Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Section 4(d) Rule for Louisiana Pinesnake, 11297-11306 [2020-03545]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11297-11306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03545]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-0010; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BD06


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Section 4(d) Rule 
for Louisiana Pinesnake

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), adopt a rule 
under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act for the Louisiana 
pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni), a reptile that is listed under the 
statute as threatened. This rule will provide measures to protect the 
species, which is from Louisiana and Texas.

DATES: This rule is effective March 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in docket number FWS-R4-ES-2018-0010 and at 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, 200 Dulles 
Drive, Lafayette, LA 70506; 337-291-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Ranson, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services Office, at the 
address above; telephone 337-291-3113. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 
Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 6, 2016, the Service, under the authority of the 
Endangered Species Act, as amended (``Act'' or ``ESA''; 16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.), published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to add the 
Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni), a reptile from Louisiana and 
Texas, as a threatened species to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife (81 FR 69454). This List is found in title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations in part 17 (50 CFR 17.11(h)). The final listing 
rule published on April 6, 2018 (83 FR 14958), and on that same day, we 
proposed a rule under section 4(d) of the Act for the Louisiana 
pinesnake (83 FR 14836). Please refer to those rulemaking documents for 
a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this 
species.

Background

    The primary habitat feature that contributes to the conservation of 
the Louisiana pinesnake is open-canopy forest situated on well-drained 
sandy soils with an abundant herbaceous plant community that provides 
forage for the Baird's pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps), which is the 
snake's primary known source of food. In addition, Baird's pocket 
gopher burrows are the primary known source of shelter for the 
Louisiana pinesnake. As discussed in the proposed listing rule, one of 
the primary threats to the Louisiana pinesnake is the continuing loss 
and degradation of the open pine forest habitat that supports the 
Baird's pocket gopher. In the types of sandy soil in which the 
Louisiana pinesnake and pocket gopher are found (Wagner et al. 2014, p. 
152 ; Duran 2010, p. 11; Davis et al. 1938, p. 414), the pocket gopher 
creates burrows at an average depth of about 18 centimeters (cm) (7 
inches (in)) (Wagner et al. 2015, p. 54).
    One of the primary features of suitable pocket gopher habitat is a 
diverse herbaceous (non-woody) plant community with an adequate amount 
of forbs (non-grass herbaceous vegetation) that provide forage for the 
pocket gopher. Louisiana pinesnakes and pocket gophers are highly 
associated (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 389) and occur together in areas with 
herbaceous vegetation, a nonexistent or sparse midstory, and a low pine 
basal area (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Himes et al. 2006, pp. 
110, 112; Wagner et al. 2017, p. 22). In a Louisiana forest system 
managed according to guidelines for red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides 
borealis) habitat, pocket gopher selection of habitat increased with 
increasing forb cover and decreased with increasing midstory stem 
density and midstory pine basal area (Wagner et al. 2017, p. 11). Few 
(less than 25 percent) sites used by pocket gophers had less than 18 
percent coverage by forbs alone (Wagner et al. 2017, p. 22). Use by 
pocket gophers is also inhibited by increased midstory stem density and 
midstory pine basal area even when herbaceous vegetation is present 
(Wagner et al. 2017, pp. 20, 22, 25). Pocket gophers use areas with 
higher densities of trees much less frequently than areas with fewer 
stems, presumably because of greater root mass, which reduces burrowing 
efficiency (Wagner et al. 2017, pp. 11, 22).
    One of the main causes of the degradation of this habitat is the 
decline in or absence of fire. Fire was the primary source of 
historical disturbance and maintenance, and prescribed fire reduces 
midstory and understory hardwoods and promotes abundant herbaceous 
groundcover in the natural communities of the longleaf-dominant pine 
ecosystem where the Louisiana pinesnake most often occurs. In the 
absence of regularly recurring, unsuppressed fires, open pine forest 
habitat requires active management activities essentially the same as 
those required to produce and maintain red-cockaded woodpecker foraging 
habitat. Those activities, such as thinning, prescribed burning, 
reforestation and afforestation, midstory woody vegetation control, 
herbaceous vegetation (especially forbs) enhancement, and harvest 
(particularly in stands that require substantial

[[Page 11298]]

