[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60580-60612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21333]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0166; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BE91


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis 
ruthveni) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
In total, approximately 209,520 acres (84,790 hectares) in Bienville, 
Grant, Rapides, and Vernon parishes, Louisiana, and in Newton, 
Angelina, and Jasper Counties, Texas, fall within the boundaries of the 
proposed critical habitat designation. We also announce the 
availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation 
of critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
December 5, 2022. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: 
    Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the following 
methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2021-0166, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2021-0166, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: The coordinates or plot 
points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the 
decision file for this proposed critical habitat designation and are 
available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0166 and on the Service's website, at https://www.fws.gov/office/louisiana-ecological-services/library. Additional supporting 
information that we developed for this proposed critical habitat 
designation will be available on the Service's website, at https://www.regulations.gov, or both.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brigette Firmin, Deputy Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological 
Services Field Office, 200 Dulles Drive, Lafayette, LA 70506; telephone 
337-291-3100. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, 
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, 
any species that is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species requires critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum 
extent prudent and determinable. Designation and revisions of critical 
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule through the 
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process.
    What this document does. We propose to designate critical habitat 
for the Louisiana pinesnake, which is listed as a threatened species.
    The basis for our action. Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat 
concurrent with listing, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as 
(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or 
biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the

[[Page 60581]]

species and (II) which may require special management considerations or 
protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination 
by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must 
make the designation on the basis of the best scientific data available 
and after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on 
national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat.
    Draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical 
habitat. In order to consider the economic impacts of designating 
critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake, we compiled information 
pertaining to the potential incremental economic impacts for this 
proposed critical habitat designation. The information we used in 
determining the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat is 
summarized in this proposed rule (see Consideration of Economic 
Impacts, below) and is available at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0166 and at the Louisiana Field Office at 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We are soliciting public 
comments on the economic information provided and any other potential 
economic impact of the proposed designation. We will continue to 
reevaluate the potential economic impacts between this proposal and our 
final designation.
    Peer review. We are seeking comments from independent specialists 
to ensure that our proposal is based on scientifically sound data and 
analyses. We have invited four peer reviewers to comment on our 
specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposed rule.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the 
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may 
be not prudent:
    (a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species; or
    (b) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to 
the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Services may consider include but are not 
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''
    (2) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of Louisiana pinesnake habitat;
    (b) What areas occurring within the range of the species, in 
Louisiana and Texas, should be included in the designation because they 
(i) were occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species and that may require special management considerations, or (ii) 
were unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the 
conservation of the species; and
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change.
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (4) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding 
specific areas.
    (5) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable 
estimate of the likely economic impacts and any additional information 
regarding probable economic impacts that we should consider.
    (6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in particular for those lands managed under 
a Service-approved plan (e.g., safe harbor agreement, candidate 
conservation agreement, or other land management plan). If you think we 
should exclude any additional areas, please provide information 
supporting a benefit of exclusion.
    (7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. If you 
request exclusion of a particular area or areas from the final 
designation, please provide credible information regarding the 
existence of a meaningful economic or other relevant impact supporting 
the benefit of exclusion of that particular area.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific information available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final critical habitat designation may 
differ from this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and 
any comments on that new information), our final designation may not 
include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat, and may exclude some areas if we 
find the benefits of

[[Page 60582]]

exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in-person or virtually (via 
webinar). We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is 
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 6, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 
69454) a proposed rule to list the Louisiana pinesnake as a threatened 
species under the Act. In that proposed rule, we determined that 
critical habitat was prudent but not determinable because we lacked 
specific information on the impacts of our designation. On April 6, 
2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 14958) our final rule 
to list the Louisiana pinesnake as a threatened species under the Act. 
In that final rule, we stated that we were in the process of obtaining 
information on the impacts of critical habitat designation for the 
species.
    On April 6, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 
14836) a proposed rule to adopt a species-specific rule under section 
4(d) of the Act (a ``4(d) rule'') to provide for the conservation of 
the Louisiana pinesnake. On February 27, 2020, we published in the 
Federal Register (85 FR 11297) the final 4(d) rule for the species.
    All other previous Federal actions are described in the October 6, 
2016, proposed rule (81 FR 69454).

Supporting Documents

    A Service biologist prepared an SSA report for the Louisiana 
pinesnake in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report 
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data 
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts 
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) 
affecting the species. In accordance with our joint policy on peer 
review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 
and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of 
peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert 
opinions of 8 appropriate specialists regarding the SSA. We received 4 
responses.

Background

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for threatened and 
endangered species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued final rules that revised the regulations in 
50 CFR parts 17 and 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
threatened and endangered species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020 and 84 FR 44752; August 
27, 2019).
    However, on July 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of California vacated the 2019 regulations (Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. 
Cal. July 5, 2022) (CBD v. Haaland)), reinstating the regulations that 
were in effect before the effective date of the 2019 regulations as the 
law governing species classification and critical habitat decisions. 
Accordingly, in developing the analysis contained in this proposal, we 
applied the pre-2019 regulations, which may be reviewed in the 2018 
edition of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 and 
424.12(a)(1) and (b)(2)). Because of the ongoing litigation regarding 
the court's vacatur of the 2019 regulations, and the resulting 
uncertainty surrounding the legal status of the regulations, we also 
undertook an analysis of whether the proposal would be different if we 
were to apply the 2019 regulations. That analysis, which we described 
in a separate memo in the decisional file and posted on https://www.regulations.gov, concluded that we would have reached the same 
proposal if we had applied the 2019 regulations because under either 
regulatory scheme we find that critical habitat is prudent for the 
Louisiana pinesnake and that unoccupied critical habitat is essential 
for the conservation of the species. With a low number of extant 
populations and threats of habitat loss from land use change, lack of 
prescribed fire, and synergistic effects from mortality due to vehicle 
strikes and predators acting on vulnerable, reduced populations, areas 
of unoccupied habitat were determined essential for the conservation of 
the species. It is reasonably certain that the unoccupied unit will 
contribute to the conservation of the species by providing additional 
areas for Louisiana pinesnake recovery actions, including population 
establishment, and the unoccupied unit contains one or more of the 
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species and it has the abiotic and biotic features that 
currently or periodically contain the resources and conditions 
necessary to support one or more life processes of the Louisiana 
pinesnake.
    On September 21, 2022, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit stayed the district court's July 5, 2022, order vacating 
the 2019 regulations until a pending motion for reconsideration before 
the district court is resolved (In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-
70194). The effect of the stay is that the 2019 regulations are 
currently the governing law. Because a court order requires us to 
submit this proposal to the Federal Register by September 30, 2022, it 
is not feasible for us to revise the proposal in response to the Ninth 
Circuit's decision. Instead, we hereby adopt the analysis in the 
separate memo that applied the 2019 regulations as our primary 
justification for the proposal. However, due to the continued 
uncertainty resulting from the ongoing litigation, we also retain the 
analysis in this preamble that applies the pre-2019 regulations and we 
conclude that, for the reasons stated in our separate memo analyzing 
the 2019 regulations, this proposal would have been the same if we had 
applied the 2019 regulations.
    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

[[Page 60583]]

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 also 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).
    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.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include species status assessments 
for the species; 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) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act. 
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 the 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 those planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the 
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that a designation 
of critical habitat is not prudent when any of the following situations 
exist:
    (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of such threat to the species; or
    (ii) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial 
to the species. In determining whether a designation would not be 
beneficial, the factors the Services may consider include but are not 
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a 
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of 
``critical habitat.''
    In the final listing rule (83 FR 14958; April 6, 2018), no imminent 
threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism under Factor B was 
identified for the Louisiana pinesnake, and identification and mapping 
of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. 
Additionally, in the

[[Page 60584]]

final listing rule, we determined that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a 
threat to this species, primarily due to silviculture practices 
incompatible with providing open pine conditions over time, fire 
suppression, road and right-of-way construction, and urbanization. 
Therefore, because none of the circumstances enumerated in our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) have been met, we have determined 
that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Louisiana 
pinesnake.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the 
Louisiana pinesnake is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one 
or both of the following situations exist:
    (i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking; or
    (ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical 
habitat.''
    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the 
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    When we published the proposed listing rule (81 FR 69454; October 
6, 2016) and final listing rule (83 FR 14958; April 6, 2018) for the 
Louisiana pinesnake, specific information needed to perform the 
required analysis of the impacts of designation was lacking, such as 
information on areas to be proposed for designation and the potential 
economic impacts associated with designation of these areas, leading us 
to find that critical habitat was not determinable. We continued to 
review the available information related to the draft economic 
analysis, as well as newly acquired biological information necessary to 
perform this assessment. This and other information represent the best 
scientific data available, and we now find the data are sufficient for 
us to analyze the impacts of critical habitat designation. Accordingly, 
we conclude that the designation of critical habitat is determinable 
for the Louisiana pinesnake.

Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the 
Species

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as 
critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species 
at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological features 
that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may 
require special management considerations or protection. The 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features'' 
as the features that support the life-history needs of the species, 
including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type, 
geological features, sites, 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. For example, physical features essential 
to the conservation of the species might include gravel of a particular 
size required for spawning, alkaline 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 absence 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 essential to support the life history of the species.
    In considering whether features are essential to the conservation 
of the species, we 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.
    Details on habitat characteristics for the Louisiana pinesnake can 
be found in the proposed listing rule (81 FR 69454; October 6, 2016) 
and final listing rule (83 FR 14958; April 6, 2018). We summarize below 
the more important habitat characteristics, particularly those that 
support the description of physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake.

Habitat Representative of the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological 
Distributions of the Species

    The Louisiana pinesnake occurs in a disjunct portion of the 
historical southeastern U.S. longleaf-dominated pine ecosystem in west-
central Louisiana and east Texas (Conant 1956, p. 19; Reichling 1995, 
p. 186). Much of the natural longleaf pine habitat has been lost or 
degraded through historical conversion to intensive pine plantation and 
suppression of the naturally occurring fire regime. As a result, 
Louisiana pinesnake habitat now occurs in smaller, isolated patches of 
open-canopy forests dominated by longleaf pine or other pine species. 
These habitats include species such as longleaf, shortleaf, slash, or 
loblolly pines with a sparse midstory, and well-developed herbaceous 
groundcover dominated by grasses and forbs (Young and Vandeventer 1988, 
p. 204; Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). Louisiana pinesnakes are 
found in pine habitats characterized by relatively few (<10) large 
trees (greater than 10 inches (in) (25 centimeters (cm)) diameter at 
breast height) and abundant light penetration (Himes et al. 2006, pp. 
108-110, 113).

Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior

    A broad distribution of home range sizes for the Louisiana 
pinesnake has been estimated from telemetry studies. Louisiana 
pinesnakes are semi-fossorial and diurnal, and move relatively small 
distances (495-3,802 feet (ft) (150-1,159 meters (m)) (Himes 1998, p. 
18; Ealy et al. 2004, pp. 390-391). The maximum distance across a home 
range for an individual Louisiana pinesnake is 2.1 kilometers (km) (1.3 
miles (mi)) (Sperry 2018, unpub. data). The species has a relatively 
small average home range size, although there is extensive variation 
among individuals in behavior and habitat (Sperry et al. 2021, p. 273). 
Using a method to determine the species' home range boundaries by 
connecting the outer location points, adult Louisiana pinesnake home 
range estimates range from 16 acres (ac) (6.5 hectares (ha)) to 412.2 
ac (166.8 ha) (Himes 1998, p. 18; Himes et al. 2006, p. 108; Sperry et 
al. 2021, pp. 273, 288), with an average home range of 124 ac (50 ha). 
Adult Louisiana pinesnake males typically have larger home ranges than 
adult females, and adult snakes have larger home ranges than juveniles 
(Himes et al. 2006, pp. 18, 107). In addition, individual Louisiana

[[Page 60585]]

pinesnake home ranges may partially or nearly completely overlap with 
other individuals' home ranges, irrespective of sex (Sperry et al. 
2021, p. 275).
    The minimum amount of habitat necessary to support a sustainable 
Louisiana pinesnake population has not been determined. However, a 
related species, the Florida pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus 
mugitus), requires a minimum of approximately 7,413 ac (3,000 ha) of 
suitable habitat as determined by calculating the area of non-
overlapping home ranges of 50 Florida pinesnakes (Miller 2008, pp. 27-
28). To calculate a potential minimum area required for a Louisiana 
pinesnake population using a similar methodology, we considered several 
factors including minimum effective population size and average home 
range size. A population of 50 individuals has been proposed as a 
minimum effective population size for many vertebrate species, and we 
use this value in our calculations of potential minimum area 
requirement (Franklin 1980, p. 147). A ratio of 0.58 of the effective 
population size to population size (Ne/N) represented the greatest 
effective population size for a given population size that included the 
most comprehensive suite of pertinent data and was similar to other 
animals with low fecundity (Frankham 1997, p. 99). To develop a 
potential minimum area required by the Louisiana pinesnake, we 
estimated an actual population size by applying this ratio to the 50 Ne 
value from Franklin (1980), which yielded an estimated actual 
population size of 86 individuals for the Louisiana pinesnake. Using 
the calculated actual population size, we adjusted the population areal 
minimum analysis from Miller (2008) to use species-appropriate 
partially overlapping polygons (instead of non-overlapping) of 124 ac 
(50 ha) as the mean home range for Louisiana pinesnake. This modeling 
exercise used varying degrees of overlap among the polygons and yielded 
total estimates between 5,312 to 10,625 ac (2,150 to 4,300 ha). When 
each home range partially overlapped four neighboring home ranges, we 
determined approximately 7,166 ac (2,900 ha) was the minimum area 
needed for a Louisiana pinesnake population. This estimate assumes that 
the area is composed of mostly unfragmented, suitable habitat; more 
area may be necessary to meet the Louisiana pinesnake's life-history 
needs if the habitat is in less suitable condition.
    This calculated minimum required habitat area estimate is analogous 
to the area needed by the threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon 
couperi), a large-bodied, wide-ranging snake that is also a longleaf 
pine ecosystem specialist. Although the eastern indigo snake's average 
home range sizes are larger than that of the Louisiana pinesnake, 
sizeable areas are needed to support large, wide-ranging snake species 
sensitive to landscape fragmentation. For example, tracts of 2,500 to 
10,000 ac (1,012 to 4,047 ha) of suitable habitat should be maintained 
in order to have a high probability of sustaining eastern indigo snake 
populations of varying sizes long-term (Moler 1992, p. 185; Sytsma et 
al. 2012, pp. 39-40). Thus, based on the best available information 
regarding long-distance movement and home range size for the Louisiana 
pinesnake, we determined that 7,166 ac (2,900 ha) of open-canopy pine 
forest habitat is an appropriate estimate of the minimum area to meet 
the life-history requirements of a Louisiana pinesnake population.
    Unlike some snake species whose wintering areas may be located some 
distance from areas used during the rest of the year or may differ 
substantially in habitat type, the Louisiana pinesnake remains within 
its home range and does not migrate or require seasonally unique 
habitat (Rudolph et al. 2007, p. 561; Pierce et al. 2014, p. 140). 
During the winter, Louisiana pinesnakes primarily use Baird's pocket 
gopher (Geomys breviceps) underground burrows as hibernacula (Rudolph 
et al. 2007, p. 561; Pierce et al. 2014, p. 140). Louisiana pinesnake 
activity varies seasonally, with most activity March to May and 
September to November (with activity peaking in November), and least 
activity December to February and during the summer (particularly 
August) (Himes 1998, p. 12).
    Most of the information known about the life-history requirements 
of the Louisiana pinesnake comes from studies and observations of adult 
individuals. Life-history requirements specific to hatchlings and 
juveniles (generally less than 47 in (120 cm) total length) are largely 
unknown, and we assume requirements are relatively similar to those of 
adults. Accordingly, habitat characteristics that support adult 
Louisiana pinesnakes also support hatchling and juvenile snakes. 
Therefore, no specific physical or biological features unique to 
hatchlings or juveniles have been identified.

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

Food--Prey and Vegetation
    Louisiana pinesnakes rely on Baird's pocket gopher as a primary 
prey item and also use gopher burrows as refugia and hibernacula. The 
Louisiana pinesnake and Baird's pocket gopher are strongly associated 
and occur together in upland pine habitats with herbaceous vegetation, 
areas with nonexistent or sparse midstory, and a low pine basal area 
(Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Ealy et al. 2004, p. 389; Himes et 
al. 2006, pp. 110, 112; Wagner et al. 2017, p. 22). Habitat selection 
by the Louisiana pinesnake is determined, in part, by the abundance and 
distribution of pocket gophers and their burrow systems (Rudolph and 
Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). The Baird's pocket gopher requires well-
drained, sandy soils with low clay content in the topsoil for burrow 
construction and a diverse herbaceous (non-woody) plant community with 
adequate forbs (non-grass herbaceous vegetation) that provide forage 
(Davis et al. 1938, p. 414).
    The Baird's pocket gopher comprises an estimated 53 percent of 
individual prey items and 75 percent of total prey biomass for 
Louisiana pinesnakes (Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 58; Rudolph et al. 2012, 
p. 243). The Louisiana pinesnake also consumes other mammals that occur 
in pine habitats, including eastern moles (Scalopus aquaticus), cotton 
rats (Sigmodon hispidus), deer mice (Peromyscus sp.), and harvest mice 
(Reithrodontomys sp.) (Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 59; Rudolph et al. 2012, 
p. 244). These smaller animals may also be the preferred prey items for 
juvenile Louisiana pinesnakes; however, Louisiana pinesnakes have the 
largest hatchling size in the genus, giving young snakes an advantage 
in ingesting larger prey like pocket gophers at a younger age compared 
to other co-occurring snake species.
    As well as serving as prey items, Baird's pocket gophers also 
create the burrow systems in which Louisiana pinesnakes are most 
frequently found (Rudolph and Conner 1996, p. 2; Rudolph and Burgdorf 
1997, p. 117; Himes 1998, p. 42; Rudolph et al. 1998, p. 146; Rudolph 
et al. 2002, p. 62; Himes et al. 2006, p. 107). Louisiana pinesnakes 
use pocket gopher burrow systems as nocturnal and diurnal refugia and 
winter hibernacula, and to escape from predators and fire (Rudolph and 
Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Rudolph et al. 1998, p. 147; Ealy et al. 2004, 
p. 386; Rudolph et al. 2007 p. 561; Pierce et al. 2014, p. 140). Active 
Louisiana

[[Page 60586]]

pinesnakes occasionally use debris, logs, and low vegetation as 
temporary surface shelters, and decayed or burned stumps, or nine-
banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) burrows, as underground refugia 
(Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Himes 1998, p. 26; Ealy et al. 
2004, pp. 386, 389).
    In summary, the Louisiana pinesnake relies on Baird's pocket 
gophers as a primary prey item and uses pocket gopher burrows as 
refugia and hibernacula. Therefore, based on the information in the 
previous paragraphs, we identify adequate Baird's pocket gopher 
populations as a necessary biological feature for the species.
Soil Characteristics
    Louisiana pinesnakes occur most often in sandy soils within open-
canopy pine forest habitat (Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152). In addition to 
suitable forest structure and herbaceous vegetation, specific soil 
characteristics are an important determinant of Louisiana pinesnake 
occurrence (Wagner et al. 2014, entire). These well-drained soil types 
are characterized by a high sand content and a low water table (Duran 
2010, p. 11; Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152). Louisiana pinesnakes are 
efficient burrowers, as indicated by the species' pointed snout and 
large rostral scale on the tip of the nose (Conant and Collins 1991, 
pp. 201-202). In addition, Louisiana pinesnakes can excavate their own 
burrows, although they are closely associated with pocket gopher burrow 
systems. The Louisiana pinesnake's preferred prey, pocket gophers, also 
prefer well-drained, sandy soils with low clay content in the topsoil 
(Davis et al. 1938, p. 414).

Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features

    We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to 
the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake from studies of this 
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below. 
Additional information can be found in the proposed listing rule (81 FR 
69454; October 6, 2016) and final listing rule (83 FR 14958; April 6, 
2018). We have determined that the following physical or biological 
features are essential to the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake:
    (i) Upland natural pine habitats that contain open-canopy stands of 
longleaf, shortleaf, slash, or loblolly pine trees that have:
    (A) Low midstory tree density;
    (B) Low midstory pine tree basal area;
    (C) Low scrub/shrub cover; and
    (D) Abundant, diverse, and native herbaceous vegetative 
groundcover, including a mix of grasses and forbs.
    (ii) Suitable habitat in large (7,166 ac (2,900 ha)), contiguous 
blocks.
    (iii) Soils with high sand content and a low water table.
    (iv) An adequate Baird's pocket gopher population, as evidenced by 
abundant and widely distributed active mound complexes.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species and which may require special management considerations or 
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Louisiana 
pinesnake may require special management considerations or protection 
to reduce the following threats: Loss of upland pine forest with an 
open canopy, reduced midstory, and abundant herbaceous ground cover; 
fragmentation of large areas of upland pine forest habitat; and 
subsurface disturbance that affects the Baird's pocket gopher. For a 
detailed discussion of threats, see Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species in our proposed listing rule (81 FR 69454, October 6, 2016, pp. 
81 FR 69464-69472). Additional information may be found in the final 
listing rule (83 FR 14958; April 6, 2018).
    High-quality natural upland pine forest habitat for the Louisiana 
pinesnake is generally characterized by a high, open canopy and shallow 
litter and duff layers. The forest structure is maintained by frequent, 
low-intensity fires, which, in turn, restrict a woody midstory and 
promote the flowering and seed production of fire-stimulated 
groundcover plants (Oswalt et al. 2012, pp. 2-3). The Louisiana 
pinesnake is historically associated with unfragmented natural upland 
pine forests, which were maintained by natural processes (e.g., fire) 
and include abundant herbaceous vegetation necessary to support the 
species' primary prey, the Baird's pocket gopher (Himes 1998, p. 43; 
Sulentich et al. 1991, p. 3; Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 17). One of 
the primary threats to the Louisiana pinesnake is the continuing loss 
and degradation of the open pine forest habitat that supports the 
Baird's pocket gopher, including the decline in or absence of fire on 
the landscape. Prescribed fire reduces midstory and understory 
hardwoods and promotes abundant herbaceous groundcover in the natural 
communities of the upland dominant pine ecosystem where the Louisiana 
pinesnake most often occurs. In the absence of regularly recurring, 
unsuppressed fires, open pine forest habitat requires active management 
activities to produce and maintain Louisiana pinesnake habitat. These 
activities, such as thinning, prescribed burning, reforestation and 
afforestation, midstory woody vegetation control, herbaceous vegetation 
(especially forbs) enhancement, and harvest (particularly in stands 
that require substantial improvement) are necessary to maintain or 
restore forests to the conditions that are suitable for pocket gophers 
and Louisiana pinesnakes.
    Forested areas managed with incompatible silvicultural practices 
that cause substantial subsurface disturbance and preclude continual, 
robust herbaceous vegetation growth have significant reductions in 
Baird's pocket gopher populations and may no longer support viable 
Louisiana pinesnake populations (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 470). The 
Baird's pocket gopher forages on herbaceous vegetation and does not 
occur in areas with insufficient herbaceous vegetation. For example, 
pine plantation sites, which are generally lacking in herbaceous 
vegetation, are expected to support lower densities of Baird's pocket 
gophers than stands managed for a healthy understory. In addition, 
disturbance of subsoils (particularly those deeper than 4 in (10 cm)) 
may directly impact pocket gophers and Louisiana pinesnakes within 
burrows. Special management of the upland pine forest will ensure an 
open canopy, reduced midstory, and abundant herbaceous groundcover 
required for Louisiana pinesnake viability. Practices that create or 
maintain large areas of open-canopy forest with abundant herbaceous 
groundcover necessary for the Louisiana pinesnake include frequent 
prescribed burning (1- to 3-year fire interval) with seasonal 
variability; avoidance of intensive site preparation or other 
activities that disturb or destroy herbaceous vegetation; avoidance of 
bedding practices (mounding of tilled soil prior to planting); reduced 
planting densities or regularly planned stem thinning; avoidance of 
destruction of underground structure, such as pocket gopher burrows, 
small mammal burrows, and stump holes; and protection of upland pine 
forest habitat from development and new road construction.
    The Louisiana pinesnake requires large, intact, unfragmented areas 
of high-quality, open-canopy upland pine habitat for sufficient 
viability. Within

