[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11238-11270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02281]



[[Page 11237]]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 38

February 26, 2020

Part III





 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; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 11238]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0065; 4500090023]
RIN 1018-BD52


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate 
critical habitat for the black pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus 
lodingi) under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In total, 
approximately 324,679 acres (131,393 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 critical habitat designation. The effect of this regulation is 
to designate critical habitat for the black pinesnake under the Act.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0065 and at http://www.fws.gov/mississippiES/. Comments and materials we received, as well 
as some supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are 
available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. All of 
the comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this 
rulemaking are available by appointment, during normal business hours 
at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi ES Field Office, 6578 
Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS; telephone 601-321-1122.
    The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are 
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical 
habitat designation and are available at http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0065, and at the Mississippi Field Office at 
http://www.fws.gov/mississippiES/ (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we 
developed for this critical habitat designation will also be available 
at the Fish and Wildlife Service website and Field Office set out 
above, and may also be included in the preamble and at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office, 6578 
Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS; telephone 601-321-1122.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. This document is a final rule to 
designate critical habitat for the black pinesnake. Under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
(Act), if we determine that a species species is endangered or 
threatened, we must designate critical habitat to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable. Designations and revisions of critical 
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. We, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service), listed the black pinesnake as a threatened 
subspecies, with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act, on 
October 6, 2015. On March 11, 2015, we published in the Federal 
Register a proposed critical habitat designation for the black 
pinesnake (80 FR 12846). Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the 
Secretary shall designate 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 critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule 
constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat for the black pinesnake. We are 
designating a total of approximately 324,679 acres (ac) (131,393 
hectares (ha)) in eight units as critical habitat in Alabama and 
Mississippi.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from six knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical 
assumptions, analysis, and whether or not we had used the best 
scientific data available. These peer reviewers generally concurred 
with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Information 
we received from peer review is incorporated in this final designation 
of critical habitat. We also considered all comments and information 
received from the public during the comment period for the proposed 
designation of critical habitat.

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60406), we published a proposed rule to 
list the black pinesnake as threatened. On, March 11, 2015 (80 FR 
12846), we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 
the subspecies. On October 6, 2015 (80 FR 60468), we published the 
final listing rule, which added the black pinesnake to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h). On October 11, 2018 (83 FR 51418), we 
reopened the public comment period on the proposed critical habitat 
designation and associated draft economic analysis to revise two units 
proposed in the original designation and to announce public 
informational meetings on the proposed designation.
    We published public notices in the Hattiesburg American on October 
18, 2018, and the Clarke County Democrat on October 18, 2018. We held 
the two public informational meetings within the subspecies' range with 
one in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, on October 22, 2018, and a second one 
on October 24, 2018 in Thomasville, Alabama.
    All other previous Federal actions for the black pinesnake are 
described in one or more of the documents discussed above.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the initial and 
revised proposed designation of critical habitat for the black 
pinesnake during two comment periods. The first comment period, 
associated with the proposed critical habitat designation and 
notification of the availability of the associated draft economic 
analysis (80 FR 12846), opened on March 11, 2015, and closed on May 11, 
2015. The second comment period, announcing a revised proposed 
designation (83 FR 51418), opened on October 11, 2018 and closed on 
November 13, 2018. We contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local 
agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties, and 
invited them to comment on the proposed critical habitat designation 
and draft economic analysis during these comment periods. We also 
received comments during our two informational meetings held during the 
last open comment period in October 2018 in

[[Page 11239]]

addition to addressing landowners' questions and concerns.
    During the first comment period, we received 184 written comments 
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation or the 
draft economic analysis. During the second comment period, we received 
15 comments directly addressing the revised proposed critical habitat 
designation or the draft economic analysis. All substantive information 
provided during comment periods either has been incorporated directly 
into this final determination or is addressed in our responses below.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions 
from six knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that 
included familiarity with this or related subspecies, the geographic 
region in which the subspecies occurs, and conservation biology 
principles. We received responses from all six of the peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for 
the black pinesnake. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our 
methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, 
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat 
rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and 
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    Comment 1: Peer reviewers provided additional information and 
suggestions for clarifying and improving the accuracy of the 
information in the ``Physical or Biological Features (PBFs)'' and 
``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' sections of the proposed 
rule.
    Our Response: We appreciate these corrections and suggestions and 
have made changes to this final rule to reflect the peer reviewers' 
input. The significant changes are listed as part of the ``Summary of 
Changes from Revised Proposed Rule,'' below.
    Comment 2: Two peer reviewers stated that our characterization of 
``open canopy'' as <=70 percent canopy coverage in our discussion of 
target suitable black pinesnake habitat, under the ``Physical or 
Biological Features'' section, and as a component of PBF 1, was not 
appropriate. They stated that studies have shown that pinesnakes more 
frequently use areas with <50 percent canopy coverage, which are more 
conducive to the production of an ``abundant, diverse native 
groundcover.''
    Our Response: The literature varies as to what exact percentage of 
canopy closure constitutes an open canopy. Therefore, we have removed 
any reference to a specific value for canopy coverage that is 
characteristic of optimal habitat for the black pinesnake in this final 
rule. We have focused instead on the habitat metrics of percent mid-
story cover and percent herbaceous groundcover, which are the more 
important indicators of optimal habitat for this subspecies and are the 
by-products provided by an appropriately open-canopied forest, and 
revised our characterization of PBF 1 accordingly.
    Comment 3: Several peer reviewers questioned our usage of an 
elevation threshold as a PBF necessary for the conservation of the 
black pinesnake.
    Our Response: We agree with the reviewers that, while almost all 
locations of black pinesnakes (96%) were found to be above 150-ft 
elevation during radio-telemetry studies (see data sources in 
``Physical or Biological Features'' section), this should be 
interpreted as an observation rather than a habitat requirement 
necessary for the conservation of the subspecies. Thus, the elevation 
threshold has been removed as a PBF in our final designation.
    Comment 4: Two peer reviewers and several public commenters stated 
that the 1990 record date for determining unit occupancy was 
questionable, and another public commenter stated that there were too 
few observations in two units to conclude that the areas still 
supported a population. One of these peer reviewers suggested the date 
of his most recent study (1998) was more appropriate than 1990. 
Conversely, other peer reviewers stated that not having records for a 
number of years in an area was not sufficient evidence to support the 
claim that black pinesnakes have been extirpated from there if some 
suitable habitat still exists.
    Our Response: As we discussed in ``Population Estimates and 
Status'' section, and also in our response to Comment 6 in our final 
listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2015 (80 
FR 60468), we used records dating back to the 1990s, which corresponds 
to the information used by black pinesnake researchers to evaluate 
habitat suitability and site occupancy across the range. Because 
comprehensive surveys of these areas are rare, we included this same 
dataset to meet the requirement of using the best scientific data 
available; using records of pinesnakes found only after 1998 would not 
meet this standard because they did not have a corresponding habitat 
suitability analysis that was key to our delineating critical habitat. 
These records and the researchers' reports, combined with new records 
and our more recent habitat analysis, represent our most informed 
evaluation of these areas, specifically since there have not been 
recent range-wide trapping efforts targeting this subspecies.
    We are not suggesting that the individual pinesnakes documented in 
the 1990s are the same ones occupying the units today; a population 
persisting at the site would likely be made up of the progeny of the 
pinesnakes documented previously. For our initial analysis of all 
potential critical habitat areas, the pinesnake records were the 
primary indicator that the area could support the subspecies, followed 
by a thorough analysis using updated GIS habitat information of the 
units. If we found that sufficient forested habitat was still present 
and available in the vicinity of where the pinesnakes had been 
documented, we determined that there was a reasonable likelihood that 
black pinesnake populations still occur in those areas. Evidence 
supporting this line of reasoning is a record of a black pinesnake 
documented in July of 2015 in Unit 7 (Jones Branch, Clarke County, 
Alabama), verifying that pinesnakes still persist on the site even 
though our other records (four) were from the mid-1990s and surveys in 
2008-2009 (Barbour 2009, p. 12) had failed to locate pinesnakes at this 
site with the notation that suitable habitat existed.
    Comment 5: Two peer reviewers suggested we provide further 
discussion on why all currently known locations were not designated 
critical habitat and why the eight critical habitat units are 
considered suitable and sufficient for the subspecies' conservation.
    Our Response: We began our analysis in areas where at least two 
black pinesnakes had been documented within close proximity to one 
another (detailed in ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' 
section, below), since these areas have the highest potential of 
containing a population. Coupled with an examination of available 
habitat, we believe this focused analysis resulted in the appropriate 
number, size, and proximity of critical habitat units necessary for the 
long-term conservation of the subspecies. Several areas with black 
pinesnake records were located in areas with only small amounts of 
available habitat, lacking the PBFs essential for the long-term 
persistence of the subspecies, primarily from fragmentation due to 
urbanization or

