Proposed Rule2025-16688
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Southern Hognose Snake
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 29, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus), a small, fossorial snake species from the coastal plains and sandhills across the southeastern United States, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month finding on a petition to list the southern hognose snake. After a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we find that listing the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the southern hognose snake as a threatened species with protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act ("4(d) rule"). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species. We find that designating critical habitat for this species is prudent but not determinable at this time.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 166 (Friday, August 29, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 166 (Friday, August 29, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42151-42178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16688]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0210; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BI23
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Southern Hognose Snake
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus), a small, fossorial
snake species from the coastal plains and sandhills across the
southeastern United States, as a threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination
also serves as our 12-month finding on a petition to list the southern
hognose snake. After a review of the best scientific and commercial
data available, we find that listing the species is warranted.
Accordingly, we propose to list the southern hognose snake as a
threatened species with protective regulations under section 4(d) of
the Act (``4(d) rule''). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would
add this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
extend the Act's protections to the species. We find that designating
critical habitat for this species is prudent but not determinable at
this time.
DATES: Comments must be received by October 28, 2025. 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
October 14, 2025.
[[Page 42152]]
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2025-0210,
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-2025-0210, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0210 and at <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3248">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3248</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christy Johnson-Hughes, Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Carolina Ecological
Services Field Office; 843-727-4707; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#51323923382225280e3b3e393f223e3f392436393422113726227f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aac9c2d8c3d9ded3f5c0c5c2c4d9c5c4c2dfcdc2cfd9eaccddd984cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.
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. Please see Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0210 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the
southern hognose snake meets the Act's definition of a threatened
species; therefore, we are proposing to list it as such. Listing a
species as an endangered or threatened species can be completed only by
issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking
process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We propose to list the southern hognose
snake as a threatened species with protective regulations under section
4(d) of the Act.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the southern hognose snake
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species due to the following
threats: under Factor A, habitat loss, conversion, and fragmentation
(due to conversion for agriculture, silviculture, and development); and
under Factor E, road mortality, effects of small population size,
invasive species, and effects of increased temperatures, decreased
precipitation, increased severe weather such as drought, flooding, or
storms, resulting in changes in wildfire frequency and intensity,
decreased ability to conduct prescribed burns, and sea level rise.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
concurrently with listing designate critical habitat for the species.
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 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 impacts of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat.
We have determined that critical habitat is not determinable at
this time for the southern hognose snake. The Act allows the Service an
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation that is not
determinable at the time of listing (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
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 species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this species.
(4) Information to assist us with applying or issuing protective
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act that may be necessary and
advisable to
[[Page 42153]]
provide for the conservation of the southern hognose snake. In
particular, we seek information concerning:
(a) The extent to which we should include any of the Act's section
9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule;
(b) Whether we should consider any additional or different
exceptions from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule;
(c) Impacts (conservation and economic) associated with
implementing the 4(d) rule;
(d) How frequently and in what geographical areas are activities
that we propose to regulate under the 4(d) rule (e.g., sale, ``take'')
currently occurring;
(e) Whether there are other laws currently in place that regulate
the activities or ``take'' prohibited in the proposed 4(d) rule;
(f) The pet market for the southern hognose snake, including how
many U.S.-based businesses sell southern hognose snakes domestically as
pets or export and what portion of revenues for these businesses come
from the sale of southern hognose snakes;
(g) The number of individuals that keep the southern hognose snake
as a pet, and in which regions or States;
(h) The entities likely to request section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for
conducting activities that would involve ``take'' such as capture or
handling of the southern hognose;
(i) Data available on the time and economic costs of obtaining
section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for these activities;
(j) The entities likely to develop habitat conservation plans and
request section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for conducting activities that
would involve incidental ``take'' of the southern hognose;
(k) Data available on the time and economic costs of obtaining
section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for these activities; and
(l) Any other entities not addressed in this proposed rule that may
be affected by the 4(d) rule.
(5) Information to assist us with identifying critical habitat,
including any information as to why we should or should not designate
habitat as ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act.
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.
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)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2)
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific data 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is endangered
instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened
species. In addition, we may change the parameters of the prohibitions
or the exceptions to those prohibitions in the protective regulations
issued under section 4(d) of the Act if we conclude it is appropriate
in light of comments and new information received. For example, we may
expand the prohibitions if we conclude that the protective regulation
as a whole, including those additional prohibitions, are necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. Conversely,
we may establish additional or different exceptions to the prohibitions
in the final rule if we conclude that the activities would facilitate
or are compatible with the conservation and recovery of the species. In
our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for
our final decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ
from this proposal.
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
We published a 12-month finding for the southern hognose snake on
October 7, 2019, concluding that the species was not warranted for
listing under the Endangered Species Act (84 FR 53336). On January 26,
2023, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint alleging
the 12-month finding violated the Endangered Species Act and
Administrative Procedure Act (Center for Biological Diversity v.
Haaland, et. al., No. 1:23-cv-00221-RBW (D.D.C.). We subsequently
entered into a settlement agreement that required us to submit a new
12-month finding to the Office of the Federal Register as to whether
the listing of the southern hognose snake as threatened or endangered
is (a) not warranted; (b) warranted; or (c) warranted but precluded by
other pending proposals, pursuant to the Act on or before August 27,
2025. The Service updated the species status assessment (SSA) report
with new information and this report (Service 2024, entire) served as
the scientific basis that informed this 12-month finding and proposed
rule.
Peer Review
An SSA team prepared an updated SSA report for the southern hognose
snake. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, 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
[[Page 42154]]
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016,
memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in listing
and recovery actions under the Act (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf</a>), we
solicited independent scientific review of the information contained in
the southern hognose snake SSA report. We sent the SSA report to three
independent peer reviewers and received responses from two reviewers.
Results of this structured peer review process can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0210. In preparing
this proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these reviews, as
appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation for this
proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two
peer reviewers on the draft updated SSA report. We reviewed all
comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and
new information regarding the contents of the SSA report. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and provided suggestions
for clarifying the influences of threats, such as the red imported fire
ants (Solenopsis invicta), and other editorial suggestions. Otherwise,
no substantive changes to our analysis and conclusions within the SSA
report were deemed necessary, and peer reviewer comments are addressed
in version 2.1 of the SSA report (Service 2024, entire).
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
southern hognose snake is presented in the SSA report (version 2.1;
Service 2024, entire).
The southern hognose snake is the smallest of hognose snake species
and is endemic to the Coastal Plain ecoregion of the southeastern
United States. States with known occurrence records include North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi;
however, historically, the species was distributed across much of the
southeastern United States from the vicinities of Morehead City and
Raleigh, North Carolina, south to Tampa, Florida; west to the Pearl
River dividing Louisiana and Mississippi; and north to Calhoun County,
Alabama (Meylan 1985, p. 375). For our assessment, occurrence records
from 1880-2023 were used to define populations. We identified 233
populations across the historical range of the species, and through our
analysis, found that 87 are considered to be extant. We found 144
populations to be considered extirpated and identified 2 unknown
populations through our assessment.
The southern hognose snake is associated with the longleaf pine
savanna ecosystem. They occupy open-canopy, xeric, upland habitat with
well-drained, sandy soils, characterized by pine-dominated or pine-oak
woodland. The species favors savanna habitats with an open canopy and a
grassy understory (Enge et al. 2016, p. 12), which were historically
maintained through fire. The longleaf pine ecosystem is dependent on
regular fire intervals and other disturbances to create and maintain
open pine conditions that support the species' needs.
The southern hognose snake can be found in multiple physiographic
regions across its range that include various habitat compositions. In
North Carolina, they have been found in mixed oak-pine forests
occurring on well-drained, sandy soils (Palmer and Braswell 1995 p.
176; Tuberville et al. 2000, p. 21). Typical habitat in North Carolina
has been reported as longleaf pine-wiregrass (Aristrida stricta) and
turkey oak (Quercus laevis) forests (Beane et al. 2014, p. 169). In
Florida, sandhills with disturbed areas seem to be the core natural
habitat and are frequently used, whereas, xeric hammock and scrub
habitats are seldom used (Enge 1997, pp. 28-49; Enge et al. 2016, p.
12).
Southern hognose snakes typically range from 33 to 51 centimeters
(cm) (13 to 20 inches (in)) and have short heads with a sharply
upturned keeled snout. The head is dusky brown above the snout, with a
dark transverse bar that often occurs on the snout in front of the
eyes. The body scales are keeled and anal plate divided. We describe
the southern hognose snake's three life stages to include: egg,
hatchling/juvenile, and adult. Their prey consists of frogs and toads,
small lizards, and in some cases invertebrates. Little is known about
any specific habitat requirements that may be needed for nesting and
hibernation. The southern hognose snake is strictly diurnal and highly
fossorial, with observations of wild individuals made across all
months.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
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 endangered and
threatened species.
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species
[[Page 42155]]
level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species,
then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species
as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in
light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects
on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or
conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species
meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened
species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing
the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the Service
can make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats to the
species and the species' responses to those threats. We need not
identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period of time.
We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using
the best available data and taking into account considerations such as
the species' life-history characteristics, threat projection
timeframes, and environmental variability. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can make
reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve
the further application of standards within the Act and its
implementing regulations and policies.
To assess southern hognose snake viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand variable changes
in environmental and demographic conditions (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of the species to
withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
events); and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to
both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological
environment (for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general,
species viability will increase with increases in resiliency,
redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these
principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the
species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' future condition, including responses to
positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences.
Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information
to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain
populations in the wild over time, which we then used to inform our
regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2025-0210 and at <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3248">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3248</a>.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
We assessed the best available information to identify the physical
and biological needs to support all life stages for the southern
hognose snake. We identified the specific ecological needs for
individuals to survive and reproduce, as well as support viable
populations (see table 1, below). The species' needs are described in
terms of the southern hognose snake's required conditions for feeding,
breeding, sheltering, and movement/dispersal. We determined the main
elements essential to the survival and reproductive success of southern
hognose snake individuals to be well-drained sandy soils, suitable
vegetation structure and composition, presence of prey, and habitat
connectivity (Service 2024, p. 14). These needs are described for
individuals; however, the needs of individuals also result in needs for
populations.
[[Page 42156]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU25.006
Feeding
The southern hognose snake has been reported to feed primarily on
frogs and toads (anurans). The species also consumes small lizards and
in some cases invertebrates (Ashton and Ashton 1981, p. 85; Beane et
al. 1998, p. 45; Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 153; Beane et al. 2011, p.
292, 2014, p. 171). Lizards and anurans may contribute equally to the
southern hognose snake diet, or a possible diet shift with age or size
may occur (Beane et al. 2014, p. 173). Lizards have only been found in
the stomachs of smaller, juvenile individuals indicating lizards are a
likely food source for the younger life stages (Beane et al. 2014, p.
173).