[[Page 60587]]

the intact, unfragmented upland pine habitat, not all areas are 
expected to fully support all Louisiana pinesnake needs at all times. 
However, the landscape-level habitat heterogeneity provided by intact, 
unfragmented areas (particularly when those areas are fire-managed) 
allows the species to select habitats and microhabitats that meet 
species' life-history requirements and provide corridors for movement. 
As described above in Space for Individual and Population Growth and 
for Normal Behavior, these intact, unfragmented forested areas allow 
space for Louisiana pinesnake populations to maintain adequate home 
ranges, support species' dispersal, and allow movement to areas of 
higher-quality habitat with more resources available in periods of 
adverse conditions. In addition, large areas of intact, unfragmented 
upland pine habitats support sufficient Baird's pocket gopher 
populations spatially distributed within the habitat.
    Fragmentation of intact, unfragmented habitat by roads also causes 
disruption in Louisiana pinesnake movements to seek out feeding, 
breeding, or sheltering resources due to avoidance of these areas by 
the species (Clark et al. 2010, pp. 1059, 1067). In addition, roads 
surrounding and traversing the remaining Louisiana pinesnake habitat 
pose a direct threat to the species through vehicle strike mortality.
    Special management considerations may be required within critical 
habitat areas to address these threats. Management activities that 
could minimize or ameliorate these threats include, but are not limited 
to: (1) Application of prescribed fire and other forest management 
activities (e.g., thinning, midstory control, harvest) to promote a 
diverse, abundant herbaceous groundcover and open-canopy pine habitat; 
(2) minimization of ground and subsurface disturbance from silviculture 
practices such as bedding or disking; (3) protection of large, intact 
areas of upland pine forest habitat from development and new road 
construction; and (4) establishment of additional populations through 
captive rearing and translocation efforts. These management activities 
would protect the physical or biological features for the species by 
maintaining or restoring open-canopy pine habitat; reducing effects of 
silviculture practices on the Baird's pocket gopher; maintaining large, 
contiguous areas of open pine habitat by decreasing fragmentation; and 
improving population resiliency and species redundancy across the range 
of the Louisiana pinesnake.

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.
    To determine and select appropriate occupied areas that contain the 
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species or areas otherwise essential for the conservation of the 
Louisiana pinesnake, we developed a conservation strategy for the 
species. The goal of our conservation strategy for the Louisiana 
pinesnake is to improve the Louisiana pinesnake's viability through 
increases in resiliency, redundancy, and representation. The role of 
critical habitat in achieving this conservation goal is to identify the 
specific areas within the species' range that provide essential 
physical or biological features, without which rangewide resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation could not be achieved. The current 
distribution of the Louisiana pinesnake is reduced from its historical 
distribution, and we anticipate that recovery will require not only 
continued protection of the remaining extant populations and upland 
pine habitat but also reintroduction of populations in additional areas 
of the species' historical range to ensure there are adequate numbers 
of snakes in stable populations and that these populations occur over a 
wide geographic area. This strategy will help to ensure that 
catastrophic events, such as high-intensity wildfire or intense drought 
(which can remove or reduce suitable habitat, herbaceous vegetation, 
and prey in upland pine habitat), cannot simultaneously affect all 
known populations. In formulating the proposed critical habitat 
designation, we also took into account rangewide recovery 
considerations, such as maintaining or improving existing genetic 
diversity and striving for representation of all major portions of the 
species' current range, representation across the species' historical 
range, and the potential feasibility of augmentation and reintroduction 
efforts in suitable Louisiana pinesnake habitat. These considerations 
require an understanding of the fundamental parameters of the species' 
biology and ecology based on well-accepted conservation-biology and 
ecological principles for conserving species and their habitats 
(Carroll et al. 1996, pp. 1-12; Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 301-321; 
Tear et al. 2005, pp. 835-849; Groom et al. 2006, pp. 419-551; Redford 
et al. 2011, pp. 39-48; Wolf et al. 2015, pp. 200-207).
    We are proposing to designate critical habitat in areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing in 
2018. We also are proposing to designate one area outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species because we have determined 
that the area is essential for the conservation of the species. This 
area contains suitable upland pine habitat for the species but is not 
known to be currently occupied by the species. With only seven known 
occupied areas, we have determined that this unoccupied area is 
essential for the conservation of the species. Establishment of new 
populations in unoccupied areas is necessary to ensure that there are 
adequate numbers of snakes in multiple populations over a wide 
geographic area, so that catastrophic events, such as high-severity 
wildfire or intense drought, would be less likely to simultaneously 
affect all known populations.
    All occupied units proposed for critical habitat designation were 
occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied by the 
Louisiana pinesnake, contain some or all of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species (including large, 
contiguous blocks of upland natural pine habitat; suitable soils; and 
Baird's pocket gopher populations). The unoccupied unit proposed for 
critical habitat designation was historically occupied by the Louisiana 
pinesnake, but was not occupied at the time of listing. We have 
determined it is essential for the conservation of the Louisiana 
pinesnake because it will provide additional areas for Louisiana 
pinesnake recovery actions, including population establishment. The 
unoccupied unit also contains one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to the conservation of the species as 
described above.
    Guided by our conservation strategy goals, we determined which 
occupied and unoccupied areas to include as proposed critical habitat 
for the Louisiana pinesnake by focusing on the occupied habitat areas 
identified in our previous Federal actions for the species (proposed 
listing rule (81 FR 69454;

[[Page 60588]]

October 6, 2016), final listing rule (83 FR 14958; April 6, 2018), 
proposed 4(d) rule (83 FR 14836; April 6, 2018), and final 4(d) rule 
(85 FR 11297; February 27, 2020)); areas that are presently 
contributing to the viability of the species but in which resiliency 
can be improved; and other, unoccupied areas within the historical 
range of the species where reintroductions of Louisiana pinesnake will 
improve species' redundancy, which is essential for the conservation of 
the species.
    We have determined that all areas known to be occupied at the time 
of listing and of sufficient areal extent should be proposed for 
critical habitat designation. However, recognizing that occupied 
habitat alone is not adequate for the conservation of the Louisiana 
pinesnake, we also used habitat and historical occurrence data to 
identify the historical range of the species and necessary habitat 
features to help us determine which unoccupied habitat areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. To determine the general 
extent, location, and boundaries of critical habitat, we used Esri 
ArcGIS mapping software for mapping and calculating areas along with 
spatial data layers including: (1) Historical and current records of 
Louisiana pinesnake occurrences, distribution, and habitat requirements 
found in publications, agency reports, and personal communications; (2) 
geographic information system (GIS) data showing the estimated occupied 
habitat areas (EOHAs) and land ownership boundaries; (3) GIS data 
showing the location and extent of relatively unfragmented, 
continuously (1985 to 2015) forested areas (Hibbitts et al. 2016, 
entire); and (4) GIS data depicting soils and vegetation type to 
determine the presence of physical or biological features (U.S. 
Department of Agriculture 2020, unpaginated).

Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing

    For the purposes of the proposed critical habitat designation, and 
for areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the 
time of listing, we determined a unit to be occupied at the time of 
listing based on occurrence records used to articulate the EOHAs (i.e., 
observations or collections between 1993 and 2018) and subsequent 
surveys conducted prior to listing. Based on the best available 
scientific data, we determined that all currently known occupied 
habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake was also occupied by the species at 
the time of listing, and that these areas contain the physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species which 
may require special management considerations or protection.
    To delineate proposed critical habitat units, we first determined 
the area occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake at the time of listing 
(the April 6, 2018, final rule to list the species (83 FR 14958) had an 
effective date of May 7, 2018). We began by examining the species' 
occurrence records used to delineate the EOHAs referenced in both the 
listing and 4(d) rules. The EOHAs consist of a minimum convex polygon 
(polygon) drawn around a cluster of post-1993 (after extensive trapping 
and monitoring began) occurrence records meeting inclusion criteria 
(with a 1-km buffer around the polygon to account for home range 
activity around the occurrence record locations of the snakes in the 
cluster). The Service originally identified EOHAs in 2008, in an effort 
to focus conservation actions in areas where the Louisiana pinesnake is 
most likely to occur. The boundaries of EOHAs do not encompass all 
areas potentially occupied by the species. Most EOHA occurrence records 
are trap captures. Therefore, the information provided on Louisiana 
pinesnake's distribution and abundance is limited by the extent of 
trapping efforts, primarily the numbers of traps and targeted trapping 
in locations designed to improve catch rates. As a result, the areal 
extent of the EOHAs alone also cannot be used to estimate the species' 
occupied range. We note that not all areas within the EOHAs comprise 
suitable habitat, but not all suitable habitat is likely to be 
occupied. Additionally, because the EOHAs are based solely on 
occurrence records and not on habitat conditions such as soil type or 
vegetation structure, we used additional data specific to the Louisiana 
pinesnake's habitat associations to incorporate the habitat used by the 
species and refine EOHAs. These modeled areas are considered occupied 
by the species based on the continuous nature of the habitat and are 
within the dispersal distance and home ranges of the species.
    For areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the 
time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries using 
the following criteria:
    (1) We compiled all available current and historical occurrence 
data records meeting the inclusion criteria of the EOHAs as described 
in the proposed listing rule (81 FR 69454; October 6, 2016). The EOHAs 
were delineated by the Service and partners in 2016. We relied on 
Louisiana pinesnake verified occurrence records obtained between 1993 
and 2015 when delineating EOHAs ahead of the proposed listing rule. We 
excluded all records prior to 1993 (before extensive trapping began) 
and records older than 11 years (from the time of 2015 analysis; 11 
years is the estimated Louisiana pinesnake generational turnover period 
(Marti 2014, pers. comm.)), when traps within 0.6 mi (1 km) of those 
records had been unproductive for 5 years of trap effort following the 
date of the records. In addition to the EOHAs, we also considered 
occurrence records obtained after the EOHA delineation (2016-2018).
    (2) We evaluated habitat suitability of terrestrial areas 
contiguous with identified EOHAs that contain well-drained sandy soils 
with low clay content in the topsoil and a low water table and coarse 
scale suitable vegetation type (forest, shrub, and herbaceous) (Davis 
et al. 1938, p. 414; Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152; Ealy et al. 2004, p. 
389).
    (3) We selected areas of relatively unfragmented, continuously 
forested (assumed highest quality) habitat greater than 2,000 ha (4,942 
ac) as identified by the Texas A&M University Natural Resources 
Institute and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) habitat suitability model 
(Hibbitts et al. 2016, entire; Ryberg et al. 2016, entire). We based 
this criteria on the species' need for large, unfragmented areas of 
upland pine habitat of at least 2,900 ha (7,166 ac) as described in 
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior. To 
allow for uncertainty in the model and variability of habitat 
conditions, we selected an area smaller than the species' requirement 
as a refining criteria for critical habitat unit delineation.
    Using the approaches described above, we delineated a total of 
seven areas considered to be occupied at the time of listing for the 
Louisiana pinesnake. These areas have well-documented, recent 
occurrence information. Two of these areas consist primarily of lands 
within the Joint Readiness Training Center at Peason Ridge and Fort 
Polk. The entire Joint Readiness Training Center at Peason Ridge and a 
portion of Fort Polk are covered by an approved integrated natural 
resources management plan (INRMP) that provides benefits to the 
Louisiana pinesnake and its habitat and thus are exempted from the 
proposed designation under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see 
Exemptions, below). Of the seven delineated occupied areas, the Peason 
Ridge unit is exempted from critical habitat designation. We are 
proposing to designate as critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake 
the five

[[Page 60589]]

remaining units occupied at the time of listing; they are described 
below (see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation, below).

