12846 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2014–0065; 

4500030114] 

RINs 1018–BA24; 1018–BA03 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Black Pinesnake 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for the black 

pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus 

lodingi) under the Endangered Species 

Act (Act). In total, approximately 

338,100 acres (136,824 hectares) in 

Forrest, George, Greene, Harrison, Jones, 

Marion, Perry, Stone, and Wayne 

Counties, Mississippi, and in Clarke 

County, Alabama, fall within the 

boundaries of the proposed critical 

habitat designation. We also announce 

the availability of a draft economic 

analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical 

habitat designation. If we finalize this 

rule as proposed, it would extend the 

Act’s protections to this species’ critical 

habitat. In addition, we announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the October 7, 2014, proposed rule to 

list the black pinesnake as a threatened 

species under the Act. We are reopening 

the comment period to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment simultaneously on the 

proposed listing rule as well as this 

proposed critical habitat rule and its 

associated DEA. Comments previously 

submitted on the proposed listing rule 

need not be resubmitted, as they will be 

fully considered in preparation of that 

final rule. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 11, 2015. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, 

below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on the closing date. We 

must receive requests for public 

hearings, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by April 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2014– 

0065 for the proposed critical habitat 

rule and its associated DEA or FWS–R4– 

ES–2014–0046 for the proposed listing 

rule. Then, in the Search panel on the 

left side of the screen, under the 

Document Type heading, click on the 

Proposed Rules link to locate the correct 

document. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2014– 

0065 [for the proposed critical habitat 

rule and its associated DEA] or FWS– 

R4–ES–2014–0046 [for the proposed 

listing rule]; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Information Requested section, below, 

for more information). 

The coordinates or plot points or both 

from which the maps are generated are 

included in the administrative record 

for the proposed critical habitat 

designation and are available at http:// 

www.fws.gov/mississippiES/, at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2014–0065, and at the 

Mississippi Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any 

additional tools or supporting 

information that we may develop for 

this critical habitat designation will also 

be available at the Fish and Wildlife 

Service Web site and Field Office listed 

above, and may also be included in the 

preamble and/or at http://

www.regulations.gov. The proposed 

listing rule can be read, in its entirety, 

at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R4–ES–2014–0046 or at the 

Field Office listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi 

Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View 

Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 

601–321–1122; facsimile: 601–965– 

4340. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, when we determine that a 

species is endangered or threatened, we 

must designate critical habitat to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. Designations of critical 

habitat can only be completed by 

issuing a rule. On October 7, 2014, we 

proposed to list the black pinesnake as 

a threatened species under the Act (79 

FR 60406). 

This rule consists of a proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat for the black 

pinesnake, an announcement of the 

availability of the associated draft 

economic analysis (DEA), and an 

announcement of the reopening of the 

comment period for the proposed listing 

rule for the black pinesnake. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, if we determine that a species is 

endangered or threatened, we must 

designate critical habitat at to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

states that the Secretary shall designate 

to critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. 

We prepared a draft economic 

analysis of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat. We are making available 

for public comment the DEA of the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the black pinesnake. 

We will seek peer review. We are 

seeking comments from independent 

specialists to ensure that our critical 

habitat proposal is based on 

scientifically sound data and analyses. 

We are inviting these peer reviewers to 

comment on our specific assumptions 

and conclusions in the critical habitat 

proposal. Because we will consider all 

comments and information we receive 

during the comment period, our final 

determination may differ from this 

critical habitat proposal. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

government agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12847 

(1) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status, range, 

distribution, and population size of the 

black pinesnake, including the locations 

of any additional populations of this 

subspecies. 

(2) The black pinesnake’s biology, 

range, and population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the subspecies, 

including habitat requirements for 

feeding, breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy, including 

interpretations of existing studies or 

whether new information is available; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the subspecies, its habitat, 

or both. 

(3) Factors that may affect the 

continued existence of the subspecies, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, 

collection for the pet trade, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors. 

(4) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this 

subspecies and existing regulations that 

may be addressing those threats. 

(5) Any information concerning the 

appropriateness and scope of the 

proposed section 4(d) rule provisions 

for take of the black pinesnake (see the 

proposed listing rule at 79 FR 60406, 

October 7, 2014). We are particularly 

interested in input regarding timber and 

forest management and restoration 

practices that would be appropriately 

addressed through a section 4(d) rule, 

including those that adjust the timing or 

methods to minimize impacts to the 

subspecies or its habitat. 

(6) Any additional information on 

current conservation activities or 

partnerships benefitting the subspecies, 

or opportunities for additional 

partnerships or conservation activities 

that could be undertaken in order to 

address threats. 

(7) Any information on specific 

pesticides that could impact the black 

pinesnake or its prey base either directly 

or indirectly, which could cause further 

mortality or decline of the subspecies. 

(8) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether 

there are threats to the subspecies from 

human activity, the degree of which can 

be expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat may not be prudent. 

(9) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

black pinesnake habitat; 

(b) What areas, that were occupied at 

the time of listing (or are currently 

occupied) and that contain features 

essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies, should be included in the 

designation and why; 

(c) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in critical habitat areas we are 

proposing, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change; and 

(d) What areas not occupied at the 

time of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the subspecies and why. 

(10) Land use designations and 

current or planned activities in the 

subject areas and their possible impacts 

on proposed critical habitat. 

(11) How the patch size of proposed 

critical habitat was derived (i.e., how 

much acreage a viable population of 

black pinesnakes requires). 

(12) Information on the projected and 

reasonably likely impacts of climate 

change on the black pinesnake and 

proposed critical habitat. 

(13) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation; in 

particular, we seek information on any 

impacts on small entities or families, 

and the benefits of including or 

excluding areas that exhibit these 

impacts. 

(14) Information on the extent to 

which the description of economic 

impacts in the draft economic analysis 

is a reasonable estimate of the likely 

economic impacts and is complete and 

accurate. 

(15) The likelihood of adverse social 

reactions to the designation of critical 

habitat, as discussed in the associated 

documents of the draft economic 

analysis, and how the consequences of 

such reactions, if likely to occur, would 

relate to the conservation and regulatory 

benefits of the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

(16) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, and whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any specific area 

outweigh the benefits of including that 

area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

(17) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

If you submitted comments or 

information on the proposed listing rule 

(79 FR 60406) during the initial 

comment period from October 7, 2014, 

to December 8, 2014, please do not 

resubmit them. We will incorporate 

them into the public record and we will 

fully consider them in the preparation 

of that final determination. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

and/or the proposed listing rule by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We 

request that you send comments only by 

the methods described in the ADDRESSES

section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http://

www.regulations.gov. You may request 

at the top of your document that we 

withhold personal information such as 

your street address, phone number, or 

email address from public review; 

however, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mississippi Field Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Previous Federal Actions 

All previous Federal actions are 

described in the proposed rule to list the 

black pinesnake as a threatened species 

under the Act published in the Federal 

Register on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 

60406). 

Critical Habitat 

It is our intent to discuss below only 

those topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

black pinesnake. For information related 

to the listing of this subspecies, see the 

proposed rule. 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12848 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even 

in the event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the obligation of 

the Federal action agency and the 

landowner is not to restore or recover 

the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (PBFs) (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

PBFs that are essential to the 

conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). In identifying those PBFs 

within an area, we focus on the 

principal biological or physical 

constituent elements (primary 

constituent elements, or PCEs, such as 

roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal 

wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species. PCEs are those specific 

elements of PBFs that, when laid out in 

the appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement, provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. We designate critical habitat in 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by a species only when a 

designation limited to its range would 

be inadequate to ensure the 

conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, other unpublished 

materials, or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species, and (3) section 9 

of the Act’s prohibitions on taking any 

individual of the species, including 

taking caused by actions that affect 

habitat. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to conservation of this 

species. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans (HCPs), or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary shall 

designate critical habitat at the time the 

species is determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species. Our 

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state 

that the designation of critical habitat is 

not prudent when one or both of the 

following situations exist: 

(1) The species is threatened by taking 

or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or 

(2) Such designation of critical habitat 

would not be beneficial to the species. 

There is currently no imminent threat 

of take attributed to collection or 

vandalism under Factor B for the black 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12849 

pinesnake (see the proposed listing rule 

published on October 7, 2014 at 79 FR 

60406), and identification and mapping 

of critical habitat is not expected to 

initiate any such threat. Therefore, in 

the absence of finding that the 

designation of critical habitat would 

increase threats to a species, if there are 

any benefits to a critical habitat 

designation, a finding that designation 

is prudent is warranted. Here, the 

potential benefits of designation 

include: (1) Triggering consultation 

under section 7 of the Act, in new areas 

for actions in which there may be a 

Federal nexus where it would not 

otherwise occur because, for example, it 

is unoccupied; (2) focusing conservation 

activities on the most essential features 

and areas; (3) providing educational 

benefits to State or county governments 

or private entities; and (4) preventing 

people from causing inadvertent harm 

to the black pinesnake. 

Because we have determined that the 

designation of critical habitat will not 

likely increase the degree of threat to the 

subspecies and may provide some 

measure of benefit, we determine that 

designation of critical habitat is prudent 

for the black pinesnake. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

the black pinesnake is determinable. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) 

state that critical habitat is not 

determinable when one or both of the 

following situations exist: 

(i) Information sufficient to perform 

required analyses of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

permit identification of an area as 

critical habitat. 

At the time of our October 7, 2014, 

proposed rule to list the subspecies, a 

careful assessment of the economic 

impacts was ongoing, leading us to find 

that critical habitat was not 

determinable. We have continued to 

review the available information related 

to the draft economic analysis as well as 

newly acquired information necessary 

to perform this assessment. This and 

other information represent the best 

scientific data available, and we now 

believe the data are sufficient for us to 

analyze the impacts of designation. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the 

designation of critical habitat is 

determinable for the black pinesnake. 

Physical or Biological Features 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing to 

designate as critical habitat, we consider 

the PBFs essential to the conservation of 

the species and which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth, and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derive the specific PBFs essential 

for the black pinesnake from studies of 

the subspecies and other similar 

species’ habitat, ecology, and life history 

as described below. Additional 

information can be found in the 

proposed listing rule published in the 

Federal Register on October 7, 2014 (79 

FR 60406). We have determined that the 

following PBFs are essential for the 

black pinesnake: 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Telemetry studies and previous 

records indicate that the black 

pinesnake prefers an open canopy, a 

reduced midstory, and a dense 

herbaceous cover typical of a classic 

longleaf pine forest (see the ‘‘Habitat’’ 

and ‘‘Life History’’ sections of our 

proposed listing rule published in the 

Federal Register on October 7, 2014 (79 

FR 60406)). An abundant herbaceous 

groundcover is typical of those areas 

characterized by a more open-canopied 

condition, as a by-product of the 

increased amount of sunlight reaching 

the forest floor. As an ectotherm (an 

organism that regulates its body 

temperature (i.e., thermoregulates) 

primarily by exchanging heat with its 

surroundings), the black pinesnake 

requires this open condition to provide 

thermoregulatory opportunities, and 

possibly to provide proper incubation 

temperatures for nests. 

Studies of black pinesnakes have 

supported this subspecies’ preference 

for a relatively open canopy and 

reduced mid-story shrub cover (Duran 

1998b, pp. 4–8; Baxley et al. 2011, p. 

154). Values for these landscape features 

reflecting habitat structure have been 

estimated for the black pinesnake by 

looking to habitat conditions described 

for the threatened gopher tortoise 

(Gopherus polyphemus), a species 

sharing the same habitat within the 

same geographic range in the longleaf 

pine ecosystem. Management plans for 

the tortoise include upland longleaf 

pine forest desired conditions of ≤70 

percent canopy cover, a shrub cover of 

<10 percent, and a herbaceous 

groundcover of at least 40 to 50 percent 

(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FWCC) 2012, p. 42; U.S. 

