Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Louisiana Pinesnake, 14958-14982 [2018-07107]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14958-14982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07107]



[[Page 14957]]

Vol. 83

Friday,

No. 67

April 6, 2018

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status for Louisiana Pinesnake; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 14958]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni), a 
reptile species from Louisiana and Texas. The effect of this regulation 
will be to add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife.

DATES: This rule is effective May 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2016-0121 and https://www.fws.gov/lafayette/. Comments and materials we received, as well as 
supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available 
for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov and will be 
available by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Office, 646 
Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400; 337-291-3101; 337-291-3139.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Ranson, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES above). Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, as 
amended (``Act'' or ``ESA''; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), a species may 
warrant protection through addition to the Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (listing) if it is endangered or 
threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species may be 
completed only by issuing a rule.
    What this document does. This final rule will add the Louisiana 
pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni) as a threatened species to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h).
    The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species 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 events, including vehicle 
strikes and from predators (Factors C and E).
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers 
to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and 
information received during the comment periods.

Previous Federal Action

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Louisiana 
pinesnake, which was published on October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69454), for a 
detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this 
species.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69454), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by December 5, 2016. We reopened the comment period on October 
6, 2017 (82 FR 46748), with our publication of a document announcing a 
6-month extension of the final listing determination. This second 30-
day comment period ended on November 6, 2017. We also contacted 
appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and 
organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment 
on the proposal. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. 
All substantive information provided during comment periods has either 
been incorporated directly into this final determination or addressed 
below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from six knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
Louisiana pinesnake and its habitat, biological needs, and threats, and 
experience studying other pinesnake species. We received responses from 
all of the peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of 
Louisiana pinesnake. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our 
presentation of the known life history, habitat needs, and distribution 
of the species, and provided additional information, clarifications, 
and suggestions to improve this final rule. Peer reviewer comments are 
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule 
as appropriate.
    Two of the six peer reviewers commented that overall, the proposed 
rule was a thorough review of what is currently known about the 
Louisiana pinesnake, and another reviewer stated that the Service had 
used the best available science. One reviewer noted that information on 
life-history attributes and potential threats was limited, but he 
stated his support for the Service's proposed listing of the Louisiana 
pinesnake as threatened. Three peer reviewers stated that the Louisiana 
pinesnake was declining, and two of those three thought that the 
species should be listed as endangered rather than threatened. Specific 
substantive comments from peer reviewers, and our responses, follow:
    (1) Comment: Two peer reviewers recommended that trapping effort 
should be included when discussing numbers of individuals captured in 
areas receiving beneficial management versus areas not receiving 
beneficial management in the Bienville population. One peer reviewer 
also cautioned that when we reported trapping success for the whole 
Bienville population, we did not indicate that two of the three sites 
being trapped are being managed to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake and 
much of the surrounding habitat is unsuitable for the species.

[[Page 14959]]

    Our Response: We agree that trapping effort is important when 
making comparisons across sites. We have added capture-per-unit effort 
(i.e., trap success) where we made comparisons of capture numbers among 
sites in Bienville. We also clarified which two sites in the Bienville 
area are being managed to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake, and indicate 
that trap success has been much greater in those two areas compared to 
a third site that is not managed to benefit the species.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that trap-days provide only a 
relative index with unknown precision and thus cannot be used to 
estimate population size. The reviewer also contended that, without a 
population size or vital rates for the species, no minimum population 
size or minimum area required for population persistence can be 
estimated.
    Our Response: We acknowledge the limitations of using trap-days, 
and by extension trap success values, for estimating population size. 
Because of that limitation, we do not offer any quantitative estimation 
of population numbers or minimum habitat area in the rule. We use trap-
days as a tool for relative comparisons between sites.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer advised caution in using trapping 
results to determine Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs because much trapping 
was done prior to knowledge of the species' soil preferences (Wagner et 
al. 2014 and the Landscape-scaled Resource Selection Functions Model 
(LRSF model)), and because the criteria used to rank habitat quality 
for the purpose of identifying additional sites to conduct surveys in 
the Rudolph et al. (2006) study may not have accurately reflected 
actual habitat use by the species. The peer reviewer also stated that 
recent trapping records show that Louisiana pinesnakes are frequently 
trapped in areas not resembling a mature forest, even though they have 
otherwise desirable habitat characteristics. Therefore, potential 
trapping areas may have been overlooked.
    Our Response: We agree soil types and the current understanding of 
the species' habitat preferences affected the selection of trapping 
areas and, therefore, the delineation of estimated occupied habitat for 
the Louisiana pinesnake. While some sites with no forested habitat may 
have been excluded because they were presumed to have a poorer quality 
habitat, we have no evidence that the number of untrapped sites that 
were potentially inhabited but not forested was greater than the number 
of untrapped sites that were forested and characterized as higher 
quality. Regarding soils, we know that some trapping areas were not 
located on preferred or suitable soils, especially before Wagner et al. 
(2014); however, the vast majority of all traps (84%) are located on 
preferred or suitable soils. So while some potential Louisiana 
pinesnakes areas may have been overlooked, the method used to delineate 
EOHAs is valid and represents the species' known locations as 
accurately as possible with the best available data. We have always 
recognized that there may still be undiscovered individuals and the 
threatened status extends to wherever the species is found.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer and one other commenter stated that 
the proposed rule does not discuss consideration of distinct 
populations of the Louisiana pinesnake for separate listing status. 
They argue that the Texas and Louisiana populations represent distinct 
population segments and that the Texas populations should be listed as 
endangered.
    Our Response: According to our DPS policy, for a population to be a 
distinct population segment it must be both discrete (either markedly 
separate from other populations of the same taxon, or delimited by 
international boundaries) and significant. To be significant, the 
population: (a) May persist in a unique or unusual ecological setting; 
(b) would, if lost, result in a significant gap in the range; (c) is 
the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more 
abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical 
range; and (d) differs markedly from other populations of the species 
in its genetic characteristics. As required by the policy, we first 
considered the discreteness of the Texas and Louisiana populations. We 
determined that they were discrete due to the physical barrier of the 
Sabine River and the lack of continuous suitable habitat between the 
Texas and Louisiana populations. We then looked at the significance of 
the Texas population. The habitat is the same, so there is no unusual 
or unique ecological setting for the species. The Texas population 
makes up only 19 percent of the total occurrence record, so its loss 
would not result in a significant gap in the range of the species. The 
genetics of both the Texas and Louisiana populations do not differ 
markedly from other populations of the species in characteristics. 
Therefore, it does not meet the significance criteria for being a DPS. 
The listable entity is the species, and we have determined that the 
species is threatened species throughout its entire range.
    (5) Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that, although no verified 
records of Louisiana pinesnake occur from Grant Parish, Louisiana, 
where the reintroduction population is located, the species likely 
occurred there historically as there are occurrence records in parishes 
immediately north and south of Grant Parish.
    Our Response: We relied on the county and parish occurrence records 
in Louisiana and Texas to describe the historical range of the species, 
and agree that it is likely that the Louisiana pinesnake occurred in at 
least some portions of Grant Parish, Louisiana, based on its known 
occurrences in parishes nearby.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the small size of the 
two core management areas (CMAs), Kepler and Sandylands, within the 
Bienville EOHA should be emphasized. That reviewer estimated that fewer 
than 100 individuals could live there, and that neither the Bienville 
nor the Scrappin' Valley populations have enough habitat to support a 
viable population.
    Our Response: We have clearly stated the size of the two CMAs 
within the Bienville EOHA both in terms of acreage and as a percentage 
of the total area of the EOHA. Based on the best available information, 
we could not determine whether the Bienville population or any other 
population is viable or not or what the minimum required habitat size 
may be.
    (7) Comment: One peer reviewer and several other commenters believe 
that the Service should determine endangered rather than threatened 
status for the Louisiana pinesnake. The peer reviewer mentioned that 
there have been minimal conservation accomplishments concerning the 
Louisiana pinesnake since it was first identified as a candidate 
species 34 years ago, and that the conclusions cited in the rule are 
not adequate to support a threatened listing.
    Our Response: 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.'' The determination to list 
the Louisiana pinesnake as threatened was based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data on its status, based on the immediacy, 
severity, and scope of the existing and potential threats and ongoing 
conservation actions (see Determination section, below). We found that 
an endangered species status was not appropriate for the Louisiana