[[Page 11240]]

other incompatible land uses. In these areas, where we established that 
suitable habitat had disappeared in proximity to pinesnake locality 
records, we concluded that the area could no longer support a 
population of black pinesnakes in the long term and, therefore, would 
not be important for its recovery. We conclude that we can assure the 
species' long-term conservation with focused recovery and protection 
efforts in the eight critical habitat units designated.
    Comment 6: Two peer reviewers stressed the importance of habitat 
corridors and their contribution to recovery, and one peer reviewer 
suggested that connectivity corridors between units be included as 
critical habitat whenever possible, specifically stating the need for 
such corridors between Units 3 and 4b and Units 1 and 2.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that connectivity between populations 
is a key component of maintaining lasting conservation for many 
species, and it is our assessment that some of the larger critical 
habitat units contain enough area where several viable populations of 
black pinesnakes could persist and be connected. It is important to 
identify areas where migration between populations may be possible for 
exchange of genetic material. Our methodology for choosing and 
delineating critical habitat units (see our response to Comment 5 above 
and the ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section, below) 
is based on an assessment of areas occupied by black pinesnakes, with 
sufficient habitat available in a forested condition to maintain a 
viable population, based on our analysis of PBFs, population structure, 
and reserve area requirements. Each critical habitat unit separately is 
capable of supporting a viable population of black pinesnakes, and the 
unit boundaries were limited by both natural and manmade barriers such 
as rivers and highways as well as presence of essential habitat 
features. Connectivity between areas with known pinesnake records was 
maximized where these PBFs persisted, and delineation of critical 
habitat unit outer boundaries represents where such features were no 
longer found.
    Comment 7: Four peer reviewers and several others commented on our 
discussion relating to the viability of black pinesnake populations and 
the subsequent calculation of a minimum reserve area used in our 
critical habitat determination. Two of these peer reviewers disagreed 
with our use of non-overlapping activity ranges in our minimum reserve 
area estimate, based on our statement of territoriality in black 
pinesnakes, which they disputed. Despite comments on our lack of 
viability analysis information, two peer reviewers stated they 
supported our minimum reserve area estimate, saying that it was as 
precise as could be given our limited information, but that our 
recommendation of 5,000 acres should definitely be considered a minimum 
size threshold.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that information such as species 
viability indices related to abundance and reproductive success would 
contribute to refining minimum reserve area, but such information is 
lacking for this subspecies. Under the Act, we are charged with using 
the best available scientific data in designation of critical habitat. 
However, in response to comments, we reevaluated our estimate of the 
minimum reserve area for the black pinesnake by conducting additional 
literature review and analysis and have provided additional discussion 
(see ``Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal 
Behavior'' section, below). Upon further investigation of 
territoriality in black pinesnakes, we concluded that it had not been 
proven conclusively; therefore, we adjusted our models to calculate 
minimum reserve area estimates using partially overlapping polygons 
instead of non-overlapping polygons.
    We corroborated our value of minimum reserve area (discussed in 
``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'', below) using a 
population size of 50 individuals, as this number has been previously 
proposed as a minimum effective population size for many vertebrate 
species (Franklin 1980, p. 147). Similar to a method used for Florida 
pinesnakes (P.m. mugitus) by Miller (2008, pp. 27-28), we digitized 50 
150-acre (40.5-ha) polygons, and partially overlapped them to get a 
total reserve area. The 150-acre size represents black pinesnake mean 
home ranges described in the literature (Duran 1998a, p. 19; Yager et 
al. 2005, p. 27). This exercise using varying degrees of overlap 
between the home range polygons yielded total estimates between 4,500 
to 6,000 ac (1,619 to 2,428 ha), thereby supporting our initial 
estimate of a 5,000-acre minimum reserve area.
    Comment 8: One peer reviewer requested that the activity of 
stumping be included in our adverse modification standard language as 
an activity that significantly alters the suitability of habitat for 
the black pinesnake and should prompt consultation with the Service. 
Pine stump holes have been specifically highlighted as one of the 
principal PBFs necessary for the conservation of the subspecies; 
therefore, the importance of protecting them cannot be overstated. The 
adverse modification standard in our proposed rule mentions activities 
that would significantly alter the suitability of pinesnake habitat, 
including silvicultural activities that involve ground disturbance, but 
the peer reviewer felt the list of activities should be more specific.
    Our Response: As we discussed in our final listing rule published 
in the Federal Register on October 6, 2015 (80 FR 60468), we replaced 
``activities causing ground disturbance'' with a more focused statement 
of those ``activities causing significant subsurface disturbance'' 
under the possible section 9 violations, and for consistency have made 
the same change to our list of possible activities that may result in 
adverse modification in this final critical habitat rule. There are 
several types of activities that can be termed ``stumping'' and not all 
would necessarily cause significant subsurface disturbance. One of 
these is a practice of harvesting green pine stumps, whereby several 
lateral roots are cut prior to the stump being extracted. In this 
particular activity, those lateral roots are left intact to eventually 
rot or burn out to become tunnels and potential pinesnake refugia. 
However, other types of stumping involving whole root ball removal 
(where all roots are forcibly extracted) would meet the definition of 
significant subsurface disturbance. Therefore, this type of activity 
will be clarified and added to the adverse modification section below.
    Comment 9: Two peer reviewers stated that within our ``Criteria 
Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section, the 100-meter buffer 
placed along all Class 1 and 2 roads to help delineate critical habitat 
units was arbitrary and not based on any literature pertaining to the 
distance where effects from roads impact snake populations.
    Our Response: The 100-meter buffer given to all Class 1 and 2 roads 
in our designation of critical habitat units was not based on the 
maximum distance where impacts from roads affect black pinesnake 
populations (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' 
section). The roads themselves were deleted from the critical habitat 
polygons the same way attempts were made to avoid other urban 
structures, and a buffer was placed on either side of these major roads 
large enough to encompass most rights-of-way, commercial businesses, 
and residences. Through spatial analysis and aerial imagery this 
distance was

[[Page 11241]]

approximately 100 meters, so that value was used as a buffer around 
roads for the purpose of delineating the unit polygons and ensuring 
that the lands that we included in critical habitat did not include 
areas that we determined did not contribute to the conservation of the 
species.

Federal Agency Comments

    Comment 10: The Department of Defense, Army National Guard (DoD) 
opposed designation of critical habitat in areas within the Camp Shelby 
Joint Forces Training Center (hereafter Camp Shelby) in Forrest, 
George, and Perry Counties, Mississippi. DoD is concerned that the 
designation may delay or impair the ability of the Army to conduct 
effective training (due to the requirement for additional 
consultation); may require restrictions for training exercises; and 
will subsequently limit the installation's utility for military 
training. Currently, most of Camp Shelby is designated for military use 
under a Special Use Permit (permit) from the U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS), and DoD is requesting that all of Camp Shelby be excluded from 
black pinesnake critical habitat, as authorized by section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act, due to significant national security concerns.
    Our Response: The Department of Defense has an permit from USFS to 
conduct military exercises within critical habitat Unit 3 on the De 
Soto National Forest in Forrest, George, and Perry Counties, 
Mississippi. Lands within this permit area that overlap with Unit 3 and 
are owned by the State of Mississippi or DoD (4,054 ac [1,641 ha]) are 
exempted from critical habitat designation due to their inclusion in 
Camp Shelby's Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP; see 
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act under Exemptions, below). 
Additionally, in the proposed critical habitat rule (80 FR 12846 
published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2015), we proposed 
excluding the area known as the Camp Shelby Impact Area (4,647 ac 
[1,880 ha]) under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Further assessment of the 
area has expanded the section excluded under section 4(b)(2) to include 
not just the Impact Area, but also the lands surrounding it, known as 
the Camp Shelby Impact Area Buffer Zone (total acreage of 14,862 ac 
[6,014 ha]) (see Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and 
Homeland Security under Exclusions, below).
    The lands in this zone encompass a large percentage of the 
artillery ranges on the installation; therefore, they are prone to 
regular range fires that maintain it as highly suitable black pinesnake 
habitat. While evaluating this area, we determined that because it 
would continue to be maintained as suitable pinesnake habitat due to 
the range fires, and because the Service has discretion in removing 
lands from critical habitat when designating them would impact national 
security and homeland security, that the removal of these lands was 
appropriate. Some of these lands overlap with those exempted under 
section 4(a)(3), so the total area in Unit 3 on Camp Shelby that is 
either excluded or exempted from critical habitat designation with this 
final critical habitat designation is 18,901 ac (7,649 ha). As to the 
remaining area, the Service does not expect critical habitat to affect 
ongoing military operations over and above the existing protections 
resulting from the listing of the subspecies.
    Because the entire critical habitat unit is considered occupied by 
the black pinesnake, the Service anticipates that impacts from critical 
habitat will be limited to administrative impacts (IEc 2014). Any 
additional incremental impacts to military activities are not expected 
because areas we designated as black pinesnake critical habitat areas 
on Camp Shelby are within the same habitats shared by other listed 
species (i.e., gopher tortoise, dusky gopher frog (critical habitat), 
red-cockaded woodpecker). As discussed in the economic analysis, the 
Service anticipates only 2 formal consultations and fewer than 13 
informal consultations on military operations at Camp Shelby that will 
consider pinesnake critical habitat. The results of the economic 
analysis further supports that the additional per-consultation 
administrative effort is likely to be minor for both formal and 
informal consultations; therefore, these efforts are unlikely to result 
in time delays.

Comments From States

    Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act requires the Service to give 
actual notice of any designation of lands that are considered to be 
critical habitat to the appropriate agency of each State in which the 
species is believed to occur, and invite each such agency to comment on 
the proposed regulation. Only the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 
Fisheries (LDWF) provided comment specifically on the proposed critical 
habitat designation, stating that it did not support designation of 
critical habitat in Louisiana due to a lack of current occurrence data 
for the black pinesnake, which was consistent with our proposed 
designation.

