could become
extirpated within the foreseeable future.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
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 the Louisiana 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).
Conclusion
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we propose to list the
Louisiana pinesnake as threatened in
accordance with sections 3(20) and
4(a)(1) of the Act. The six known extant
populations are all relatively small, and
all are subject to one or more of the
continuing threats discussed above,
making them all vulnerable to
extirpation. We find that an endangered
species status is not appropriate for the
Louisiana pinesnake because while we
find the threats to the species to be
significant, ongoing, and occurring
mostly range-wide, multiple
populations continue to occur within
the species’ range, and all of the
populations’ occupied habitat or
portions of it (including two of the
largest populations) are currently being
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
managed to provide more suitable
habitat for the species. The two largest
populations also have had relatively
consistent numbers of detections of
individuals in the last 12 years. Captivepropagation efforts have been
demonstrated to be successful, and
while still unproven at this point,
reintroduction pilot efforts provide the
opportunity for efforts to re-establish
new populations or augment existing
populations to benefit the conservation
of the species.
Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines
critical habitat as: (i) The specific areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species, at the time it is listed on
which are found those physical or
biological features (I) essential to the
conservation of the species and (II)
which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and
implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that we designate
critical habitat at the time a species is
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state
that designation of critical habitat is not
prudent when one or both of the
following situations exist: (1) The
species is threatened by taking or other
activity and the identification of critical
habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species; or (2)
such designation of critical habitat
would not be beneficial to the species.
As discussed above (see Factor B
discussion), there is currently no
imminent threat of take attributed to
collection or vandalism for this species,
and identification and mapping of
critical habitat is not expected to initiate
any such threat. In the absence of
finding that the designation of critical
habitat would increase threats to a
species, if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation, a finding
that designation is prudent is warranted.
Here, the potential benefits of
designation include: (1) Triggering
consultation under section 7 of the Act,
in new areas for action in which there
may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for
example, it is unoccupied; (2) focusing
conservation activities on the most
essential features and areas; (3)
providing educational benefits to State
or county governments or private
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
69473
entities; and (4) preventing inadvertent
harm to the species. Accordingly,
because we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat will not
likely increase the degree of threat to the
species and may provide some measure
of benefit, we determine that
designation of critical habitat is prudent
for the Louisiana pinesnake.
Having determined that designation is
prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act
we must find whether critical habitat for
the species is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following
situations exist: (i) Information
sufficient to perform required analyses
of the impacts of the designation is
lacking, or (ii) the biological needs of
the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an
area as critical habitat.
As discussed above, we have
reviewed the available information
pertaining to the biological needs of the
species and habitat characteristics
where this species is located. On the
basis of a review of available
information, we find that critical habitat
for Louisiana pinesnake is not
determinable because the specific
information sufficient to perform the
required analysis of the impacts of the
designation is currently lacking, such as
information on areas to be proposed for
designation and the potential economic
impacts associated with designation of
these areas. We are in the process of
obtaining this information. We will
make a determination on critical habitat
no later than 1 year following any final
listing determination.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species 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 other
countries and calls for recovery actions
to be carried out for 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
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
69474
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act calls for 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, selfsustaining, 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 also identifies recovery
criteria for review of when a species
may be ready for downlisting or
delisting, and methods for monitoring
recovery progress. Recovery plans also
establish a framework for agencies to
coordinate their recovery efforts and
provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery
teams (composed of species experts,
Federal and State agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to
develop recovery plans. If the species is
listed, the recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, and the final recovery
plan would be available on our Web site
(https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or
from our Louisiana Ecological Services
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 ranges 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. If this species is listed,
funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources,
including Federal budgets, State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
programs, and cost share grants for nonFederal landowners, the academic
community, and nongovernmental
organizations. In addition, pursuant to
section 6 of the Act, the States of
Louisiana and Texas would be eligible
for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection or recovery of the Louisiana
pinesnake. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: https://
www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Louisiana pinesnake is
only proposed for listing under the Act
at this time, please let us know if you
are interested in participating in
conservation efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit
any new information on this species
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 proposed or listed as an endangered
or threatened species and with respect
to its critical habitat, if any is
designated. Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision
of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part
402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species or destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its
critical habitat, the responsible Federal
agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species’ 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 U.S. Forest
Service and the Department of Defense.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to threatened wildlife. The prohibitions
of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.31, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (which includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to attempt any of these) threatened
wildlife within the United States or on
the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful
to import; export; deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial
activity; or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any
listed species. It is also illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply
to employees of the Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, other
Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
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 species, for economic
hardship, for zoological exhibition, 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
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of the species proposed for
listing. Based on the best available
information, the following activities
may potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling,
possessing, selling, delivering, carrying,
or transporting of the Louisiana
pinesnake, including interstate
transportation across State lines and
import or export across 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 animal
species that compete with or prey upon
the Louisiana pinesnake.
(3) Introduction of invasive plant
species that contribute to the
degradation of the natural habitat of the
Louisiana pinesnake.
(4) Unauthorized destruction or
modification of suitable occupied
Louisiana pinesnake habitat that results
in long-term damage to or alteration of
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
69475
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules
desirable herbaceous vegetation or the
destruction of Baird’s pocket gopher
burrow systems used as refugia by the
Louisiana pinesnake, or that impairs in
other ways the species’ essential
behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering.
(5) Unauthorized use of insecticides
and rodenticides that could impact
small mammal prey populations,
through either unintended or direct
impacts within habitat occupied by
Louisiana pinesnakes.
(6) Unauthorized actions that would
result in the destruction of eggs or cause
mortality or injury to hatchling,
juvenile, or adult Louisiana pinesnakes.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Louisiana Ecological Services
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
Common name
*
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (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).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Louisiana
Ecological Services Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Scientific name
*
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the
Louisiana Ecological Services Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
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.
2. Amend § 17.11 paragraph (h) by
adding an entry for ‘‘Pinesnake,
Louisiana’’ to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical
order under REPTILES to read as
follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
Where listed
*
*
Status
*
*
*
Listing citations and applicable
rules
*
*
REPTILES
*
*
Pinesnake, Louisiana .................
*
*
Pituophis ruthveni .....................
*
*
Dated: September 26, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–24113 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am]
*
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–BA79
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Black Warrior Waterdog
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Oct 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
*
*
[Federal Register citation of
the final rule]
T
*
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0031;
4500030113]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
Wherever found ........................
Sfmt 4702
*
*
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the Black
Warrior waterdog (Necturus
alabamensis) under the Endangered
Species Act (Act). In total,
approximately 1,073 river kilometers
(669 river miles) in Blount, Cullman,
Etowah, Fayette, Jefferson, Lawrence,
Marshall, Tuscaloosa, Walker, and
Winston Counties, Alabama, fall within
the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation. We also announce
the availability of a draft economic
analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical
habitat designation. Elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, we
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM
06OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69454-69475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24113]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2016-0121; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BB46
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Louisiana Pinesnake
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni), a reptile species
from Louisiana and Texas, as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would
extend the Act's protections to this species.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 5, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 21, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2016-0121,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2016-0121, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad S. Rieck, Acting Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana
[[Page 69455]]
Ecological Services Office, 646 Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400, Lafayette,
LA; telephone 337-291-3101; facsimile 337-291-3139. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a
proposed rule in the Federal Register and make a determination on our
proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designations of critical
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. We have determined
that designating critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake is
prudent, but not determinable at this time, because the specific
information sufficient to perform the required analysis of the impacts
of the designation is currently lacking, such as information on areas
to be proposed for designation and the potential economic impacts
associated with designation of these areas.
This rule proposes to list the Louisiana pinesnake as a threatened
species. The Louisiana pinesnake is a candidate species for which we
have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and
threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which
development of a listing rule had been, until now, precluded by other
higher priority listing activities.
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 Louisiana pinesnake is
threatened primarily because of the past and continuing loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of habitat in association with
incompatible silviculture, fire suppression, road and right-of-way
construction, and urbanization (Factor A), and the magnified
vulnerability of all the small, isolated, genetically compromised
extant populations to mortality from vehicle strikes and from predators
(Factors C and E).
We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment on this listing proposal.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The Louisiana pinesnake's biology, range, and population
trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations
that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) Information on activities that might warrant being exempted
under section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Service is
considering proposing such measures before the final listing
determination is published, and will evaluate ideas provided by the
public in considering whether such exemptions are necessary and
advisable for the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date
specified in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on
this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
[[Page 69456]]
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are seeking the
expert opinions of six appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in
Louisiana pinesnake biology, habitat, physical or biological factors,
etc., and they are currently reviewing the status information in the
proposed rule, which will inform our determination. We invite comment
from the peer reviewers during this public comment period.
Previous Federal Actions
We identified the Louisiana pinesnake (as Pituophis melanoleucus
ruthveni) as a Category 2 candidate species in the December 30, 1982,
Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for Listing as Endangered or Threatened
Species (47 FR 58454). Category 2 candidates were defined as taxa for
which we had information that proposed listing was possibly
appropriate, but for which substantial data on biological vulnerability
and threats were not available to support a proposed rule at the time.
The species remained so designated in subsequent annual candidate
notices of review (CNORs) (50 FR 37958, September 18, 1985; 54 FR 554,
January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, November
15, 1994). In the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued
the designation of Category 2 species as candidates; therefore, the
Louisiana pinesnake was no longer a candidate species.
We added the Louisiana pinesnake (as Pituophis melanoleucus) to the
candidate list in 1999 (64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999). Currently,
candidate species are defined as plants and animals for which the
Service has sufficient information on their biological status and
threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Act, but
for which development of a listing rule is precluded by other higher
priority listing actions. The Louisiana pinesnake was assigned a
listing priority number (LPN) of 5, based on the immediacy and
magnitude of threats to this species.
In the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR 54808), we recognized the
Louisiana pinesnake as Pituophis ruthveni and retained an LPN of 5 for
the species. The Louisiana pinesnake was included with an LPN of 5 in
our subsequent annual CNORs through 2005 (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002;
69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005). In 2006, we
changed the Louisiana pinesnake's LPN to 8, based on threats of
moderate to low magnitude that were imminent (71 FR 53756; September
12, 2006). In 2007, we again changed the Louisiana pinesnake's LPN,
reassigning it an LPN of 5, based on non-imminent, high-magnitude
threats (72 FR 69034; December 6, 2007). The Louisiana pinesnake was
included with an LPN of 5 in our subsequent annual CNORs through 2015
(73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR
69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994,
November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450,
December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015).
In August 2000, the Service received a petition to list the
Louisiana pinesnake as endangered under the Act. No new information was
provided in the petition, and we had already found the species
warranted listing, so no further action was taken on the petition.
On May 10, 2011, the Service announced a work plan to restore
biological priorities and certainty to the Service's listing process.
As part of an agreement with one of the agency's most frequent
plaintiffs, the Service filed the work plan with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia. The work plan enabled the Service
to, over a period of 6 years, systematically review and address the
needs of more than 250 species listed within the 2010 CNOR, including
the Louisiana pinesnake, to determine if these species should be added
to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
This work plan enabled the Service to again prioritize its workload
based on the needs of candidate species, while also providing State
wildlife agencies, stakeholders, and other partners with clarity and
certainty about when listing determinations will be made. On July 12,
2011, the Service reached an agreement with another frequent plaintiff
group and further strengthened the work plan, which allowed the agency
to focus its resources on the species most in need of protection under
the Act. These agreements were approved on September 9, 2011.
Therefore, the timing of this proposed listing is, in part, an outcome
of the work plan.
Background
Species Description and Taxonomy
Pinesnakes (genus Pituophis) are large, short-tailed, non-venomous,
powerful constricting snakes with keeled scales, a single anal plate
(the scale covering the cloaca), and disproportionately small heads
(Conant and Collins 1991, pp. 201-202). Their snouts are pointed, and
they have a large rostral (tip of the snout) scale, both presumably
contributing to the snakes good burrowing ability. The Louisiana
pinesnake (P. ruthveni) has a buff to yellowish background color with
dark brown to russet dorsal blotches covering its total length
(Vandeventer and Young 1989, p. 35; Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203).
The belly of the Louisiana pinesnake is unmarked or boldly patterned
with black markings. It is variable in both coloration and pattern, but
a characteristic feature is that the body markings on its back are
always conspicuously different at opposite ends of its body. Blotches
run together near the head, often obscuring the background color, and
then become more separate and well-defined towards the tail. Typically,
there are no noticeable head markings, although rarely a light bar or
stripe may occur behind the eye. The length of adult Louisiana
pinesnakes ranges from 48 to 56 inches (in) (122 to 142 centimeters
(cm)) (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203). The largest reported specimen
was 5.8 feet (ft) (178 cm) long (Davis 1971, p. 1; Conant and Collins
1991, p. 203).