[[Page 14960]]

pinesnake because, while threats to the species were significant, 
ongoing, and occurring mostly range-wide, multiple populations continue 
to occur within the species' range, and for all the populations, some 
occupied habitat is currently being managed to provide more suitable 
habitat for the species.
    While it may be difficult to determine the ultimate success of 
these conservation actions, we know that discussions between the 
Service and our public lands partners, in particular, have resulted in 
new language within formal management plans that will protect and 
enhance Louisiana pinesnake habitat. For example, the Joint Readiness 
Training Center and Fort Polk have amended their integrated natural 
resources management plan to provide for the protection and management 
of the Louisiana pinesnake and its habitat. In addition, the Service, 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Department of Defense, the Texas Parks 
and Wildlife Department, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 
Fisheries, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the 
Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) are cooperators in a candidate 
conservation agreement (CCA) for the Louisiana pinesnake that allows 
the partnering agencies to work cooperatively on projects to avoid and 
minimize impacts to the species and to identify and establish 
beneficial habitat management actions for the species on certain lands 
in Louisiana and Texas. Some private landowners also maintain suitable 
habitat specifically for the Louisiana pinesnake in areas occupied by 
the snake.
    (8) Comment: One peer reviewer and several public commenters 
questioned our conclusion that illegal collection from the wild and 
killing by humans were not threats to the Louisiana pinesnake.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule, we relied upon the best 
scientific and commercial information available, which in the case of 
illegal collection included correspondence with individuals who have 
experience with the history of the pinesnake pet trade in the area (see 
``Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, 
or Educational Purposes'' in the Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species section, below). Those sources maintained that the demand for 
Louisiana pinesnake is limited. There was no information available to 
suggest that illegal collection will increase once the species is 
listed, and no new information to support this theory was received 
during the comment periods. Since the Louisana pinesnake is fossorial 
(and thus difficult to locate), occurs mostly on private and restricted 
access lands, and does not overwinter in communal den sites (making it 
difficult for humans to find), based on the best available information 
illegal collection is not a threat to the species. Similarly, no 
further data were provided during the comment periods to show that 
intentional killing by humans was a threat. Therefore, we concluded 
that neither illegal collection nor intentional killing by humans are 
threats to the species.
    (9) Comment: Two peer reviewers, a State agency, and other 
commenters claim that the Louisiana pinesnake is likely extirpated in 
Texas due to lack of records in several years despite extensive 
trapping efforts. Some commenters thought that the Service should make 
a statement of extirpation.
    Our Response: The Service, after discussion with researchers 
knowledgeable about the Louisiana pinesnake, determined a method based 
on occurrence records and trapping effort to estimate the area occupied 
by the Louisiana pinesnake (see Historical and Current Distribution 
section). According to that method, we still recognize two areas that 
we believe to be occupied in Texas. Species listed under the ESA are 
protected wherever found.
    (10) Comment: One peer reviewer disagreed with the Service's use of 
the term ``population'' to describe the snakes in the Reintroduction 
Feasibility Study as too optimistic, as there has been no reproduction 
observed, and it is unknown if a viable population is feasible.
    Our Response: We agree that it is too soon to conclude whether the 
experimental reintroduction is successful, which is why we did not make 
any claims in the proposed rule of reproduction or viability for the 
reintroduced population. However, a basic definition of the term 
``population'' is a group of individuals of the same species that occur 
together in the same area. Our use of the term ``population'' for the 
Reintroduction Feasibility Study animals was to indicate that it was a 
group of individuals of the same species located in one geographical 
area, not to relay that we considered pinesnakes in this area to be 
reproducing or self-sustaining.
    (11) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the EOHAs 
overestimate the extent of occupied habitat, because not all of the 
habitat within EOHAs is suitable, and not all suitable habitat is 
occupied. The reviewer also stated that occupied area has declined over 
time. The reviewer also stated that the Service incorrectly considered 
conservation planning on reasonably sized habitat blocks, in addition 
to likely occupation by the species, as the method to delineate the 
EOHAs.
    Our Response: As described in the proposed rule, EOHAs were 
delineated around Louisiana pinesnake verified occurrence records 
obtained after to 1993 (when more extensive trapping began) excluding 
records older than 11 years (the estimated Louisiana pinesnake 
generational turnover period (Marti 2014, pers. comm.)), when traps 
within 0.6 mi (1 km) of following at least 5 years of unsuccessful trap 
effort. The method and criteria used by the Service to determine EOHAs 
are somewhat different from what the peer reviewer used (Rudolph et al. 
2016). Whereas both incorporate a 1-km buffer around a minimum convex 
polygon (MCP) to account for within-home-range movement of individuals 
occurring at the periphery of the MCP, the peer reviewer developed MCPs 
of occupied habitat based on Louisiana pinesnake occurrences documented 
only within the 5-year intervals that each of the polygons represent. 
As noted by the peer reviewer, the Service's method is less 
conservative in how it assumes records relate to the presence of an 
animal. The peer reviewer's method assumes that an individual that 
occurred in one 5-year interval was not present during the next 5-year 
interval unless it was recaptured. The Service method assumes a longer 
persistence of individuals for purposes of estimating occupied habitat. 
Several individual snakes (among several populations) have been 
captured 4 to 5 years apart with no intervening captures in the same 
general area, indicating that snakes can persist for at least several 
years in areas without being captured (Pierce 2016, unpublished data; 
Battaglia 2016, pers. comm.).
    Neither method should be construed to represent the absolute extent 
of Louisiana pinesnake occupied habitat at a specific point in time. 
Both attempt to predict the spatial extent of mobile animals over time 
based on data points that are nearly all tied to mostly permanent trap 
locations. However, both methods are based on factual evidence of the 
species' presence, and have value. The aerial extent of the EOHAs alone 
cannot be used to estimate the species' abundance, and therefore are 
only one part of the analysis used in the decision to list the 
Louisiana pinesnake as threatened. The Service method for determining 
occupied habitat does not rely on soil or habitat type or any variable 
other than occurrence records of the species. The

[[Page 14961]]

Service acknowledges the peer reviewer's comment that not all of the 
EOHAs comprise suitable habitat, and not all suitable habitat is likely 
to be occupied. The Service does not imply that this situation must be 
either true or necessary in order to describe the EOHAs.
    (12) Comment: One peer reviewer claimed that neither predation nor 
disease is a significant factor in the population decline of the 
Louisiana pinesnake as stated in the proposed rule. That reviewer also 
stated that disease is a concern in the captive population.
    Our Response: The Service stated in the proposed rule that disease 
was not a threat, but that predation acting together with other known 
sources of mortality, coupled with the current reduced size of the 
remaining Louisiana pinesnake populations, constitutes a threat (see 
Factor C: Disease or Predation). Based on numerous accounts of 
predation on other related pinesnake species (and one attempted 
predation on a Louisiana pinesnake), we believe that the Louisiana 
pinesnake experiences natural predation, and that as long as the 
populations are low in abundance, this activity does constitute a 
threat. The Service did not find that disease in the captive population 
was a threat to the Louisiana pinesnake. Nearly all captive-animal 
propagation efforts are at risk of disease. Premature death due to 
disease has affected the captive population, but the mortality history 
of the captive population of Louisiana pinesnakes is consistent with 
that of any healthy captive population of snakes maintained for several 
decades (Reichling 2018, pers. comm.).
    With a captive population of just under 200 animals, even a small 
number of deaths are potentially detrimental to the effort to maintain 
a secure captive population and provide animals for recruitment into 
the wild. However, because great losses due to disease have not 
occurred in the Louisiana pinesnake captive population and the member 
zoos have not reported a heightened concern about disease, we do not 
consider disease outbreak in the captive-bred population to be a threat 
at this time.
    (13) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that all populations of 
Louisiana pinesnake continue to decline in abundance and the overall 
range of the species has contracted. Another peer reviewer stated that 
Louisiana pinesnake trap success in three Texas populations during the 
5 years preceding the last captures in those populations is similar to 
what is happening with three Louisiana populations (Bienville, Fort 
Polk/Vernon, and Peason); therefore, the species should be listed as 
endangered rather than threatened.
    Our Response: The Louisiana pinesnake has declined in both numbers 
and range. All populations in Texas continue to show a decline even 
after additional trapping efforts extended the number and range of 
potential detection points. Acknowledging the unfavorable outlook for 
Texas populations, some general limitations of trapping to determine 
the species' presence should be noted. The number of trapped snakes is 
almost certainly an underestimate of individuals, and while it is 
likely that the number of individual snakes captured is partly a 
function of trap density, that relationship remains unknown. 
Additionally, some individuals caught in one trapping season in a 
relatively small area of suitable habitat were not captured again for 
up to 5 years (Pierce 2016, unpub data; Battaglia 2016, pers. comm.). 
Finally, it should be noted that not all suitable habitat has been 
trapped.
    While we not aware of any viability analyses based on demographic 
and life-history data, the peer reviewer has conducted research using 
state-space modelling based on trap success data to predict the timing 
of ``quasi-extinction'' for populations of the Louisiana pinesnake. The 
Service does not use a comparable statistical analysis tool that 
determines extinction or ``quasi-extinction.'' The Bienville and Fort 
Polk populations have a long history of regular captures, and trap 
success in the last 2 years (2015, 2016) at the Sandylands core 
management area (CMA) was greater than any other year since trapping 
started in 2004. While long-term persistence of these populations is in 
question, and there is no evidence to show an increase of individuals, 
a decline of the Louisiana populations cannot be concluded from 
trapping data.
    (14) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the effectiveness of 
conservation efforts for the Louisiana pinesnake cannot be 
demonstrated.
    Our Response: As we acknowledged in the proposed rule, beneficial 
forest management has not resulted in an increase in abundance of the 
Louisiana pinesnake even though many acres of land have been included 
in conservation efforts. However, by increasing the amount of suitable 
habitat by appropriate forest management, the threat of habitat loss 
and fragmentation has been reduced in many areas. The connection 
between suitable habitat, pocket gophers, and the Louisiana pinesnake 
is thoroughly explained in the proposed rule and supported by research 
cited therein. Recent (2011-2016) captures of subadults in the 
Bienville EOHA indicates that conditions there support some level of 
reproduction and persistence. However, we agree that the long-term 
persistence of the Louisiana pinesnake is in danger; therefore, we are 
listing the Louisiana pinesnake as a threatened species.
    (15) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that most forest 
conservation work that is beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake is work 
that is already being conducted for the benefit of the red-cockaded 
woodpecker and requested that this be emphasized in the rule.
    Our Response: Because their basic habitat requirements are very 
similar, conservation efforts for the red-cockaded woodpecker also 
benefit the Louisiana pinesnake. We noted these contributions in the 
proposed rule and have added text in the final rule to underscore their 
importance.
    (16) Comment: One peer reviewer asked that the Service clarify the 
meaning of ``invasive species'' as used in the list of activities that 
may result in a violation of section 9 of the ESA.
    Our Response: Executive Order 13112 defines ``invasive species'' in 
section 1, paragraph (f), as ``an alien species whose introduction does 
or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human 
health.'' Take to the Louisiana pinesnake may occur in the form of harm 
as a result of habitat degradation caused by invasive plant species.
    (17) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether only wild 
snakes, as opposed to both wild and captive-bred individuals, should be 
subject to some or all of the prohibitions found in section 9 of the 
Act.
    Our Response: We intend that the prohibitions of section 9 of the 
Act apply to both wild-caught and captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes. 
While intrastate commerce, including that of threatened species, is not 
regulated by Federal law, interstate commerce of both threatened and 
endangered species is generally prohibited except by special permit. 
The permitting process would allow the Service to better monitor all 
individuals of the species, validate claims of captive-bred status, and 
inform the decision to approve or disapprove actions that could 
potentially affect the wild population.