Forest Service 2014, p. 14; Service 2014, 

p. 1). These same metrics are all 

indicative of the forest structure in 

suitable black pinesnake habitat as well. 

Longleaf pine ecosystems have 

historically been maintained with fire, 

as it is necessary for exposing bare 

mineral soil for seed germination, 

increasing nutrient content in forage 

species, and reducing competition of 

hardwood species (DeBerry and Pashley 

2008, pp. 20–21). Prescribed burning 

during the growing season (late spring 

to early summer) is more effective at 

controlling mid-story hardwood 

vegetation, thereby promoting a more 

abundant herbaceous groundcover; 

however, some understory plants 

respond positively to fires in the 

dormant season as well (Knapp et al. 

2009, p. 2). Therefore, fire regimes 

should optimally incorporate variability 

in their seasonality and intensity, as a 

heterogeneous fire regime is likely to 

maximize plant biodiversity (Knapp et 

al. 2009, p. 3). Management of upland 

longleaf pine forests should include a 

fire return interval of 1 to 3 years 

(FWCC 2012, p. 42; U.S. Forest Service 

2014, p. 14), with variable seasonality 

and intensity in the fire regime to 

promote the open-canopied condition 

and abundant, diverse forage species 

that sustain the prey base (small 

mammals) for black pinesnakes. 

A broad distribution of home ranges 

have been estimated from various 

telemetry studies, from a mean 

Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP) (a 

mathematical tool for determining home 

range boundaries by connecting the 

outer location points) value of 106 acres 

(ac) (43 hectares (ha)) for adult female 

pinesnakes (Duran 1998a, p. 19) to a 

mean MCP value of 551 ac (223 ha) for 

adult male pinesnakes (Baxley and 

Qualls 2009, p. 287). The maximum 

home range reported for a black 

pinesnake in the literature is 979 ac (396 

ha) for an adult male, and the maximum 

distance between consecutive locations 

in a telemetry study (reported as a 

straight-line distance) was 1.3 miles (2.1 

kilometers) (Baxley and Qualls 2009, 

pp. 287–288). Examination of MCP areas 

for black pinesnakes occupying the 

same general area shows very little 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12850 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

overlap of home ranges, providing some 

evidence for territoriality (Duran 1998a, 

p. 15). The minimum amount of habitat 

necessary to support a viable black 

pinesnake population (known as reserve 

area requirements) has not previously 

been determined, and estimating those 

parameters can be quite challenging, 

primarily based on the elusive nature of 

the subspecies (Wilson et al. 2011, pp. 

42–43). We estimated a minimum black 

pinesnake reserve size by calculating 

the total area covered by two partially 

overlapping activity areas created from 

location points buffered with a radius 

equaling the maximum known 

movement distance for the subspecies 

(see discussion under Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat). The resulting 

area of 5,000 ac (2,023 ha) is considered 

to be a minimum population reserve 

size for the black pinesnake, as long as 

the area is not highly fragmented (see 

discussion under Criteria Used to 

Identify Critical Habitat). Fragmentation 

by roads, urbanization, or incompatible 

habitat conversion continues to be a 

major threat affecting the subspecies 

(see Factor E. Other Natural or 

Manmade Factors Affecting Its 

Continued Existence in our proposed 

listing rule published in the Federal 

Register on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 

60406)). 

For comparison purposes we 

investigated the population 

requirements of another large-bodied, 

wide-ranging snake with large home 

ranges that is also a longleaf pine 

ecosystem specialist, the threatened 

eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon 

couperi; listed as Drymarchon corais 

couperi). Moler (1992, p. 185) 

recommended that large tracts of land 

(≥2,500 ac (1,012 ha)) should be 

protected in order to have a high 

probability of sustaining populations of 

eastern indigo snakes long term. A 

modeling study by Sytsma et al. (2012, 

pp. 39–40) estimated a reserve size of 

10,000 ac (4,047 ha) to be sufficiently 

large to support a small population of 

eastern indigo snakes. Although the 

eastern indigo snake’s home ranges are 

larger than the black pinesnake’s, these 

studies do support the need for large 

areas to support large, wide-ranging 

snake species sensitive to landscape 

fragmentation. Thus, based on these 

estimates of eastern indigo snake reserve 

size, the available long distance 

movement data for the black pinesnake, 

and data that describe non-overlapping 

large home range sizes, we believe that 

5,000 ac (2,023 ha) of suitable habitat is 

an appropriate estimate of the minimum 

reserve size for a population of black 

pinesnakes. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify open-canopied pine 

forest habitat (≤70 percent canopy 

coverage), historically dominated by 

longleaf pine and maintained by 

frequent fires, a reduced midstory (<10 

percent), and a diverse and abundant 

native herbaceous groundcover (>40 

percent) to be the physical and 

biological features necessary for the 

conservation of the black pinesnake. 

These pine forests should be primarily 

unfragmented and occupy at least 5,000 

ac (2,023 ha) in area. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Black pinesnakes are known to 

consume a variety of food, including 

nestling rabbits (Sylvilagus aquaticus), 

bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 

and their eggs, and eastern kingbirds 

(Tyrannus tyrannus) (Vandeventer and 

Young 1989, p. 34; Yager et al. 2005, p. 

28); however, rodents represent the 

most common type of prey. The 

majority of documented prey items are 

hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), 

various mice species (Peromyscus spp.), 

and to a lesser extent eastern fox 

squirrels (Sciurus niger) (Rudolph et al. 

2002, p. 59; Yager et al. 2005, p. 28). 

Through concurrent studies involving 

both snake radio-telemetry and small 

mammal trapping, it has been 

documented that the hispid cotton rat 

was the most frequently trapped small 

mammal within black pinesnake home 

ranges (Duran 1998a, p. 34), and that the 

core home ranges of telemetered black 

pinesnakes had higher mammal 

abundance (especially hispid cotton 

rats) compared with areas on the 

periphery of the snakes’ home ranges 

(Baxley and Qualls 2009, p. 291). 

To provide the refugia and food 

needed to support the rodent prey base 

of black pinesnakes, the habitat must 

have an abundant herbaceous 

groundcover. Bluestem grasses 

(Andropogon and Schizachyrium sp.) 

typically represent the dominant 

groundcover species of the opencanopied longleaf pine habitat within 

the geographic range of the black 

pinesnake, and bluestem grass stems are 

a primary food of the hispid cotton rat 

(Miller and Miller 2005, p. 202). 

Research on black pinesnakes has 

shown they more frequently occupy 

forested habitats with significantly 

higher cover of herbaceous understory 

vegetation and avoid areas with 

significantly higher percentages of leaf 

litter (Duran 1998a, p. 11; Baxley et al. 

2011, p. 161; Smith 2011, pp. 86 and 

100). Therefore, we identify as a 

physical and biological feature an 

abundant, diverse, native groundcover, 

as described above under Space for 

Individual and Population Growth and 

for Normal Behavior. 

Cover or Shelter 

From radio-telemetry studies, it has 

been shown that black pinesnakes 

spend a majority of their time below 

ground (Duran 1998a, p. 12; Yager et al. 

2005, p. 27; Baxley and Qualls 2009, p. 

288). The subterranean environments 

most commonly utilized by black 

pinesnakes are burned-out or rotted-out 

stump holes (Duran 1998a, p. 12; Yager 

et al. 2005, p. 27; Baxley and Qualls 

2009, p. 288). Where pine stumps have 

become limited, black pinesnakes may 

utilize gopher tortoise and nine-banded 

armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) 

burrows more frequently; however, the 

large diameters of these burrows might 

allow access to a wide array of potential 

predators (Rudolph et al. 2007, p. 563). 

Rudolph et al. (2007, pp. 560–565) 

excavated five black pinesnake winter 

refugia (overwintering sites) utilized for 

significant periods of time from late fall 

through early spring. They were found 

to be located exclusively in chambers 

formed by the decay and burning of 

longleaf pine stumps and root tunnels, 

at depths of 3.5 to 14 inches (in) (9 to 

35 centimeters (cm)) below the surface 

(Rudolph et al. 2007, pp. 560–561). 

There is also evidence for site fidelity 

towards specific winter refugia sites in 

the genus Pituophis, specifically for 

northern pinesnakes. Burger et al. (2012, 

p. 600) documented hibernacula use by 

northern pinesnakes over a 26-year 

period in New Jersey, and they 

determined that even when known 

hibernacula do not get used for a year, 

those hibernacula have a 37 percent 

chance of being used the following year. 

Data on black pinesnake habitat use 

document site fidelity in this subspecies 

as well. During research studies, black 

pinesnakes have been shown to return 

to the same general location during 

monitoring and to even return to the 

same stump hole (Yager et al. 2006, pp. 

34–36; Baxley and Qualls 2009, p. 288). 

These data on microhabitat use 

reinforce the importance of locating and 

protecting known refugia, regardless of 

the seasonality of their use. 

In addition to requiring the presence 

of stump holes, it is imperative that this 

microhabitat be in areas where the black 

pinesnakes’ subterranean refugia will 

remain above the seasonal water table, 

as flooding may increase the potential 

for harm to the snakes. An examination 

of elevation thresholds in the black 

pinesnake locality data indicates that 

the subspecies occurs most frequently 

along upland ridges. We determined 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12851 

that 90 percent (329) of all black 

pinesnake locations (post-1980) 

occurred in areas ≥200 feet (ft) (61 

meters (m)) elevation, and 96 percent of 

these locations (349) were in areas ≥150 

ft (46 m). 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify the presence of 

naturally burned-out or rotted-out pine 

stumps and their associated root 

systems in upland areas at an elevation 

≥150 ft (46 m), within historically 

longleaf-dominated pine forests, to be a 

physical and biological feature needed 

for the conservation of this subspecies. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

Very little information on breeding 

and egg-laying of wild black pinesnakes 

is available. Lyman et al. (2007, pp. 40– 

42) documented mating activities at the 

entrance to armadillo burrows, and Lee 

(2007, p. 93) described mating in a pair 

of black pinesnakes above ground, but 

in the vicinity of a rotted-out pine root 

system that the pair subsequently 

occupied. The only documented natural 

nest for the subspecies is a clutch of 6 

recently hatched black pinesnake eggs 

found 29 in (74 cm) below the soil 

surface at the end of a juvenile gopher 

tortoise burrow (burrow width: 2.5 in (6 

cm)) in Perry County, Mississippi (Lee 

et al. 2011, p. 301). The microhabitat 

within the tortoise burrow likely 

provides a suitable microclimate for egg 

incubation in warm climate areas (Lee et 

al. 2011, p. 301). Female northern 

pinesnakes are known to excavate 

tunnels and nest chambers for egg 

deposition (Burger and Zappalorti 1992, 

p. 331), but it is unknown whether 

female black pinesnakes excavate their 

own nests or only utilize and modify 

existing tunnels. 

Since there is only one documented 

natural black pinesnake nest, it is 

unknown whether the subspecies 

exhibits nest site fidelity; however, nest 

site fidelity has been described for other 

Pituophis species and subspecies. 

Burger and Zappalorti (1992, pp. 333– 

335) conducted an 11-year study of nest 

site fidelity of northern pinesnakes in 

New Jersey and documented the exact 

same nest site being used for 11 years 

in a row, evidence of old egg shells in 

73 percent of new nests, and recapture 

of 42 percent of female snakes at prior 

nesting sites. 

In addition to the stump holes and 

associated root systems commonly used 

by adult black pinesnakes (Duran 1998a, 

p. 12; Yager et al. 2005, p. 27; Baxley 

and Qualls 2009, p. 288), radiotelemetry data have shown that yearling 

and young juvenile black pinesnakes 

frequently use small mammal burrows, 

specifically eastern mole (Scalopus 

aquaticus) tunnels, as retreat sites 

(Lyman et al. 2007, pp. 39–41). Because 

of this documented utilization and 

modification of existing burrow and 

tunnel systems, it is necessary for black 

pinesnakes to have access to areas with 

sandy soils for ease of excavation. 