The specialized upturned snout of the southern hognose snake is
used to dig out buried prey (Goin 1947, p. 275; Conant and Collins
1998, p. 328; Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 153). It has been speculated
that the southern hognose snake forages in the early morning, late
evenings, or on cool days when some lizard prey, such as the six-lined
racerunner lizard (Aspidoscelis sexlineatus), emerge from its nocturnal
burrows or is likely to be inactive (Beane et al. 2014, p. 173). The
appropriate conditions for feeding are dependent on the presence of
prey at the juvenile/adult life stages.
Breeding
The southern hognose snake is oviparous (egg-laying) and requires
underground burrows for their nests. There is no information available
regarding natural nests for the species; however, a similar species,
the eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos) has been found to
deposit eggs at 15 cm (5.9 in) below the surface in a gravel deposit,
under a rock, and at depths of 10 to 15 cm (3.9 to 5.9 in) in sandy
fields (Edgren 1955, pp. 105-108). The soils and substrate are
important for providing the appropriate conditions for the species to
create the nesting burrows using their shovel-like, upturned snout. The
appropriate conditions for breeding are dependent on well-drained sandy
soils, suitable vegetation structure and composition for individuals,
and connectivity between suitable habitat for both individuals and
populations (Service 2024, p 14).
Sheltering
The southern hognose snake is highly fossorial and remains
underground much of its life. The species uses underground burrows for
all life stages and for much of its life history needs. They excavate
underground burrows vertically, through loose sandy soil using their
upturned snout and will also utilize existing burrows of other species.
During the non-breeding, colder temperature seasons, late fall to early
spring, southern hognose snakes use underground burrows for their
hibernacula. Southern hognose snakes were observed excavating and
entering those hibernacula in North Carolina from late October to late
November and emerging from late March to mid-April (Beane et al. 2007,
p. 467). Individual snakes did not depend on stump holes or other
existing subterranean chambers for hibernacula and did not display
hibernaculum site fidelity, though the sample size was small (n=4)
(Beane et al. 2007, p. 467; Beane 2019, pers. comm.). The habitat
conditions for the hibernacula are dependent on well-drained sandy
soils.
The species is strictly diurnal with peak activity occurring in the
late morning to early afternoon (Beane et al. 2014, p. 173) and will
take cover for protection, resting, and thermoregulating in underground
burrows while not above ground. The most rigorous report of the use of
burrows by southern hognose snakes discussed finding animals at depths
of 20 to 30 cm (7.9 to 11.8 in) of sand within open areas (Palmer and
Braswell 1995, p. 178) and the burrows can be very obvious (Beane 2019,
pers. comm.).
Southern hognose snakes have been reported to use existing
southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis) mounds and gopher tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemus) burrows (Stevenson et al. 2018, p. 547). It is
suspected that they occasionally use the southeastern pocket gopher
mounds for sub-surface thermoregulation, particularly on cool, sunny
days and may be using the gopher tortoise burrows for both refugia and
for foraging for anurans (Stevenson et al. 2018, p. 548). The
appropriate conditions for sheltering are dependent on well-drained
soils with suitable vegetation structure and composition (Service 2024,
p. 14).
Movement/Dispersal
The southern hognose snake requires areas above ground that allow
for movement and dispersal for hatchling/juvenile and adult life
stages. Southern
[[Page 42157]]
hognose snakes have relatively small home range sizes, between 8-30
hectares (19.7-74.1 acres) (Beane 2018, pers. comm.; Tuberville 2018,
pers. comm.). One female southern hognose snake was reported to have
moved 1.44 kilometer (0.9 mile) in one day (Beane 2018, pers. comm.).
During the active seasons when the snakes emerge from their hibernacula
and are moving above ground, they favor habitat where the canopy is
open with a grassy understory (Enge et al. 2016, p. 12). The annual
cycle of the southern hognose snake is characterized by seasonal peaks
of activity (Tuberville et al. 2000, p. 21). Records for the species
occur across all months, but there are generally two peak periods of
detection (when this species is above ground): breeding season (May-
June) and hatchling season (October-November). The southern hognose
snake is diurnal, with peak activity occurring in the late morning to
early afternoon (Beane et al. 2014, p. 173).
Because southern hognose snakes are cryptic and difficult to
detect, they are most often encountered along roads; therefore, the
habitat descriptions associated with those road detections serve as a
proxy to provide for a description of the habitat associated with the
species' movement and dispersal. Habitat associations for a subset of
southern hognose snakes were recorded between 1985-2012; of those
records, 51 percent were found crossing roads between open longleaf
pine-wiregrass-turkey oak forests; 12 percent were found crossing
between longleaf pine-wiregrass-turkey oak forests and disturbed
forests, old fields, or agricultural areas; and 37 percent were found
crossing roads between various disturbed forests and ruderal habitats
(old fields, agricultural plots, clear cuts, and rural yards), or
between ruderal habitats (Beane et al. 2014, p. 173).
In Florida, southern hognose snakes have been found crossing roads
near ruderal habitats, such as clearcuts, residential lawns, improved
pastures, and old fields (Enge 1997, pp. 28-49; Enge and Wood 2003, p.
198; Enge et al. 2016, p. 12). In a study conducted from 1998-2001 in
Hernando County, Florida, half of the southern hognose snakes observed
crossing roads were found near longleaf pine-wiregrass-turkey oak
forests and 48.7 percent of snakes were found near old fields,
agricultural areas, or disturbed forest types (Enge and Wood 2003, p.
189, 2002, p. 371). Near Eglin Air Force Base along the Florida
panhandle, road-killed hatchlings were observed adjacent to longleaf
pine-turkey oak sandhill, invaded by off-site sand pine (Jensen 1996,
p. 25; Tuberville et al. 2000, p. 21).
Southern hognose snakes are more commonly found in fire-maintained
upland habitat than in agricultural areas, and when found in
agricultural areas those areas are typically adjacent to natural upland
habitats. It is likely that natural upland habitats are optimal for
individuals' survival and reproduction while agricultural and other
low-impact areas of human use (e.g., pastures, pine plantations, rural
and urban open areas) support survival and movement through these areas
but may not support long-term viability of populations.
Not only do the individual snakes require sufficient area for their
home ranges and movement that facilitates all life stages and their
needs, but populations require connectivity between populations to
retain genetic integrity and diversity within populations and to ensure
long-term viability. Connectivity to allow for interbreeding amongst
populations provides for the integrity of genetic diversity.
Fragmentation and isolation of populations will eventually lead to
increased inbreeding and increased homozygosity (pairing of two
identical alleles of a particular gene) that contributes to the loss of
alleles in the populations. Over time, as more and more genetic
diversity continues to decline, alleles are lost, often leading to
introduction of locked, deleterious traits.
Threats
Habitat Loss, Conversion, and Fragmentation
The longleaf pine ecosystem is a fire-dependent ecosystem that once
dominated the Coastal Plain of the Atlantic and Gulf coast regions,
from Virginia to Texas (Ware et al. 1993, p. 447). The longleaf pine
uplands once covered an estimated 92 million acres (Frost 1993, p. 20).
Original longleaf pine communities were old-growth, open-canopied, and
contained a structure of two layers: canopy and diverse herbaceous
groundcover. Frequently burned, the natural condition was a canopy
cover that rarely exceeded 60 percent and permitted a grassy
groundcover to flourish (Noss 2013, p. 9). By the 21st century, the
longleaf pine community had declined to less than three million acres
due to forest clearing and conversion for agriculture, silviculture,
and development (Landers et al. 1995, p. 39; Jensen et al. 2008, p.
16). Much of today's forests is younger, denser stands of slash pine
(Pinus elliottii) or loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). There is also a
substantial hardwood component and little or no herbaceous groundcover
(Noel et al. 1998, pp. 534-535). Only about three percent of the
remaining longleaf pine uplands remain in relatively natural condition
due to the exclusion/suppression of naturally occurring wildfires
(Frost 1993, p. 17; Simberloff 1993, p. 3). Absent or infrequent fire
management, mechanical activities that disturb the soil, and habitat
management that favors heavy shrub layers and closed canopy create
conditions that are incompatible with the southern hognose snake's
needs. For example, soil disturbance can cause direct mortality to
southern hognose snakes due to their fossorial nature and may alter or
damage the subterranean and the soil profile, rendering soils less
suitable for snakes.
The longleaf pine ecosystem continues to be altered for
agriculture, short-rotation pine plantations, residential, and
commercial purposes. This habitat conversion has likely negatively
impacted southern hognose snake populations (Enge et al. 2016, p. 21).
Like other reptiles and amphibians associated with the longleaf pine
ecosystem, the southern hognose snake has declined in parallel with the
decline of the longleaf pine ecosystem (Beane et al. 2014, p. 168).
Human population growth in an area leads to increased commercial
and residential development. Many ``hotspots'' of projected urban
development are predicted to occur within or near known occurrence
records for southern hognose snakes or suitable habitat. Urbanization
results in the direct loss of habitat and increases fragmentation of
habitat, as well as increases road mortality, human persecution, and
domestic predators, such as cats (Felis catus) and dogs (Canis lupus
familiaris).
Development increases the prevalence of roads and associated
infrastructure, which increase the fragmentation of the habitat and
additionally result in the potential for increased mortality from
vehicular traffic. Habitat fragmentation is the breaking apart of
contiguous habitat into multiple patches (Fahrig 2003, p. 509).
Fragmentation can have a variety of negative impacts on wildlife,
including greater mortality rates associated with landscape
modifications, more frequent encounters with humans, reduced resources
in smaller patches, reduced reproduction, restricted gene flow, and
increases in predation and competition (Wiens 1994, p. S97; Kjoss and
Litvaitis 2001, p. 285). Reduction of larger habitat patches into
smaller patches can lead to population
[[Page 42158]]
declines due to limited resource availability and can also negatively
affect day-to-day movement (Barbour and Litvaitis 1993, p. 326).
Fragmentation may also negatively affect larger-scale movements such as
dispersal and movement to nearby populations.
Species that require specialized habitats, such as the southern
hognose snake, are thought to be vulnerable to habitat fragmentation
(Wiens 1994, p. S101). While research is lacking to quantify the
effects of fragmentation and urbanization on the southern hognose
snake, continued fragmentation and urbanization is expected to drive
habitat loss and degradation within the species' range.
Road Mortality
Roads create habitat fragmentation and pose a barrier to movement
that can isolate populations and increase direct mortality for many
snake species (Andrews and Gibbons 2005, p. 772). Snakes are more
severely affected by road mortality than other animal groups because
they are thought to use roads for thermoregulation and are relatively
slow-moving (Rosen and Lowe 1994, p. 143). Some will remain immobile on
roads in response to oncoming vehicles and are often intentionally hit
by drivers (Bonnet et al. 1999, p. 40; Andrews and Gibbons 2005, p.
778). An increase in the number of mortalities from vehicles may result
in reduced gene flow among populations, decreased potential for
dispersal into fragmented habitats, and altered demographics in the
form of lower survival and immigration rates, all of which can lead to
declines or extirpation of southern hognose snake populations.