Areas Unoccupied at the Time of Listing

    We evaluated unoccupied areas within the species' range with 
historical occurrences and identified areas essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    For areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at 
the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit boundaries 
using the criteria described above to delineate occupied critical 
habitat with the additional following criteria:
    We evaluated unoccupied areas of the Louisiana pinesnake's range 
with historical occurrences or occurrences not meeting the EOHA 
criteria, appropriate soil types and coarse scale suitable vegetation 
type, and areas of relatively unfragmented, continuously forested 
habitat as described above in the evaluation of occupied areas. The 
proposed unoccupied unit is almost entirely on USFS lands in the 
Evangeline Ranger District of the Kisatchie National Forest, with a 
small number of inholdings in private ownership. The USFS has managed 
habitat in the Kisatchie National Forest in a way that is compatible 
with Louisiana pinesnake's life-history requirements, has been engaged 
in reintroduction efforts with this species since 2010, and is expected 
to remain an engaged partner in species recovery. The unoccupied unit 
constitutes habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake based on the 
appropriate soil type, habitat condition, and management actions within 
the unit. Further, the following physical or biological features occur 
within the unoccupied unit: (1) Upland natural pine habitats that 
contain open-canopy stands of longleaf, shortleaf, slash, or loblolly 
pine trees that have low midstory tree density, low midstory pine tree 
basal area, low scrub/shrub cover; and an abundant, diverse, and native 
herbaceous vegetative groundcover, including a mix of grasses and 
forbs; (2) suitable habitat in large (7,166 ac (2,900 ha)), contiguous 
blocks; (3) soils with high sand content and a low water table. 
Although we do not have specific information on Baird's pocket gopher 
populations, the habitat conditions are expected to support the gopher. 
Therefore, we have reasonable certainty that this unit is essential for 
the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered 
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack 
the physical or biological features necessary for the Louisiana 
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. Any such lands inadvertently left 
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed 
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not 
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the 
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving 
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in 
the adjacent critical habitat.
    We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have 
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently 
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological 
features that are essential to support the life-history processes of 
the species. We have also identified, and propose for designation as 
critical habitat, unoccupied areas that are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Units are proposed for designation based on one or more of the 
physical or biological features being present to support the Louisiana 
pinesnake's life-history processes. Some units contain all of the 
identified physical or biological features and support multiple life-
history processes. Some units contain only some of the physical or 
biological features necessary to support the Louisiana pinesnake's 
particular use of that habitat. However, all units are of sufficient 
size to sustain a Louisiana pinesnake population.
    The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or 
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the 
end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include 
more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat 
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the 
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available 
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0166 and on our internet site, https://www.fws.gov/office/louisiana-ecological-services/library.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing six units as critical habitat for the Louisiana 
pinesnake. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our 
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake. The six units we propose as 
critical habitat are: (1) Bienville, (2) Catahoula, (3) Evangeline, (4) 
Fort Polk/Vernon, (5) Scrappin' Valley, and (6) Angelina. Table 1 shows 
the proposed critical habitat units and the approximate area of each 
unit.

                                          Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Louisiana Pinesnake
                                       [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Ownership (acres (hectares))
             Unit number and name              ---------------------------------------------------   Total area (acres              Occupied?
                                                     Federal          State          Private            (hectares))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bienville..................................              0 (0)    333 (135)    60,750 (24,585)       61,083 (24,720)  Yes.
2. Catahoula..................................     24,436 (9,889)        0 (0)        1,967 (796)       26,403 (10,685)  Yes.
3. Evangeline.................................    54,507 (22,058)        0 (0)      2,716 (1,099)       57,223 (23,157)  No.
4. Fort Polk/Vernon...........................    42,897 (17,360)        0 (0)          892 (361)       43,789 (17,721)  Yes.
5. Scrappin' Valley...........................              0 (0)        0 (0)      5,058 (2,047)         5,058 (2,047)  Yes.
6. Angelina...................................     14,424 (5,837)        0 (0)        1,542 (624)        15,966 (6,461)  Yes.
                                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................   136,264 (55,144)    333 (135)    72,925 (29,512)      209,520 (84,790)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.


[[Page 60590]]

    More than half of the proposed critical habitat for the Louisiana 
pinesnake (129,902 ac (52,569 ha), or 62 percent) falls on USFS lands 
managed as habitat management units (HMU) to benefit the Louisiana 
pinesnake. The USFS land and resource management plans and the 2013 
Programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances with the 
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF CCAA) provide 
guidelines on habitat management to benefit Louisiana pinesnake (and 
red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis) through management of 
upland pine habitat, including the use of tree thinning, chemical and 
mechanical hardwood and shrub removal, prescribed fire, and other 
actions to maintain and restore upland pine habitat (USFS 1996, pp. 
107-134; USFS 1999, pp. 2-61 to 2-73; CCA 2003, entire).
    We present brief descriptions of all proposed units, and reasons 
why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Louisiana 
pinesnake, below.

Unit 1: Bienville

    Unit 1 consists of 61,083 ac (24,720 ha) in central Bienville 
Parish, Louisiana, west of Highway 155 and east of Highway 507, 
approximately 40 mi (64 km) southeast of Shreveport, Louisiana. In Unit 
1, approximately 60,750 ac (24,585 ha) are located on private lands. 
Lands in State ownership in this unit include the 333-ac (135-ha) Big 
Cypress State Park (Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and 
Tourism). Approximately 5,388 ac (2,180 ha) in this proposed unit are 
currently enrolled in the Service-approved and permitted LDWF CCAA, 
which includes conservation measures that provide a net benefit to the 
Louisiana pinesnake. This unit was occupied at the time of listing and 
is currently occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake. Unit 1 contains all 
of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Louisiana pinesnake.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species in Unit 1 may require special management considerations 
or protection due to the following: Loss of upland pine forest with an 
open canopy, reduced midstory, and abundant herbaceous ground cover; 
fragmentation of large areas of upland pine forest habitat; and 
subsurface disturbance that affects the Baird's pocket gopher, as 
described above in Special Management Considerations or Protection. 
Management activities in upland pine forest habitat that could minimize 
or ameliorate these threats in Unit 1 include, but are not limited to: 
(1) Application of prescribed fire and other forest management 
activities (e.g., thinning, midstory control, harvest) to promote a 
diverse, abundant herbaceous groundcover and open-canopy pine habitat; 
(2) implementation of silviculture best management practices that 
minimize subsurface disturbance; and (3) minimization of new road 
construction and closure of unused roads, particularly following timber 
harvest.
    As noted above, approximately 5,388 ac (2,180 ha) in Unit 1 are 
lands in private ownership enrolled in the Service-approved and 
permitted LDWF CCAA (2013). All or some of these lands may be excluded 
from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act (see Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts under 
Consideration of Impacts under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act later in this 
proposed rule). Following publication of this proposed critical habitat 
rule, some lands in private ownership in Unit 1 may be enrolled in the 
Louisiana Pinesnake Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement, currently under 
development. All or some of these lands may be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts under Consideration of Impacts 
under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act later in this proposed rule).

Unit 2: Catahoula

    Unit 2 consists of 26,403 ac (10,685 ha) located in Grant Parish, 
Louisiana. In Unit 2, 1,967 ac (796 ha) are located on private lands. 
Approximately 24,436 ac (9,889 ha) are located within the Kisatchie 
National Forest--Catahoula Ranger District. The USFS lands in Unit 2 
encompass an HMU dedicated to the Louisiana pinesnake. Within the HMU, 
management and conservation actions implemented to benefit the 
Louisiana pinesnake include tree thinning, chemical and mechanical 
hardwood and shrub removal, and prescribed fire. This unit was occupied 
at the time of listing and is currently occupied by the Louisiana 
pinesnake. Unit 2 contains at least three of the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake. The 
presence of Baird's pocket gopher mounds has not been assessed, but the 
habitat is suitable for this species, and pocket gophers are expected 
to occur in Unit 2.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species in Unit 2 may require special management considerations 
or protection due to the following: Loss of upland pine forest with an 
open canopy, reduced midstory, and abundant herbaceous ground cover; 
fragmentation of large areas of upland pine forest habitat; and 
subsurface disturbance that affects the Baird's pocket gopher, as 
described above in Special Management Considerations or Protection. 
Special management considerations or protection may be required within 
Unit 2 to alleviate impacts from suboptimal habitat management 
resulting in increased woody understory and midstory vegetation, 
including actions to restore or maintain suitable forest conditions for 
the species. Management activities in upland pine habitat that could 
benefit the species and habitat in this subunit include, but are not 
limited to: (1) Application of prescribed fire and other forest 
management activities to promote a diverse, abundant herbaceous 
groundcover and open-canopy pine habitat; (2) implementation of 
silviculture best management practices that minimize subsurface 
disturbance; and (3) consideration of upland pine habitat in planning 
development and new road construction. These management activities 
would protect the physical or biological features for the species by 
maintaining or restoring open-canopy pine habitat; reducing effects of 
silviculture practices on the Baird's pocket gopher; and maintaining 
large, contiguous areas of open pine habitat by decreasing 
fragmentation.
    Following publication of this proposed critical habitat rule, some 
lands in private ownership in Unit 2 may be enrolled in the Louisiana 
Pinesnake Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement under development. All or 
some of these lands may be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Consideration of 
Other Relevant Impacts under Consideration of Impacts under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act later in this proposed rule).

Unit 3: Evangeline

    Unit 3 consists of 57,223 ac (23,157 ha) located in Rapides Parish, 
Louisiana. In Unit 3, approximately 2,716 ac (1,099 ha) are located on 
private lands. Approximately 54,507 ac (22,058 ha) occur within the 
Kisatchie National Forest--Calcasieu Ranger District--Evangeline Unit. 
The USFS lands in Unit 3 encompass an HMU dedicated to the Louisiana 
pinesnake. Within the HMU, management and conservation actions 
implemented to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake include tree thinning, 
chemical and mechanical hardwood and shrub removal, and prescribed 
fire. This unit was historically occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake 
and contains at least three

[[Page 60591]]

physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Louisiana pinesnake. The presence of Baird's pocket gopher mounds has 
not been assessed, but the habitat is suitable for this species, and 
pocket gophers are expected to occur in Unit 3.
    This unit is currently unoccupied by the Louisiana pinesnake but is 
essential for the conservation of the species because it serves to 
protect habitat needed to recover the species by reestablishing wild 
populations within the historical range of the species. In addition, 
this unit contains at least three of the physical or biological 
features, is protected and actively managed as an HMU to benefit the 
Louisiana pinesnake, and has an appropriate spatial distribution 
falling within the range of the species. We have also determined that 
the unoccupied area constitutes habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake 
because it contains the appropriate soil type, habitat condition, and 
management actions within the unit. Further, the following physical or 
biological features occur within the unoccupied unit: (1) Upland 
natural pine habitats that contain open-canopy stands of longleaf, 
shortleaf, slash, or loblolly pine trees that have low midstory tree 
density, low midstory pine tree basal area, low scrub/shrub cover; and 
an abundant, diverse, and native herbaceous vegetative groundcover, 
including a mix of grasses and forbs; (2) suitable habitat in large 
(7,166 ac (2,900 ha)), contiguous blocks; (3) soils with high sand 
content and a low water table. Although we do not have specific 
information regarding Baird's pocket gopher populations on this unit, 
the habitat conditions are expected to support adequate prey 
populations.
    Following publication of this proposed critical habitat rule, some 
lands in private ownership in Unit 3 may be enrolled in the Louisiana 
Pinesnake Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement under development. All or 
some of these lands may be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Consideration of 
Other Relevant Impacts under Consideration of Impacts under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act later in this proposed rule).