improvement) are necessary to maintain or restore forests to the 
conditions that are suitable (as described in the preceding paragraph) 
for pocket gophers and Louisiana pinesnakes.
    Establishment and management of open pine forests beneficial to the 
Louisiana pinesnake has been occurring on some privately owned land in 
Louisiana and Texas. Additionally, throughout the range of the 
Louisiana pinesnake, Federal and State agencies have developed 
conservation efforts, which have provided a conservation benefit to the 
species. Increased efforts, however, are necessary on both public and 
private lands to address continued habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation, one of the species' primary threats across its entire 
range, and it is the intent of this final rule to encourage these 
increased efforts.
    In the proposed listing rule (81 FR 69454, October 6, 2016), we 
solicited public comments as to which prohibitions, and exceptions to 
those prohibitions, are necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake. During the public comment 
periods on the proposed listing rule (81 FR 69454, October 6, 2016; 82 
FR 46748, October 6, 2017), we received comments expressing concern 
that when the species is listed under the Act, certain beneficial 
forest management activities on private land could be considered 
takings in violation of section 9(a)(1) of the Act or its implementing 
regulations, and would thus be regulated.
    The Service intends to strongly encourage the continuation and 
increased implementation of forest management activities--thinning, 
prescribed fire, and mid- and understory woody vegetation control in 
particular--that promote open-canopy forest and herbaceous vegetation 
growth, which are beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake. In recognition 
of efforts that provide for conservation and management of the 
Louisiana pinesnake and its habitat in a manner consistent with the 
purposes of the Act, as discussed in more detail below, we are now 
finalizing a rule under section 4(d) of the Act that prohibits take of 
the species except for take that results from actions providing for 
conservation and management of the Louisiana pinesnake. Information 
about section 4(d) of the Act is set forth below in Provisions of 
Section 4(d) of the Act.
    Our goal is to strongly encourage continuation and increased 
implementation of these beneficial practices. Nevertheless, if 
activities (with exceptions noted in the 4(d) rule provisions) could 
cause subsurface ground disturbance that can directly harm or kill 
Louisiana pinesnakes inhabiting pocket gopher burrows, or inhibit the 
persistence of suitable pocket gopher and Louisiana pinesnake habitat, 
as described above, they would be subject to the section 9 take 
prohibitions in certain occupied habitat areas, specifically areas 
known as Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs (for estimated occupied habitat 
areas). These areas have recorded occurrences of Louisiana pinesnakes, 
and they are considered by the Service to be occupied by the species 
(see the proposed listing rule). This regulation would also apply to 
any EOHAs that are identified in the future, because activities in such 
areas could be detrimental to maintenance and development of suitable 
habitat conditions critical to this species and are more likely to 
affect the Louisiana pinesnake directly.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    (1) Comment: Several commenters encouraged the Service not to 
restrict its broad discretion in designing the 4(d) rule through 
limiting language in the rule's preamble, because the Service has the 
discretion to regulate take independently of whether doing so will 
promote conservation. The commenters suggest that the Service's 
decision to allow incidental take of a threatened species should be 
flexible enough to maximize the agency's discretion to consider both 
the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake and the overall public 
interest regarding the importance of maintaining land in forest use 
within the broader context of the multiple benefits that those forests 
provide. The commenters recommend that if the Service chooses to retain 
a ``conservation'' reference in the rule's preamble, the language 
should be revised to clarify whether incidental take authorized under 
the 4(d) rule will be allowed where it does not materially detract from 
the species' conservation.
    Our response: Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may 
issue regulations that he deems necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of threatened species. Also under section 4(d) 
(specifically, the second sentence), the Secretary may, with respect to 
any threatened species of fish or wildlife, prohibit by regulation any 
act that is prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act for endangered 
wildlife, without necessarily making a finding that each prohibition or 
exception is necessary or advisable. We are not obligated to make a 
finding that the specific contours of the prohibitions under section 
9(a)(1) that the Service adopts are necessary or advisable for the 
conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake. The Secretary is also not 
obligated to make a finding that adoption of a prohibition against 
incidental take under section 9(a)(1) that contains exceptions, or that 
applies to only some categories of incidental take, is in the overall 
public interest. The Secretary can invoke the general provisions under 
section 9(a)(1) or in 50 CFR 17.21, or set prohibitions less or more 
restrictive than the general provisions under section 9(a)(1) or 50 CFR 
17.21.
    For this final 4(d) rule, the Secretary has used his discretion to 
apply the general prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.21, with exceptions 
identified in the 4(d) rule itself, because these provisions provide 
for the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake. The exceptions to the 
prohibitions that we have included in this final 4(d) rule consider the 
overall public interest in the importance of maintaining land in forest 
use as well. Exceptions from incidental take prohibitions for game 
animal food plots, maintenance of roads, and adherence to forestry best 
management practices (BMPs), for instance, do not directly address the 
threats to the Louisiana pinesnake, but they do promote the 
continuation of forest land use. On the other hand, we have determined 
that activities that do not provide any conservation benefit, but could 
result in incidental take of the Louisiana pinesnake, would materially 
detract from the species' conservation, and, therefore, those 
activities will be subject to the incidental take prohibitions in the 
final 4(d) rule.
    (2) Comment: The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 
(LDWF) expressed concern that the cooperative agreement between the 
Service and LDWF, which allows any employee or agent of LDWF when 
acting in the course of his/her official duties to take a threatened 
species to carry out conservation programs, would no longer remain in 
effect due to the 4(d) rule. The commenter requested an exemption be 
made to allow the cooperative agreement to remain in effect in order 
for LDWF to provide conservation programs for the Louisiana pinesnake.
    Our response: We received this comment as well as others below 
asking for exemptions from prohibitions. Throughout this 4(d) rule, we 
will refer to these as ``exceptions'' to the prohibitions and not 
exemptions. In this final 4(d) rule, we have chosen to apply to the 
Louisiana pinesnake the prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.21, 
17.31(b), and 17.32, with the exception of specific activities and

[[Page 11299]]