Federal Agency Comments

    (18) Comment: One Federal agency commented that the captive-
breeding program and reintroduction efforts are promising but it is 
premature to call

[[Page 14962]]

them a success. That agency and some other commenters also recommended 
that any wild-caught snakes should be introduced into the captive-
breeding population.
    Our Response: As discussed in a Response to Comment above, the 
captive-breeding program and reintroduction efforts are promising, and 
in the proposed rule we did claim that the reintroduction program had 
shown partial success. Although there has been no evidence of 
reproduction, almost 60 percent of the total 77 snakes released were 
recaptured in 2016 (3 years later), which shows that captive-bred 
individuals can survive without assistance for several years.
    Although two of the Service's partners, AZA and USFS are currently 
carrying out a captive-breeding and reintroduction effort, captive-
propagation programs are generally a last recourse for conserving 
species. The Act directs the Service to focus on conserving the species 
in the wild. Loss of habitat is one of the primary threats to this 
species. Before captive animals are taken from the wild or can be 
reintroduced, questions of genetics, disease, and survival in the wild 
must be evaluated and addressed. Captive populations, even when they 
are healthy and genetically diverse, will likely not survive in the 
wild unless there is adequate habitat. However, as we begin the 
recovery process, we will consider various options for recovery of the 
species, which will likely continue to include captive propagation.
    (19) Comment: The Army apprised the Service of new research on 
pocket gophers done at Fort Polk. The Army agreed with the Service's 
recommended habitat management for the Louisiana pinesnake at Fort 
Polk. It also commented that Fort Polk should be exempt from take for 
activities related to red-cockaded woodpecker and Louisiana pinesnake 
conservation and be exempted from critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: The Service has reviewed the research provided and 
incorporated this new information in the Habitat section of the 
preamble to this rule. In a conference opinion, the Service conferred 
with the Army on habitat management activities and military training 
that takes place on Army-controlled land at Fort Polk and concluded 
that those actions analyzed in that conference opinion were not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of the Louisiana pinesnake. That 
opinion does not apply to the red-cockaded woodpecker, but only to the 
Louisiana pinesnake and the specific actions covered in the opinion. 
With the listing of the species, the conference opinion must be 
confirmed as formal consultation by adopting it as a biological 
opinion. The Service did not designate critical habitat in this final 
rule, but will make a decision in the near future to propose critical 
habitat if prudent and determinable, and if appropriate will evaluate 
whether lands in Fort Polk should be considered for designation (see 
Critical Habitat section).

Comments From States

    We received comments from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, 
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas A&M Forest Service, and 
the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. The Texas 
Comptroller of Public Accounts and Texas A&M Forest Service stated that 
they believe the Louisiana pinesnake is likely extirpated in Texas. All 
three Texas State agencies stated their support for longleaf pine 
(Pinus palustris) restoration efforts, and also management of other 
pine species to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake. The Texas Parks and 
Wildlife Department provided an extensive list of what it represented 
were normal practices that would be necessary for forest management and 
that should not be restricted if the species was listed. Specific 
comments are addressed below.
    (20) Comment: While all three Texas State agencies and several 
other commenters stated their support for longleaf pine restoration, 
they also commented that ongoing conservation efforts with other pine 
species, best management practices, and good stewardship or healthy 
forest certifications were also beneficial for the Louisiana pinesnake.
    Our Response: The structure of the forest occupied by Louisiana 
pinesnakes is very important, and while some studies have shown that 
pinesnakes have not always been found to use longleaf pine forests 
exclusively, studies support the need for open-canopied pine forest 
with a sparse midstory and well-developed herbaceous ground cover 
composed of grasses and forbs. While other tree species could 
potentially be managed for an open canopy, the canopy structure of 
longleaf pine allows greater light penetration than other pine species 
for trees of comparable size. So for the same stem density, longleaf 
pine will generally allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, 
which increases herbaceous vegetation cover. That said, while 
certification for well-managed forests or timber farms is likely an 
indication of good habitat for some wildlife, to our knowledge there is 
no certification that specifies what forest condition would need to be 
achieved in order to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake specifically.

Public Comments

    (21) Comment: Several commenters representing the forestry industry 
stated that the Service mistakenly thinks that pine plantations are 
static ``closed canopies'' and have ``thick mid-stories.'' They stated 
that pine plantations can provide suitable Louisiana pinesnake habitat, 
and across a broad, actively managed forest landscape, pine plantations 
that are at different stages of development ensure that suitable 
habitat is available at all times. Some commenters referred to a 2013 
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement report, which states 
that of the almost 9 million acres of planted pine forests owned by 
large corporate forest landowners, two-thirds of those acres were in 
some form of open-canopied condition. The commenters suggested that 
suitable Louisiana pinesnake habitat should include this type of matrix 
of forested stands where the canopy cover is at various stages of being 
open and closed, as the pinesnakes would always be able to find areas 
where they could locate food, shelter, and mates.
    Our Response: We sincerely appreciate the efforts of forest 
landowners to provide habitat for a variety of species and would like 
to continue working with the forest industry to further explore the 
benefits of pine plantations. That said, not all forests are managed in 
a way that will protect the species or its habitat. In the survey cited 
by the commenter, two-thirds of those acres were composed of young 
trees that had not grown large enough to close the canopy, as many 
managed pine forest lands go through cycles of having closed canopies. 
For example, if a stand becomes closed when the trees are 5 to 7 years 
old, and the first thinning is at age 14 to 20, there is a period of 7 
to 15 years when that stand is unsuitable for pinesnakes.
    The idea that a matrix of intermittently open- and closed-canopied 
forest stands provides suitable habitat for Louisiana pinesnakes relies 
on several assumptions: That suitable open habitat will always be 
located in close proximity to areas where the canopy is closing, that 
areas of suitable habitat will be expansive enough to support the large 
home ranges of these snakes, and that snakes which must relocate due to 
canopy closure will be able to find adequate access to relocated mates 
and prey in their shifted home range. Small mammal abundance

