50680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: July 19, 2011. 

J.R. Castillo, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eleventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20761 Filed 8–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[USCG–2011–0264] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring 

Safety Zones in Milwaukee Harbor, 

Milwaukee, WI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

this safety zone for annual fireworks 

events in the Captain of the Port, Sector 

Lake Michigan zone at various times 

from 9:15 p.m. on September 9, 2011 

through 10:30 p.m. on September 10, 

2011. This action is necessary and 

intended to ensure safety of life on the 

navigable waters immediately prior to, 

during, and immediately after fireworks 

events. This rule will establish 

restrictions upon, and control 

movement of, vessels in a specified area 

immediately prior to, during, and 

immediately after fireworks events. 

During the enforcement period, no 

person or vessel may enter the safety 

zones without permission of the Captain 

of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

165.935 will be enforceable at various 

times between 9:15 p.m. on September 

9, 2011 and 10:30 p.m. on September 

10, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or email BM1 Adam Kraft, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake 

Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at 414–747– 

7154, e-mail Adam.D.Kraft@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the safety zone listed 

in 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zones, 

Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI, for 

the following events: 

(1) Indian Summer fireworks display 

on September 9, 2011 from 9:15 p.m. 

through 10 p.m.; on September 10, 2011 

from 9:45 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. 

All vessels must obtain permission 

from the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake 

Michigan, or his or her on-scene 

representative to enter, move within or 

exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons 

granted permission to enter the safety 

zone shall obey all lawful orders or 

directions of the Captain of the Port, 

Sector Lake Michigan, or a designated 

representative. While within a safety 

zone, all vessels shall operate at the 

minimum speed necessary to maintain a 

safe course. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.935 Safety Zone, 

Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI and 

5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this 

notice in the Federal Register, the Coast 

Guard will provide the maritime 

community with advance notification of 

these enforcement periods via broadcast 

Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to 

Mariners. The Captain of the Port, 

Sector Lake Michigan, will issue a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying 

the public when enforcement of the 

safety zone established by this section is 

suspended. If the Captain of the Port, 

Sector Lake Michigan, determines that 

the safety zone need not be enforced for 

the full duration stated in this notice, he 

or she may use a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners to grant general permission to 

enter the safety zone. The Captain of the 

Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her 

on-scene representative may be 

contacted via VHF–FM Channel 16. 

Dated: July 29, 2011. 

M.W. Sibley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Sector Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20768 Filed 8–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0039; 

92220–1113–000; ABC Code: C6] 

RIN 1018–AW62 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Removal of the Lake Erie 

Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon 

insularum) From the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; notice of availability 

of final post-delisting monitoring plan. 

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are removing 

the Lake Erie watersnake (Nerodia 

sipedon insularum) from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife due to recovery. This action is 

based on a review of the best available 

scientific and commercial data, which 

indicate that the subspecies is no longer 

endangered or threatened with 

extinction, or likely to become so within 

the foreseeable future. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

September 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.fws.gov/endangered. Supporting 

documentation used in preparing this 

final rule will be available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ohio Ecological 

Services Field Office, 4625 Morse Road, 

Suite 104, Columbus, Ohio 43230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Knapp, Field Office Supervisor, or 

Megan Seymour, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio 

Ecological Services Field Office, 4625 

Morse Road, Suite 104, Columbus, Ohio 

43230 (telephone 614–416–8993). 

Individuals who are hearing-impaired or 

speech-impaired may call the Federal 

Relay Service at (800) 877–8337 for TTY 

assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Lake Erie watersnake is a 

subspecies of the Northern watersnake 

(N. sipedon sipedon) that occurs 

primarily on the offshore islands of 

western Lake Erie in Ohio and Ontario, 

Canada, but also on a small portion of 

the United States (U.S.) mainland on the 

Catawba and Marblehead peninsulas of 

Ottawa County, Ohio (Conant and Clay 

1937, p. 2; King 1986, p. 760). Lake Erie 

watersnakes are uniformly gray or 

brown, and have either no banding 

pattern, or have blotches or banding that 

are either faded or reduced (Conant and 

Clay 1937, pp. 2–5; Camin and Ehrlich 

1958, p. 504; King 1987, pp. 243–244). 

Female Lake Erie watersnakes grow up 

to 1.1 meters (m) (3.5 feet (ft)), long, and 

are larger than males (King 1986, p. 

762). Newborn Lake Erie watersnakes 

are the size of a pencil, and are born 

during late summer or early fall (King 

1986, p. 764). 

Lake Erie watersnakes are distinct 

from Northern watersnakes in their 

reduced or absent banding patterns 

(Conant and Clay 1937, pp. 2–5; Camin 

and Ehrlich 1958, p. 504; King 1987, pp. 

243–244), use of substrates dominated 

by limestone or dolomite (Conant and 

Clay 1937, p. 6; King 1986, p.760), diet 

composition (Hamilton 1951, pp. 64– 

65), larger body size (King 1989, pp. 85– 

86), lower growth rates (King 1986, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50681 

p. 770), and shorter tails (King 1986, 

p. 768). 

Lake Erie watersnake summer habitat 

is composed of rocky shorelines with 

limestone or dolomite shelves, ledges, 

or boulders for sunning and shelter. 

Shelter occurs in the form of loose 

rocks, piled rocks, or shelves and ledges 

with cracks, crevices, and nearby 

vegetation. Rip-rap erosion control, 

armor stone, and docks incorporating a 

stone crib structure often serve as 

summer habitat for the snake. Lake Erie 

watersnakes typically forage for fish and 

amphibians in Lake Erie, and research 

indicates that more than 90 percent of 

their current diet is composed of the 

nonnative, invasive fish round goby 

(Neogobius melanostomus) (King et al. 

2006b, p. 110). Jones et al. (2009, p. 441) 

report that the mean foraging distance 

from shore is 85 m (279 ft) and the 

average water depth of the foraging 

locations is 3.32 m (10.9 ft). Data from 

56 radio-tracked adult Lake Erie 

watersnakes indicate that during the 

summer, 75 percent of this population 

ranged within 13 m (42.7 ft) of the 

water’s edge (King 2003, p.4). King 

(2003, p. 4) identified that 75 percent of 

the 56 radio-tracked Lake Erie 

watersnakes used 437 m (1433 ft) of 

shoreline or less as a home range. In the 

winter, Lake Erie watersnakes hibernate 

below the frost level, in cracks or 

crevices in the bedrock, interstitial 

spaces of rocky substrates, tree roots, 

building foundations, and other similar 

natural and human-made structures. 

Seventy-five percent of 49 radio-tracked 

Lake Erie watersnakes hibernated 

within 69 m (226 ft) of the water’s edge 

(King 2003, p. 4). Individual snakes 

often demonstrated site fidelity, 

returning to the same shoreline area and 

the same or nearby hibernacula in 

successive years (King 2003, pp. 4, 

11–17). 

Additional information on the Lake 

Erie watersnake’s life history and 

biology can be found in the final listing 

rule (64 FR 47126; August 30, 1999) and 

the Lake Erie Watersnake (Nerodia 

sipedon insularum) Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a, pp. 6–11). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On June 1, 2010, we published a 

proposed rule to remove the Lake Erie 

watersnake from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(75 FR 30319). We solicited data and 

comments from the public on the 

proposed rule. The comment period 

opened on June 1, 2010 and closed on 

August 2, 2010. We discuss the 

comments received later in this 

document. For more information on 

previous Federal actions concerning the 

Lake Erie watersnake, please refer to the 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register on June 1, 2010 (75 FR 30319). 

Recovery 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. The Act directs that, to the 

maximum extent practicable, we 

incorporate into each plan: 

(1) Site-specific management actions 

that may be necessary to achieve the 

plan’s goals for conservation and 

survival of the species; 

(2) Objective, measurable criteria, 

which when met would result in a 

determination, in accordance with the 

provisions of section 4 of the Act, that 

the species be removed from the list; 

and 

(3) Estimates of the time required and 

cost to carry out the plan. 

However, revisions to the list (adding, 

removing, or reclassifying a species) 

must reflect determinations made in 

accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 

4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires 

that the Secretary determine whether a 

species is endangered or threatened (or 

not) because of one or more of five 

threat factors. Therefore, recovery 

criteria must indicate when a species is 

no longer endangered or threatened by 

any of the five factors. In other words, 

objective, measurable criteria, or 

recovery criteria contained in recovery 

plans, must indicate when we would 

anticipate an analysis of the five threat 

factors under section 4(a)(1) would 

result in a determination that a species 

is no longer endangered or threatened. 

Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the 

determination be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ 

Thus, while recovery plans are 

intended to provide guidance to the 

Service, States, and other partners on 

methods of minimizing threats to listed 

species and on criteria that may be used 

to determine when recovery is achieved, 

they are not regulatory documents and 

cannot substitute for the determinations 

and promulgation of regulations 

required under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. Determinations to remove a species 

from the list made under section 4(a)(1) 

of the Act must be based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

at the time of the determination, 

regardless of whether that information 

differs from the recovery plan. 

In the course of implementing 

conservation actions for a species, new 

information is often gained that requires 

recovery efforts to be modified 

accordingly. There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all criteria being fully met. For example, 

one or more recovery criteria may have 

been exceeded while other criteria may 

not have been accomplished, yet the 

Service may judge that, overall, the 

threats have been minimized 

sufficiently, and the species is robust 

enough, that the Service may reclassify 

the species from endangered to 

threatened or perhaps delist the species. 

In other cases, recovery opportunities 

may have been recognized that were not 

known at the time the recovery plan was 

finalized. These opportunities may be 

used instead of methods identified in 

the recovery plan. 

Likewise, information on the species 

may be learned that was not known at 

the time the recovery plan was 

finalized. The new information may 

change the extent that criteria need to be 

met for recognizing recovery of the 

species. Overall, recovery of species is 

a dynamic process requiring adaptive 

management, planning, implementing, 

and evaluating the degree of recovery of 

a species that may, or may not, fully 

follow the guidance provided in a 

recovery plan. 

Thus, while the recovery plan 

provides important guidance on the 

direction and strategy for recovery, and 

indicates when a rulemaking process 

may be initiated, the determination to 

remove a species from the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

is ultimately based on an analysis of 

whether a species is no longer 

endangered or threatened. The 

following discussion provides a brief 

review of recovery planning for the Lake 

Erie watersnake as well as an analysis 

of the recovery criteria and goals as they 

relate to evaluating the status of the 

species. 

The Service completed the final Lake 

Erie Watersnake Recovery Plan in 2003 

(Service 2003a). We used the Recovery 

Plan to provide guidance to the Service, 

the State of Ohio, and other partners on 

methods to minimize and reduce the 

threats to the Lake Erie watersnake, to 

guide and prioritize research on the 

watersnake, and to provide measurable 

criteria that would help determine when 

the threats to the snake had been 

reduced so that it was no longer 

endangered or threatened and could be 

removed from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(List). The Lake Erie Watersnake 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 28– 

30) outlines three recovery criteria, each 

with two parts, to assist in determining 

when the snake has recovered to the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

point that the protections afforded by 

the Act are no longer needed. All three 

of the criteria in the Lake Erie 

Watersnake Recovery Plan have been 

fully met and, in most cases, 

substantially exceeded. Each criterion 

and its attainment are described fully 

below. 