conditions. In doing so, the provisions of 50 CFR 17.31(b) remain 
applicable, which is the authority for the cooperative agreement 
referenced in the comment. Accordingly, no special exemption is 
necessary for State agencies such as the LDWF or Texas Parks and 
Wildlife to retain that authority. Thus, employees or agents of LDWF 
and Texas Parks and Wildlife, when acting in the course of their 
official duties, may take the Louisiana pinesnake when the species is 
covered by an approved cooperative agreement for conservation programs 
in accordance with the cooperative agreement.
    (3) Comment: Several commenters stated that Louisiana and 
neighboring States have adopted published BMPs for the sustainable 
management of forest resources and protection of soils and that the 
BMPs are an integral part of forest certification programs. Several 
BMPs, including construction and maintenance of turnouts, water bars 
along roads, and wing ditches from the road into the forest to drain 
water off roads, are designed to prevent soil erosion and sediment 
delivery to streams. Such BMPs are prudent on highly erodible soils and 
minimize future road maintenance problems. Those commenters recommended 
that foresters implementing BMPs be specifically exempted from the 
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule because the overall impact on Louisiana 
pinesnake habitat is minor in comparison to the BMPs' importance to 
environmental quality. Several commenters stated that adherence to 
Louisiana BMPs, and logging decks to load trucks and skid trails, 
should be exempted. Some commenters also stated that practices used to 
manage vegetative competition that are temporary in nature and help 
open the forest canopy allow the development of more herbaceous ground 
cover that enhances habitat for pocket gophers and the Louisiana 
pinesnake. The commenters also stated that leaving small debris piles 
at final harvest provide temporary refugia to rodents and other small 
wildlife that may be prey for the Louisiana pinesnake. Those commenters 
suggest adding language to reference critical support activities for 
implementing forest management.
    Our response: The Service does not intend to prevent through the 
4(d) rule the implementation of protective measures that minimize 
impacts to fish and wildlife. The BMPs recommended by Louisiana and 
Texas Forestry are generally used to avoid or minimize environmental 
impacts, especially to streams, wetlands, and highly erodible land, 
while conducting forestry activities. While most BMPs are not designed 
to directly protect or benefit the Louisiana pinesnake, we agree that 
conservation measures with small footprints, such as water bars, wing 
ditches, etc., for existing roads that prevent sediment delivery to 
streams are an important part of protection for fish and wildlife. Some 
BMPs, especially the following recommendations, would lessen impact to 
the Louisiana pinesnake: Use the smallest number, width, and length of 
skid trails; use no more landings, log decks, and sets than necessary; 
seed and fertilize bare areas that would erode before natural 
vegetation is established; hand-plant steep erodible sites; avoid 
intensive mechanical preparation on steep slopes; and minimize moving 
soil into windrows and piles. The Service encouraged the use of 
forestry BMPs in the proposed 4(d) rule, and we have revised the 
provisions of the final 4(d) rule to include their implementation, as 
well as the use of skidding logs and loading decks, in the list of 
activities excepted from incidental take prohibitions.
    (4) Comment: Several commenters stated that regular forestry and 
associated activities should be exempted by the 4(d) rule, including 
periodic thinning; fertilization; herbicide treatment and prescribed 
burning to control woody competition; wildfire control activities; 
supplemental planting; bedding; thinning; ATV use; hunting; recreation; 
mechanical site preparation; one-pass shearing; shear and pile; 
mulching; ripping; roller chopping; and creation, use, and maintenance 
of trail and forest roads. Several commenters stated that many of these 
forestry practices are beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake and cause 
only minimal disturbance to its habitat, and that grasses and 
herbaceous vegetation quickly reestablish following treatments. They 
said some forestry activities would increase sunlight on the forest 
floor and increase herbaceous cover while maintaining a forested 
condition and help establishment of the targeted forest stand 
conditions. Two commenters stated that some intensive mechanical 
practices are needed for conversion and restoration to longleaf pine, 
especially in areas that are heavily infested with species such as 
yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), and that limiting options to control yaupon is 
an obstacle to creating habitat conditions for pocket gophers and the 
Louisiana pinesnake.
    Our response: The Service agrees that some forestry activities that 
help to control native shrub and invading species and restore 
historical longleaf pine forest would be beneficial to the Louisiana 
pinesnake and should not be subject to the prohibitions in the 4(d) 
rule. Some of the activities that commenters requested not be subject 
to the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule were excepted from the proposed 
prohibitions and continue to be excepted in the final 4(d) rule--
including: Wildfire control, firebreak establishment, clearcut 
harvesting, prescribed burning, herbicide application, thinning, and 
disking for firebreak establishment. We have revised the list of 
activities excepted from prohibitions in the final 4(d) rule to also 
include machine-planting, skidding logs and use of loading decks, 
maintenance of existing roads, State BMPs, and food plot establishment. 
We also added exceptions for some activities that are generally 
prohibited within Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs under specific 
circumstances (see Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule).
    (5) Comment: Several commenters stated that many landowners allow 
recreational hunting on their forested lands and establishment of food 
plots for wild game requires tilling the soil greater than 4 inches in 
depth. Food plots are often 1 to 3 acres in size and can be shaped to 
avoid visible pocket gopher mounds. Several commenters stated that food 
plots are beneficial because they increase vegetative cover for pocket 
gophers, the Louisiana pinesnake, and other wildlife.
    Our response: Pocket gophers appear to forage on several different 
species of grasses and forbs. While we know that forbs are important to 
pocket gophers, we do not know which specific herbaceous plant species 
are preferred by them. Native plants would likely be the best choice, 
but herbaceous species typically planted in food plots may also be used 
by pocket gophers. We have revised the 4(d) rule provisions to except 
food plots under certain circumstances.
    (6) Comment: One commenter stated that conversion of loblolly pine 
stands to longleaf pine stands is being done by willing landowners and 
that landowners may choose not to convert pine stands from loblolly to 
longleaf if they believe that silvicultural choices are not available, 
including the choice to change pine species later in time. The 
commenter indicated that longleaf restoration cannot occur on private 
lands without incentives and asked that the Service avoid creating 
disincentives through regulations or restricting a landowner's timber 
type through rulemaking. Another commenter specifically questioned 
whether landowners would be required to

[[Page 11300]]

