[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4183-4192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2056]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB75


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Threatened Status for the Northern Population of the Copperbelly Water 
Snake

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines 
threatened species status pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act), for the copperbelly water snake (Nerodia 
erythrogaster neglecta) in the northern portion of its range. The 
Service also determines that the copperbelly water snake does not 
warrant listing as a threatened species in the southern portion of its 
range and is not finalizing that portion of the proposal. This snake 
was referred to as the northern copperbelly water snake in several 
previous Federal Register publications. Historical records and recent 
studies indicate that this animal has declined substantially, 
especially in the northern portion of its range, and now persists 
largely in isolated pockets of suitable habitat. Rangewide, the snake 
has been impacted by a variety of human-induced causes, including 
urban/suburban encroachment, coal mining, and wetland drainage. These 
impacts continue to threaten the snake in the northern portion of its 
range but are being substantially reduced in the southern portion of 
its range due to modifications in surface coal mining and reclamation 
practices.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Service's 
Bloomington Field Office, 620 South Walker Street, Bloomington, Indiana 
47403; telephone 812/334-4261.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hudak, Field Supervisor (see 
ADDRESSES section), 812/334-4261, extension 200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The plain-belly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster) was formally 
described as a species in 1938 as Natrix erythrogaster (Clay 1938). The 
copperbelly water snake, Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta, was recognized 
as a distinct subspecies in 1949 (Conant 1949). It is one of six 
recognized subspecies of the plain-belly water snake (McCranie 1990). 
The Act defines ``species'' to include ``any subspecies of fish or 
wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species 
of vertebrate fish or wildlife . . .'' (section 3(15)). Thus, although 
taxonomically recognized as a subspecies, N. e. neglecta will be 
referred to as a ``species'' through the remainder of this rule. This 
legal, as opposed to biological, use of the term ``species'' should not 
be understood to mean that this rule covers the entire species Nerodia 
erythrogaster. The two decisions announced in this rule apply only to 
the subspecies N. e. neglecta.
    Because N. e. neglecta was not recognized until 1949, museum 
specimens of the copperbelly water snake archived before that time were 
identified only as the plain-belly water snake. Correction of these 
mislabelled specimens is difficult due to the rapid fading of colors 
from preserved specimens. Thus, the original range and distribution of 
the copperbelly water snake is not precisely known due to this 
taxonomic history and the loss of suitable habitat before recognition 
of the copperbelly water snake as a distinct subspecies (Conant 1949, 
1951, 1955; Minton 1972).
    The key field identification feature of the copperbelly water snake 
is its coloration. The snake has a solid dark, usually black, back with 
a bright orange-red underside that is visible from a side view. The 
head and eyes of the copperbelly water snake are proportionally larger 
than similar species (Clay 1938; Conant 1938, 1951; Minton 1972). The 
copperbelly water snake is most often confused with the yellowbelly 
water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster), an adjacent subspecies 
to the south and west in Illinois and Kentucky. The most obvious single 
distinguishing characteristic is the belly color. The copperbelly water 
snake has a bright orange-red underside, whereas the yellowbelly water 
snake has a pale yellow belly. In addition, it has blotches of dark 
pigment extending onto the ventral scales that meet or nearly meet at 
the belly, whereas the yellowbelly water snake has dark pigment 
encroaching onto only the edge of the ventral scales (Brandon and 
Blanford 1995; Minton 1972; Conant 1938, 1949).
    After its recognition as a subspecies, the known historical range 
of the copperbelly water snake was described by Schmidt (1953) as 
``south central Michigan and northwestern Ohio, southwestward through 
Indiana to extreme southeastern Illinois and adjacent Kentucky.'' A 
notable feature of the documented historical range is the

[[Page 4184]]