Public Comments

General Comments Issue 1: Procedural and Legal Issues
    Comment 11: Several commenters stated that the Service should not 
designate critical habitat on private lands.
    Our Response: According to section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable, concurrently with making a determination that a species 
is an endangered species or a threatened species, designate critical 
habitat for that species. As directed by the Act, we proposed as 
critical habitat those areas occupied by the species at the time of 
listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential 
for the conservation of the species, which may require special 
management considerations or protection.
    Although the Act does not provide for any distinction between 
landownerships in those areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat, it does allow the Secretary to exclude specific areas from the 
final critical habitat designation if the benefits of excluding it 
outweigh the benefits of including it in critical habitat, unless that 
exclusion would result in the extinction of the species. In this 
instance, no private lands were excluded from the designation, although 
lands on Camp Shelby were excluded due to national security impacts.
    The designation of critical habitat on private land has no impact 
on individual landowner activities unless they involve Federal funding, 
permits or activities. Critical habitat designation does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, reserve, preserve or other 
conservation area. Critical habitat designation informs landowners and 
the public of which specific areas are important to black pinesnake 
conservation and recovery, but landowners will not be required to 
convert their land to longleaf pine forests or to conduct black 
pinesnake monitoring as a result of this designation.
    Comment 12: A private forestry association stated that critical 
habitat designation was unnecessary because the section 4(d) rule 
provided for the protection of the black pinesnake.
    Our Response: When a species is federally listed, protections go 
into effect, both for the species and its habitat. In 2015, the Service 
listed the black pinesnake with a 4(d) rule, which exempted certain 
management activities from take prohibitions under section 9 of the Act 
that provided an overall conservation benefit to the species [refer

[[Page 11242]]

to our October 6, 2015, final listing rule (80 FR 60468)]. However, the 
Service has an additional obligation under the Act to designate 
critical habitat for a listed species when prudent and determinable. 
Critical habitat designation focuses on the overall recovery needs of 
the species and provides additional protection to a species, as Federal 
agencies are required to ensure that projects they authorize, fund, or 
undertake do not adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Our 
economic analysis (IEc 2014a), in concluding that the incremental 
impacts from critical habitat designation were minimal, cited the 
extensive baseline protection provided to the species based on its 
listing and presence in the units. However, critical habitat provides 
other benefits to the species, including serving to educate the public 
of the potential conservation value of an area, which aids in focusing 
and promoting conservation efforts.
    Comment 13: Several commented that the Service failed to contact 
all landowners potentially affected by the proposed designation of 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: The Act requires that we publish the proposed 
regulation in the Federal Register, give actual notice of the proposed 
regulation to each affected State and county (i.e., those in which the 
species is believed to occur) and appropriate professional 
organizations, and publish a summary of the proposed regulation in a 
newspaper of general circulation in each area of the country where the 
species is believed to occur. We attempted to ensure that as many 
people as possible would be aware of the proposed critical habitat 
designation and draft economic analysis by issuing press releases to 
major media in the affected area, submitting newspaper notices for 
publication within areas of proposed critical habitat, and directly 
notifying affected State and Federal agencies, environmental groups, 
State Governors, Federal and State elected officials, county 
commissions, academia, and interested parties. Additionally, we opened 
a second comment period, for which we sent out notifications to 
commenters from the first comment period that supplied their contact 
information. We went further in our communication efforts by announcing 
and holding two public informational meetings on our proposed critical 
habitat designation in areas central to the proposed critical habitat 
lands. By these actions, we have complied with or exceeded all of the 
notification requirements of the Act and the Administrative Procedure 
Act (5 U.S.C. subchapter II).
General Comments Issue 2: Science
    Comment 14: A number of commenters stated that there was adequate 
critical habitat being designated in Mississippi on the De Soto 
National Forest (Federal lands); therefore, it was not necessary to 
have any critical habitat units on private lands in Clarke County, 
Alabama.
    Our Response: As discussed in response to Comment 11 above, the 
statutory definition of critical habitat does not include considering 
land ownership. Critical habitat is a conservation tool, whose measures 
contribute to reaching recovery until the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. This is a broader 
standard than simply survival and requires the Service to designate 
critical habitat that will support recovery of the species. De Soto 
National Forest (DNF) represents only one area within the distribution 
of the black pinesnake. DNF has the most robust populations and is 
crucial to the persistence of the species; however, recovery of the 
species will require populations of black pinesnakes distributed across 
the species' range, representative of its genetic variability. The 
location of populations across a broader range will provide for 
population expansion and also serve as a buffer in the event of local 
catastrophic events (also see Comment 5, above). A critical habitat 
designation helps to protect the areas, under various land ownerships, 
necessary to conserve a species. Critical habitat has value in 
requiring the Service to analyze and present more detailed information 
about the specific features of habitat that a species needs than is 
required for listing, thereby increasing knowledge to share with 
Federal agencies--and, in turn, increasing their effectiveness to 
conserve a listed species.
    Comment 15: Several commenters stated that a recovery plan was 
needed prior to designating critical habitat, and in the absence of a 
recovery plan, the benefits of the critical habitat designation were 
questionable.
    Our Response: During the process of developing a recovery plan, as 
required by section 4(f) of the Act, the Service determines the 
threshold that must be met to establish when a species is no longer 
``endangered'' or ''threatened.'' The Service has not yet completed a 
recovery plan for the black pinesnake, and thus, this threshold has not 
been identified. However, the Act does not require that recovery 
criteria be established as a precondition to designating critical 
habitat. Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act defines the term ``critical 
habitat'' as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied 
by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. Thus, the Act directs us to designate critical habitat at 
the time that a species is listed, to the extent prudent and 
determinable, and does not allow for us to postpone such action until a 
recovery plan can be developed, which usually occurs witin a few years 
of listing. The Act does not provide additional guidance on how to 
determine what habitat is essential for the conservation of the 
species, nor does it require a minimum population and habitat viability 
analysis for critical habitat designation. In this case, the Secretary 
has discretion in determining what is essential for the conservation of 
a species based on the best available information. The identification 
of multiple populations known to be occupied at the time of listing is 
critical to protect the species from extinction and provide for the 
species' eventual recovery. Therefore, the Service believes that all 
the areas designated as critical habitat meet the definition under 
section 3(5)(A) of the Act. If the Service gains knowledge of 
additional areas that meet the definition of critical habitat, then 
under section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Secretary may revise the 
designation, as appropriate. The Service has articulated a basis for 
designating each unit as critical habitat under the individual unit 
descriptions in the ``Final Critical Habitat Designation'' section 
below.
General Comments Issue 3: Private Land Issues
    Comment 16: A number of commenters stated that critical habitat 
designation on private land would prevent timber management on those 
lands or dictate that they be managed in a way to benefit the black 
pinesnake. One commenter specified that they will now need to undertake 
modified management practices (e.g., elimination of clearcutting on 
ridgetops, conversion to longleaf pine forest, and adjustments to 
stocking levels). Another commenter stated that designation on private 
lands would prohibit beneficial practices to improve wildlife and 
natural resources, such as invasive species control and feral hog 
control.
    Our Response: When prudent, the Service is required to designate 
critical habitat under the Act; however, the Act does not authorize the 
Service to regulate private actions on private lands

[[Page 11243]]

or confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat 
designation (see response to Comment 11, above). We acknowledge that 
special management consideration or protection is needed to maintain 
the PBFs; however, critical habitat designation does not require 
proactive implementation of restoration, recovery, enhancement or other 
special management measures by private landowners; in other words, it 
does not shift the responsibility of recovery to the private landowner. 
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 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. Management to control invasive species is expected to improve 
habitat for the black pinesnake and, therefore, would be encouraged 
within designated critical habitat and throughout the range of the 
subspecies, but would not be required.
    Comment 17: Several commenters stated that proposed critical 
habitat Units 7 and 8 in Clarke County, Alabama, do not meet the 
criteria established for critical habitat since they do not contain all 
the PBFs described in the rule. Commenters stated that much of the area 
in both units had been converted to loblolly pine at higher densities 
to increase economic gain, thus creating conditions that do not support 
black pinesnakes. One commenter stated that Unit 8 also does not have 
the correct soils as described in PBF 3. Another commenter requested 
that several hundred acres of land under Unit 2 be removed due to the 
presence of wetlands and its management for pine production.
    Our Response: During the process of delineating critical habitat, 
the Service assesses habitat to determine if it is essential for the 
conservation of a listed species. In order to meet the criteria of 
``essential,'' the Service describes the PBFs such as those needed for 
normal feeding, breeding, sheltering, and population growth. Following 
publication of the proposed critical habitat rule, and a review of 
comments, we revised the PBFs slightly (see Comments 1 and 2). Only one 
PBF needs to be found in a specific area for that area to be considered 
critical habitat; however, we have determined that all PBFs, as 
currently described, are present in all designated units (see 
discussions under ``Final Critical Habitat Designation''). This does 
not mean that we expect every acre within a unit to be characterized as 
having all the PBFs consistently throughout. Portions of the critical 
habitat units that do not have the total PBF requirements for black 
pinesnakes (e.g., wetlands and urban areas), although they are within a 
critical habitat polygon, are not considered critical habitat for the 
subspecies. Our analysis of soil maps, assessments in monitoring 
reports (Barbour 2009, p. 13), and soil suitability reports (Service 
2012) support our conclusion that Unit 8 contains suitable soils 
described in PBF3.
    Comment 18: Several commenters suggest the designation of critical 
habitat creates disincentives for landowners to manage their forest 
stands in a manner beneficial to the species (e.g., by restoring and 
conserving longleaf pine forests). The reasoning behind this is the 
idea that by ``creating'' unsuitable habitat a landowner would not have 
to contend with any perceived regulatory issues with the Federal 
Government. As an example of this effect, one organization notes past 
experience with the listing of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), where 
landowners shortened stand rotations in order to avoid providing 
favorable habitat for the species. As further evidence of the 
disincentivizing effect of regulatory interventions, a second 
organization states that since 2017, the number of longleaf pine acres 
planted annually throughout Mississippi as part of a State-run cost-
share program has decreased by more than half compared to the previous 
5-year average, and that this decrease was directly attributable to the 
listing of the black pinesnake.
    Our Response: We are aware of the changes in land management 
practices that resulted from the listing of the RCW. Because critical 
habitat has not been designated for the RCW, these effects were based 
solely on the decision to list the species under the Act. In light of 
these continued perceptions, we feel it is important to reiterate that, 
in the absence of a Federal nexus, the designation of critical habitat 
has no direct regulatory impact on private landowners. As discussed in 
the response to Comment 16 above, critical habitat designation does not 
mean a private landowner has a new obligation for recovery of that 
species, nor does it mean that it must maintain habitat suitable for 
that species. Many landowners who have economic objectives as a higher 
priority than wildlife objectives probably do not have much suitable 
habitat for black pinesnakes anyway; however, if they choose to manage 
for the species there are cost-share programs available that assist 
with managing for the native ecosystem (longleaf pine forest), as well 
as Safe Harbor Agreements with the Service.
    Referencing the latter part of the comment about a decrease in 
longleaf pine acres planted, there have been several fluctuations in 
numbers of acres in longleaf pine planted on private lands since the 
black pinesnake was listed under the Act in 2015 (80 FR 60486). There 
was a 125% increase in longleaf establishment acres on private lands in 
Mississippi in the year following the pinesnake being listed (2016 
versus 2015; America's Longleaf Restoration Initiative), and although 
acreages reported in 2017 and 2018 were back down close to those 
reported in 2015, there are many variables affecting fluctuations in 
acreage of longleaf pine trees planted year-to-year. These variables 
include saturated markets, reduced capacity of various agencies (e.g., 
reduced workforce or resources), and re-focusing agency resources on 
management (e.g., prescribed fire, thinning) instead of longleaf 
establishment; therefore, to associate acreage fluctuations with a 
single event (i.e., the listing of the black pinesnake) would be 
inaccurate. Under Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Farm 
Bill programs in Mississippi promoting longleaf pine to private 
landowners (i.e., Longleaf Pine Initiative and Working Lands for 
Wildlife), twice as many acres of longleaf pine were established in 
2018 versus 2017 (Costanzo 2019, p. 1), supporting the argument that 
the listing of the black pinesnake under the Act has not 
disincentivized private landowners from creating habitat suitable for 
the subspecies.
General Comments Issue 4: Economic Analysis
    Comment 19: One commenter asked whether an economic analysis had 
been conducted for the black pinesnake critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: The Service conducted an economic analysis for 
designation of black pinesnake critical habitat, which began by 
preparing an ``Incremental Effects Memorandum'' (IEM) describing how 
critical habitat for the black pinesnake will be implemented. This 
memorandum provided the basis for a screening analysis of potential 
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat rule, prepared by 
independent consultants. The combination of the IEM and the screening 
analysis, titled