Appropriate soils have been described 

for the gopher tortoise, and are 

recognized as one of their key habitat 

requirements, as they allow for burrow 

excavation and nest development (Ernst 

et al. 1994, p. 466). Gopher tortoises 

typically occur where soils have high 

sand content, low clay content, and 

little to no stones or gravel; the soils are 

often well-drained and are deep to a 

water table (Service 2012, p. 3). When 

sufficient sunlight reaches the forest 

floor, sandy soils also promote 

herbaceous ground cover (component of 

PCE 1) as food for rodents (primary prey 

of the black pinesnake), and provide the 

appropriate environment for egg 

incubation and hatching (Service 2012, 

p. 3). Because black pinesnakes share a 

requirement for sandy soils with the 

gopher tortoise, and the two occur 

within the same habitat, characteristics 

of suitable gopher tortoise soils can also 

be used to describe appropriate black 

pinesnake soils. These soil 

characteristics include: (1) No flooding 

or ponding; (2) <15 percent medium and 

coarse gravel fragments; (3) >60 in (152 

cm) depth to seasonal high water table 

(elevation to which the ground or 

surface water can be expected to rise 

due to a normal or wet season); (4) >60 

in (152 cm) depth to the hardpan (dense 

layer of soil impervious to plant roots 

and water); (5) textural components 

equaling >30 percent sand and <35 

percent clay; and (6) a slope <15 percent 

(Service 2012, p. 6). The association of 

black pinesnakes utilizing these soil 

types is corroborated in telemetry work 

by Duran (1998b, p. 15), which showed 

that snakes in his study spent most of 

their time on well-drained soils 

determined to be appropriate for gopher 

tortoises. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify sandy, well-drained 

soils characteristic of historically 

longleaf-dominated upland pine forest 

to be a physical and biological feature 

for this subspecies. These specific soil 

series and related soil associations have 

the following characteristics: No 

flooding or ponding; < 15 percent 

medium and coarse gravel fragments; 

>60 in (152 cm) depth to seasonal high 

water table; >60 in (152 cm) depth to the 

hardpan; textural components equaling 

>30 percent sand and <35 percent clay; 

and a slope <15 percent. 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Black Pinesnake 

According to 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are 

required to identify the PBFs essential 

to the conservation of the black 

pinesnake in areas occupied at the time 

of listing, focusing on the features’ 

primary constituent elements (PCEs). 

We consider PCEs to be those specific 

elements of PBFs that provide for a 

species’ life-history processes and are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

(1) Primary Constituent Element 1: 

Tract size and habitat structure. A 

longleaf pine-dominated forest 

maintained by frequent fire, and 

primarily having the following 

characteristics: 

(a) Open canopy (≤70 percent); 

(b) Reduced woody mid-story (<10 

percent cover); 

(c) Abundant, diverse, native 

groundcover (at least 40 percent cover); 

and 

(d) Minimum of 5,000 ac (2,023 ha) of 

mostly unfragmented habitat. 

(2) Primary Constituent Element 2: 

Refugia sites and topographic features. 

Naturally burned-out or rotted-out pine 

stumps and their associated root 

systems, in longleaf pine forests on 

ridges with elevation of 150 ft (46 m) or 

greater. 

(3) Primary Constituent Element 3: 

Soils. Deep, sandy, well-drained soils of 

longleaf pine forest, characterized by: 

(a) No flooding or ponding; 

(b) <15 percent medium and coarse 

gravel fragments; 

(c) >60 in (152 cm) depth to seasonal 

high water table; 

(d) >60 in (152 cm) depth to the 

hardpan; 

(e) Textural components equaling 

>30 percent sand and <35 percent clay; 

and 

(f) A slope <15 percent. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

All areas proposed as critical habitat 

would require some level of 

management to address the current and 

future threats to the black pinesnake 

and to maintain the PCEs. Special 

management of the upland longleaf pine 

forest would be needed to ensure an 

open canopy, reduced mid-story, and 

abundant herbaceous ground cover (PCE 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12852 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1); underground refugia for snakes to 

occupy (PCE 2); and relatively 

unfragmented tracts of pine forests (PCE 

1). 

A detailed discussion of activities 

affecting the black pinesnake and its 

habitat can be found in the proposed 

listing rule published in the Federal 

Register on October 7, 2014 (79 FR 

60406). The features essential to the 

conservation of this subspecies may 

require special management 

considerations or protection to reduce 

threats posed by: Land use conversion, 

primarily urban development and 

conversion to agriculture and pine 

plantations; timber management 

practices, including clear-cutting, stump 

removal, or other ground-disturbing 

activities; fire suppression and low fire 

frequencies; random effects of drought 

or floods; encroachment of invasive 

species; fragmentation from new roads 

or development; road mortality; and 

creation of utility pipelines and 

powerlines. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include (but are 

not limited to): Maintaining critical 

habitat areas as open pine habitat 

(preferably longleaf pine); conducting 

forestry management using frequent 

prescribed burning (1 to 3 years) with 

seasonal variability, avoiding intensive 

site preparation that would disturb or 

destroy pine stumps, avoiding the 

practice of bedding when planting trees, 

and reducing planting densities to 

create or maintain an open canopied 

forest with abundant herbaceous ground 

cover; maintaining forest underground 

structure such as gopher tortoise 

burrows, small mammal burrows, and 

stump holes; and retaining large tracts 

of pine forest unfragmented by 

protecting sites from development and 

new road construction. More 

information on the special management 

considerations for each critical habitat 

unit is provided in the individual unit 

descriptions below. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b) we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

occupied areas at the time of listing that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. If after 

identifying currently occupied areas, a 

determination is made that those areas 

are inadequate to ensure conservation of 

the species, in accordance with the Act 

and our implementing regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12(e) we then consider whether 

designating additional areas—outside 

those currently occupied—are essential 

for the conservation of the species. Here, 

as discussed below, we are not currently 

proposing to designate any areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

black pinesnake because we have 

determined that occupied areas are 

sufficient for the conservation of the 

subspecies. 

We began our determination of which 

areas to designate as critical habitat for 

the black pinesnake with an assessment 

of the critical life-history components of 

the subspecies, as they relate to habitat. 

We reviewed the available information 

pertaining to historical and current 

distributions, life histories, and habitat 

requirements of this subspecies. We 

focused on the identification of large 

tracts of remaining unfragmented open 

pine habitat in our analysis because 

they are requisite sites for population 

survival and conservation and their 

disappearance in the environment is 

one of the primary reasons that the 

black pinesnake is declining. Our 

sources included surveys, unpublished 

reports, and peer-reviewed scientific 

literature prepared by the Alabama 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources; Alabama Natural Heritage 

Program; Mississippi Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks Natural 

Heritage Program; and black pinesnake 

researchers. Other sources are Service 

data and Geographic Information 

System (GIS) data (such as species 

occurrence data, elevation contours, 

soils, transportation, urban areas, 

National Wetland Inventory, 2011 

National Land Cover Database, aerial 

imagery, ownership maps, and U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) Terrestrial 

Ecosystems data). 

For estimation of activity ranges of 

black pinesnakes, we utilized the 

process of establishing species 

occurrence areas (SOAs), which the 

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP) uses 

for northern pinesnakes. These areas are 

derived by placing circular buffers 

around documented locations, in order 

to approximate typical activity ranges 

(NJDFW 2009, p. 17). There are 

unproven assumptions that underlie 

this method, such as that pinesnakes 

have circular activity ranges, and that 

the occurrence location represents the 

center of that individual’s range; 

however, given the lack of 

representative telemetry data for many 

areas, this is a suitable approach to 

estimate activity ranges. We placed 

circular buffers around recent black 

pinesnake location points (post-1990) 

from the sources listed above, with a 

radius equaling the maximum known 

movement distance (1.3 miles (2.1 km)) 

to approximate the SOA of each snake 

(3,400 ac (1,376 ha)). The 1990 date was 

used as it coincides with dates chosen 

by black pinesnake researchers who 

conducted habitat assessments at what 

were considered recently and 

historically occupied locations (Duran 

and Givens 2001, pp. 5–9). By utilizing 

GIS, we looked for areas of overlap 

between activity ranges, and calculated 

that the total area covered by two 

partially overlapping SOA estimates 

(5,000 ac (2,023 ha)) would be 

considered a minimum population 

reserve size, as long as the area was not 

highly fragmented. This is not to say 

that two snakes are considered a viable 

population, but that this area estimate 

should be considered a minimum value. 

To examine the possibility of an 

elevation threshold from the locality 

data, recent black pinesnake records 

were obtained from the sources listed 

above. By overlapping these locality 

data with GIS elevation contour data, 

we determined that 90 percent (329) of 

all black pinesnake locations occurred 

in areas ≥200 ft (61 m) elevation, and 96 

percent of these locations (349) were in 

areas ≥150 ft (46 m) elevation. 

Soils determined to be suitable habitat 

for the gopher tortoise were used as a 

surrogate to determine suitable soils for 

the black pinesnake, as these both 

occupy deep, sandy soils of upland 

longleaf pine forest. A team of biologists 

and soil scientists from the Service and 

the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, with input from staff from the 

U.S. Forest Service, developed a model 

to classify soils throughout the gopher 

tortoise’s federally listed range (Service 

2012, pp. 1–37). These specific soil 

characteristics are detailed in the 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Black Pinesnake section, above. 

Using GIS, we located all areas where 

at least two black pinesnake activity 

ranges overlapped, and identified those 

as potential populations. Areas within 

and directly adjacent to these black 

pinesnake activity ranges that met the 

soils and elevation criteria were 

considered contiguous habitat and were 

included in potential population 

boundaries. There were 11 populations 

identified using this method: 6 in 

Mississippi and 5 in Alabama. These 

populations were then assessed in 

regards to impacts from nearby 

fragmentation sources such as major 

roads, wetlands and open water, 

incompatible land use (such as 

agricultural conversion), and urban 

development. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12853 

To analyze potential impacts from 

roads, a transportation layer was used 

with GIS, specifically examining Class 1 

and 2 roads. Class 1 roads are hard 

surface highways including Interstate 

and U.S. numbered highways, primary 

State routes, and all controlled access 

highways; Class 2 roads include 

secondary State routes, primary county 

routes, and other highways that connect 

principal cities and towns. Both of these 

road classifications have a high 

probability of causing permanent black 

pinesnake population fragmentation and 

were excluded. Population boundaries 

were buffered at least 100 meters from 

all Class 1 and 2 roads. Major wetland 

areas and streams were avoided in 

determining population boundaries, 

although these generally were consistent 

with changes in elevation. To analyze 

the fragmentation effects from 

incompatible land uses (including but 

not limited to urbanization), recent 

aerial imagery and the 2011 National 

Land Cover Database (NLCD) were 

utilized. By selecting the evergreen 

forest layers from NLCD, it was possible 

to delineate large tracts of remaining 

pine forested habitat, and concurrent 

analysis from the aerial imagery further 

removed areas with agricultural fields, 

housing developments, and urban areas. 

Once all the above analyses were 

complete, the level of fragmentation in 

each population was assessed. If 

fragmentation within a population 

boundary limited the suitable habitat to 

the point where less than 5,000 ac 

(2,023 ha) was available, that population 

was no longer considered viable and 

was removed from critical habitat 

consideration. 

Using the above-described process, 

eight of the 11 populations examined 

met the criteria for consideration as 

critical habitat: All six of the 

populations in Mississippi and two of 

the five in Alabama. Five of the six 

Mississippi populations occur at least 

partially on the De Soto National Forest, 

the largest of which is located almost 

exclusively on the Camp Shelby Special 

Use Permit area, and the sixth 

population occurs primarily on the 

Marion County Wildlife Management 

Area (WMA). All six populations meet 

the criteria of appropriate size; 

contiguous, pine-dominated, forested 

habitat; elevation; soils; and minimal 

fragmentation. The Service has 

determined that these sites contain the 

PCEs that are essential for the 

conservation of the black pinesnake, 

and therefore we are proposing to 

designate them as critical habitat. 