large gap in location records between the southern and the northern 
population segments. The most widely accepted theory suggests that the 
northern segment is a relict of the more extensive southern population 
(Conant 1938, 1951; Adler 1963). Today, the distribution of the 
copperbelly water snake is clearly divided into a southern segment in 
southeastern Illinois, western Kentucky, and southern Indiana; and an 
isolated northern segment in northern Indiana, southern Michigan, and 
northwestern Ohio.
    Currently, within the southern population segment there are five 
local clusters known in Illinois, 18 in Kentucky, and 13 in southern 
Indiana. The northern population segment consists of eight local 
clusters that are known to have had the species present in the last ten 
years; copperbelly water snakes were found at five of these northern 
sites during 1996 surveys. Local clusters consist of snakes within 
connected, or nearly connected, habitat units and which are able to 
interbreed because of this proximity. Thus, local clusters may include 
several ``sites'' or ``occurrences'' as these terms are commonly used 
in databases maintained by states or private conservation 
organizations.
    It is believed, based on drainage patterns and post-1949 records of 
copperbelly water snakes, that its former range was nearly continuous 
over the three southern states. Only remnants of that original 
distribution are still evident, however; coal mining, drainage and 
damming of wetlands, channelization, damming and diversion of streams 
and rivers, and residential and commercial development of its habitat 
have disrupted and fragmented the distribution of the copperbelly water 
snake. Many once-connected local clusters are now isolated.
    In Illinois, the copperbelly water snake distribution is believed 
to once have been continuous through southern Illinois; however, due to 
continued habitat loss and fragmentation, only five small, isolated 
local clusters remain today (Brandon pers. comm. 1994).
    Kentucky, historically and presently, is considered to have the 
largest number of copperbelly water snakes rangewide. It is believed 
the species was once abundant and continuous throughout the western 
Kentucky coal field. The once-continuous range of the copperbelly water 
snake is now restricted to 18 isolated local clusters.
    Similarly, in southern Indiana, the distribution of the species has 
been fragmented into 13 discrete populations.
    The northern population segment has experienced extensive habitat 
loss; and the impacts from habitat fragmentation and degradation on 
this smaller population are very pronounced. Consequently, the northern 
population segment has been relegated to a few small, scattered and 
isolated local clusters in southern Michigan, northeastern Indiana, and 
northwestern Ohio. Under current conditions and trends, extirpation of 
the northern population is expected to occur within the next few 
decades (Kingsbury pers. comm. 1994 and 1996).
    Copperbelly water snakes migrate seasonally throughout their 
habitat, which consists of bottomland forests and shrub swamps. 
Although the species is a ``water'' snake, much of its time is spent 
away from water in the terrestrial, forested part of its habitat 
(Kingsbury pers. comm. 1994). Copperbelly water snakes emerge from 
their hibernation sites in early spring and migrate through wooded or 
vegetated corridors to wetland areas. They can often be seen basking, 
breeding, and foraging near shallow wetland edges in woodlands. When 
the woodland swamps begin to dry in late spring or in early June, the 
snakes again disperse and move through wooded or vegetated corridors to 
their summer habitat areas. Summer activities usually center around 
forest and forest edges (Conant 1951, Kingsbury pers. comm. 1994). For 
this reason, upland habitat is essential for the snake's summer 
foraging activities.
    By late fall, copperbelly water snakes seek out hibernation sites. 
It is believed that copperbelly water snakes use hibernation sites that 
are at elevations higher than the floodstage line and ponding areas 
(Sellers 1991). Kingsbury (pers. comm. 1996), based on results of 
radio-telemetry studies, reported that copperbelly water snakes do 
utilize bottomland hibernation sites. Bottomland hibernation sites have 
been identified as felled tree-root networks (Lodato 1985), crayfish 
burrows (Kingsbury pers. comm. 1994), dense brush piles, fieldstone 
piles, and perhaps beaver and muskrat lodges (Sellers 1991). These 
studies indicate that upland hibernation sites are essential to the 
long-term survival of viable populations of the snake. A mid-winter 
flood, coupled with freezing temperatures, could be lethal to snakes 
and could decimate the local copperbelly water snake population if 
floodplain and riverbank areas are the only hibernation sites 
available.
    This species is known to form small groups in the spring and fall. 
Groups of snakes have been observed swimming, feeding, courting, and 
resting together (Conant 1938; Martin 1982, in Sellers 1991). Courtship 
and mating occurs in April, May, and June. Copperbelly water snakes 
have a longer gestation period than other water snakes sharing their 
range, and their average litter size (18) is also smaller (Schmidt and 
Davis 1941). Young snakes are born in the fall near, or in, the 
hibernaculum and may not become active until the following spring.

Distinct Population Segments

    The range of the copperbelly water snake contains a geographical 
barrier between the local clusters in Michigan, Ohio, and northeastern 
Indiana, and the rest of the local clusters in southern Indiana, 
Kentucky, and Illinois. This gap is apparent from historical and recent 
known locations for the snake (Adler 1963, Conant and Collins 1991, 
Sellers 1991). This hiatus between the northern and southern 
populations currently is approximately 180 miles wide. Within the gap 
those areas of habitat that are potentially suitable for copperbelly 
water snakes are small and isolated, making copperbelly water snake 
movement though this gap extremely unlikely.
    These populations qualify as distinct under the Service's Policy 
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 
Under the Act, published in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 
(61 FR 4722-4725). The Policy identifies three criteria that must be 
satisfied in order to list a distinct population segment of a species 
or subspecies as threatened or endangered--discreteness, significance, 
and conservation status.
    The wide geographic gap in suitable and inter-connected habitat 
between the northern and southern Indiana local clusters clearly 
identifies these as discrete and isolated population segments. The loss 
of the peripheral, isolated, northern population is considered 
significant as characterized under the policy, as it would result in a 
significant reduction in the range of the taxon.
    The existence of two distinct population segments for the 
copperbelly water snake enables the Service to treat each as a species 
and to make separate determinations for each of them. Therefore, the 
Service is adopting the following designations of the two population 
segments, and these terms will be used in the remainder of this rule.
    Northern Population Segment--Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana north of 
40 degrees north latitude (approximately Indianapolis, IN).

[[Page 4185]]

    Southern Population Segment--Illinois, Kentucky, and Indiana south 
of 40 degrees north latitude.

Final Determination on Northern Population Segment

    As discussed below in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species 
section, the threats affecting the northern population segment arise 
from several sources that are not addressed in the Conservation 
Agreements. Because these threats continue to affect the northern 
population segment the Service has determined that the northern 
population segment of the copperbelly water snake warrants listing as a 
threatened species.