Criterion 1: Population Persistence 

The first criterion is intended to 

indicate when threats related to small 

population size and limited distribution 

of the species have been ameliorated, 

and the species is no longer ‘‘vulnerable 

to extinction or extirpation from 

catastrophic events, demographic 

variation, negative genetic effects, and 

environmental stresses such as habitat 

destruction and extermination’’ (64 FR 

47126; August 30, 1999). Attainment of 

the criterion would indicate when the 

population size constitutes a viable, 

persistent population and threats have 

been ameliorated sufficiently. The 

criterion also includes a distribution 

component that would indicate the 

presence of multiple subpopulations 

distributed throughout the range of the 

subspecies to provide assurance that 

genetic diversity is being maintained, 

and provide multiple source 

populations should one subpopulation 

be eliminated due to a catastrophic 

event. The rationale for the targets set in 

this criterion is further explained in the 

Lake Erie Watersnake Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a, pp. 27–29, 31–33). 

Criterion 1(a): Estimated population 

size reaches or exceeds 5,555 adult Lake 

Erie watersnakes on the U.S. islands 

combined (Kelleys, South Bass, Middle 

Bass, North Bass, Rattlesnake, West 

Sister, Sugar, Green, Ballast, and 

Gibraltar) for a period of 6 or more 

consecutive years. 

Researchers at Northern Illinois 

University (NIU) have led intensive 

annual Lake Erie watersnake censuses 

since 2001 and have collected data to 

generate annual adult population 

estimates as recommended in the Lake 

Erie Watersnake Recovery Plan (Service 

2003a, pp. 39–40). The methodology for 

conducting censuses and calculating the 

adult population estimates based on the 

census data is detailed in King et al. 

(2006a, pp. 88–92). Generally, 

population estimates are generated 

using multiple years of mark-recapture 

data, and applying closed- and openpopulation methods to analyze the data 

(King et al. 2006a, pp. 88–92). The 

preferred and most accurate method for 

calculating population size, the JollySeber method (Jolly 1965, Seber 1965), 

requires at least three census periods 

and does not provide an estimate for the 

first or last period. Thus, the most 

recent year for which Jolly-Seber 

population estimates were generated is 

2009. To provide population estimates 

for 2010, the Lincoln-Petersen method 

(as modified by Bailey in Caughley 

1977, p. 142) or Schumacher’s method 

(Caughley 1977, p. 145) or a relationship 

between population density and capture 

rate was used, depending on the number 

of within-year census events and 

captures at a given sampling location 

(King and Stanford 2011, p. 3). As data 

are collected each year, previous years’ 

estimates are refined and current year 

estimates are generated using the above 

methods. 

King and Stanford (2011, p. 17) report 

the results of these annual adult Lake 

Erie watersnake population estimates 

from the time period encompassing 

2001 through 2010. These population 

estimates indicate that Criterion 1(a) has 

been fully achieved, and in recent years 

substantially exceeded, during the 

period 2002–2010 (see table 1 below). 

Based on the most recent population 

estimates in King and Stanford (2011, p. 

17), this criterion’s population goal of at 

least 5,555 adults was first achieved in 

2002 when there were an estimated 

6,180 adult watersnakes on the U.S. 

islands combined, and has remained 

well above that level for the last 9 years. 

While the adult population estimate for 

2010 seems low compared to other 

recent years, this is simply a factor 

associated with the method used to 

calculate the adult population size for 

the most recent year’s data. As noted 

above, the Jolly-Seber method cannot be 

used to generate current-year population 

estimates, so a different though less 

exact method is used, depending on the 

number of within-year census events 

and capture numbers. It is expected that 

with another year of census data, the 

refined population estimates for each 

island and for the total population for 

2010 will be considerably larger and 

more accurate. 

Even more enlightening than the adult 

population estimates is the calculation 

of realized population growth of adult 

Lake Erie watersnakes since intensive 

monitoring began in 2001. King and 

Stanford (2009, p. 6) used the program 

MARK (White 2004, Cooch and White 

2008) to model realized population 

growth using annual census data from 

2001 through 2008 at eight intensive 

study sites with the most complete 

capture histories. This model 

documented realized population growth 

of approximately 6 percent per year for 

the years 2001–2008, with 95 percent 

confidence limits of 2–10 percent, 

providing strong evidence of a 

minimum of 2 percent population 

growth per year across multiple sites 

(King and Stanford 2009, pp. 6–7). This 

indeed demonstrates that the adult Lake 

Erie watersnake population has grown 

measurably since the time of listing, and 

validates the population estimates that 

also show increasing trends. As 

discussed below under Factor E, new 

analyses incorporating improved sex 

ratio and adult survival data indicate 

that a recovery population goal should 

be 6,100 snakes (King and Stanford 

2009, p. 8). However, such estimates are 

best viewed as approximations given the 

available information at the time (King 

and Stanford 2009, p.8). Irrespective of 

which population goal is used, 5,555 

adult snakes or 6,100 adult snakes, both 

population goals have been met and 

exceeded for nine consecutive years 

(2002–2010) (King and Stanford 2011, p. 

17). We conclude that Criterion 1a has 

been fully achieved and indicates that 

threats related to small population size 

have been ameliorated. 

TABLE 1—TOTAL ESTIMATED U.S. ADULT LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE POPULATION SIZE, 2001–2010 (KING AND STANFORD

2011, P. 17). ESTIMATES THAT EXCEED ISLAND-SPECIFIC AND OVERALL POPULATION SIZE GOALS SPECIFIED IN THE

LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE RECOVERY PLAN (SERVICE 2003a) ARE SHOWN IN Bold 

Year 

Four largest U.S. Islands with Lake Erie Watersnake populations Small islands 

with Lake Erie 

Watersnake 

populations * 

Combined U.S. 

islands Kelleys South bass Middle bass North bass 

Recovery Goal .................. 900 850 620 410 Not applicable ... 5555 

2001 .................................. 1860 1560 770 160 780 ................... 5130 

2002 .................................. 2150 1400 1300 550 780 ................... 6180 

2003 .................................. 2190 1490 1920 270 780 ................... 6650 

2004 .................................. 2750 1590 1460 460 1270 ................. 7530 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50683 

TABLE 1—TOTAL ESTIMATED U.S. ADULT LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE POPULATION SIZE, 2001–2010 (KING AND STANFORD

2011, P. 17). ESTIMATES THAT EXCEED ISLAND-SPECIFIC AND OVERALL POPULATION SIZE GOALS SPECIFIED IN THE

LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE RECOVERY PLAN (SERVICE 2003a) ARE SHOWN IN Bold—Continued 

Year 

Four largest U.S. Islands with Lake Erie Watersnake populations Small islands 

with Lake Erie 

Watersnake 

populations * 

Combined U.S. 

islands Kelleys South bass Middle bass North bass 

2005 .................................. 2450 1590 1920 790 920 ................... 7670 

2006 .................................. 2800 2670 3710 1380 1430 ................. 11990 

2007 .................................. 3930 2110 2480 970 890 ................... 10380 

2008 .................................. 3430 2540 3090 760 2060 ................. 11880 

2009 .................................. 2850 2630 4370 1170 960 ................... 11980 

2010 .................................. 3700 2070 2030 730 1270 ................. 9800 

* See Criterion 1(b). 

Criterion 1(b): Subpopulations on 

each of the five small U.S. islands 

capable of supporting Lake Erie 

watersnakes year-round (Rattlesnake, 

Sugar, Green, Ballast, and Gibraltar) 

persist during the same 6-or-more-yearperiod as Criterion 1a, and estimated 

population size reaches or exceeds the 

population size stated below for each of 

the four largest islands simultaneously 

during the same 6-or-more-year-period 

as Criterion 1(a): Kelleys Island— 

minimum of 900 adults; South Bass 

Island—minimum of 850 adults; Middle 

Bass Island—minimum of 620 adults; 

and North Bass Island—minimum of 

410 adults. 

Populations of Lake Erie watersnakes 

have been confirmed on the following 

small U.S. islands throughout the period 

2002–2010: Rattlesnake, Sugar, Green, 

Ballast, and Gibraltar (King and 

Stanford 2010b, pp. 6–7). Populations of 

Lake Erie watersnakes have persisted on 

the small islands during the same 9-year 

period as Criterion 1(a), exceeding the 

minimum 6 years specified in the 

recovery plan. 

As identified in table 1 above, 

estimated population sizes for each of 

the four largest U.S. islands have 

exceeded their population size criteria 

for the 9 consecutive years between 

2002 and 2010. This is the same 

consecutive 9-year period as Criterion 

1(a), with only one exception—North 

Bass Island in 2003 (King 2008, pp. 5, 

16). King (2008, p. 5) describes the 

circumstances of the sampling on North 

Bass Island that year: ‘‘North Bass Island 

was surveyed just once in 2003 and 

weather conditions were poor (partly 

cloudy and cool) during this survey. As 

a result, capture rates, especially at the 

NE,E,SE Shore site, were low.’’ King 

(2008, p. 5) states that the Lake Erie 

watersnake adult population estimate 

for North Bass Island in 2003 is likely 

inaccurate because the population 

estimates for the years prior to and after 

the 2003 census substantially exceeded 

the population estimate for 2003, and 

because watersnakes require 3 to 4 years 

to reach adulthood. King (2008, p. 5) 

concludes that, ‘‘It is unlikely that these 

year-to-year differences in estimated 

population size (from 610 to 270 to 440) 

reflect true variation in population 

numbers. Instead, the low estimate for 

2003 appears to reflect inadequate 

sampling in that year.’’ 

Based on the information above, it is 

reasonable to assume that North Bass 

Island has met the population size 

criterion for 9 consecutive years, as have 

the other three largest U.S. islands. Even 

if we exclude the North Bass Island 

population estimate for 2003, all four 

islands have met population size goals 

for 6 or more consecutive years. We, 

therefore, conclude that Criterion 1(b) 

has been fully achieved. 

Criterion 2: Habitat Protection and 

Management 

Criterion 2 is intended to ensure that 

sufficient habitat exists to protect 

approximately one-fifth of the Lake Erie 

watersnake delisting population goal of 

5,555 adult snakes. The goal for 

protecting a total of 7.4 km (4.6 mi) of 

shoreline habitat and 0.51 km2 (126 ac) 

of inland habitat within 69 m (226 ft) of 

shore accounts for approximately 10 

percent of the total shoreline of the four 

largest islands and 13 percent of the 

total inland habitat within 69 m (226 ft) 

of shore of the four largest U.S. islands. 

As described in Factor A, The Present 

or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range below and the 

recovery plan (Service 2003a, pp. 9, 15), 

Lake Erie watersnakes are fairly resilient 

to habitat modifications and can persist 

along and within developed areas. 