The Louisiana pinesnake is a member of the Class Reptilia, Order
Squamata, Suborder Serpentes, and Family Colubridae. Stull (1929, pp.
2-3) formally described the Louisiana pinesnake as a pinesnake
subspecies (P. melanoleucus ruthveni) based on two specimens taken in
Rapides Parish, Louisiana. Reichling (1995, p. 192) reassessed this
snake's taxonomic status and concluded that the Louisiana pinesnake was
geographically isolated and phenotypically distinct, and thus a valid
evolutionary species. The Louisiana pinesnake has subsequently been
accepted as a full species, P. ruthveni (Crother 2000, p. 69;
Rodriguez-Robles and Jesus-Escobar 2000, p. 46; Collins and Taggert
2002, p. 33). We have carefully reviewed this taxonomic research for
the Louisiana pinesnake and conclude that the species is a valid taxon.
Habitat
Louisiana pinesnakes are known from and associated with a disjunct
portion of the historic longleaf-dominated (hereafter, ``longleaf'')
pine (Pinus palustris) ecosystem that existed in west-central Louisiana
and east Texas (Reichling 1995, p. 186). Longleaf pine forests (which
are dominated by longleaf, but may also contain other
[[Page 69457]]
overstory species such as loblolly and shortleaf pine and sparse
hardwoods) have the most species-rich herpetofaunal community compared
to other similarly sized and located pine forest habitat in North
America, and harbor more species that are specialists of that habitat
(Guyer and Bailey 1993, p. 142). Early accounts of Louisiana pinesnake
collections indicate a strong affinity for longleaf pine habitat, as
most reports indicated the snakes were collected within or adjacent to
longleaf pine stands (Fugler 1955, p. 24; Conant 1956, pp. 5, 19, 24;
Walker 1965, p. 160; Thomas et al 1976, p. 253; Jennings and Fritts
1983, p. 3; Wright and Wright 1994, pp. 622, 623; Jordan 1998, p. 11).
The vast majority of natural longleaf pine habitat has been lost or
degraded due to conversion to extensive pine plantations and
suppression of the historic fire regime. As a result, current Louisiana
pinesnake habitat generally consists of sandy, well-drained soils in
open canopy pine forest, which may include species such as longleaf,
shortleaf, slash, or loblolly pines with a sparse midstory, and well-
developed herbaceous ground cover dominated by grasses and forbs (Young
and Vandeventer 1988, p. 204; Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117).
Abundant ground-layer herbaceous vegetation is important for the
Louisiana pinesnake's primary prey, the Bairds pocket gopher (Geomys
breviceps), which constitutes 75 percent of the Louisiana pinesnake's
estimated total prey biomass (Rudolph et al 2012, p. 243). Baird's
pocket gopher depends mostly on various plant parts of a variety of
herbaceous species (Pennoyer 1932, pp. 128-129; Sulentich et al. 1991,
p. 3). Pocket gopher abundance is associated with a low density of
trees, an open canopy, and a small amount of woody vegetation cover,
which allow greater sunlight and more herbaceous forage for pocket
gophers (Himes 1998, p. 43; Melder and Cooper 2015, p. 75).
Bairds pocket gophers also create the burrow systems in which
Louisiana pinesnakes are most frequently found (Rudolph and Conner
1996, p. 2; Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Himes 1998, p. 42;
Rudolph et al. 1998, p. 146; Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 62; Himes et al.
2006, p. 107), and the snakes use these burrow systems as nocturnal
refugia and hibernacula, and to escape from fire (Rudolph and Burgdorf
1997, p. 117; Rudolph et al. 1998, p. 147; Ealy et al. 2004, p. 386;
Rudolph et al. 2007 p. 561; Pierce et al. 2014, p. 140). From 74
percent to greater than 80 percent of radio-tagged Louisiana pinesnake
relocations have been underground in pocket gopher burrow systems (Ealy
et al. 2004, p. 389; Himes et al. 2006, p. 107). In Louisiana, habitat
selection by Louisiana pinesnakes seems to be determined by the
abundance and distribution of pocket gophers and their burrow systems
(Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). Active Louisiana pinesnakes
occasionally use debris, logs, and low vegetation as temporary surface
shelters (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Himes 1998, p. 26; Ealy et
al. 2004, p. 386); however, most Louisiana pinesnakes disturbed on the
surface retreat to nearby burrows (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117).
Louisiana pinesnakes also minimally use decayed or burned stumps, or
nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) burrows as underground
refugia (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 389).
Baird's pocket gophers appear to prefer well-drained, sandy soils
with low clay content in the topsoil (Davis et al. 1938, p. 414).
Whether by choice for burrowing efficiency or in pursuit of Baird's
pocket gophers (or likely both), Louisiana pinesnakes also occur most
often in sandy soils (Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152). In Wagner et al.'s
study, modelling of Louisiana pinesnake habitat revealed that in
addition to suitable forest structure and herbaceous vegetation,
specific soil characteristics are an important determinant of Louisiana
pinesnake inhabitance. Wagner et al. (2014, entire) developed a
Landscape-scaled Resource Selection Functions Model of Potential
Louisiana Pinesnake Habitat (LRSF-Model) using available Louisiana
pinesnake location data with county and parish soil survey data as
independent variables to more accurately identify the percentage of
certain soil characteristics that were selected from what was available
in the landscape, indicating preference. The snakes were found to
prefer soils with high sand content and a low water table (Wagner et
al. 2014, p. 152). In a separate modelling study, using essentially the
same dataset but a different study method, Duran (2010, p. 11) also
found that Louisiana pinesnakes prefer sandy, well-drained soils,
confirming the validity of the LRSF-Model, originally proposed in 2009
(Wagner et al. 2009, entire).
The fire-climax park-like conditions of typical Louisiana pinesnake
habitat are created and maintained by recurrent, low-intensity ground
fires that occur approximately every 3 to 5 years. In the absence of
recurrent fire, growth of woody midstory species is increased, and
conditions supporting the Louisiana pinesnake's prey species are lost
due to shading of herbaceous vegetation. Using radio-telemetry in
Bienville Parish, Louisiana, Himes et al. (2006, p. 107) recorded wild-
caught (i.e., not captive-bred) Louisiana pinesnakes (nine adults and
one juvenile) most frequently in pine forests (56 percent), followed by
pine plantation (23 percent) and clear-cuts (9 percent). It should be
noted, however, that across all sites, snakes appeared to select areas
with few large trees (7 to 9 trees per plot) that were approximately
0.1 ac (0.04 ha) in size, resulting in less canopy closure and more
light penetration, which supports increased understory vegetation
growth and therefore more pocket gophers (Himes et al. 2006, pp. 108-
110; 113) regardless of the type of wooded land. In a 2-year (2004-
2005) trapping study of three locations (two were mixed long leaf/
loblolly pine stands being managed specifically for Louisiana pinesnake
habitat, and one was a loblolly pine plantation managed for fiber tree
production), Reichling et al. (2008, p. 4) found the same number of
Louisiana pinesnakes in the pine plantation (n=2) as one of the mixed
pine stands managed for Louisiana pinesnake (n=2); however, of all the
three trapping locations studied, the greatest number of snakes was
found in the second mixed pine stand managed for Louisiana pinesnake
(n=8). In addition, the snakes found in pine plantation conditions by
Reichling et al. appeared thin or emaciated (indicating they probably
had not fed recently), and were not recaptured in that habitat, which
may have indicated they were moving through these sites (Reichling et
al. 2008, pp. 9, 14). Further trapping at the same sites since the
study has produced 17 and 9 more Louisiana pinesnakes for the first and
second beneficially managed stands, respectively, and only 3 more for
the plantation site (Pierce 2015, unpub. data).
Life History
Louisiana pinesnakes appear to be most active March through May and
September through November (especially November), and least active
December through February and during the summer (especially August)
(Himes 1998, p. 12). During the winter, Louisiana pinesnakes use
Baird's pocket gopher burrows as hibernacula (Rudolph et al. 2007 p.
561; Pierce et al. 2014, p. 140). In a study conducted by Pierce et al.
(2014, pp. 140, 142), the species did not use burrows communally, and
they did not exhibit fidelity to hibernacula sites in successive years.
Louisiana pinesnakes observed in east Texas appear to be semi-fossorial
and essentially diurnal, and were also relatively immobile (i.e., moved
less than 33 ft (10 meters (m)) on
[[Page 69458]]
54.5 percent of days monitored (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 391). In one
study, they spent, on average, 59 percent of daylight hours (sunrise to
sunset) below ground, and moved an average of 541 ft (163 m) per day
(Ealy et al. 2004, p. 390). Adult males in a Louisiana study by Himes
et al. moved an average of 495 ft (150 m) daily (longest = 3,802 ft
(1,159 m)), adult females 348 ft (106 m), and juveniles 112 ft (34 m)
(Himes 1998, p. 18). Himes et al. (2006, p. 107) documented an average
home range size of 82 ac (33.2 ha) (range 16 to 267 ac (6.5 to 108 ha))
for the Louisiana pinesnake. Himes et al. also found that adult males
had larger average home ranges (145 acres (ac) (58.7 hectares (ha)))
than females (25 ac (14 ha)) and juveniles (13 ac (5.5 ha)) (Himes
1998, p. 18).
Baird's pocket gopher is the primary prey of the Louisiana
pinesnake (Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 58), comprising an estimated 53
percent of available individual prey records (75 percent of total prey
biomass) (Rudolph et al. 2012, p. 243). The Louisiana pinesnake
exhibits specialized prey handling behavior for the burrow-dwelling
pocket gopher not common among constricting snake species (Rudolph et
al. 2002, pp. 59-61). The Louisiana pinesnake is also known to eat
eastern moles (Scalopus aquaticus), cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus),
deer mice (Peromyscus sp.), harvest mice (Reithrodontomys sp.), and
turtle (probably Trachemys scripta) eggs (Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 59;
Rudolph et al. 2012, p. 244).
Louisiana pinesnake sexual maturity is attained at an approximate
length of 4 ft (120 cm) and an age of approximately 3 years (Himes et
al. 2002, p. 686). The Louisiana pinesnake is an egg-layer (oviparous),
with a gestation period of about 21 days (Reichling 1988, p. 77),
followed by 60 days of incubation. Having the smallest clutch size
(three to five) of any North American colubrid snake, the Louisiana
pinesnake exhibits a remarkably low reproductive rate (Reichling 1990,
p. 221). However, the Louisiana pinesnake produces the largest eggs
(generally 12 cm (5 in) long and 5 cm (2 in) wide) of any U.S. snake
(Reichling 1990, p. 221). It also produces the largest hatchlings
reported for any North American snake, ranging 18 to 22 in (45 to 55
cm) in length, and up to 3.77 ounces (oz) (107 grams (g)) in weight
(Reichling 1990, p. 221). No Louisiana pinesnake nests have been
located in the wild. Captive Louisiana pinesnakes can live over 30
years, but females have not reproduced beyond the age of 18 years
(Reichling and Schad 2010, p. 5).
Historical and Current Distribution
The Louisiana pinesnake historically occurred in portions of
northwest and west-central Louisiana and extreme east-central Texas
(Conant 1956, p. 19). This area coincides with an isolated, and the
most westerly, occurrence of the longleaf pine ecosystem and is
situated west of the Mississippi River. Most of the sandy, longleaf
pine-dominated savannahs historically inhabited by the Louisiana
pinesnake had been lost by the mid-1930s (Bridges and Orzell 1989, p.
246; Frost 1993, p. 30). After virgin longleaf pine was cut, it rarely
regenerated naturally. In some parts of the Southeast, free-ranging
hogs depredated the longleaf pine seedlings, and fire suppression
allowed shrubs, hardwoods, and loblolly pine to dominate (Frost 1993,
pp. 34-36). The naturally maintained open structure and abundant
herbaceous vegetation characteristic of the historical longleaf pine
forests was diminished or lost, and, therefore, it is likely that
undocumented populations of this species historically occurred but were
lost before 1930.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Southern Research Station (SRS),
Wildlife Habitat and Silviculture Laboratory in Nacogdoches, Texas, has
compiled and maintains a historical records database of all known
Louisiana pinesnake locations (excluding telemetry data). According to
that database, 267 occurrence records of 235 individual Louisiana
pinesnakes have been verified from 1927 through December 21, 2015
(excluding reintroductions), all from Louisiana and Texas (Pierce 2015,
unpub. data). By comparison, for the Florida pinesnake (Pituophis
melanoleucus mugitus), a species with a four State range (Ernst and
Ernst 2003, p. 281), there are 874 records of occurrence through 2015
in the State of Florida alone (Enge 2016, pers. comm.). Similarly,
there are approximately 395 total records of black pinesnakes
(Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) since 1932 (Hinderliter 2016,
pers.comm.).