maintain pine forests within the Louisiana pinesnake's range, or if 
non-pine species could be used in reforestation as long as they still 
provide for open-canopy conditions with a diverse herbaceous 
understory.
    Our response: While the Service encourages longleaf pine 
restoration within the historical range of longleaf pine, the proposed 
4(d) rule did not include language that restricted a landowner's choice 
of tree species to plant and grow. The historical habitat of the 
Louisiana pinesnake was dominated by longleaf pine but also included 
shortleaf and loblolly pines. Some hardwoods also inhabit the well-
drained sandy soils where the Louisiana pinesnake is found, but the 
vast majority of trees planted commercially or for restoration in that 
range are pine species. We encourage landowners to maintain forests 
with trees native to their area. In the final 4(d) rule, we revised the 
exception regarding ``maintenance of open pine canopy conditions'' to 
``maintenance of open-canopy pine-dominated forest stands.''
    (7) Comment: Because suitable habitat for the Baird's pocket gopher 
and the Louisiana pinesnake is unlikely to occur on sites without 
preferred or suitable soils, several commenters recommended that the 
4(d) rule should clearly state that incidental take from forestry 
activities will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act 
if take occurs on sites without preferred or suitable soils, regardless 
of whether those sites are inside or outside of EOHAs. The commenters 
request that language be added to paragraphs 3(i) and (ii) to clarify 
such an exemption.
    Our response: The 4(d) rule exceptions to incidental take 
prohibitions for forestry activities conducted outside of EOHAs apply 
to all land, including those with preferred or suitable soils. To 
clarify this provision, we have removed the conditional requirement of 
``resulting in the establishment and maintenance of open-canopy pine-
dominated forest stands that are interconnected with at least some 
other open-canopy stands'' for lands other than those with preferred or 
suitable soils. The additional conditions required to be met for land 
within EOHAs and where Baird's pocket gopher are present apply only to 
land meeting certain criteria, one of which is that it contains 
preferable or suitable soils.
    (8) Comment: One commenter recommended revising the phrase in 
paragraph (3)(i)(A) ``open canopy conditions through time across the 
landscape'' to state ``open canopy conditions over time across the 
landscape.''
    Our response: In recognition that, during periods of establishment 
of open canopy pine-dominated forest stands, there may be time prior to 
thinning where the canopy is closed, we have changed ``through'' to 
``over'' time across the landscape.
    (9) Comment: Several commenters stated various objections to the 
following language in the proposed 4(d) rule: ``Activities do not 
inhibit the persistence of suitable pocket gopher and Louisiana 
pinesnake habitat.'' Commenters believe that this language requires 
clarification, introduces unnecessary uncertainty into the rule, 
appears to be subjective and dependent upon individual interpretation, 
and is an unnecessary qualification on silvicultural practices.
    Our response: We describe in detail the components of suitable 
pocket gopher habitat in the preamble. We also describe suitable pocket 
gopher habitat in paragraph (i)(3)(v)(B)(2) of this final 4(d) rule. We 
do not detail all activities that could inhibit the persistence of the 
habitat, but instead rely on landowners' unique knowledge of their 
property and management practices to determine how best to curtail 
activities that would prevent them from being covered by the take 
exceptions of the 4(d) rule. Paragraph (i)(3)(v)(B)(2) is necessary 
because not all silvicultural management practices further the 
persistence of suitable habitat for pocket gophers and the Louisiana 
pinesnake.
    (10) Comment: One commenter suggested that, while pipeline 
construction and installation activities disturb the soil greater than 
4 inches in depth, long-term maintenance of pipeline rights-of-way 
provide habitat for the Baird's pocket gopher and, therefore, can 
provide habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake. That commenter recommended 
including pipeline rights-of-way in the 4(d) rule.
    Our response: Though we have no information showing that pipeline 
rights-of-way are inhabited by the Louisiana pinesnake, rights-of-way 
often host herbaceous vegetation, and pocket gopher mounds have been 
sighted within them. However, the nature and amount of potential impact 
to the Louisiana pinesnake of a major construction project such as 
pipeline installation could vary based on the exact location of the 
project and the extent of the resulting disturbance. Because of the 
potential variability of impacts to the species for projects of this 
type, a general exception is not provided in the final 4(d) rule. 
Landowners wishing to install pipelines on their properties should 
contact the Service for further guidance to avoid potential violations 
of section 9 of the Act.
    (11) Comment: One commenter discussed the historical records of 
pocket gophers as a nuisance species that causes immense damage to 
agricultural and forestry crops both inside and outside of the 
Louisiana pinesnake's range and on erodible soils other than sandy 
soils. That commenter suggested that there was a need for a rule to 
control pocket gophers in unsustainable habitats or within forest 
stands, especially longleaf pine stands age 5 years and younger, 
without the need to consult with the Service.
    Our response: The Service notes the 1974 U.S. Forest Service 
Environmental Statement (marked as ``Draft''), referenced by the 
commenter, which discusses the poisoning of pocket gophers. The Service 
is also aware of anecdotal reports of seedling damage presumably caused 
by pocket gophers. The Service is not aware of documented instances of 
widespread damages to tree seedlings due to pocket gophers in the range 
of the Louisiana pinesnake in recent decades. The habitat needs for 
pocket gophers and Louisiana pinesnakes are very similar, although the 
pocket gopher has a much larger range than the Louisiana pinesnake, and 
pocket gopher density can be locally variable. Baird's pocket gophers 
are the primary prey and microhabitat provider for the Louisiana 
pinesnake, which is nearly always found in or near pocket gopher 
burrows. Reduction or elimination of Baird's pocket gophers in the 
range of the Louisiana pinesnake could significantly reduce food and 
shelter for the already threatened species, potentially reducing its 
abundance. Furthermore, using poison to control pocket gophers, as 
described in the 1974 Environmental Statement, could have even greater 
negative effects on the Louisiana pinesnake if the species consumed the 
poisoned pocket gophers. Because of the potential significant negative 
impacts to the species via population control of pocket gophers, and 
the apparent lack of widespread damage events, a general 4(d) exception 
for control of pocket gophers would not be prudent. If landowners 
decide that pocket gophers have become a pest that affects the human 
environment or causes economic loss, they may consult with the Service 
to determine the best course of action for their specific situation. 
Nothing in this rule would limit pocket gopher control methods outside 
the historical range of the Louisiana pinesnake.

[[Page 11301]]