Both of the Alabama populations that 

met the criteria to be considered critical 

habitat are located in Clarke County and 

include a population primarily located 

on the Scotch WMA and a population 

located at the Fred T. Stimpson WMA. 

Three other populations, in Washington 

and Mobile Counties, each have two 

black pinesnake records from the last 25 

years, but due to fragmentation do not 

meet the criteria for critical habitat and 

therefore are not proposed for 

designation. 

We have determined that the areas we 

are proposing for designation as critical 

habitat contain the PCEs that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

black pinesnake based on our current 

understanding of the subspecies’ 

requirements. However, as discussed in 

the Critical Habitat section above, we 

recognize that designation of critical 

habitat might not include all habitat 

areas that we may eventually determine 

are necessary for the recovery of the 

subspecies and that for this reason, a 

critical habitat designation does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not promote the recovery of the 

subspecies. 

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation does not include all forested 

areas known to have been occupied by 

the subspecies historically; instead, it 

focuses on occupied areas within the 

current range that have retained the 

necessary PCEs that will allow for the 

maintenance and expansion of existing 

populations. 

In summary, for areas within the 

geographic area occupied by the 

subspecies at the time of listing, we 

delineated critical habitat unit 

boundaries using the following 

criterion: Evaluate habitat suitability of 

forested parcels within the geographic 

area occupied at the time of listing (post 

1990), and retain those segments that 

contain some or all of the PCEs to 

support life-history functions essential 

for conservation of the subspecies. 

Areas Not Occupied at the Time of 

Listing 

We are not proposing any areas 

outside the geographical areas occupied 

by the black pinesnake at the time of 

listing for critical habitat designation. 

The proposed units within the area 

occupied by the subspecies at the time 

of listing are representative of the 

current geographical range and include 

both the core population areas of black 

pinesnakes, as well as remaining 

peripheral population areas. We 

determined that there was sufficient 

area for the conservation of the 

subspecies within the occupied areas 

determined above. 

When determining proposed critical 

habitat boundaries, we made every 

effort to avoid including developed 

areas such as lands covered by 

buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack 

physical or biological features necessary 

for the black pinesnake. The scale of the 

maps we prepared under the parameters 

for publication within the Code of 

Federal Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed lands nor 

all lands covered under the Camp 

Shelby integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP), which are 

exempted from proposed critical habitat 

designation (see Application of Section 

4(a)(3) of the Act under Exemptions, 

below). Thus, any such lands 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

proposed rule have been excluded by 

text in the proposed rule and are not 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat 

is finalized as proposed, a Federal 

action involving these lands would not 

trigger section 7 consultation with 

respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the PBFs in the adjacent critical habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation is defined by the map or 

maps, as modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document in the Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation section. We 

include more detailed information on 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in the preamble of this 

document. We will make the 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which each map is based available to 

the public on http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2014–0065, on our 

Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/

mississippiES/, and at the field office 

responsible for the designation (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above). 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing to designate 

approximately 338,100 ac (136,824 ha) 

in eight units, one of which is divided 

into two subunits, as critical habitat for 

the black pinesnake. The critical habitat 

areas we describe below constitute our 

current best assessment of areas that 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

the black pinesnake. The areas we 

propose as critical habitat are all 

occupied at the time of listing and 

contain all elements of the physical or 

biological features of the black 

pinesnake to support life-history 

functions essential to the conservation 

of the subspecies including: 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12854 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Unfragmented tracts of pine forest of 

sufficient size and structure (PCE 1); 

suitable underground refugia sites at 

appropriate elevation (PCE 2); and deep, 

sandy soils (PCE 3). 

The areas we propose as critical 

habitat are: Unit 1—Ovett; Unit 2— 

Piney Woods Creek; Unit 3—Cypress 

Creek; Unit 4A—Maxie; Unit 4B— 

Maxie; Unit 5—Howison; Unit 6— 

Marion County WMA; Unit 7—Scotch 

WMA; and Unit 8—Fred T. Stimpson 

WMA. 

Table 1 provides the location, 

approximate area, and ownership of 

each critical habitat unit. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR BLACK PINESNAKE

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries] 

Unit County 

Ownership 

Total area 

Federal State Local Private 

MISSISSIPPI 

1—Ovett ................................... Jones, Wayne 40,637 ac 

(16,445 ha).

......................... ......................... 6,540 ac 

(2,647 ha).

47,177 ac (19,092 

ha). 

2—Piney Woods Creek ............ Perry, Wayne 17,744 ac 

(7,181 ha).

......................... ......................... 4,645 ac 

(1,880 ha).

22,389 ac (9,061 ha). 

3—Cypress Creek .................... Perry, Greene, 

George, Forrest.

131,045 ac 

(53,032 ha).

1,768 ac (715 

ha).

41 ac (16 ha) .. 12,289 ac 

(4,973 ha).

145,143 ac (58,737 

ha). 

4A—Maxie ................................ Forrest, Stone 8,883 ac 

(3,595 ha).

......................... ......................... 6,334 ac 

(2,563 ha).

15,217 ac (6,158 ha). 

4B—Maxie ................................ Forrest, Perry, 

Stone.

28,233 ac 

(11,425 ha).

......................... ......................... 16,078 ac 

(6,507 ha).

44,311 ac (17,932 

ha). 

5—Howison .............................. Stone, Harrison 9,371 ac 

(3,792 ha).

......................... 640 ac (259 

ha).

2,938 ac 

(1,189 ha).

12,949 ac (5,240 ha). 

6—Marion County WMA .......... Marion ............ ......................... 5,587 ac 

(2,261 ha).

......................... 6,270 ac 

(2,537 ha).

11,857 ac (4,798 ha). 

ALABAMA 

7—Scotch WMA ....................... Clarke ............. ......................... ......................... ......................... 33,395 ac 

(13,514 ha).

33,395 ac (13,514 

ha). 

8—Fred T. Stimpson WMA ...... Clarke ............. ......................... 2,547 ac 

(1,031 ha).

......................... 3,114 ac 

(1,260 ha).

5,661 ac (2,291 ha). 

Total Area ......................... ......................... 235,915 ac 

(95,471 ha).

9,902 ac 

(4,007 ha).

681 ac (276 

ha).

91,603 ac 

(37,070 ha).

338,100 ac (136,824 

ha). 

Note: Area sizing may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the black 

pinesnake, below. 

Unit 1: Ovett—Jones and Wayne 

Counties, Mississippi 

Unit 1 encompasses approximately 

47,177 ac (19,092 ha) on Federal and 

private land in Jones and Wayne 

Counties, Mississippi. This unit is 

located between the Bogue Homo River 

and Thompson Creek, is approximately 

2.0 mi (3.2 km) northeast of Ovett, and 

is mostly within the boundary of the 

Chickasawhay Ranger District of the De 

Soto National Forest (DNF). It is located 

just east of State Highway 15, west of 

Salem Road, north of the intersection of 

State Highway 15 and County Road 205, 

and approximately 1.3 mi (2.1 km) 

south of the intersection of Freedom 

Road and Forest Road. 

The majority of this unit (40,637 ac 

(16,445 ha)) is on Federal lands within 

the DNF, with the remainder of the unit 

(6,540 ac (2,647 ha)) on private land. 

Unit 1 contains all elements of the 

physical or biological features of the 

black pinesnake to support life-history 

functions essential to the conservation 

of the subspecies. 

There are records of eight black 

pinesnakes located within Unit 1 since 

1990. Many of these are located on the 

higher ridges within the unit boundary, 

but are within close enough proximity 

to each other (with contiguous habitat 

between) for all of them to belong to the 

same breeding population. Habitat 

management on the section of this unit 

owned by the U.S. Forest Service (86 

percent) is performed under the Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

for National Forests in Mississippi (U.S. 

Forest Service 2014, 207 pp.). The other 

14 percent is privately owned. This 

forest plan contains objectives for the 

threatened gopher tortoise and 

endangered red-cockaded woodpecker 

(Picoides borealis), both of which occur 

on Unit 1. These objectives include 

restoring and opening up canopy 

conditions in areas with sandy soils and 

in mature and old-growth pine forests 

and woodlands, with 1- to 3-year fire 

intervals; however, there are no 

management practices outlined in this 

plan that specifically target all of the 

habitat requirements of the black 

pinesnake. 

Threats to the black pinesnake and its 

habitat in Unit 1 that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection of the physical or biological 

features include: Fire suppression and 

low fire frequencies; detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy belowground soil 

structures such as clear-cutting, disking, 

or stump removal; land use conversion 

and fragmentation, primarily urban 

development, new roads, and 

conversion to agriculture and pine 

plantations; utility easements; road 

mortality; and encroachment of invasive 

species. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12855 

Unit 2: Piney Woods Creek—Wayne and 

Perry Counties, Mississippi 

Unit 2 encompasses approximately 

22,389 ac (9,061 ha) on Federal and 

private land located primarily in Wayne 

County, Mississippi, with a small 

portion extending into Perry County, 

Mississippi. This unit is located 

between Thompson Creek and Piney 

Woods Creek, is approximately 4.0 mi 

(6.4 km) west of Clara, and is mostly 

within the boundary of the 

Chickasawhay Ranger District of the 

DNF. It is located 2.3 mi (3.7 km) north 

of the intersection of Camp Eight Road 

and Will Best Road, and 0.4 mi (0.6 km) 

southeast of the intersection of ClaraStrengthford Road and ClaraStrengthford Reservoir Road. 

The majority of this unit (17,744 ac 

(7,181 ha)) is on Federal lands within 

the DNF, with the remainder of the Unit 

(4,645 ac (1,880 ha)) on private land. 

Unit 2 contains all elements of the 

physical or biological features of the 

black pinesnake to support life-history 

functions essential to the conservation 

of the subspecies. 

There are records of five black 

pinesnakes located within Unit 2 since 

1990. Many of these are located on the 

higher ridges within the unit boundary, 

but are within close enough proximity 

to each other (with contiguous habitat 

between) for all of them to belong to the 

same breeding population. Habitat 

management on the section of this unit 

owned by the U.S. Forest Service (79 

percent) is performed under the Revised 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

for National Forests in Mississippi (U.S. 

Forest Service 2014, 207 pp.) (see 

discussion under Unit 1, above). 

Threats to the black pinesnake and its 

habitat in Unit 2 that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection of the physical or biological 

features include: Fire suppression and 

low fire frequencies; detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy belowground soil 

structures such as clear-cutting, disking, 

or stump removal; land use conversion 

and fragmentation, primarily urban 

development, new roads, and 

conversion to agriculture and pine 

plantations; gas, water, electrical power, 

and sewer easements; road mortality; 

and encroachment of invasive species. 

Unit 3: Cypress Creek—Forrest, Perry, 

George, and Greene Counties, 

Mississippi 

Unit 3 is the largest of all the units, 

encompassing approximately 145,143 ac 

(58,737 ha) on Federal, State, local, and 

private land in Forrest, Perry, George, 

and Greene Counties, Mississippi. This 

unit is located north of Black Creek 

(Cypress Creek runs into part of the 

unit, but is not a barrier to gene flow), 

and is approximately 3.0 mi (4.8 km) 

east of McLaurin, 1.8 mi (2.9 km) south 

of New Augusta, and 4.6 mi (7.4 km) 

northwest of Benndale. Unit 3 is mostly 

within the installation boundary of 

Camp Shelby on the De Soto Ranger 

District of the DNF, and is bordered by 

State Highways 26 and 57 and U.S. 

Highways 49 and 98. 