However, it is important to also have 

habitat areas that are permanently 

protected and managed for the snake to 

provide a series of permanent refugia 

distributed across the islands that can 

support a substantial portion of the Lake 

Erie watersnake population. These 

protected and managed areas provide 

habitat for snakes that are temporarily 

displaced from other areas as well as 

provide core areas of habitat with 

reduced sources of mortality to support 

core populations necessary to maintain 

a viable population. We estimated in 

our recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 34) 

that the protection of enough habitat to 

permanently support one-fifth (20 

percent) of the recovery population goal 

is sufficient to maintain a viable 

population on the U.S. islands. The 

criterion also includes a distribution 

component that stratifies a portion of 

protected habitat across the four largest 

islands to ensure protected habitat is 

available for multiple subpopulations 

distributed throughout the range of the 

subspecies. As described in Criterion 

1(a) above, multiple populations 

provide assurance that genetic diversity 

is being maintained, and provide 

multiple source populations should one 

subpopulation be eliminated due to a 

catastrophic event. The rationale for the 

targets set in this criterion is further 

explained in the Lake Erie Watersnake 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 29– 

30, 34–35). 

Criterion 2(a): Sufficient summer and 

hibernation habitat protected in 

perpetuity and sustained in a manner 

suitable for the continued persistence of 

the Lake Erie watersnake. Individual 

parcels will collectively encompass a 

total of 7.4 kilometers (km) (4.6 miles 

(mi)) of shoreline, and 0.51 km2 (126 

acres (ac)) of inland habitat lying within 

69 m (226 ft) of the shoreline on U.S. 

islands in Lake Erie. To be included 

under this criterion, each parcel will 

have a written agreement, which may be 

represented by a conservation easement 

(such as is currently offered by the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources 

(ODNR) and Lake Erie Islands Chapter 

of the Black Swamp Conservancy 

(LEIC–BSC)) or other habitat 

management plan that has been 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

approved by the Service (such as the 

‘‘Lake Erie Watersnake Habitat 

Management Planning’’ document for 

Middle Bass Island State Park). 

Individual parcels may be publicly or 

privately owned. 

Criterion 2(b): Protected shoreline 

habitat and inland habitat within 69 m 

(226 ft) of the shoreline, as described in 

Criterion 2a, will be distributed among 

the four major islands as follows, with 

the remaining protected habitat 

occurring on any of the U.S. islands: 

(i) Kelleys Island—minimum 1.2 km 

(0.75 mi) shoreline, 0.083 km2 (20.5 ac) 

inland; 

(ii) South Bass Island—minimum 1.1 

km (0.70 mi) shoreline, 0.078 km2 (19.3 

ac) inland; 

(iii) Middle Bass Island—minimum 

0.82 km (0.51 mi) shoreline, 0.057 km2

(14.1 ac) inland; and 

(iv) North Bass Island—minimum 

0.54 km (0.34 mi) shoreline, 0.037 km2

(9.1 ac) inland. 

By working collaboratively with 

partners, primarily ODNR, LEIC–BSC, 

Western Reserve Land Conservancy 

(WRLC), Put-in-Bay Township Park 

District (PIBTPD), and Cleveland 

Museum of Natural History (CMNH), we 

have ensured the permanent protection 

of 18.25 km (11.41 mi) of shoreline 

habitat and 1.287 km2 (318.18 ac) of 

inland habitat within 69 m (226 ft) of 

shore (table 2). The total protected 

habitat indicated in table 2 is more than 

double the goal established in Criterion 

2 of the Recovery Plan, and is sufficient 

to support approximately half (50 

percent) of the recovery population goal. 

Further, as evidenced in table 2, the 

goals for each of the four major islands 

have either been met or exceeded. 

TABLE 2—LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE PROTECTED HABITAT BY ISLAND-SPECIFIC AND OVERALL HABITAT PROTECTION AND

MANAGEMENT GOALS SPECIFIED IN THE LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE RECOVERY PLAN

[Service 2003a, pp. 29–30] 

Island Property 

Length of shoreline Land within 69 m of 

shore Partner 

(km) (mi) (km2) (ac) 

Kelleys ............................ Kelleys Island State Park; North Pond 

State Nature Preserve; Kelleys Island Alvar.

1 .74 1 .09 0 .149 36 .9 ODNR. 

Long Point Preserve ........................... 0 .57 0 .36 0 .087 21 .4 CMNH 

Schollenberger Easement .................. 0 .03 0 .02 0 .001 0 .14 LEIC–BSC. 

Subtotal ................... ............................................................. 2 .34 1 .47 0 .237 58 .44 

Kelleys Goal ................... ............................................................. 1 .2 0 .75 0 .083 20 .5 

South Bass ..................... South Bass Island State Park; Oak 

Point State Park.

0 .8 0 .5 0 .052 12 .9 ODNR. 

Scheef East Point Nature Preserve ... 0 .52 0 .32 0 .026 6 .4 PIBTPD, LEIC–BSC. 

Subtotal ................... ............................................................. 1 .32 0 .82 0 .078 19 .3 

South Bass Goal ............ ............................................................. 1 .1 0 .7 0 .078 19 .3 

Middle Bass .................... Middle Bass Island State Park; 

Kuehnle Wildlife Area.

2 .74 1 .71 0 .197 48 .7 ODNR. 

Petersen Woods ................................. 0 .03 0 .02 0 .006 1 .55 LEIC–BSC. 

Lawrence Evans ................................. 0 0 0 .003 0 .75 LEIC–BSC. 

Middle Bass East Point Preserve ....... 0 .22 0 .14 0 .017 4 .3 PIBTPD, LEIC–BSC. 

Subtotal ................... ............................................................. 2 .99 1 .87 0 .223 55 .3 

Middle Bass Goal ........... ............................................................. 0 .82 0 .51 0 .057 14 .1 

North Bass ...................... North Bass Island State Park; Fox’s 

Marsh Wildlife Area.

9 .9 6 .19 0 .683 168 .8 ODNR. 

Subtotal ................... ............................................................. 9 .9 6 .19 0 .683 168 .8 

North Bass Goal ............. ............................................................. 0 .54 0 .34 0 .037 9 .1 

Green .............................. Green Island Wildlife Area .................. 1 .7 1 .06 0 .066 16 .34 ODNR. 

Total All Islands ............................................................. 18 .25 11 .41 1 .287 318 .18 

Total Goal ............................................................. 7 .4 4 .6 0 .51 126 

The Service’s partners in establishing 

Lake Erie watersnake protected habitat 

are generally conservation organizations 

and we expect our partners to manage 

and protect Lake Erie watersnake habitat 

consistent with their conservation 

missions. However, the Service has 

additionally ensured that some form of 

permanent protection is in place for 

each protected habitat. Each property 

that counts towards Criterion 2 is 

protected by one of the following 

methods, all of which have been 

reviewed and endorsed by the Service: 

A permanent conservation easement 

which specifically incorporates Lake 

Erie watersnake habitat management 

and preservation; a Letter of Agreement 

between the landowner and the Service 

indicating that the habitat will be 

maintained in a natural habitat suitable 

for the Lake Erie watersnake in 

perpetuity; a perpetual management 

plan to protect Lake Erie watersnake 

habitat; or an environmental covenant 

and permanent deed restriction that 

supports conservation of the Lake Erie 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50685 

watersnake and its habitat in perpetuity. 

For example, ODNR’s properties 

compose 90 percent of the total 

protected inland habitat. In 2005, ODNR 

submitted to the Service the ‘‘Lake Erie 

Water Snake Habitat Management 

Planning; Lake Erie Island Properties 

Owned or Managed by the Ohio 

Department of Natural Resources’’ 

(ODNR 2005, p. 1) document to qualify 

these properties as recovery habitat for 

the snake. 

This document identified specific 

management actions that will be 

undertaken on each island property to 

avoid injury and harm to the Lake Erie 

watersnake during typical land 

management activities such as mowing, 

tree removal, maintenance and repair of 

structures, and vegetation control 

(ODNR 2005, pp. 3–6). Some of these 

management actions include: Avoiding 

excavation during the Lake Erie 

watersnake hibernation season; 

removing only the above-ground portion 

of a tree while maintaining the root 

mass for hibernation habitat; and 

establishing ‘‘no mow buffer zones’’ 

within 21 m (70 ft) of the water’s edge 

between the shoreline and more 

manicured lawn areas to provide 

summer habitat for the Lake Erie 

watersnake (ODNR 2005, pp. 3–5). 

Further, the document specifies 

proactive measures ODNR will 

implement to enhance watersnake 

habitat, conduct outreach activities 

regarding the watersnake, and promote 

research on the watersnake (ONDR 

2005, p. 6). Finally, the document 

specifies that ODNR will initiate early 

consultation with the Service to 

determine how to avoid and minimize 

impacts to the Lake Erie watersnake 

prior to submitting an application to a 

Federal agency for conducting activities 

in snake habitat (ODNR 2005, p. 2). 

Once a species is delisted, Federal 

agencies would not be required to 

consult with the Service on their action 

of issuing permits, but the ODNR plans 

to continue this early consultation, as 

well as implementing all portions of the 

Lake Erie watersnake habitat 

management plan, after delisting (ODNR 

2010, pers. comm.). 

Another example of protected habitat 

is property protected by a conservation 

easement held by the Lake Erie Islands 

Chapter of the Black Swamp 

Conservancy. These easements include 

as their purpose statement, ‘‘The 

purpose of this Conservation Easement 

is to permanently maintain the 

Protected Property as Lake Erie Water 

Snake habitat as a scenic area of the 

Lake Erie Island Region and to prevent 

or remedy any subsequent activity or 

use that significantly impairs or 

interferes with this purpose’’ (Black 

Swamp Conservancy 2003, p. 2). The 

easement includes a number of 

prohibited uses designed to maintain 

the natural habitat of the property for 

the Lake Erie watersnake (Black Swamp 

Conservancy 2003, pp. 2–3). Finally, the 

easement includes management 

guidelines for allowable activities that 

avoid disturbance of Lake Erie 

watersnakes and their habitat (Black 

Swamp Conservancy 2003, pp. 13–14). 

Both ODNR’s Habitat Management 

Plan and Black Swamp Conservancy’s 

Conservation Easement program provide 

examples of mechanisms for protecting 

Lake Erie watersnake habitat, while 

allowing for reasonable actions such as 

vegetation maintenance. All areas that 

qualify as protected habitat for the Lake 

Erie watersnake have similar 

management plans or similar 

documents, and all of these properties 

are overseen in some way by ODNR or 

another conservation-based 

organization. Based on this information, 

Criteria 2(a) and 2(b) have been fully 

achieved. 

Criterion 3: Reduction of HumanInduced Mortality 

Criterion 3(a) is intended to ensure 

that the Lake Erie watersnake will no 

longer be threatened by intentional 

human persecution, the main factor that 

led to the listing of the snake. This 

criterion will measure whether outreach 

efforts have been successful in reducing 

human persecution. Criterion 3(b) is 

intended to ensure that accidental 

human-induced mortality, such as 

occurs from roadkill, has been reduced 

to the maximum extent practicable, and 

no longer represents a significant threat 

to the population. 

Criterion 3(a): Objective analysis of 

public attitude on the islands indicates 

that intentional human persecution is 

no longer a significant threat to the 

continued existence of the snake. 