[[Page 11244]]

``Screening Analysis of Likely Economic Impacts of Critical Habitat 
Designation for the Black Pinesnake,'' (IEc 2014a) represents the 
Service's economic analysis. Both documents were released for public 
comment with the proposed rules on March 11, 2015, and again on October 
11, 2018. The minor changes proposed in the second comment period (83 
FR 51418, October 11, 2018) were not substantial enough to justify 
producing a revised Economic Screening Analysis (see Comment 21, 
below).
    Comment 20: One commenter stated that the Service should consider 
costs associated with listing in the economic analysis.
    Our Response: Section 4(b)(1) of the Act specifically states that 
determinations for listing are to be based solely on the best 
scientific and commercial information available after conducting a 
review of the status of the species and after taking into account 
conservation measures by States or foreign nations. As mandated in 
section 4(b)(2), our economic analysis considers the economic impacts 
of the proposed critical habitat designation involving evaluating 
``without critical habitat'' baseline versus the ``with critical 
habitat'' scenario (see Consideration of Economic Impacts section for 
additional discussion) to ensure that we are capturing costs associated 
with designation of critical habitat as required by the statute.
    Comment 21: Several commenters expressed concern that the economic 
analysis had underestimated the economic impacts of the designation of 
critical habitat. One commenter stated that an economic analysis that 
fails to account for any effect on private lands is incomplete and 
fails to meet the requirements of the Act.
    Our Response: The economic analysis forecasts the likely costs and 
benefits of the critical habitat designation for the black pinesnake 
using the best readily available information, and the commenters did 
not provide additional information that could be used to revise this 
analysis. Because the entirety of critical habitat is occupied by the 
pinesnake, significant baseline protections already exist throughout 
the proposed designation due to its status as a threatened species 
under the Act (see Comment 12, above). We find that the section 7-
related costs of designating critical habitat for the pinesnake are 
likely to be limited to additional administrative effort to consider 
adverse modification in consultation and are likely to be less than 
$190,000 in the first year following the publication of the final rule 
(the year with the highest anticipated costs). This is due to the 
anticipation of no direct impacts of the designation to forestry, which 
is the main land use (see our response to Comment 16, above). The 
economic analysis prepared for this rule includes the costs to private 
landowners of future section 7 consultations and bounds the potential 
diminution of property values by estimating the total value of these 
acres. In addition, the economic analysis investigates the possible 
impacts of public perception (e.g., reductions in land value based on 
the perception that critical habitat imposes use limitations on private 
property) using the total value of developable land near the proposed 
designation. As described in section 4 of the economic analysis, data 
limitations prevent the quantification of possible perception-related 
effects or its attenuation rate.
    Comment 22: Commenters suggested that with the October 2018 
reopening of the public comment period, the Service added acreage to 
proposed critical habitat without balancing considerations of the 
economic issues resulting from this designation.
    Our Response: On October 11, 2018, the Service reopened the public 
comment period for the May 11, 2015, proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the black pinesnake. At that time, we proposed revised 
boundaries for Unit 8 (Fred T. Stimpson Special Opportunity Area (SOA)) 
in Clarke County, Alabama, resulting in smaller acreage on private land 
and more acres on State-owned land, with a net increase of 
approximately 279 acres. As described in the October 11, 2018, Federal 
Register document, we determined that some of the best habitat, located 
at the southern end of the Stimpson SOA, had not been incorporated in 
Unit 8, and other land located at the northern end of the unit had been 
included in error. Federal nexuses are rare within State SOAs, thus 
additional consultations, as associated with section 7 costs in the 
newly added area, are unlikely. We concluded that these minor 
adjustments in the Unit 8 boundary were not significant enough to 
warrant a new economic analysis.
    Comment 23: Many commenters expressed concern that the designation 
of critical habitat for the black pinesnake would affect the ability of 
private landowners, including small landowners, to manage their lands 
for forestry and timber harvest. In particular, several commenters 
expressed concern that the designation of critical habitat would affect 
landowners' ability to generate income from their lands, noting that 
this could have cascading effects on future generations, local property 
tax revenue, and the local economy.
    Our Response: The Service acknowledges that private forestry is an 
important aspect of the local economy. As noted earlier in Comment 16, 
the Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on 
private lands or establish specific land management standards or 
prescriptions for private landowners. We do not anticipate that 
critical habitat designation will affect current timber management 
activities since critical habitat designation applies only to those 
actions with a Federal nexus (funding, authorization, or action by a 
Federal agency) that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. Section 1 of the economic analysis identifies the activities 
considered for the analysis, including timber management. Section 3 of 
the economic analysis outlines the substantial baseline protections 
afforded the pinesnake throughout the critical habitat area. These 
baseline protections result from the 2015 listing of the pinesnake, 
with the section 4(d) rule, under the Act; the presence of the species 
in all critical habitat units; as well as overlap with habitat of other 
listed species and designated critical habitat. As a result of these 
protections, the economic analysis concludes that incremental impacts 
associated with section 7 consultations for the pinesnake are likely 
limited to additional administrative effort on the part of Federal 
agencies. The Service does not anticipate requesting modifications for 
forest management activities on private lands because of the 
designation of critical habitat. As a result, impacts to income or tax 
revenue described by the commenters are not anticipated.
    Comment 24: Multiple commenters expressed concern that the 
designation of critical habitat for the pinesnake could decrease the 
value of designated lands. In particular, one commenter stated that, 
given the choice between two identical properties, an investor will 
invariably purchase the property with no critical habitat over one 
designated as critical habitat. The commenter went on to state that a 
methodology for estimating these costs must be developed and used.
    Our Response: The Service recognizes that such effects are 
possible. Specifically, section 4 of the economic analysis considers 
possible perception-related effects of critical habitat designation on 
the value of private property. The analysis acknowledges that public 
attitudes about the limits and costs that the Act may impose can cause 
real economic effects to the

[[Page 11245]]

owners of property, regardless of whether such limits are actually 
imposed. These effects may result from the perception that critical 
habitat will preclude, limit, or slow development, or somehow alter the 
highest and best use of the property. As described in section 4 of the 
economic analysis, data limitations prevent the quantification of the 
possible incremental reduction in private property values or its 
attenuation rate. However, section 4, footnote 45 references a separate 
memorandum (IEc 2014b) prepared for the Service providing additional 
detail. In that memorandum, titled ``Supplemental Information on Land 
Values--Critical Habitat Designation for the Black Pinesnake,'' the 
economic consultants review the available literature to identify 
existing methods for estimating the impact of public perception of the 
encumbrance imposed by critical habitat on private property values, and 
the limitations of available data. Furthermore, the memorandum provides 
a detailed analysis of the total value of potentially affected private 
acres using two separate data sources of forest land values in 
Mississippi and Alabama. By providing an estimate of the total value of 
potentially affected private acres, we provide an upper bound on the 
possible magnitude of this impact.
    However, the analysis also describes the uncertainty associated 
with this upper bound and several factors that suggest the actual 
magnitude of the portion of the effect attributable to the critical 
habitat designation will be lower. These factors include the 
community's experience with the Act, understanding of the degree to 
which future section 7 consultations could delay or affect land use 
activities, and substantial baseline conservation already in place for 
the black pinesnake due to its listed status, as well as protections 
for the federally listed gopher tortoise, red-cockaded woodpecker, and 
dusky gopher frog.
    Comment 25: Some commenters requested that landowners be 
compensated for loss of private property rights or financial losses 
that could happen as a result of the designation of critical habitat 
for the black pinesnake.
    Our Response: As stated previously in Comment 16, the critical 
habitat designation does not authorize the Service to regulate private 
actions on private lands, nor is it considered confiscation of private 
property. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land 
ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or 
access to the designated areas. Critical habitat designation also does 
not establish specific land management standards or prescriptions, 
although Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. Thus, the designation of critical habitat does not deny anyone 
economically viable use of their property.
    Our economic analysis concluded that financial impacts from 
critical habitat for the pinesnake are likely limited, borne primarily 
by the Service and Federal action agencies. Although it is possible 
(see response to Comment 24, above) that public perception of potential 
regulatory constraints imposed by critical habitat could also adversely 
affect property values, a similar effect could result from the listing 
of the species, or the presence of other listed species and critical 
habitat designations.
    Comment 26: Commenters expressed concern that the designation of 
critical habitat would reduce land managers' flexibility in managing 
forested habitat on the State of Mississippi's 16th Section lands and 
on Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) to meet their respective 
objectives. Forests on 16th Section lands are highly valued timber 
tracts that are intensively managed to provide a significant amount of 
income for public schools in Mississippi, and WMAs are often owned by 
multiple landowners and managed for varied economic and wildlife 
objectives.
    Our Response: The Service acknowledges the importance to local 
communities of income generated on 16th Section lands from 
silvicultural activities, as well as the importance to the public of 
WMAs for hunting, fishing, recreation, and other uses. As discussed in 
Comment 16, we do not anticipate that critical habitat designation will 
affect current habitat management activities, particularly with respect 
to timber management, because critical habitat designation only applies 
to those actions with a Federal nexus (funding, authorization, or 
action by a Federal agency) that would destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat.
    Comment 27: One commenter states it is speculative to conclude that 
a Federal nexus is unlikely to be triggered on private forest lands. 
Federal consultation has been triggered in the context of family-owned 
timberlands in the past and will likely continue to occur in the 
future.
    Our Response: The Service agrees with the statement that 
consultations have occurred on private land in the past and will likely 
occur in the future. However, consultation with the Service is not done 
directly with the private landowner; it is done with the responsible 
Federal agency (action agency) involved in the Federal permit, license, 
or funding. 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. Instead, it is 
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat. 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.)), but even where the action is 
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, the Service 
works with the agency and landowners to amend the project to enable it 
to proceed without adversely affecting critical habitat. Most Federal 
projects are likely to go forward, but some may be modified to minimize 
adverse effects to the species and its critical habitat.