Based on the Louisiana pinesnake database, there are records from
seven parishes in Louisiana (Beauregard, Bienville, Jackson,
Natchitoches, Rapides, Sabine, and Vernon) and 11 counties in Texas
(Angelina, Hardin, Jasper, Nacogdoches, Newton, Polk, Sabine, San
Augustine, Trinity, Tyler, and Wood) (Figure 1). Previous Louisiana
pinesnake reports that are not included in this database are: single
records for Calcasieu and Jefferson Davis Parishes in Louisiana
(Williams and Cordes 1996, p. 35), considered suspect (Pierce 2015,
unpub. data; Thomas et al. 1976, pp. 253-254; Walls 2008, pers. comm.);
a single record from Cherokee County, Texas, which was erroneous
(Pierce 2009, pers. comm.); single records from Montgomery and Walker
Counties in Texas reclassified as Pituophis catenifer (Pierce 2008,
pers. comm.); two records from Rapides Parish, Louisiana, and one from
Caldwell County, Texas, from the 1960s considered not verifiable
(Reichling 2012, pers. comm.; Thomas et al. 1976, pp. 253-254).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 69459]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06OC16.015
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Despite being primarily diurnal, the Louisiana pinesnake's apparent
rarity, secretive nature, and preference for occupying pocket gopher
burrow systems has made it difficult to generate extensive natural
history information (Ealy et al. 2004, pp. 383-384). Trapping results
are functions of trap location selection, trap success, and true
presence or absence; thus trapping data only approximate Louisiana
pinesnake use of an area, but are the best available estimate.
Currently trapping is the only standardized and most effective known
method for surveying Louisiana pinesnakes. While it is the most
effective, it is also expensive and labor intensive. Trapping for
Louisiana pinesnakes involves the use of multiple sets of drift fences
with box traps in an area either known to be inhabited by Louisiana
pinesnakes or that appears to have suitable habitat. Box and funnel
traps, with and without drift fences, are effective in catching snakes
similar in size, and related to the Louisiana pinesnake, including the
bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer sayi), black pinesnake, Florida
pinesnake, and northern pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus)
(Burgdorf et al. 2005, p. 424; Fitch 1951, p. 80; Yager et al. 2005, p.
24; Zappalorti 2016, p. 7; Enge 2016, pers. comm.).
[[Page 69460]]
Since 1993, extensive Louisiana pinesnake trapping has been
conducted at first near recent recorded occurrences of the species that
appeared to be in suitable habitat, and then more broadly, in other
locations of varying habitat conditions within the snake's historical
range (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 464) by the USFS, the U.S. Army, the
Memphis Zoo, and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
(LDWF). Trapping has been conducted to provide animals for telemetry
studies, to determine the effects of vehicle-caused mortality, and for
surveys to document presence of the species (Rudolph et al. 2015, p.
3). A variable number of traps are operated per year in 10 Texas
counties and seven Louisiana parishes (Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 3).
Through the years, there have been slight modifications to some traps,
but it is not considered to have had major impacts on trap success
(Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 3). Additionally, over time, new traps may be
added to locations thought to contain Louisiana pinesnakes because of
the presence of suitable conditions, such as preferred soils (Melder
2015, p. 115; Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152).
In total, trapping during 1993-2015 from throughout the historical
range of the Louisiana pinesnake has resulted in 101 unique individual
captures. Supported by rangewide trapping results and the historical
records database, Rudolph et al. (2006, p. 467-469) concluded that the
failure to document existing Louisiana pinesnake populations at known
historical localities, coupled with the degradation and fragmentation
of habitat in those areas, indicates that the Louisiana pinesnake had
been extirpated from significant portions of its historical range.
Three parishes (Beauregard, Jackson, and Rapides) in Louisiana, and
seven counties (Hardin, Nacogdoches, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine,
Trinity, and Wood) in Texas, are now considered unoccupied by the
Louisiana pinesnake. Rudolph et al. (2006, pp. 467-469) determined that
six occupied areas were in existence in 2006. In 2007, an area on the
Kisatchie District of the Kisatchie National Forest (KNF) in Louisiana
was determined to be occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake. Based on 2014
analysis (and reaffirmed by 2016 analysis) of occurrence records of
counties or parishes with multiple observations since 1993, six
natural, potentially extant, populations of Louisiana pinesnakes occur
in four parishes (Bienville, Natchitoches, Sabine, and Vernon) in
Louisiana, and three counties (Angelina, Jasper, and Newton) in Texas.
Louisiana pinesnake habitat currently considered occupied (based upon
1993-2015 occurrence data) is primarily concentrated on public lands
controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD) (Joint Readiness Training
Center and Fort Polk [Fort Polk] and Peason Ridge), the USFS (KNF and
Angelina National Forest [ANF]), and privately owned industrial
timberlands in Louisiana and Texas. There is also a reintroduction
feasibility-study population of Louisiana pinesnakes that has been
established from captive-bred snakes in Grant Parish, Louisiana, on KNF
lands.
Although single observations were not used to establish known
occupied areas, single individuals have been documented in one
Louisiana parish and two Texas counties (see Figure 1, above). A single
Louisiana pinesnake was observed crossing a road in 1994 in Tyler
County, but no others have been recorded in that county in the 22 years
since that observation. A single observation of a Louisiana pinesnake
found dead along a road in 2001 indicates that the current population
in Natchitoches Parish may have extended into extreme northwestern
Rapides Parish, Louisiana; however, no more have been sighted in
Rapides Parish since 2001. A juvenile Louisiana pinesnake was captured
in 2008, in Nacogdoches County near Garrison, Texas (Pierce 2015,
unpub. data), suggesting that at least some individuals existed near
that site as recently as 8 years ago.
To estimate the size of occupied habitat areas, all Louisiana
pinesnake records from 1993 to 2015 (Pierce 2015, unpub. data)
containing location data and meeting the criteria established below
(157 records), were plotted in a Geographic Information System (GIS).
Using ArcMap (Version 10.2.1), a minimum convex polygon (MCP) was drawn
around clusters of records, and a 0.6-mile (mi) (1.0-kilometer (km))
buffer was drawn around each MCP, resulting in the estimated occupied
habitat area (EOHA) for Louisiana pinesnakes represented by that group
of records. The MCP was buffered to accommodate the fact that trap
locations were not placed on the landscape with the intent of
delineating population boundaries. A 0.6-mi (1.0-km) buffer was used
because telemetry data indicate this is a reasonable approximation of
the area that a Louisiana pinesnake uses during 1 or more years
(Rudolph 2008a, pers. comm.). After discussions with experts, including
Dr. Craig Rudolph and members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
(AZA), the Service developed criteria to determine the data and
methodology to be used for estimating the boundaries of the EOHAs.
All Louisiana pinesnake verified occurrence records were used for
EOHA analysis except for: Those obtained prior to 1993 (before
extensive trapping began); and records older than 11 years (from the
time of analysis; which is the estimated Louisiana pinesnake
generational turnover period (Marti 2014, pers. comm.)), when traps
within 0.6 mi (1 km) of those records had been unproductive for 5 years
of trap effort following the date of the records.
That methodology uses records (including non-trap occurrence)
obtained over a period of intense surveys during the estimated
generational time of Louisiana pinesnakes in captivity. However, some
records that are located in areas potentially still occupied by the
species, where habitat attributes have remained similar or improved
since observed occurrence, are not used for this estimation of occupied
range because significant trapping efforts have not produced any
additional records in that area.
The original purpose of the EOHAs designation was to match
proactive habitat management activities to areas most likely to be
currently occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2014, p. 8). Based on the previously described methodology, the
following EOHAs have been delineated (Figure 2): (1) The Bienville EOHA
located on privately owned industrial timberlands in Bienville Parish,
Louisiana; (2) the Kisatchie EOHA located on USFS lands (the Kisatchie
Ranger District of the KNF in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana); (3) the
Peason Ridge EOHA located on DOD lands (Vernon and Sabine Parishes) and
a small amount of private lands (inholdings) in Louisiana; (4) the Fort
Polk/Vernon EOHA located on DOD lands (Fort Polk), USFS lands (the
Vernon Unit/Calcasieu District of the KNF), and a small amount of
private lands (inholdings) in Vernon Parish, Louisiana; (5) the
Scrappin' Valley EOHA located primarily on privately owned timberlands
in Newton County, Texas; (6) the Angelina EOHA located on USFS lands
(the southern section of ANF in Angelina and Jasper Counties) and
private lands in Texas; and (7) the Catahoula Reintroduction
Feasibility EOHA located on USFS lands (the Catahoula Ranger District
of the KNF in Grant Parish, Louisiana). Utilizing the methods described
above, the Winn Ranger District of the KNF in Natchitoches Parish,
Louisiana, and the Sabine National Forest in Sabine
[[Page 69461]]
County, Texas, identified in 2008, are no longer considered occupied.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06OC16.016
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Those EOHAs occur on 30,751.9 ac (12,444.8 ha) of DOD lands,
47,101.3 ac (19,061.2 ha) of USFS lands, 499.7 ac (202.2 ha) of State
and municipal lands, and 67,324.9 ac (27,245.4 ha) of private lands
(Table 1).
Table 1--Land Ownership in Acres (Hectares) of Estimated Louisiana Pinesnake Occupied Habitat Areas as Determined for 2016 According to Location Records
Through 2015
[Totals may not sum to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for
Estimated occupied habitat U.S. Forest Department of State and estimated
State area Service Defense municipal Private occupied
habitat area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana................................. Bienville................... 0 0 363.7 60,727.2 61,090.9
(0) (0) (147.2) (24,575.5) (24,722.6)
Kisatchie................... 1,598.8 0 0 0 1,598.8
(647.0) (0) (0) (0) (647.0)
Peason Ridge................ 0 3,147.3 0 0 3,147.3
(0) (1,273.7) (0) (0) (1,273.7)
Fort Polk/Vernon............ 34,164.7 27,601.3 0 222.6 61,988.7
(13,826.0) (11,169.8) (0) (90.1) (25,085.9)
Catahoula Reintroduction.... 1,828.5 0 0 0 1,828.5
(739.9) (0) (0) (0) (739.9)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Total....................... ............................ 37,592.0 30,748.5 363.7 60,949.9 129,654.1
(15,213.0) (12,443.5) (147.2) (24,665.6) (52,469.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas..................................... Scrappin' Valley............ 0 0 21.3 5,036.5 5,057.8
(0) (0) (8.6) (2,038.2) (2,046.8)
[[Page 69462]]
Angelina.................... 9,509.3 3.3 114.7 1,338.6 10,965.8
(3,848.3) (1.4) (46.4) (541.7) (4,437.7)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Total........................... ............................ 9,509.3 3.3 136.0 6,375.0 16,023.6
(3,848.3) (1.4) (55.1) (2,579.9) (6,484.5)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Ownership................... ............................ 47,101.3 30,751.9 499.7 67,324.9 145,677.7
(19,061.3) (12,444.8) (202.2) (27,245.4) (58,953.7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Estimates and Status
The Louisiana pinesnake is recognized as one of the rarest snakes
in North America (Young and Vandeventer 1988, p. 203; Himes et al.
2006, p. 114). It was classified in 2007 as endangered on the
International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN's) Red List of
Threatened Species (version 3.1; https://www.iucnredlist.org/).
Most Louisiana pinesnake records that were used to approximately
delineate occupied habitat for 2016 were acquired by trapping. We
considered each day that a trap was open a ``trap day.'' Thus, for an
area being surveyed, all traps in that area that were open contribute
to the number of trap days (i.e., four traps that are open for 3 days
each equals 12 trap days). The ratio of trap days and number of unique
snakes captured is called ``trap success'' (i.e., two unique snakes
captured during 2,000 trap days = 1 capture per 1,000 trap days or a
1:1,000 trap success) and was determined for each population. Louisiana
pinesnake trapping across the species' entire range (including areas
outside of EOHAs in Louisiana and Texas) during 1993 through 2015 has
resulted in 101 unique individual captures during 448,892 trap days
(1:4,444 trap success) (Pierce 2016a, pers. comm.). Trapping
information can be compared to similar species to get a sense of the
relative rarity of this species when compared to a similar species
trapped in a comparable way. For instance, a Florida pinesnake trapping
effort using similar drift fence trapping methods in one 30,000-ac
(12,141-ha) section of the species' range captured 87 unique
individuals during 50,960 trap days (1:585.7 trap success) over a 13-
year period from 2003 to 2015 (Smith 2016b, pers. comm.). The Louisiana
pinesnake site with the greatest long-term trap success by far, the
Bienville EOHA, which is 61,090.9 ac (24,722.6 ha), has a trap success
rate of 1:854.0 between 1993 and 2015 (Pierce 2016a, pers. comm.),
which is substantially lower than those found in Smith's study of
Florida pinesnake. Actual population densities cannot be reliably
estimated from trapping data because mark-recapture analyses cannot be
conducted without sufficient numbers of Louisiana pinesnake recaptures,
but similar trapping methods have been used by others to estimate snake
abundance.
All Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs contain at least some suitable
habitat, and experience varying amounts of beneficial forest
management. However, most populations appear to show either a decline
or no conclusive change in trap success through time, indicating that
numbers of individuals in most populations are likely decreasing
(Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 8). Despite continued effort, some populations
have not experienced trap success or other occurrence records for many
years. For this reason, as discussed earlier, the Winn Ranger District
of the KNF portion of the Bienville EOHA and the Sabine EOHA are no
longer considered occupied. Trapping efforts (all provided by Pierce
(2015, unpub. data)) and habitat management actions are presented below
for each EOHA.
Bienville EOHA
Based on trap and other occurrence records (84 occurrences
(including trap recaptures) from 1988 through 2015) (Pierce 2015,
unpub. data), the Bienville population is widely believed to be the
largest extant Louisiana pinesnake population (Rudolph et al. 2006, p.
465; Reichling et al. 2008, p. 10). For all trapping efforts so far
(1995 through 2015, not continuous), trap success for this population
was 1:854. While trap success varies annually, the trap success in this
area has been consistently greater than for any other population
overall. Trapping on that private timberland has only recently resumed
in 2012, after cessation in 2009. The Kepler Lake area of the Bienville
EOHA has produced the best trap success of any trapping area in areas
currently known to be inhabited by the species. Consequently, Reichling
et al. (2008, p. 10) believed this site was critical for the
preservation of this species. Trapping from a previous effort on the
Winn District portion of this population between 2000 and 2001 provided
two captures (in addition to one recapture). Trap efforts in the same
area from 2004 to 2013 have produced zero captures in 7,525 trap days,
and the area is now regarded as unoccupied.
Within the privately owned timberland described above, two disjunct
areas are managed for the Louisiana pinesnake with thinning, longleaf
pine restoration, targeted herbicide use, and prescribed burning (see
``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range,'' below).
Kisatchie EOHA
Two relatively recent Louisiana pinesnake occurrence records (one
non-capture sighting (2003) and one hand-capture (2007)) exist for this
population. No Louisiana pinesnakes were captured during 12,011 trap
days (1997 to 2003) on the Kisatchie District of the KNF. However, past
trapping did not occur in the locations of the records mentioned above.
Furthermore, despite the presence of substantial amounts of suitable
habitat on the Kisatchie District, past trapping did not sample the
best habitat (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 469). Trapping resumed within
this population in 2012, in the best habitat, and has continued through
2015, but no captures (by hand or trap) have occurred since the 2007
capture (Pierce 2015, unpub. data).
Active habitat management for the endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and the Louisiana pinesnake occur within
and surrounding the EOHA of this population (see ``Conservation Efforts
to
[[Page 69463]]
Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Range,'' below).
Peason Ridge EOHA
Six occurrence records (from 2003 to 2013, all observed after 2005)
exist for this population; one of which was a non-trap sighting. The
trapping effort for the last 5 years (2009 to 2013 (8,446 trap days))
produced four captures, one in 2010, two in 2012, and one in 2013, with
a success rate of 1:2,112 (Pierce 2015, unpub. data).
Active habitat management for the red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake occurring at this site has stabilized or increased
the amount of preferable habitat that exhibits suitable vegetative
characteristics (see ``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Range,'' below).
Fort Polk/Vernon EOHA
Twenty-two occurrence records from 2003 to 2013, including four
non-trap sightings and four trap-recaptures, exist for this population.
Trap success for this population over 5 years (2009 to 2013) is
estimated to be 1:2,625 (eight unique individual captures out of 21,003
trap days), which includes all recent unsuccessful surveying on the
Vernon Unit of the KNF. Since 2003, no captures have occurred on the
Vernon Unit. Excluding trapping on the Vernon Unit, DOD observed a trap
success rate over 5 years (2009 to 2013) of 1:1,959 (eight unique
individual captures during 15,672 trap days) on DOD property (Pierce
2015, unpub. data). Two snakes were trapped in 2014, and there were
three records of occurrence in 2015 (one hand-captured and two dead on
roads).
Active habitat management for the red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake has stabilized or increased the amount of habitat
that has suitable vegetative characteristics (see ``Conservation
Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Range,'' below).
Scrappin' Valley EOHA
On this primarily private land, five occurrence records during 2005
to 2015 exist for this population; however, two of those were road
mortalities, two were removed from the wild for captive breeding, and
one was sighted but not captured. There have been no trap captures
since 2009 during 15,628 trap days within this population and no other
occurrences. During trapping efforts on this land from 1995 to 1997,
five captures occurred during 2,128 trap days (a success rate of
1:426), demonstrating a reduction of trap success at this site (Pierce
2015, unpub. data).
Active habitat management for the red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake occurs at this site (see ``Conservation Efforts to
Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Range,'' below).
Despite Louisiana pinesnake occurrences as recent as 2008, and
proactive habitat management by the former and current private
landowners, the lack of recent trap success when compared to trap
success in the 1990s suggests that this population has declined due to
prolonged minimal suitable habitat availability.
Angelina EOHA
Seven occurrence records during 2003 to 2013 exist for this
population. Four were unique trap captures, one was a trap recapture,
one was hand-caught alive on a road, and one previously captured and
pit-tagged individual was found dead on a road in 2009. Both the trap
recapture and hand-caught individual were removed from the wild for
captive breeding. From 2009 to 2013, no unique trap captures have
occurred within this population during 16,277 trap days. The most
recent unique individual trap capture at this site was in 2007.
However, a recapture did occur within this population as recently as
2012, and that individual was removed from the wild for captive
breeding. Trap success rates have shown a steady decline throughout the
effort period: From 1992 to 1997, success rate was 1:652 (2 captures
during 1,303 trap days); during 1998 to 2005, success rate was 1:3,420
(2 captures during 6,840 trap days); and during 2007 to 2012, success
rate was 1:5,305 (3 captures during 15,916 trap days). However, all
trap effort within this population produced only a total of seven
unique individual Louisiana pinesnakes since the 1990s (27,656 trap
days) (Pierce 2015, unpub. data).
Active habitat management for the red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake occurs at this site (see ``Conservation Efforts to
Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Range,'' below).
Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility EOHA
An informal committee was established to oversee and conduct an
experimental reintroduction of the Louisiana pinesnake in an attempt to
demonstrate the feasibility of reintroducing a population using
individuals from a captive population, and establishment of a viable
population in restored habitat. In total, 77 captive-bred Louisiana
pinesnakes (11 in 2010, 15 in 2011, 3 in 2012, 15 in 2013, 1 in 2014,
15 in 2015, and 17 in 2016) have been released into the wild at the
Catahoula Ranger District of the KNF (Pierce 2016, unpub. data; Pierce
2016b, pers. comm.; Smith 2016a, pers. comm.). This area is not near
any known Louisiana pinesnake populations and not within the known
historical range of the species. Detection of released snakes is
occurring within this EOHA through monitoring of deployed Automated PIT
Tag Recorders (APTRs) and trapping. Prior to March 22, 2016, 60 snakes
have been released, and as of that date a total of 26 individual snakes
have been detected at least once after release (detections beginning 1
day after release): of those, 14 snakes have been detected alive more
than 60 days after release, of those, 10 have been detected alive in
the year following the winter after release, of those, 7 have been
detected 2 years (winters) after release, of those, 3 have been
detected 3 years (winters) after release, and of those, 1 snake has
been detected 4 years (winters) after release (Pierce 2016b, pers.
comm.; Pierce 2016c, pers. comm.).
Active habitat management for the red-cockaded woodpecker and the
Louisiana pinesnake occurs at the Catahoula Ranger District site (see
``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Range,'' below).
Captive-Breeding Population
The captive Louisiana pinesnake zoo population established in 1984
was initially maintained through wild collection. The AZA Species
Survival Plan (SSP) for the Louisiana pinesnake was implemented in
2000, to manage the zoo population (Reichling et al., in litt. 2015, p.
1). The goals of the SSP are to: Maintain an assurance colony for wild
Louisiana pinesnake populations, preserve or increase genetic
heterozygosity into the future, preserve representative genetic
integrity of wild populations, and provide individuals as needed for
research and repopulation for the conservation of wild populations
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013, pp. 32-33). As of March 2016, the
captive-breeding Louisiana pinesnake population consists of 111
individuals (51 males, 53 females, and 7 unsexed individuals) in 18 AZA
accredited institutions and 2 non-AZA partner institutions (Reichling
2016, pers. comm.). Initially, three populations were managed based on
their different geographic origins, which are separated
[[Page 69464]]
by rivers (one from Texas, separated from Louisiana by the Sabine
River, and two from Louisiana, which are separated by the Red River)
(Reichling and Schad 2010, p. 1). Recent genetic analyses showed that
all populations were similar in population structure and the Texas and
southern Louisiana populations were difficult to separate genetically
(Kwiatkowski et al. 2014, p. 12). Therefore, currently one group is
derived from Bienville Parish, Louisiana, founders and the other group
is a combination of Vernon Parish, Louisiana, and eastern Texas snakes
(Reichling 2016, pers. comm.).
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. In this section, we
summarize the biological condition of the species and its resources,
and the influences of the listing factors on them, to assess the
species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Both the quantity and quality of the natural longleaf pine
ecosystem, the primary historical habitat of the Louisiana pinesnake,
have declined sharply in Louisiana and Texas since European settlement.
The loss, degradation, and fragmentation of the longleaf pine dominant
ecosystem was historically caused by logging, turpentining, fire
suppression, alteration of fire seasonality and periodicity, conversion
to generally off-site pine species plantations, agriculture, and free-
range hogs (Frost 1993, pp. 24-30, 31, 35). Virtually all virgin timber
in the southern United States was cut during intensive logging from
1870 to 1920 (Frost 1993, p. 30). Only about 2.9 percent of longleaf
pine forests in Louisiana and Texas were uncut old-growth stands in
1935 (Bridges and Orzell 1989, p. 246). During the latter half of the
20th century, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi lost between 60 and
90 percent of their already reduced longleaf acreage (Outcalt and
Sheffield 1996, pp. 1-10). By the late 1980s, the natural longleaf pine
acreage in Louisiana and Texas was only about 15 and 8 percent,
respectively, of what had existed in 1935 (Bridges and Orzell 1989, p.
246). Those longleaf pine forests were primarily converted to extensive
monoculture pine plantations (Bridges and Orzell 1989, p. 246), which
presumably were not primarily managed for enhancement of herbaceous
vegetation.
In short, the longleaf dominant pine forest (longleaf pine forest
type plus longleaf pine in mixed species stands) in the southeastern
United States declined approximately 96 percent from the historical
estimate of 92 million ac (37 million ha) (Frost 1993, p. 20) to
approximately 3.75 million ac (1.52 million ha) in 1990 (Guldin et al.
2016, p. 324). Since the 1990s, longleaf pine dominant forest acreage
has been trending upward in parts of the Southeast through restoration
efforts (Guldin et al. 2016, pp. 323-324). By 2010, the longleaf
dominant pine forest stands had increased to approximately 4.3 million
ac (1.7 million ha) (Oswalt et al. 2012, p. 10; Guldin et al. 2016, pp.
323-324). A recent estimate for the extent of longleaf dominant pine
forest in 2015 was 4.7 million ac (2.8 million ha) (America's Longleaf
Restoration Initiative 2016, p. 12).
In general, southern forest futures models predict declines of
overall forest land area in the southeastern United States between 2
and 10 percent in the next 50 years (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 78). The
model-projected losses of natural pine forest in the Southeast would be
mostly the result of conversion to planted pine forests (Wear and Greis
2013, p. 79). For the southern Gulf region, model runs assuming high
levels of urbanization and high timber prices predict large percentage
losses in longleaf pine in some parishes and counties of Louisiana and
Texas that were historically and that are currently occupied by the
Louisiana pinesnake, while two Louisiana parishes in the current
occupied range are expected to gain (less than the percent decline
predicted in the other parishes and counties) in longleaf pine acreage
(Klepzig et al. 2014, p. 53). The outer boundary or ``footprint'' of
the longleaf pine ecosystem across its historical range has contracted
as recently as the period of 1990 to 2010, with losses (primarily due
to conversion to loblolly pine) in western Louisiana and eastern Texas
(Oswalt et al. 2012, pp. 10-14).