As indicated in the final listing rule 

for the Lake Erie watersnake (64 FR 

47131; August 30, 1999), ‘‘persecution 

by humans is the most significant and 

well documented factor in the decline of 

Lake Erie water snakes.’’ Lake Erie 

watersnake adults are large, readily 

encountered along the shoreline and in 

nearshore waters, and cluster in groups 

during portions of the year. Though not 

venomous, Lake Erie watersnakes will 

bite and secrete musk if handled, and 

sometimes will not flee when 

approached by humans. These Lake Erie 

watersnake characteristics, coupled 

with a general fear of snakes among a 

broad sector of the human population, 

may have contributed to an increased 

desire to eliminate them within the 

island environment, compared to other 

areas and other species of snake. 

Therefore the recovery strategy for the 

watersnake focused heavily on public 

outreach and education, in an attempt to 

change the negative perception and 

behavior of some island residents and 

visitors towards the watersnake. Public 

outreach focused on several basic 

messages: Lake Erie watersnakes are not 

venomous; Lake Erie watersnakes are a 

natural part of the island environment; 

and Lake Erie watersnakes should not 

be harmed or killed. Several public 

opinion surveys were recently 

conducted to gauge island landowner 

perception of the Lake Erie watersnake, 

and past, current, and future behavior 

towards the snake. Information on 

public opinion was derived primarily 

from formal surveys conducted by 

Wilkinson, Northern Illinois University 

(NIU) (Wilkinson 2008) and Olive 

(2008). 

The Lake Erie Watersnakes Public 

Opinion Survey (Wilkinson 2008) of 754 

randomly selected island residents 

within the range of the Lake Erie 

watersnake resulted in 348 responses 

from residents of 5 U.S. islands, 1 

response from 1 Canadian island 

resident, and 1 response from 1 nonisland resident (Wilkinson 2008, p. 7). 

Nineteen questions were asked to gauge 

the general knowledge, perceptions, and 

threat of human persecution among 

island residents. Respondents were also 

given the opportunity to provide written 

comments. Several of the survey 

questions were identical to survey 

questions asked of island residents in a 

1999 public opinion survey (Service 

1999), and answers were compared to 

determine changes over time. 

Responses from the 2008 survey 

indicate that 99 percent of respondents 

are aware that the Lake Erie watersnake 

occurs on the island, and that 94 

percent of respondents are aware that it 

is a protected animal (Wilkinson 2008, 

pp. 1, 5). Eighty-three percent of 

respondents indicate that their 

knowledge of the Lake Erie watersnake 

has increased since the species was 

listed in 1999 (Wilkinson 2008, p. 5). 

Respondents cite a large variety of 

methods by which they have become 

more familiar with the snake, including: 

The Service and ODNR’s biannual 

newsletter ‘‘LEWS News,’’ the ‘‘Island 

Snake Lady’’ (an NIU researcher funded 

by ODNR and the Service), and various 

media sources (Wilkinson 2008, pp. 2– 

4). Generally, these data indicate that 

Federal, State, and nongovernmental 

organizations’ outreach and education 

campaigns are reaching the vast 

majority of island residents, and are 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

helping to increase their access to 

information about the watersnake. 

Additionally, Wilkinson (2008, p. 1) 

reports that 66 percent of respondents 

indicated that their attitude toward the 

watersnake is generally positive or 

neutral, while 34 percent indicate that 

their attitude is generally negative. 

While it is apparent that not all 

residents feel positively toward the 

snake, it is very notable that, despite 

human persecution being the most 

significant factor in the decline of the 

Lake Erie watersnake, only about 4 

percent of respondents indicated they 

had knowingly killed a watersnake 

since the time of listing, and only about 

14 percent of respondents said they 

would knowingly kill a watersnake if it 

was no longer protected by State or 

Federal laws (Wilkinson 2008, p. 6). We 

interpret these responses to indicate 

that, while the watersnake will still face 

some human persecution, the vast 

majority of islanders would not resort to 

lethal means if they encountered 

watersnakes on their property. 

Similarly, in 2007, Olive (2008, p. 83) 

randomly selected and interviewed 44 

individual property owners from 

Middle Bass Island regarding the 

Endangered Species Act and the Lake 

Erie watersnake. Of those interviewed, 7 

percent admitted to killing a snake and 

18 percent admitted they might kill a 

snake while it is listed (Olive 2008, pp. 

112–113, 153). 

Despite the admitted intentional 

human persecution documented by both 

Wilkinson (2008, p. 6) and Olive (2008, 

pp. 112–113, 153), adult Lake Erie 

watersnake populations have increased 

substantially since the time of listing, 

both across the U.S. range and on each 

large island (King and Stanford 2010a, 

p. 11; King and Stanford 2009, pp. 6– 

7). This positive population growth 

indicates that the adult Lake Erie 

watersnake population can tolerate 

some loss of individuals due to 

intentional mortality and still persist at 

a recovery level. 

Wilkinson’s 2008 public opinion 

survey found that 31 percent of 

respondents’ attitudes toward Lake Erie 

watersnakes have become more negative 

since listing, 30 percent have become 

more positive, and 39 percent have not 

changed (Wilkinson 2008, p. 1). While 

this survey did not attribute reasons to 

the change in attitude, 69 out of 168 (41 

percent) of the optional comments on 

Wilkinson’s (2008, pp. 8–13) survey 

response form indicated the belief that 

there are now too many snakes, that the 

snakes are becoming nuisances due to 

their numbers and their habits of 

clustering along the shoreline, or that 

the snakes should no longer be 

protected. 

Public opinion of the Lake Erie 

watersnake varies widely among those 

who support it, those who have no 

opinion, and those who dislike or fear 

the snake. Outreach efforts have reached 

nearly all island residents, increasing 

access to information about the Lake 

Erie watersnake, including nonlethal 

ways to address nuisance snakes. 

Opinion surveys indicate that most 

people do not now and will not in the 

future kill Lake Erie watersnakes; 

however, many people indicate that the 

sheer number of snakes along the 

shoreline has become a nuisance, and 

this may contribute to negative feelings 

towards the snake. As Lake Erie 

watersnake numbers have rebounded, 

and a significant amount of habitat has 

now been permanently protected to 

support Lake Erie watersnakes, the Lake 

Erie watersnake population can 

withstand a limited amount of 

intentional mortality. While the threat 

of intentional mortality likely can never 

be completely eliminated, results of 

public opinion surveys along with 

population estimates indicate that the 

number of mortalities anticipated from 

intentional human persecution on its 

own and with other residual threats are 

not limiting population persistence or 

growth. 

Continued outreach regarding the 

Lake Erie watersnake’s role in the island 

ecosystem is important, and this effort 

will continue through various partners 

post-delisting. Planned ongoing 

outreach activities are addressed in the 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species—Factor E, Other Natural or 

Manmade Factors Affecting Its 

Continued Existence, below. Public 

opinion will be monitored post-delisting 

to ensure this remnant threat is not 

affecting the Lake Erie watersnake 

population as a whole. Therefore, we 

conclude Criterion 3(a) has been fully 

achieved. 

Criterion 3(b): Accidental humaninduced mortality, such as occurs from 

roadkill and fishing, has been reduced 

to the maximum extent practicable, and 

no longer represents a significant threat 

to the population. 

Several sources of accidental humaninduced mortality have been examined 

to determine to what degree they may be 

contributing to overall mortality of Lake 

Erie watersnakes, and if they are a 

significant threat to the population. 

A survey of registered boaters in the 

Lake Erie island region was conducted 

to determine how many members of the 

Lake Erie Island boating and fishing 

community had direct encounters with 

snakes, and to characterize the 

responses from these encounters 

(Stanford 2004). Of 1,437 surveys 

mailed out, 468 were completed and 

returned (Stanford 2004, p. 1). An 

additional 21 surveys were completed 

voluntarily by individuals who picked 

them up at various outreach events that 

occurred in the vicinity of the islands, 

for a total of 489 survey responses 

(Stanford 2004, p. 1). Of the 

respondents, 118 reported having 

encountered a watersnake on their boat, 

and not a single encounter resulted in 

a boater or angler killing a snake 

(Stanford 2004, p. 2). These data suggest 

that encounters between boaters and 

watersnakes typically do not result in 

mortality. Only 13 of the 489 

respondents (less than 3 percent) 

indicated that they have ever caught a 

snake by hook and line while fishing 

with both live and artificial baits, and 

from both boat and shore, though no 

information was provided regarding 

snake mortality during these incidents 

(Stanford 2004, p. 2). It is clear that 

bycatch of Lake Erie watersnakes due to 

hook and line fishing incidents is very 

rare, and does not pose a significant 

threat to the population. 

Despite the rarity of mortality during 

fishing and boating, approximately 25 

percent of boaters and anglers near the 

Lake Erie islands may encounter a Lake 

Erie watersnake (Stanford 2004, p. 2). 

ODNR Division of Wildlife developed 

pamphlets entitled, ‘‘Lake Erie 

Watersnake—Make your Boating 

Experience More Pleasant’’ to aid 

anglers and boaters in deterring Lake 

Erie watersnakes from entering their 

boats, and to recommend nonlethal 

methods to remove snakes from boats 

(ODNR 2003). These pamphlets are 

available online (http:// 

respectthesnake.com) and at a number 

of State parks, boat launches, and 

marinas in the island region. 

To address the effect roadkill 

mortality may have on the Lake Erie 

watersnake population, King (2007, pp. 

5–6) conducted a survey of roadkill 

mortality on the four large U.S. islands 

between June 26 and July 15, 2005. This 

survey found a total of 71 roadkill 

snakes, including 45 roadkill Lake Erie 

watersnakes (King 2007, p. 5). King 

(2007, p. 6) states, ‘‘Among watersnakes, 

38 were neonates, 5 were juveniles, and 

2 were adults. These results suggest that 

adult Lake Erie watersnake roadkill 

mortality is relatively low (Brown and 

Weatherhead 1999). Available data on 

watersnake mortality suggest that 

survivorship of neonates is low. Thus, 

roadkill mortality of this age-class likely 

has little impact on watersnake 

population trends.’’ Therefore, we 

conclude that the number of mortalities 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50687 

anticipated from accidental humaninduced mortality due to roadkill events 

alone or coupled with other residual 

threats is not likely to limit population 

growth or persistence. 

As described further under Summary 

of Factors Affecting the Species—Factor 

A and Factor E below, intensive public 

outreach has occurred to increase 

awareness of island residents and 

visitors of the presence of the Lake Erie 

watersnake on the Lake Erie islands and 

in nearby waters, and to reduce both 

accidental and intentional mortality of 

Lake Erie watersnakes. To reduce 

accidental mortality from typical land 

management activities such as lawn 

mowing and tree clearing, and to guide 

residents in an appropriate way to 

address Lake Erie watersnakes that are 

found in garages, pools, lawns, patios, 

basements, and other similar areas, 

various outreach documents have been 

developed by both the Service and 

ODNR. The Service’s ‘‘Lake Erie 

Watersnake Management Guidelines for 

Construction, Development, and Land 

Management Activities’’ (Service 2009, 

Service 2003b) provide guidance on 

how to avoid take during typical landmanagement activities, and ODNR’s ‘‘A 

Lakeshore Property Owner’s Guide to 

Living with Lake Erie Watersnakes’’ 

(ODNR 2006) provides guidance on 

dealing with nuisance snakes in human 

living areas in a non-lethal manner. 

These documents are available on the 

Internet (http://respectthesnake.com) 

and at various locations on the islands. 