Roads that bisect high quality habitat have higher levels of
mortality than those that bisect lower quality habitat (Shepard et al.
2008, p. 357). Snake populations could experience especially high
levels of road mortality during periods where high traffic volumes and
species' seasonal movements coincide (Ashley et al. 2007, p. 141).
Snakes are more vulnerable to vehicle encounters when they travel
outside of their normal home range, with the highest mortality
occurring in adult males during the mating season, neonates or
hatchlings immediately after birth or hatching, and adult females on
egg laying migrations (Bonnet et al. 1999, p. 47).
Many records for southern hognose snake are from encounters on
roads, which are documented as dead on road (DOR). In North Carolina,
between 1985-2012, 764 southern hognose snakes were detected. Of those
detections, 643 (84 percent) were observed DOR, 110 (14.4 percent) were
observed alive on road (AOR), and 11 (1.4 percent) were encountered
incidentally, not on a road (Beane et al. 2014, p. 170). The majority
of those encountered were juveniles (Beane et al. 2014, pp. 170-171).
Observations in Florida between 1998-2001 detected 39 southern hognose
snakes, all of which were DOR, and 62 percent of those observations
were juveniles (Enge and Wood 2002, p. 369; Enge and Wood 2003, p.
192). These studies indicate that southern hognose snakes are
vulnerable to road mortality, particularly as juveniles.
Invasive Species
Negative impacts on wildlife associated with documented
introductions of invasive species are increasing, but the long-term
consequences of many introductions are still poorly known (Langkilde
2009, p. 208). The red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta),
originating from South America, was first introduced as early as 1918
to the United States at the port of Mobile, Alabama and subsequently
spread across the Southeast. (Wilson 1951, p. 68). Red imported fire
ants can multiply rapidly, and infiltrate disturbed and early-
successional habitats (Todd et al. 2008, p. 540). Reptiles are
particularly susceptible to red imported fire ants. Many species of
reptiles are oviparous (egg-laying), and it has been shown that eggs
and hatchlings can be depredated by red imported fire ants (Swartwout
and Willson 2022, p. 139). Red imported fire ants are aggressive, and
their stings can result in direct mortality, as well as reduced
survival by preventing weight gain, altering behavior, changing
foraging patterns, reductions in food availability, and altered habitat
(Wilcox and Giuliano 2014, pp. 3-4).
The apparent declines and extirpations of the southern hognose
snake are concurrent with the range expansion of red imported fire ants
in the southeast United States. Portions of the snake's range within
the coastal plains of Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida panhandle
were infested with red imported fire ants by 1958 and were the first to
experience the full impact of red imported fire ant predation (Callcott
and Collins 1996, p. 245; Mount 1981, p. 75). The last detections for
southern hognose snakes were 1975 in Alabama and 1981 in Mississippi.
There is some speculation that a time lag occurs between when an area
becomes heavily infested with red imported fire ants and when the
impacts become obvious (Mount 1981, p. 77). It should be noted that red
imported fire ants have difficulty establishing colonies in excessively
sandy soils; in such habitat, the impact would be less severe than in
those capable of supporting dense populations of red imported fire ants
(Mount 1981, p. 75). This may help explain why southern hognose snakes
were extirpated from Mississippi and Alabama. The southern hognose
snake has always been considered to be rare in these States. The soils
are generally wetter west of the Mobile basin and are not as deep as
the sandy soils in other portions of the range. Wetter soils are more
readily colonized by red imported fire ants (LeBrun et al. 2012, p.
888). Thus, red imported fire ants were possibly one of the main
factors leading to the southern hognose snake's extirpation from
Mississippi and Alabama. This may also explain why southern hognose
snakes continue to occupy areas that have deep sandy soils.
Not only are the eggs and hatchlings at risk of red imported fire
ant attacks, juvenile and adult southern hognose snakes may be
particularly susceptible to red imported fire ants because of its small
size, slow speed, use of open areas and the fact that it is a burrowing
species. This species also relies heavily on crypsis and will feign
death as an antipredator defense by curling up on their backs to remain
stationary while assessing the danger. This period of immobility does
not work to fend off the attack, and provides time for red imported
fire ants to overtake the snake with venomous stings (Beane et al.
2014, p. 174). It is possible that the slow, cryptic behavior of the
southern hognose snake is maladaptive to the presence of red imported
fire ants, creating an evolutionary trap that has contributed to its
decline (Beane et al. 2014, p. 174).
Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) negatively affect almost all aspects of
ecosystem structure and function where they are found (Jolley et al.
2010, p. 519). They are known to have significant impacts to native
animal and plant communities through direct consumption and indirectly
through rooting and soil disturbance (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012,
pp. 2284-2293). Reptiles and amphibians are particularly susceptible to
impacts from feral hogs (Taylor and Hellgren 1997, p. 38; Jolley et al.
2010, p. 521). In addition to causing direct mortality to reptiles and
amphibians, feral hogs also have indirect effects on populations
through rooting and habitat alteration (Jolley et al. 2010, p. 520).
Their rooting disturbs soil layers and natural decomposition cycles,
which can lead to changes in nutrient cycling (Bratton 1975, pp. 1358-
1359).
[[Page 42159]]
A study at Fort Benning, Georgia found that an entire population of
feral hogs (i.e., estimated to be 3,196 individuals) could consume 3.16
million reptiles and amphibians per year (Jolley et al. 2010, p. 521).
Feral hogs are known to consume the eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus
holbrookii), a critical prey base of the southern hognose snake (Jolley
et al. 2010, p. 522). The eastern spadefoot toad remains underground
for most of the year, but emerges on warm, rainy nights to breed during
the spring and summer months in the southeastern United States (Hansen
1958, p. 57). During these periods of breeding, eastern spadefoot toads
are found at extremely high densities, and are a concentrated food
source and focus for local populations of feral hogs (Jolley et al.
2010, p. 522). Since there is substantial overlap between feral hog
occurrence and the range of the southern hognose snake, the level of
amphibian prey consumed by feral hogs has the potential to locally
impact the prey base of individual populations of the southern hognose
snake. Additionally, for southern hognose snakes, feral hogs could also
be a predator, particularly while foraging around wetland edges where
snakes are searching for anuran prey (Enge et al. 2016, p. 22).
Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) was introduced into the United
States as a forage crop and soil stabilizer in the early part of the
20th century. It is now considered one of the worst invasive weeds in
the world (Holzmueller and Jose 2011, p. 436). Cogongrass is known to
impact longleaf pine ecosystems in the southeast. It already occurs
throughout much of the southern hognose snake's range and is predicted
to continue to expand. Cogongrass can rapidly spread in disturbed areas
and those undergoing habitat management and restoration. Unlike other
undesirable species in xeric upland communities, cogongrass is well
adapted to fire, and may rapidly spread following a disturbance in an
ecosystem, such as a prescribed fire (Holzmueller and Jose 2011, pp.
436-437). Cogongrass displaces native grasses and forms thick dense
stands that decrease native species biodiversity (Holzmueller and Jose
2011, p. 436).
When cogongrass invades an area, it can quickly result in habitat
loss for many of the longleaf pine ecosystem associated species, such
as gopher tortoises, which will not use invaded areas or consume
cogongrass (Basiotis 2007, p. 21). Because it is fire adapted,
cogongrass has additional impacts on the use of prescribed fire by
altering fire regimes via increased fuel loads. This effect of
cogongrass on fire behavior such that it increases the fire intensity
and severity has the potential to directly increase southern hognose
snake mortality and the potential to indirectly impact southern hognose
snakes through changes in habitat. Cogongrass invasion has reduced
plant diversity and forage for keystone species and some ecosystem
engineers (e.g., gopher tortoise), and facilitated other invasive plant
species in areas where it has been left to spread (Basiotis 2007, p.
24; Lippincott 1997, pp. 48-65). While the effects of cogongrass on
southern hognose snakes and habitat suitability have not been assessed,
cogongrass is currently the most likely invasive plant that could
negatively affect southern hognose snake habitat suitability and
populations.
Effects of Climate Change
In the southeastern United States, climate change is expected to
result in more frequent drought, more extreme heat (resulting in
increases in air and water temperatures), increased heavy precipitation
events (e.g., flooding), more intense storms (e.g., frequency of major
hurricanes increases), and rising sea level and accompanying storm
surge (Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change (IPCC) 2013, entire).
Warming in the southeast is expected to be greatest in the summer,
which is predicted to increase drought frequency, while annual mean
precipitation is expected to increase slightly, leading to increased
flooding events (Alder and Hostetler 2013, unpaginated; IPCC 2013,
entire). Changes in climate may affect ecosystem processes and
communities by altering the physical conditions experienced by
organisms resulting in potential effects to the ecosystem and to
individual species (DeWan et al. 2010, p. 7). These changes have the
potential to impact southern hognose snakes, their prey, and habitat.
There is uncertainty about how the ecosystems and species in this
region will respond to the shifting climate, and effects on species of
conservation concern may result from yet undetermined synergistic
effects. Effects of climate change may act as a risk multiplier by
increasing the risk and severity of more imminent threats such as
urbanization or altered fire regimes.
Terrestrial ectotherms (animals that rely on external sources to
regulate their body temperature), such as the southern hognose snake,
may be at particularly high risk from climate change because they are
less effective at buffering body temperature against ambient
temperature. Southern hognose snakes rely on ambient thermal
heterogeneity to regulate their temperature behaviorally. The ability
to optimally regulate body temperatures by moving among diverse
microhabitats affects their growth, locomotion, and reproduction
(Aubret and Shine 2010, p. 246; Deutsch et al. 2008, p. 6668; Kearney
et al. 2009, entire). Southern hognose snake reproduction is tied to
seasons with suitable temperature and moisture regimes, and altered
weather conditions during these seasons may result in frequently
recurring bust years of reproductive failure, and ultimately population
declines. In other reptiles, it has been shown that high temperatures
that restrict foraging activity can lead to energy shortfalls, and
ultimately reduced population growth (Gibbons et al. 2000, p. 660; Huey
et al. 2010, p. 833; Sinervo et al. 2010, entire). Reptile species with
specialized diets, such as the southern hognose snake, could be
particularly vulnerable to changes in climate that affect their prey
base, leading to potential population declines.
The most substantial impacts from climate change on the southern
hognose snake are likely habitat based. Current and continued projected
warming will increase the risk of wildfire, insect, wind, and disease
damage to forests, and limit the number of suitable days to implement
prescribed fire. The Southeast leads the nation in number of wildfires
per year, and climate change will likely increase the frequency and
intensity of wildfires (Blate 2009, p. 58; McNulty et al. 2013, p.
173). The projected temperature increase across the Southeast will
likely contribute to increased fire frequency and intensity, total
burned area, change in fuel conditions, and longer fire seasons
(McNulty et al. 2013, p. 174). These changes in wildfire frequency and
intensity have the potential to directly harm individual snakes and
could significantly impact individual southern hognose snake
populations and their habitat.