Final Determination on Southern Population Segment

    Since the 1993 proposal for the threatened listing of the 
copperbelly water snake there have been several parallel efforts to 
develop formal methods to reduce threats to the species and its 
habitat. In recent months these efforts have coalesced into two 
Conservation Agreements, with the Service being a signatory to both. 
One Agreement deals specifically with the effects of coal mining in 
Indiana. The second Agreement covers the impacts of coal mining in 
Kentucky and Illinois and also institutes other conservation measures 
in all three states.
    The Conservation Agreements will promote the conservation of the 
copperbelly water snake and its habitat during surface coal mining in 
Indiana by delineating approximately 10,400 acres of high quality 
copperbelly water snake habitat as core habitat areas that will not be 
affected by surface coal mining. Furthermore, the Agreements require 
the maintenance of habitat corridors connecting all other copperbelly 
water snake habitats, restrict the mining of large habitat fragments 
that are outside of the core areas to practices that will ensure the 
survival of existing copperbelly water snake local clusters, and ensure 
that all snake habitat that is mined will be reclaimed in such a way as 
to increase both the quantity and quality of snake habitat.
    In Kentucky the Conservation Agreements provide that a maximum of 
four percent of the approximately 112,400 acres of known copperbelly 
water snake habitat can be disturbed by surface coal mining activities. 
All copperbelly water snake habitat has been divided into management 
units of which no one unit may have more than ten percent of its area 
disturbed by mining activities, and all copperbelly water snake habitat 
that is mined will be reclaimed in such a way as to increase both the 
quantity and quality of snake habitat.
    Similarly, in Illinois, the Agreements require that all copperbelly 
water snake habitat that is mined will be reclaimed in such a way as to 
increase both the quantity and quality of snake habitat.
    The Conservation Agreements also ensure that in all three states 
within the southern population segment the state natural resource 
departments will emphasize land acquisition, management, and law 
enforcement to manage and conserve the copperbelly water snake as if it 
were a federally listed species. In Illinois and Kentucky, where the 
snake is not listed as threatened or endangered by the states, there 
will be special regulations written to provide the species with 
protection from take. In addition, the Office of Surface Mining 
Reclamation and Enforcement will prioritize their Clean Stream 
initiative program to aid protection and enhancement of copperbelly 
water snake habitats. The Farm Bureau's role will be to publicize the 
conservation needs of the snake to its members.
    These provisions of the Conservation Agreements significantly 
reduce the threats from surface coal mining at all known copperbelly 
water snake local clusters in the southern population segment. Because 
habitat destruction and degradation resulting from surface coal mining 
was the predominant recent threat to the southern population segment, 
the Service has determined that the southern population segment does 
not warrant listing as a threatened species at this time.

Previous Federal Action

    The copperbelly water snake was recognized as a category 2 species 
in the Service's December 30, 1982, (47 FR 58454); January 6, 1989, (54 
FR 554); and November 21, 1991, (56 FR 58804) Animal Notices of Review. 
On November 12, 1991, the Service reassigned this species to category 
1. On August 18, 1993, the Service published the proposed rule to list 
the copperbelly water snake as threatened (58 FR 43860). The Service 
extended the public comment period on October 12, 1993, (58 FR 52740) 
for 30 days. The public comment period was re-opened on March 22, 1994, 
for an additional 30 days (59 FR 13472) to hold a public hearing on 
April 5, 1994. On July 11, 1994, the Service published a Notice in the 
Federal Register (59 FR 35307) indicating that the deadline for the 
final listing determination had been extended six months (until 
February 18, 1995) while re-opening the public comment period until 
November 1, 1994. As a result of significant new data received during, 
and immediately following, the public comment period, on December 15, 
1994, (59 FR 64647) the Service re-opened the public comment for 30 
days, and announced the availability of the new data.
    The Service was prohibited from making final determinations on 
listing proposals during a congressionally-imposed moratorium that 
began on April 10, 1995 (Public Law 104-06). To ensure that the Service 
could continue to receive and review relevant data and continue 
discussions with interested parties, the comment period was reopened on 
August 15, 1995, (60 FR 42140) and closed at the end of the fiscal year 
on September 30, 1995. During the first half of fiscal year 1996 the 
moratorium and a lack of appropriated funds prevented the Service from 
taking any actions related to listing species. Subsequent to the ending 
of the moratorium and restoration of funding for listing activities, 
the comment period was re-opened on July 16, 1996, (61 FR 37034) to 
receive data that might have become available during the moratorium and 
listing program shut-down. That comment period was extended another 60 
days on September 17, 1996, (61 FR 48876) in order to receive a report 
on the northern population segment. The comment period ended on 
November 15, 1996.
    The processing of this final rule conforms with the Service's final 
listing priority guidance published in the Federal Register on December 
5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance clarifies the order in which the 
Service will process rulemakings during fiscal year 1997. The guidance 
calls for giving highest priority to handling emergency situations 
(Tier 1) and second highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the listing 
status of the outstanding proposed listings. This final rule falls 
under Tier 2. At this time, there are no pending Tier 1 actions.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the August 18, 1993, proposed rule and subsequent notices 
reopening the comment period, all interested parties were requested to 
submit factual reports or information that might contribute to the 
development of a final rule. Appropriate Federal and state agencies, 
county governments, scientific organizations, and other interested 
parties were contacted and requested to comment. Newspaper notices were 
published in newspapers across the range of the species inviting public

[[Page 4186]]