[[Page 14963]]

decreases in response to canopy closure, often to the point of mammals 
abandoning the site (Lane et al. 2013, p. 231; Hansberry et al. 2013, 
p. 57). Also, the primary prey of the Louisiana pinesnake, Baird's 
pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps), forages on herbaceous vegetation, 
which requires sufficient sunlight penetration for growth. When the 
forest canopy of a stand becomes more closed, herbaceous vegetation is 
reduced or lost entirely. Therefore, stands with closed canopies, 
although open for a part of the time during the cycle of management and 
harvesting activities, are not stable habitats for pinesnakes and do 
not contribute to the long-term conservation of the species.
    (22) Comment: Many commenters stated that the structure of the 
forest is more important to Louisiana pinesnake than the presence of 
longleaf pine per se. They note that Louisiana pinesnakes have been 
found in other habitats, such as monoculture pine plantations 
containing little if any longleaf pine.
    Our Response: The best available information shows that structure 
of the forest occupied by Louisiana pinesnakes is very important, and 
while some studies have shown that pinesnakes have not always been 
found exclusively using longleaf pine forests, these studies support 
the need for open-canopied pine forest with a sparse midstory and well-
developed ground cover composed of grasses and forbs. While other tree 
species could potentially be managed for an open canopy, the canopy 
structure of longleaf pine is such that it allows greater light 
penetration than other pine species for trees of comparable size. So 
for the same stem density, longleaf pine will generally allow more 
sunlight to reach the forest floor, which increases herbaceous 
vegetation cover. In the proposed rule, we described the types of 
forest and habitat where Louisiana pinesnakes have been found 
historically. For the vast majority of records occur in forested 
locations dominated by longleaf pine. When Louisiana pinesnakes are 
found in pine plantations devoid of longleaf pine, these areas are 
adjacent to areas with longleaf pine and areas of open canopy with 
herbaceous vegetation. As noted in the proposed rule, the individuals 
found in the plantation area appeared to be less healthy than those 
found in the beneficially managed areas indicating that they may have 
only been traversing the plantation in search of higher quality habitat 
(Reichling et al. 2008).
    (23) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should 
have requested peer reviewers with expertise in forestry, especially 
from the private sector.
    Our Response: In accordance with our peer review policy published 
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we selected qualified peer-reviewers 
based on their particular expertise or experience relevant to the 
scientific questions and determinations addressed in our action. We 
solicited peer review from six knowledgeable individuals with expertise 
pertaining to pinesnakes, their habitat, and threats, including one 
reviewer with extensive experience with forestry management, especially 
as applied to conservation actions to benefit habitat for the red-
cockaded woodpecker, an endangered species with habitat requirements 
similar to the Louisiana pinesnake.
    (24) Comment: Several commenters indicated that concerns about 
liability limit landowners' ability to conduct prescribed fire, which 
benefits the Louisiana pinesnake.
    Our Response: We acknowledge and commend landowners for their land 
stewardship and want to continue to encourage those management 
practices that support the Louisiana pinesnake. We understand the 
liability concerns associated with implementing prescribed fire, but 
note that, while prescribed fire is an effective and preferred forest 
management tool, private landowners will not be required to perform 
prescribed burning on their property as a result of the listing of the 
Louisiana pinesnake. Landowners who wish to pursue this activity may be 
able to purchase liability insurance specifically for conducting 
prescribed burns. Additionally, voluntary conservation programs such as 
the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and various 
programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service may 
provide financial assistance to eligible landowners who implement 
management activities that benefit the habitat for a listed species, 
including the Louisiana pinesnake.
    (25) Comment: Several commenters indicated that listing the 
Louisiana pinesnake may lead to changes in forest management that would 
negatively impact the species.
    Our Response: In compliance with the requirements of the Act and 
its implementing regulations, we determined that the Louisiana 
pinesnake warrants listing based on our assessment of the best 
available scientific and commercial data. We recognize that the 
Louisiana pinesnake remains primarily on lands where habitat management 
has supported survival, due in large part to voluntary actions 
incorporating good land-stewardship, and we want to continue to 
encourage land management practices that support the species.
    We recognize the need to work collaboratively with private 
landowners to conserve and recover the Louisiana pinesnake.. We 
encourage any landowners with a listed species that may be present on 
their properties, and who think they may conduct activities that 
negatively impact that species, to work with the Service. We assist 
landowners to determine whether actions they may result in take of a 
listed species and, if so, whether a habitat conservation plan or safe 
harbor agreement may be appropriate for their needs. These plans or 
agreements provide for the conservation of the listed species while 
providing coverage for incidental take of the species during the course 
of otherwise lawful activities. Other voluntary programs, such as the 
Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service's Farm Bill programs offer opportunities 
for private landowners to enroll their lands and receive cost-sharing 
and planning assistance to reach their management goals. The recovery 
of endangered and threatened species to the point that they are no 
longer in danger of extinction now or in the future is the ultimate 
objective of the Act, and the Service recognizes the vital importance 
of voluntary, nonregulatory conservation measures that provide 
incentives for landowners in achieving that objective. We are committed 
to working with landowners to conserve this species and develop 
workable solutions.
    (26) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service arbitrarily 
chose open-canopy longleaf forest as the ``historic'' habitat condition 
for the Louisiana pinesnake. They also commented that the habitat has 
been altered by humans (especially fire) since the arrival of the first 
Americans.
    Our Response: The use of the term ``historical'' is not meant to 
suggest that the longleaf ecosystem was free of human (Native American) 
influence (i.e., in a pristine state), but rather it refers to the 
ecosystem that occurred prior to European settlement and modern 
silviculture, and the ecosystem within which the Louisiana pinesnake 
evolved. It is for these reasons that the longleaf pine ecosystem is 
considered the Louisiana pinesnake's historical habitat. See our 
discussion of longleaf pine habitat under Factor A: The Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or 
Range in the proposed rule.

[[Page 14964]]

    (27) Comment: Two commenters suggested that conservation efforts 
are already helping the species and that the Service should use public-
private partnerships and alternative conservation tools (e.g., 
Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances) to recover the 
Louisiana pinesnake instead of Federal Endangered Species Act listing.
    Our Response: Conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake will require 
collaboration between Federal, State, and local agencies and 
landowners. We recognize that the Louisiana pinesnake remains primarily 
on lands where habitat management has supported survival, due in large 
part to voluntary actions incorporating good land-stewardship, and we 
want to continue to encourage land management practices that support 
the species. However, our determination to list the species is required 
by the Act and its implementing regulations, considering the five 
listing factors, and using the best available scientific and commercial 
information. Our analysis supports our determination of threatened 
status for this species. Ongoing conservation actions, including those 
referenced by the commenters, and the manner in which they are helping 
to ameliorate threats to the species were considered in our final 
listing determination for the Louisiana pinesnake (see ``Conservation 
Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Range'' under Factor A and ``Conservation Efforts to Reduce Threats 
under Factor E'' under Factor E). Habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation has been a primary driver of the Louisiana pinesnake's 
decline. These ongoing conservation efforts were not sufficient to 
ameliorate the threats to the species such that listing was not 
warranted, and additional conservation efforts will be needed to 
recover the species to the point that the protections of the Act are no 
longer needed.
    (28) Comment: Some commenters stated that there is no evidence that 
the Louisiana pinesnake needs any forest overstory at all.
    Our Response: As discussed in the Habitat section of this rule, the 
best available scientific information indicates that 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 Baird's pocket gopher, (Rudolph 
et al 2012, p. 243). Pocket gopher abundance is associated with a low 
density of trees, an open canopy, and a sparse woody midstory, which 
allow greater sunlight and more herbaceous vegetation needed as forage 
for pocket gophers (Himes 1998, p. 43; Melder and Cooper 2015, p. 75).
    The best available scientific information indicates that the 
structure of the open-canopy pine forest occupied by pinesnakes is 
important, despite some pinesnakes having found outside of longleaf 
pine forests. These studies also support the need for open-canopy pine 
forest with a well-developed herbaceous ground cover. The species has 
been collected in fields devoid of trees and trapped in areas with 
newly planted trees, suggesting that very open canopy conditions are 
preferred. The vast majority of records for the species come from pine 
forests, with only a few records from non-forested fields. The best 
scientific information available indicates that the Louisiana pinesnake 
can use some treeless areas, but there is no evidence that those areas 
are preferred over, or good substitutes for, open-canopy pine forest 
habitat as described in the rule.
    (29) Comment: Commenters stated that the Service's data and 
information were not sufficient to proceed with a listing of the 
Louisiana pinesnake. Commenters noted the lack of critical information 
needed to assess the species' status and population trends, such as 
demographic data, rangewide surveys, and population estimates. Several 
others contended that population estimates are inaccurate and likely 
too low because Louisiana pinesnakes are difficult to locate, noting 
their tendency to remain below ground most of the time, and that 
trapping efforts are limited in scope across the animal's range.
    Our Response: It is often the case that data are limited for rare 
species, and we acknowledge that it would be useful to have more 
information on the Louisiana pinesnake. However, as required by section 
4 of the Act, we are required to base our determination on the best 
available scientific and commercial information at the time of our 
rulemaking. No new or alternative data were offered by any commenters 
that resulted in a change to our determination that the Louisiana 
pinesnake should be listed as threatened under the Act.
    (30) Comment: Several commenters stated that the peer review of the 
proposed rule is flawed because the reviewers are not really 
independent because the proposed rule relies on some of their research.
    Our Response: The Act and our regulations require us to use the 
``best scientific data available'' in a listing decision. Further, in 
making our listing decisions, we use information from many different 
sources, including articles in peer-reviewed journals, scientific 
status surveys and studies completed by qualified individuals, other 
unpublished governmental and nongovernmental reports, reports prepared 
by industry, personal communication about management or other relevant 
topics, management plans developed by Federal agencies or the States, 
biological assessments, other unpublished materials, experts' opinions 
or personal knowledge, and other sources, including expert opinions of 
subject biologists.
    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited peer review from knowledgeable individuals 
with scientific expertise that included familiarity with this species 
and other pinesnakes, the geographic region in which the species 
occurs, and conservation biology principles.
    (31) Comment: Several commenters indicated the Service should 
consider the economic costs to the public when making a determination 
to Federally list a species.
    Our Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act specifies that the 
determination of whether any species is an endangered species or a 
threatened species is based solely on the five factors A through E (see 
Executive Summary, basis of findings) none of which include economics. 
Therefore, the Service is precluded from considering such potential 
costs in association with a listing determination.
    (32) Comment: Several commenters indicated there should be economic 
incentives or private landowners should be compensated if land use is 
restricted on their property due to listing of a threatened or 
endangered species.
    Our Response: There is no provision in the Act to compensate 
landowners if they have a federally listed species on their property. 
However, the landowners' only obligation is not to ``take'' the 
species. We encourage any landowners that may have a listed species on 
their properties, and who think they may conduct activities that 
negatively impact that species, to work with the Service. The Service's 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and various programs 
administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service may provide 
financial assistance to eligible landowners who implement