Alternatively, constraints to managing southern hognose snake
habitat with prescribed fire is likely the most substantial risk factor
associated with climate change for the southern hognose. Predicted
changes in temperature and precipitation due to climate change will
limit the number of days with suitable conditions for controlled burns
and will constrain the ability to manage habitat with prescribed
burning. As the ability to implement prescribed fire becomes further
constrained, the ability to reduce woody vegetation and maintain an
open under- and mid-story from prescribed burning will be severely
limited, and
[[Page 42160]]
southern hognose snake habitat will likely degrade.
Additionally, sea level rise (SLR) poses additional risks to
coastal populations of the southern hognose snake. Global mean sea
level has risen about 16-21 cm (7-8 in) since 1900, with about half of
that rise occurring since 1993 (Hayhoe et al. 2018, p. 85). In areas of
the Southeast, tide gauge analysis reveals as much as 0.30 to 0.91
meters (1 to 3 feet) of local relative SLR in the past 100 years
(Carter et al. 2018, p. 757). The future estimated amount that sea
level will rise depends on the response of Earth's climate to warming,
as well as on the future scenarios of human-caused emissions (Hayhoe et
al. 2018, p. 85).
Coastal populations of southern hognose snakes are predicted to be
directly impacted by inundation of upland habitat directly along the
coast by SLR, resulting in loss of habitat. Although the amount of
habitat predicted to be lost within a given population due to SLR
varies considerably depending on the location of the population,
coastal populations of southern hognose snake in the Atlantic Coastal
Plain (North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida), Florida
peninsula, Florida ridge, and Alabama/Florida panhandle units are
considered vulnerable to SLR, and loss of suitable habitat within a
population will result in a decreased probability that a given
population will persist.
Persecution and Harassment
Humans have a long history of persecuting snakes. Whether a snake
is venomous or not, they tend to be viewed as vile and loathsome
creatures (Burghardt et al. 2009, p. 262). Fear of snakes, called
ophidiophobia, has made snake conservation more difficult than other
vertebrate groups (Burghardt et al. 2009, p. 262). The negative
perception of snakes ranges from low interest, to harassment, to
persecution resulting in deliberate killing. Many human-snake
encounters result in the death of the snake (Whitaker and Shine 2000,
p. 121). Due to the southern hognose snake's defensive behavior of
flattening their head like a cobra, opening their mouth, and hissing
loudly, they tend to be viewed as a threat to humans and thus when
encountered in the wild they may be killed by people who do not know
they are harmless (Kelley 2011, p. 19).
There has also been an increase in recreational herpetology by
enthusiasts actively looking for the southern hognose snake because it
is considered an uncommon species and they want to add this species to
their life list. With the rise of social media there has been an
increase of public knowledge of roads where it is easy to spot these
animals. These hobbyists may not be collecting individuals, rather just
photographing and releasing, but this increased harassment may cause
individuals increased stress that could be detrimental to them.
Additionally, the increase in traffic on the roads from hobbyists leads
to increased road mortality for the species (Martin 2018, pers. comm.).
Hognose snakes have been in the North American pet trade dating
back to the late 1980s and into the 1990s, but within the last several
decades their numbers in the pet trade have expanded (Kelley 2011, p.
18). Many view hognose snakes as desirable pets due to their upturned
snout and coloration making them aesthetically attractive, as well as
their tendency to seldom bite, unless a hand or finger is mistaken for
food (Kelley 2011, p. 18). Endearing nicknames such as ``hoggies'' and
the fact that they are rear fanged, carry mild venom, and will play
dead, add to their mystique as pets (Kelley 2011, pp. 18-19). Western
hognose snakes (Heterodon nasicus) comprise most of the pet trade, with
eastern and southern hognose snakes having a smaller commercial role
(Kelley 2011, p. 21). This may be because both the eastern and southern
hognose snakes eat predominantly frogs and toads, and maintaining
specimens in captivity can be more challenging (Kelley 2011, p. 19).
However, there is evidence that collection for the pet trade is a
threat to this species. From 1990 to 1994, 135 wild-caught southern
hognose snakes were reportedly sold in Florida, collected on primarily
four areas of Florida roads where they were relatively abundant (Enge
2005, pp. 208-209). Although there is some potential that some of these
snakes were misidentified and were actually eastern hognose snakes,
this finding shows that there is a demand for the southern hognose
snake in the pet trade (Enge et al. 2016, p. 22). Since the 1990s, the
demand for this species continues and hatchlings often sell for more
than $200 at reptile shows (Enge et al. 2016, p. 22; Kelley 2011, p.
19). In Florida, two areas of Madison and Suwannee counties are well
known to snake hunters for sometimes producing red-colored individuals
that are worth up to $500 (Enge et al. 2016, p. 22). Though the
population impact of collecting southern hognose snakes from roads is
unknown, social media has allowed rapid dissemination of locations of
prime or new collecting areas, and commercial or recreational snake
hunters may come from hundreds of miles away to look for this species
(Enge et al. 2016, pp. 22-23).
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Suitable habitat for southern hognose snakes can be found within
National Wildlife Refuges, National Forests, State lands, and other
conservation areas across the species' range. In fact, there are more
than 45 Federal and State-owned properties within the range of the
species that are managed for conservation (see table 3-1 in the SSA;
Service 2024, p. 31), not including private lands held in conservation
easement. Most conservation lands owned by Federal and State agencies
are expected to remain protected and managed for conservation purposes
in the near future, which would eliminate the risk of direct loss of
habitat to urbanization in these areas. Many of the conservation lands
in which southern hognose snakes occur manage habitat for other
longleaf-associated species, such as red-cockaded woodpeckers
(Leuconotopicus (=Dryobates) (=Picoides) borealis) and gopher
tortoises. This habitat management benefits the southern hognose snake
when it results in an open canopy system with more diverse groundcover.
Habitat improvements in these areas, including ecosystem restoration,
enhancement, protection, prescribed burning, and mechanical upland
habitat restoration conducted across the species' range have likely
provided some benefits to the southern hognose snake.
Throughout the Southeast, 12 military installations have records of
southern hognose snakes, and an additional 26 installations potentially
have them (Petersen et al. 2017, pp. 3-20). Active prescribed burning
programs are implemented on most military installations to manage for
longleaf pine ecosystems, which also benefits conservation of the
southern hognose snake. As part of implementation of the Sikes
Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 670a-670o), the Secretaries of the military
departments are required to prepare and implement integrated natural
resource management plans (INRMPs) for each military installation in
the United States. No installations specifically include southern
hognose snake habitat and population management prescriptions and goals
within their INRMPs; however, most of the INRMPs do include specific
management for other longleaf pine ecosystem species, such as the red-
cockaded woodpecker and gopher tortoise, which would provide some
benefit to southern
[[Page 42161]]
hognose snakes. The Department of Defense's Readiness and Environmental
Protection Integration (DoD REPI) Program also offers opportunities to
expand land conservation beyond installation boundaries to prevent
encroachment and maintain military training flexibility, which also
benefits the southern hognose snake through habitat conservation.
Working through landscape partnerships, the DoD REPI Program has helped
protect, restore, and maintain longleaf pine habitat across the
Southeast.
There are several initiatives and programs in the Southeast whose
objectives include the establishment, restoration, and management of
the native upland longleaf pine ecosystem. These include the Working
Lands for Wildlife programs of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife programs, and
America's Longleaf Restoration Initiative. Public land partners,
including Federal and State agencies, private landowners, and non-
governmental organizations are all active partners in America's
Longleaf Restoration Initiative. This is a collaborative effort of
multiple public and private sector partners that actively supports
range-wide efforts to restore and conserve longleaf pine ecosystems
with a 15-year goal to increase longleaf pine coverage from 3.4 to 8
million ac. These efforts are focused on 16 significant landscapes,
which are areas with large existing longleaf pine blocks, often
anchored by public lands. Within these significant landscapes, local
implementation teams (LITs) are leading conservation efforts by
coordinating partners, developing priorities, and fundraising to
implement on-the-ground conservation. The majority of LITs are working
within the range of the southern hognose snake, and each of these teams
support restoration of longleaf habitat and serve an important role in
southern hognose snake habitat restoration and management. Over the
past decade, more than 1.3 million ac of longleaf pine has been planted
and now 4.7 million ac of longleaf forests occur across the historical
range (America's Longleaf Restoration Initiative 2019, p. 2).
Conservation benefit agreements (CBA), previously candidate
conservation agreements with assurances (CCAA) and safe harbor
agreements, are voluntary commitments made by non-Federal partners to
undertake actions that will remove or reduce threats to the agreement's
covered species. The goal of any CBA is to provide a net conservation
benefit to the covered species that contributes to the recovery or
conservation of the species included in the agreement. As an incentive
to the non-Federal property owner who engages in voluntary conservation
actions for a particular species or group of species, landowners are
given regulatory assurances if the species is listed under the Act. In
September 2023, the Service, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, and Georgia Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation
with Tall Timbers Research Station, finalized the Quail County
Programmatic CCAA for North Florida and Southwest Georgia. This
programmatic CCAA aims to enroll landowners to manage lands to the
benefit of the covered species, including the southern hognose snake
(Service et al. 2023, entire) and to date, one landowner has enrolled,
totaling 100 acres.
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia consider the southern
hognose snake as threatened and protected by State statutes. In these
States it is generally illegal to take, possess, transport, or sell
southern hognose snakes (North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 113
Article 25; South Carolina Code of State Regulations, Chapter 123; Rule
and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Chapter 391-4-10). These
States do issue permits for scientific research. Alabama and
Mississippi list the southern hognose snake as endangered; however, it
is presumed extirpated based on our analysis. In Florida, the southern
hognose snake is ranked as a species of greatest conservation need
(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2019, p. 156);
however, this status does not afford the species additional
protections.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.
Current Condition
To describe the southern hognose snake's current condition, we
assessed the species' population resiliency and the overall redundancy
and representation across its current range considering the threats and
conservation actions acting on the species.
Resiliency describes the ability of a population to withstand
stochastic disturbance. Stochastic events are those arising from random
factors such as weather, flooding, or fire. Resiliency is positively
related to demographic and habitat variables that may be influenced by
connectivity among populations. Generally speaking, populations need
enough individuals within habitat patches of adequate area and quality
to maintain survival and reproduction in spite of disturbance. Each
population's persistence (i.e., probability that a site is currently
occupied by a southern hognose snake) was estimated using a modified
version of a population persistence model that was developed in the
species' previous SSA report, version 1.0, and subsequently published
in peer-reviewed literature (Service 2019, appendix B; Crawford et al.
2020, entire).
Based on expert input, we developed and used the following
categories to describe the values associated with each population's
probability of persistence across the range: unlikely to persist (<50
percent), more likely than not to persist (>=50 percent), very likely
to persist (>=80 percent), and extremely likely to persist (>=95
percent), see table 2, below (Service 2024, p. 46). Although a number
of populations were determined likely to currently be extant at >50
percent probability, the habitat conditions and connectivity may be
impaired, resulting in lower current resiliency than the category that
corresponded to their current persistence probability. To evaluate
current resiliency, we assessed metrics using each population's
probability of persistence, habitat suitability, and connectivity of
populations across the species' range (Service 2024, p. 45-46). We
described the resiliency of the 87 extant populations based on the
probability of persistence along with habitat variables that include
habitat suitability and connectivity using three categories: high,
moderate, and low.