The majority of this unit (131,045 ac 

(53,032 ha)) is on Federal lands, with 

another 1,768 ac (715 ha) on State lands; 

41 ac (16 ha) on local, county-owned 

lands; and the remainder (12,289 ac 

(4,973 ha)) on private land. This unit 

contains 5,735 ac (2,321 ha) of Stateand Department of Defense (DoD)- 

owned lands that are covered under the 

Camp Shelby INRMP, which are 

exempted from proposed critical habitat 

designation (see Application of Section 

4(a)(3) of the Act under Exemptions, 

below). Unit 3 contains all elements of 

the physical or biological features of the 

black pinesnake to support life-history 

functions essential to the conservation 

of the subspecies. 

There are over 100 records of black 

pinesnakes located within Unit 3 since 

2004, as compiled by The Nature 

Conservancy’s Camp Shelby Field 

Office. Many of these are located on the 

higher ridges within the unit boundary, 

but are within close enough proximity 

to each other (with contiguous habitat 

between) for all of them to belong to the 

same breeding population. Habitat 

management on the section of this unit 

owned by the U.S. Forest Service is 

performed under the Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan for National 

Forests in Mississippi (U.S. Forest 

Service 2014, 207 pp.). In addition to 

containing objectives for the threatened 

gopher tortoise and endangered redcockaded woodpecker, both of which 

occur on Unit 3 (see discussion under 

Unit 1, above), it also includes 

objectives for the endangered dusky 

gopher frog (Rana sevosa), which has 

three critical habitat units totaling 961.8 

ac (389.2 ha), also located within Unit 

3. Forest plan objectives for the dusky 

gopher frog include upland forest 

management to restore and improve 

open-canopied conditions compatible 

with black pinesnake habitat 

requirements. 

Threats to the black pinesnake and its 

habitat in Unit 3 that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection of the physical or biological 

features include: Fire suppression and 

low fire frequencies; detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy belowground soil 

structures such as clear-cutting, disking, 

or stump removal; land use conversion 

and fragmentation, primarily urban 

development, new roads, and 

conversion to agriculture and pine 

plantations; gas, water, electrical power, 

and sewer easements; road mortality; 

and encroachment of invasive species. 

Unit 4: Maxie—Forrest, Perry, and Stone 

Counties, Mississippi 

Unit 4 encompasses a total of 

approximately 59,527 ac (24,090 ha) on 

Federal and private land in Forrest, 

Perry, and Stone Counties, Mississippi. 

Located south of Black Creek and 3.0 mi 

(4.8 km) north of Wiggins, this unit is 

bisected into two subunits (4A and 4B) 

by U.S. Highway 49. Both subunits are 

buffered from U.S. Highway 49 by at 

least 328 ft (100 m). The close proximity 

of black pinesnake records with 

adjacent suitable habitat would have 

made Unit 4 a single unit following the 

criteria for designation of critical 

habitat, if not for the presence of U.S. 

Highway 49, which is a significant 

source of fragmentation and is 

potentially restricting gene flow 

between the two subunits. 

Subunit 4A is located between Double 

Branch and U.S. Highway 49 in Forrest 

and Stone Counties, Mississippi. It is 

0.3 mi (4.8 km) northwest of Bond and 

0.5 mi (0.8 km) southwest of Maxie, and 

is located mostly within the boundary of 

the De Soto Ranger District of the DNF. 

Most of this subunit (8,883 ac (3,595 

ha)) is on Federal lands within the DNF, 

with the remainder of the subunit (6,334 

ac (2,563 ha)) on private land. There are 

records of two black pinesnakes located 

within subunit 4A since 1990. These are 

located on the eastern edge of the 

subunit, but have contiguous habitat 

with the rest of the area. 

Subunit 4B is located between Black 

Creek and U.S. Highway 49 in Forrest, 

Perry, and Stone Counties, Mississippi. 

It is directly adjacent to Maxie on the 

western border, and is located mostly 

within the boundary of the De Soto 

Ranger District of the DNF. Most of this 

subunit (28,233 ac (11,425 ha)) is on 

Federal lands within the DNF, with the 

remainder of the subunit (16,078 ac 

(6,507 ha)) on private land. There are 

records of four black pinesnakes located 

within subunit 4B since 1990. These are 

located on the higher ridges of the 

subunit, but have contiguous habitat 

with the rest of the area. 

Both subunits of Unit 4 are within the 

geographic area of the subspecies 

occupied at the time of listing. They 

contain all elements of the physical or 

biological features of the black 

pinesnake to support life-history 

functions essential to the conservation 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12856 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of the subspecies. Habitat management 

on the section of these subunits owned 

by the U.S. Forest Service (86 percent) 

is performed under the Revised Land 

and Resource Management Plan for 

National Forests in Mississippi (U.S. 

Forest Service 2014, 207 pp.). This 

forest plan contains objectives for the 

threatened gopher tortoise, which 

occurs on both subunits of Unit 4. These 

objectives include restoring and opening 

up canopy conditions in areas with 

sandy soils with 1- to 3-year fire 

intervals; however, there are no 

management practices outlined in this 

plan that specifically target the habitat 

requirements of the black pinesnake. 

Subunit 4B also contains two units 

designated as critical habitat for the 

endangered dusky gopher frog, totaling 

598.6 ac (242.2 ha) (see discussion of 

Unit 3, above, for more about forest plan 

objectives for the gopher frog). 

Threats to the black pinesnake and its 

habitat in Unit 4 that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection of the physical or biological 

features include: Fire suppression and 

low fire frequencies; detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy belowground soil 

structures such as clear-cutting, disking, 

or stump removal; land use conversion 

and fragmentation, primarily urban 

development, new roads, and 

conversion to agriculture and pine 

plantations; gas, water, electrical power, 

and sewer easements; road mortality; 

and encroachment of invasive species. 

Unit 5: Howison—Stone and Harrison 

Counties, Mississippi 

Unit 5 encompasses approximately 

12,949 ac (5,240 ha) on Federal, local, 

and private land in Harrison and Stone 

Counties, Mississippi. This unit is 

located between Tuxachanie Creek and 

U.S. Highway 49, approximately 0.4 mi 

(0.6 km) east of Howison and 1.3 mi (2 

km) southeast of McHenry, and this unit 

is mostly within the boundary of the De 

Soto Ranger District of the DNF. The 

unit is bordered on the northern edge by 

E. McHenry Road and on the western 

edge by U.S. Highway 49 (buffered from 

the highway by at least 328 ft (100 m)). 

The majority of this unit (9,371 ac 

(3,792 ha)) is on Federal lands within 

the DNF, with the remainder of the unit 

on local (640 ac (259 ha)) and private 

(2,938 ac (1,189 ha)) lands. Unit 5 

contains all elements of the physical or 

biological features of the black 

pinesnake to support life-history 

functions essential to the conservation 

of the subspecies. 

There are records of seven black 

pinesnakes located within Unit 5 since 

1990. Many of these are located on the 

higher ridges within the unit boundary, 

but are within close enough proximity 

of each other (with contiguous habitat 

between) for all of them to belong to the 

same breeding population. Habitat 

management on the section of this unit 

owned by the U.S. Forest Service is 

performed under the Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan for National 

Forests in Mississippi (U.S. Forest 

Service 2014, 207 pp.). This forest plan 

contains objectives for the threatened 

gopher tortoise, which occurs on Unit 5 

(see discussion for Unit 4, above). 

Threats to the black pinesnake and its 

habitat in Unit 5 that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection of the physical or biological 

features include: Fire suppression and 

low fire frequencies; detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy belowground soil 

structures such as clear-cutting, disking, 

or stump removal; land use conversion 

and fragmentation, primarily urban 

development, new roads, and 

conversion to agriculture and pine 

plantations; gas, water, electrical power, 

and sewer easements; road mortality; 

and encroachment of invasive species. 

Unit 6: Marion County WMA—Marion 

County, Mississippi 

Unit 6 encompasses approximately 

11,857 ac (4,798 ha) on State and private 

land in Marion County, Mississippi. 

This unit is located between the Upper 

Little Creek and Lower Little Creek, 7.0 

mi (11 km) southeast of Columbia. It is 

located 0.8 mi (1.3 km) north of State 

Highway 13, and 2.6 mi (4.2 km) south 

of U.S. Highway 98. Approximately half 

of Unit 6 is within the Marion County 

WMA. 

The unit is divided between State 

lands (5,587 ac (2,261 ha)) and private 

lands (6,270 ac (2,537 ha)). Unit 6 

contains all elements of the physical or 

biological features of the black 

pinesnake to support life-history 

functions essential to the conservation 

of the subspecies. 

There are records of two black 

pinesnakes located within Unit 6 since 

1990. These are both located on the 

WMA, although there is contiguous 

suitable habitat across the remainder of 

the unit. Regulations on the WMA 

include prohibitions of wildlife 

harassment; however, there are no 

habitat management activities occurring 

at the WMA that specifically target the 

habitat requirements of the black 

pinesnake. 

Threats to the black pinesnake and its 

habitat in Unit 6 that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection of the physical or biological 

features include: Fire suppression and 

low fire frequencies; detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy belowground soil 

structures such as clear-cutting, disking, 

or stump removal; land use conversion 

and fragmentation, primarily urban 

development, new roads, and 

conversion to agriculture and pine 

plantations; gas, water, electrical power, 

and sewer easements; road mortality; 

and encroachment of invasive species. 

Unit 7: Scotch WMA—Clarke County, 

Alabama 

Unit 7 encompasses approximately 

33,395 ac (13,514 ha) of private land in 

Clarke County, Alabama. This unit is 

bordered by Salitpa Creek to the south, 

Tallahatta Creek to the north, and Harris 

Creek to the west. It is located 

approximately 2.7 mi (4.3 km) southeast 

of Campbell, and approximately half of 

the unit is on the Scotch WMA. Unit 7 

is located 1.1 mi (1.8 km) north of the 

intersection of Old Mill Pond Road and 

Reedy Branch Road. 

This unit contains all elements of the 

physical or biological features of the 

black pinesnake to support life-history 

functions essential to the conservation 

of the subspecies. 

There are records of four black 

pinesnakes located within Unit 7 since 

1990. Many of these are located on the 

higher ridges within the unit boundary, 

but are within close enough proximity 

to each other (with contiguous habitat 

between) for all of them to belong to the 

same breeding population. Most of this 

unit is managed by Scotch Land 

Management, LLC; however, there are 

no management practices on this unit 

that specifically target the habitat 

requirements of the black pinesnake. 

Threats to the black pinesnake and its 

habitat in Unit 7 that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection of the physical or biological 

features include: Fire suppression and 

low fire frequencies; detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy belowground soil 

structures such as clear-cutting, disking, 

or stump removal; land use conversion 

and fragmentation, primarily urban 

development, new roads, and 

conversion to agriculture and pine 

plantations; gas, water, electrical power, 

and sewer easements; road mortality; 

and encroachment of invasive species. 

Unit 8: Fred T. Stimpson WMA—Clarke 

County, Alabama 

Unit 8 encompasses approximately 

5,661 ac (2,291 ha) on State and private 

land in Clarke County, Alabama. This 

unit is located between Sand Hill Creek 

and the Tombigbee River, is 

approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) north of 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12857 

Carlton, and is 1.0 mi (1.6 km) south of 

the intersection of County Road 15 and 

Christian Vall Road. The southern half 

of this unit is on the Fred T. Stimpson 

WMA. 

Approximately half of the unit (2,547 

ac (1,031 ha)) is on State lands, with the 

remainder of the unit (3,114 ac (1,260 

ha)) on private land. Unit 8 contains all 

elements of the physical or biological 

features of the black pinesnake to 

support life-history functions essential 

to the conservation of the subspecies. 

There are records of two black 

pinesnakes located within Unit 8 since 

1990. These are both located on the 

WMA, although there is contiguous 

suitable habitat across the remainder of 

the unit. There are no habitat 

management practices outlined at the 

site that specifically target the habitat 

requirements of the black pinesnake. 