Impacts from urbanization are not consistent throughout the
Southeast, and most population growth is predicted to occur near major
cities (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 21), which are generally not near known
Louisiana pinesnake occurrences; however, the most recent assessment
still predicts decreased use of land for forests (mainly due to
urbanization) in the next 45 years in all of the parishes (Louisiana)
and counties (Texas) historically and currently occupied by the species
(Klepzig et al. 2014, pp. 21-23).
High-quality longleaf pine forest habitat, which is generally
characterized by a high, open canopy and shallow litter and duff
layers, is maintained by frequent, low-intensity fires, which in turn
restrict a woody midstory and promote the flowering and seed production
of fire-stimulated groundcover plants (Oswalt et al. 2012, pp. 2-3).
The Louisiana pinesnake was historically associated with natural
longleaf pine forests, which were maintained in good condition by
natural processes and have the abundant herbaceous vegetation necessary
to support the Louisiana pinesnake's primary prey, the Baird's pocket
gopher (Himes 1998, p. 43; Sulentich et al. 1991, p. 3; Rudolph and
Burgdorf 1997, p. 17). Based on trapping surveys and location records,
it appears that areas managed with silvicultural practices for fiber
production that do not allow sufficient herbaceous vegetation growth do
not support viable Louisiana pinesnake populations (Rudolph et al.
2006, p. 470) because the snake's pocket gopher prey requires
herbaceous vegetation for forage.
Rudolph et al. (2006, p. 467) assessed habitat conditions during
1999 and 2000, at the locations of all historical Louisiana pinesnake
records (n = 118 localities) known at that time. They found that 70
percent (26 of 37) of the localities on public lands met their criteria
as excellent or good condition, whereas only 33 percent (27 of 81) of
the localities on private lands met their criteria as excellent or good
condition. Due to habitat fragmentation, most sites with excellent or
good habitat were isolated and small (typically a few hundred hectares,
or less (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 466)). The distribution of Louisiana
pinesnakes within the current range was further restricted because
intensive land use activities and the disruption of natural fire
regimes had decreased the quantity and quality of the intervening areas
as habitat for this species (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 470). Based on the
low capture rates reported during trapping from 1993 to 2001, and the
limited habitat availability, Rudolph
[[Page 69465]]
et al. (2006, p. 468) concluded that remnant Louisiana pinesnake
populations are not large. In fact, during this 9-year trapping period,
only 24 unique captures of Louisiana pinesnakes occurred out of 2,372
total unique snake captures in 101,828 trap days (a trap success of
1:3,775 for Louisiana pinesnake). At many sites, no pinesnakes were
captured, but even at sites where they were captured, the average trap
success was only 1:733 (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 465).
The disruption of natural fire regimes, due to fire suppression and
inadequate, infrequent prescribed burning, is the leading factor
responsible for the degradation of the small amount of remaining
suitable longleaf pine forest habitat (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p.
118; Rudolph 2000, p. 7). In the absence of frequent and effective
fires, upland pine savannah ecosystems rapidly develop a midstory of
hardwoods and other overstory species that suppress or eliminate any
herbaceous understory. As the presence of pocket gophers is directly
related to the extent of herbaceous vegetation available to them, their
population numbers and distribution decline as such vegetation
declines, which in turn directly impacts the number and distribution of
Louisiana pinesnakes. The use of prescribed burning has decreased on
private timberlands because of legal liability and the expense of
liability insurance, the planting of pine species which have a reduced
tolerance to fire, limited funds and personnel, and smoke management
issues. 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 midstory conditions
that limit herbaceous vegetation growth.
Overstory species other than longleaf pine can be managed to
provide suitable understory for pocket gophers, but this is generally
more difficult, as these species lack the physical characteristics and
ecological adaptations to sustain desired understory conditions during
all life stages, especially when managed with prescribed fire.
Specifically, longleaf pine is adapted to thrive with frequent fire
during all life stages, which allows continual maintenance of
herbaceous communities. Other pine species lack these adaptations to
fire that allow for frequent fire during all life stages (especially
very young trees). Non-longleaf pine communities can be managed to
provide suitable habitat within a stand when burning is not recommended
(e.g., very young trees) by using herbicides and other techniques.
However, if those techniques alter the composition or density of the
groundcover vegetation and pocket gophers decline in response, it is
likely that Louisiana pinesnakes will decline in response as well
(USFWS 2001). In addition, longleaf pine structure (e.g., branch and
needle structure) naturally allows more sunlight penetration at similar
stem densities than other pine species.
Regardless of the methods used to promote herbaceous vegetation in
the understory, the amount and types of herbaceous vegetation are
limited by the amount of sunlight able to reach the forest floor and,
for some species, by the presence of fire (i.e., to scarify seeds,
promote seed production, and consume leaf litter). Therefore,
conversion and management of overstory vegetation that does not provide
for continued maintenance of herbaceous vegetation in otherwise
suitable habitat will further limit habitat available to the Louisiana
pinesnake.
Habitat fragmentation threatens the continued existence of all
Louisiana pinesnake populations, particularly those on private lands.
This is frequently the result of urban development, conversion of
longleaf pine sites to intensively managed pine plantations, and an
increase in the number of roads. When patches of available habitat
become separated beyond the dispersal range of a species, small
populations may become less resilient because additions of individuals
to the population may decline along with their potential genetic
diversity contributions, thus increasing the risk of extirpation (see
discussion under Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting
Its Continued Existence).
In summary, habitat loss and continuing degradation of the
Louisiana pinesnake's habitat remain a significant threat to this
species' continued existence.
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. In this section, we describe the extensive habitat restoration
efforts that have occurred on Federal lands throughout the range (to a
lesser extent on private lands) that have reduced the threat of habitat
loss for some populations. We also discuss the lack of a definitive
positive response of the Louisiana pinesnake to these efforts, at
present.
Existing and Planned Conservation Efforts: As early as the 1980s,
forest restoration and management had been implemented on Fort Polk,
Peason Ridge, and adjacent USFS lands to restore and maintain
conditions of widely spaced trees, clear of dense midstory growth (U.S.
Department of the Army 2014, p. 21). Management occurred for training
suitability and red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, and most recently for
Louisiana pinesnake habitat. The requirements for those three
objectives happen to have significant overlap, especially the
maintenance of open canopy pine forest.
USFS has also implemented habitat restoration and management for
many years on Sabine National Forest (SNF), ANF, and KNF to benefit the
red-cockaded woodpecker, as provided for in its land and resource
management plans (USFS 1996, pp. 107-134; USFS 1999, pp. 2-61 to 2-73).
In 2003, a candidate conservation agreement (CCA) for the Louisiana
pinesnake, which includes the Service, USFS, DOD, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD), and LDWF, was completed. Targeted
conservation actions are currently being implemented as part of that
agreement. The CCA is designed to identify and establish beneficial
habitat management actions for the Louisiana pinesnake on Federal lands
in Louisiana and Texas, and provides a means for the partnering
agencies to work cooperatively on projects that avoid and minimize
impacts to the species. The CCA also set up mechanisms to exchange
information on successful management practices and coordinate research
efforts. SNF [Sabine Louisiana pinesnake population considered
extirpated since 2014] and ANF in Texas, and KNF and Fort Polk in
Louisiana, agreed in the CCA to continue or start new stem thinning and
prescribed burning operations in sections of upland pine forests and,
where possible, to convert forests to longleaf pine (CCA 2003, p. 12-
16).
Since completion of the CCA, beneficial forest management
activities conducted by USFS and Fort Polk have been formally dedicated
to conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake. Removing some trees from a
dense stand with heavy canopy cover allows more light to reach the
ground, which can promote
[[Page 69466]]
the growth of herbaceous vegetation, an important food source for the
primary prey of the Louisiana pinesnake. Prescribed burning helps to
control midstory cover, particularly hardwood species that compete with
pine seedlings and reduce light penetration. Converting forests to
longleaf pine is helpful because longleaf pine is better adapted to
fire (and tolerates it at an earlier age) than other pine species, and
therefore is generally easier to manage with prescribed fire over
multiple rotations. Historically, Louisiana pinesnakes were
predominantly found in longleaf pine forests, and that forest type was
historically the dominant type in the areas that now make up the KNF,
ANF, and Fort Polk.
The CCA was revised in 2013, and now also includes the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) and the AZA as cooperators (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2013, pp. 7-8). That agreement updates, supersedes, and
improves upon the 2003 CCA, and uses significant new information
derived from research, threats assessments, and habitat modeling that
was not available in 2003 to focus conservation actions, including
beneficial forest management, in areas with the best potential to
become suitable habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake. Those areas are
called habitat management units (HMUs), and they were delineated based
on existing red-cockaded woodpecker habitat management areas (HMAs) in
upland pine forests. Those areas were further defined by the location
of preferable and suitable soils (LRSF-Model) for the Louisiana
pinesnake in order to dedicate resources to areas the species is most
likely to inhabit. However, the updated CCA addresses threats from
habitat loss only on Federal lands, and for the activities performed by
NRCS on private land. The CCA also includes guidance on practices to
reduce impacts to Louisiana pinesnakes from vehicles on improved roads
and off-road all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails (see ``Conservation
Efforts To Reduce Threats Under Factor E,'' below).
Thousands of acres of forests on Federal lands have been treated
over many years with prescribed burning, and that treatment along with
tree thinning continues to the present. The following tables summarize
recent forest management activities on Federal lands where Louisiana
pinesnake populations occur. Values have been rounded to the nearest
acre.
Table 2--Acres (Hectares) of Prescribed Burning and Thinning Conducted in the Kisatchie Ranger District of the
KNF (Kisatchie Population) Within the 2014 Delineated EOHA (1,599 Total ac [647 ha]) and the Larger Surrounding
HMU (36,114 Total ac [14,615 ha])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prescribed burning Prescribed burning Stocking reduction
Area 2015 2013-2015 (thinning) 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOHA................................................ 963 (390) 1,980 (801) 0 (0)
HMU................................................. 4,285 (1,734) 24,893 (10,074) 193 (78)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Acres (ha) of Prescribed Burning and Thinning Conducted in the Vernon Unit of the KNF (Fort Polk/Vernon
Population) Within the 2014 Delineated EOHA (34,487 Total Acres [13,956 ha]) and the Larger Surrounding HMU
(61,387 Total Acres [24,842 ha])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prescribed burning Prescribed burning Stocking reduction
Area 2015 2013-2015 (thinning) 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOHA................................................ 12,670 (5,127) 43,281 (17,515) 1,541 (624)
HMU................................................. 20,734 (8,391) 74,927 (30,322) 1,670 (676)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Acres (ha) of Prescribed Burning and Thinning Conducted at Fort Polk (Fort Polk/Vernon Population)
Within the 2014 Delineated EOHA (27,502 Total Acres [11,130 ha]) and the Larger Surrounding HMU (29,037 Total
Acres [11,751 ha])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prescribed burning Prescribed burning Stocking reduction
Area 2015 2013-2015 (thinning) 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOHA................................................ 7,675 (3,106) 22,628 (9,157) 430 (174)
HMU................................................. 9,159 (3,707) 24,241 (9,810) 586 (237)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Acres (Hectares) of Prescribed Burning and Thinning Conducted at Peason Ridge (Peason Ridge Population)
Within the 2014 Delineated EOHA (4,886 Total ac [1,977 ha]) and the Larger Surrounding HMU (11,265 Total ac
[4,559 ha])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prescribed burning Prescribed burning Stocking reduction
Area 2015 2013-2015 (thinning) 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOHA................................................ 489 (198) 2,597 (1,051) 0 (0)
HMU................................................. 2,651 (1,073) 7,440 (3,011) 100 (40)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69467]]
Table 6--Acres (ha) of Prescribed Burning and Thinning Conducted in ANF (ANF Population) Within the 2014
Delineated EOHA (10,966 Total ac [4,438 ha]) and the Larger Surrounding HMU (24,200 Total ac [9,793 ha])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prescribed burning Prescribed burning Stocking reduction
Area 2015 2013-2015 (thinning) 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOHA................................................ 2,735 (1,107) 10,179 (4,119) 0 (0)
HMU................................................. 6,702 (2,712) 18,940 (7,665) 0 (0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7--Acres (Hectares) of Prescribed Burning and Thinning Conducted in the Catahoula Ranger District KNF
(Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility Population) Within the 2014 Delineated EOHA (1,828 Total ac [740 ha]) and
the Larger Surrounding HMU (57,394 Total ac [ha])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prescribed burning Prescribed burning Stocking reduction
Area 2015 2011-2015 (thinning) 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOHA................................................ 784 (317) 784 (317) 0 (0)
HMU................................................. 8,279 (3,350) 40,419 (16,357) 231 (93)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the Bienville EOHA, the 851-ac (344-ha) Kepler Lake and 859-
ac (348-ha) Sandylands Core Management Areas (CMAs) (approximately 2.8
percent of the EOHA) were voluntarily established by the landowners at
the time to be managed for Louisiana pinesnake habitat. According to
the current landowner (Cook 2016a, 2016b, pers. comm.), in the
loblolly-longleaf pine mixed stands of the Kepler Lake and Sandylands
CMAs, approximately 50 percent (430 ac (174 ha)) and 55 percent (475 ac
(192 ha)), respectively, have been planted with longleaf pine beginning
in 2001. Using a combination of supplemental funding sources (e.g.,
Service Private Stewardship Grant, Western Gulf Coastal Plain
Prescribed Burning Initiative), the present landowner has completed
prescribed burning of hundreds of acres on the CMAs each year since
2000 (except in 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2012). Additionally, midstory
(hardwood and shrub) control is achieved in the CMAs by application of
herbicide in narrow bands alongside the planted trees instead of
broadcast spraying, which limits damage of herbaceous vegetation.