Summary of Changes From Revised Proposed Rule

    We reviewed the above-described site-specific comments related to 
critical habitat for this subspecies, completed our analysis of areas 
considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and for 
exemptions under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, reviewed our analysis of 
the PBFs essential to the long-term conservation of the black 
pinesnake, reviewed the application of our criteria for identifying 
critical habitat across the range of this subspecies to refine our 
designation, and completed the economic analysis of the designation as 
proposed. This final rule incorporates changes to our proposed critical 
habitat rule based on the comments that we received, and have responded 
to in this document, and considers efforts to conserve the black 
pinesnake.
    As a result, our final designation of critical habitat reflects the 
following changes from the March 11, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 12846) 
and the October 11, 2018, revisions to the proposed designation (83 FR 
51418):
     Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) are referred to as 
Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) in our final rule.
     Based on information we received from peer reviewers, we 
removed the

[[Page 11246]]

reference to territoriality in the subspecies; although there is some 
evidence that black pinesnakes may exhibit territoriality, it has not 
been demonstrated definitively.
     The habitat management activity of clearcutting was 
removed from the list of activities seen as threats to the black 
pinesnake and its habitat. While we recognize that some clearcut 
harvesting may have a negative impact on black pinesnake habitat, at 
other times it is a necessary management tool to restore a forest to a 
condition suitable for pinesnakes and other native wildlife. This is 
consistent with the language in our final listing rule.
     We have refined our description of PBF 1 to remove the 
characterization of ``open canopy'' pine forest as a specific 
percentage and have instead relied on the percentage metrics for mid-
story and groundcover (within an open-canopied pine forest) to best 
define the habitat structure important to the subspecies.
     We have revised PBF 2 and removed the reference to 
topographic features, specifically the elevation threshold of 150 ft 
(46 m) or greater. PBF 2 now only references refugia sites since the 
elevation threshold was determined to be more of an observation rather 
than a habitat requirement.
     Throughout the descriptions of PBFs, we removed specific 
characterization of these features within longleaf pine forests. 
Although longleaf pine is the preferred canopy species for the long-
term conservation of the black pinesnake (see the final listing rule 
published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2015 (80 FR 60468)), we 
recognize that it is primarily the structure of the forest that 
provides for the PBFs, and this structure is not exclusive to longleaf 
pine forests. However, these features must occur within areas 
historically dominated by longleaf pine.
     Within Unit 3 (Camp Shelby), we excluded the Camp Shelby 
Impact Area (4,647 ac [1,880 ha]), as proposed in our original critical 
habitat rule (80 FR 12846, March 11, 2015), and upon further assessment 
of this area excluded additional acreage known as the Camp Shelby 
Impact Area Buffer Zone for a total exclusion of 14,862 ac (6,014 ha) 
of Camp Shelby lands under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Exclusions 
Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security under 
Exclusions, below).

Critical Habitat

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
    (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.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as: An area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    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 Federal agency would be required to consult 
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the 
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in 
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the 
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the 
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they 
must 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 (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 physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as 
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those 
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the 
specific features that support the life-history needs of the species, 
including but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, 
geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 
features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more 
complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include 
habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat 
conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to 
principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution 
distances, and connectivity.
    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. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but 
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the 
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat 
designation.
    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)),

[[Page 11247]]

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 from the species status assessment (SSA) document and 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation 
strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the 
species, 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 recovery 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.
    On August 27, 2019, we published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (84 FR 45020) to amend our regulations concerning the 
procedures and criteria we use to designate and revise critical 
habitat. That rule became effective on September 26, 2019, but, as 
stated in that rule, the amendments it sets forth apply to ``rules for 
which a proposed rule was published after September 26, 2019.'' We 
published our proposed critical habitat designation for the black 
pinesnake on March 11, 2015 (80 FR 12846); therefore, the amendments 
set forth in the August 27, 2019, final rule at 84 FR 45020 do not 
apply to this final designation of critical habitat 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 physical or biological features 
(PBFs) that are essential to the conservation of the species and which 
may require special management considerations or protection. For 
example, physical features might include gravel of a particular size 
required for spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, protective 
cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that 
maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. 
Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses, 
specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic 
fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent with 
conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be 
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the 
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a 
characteristic needed to support the life history of the species. In 
considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the 
species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and 
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the 
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the 
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to space 
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, 
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or 
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected 
from disturbance.
    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 final listing rule published in the Federal Register on 
October 6, 2015 (80 FR 60468) and the proposed critical habitat rule 
published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2015 (80 FR 12846). 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 the final listing rule). 
An abundant herbaceous groundcover is typical of those areas 
characterized by a more open-canopied condition, as a byproduct 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 
targets for open-canopied upland longleaf pine forest with 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

[[Page 11248]]

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), primarily 
conducted in the growing season but 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 has 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 an individual 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 overlap of 
home ranges, potentially providing some evidence for territoriality 
(Duran 1998a, p. 15) although more research is needed.
    The minimum amount of habitat necessary to support a viable black 
pinesnake population (known as the minimum reserve area) 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 area by modeling the total area covered by two 
partially overlapping, circular activity ranges whose radius equals the 
maximum known movement distance for the subspecies (1.3 miles (2.1 km); 
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 area 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 the final listing rule).
    We corroborated this value of minimum reserve area using a method 
previously used for Florida pinesnakes (P.m. mugitus). Miller (2008, 
pp. 27-28) calculated a minimum reserve area of approximately 7,413 ac 
(3,000 ha) by overlaying the non-overlapping home ranges of 50 Florida 
pinesnakes, using this population number because it has been previously 
proposed as a minimum effective population size for many vertebrate 
species (Franklin 1980, p. 147). Our analysis using this same 
population size (50) was adjusted to use partially overlapping polygons 
(instead of non-overlapping) that were approximately 150 ac (40.5 ha) 
in size, representing the mean home range for black pinesnakes 
described in the literature (Duran 1998a, p. 19; Yager et al. 2005, p. 
27). This modeling exercise using varying degrees of overlap between 
the polygons yielded total estimates between 4,500 to 6,000 ac (1,619 
to 2,428 ha), thereby supporting our initial estimate of a 5,000-acre 
minimum reserve area.
    For further comparison we investigated the population requirements 
of another large-bodied, wide-ranging snake with expansive 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. Sytsma et al. (2012, pp. 39-40) estimated a reserve area 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 support the need for sizeable areas to support large, wide-
ranging snake species sensitive to landscape fragmentation. Thus, based 
on these estimates of eastern indigo snake reserve area, and the 
available long-distance movement data and home range sizes for the 
black pinesnake, we believe that 5,000 ac (2,023 ha) of suitable 
habitat is an appropriate estimate of the minimum reserve area for a 
population of black pinesnakes.

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements

    Black pinesnakes 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). 
The hispid cotton rat was the most frequently trapped small mammal 
within black pinesnake home ranges (Duran 1998a, p. 34), and 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). Black pinesnakes 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, based on the information above, we identify open-
canopied pine forest habitat, 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 PBFs necessary for the conservation of the black pinesnake.

[[Page 11249]]

These pine forests should be primarily unfragmented and occupy at least 
5,000 ac (2,023 ha) in area.

Cover or Shelter

    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 used by black 
pinesnakes are burned-out or rotted-out pine 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 use 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) used 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 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: Black pinesnakes have been shown to return to 
the same general location during monitoring and even 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.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the presence 
of naturally burned-out or rotted-out pine stumps and their associated 
root systems within historically longleaf-dominated pine forests, to be 
a PBF for 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 six 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 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 use 
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 eggshells 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), 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 use 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 groundcover (component of PBF 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 using these soil types is corroborated by Duran 
(1998b, p. 15), which showed that snakes 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 PBF 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.
Summary of Physical or Biological Features
    We have determined the following PBFs for the black pinesnake:
    (1) PBF 1: Tract size and habitat structure. A pine forest, 
historically dominated by longleaf pine and maintained by frequent 
fire, primarily having the following characteristics:
    (a) An open canopy that sustains a reduced woody mid-story (<10 
percent cover) and abundant, diverse, native herbaceous groundcover (at 
least 40 percent cover); and
    (b) Minimum of 5,000 ac (2,023 ha) of mostly unfragmented habitat.
    (2) PBF 2: Refugia sites. Naturally burned-out or rotted-out pine 
stumps and their associated root system tunnels, in pine forests 
historically dominated by longleaf pine.
    (3) PBF 3: Soils. Deep, sandy, well-drained soils characteristic of 
longleaf pine forests:
    (a) No flooding or ponding;

[[Page 11250]]

    (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.
    Additional information can be found in the final listing rule and 
the proposed critical habitat designation for the black pinesnake.