Threats to the black pinesnake and its 

habitat in Unit 8 that may require 

special management considerations or 

protection of the physical or biological 

features include: Fire suppression and 

low fire frequencies; detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy belowground soil 

structures such as clear-cutting, disking, 

or stump removal; land use conversion 

and fragmentation, primarily urban 

development, new roads, and 

conversion to agriculture and pine 

plantations; gas, water, electrical power, 

and sewer easements; road mortality; 

and encroachment of invasive species. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action that is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Courts of Appeals have invalidated our 

regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or 

adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) 

(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 

1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 

434 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely 

on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would continue to serve 

its intended conservation role for the 

species. 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, tribal, 

local, or private lands that require a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat, and actions 

on State, tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded or 

authorized, do not require section 7 

consultation. 

As a result of section 7 consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the listed species 

and/or avoid the likelihood of 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies sometimes may need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the PBFs to an extent 

that appreciably reduces the 

conservation value of critical habitat for 

the black pinesnake. As discussed 

above, the role of critical habitat is to 

support life-history needs of the species 

and provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that may affect critical 

habitat, when carried out, funded, or 

authorized by a Federal agency, should 

result in consultation for the black 

pinesnake. These activities include, but 

are not limited to: 

(1) Forestry management actions in 

pine habitat that would significantly 

alter the suitability of black pinesnake 

habitat. Such activities could include, 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12858 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

but are not limited to: Silvicultural 

activites such as disking, bedding, and 

clear-cutting that involve ground 

disturbance; conversion to densely 

stocked pine plantations; and chemical 

applications (pesticides or herbicides) 

that are either unlawful or that are not 

directly aimed at hazardous fuels 

reduction, mid-story hardwood control, 

or noxious weed control. These 

activities could destroy or alter the pine 

forest habitats and refugia necessary for 

the growth and development of black 

pinesnakes, and may reduce 

populations of the snake’s primary prey 

(rodents), either through direct 

extermination or through loss of the 

forage necessary to sustain the prey 

base. 

(2) Actions that would significantly 

fragment black pinesnake populations. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to: Conversion of timber 

land to other uses (agricultural, urban/ 

residential development) and 

construction of new structures or roads. 

These activities could lead to 

degradation or elimination of forest 

habitat, limit or prevent breeding 

opportunities between black 

pinesnakes, limit access to familiar 

refugia or nesting sites within 

individual home ranges, and increase 

the frequency of road mortality from 

road crossings. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) by 

November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. Each INRMP 

includes: 

(1) An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

(2) A statement of goals and priorities; 

(3) A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

(4) A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: 

‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as 

critical habitat any lands or other 

geographic areas owned or controlled by 

the Department of Defense, or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan prepared under 

section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 

670a), if the Secretary determines in 

writing that such plan provides a benefit 

to the species for which critical habitat 

is proposed for designation.’’ 

We consult with the military on the 

development and implementation of 

INRMPs for installations with listed 

species. We analyzed one INRMP 

developed by military installations 

located within the range of the proposed 

critical habitat designation for the black 

pinesnake to determine if it met the 

criteria for exemption from critical 

habitat under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. 

Approved INRMP 

Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training 

Center (Camp Shelby), 5,735 ac (2,321 

ha) 

Camp Shelby is located in Forrest, 

George, and Perry Counties, near the 

town of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and 

contains habitat with features essential 

to the conservation of the black 

pinesnake. The primary mission of 

Camp Shelby is to train U.S. Army 

soldiers (National Guard and Reserve) 

for combat and combat-related missions. 

Training activities at Camp Shelby 

primarily include troop bivouacking, 

wheeled vehicle maneuvers, artillery 

firing exercises, and tank training 

maneuvers. 

Camp Shelby is composed of property 

belonging in four different categories: 

Department of Defense (DoD), State, 

United States Forest Service (USFS), 

and private land. The main part of 

Camp Shelby’s training area belongs to 

the USFS and is operated under a 

special use permit from the USFS 

granted in 2007 for 20 years (see 

discussion under Exclusions Based on 

National Security Impacts, below). The 

DoD and State lands are managed by the 

Mississippi Army National Guard 

(MSARNG) in support of the military 

mission, and the Camp Shelby INRMP 

addresses integrative management on 

these lands only (MSARNG 2014, p. 13). 

These DoD and State lands, included in 

the INRMP, with habitat features 

essential to the conservation of the black 

pinesnake, total approximately 5,558 ac 

(2,249 ha). We have examined the 

INRMP and determined that it does 

outline conservation measures for the 

black pinesnake, as well as management 

plans for important upland habitats at 

Camp Shelby. Conservation measures 

outlined in the INRMP for the black 

pine snake at Camp Shelby include: 

Research on life history, habitat 

requirements, and habitat use; 

monitoring; prescribed burning and 

longleaf pine restoration programs, 

including increasing the frequency of 

growing season burns, reducing canopy 

closure and basal area, and restoring the 

natural fire regime; protecting and 

maintaining downed deadwood and 

pine stumps (when not identified as a 

safety hazard); and implementation of 

education programs for users of Camp 

Shelby (geared towards minimizing the 

negative impacts of vehicular mortality 

on the black pine snake and other 

species) (MSARNG 2014, pp. 92–94). 

The INRMP will continue to be 

reviewed annually to monitor the 

effectiveness of the plan, and be 

reviewed every 5 years to develop 

revisions and updates as necessary. 

Based on the above considerations, 

and in accordance with section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 

determined that the identified lands are 

subject to the Camp Shelby INRMP and 

that conservation efforts identified in 

the INRMP will provide a benefit to the 

black pinesnake. Therefore, DoD and 

State lands within this installation, 

which are covered under the INRMP, 

are exempt from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act. We are not including 

approximately 5,558 ac (2,249 ha) of 

habitat in this proposed critical habitat 

designation because of this exemption. 

Exclusions 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the statute on its face, as well as the 

legislative history, are clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12859 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

or any other relevant impacts. In 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise her discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation; 

the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships; or 

implementation of a management plan. 

In the case of the black pinesnake, the 

benefits of critical habitat include 

public awareness of the presence of the 

black pinesnake and the importance of 

habitat protection, and, where a Federal 

nexus exists, increased habitat 

protection for the black pinesnake due 

to protection from adverse modification 

or destruction of critical habitat. In 

practice, situations with a Federal nexus 

exist primarily on Federal lands or for 

projects undertaken by Federal agencies. 

After identifying the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

evaluate whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If our analysis indicates that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we then determine whether 

exclusion would result in extinction. If 

exclusion of an area from critical habitat 

will result in extinction, we will not 

exclude it from the designation. 

Based on the information we receive 

during the public comment period, we 

will evaluate whether certain lands in 

the proposed critical habitat in a portion 

of Unit 3 are appropriate for exclusion 

from the final designation under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act (see discussion under 

Exclusions Based on National Security 

Impacts, below). If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of excluding 

lands from the final designation 

outweigh the benefits of designating 

those lands as critical habitat, then the 

Secretary may exercise her discretion to 

exclude the lands from the final 

designation. 

The final decision on whether to 

exclude any areas will be based on the 

best scientific data available at the time 

of the final designation, including 

information obtained during the 

comment period. 

Exclusion Based on Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a proposed critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario 

represents the baseline for the analysis, 

which includes the existing regulatory 

and socio-economic burden imposed on 

landowners, managers, or other resource 

users potentially affected by the 

designation of critical habitat (e.g., 

under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). The baseline, therefore, 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat should we 

choose to conduct an optional section 

4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. 

For this designation, we developed an 

incremental effects memorandum (IEM) 

considering the probable incremental 

economic impacts that may result from 

this proposed designation of critical 

habitat. The information contained in 

our IEM was then used to develop a 

screening analysis of the probable 

effects of the designation of critical 

habitat for the black pinesnake (IEc 

2014). The screening analysis focuses on 

the key factors that are likely to result 

in incremental economic impacts. The 

purpose of the screening analysis is to 

filter out the geographic areas in which 

the critical habitat designation is 

unlikely to result in probable 

incremental economic impacts. In 

particular, the screening analysis 

considers baseline costs (i.e., absent 

critical habitat designation) and 

includes probable economic impacts 

where land and water use may be 

subject to conservation plans, land 

management plans, best management 

practices, or regulations that protect the 

habitat area as a result of the Federal 

listing status of the subspecies. The 

screening analysis filters out particular 

areas of critical habitat that are already 

subject to such protections and are 

therefore, unlikely to incur incremental 

economic impacts. Ultimately, the 

screening analysis allows us to focus 

our analysis on evaluating the specific 

areas or sectors that may incur probable 

incremental economic impacts as a 

result of the designation. The screening 

analysis also assesses whether units are 

unoccupied by the subspecies and may 

require additional management or 

conservation efforts as a result of the 

critical habitat designation for the 

subspecies which may incur 

incremental economic impacts. This 

screening analysis, combined with the 

information contained in our IEM, 

constitutes our draft economic analysis 

(DEA) of the proposed critical habitat 

designation for the black pinesnake and 

is summarized in the narrative below. 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 

the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives in quantitative 

(to the extent feasible) and qualitative 

terms. Consistent with the E.O. 

regulatory analysis requirements, our 

effects analysis under the Act may take 

into consideration impacts to both 

directly and indirectly impacted 

entities, where practicable and 

reasonable. We assess, to the extent 

practicable, the probable impacts, if 

sufficient data are available, to both 

directly and indirectly impacted 

entities. As part of our screening 

analysis, we considered the types of 

economic activities that are likely to 

occur within the areas likely affected by 

the critical habitat designation, if 

adopted as proposed. In our evaluation 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12860 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of the probable incremental economic 

impacts that may result from the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the black pinesnake, first we 

identified, in the IEM dated May 2, 

2014, probable incremental economic 

impacts associated with the following 

categories of activities: (1) Federal lands 

management (U.S. Forest Service); (2) 

forest management; (3) agriculture; (4) 

development; (5) silviculture/timber; (6) 

transportation activities; and (7) 

utilities. We considered each industry 

or category individually. Additionally, 

we considered whether the activities 

have any Federal involvement. Critical 

habitat designation would not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; designation of critical 

habitat only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies. In areas where the 

black pinesnake is present, if we finalize 

the listing of the subspecies, Federal 

agencies would be required to consult 

with the Service under section 7 of the 

Act on activities they fund, permit, or 

implement that may affect the 

subspecies. If we finalize this proposed 

critical habitat designation, 

consultations to avoid the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

would be incorporated into that 

consultation process. Therefore, 

disproportionate impacts to any 

geographic area or sector would not be 

likely as a result of this critical habitat 

designation. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

would result from the subspecies being 

listed and those attributable to the 

critical habitat designation (i.e., 

difference between the jeopardy and 

adverse modification standards) for the 

black pinesnake’s critical habitat. 

Because we are proposing the 

designation of critical habitat for black 

pinesnake before finalizing (if 

appropriate) the subspecies’ listing, it 

has been our experience that it is more 

difficult to discern which conservation 

efforts are attributable to the species 

being listed and those which will result 

solely from the designation of critical 

habitat. However, the following specific 

circumstances in this case help to 

inform our evaluation: (1) The essential 

PBFs identified for critical habitat are 

the same features essential for the life 

requisites of the subspecies, and (2) any 

actions that would result in sufficient 

harm or harassment to constitute 

jeopardy to the black pinesnake would 

also likely adversely affect the essential 

physical and biological features of 

critical habitat. The IEM outlines our 

rationale concerning this limited 

distinction between baseline 

conservation efforts and incremental 

impacts of the designation of critical 

habitat for this subspecies. This 

evaluation of the incremental effects has 

been used as the basis to evaluate the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

of this proposed designation of critical 

habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for the black pinesnake 

consists of eight units, one of which is 

divided into two subunits, 

encompassing approximately 338,100 ac 

(136,824 ha) in Mississippi and 

Alabama. Included lands are under 

Federal, State, local, and private 

ownership, and all are within the area 

occupied by the black pinesnake at the 

time of listing. Federal land is 

predominant in Units 1 through 5. In 

these units, Federal lands make up from 

58 to 90 percent of the acreage, which 

accounts for approximately 70 percent 

of the total proposed critical habitat 

acreage. Privately owned land is present 

in all eight units and ranges from 8 

percent to a high of 100 percent in one 

unit. Private lands account for 

approximately 27 percent of the total 

proposed critical habitat acreage. 