In summary, we have assessed the 

impact of accidental human-induced 

mortality on the adult Lake Erie 

watersnake population. We have used 

an intensive public outreach campaign 

to increase awareness of residents and 

visitors to the presence and protected 

status of the Lake Erie watersnake, and 

have provided guidance and tools for 

minimizing human–snake encounters 

and addressing snakes encountered in 

boats, homes, yards, and other humaninhabited areas in a nonlethal manner. 

We have determined that accidental 

human-induced mortality, such as that 

which occurs from boating, fishing, and 

roadkill events, does not pose a 

substantial threat to the adult Lake Erie 

watersnake population, and, therefore, 

does not warrant further action. We 

assert that Criterion 3(b) has been 

achieved. 

Identification of Additional Threats 

The Lake Erie Watersnake Recovery 

Plan also identified potential additional 

threats that should be investigated. The 

plan did not recommend any specific 

criteria in regard to these potential 

threats, but instead recommended 

research to determine the degree of 

threat, if any, posed by invasive species 

and contaminants. 

The Lake Erie Watersnake Recovery 

Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 18, 38, 49, 57) 

recommended that additional studies be 

conducted to document the impact 

invasive species, including the round 

goby, may have on the watersnake. King 

et al. (2006b, p. 110) found that, since 

the appearance of round goby in the 

Great Lakes in the early 1990’s, Lake 

Erie watersnake diets have shifted from 

a diet of native fishes and amphibians 

to a diet composed of more than 90 

percent round goby. This dietary shift 

corresponds to increased watersnake 

growth rates, increased body size, and 

increase in fecundity, with female 

watersnakes producing on average 25 

percent more offspring post-invasion 

(King et al. 2008, pp. 155, 158; King et 

al. 2006b, pp. 111–113). King et al. 

(2008, p. 159) suggest that, ‘‘resource 

availability may have contributed to 

population declines in Lake Erie 

watersnakes during the mid- to late1900s. * * * While habitat loss and 

human-caused mortality are likely 

contributors to past watersnake 

population declines, the possibility 

exists that a reduction in benthic [lake 

bottom] fish biomass, resulting in 

reduced watersnake fecundity, was also 

a factor. Unfortunately, quantitative data 

on long-term temporal trends in benthic 

fish biomass are lacking.’’ 

Since the establishment of round goby 

in Lake Erie in the mid 1990s they have 

become ubiquitous and plentiful 

throughout the Lake. Johnson et al. 

(2005, p. 83) estimated that the western 

basin alone supported 9.9 billion round 

goby, and found that population 

assessments using nonvisual techniques 

(such as trawl surveys) tend to be 

conservative. ODNR annually samples 

for selected fish species within the 

western basin of Lake Erie using trawl 

surveys, and has included round goby 

in the sampling since 1995. Since 1998, 

mean catch-per-hectare of all age classes 

of round goby from trawl surveys in 

August and September range from 38.6 

to 226.9 (ODNR 2010a, pp. 84–85), with 

sometimes substantial differences in 

catch-per-hectare rates between months 

in the same year. This sampling 

indicates an oscillating trend in goby 

abundance since their establishment in 

the western basin, and should be 

considered a conservative detection 

method based on Johnson et al.’s 

findings (2005, p. 83). ODNR Fisheries 

Researcher Carey Knight (2010, pers. 

comm.) indicates that round goby are 

likely to remain established and 

plentiful within the Lake Erie basin over 

time, but that localized botulism or 

hypoxia/anoxia events could result in 

localized, temporary depletions of goby, 

including within the range of the Lake 

Erie watersnake. Regardless of these 

localized events, it is likely that the 

round goby will persist within the 

western Lake Erie basin for the 

foreseeable future. 

If it is correct that limited foraging 

opportunities were a cause of the 

watersnake’s population declines, the 

abundance of the round goby within the 

island region of western Lake Erie will 

likely provide a significant prey source 

into the foreseeable future, negating any 

threats from limited prey availability. 

The Lake Erie Watersnake Recovery 

Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 18–19, 38, 49, 

57) also recommended that additional 

studies be conducted to document the 

impact contaminants may have on the 

watersnake. In particular, this research 

became a high priority when it became 

apparent that the watersnake’s diet 

switched from native fish and 

amphibians to almost exclusively round 

goby (King et al. 2006b, p. 110). Round 

goby is a nonnative, invasive species 

that arrived from the Black and Caspian 

Seas in ballast water and became 

established within the Great Lakes in 

the early 1990’s (Jude et al. 1992, pp. 

418–419). Round goby is abundant in 

the western basin of Lake Erie, with an 

estimate of 9.9 billion round gobies in 

2002 (Johnson et al. 2005, p. 83). Round 

goby prey extensively on zebra mussels 

(Dreissena polymorpha) and quagga 

mussels (Dreissena bugensis) (Ray and 

Corkum 1997, p. 270). Zebra and quagga 

mussels are nonnative, invasive species 

from the Black and Caspian Seas that 

have become established within the 

Great Lakes and are abundant in and 

around the western Lake Erie islands 

reaching densities up to 3.4x105

mussels per m2 in the western basin of 

Lake Erie (Leach 1993, p. 381). 

Zebra and quagga mussels are filter 

feeders and are known to bioaccumulate 

contaminants including PCBs (Kwon et 

al. 2006, pp. 1072, 1075). 

Biomagnification of PCBs has been 

documented in the zebra mussel—round 

goby—smallmouth bass food chain in 

Lake Erie (Kwon et al. 2006, p. 1075), 

so biomagnification of contaminants 

through the consumption of round goby 

by Lake Erie watersnakes was thought to 

be a possible threat to the watersnake. 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have 

been documented in Lake Erie 

watersnakes in fairly high levels (113 

micrograms per gram (μg/g) (Bishop and 

Rouse 2006, pp. 454, 456) and 167 μg/ 

g (Bishop and Rouse 2000, pp. 500– 

501)). 

Recent research compared the levels 

of contaminants in Lake Erie 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

watersnakes pre- and post-goby invasion 

and found ‘‘a marginal increase in 

hexachlorobenzene levels, and a 

significant decline in dieldrin, 

oxychlordane, and heptachlor epoxide,’’ 

and found that, ‘‘sum PCBs and p,p′- 

Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

(DDE) remained stable in the 

watersnakes after the invasion of round 

goby * * * suggesting that although the 

dietary switch to round gobies meant 

consumption of a more contaminated 

diet, their diet remained at the same 

trophic position [place in the food 

chain]’’ (Fernie et al. 2008 p. 344). 

Fernie et al. (2008, pp. 344, 349–350) 

did recommend additional studies to 

determine if these contaminants affect 

reproductive and physiological 

parameters in Lake Erie watersnakes; 

however, because Bishop and Rouse 

(2006, pp. 452, 454, 456) tested for and 

did not find a correlation between high 

levels of PCBs and embryonic mortality 

or number of embryos produced by 

female watersnakes, no additional 

research on contaminants is deemed 

necessary at this time. 

Research confirms that the dietary 

switch from native fish and amphibians 

to round goby has not resulted in 

significant increases in contaminant 

loads in Lake Erie watersnakes. 

Additionally, while relatively high 

levels of PCBs were detected in 

watersnakes, these levels did not 

correspond with reduced embryonic 

survivorship. Lake Erie watersnake 

population numbers continue to 

increase despite relatively stable 

exposure to contaminants over the past 

18 years of study, and, therefore, we 

conclude that contaminants do not pose 

a significant threat to the Lake Erie 

watersnake at this time or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Results of Recovery Plan Review 

Available data indicate that all 

recovery criteria have been fully met. In 

addition, we investigated other potential 

threats and concluded they do not pose 

significant threats, and, therefore, no 

further action with respect to these 

potential threats is necessary. Based on 

our review of the Lake Erie Watersnake 

Recovery Plan, we conclude that review 

of the status of the Lake Erie watersnake 

under section 4(a)(1) would result in a 

determination that the species be 

removed from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. That analysis 

is presented below. 

Summary of Public and Peer Review 

Comments and Recommendations 

In our June 1, 2010, proposed rule, we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit information, data, and comments 

concerning multiple aspects of the 

status of the Lake Erie watersnake. The 

comment period was open from June 1, 

2010, through August 2, 2010. 

In accordance with our policy on peer 

review, published on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34270), we solicited review from five 

expert scientists who are familiar with 

this species regarding pertinent 

scientific data and assumptions relating 

to supportive biological and ecological 

information for the proposed rule. 

Reviewers were asked to review the 

proposed rule, the supporting data, and 

the post-delisting monitoring plan, to 

point out any mistakes in our data or 

analysis, and to identify any relevant 

data that we might have overlooked. 

Three of the five peer reviewers 

submitted comments. All three were 

supportive of the proposal to remove the 

Lake Erie watersnake from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. All peer reviewer comments 

are incorporated directly into this final 

rule or the final post-delisting 

monitoring plan. 

During the 60-day comment period, 

we received comments from five 

individuals, organizations, and 

government agencies. We have read and 

considered all comments received. We 

updated the rule where it was 

appropriate. The only substantive issue 

raised was by ODNR Office of Coastal 

Management. ODNR Office of Coastal 

Management commented that Federal 

agency activities having reasonably 

foreseeable effects on any land or water 

use or natural resource of Ohio’s 

designated coastal zone must be 

consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the enforceable policies 

of the federally approved Ohio Coastal 

Management Program. If coastal effects 

are reasonably foreseeable, the Service 

should submit a Consistency 

Determination to the ODNR Office of 

Coastal Management; however, if there 

are no coastal effects, a Negative 

Determination can be submitted to 

ODNR. Removing the Lake Erie 

watersnake from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife will not result 

in any foreseeable effects on land or 

water use or natural resources of Ohio’s 

designated coastal zone. The Service 

submitted a Negative Determination to 

ODNR Office of Coastal Management on 

September 28, 2010. On November 12, 

2010, ODNR Office of Coastal 

Management provided a concurrence 

letter indicating no further coordination 

on this issue is necessary (ODNR 

2010b). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for listing 

species, reclassifying species, or 

removing species from listed status. 

‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as 

including any species or subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the 

‘‘species’’ is identified, we then evaluate 

whether that species may be endangered 

or threatened because of one or more of 

the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider 

these same five factors in delisting a 

species. We may delist a species 

according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

indicate that the species is neither 

endangered nor threatened because (1) 

The species is extinct, (2) the species 

has recovered and is no longer 

endangered or threatened, or (3) the 

original scientific data used at the time 

the species was classified were in error. 

A recovered species is one that no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of 

threatened or endangered. The analysis 

for a delisting due to recovery must be 

based on the five factors outlined in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. This analysis 

must include an evaluation of threats 

that existed at the time of listing, those 

that currently exist, and those that could 

potentially affect the species once the 

protections of the Act are removed. 

In the context of the Act, the term 

‘‘threatened species’’ means any species 

or subspecies or, for vertebrates, Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) that is likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

term ‘‘endangered species’’ means any 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act does not define the 

term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ For the 

purpose of this rule, we define the 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ to be the extent to 

which, given the amount and substance 

of available data, we can anticipate 

events or effects, or reliably extrapolate 

threat trends, such that we reasonably 

believe that reliable predictions can be 

made concerning the future as it relates 

to the status of the Lake Erie 

watersnake. 