Unit 4: Fort Polk/Vernon

    Unit 4 consists of 43,789 ac (17,721 ha) located in Vernon Parish, 
Louisiana. In Unit 4, approximately 892 ac (361 ha) occur on lands in 
private ownership. The remaining 42,897 ac (17,360 ha) of Unit 4 is 
owned by the USFS and is within the Joint Readiness Training Center and 
Fork Polk, Louisiana (Fort Polk). This unit was occupied at the time of 
listing and is currently occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake. Unit 4 
contains all of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species in Unit 4 may require special management considerations 
or protection due to the following: Loss of upland pine forest with an 
open canopy, reduced midstory, and abundant herbaceous ground cover; 
fragmentation of large areas of upland pine forest habitat; and 
subsurface disturbance that affects the Baird's pocket gopher, as 
described above in Special Management Considerations or Protection. 
Special management considerations or protection may be required within 
Unit 4 to alleviate impacts from suboptimal habitat management 
resulting in increased woody understory and midstory vegetation, 
including actions to restore or maintain suitable forest conditions for 
the species. Management activities in upland pine habitat that could 
benefit the species and habitat in this subunit include, but are not 
limited to: (1) Application of prescribed fire and other forest 
management activities to promote a diverse, abundant herbaceous 
groundcover and open-canopy pine habitat; (2) implementation of 
silviculture best management practices that minimize subsurface 
disturbance; and (3) consideration of upland pine habitat in planning 
development and new road construction. These management activities 
would protect the physical or biological features for the species by 
maintaining or restoring open-canopy pine habitat; reducing effects of 
silviculture practices on the Baird's pocket gopher; and maintaining 
large, contiguous areas of open pine habitat by decreasing 
fragmentation.
    The 42,897 ac (17,360 ha) of USFS-owned lands permitted for use by 
Fort Polk will be considered for exclusion from final critical habitat 
designation. All or some of these lands may be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 
Consideration of National Security Impacts under Consideration of 
Impacts under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act later in this proposed rule). 
Additionally, following publication of this proposed critical habitat 
rule, some lands in private ownership in Unit 4 may be enrolled in the 
Louisiana Pinesnake Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement under 
development. All or some of these lands may be excluded from the final 
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see 
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts under Consideration of Impacts 
under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act later in this proposed rule).

Unit 5: Scrappin' Valley

    Unit 5 is located in northern Newton County, Texas. The entire 
5,058 ac (2,047 ha) in this unit are located on private lands. The 
Nature Conservancy (TNC) holds 1,675 ac (678 ha) in Unit 5 in a long-
term conservation easement and implements conservation actions on the 
easement. This unit was occupied at the time of listing and is 
currently occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake. Unit 5 contains at least 
three of the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake. The presence of Baird's pocket 
gopher mounds has not been assessed, but the habitat is suitable for 
this species, and pocket gophers are expected to occur in Unit 5.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species in Unit 5 may require special management considerations 
or protection due to the following: Loss of upland pine forest with an 
open canopy, reduced midstory, and abundant herbaceous ground cover; 
fragmentation of large areas of upland pine forest habitat; and 
subsurface disturbance that affects the Baird's pocket gopher, as 
described above in Special Management Considerations or Protection. 
Management activities in upland pine forest habitat that could minimize 
or ameliorate these threats in Unit 5 include, but are not limited to: 
(1) Application of prescribed fire and other forest management 
activities (e.g., thinning, midstory control, harvest) to promote a 
diverse, abundant herbaceous groundcover and open-canopy pine habitat; 
(2) implementation of silviculture best management practices that 
minimize subsurface disturbance; and (3) minimization of new road 
construction and closure of unused roads, particularly following timber 
harvest.
    Of the lands in private ownership, TNC holds 1,675 ac (678 ha) in 
Unit 5 in a long-term conservation easement with conservation measures 
in place expected to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake, including 
prescribed fire. All or some of these lands may be excluded from the 
final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
(see Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts under Consideration of 
Impacts under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act later in this proposed rule). 
Additionally, following publication of this proposed critical habitat 
rule, some lands in private ownership in Unit 5 may be enrolled in the 
Louisiana

[[Page 60592]]

Pinesnake Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement under development. All or 
some of these lands may be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Consideration of 
Other Relevant Impacts under Consideration of Impacts under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act later in this proposed rule).

Unit 6: Angelina

    Unit 6 is comprised of 15,966 ac (6,461 ha) located in northwestern 
Jasper and southeastern Angelina Counties, Texas. Within Unit 6, 
approximately 1,542 ac (624 ha) are lands in private ownership. 
Approximately 14,424 ac (5,837 ha) are USFS lands and fall within the 
Angelina National Forest; the western portion of Unit 6 falls within 
the Upland Island Wilderness Area in the Angelina National Forest. The 
USFS lands in Unit 6 encompass an HMU dedicated to conservation efforts 
to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake. Within the HMU, management and 
conservation actions implemented to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake 
include tree thinning, chemical and mechanical hardwood and shrub 
removal, and prescribed fire. This unit was occupied at the time of 
listing and is currently occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake. Unit 6 
contains at least three of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake. The presence 
of Baird's pocket gopher mounds has not been assessed, but the habitat 
is suitable for this species, and pocket gophers are expected to occur 
in Unit 6.
    The physical or biological features essential to the conservation 
of the species in Unit 6 may require special management considerations 
or protection due to the following: Loss of upland pine forest with an 
open canopy, reduced midstory, and abundant herbaceous ground cover; 
fragmentation of large areas of upland pine forest habitat; and 
subsurface disturbance that affects the Baird's pocket gopher, as 
described above in Special Management Considerations or Protection. 
Management activities in upland pine forest habitat that could minimize 
or ameliorate these threats in Unit 6 include, but are not limited to: 
(1) Application of prescribed fire and other forest management 
activities (e.g., thinning, midstory control, harvest) to promote a 
diverse, abundant herbaceous groundcover and open-canopy pine habitat; 
(2) implementation of silviculture best management practices that 
minimize subsurface disturbance; and (3) minimization of new road 
construction and closure of unused roads, particularly following timber 
harvest.
    Following publication of this proposed critical habitat rule, some 
lands in private ownership in Unit 6 may be enrolled in the Louisiana 
Pinesnake Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement under development. All or 
some of these lands may be excluded from the final critical habitat 
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Consideration of 
Other Relevant Impacts under Consideration of Impacts under Section 
4(b)(2) of the Act later in this proposed rule).

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 which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or 
adverse modification on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214) (although we 
also published a revised definition after that on August 27, 2019). 
Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect 
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat 
for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, 
but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or 
significantly delay development of such features.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions 
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require 
section 7 consultation.
    Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented 
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 Service 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 set forth requirements for Federal 
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed 
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained 
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's 
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, 
subsequent to the previous consultation: (1) If the amount or extent of 
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if 
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed 
species or critical

[[Page 60593]]

habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) if 
the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes 
an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not 
considered in the biological opinion; or (4) if a new species is listed 
or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified 
action.
    In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request 
reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations also specify 
some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate consultation on 
specific land management plans after subsequently listing a new species 
or designating new critical habitat. See the regulations for a 
description of those exceptions.

Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification 
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action 
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way 
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a 
whole for the conservation of the listed species. 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 violate section 
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat, 
or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that the Services may, during a consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter the suitability of open-
canopy upland pine habitat in a manner incompatible with Louisiana 
pinesnake's life-history requirements. Such activities could include, 
but are not limited to: forest and silvicultural activities, such as 
disking, bedding, and other management actions, that involve 
substantial ground disturbance; conversion to densely stocked pine 
plantations; and chemical applications (pesticides or herbicides) that 
are either not applied in accordance with label directions or that are 
not directly aimed at hazardous fuels reduction, midstory 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 Louisiana pinesnakes, and may reduce populations of the 
snake's primary prey (Baird's pocket gopher), either through direct 
extermination or through loss of the forage necessary to sustain the 
prey base.
    (2) Actions that would significantly fragment Louisiana pinesnake 
habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to: 
Conversion of upland pine forested habitat to other uses (agricultural, 
urban/residential development) and construction of new structures or 
roads. These activities could lead to degradation or elimination of 
forest habitat, limit or prevent breeding opportunities for Louisiana 
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 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)) provides that the Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the DoD, or designated for its use, that are 
subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan 
provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is 
proposed for designation.
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 
developed by military installations located within the range of the 
proposed critical habitat designation for the Louisiana pinesnake to 
determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat 
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are DoD lands 
with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the proposed critical 
habitat designation.

Approved INRMPs

Joint Readiness Training Center at Peason Ridge and Fort Polk; 30,758 
ac (12,447 ha)
    The Joint Readiness Training Center at Peason Ridge and Fort Polk 
is located in Natchitoches, Sabine, and Vernon parishes, Louisiana. The 
installation is divided into two separate areas: Peason Ridge Training 
Area (Peason Ridge) to the north and Fort Polk Military Reservation 
(Fort Polk) to the south. Peason Ridge is located on DoD-owned lands 
and is managed by the DoD in coordination with the LDWF. Fort Polk is 
located on DoD-owned land and uses adjacent USFS property for training 
under permit. These lands are managed by the DoD and the USFS in 
coordination with the LDWF. The USFS-permitted lands are governed by a 
special use permit and plan of operation effective from 2004 to 2024. 
Fort Polk has a Service-approved INRMP, which serves as the principal 
management plan governing all natural resource activities on DoD lands 
on the Fort Polk and Peason Ridge installations. The INRMP for the 
Joint Readiness Training Center at Peason Ridge and Fort Polk (Fort 
Polk INRMP) covers fiscal years 2020 to 2024, and serves as the 
principal management plan governing all natural resource activities on 
DoD lands on the installations.
    For several decades, the Fort Polk INRMP benefited the Louisiana 
pinesnake through ongoing ecosystem management and active management of 
red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, which provided habitat for Louisiana 
pinesnake. More recently, the INRMP has included management actions

[[Page 60594]]

intended to specifically benefit the Louisiana pinesnake (U.S. Army 
2020, p. 85). Among the goals and objectives listed in the Endangered 
Species Management Component of the INRMP is habitat management for 
rare, threatened, and endangered species, and the Louisiana pinesnake 
is included in this plan. Management actions and elements that benefit 
the Louisiana pinesnake and its habitat include: Management of upland 
pine habitats within Louisiana pinesnake habitat management units in a 
way compatible with the species' needs; Louisiana pinesnake monitoring 
studies, surveys, and research on breeding habitat, diseases, and 
behavior; implementation of awareness and education programs for the 
public and soldiers to reduce snake mortality or collection; and 
surveys for Baird's pocket gopher in advance of projects (U.S. Army 
2020, pp. 81-82). Additional elements of the INRMP that will benefit 
Louisiana pinesnake and its habitat are awareness training for U.S. 
Army personnel to continue to avoid and reduce impacts to Louisiana 
pinesnakes during training, as well as public outreach and education. 
These conservation efforts reflect actions, reporting, and coordination 
described in an earlier candidate conservation agreement for the 
Louisiana pinesnake to which Fort Polk was a party (USFWS 2013).
    Approximately 3,147 ac (1,273 ha) on the Peason Ridge installation 
and 27,611 ac (11,174 ha) are located within the area covered by this 
INRMP. 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 Fort Polk INRMP and that 
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP provide a benefit to the 
Louisiana pinesnake. Therefore, DoD lands within these installations 
that are covered under the Fort Polk INRMP are exempt from critical 
habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not 
including approximately 3,147 ac (1,273 ha) of habitat on Peason Ridge 
and 27,611 ac (11,174 ha) of habitat on Fort Polk in this proposed 
critical habitat designation because of this exemption.