comment. A public hearing was requested by Mr. James Baker, of the 
Western Kentucky Coal Association, and Ms. Bertha Daubendiek, of the 
Michigan Nature Association. The public hearing was held in 
Indianapolis, IN, on April 5, 1994. Twenty-six people attended the 
hearing. One-hundred forty-two comments were received during the 
comment periods and at the public hearing and are discussed below; some 
parties provided more than one comment.
    On July 11, 1994, the Service published a notice (59 FR 35307) 
extending the one-year listing decision deadline until February 18, 
1995. Comments had been submitted on the proposed rule indicating that 
there were scientific disagreements concerning the location of, and 
significance of, intergradation in Illinois and Kentucky. When such a 
scientific disagreement exists, the one-year period within which the 
Service must ordinarily take final action on a proposal to list a 
species may be extended for not more than six months in accordance with 
section 4(b)(5)(B)(I) of the Act. During the six-month extension the 
Service funded additional studies in Illinois and Kentucky. The reports 
of these studies, as well as information from a third study funded by 
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, were publicized and made 
available for review by the public.
    The Service received comments from one-hundred forty-two 
individuals and organizations. Forty-eight commentors supported the 
proposal. Thirty-three parties provided suggestions and/or information 
but did not indicate either support of, or opposition to, the proposal. 
Sixty-one commentors expressed opposition to the proposal. Many 
provided data further substantiating or clarifying the threats to the 
species. During the most recent public comment period two draft 
Conservation Agreements were submitted which are intended to 
significantly reduce the threats from surface coal mining. This new 
information on the reduction in threats has been incorporated into the 
final rule where appropriate (see Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species, below).
    Written comments and oral statements presented at the public 
hearings and/or received during the comment periods are addressed in 
the following section. Comments of a similar nature are grouped 
together. Comments received on the southern population segment that is 
not being listed are also addressed below.
    Issue 1: The morphological and genetic research conducted in 
Illinois is insufficient to distinguish between N. e. neglecta, N. e. 
flavigaster, and their intergrades.
    Service Response: Although the results of the genetic analysis did 
not prove to be a reliable method for distinguishing neglecta from the 
intergrades, the morphological analysis was able to successfully 
identify the subspecies for 95 percent of the snakes examined. The 
Service believes that, for the purposes of delineating the boundary of 
an intergrade zone in southern Illinois, the high degree of reliability 
of morphological distinctiveness is sufficient to distinguish between 
the two subspecies. However, because there is no intergrade zone 
within, or near, the northern population segment, identifying 
intergrades from copperbelly water snakes is not a concern with this 
final determination.
    Issue 2: Critical habitat should be designated.
    Service Response: Section 4 of the Act requires designation of 
critical habitat concurrent with listing, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable (also see 50 CFR 424.12). The Service finds that 
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for this species. This 
finding is based on the conclusion that such a designation would not be 
beneficial to the species. As discussed under Factor B in the Summary 
of Factors Affecting the species, and in the Critical Habitat section, 
the copperbelly water snake would become vulnerable to collectors and 
vandals who would be readily able to locate the known populations by 
the publication of critical habitat maps and other specific location 
information. Furthermore, the Service does not believe critical habitat 
will provide any additional benefit beyond that already provided under 
section 7 of the Act.
    Issue 3: Economic, recreational, and other impacts should be 
considered when listing a species.
    Service Response: Section 4 of the Act requires the Service to 
consider only biological and commercial trade information in 
determining whether to list a species. The Service recognizes the 
potential for adverse economic impacts stemming from this listing, and 
will work closely with mining, development, agricultural, and other 
interests throughout the range of the copperbelly water snake to 
accommodate economic and recreational activities to the extent possible 
while ensuring the continued survival and recovery of the snake.
    Issue 4: Exemptions from the taking prohibitions for normal or 
routine farming activities should be provided.
    Service Response: As of October 1, 1994, the Service must identify, 
to the extent possible, specific activities that will and will not 
likely result in violation of section 9 of the Act. The Service 
believes that agricultural activities on lands considered to be 
unsuitable habitat for the copperbelly water snake, but which are 
adjacent to copperbelly water snake habitat, are unlikely to result in 
a take pursuant to section 9 of the Act. Refer to additional discussion 
on actions that may or may not constitute take under Available 
Conservation Measures.
    Issue 5: Several commentors stated that the status information for 
Kentucky is incomplete and inaccurate, therefore, the proposal should 
be delayed until further studies can be completed in Kentucky.
    Service Response: The Service agrees that total population 
estimates are lacking for this species; however, the Service considered 
several additional factors that are also important in developing a 
biologically accurate species status assessment. Gross population 
estimates are particularly important for species for which distinct 
local populations are not readily identified. However, the biological 
security of many declining species is more a function of the number of 
healthy local populations than the total number of individuals in the 
wild. Therefore, although quantitative surveying has not been completed 
throughout the range of the snake, pertinent and significant 
information regarding the other aspects of the snake's status is known. 
The Service believes precise population estimates are not necessary to 
recognize overall declining trends of the snake. The trends and the 
overall health of copperbelly water snake local clusters throughout its 
historical and current distribution are a more accurate reflection of 
the snake's status than are rough estimates of the number of snakes at 
a given time. In addition to the gross population estimates and the 
number of populations, the Service also considers factors such as the 
size of existing populations, historical and current rates of decline, 
current recruitment rates, distribution and proximity of populations, 
quantity and quality of available habitat, genetic diversity, and 
imminent and potential threats to the species and its habitat.
    Issue 6: One commentor stated that the Service is basing their 
decision on erroneous data. In particular, the accuracy of the habitat 
acreage estimates was questioned within the Bryan et al. (1994) 
Kentucky status report.
    Service Response: The Service recognizes that earlier habitat 
estimates were based on older topographic

[[Page 4187]]