The following analysis examines all 

five factors currently affecting, or that 

are likely to affect, the Lake Erie 

watersnake within the foreseeable 

future. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50689 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The islands on which the Lake Erie 

watersnake occurs provide seasonal 

residences and vacation areas to a large 

number of people during the summer 

months. Further, the western Lake Erie 

basin is widely known for recreational 

and fishing opportunities, and is a 

regional destination area, particularly 

during the summer months. It is 

therefore not surprising that most of the 

islands have faced and continue to face 

development pressure (Seymour 2009, 

pers. comm.). 

Prior to listing, three of the large 

islands (Kelleys, Middle Bass, and 

South Bass) were fairly well developed 

with residences and small-scale 

commercial businesses, with scattered 

natural areas throughout. North Bass 

Island supported a few residences, but 

was primarily agricultural, and 

dedicated to viticulture (vineyards). The 

small islands are mostly privately 

owned, and typically support a few 

residences interspersed with natural 

areas. Development activities on the 

islands since the Lake Erie watersnake 

was listed in 1999 include the following 

types of projects: Residential 

construction on three of the four large 

islands, hotel and motel structures on 

two of the large islands, dock 

construction and rehabilitation on most 

of the islands, shoreline stabilization on 

most of the islands, small and large 

marina construction and rehabilitation 

on several of the islands, utility line 

installation on three of the large islands, 

road rehabilitation projects on two of 

the large islands, wastewater treatment 

facilities on several of the islands, beach 

nourishment projects on several of the 

islands, small-scale commercial 

development on several of the large 

islands, and airport upgrades on several 

of the islands (Seymour 2009, pers. 

comm.). 

Many of these activities occur on or 

near the shoreline, where Lake Erie 

watersnakes spend much of their time. 

In some cases, development activities 

can result in habitat loss or degradation, 

for example, when a building is 

constructed along a segment of 

shoreline that previously supported 

natural vegetation, or when a vertical 

wall is constructed along the shoreline 

to protect against erosion. However, 

some types of development actually 

provide suitable Lake Erie watersnake 

habitat. For example, Lake Erie 

watersnakes will readily use rip-rap or 

armor stone erosion control structures 

and crib docks that incorporate stone fill 

for summer habitat. 

Destruction or Modification of Summer 

Habitat 

As described in the Background 

section, Lake Erie watersnake summer 

habitat consists of the rocky and 

vegetated island shorelines and the 

adjacent nearshore waters of Lake Erie. 

Seventy-five percent of adult Lake Erie 

watersnakes are found within 13 m 

(42.7 ft) of the water’s edge during the 

summer (King 2003, p. 4). Destruction 

or modification of summer habitat 

typically occurs due to residential or, 

less often, commercial development, 

installation or modification of roadways 

and associated utilities, shoreline 

erosion control projects, dock 

construction or modification, and 

dredging activities. These activities may 

result in loss or degradation of rocky 

shorelines, vegetation, and nearshore 

aquatic habitats, which the snakes use 

for basking, resting, cover, mating, and 

foraging. 

Lake Erie watersnakes are affected by 

summer habitat destruction and 

modification in a variety of ways, 

depending on the method, design, and 

timing of the specific project. Lake Erie 

watersnakes are resilient to many 

modifications to summer habitat, such 

as installation of rip-rap erosion control 

structures and crib docks. Repeated 

observations over multiple years 

document that individual Lake Erie 

watersnakes displaced during 

construction activities will return to the 

same area once construction is 

complete, as long as rocky or vegetated 

shoreline habitat is present (Stanford 

2009, pers. comm.). Further, artificial 

habitat such as crib docks and rip-rap 

erosion control are known to support a 

large number of Lake Erie watersnakes 

during the summer season on all of the 

large islands, and may actually provide 

habitat where natural rocky shoreline 

habitat was previously limited. Projects 

that impact summer habitat, but occur 

during the winter season, may have no 

observable impacts on the Lake Erie 

watersnake, while projects that impact 

summer habitat during the summer may 

cause temporary displacement of Lake 

Erie watersnakes from all or a portion of 

their shoreline home range. 

The vast majority of the islands’ 

shorelines are typically composed of 

either larger parcels (typically ODNR 

properties) that are protected Lake Erie 

watersnake habitat or smaller private 

lots. Larger parcels comprise 

approximately one-quarter (25 percent) 

of the islands’ shoreline, and these areas 

are designated as protected habitat for 

Lake Erie watersnakes. In most cases, 

projects that impact Lake Erie 

watersnake summer habitat occur on 

small private parcels. Because of the 

limited size of these parcels and the 

types of shoreline projects that would 

occur there, impacts will be limited to 

only a small portion of an individual 

snake’s home range. While individual 

snakes may be displaced from portions 

of their home ranges, displacement 

would likely be temporary, as Lake Erie 

watersnakes are known to return to 

former home ranges once construction 

actions are complete, and adjacent 

portions of an individual watersnake’s 

habitat would likely remain undisturbed 

and available to support the snake’s 

breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs. 

There are only a few activities that 

may permanently displace Lake Erie 

watersnakes from their summer habitat, 

including installation of vertical steel or 

concrete walls along the shoreline or 

over the sides of existing rock-filled crib 

docks. In instances where homes, 

businesses, roads, or other similar 

structures are built close to the 

shoreline, the presence of manicured 

lawns and shorelines may degrade 

summer habitat through loss of cover, 

though Lake Erie watersnakes are often 

encountered basking in grassy areas 

near the shoreline despite the presence 

of homes or roads. While Lake Erie 

watersnakes may use grassy areas near 

shorelines and roads for basking, this 

habitat is not ideal because snakes are 

highly visible and may be more 

susceptible to predation or human 

persecution, and less cover is generally 

available in these areas. Further, 

maintenance activities such as mowing 

may kill or injure snakes that use 

maintained grassy areas. Finally, snakes 

basking along road edges may be more 

susceptible to road kill than snakes 

basking near natural shorelines. Threats 

such as roadkill and human persecution 

are addressed under Factor E below. 

Impacts to foraging habitat (Lake Erie) 

are typically limited to fill placement 

for erosion control, docks, or navigation 

structures, or dredging to facilitate 

navigation. All impacts to foraging 

habitat are regulated by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) through 

section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act 

and section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(see Factor D, The Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). 

Projects such as these typically cover 

only a small geographic area, and are of 

limited duration. Impacts to the Lake 

Erie watersnake from these activities 

may include a limited amount of 

foraging habitat loss due to placement of 

fill within Lake Erie, degradation of 

foraging habitat due to short-term 

turbidity, and temporary displacement 

from foraging areas where construction 

activities are occurring. While 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50690 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

watersnakes may be temporarily 

displaced from foraging habitat during 

construction, on repeated occasions 

over multiple years, individual Lake 

Erie watersnakes have been documented 

recolonizing disturbed foraging areas 

shortly after construction activities are 

complete (Stanford 2009, pers. comm.). 

As noted above, the primary prey of 

Lake Erie watersnakes is round goby, 

and these fish are superabundant in the 

island region (King et al. 2006b, p. 110). 

Foraging habitat and prey do not appear 

to be a limiting factor for Lake Erie 

watersnakes, and therefore limited 

construction activities within foraging 

habitat are not anticipated to have 

significant impacts on Lake Erie 

watersnakes. 

Prior to listing, summer habitat 

modification included the activities 

described above, but of particular 

concern was the proliferation of sheet 

steel docks and vertical concrete and 

steel shoreline walls. Development of 

homes, businesses, and roads along the 

island shorelines may have degraded 

natural watersnake habitat to some 

degree, but as described above, Lake 

Erie watersnakes appear to be fairly 

resilient to the presence of these types 

of structures, as long as rocky or 

vegetated shorelines persist once 

construction is complete. 

Since the time of listing, most 

destruction and modification of Lake 

Erie watersnake summer habitat has 

been subject to consultation under 

section 7 of the Act through the 

issuance of Corps permits under section 

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (see 

Factor D, The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms). These laws 

provide the Service the opportunity to 

review and comment on all projects 

affecting Lake Erie watersnake foraging 

habitat and many projects affecting 

shoreline habitat. Under these 

authorities, the Service has consistently 

recommended installation of rip-rap 

erosion control structures and crib 

docks in lieu of vertical concrete or 

sheet steel structures, seasonal 

timeframes for construction activities if 

appropriate, educational signage, and 

other appropriate avoidance and 

minimization measures. This 

consultation has reduced shoreline 

habitat degradation substantially, and 

has resulted in the creation of artificial 

shoreline habitat for Lake Erie 

watersnakes on many islands. 

We anticipate that similar projects 

impacting the islands’ shorelines and 

the Lake Erie watersnake’s summer 

habitat will continue into the 

foreseeable future. As noted above, the 

vast majority of these projects are 

regulated by section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act and section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act, and as such, the 

Service will have the opportunity to 

review and comment on these Corps 

projects via the public notice process 

following delisting. The Service will 

continue recommending rock structures 

as opposed to vertical structures on 

these types of projects, under the 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, as rock structures are 

beneficial not only to snakes, but to fish 

and other aquatic species as well. We 

anticipate that construction of shoreline 

structures beneficial to Lake Erie 

watersnakes will continue into the 

foreseeable future. 

The destruction or modification of 

summer habitat may temporarily 

displace individual watersnakes. 

However, these impacts do not affect the 

population as a whole because 

individuals are generally not lost from 

the population and displacement does 

not appear to significantly affect 

survival and reproduction to the point 

that it would affect population growth 

or viability. Shoreline habitat loss has 

been minimized while the species has 

been listed and is expected to remain 

minimal within the foreseeable future 

due to coordination and consultation 

with the Corps under section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act and section 404 

of the Clean Water Act, and the use of 

snake-friendly designs such as rip-rap 

and crib docks. Lake Erie watersnakes 

have been documented to readily use 

these structures for summer habitat. 

Further, while shoreline construction 

activities may temporarily displace Lake 

Erie watersnakes from portions of 

summer habitat, they will readily 

recolonize these areas shortly after 

construction activities are complete, as 

long as rocky or vegetated shorelines 

still exist (Stanford 2009, pers. comm.). 

Destruction and modification of foraging 

habitat is typically limited in scope and 

duration, and does not appear to be a 

limiting factor for the watersnake. The 

presence of permanently protected 

habitat for the Lake Erie watersnake will 

reduce the potential for impacts to 

summer habitat, as will the use of 

voluntary guidelines to minimize 

impacts of habitat modification and 

promote the use of compatible 

structures and materials beneficial to 

the snake. Both are described further 

below. 

Destruction or Modification of 

Hibernation Habitat 

As described in the Background 

section, during winter (generally midSeptember through mid-April), Lake 

Erie watersnakes hibernate below the 

frost level, in cracks or crevices in the 

bedrock, interstitial spaces of rocky 

substrates, tree roots, building 

foundations, and other similar natural 

and human-made structures (King 2003, 

pp. 5, 11–18). Seventy-five percent of 

Lake Erie watersnakes hibernate within 

69 m (226 ft) of the water’s edge (King 

2003, p. 4). Individual snakes often 

demonstrate site fidelity, returning to 

the same shoreline area and the same or 

nearby hibernacula in successive years 

(King 2003, pp. 4, 11–17). 

