Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 4183

Species

Historic range Family Status When

listed

Critical

habitat

Special

rules Scientific name Common name

* * * * * * *

Dudleya abramsii ssp.

parva.

Conejo dudleya .......... U.S.A. (CA) ................ Stonecrop

(Crassulaceae).

T 606 NA NA

Dudleya cymosa ssp.

marcescens.

Marcescent dudleya ... U.S.A. (CA) ................ Stonecrop

(Crassulaceae).

T 606 NA NA

Dudleya cymosa ssp.

ovatifolia.

Santa Monica Mountains dudleya.U.S.A. (CA) ................ Stonecrop

(Crassulaceae).

T 606 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Dudleya verityi ............. Verity’s dudleya ......... U.S.A. (CA) ................ Stonecrop

(Crassulaceae).

T 606 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Pentachaeta lyonii ....... Lyon’s pentachaeta ... U.S.A. (CA) ................ Aster (Asteraceae) ..... E 606 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Dated: December 26, 1996.

Jay L. Gerst,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97–2059 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

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 orangered 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
4184 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 midwinter 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).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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 reopened 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 congressionallyimposed 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 reopened 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
4186 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 sixmonth 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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
4188 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonexistent. 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 recentlysigned 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 wetlandinhabiting 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 postmining land reclamation practices so
4190 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

REPTILES
4192 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

Snake, copperbelly

water.

Nerodia

erythrogaster

neglecta.

U.S.A. (IL, IN, KY,

MI, OH).

Indiana north of 40

degrees north latitude, Michigan,

Ohio.

T 607 NA NA

* * * * * * *

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 960502124–6190–02; I.D.

012497B]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Scallop Fishery;

Closure in Registration Area E

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the scallop

fishery in Scallop Registration Area E

(Prince William Sound) east of 146°

West long. This action is necessary to

prevent exceeding the scallop total

allowable catch (TAC) in this area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), January 24, 1997, until

2400 hrs, A.l.t., June 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Furuness, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

scallop fishery in the exclusive

economic zone off Alaska is managed by

NMFS according to the Fishery

Management Plan for Scallop Fishery

off Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. Fishing for scallops is

governed by regulations appearing at

subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50

CFR part 679.

In accordance with § 679.62(b), the

1996–1997 scallop TAC for Scallop

Registration Area E was established by

the Final 1996–1997 Harvest

Specifications of Scallops (61 FR 38099,

July 23, 1996) and a reduced TAC was

apportioned (62 FR 2043, January 15,

1997) as 17,300 lb (7,847 kg) of shucked

scallop meat in the part of Registration

Area E east of 146° West long.

In accordance with § 679.62(c), the

Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS,

has determined that the scallop TAC for

Scallop Registration Area E east of 146°

West long. has been reached.

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting the

taking and retention of scallops in

Scallop Registration Area E east of 146°

West long. from 1200 hrs, A.l.t., January

24, 1997, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., June

30, 1997.

Classification

This action is required by § 679.62

and is exempt from review under E.O.

12866.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Dated: January 24, 1997.

George H. Darcy,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 97–2229 Filed 1–24–97; 3:50 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 961126333–6333–01; I.D.

012497A]

[Docket No. 960129018–6018–01: I.D.

122396A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical

Area 610; Pacific Cod for Processing

by the Inshore Component in the

Western and Central Regulatory Areas

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Closure and correction.

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed

fishing for pollock in Statistical Area

610 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This

action is necessary to prevent exceeding

the interim specification for pollock in

this area. NMFS is also correcting a

typographical mistake in FR Doc. 96–

33290 (I.D. 122396A) published on

December 31, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), January 26, 1997, until

superseded by the Final 1997 Harvest

Specifications for Groundfish.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Sloan, 907–581–2062.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive

economic zone is managed by NMFS

according to the Fishery Management

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North

Pacific Fishery Management Council

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act. Fishing by U.S.

vessels is governed by regulations

implementing the FMP at subpart H of

50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The interim specification of pollock

total allowable catch in Statistical Area

610 was established by Interim 1997

Harvest Specifications (61 FR 64299,

December 4, 1996) as 9,075 metric tons

(mt), determined in accordance with

§ 679.20(c)(2)(i).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i),

the Administrator, Alaska Region,

NMFS (Regional Administrator), has

determined that the 1997 interim

specification of pollock in Statistical

Area 610 soon will be reached.

Therefore, the Regional Administrator is

establishing a directed fishing

allowance of 8,875 mt, and is setting

aside the remaining 200 mt as bycatch

to support other anticipated groundfish

fisheries. In accordance with

§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional

Administrator finds that this directed

fishing allowance will soon be reached.

Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting

directed fishing for pollock in Statistical

Area 610 until superseded by the Final

1997 Harvest Specifications for

Groundfish.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts

for applicable gear types may be found

in the regulations at § 679.20(e).

Correction

In a directed fishing opening, FR Doc

96–33290, published December 31, 1996

(61 FR 69050), the first line of the