[[Page 14965]]

management activities that benefit the habitat for a listed species, 
including the Louisiana pinesnake. Private landowners may contact their 
local Service field office to obtain information about these programs 
and permits.
    (33) Comment: Some commenters stated that the Service rushed to 
list the Louisiana pinesnake because of a lawsuit settlement.
    Our Response: The status of the Louisiana pinesnake has been under 
consideration by the Service for almost two decades. The Louisiana 
pinesnake was added to the candidate list of species in 1999, during 
which time the scientific literature and data indicated that the 
species was detrimentally impacted by ongoing threats. At that time, we 
determined that the Louisiana pinesnake warranted listing under the 
Act, but listing was precluded by the necessity to commit limited funds 
and staff to complete higher priority listing actions. We continued to 
find that listing was warranted but precluded through subsequent annual 
Candidate Notices of Review. On July 12, 2011, the Service filed a 
multiyear workplan as part of a settlement agreement with the Center 
for Biological Diversity and others, in a consolidated case in the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia. A settlement agreement 
(Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 
(EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)) was approved by the 
court on September 9, 2011. The settlement enabled the Service to 
systematically, over a period of 6 years, review and address the needs 
of more than 250 candidate species, including the Louisiana pinesnake, 
to determine if they should be added to the Federal Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Our review of the Louisiana 
pinesnake was one of the last species addressed under this settlement 
agreement. Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the 
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 
Notwithstanding the settlement agreement and its requirements, we also 
adhered to the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations 
to determine whether the Louisiana pinesnake warrants listing, based on 
our assessment of the five-factor threats analysis using the best 
available scientific and commercial data.
    (34) Comment: Commenters representing the captive-breeding 
community voiced concern over the impact of the listing to pet owners, 
many of whom indicated a willingness to contribute to Louisiana 
pinesnake conservation, work of researchers, and zoological 
institutions. Some questioned the need for Federal protection, citing 
the existing State regulations in Texas and Louisiana. Some 
specifically requested that captive-bred animals be excluded from the 
listing or exempted through a rule under section 4(d) of the Act to 
allow unfettered continuation of captive breeding, pet ownership, and 
trade.
    Our Response: Louisiana pinesnakes acquired before the effective 
date of the final listing of this species (see DATES, above) may be 
legally held and bred in captivity as long as laws regarding this 
activity within the State in which they are held are not violated. This 
would include snakes acquired prior to the effective date of this 
listing by pet owners, researchers, and zoological institutions. Future 
sale or other use of captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes, born from pre-
listing acquired parents, within the State of their origin would be 
regulated by applicable laws of that State. If individuals outside a 
snake's State of origin wish to purchase captive-bred snakes, they 
would have to first acquire a section 10(a)(1)(A) Interstate Commerce 
permit from the Service (website: https://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-55.pdf).
    (35) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Louisiana 
pinesnake is closely associated with Baird's pocket gopher, which 
serves it as prey and a provider of shelter via its underground 
burrows. They contend that because the gopher is abundant and not 
declining, the Louisiana pinesnake is not at risk. Other commenters 
also suggested that not enough is known about the pocket gopher 
population to know how it might affect the Louisiana pinesnake.
    Our Response: The Baird's pocket gopher is likely abundant and has 
a relatively large range (greater than the Louisiana pinesnake); 
however, the Louisiana pinesnake is currently known from only six 
relatively small isolated areas, a small subset of the overall Baird's 
pocket gopher range. Within those areas, the amount of suitable habitat 
for pocket gophers and Louisiana pinesnakes is limited even further. 
The abundance of the pocket gopher is only important to the Louisiana 
pinesnake in those local areas where the pocket gopher is available as 
prey and where its burrows provide refugia. Like other animals, pocket 
gopher populations can become locally scarce due to local adverse 
habitat conditions while simultaneously remaining abundant on a 
rangewide scale. Therefore, the rangewide abundance of the pocket 
gopher does not predict their abundance in other localized areas, 
including those known to be occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake.
    (36) Comment: Several commenters indicated the species is already 
protected by State laws, and as such should not be listed under the Act 
(or that listing under the Act should not be necessary).
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us, in making 
a listing determination, to take into account those efforts being made 
by States or foreign nations, or any political subdivision thereof, to 
protect the species. As part of our analysis, we consider relevant 
Federal, State, and tribal laws and regulations. Regulatory mechanisms 
may negate the need for listing if we determine such mechanisms address 
the threats to the species such that listing is not, or no longer, 
warranted. However, for the Louisiana pinesnake, the best available 
information supports our determination that State regulations are not 
adequate to remove the threats to the point that listing is not 
warranted. Existing State regulations, while providing some protection 
for individual snakes, do not provide any protection for their habitat 
(see Factors Affecting the Species, Factor D discussion). Loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation of habitat has been a primary driver of 
the species' decline. The Act provides protections for listed species 
and their habitats both through sections 7 and 10 of the Act, and the 
designation of critical habitat. In addition, listing provides 
resources under Federal programs to facilitate restoration of habitat, 
and helps bring public awareness to the plight of the species.
    (37) Comment: Several commenters indicated that activities that may 
violate section 9 of the ESA are too broadly written and may encompass 
forest management activities that would not meet the regulatory 
definition of ``harm'' because they would not significantly impair 
essential behaviors. For harm to occur it must be proven that there is 
or will be death or actual injury to an identifiable member of the 
species that is proximately caused by the action in question.
    Our Response: The term ``take'' is defined by the ESA to mean to 
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 
collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct. ``Harass'' is further 
defined by the Service to mean an intentional or negligent act or 
omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying 
it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior 
patterns which

[[Page 14966]]