Destruction or modification of 

hibernation habitat typically occurs due 

to residential development, or less 

often, commercial development, 

installation or modification of roadways 

or utilities, removal of tree roots, 

agriculture, and other excavation 

activities in areas within approximately 

69 m (226 ft) of the shoreline. These 

activities may result in excavation, 

filling, or general disturbance of the 

rock, soil, root, or other substrates 

within which Lake Erie watersnakes 

hibernate. 

Lake Erie watersnakes are affected by 

hibernation habitat destruction and 

modification in a variety of ways, 

depending on the extent and timing of 

the specific project. Destruction or 

modification of hibernation habitat 

during the winter when Lake Erie 

watersnakes are hibernating will likely 

result in death of hibernating snakes 

due to exposure, as well as the loss of 

the hibernacula for future generations of 

snakes. If snakes are excavated during 

the hibernation season it is unlikely that 

they would be able to search for and 

find alternate hibernacula due to cold 

temperatures and frozen or snowcovered ground, and would not survive 

exposure to winter weather. Destruction 

or modification of hibernation habitat 

during the summer when Lake Erie 

watersnakes are not hibernating may 

result in temporary or permanent 

displacement from the hibernation area, 

and may force the snakes to find 

alternate hibernation sites. 

Though Lake Erie watersnakes often 

demonstrate hibernacula fidelity, 

individual snakes have survived the 

winter when accidentally relocated 

during the summer to areas outside of 

their home range (King and Stanford 

2009, p. 8), and when documented 

moving between islands (King 2002, p. 

4), indicating that they are capable of 

finding new hibernation sites when 

previous sites are inaccessible. While 

this indicates that some Lake Erie 

watersnakes are able to locate suitable 

alternate hibernacula, it is also likely 

that some Lake Erie watersnakes are 

unable to locate suitable alternate 

hibernacula and die from exposure or 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50691 

predation. Because Lake Erie 

watersnakes appear to use a variety of 

substrates and materials as hibernation 

habitat, and hibernation habitat 

sufficient to support approximately half 

(50 percent) of the adult Lake Erie 

watersnake recovery population is now 

protected, it is unlikely that the 

presence of suitable hibernation habitat 

is a limiting factor for the snake. It is 

more likely that loss of hibernation 

habitat during the winter is problematic 

due to the accompanying mortality. 

Prior to the watersnake’s 1999 listing, 

three of the four large islands were 

subject to substantial residential and 

commercial development, and North 

Bass Island, while not subject to 

substantial development, was 

intensively farmed for grapes. 

Destruction and modification of 

hibernation habitat for development and 

agricultural activities likely occurred on 

a regular basis throughout the year. It is 

likely that Lake Erie Watersnakes were 

displaced from their hibernation habitat 

when excavation or filling of 

hibernacula associated with the above 

activities occurred during the summer 

months. During portions of the 

watersnake’s hibernation season, the 

lake and ground are frozen and snowcovered, limiting access to construction 

vehicles and likely precluding some, but 

not all, ground-disturbing activities 

during this most sensitive time period. 

Therefore, it is likely that some Lake 

Erie watersnakes were injured or killed 

during excavation or filling activities 

within hibernation habitat that occurred 

during the hibernation season. 

Since listing, many excavation or 

filling activities within proximity to the 

shoreline have been coordinated with 

the Service to determine if the activity 

would result in take of Lake Erie 

watersnakes or to determine if 

avoidance or minimization measures 

were warranted. Projects involving 

small areas of excavation, excavation of 

topsoil only, or excavation far inland 

from the shoreline, and that were 

completed during the summer months, 

were not anticipated to cause direct 

mortality or substantial displacement of 

Lake Erie watersnakes. Other projects 

that resulted in substantial excavation 

or fill within proximity to the shoreline 

were anticipated to destroy or modify 

hibernacula and cause take of Lake Erie 

watersnakes. For these projects, formal 

consultation under section 7 of the Act 

or the issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) 

permit under the Act occurred. During 

the 12-year period during which Lake 

Erie watersnakes have been listed, only 

six projects were anticipated to cause 

loss of hibernation habitat and take of 

Lake Erie watersnakes. While 

development is fairly evenly spread 

across three of the large islands, most 

projects reviewed since the watersnake’s 

listing did not cause loss of hibernation 

habitat. 

We anticipate that, within the 

foreseeable future, loss of Lake Erie 

watersnake hibernation habitat will 

likely proceed at approximately the 

same rate as within the past 12 years. 

We anticipate that approximately one 

large-scale development every 2 years 

will cause loss of Lake Erie watersnake 

hibernation habitat (Seymour 2009, 

pers. comm.). The presence of 

hibernation habitat is not likely a 

limiting factor for the subspecies; 

however, to limit mortality of 

watersnakes, it is important that largescale excavation or filling activities 

within approximately 69 m (226 ft) of 

the shoreline do not occur during the 

winter hibernation season. Once the 

species is delisted, there will be no 

requirement to consult with the Service 

on activities that may affect hibernation 

habitat, nor is there a separate Federal 

nexus that would trigger Service review 

of the project as is the case with projects 

that may affect summer habitat. The 

Service has addressed this gap in 

hibernation habitat protection and 

management by the presence of 

permanently protected habitat for the 

Lake Erie watersnake, and by use of 

voluntary guidelines, both described 

further below. 

The destruction or modification of 

hibernation habitat may displace 

individual watersnakes and result in 

minimal mortality, but these impacts do 

not affect the population as a whole. 

Hibernation habitat loss during listing 

was minimal, and within the foreseeable 

future is likely to continue to be 

minimal, based on recent trends 

(Seymour 2009, pers. comm.). Lake Erie 

watersnakes have recently been 

documented to survive winters despite 

their former hibernacula being 

inaccessible, indicating they are capable 

of finding alternate hibernacula if 

historical hibernacula are lost. The 

potential loss of some hibernation 

habitat due to development postdelisting will be mitigated by the 

presence of permanently protected 

habitat on each of the large islands, 

described further below. 

Protected Habitat 

While it is true that Lake Erie 

watersnakes are fairly resilient to some 

habitat modifications and persist along 

and within developed areas, the Service 

recognizes that it is important to also 

have portions of habitat that are 

permanently protected and managed to 

benefit the Lake Erie watersnake, and 

which will provide a substantial amount 

of suitable summer and hibernation 

habitat for the snake in the foreseeable 

future. The Lake Erie Watersnake 

Recovery Plan calls for the permanent 

protection and management of summer 

and hibernation habitat sufficient to 

support one-fifth (20 percent) of the 

recovery population goal of 5,555 adult 

Lake Erie watersnakes (Service 2003a, p. 

34). This habitat must encompass a total 

of 7.4 km (4.6 mi) of shoreline, and 0.51 

km2 (126 ac) of inland habitat lying 

within 69 m (226 ft) of the shoreline on 

U.S. islands in Lake Erie (Service 2003a, 

p. 29). 

Additionally, this habitat must be 

distributed among the large U.S. islands 

as described below to support multiple 

subpopulations throughout the range of 

the subspecies: Kelleys Island—1.2 km 

(0.75 mi) shoreline, 0.083 km2 (20.5 ac) 

inland; South Bass Island—1.1 km (0.70 

mi) shoreline, 0.078 km2 (19.3 ac) 

inland; Middle Bass Island—0.82 km 

(0.51 mi) shoreline, 0.057 km2 (14.1 ac) 

inland; and North Bass Island—0.54 km 

(0.34 mi) shoreline, 0.037 km2 (9.1 ac) 

inland (Service 2003a, p. 29). The 

remaining protected habitat may occur 

on any of the U.S. islands. To be 

included as protected habitat, each 

parcel will have a written agreement, 

which may be represented by a 

conservation easement or other habitat 

management plan that has been 

approved by the Service (Service 2003a, 

p. 29) and protects Lake Erie watersnake 

habitat in perpetuity. 

As discussed in Recovery, by working 

collaboratively with partners, primarily 

ODNR, LEIC–BSC, Western Reserve 

Land Conservancy, Put-in-Bay 

Township Park District, and Cleveland 

Museum of Natural History, we have 

ensured the permanent protection and 

management of 18.25 km (11.41 mi) of 

shoreline habitat and 1.287 km2 (318.18 

ac) of inland habitat within 69 m (226 

ft) of shore (see table 2) in perpetuity. 

The total protected habitat indicated in 

table 2 above is more than double the 

goal established in Criterion 2 of the 

Recovery Plan, and is sufficient to 

support approximately half (50 percent) 

of the recovery population goal of 5,555 

adult Lake Erie watersnakes. Further, as 

evidenced in table 2, the recovery goals 

for protected habitat on each of the four 

major islands have either been met or 

exceeded. This protected habitat will 

provide a series of permanent refugia 

distributed across the islands and across 

the U.S. range of the subspecies that can 

support a substantial portion of the Lake 

Erie watersnake population. 

The recovery plan (Service 2003a, p. 

34) describes why this quantity of 

protected habitat is sufficient to 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

maintain a viable population of Lake 

Erie watersnakes: Lake Erie watersnakes 

are fairly resilient to habitat 

modifications and can persist along and 

within developed areas (Service 2003a, 

pp. 9, 15); adult population estimates at 

the time the recovery plan was drafted 

were nearing the recovery goals even 

though only 0.046 km2 (11.4 ac) of 

inland habitat and 0.89 km (0.55 mi) of 

shoreline habitat met the definition of 

protected habitat; and hibernation sites 

can support more than one snake, 

therefore, protection of the specified 

habitat amounts could support more 

than the estimated half (50 percent) of 

the recovery population. Based on the 

above information, the Service assumes 

that the remaining half (50 percent) of 

the recovery population will persist on 

the other 75 percent of island shoreline 

and 67 percent of inland areas within 69 

m (226 ft) of shoreline that is not 

protected habitat. 

While not considered in the Recovery 

Criterion, it is important to note that 

several of the islands in Canada also 

support Lake Erie watersnake habitat 

that is permanently protected: Middle 

Island (18.5 ha (48 ac)) is owned by 

Parks Canada and is part of Point Pelee 

National Park (Dobbie 2008, p. 8); East 

Sister Island (15 ha (37 ac)) is protected 

as a Provincial Nature Reserve by 

Ontario Parks (Ontario Parks 2009, p. 1); 

Pelee Island, the largest Canadian island 

within the range of the Lake Erie 

watersnake, contains three nature 

reserves: Fish Point and Lighthouse 

Point (combined 114 ha (282 ac)), 

established and managed by the Ontario 

Ministry of Natural Resources; Stone 

Road Alvar (approximately 178 ha (439 

ac)), portions of which are owned by the 

Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ontario 

Nature, and Essex Region Conservation 

Authority (Municipality of Pelee Island 

2007, p. 1); and Mill Point (1.5–2 km 

(0.9–1.2 mi) of shoreline habitat) under 

the protection of the Essex Region 

Conservation Authority and Ontario 

Nature (COSEWIC 2006, p. 8). Habitat 

management to maintain native plant 

communities and benefit species at risk 

(including the Lake Erie watersnake) 

and their habitat is ongoing on protected 

habitat in Canada (for examples see 

Dobbie 2008, Ontario Parks 2009). 