quadrangle maps and limited aerial photography and personal knowledge, 
and therefore, the habitat estimates were not necessarily indicative of 
what precisely exists today. However, those sources of information 
represented the best available information at the time, as the 
surveyors were not able to obtain permission to survey current habitat 
on most of the land under mining lease. Since the Bryan et al. (1994) 
study the Service has updated its habitat estimates for Kentucky and 
vastly refined its knowledge of where suitable habitat still exists 
within the states. This work involved field verification of topographic 
maps, recent aerial photography and geographic information system 
mapping of the photos, meeting with copperbelly water snake experts and 
state field biologists, and field work by Kentucky State Nature 
Preserves Commission biologists. The Conservation Agreement for 
Kentucky is based upon this updated information.
    Issue 7: Coal mining in Kentucky is creating, rather than 
eliminating, copperbelly water snake habitat wherever previously mined 
areas are reclaimed to wildlife habitat.
    Response: Based on the available information, the Service believes 
coal mining reclamation procedures generally are not providing snake 
habitat (Bryan et al. 1994; Kingsbury pers. comm. 1996; MacGregor pers. 
comm. 1994; Sellers 1991). Mined land generally has been reclaimed to 
cropland, hay fields, and wildlife land unsuitable for the snake, such 
as upland forest, upland game habitat, and deep water impoundments. 
Ponds and wetlands reclaimed or restored on mined lands are often too 
widely scattered and lack suitable fish and/or amphibian populations, 
hibernation sites, and cover to be suitable copperbelly water snake 
habitat. However, the Service believes that coal mining activities can 
be compatible with the conservation of the copperbelly water snake if 
the extent, timing, and reclamation design are modified to incorporate 
snake conservation measures. As described in the Final Determination on 
Southern Population Segment section, the Conservation Agreements are 
instituting such changes to mining and reclamation activities 
throughout the southern population segment. The Service believes that 
these reclamation methods will increase and enhance copperbelly water 
snake habitat.
    Issue 8: The factors threatening the species are no longer 
significant because there are Federal and state laws protecting the 
species.
    Response: The Service recognizes the efforts of private groups and 
governmental programs, and agrees that some of the past threats to the 
species have been reduced and/or eliminated. However, interpretation 
and enforcement of the Food Security Act, the Clean Water Act, and the 
Surface Mining Reclamation Control Act have not provided sufficient 
protection to the copperbelly water snake or its habitat. Furthermore, 
state protection of the copperbelly water snake is not currently 
uniform across its range and the lack of any state authority to protect 
the habitat of state-listed species significantly weakens the 
protection of the species. However, the Service agrees that, for the 
Southern Population Segment, where mining and the lack of consistent 
state protection against take previously were the major threats to the 
species, the recently signed Conservation Agreements will provide 
adequate protection.
    Issue 9: The population data cited in the proposed rule are 
incorrect.
    Response: The Service agrees that population numbers for much of 
the copperbelly's occupied range are not very useful due to the 
difficulty with censusing elusive animals such as water snakes. 
However, the Act requires the Service to make its determinations on the 
basis of the best available scientific and commercial data, which need 
not be population estimates or counts that can be statistically 
analyzed. Also, as noted under Issue 5, the Service has not relied 
heavily on population data for its determinations. The Service also 
points out that additional monitoring of snake habitat and populations 
will be carried out as a result of the two Conservation Agreements, so 
our knowledge of copperbelly water snake numbers will continue to 
improve.
    Issue 10: The Service failed to recognize the tracts of habitat 
already in protective ownership, such as the Patoka River National 
Wildlife Refuge, Land Between the Lakes, and properties under Indiana 
Department of Natural Resource ownership.
    Service Response: Although the proposed rule did not emphasize the 
areas already protected for the species, the Service is aware of these 
areas and has concluded that habitat under public and private 
conservation ownership is not sufficient to protect the copperbelly 
water snake throughout its range. This determination was based on the 
following information. First, in the southern population segment, while 
suitable habitat does exists within the Patoka River corridor in 
southern Indiana, currently the National Wildlife Refuge ownership 
consists of only two hundred twenty-five acres which provide benefit to 
the snake. Furthermore, significant tracts of copperbelly water snake 
habitat within the Patoka River corridor are privately owned and are 
currently being adversely impacted by coal mining. Second, snakes found 
within the publicly-owned Land Between the Lakes are considered to be 
intergrades and would not be included in a listing of the southern 
population segment. Third, few populations of copperbelly water snakes 
are found on state-owned land. In the northern population segment, only 
two of the eight known sites are under partial state ownership and a 
third is partly owned by a private conservation organization.
    Issue 11: The listing analysis concentrated on historical habitat 
degradation and destruction trends rather than current habitat loss 
trends.
    Service Response: As previously mentioned, the Service considers a 
variety of factors in making a listing determination. Although 
historical rates of decline are considered during the species' status 
assessment, many other factors, including current rates of decline, 
potential and imminent threats, gross population estimates, number of 
populations, distribution of populations, genetic diversity, and 
current recruitment rates are evaluated as well. Historical rates of 
decline are utilized by the Service to ascertain if a species is 
undergoing a precipitous or gradual decline. Also, the historical trend 
information is also useful in identifying the likelihood of natural 
cyclical fluctuations in numbers. The Service utilized the historical 
trend information in aggregate with all other information in 
determining if listing is warranted.
    Issue 12: Conservation agreements which significantly reduce the 
threats to the species should be considered in the listing decision.
    Service Response: The states of Kentucky, Illinois, and Indiana; 
the Kentucky Farm Bureau; the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, 
and Enforcement; the Western Kentucky Coal Association; and others 
submitted a Conservation Agreement which primarily addresses coal 
mining threats in Kentucky and Illinois. Similarly, the State of 
Indiana and the Indiana Coal Council submitted a Conservation Agreement 
which addresses coal mining threats in Indiana. The Service has 
reviewed those Agreements and concurs that, when fully implemented, the 
Agreements will reduce the threats to the southern population segment 
of the copperbelly water snake sufficiently to

[[Page 4188]]

preclude the need to list that population segment.
    Issue 13: The Service also received comments from conservation 
organizations opposed to the use of Conservation Agreements to preclude 
the need to list the species. Their opposition is based on the non-
binding nature of Conservation Agreements and the risk of mitigation 
efforts failing.
    Service Response: Both Conservation Agreements include monitoring 
and compliance measures along with the flexibility to respond to 
changes needed to allow the Agreements to be successful. The Service is 
a signatory on both Agreements and will be an active partner in their 
implementation and monitoring. Further, the Service will constantly 
evaluate the status of the species, and if the Agreements fail to meet 
expectations, will reevaluate the need to list the southern population 
segment.