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. 
``Harm'' is further defined by the Service to mean an act which 
actually kills or injures wildlife, and such acts may include 
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death 
or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential 
behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
    The Service understands the concern of forest owners and managers 
regarding forest management activities that may potentially violate 
section 9 of the ESA. However, the Service did specify that 
``unauthorized destruction or modification of suitable occupied 
Louisiana pinesnake habitat'' may potentially result in a violation. 
That statement may appear broad, but it covers activities in addition 
to forest management, such as conversion of suitable forest habitat to 
agriculture or other land use. If forest management activities would 
neither result in a significant disruption of normal behavior patterns 
(i.e., harass) nor impair essential behavior patterns (i.e., harm), 
then those activities would not violate section 9 of the ESA. The 
Service is committed to working with landowners and land managers to 
help them determine whether any forest management activities would 
potentially rise to the level of ``harass'' or ``harm'' of the 
Louisiana pinesnake in occupied habitat and, if so, whether a habitat 
conservation plan or safe harbor agreement may be appropriate for their 
needs.
    (38) Comment: Several commenters stated that reintroduction should 
be done on public lands only, and private landowners in the immediate 
area should be notified.
    Our Response: 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 resistant to 
threats described under Factor E. An informal committee was established 
to oversee and conduct an experimental reintroduction of the Louisiana 
pinesnake on public land 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. As discussed under Population Estimates and Status, the 
resulting efforts to reintroduce Louisiana pinesnakes have been 
conducted only at the Kisatchie National Forest (KNF) Catahoula 
District site. So far, there have been no other attempts to augment 
existing populations of Louisiana pinesnakes with captive-bred 
individuals. The Service is committed to working with the appropriate 
Federal, State, and local partners, as well as private entities, to 
identify additional, appropriate reintroduction sites, and ensure that 
if such reintroductions occur, they are only conducted on lands with 
willing landowners and adjacent landowners are notified.
    (39) Comment: Several commenters stated that they thought critical 
habitat, if necessary, should be designated on public land only.
    Our Response: Critical habitat has been determined to be prudent 
but not determinable at this time. See Critical Habitat, below.
    (40) Comment: Two commenters stated that there is debate among the 
scientific community concerning the validity of the taxonomic 
classification of the Louisiana pinesnake as a distinct species.
    Our Response: We concluded that the species is a valid taxon (See 
Species Description and Taxonomy section in the proposed rule) based in 
part on Reichling (1995) and Rodriguez-Robles and Jesus-Escobar (2000) 
which concluded the same. The classification of the Louisiana pinesnake 
with the species name Pituophis ruthveni is recognized by Crother 
(2000) and accepted by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and 
Reptiles, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 
and the Herpetologists League. That classification, while recognized as 
not unequivocally supported by the available data by the ICUN, is also 
adopted by the ICUN's own database. Some researchers (e.g., Ernst and 
Ernst [2003]) may treat ruthveni as a subspecies of Pituophis 
catenifer, but it should be noted that subspecies can also be listed 
under the Act and afforded the same protections as a full species.
    (41) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service had not 
provided relevant data about the Louisiana pinesnake to the public for 
review.
    Our Response: Consistent with a 2016 Director's Memorandum, 
``Information Disclosure Policy for ESA Rulemakings,'' we post all 
cited literature that is used in rulemaking decisions under the Act, 
and that is not already publicly available, on Regulations.gov 
concurrent with the Federal Register publication. Where cited 
references or literature used in the rulemaking process are not 
published and readily available to the public, (such as with grey 
literature, information from States, or other unpublished resources), 
we will post those documents on Regulations.gov. Documents that can 
already be accessed online by the public, either through purchase or 
for free, do not need to be uploaded onto https://www.regulations.gov. 
Any such information, documents, data, grey literature, or other 
information that we cite in our rulemaking will be posted and made 
available at the time of publication of the rule. In addition, as noted 
above, comments and materials we received, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this rule, will be available by 
appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Office, 646 Cajundome Boulevard, 
Suite 400.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This final rule incorporates minor changes to our proposed rule 
based on the comments we received, as discussed above in the Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations, and newly available survey information. 
Many small, nonsubstantive changes and corrections were made throughout 
the document in response to comments (e.g., updating the Background 
section, threats, and minor clarifications). However, the information 
we received in response to the proposed rule did not change our 
determination that the Louisiana pinesnake is a threatened species. 
Below is a summary of substantive changes made to the final rule:
     Additional information on habitat from recent studies 
(Wagner et al., 2016) was added to include forb species as part of the 
preferred ground-layer herbaceous vegetation. In addition, we added 
that snakes appeared to select areas based on the diameter at breast 
high (dbh) (>25 cm dbh) trees, rather than the number of trees per 
plot.
     Updated occurrence records and individuals of Louisiana 
pinesnakes from the USFS to include a total 291 verified occurrence 
records of 251 individual Louisiana pinesnakes from 1927 through 
November 1, 2017 (excluding reintroductions), all from Louisiana and 
Texas. In addition, Louisiana pinesnake trapping across the species' 
entire range from 1992 through November 1, 2017, has resulted in 113 
unique individual captures during 451,501 trap days (1:4,220 trap 
success) (Pierce 2017, pers. comm.; Pierce 2016a, pers. comm.)
     Updated information related to trapping efforts to include 
data from 1992-2017 throughout the historical range of the Louisiana 
pinesnake, which

[[Page 14967]]

has resulted in 116 unique (i.e., new or first capture) individual 
captures.
     Updated trap success rate at Bienville EOHA, which is 
61,091 ac (24,722.6 ha), with a trap success rate of 1:1,133.1 (Pierce 
2017, pers. comm.; Pierce 2016a, pers. comm.).
     Updated the number of trap days and survey years on the 
Kisatchie District of the KNF to read that no Louisiana pinesnakes were 
captured during 13,372 trap days (1995 to 2003).
     Revised captive-breeding release information to include 91 
captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes released into the wild at the 
Catahoula Ranger District of the KNF (Pierce 2017, pers. comm.)
     Updated detection information released snakes through 
monitoring of deployed Automated PIT Tag Recorders and trapping.
     Updated Factor C disease discussion paragraph to include 
new disease information.

Background

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Louisiana 
pinesnake (81 FR 69454, October 16, 2016) for a full summary of species 
information. We also present new information published or obtained 
since the proposed rule was published (see also Summary of Changes from 
the Proposed Rule, above).

Species Description and Taxonomy

    Pinesnakes (genus Pituophis) are large, short-tailed, non-venomous, 
powerful constricting snakes with keeled scales and disproportionately 
small heads (Conant and Collins 1991, pp. 201-202). Their snouts are 
pointed, and they have a large scale on the tip of their snout 
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 ranges from unmarked to 
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. Typical head markings include dark spots on top, dark 
suture marks on the labial (lip) scales, head markings, although 
rarely, and a dark band or stripe may occur behind the eye (Boundy and 
Carr 2017, p. 335). The length of typical adult Louisiana pinesnakes 
ranges from 48 to 56 inches (in) (122 to 142 centimeters (cm)) (Conant 
and Collins 1991, p. 203).

Habitat

    Louisiana pinesnakes are known from and associated with a disjunct 
portion of the historical longleaf-dominated pine ecosystem that 
existed in west-central Louisiana and east Texas (Reichling 1995, p. 
186). Longleaf pine forests are dominated by longleaf, but may also 
contain other overstory species such as loblolly and shortleaf pine and 
sparse hardwoods. They have a species-rich herpetofaunal community and 
harbor many species that are specialists of the longleaf pine habitat 
(Guyer and Bailey 1993, p. 142). 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). The vast majority of natural 
longleaf pine habitat has been lost or degraded due to conversion to 
extensive pine plantations and suppression of the historical fire 
regime. As a result, current Louisiana pinesnake habitat occurs within 
smaller, isolated patches of longleaf forest and other open forest with 
well-developed herbaceous ground cover.
    Abundant ground-layer herbaceous vegetation, especially forb 
species, (Wagner et al. 2016, p. 11) is important for the Louisiana 
pinesnake's primary prey, the Baird's pocket gopher which constitutes 
75 percent of the Louisiana pinesnake's estimated total prey biomass 
(Rudolph et al 2012, p. 243). Baird's pocket gophers feed on various 
parts of a variety of herbaceous plant 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; Wagner et al. 
2016, p. 11).
    Baird's 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). Most 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 addition to 
suitable forest structure and herbaceous vegetation, specific soil 
characteristics are an important determinant of Louisiana pinesnake 
inhabitance (Wagner et al. 2014, entire). The snakes prefer soils with 
high sand content and a low water table (Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152).
    In one study, Louisiana pinesnakes were found most frequently in 
pine forests (56 percent), followed by pine plantation (23 percent) and 
clear-cuts (9 percent). Across all sites including pine plantation, 
snakes appeared to select areas with fewer large (>25 cm dbh) trees. 
Preferred sites had 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. A 2-year (2004-2005) trapping study was 
conducted at 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. 
Using an equal number of traps at each location, 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,

[[Page 14968]]

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 appeared thin or emaciated (indicating 
they probably had not fed recently), and were not recaptured in that 
habitat, which may indicate they were moving through these sites 
(Reichling et al. 2008, pp. 9, 14).

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). The species does not use burrows 
communally, and they does not exhibit fidelity to hibernacula sites in 
successive years (Pierce et al. 2014, pp. 140, 142). Louisiana 
pinesnakes observed in east Texas appear to be semi-fossorial and 
diurnal, and also moved relatively small distances (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).

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

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; therefore, it is likely that 
undocumented populations of this species occurred but were lost before 
1930.
    The USFS has compiled and maintains a database of all known 
Louisiana pinesnake locations (excluding telemetry data). According to 
that database, 291 occurrence records of 251 individual Louisiana 
pinesnakes have been verified from 1927 through November 1, 2017 
(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), has 874 records of occurrence through 2015 in the 
Florida alone (Enge 2016, pers. comm.). Approximately 395 records of 
occurrence exist for the black pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus 
lodingi), a species listed as threatened, throughout its range since 
1932 (Hinderliter 2016, pers. comm.).
    The Louisiana pinesnake records database is continually updated and 
corrected based on the latest information and analysis of record 
quality, and thus the number of verified records may change over time.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 14969]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AP18.045


[[Page 14970]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AP18.046

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 Occupied Habitat Areas (EOHAs) for Louisiana Pinesnake as Determined for 2016 According to
                                                              Location Records Through 2015
                                                          [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     Total for estimated
              State               Estimated occupied      U.S. Forest        Department of        State and            Private         occupied habitat
                                     habitat area           Service             Defense           municipal                                  area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana.......................  Bienville.........               0 (0)               0 (0)      363.7 (147.2)            60,727.2  61,090.9 (24,722.6)
                                                                                                                         (24,575.5)
                                  Kisatchie.........     1,598.8 (647.0)               0 (0)              0 (0)               0 (0)      1,598.8 (647.0)
                                  Peason Ridge......               0 (0)   3,147.3 (1,273.7)              0 (0)               0 (0)    3,147.3 (1,273.7)
                                  Fort Polk/Vernon..            34,164.7            27,601.3              0 (0)        222.6 (90.1)  61,988.7 (25,085.9)
                                                              (13,826.0)          (11,169.8)
                                  Catahoula              1,828.5 (739.9)               0 (0)              0 (0)               0 (0)      1,828.5 (739.9)
                                   Reintroduction.
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Louisiana Total.............  ..................            37,592.0            30,748.5      363.7 (147.2)            60,949.9            129,654.1
                                                              (15,213.0)          (12,443.5)                             (24,665.6)           (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)
                                  Angelina..........   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.........  ..................            47,101.3            30,751.9      499.7 (202.2)            67,324.9            145,677.7
                                                              (19,061.3)          (12,444.8)                             (27,245.4)           (58,953.7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Population Estimates and Status