Most of the 59,380 acres (24,030 ha) of timberlands surrounding the
CMAs of the Bienville population are managed with intensive
silvicultural practices that typically preclude continual, robust
herbaceous vegetation growth. Reichling et al. (2008, p. 10) did not
believe that isolated management areas that were 800 to 1,000 ac (324
to 405 ha) or less in size were sufficient to support viable Louisiana
pinesnake populations, and therefore concluded the snakes in the Kepler
Lake CMA were likely dependent upon the surrounding habitat.
Consequently, Reichling et al. (2008, p. 10) felt that it was essential
to the conservation of the species to restore and preserve the
thousands of hectares of privately owned, upland, xeric habitat that
surround the Kepler Lake CMA.
The 5,057.8-ac (2,046.8-ha) Scrappin' Valley EOHA is located at
least partially within 11,000 acres (4,452 ha) of privately owned
forested land referred to as Scrappin' Valley. That area was managed
for game animals for decades (Reid 2016, pers. comm.), and one section
(approximately 600 ac (243 ha)) was managed specifically for quail.
Prescribed burning was applied only to the 600-ac (243-ha) quail area
annually and to another 1,500 ac (607 ha) at less frequent intervals.
The remainder of the property was not beneficially managed for
Louisiana pinesnake habitat. In 2012, the property was subdivided and
sold as three separate properties of 1,900, 1,500, and 7,700 acres
(769, 607, and 3,116 ha), respectively.
On the 1,900-ac (769-ha) property from 2013 to spring 2016,
hundreds of acres (some acres burned multiple times) of longleaf
dominated pine forest occupied by the red-cockaded woodpecker or near
red-cockaded woodpecker clusters were prescribed-burned each year;
hardwood removal was conducted on 300 ac (121 ha); thinning by removal
of loblolly and slash pine trees was conducted throughout the entire
property; and 105 ac (42 ha) of longleaf pine restoration (removal of
existing trees and planted with long leaf pine) was completed. The
landowner is also currently working with The Nature Conservancy toward
a perpetual conservation easement on 2,105 ac (852 ha) to protect
habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker and the Louisiana pinesnake.
On the 1,500-ac (607-ha) property in 2015, approximately 250 ac
(101 ha) of loblolly pine with dense understory vegetation was
harvested, and 200 ac (81 ha) of the area was planted with longleaf
pine. The landowner voluntarily agreed to manage the area to promote
longleaf pine forest over a 10-year period through a Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program agreement with the Service.
On the 7,700-ac (3,116-ha) property, most of the forest was not
burned, so there is a dense midstory. Several hundred acres are
comprised of young loblolly pine plantation. In 2014, approximately 400
ac (162 ha) were harvested, and in 2015, approximately 205 ac (83 ha)
of longleaf pine were planted. The landowner voluntarily agreed to
manage the area to promote longleaf pine forest over a 10-year period
through a Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program agreement with the
Service. Additionally, approximately 1,000 ac of this property are
prescribed burned annually.
Overall, less than 50 percent of the Scrappin' Valley EOHA is being
managed beneficially for the Louisiana pinesnake, but more than 50
percent of the area is covered under safe harbor agreements (SHAs) for
the red-cockaded woodpecker, which require forest management that is
generally beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake.
Longleaf pine forest improvement and restoration efforts are also
currently occurring within the historical range of the Louisiana
pinesnake on smaller private properties, especially through programs
administered by natural resource agencies such as NRCS, and nonprofit
organizations such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC). NRCS has provided
assistance with thousands of acres of forest thinning, longleaf pine
planting, and prescribed burning (Chevallier 2016, pers.comm.).
However, the extent of overlap of
[[Page 69468]]
increases in longleaf pine acreage, due to this program, with occupied
or potential Louisiana pinesnake habitat (i.e., preferable or suitable
soils) is unknown because the specific locations of the projects within
the area serviced are private and unavailable to the Service. TNC owns
1,551 ac (628 ha) of land within the Vernon Unit of KNF that is managed
for the red-cockaded woodpecker and the Louisiana pinesnake (Jacob
2016, pers. comm.).
The Service and LDWF are currently developing a programmatic
candidate conservation agreement with assurances (CCAA) for the
Louisiana pinesnake. A CCAA is intended to facilitate the conservation
of candidate species by giving non-Federal property owners (enrollees)
incentives to implement conservation measures. The incentive to a
property owner provided through a CCAA is that the Service will impose
no further land-, water-, or resource-use restrictions beyond those
agreed to in the CCAA should the species later become listed under the
Act. If the species does become listed, the property owner is
authorized to take the covered species as long as the level of take is
consistent with the level identified and agreed upon in the CCAA. The
CCAA policy considers that all CCAAs will provide benefits to covered
species through implementation of voluntary conservation measures that
are agreed to and implemented by property owners.
The Louisiana pinesnake programmatic CCAA is intended to establish
a framework for participation of the Service and LDWF, and enrollees,
through specific actions for the protection, conservation, management,
and improvement of the status of the Louisiana pinesnake. Initiation of
this CCAA will further the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake on
private lands by protecting known populations and additional potential
habitat by reducing threats to the species' habitat and survival,
restoring degraded potential habitat on preferred and suitable soils,
and potentially reintroducing captive-bred snakes to select areas of
the restored habitat.
The CCAA is part of an application for an enhancement of survival
permit (permit) under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. The permit, which
will be held by LDWF, will authorize take of the Louisiana pinesnake
during the period of the CCAA. The permitted take will be that
resulting from activities covered in the CCAA and the individual
cooperative management agreements between LDWF and enrollees in
Louisiana who are willing to engage in voluntary conservation actions
for the Louisiana pinesnake. Take authorization provided by the permit
will be extended to participating enrollees through certificates of
inclusion (COI) issued by LDWF.
The Louisiana pinesnake programmatic CCAA has not been finalized,
and thus no enrollment has been initiated. The extent of landowner
participation and subsequent conservation benefits are yet to be
determined; therefore no conservation benefits to the Louisiana
pinesnake from the programmatic CCAA are considered in this proposed
rule.
Concentrating effort by using the LRSF-Model to guide priorities,
LDWF has been approaching landowners in the Louisiana pinesnake's range
in Louisiana to recruit them into the Natural Areas Registry Program
(Gregory 2013, pers. comm.). Landowners agree to protect the area and
its unique natural elements to the best of their abilities, and they
can receive, free of charge, an annual ecological check-up on the
health of the plants, animals, or habitat of special concern, and
preparation of a management plan.
Additional research and survey efforts are being funded by the
Texas Comptroller's office as part of the ``Keeping Texas First''
initiative. The research is underway and being conducted by Texas A&M
University; research results are expected to provide additional
information on the species' habitat requirements in Texas, which may
contribute to future conservation efforts. Surveyors are expected to
access suitable habitat on private lands that have previously been
unavailable.
Effectiveness of Conservation Efforts: In summary, forest
management beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake has occurred across
significant portions of most Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs. The significant
increases in the acreages of burning and thinning conducted have
improved habitat conditions on many Federal lands that support
Louisiana pinesnake populations (Rudolph 2008b, pers. comm.), and
reduced the threat of habitat loss in those areas. On private land,
there has also been habitat restoration and beneficial management, but
it has not been as consistent and is generally on a smaller scale
(i.e., less than about 3,000 ac (1,214 ha) in the Scrappin' Valley
EOHA) than on Federal lands. The Bienville population, which appears to
be the most abundant, has only about 1,700 ac (688 ha) of habitat
currently managed specifically for the Louisiana pinesnake, and the
home range of one Louisiana pinesnake can be as much as 267 ac (108
ha).
There has been no definitive trend of increased trap success in
Louisiana pinesnake populations over time (Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 33;
Pierce 2015, unpub. data). As just discussed, extensive habitat
restoration efforts have occurred on Federal lands where the Louisiana
pinesnake occurs. Although the threat of habitat loss has been reduced
on much of these lands, none of the populations has shown a definitive
response to forest management conservation activities. Those Louisiana
pinesnake populations are already small, and the species has a low
reproductive rate, so recruitment to the population may not be detected
for several years. However, it is also possible that increases in snake
abundance may not be captured by traps currently in operation because
some newly-created suitable habitat may be in areas farther from the
current trap locations.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, the loss and degradation of habitat was a significant
historical threat, and remains a current threat, to the Louisiana
pinesnake. The historical loss of habitat within the longleaf pine
ecosystem occupied by Louisiana pinesnakes occurred primarily due to
timber harvest and subsequent conversion of pine forests to
agriculture, residential development, and managed pine plantations with
only intermittent periods of open canopy. This loss of habitat has
slowed considerably in recent years, in part due to efforts to restore
the longleaf pine ecosystem in the Southeast. In areas occupied by the
Louisiana pinesnake on USFS and U.S. Army lands, mixed longleaf and
loblolly pine forests are managed beneficially for the species through
thinning, and through prescribed burning of thousands of acres of
forests every year. However, habitat loss is continuing today on
private land 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).
Extensive conservation efforts are being implemented that are
restoring and maintaining Louisiana pinesnake habitat for the Fort
Polk/Vernon, Peason Ridge, Kisatchie, and Angelina populations. Those
populations are not
[[Page 69469]]
threatened by continuing habitat loss. Portions of occupied habitat of
the Scrappin' Valley (approximately 50 percent) and Bienville
populations (about 2.8 percent) of the Louisiana pinesnake are also
currently being managed beneficially through voluntary agreements.
However, future conservation on private lands, which can change
ownership and management practices, is uncertain, and the remaining
land in the EOHAs with suitable or preferable soils is generally
unsuitable habitat because of the current vegetation structure.
Although the threat of habitat loss has been reduced in much of the
Louisiana pinesnake's occupied habitat overall, the likely most
abundant population has relatively little beneficially managed land,
and none of the populations has yet shown a definitive response to
forest management conservation activities.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Ongoing take of Louisiana pinesnakes in Louisiana for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes has not been
previously considered a threat (Boundy 2008, pers. comm.). Removal from
wild populations for scientific purposes is not expected to increase
significantly in the future. Any potential overutilization would be
almost exclusively to meet the demand from recreational snake
enthusiasts. According to a 2009 report of the United Nations
Environment Program--World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP--WCMC
2009, p. 17), captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes were advertised for
sale on four German Web sites, and two U.S. breeders were listed on
another Web site. However, current levels of Louisiana pinesnake
collection to support the commercial captive-bred snake market have not
been quantified. Reichling (2008, pers. comm.) and Vandeventer (2016,
pers. comm.) stated that there appears to be very little demand for
this species by private collectors; however, there are at least a few
Louisiana pinesnake breeders, and the snakes were still featured in
advertisements recently for several hundred dollars for one adult
(Castellanos 2016, pers. obs.).
Given the restricted distribution, presumed low population sizes,
and low reproductive potential of Louisiana pinesnakes, even moderate
collecting pressure would negatively affect extant populations of this
species. Webb et al. (2002, p. 64) concluded that, in long-lived snake
species exhibiting low fecundity, the sustained removal of adults from
isolated populations would eventually lead to extirpation.