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 that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    All areas designated as critical habitat require some level of 
management to address the current and future threats to the black 
pinesnake and to maintain the PBFs. Special management of the upland 
longleaf pine forest would be needed to ensure an open canopy, reduced 
mid-story, and abundant herbaceous groundcover (PBF 1); underground 
refugia for snakes to occupy (PBF 2); and relatively unfragmented 
tracts of pine forests (PBF 1).
    A detailed discussion of activities affecting the black pinesnake 
and its habitat can be found in the final listing rule published in the 
Federal Register on October 6, 2015 (83 FR 51418). 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 such as 
disking, bedding, and stumping involving whole root ball removal that 
may cause significant subsurface disturbance; 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 or stump holes; avoiding the practice of bedding 
when planting trees; reducing planting densities to create or maintain 
an open canopied forest with abundant herbaceous groundcover; 
maintaining forest underground structure such as gopher tortoise 
burrows and small mammal burrows; and retaining large tracts of 
unfragmented pine forest 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 specific areas within the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered 
for designation as critical habitat. As discussed below, we are not 
designating any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species because we have determined that occupied areas are sufficient 
for the conservation of the species.

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

    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 used a 
modified methodology of establishing species occurrence areas, which 
was informed by the methodology 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 one 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 activity range 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). Using GIS, we located all areas where at least two black 
pinesnake activity ranges overlapped, and identified those as potential 
populations. Outside of these activity ranges, if the area was forested 
and met the soils criteria, that area was considered contiguous habitat 
and included in potential population boundaries.
    We identified 11 populations using this method: 6 in Mississippi 
and 5 in Alabama. These populations were then assessed in regard to 
impacts from nearby fragmentation sources such as major roads, wetlands 
and open water, incompatible land use (such as agricultural 
conversion), and urban development.
    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 species 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

[[Page 11251]]

tortoise's federally listed range (Service 2012, pp. 1-37). These 
specific soil characteristics are detailed in the Physical or 
Biological Features for the Black Pinesnake section, above.
    To analyze potential impacts from roads and exclude areas around 
roads that do not provide quality habitat for the black pinesnake, 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 in order to exclude not 
just the roadways themselves, but also to exclude the area capturing 
rights-of-way, residences, and businesses along these major roads. 
Major wetland areas and streams were avoided in determining population 
boundaries, and 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 used. 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.
    We calculated that the total area covered by two partially 
overlapping activity ranges (5,000 ac (2,023 ha)) would be considered a 
minimum population reserve area, 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. As was discussed in Space for Individual and Population Growth 
and for Normal Behavior (above), this estimate of minimum reserve area 
was corroborated by modeling 50 polygons (150 acres in size to reflect 
mean black pinesnake home range size) at various levels of overlap, 
which resulted in a similar reserve area estimate of 5,000 acres.
    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) of contiguous forested habitat was 
available, that population was no longer considered potentially viable 
and was removed from critical habitat consideration.
    Using the above-described process, 8 of the 11 populations examined 
met the criteria for consideration as critical habitat: all 6 of the 
populations in Mississippi and 2 of the 5 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 occurs primarily 
on the Marion County Wildlife Management Area (WMA). All six 
populations meet the criteria of appropriate size; contiguous, pine-
dominated, forested habitat; soils; and minimal fragmentation. The 
Service has determined that these sites contain the PBFs that are 
essential for the conservation of the black pinesnake.
    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 lands previously identified as the 
Scotch WMA and a population located at the Fred T. Stimpson SOA. SOAs 
are State-owned properties, typically smaller than Wildlife Management 
Areas in acreage, that offer a different hunting format to reduce 
pressure and increase the quality of the hunt. Three other populations, 
in Washington and Mobile Counties, each have two black pinesnake 
records from the last 25 years, but due to urban and agricultural 
fragmentation no longer contain the PBFs.
    The 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 PBFs that will allow for the maintenance 
and expansion of existing populations. Further, 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 Not Occupied at the Time of Listing

    We are not designating any areas outside the geographical areas 
occupied by the black pinesnake at the time of listing. The 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 critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, 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 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 critical habitat designation (see Application of Section 
4(a)(3) of the Act under Exemptions, below); nor all lands within the 
Camp Shelby Impact Area Buffer Zone, which are excluded from critical 
habitat designation (see Exclusions Based on Impacts on National 
Security and Homeland Security under Exclusions, below). Thus, any such 
lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on 
the maps of this rule have been excluded by text in the rule and are 
not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action 
involving these lands will not trigger section 7 consultation with 
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse 
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or 
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    Eight units, one of which was divided into two subunits, were 
designated. All eight units contain all of the physical or biological 
features necessary to support life-history functions essential to the 
conservation of the black pine snake, namely: Unfragmented tracts of 
pine forest of sufficient size and structure (PBF 1); suitable 
underground refugia sites (PBF 2); and deep, sandy soils (PBF 3).
    The 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 rule portion. 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

[[Page 11252]]

the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-
0065, on our internet sites http://www.fws.gov/mississippiES/, and at 
the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT above).

Final Critical Habitat Designation

    We are designating approximately 324,679 ac (131,393 ha) in eight 
units (one unit divided into two subunits) as critical habitat for the 
black pinesnake. Those eight units are: (1) Ovett, (2) Piney Woods 
Creek, (3) Cypress Creek, (4A) Maxie, (4B) Maxie, (5) Howison, (6) 
Marion County WMA, (7) Jones Branch, and (8) Fred T. Stimpson SOA.
    Table 1 provides the location, approximate area, and land ownership 
of each critical habitat unit.

                                                   Table 1--Critical Habitat Units for Black Pinesnake
                                        [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Ownership *
                Unit                        Counties        ----------------------------------------------------------------------       Total area
                                                                     Federal                 State                 Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       MISSISSIPPI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Ovett...........................  Jones, Wayne..........  40,639 ac (16,446 ha).  .....................  6,540 ac (2,647 ha)..  47,179 ac (19,093 ha)
2--Piney Woods Creek...............  Perry, Wayne..........  17,744 ac (7,181 ha)..  .....................  4,645 ac (1,880 ha)..  22,389 ac (9,061 ha)
3--Cypress Creek...................  Forrest, George,        115,315 ac (46,666 ha)  1,768 ac (716 ha)....  14,357 ac (5,810 ha).  131,440 ac (53,192
                                      Greene, Perry.                                                                                ha)
4A--Maxie..........................  Forrest, Stone........  8,914 ac (3,607 ha)...  .....................  6,303 ac (2,551 ha)..  15,217 ac (6,158 ha)
4B--Maxie..........................  Forrest, Perry, Stone.  28,232 ac (11,425 ha).  .....................  16,079 ac (6,507 ha).  44,311 ac (17,932 ha)
5--Howison.........................  Stone, Harrison.......  9,430 ac (3,816 ha)...  .....................  3,519 ac (1,424 ha)..  12,949 ac (5,240 ha)
6--Marion County WMA...............  Marion................  ......................  5,587 ac (2,261 ha)..  6,270 ac (2,537 ha)..  11,857 ac (4,798 ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         ALABAMA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7--Jones Branch....................  Clarke................  ......................  .....................  33,395 ac (13,515 ha)  33,395 ac (13,515 ha)
8--Fred T. Stimpson SOA............  Clarke................  ......................  3,843 ac (1,555 ha)..  2,100 ac (850 ha)....  5,943 ac (2,405 ha)
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Area.....................  ......................  220,273 ac (89,141 ha)  11,197 ac (4,531 ha).  93,208 ac (37,720 ha)  324,679 ac (131,393
                                                                                                                                    ha)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Notes: Area sizing may not sum due to rounding. Also, no lands owned by local government agencies are being designated as critical habitat.

    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 47,179 ac (19,093 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 (40,639 ac (16,446 ha)) is on Federal 
lands within the DNF, with the remainder of the unit (6,540 ac (2,647 
ha)) on private land.
    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.). 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, the 
management practices outlined in this plan do not 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 PBFs 
include: Fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental 
forestry practices that could cause significant subsurface disturbance 
such as disking, bedding, or whole root ball stump removal; land use 
conversion and fragmentation, primarily urban development and 
conversion to agriculture and pine plantations; utility easements; road 
mortality; and encroachment of invasive species.

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.
    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 PBFs 
include: Fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental 
forestry practices that could cause significant subsurface disturbance

[[Page 11253]]

such as disking, bedding, or whole root ball stump removal; land use 
conversion and fragmentation, primarily urban development 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 
131,440 ac (53,192 ha) on Federal, State, 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 (115,315 ac (46,666 ha)) is on Federal 
lands, with another 1,768 ac (716 ha) on State lands; and the remainder 
(14,357 ac (5,810 ha)) on private land. This unit contains 4,054 ac 
(1,641 ha) of State- and Department of Defense (DoD)-owned lands that 
are covered under the Camp Shelby INRMP, which are exempted from 
critical habitat designation (see Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the 
Act under Exemptions, below). The unit also contains a total of 14,862 
ac (6,014 ha) of USFS-owned land within the Camp Shelby Impact Area and 
its associated buffer zone, which are excluded under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act (see Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and 
Homeland Security under Exclusions, below).
    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 PBFs 
include: Fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental 
forestry practices that could cause significant subsurface disturbance 
such as disking, bedding, or whole root ball stump removal; land use 
conversion and fragmentation, primarily urban development 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 59,528 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 (8,914 ac (3,607 ha)) is on Federal lands 
within the DNF, with the remainder of the subunit (6,303 ac (2,551 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 (28,232 ac (11,425 ha)) is on Federal lands within the DNF, 
with the remainder of the subunit (16,079 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.
    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, 
the management practices outlined in this plan do not 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 PBFs 
include: Fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental 
forestry practices that could cause significant subsurface disturbance 
such as disking, bedding, or whole root ball stump removal; land use 
conversion and fragmentation, primarily urban development 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 
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 (9,430 ac (3,816 ha)) is on Federal lands 
within the DNF, with the remainder of the unit

[[Page 11254]]

on private lands (3,519 ac (1,424 ha)) lands.
    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 PBFs 
include: Fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental 
forestry practices that could cause significant subsurface disturbance 
such as disking, bedding, or whole root ball stump removal; land use 
conversion and fragmentation, primarily urban development 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 11,856 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)).
    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 PBFs 
include: Fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental 
forestry practices that could cause significant subsurface disturbance 
such as disking, bedding, or whole root ball stump removal; land use 
conversion and fragmentation, primarily urban development and 
conversion to agriculture and pine plantations; gas, water, electrical 
power, and sewer easements; road mortality; and encroachment of 
invasive species.