    (12) Comment: One commenter recommended that the Service prohibit 
the use of erosion control netting, and other plastic netting known to 
entangle snakes, in areas where Louisiana pinesnake may occur.
    Our response: The Service has recognized the detrimental effect of 
erosion control netting, especially long-lasting polypropylene mesh, on 
snakes, and in the final listing rule we determined that the use of 
erosion control netting was currently a potential threat to the 
Louisiana pinesnake. On the other hand, while other snake species have 
been killed by the netting, the Service is unaware of any records of 
the Louisiana pinesnake being entangled or killed. Because the 
potential threat of erosion control netting to the Louisiana pinesnake 
is greatest in the areas occupied by the species, we have added 
activities that do not involve ``the use of plastic mesh in erosion 
control and stabilization devices, mats, blankets, or channel 
protection'' to the list of additional conditions for the areas 
specified within the EOHAs.
    (13) Comment: One commenter stated that the 4(d) rule should not 
exempt intensive, short-rotation pine plantations.
    Our response: The 4(d) rule does not specifically except 
``intensive, short-rotation pine plantations'' from the prohibitions 
against take. The Service has determined through its final listing rule 
and the 4(d) rule what type of habitat is suitable for the Louisiana 
pinesnake. We have developed the 4(d) rule provisions to protect 
habitat for the species regardless of the terminology commonly used to 
describe certain management scenarios. ``Intensive, short-rotation pine 
plantations'' does not necessarily describe habitat conditions. Some 
management activities that may be considered intensive, such as 
mechanical site preparation that significantly disturbs the soil, are 
excepted under certain conditions even within the EOHAs. Some 
``intensive'' management may be necessary to restore degraded habitat. 
Additionally, stand rotation length is not specifically addressed in 
the 4(d) rule because that metric does not necessarily dictate canopy 
cover and the potential effects on herbaceous vegetation abundance, 
which is an important factor of habitat suitability for the pocket 
gopher and thus the Louisiana pinesnake.
    (14) Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Service not 
attempt to limit the planting density of longleaf pine. The commenters 
explained that higher density planting generates pine straw fuel to 
carry fire, and many establishment projects do not have adequate warm-
season grasses to carry fire for the first 4 to 5 years. Without the 
pine straw to fuel prescribed burns, establishment stands quickly 
revert back to yaupon and sweetgum species. Young longleaf with the 
appropriate density can create enough pine straw to carry a burn in 
years 2 through 5. Planting an adequate number of seedlings is also 
needed to ensure a high survival success and low mortality rates due to 
drought, feral hogs, competition with invasive species, and from 
prescribed burning. Another commenter stated that the 4(d) rule should 
exempt thinning to 40-60 square feet per acre basal area.
    Our response: As discussed in the 4(d) rule preamble, low tree 
density is beneficial to the pocket gopher. The proposed 4(d) rule 
provisions did not specifically address planting density of longleaf 
pine or any other tree species and do not except or require a specific 
tree basal area. To attain an open-canopy forest condition, some 
consideration of planting density and basal area would be required. 
Both the proposed and final 4(d) rules do not restrict individuals from 
determining how to create open-canopy conditions and herbaceous 
vegetation cover.
    (15) Comment: One commenter recommended that the term ``below-
ground shearing'' be removed or replaced with a less confusing term. 
The commenter expressed that normal shearing operations, which are 
critical to preparing sites for reforestation (especially longleaf), 
are conducted above the soil level and have minimal soil disturbance.
    Our response: In recognition that normal shearing operations are 
conducted above ground, but may cause subsurface disturbance when not 
properly performed, we have changed ``below-ground shearing'' to 
``shearing that penetrates the soil surface.''
    (16) Comment: Two commenters stated their support for the creation 
of a safe harbor agreement program for the Louisiana pinesnake similar 
to the one established for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.
    Our response: The Service plans to develop and implement one or 
more safe harbor agreements to increase conservation opportunities for 
the Louisiana pinesnake in Louisiana and Texas.
    (17) Comment: One commenter recommended that a 4(d) rule exemption 
from take prohibitions should apply to private landowners enrolled in a 
Working Lands for Wildlife agreement with the National Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS), and one commenter recommended that the 
4(d) rule should consider excluding from the prohibitions conservation 
practices found in the Louisiana pinesnake biological opinion/
conference opinion for the NRCS's Working Lands for Wildlife program to 
allow for consistency and continuity across NRCS programs.
    Our response: Participants in NRCS's Working Lands for Wildlife 
program are allowed incidental take according to the approved 
biological opinion for that program, and thus do not need an exception 
in the 4(d) rule for the program activities considered in the 
biological opinion. The exceptions in the 4(d) rule are not an 
exhaustive list of all NRCS conservation practices considered in the 
biological opinion. The conservation practices, their expected results, 
participant responsibilities, and the consideration of incidental take 
were carefully discussed during close collaboration between Service and 
NRCS biologists. Excepting all NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife 
conservation practices from the take prohibitions in the 4(d) rule is 
not necessary and would not be prudent. The Service encourages 
interested parties to contact the Service or NRCS about the possibility 
of enrolling in the Working Lands for Wildlife program. Additionally, 
it should be noted that the conservation practices in the Working Lands 
for Wildlife program and the forestry activities that the 4(d) 
provisions except from the stay prohibitions overlap significantly. 
Conservation activities that are not specifically excepted in the 4(d) 
rule could possibly be exempted from the section 9 prohibitions of the 
ESA through a section 7 consultation with issuance of an incidental 
take statement.
    (18) Comment: One commenter recommended that the 4(d) rule should 
include a detailed description and listing of the preferred soil series 
and specific soil mapping units (in consultation with NRCS) for the 
Louisiana pinesnake and Baird's pocket gopher.
    Our response: Soil maps at the scale that could be included in the 
Federal Register would not be useful. Maps delineating the preferred 
and suitable soils for the Louisiana pinesnake as described by Wagner 
et al. 2014 are publicly available at https://gcpolcc.databasin.org/datasets/a2a0ace6964942b98f0514b84dfa9fb8. NRCS soil survey maps of 
hydrologic group Categories A (preferred) and B (suitable), are 
available publicly on the NRCS soil mapping website: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm, or by contacting NRCS

[[Page 11302]]

or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological Services 
Office, 200 Dulles Drive, Lafayette, LA 70506; 337-291-3101; 337-291-
3139.
    (19) Comment: One commenter requested that captive-bred Louisiana 
pinesnake be exempted from take prohibitions in the 4(d) rule to allow 
unfettered continuation of captive breeding, pet ownership, and trade.
    Our response: Louisiana pinesnakes acquired before May 7, 2018, the 
effective date of the final listing rule for this species, 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 pre-listing by pet owners, researchers, 
and zoological institutions. Future sale of captive-bred Louisiana 
pinesnakes borne from pre-listing-acquired parents within the State of 
their origin would be regulated by applicable laws of that State. If 
individuals wish to purchase captive-bred snakes outside the snake's 
State of origin, they would first have to acquire a section 10(a)(1)(A) 
interstate commerce permit from the Service (website: https://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-55.pdf). Information about the purpose for 
purchasing a Louisiana pinesnake is required because using federally 
threatened species as pets is not consistent with the purposes of the 
Act, which is intended to support the conservation of species and 
recovery of wild populations. However, an animal with threatened-
species status may be legally kept in captivity if it is captive-bred 
and used for educational or breeding purposes consistent with this 
intent. Through the permit process, we are able to track and monitor 
the trade in captive-bred listed species. For this reason, excepting 
this activity from the take prohibition in the 4(d) rule would not be 
appropriate, as it would not meet the standard of providing for the 
conservation of the species.
    (20) Comment: One commenter stated that the 4(d) rule should 
incentivize management of open-canopy forest in order to get people to 
participate in conservation of the species.
    Our response: This 4(d) rule offers incentives for conservation by 
providing exceptions from the incidental take prohibitions. We 
encourage any landowners that may have a listed species on their 
properties, and who think they may conduct activities that negatively 
affect that species, to work with the Service to find ways to avoid 
impacts. The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and 
various programs administered by the NRCS may provide financial 
assistance to eligible landowners who implement 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.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    After reviewing the information provided during the public comment 
period, we have made the following changes to the rule language in this 
final rule:
     With respect to comments requesting either the exemption 
of specific forestry-related activities or further explanation of our 
intended exempted activities, we added maintenance of existing forest 
roads, skidding logs and use of loading decks, and adherence to BMPs 
recommended by State forestry agencies to the list of excepted 
activities. These activities were implicitly included in the proposed 
rule as excepted forestry activities especially as they relate to 
harvesting, and we had already recommended in the proposed rule that 
landowners follow BMPs of certification programs or from State 
agencies.
     With respect to comments that roller chopping and ripping 
are sometimes necessary to control midstory shrub species such as 
yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria) that inhibit pine seedling growth, and to 
prepare former pastures for planting, we added language indicating that 
limited take due to use of those techniques is not prohibited.
     With respect to comments that food plot establishment 
requires relatively little area and can avoid gopher mound complexes, 
and that the vegetation commonly used are herbaceous plants that could 
be used as forage by pocket gophers, we added limited size food plot 
establishment to the list of excepted activities.
     With respect to comments requesting further explanation of 
exempted activities, we specified that hand- and machine-planting were 
forestry activities conducted in areas outside of the EOHAs that were 
excepted when we used the terms ``planting'' and ``replanting.'' We 
also added language to the additional conditions for areas meeting the 
criteria that would indicate that the take prohibition would not apply 
to machine-planting under specific circumstances.
     With respect to comments that stated that the 4-inch limit 
of subsurface disturbance could prohibit machine- and hand-planting and 
other forestry activities, even for forest restoration efforts, we 
removed the 4-inch limitation for subsurface disturbance in the 
additional conditions of the exceptions for activities within EOHAs.
     With respect to comments that stated that exemptions 
should be more broad in areas that do not contain preferable or 
suitable soils, and comments that we should clarify the phrase ``and 
that result in the establishment and maintenance of open canopy 
conditions through time across the landscape,'' we changed the language 
pertaining to activities that, when conducted in areas within the range 
of the Louisiana pinesnake, on preferred or suitable soils, result in 
the establishment and maintenance of open-canopy pine-dominated forest 
stands ``over'' time across the landscape.
     The Louisiana pinesnake is highly associated with pocket 
gophers and their burrows. Research shows that Louisiana pinesnakes are 
most often found in pocket gopher burrow systems, and, therefore, in 
areas where Louisiana pinesnakes are known to occur, these burrows, 
indicated by dirt mounds, are in need of greater protections. 
Accordingly, we added, ``where Baird's pocket gopher mounds are present 
or'' after ``Within any known EOHAs'' and before ``on lands with 
suitable or preferable soils'' in the paragraph preceding the 
additional conditions for lands within EOHAs.
     With respect to a comment about the entanglement hazard of 
erosion control netting and its potential effects on the Louisiana 
pinesnake, which we had identified as a potential threat in the final 
listing rule, we added, ``Those activities do not involve the use of 
plastic mesh in erosion control and stabilization devices, mats, 
blankets, or channel protection'' to the list of additional conditions 
for lands within the EOHAs.