    The Louisiana pinesnake is 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 IUCN's Red List of 
Threatened Species (version 3.1; https://www.iucnredlist.org/).
    Most Louisiana pinesnake records used to approximately delineate 
occupied habitat were acquired by trapping. Louisiana pinesnake 
trapping across the species' entire range from 1992 through November 1, 
2017, has resulted in 113 unique individual captures during 451,501 
trap days. This amount of effort amounts to a 1:4,220 trap success, 
which is a very low level of trapping success compared to other 
pinesnake species (Pierce 2017, pers. comm.; Pierce 2016a, pers. 
comm.). 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

[[Page 14971]]

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 
61,091 ac (24,722.6 ha), has a trap success rate of 1:1,133.
Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility EOHA
    An informal committee was established to oversee and conduct an 
experimental reintroduction of the Louisiana pinesnake in an attempt to 
evaluate the feasibility of using individuals from a captive population 
to establish a viable population in restored habitat. To date, 91 
captive-breed Louisiana pinesnakes have been released into the wild at 
the Catahoula Ranger District of the KNF.
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 
(Service 2013, pp. 32-33).
    As of November 2017, the captive-breeding Louisiana pinesnake 
population consists of 191 individuals at 13 institutions (Reichling 
2017, pers. comm.; Foster 2017a pers. comm.). Except for a downturn 
between about 2001 and 2005, hatching success has steadily increased 
since about 1987 (Reichling 2017, pers. comm.), especially in the last 
2 years: the number of hatchlings produced in 2017 increased nearly 50 
percent over the number of hatchlings produced in 2016 (Foster 2017b, 
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 offsite 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).
    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). The longleaf-dominant pine 
forest stands had increased to approximately 4.3 million ac (1.7 
million ha) by 2010 (Oswalt et al. 2012, p. 10; Guldin et al. 2016, pp. 
323-324) and 4.7 million ac (2.8 million ha) in 2015 (America's 
Longleaf Restoration Initiative 2016, p. 12).
    In general, overall forest land area in the southeastern United 
States is predicted to decline between 2 and 10 percent in the next 50 
years (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 78). The projected losses of natural 
pine forest in the Southeast would occur mostly as a result of 
conversion to planted pine forests (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 79). For 
the southern Gulf region, model runs assuming worse case scenarios of 
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 vary across the Southeast, with most 
population growth 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 is 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). Areas managed with silvicultural practices for 
fiber production do not

[[Page 14972]]

allow sufficient herbaceous vegetation growth and are not adequate to 
support viable Louisiana pinesnake populations (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 
470). Indeed, further trapping at the same sites sampled in the 
Reichling et al. (2008) study from 2006 through 2016 has resulted in a 
1:877.2 trap success rate and a 1:808.5 trap success rate for the first 
and second beneficially managed stands, respectively, and a 1:2,744.0 
trap success rate for the plantation site (Pierce 2017, unpub. data).
    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. Most forest management 
beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake to date has been performed 
primarily for the benefit of the red-cockaded woodpecker.
    USFS has implemented habitat restoration and management for many 
years on Sabine National Forest (SNF), Angelina National Forest (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 Louisiana Department of 
Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), was completed. Targeted conservation 
actions are currently being implemented as part of that agreement. The 
CCA identifies and establishes 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, pp. 12-16).
    Since completion of the CCA, beneficial forest management 
activities conducted by USFS and Fort Polk now formally include 
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 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 (Service 2013, pp. 7-8). That 
agreement updates, supersedes, and improves upon the 2003 CCA, and uses 
significant new information 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), which were delineated 
based on existing red-cockaded woodpecker habitat management areas 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. 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 (beginning well before the CCA) 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])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Stocking
                          Area                               Prescribed         Prescribed         reduction
                                                            burning 2015    burning 2013-2015   (thinning) 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOHA...................................................          963 (390)        1,980 (801)              0 (0)
HMU....................................................      4,285 (1,734)    24,893 (10,074)           193 (78)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14973]]


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])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Stocking
                          Area                               Prescribed         Prescribed         Reduction
                                                            burning 2015    burning 2013-2015   (thinning) 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOHA...................................................     12,670 (5,127)    43,281 (17,515)        1,541 (624)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   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])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Stocking
                          Area                               Prescribed         Prescribed         reduction
                                                            burning 2015    burning 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])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Stocking
                          Area                               Prescribed         Prescribed         reduction
                                                            burning 2015    burning 2013-2015   (thinning) 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOHA...................................................          489 (198)      2,597 (1,051)              0 (0)
HMU....................................................      2,651 (1,073)      7,440 (3,011)           100 (40)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    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])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Stocking
                          Area                               Prescribed         Prescribed         reduction
                                                            burning 2015    burning 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])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Stocking
                          Area                               Prescribed         Prescribed         reduction
                                                            burning 2015    burning 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

[[Page 14974]]

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 
composed 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 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 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 have developed 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.
    Additional research and survey efforts related to the Louisiana 
pinesnake are funded by the Texas Comptroller's office and being 
underway by Texas A&M University; 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.
    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, on generally a smaller scale 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).
    Trap success within Louisiana pinesnake populations has not 
increased over time (Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 33; Pierce 2015, unpub. 
data) that would imply an increase in abundance. 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 
have shown an observable response to forest management conservation

[[Page 14975]]

activities. The species also has a low reproductive rate, so 
recruitment to the population may not be detected for several years. 
However, it is also possible that some potential increases in snake 
abundance may not be captured where newly created suitable habitat may 
not be in close proximity to 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-pine forests 
(e.g. longleaf, loblolly, slash, and minor amounts of scattered 
shortleaf) 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 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 websites, and two U.S. breeders were listed on 
another website. However, current levels of Louisiana pinesnake 
collection to support the commercial captive-bred snake market have not 
been quantified. There appears to be very little demand for this 
species by private collectors (Reichling 2008, pers. comm.; Vandeventer 
2016, pers. comm.); 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. In long-lived 
snake species exhibiting low fecundity, the sustained removal of adults 
from isolated populations can eventually lead to extirpation (Webb et 
al. 2002, p. 64).
    Non-permitted collection of the Louisiana pinesnake is prohibited 
by State law in Texas and Louisiana (see Factor D below), 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 very likely 
impacted by native predators, and potentially by introduced predators.
    Known natural wild predators of pinesnakes include mammals such as 
shrews, 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, also prey on pinesnakes (Ernst and 
Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager et al. 2006, p. 34). One Louisiana pinesnake 
was described as being ``in combat with hawk,'' presumably the result 
of 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) preys 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.).

[[Page 14976]]

    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 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).
    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).
    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.
    Snake fungal disease (SFD) is an emerging disease in certain 
populations of wild snakes. It has been linked to morbidity and 
mortality for other species (Allender et al. 2011, p. 2383; Rajeev et 
al. 2009, p. 1264 and 1268; McBride et al. 2015, p. 89), including one 
juvenile broad-banded watersnake (Nerodia fasciata confluens 
[Blanchard]) in Louisiana (Glorioso et al. 2016, p. N5). As of November 
2017, the causative fungus (Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola [OO]) (Lorch et 
al. 2015, p. 5; Allender et al. 2015, p. 6) has been found on at least 
five Louisiana pinesnakes from the Bienville and Fort Polk populations 
since 2015, and evidence of disease has been documented in at least 
three individuals. Symptoms of SFD (e.g., skin lesions) were found on a 
Louisiana pinesnake from the Bienville population in 2015, and OO was 
positively identified (Lorch et al., 2016). Another individual from 
Bienville that also tested positive for OO had necrotic tissue but it 
had been involved in a presumed agonistic confrontation with a weasel 
while entrapped; therefore, the cause of the injury was not 
determinable. Two individuals from the Fort Polk population were found 
in a diseased state. Their symptoms included: low body weight, anemia, 
dehydration, skin lesions and systemic inflammation, and their survival 
in the wild was doubtful (Sperry 2017, pers. comm.). Both were treated 
with anti-fungal medication by a veterinarian and eventually recovered. 
A disease with symptoms consistent with SFD is suspected of 
contributing to as many as 20 mortalities in a small, isolated 
population of timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) (Clark et al. 
2011, p. 888). We are currently unaware of any population-level 
negative impacts on the Louisiana pinesnake. We know of no other 
diseases that are affecting the species. Because the causative fungus 
of SFD has been found in two Louisiana pinesnake populations, SFD has 
caused severe negative impacts to at least two individuals, and SFD has 
caused morbidity and mortality in several other snake species, the 
Service has concluded that disease (SFD) is now considered a potential 
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 the Louisiana pinesnake 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 (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. 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

[[Page 14977]]