For the habitat suitability metrics, we examined an existing
habitat suitability model (HSI) to evaluate whether conditions on the
landscape are sufficient to support populations and their needs into
the near future (Service 2024, 45-46). A HSI value of 0.4 is the
threshold for locations where southern
[[Page 42162]]
hognose snakes occur versus where they do not occur. This value is
estimated by the best available data and the model is a formalization
of the relationships between conditions that experts have determined
are important for southern hognose snake population persistence.
We then examined connectivity in terms of the spatial distance (km
and mi) between each population and its closest population. We
considered that a population must have other extant populations within
10 km (6.21 mi) to provide demographic connectivity that contribute to
genetic diversity within the species, whereas a population that is
further away than 10 km (6.21 mi) from its closest population indicates
an isolated population. The 10 km (6.21 mi) distance was determined
based on expert opinion on how far an individual snake within a
population could travel to another population. A population is
considered to have some level of resiliency if it occurs on suitable
habitat and has connectivity to another extant population. A population
is considered to have low resiliency if it does not occur on suitable
habitat (HSI <0.4) or there is no connectivity to populations within
the 10 km (6.21 mi) threshold.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU25.007
We considered a population to be highly resilient if it had a
relatively high current persistence probability, had suitable habitat
available, and had other extant populations within 10 km. Moderate
resilient populations had a probability of persistence of 50 to 79.9
percent, had suitable habitat available, and had other extant
populations within 10 km (6.21 mi). Low resiliency populations indicate
a combination of low population persistence, and either or both, lack
of suitable habitat or no connectivity, indicating that the needs of
those southern hognose snake populations are not being fully met.
Extirpated populations were those that had <=50 percent probability of
persistence. Of the 87 extant populations, 17 populations (19.5
percent) have high resiliency, 9 populations (10.3 percent) have
moderate resiliency, and 61 (70.1 percent) have low resiliency. 144
(61.8 percent) populations are considered extirpated (see table 3,
below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU25.008
[[Page 42163]]
Representation reflects the ability of a species to adapt to
changing environmental conditions and can be measured by the breadth of
genetic and/or environmental diversity within and among populations.
For the southern hognose snake, we do not have information related to
genetic diversity. In the absence of species-specific genetic
information, representation can be assessed based on a species'
ecological diversity information such as the extent and variability of
habitat characteristics across the species' geographical range (Wolf et
al. 2015, p. 204).
Ecoregions are a system of classification based on physiography,
where areas with similar characteristics of land formation, dominant
soil and vegetation types, climate, air and sea currents, and
distribution of flora and fauna are grouped into a single ecoregion
(Bailey 1983, entire; Bailey et al. 1994, entire). Ecoregions have been
used to reflect broad areas within which local adaptations and genetic
coadaptation have likely occurred. Therefore, we used ecoregions to act
as an appropriate proxy for factors likely to influence the adaptive
capacity (i.e., genetic diversity and ecological diversity) of southern
hognose snakes across the landscape. After further analysis, we
delineated the southern hognose snake range into representative units
based on grouping Environmental Protection Agency Level IV Ecoregions
by similar ecological characteristics (e.g., soil, geology) and
dividing the ecoregions where barriers limited contiguous habitat and
movement due to large rivers, such as the Savannah, Chattahoochee-
Apalachicola, and Mobile-Tombigbee Rivers where appropriate (Service
2024, pp. 46-47). The nine representative units include Upper Coastal
Plain (Carolinas), Upper Coastal Plain (Georgia/Florida), Atlantic
Coastal Plain (Carolinas), Atlantic Coastal Plain (Georgia/Florida),
Florida Peninsula, Florida Ridge, Alabama/Florida Panhandle, West
(Alabama/Mississippi), and Alabama Central. We considered how the
distributional and habitat variation between the representative units
is indicative of the species' ability to adapt to changing
environmental condition (adaptive capacity). We also considered the
species' behavior to understand its' ability to adapt in a changing
environment.
Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand
catastrophic events. A catastrophic event is defined here as a rare,
destructive event or episode that may have impacts on a population or
multiple populations, such as unpredictable, destructive forces that
may affect the species acutely in time. Redundancy is about spreading
risk among populations, and thus, is assessed by characterizing the
number and distribution of populations relative to the scale of
anticipated species-relevant catastrophic events across a species'
range. The greater the number of populations the species has
distributed over a larger area, the better the chances that the species
can withstand catastrophic events. For the southern hognose snake, we
used the number and distribution of moderate to high resiliency
populations within the representative units and across the range of the
species to measure redundancy. To have high redundancy, the species
needs to have multiple moderate to high resiliency populations within
representative units and throughout its range.
Current representation for the southern hognose snake is reduced
from historical levels due to range contraction and loss of
populations, see table 4. The species is currently represented in seven
representative units that have at least one population with moderate to
high resiliency, and the southern hognose snake is distributed across
multiple representative units across most of the historical range. Two
representative units (Alabama Central and West (Alabama/Mississippi))
have no extant populations currently, and one representative unit
(Atlantic Coastal Plain (Georgia/Florida)) is at risk of becoming
extirpated with the loss of 12 of 14 populations. Therefore, there has
been a loss of latitudinal and longitudinal variability within the
species' range. The southern hognose snake occurs in longleaf pine
savanna ecosystems with well-drained sandy soils, and the well-drained,
sandy soils are needed to meet important life history characteristics
for this species. Given this, as well as the species' fossorial nature,
we expect the species may be limited in its capacity to shift in space
in a changing environment. Coupled with the range contraction and loss
of populations, the species has lost some adaptive capacity compared to
historical conditions.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 42164]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU25.009
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
With the loss of latitudinal and longitudinal variability, the
current redundancy of the southern hognose snake has been reduced from
historical conditions. As discussed above, nine representative units
were delineated, and we determined that each representative unit has
likely lost between 37.7 percent to 100 percent of its populations.
Range-wide, the number of populations has decreased by 61.8 percent,
relative to the historical number of populations as determined from
records since 1880. Although the southern hognose snake has experienced
a decline in the number of populations across its range, the species is
currently represented in seven representative units that have at least
one population with moderate to high resiliency and four representative
units that have more than two populations with high resiliency. In term
of distribution, the southern hognose snake is distributed across
multiple representative units across most of the historical range.
However, the distributions of populations within each representative
unit are clustered, leaving areas of each representative unit with a
reduced distribution of populations and a loss of connectivity.
Therefore, the species currently has a lower redundancy than historical
conditions, and the species may be more vulnerable to the effects of
catastrophic events, such as drought, wildfire, disease outbreak. For
additional details on the individual patterns of the representative
units to determine redundancy, please refer to the SSA report, version
2.1 (Service 2024, pp. 48-49, and 57-58).
Future Condition
In evaluating future conditions for the southern hognose snake, we
considered the threats as described above and how they may influence
future viability of the species. The threats we analyzed for the future
conditions include habitat loss, conversion, and fragmentation,
specifically, urbanization, percentage of compatible land cover,
compatible land cover (square kilometers (km\2\)), fire frequency
(percentage of years burned), burn window days per year, total burns
(2023-2080), and habitat suitability index, and climate change. We
[[Page 42165]]
developed six plausible scenarios projecting the future at three time
steps out to years 2040, 2060, and 2080.
Projections of habitat loss due to urban development and climate
change were carried forward in our assessment of southern hognose snake
populations and the overall viability of the species. We were not able
to model impacts from invasive species, such as red imported fire ants
and feral hogs, human persecution and increased harassment, over-
collection for the pet trade, and disease, because datasets and other
information sources do not exist that capture the extent and degree of
impact of these stressors to southern hognose snake populations across
the species' range. However, these factors may also influence the
species' viability in the future.
Using our six plausible scenarios, we performed spatial analyses to
predict changes in land cover and fire frequency under various levels
of urbanization (low, medium, high), as well as for SLR, and climate
change induced changes to the burn windows that dictate opportunities
for prescribed fire (RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5) into the future. Then, using
the model framework developed for the current condition analysis, we
created a stochastic simulation model that allowed us to project
population persistence into the future as influenced by changes in
habitat suitability, and summarized predicted patterns of population
persistence to the years 2040, 2060, and 2080. Importantly, a feature
of this model is that it does not incorporate colonization or
recolonization (i.e., immigration or emigration), because that
information is not well studied and is unavailable. Therefore, the
model will predict population decline over time as the model is not
accounting for new individuals joining the populations. To address this
inherent feature of the model, we ran the model forward to 2040, 2060,
and 2080 assuming no changes in urbanization or climate and SLR. This
created a null expectation for model projected population losses
against which we could compare the model with projected changes in
urbanization, climate, and SLR and we referred to this as the null
model. Based on the limitations of the model, confidence in the output
is diminished beyond 2080 and we are unable to draw reliable
predictions about the species' response to these threats/stressors. For
additional information on the model methods and variables, refer to the
SSA report, version 2.1 (Service 2024, pp. 72-77).
Using the simulation model, we predicted the future persistence
probability for the extant populations in the species' range through
the year 2080. All six scenarios yielded nearly identical predictions
of the number and percentage of persistent populations. These patterns
were seen across all future projections and across three time horizons
(2040, 2060, and 2080). We followed similar steps as in the current
condition analysis to summarize population resiliency by reporting the
number of populations at each persistence category, under these two
future scenarios in years 2040, 2060, and 2080.
For all scenarios by 2080, future population persistence decreased
from current conditions, and most populations that fell within the
extremely likely on landscape (extant) (>=95 percent) threshold under
current conditions were predicted to have lower persistence
probabilities in the future and, thus, dropped to lower categories. The
number and percentage of populations likely to be extirpated (<50
percent persistence probability) increased for all scenarios and future
time horizons, relative to current conditions. Under the low
urbanization/RCP 4.5 scenario by 2040, 19 populations were predicted to
be extirpated. Between 2040 and 2060, an additional 25 populations were
predicted to be extirpated, and between 2060 and 2080, an additional 12
populations were predicted to be extirpated. Thus, a total of 56 of the
87 extant populations were predicted to become extirpated by 2080, see
table 5, below. The results were predicted to be very similar for the
high urbanization/RCP 8.5 scenario; therefore, below, we only discuss
the numbers for the low urbanization/RCP 4.5 scenario.
In terms of resiliency of extant populations, by 2040, 13
populations were predicted to have high resiliency, 12 populations to
have moderate resiliency, and 43 populations to have low resiliency. By
2080, 2 populations were predicted to have high resiliency, 14 to have
moderate resiliency, and 15 to have low resiliency (Service 2024, p.