Approximately 4,647 ac (1,880 ha) of 

the proposed designation in one unit 

have been identified for potential 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act due to a national security concern 

(see Exclusions Based on National 

Security Impacts, below). 

All lands in the proposed critical 

habitat designation for the black 

pinesnake are currently occupied by the 

subspecies. In these areas any actions 

that may affect the subspecies or its 

habitat would also affect designated 

critical habitat, and it is unlikely that 

any additional conservation efforts 

would be recommended to address the 

adverse modification standard over and 

above those recommended as necessary 

to avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the black pinesnake. 

Therefore, only administrative costs are 

expected in the proposed critical habitat 

designation. While this additional 

analysis will require time and resources 

by both the Federal action agency and 

the Service, it is believed that, in most 

circumstances, these costs would 

predominantly be administrative in 

nature and would not be significant. 

The entities most likely to incur 

incremental costs are parties to section 

7 consultations, including Federal 

action agencies and, in some cases, third 

parties, most frequently State agencies 

or municipalities. Activities we expect 

will be subject to consultations that may 

involve private entities as third parties 

are residential and commercial 

development that may occur on private 

lands; however, cost to private entities 

within these sectors is expected to be 

minor as most of the proposed critical 

habitat is in Federal ownership (70 

percent) and only 27 percent of the 

lands are privately owned. According to 

a review of consultation records, the 

additional administrative cost of 

addressing adverse modification during 

the section 7 consultation process 

ranges from approximately $410 to 

$9,000 per consultation. Based on the 

project activity identified by relevant 

action agencies and comparison to the 

consultation history for species that cooccur or share habitat with the black 

pinesnake, the number of future formal 

consultations is likely to be five or fewer 

in the year immediately following the 

final designation. In addition, up to 60 

informal consultations and five 

technical assists could occur annually 

following the designation. Thus, the 

incremental administrative burden 

resulting from the designation is likely 

to be less than $190,000 in this first 

year, the year with the highest 

anticipated costs; therefore, the costs 

would not be significant. 

In summary, the probable incremental 

economic impacts of the black 

pinesnake critical habitat designation 

are expected to be limited to additional 

administrative efforts as well as minor 

costs of conservation efforts resulting 

from a small number of future section 7 

consultations. This finding is based on 

the following factors: (1) All proposed 

critical habitat is occupied by the 

subspecies; thus, the presence of the 

subspecies, once it is listed, would 

result in significant baseline protection 

under the Act; (2) project modifications 

requested by the Service to avoid 

jeopardy to the subspecies would be the 

same as those likely to avoid adverse 

modification of critical habitat; (3) 

critical habitat would be unlikely to 

increase the number of consultations as 

a result of the awareness by Federal 

agencies of the need to consult if the 

subspecies is listed, as well as the past 

involvement of key action agencies in 

consultations for co-occurring species; 

(4) the proposed designation also 

receives baseline protection from the 

presence of two federally-listed species 

(gopher tortoise and red-cockaded 

woodpecker) that have habitat needs 

similar to those of the pinesnake; and 

(5) the proposed designation also 

receives baseline protection from 

overlap with designated critical habitat 

for the dusky gopher frog. 

As we stated earlier, we are soliciting 

data and comments from the public on 

the DEA, as well as all aspects of this 

proposed rule. We may revise the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12861 

proposed rule or supporting documents 

to incorporate or address information 

we receive during the public comment 

period. In particular, we may exclude an 

area from critical habitat if we 

determine that the benefits of excluding 

the area outweigh the benefits of 

including the area, provided that the 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

Exclusions Based on National Security 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider whether there are lands where 

a national security impact might exist. 

This portion of the Act allows the 

Secretary to exercise her discretion to 

exclude areas from critical habitat for 

reasons of national security if she 

determines the benefits of such 

exclusion exceed the benefits of 

designating the area as critical habitat. 

However, this exclusion cannot occur if 

it will result in the extinction of the 

species. 

Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training 

Center Impact Area 

After considering the Camp Shelby 

Joint Forces Training Center Impact 

Area occupying a portion (4,647 ac 

(1,880 ha)) of Unit 3 in Perry County, 

Mississippi, under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we are considering excluding it 

from the critical habitat designation for 

the black pinesnake. 

However, we specifically solicit 

comments on the inclusion or exclusion 

of this area. In the paragraphs below, we 

provide a detailed analysis of our 

consideration to exclude this land under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

The Impact Area of Camp Shelby Joint 

Forces Training Center (Camp Shelby) is 

a 4,647–ac (1,880–ha) area operated by 

the MSARNG for training and maneuver 

exercises in an area of the De Soto 

National Forest within Unit 3 located in 

Perry County, Mississippi. The 

MSARNG utilizes this area under a 

special use permit from the U.S. Forest 

Service, who is the primary landowner 

and manager within the installation 

boundary. The Impact Area, which is 

located in the center of Camp Shelby 

and in the northern portion of Unit 3, 

has been utilized for artillery training 

for decades. As a result, access of any 

kind is prohibited in this impact area 

due to the high risk of encountering 

unexploded ordnance. None of the 

acreage within the Impact Area is 

covered under the Camp Shelby INRMP; 

thus, none of this acreage was 

considered for exemption under section 

4(a)(3) of the Act (see Approved INRMP 

under the Exemptions section, above). 

Benefits of Inclusion: Camp Shelby 

Impact Area 

We are not able to demonstrate any 

benefit to including this area in the 

critical habitat designation for the black 

pinesnake. Access into this area is 

prohibited for human safety. The 

educational benefit associated with 

identifying specific areas as critical 

habitat as a means to provide public 

with notice of areas of potential 

conservation value is realized in that 

this area is embedded in currently 

proposed critical habitat. Furthermore, 

because access into this area is 

prohibited, there are likely no habitataltering activities taking place in this 

area at the scale that would affect the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of this 

subspecies. To the contrary, due to the 

nature of use of this area, this area 

experiences frequent fires, a natural 

component of the longleaf pine 

ecosystem that promotes optimal forest 

conditions for the black pinesnake. 

Benefits of Exclusion: Camp Shelby 

Impact Area 

The benefits of excluding 

approximately 4,647 ac (1,880 ha) of 

U.S. Forest Service lands that 

encompasses the Impact Area of Camp 

Shelby (which the Mississippi Army 

National Guard uses for training 

purposes) are significant. Foremost, as a 

human safety issue, access of any kind 

is prohibited into this area due to the 

high risk of encountering unexploded 

ordnance; thus, there is no opportunity 

to implement management. However, as 

stated above, the area experiences 

frequent fires due to the nature of its 

use, which is the preferred management 

technique for maintaining optimal 

habitat conditions for the black 

pinesnake. In addition, the black 

pinesnake receives secondary 

conservation benefits from management 

of adjacent lands for the threatened 

gopher tortoise. Lands within the 

Impact Area of Camp Shelby are used 

for artillery training that provides 

soldiers with essential combat skills that 

they use on the battlefield. We believe 

that excluding these U.S. Forest Service 

lands from critical habitat designation 

would remove the potential impact that 

a designation of critical habitat could 

have on MSARNG and the military’s 

ability to maintain national security. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion: Camp Shelby 

Impact Area 

Though access to the Camp Shelby 

Impact Area is prohibited, an analysis of 

GIS and aerial imagery determined that 

the Impact Area (4,647 ac (1,880 ha)) of 

the Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training 

Center contains the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the black pinesnake, 

thereby meeting the definition of critical 

habitat under the Act. This area is also 

contiguous with other proposed critical 

habitat with known occurrences for the 

black pinesnake. In making our 

recommendation to exclude the Camp 

Shelby Impact area, we considered 

several factors: Prohibited access due to 

a human safety issue; the apparent 

maintenance of physical and biological 

factors essential to the conservation of 

the subspecies from frequent burning 

due to the nature of use of the area; 

protection from habitat loss associated 

with land conversion; and potential 

impacts to national security associated 

with a critical habitat designation. We 

believe there are significant benefits to 

excluding these lands from critical 

habitat designation and are unable to 

demonstrate a benefit to including these 

lands in the designation. Access is 

prohibited into the area; thus, there is 

no opportunity for surveying, 

monitoring, or management. Therefore, 

we have preliminarily determined that 

the benefits of exclusion of 

approximately 4,647 ac (1,880 ha) of the 

Impact Area of Camp Shelby from the 

critical habitat designation outweigh the 

benefits of including these lands. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Subspecies: Camp Shelby Impact 

Area 

The exclusion of this small portion 

(4,647 ac (1,880 ha)) from the total 

proposed critical habitat designation in 

Unit 3 (145,143 ac (58,737 ha)) will have 

minimal to no adverse effect on the 

subspecies. Adjacent lands contain 

habitat for the black pinesnake and are 

part of proposed designation. 

Maintenance of appropriate habitat for 

the black pinesnake with frequent fires 

is likely to continue in this area due to 

the use of this area for artillery training. 

The jeopardy standard of section 7 of 

the Act and routine implementation of 

conservation measures through the 

section 7 process on lands provide 

additional assurances that the 

subspecies will not become extinct as a 

result of this exclusion. Thus, it is our 

assessment that the exclusion of the 

Camp Shelby Impact Area lands from 

the final designation of critical habitat 

for the black pinesnake will not result 

in the extinction of the subspecies. 

Based on this analysis, under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary is 

considering exercising her discretion to 

exclude the Camp Shelby Impact Area 

within Unit 3 from the final critical 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12862 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

habitat designation as a result of 

impacts to national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

consider a number of factors, including 

whether the landowners have developed 

any HCPs or other management plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at any tribal issues, 

and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with tribal entities. We also 

consider any social impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that there are currently no 

HCPs or other management plans for the 

black pinesnake, and the proposed 

designation does not include any tribal 

lands or trust resources. Therefore, we 

anticipate no impact on tribal lands or 

HCPs from this proposed critical habitat 

designation. Accordingly, the Secretary 

does not plan to exercise her discretion 

to exclude any areas from the final 

designation based on other relevant 

impacts. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

we will seek the expert opinions of at 

least three appropriate and independent 

specialists regarding this proposed rule. 

The purpose of peer review is to ensure 

that our critical habitat designation is 

based on scientifically sound data and 

analyses. We will invite these peer 

reviewers to comment during this 

public comment period. 

We will consider all comments and 

information we receive during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during our preparation of a final 

determination. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

one or more public hearings on this 

proposal, if requested. Requests must be 

received within 45 days after the date of 

publication of this proposed rule in the 

Federal Register. Such requests must be 

sent to the address shown in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

We will schedule public hearings on 

this proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant 

rules. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has determined that 

this rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

The Service’s current understanding 

of the requirements under the RFA, as 

amended, and following recent court 

decisions, is that Federal agencies are 

only required to evaluate the potential 

incremental impacts of rulemaking on 

those entities directly regulated by the 

rulemaking itself, and therefore, not 

required to evaluate the potential 

impacts to indirectly regulated entities. 

The regulatory mechanism through 

which critical habitat protections are 

realized is section 7 of the Act, which 

requires Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the Service, to ensure 

that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried by the agency is not likely to 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under these circumstances 

only Federal action agencies are directly 

subject to the specific regulatory 

requirement (avoiding destruction and 

adverse modification) imposed by 

critical habitat designation. Under these 

circumstances, it is our position that 

only Federal action agencies will be 

directly regulated by this designation. 