Provisions of Section 4(d) of the Act

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the ``Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation'' of species 
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that very 
similar statutory language like ``necessary and advisable'' 
demonstrates a large degree of deference to the agency (see Webster v. 
Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)). Conservation is defined in the Act to mean 
``the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring 
any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
measures provided pursuant to [the Act] are no longer necessary.'' 
Additionally, the second

[[Page 11303]]

sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary ``may by 
regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act 
prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or 
9(a)(2), in the case of plants.'' Thus, regulations promulgated under 
section 4(d) of the Act provide the Secretary with wide latitude of 
discretion to select appropriate provisions tailored to the specific 
conservation needs of the threatened species. The statute grants 
particularly broad discretion to the Service when adopting the 
prohibitions under section 9.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules 
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority 
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife, or include a limited 
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council 
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D. 
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also approved 4(d) rules that do not address 
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when 
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened 
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available 
to him with regard to the permitted activities for those species. He 
may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species, 
or he may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the 
transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st 
Sess. 1973).
    Exercising its authority under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service 
has developed a final rule for the Louisiana pinesnake that is designed 
to address the species' specific threats and conservation needs. 
Although the statute does not require the Service to make a ``necessary 
and advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of specific 
prohibitions under section 9, we find that this final 4(d) rule as a 
whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue 
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake. As discussed above, the 
Service has concluded that the Louisiana pinesnake is in danger of 
becoming an endangered species within the foreseeable future primarily 
due to the continuing loss and degradation of the open pine forest 
habitat that supports the Baird's pocket gopher. The provisions of this 
final 4(d) rule would promote conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake 
by encouraging management of the landscape in ways that meet land 
management considerations while meeting the conservation needs of the 
Louisiana pinesnake. The provisions of this final 4(d) rule are one of 
many tools that the Service will use to promote the conservation of the 
Louisiana pinesnake.

Final 4(d) Rule for the Louisiana Pinesnake

    This final 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the 
Louisiana pinesnake by prohibiting the following activities, except as 
otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting; take; 
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, 
receiving, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce 
in the course of commercial activity; and selling or offering for sale 
in interstate or foreign commerce. We also include several standard 
exceptions to these prohibitions, which are set forth under Final 
Regulation Promulgation, below.
    Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in 
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating 
intentional and incidental take under this final 4(d) rule would help 
preserve the species' remaining populations; enable beneficial 
management actions to occur; and decrease synergistic, negative effects 
from other stressors.
    Under this final 4(d) rule, the following exceptions from 
prohibitions will apply to the Louisiana pinesnake:
    Outside of any known EOHAs, the following activities will not be 
subject to the section 9 prohibitions:
    Activities that maintain existing forest lands in forest land use, 
and that when conducted in areas within the range of the Louisiana 
pinesnake, on preferred or suitable soils, result in the establishment 
and maintenance of open-canopy pine-dominated forest stands over time 
across the landscape. These activities include:
    (a) Tree thinning, harvest (including clearcutting), planting and 
replanting pines (by hand or by machine).
    (b) Prescribed burning, including all firebreak establishment and 
maintenance actions, as well as actions taken to control wildfires.
    (c) Herbicide application that is generally targeted for invasive 
plant species control and midstory and understory woody vegetation 
control, but is also used for site preparation when applied in a manner 
that minimizes long-term impact to noninvasive herbaceous vegetation. 
These provisions include only herbicide applications conducted in a 
manner consistent with Federal and applicable State laws, including 
Environmental Protection Agency label restrictions and herbicide 
application guidelines as prescribed by manufacturers.
    (d) Skidding logs and use of loading decks that avoid gopher mound 
complexes.
    (e) Maintenance of existing substandard (dirt, unsurfaced) forest 
roads and trails used for access to timber being managed.
    (f) Implementation of mandated and State-recommended forestry BMPs, 
including but not limited to, those necessary to protect riparian 
(e.g., streamside management zone) and other habitats from erosional 
sediment deposition, prevent washout of forest roads, and impacts to 
vegetation.
    (g) Food plot establishment for game animals, when it does not 
destroy existing native herbaceous vegetation, avoids gopher mound 
complexes, and does not exceed 1 acre in size.
    Although these management activities may result in some minimal 
level of harm or temporary disturbance to the Louisiana pinesnake, 
overall these activities benefit the pinesnake by contributing to 
conservation and recovery. With adherence to the limitations described 
in the preceding paragraph, these activities will have a net beneficial 
effect on the species by encouraging active forest management that 
creates and maintains the herbaceous plant conditions needed to support 
the persistence of Baird's pocket gopher populations, which is 
essential to the long-term viability and conservation of the Louisiana 
pinesnake.
    Applying the prohibitions will minimize threats that could cause 
further declines in the status of the species. Additionally, the 
species needs active conservation to improve the quality of its 
habitat. By excepting from prohibitions incidental take resulting from 
certain activities, these provisions can encourage cooperation by 
landowners and other affected parties in implementing conservation 
measures. This cooperation will allow for use of the land while at the 
same time ensuring the preservation of suitable