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.
    Those Louisiana pinesnake populations are already small, which 
could potentially reduce the positive fitness effect of having greater 
numbers or density of conspecifics (also known as the Allee principle 
or effect). One mechanism for Allee effects is thought to be the 
greater ability to locate mates. For the Louisiana pinesnake, it is the 
lack of Allee effects that could be negatively affecting this species 
and preventing the observance of positive effects of beneficial forest 
management.
    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). Wild 
populations of the Louisiana pinesnake had lower heterozygosity and 
higher inbreeding than what is expected from a randomly breeding 
population (Kwiatkowski et al. 2014, pp. 15-18). 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 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). 
Adult eastern indigo snakes (Drymarchon corais couperi) 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 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, which negatively affected genetic diversity and 
gene flow among populations of this large snake. Those effects were 
likely due to road mortality and avoidance of roads (Clark et al. 2010, 
pp. 1059, 1067).
    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). Cogongrass 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 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

[[Page 14978]]

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, we are 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. However, 
the threat of future increased risk of southern pine beetle infestation 
since Gan (2004, p. 68) has so far not been realized in the southeast 
generally or in Louisiana and Texas specifically (Asaro et al. 2017, p. 
341, 343). In fact, the annual number of counties in southern pine 
beetle outbreak status has actually decreased in Louisiana and Texas 
since a recent peak around 1986 (Asaro et al. 2017, p. 341-347).
    We consider 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, efforts are 
underway 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. So far, there have been no attempts to augment 
existing populations of Louisiana pinesnakes with captive-bred 
individuals. 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 (91) 
of captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes released into the wild since 2010 
demonstrates that captive-propagation efforts can be successful, and 
provides the opportunity for reintroduction and augmentation to benefit 
the conservation of the species. 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 resistant to 
threats described for Factor E.
    As outlined in the CCA, the U.S. Army has committed to avoiding the 
use of 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.
    For additional information related to the summary of factors 
affecting the species, please refer to the Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species section in the October 6, 2016, proposed rule for 
additional discussion of the factors affecting the Louisiana pinesnake 
(see ADDRESSES).

Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal 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. 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). We did not find that the Louisiana 
pinesnake was impacted by overutilization (Factor B). While there are 
regulatory mechanisms in place that may benefit the Louisiana 
pinesnake, the existing regulatory mechanisms did not reduce the impact 
of the stressors to the point that the species is not in danger of 
extinction (Factor D).
    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'

[[Page 14979]]

populations indicates that habitat restoration may take 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 being 
managed under an SSP and has provided 91 captive-bred Louisiana 
pinesnakes for release into the wild at the Catahoula Ranger District 
of the KNF (see Conservation Efforts above). This reintroduction 
feasibility effort has shown that at least one of the 91 captive-bred 
Louisiana pinesnakes has survived for at least 4 years after release in 
suitable, beneficially managed 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. There are currently multiple known extant 
populations within the species' range. There are currently 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, above).
    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. 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, while maintaining an assurance colony 
for wild Louisiana pinesnake populations through the SSP. The multiple 
current populations combined with habitat management and restoration as 
well as captive-breeding decrease the current risk of extinction to the 
species. The Louisiana pinesnake is not in danger of extinction now, 
but we expect that into the future threats will continue to impact the 
species such that the species is likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future.
    The ``foreseeable future'' extends only so far as the Services can 
reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making 
determinations about the future conservation status of the species. 
Those predictions can be in the form of extrapolation of population or 
threat trends, analysis of how threats will affect the status of the 
species, or assessment of future events that will have a significant 
new impact on the species. The foreseeable future described here uses 
the best available scientific data and takes into account 
considerations such as the species' life history characteristics, 
threat projection time frames, and environmental variability such as 
typical forest harvest rotation, forest and natural resource management 
plans, and current conservation efforts, which may affect the 
reliability of projections. We also considered the time frames 
applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses 
to those threats in view of its life history characteristics. The 
foreseeable future for a particular status determination extends only 
so far as predictions about the future are reliable.
    In cases where the available data allow for quantitative modelling 
or projections, the time horizon for such analyses does not necessarily 
dictate what constitutes the ``foreseeable future'' or set the specific 
threshold for determining when a species may be in danger of 
extinction. Rather, the foreseeable future can only extend as far as 
the Service can reasonably explain reliance on the available data to 
formulate a reliable prediction and avoid reliance on assumption, 
speculation, or preconception. Regardless of the type of data available 
underlying the Service's analysis, the key to any analysis is a clear 
articulation of the facts, the rationale, and conclusions regarding 
foreseeability.
    Based on a review of the biology of the species, the threats acting 
on it, and its population trends, the foreseeable future used in this 
determination is approximately 30 to 40 years. This timeframe 
encompasses 3 to 4 generations of the Louisiana pinesnake and is a time 
period where we can reliably detect population and species level 
responses to threats and conservation actions acting on the snake. Any 
predictions of threats acting on the species beyond 30 to 40 years into 
the future, would be speculative and beyond the foreseeable future for 
the species.
    We rely on the experience of 26 years of trapping data for the 
species, activities that threaten its continued viability, as well as 
conservation actions intended to benefit the snake. During that 
timeframe, trap success has been relatively lower for the populations 
in Texas compared to those in Louisiana. Within the Scrappin' Valley 
EOHA, there have been no trap captures or other occurrences since 2009, 
and within the Angelina EOHA, the most recent unique individual trap 
capture was in 2007, however, a previously captured snake was 
recaptured in 2012. During that same time period, within Louisiana, the 
two populations within the Bienville and Fort Polk EOHAs have shown 
relatively consistent captures over time including captures in 2017. 
The last snake captured within the Kisatchie EOHA was in 2007, and 
within the Peason Ridge EOHA, six occurrence records exist between 2003 
and 2013, with the last in 2013. Based on the available data, it 
appears that the Texas populations and the Kisatchie population in 
Louisiana will likely become unoccupied in 7 years or less, unless 
occurrences are documented in those areas before then.
    In addition, open-canopy forest fragmentation and modification, due 
to conversion to other forest (closed canopy plantations) or non-forest 
land uses, or due to the lack of active management (e.g., prescribed 
fire, thinning, mid- and understory woody vegetation control) to 
maintain healthy open forest conditions, is the driving threat moving 
into the foreseeable future. Typical working forest rotation in the 
range of the species ranges between 20 to 30 years. There are currently 
extensive habitat restoration and management efforts to benefit the 
species ongoing within occupied areas currently being managed by the 
USFS and U.S. Army, and current USFS land and resource management plans 
as well as integrated natural resources management plans implemented by 
Fort Polk range between 5 to 15 years.

[[Page 14980]]

Similar efforts are also ongoing (albeit generally smaller and to a 
lesser extent) within occupied areas currently being managed on private 
lands; several relatively small areas are being managed under voluntary 
agreements (minimum of 10 years) with the Service through the Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife program, or through safe harbor agreements 
(maximum of 99 years) managed by the States for the red-cockaded 
woodpecker (which generally provide suitable habitat conditions). In 
addition, in 2017, the Service developed a conference opinion for 
NRCS's Working Lands for Wildlife program for the Louisiana pinesnake. 
This conference opinion is valid for 30 years.
    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 an observable, 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 their EOHAs 
will be considered unoccupied in 7 years or less based on our EOHA 
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 EOHA is at risk of being considered 
unoccupied, as discussed immediately above. The Bienville population is 
one of the two populations believed to be the largest; 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 population would decline and could become extirpated 
within the foreseeable future.
    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).

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. In the proposed listing rule 
(81 FR 69454, October 6, 2016), we determined that designation of 
critical habitat was prudent but not determinable because specific 
information needed to analyze the impacts of designation was lacking. 
We are still in the process of obtaining this information.

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 requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
within 30 days of when the species is listed and preparation of a draft 
and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate 
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to 
be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 
to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five 
factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be 
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. 
Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate 
their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of 
implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and 
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and final 
recovery plan will be available on our website (https://www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.

[[Page 14981]]

    Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for 
recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including 
Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal 
landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. 
In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Louisiana 
and Texas will 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.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Louisiana pinesnake. 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 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)(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 any endangered or threatened 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 U.S. Department of Defense.
    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue 
regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of threatened wildlife. We may also prohibit by regulation 
with respect to threatened wildlife any act prohibited by section 
9(a)(1) of the Act for endangered wildlife. For the Louisiana 
pinesnake, the Service is proposing a section 4(d) rule that is 
tailored to the specific threats and conservation needs of this 
species. The proposed rule may be found elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register in Proposed Rules. 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, 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 final listing 
on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed 
species. Based on the best available information, the following 
activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act; 
this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the 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 occupied Louisiana 
pinesnake habitat that results in damage to or alteration of 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

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2016-0121 and upon request from the Louisiana Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office.

[[Page 14982]]

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Pinesnake, Louisiana'' 
in alphabetical order under REPTILES to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name        Where listed        Status        applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                    Reptiles
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Pinesnake, Louisiana............  Pituophis ruthveni.  Wherever found.....            T  83 FR [insert Federal
                                                                                          Register page where
                                                                                          the document begins],
                                                                                          April 6, 2018.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: March 12, 2018.
James W. Kurth
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, exercising the 
authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-07107 Filed 4-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P