Peer Review

    The Service routinely has solicited comments from parties 
interested in, and knowledgeable of, taxa which have been proposed for 
listing as threatened or endangered species. A July 1, 1994, policy 
statement (59 FR 34270) established the formal requirement that a 
minimum of three peer reviewers be asked to provide input into the 
Service's listing decisions. Although the proposed rule to list the 
copperbelly water snake as a threatened species predated that policy, 
the Service nonetheless elected to apply the formalized peer review 
process to the proposal. During the July 16, 1996, to November 15, 
1996, comment period, the Service solicited the expert opinions of five 
biologists having recognized expertise in herpetology and/or 
conservation biology and requested their review of the published and 
unpublished data concerning the copperbelly water snake. In order to 
ensure an unbiased examination of the data, the Service contacted 
biologists who previously had only minor or no involvement in 
discussions on the possible listing of the snake.
    Comments were received within the comment period from all five 
reviewers. All five reviewers concurred with the Service on factors 
relating to the taxonomy, and biological and ecological information. 
One reviewer believed current Kentucky data were insufficient.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    After a thorough review and consideration of all information 
available, the Service has determined that the northern population 
segment of the copperbelly water snake should be classified as a 
threatened species, and that listing is not warranted for the southern 
population segment of the copperbelly water snake. Procedures found at 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the listing 
provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) were followed. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and 
their application to the copperbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster 
neglecta) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    Habitat loss and fragmentation were the primary causes of the 
decline of the copperbelly water snake and continue to be the major 
factors threatening the continued existence of the species. From 1790 
to the mid-1980's, much of the copperbelly water snake's wetland 
habitat was modified or destroyed. According to Dahl and Johnson 
(1990), Indiana has lost 87 percent of its original wetlands, Illinois 
85 percent, Michigan 50 percent, Ohio 90 percent, and Kentucky 81 
percent. The principal cause of these losses was land conversion to 
agricultural use. This was especially true from 1950 through the 
1970's, when agriculture was cited as the cause for 87 percent of the 
wetland loss nationwide (Dahl and Johnson 1990). However, since that 
time, other land uses and modifications such as dredging, coal mining, 
stream channelization, road construction, and commercial and 
residential development have played a more significant role in the loss 
of wetland habitat.
    The loss of snake habitat is especially evident in areas occupied 
by the northern population segment of the snake, where the species has 
been relegated to only a few small, isolated habitat areas. The 
northern population segment has, since 1986, occupied only eight very 
limited sites in four southern Michigan counties, one northwestern Ohio 
county, and one northeastern Indiana county. Six of these local 
clusters, including the Indiana and Ohio local clusters, are 
encompassed within an area of about 100 square miles. The other two 
local clusters are 35 to 60 miles to the northwest.
    Two of the eight sites have a portion of their area protected by 
state ownership, and one is partially owned by a private conservation 
organization. The remaining sites are all private property with 
uncertain fates. A key characteristic of these sites is separation by 
unsuitable habitat from each other and from important habitat 
components. The unsuitable habitat is primarily agricultural land, 
rural residential sites, and roads.
    Landscape fragmentation and isolation of local clusters from each 
other increases the likelihood of extinction by causing each local 
cluster to function as an independent, but much smaller population. 
Very small populations are far more susceptible to local extirpation 
from factors such as drought and from genetic irregularities caused by 
inbreeding.
    Other factors that may be adversely affecting northern population 
habitat include increased residential development, sedimentation, and 
contamination caused by fertilizer runoff (Sellers 1996a, 1996b.). A 
large residential complex has been developed around a deep water lake 
that is utilized by the snake during droughts. New residences have been 
built near the Cass/St. Joseph counties local cluster. Residences add 
to roadway traffic, increase habitat fragmentation, and increase the 
likelihood of direct harm to snakes by people, pets, and vehicles. 
Sedimentation, usually resulting from agricultural activities, but also 
caused by construction, may change hydrological characteristics and 
plant succession, as well as reduce the numbers of amphibian and fish 
used by the snake as food.
    The presence of copperbellies at two of the eight northern local 
clusters has not been confirmed since 1987, and since 1989 at a third 
site. Two of these three sites were surveyed in 1996, one of them for 
46 hours, and no copperbellies were found. The third site has not been 
surveyed since 1987. Suitable habitat at these three sites still seems 
to be available. While it may be reasonable to conclude that snake 
numbers at the two recently surveyed sites have declined, surveys have 
not been frequent enough to conclude with certainty that these two 
local clusters no longer support copperbellies. Northern population 
survey data since 1986 are not complete for all local clusters, and do 
not support any conclusion as to an overall trend of increase or 
decrease. However, total numbers of snakes seen have remained very low 
since 1986. The low numbers and possible disappearance of snakes from 
various sites in the last 10 years indicates that progress toward 
extirpation which became apparent in the 1950's and 1960's probably is 
continuing, and underscores the perilous state of the northern 
population segment. The northern population probably will be