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 designated critical habitat based on 
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant 
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of 
the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226, 
February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled ``The 
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat 
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016). We explain each decision to exclude areas, as well as decisions 
not to exclude, to demonstrate that the decision is reasonable.
    In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the 
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the 
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the 
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh 
the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise discretion to 
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species. In making the determination to exclude a 
particular area, 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. We 
describe below the process that we undertook for taking into 
consideration each category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant 
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. To assess the probable economic impacts of a 
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities 
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We 
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat 
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or 
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the 
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the 
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those 
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this 
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical 
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with 
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
    The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline 
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource 
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat 
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and 
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all 
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e., 
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of 
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat'' 
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with 
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental 
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected 
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other 
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the 
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs. 
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion 
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of 
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary section 
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
    For this particular designation, we developed an incremental 
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic 
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical 
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop 
a screening analysis of the probable economic effects of the 
designation of critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake (Industrial 
Economics, Incorporated (IEc) 2021). We began by conducting a screening 
analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in order to 
focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to result in 
incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening analysis is 
to filter out particular geographic areas of critical habitat that are 
already subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to 
incur incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening 
analysis considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat 
designation) and includes any probable incremental economic impacts 
where land and water use may be subject to conservation plans, land 
management plans, best management practices, or regulations that 
protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal listing status of 
the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows us to focus our 
analysis

[[Page 60595]]

on evaluating the specific areas or sectors that may incur probable 
incremental economic impacts as a result of the designation. The 
presence of the listed species in occupied areas of critical habitat 
means that any destruction or adverse modification of those areas will 
also jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Therefore, 
designating occupied areas as critical habitat typically causes little 
if any incremental impacts above and beyond the impacts of listing the 
species. If the proposed critical habitat designation contains any 
unoccupied units, the screening analysis assesses whether those units 
are unoccupied because they require additional management or 
conservation efforts that may incur incremental economic impacts. This 
screening analysis combined with the information contained in our IEM 
constitute what we consider to be our draft economic analysis (DEA) of 
the proposed critical habitat designation for the Louisiana pinesnake; 
our DEA is summarized in the narrative below.
    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to 
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in 
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent 
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis 
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and 
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If 
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the 
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As 
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic 
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by 
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable 
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed 
designation of critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake, first we 
identified, in the IEM dated March 2, 2021, probable incremental 
economic impacts associated with the following categories of 
activities: (1) Federal lands management (USFS, DoD), (2) agriculture, 
(3) commercial and residential development, (4) forest management, (5) 
conservation and restoration, (6) timber/lumber operations, and (7) 
transportation and utility projects. We considered each industry or 
category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their 
activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation 
generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only 
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by 
Federal agencies. In areas where the Louisiana 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 species. If we finalize this proposed critical habitat 
designation, our consultation would include an evaluation of measures 
to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the 
effects that result from the species being listed and those that would 
be attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference 
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the 
Louisiana pinesnake. Because the designation of critical habitat for 
the Louisiana pinesnake is being proposed several years following the 
listing of the species, data, such as from consultation history, are 
available to help us discern which conservation efforts are 
attributable to the species being listed and those that would result 
solely from the designation of critical habitat. The following specific 
circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The 
essential physical or biological features identified for critical 
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the 
species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm or 
harassment to constitute jeopardy to the Louisiana pinesnake would also 
likely adversely affect the essential physical or 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 
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as 
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this 
proposed designation of critical habitat.
    The proposed critical habitat designation for the Louisiana 
pinesnake totals approximately 209,520 ac (84,790 ha) in six units in 
Louisiana and Texas. Five of the six units are currently occupied by 
the Louisiana pinesnake; the remaining unit is within the snake's 
historical range but was not occupied at the time the species was 
listed in 2018, and is not known to be currently occupied. Included 
lands are under Federal, State, and private ownership, and Federal land 
is predominant in Units 2, 3, 4 and 6. The proposed critical habitat is 
composed of lands under private (35 percent), State (0.1 percent), and 
Federal (65 percent) ownership. Occupied units represent 73 percent of 
the proposed critical habitat area. Table 1, above, sets forth specific 
information concerning each unit, including occupancy and land 
ownership. The proposed critical habitat does not overlap with 
designated or proposed critical habitat for any other endangered or 
threatened species.
    Within the occupied units, any actions that may affect the species 
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 Louisiana pinesnake. Therefore, only administrative costs are 
expected for actions affecting approximately 73 percent of the proposed 
critical habitat designation. While the analysis for adverse 
modification of critical habitat will require time and resources by 
both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in 
most circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative 
in nature and would not be significant.
    The remaining 57,223 ac (23,157 ha) (27 percent of the total 
proposed critical habitat designation) are currently unoccupied by the 
species but are essential for the conservation of the species. In these 
unoccupied areas, any conservation efforts or associated probable 
impacts would be considered incremental effects attributed to the 
critical habitat designation. Within the 57,223-ac (23,157-ha) 
unoccupied proposed critical habitat, few actions are expected to occur 
that would result in additional section 7 consultation or associated 
project modifications outside of the current Service-approved USFS land 
and resource management plan. Proposed Unit 3 (Evangeline) is located 
on lands in USFS and private ownership. The USFS is currently 
implementing management and conservation actions to benefit the 
Louisiana pinesnake on HMUs in the Kisatchie National Forest, including 
lands in Unit 3, under the 2003 candidate conservation agreement for 
the Louisiana pinesnake and a USFS land and resource management plan. 
Communications with affected entities indicated that critical habitat 
designation would likely result in just a few consultations in this 
unit, with minor additional conservation efforts that would be expected 
to result in relatively low probable economic impacts. Based on the 
geographic

[[Page 60596]]

distribution of historical section 7 consultations and technical 
assistance, as well as the assumption that administrative costs would 
be higher in unoccupied areas, the highest costs are anticipated in 
Unit 3.
    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 would be subject to consultations that may involve 
private entities as third parties are residential and commercial 
development that may occur on private lands; however, costs to private 
entities within these sectors are expected to be minor, as much of the 
proposed critical habitat is in Federal ownership (65 percent). The 
proposed designation for the Louisiana pinesnake includes some private 
lands (35 percent), although some of the private lands are conserved in 
perpetuity. As such, incremental costs from public perception of the 
designation have some potential to arise, but are speculative. However, 
a robust consultation history exists for this species, as well as for 
the red-cockaded woodpecker, a listed species with an overlapping range 
and similar habitat structure needs. Landowners in these areas are, 
therefore, less likely to experience regulatory uncertainty associated 
with critical habitat. While perceptional effects on land values are 
possible, the likelihood and magnitude of such effects are uncertain.
    The probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed critical 
habitat designation for the Louisiana pinesnake are expected to be 
limited to additional administrative effort as well as minor costs of 
conservation efforts resulting from a small number of future section 7 
consultations. This is due to two factors: (1) A large portion of 
proposed critical habitat is considered to be occupied by the species 
(73 percent), where incremental economic impacts of critical habitat 
designation, other than administrative costs, are unlikely; and (2) in 
proposed areas that are not occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake (27 
percent), few actions are anticipated that would result in section 7 
consultation or associated project modifications. Because of the volume 
of lands that are State-, county-, or privately owned, and the 
substantial amount of lands that are already being managed for 
conservation, the numbers of section 7 consultations expected annually 
are modest (approximately 2 formal, 58 informal, and 15 technical 
assistance efforts annually across the designation).
    Critical habitat designation for the Louisiana pinesnake is 
unlikely to generate costs or benefits exceeding $100 million in a 
single year. Therefore, this proposed rule is unlikely to meet the 
threshold for an economically significant rule, with regard to costs, 
under E.O. 12866. In fact, the total annual incremental costs of 
critical habitat designation for the Louisiana pinesnake are 
anticipated to be less than $240,000 per year, and economic benefits 
are also anticipated to be small.
    We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA 
discussed above, as well as all aspects of this proposed rule and our 
required determinations. During the development of a final designation, 
we will consider the information presented in the DEA and any 
additional information on economic impacts we receive during the public 
comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be 
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19.We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine 
that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of 
including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the 
extinction of this species.

Consideration of National Security Impacts

    Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act 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.'' 
However, the Service must still consider impacts on national security, 
including homeland security, on those lands or areas not covered by 
section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), because section 4(b)(2) requires the Service to 
consider those impacts whenever it designates critical habitat. 
Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or another 
Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an assertion of 
national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we have otherwise 
identified national-security or homeland-security impacts from 
designating particular areas as critical habitat, we generally have 
reason to consider excluding those areas.
    However, we cannot 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, we must 
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides 
information, including 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 we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a 
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the 
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, 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.
    We have evaluated whether any of the lands within the proposed 
designation of critical habitat are owned by DoD or DHS or could lead 
to national-security or homeland-security impacts if designated. In 
this discussion, we describe the areas within the proposed designation 
that are owned by DoD or DHS or for which designation could lead to 
national-security or homeland-security impacts. For each area, we 
describe the available information indicating whether we have reason to 
consider excluding the area from the designation. If, during the 
comment period, we identify or receive information about additional 
areas for which designation may result in incremental national-security 
or homeland-security impacts, then we will consider whether to exclude 
those

[[Page 60597]]

additional areas under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Fort Polk
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that some lands 
within Unit 4 of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
Louisiana pinesnake are used under permit by the U.S. Army, which is 
part of DoD. We have previously described two areas (Peason Ridge and 
Fort Polk) with an approved INRMP under application of section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, above. As discussed in the Unit 4 
description, above, the USFS-permitted lands used by Fort Polk are 
located to the south of the DoD lands and are separated into two areas: 
the Intensive Use Area (IUA) and the Limited Use Area (LUA). None of 
the acreage within the IUA or LUA is covered under the Fort Polk INRMP; 
thus, none of this acreage was considered for exemption under section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (see Approved INRMPs under Exemptions, above).
    The IUA and LUA are operated by the DoD for training and maneuver 
exercises in an area of the Vernon Unit, Calcasieu Ranger District, of 
the Kisatchie National Forest in Vernon Parish, Louisiana. The DoD uses 
this area under a special use permit from the USFS, who is the primary 
landowner and manager within the installation boundary.
    The DoD has expressed concern that the designation of critical 
habitat on the IUA and LUA would have implications for national 
security, as summarized below. The potential impacts of designating the 
IUA or LUA on national security include restrictions on military 
training exercises. Lands within the IUA and LUA are used for artillery 
training that provides soldiers with essential battlefield combat 
skills. Excluding these USFS lands from critical habitat designation 
would remove the potential impact that a designation of critical 
habitat could have on the ability to maintain national security. 
Additionally, the IUA and LUA are cooperatively managed by the DoD, 
USFS, and LDWF to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake and red-cockaded 
woodpecker, including prescribed burning of upland pine stands as part 
of the candidate conservation agreement on USFS habitat management 
units (U.S. Army appendix D.3 2020, p. 31). Therefore, we are 
considering for exclusion from the final critical habitat designation 
42,897-ac (17,360-ha) of USFS-owned lands in proposed Unit 4 as a 
result of impacts to national security under section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act.

Consideration of 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 discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that may 
affect the exclusion analysis, 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 (SHAs), or 
candidate conservation agreements with assurances (CCAAs)--or whether 
there are non-permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that 
may be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. 
In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation plans or 
partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government 
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected 
by the designation. We also consider any State, local social, or other 
impacts that might occur because of the designation.
    When analyzing other relevant impacts of including a particular 
area in a designation of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts 
relative to the conservation value of the particular area. To determine 
the conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a 
number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional 
regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection 
from destruction or 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.
    In the case of the Louisiana pinesnake, the benefits of critical 
habitat include public awareness of the presence of the Louisiana 
pinesnake and the importance of habitat protection, and, where a 
Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the Louisiana 
pinesnake due to protection from destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. Continued implementation of an ongoing management 
plan that provides conservation equal to or more than the protections 
that result from a critical habitat designation would reduce those 
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, when conducting an exclusion analysis 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.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans or Agreements and 
Partnerships, in General
    We sometimes exclude specific areas from critical habitat 
designations based in part on the existence of private or other non-
Federal conservation plans or agreements and their attendant 
partnerships. A conservation plan or agreement describes actions that 
are designed to provide for the conservation needs of a species and its 
habitat, and may include actions to reduce or mitigate negative effects 
on the species caused by activities on or adjacent to the area covered 
by the plan. Conservation plans or agreements can be developed by 
private entities with no Service involvement, or in partnership with 
the Service, sometimes through the permitting process under section 10 
of the Act.
    When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) analysis, we 
evaluate a variety of factors to determine how the benefits of any 
exclusion and the benefits of inclusion are affected by the existence 
of private or other non-Federal conservation plans or agreements and 
their attendant partnerships. The factors we consider may differ, 
depending on whether we are evaluating a conservation plan that 
involves permits under section 10 or a non-permitted plan (see sections 
c and b, respectively, of the 2016 Policy).