83).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 42166]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU25.010
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
The similarity in results among each of the stressor scenarios
suggest that future population declines predicted to occur are
primarily a consequence of annual population persistence probabilities
being less than one for each population and our model not including
processes for colonization or recolonization, rather than a consequence
of the threats we modelled (decreased habitat suitability due to
climate change and urbanization). This indicates that the changes
captured by the future scenarios are not large enough to substantially
affect future population persistence at the time scales considered
(even though urbanization and climate change may affect persistence
over longer time periods). Additionally, it indicates that a number of
populations estimated to be persisting in 2023 are existing under
conditions that do not support long-term persistence. In other words,
it suggests an extinction debt, where there is a lag between conditions
causing extinction and the actual extinction events. Limited
differences between the null model and future scenarios may also
reflect a lack of available spatial data for other threats, which may
cause larger declines if their effects were able to be included within
the future scenarios (e.g., invasive species, disease, increases in
soil temperature).
Future representation is projected to decline from current
conditions in the future, due to fragmentation of suitable habitat and
decreased connectivity within and among representative units, see table
6, below. As mentioned under Current Condition, given the species'
fossorial nature and habitat needs, the species may be limited in its
capacity to shift in space in a changing environment. With the
predicted declines in the future, the species is projected to have
reduced adaptive capacity, and therefore, representation is low.
Similarly, we project declines in redundancy within representative
units and throughout the species range, due to predicted population
losses and resiliency decreases in the future, see table 6. Under the
low urbanization/RCP 4.5 scenario by 2040, six of seven representative
units were predicted to be occupied by at least one population with
moderate to high resiliency. By 2080, five of seven representative
units were predicted to be occupied by at least one population with
moderate to high resiliency. This was a decline from seven
representative units currently having at least one population in
moderate to high resiliency. By 2080, only one representative unit
(Upper Coastal Plain (Georgia/Florida) was predicted to have more than
two populations in moderate to high resiliency by 2080; the remaining
four representative units have only one or two moderate to high
resiliency populations by 2080. Two representative units were predicted
to have no extant populations by 2080. These predicted losses in
populations,
[[Page 42167]]
resiliency, and range will cause the species to be vulnerable to the
effects of single catastrophic events, such as large-scale drought,
wildfires, hurricanes, and disease outbreaks. In term of distribution,
the southern hognose snake was projected to have reduced distribution
within and across multiple representative units, given the predicted
extirpations and low resiliency populations. In addition, the
distributions of remaining moderate to high resiliency populations
within each representative unit are clustered, resulting in reduced
connectivity. Given this, the species is projected to have low
redundancy.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 42168]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU25.011
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
[[Page 42169]]
Determination of Southern Hognose Snake Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether a species meets the definition of endangered species or
threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that the overall viability of the southern hognose
snake has declined and will continue to decline over time due to
ongoing and future threats of habitat loss, conversion, and
fragmentation (Factor A), loss of connectivity between populations
(Factor A), road mortality (Factor E), invasive species (Factor E), and
impacts from climate change (Factor E).
Our analysis to determine the species' status was based on the
species' current and future conditions as described in the SSA report,
version 2.1 (Service 2024, entire). We first considered the viability
to determine if the species is in danger of extinction throughout all
of its range. We determined that the species' current viability is
sufficient to support populations across its range such that it is not
in danger of extinction throughout its range. We recognize the species
has fewer resilient populations, lower redundancy, and lower
representation across its range from its historical condition to
current; however, the overall current viability is supporting the
species across most of the representative units (Upper Coastal Plains
(Carolinas), Upper Coastal Plain (Georgia/Florida), Atlantic Coastal
Plain (Carolinas), Atlantic Coastal Plain (Georgia, Florida), Florida
Peninsula, Florida Ridge, and Alabama/Florida Panhandle). There are
currently 87 extant populations occurring across these seven
representative units. When considering the 87 currently extant
populations, we can reasonably say that 17 populations (approximately
20 percent) are at the highest level of resiliency because they have
adequate suitable habitat and connectivity and have a high probability
of persistence (>=80 percent), and 9 populations (approximately 10
percent) have moderate resiliency. Sixty-one populations (approximately
70 percent) are considered to have low resiliency.
The species' current representation and redundancy is reduced from
historical condition. Given the habitat needs and the species'
fossorial nature, the species may be limited in its capacity to shift
in space in a changing environment, and coupled with the range
contraction and loss of populations, the species has lost some adaptive
capacity (representation) and may be more vulnerable to catastrophic
events (such as drought, wildfire, etc.) compared to historical
conditions. While there has been a decline in the number of current
populations and range contraction for the southern hognose snake, the
species is still relatively widespread in terms of geographic extent.
It continues to maintain a level of representation in 7 of 9 analysis
units with 26 current populations having moderate to high resiliency
across all these representative units. In addition, there is at least
one high or moderate resiliency population in each of the seven extant
representative units. Thus, after assessing the best scientific and
commercial data available, the current condition of the southern
hognose snake still provides sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and
representation that it is not in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range.
When considering the future condition of the southern hognose
snake, we found that the species' future viability is projected to
decline as population resiliencies and the species' redundancy and
representation decline due to ongoing and projected future threats
acting on the species and its habitat. In the future, land-use change
and other anthropogenic activities are projected to impact southern
hognose snake habitat through loss of habitat and fragmentation. Our
analysis of low urbanization/RCP 4.5 and high urbanization/RCP 8.5
future scenarios until 2080 encompasses the best available information
for the realm of possible future projections of levels of urbanization,
and it uses two different representative concentration pathways (RCPs)
for climate change to look at the effects of prescribed burn windows.
Beyond 2080, model confidence is diminished, and we are unable to draw
reliable predictions about the species' response to these threats/
stressors.
Loss of habitat and fragmentation associated with urbanization and
climate change were projected to occur throughout the species' range.
Under the low urbanization/RCP 4.5 scenario at 2080, 56 of the current
87 populations (approximately 64 percent) were predicted to be
extirpated (less than 50 percent persistence probability), 2
populations were predicted to have high resiliency, 14 populations were
predicted to have moderate resiliency, and 15 populations are predicted
to have low resiliency. These numbers are identical for the high
urbanization/RCP 8.5 scenario at 2080. Thus, for southern hognose
snake, 16 moderate to high resiliency populations are predicted to
remain on the landscape by 2080. The species' future representation and
redundancy was projected to be reduced from current condition. With the
predicted declines in the future, the species is projected to have
reduced adaptive capacity, and therefore, representation is low. Our
analysis shows that future redundancy, across representative units and
throughout the species' range, will also be low. By 2080, only two
representative units are predicted to be occupied by a single
population with high resiliency and five representative units are
predicted to be occupied at least one population with moderate
resiliency. Additionally, by 2080, only one representative unit is
predicted to have more than two populations with moderate resiliency.
The Upper Coastal Plain (Georgia/Florida) representative unit is
predicted to have the most extant populations with moderate to high
resiliency (nine populations) in the future. However, this unit is also
predicted to have reduced redundancy given the predicted extirpation of
18 populations and low resiliency of 10 populations by 2080. Thus,
although this unit has the most extant populations in the future, the
remaining populations in this unit are isolated. In addition, the
projected declines result in reduced distribution for the species, with
remaining populations clustered resulting in a loss of connectivity.
Therefore, the species is vulnerable to the effects of catastrophic
events. Given this, the species is projected to have low redundancy.
Additionally, while we were not able to model impacts from invasive
species, human persecution and increased harassment, over-collection
for the pet
[[Page 42170]]
trade, and disease because datasets and other information sources do
not exist that capture the extent and degree of impact of these
stressors to southern hognose snake populations, these factors may also
influence the species' viability in the future conditions and were
considered in making this determination. Overall, the scope and
magnitude of future threats are predicted to reduce the resiliency,
representation, and redundancy of the southern hognose snake such it is
at risk of extinction in the future. Thus, after assessing the best
scientific and commercial data available, we conclude that southern
hognose snake is not currently in danger of extinction but is likely to
become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson) vacated the provision of the
Service's Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant
Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (Final Policy; 79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014) that provided if the Service determine that a
species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Service will not
analyze whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of
its range.
Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered throughout a significant portion of its range--that is,
whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1)
the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of
extinction in that portion. We can choose to address either question
first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a
negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we
do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the
species' range.
Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether
the species is in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion
of its range. In undertaking this analysis for the southern hognose
snake, we choose to address the status question first.
We evaluated the range of the southern hognose snake to determine
if the species is in danger of extinction throughout any portion of its
range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided in an
infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the
species' range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered
species. For the southern hognose snake, we considered whether the
threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically
meaningful portion of the species' range than in the rest of the range
such that the species is in danger of extinction in that portion.
We examined all threats including habitat loss, conversion, and
fragmentation, loss of connectivity between populations, road
mortality, invasive species, and climate change, including cumulative
effects as described in the Threats section above in determining
portions to consider. By considering the seven representation units for
the species, and the threats examined, we identified an area that
includes the Atlantic Coastal Plain (Carolinas) and the Atlantic
Coastal Plain (Georgia/Florida) as a portion to evaluate given the
threats associated with SLR, coastal development, and increasing
population isolation through habitat fragmentation. Both units within
the portion were assessed to have no populations with high resiliency,
only one population with moderate resiliency each, and the remaining
populations with low resiliency. In addition, the Atlantic Coastal
Plain (Georgia/Florida) population currently has only two extant
populations, one assessed to be low and the other as moderate. Given
only two populations in the Atlantic Coastal Plain (Carolinas) and the
Atlantic Coastal Plain (Georgia/Florida) as a portion were assessed to
have moderate resiliency, the current threats of coastal development
and lack of connectivity due to habitat fragmentation appear to be
having a greater impact to the populations in this portion. In
addition, with only two populations remain with a moderate level of
resiliency, there is limited capacity to withstand catastrophic events.
Therefore, the status of this portion may be different than the
remainder of the range.
We next addressed whether that portion is ``significant.'' Two
district courts vacated the definition of ``significant'' contained in
the Final Policy (Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F.
Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017), hereafter, CBD v. Jewell, and Desert
Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74
(N.D. Cal. 2018), hereafter, Desert Survivors). For the purposes of
this analysis when considering whether a portion is ``significant,'' we
considered that portion of the range's biological importance to the
southern hognose snake. We evaluated the available information,
including whether this portion occurs in unique habitat, contains high-
quality or high value-habitat, or contains a large geographic portion
of the suitable habitat, to assess its significance. The identified
portion of the range that comprises Atlantic Coastal Plain (Georgia/
Florida) and Atlantic Coastal Plain (Carolinas). This portion
constitutes 14.9 percent of the species' current range. Therefore, this
portion of the range does not constitute a sufficiently large
proportion or geographic area of the current species' range. In
addition, this portion does not contain habitat of high or unique
value, such that it necessarily provides an important conservation
value for the southern hognose snake. Accordingly, this portion is not
a significant portion of the southern hognose snake's range and we find
the species is not in danger of extinction in a significant portion of
its range.