[[Page 4189]]

extirpated within the next few decades without immediate additional 
protection (Kingsbury pers. comm. 1994 and 1996).
    Specific habitat-related threats that have cumulatively led to the 
extirpation of northern population segment copperbelly water snake 
local clusters include woodlot, brush, and other land clearing; habitat 
constriction and fragmentation from surrounding development; road 
construction; and coal mining.
    Although coal mining has been a major recent factor in the decline 
of the species in the southern portion of its range, the Service 
believes mining practices can be compatible with the existence of the 
snake. Coal mining can be compatible with the copperbelly water snake 
if the extent, the timing of the mining, and the reclamation design are 
modified to incorporate snake conservation measures. The Conservation 
Agreements for the southern population segment make such changes to 
coal mining and reclamation practices, thus greatly reducing mining 
threats to the species, and providing compatibility between mining and 
snake conservation. Because habitat loss and degradation from surface 
coal mining constituted the main threats facing the southern 
population, the Service believes that the reduction of the coal mining 
impacts by the Conservation Agreements precludes the need to list the 
southern population segment.
    While the northern population segment is not impacted by coal 
mining, it is significantly affected by all of the other threats of 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat listed above.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Scientific overutilization, without careful regulation, can pose a 
threat. During the first 30 years after its discovery and formal 
publication of its description, many copperbelly water snakes were 
collected as specimens for museums. Although museums have abandoned 
this practice, amateur collectors continue to take wild snakes (Sellers 
1991). The species is believed to be collected fairly regularly because 
of its rarity, large size, unique coloration, and value in the pet 
trade. For example, an international commercial dealer reportedly 
offered $260 to an amateur collector for a breeding pair of copperbelly 
water snakes.

C. Disease or Predation

    The snakes are vulnerable to predation during migration, especially 
when their migration routes are interrupted by cleared areas such as 
roads, mowed areas, and farmlands. Dispersing through such areas 
increases the likelihood of the snakes being preyed upon by natural 
predators such as skunks, raccoons, and raptors. Due to habitat 
fragmentation, the ability to use suitable cover to migrate safely 
throughout its home range is a limiting factor in the life cycle of the 
copperbelly water snake. In addition to predation, vehicle-caused 
mortality and injury also has increased as suitable habitat becomes 
more fragmented by transportation corridors. Such habitat fragmentation 
is especially significant to the northern population segment where 
seasonal movements among its smaller habitat patches force snakes to 
cross roadways or other open habitat (Sellers 1991).

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The copperbelly water snake receives varying degrees of protection 
through state listings as an endangered, threatened, or nongame species 
throughout its range. Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio confer full legal 
protection to the copperbelly water snake; it is illegal to collect, 
kill, or injure the snake in these three states. Illinois and Kentucky 
offer no legal protection to the snake at this time.
    Whereas three states have laws and regulations which protect the 
species from take, the lack of uniform protection throughout the United 
States hampers enforcement and imperils the species by creating 
loopholes for illegal take and trade. More importantly, legal 
provisions for protection and management of copperbelly water snake 
habitat at the state level are non-existent. Because destruction and 
alteration of habitat are the major reasons for the species' decline, 
the inability to protect non-federally listed species' habitat will 
exacerbate the continued decline of the copperbelly water snake without 
additional Federal protection.
    As discussed under Factor A above, to alleviate any potential 
threats to the snake from surface mining, the recently-signed 
Conservation Agreements will require consideration of the southern 
population segment of the copperbelly water snake and its habitat in 
the surface mining and reclamation permitting process as if the species 
was federally-listed as threatened or endangered in Kentucky and 
Illinois. In Indiana core areas of snake habitat have been designated 
and will remain undisturbed by surface mining; snake habitat outside of 
the core areas can be mined to some extent but new reclamation 
standards will produce habitat suitable for copperbelly watersnakes. 
The Service believes that this modification to past permitting 
practices will remedy the threats presented by surface mining.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence

    Weather extremes such as drought, flooding, and unusually mild, as 
well as severe, winters may influence the population of the copperbelly 
water snake. These factors affect the snake's ability to estivate for 
prolonged periods, as well as impeding access to, and use of, essential 
upland hibernation and foraging sites and wetland breeding areas. While 
these factors are not as likely to affect larger and healthier 
populations, small, isolated copperbelly water snake local clusters, 
like those that make up the northern population segment, are especially 
vulnerable to these naturally occurring events.
    The widely held general dislike for snakes by humans further 
threatens copperbelly water snakes. For example, Kingsbury (pers. comm. 
1994) reported two incidents in which the species was intentionally 
killed, with a gravid (pregnant) female being one of the victims. Such 
intentional killing likely has been more common in the southern 
population segment, due to geographic proximity to poisonous wetland-
inhabiting snakes. However, one of the Conservation Agreements will 
lead to regulations in all three states which will prohibit the killing 
of this species.
    In the northern population segment, due to the small number and 
isolation of the surviving local clusters, the snake remains vulnerable 
to habitat modification and destruction and collection and persecution.
    The southern population segment is more widespread and consists of 
larger and more numerous local clusters. Several of the larger local 
clusters are partially or entirely on Federal or state lands. Most of 
the remaining local clusters are on private land, and most of these are 
covered by approved permits for surface coal mining. The threats from 
surface coal mining have been greatly removed by the recently-signed 
Conservation Agreements with the coal mining industry and state and 
Federal regulatory authorities for surface mining. These Agreements 
will preserve existing core habitat needed by the species, and will 
modify past post-mining land reclamation practices so