[[Page 11304]]

habitat and minimizing impacts on the species.
    When practicable and to the extent possible, the Service encourages 
managers to conduct such activities in a manner to maintain suitable 
Louisiana pinesnake habitat in large tracts; minimize ground and 
subsurface disturbance; and promote a diverse, abundant herbaceous 
groundcover. Prescribed fire is an important tool to effectively manage 
open-canopy pine habitats to establish and maintain suitable conditions 
for the Louisiana pinesnake, and the Service strongly encourages its 
use over other methods (mechanical or chemical) wherever practicable. 
The Service also encourages managers, when practicable and to the 
extent possible, to (1) enroll their lands into third-party forest 
certification programs such as the Sustainable Forest Initiative, 
Forest Stewardship Council, and American Tree Farm System; and (2) 
conduct any activities under such programs using BMPs as described and 
implemented through the respective programs, or by others such as State 
forestry agencies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the Forest 
Service's Forest Stewardship Program or the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service's Conservation Practices Manual), or the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.
    As noted above, the management activities discussed above are 
excepted from the incidental take prohibition outside of known EOHAs. 
Within any known EOHAs, where Baird's pocket gopher mounds are present 
or on lands with suitable or preferable soils, that are forested, 
undeveloped, or non-farmed (i.e., not cultivated on an annual basis) 
and adjacent to forested lands, the management activities discussed 
above would also be excepted from the incidental take prohibitions, but 
only if the following additional conditions are met:
    (h) Those activities do not cause subsurface disturbance, including 
but not limited to subsurface disturbance caused by: Wind-rowing, 
stumping, disking (except during firebreak creation or maintenance), 
root-raking, drum chopping (except for single pass with the lightest 
possible weighted drums and only when the soil is not wet, when used to 
control hardwoods and woody shrub species detrimental to establishment 
of pine-forested land), shearing that penetrates the soil surface, 
ripping (except when restoring pine forest in compacted soil areas such 
as former pastures), bedding, new road construction, and commercial or 
residential development. Machine-planting, using the shallowest depth 
possible, would be allowed in areas where pocket gophers are not 
present and only for planting pine tree species. In former pastures or 
highly degraded areas with no herbaceous vegetation and poor planting 
conditions, subsurface disturbance shall be allowed only for activities 
that contribute to reforestation that is consistent with the 
conservation of the species.
    (i) Those activities do not inhibit the persistence of suitable 
pocket gopher and Louisiana pinesnake habitat (described previously in 
the Background section).
    (j) Those activities do not involve the use of plastic mesh in 
erosion control and stabilization devices, mats, blankets, or channel 
protection.
    These additional conditions on when the prohibitions would not 
apply within known EOHAs are reasonable because the actual likelihood 
of encountering individuals of the species is higher within the EOHAs.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities, 
including those described above, 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: Scientific purposes, to enhance propagation 
or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for 
educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes 
consistent with the purposes of the Act. There are also certain 
statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 
9 and 10 of the Act.
    The Service recognizes the special and unique relationship with our 
State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation 
of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and 
valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, 
threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State 
agencies, because of their authorities and their close working 
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique 
position to assist the Services in implementing all aspects of the Act. 
In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that the Services shall 
cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying 
out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee 
or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a 
cooperative agreement with the Service in accordance with section 6(c) 
of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, 
will be able to conduct activities designed to conserve Louisiana 
pinesnake that may result in otherwise prohibited take without 
additional authorization.
    Nothing in this final 4(d) rule would change in any way the 
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the 
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of 
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and 
protection of the Louisiana pinesnake. However, interagency cooperation 
may be further streamlined through planned programmatic consultations 
for the species between Federal agencies and the Service.
    Anyone undertaking activities that are not covered by the 
provisions, including the additional conditions, and that may result in 
take would need to ensure, in consultation with the Service, that those 
activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species where the entity is a Federal agency or there is a Federal 
nexus, or consider applying for a permit before proceeding with the 
activity (if there is no Federal nexus). A map of the currently known 
EOHAs is found in the proposed listing rule (81 FR 69461, October 6, 
2016). The Service intends to update maps identifying the locations of 
Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs and make them available to the public in the 
docket on www.regulations.gov as new information becomes available. 
Alternatively, you may contact the Louisiana Ecological Services Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES).