Therefore, we determine that the species is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range. This does not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert
Survivors and CBD v. Jewell because, in reaching this conclusion, we
did not apply the aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition
of ``significant'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.
Determination of Status
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we
determine that the southern hognose snake meets the Act's definition of
a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the southern
hognose snake as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6)
and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, foreign
governments, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages
cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery
actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required
by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the
[[Page 42171]]
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species">https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species</a>) or from our South Carolina Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina would be eligible for Federal funds to
implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of
the southern hognose snake. Information on our grant programs that are
available to aid species recovery can be found at: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance">https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance</a>.
Although the southern hognose snake is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled, Interagency Cooperation, and it
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act states that each Federal action agency
shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in
jeopardy or adverse modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to confer with the Service on any 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 critical
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the southern hognose snake
that may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under
section 7 are management of Federal lands administered by the
Department of Defense, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, as well as actions 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 actions funded by Federal
agencies such as 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. Federal agencies should coordinate with the
South Carolina Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific questions on section 7
consultation and conference requirements.
Section 9 of the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for
endangered species but does not provide these same prohibitions for
threatened species. Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, for
any species listed as a threatened species, the Secretary must issue
protective regulations that are ``necessary and advisable to provide
for the conservation of such species'' (these are referred to as 4(d)
rules). Additional measures for the southern hognose snake are
described below (see
[[Page 42172]]
Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act, below).
Section 9(b)(1) provides an exemption from certain prohibited acts
for qualifying pre-Act wildlife specimens. Specifically, Section
9(b)(1) states that the prohibitions of subsections (a)(1)(A) and
(a)(1)(G) of section 9 shall not apply to any fish or wildlife which
was held in captivity or in a controlled environment on (A) December
28, 1973, or (B) the date of the publication in the Federal Register of
a final regulation adding such fish or wildlife to any list of species
published pursuant to subsection (c) of section 4 of this Act [as
relevant to listed wildlife, the list of endangered and threatened
wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) under the Act]: Provided, that such holding and
any subsequent holding or use of the fish or wildlife was not in the
course of a commercial activity.
For threatened species, prohibitions are promulgated by regulation
under section 4(d), and a specimen may qualify for the exemption in
9(a)(1)(G) with regard to regulatory violations. For those specimens
that continue to qualify under the ``pre-Act'' exemption, prohibitions
under the 4(d) rule generally will not apply.
However, if a person engages in any commercial activity with an
otherwise qualifying specimen--the wildlife would immediately cease to
qualify as pre-Act wildlife and become subject to the relevant
prohibition, because it has been held or used in the course of a
commercial activity. Similarly, engaging in any activity prohibited by
this 4(d) rule that also involves an actual or intended transfer of
wildlife from one person to another person in the pursuit of gain or
profit would involve holding or using the wildlife specimen in the
course of a commercial activity. Therefore, if a person engages in such
activity on or after the pre-Act date for a wildlife species with an
otherwise qualifying specimen, it would be prohibited--the wildlife
would immediately cease to qualify as pre-Act wildlife and become
subject to the relevant prohibition, because it has been held or used
in the course of a commercial activity.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits for threatened wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.32,
and general Service permitting regulations are codified at 50 CFR part
13. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued: for
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
II. Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
As discussed above under Available Conservation Measures, section 9
of the Act provides a specific list of prohibitions for endangered
species but does not provide these same prohibitions for threatened
species. Instead, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act, for any species
listed as a threatened species, the Secretary must issue protective
regulations that are ``necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of such species'' (these are referred to as ``4(d)
rules''). Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first
sentence states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as he
[or she] deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation
of species listed as threatened species. Conservation is defined in the
Act to mean the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary
to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act
states that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to
any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the
case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants.
With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress delegated broad
authority to the Secretary to determine what protections would be
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened
species, and even broader authority to put in place any of the section
9 prohibitions, for a given species.
Courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under section 4(d) to develop regulations that are appropriate for the
conservation of threatened species. For example, courts have upheld, as
a valid exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section
4(d) that included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea
Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007);
Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service,
2002 WL 511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules
that do not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of
Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the
legislative history when the Act was initially enacted, ``once an
animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite
number of options available to him [or her] with regard to the
permitted activities for those species. He [or she] may, for example,
permit taking, but not importation of such species, or he [or she] may
choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the
transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st
Sess. 1973).
Under our 4(d) authorities, we put in place protections intended to
both prevent a threatened species from becoming an endangered species
and to promote its recovery. The 4(d) rule explains what is prohibited
for a threatened species, thus making the activity unlawful without a
permit or authorization under the Act for the prohibited activity
unless otherwise excepted in the 4(d) rule (species-specific 4(d) rules
may also include affirmative requirements). Section 4(d) rules are
therefore directly related to what actions may require permits in the
future. As discussed in Available Conservation Measures, permits may be
issued for purposes described in our threatened species permitting
regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.72, including for recovery actions,
conservation benefit agreements (previously referred to as candidate
conservation agreements with assurances and safe harbor agreements), or
habitat conservation plans.
We may also except otherwise prohibited activities through a 4(d)
rule itself, in which case threatened species permits would not be
required for those activities. For example, there are two categories of
exceptions that we frequently include in 4(d) rules, and these are for
otherwise prohibited acts or forms or amounts of ``take'' that are: (1)
unavoidable while conducting beneficial actions for the species, or (2)
considered inconsequential (de minimis) to the conservation of the
species. For otherwise prohibited take activities that require permits
under section 10 of the Act, programmatic approaches--such as general
conservation plans and template habitat conservation plans--may be
available as another way for project proponents to comply with take
prohibitions or requirements applicable to one or more species while
reducing the time that would otherwise be associated with developing
individual permit applications. In addition, the Service and project
proponents can reduce the need for such permits by developing
[[Page 42173]]
standardized conservation measures that avoid the risk of ``take.''
The provisions of this species' proposed protective regulations
under section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we would use
to promote the conservation of the southern hognose snake. The proposed
protective regulations would apply only if and when we make final the
listing of the southern hognose snake as a threatened species and
finalize the 4(d) rule. Nothing in 4(d) rules changes in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act or the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act. As mentioned
previously in Available Conservation Measures, section 7(a)(2) of the
Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that
any action they authorize, fund, 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, even
before the listing of any species or the designation of its critical
habitat is finalized, 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 critical habitat proposed to be designated for such
species. These requirements are the same for a threatened species
regardless of what is included in its 4(d) rule.
A 4(d) rule does not alter section 7 obligations, including the
criteria for informal or formal consultations or the analytical process
used for biological opinions or concurrence letters. Section 7
consultation is required for Federal actions that ``may affect'' a
listed species regardless of whether take caused by the activity is
prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule. For example, as with an
endangered species, if a Federal agency determines that an action is
``not likely to adversely affect'' a threatened species, this will
require the Service's written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)).
Similarly, if a Federal agency determines that an action is ``likely to
adversely affect'' a threatened species, the action will require formal
consultation with the Service and the formulation of a biological
opinion (50 CFR 402.14(a)). Because consultation obligations and
processes are unaffected by 4(d) rules, we may consider developing
tools to streamline future intra-Service and interagency consultations
for actions that result in forms of take that are not prohibited by the
4(d) rule (but that still require consultation). These tools may
include consultation guidance, online consultation processes via the
Service's digital project planning tool (Information for Planning and
Consultation; <a href="https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/">https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/</a>), template language for
biological opinions, or programmatic consultations.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act,
we have developed a proposed rule that is designed to address the
southern hognose snake conservation needs. As discussed previously in
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the
southern hognose snake is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat loss and
degradation as a result of land conversion and fragmentation causing
loss of connectivity between populations, road mortality, invasive
species, and climate change. Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to
issue such regulations as they deem necessary and advisable to provide
for the conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the
Secretary to include among those protective regulations any of the
prohibitions that section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered
species (In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule
Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home
Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir.
1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))). Our necessary and
advisable determination for the southern hognose snake includes
consideration of conservation and economic impacts (Kansas Natural
Resources Coalition, et al. v. USFWS, et al. No. 23-CV-00159-DC-RCG
(W.D. Tex. 2025)). We explain below why we find that, if finalized, the
prohibitions and exceptions in this proposed rule as a whole satisfy
the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the southern
hognose snake.
The protective regulations we are proposing for southern hognose
snake incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the
threats to the species. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act,
and implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to
commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause
to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct)
within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United
States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has
been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the
course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce. This proposed protective regulation
includes all of these prohibitions for the southern hognose snake
because the southern hognose snake is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future and putting these prohibitions in
place is intended to help to prevent further declines, maintain
connectivity between populations, slow populations' rate of decline,
and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other ongoing or future
threats.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
habitat loss and degradation, road mortality, invasive species, and
impacts from changes to climate are affecting the status of the
species. In addition, there is evidence of demand for the southern
hognose snake in the pet trade. Therefore, prohibiting take, and
activities associated with import, export, trade, commerce, and sale is
intended to help prevent further collections from the wild, that could
result in population-level impacts to the species.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
take is intended to help preserve the species' remaining populations,
retain connectivity, slow their rate of decline, and decrease
cumulative effects from other ongoing or future threats. Therefore, we
propose to prohibit take of the southern hognose snake, except for take
resulting from those actions and activities specifically excepted by
the 4(d) rule.
The proposed 4(d) rule would also provide for the conservation of
the species by allowing exceptions that are intended to incentivize
conservation
[[Page 42174]]
actions or actions that are not expected to rise to the level that
would have a negative impact (i.e., would have only de minimis impacts)
on the species' conservation. Exceptions to the prohibitions would
include the exceptions to the prohibition for endangered wildlife, as
set forth in 50 CFR 17.21(c)(2)-(4), (d)(2) and 50 CFR 17.31(c). This
includes allowing for any person to take southern hognose snake in
defense of their own life or the lives of others and for law
enforcement to possess and conduct other acts with illegally taken
southern hognose snake (50 CFR 17.21(c)(2)). In addition, to further
the conservation of the species, any employee or agent of the Service,
any other Federal land management agency, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, a State conservation agency, or a federally recognized Tribe,
who is designated by their agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when
acting in the course of their official duties, take threatened wildlife
without a permit if such action is necessary to: (i) aid a sick,
injured, or orphaned specimen; or (ii) dispose of a dead specimen; or
(iii) salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study;
or (iv) remove specimens that constitute a demonstrable but
nonimmediate threat to human safety, provided that the taking is done
in a humane manner (50 CFR 17.21(c)(3)). Such taking may involve
killing or injuring only if it has not been reasonably possible to
eliminate such threat by live capturing and releasing the specimen
unharmed, in an appropriate area.
We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with
our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to
conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific
data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of
endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants.