[[Page 4190]]

that suitable copperbelly water snake habitat will be developed 
following mining. The Service believes these changes in mining and 
reclamation practices reduce the existing and potential threats from 
mining to a level at which the species in the southern portion of its 
range is no longer likely to become endangered in the foreseeable 
future, and therefore does not warrant listing as a threatened species 
at this time.
    The Service will continue to work closely with the surface coal 
mining industry and state and Federal surface mining regulatory 
agencies to monitor and evaluate the effects of the modified surface 
mining practices on the snake.
    The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the copperbelly water snake in finalizing this 
rule. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the 
northern population segment of the copperbelly water snake, Nerodia 
erythrogaster neglecta, as a threatened species; the Service will not 
finalize the proposal to list as threatened the southern population 
segment of the copperbelly water snake.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and 
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing 
under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at 
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The 
Service finds that designation of critical habitat is not prudent for 
the northern and southern population segment of the copperbelly water 
snake at this time. Service regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state 
that designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of 
the following situations exist--(1) the species is threatened by taking 
or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be 
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    As discussed under Factor B in the Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species, the copperbelly water snake is known to be subject to 
collection, and those snakes would become increasingly vulnerable to 
reptile collectors who would be able to locate the known populations by 
the publication of critical habitat maps and other specific location 
information. Publication of critical habitat locations would also aid 
the intentional killing of individual snakes by individuals opposed to 
Federal and state conservation efforts for the species. The Service is 
concerned that threats made against the snakes during the listing 
process will be more likely to be carried out if snake locations are 
published.
    Furthermore, critical habitat designation would not provide 
significant additional protection over that afforded through the normal 
recovery process, through section 7 consultation, and the prohibitions 
of section 9 of the Act. The precarious status of the northern 
population segment necessitates identical section 7 biological opinion 
thresholds for determining adverse modification of critical habitat and 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the species. Furthermore, 
sufficient habitat protection is provided by the Service's current 
interpretation of the meaning of ``harm'' in the Act's definition of 
``take''; this interpretation holds that habitat degradation which 
significantly impairs essential behaviors constitutes ``harm'' and is 
prohibited by the Act.
    In addition, Conservation Agreements for the snake and its habitat 
in the southern portion of its range, have removed significant threats 
to this species. Critical habitat for the snake will not be designated 
on any lands where the habitat is included in a Conservation Agreement, 
for the life of the agreement, so long as the agreement remains in 
effect consistent with its terms.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition, 
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions 
against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in 
public awareness and encourages conservation actions by Federal, 
Tribal, state, and local agencies, private organizations, and 
individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the states and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in 
part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or 
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
Part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continuous 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or to 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions that may require consultation include the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory involvement in projects such as 
the construction of roads, bridges, and dredging projects subject to 
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.); Office of 
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement coal mining permitting 
process; Federal Highway Administration funded projects; Bureau of Land 
Management lease activities; and Natural Resources Conservation Service 
projects.
    The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of general 
prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened wildlife. The 
prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export, 
ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or 
sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed 
species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. 
Certain exceptions apply

[[Page 4191]]

to agents of the Service and state conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. Such 
permits are available for scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, 
there are also permits for zoological exhibition, educational purposes, 
or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34272) to identify, to the maximum extent 
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that 
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The 
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effects of 
the listing on proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. 
The Service believes that, based on the best available information, the 
following actions will not result in a violation of section 9 for 
listed copperbelly water snakes, provided these activities are carried 
out in accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements:
    (1) Routine agricultural activities on property adjacent to 
occupied copperbelly habitat, excluding activities which convert 
wooded, shrubby, or brushy areas to cropland or pasture;
    (2) Possession of legally acquired copperbelly water snakes; and
    (3) Actions that may affect copperbelly water snakes that are 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency if the action is 
conducted in accordance with section 7 of the Act.
    Activities that the Service believes could potentially harm the 
copperbelly water snake and result in ``take'' to the northern 
population segment of the snake include, but are not limited to;
    (1) Collecting or handling of the snake in any manner;
    (2) Possess, sell, transport, or ship illegally taken copperbelly 
water snakes;
    (3) Substantial destruction or degradation of the species' wetland 
habitat such as discharge of fill material, drainage, damming of 
wetlands, channelization, damming, diversion of streams or rivers, 
diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of 
wetlands (due to roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, storm water 
detention basins, etc.);
    (4) Discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other 
pollutants (e.g., sewage, oil, and gasoline) into waters supporting the 
species; and
    (5) Interstate and foreign commerce and export without obtaining 
the appropriate permit. Permits to conduct these activities are 
available for purposes of scientific research and enhancement of 
propagation or survival of the species.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a 
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of 
the appropriate Service field office as follows: in Indiana, the 
Bloomington Field Office, 620 South Walker Street, Bloomington, Indiana 
47403 (812/334-4261); in Michigan, the East Lansing Field Office, 2651 
Coolidge Road, East Lansing, Michigan 48823 (517/351-2555); and in 
Ohio, the Reynoldsburg Field Office, 6950-H Americana Parkway, 
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 (614/469-6923) (see ADDRESSES section). 
Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed species and 
inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, Whipple Federal 
Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056 
(telephone 612/725-3536; facsimile 612/725-3526).

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental 
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 
4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice 
outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in 
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

    The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection 
requirements. This rulemaking was not subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Service's Bloomington, Indiana, Ecological Service 
Field Office. (See ADDRESSES section.)

Author

    The primary authors of this document are Scott Pruitt of the 
Service's Bloomington Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) and Jennifer 
Szymanski (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Whipple Federal Building, 1 
Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 10080 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in 
alphabetical order under REPTILES, to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special  
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules   
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
             Reptiles                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 4192]]

                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Snake, copperbelly water.........  Nerodia               U.S.A. (IL, IN, KY,  Indiana north of 40  T                       607           NA           NA
                                    erythrogaster         MI, OH).             degrees north                                                            
                                    neglecta.                                  latitude,                                                                
                                                                               Michigan, Ohio.                                                          
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: January 16, 1997.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-2056 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P