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 of a species through listing it results in 
public awareness, and leads Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, 
private organizations, and individuals to undertake conservation. The 
Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and 
calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. 
Information about the protection required by Federal agencies, and the 
prohibitions against certain activities, and recovery planning and 
implementation and interagency consultation, are discussed in the final 
listing rule.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at

[[Page 11305]]

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to 
attempt any of these) endangered wildlife within the United States or 
on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; 
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 
commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for 
sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered species. It is 
also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any 
such wildlife that has been taken illegally. The Act authorizes the 
Secretary to apply any of the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the 
Act to threatened wildlife. This rulemaking applies the prohibitions 
under section 9(a)(1) to the threatened Louisiana pinesnake, with 
specified exceptions.
    As described in the final listing rule, it is our policy 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 listing on proposed and ongoing 
activities within the range of the listed species. Since the Louisiana 
pinesnake is a threatened species and this final rule applies the 
protections outlined in section 9(a)(1) of the Act to the Louisiana 
pinesnake, we are identifying those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of either section 9(a)(1) or this final 4(d) 
rule. Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act or this 
final rule; 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 at least 100 years old, as defined by section 
10(h)(1) of the Act.
    (2) Introduction of nonnative animal species that compete with or 
prey upon the Louisiana pinesnake.
    (3) Introduction of invasive plant species that contribute to the 
degradation of the natural habitat of the Louisiana pinesnake.
    (4) Unauthorized destruction or modification of suitable occupied 
Louisiana pinesnake habitat that results in damage to or alteration of 
desirable herbaceous (non-woody) 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We completed an environmental assessment of this action under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We notified 
the public of the availability of the draft environmental assessment on 
the internet at https://www.fws.gov/lafayette/. We have carefully 
considered all comments received and addressed them in this rule. The 
environmental assessment is available in the docket for this rulemaking 
action at https://www.regulations.gov.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

References Cited

    A list of the references cited in this final rule may be found in 
the docket in www.regulations.gov.

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Louisiana Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Final Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, for the reasons just described, we hereby amend part 
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11 in paragraph (h) by revising the entry for 
``Pinesnake, Louisiana'' in 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 14958, April 6,
                                                                                          2018; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.42(i).\4d\

[[Page 11306]]

 
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.42 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.42  Special rules--reptiles.

* * * * *
    (i) Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophuis ruthveni)--(1) Definitions. The 
following definitions apply only to terms used in this paragraph (i) 
for activities affecting the Louisiana pinesnake.
    (i) Estimated occupied habitat area (EOHA). Areas of land where 
occurrences of Louisiana pinesnakes have been recorded and that are 
considered by the Service to be occupied by the species. For current 
information regarding the EOHAs, contact your local Service Ecological 
Services office. Field office contact information may be obtained from 
the Service regional offices, the addresses of which are listed in 50 
CFR 2.2.
    (ii) Suitable or preferable soils. Those soils in Louisiana and 
Texas that generally have high sand content and a low water table and 
that have been shown to be selected by Louisiana pinesnakes (Natural 
Resources Conservation Service soil survey hydrologic group, Categories 
A and B).
    (2) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered wildlife also apply to the Louisiana pinesnake. Except as 
provided at paragraph (i)(3) of this section and Sec.  17.4, it is 
unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, 
or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to this 
species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth for endangered wildlife at Sec.  
17.21(b).
    (ii) Take, as set forth for endangered wildlife at Sec.  
17.21(c)(1).
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth for endangered wildlife at Sec.  17.21(d)(1).
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth for endangered wildlife at Sec.  17.21(e).
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth for endangered wildlife at 
Sec.  17.21(f).
    (3) Exceptions from the prohibitions. In regard to this species, 
you may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit issued under Sec.  
17.32.
    (ii) Take, as set forth for endangered wildlife at Sec.  
17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4).
    (iii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
Louisiana pinesnakes, as set forth for endangered wildlife at Sec.  
17.21(d)(2).
    (v) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
    (A) Outside any known EOHAs--Activities that maintain existing 
forest lands in forest land use and that, when conducted in areas 
within the range of the Louisiana pinesnake, on preferred or suitable 
soils, result in the establishment and maintenance of open-canopy pine-
dominated forest stands over time across the landscape. These 
activities include:
    (1) Tree thinning, tree harvest (including clearcutting), and 
planting and replanting pines (by hand or by machine).
    (2) Prescribed burning, including all firebreak establishment and 
maintenance actions, as well as actions taken to control wildfires.
    (3) Herbicide application that is generally targeted for invasive 
plant species control and midstory and understory woody vegetation 
control, but is also used for site preparation when applied in a manner 
that minimizes long-term impact to noninvasive herbaceous vegetation. 
These provisions include only herbicide applications conducted in a 
manner consistent with Federal and applicable State laws, including 
Environmental Protection Agency label restrictions and herbicide 
application guidelines as prescribed by manufacturers.
    (4) Skidding logs and use of loading decks that avoid mound 
complexes of Baird's pocket gophers (Geomys breviceps).
    (5) Maintenance of existing substandard (dirt, unsurfaced) forest 
roads and trails used for access to timber being managed.
    (6) Implementation of mandated and State-recommended forestry best 
management practices, including, but not limited to, those necessary to 
protect riparian (e.g., streamside management zone) and other habitats 
from erosional sediment deposition, and prevent washout of forest roads 
and impacts to vegetation.
    (7) Food plot establishment for game animals, when it does not 
destroy existing native herbaceous vegetation, avoids Baird's pocket 
gopher mound complexes, and does not exceed 1 acre in size.
    (B) Within any known EOHAs where Baird's pocket gopher mounds are 
present or on lands that have suitable or preferable soils and that are 
forested, undeveloped, or non-farmed (i.e., not cultivated on an annual 
basis) and adjacent to forested lands--Activities described in 
paragraphs (i)(3)(v)(A)(1) through (7) of this section provided that 
those activities do not:
    (1) Cause subsurface disturbance, including, but not limited to, 
wind-rowing, stumping, disking (except during firebreak creation or 
maintenance), root-raking, drum chopping (except for single pass with 
the lightest possible weighted drums and only when the soil is not wet, 
when used to control hardwoods and woody shrub species detrimental to 
establishment of pine-forested land), shearing that penetrates the soil 
surface, ripping (except when restoring pine forest in compacted soil 
areas such as former pastures), bedding, new road construction, and 
commercial or residential development. Machine-planting, using the 
shallowest depth possible, would be allowed in areas where pocket 
gophers are not present and only for planting pine tree species. In 
former pastures or highly degraded areas with no herbaceous vegetation 
and poor planting conditions, subsurface disturbance will be allowed 
only for activities that contribute to reforestation that is consistent 
with the conservation of the species.
    (2) Inhibit the persistence of suitable Baird's pocket gopher and 
Louisiana pinesnake habitat, which consists of open-canopy forest 
situated on well-drained sandy soils with an abundant herbaceous plant 
community, a nonexistent or sparse midstory, and a low pine basal area.
    (3) Involve the use of plastic mesh in erosion control and 
stabilization devices, mats, blankets, or channel protection.

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-03545 Filed 2-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P