State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this
regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a
State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement
with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated
by their agency for such purposes, would be able to conduct activities
designed to conserve southern hognose snake that may result in
otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
We also propose exceptions to take prohibitions for incidental take
resulting from habitat management activities that maintain or restore
southern hognose snake habitat, including implementation of prescribed
fire; actions to reduce the threat of invasive species; silviculture
practices and forestry activities that follow State-recommended best
management practices (BMPs), as well as operational and maintenance
activities for electric infrastructure (described below) that are
expected to have negligible impacts to the southern hognose snake and
its habitat.
This proposed 4(d) rule applies exceptions from prohibitions for
the southern hognose snake for incidental take resulting from
activities that restore or maintain existing forest land use, and that
when conducted in areas within the range of the southern hognose snake
on suitable soils, result in the establishment and maintenance of open-
canopy, pine-dominated forest stands across the landscape. As noted
above, open-canopy, pine-dominated communities (including sandhill and
scrub) support the southern hognose snake. However, incidental take
resulting from activities that cause significant soil disturbance,
including, but not limited to, mechanical site preparation practices
(such as, wind-rowing, shearing that penetrates the soil surface,
stumping, disking (except during fire break creation or maintenance),
root-raking, and bedding) are not excepted under this proposed 4(d)
rule. Significant soil-disturbing activities are not excepted because
soil disturbance could have long-term impacts to southern hognose snake
habitat and, as a cryptic fossorial species, southern hognose snake
presence may not be readily detected before or during the activities,
so incidental take may occur without the operator's knowledge.
Incidental take resulting from the following specific activities is
excepted in the 4(d) rule:
Prescribed burning--We are proposing an exception for take
associated with prescribed burning, including all firebreak
establishment and maintenance actions. Upland natural communities
associated with southern hognose snakes are fire-maintained
communities. Implementing fire management creates and maintains the
early successional, open-canopied conditions that benefit the southern
hognose snake. Successional changes from fire exclusion or suppression
in southern hognose snake habitat results in declines in habitat
conditions.
Tree harvesting and planting--We are proposing an exception for
take associated with tree thinning, tree harvest, planting pines (by
hand or machine), and associated activities including skidding logs and
the use of loading decks, which are necessary components of harvest
operations. While information about the impacts of harvesting and
planting is limited, we expect forest management regimes that create or
maintain open-canopy, pine-dominated systems will enhance southern
hognose snake habitat. Incidental take resulting from deforestation or
conversion of forest to non-forest land use is not excepted under this
proposed 4(d) rule, because deforestation and conversion of forest to
non-forest land use would remove southern hognose snake habitat and
have long term impacts on the species.
Maintenance of existing, unimproved forest roads and trails--We are
proposing an exception for take associated with maintenance of roads
and trails that provide access to habitat so that the habitat can be
maintained and enhanced to benefit the southern hognose snake. However,
the roads and trails must be unimproved, meaning those that are dirt,
typically undisturbed soil, and unsurfaced. This exception includes
only take associated with the maintenance of existing forest roads and
trails, because creating new roads or trails would increase habitat
fragmentation.
Forestry activities that implement State-recommended forestry
BMPs--We are proposing an exception for take associated with forestry
activities that implement State-recommended forestry BMPs, if those
BMPs promote open-canopy forest conditions in upland habitats that
improve habitat conditions and provide for the conservation of the
southern hognose snake. To qualify for this exception, these activities
must not result in soil and subsurface disturbances that would disrupt
the movement or safety of the southern hognose snake or damage its
subsurface habitat.
Herbicide application--We are proposing an exception for take
associated with herbicide application that targets control of woody or
invasive vegetation and promotes the long-term restoration of native
herbaceous vegetation. Such herbicide applications help create and
maintain favorable habitat conditions for the southern hognose snake.
These provisions include only herbicide applications conducted in a
manner consistent with Federal and applicable State laws, including
Environmental Protection Agency label restrictions and herbicide
[[Page 42175]]
application guidelines as prescribed by manufacturers.
Electric infrastructure maintenance--We are proposing an exception
for take associated with operational and maintenance activities,
including tree removal and planting, tree trimming, debris management,
and vegetation maintenance (e.g., mowing), associated with electric
transmission and generation infrastructure and rights-of-way that
minimize ground disturbance, so as not to disrupt the movement or
safety of the southern hognose snake, or damage the southern hognose
snake's subsurface habitat. We recognize certain mechanical management
activities may be used for maintenance requirements to ensure safety
and operation needs for electric infrastructure.
We find that the activities presented above, if taken by land
managers in the range of the southern hognose snake, will generally
result in maintaining or restoring habitat for the species and will
further the goal of conserving the southern hognose snake. These
activities will also continue to contribute to the southern hognose
snake's conservation and long-term viability. Therefore, the
prohibitions of this proposed 4(d) rule for the southern hognose snake
would not apply to these activities.
We may under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one
or more otherwise prohibited activities, including those described
above. The regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife
state that the Director of the Service may issue a permit authorizing
any activity otherwise prohibited with regard to threatened species.
These include permits issued for the following purposes: for scientific
purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship,
for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental
taking, or for special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act
(50 CFR 17.32). The statute also contains certain exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
The 4(d) rule provides for the conservation of the southern hognose
snake because it will regulate activities that pose a threat to the
species. However, it also provides flexibilities in management and
permitting requirements for several activities that are expected to
have negligible impacts to the southern hognose snake and its habitat,
as discussed above. Please see our ``Consideration of Economic Costs
for the Proposed 4(d) Rule for the Southern Hognose Snake'' on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> for our consideration of economic impacts. We
determined there would likely be limited change to the regulated
community as a result of this rule. We do not envision many instances
for the need for a permit for prohibited take under the 4(d) rule. Some
number of individuals are anticipated to request permits for take
associated with surveys or research activities. For incidental take,
where there is no Federal nexus for section 7, depending on the
situation, this will either be a new permit requirement, an alternative
permit requirement, or an additional permit requirement, depending on
what is already required by State law. Where there is a Federal nexus,
the 4(d) rule does not change any obligations under section 7 of the
ESA. Therefore, after considering the conservation needs of the species
and the economic costs of the 4(d) rule, we have determined that the
4(d) rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of
the species. We appreciate any public comment on the potential impacts
(conservation and economic) of the proposed 4(d) rule.
As stated earlier, nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule will change
in any way the recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act,
the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the
ability of the Service to enter into partnerships for the management
and protection of the southern hognose snake. However, interagency
cooperation may be further streamlined through planned programmatic
consultations for the species between Federal agencies and the Service.
III. Critical Habitat
Background
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in
section 3(5)(A) of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the
conservation of the species and (b) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3(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 each Federal action agency 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 designated 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. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service even absent the critical habitat
designation because of the requirement to ensure that the action is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species.
Even if the Service were to conclude after consultation that the
proposed activity is likely to result in destruction or adverse
modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action
[[Page 42176]]
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 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(b)(2) 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 compiled in the SSA report and information developed during
the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in the species-specific 4(d)
rule. 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
scientific data available at the time of designation will not control
the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if
new information available at the time of those planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Critical Habitat Determinability
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.''
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the southern hognose snake and habitat characteristics where
this species is located, but sufficient data to perform the required
consideration of economic impacts are lacking at this time. Therefore,
we conclude that the designation of critical habitat for the southern
hognose snake is not determinable at this time. The Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
that is not determinable at the time of listing (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Proposed 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 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; title II of Pub. L. 104-121, March 29, 1996), 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.
While we do not conduct RFA analyses on our classification
determinations under the Act, in accordance with recent caselaw (Kansas
Natural Resources Coalition, et al. v. USFWS, et al. No. 23-CV-00159-
DC-
[[Page 42177]]
RCG (W.D. Tex. 2025)) we comply with RFA through consideration of
conservation and economic impacts when promulgating 4(d) rules. Please
see our ``Consideration of Economic Costs for the Proposed 4(d) Rule
for the Southern Hognose Snake'' on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> for our
consideration of economic impacts. We have examined this proposed
rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the RFA and
based on our current information, we have determined that this action
is unlikely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. We request information (see Information
Requested) on the potential impacts of this proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This exemption
includes listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as
critical habitat designations and species-specific protective
regulations promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or
reclassify a species as threatened. The courts have upheld this
position (e.g., Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995)
(critical habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent
4(d) rule)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of (Government-to-
Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR
22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments''), the President's memorandum of November
30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479,
December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512
DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate
meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native
Corporations on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Department of the Interior Secretary's Order 3206 (``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. During our
initiation of our status review and request for information on southern
hognose snake, we contacted those federally recognized Tribes within
the range of the species, including Tribes with Catawba Indian Nation,
Poarch Band of Creek, and Seminole. We will continue to work with
relevant Tribal entities during the development of the final
determination for the southern hognose snake.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2025-0210 and upon request from the South Carolina Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, and 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. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Snake, southern hognose''
in alphabetical order under REPTILES to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Snake, southern hognose......... Heterodon simus... Wherever found.... T [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.42(v); \4d\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. As proposed to be amended at, 86 FR 62434 (November 9, 2021), 87 FR
58648 (September 27, 2022), 88 FR 68070 (October 3, 2023), 88 FR 68370
(October 3, 2023), and 89 FR 103938 (December 19, 2024), further amend
Sec. 17.42 by adding paragraph (v) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.42 Species-specific rules--reptiles.
* * * * *
(v) Snake, southern hognose (Heterodon simus).
(1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
endangered wildlife also apply to the southern hognose snake. Except as
provided under paragraph (v)(2) of this section and Sec. Sec. 17.4 and
17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to
commit, or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard
to this species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b) for endangered
wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1) for endangered
wildlife.
[[Page 42178]]
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f) for
endangered wildlife.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you
may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for
endangered wildlife.
(iii) Take as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
(iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken
wildlife, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
(A) Prescribed burning, including all firebreak establishment and
maintenance actions.
(B) Tree harvest, planting (by hand or machine), and associated
activities including skidding logs and the use of loading decks.
(C) Maintenance of existing, unimproved forest roads and trails
used for access for forest management.
(D) Forest management activities that:
(1) Implement State-recommended forestry best management practices;
(2) Promote open-canopy forest conditions in upland habitats;
(3) Do not result in soil and subsurface disturbances that would
disrupt the movement or safety of the southern hognose snake; and
(4) Do not damage the southern hognose snake's subsurface habitat.
(E) Herbicide application that targets control of woody or invasive
vegetation and promotes the long-term restoration of native herbaceous
vegetation. Such herbicide applications must be conducted in a manner
consistent with Federal and applicable State laws, including
Environmental Protection Agency label restrictions and herbicide
application guidelines as prescribed by manufacturers.
(F) Operational and maintenance activities, including tree removal
and planting, tree trimming, debris management, and vegetation
maintenance (e.g., mowing), associated with electric transmission and
generation infrastructure and rights-of-way, if such activities,
minimize ground disturbance and do not disrupt the movement or safety
of the southern hognose snake or damage the southern hognose snake's
subsurface habitat.
Brian R. Nesvik,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-16688 Filed 8-28-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 29, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.