[[Page 60598]]

Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits 
Under Section 10 of the Act
    HCPs for incidental take permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 
Act provide for partnerships with non-Federal entities to minimize and 
mitigate impacts to listed species and their habitats. In some cases, 
HCP permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species and 
their habitats on private lands than designation of critical habitat 
would provide alone. We place great value on the partnerships that are 
developed during the preparation and implementation of HCPs.
    CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary agreements designed to conserve 
candidate and listed species, respectively, on non-Federal lands. In 
exchange for actions that contribute to the conservation of species on 
non-Federal lands, participating property owners are covered by an 
``enhancement of survival'' permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 
Act, which authorizes incidental take of the covered species that may 
result from implementation of conservation actions, specific land uses, 
and, in the case of SHAs, the option to return to a baseline condition 
under the agreements. The Service also provides enrollees assurances 
that we will not impose further land-, water-, or resource-use 
restrictions, or require additional commitments of land, water, or 
finances, beyond those agreed to in the agreements.
    When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 
analysis based on permitted conservation plans such as CCAAs, SHAs, and 
HCPs, we anticipate consistently excluding such areas if incidental 
take caused by the activities in those areas is covered by the permit 
under section 10 of the Act and the CCAA/SHA/HCP meets all of the 
following three factors (see the 2016 Policy for additional details):
    a. The permittee is properly implementing the CCAA/SHA/HCP and is 
expected to continue to do so for the term of the agreement. A CCAA/
SHA/HCP is properly implemented if the permittee is and has been fully 
implementing the commitments and provisions in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, 
implementing agreement, and permit.
    b. The species for which critical habitat is being designated is a 
covered species in the CCAA/SHA/HCP, or very similar in its habitat 
requirements to a covered species. The recognition that the Services 
extend to such an agreement depends on the degree to which the 
conservation measures undertaken in the CCAA/SHA/HCP would also protect 
the habitat features of the similar species.
    c. The CCAA/SHA/HCP specifically addresses that species' habitat 
and meets the conservation needs of the species in the planning area.
    The proposed critical habitat designation includes areas that are 
covered by the following permitted plan providing for the conservation 
of Louisiana pinesnake: Programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement 
with Assurances with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 
(LDWF CCAA).
    The LDWF CCAA is intended to further the conservation of the 
Louisiana pinesnake on private lands by protecting known populations 
and additional potential habitat through reducing threats to the 
species' habitat and survival, restoring degraded potential habitat on 
suitable soils, and potentially reintroducing captive-bred snakes to 
select areas of the restored habitat.
    Signed in 2017, the LDWF CCAA for Louisiana pinesnake is an 
umbrella document under which individual landowners in Bienville, 
Beauregard, Jackson, Natchitoches, Rapides, Sabine, Vernon, Winn, 
Grant, and Allen parishes, Louisiana, may participate. Three private 
landowners within the range of the Louisiana pinesnake hold 
certificates of inclusion under the enhancement of survival permit that 
expires in 2116. All enrolled parcels are in Bienville Parish, 
Louisiana, and total 5,388 ac (2,180 ha). The three properties consist 
of Bienville Kep, a 1,067-ac (432-ha) ranch; Bienville Plan, a 2,698-ac 
(1,092-ha) property; and Bienville San, a 1,624-ac (657-ha) property. 
They are of sufficient size to benefit the Louisiana pinesnake when 
conservation measures are implemented. Each landowner implements 
conservation measures designed to protect and enhance habitat for the 
benefit of the Louisiana pinesnake on private lands enrolled under the 
agreement. The three landowners must maintain upland pine habitats 
compatible with Louisiana pinesnake's life-history requirements in 
accordance with each certificate of inclusion. Conservation land use 
practices vary according to the needs of a particular enrolled 
landowner, but the three landowners currently enrolled use land 
management practices of prescribed fire, forest thinning, and 
replanting of native species on enrolled lands. The use of these 
measures maintains or improves the physical and biological features 
required by the Louisiana pinesnake, namely natural upland pine forests 
that contain open canopy stands of longleaf, shortleaf, slash, or 
loblolly pine trees that have low midstory tree density and pine tree 
basal area, limited scrub/shrub cover, and abundant, diverse, and 
native herbaceous vegetative groundcover (including a mix of grasses 
and forbs) to support the Louisiana pinesnake's primary prey item 
(Baird's pocket gopher). The LDWF CCAA also allows for implementation 
of other conservation measures beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake 
that may be developed in the future.
    After considering the factors described above, we have identified 
the following areas that we have reason to consider excluding because 
of permitted plans: 5,388 ac (2,180 ha) of private lands in Bienville 
Parish, Louisiana, currently enrolled in the LDWF CCAA for the 
Louisiana pinesnake. We describe below our reasons for considering 
these areas for potential exclusion.
Programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement With Assurances With the 
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF CCAA)
    Critical habitat within Unit 1 that is currently associated with 
the LDWF CCAA is wholly comprised of the three enrolled properties 
described above. Based on our review of the LDWF CCAA and proposed 
critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake, we do not anticipate 
requesting any additional conservation measures for the species beyond 
those that are currently in place. The LDWF CCAA covers the Louisiana 
pinesnake, addresses the specific habitat of the species and meets the 
conservation needs of the species, and is currently being implemented 
properly. Therefore, at this time, we are considering excluding those 
specific lands associated with the LDWF CCAA from the final designation 
of critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake. However, we will more 
thoroughly review the CCAA, the implementation of its conservation 
measures for the Louisiana pinesnake and its habitat, and public 
comment on this issue prior to finalizing critical habitat, and, if 
appropriate, we will exclude from critical habitat for the Louisiana 
pinesnake those lands enrolled in the LDWF CCAA.
Draft Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) for the Louisiana 
Pinesnake in Louisiana and Texas (Unknown Acreage)
    The draft SHA was developed in 2021, and is expected to be 
finalized in 2022, with an enhancement of survival permit issued at the 
time of finalization. The parties to the draft SHA include the

[[Page 60599]]

LDWF, Texas A&M Forest Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 
and the Service. Non-federal landowners (``enrolled cooperators'') 
within the range of the species in western and central Louisiana and 
eastern Texas will be eligible to enroll suitable property under the 
SHA, when finalized, and receive a certificate of inclusion. The 
geographic area covered by the draft SHA includes Angelina, Hardin, 
Jasper, Nacogdoches, Newton, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, Trinity, 
Tyler, and Wood counties in Texas, and Bienville, Beauregard, Jackson, 
Natchitoches, Rapides, Sabine, and Vernon parishes, and as well as 
additional lands in Winn, Grant, and Allen parishes, in Louisiana. 
Conservation measures implemented on enrolled properties are site-
specific but will address loss and degradation of suitable habitat, 
isolated populations, and vehicle mortality, and will provide a net 
conservation benefit to the Louisiana pinesnake. Management actions 
specified in the draft SHA include prescribed fire, chemical vegetation 
control, thinning and conversion of loblolly and slash pine stands to 
longleaf pine forest, silviculture best management practices, and 
species and habitat monitoring. The use of these measures maintains or 
improves the physical and biological features required by the Louisiana 
pinesnake, namely upland natural pine forests that contain open-canopy 
stands of longleaf, shortleaf, slash, or loblolly pine trees that have 
low midstory tree density and pine tree basal area, limited scrub/shrub 
cover, and abundant, diverse, and native herbaceous vegetative 
groundcover (including a mix of grasses and forbs) to support the 
Louisiana pinesnake's primary prey item (Baird's pocket gopher). The 
draft SHA also allows for implementation of other conservation measures 
beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake that may be developed in the 
future. Critical habitat within the range of the species that may be 
associated with the SHA is yet to be determined. When the draft SHA is 
finalized and the associated enhancement of survival permit issued, an 
unknown number of private properties in all proposed critical habitat 
units may be enrolled in the SHA. Based on our review of the draft SHA 
and proposed critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake, we find that 
the conservation measures within the draft SHA are sufficient to 
provide for the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake on the enrolled 
lands. The draft SHA covers the Louisiana pinesnake, addresses the 
specific habitat of the species and meets the conservation needs of the 
species, and is expected to be implemented. Therefore, at this time, we 
are considering excluding from the final critical habitat designation 
those specific lands in private ownership that will be enrolled in the 
SHA prior to development of the final critical habitat designation for 
the Louisiana pinesnake. However, we will more thoroughly review the 
SHA, its conservation measures for the Louisiana pinesnake and its 
habitat, and public comment on this issue prior to finalizing critical 
habitat, and, if appropriate, we will exclude from critical habitat for 
the Louisiana pinesnake those lands enrolled in the finalized and 
permitted SHA.
Non-Permitted Conservation Plans, Agreements, or Partnerships
    Shown below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that we consider in 
evaluating how non-permitted plans or agreements affect the benefits of 
inclusion or exclusion. These are not required elements of plans or 
agreements. Rather, they are some of the factors we may consider, and 
not all of these factors apply to every plan or agreement.
    (i) The degree to which the record of the plan, or information 
provided by proponents of an exclusion, supports a conclusion that a 
critical habitat designation would impair the realization of the 
benefits expected from the plan, agreement, or partnership.
    (ii) The extent of public participation in the development of the 
conservation plan.
    (iii) The degree to which agency review and required determinations 
(e.g., State regulatory requirements) have been completed, as necessary 
and appropriate.
    (iv) Whether National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) compliance was required.
    (v) The demonstrated implementation and success of the chosen 
mechanism.
    (vi) The degree to which the plan or agreement provides for the 
conservation of the essential physical or biological features for the 
species.
    (vii) Whether there is a reasonable expectation that the 
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a 
management plan or agreement will be implemented.
    (viii) Whether the plan or agreement contains a monitoring program 
and adaptive management to ensure that the conservation measures are 
effective and can be modified in the future in response to new 
information.
    The proposed critical habitat designation includes areas that are 
covered by the following non-permitted plan providing for the 
conservation of Louisiana pinesnake: The Nature Conservancy's Scrappin' 
Valley Easement (1,675 ac (678 ha)).
    The Nature Conservancy of Texas holds a conservation easement in 
perpetuity on 1,675 ac (678 ha) of longleaf-dominated upland pine 
habitat in private ownership in Newton County, Texas. The land is 
managed with conservation actions, including prescribed fire, hardwood 
removal, thinning of loblolly and slash pine, and restoration planting, 
that maintain and improve the longleaf pine habitat for red-cockaded 
woodpeckers and also benefit the Louisiana pinesnake. The use of these 
measures maintains or improves the physical and biological features 
required by Louisiana pinesnake, namely upland natural pine forests 
that contain open-canopy stands of longleaf, shortleaf, slash, or 
loblolly pine trees that have low midstory tree density and pine tree 
basal area, limited scrub/shrub cover, and abundant, diverse, and 
native herbaceous vegetative groundcover (including a mix of grasses 
and forbs) that are required to support the Louisiana pinesnake's 
primary prey item (Baird's pocket gopher).
    After considering the factors described above, we have identified 
the following areas that we have reason to consider excluding because 
of non-permitted plans: 1,675 ac (678 ha) of private lands in Scrappin' 
Valley under conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy. 
Below, we describe our reasons for considering this area for potential 
exclusion.
The Nature Conservancy's Scrappin' Valley Easement
    Critical habitat within proposed Unit 5 that is currently part of a 
perpetual conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy of Texas 
is limited to the private lands described above. Based on our review of 
the easement and proposed critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake, 
we do not anticipate requesting any additional conservation measures 
for the species beyond those that are currently in place. The 
landowners have implemented conservation actions including habitat 
management that improves the vegetation structure of the habitat and 
benefits the Louisiana pinesnake. As described above, these efforts 
provide for the conservation of the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake by maintaining 
or improving the upland natural pine forests so that they are 
characterized by open-canopy stands