Non-permitted collection of the Louisiana pinesnake is prohibited
by State law in Texas and Louisiana, and most areas in Louisiana where
extant Louisiana pinesnake populations occur restrict public access or
prohibit collection. In addition, general public collection of the
Louisiana pinesnake would be difficult (Gregory 2008, pers. comm.) due
to the species' secretive nature, semi-fossorial habits, and current
rarity.
Previously in Texas, TPWD has allowed captured Louisiana pinesnakes
to be removed from the wild by permitted scientific researchers to help
supplement the low representation of snakes from Texas populations in
the AZA-managed captive breeding program. Currently, LDWF does not
permit the removal from the wild of any wild-caught Louisiana
pinesnakes to add founders to the AZA-managed captive-breeding program.
Although concern has been expressed that Federal listing may
increase the demand for wild-caught animals (McNabb 2014, in litt.),
based on the best available information, we have no evidence that
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is currently a threat to the Louisiana pinesnake.
Factor C: Disease or Predation
Like many other animals, the Louisiana pinesnake is potentially
impacted by native and introduced predators.
Known natural wild predators of pinesnakes (Pituophis) include
mammals such as shrews, hawks, raccoons, skunks, and red foxes (Ernst
and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager et al. 2006, p. 34). All of these species
are common in the range of the Louisiana pinesnake. Several of these
mammalian predators may be anthropogenically enhanced; that is, their
numbers often increase with human development adjacent to natural areas
(Fischer et al. 2012, pp. 810-811). Birds, especially hawks, are also
known to prey on pinesnakes (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager et al.
2006, p. 34). In one Louisiana pinesnake occurrence record, the snake
was described as being ``in combat with hawk,'' presumably a predation
attempt by the bird (Young and Vandeventer 1988, p. 204; Pierce 2015,
unpub. data). Some snake species prey on other snakes, including
pinesnakes. The scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea) has been documented
to prey on northern pinesnake eggs (Burger et al. 1992, p. 260). This
species is found within the range of the Louisiana pinesnake. An
eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum flagellum), which is an
abundant species in the Louisiana pinesnake's range, was observed
attempting to predate a juvenile northern pinesnake in North Carolina
(Beane 2014, p. 143). Speckled kingsnakes (Lampropeltis getula
holbrooki) prey on pinesnakes (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 279), and one
caught in a trap set for the Louisiana pinesnake was observed to have
recently consumed another snake (Gregory 2015, pers. comm.).
Pinesnakes also suffer from attacks by domesticated mammals,
including dogs and cats (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284). 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.
Invasive feral hogs are known to inhabit some Louisiana pinesnake
EOHAs (Gregory 2016, pers. comm.), including the Catahoula
Reintroduction Feasibility EOHA (Nolde 2016, pers. comm.), and are
known to prey upon vertebrate animals, including snakes (Wood and Roark
1980, p. 508). They will also consume eggs of ground-nesting birds
(Henry 1969, p. 170; Timmons et al. 2011, pp. 1-2) and reptiles (Elsey
et al. 2012, pp. 210-213); however, there is no direct evidence that
feral hogs prey on Louisiana pinesnakes or their eggs. Therefore, at
this time, feral hogs are not known to be a threat to the Louisiana
pinesnake. The Service and USFS are currently engaged in feral hog
population control throughout Louisiana and Texas.
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). Red imported fire ants also occur
in areas occupied by Louisiana pinesnakes and are potential predators
of Louisiana pinesnake eggs and hatchlings (Parris et al. 2002, p. 514;
Beane 2014, p. 142); they have also been documented predating snake
eggs under experimental conditions (Diffie et al. 2010, p. 294).
While there are no documented occurrences of successful predation
(excessive or otherwise) specifically on Louisiana pinesnakes,
predation on pinesnakes has been documented (Burger et al. 1992,
entire; Baxley 2007, p. 17; Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Ernst and
Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager et al. 2006, p. 34). Even with the assumption
that the Louisiana pinesnake is currently subject only to natural,
historical types and rates of predation without additional pressure
from invasive predators (e.g., feral hogs,
[[Page 69470]]
red imported fire ants), the synergistic effect of that predation,
together with other known sources of unnatural mortality on the
currently reduced size of remaining Louisiana pinesnake populations,
constitutes a threat to the species.
Snake fungal disease (SFD) is an emerging disease in certain
populations of wild snakes. It has been linked to mortality events for
other species, including one juvenile broad-banded watersnake (Nerodia
fasciata confluens [Blanchard]) in Louisiana (Glorioso et al. 2016, p.
N5). The causative fungus (Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola) (Lorch et al.
2015, p. 5; Allender et al. 2015, p. 6) and evidence of disease have
been documented in one Louisiana pinesnake. Symptoms of SFD (e.g., skin
lesions) were found on one Louisiana pinesnake; scale clippings from
the snake were analyzed and the causative fungus was positively
identified (Lorch et al., in press). However, while SFD is suspected of
threatening small, isolated populations of susceptible snake species,
we currently have no evidence that SFD is negatively affecting
Louisiana pinesnake individuals or populations. We know of no other
diseases that are affecting the species, and, therefore, at this time,
disease is not considered a threat to the Louisiana pinesnake.
Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
In Texas, the Louisiana pinesnake is listed as State threatened,
and prohibited from unauthorized collection (31 Texas Administrative
Code [TAC] sections 65.171-176). As of February 2013, unpermitted
killing or removal of native species of reptiles from the wild is
prohibited in Louisiana (Louisiana Administrative Code, title 76, part
XV, Reptiles and Amphibians, chapter 1, section 101.J.3(f)). Collection
or harassment of Louisiana pinesnake is also specifically prohibited on
USFS properties in Louisiana (USDA Forest Service 2002, p. 1). The
capture, removal, or killing of non-game wildlife from Fort Polk and
Peason Ridge (DOD land) is prohibited without a special permit (U.S.
Department of the Army 2008, p. 6; U.S. Department of the Army 2013, p.
51). USFS's land and resource management plans (KNF, ANF), the Army's
integrated natural resources management plans (INRMPs) (Fort Polk Main
Post and Peason Ridge), and the Louisiana pinesnake CCA all require
habitat management that is beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake for
the Kisatchie NF, Angelina NF, Fort Polk/Vernon, and Peason Ridge
populations (see ``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its Range,'' above). The Service has
never been informed of any difficulties in the implementation or
enforcement of the existing regulatory mechanisms that protect
Louisiana pinesnakes by TPWD, LDWF, or Federal land managers, and no
occurrences of noncompliance, including killing of snakes, have been
reported to us (see Factor E discussion, below).
Its habitat requirements being similar to that of the red-cockaded
woodpecker, the Louisiana pinesnake receives indirect protection of its
habitat via the protections of the Act provided for the endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker, where it co-occurs with the red-cockaded
woodpecker on Federal lands.
These existing regulatory mechanisms provide no protection from the
threat of Louisiana pinesnake habitat loss and degradation on privately
owned lands, including those which contain the Bienville and Scrappin'
Valley populations of the Louisiana pinesnake. Private landowners
within some occupied habitat of the Scrappin' Valley population have
voluntarily committed to agreements with the Service to manage those
areas with prescribed burning and to promote the longleaf pine
ecosystem for 10 years.
In summary, although existing regulatory mechanisms appear to be
adequate to prohibit direct harm to individual Louisiana pinesnakes
across their entire range, and offer some protection to habitat on
publicly owned land, they offer no protection to the already degraded,
fragmented, and declining habitat that exists on private lands.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
The historical loss, degradation, and fragmentation of the longleaf
pine ecosystem across the entire historical range of the Louisiana
pinesnake have resulted in six natural extant Louisiana pinesnake
populations that are isolated and small. Habitat fragmentation and
degradation on lands in between extant populations (Rudolph et al.
2006, p. 470) have likely reduced the potential for successful
dispersal among remnant populations, as well as the potential for
natural recolonization of vacant or extirpated habitat patches.
Small, isolated populations resulting from habitat fragmentation
are vulnerable to the threats of decreased demographic viability,
increased susceptibility of extirpation from stochastic environmental
factors (e.g., extreme weather events, epidemic disease), and the
potential loss of valuable genetic resources resulting from genetic
isolation with subsequent genetic drift, decreases in heterozygosity,
and potentially inbreeding depression (Lacy 1987, p. 147). Kwiatkowski
et al. (2014, pp. 15-18) found that the wild populations of the
Louisiana pinesnake had lower heterozygosity and higher inbreeding than
what is expected from a randomly breeding population. Low genetic
diversity in small, isolated populations has been associated with
negative effects on reproduction in snakes (Madsen 1996, p. 116).
Recovery of a Louisiana pinesnake population from the existing
individuals within the population following a decline is also uncertain
because of the species' low reproductive rate (smallest clutch size
[three to five] of any North American colubrid snake) (Reichling 1990,
p. 221). Additionally, it is extremely unlikely that habitat corridors
linking extant populations will be secured and restored; therefore, the
loss of any extant population will be permanent without future
reintroduction and successful recruitment of captive-bred individuals.
Roads surrounding and traversing the remaining Louisiana pinesnake
habitat pose a direct threat to the species. Population viability
analyses have shown that extinction probabilities for some snake
species may increase due to road mortality (Row et al. 2007, p. 117).
In an assessment of data from radio-tracked eastern indigo snakes
(Drymarchon corais couperi), 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). 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 (Rudolph et al. 1999, p. 130).
That study found that populations of large snakes may be depressed by
50 percent or more due to proximity to roads, and measurable impacts
may extend up to approximately 0.5 mi (850 m) from roads. During a
radio-telemetry study in Louisiana and Texas, 3 of the 15 (20 percent)
Louisiana pinesnake deaths documented could be attributed to vehicle
mortality (Himes et al. 2002, p. 686). Approximately 16 percent (37 of
235) of all documented Louisiana pinesnake occurrences were on roads,
and about half of those were dead individuals (Pierce 2015, unpub.
data). During Duran's (1998, pp. 6, 34) study on Camp Shelby,
Mississippi, 17
[[Page 69471]]
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). In Louisiana and
Texas, areas with relatively large areas of protected suitable habitat
and controlled access such as Fort Polk, KNF, and ANF, have several
roads located within Louisiana pinesnake occupied habitat, and there
have been a total of eight known mortalities due to vehicles in those
areas (Pierce 2015, unpub. data).
In addition, Dodd et al. (2004, p. 619) determined that roads
fragment habitat for wildlife. 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, and was likely due to
mortality and avoidance of roads (Clark et al. 2010, pp. 1059, 1067).
Malicious killing of snakes by humans is a significant issue in
snake conservation because snakes arouse fear and resentment from the
general public (Bonnet et al. 1999, p. 40). Intentional killing of
black pinesnakes by humans has been documented (Duran 1998, p. 34;
Lyman et al. 2008, p. 34). The intentional killing of Louisiana
pinesnakes by humans is not unlikely, but because of the species'
relatively low abundance and secretive nature, it likely happens very
infrequently and, therefore, is not considered a threat at this time.
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, the commonly
used 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; Zappalorti 2016, p. 19). 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 Louisiana 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 Louisiana pinesnake when used in
its habitat.
Exotic plant species degrade habitat for wildlife, and in the
Southeast, longleaf pine forest associations are susceptible to
invasion by the exotic cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). That plant
species 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 for some animals, and forms thick mats that restrict
movement of ground-dwelling wildlife; it also burns at high
temperatures that can kill or injure native seedlings and mature trees
(DeBerry and Pashley 2008, p. 74; Alabama Cooperative Extension System
2005, p. 1). Its value as forage for pocket gophers is not known.
Currently, cogongrass is limited to only a few locations in Louisiana
and Texas, and is not considered a threat to the Louisiana pinesnake.
However, cogongrass has significantly invaded States to the east of
Louisiana, such as Alabama and Mississippi (Alabama Cooperative
Extension System 2005, p. 1-4; USDA NRCS Plant Database 2016, p. 2),
where it occurs in pine forests on Camp Shelby (Yager et al. 2005, p.
23) potentially impacting the habitat of black pinesnakes found there.
The effects of climate change are predicted to have profound
impacts on humans and wildlife in nearly every part of the world
(International Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014, p. 6). One
downscaled projection for future precipitation change within the
historical range of the Louisiana pinesnake varies between increasing
and decreasing, but the average change is between 0.1 in (0.254 cm)
drier and 1.1 in (2.8 cm) drier from 2020 to 2039 (Pinemap 2016,
entire). Precipitation is projected to decrease even more for the 20
years following 2039. Additionally, the average summer temperature in
the species' historical range is expected to increase by 2.7-3.5
degrees Fahrenheit (Pinemap 2016, entire). Increasing temperature and
decreasing precipitation could potentially affect the pine forest
habitat of the Louisiana pinesnake due to drought stress on trees, and
the snake itself may be susceptible to injury from higher temperatures
or from decreased water availability. However, the Service is not aware
of any information that would substantiate those effects or how the
Louisiana pinesnake might adapt to those potential environmental
stressors.
