[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 11, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12846-12874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05326]



[[Page 12845]]

Vol. 80

Wednesday,

No. 47

March 11, 2015

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical 
Habitat for Black Pinesnake; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 12846]]


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

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:

[[Page 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

[[Page 12848]]

    (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 
non-Federal 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' life-history 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 12850]]

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 open-
canopied 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

[[Page 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), radio-telemetry 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

[[Page 12852]]

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.

[[Page 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:

[[Page 12854]]

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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Ownership
              Unit                      County       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Total area
                                                            Federal              State               Local              Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       MISSISSIPPI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Ovett........................  Jones, Wayne......  40,637 ac (16,445   ..................  ..................  6,540 ac (2,647     47,177 ac (19,092
                                                       ha).                                                        ha).                ha).
2--Piney Woods Creek............  Perry, Wayne......  17,744 ac (7,181    ..................  ..................  4,645 ac (1,880     22,389 ac (9,061
                                                       ha).                                                        ha).                ha).
3--Cypress Creek................  Perry, Greene,      131,045 ac (53,032  1,768 ac (715 ha).  41 ac (16 ha).....  12,289 ac (4,973    145,143 ac (58,737
                                   George, Forrest.    ha).                                                        ha).                ha).
4A--Maxie.......................  Forrest, Stone....  8,883 ac (3,595     ..................  ..................  6,334 ac (2,563     15,217 ac (6,158
                                                       ha).                                                        ha).                ha).
4B--Maxie.......................  Forrest, Perry,     28,233 ac (11,425   ..................  ..................  16,078 ac (6,507    44,311 ac (17,932
                                   Stone.              ha).                                                        ha).                ha).
5--Howison......................  Stone, Harrison...  9,371 ac (3,792     ..................  640 ac (259 ha)...  2,938 ac (1,189     12,949 ac (5,240
                                                       ha).                                                        ha).                ha).
6--Marion County WMA............  Marion............  ..................  5,587 ac (2,261     ..................  6,270 ac (2,537     11,857 ac (4,798
                                                                           ha).                                    ha).                ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         ALABAMA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7--Scotch WMA...................  Clarke............  ..................  ..................  ..................  33,395 ac (13,514   33,395 ac (13,514
                                                                                                                   ha).                ha).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8--Fred T. Stimpson WMA.........  Clarke............  ..................  2,547 ac (1,031     ..................  3,114 ac (1,260     5,661 ac (2,291
                                                                           ha).                                    ha).                ha).
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Area..................  ..................  235,915 ac (95,471  9,902 ac (4,007     681 ac (276 ha)...  91,603 ac (37,070   338,100 ac
                                                       ha).                ha).                                    ha).                (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.

[[Page 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 Clara-Strengthford 
Road and Clara-Strengthford 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 State- and 
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 red-cockaded 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

[[Page 12856]]

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

[[Page 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,

[[Page 12858]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 12860]]

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 co-occur 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

[[Page 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 habitat-altering 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

[[Page 12862]]

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-to-
government 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

[[Page 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 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. 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)

[[Page 12864]]

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

0
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.

0
2. In Sec.  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 Sec.  17.11(h), to read 
as follows:


Sec.  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 rotted-out 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.

[[Page 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.

[[Page 12866]]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    (5) Note: Index map follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR15.000
    
    (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.

[[Page 12867]]

    (ii) Map of Units 1 (Ovett) and 2 (Piney Woods Creek) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR15.001
    

[[Page 12868]]


    (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 Clara-Strengthford Road and Clara-
Strengthford 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.

[[Page 12869]]

    (ii) Map of Units 3 (Cypress Creek) and 4 (Maxie) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR15.002
    

[[Page 12870]]


    (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)).

[[Page 12871]]

    (ii) Map of Unit 5 (Howison) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR15.003
    
    (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).

[[Page 12872]]

    (ii) Map of Unit 6 (Marion County WMA) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR15.004
    
    (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.

[[Page 12873]]

    (ii) Map of Unit 7 (Scotch WMA) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR15.005
    
    (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).

[[Page 12874]]

    (ii) Map of Unit 8 (Fred T. Stimpson WMA) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR15.006
    
* * * * *

    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