[[Page 60600]]

with low midstory tree density and pine tree basal area, limited scrub/
shrub cover, and abundant, diverse, and native herbaceous groundcover. 
The conservation easement is perpetual and we have a reasonable 
expectation that the strategies and actions will be implemented in the 
future to a similar degree they have in the past based on the habitat 
condition. The conservation easement includes a monitoring component 
and adaptive management to ensure conservation measures are effective 
and can be modified based on management results and conservation needs. 
We recognize that the private lands under the conservation easement 
make an important contribution to the conservation and recovery of the 
Louisiana pinesnake and expect these lands will continue to do so if 
excluded from the critical habitat designation for the species. 
Therefore, at this time, we are considering excluding those specific 
lands associated with the easement from the final designation of 
critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake. However, we will more 
thoroughly review the easement, the implementation of its conservation 
measures for the Louisiana pinesnake and its habitat, and public 
comment on this issue prior to finalizing critical habitat, and, if 
appropriate, we will exclude from critical habitat for the Louisiana 
pinesnake those lands covered by the easement.
Tribal Lands
    Several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and policies concern 
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our 
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign 
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of 
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service 
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
    A joint Secretarial Order that applies to both the Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--Secretarial Order 3206, 
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal--Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 
and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) (S.O. 3206)--is the most 
comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal 
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail 
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. In addition 
to the general direction discussed above, the appendix to S.O. 3206 
explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate fully in any 
listing process that may affect Tribal rights or Tribal trust 
resources; this includes the designation of critical habitat. Section 
3(b)(4) of the appendix requires the Service to consult with affected 
Tribes when considering the designation of critical habitat in an area 
that may impact Tribal trust resources, Tribally owned fee lands, or 
the exercise of Tribal rights. That provision also instructs the 
Service to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical habitat 
designation unless the area is essential to conserve a listed species, 
and it requires the Service to evaluate and document the extent to 
which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by 
limiting the designation to other lands.
    Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy 
are consistent with S.O. 3206. When we undertake a discretionary 
exclusion analysis under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in accordance with 
S.O. 3206, we consult with any Tribe whose Tribal trust resources, 
Tribally owned fee lands, or Tribal rights may be affected by including 
any particular areas in the designation, and we evaluate the extent to 
which the conservation needs of the species can be achieved by limiting 
the designation to other areas and give great weight to Tribal concerns 
in analyzing the benefits of exclusion.
    However, S.O. 3206 does not override the Act's statutory 
requirement of designation of critical habitat. As stated above, we 
must consult with any Tribe when a designation of critical habitat may 
affect Tribal lands or resources. The Act requires us to identify areas 
that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied 
at the time of listing that contain the essential physical or 
biological features which may require special management considerations 
or protection, and unoccupied areas that are essential to the 
conservation of a species), without regard to land ownership. While 
S.O. 3206 provides important direction, it expressly states that it 
does not modify the Secretary's statutory authority under the Act or 
other statutes. There are no Tribal lands within the proposed critical 
habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake.
Federal Lands
    Federal land managers have unique obligations under the Act. First, 
Congress declared its policy that all Federal departments and agencies 
shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and 
shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this 
Act (section 2(c)(1)). Second, all Federal agencies have 
responsibilities under section 7 of the Act to carry out programs for 
the conservation of listed species and to ensure their actions are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 
Therefore, in general we focus our exclusions on non-Federal lands. Our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 2016 Policy provide for the 
consideration of the exclusion of Federal lands in particular 
instances.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that portions of the 
Catahoula and Calcasieu ranger districts in the Kisatchie National 
Forest (Units 2, 3, 4) and the Angelina National Forest (Unit 6) are 
Federal lands that meet the definition of critical habitat for the 
Louisiana pinesnake. However, at this time, we are not aware of 
information of economic or other relevant impact that is meaningful to 
support a benefit of exclusion on those Federal lands. Therefore, we 
are not considering to exclude any Federal lands, other than those 
discussed above that we are considering for exclusion for national 
security reasons, from this proposed designation of critical habitat. 
However, if, through the public comment period, we receive information 
regarding impacts to Federal lands within the proposed designation of 
critical habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake, then as part of 
developing the final designation of critical habitat, we will evaluate 
that information to determine whether to conduct a discretionary 
exclusion analysis to determine whether to exclude those areas under 
the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. If after this evaluation we do not 
exclude, we will fully explain our decision.

Summary of Exclusions Considered Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as 
well as any additional public comments we receive, we will evaluate 
whether certain lands in the proposed critical habitat Units 1-6 are 
appropriate for exclusion from the final designation under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of 
excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of 
designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may 
exercise her discretion to exclude the lands from the final 
designation.
    We have reason to consider excluding the following areas under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat designation 
for Louisiana pinesnake. Table 2, below, provides approximate areas 
(ac, ha) of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat but for

[[Page 60601]]

which we are considering possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act from the final critical habitat rule.

                                            Table 2--Areas Considered for Exclusion by Critical Habitat Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Areas meeting the  definition of         Areas considered  for
                 Unit                       Specific area           critical habitat,  in acres          possible  exclusion,  in       Rationale for
                                                                            (hectares)                      acres  (hectares)        proposed  exclusion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Bienville.....................  LDWF CCAA...........  61,083 (24,720).......................  5,388 (2,180)................  Conservation
                                                                                                                                      partnership.
Unit 4: Fort Polk/Vernon..............  USFS lands permitted  43,789 (17,721).......................  42,897 (17,360)..............  National security.
                                         for use by DOD.
Unit 5: Scrappin' Valley..............  TNC conservation      5,058 (2,047).........................  1,675 (678)..................  Conservation
                                         easement.                                                                                    partnership.
Units 1-6.............................  Louisiana Pinesnake   Up to 209,520 (84,790)................  Enrolled lands...............  Conservation
                                         Programmatic SHA.                                                                            partnership.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, for this proposed rule, we have reason to consider 
excluding the areas identified above based on national security impacts 
and other relevant impacts. We specifically solicit comments on the 
inclusion or exclusion of such areas. During the development of a final 
designation, we will consider any information currently available or 
received during the public comment period regarding other relevant 
impacts of the proposed designation and will determine whether these or 
any other specific areas should be excluded from the final critical 
habitat designation under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and the joint 2016 Policy.

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed 
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 proposed rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether 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.
    Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent 
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the 
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly 
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not 
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly 
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical 
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of

[[Page 60602]]

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 would be directly regulated if we adopt the proposed critical 
habitat designation. There is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate 
the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, 
Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small 
entities would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service 
certifies that, if made final as proposed, this critical habitat 
designation will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently 
available information, we certify that, if made final as proposed, this 
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires 
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking 
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this 
proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use, because these types of activities are 
not occurring and not expected to occur in areas being proposed as 
critical habitat. 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 finding:
    (1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In 
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or 
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; 
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; 
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family 
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal 
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an 
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of 
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a 
voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this proposed rule would significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments because the government-owned lands 
being proposed for critical habitat designation are owned by the State 
of Louisiana, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Forest Service. 
None of these government entities fits the definition of ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' Small governments will be affected only to 
the extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other 
authorized activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely 
affect the critical habitat. Therefore, 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 Louisiana 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 
for the proposed designation of critical habitat for Louisiana 
pinesnake, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of 
critical habitat 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 proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact 
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior 
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and 
coordinated development of this

[[Page 60603]]

proposed critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource 
agencies. 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 proposed 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 proposed 
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 or biological 
features of the habitat necessary for 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 
State and local governments in long-range planning because they 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) of the Act 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 would not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, 
this proposed rule identifies the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed areas of 
critical habitat are presented on maps, and the proposed 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 proposed rule does not contain information collection 
requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.) is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are 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 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of 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 coordinated with the Chitimacha, 
Coushatta, Tunica-Biloxi, Alabama-Coushatta, and Jena Band of Choctaw 
Tribes as we began to develop the species status assessment for the 
Louisiana pinesnake in 2019, and we provided the IEM to the same Tribes 
as we began work on proposing critical habitat. We have determined that 
no Tribal lands fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical 
habitat for the Louisiana pinesnake, so no Tribal lands would be 
affected by the proposed designation.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the 
Louisiana Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

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


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 60604]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
            Reptiles
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Pinesnake, Louisiana............  Pituophis ruthveni  Wherever found....  T              83 FR 14958, 4/6/2018;
                                                                                          50 CFR 17.42(i); \4d\
                                                                                          50 CFR 17.95(c).\CH\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.95, in paragraph (c), by adding an entry for 
``Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni)'', immediately following the 
entry for ``Black Pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi)'', to read 
as follows:


Sec.  17.95   Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (c) Reptiles.
* * * * *
Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Bienville, Grant, 
Rapides, and Vernon parishes, Louisiana, and Angelina, Jasper, and 
Newton Counties, Texas, on the maps in this entry.
    (2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake consist of the 
following components:
    (i) Upland natural pine habitats that contain open-canopy stands of 
longleaf, shortleaf, slash, or loblolly pine trees that have:
    (A) Low midstory tree density;
    (B) Low midstory pine tree basal area;
    (C) Low scrub/shrub cover; and
    (D) Abundant, diverse, and native herbaceous vegetative 
groundcover, including a mix of grasses and forbs.
    (ii) Suitable habitat in large (7,166 acres (2,900 hectares)), 
contiguous blocks.
    (iii) Soils with high sand content and a low water table.
    (iv) An adequate Baird's pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps) 
population, as evidenced by abundant and widely distributed active 
mound complexes.
    (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 
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (4) Data layers defining map units were created with the U.S. 
Geological Survey's National Hydrography Dataset flowline data and the 
USFS Geodata Clearinghouse on a base map of roads and State and County 
boundaries from the U.S. Census Bureau Topologically Integrated 
Geographic Encoding and Referencing database files. Critical habitat 
units were mapped using the Geographic Coordinate System North American 
1983 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 https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0166, 
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.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    (5) Index map follows:

Figure 1 to Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni) paragraph (5)

[[Page 60605]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06OC22.007

    (6) Unit 1: Bienville, Bienville Parish, Louisiana.
    (i) Unit 1 consists of 61,083 acres (ac) (24,720 hectares (ha)) 
west of Highway 155 and east of Highway 507, approximately 40 miles (64 
kilometers) southeast of Shreveport, Louisiana, in Bienville Parish, 
Louisiana. Unit 1 is composed of lands in State (333 ac (135 ha)) and 
private (60,750 ac (24,585 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

Figure 2 to Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni) paragraph (6)(ii)

[[Page 60606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06OC22.008

    (7) Unit 2: Catahoula, Grant Parish, Louisiana.
    (i) Unit 2 consists of 26,403 ac (10,685 ha) east of U.S. Highway 
167 and west of U.S. Highway 165 in Grant Parish, Louisiana, including 
lands in Federal (24,436 ac (9,889 ha)) and private (1,967 ac (796 ha)) 
ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

Figure 3 to Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni) paragraph (7)(ii)

[[Page 60607]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06OC22.009

    (8) Unit 3: Evangeline, Rapides Parish, Louisiana.
    (i) Unit 3 consists of 57,223 ac (23,157 ha) approximately 10 miles 
(16 kilometers) southwest of Alexandria, Louisiana, in Rapides Parish, 
Louisiana, including lands in Federal (54,507 ac (22,058 ha)) and 
private (2,716 ac (1,099 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:

Figure 4 to Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni) paragraph (8)(ii)

[[Page 60608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06OC22.010

    (9) Unit 4: Fort Polk/Vernon, Vernon Parish, Louisiana.
    (i) Unit 4 consists of 43,789 ac (17,721 ha) approximately 12 miles 
(19 kilometers) northeast of Pitkin, Louisiana, and 12 miles south of 
Hicks, Louisiana, in Vernon Parish, Louisiana, including lands in 
Federal (42,897 ac (17,360 ha)) and private (892 ac (361 ha)) 
ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:

Figure 5 to Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni) paragraph (9)(ii)

[[Page 60609]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06OC22.011

    (10) Unit 5: Scrappin' Valley, Newton County, Texas.
    (i) Unit 5 consists of 5,058 ac (2,047 ha) west of Texas State 
Highway 87 and north of Texas Recreational Road 255 in Newton County, 
Texas. Unit 5 is composed of lands in private ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:

Figure 6 to Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni) paragraph (10)(ii)

[[Page 60610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06OC22.012

    (11) Unit 6: Angelina, Angelina and Jasper Counties, Texas.
    (i) Unit 6 consists of 15,966 ac (6,461 ha) approximately 7 miles 
(11 kilometers) southeast of Zavalla, Texas, in southeastern Angelina 
and northwestern Jasper Counties, Texas, including lands in Federal 
(14,424 ac (5,837 ha)) and private (1,542 ac (624 ha)) ownership.
    (ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:

Figure 7 to Louisiana Pinesnake (Pituophis ruthveni) paragraph (11)(ii)

[[Page 60611]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06OC22.013


[[Page 60612]]


* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-21333 Filed 10-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C