Effects of native phytophagous (plant-eating) insect species on
Louisiana pinesnake habitat may increase due to the effects of climate
change. In a study that modeled the effects of the southern pine beetle
(Dendroctonus frontalis) related to environmental variables, southern
pine beetle outbreak risk and subsequent damage to southern pine
forests were substantially increased when considered for four separate
climate change scenarios (Gan 2004, p. 68). In the openings left in the
beetle-damaged pine forests, hardwoods may become the canopy dominants,
and invasive vegetation may be more likely to colonize (Waldrop 2010,
p. 4; Coleman et al. 2008, pp. 1409-1410), both of which can decrease
the amount of herbaceous vegetation that the Louisiana pinesnake's
primary prey (Baird's pocket gopher) depends upon for food.
The Service considers the effects of increased temperatures,
decreased precipitation, and increased insect impacts on the Louisiana
pinesnake and its habitat due to climate change to be a potential
threat in the future; however, because of the uncertainty of the rate,
scale, and location of impacts due to climate effects, climate change
is not currently considered a threat to the species.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Threats Under Factor E
Efforts to reduce Factor E threats would have to address increasing
the resiliency of individual populations by increasing abundance and
decreasing mortality, or preferably both. Currently, there are ongoing
efforts to reduce at least some types of mortality and to study the
potential of increasing the number of wild Louisiana pinesnakes via
introduction of captive-bred individuals.
As discussed above under Population Estimates and Status, efforts
to reintroduce Louisiana pinesnakes have been conducted only at the KNF
Catahoula District site, where the Louisiana pinesnake is not known to
have historically occurred. So far, there have been no attempts to
augment existing populations of Louisiana pinesnakes with captive-bred
individuals. Reintroduction, with improved success, done in multiple
populations where appropriate habitat is available, has the potential
to eventually increase the number of individuals and populations,
increase genetic heterozygosity, and alleviate presumed inbreeding
depression in the populations, making them more
[[Page 69472]]
resistant to threats described for Factor E.
As outlined in the CCA, the U.S. Army has committed to avoiding use
erosion control blankets, and USFS is committed to trying to locate ATV
routes outside of the boundaries of Louisiana pinesnake occupied
habitat. Additionally, some improved roads on National Forests are also
closed to the public during certain times of the year (e.g., September
to February at ANF [U.S. Forest Service 2015, entire]), which should
reduce the number of pinesnakes potentially killed by vehicle traffic
during those times.
In summary, a variety of natural or manmade factors, alone and in
combination with other factors, currently threaten the Louisiana
pinesnake. Fire suppression has been considered a primary reason for
continuing degradation of the pine forests in Louisiana and Texas.
Roads and rights-of-way, and fragmented habitat, isolate populations
beyond the dispersal range of the species. Mortality caused by vehicle
strikes is a threat because there are many roads bisecting Louisiana
pinesnake habitat, and the remaining populations appear to be small and
declining. The species' small clutch size may limit its ability to
effectively counteract mortality. Other potential threats to Louisiana
pinesnakes include SFD, erosion control blankets, insect and invasive
vegetation effects on habitat, and malicious killing by humans.
Overall, the threats under Factor E may act together and in combination
with threats listed above under Factors A through D and increase their
severity.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Louisiana pinesnake. Threats to the six known remaining
Louisiana pinesnake populations exist primarily from: (1) Historical
and continuing habitat loss and fragmentation (Factor A) primarily
through land-use changes or degradation caused by fire suppression; and
(2) synergistic effects from mortality caused by vehicle strikes and by
predators acting on vulnerable, reduced populations (Factor E and
Factor C).
Portions of habitat occupied by two Louisiana pinesnake populations
on private land are currently being managed beneficially for the
species (some through formal agreements with the Service), and
conservation efforts on Federal lands, such as KNF and ANF, and U.S.
Army lands at Fort Polk and Peason Ridge through a CCA in existence
since 2003, have been extensive and successful in restoring suitable
Louisiana pinesnake habitat. However, the lack of a definitive positive
response by the species' populations indicates that habitat restoration
may take much longer than expected to increase snake abundance,
especially when they are subjected to negative effects associated with
small populations of animals (i.e., reduced heterozygosity, inbreeding
depression) and mortality pressure from vehicles and predators.
A captive-breeding population of Louisiana pinesnakes is also being
maintained across 18 AZA accredited institutions and 2 non-AZA partner
institutions. This captive population, established in 1984, has been
managed under an AZA Species Survival Plan (SSP) since 2000. As of
March 2016, this captive-breeding population consists of 111
individuals (51 males, 53 females, and 7 unsexed). Since 2010, this
population has provided 77 captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes for
release into the wild at the Catahoula Ranger District of the KNF. This
reintroduction feasibility effort has shown that at least one of the 77
captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes has survived for at least 4 years
after release in optimal habitat.
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 Louisiana pinesnake
meets the definition of a threatened species based on the severity and
immediacy of threats currently impacting all populations of the species
throughout all of its range. The species' overall range has been
significantly reduced, populations have apparently been extirpated, and
the remaining habitat (on private lands) and populations are threatened
by factors acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the
species.
We find that the Louisiana pinesnake does not meet the definition
of an endangered species due to the existence of multiple populations
within the species' range; the extensive habitat restoration and
management efforts to benefit the species ongoing within occupied areas
currently being managed by the USFS and U.S. Army, as well as similar
efforts ongoing (albeit generally smaller and to a lesser extent)
within occupied areas currently being managed on private lands; and
reintroduction of captive-bred animals into the wild, which has shown
some limited success (see Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility EOHA, p.
32).
Since completion of the CCA in 2003, beneficial forest management
activities conducted by USFS and the U.S. Army have been formally
dedicated to conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake. Extensive habitat
restoration efforts have occurred on USFS and U.S. Army lands where the
species occurs, and those populations are no longer threatened by
continuing habitat loss. The resulting increases in snake abundance may
not be reflected in captures by traps currently in operation because
some newly-created suitable habitat may be in areas farther from
current trap locations. While it is difficult to show an increase in
population size with a species that is so difficult to detect, it is
reasonable to assume that these populations will benefit from improved
habitat management over time.
The Louisiana pinesnake captive-breeding population provides some
capability for population augmentation or re-establishing populations
in areas with suitable habitat through the SSP. The goals of the SSP
are to: Maintain an assurance colony for wild Louisiana pinesnake
populations, preserve or increase genetic heterozygosity into the
future, preserve representative genetic integrity of wild populations,
and provide individuals as needed for research and repopulation for the
conservation of wild populations. While reintroduction as a
conservation tool is not universally accepted as effective for all
animals, and the results of current reintroduction pilot efforts remain
uncertain, the number (77) of captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes
released into the wild since 2010 demonstrates that captive-propagation
efforts are successful, and provides the opportunity for
reintroduction/augmentation to benefit the conservation of the species.
The Louisiana pinesnake is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future because the remaining populations are small,
isolated, subject to ongoing natural and unnatural mortality pressure,
and to date have not shown a definitive positive response to habitat
restoration. The species currently has almost no potential for natural
recolonization between populations, and multiple significantly affected
populations may be unable to recover even with the restoration of
appropriate habitat. Half (three) of the known natural extant
populations (i.e., Kisatchie, Scrappin' Valley, and Angelina EOHAs)
have had no captures in several years and it is likely that they will
be considered extirpated in 7 years
[[Page 69473]]
or less based on our population determination criteria, unless
occurrences are documented in those areas before then.
Future conservation of the two extant populations on private lands,
which can change ownership and management practice, is uncertain.
Portions of the occupied habitat on these private lands are being
managed beneficially for Louisiana pinesnake, but there is no permanent
commitment from the current landowners to continue such efforts; the
other portions with suitable or preferable soils are generally
unsuitable habitat because of the current vegetation structure. The
Scrappin' Valley population is at risk of being considered extirpated,
as discussed immediately above. The Bienville population is one of the
two largest populations; should the ownership of those lands change or
the commitment to current habitat management efforts on lands
supporting the population cease, it is likely that this large
population would decline and could become extirpated within the
foreseeable future.
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 the
Louisiana 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).
Conclusion
Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose to list the Louisiana pinesnake as
threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The six known extant populations are all relatively small, and all are
subject to one or more of the continuing threats discussed above,
making them all vulnerable to extirpation. We find that an endangered
species status is not appropriate for the Louisiana pinesnake because
while we find the threats to the species to be significant, ongoing,
and occurring mostly range-wide, multiple populations continue to occur
within the species' range, and all of the populations' occupied habitat
or portions of it (including two of the largest populations) are
currently being managed to provide more suitable habitat for the
species. The two largest populations also have had relatively
consistent numbers of detections of individuals in the last 12 years.
Captive-propagation efforts have been demonstrated to be successful,
and while still unproven at this point, reintroduction pilot efforts
provide the opportunity for efforts to re-establish new populations or
augment existing populations to benefit the conservation of the
species.
Critical Habitat
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as: (i) The
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at
the time it is listed on which are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II)
which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the Secretary
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR
424.12) require that we designate critical habitat at the time a
species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species, to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. Our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent
when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is
threatened by taking or other activity and the identification of
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to
the species; or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be
beneficial to the species. As discussed above (see Factor B
discussion), there is currently no imminent threat of take attributed
to collection or vandalism for this species, and identification and
mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such
threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical
habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits
to a critical habitat designation, a finding that designation is
prudent is warranted. Here, the potential benefits of designation
include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new
areas for action in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for example, it is unoccupied; (2)
focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and
areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county
governments or private entities; and (4) preventing inadvertent harm to
the species. Accordingly, because we have determined that the
designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of
threat to the species and may provide some measure of benefit, we
determine that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the
Louisiana pinesnake.
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the
species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state
that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the
following situations exist: (i) Information sufficient to perform
required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (ii)
the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
As discussed above, we have reviewed the available information
pertaining to the biological needs of the species and habitat
characteristics where this species is located. On the basis of a review
of available information, we find that critical habitat for Louisiana
pinesnake is not determinable because the specific information
sufficient to perform the required analysis of the impacts of the
designation is currently lacking, such as information on areas to be
proposed for designation and the potential economic impacts associated
with designation of these areas. We are in the process of obtaining
this information. We will make a determination on critical habitat no
later than 1 year following any final listing determination.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species 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 other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for 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
[[Page 69474]]
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for 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 also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. If the
species is listed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the
final recovery plan would be available on our Web site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Louisiana Ecological Services
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 ranges 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.
If this species is listed, 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 Louisiana and Texas
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions
that promote the protection or recovery of the Louisiana pinesnake.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Louisiana pinesnake is only proposed for listing under
the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in conservation efforts for this species. Additionally,
we invite you to submit any new information on this species 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 proposed or listed as an
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the
Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' 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 U.S. Forest Service and
the Department of Defense.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to threatened wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.31, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these) threatened wildlife within the United States or on the high
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate
or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess,
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
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
species, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, 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 the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information,
the following activities may potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the Louisiana pinesnake,
including interstate transportation across State lines and import or
export across 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 animal species that compete with or
prey upon the Louisiana pinesnake.
(3) Introduction of invasive plant species that contribute to the
degradation of the natural habitat of the Louisiana pinesnake.
(4) Unauthorized destruction or modification of suitable occupied
Louisiana pinesnake habitat that results in long-term damage to or
alteration of
[[Page 69475]]
desirable herbaceous vegetation or the destruction of Baird's pocket
gopher burrow systems used as refugia by the Louisiana pinesnake, or
that impairs in other ways the species' essential behaviors such as
breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
(5) Unauthorized use of insecticides and rodenticides that could
impact small mammal prey populations, through either unintended or
direct impacts within habitat occupied by Louisiana pinesnakes.
(6) Unauthorized actions that would result in the destruction of
eggs or cause mortality or injury to hatchling, juvenile, or adult
Louisiana pinesnakes.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Louisiana
Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (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).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Louisiana Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Louisiana Ecological Services Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--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 paragraph (h) by adding an entry for ``Pinesnake,
Louisiana'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
alphabetical order under REPTILES to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Pinesnake, Louisiana............. Pituophis ruthveni.. Wherever found...... T [Federal Register
citation of the
final rule]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: September 26, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24113 Filed 10-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