Federal agencies are not small entities, 

and to this end, there is no requirement 

under RFA to evaluate the potential 

impacts to entities not directly 

regulated. Therefore, because no small 

entities are directly regulated by this 

rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if 

promulgated, the proposed critical 

habitat designation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12863 

information, we certify that, if 

promulgated, the proposed critical 

habitat designation would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. Based 

on an analysis of areas included in this 

proposal, we do not expect that the 

designation of critical habitat as 

proposed would significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. However, we 

will further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis, and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the black 

pinesnake occurs primarily on Federal 

and privately owned lands. None of 

these government entities fit the 

definition of ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ Therefore, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. However, we will further 

evaluate this issue as we conduct our 

economic analysis, and review and 

revise this assessment if appropriate. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (‘‘Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights’’), we 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implications of designating critical 

habitat for the black pinesnake in a 

takings implications assessment. Based 

on the best available information, the 

takings implications assessment 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat the black pinesnake 

would not pose significant takings 

implications. However, we will further 

evaluate this issue as we develop our 

final designation, and review and revise 

this assessment as warranted. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A federalism summary impact statement 

is not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with appropriate State resource agencies 

in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 

From a federalism perspective, the 

designation of critical habitat directly 

affects only the responsibilities of 

Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the rule does not have substantial 

direct effects either on the States, or on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments because the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the subspecies are more 

clearly defined, and the PBFs of the 

habitat necessary to the conservation of 

the subspecies are specifically 

identified. This information does not 

alter where and what federally 

sponsored activities may occur. 

However, it may assist these local 

governments in long-range planning 

(because these local governments no 

longer have to wait for case-by-case 

section 7 consultations to occur). 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12864 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of the Order. We are proposing to 

designate critical habitat in accordance 

with the provisions of the Act. To assist 

the public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the black pinesnake, this 

proposed rule identifies the elements of 

PBFs essential to the conservation of the 

subspecies. The proposed critical 

habitat units are presented on maps, and 

the rule provides several options for the 

interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

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. 

We have determined that there are no 

tribal lands that are occupied by the 

black pinesnake at the time of listing 

that contain the features essential for 

conservation of the subspecies, and no 

tribal lands unoccupied by the black 

pinesnake that are essential for the 

conservation of the subspecies. 

Therefore, we are not proposing to 

designate critical habitat for the black 

pinesnake on tribal lands. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2014– 

0065 and upon request from the 

Mississippi Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the 

Mississippi Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (c) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Black Pinesnake 

(Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi),’’ in 

the same alphabetical order that the 

species appears in the table at 

§ 17.11(h), to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(c) Reptiles. 

* * * * * 

Black Pinesnake (Pituophis 

melanoleucus lodingi) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Forrest, George, Greene, Harrison, 

Jones, Marion, Perry, Stone, and Wayne 

Counties, Mississippi, and Clarke 

County, Alabama, on the maps below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the black pinesnake 

consist of three components: 

(i) Tract size and habitat structure. A 

longleaf pine-dominated forest 

maintained by frequent fire, and 

primarily having the following 

characteristics: 

(A) Open canopy (≤ 70 percent); 

(B) Reduced woody mid-story (< 10 

percent cover); 

(C) Abundant, diverse, native 

groundcover (at least 40 percent cover); 

and 

(D) Minimum of 5,000 acres (2,023 

hectares) of mostly unfragmented 

habitat. 

(ii) Refugia sites and topographic 

features. Naturally burned-out or rottedout pine stumps and their associated 

root systems, in longleaf pine forests on 

ridges with elevation of 150 feet (46 

meters) or greater. 

(iii) Soils. Deep, sandy, well-drained 

soils of longleaf pine forest, 

characterized by: 

(A) No flooding or ponding; 

(B) < 15 percent medium and coarse 

gravel fragments; 

(C) > 60 inches (152 centimeters) 

depth to seasonal high water table; 

(D) > 60 inches (152 centimeters) 

depth to the hardpan; 

(E) Textural components equaling > 

30 percent sand and < 35 percent clay; 

and 

(F) A slope < 15 percent. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12865 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of this 

rule. In addition, State and Department 

of Defense lands, covered under the 

Camp Shelby INRMP, are also not 

considered critical habitat in Unit 3. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were 

developed from USGS 7.5’quadrangles, 

and critical habitat units were then 

using Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM) Zone 15N coordinates. The maps 

in this entry, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, establish 

the boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The coordinates or plot 

points or both on which each map is 

based are available to the public at the 

Service’s Internet site at http://

www.fws.gov/mississippiES/, at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R4–ES–2014–0065, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
12866 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

(5) NOTE: Index map follows: 

(6) Unit 1: Ovett—Jones and Wayne 

Counties, Mississippi. 

(i) This unit is located between the 

Bogue Homo River and Thompson 

Creek, is approximately 2.0 mi (3.2 km) 

northeast of Ovett, and is mostly within 

the boundary of the Chickasawhay 

Ranger District of the De Soto National 

Forest. It is located just east of State 

Highway 15, west of Salem Road, north 

of the intersection of State Highway 15 

and County Road 205, and 

approximately 1.3 mi (2.1 km) south of 

the intersection of Freedom Road and 

Forest Road. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11MR15.000</GPH>

Index Map of Critical Habitat Units for the Black Pine Snake 

Alabama and Missi 

Unit#1 

G<I<II'IJ& 

:>rona 

P@arl!'!iver S..ldWIII 

Unit#5 Mobil" 

Q. "" Q. e 'Vi 

JaCI<l<<>ll "' "" .a Harrison ·; ,!!. 

"' <( i 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12867 

(ii) Map of Units 1 (Ovett) and 2 

(Piney Woods Creek) follows: 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11MR15.001</GPH>

Units 1 and 2 Critical Habitat for the Black Pine Snake 

Jones, Perry and Wayne Counties, Mississippi 
12868 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(7) Unit 2: Piney Woods Creek—Perry 

and Wayne Counties, Mississippi. 

(i) This unit is located between 

Thompson Creek and Piney Woods 

Creek, is approximately 4.0 mi (6.4 km) 

west of Clara, and is mostly within the 

boundary of the Chickasawhay Ranger 

District of the De Soto National Forest. 

It is located 2.3 mi (3.7 km) north of the 

intersection of Camp Eight Road and 

Will Best Road, and 0.4 mi (0.6 km) 

southeast of the intersection of ClaraStrengthford Road and ClaraStrengthford Reservoir Road. 

(ii) Map of Unit 2 (Piney Woods 

Creek) is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of 

this entry. 

(8) Unit 3: Cypress Creek—Greene, 

George, Forrest, and Perry Counties, 

Mississippi. 

(i) This unit is located north of Black 

Creek (Cypress Creek runs into part of 

the unit, but is not a barrier to gene 

flow), and is approximately 3.0 mi (4.8 

km) east of McLaurin, 1.8 mi (2.9 km) 

south of New Augusta, and 4.6 mi (7.4 

km) northwest of Benndale. Unit 3 is 

mostly within the installation boundary 

of Camp Shelby on the De Soto Ranger 

District of the De Soto National Forest, 

and is bordered by State Highways 26 

and 57 and U.S. Highways 49 and 98. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12869 

(ii) Map of Units 3 (Cypress Creek) 

and 4 (Maxie) follows: 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11MR15.002</GPH>

0 1.753.5 

Units 3, 4A and 48 Critical Habitat for the Black Pine Snake 

Forrest, Greene, and Stone Counties, 

N W+E 

s 

7 10 .. 5 14 Kilometers 
12870 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(9) Unit 4: Maxie—Forrest, Perry, and 

Stone Counties, Mississippi. 

(i) Subunit 4A—Forrest and Stone 

Counties, Mississippi. Subunit 4A is 

located between Double Branch and 

U.S. Highway 49 in Forrest and Stone 

Counties, Mississippi. It is 0.3 mi (4.8 

km) northwest of Bond and 0.5 mi (0.8 

km) southwest of Maxie, and is located 

mostly within the boundary of the De 

Soto Ranger District of the De Soto 

National Forest. 

(ii) Subunit 4B—Forrest, Perry, and 

Stone Counties, Mississippi. Subunit 4B 

is located between Black Creek and U.S. 

Highway 49 in Forrest, Perry, and Stone 

Counties, Mississippi. It is directly 

adjacent to Maxie on the western 

border, and is located mostly within the 

boundary of the De Soto Ranger District 

of the De Soto National Forest. 

(iii) Map of Unit 4 (Maxie) is provided 

at paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry. 

(10) Unit 5: Howison—Harrison and 

Stone Counties, Mississippi. 

(i) This unit is located between 

Tuxachanie Creek and U.S. Highway 49, 

approximately 0.4 mi (0.6 km) east of 

Howison and 1.3 mi (2 km) southeast of 

McHenry, and is mostly within the 

boundary of the De Soto Ranger District 

of the De Soto National Forest. The unit 

is bordered on the northern edge by E. 

McHenry Road and on the western edge 

by U.S. Highway 49 (buffered from the 

highway by at least 328 ft (100 m)). 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12871 

(ii) Map of Unit 5 (Howison) follows: 

(11) Unit 6: Marion County WMA— 

Marion County, Mississippi. 

(i) This unit is located between the 

Upper Little Creek and Lower Little 

Creek, 7.0 mi (11 km) southeast of 

Columbia. It is located 0.8 mi (1.3 km) 

north of State Highway 13, and 2.6 mi 

(4.2 km) south of U.S. Highway 98. 

Approximately half of Unit 6 is within 

the Marion County Wildlife 

Management Area (WMA). 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11MR15.003</GPH>

McHenry 

Unit 5 Critical Habitat for the Black Pine Snake 

Harrison and Stone Counties, Mississippi 

Critical Habitat 
12872 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Map of Unit 6 (Marion County 

WMA) follows: 

(12) Unit 7: Scotch WMA—Clarke 

County, Alabama. 

(i) This unit is bordered by Salitpa 

Creek to the south, Tallahatta Creek to 

the north, and Harris Creek to the west. 

It is located approximately 2.7 mi (4.3 

km) southeast of Campbell, and 

approximately half of the unit is on the 

Scotch Wildlife Management Area 

(WMA). Unit 7 is located 1.1 mi (1.8 

km) north of the intersection of Old Mill 

Pond Road and Reedy Branch Road. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11MR15.004</GPH>

Unit 6 Critical Habitat for the Black Pine Snake 

Marion County, Mississippi 

Critical Habitat 

Marlon County WMA 

County """n""'" 

Rivers/Streams/Lakes 

Roads 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 12873 

(ii) Map of Unit 7 (Scotch WMA) 

follows: 

(13) Unit 8: Fred T. Stimpson WMA— 

Clarke County, Alabama. 

(i) This unit is located between Sand 

Hill Creek and the Tombigbee River, is 

approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) north of 

Carlton, and is 1.0 mi (1.6 km) south of 

the intersection of County Road 15 and 

Christian Vall Road. The southern half 

of this unit is on the Fred T. Stimpson 

Wildlife Management Area (WMA). 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11MR15.005</GPH>

Unit 7 Critical Habitat for the Black Pine Snake 

Clarke County, Alabama 

Grove Hill 

• 
12874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 47 / Wednesday, March 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Map of Unit 8 (Fred T. Stimpson 

WMA) follows: 

* * * * * Dated: January 14, 2015. 

Michael J. Bean, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05326 Filed 3–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP11MR15.006</GPH>

0 0.75 1.5 3 

0 0.75 15 

Unit 6 Critical Habitat for the Black Pine Snake 

Clarke County, Alabama 

4.5 6 Kilometers 

3 

Critical Habitat 

Fred T. Stimpson WMA 

Rivers/Streams/Lakes 

=Roads 

SMiles