Unit 7: Jones Branch--Clarke County, Alabama

    Unit 7 encompasses approximately 33,395 ac (13,515 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 1.1 mi (1.8 km) north of the intersection of Old Mill Pond Road and 
Reedy Branch Road.
    There are records of five black pinesnakes located within Unit 7 
since 1994, including one as recently as 2015. 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 PBFs 
include: Fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental 
forestry practices that could cause significant subsurface disturbance 
such as disking, bedding, or whole root ball stump removal; land use 
conversion and fragmentation, primarily urban development 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 SOA--Clarke County, Alabama

    Unit 8 encompasses approximately 5,943 ac (2,405 ha) on State and 
private land in Clarke County, Alabama. This unit is located between 
Sand Hill Creek and the Tombigbee River, is approximately 1 mi (1.6 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 two-thirds of this 
unit is on the Fred T. Stimpson SOA. Over 60 percent of the unit (3,843 
ac (1,555 ha)) is on State lands, with the remainder of the unit (2,100 
ac (850 ha)) on private land.
    There are records of two black pinesnakes located within Unit 8 
since 1992. These are both located on the SOA, 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 PBFs 
include: Fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental 
forestry practices that could cause significant subsurface disturbance 
such as disking, bedding, or whole root ball stump removal; land use 
conversion and fragmentation, primarily urban development 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 listed under the Act 
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat.
    We published a final regulation with a new definition of 
destruction or adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 45020). 
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as 
a whole for the conservation of a listed 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

[[Page 11255]]

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 result in a direct or 
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical 
habitat as a whole for the conservation of the black pinesnake. As 
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of a listed 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 include, but are not limited to: Silvicultural activities 
such as disking and bedding that involve significant subsurface 
disturbance, or stumping involving whole root ball removal; 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 include, but are not limited to: 
Conversion of timber land to other uses (agricultural, urban/
residential development) and construction of new structures. 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.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now 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

[[Page 11256]]

species. We analyzed one INRMP developed by military installations 
located within the range of the 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. The following area 
consists of Department of Defense lands with a completed, Service-
approved INRMP within the critical habitat designation.

Approved INRMP

Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center (Camp Shelby), 4,054 ac (1,641 
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 (permit) from the USFS granted in 2007 for 20 years. 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 4,054 ac (1,641 ha). We have examined the INRMP and 
determined that it outlines 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 
pinesnake 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 pinesnake 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 
4,054 ac (1,641 ha) of habitat in this final critical habitat 
designation because of this exemption.

Exclusions

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    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 he determines 
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying 
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he 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 which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give 
to any factor.
    When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive due to the 
protection from destruction of adverse modification as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation or the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships. In the case of the black pinesnake, the benefits of 
critical habitat include public awareness of the presence of black 
pinesnake and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a 
Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the black 
pinesnake due to the protection from destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Additionally, continued 
implementation of an ongoing management plan that provides equal to or 
more conservation than a critical habitat designation would reduce the 
benefits of including that specific area in the critical habitat 
designation.
    We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering 
the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including 
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for 
the conservation of the essential physical or biological features; 
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation 
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will 
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in 
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a 
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the 
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in 
response to new information.
    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 of the species. If exclusion of an area from critical 
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the 
designation.
    As discussed below, based on the information provided by entities 
seeking exclusion, as well as additional public comments received, we 
determined that certain lands were appropriate for exclusion from this 
final designation pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Specifically, 
we are excluding the Camp Shelby Impact Area and the associated buffer 
zone (14,862 ac [6,014 ha]), located within Unit 3, from designation of 
critical habitat for the black pinesnake (see discussion under 
Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland Security, 
below).

[[Page 11257]]

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts

Consideration of 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. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared 
an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis, which, 
together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, constitutes 
our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat 
designation and related factors (IEc 2014). The analysis, dated May 2, 
2014, was made available for public review from March 11, 2015, through 
May 11, 2015 (80 FR 12846), and again from October 11, 2018, through 
November 13, 2018 (83 FR 51418). The DEA addressed probable economic 
impacts of critical habitat designation for the black pinesnake. 
Following the close of the comment periods, we reviewed and evaluated 
all information submitted during the comment periods that may pertain 
to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of 
this critical habitat designation. Information relevant to the probable 
incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the 
black pinesnake is summarized below and available in the final economic 
analysis (also referred to below as the screening analysis) for the 
black pinesnake (IEc 2014a), available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    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. In our evaluation of the 
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the black pinesnake in the May 2, 
2014, IEM we identified 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 does 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, 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 
federally threatened subspecies, and consultations to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be 
incorporated into that consultation process.
    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. The following specific circumstances 
assisted in 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 critical habitat designation.
    The critical habitat designation for the black pinesnake consists 
of eight units, one of which is divided into two subunits, encompassing 
approximately 324,679 ac (131,393 ha) in Mississippi and Alabama. 
Included lands are under Federal, State, 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. Federal 
lands make up from 58 to 90 percent of the acreage in these units, 
which account for approximately 68 percent of the total critical 
habitat acreage. Privately owned land is present in all eight units and 
ranges from 10 percent to a high of 100 percent in one unit. Private 
lands account for approximately 29 percent of the total critical 
habitat acreage. Approximately 14,862 ac (6,014 ha) of the originally 
proposed critical habitat designation in one unit has been excluded 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act due to a national security concern 
(see Exclusions Based on Impacts on National Security and Homeland 
Security, below).
    All lands in the 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 critical 
habitat designation. While this additional analysis will require time 
and resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, we 
conclude 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 
critical habitat is in Federal ownership (68 percent) and only 29 
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 critical habitat is occupied by the subspecies; thus, the 
presence of the subspecies results in significant baseline protection 
under the Act.

[[Page 11258]]

    (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 for the listed subspecies, as well as the past 
involvement of key action agencies in consultations for co-occurring 
species.
    (4) The designation also receives baseline protection from the 
presence of two other federally listed species (gopher tortoise and 
red-cockaded woodpecker) that have habitat needs similar to those of 
the pinesnake.
    (5) The designation also receives baseline protection from overlap 
with designated critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog.
    A supplemental document to the DEA, prepared by IEc (2014b), 
investigated possible effects on the value of private lands within 
critical habitat from the public perception that the designation posed 
restrictions on the use of these lands. Land ownership data suggested 
that the designation intersected about 65,000 acres of privately owned 
lands. Due to existing data limitations regarding the probability that 
such effects will occur and the likely degree to which property values 
will be incrementally affected by this designation (above and beyond 
possible perception effects resulting from the presence of co-occurring 
listed species, including the pinesnake, gopher tortoise, red-cockaded 
woodpecker, and dusky gopher frog, as well as its critical habitat), we 
are unable to estimate the magnitude of perception-related costs 
resulting from this designation.
    Based on the above-described consideration of the economic impacts 
of the critical habitat designation, the Secretary is not exercising 
his discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical 
habitat for the black pinesnake based on economic impacts.
    A copy of the IEM and screening analysis with supporting documents 
may be obtained by contacting the Mississippi Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the field office's website at http://www.fws.gov/mississippiES/ or the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Exclusions Based on Impacts to National Security and Homeland Security

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see discussion above) may not 
cover all DoD lands or areas that pose potential national-security 
concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is in the process of revising 
its INRMP for a newly listed species or a species previously not 
covered). If a particular area is not covered under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i), national-security or homeland-security concerns are not 
a factor in the process of determining what areas meet the definition 
of ``critical habitat.'' Nevertheless, when designating critical 
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Service must consider 
impacts on national security, including homeland security, on lands or 
areas not covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always 
consider for exclusion from the designation areas for which DoD, 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another Federal agency has 
requested exclusion based on an assertion of national-security or 
homeland-security concerns.
    We cannot, however, automatically exclude requested areas. When 
DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical 
habitat on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, 
it must provide a reasonably specific justification of an incremental 
impact on national security that would result from the designation of 
that specific area as critical habitat. That justification could 
include demonstration of probable impacts, such as impacts to ongoing 
border-security patrols and surveillance activities, or a delay in 
training or facility construction, as a result of compliance with 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting the exclusion does 
not provide us with a reasonably specific justification, we will 
contact the agency to recommend that it provide a specific 
justification or clarification of its concerns relative to the probable 
incremental impact that could result from the designation. If the 
agency provides a reasonably specific justification, we will defer to 
the expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1) 
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other 
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security 
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the 
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in 
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a 
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great 
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing 
the benefits of exclusion.
Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center Impact Area and Buffer Zone
    After review of public comments and additional consideration, we 
are excluding from critical habitat designation for the black pinesnake 
the Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center Impact Area (Impact Area) 
and its associated buffer zone, occupying a portion (14,862 ac (1,880 
ha)) of Unit 3 in Perry County, Mississippi, under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act. In the paragraphs below, we provide a detailed analysis of our 
decision to exclude this land.
    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 
uses this area under a 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 used 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. 
Surrounding the impact area is a buffer zone delineated by the 
following roads: Grapevine Road on the west; South Tank Trail on the 
south; Red Hill Road on the east; and Davis Range Road on the north. 
All roads leading into this buffer zone are gated and locked, with 
restricted public access and only allowed through coordination with 
Camp Shelby Range Control. This buffer zone (14,862 ac (6,014 ha) 
including the impact area) contains most of the artillery ranges on the 
installation; therefore, much of this landscape burns almost annually 
due to range fires. Portions of the acreage within this area overlap 
with those lands covered under the Camp Shelby INRMP (see Approved 
INRMP under the Exemptions section, above).
Benefits of Inclusion
    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 restricted for human safety and to maintain effective 
military training; therefore, the educational benefit associated with 
identifying specific areas as critical habitat as a means to provide 
the public with areas of potential conservation value is not realized 
here. Furthermore, because of the restricted access, there are likely 
no

[[Page 11259]]

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 
military use in this area, it experiences frequent fires, which promote 
optimal conditions for the black pinesnake.
Benefits of Exclusion
    The benefits of excluding approximately 14,862 ac (6,014 ha) of 
U.S. Forest Service lands that encompass the Impact Area and its 
associated buffer zone of Camp Shelby are significant. Foremost, access 
into this area is restricted due to the high risk of encountering 
unexploded ordnance and to maintain safety and security of military 
operations; thus, there is limited opportunity to implement habitat 
management. However, as stated above, the area experiences frequent 
fires due to the concentration of artillery ranges there, and this 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 
and its associated buffer zone encompass a large percentage of the area 
used for artillery training on Camp Shelby, providing soldiers with 
essential combat skills that they use on the battlefield. We believe 
that excluding these U.S. Forest Service lands on Camp Shelby from 
critical habitat designation would alleviate any potential impacts 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
    Though access to the Impact Area and its associated buffer zone is 
restricted, an analysis of GIS and aerial imagery determined that this 
area 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 
critical habitat with known occurrences for the black pinesnake. In 
making our decision to exclude the Impact Area and its associated 
buffer zone, we considered several factors: Restricted 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 the artillery ranges in the area; 
protection from habitat loss associated with land conversion; and 
potential impacts to national security associated with a critical 
habitat designation. We determined there are significant benefits to 
excluding these lands from critical habitat designation and were unable 
to demonstrate a benefit to including these lands in the designation. 
Therefore, we have determined that the benefits of exclusion of 
approximately 14,862 ac (6,014 ha) of the Impact Area and its 
associated buffer zone of Camp Shelby from the critical habitat 
designation outweigh the benefits of including these lands.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Subspecies
    The exclusion of this portion (14,862 ac (6,014 ha)) from the total 
critical habitat designation in Unit 3 (135,494 ac (54,833 ha)) will 
have minimal to no adverse effect on the subspecies. Adjacent lands 
contain habitat for the black pinesnake and are part of the 
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 provide additional assurances that the subspecies 
will not become extinct as a result of this exclusion. Thus, it is our 
determination that the exclusion of the Camp Shelby Impact Area and its 
associated buffer zone 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 has exercised his discretion to exclude the Camp Shelby 
Impact Area and its associated buffer zone within Unit 3 from the final 
critical 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 there are 
permitted conservation plans covering the species in the area such as 
HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements with 
assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements 
and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or 
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence 
of tribal conservation plans and partnerships 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 final rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no permitted conservation plans or other non-permitted 
conservation agreements or partnerships for the black pinesnake, and 
the final designation does not include any tribal lands or tribal trust 
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, 
permitted or non-permitted plans or agreements from this critical 
habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising his 
discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on 
other relevant impacts.

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.

Executive Order 13771

    This rule is not an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) 
regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 
12866.

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

[[Page 11260]]

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 out by the Agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action 
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement 
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical 
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal 
action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There 
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to 
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not 
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly 
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that the final 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    During the development of this final rule we reviewed and evaluated 
all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to 
our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our 
certification that this final critical habitat designation will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, and a 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. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this 
Executive order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a 
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory 
action under consideration.
    The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are 
relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic 
analysis, energy-related impacts associated with black pinesnake 
conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected. As 
such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

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 will 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

[[Page 11261]]

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 will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it would not produce a Federal mandate 
of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State or local governments. By definition, Federal agencies are not 
considered small entities, although the activities they fund or permit 
may be proposed or carried out by small entities. Consequently, we do 
not believe that the critical habitat designation would significantly 
or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 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. 
The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on 
private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical 
habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or 
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of 
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require 
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat 
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit 
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. 
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or 
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed and 
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the black 
pinesnake does not pose significant takings implications for lands 
within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have 
significant federalism effects. A federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of this critical habitat designation with, appropriate 
State resource agencies in Alabama and Mississippi. We did not receive 
written comments from Alabama or Mississippi specifically on the 
critical habitat designation. 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 
species are more clearly defined, and the physical and biological 
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species 
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 applicable 
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the order. We are 
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the 
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the 
species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the black pinesnake. The 
designated areas of critical habitat 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 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 determined that no tribal lands are 
affected by the designation.

[[Page 11262]]

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited is available on the 
internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the black 
pinesnake (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rulemaking 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.

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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


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


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name       Where listed        Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
            Reptiles
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Pinesnake, black................  Pituophis            Wherever found....            T   80 FR 60468, 10/6/2015;
                                   melanoleucus                                           50 CFR 17.42(h) \4d\;
                                   lodingi.                                               50 CFR 17.95(c).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
 3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (c) by adding an entry for ``Black 
Pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi)'' after the entry for ``St. 
Croix Ground Lizard (Ameiva polops)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95   Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

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 in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of black pinesnake consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Tract size and habitat structure. A pine forest, historically 
dominated by longleaf pine and maintained by frequent fire, primarily 
having the following characteristics:
    (A) An open canopy that sustains a reduced woody mid-story (<10 
percent cover) and abundant, diverse, native herbaceous groundcover (at 
least 40 percent cover); and
    (B) Minimum of 5,000 ac (2,023 ha) of mostly unfragmented habitat.
    (ii) Refugia sites. Naturally burned-out or rotted-out pine stumps 
and their associated root system tunnels, in pine forests historically 
dominated by longleaf pine.
    (iii) Soils. Deep, sandy, well-drained soils characteristic of 
longleaf pine forests:
    (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.
    (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 
March 27, 2020. In addition, State and Department of Defense lands 
covered under the Camp Shelby Integrated Natural Resources Management 
Plan (INRMP) are not considered critical habitat in Unit 3; nor are 
U.S. Forest Service lands within the Camp Shelby Impact Area Buffer 
Zone.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
developed from USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units were 
then developed using Universal Transverse Mercator 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.
    (5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 11263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26FE20.000

    (6) Unit 1: Ovett--Jones and Wayne Counties, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 1 encompasses approximately 47,179 ac (19,093 ha) on 
Federal and private land in Jones and Wayne Counties, Mississippi. The 
majority of this unit (40,639 ac (16,446 ha)) is on Federal lands 
within the De Soto National Forest, with the remainder of the unit 
(6,540 ac (2,647 ha)) on private land. 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

[[Page 11264]]

the intersection of Freedom Road and Forest Road.
    (ii) Map of Units 1 (Ovett) and 2 (Piney Woods Creek) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26FE20.001
    
    (7) Unit 2: Piney Woods Creek--Perry and Wayne Counties, 
Mississippi.
    (i) 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. The majority of this unit (17,744 ac (7,181 ha)) is on 
Federal lands within the De Soto National Forest, with the remainder of 
the Unit (4,645 ac (1,880 ha)) on private land. 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.

[[Page 11265]]

    (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. The majority of 
this unit (115,315 ac (46,666 ha)) is on Federal lands, with another 
1,768 ac (716 ha) on State lands, and the remainder (14,357 ac (5,810 
ha)) on private land. This unit contains 4,054 ac (1,641 ha) of State- 
and Department of Defense (DoD)-owned lands (covered under the Camp 
Shelby INRMP) that are exempted from critical habitat designation; and 
14,862 ac (6,014 ha) of U.S. Forest Service-owned lands excluded from 
critical habitat designation.
    (ii) Map of Units 3 (Cypress Creek) and 4 (Maxie) follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26FE20.002
    

[[Page 11266]]


    (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. Most of this subunit (8,914 ac (3,607 ha)) is on Federal lands 
within the De Soto National Forest, with the remainder of the subunit 
(6,303 ac (2,551 ha)) on private land.
    (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. Most of this subunit (28,232 ac (11,425 ha)) is on Federal 
lands within the De Soto National Forest, with the remainder of the 
subunit (16,079 ac (6,507 ha)) on private land.
    (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) Unit 5 encompasses approximately 12,949 ac (5,240 ha) on 
Federal and private land in Harrison and Stone Counties, Mississippi. 
The majority of this unit (9,430 ac (3,816 ha)) is on Federal lands 
within the De Soto National Forest, with the remainder of the unit on 
private lands (3,519 ac (1,424 ha)). 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. 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)).
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 (Howison) follows:

[[Page 11267]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26FE20.003

    (11) Unit 6: Marion County Wildlife Management Area (WMA)--Marion 
County, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 6 encompasses approximately 11,856 ac (4,798 ha) on State 
and private land in Marion County, Mississippi. The unit is divided 
between State lands (5,587 ac (2,261 ha)) and private lands (6,270 ac 
(2,537 ha)). 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.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 (Marion County WMA) follows:

[[Page 11268]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26FE20.004

    (12) Unit 7: Jones Branch--Clarke County, Alabama.
    (i) Unit 7 encompasses approximately 33,395 ac (13,515 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 1.1 mi (1.8 km) north of the intersection of 
Old Mill Pond Road and Reedy Branch Road.
    (ii) Map of Unit 7 (Jones Branch) follows:

[[Page 11269]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26FE20.005

    (13) Unit 8: Fred T. Stimpson Special Opportunity Area (SOA)--
Clarke County, Alabama.
    (i) Unit 8 encompasses approximately 5,943 ac (2,405 ha) on State 
and private land in Clarke County, Alabama. Over 60 percent of the unit 
(3,843 ac (1,555 ha)) is on State lands, with the remainder of the unit 
(2,100 ac (850 ha)) on private land. This unit is located between Sand 
Hill Creek and the Tombigbee River, is approximately 1 mi (1.6 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 two-thirds of this 
unit is on the Fred T. Stimpson SOA.
    (ii) Map of Unit 8 (Fred T. Stimpson SOA) follows:

[[Page 11270]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26FE20.006

* * * * *

    Dated: January 28, 2020.
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-02281 Filed 2-25-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-C