Voluntary Guidelines 

Destruction or modification of 

hibernation habitat during the winter 

months when Lake Erie watersnakes are 

using such habitat may result in 

mortality of individual snakes, but will 

not threaten the population as a whole 

once the protections of the Act are 

removed. If snakes are excavated during 

the hibernation season, it is unlikely 

that they would be able to search for 

and find alternate hibernacula due to 

cold temperatures and frozen or snowcovered ground, and would not survive 

exposure to winter weather. Once the 

species is delisted, no regulatory 

options will exist to address timing of 

impacts to hibernation habitat. To 

minimize impact to individual 

watersnakes from this threat, the Service 

will continue to widely distribute ‘‘Lake 

Erie Watersnake Management 

Guidelines for Construction, 

Development, and Land Management 

Activities’’ (Service 2009). Further, we 

will continue to recommend to local 

governments that they adopt and 

broadly distribute these voluntary 

guidelines, and we will monitor 

compliance with these voluntary 

guidelines when the watersnake is 

delisted. 

The Service initially developed Lake 

Erie Watersnake Management 

Guidelines for Construction, 

Development, and Land Management 

Activities (Service 2009, Service 2003b) 

when the subspecies was listed. These 

voluntary guidelines were intended to 

substantially reduce the potential for 

take to occur during typical private and 

public land management activities such 

as lawn mowing, tree cutting, and 

excavation activities. The guidelines 

recommend seasonal restriction on 

activities such as excavation and 

mowing, design recommendations for 

shoreline structures that will enhance 

Lake Erie watersnake summer habitat, 

and suggestions for monitoring snakes 

during construction activities (Service 

2009, p. 1–2; Service 2003b, pp. 2–4). 

These actions aid in avoiding and 

minimizing habitat loss to individual 

watersnakes due to typical land 

management actions on private 

property. 

Though the guidelines are voluntary, 

they have been added as mandatory 

conditions on Federal permits and as 

reasonable and prudent measures in 

biological opinions and incidental take 

statements to avoid and minimize take 

during the completion of projects that 

required section 7 consultation or 

section 10 permits under the Act (for 

example, see Service 2008, p. 5). When 

the subspecies is delisted, these 

guidelines will still be recommended 

under the auspices of the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 661–667e) when reviewing 

Federal activities that are planned 

within Lake Erie watersnake habitat 

areas. 

Range Curtailment 

The historical range of the Lake Erie 

watersnake includes the offshore islands 

of the western Lake Erie basin in the 

United States and Canada as well as 

portions of the Catawba-Marblehead 

peninsula on the mainland of Ohio, 

though the threatened subspecies 

included only those Lake Erie 

watersnakes occurring on U.S. and 

Canadian islands greater than 1.6 km 

(1 mi) from the Ohio mainland (64 FR 

47126). The U.S. islands and rock 

outcrops within the historical range 

include, but are not limited to, the 

islands called Kelleys, South Bass, 

Middle Bass, North Bass, Sugar, 

Rattlesnake, Green, Gibraltar, Starve, 

Gull, Ballast, Lost Ballast, West Sister, 

Mouse, and Johnson. The Canadian 

islands and rock outcrops within the 

historical range include, but are not 

limited to, the islands called Pelee, 

Middle, East Sister, Middle Sister, North 

Harbour, Hen, Chick, Big Chicken, and 

Little Chicken (figure 1). 

Figure 1. Historical range of Lake Erie 

watersnake within the western Lake Erie 

basin of Ohio and Canada. Map courtesy 

of Barbara Ball and Department of 

Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois 

University. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50693 

At the time of listing, Lake Erie 

watersnakes had been extirpated from 

two U.S. islands within the range, Green 

and West Sister, and two Canadian 

islands, Middle Sister and North 

Harbour. Further, population declines 

documented over several decades, along 

with the limited geographic range and 

insular nature of the Lake Erie 

watersnake population, indicated that, 

without the Act’s protection, further 

range contraction was likely. 

Since the time of listing, Lake Erie 

watersnakes have naturally recolonized 

Green Island, a small island close to 

South Bass Island, and a viable 

population of adult watersnakes has 

persisted there for 8 years after an 

absence of 10 or more years (King and 

Stanford 2011, p. 18; King and Stanford 

2009, p. 7; King 2002, p. 4). This natural 

recolonization demonstrates the 

importance of maintaining multiple 

subpopulations of the Lake Erie 

watersnake on as many islands as 

possible, to provide source populations 

for recolonization should a stochastic 

event occur that eliminates all or a part 

of the population on another island. 

Lake Erie watersnakes were known to 

occur on West Sister Island based on 

specimens collected there in 1938 and 

1939, but were not collected during 

repeated searches in the 1980s and 

1990s (King et al. 2006a, p. 86). While 

it is not known why Lake Erie 

watersnakes disappeared from West 

Sister Island, it is the most isolated of 

the U.S. islands, located approximately 

13.7 km (8.5 mi) from the mainland and 

approximately 20.9 km (13.0 mi) from 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULESER16AU11.000</GPH>
50694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

the nearest island. Three intensive 

snake surveys since the time of listing 

have documented two adult female 

watersnakes on West Sister Island, one 

in 2002 and one in 2008, though it is 

unclear if these individuals were 

members of a permanent resident 

population, or transient individuals that 

swam or drifted to the island (King and 

Stanford 2009, p. 9). King and Stanford 

(2009, p. 9) conclude that ‘‘Lake Erie 

Watersnakes remain exceedingly rare or 

absent from West Sister Island.’’ 

Lake Erie watersnakes also occur on 

islands in Canada. The most recent 

Committee on the Status of Endangered 

Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) 

Assessment and Update Status Report 

on the Lake Erie Watersnake in Canada 

(COSEWIC 2006, pp. 5–6, 12–13) 

concludes that within Canada the 

subspecies is likely restricted to four 

Canadian islands: East Sister, Hen, 

Middle, and Pelee. Population estimates 

have not been calculated systematically 

for Lake Erie watersnakes on Canadian 

islands as they have in the United 

States. As of the 2006 status assessment, 

population estimates for all Canadian 

islands combined were ‘‘likely less than 

1,000 adults’’ (COSEWIC 2006, p. 19). 

A main portion of the 2003 Recovery 

Plan’s strategy was to ensure the 

persistence of multiple subpopulations 

of the Lake Erie watersnake on each of 

the large islands, as well as the small 

islands on which the watersnake was 

already present in the United States. 

The presence of multiple population 

centers helps to protect against 

stochastic events, such as storms, severe 

winters, or fire. If entire subpopulations 

are lost from a catastrophic event, the 

presence of other subpopulations 

provides the opportunity for individuals 

to recolonize the disturbed area. The 

chance that the species will persist over 

time increases with the presence of 

additional subpopulations. Further, the 

maintenance of multiple subpopulations 

increases the likelihood that genetic 

diversity that may exist across the range 

is maintained. 

The Service and our partners have 

demonstrated over the past 9 years that 

Lake Erie watersnakes have met the 

population persistence criterion in the 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a, pp. 28– 

29), including the portion of the 

criterion requiring a specific adult Lake 

Erie watersnake population estimate on 

each of the four large islands, and 

persistence of Lake Erie watersnakes on 

the small islands (Rattlesnake, Sugar, 

Gibraltar, Ballast, and Green) 

throughout this same period. Further, 

annual surveys have documented range 

expansion of the Lake Erie watersnake 

within its historical range since the time 

of listing, including the recolonization 

of Green Island. Lake Erie watersnakes 

also persist on four Canadian islands. 

Coupled, these data indicate that the 

population of Lake Erie watersnakes is 

secure across its range and is likely to 

persist into the foreseeable future, even 

if the protections of the Act are removed 

(see Factor D, The Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). 

Summary of Factor A: Individuals of 

the Lake Erie watersnake face a low 

amount of residual threat from habitat 

destruction or modification due to 

development within the Lake Erie 

islands within the foreseeable future, 

though the watersnake population has 

proven resilient to much of the 

development that has occurred since 

listing. Summer and hibernation habitat 

sufficient to support approximately 50 

percent of the adult Lake Erie 

watersnake recovery population has 

been protected in perpetuity. Impacts to 

summer shoreline and foraging habitat 

will still be regulated by the Corps, and 

the Service will provide comments to 

avoid and minimize impacts to the Lake 

Erie watersnake under the authority of 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

Impacts to hibernation habitat will 

directly affect individual watersnakes if 

the impacts occur during the 

hibernation season, however, existing 

standardized voluntary guidelines to 

limit winter excavation have been and 

will continue to be widely distributed to 

address those impacts. The Lake Erie 

watersnake has recolonized a portion of 

its historical range; its adult populations 

have shown conclusive growth; and the 

recovery criteria for island-specific and 

overall adult population size have been 

substantially exceeded for the past eight 

years. Therefore, we determine that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range, is not currently 

causing, or likely to cause in the 

foreseeable future, the subspecies to be 

threatened or endangered. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

We know of no recreational, 

commercial, or educational 

overutilization of the Lake Erie 

watersnake. Lake Erie watersnakes are 

not currently a collected or sought-after 

species, and no recreational or 

commercial collection of this subspecies 

has been documented to date. The 

historical collection of Lake Erie 

watersnakes for scientific purposes is 

well-documented in the final listing rule 

(64 FR 47126; August 30, 1999). 

Institutions conducting research using 

live vertebrate animals and receiving 

funding from the Public Health Service 

require approval of research proposals 

by the Institutional Animal Care and 

Use Committee. This oversight will help 

to ensure that any scientific collection 

will not result in overutilization of the 

species, to the point that populationlevel effects are likely to occur. 

Therefore, we do not believe 

overutilization to be a current threat to 

the species, nor is it likely to become a 

threat in the foreseeable future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

At the time of listing, neither disease 

nor predation was implicated in the 

decline of Lake Erie watersnakes. We 

currently have no data indicating that 

disease is a threat to the Lake Erie 

watersnake. Predators of the Lake Erie 

watersnake include a number of species 

native to the islands, specifically 

herring gull (Larus argentatus), great 

blue heron (Ardea herodias), robin 

(Turdus migratorius), raccoon (Procyon 

lotor), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), blue 

racer (Coluber constrictor), and mink 

(Mustela vison) (Camin and Ehrlich 

1958, p. 510; Goldman 1971, p. 197; 

King 1986, p 769; King 1987, p. 242, 

250; King 1989. p. 87; Stanford 2009, 

pers. comm.). We anticipate that other 

birds, predatory fish, and mammals 

likely prey on Lake Erie watersnakes, 

particularly neonate and immature 

snakes. Predation of individual Lake 

Erie watersnakes clearly is occurring; 

however, all of these predators are 

native to the islands, and the snake’s 

population has persisted in the face of 

such predation both historically and 

currently. We have no data to indicate 

that there has been a change in 

predation pressure. As the Lake Erie 

watersnake population has shown 

steady increases despite ongoing 

predation pressure since the time of 

listing, we determine that mortality due 

to predation is not a substantial threat 

to the subspecies now, nor will it be 

within the foreseeable future. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The 1999 final listing rule (64 FR 

47126) describes various status 

designations of the Lake Erie watersnake 

at State, Provincial, and Federal 

Canadian levels, but concluded that 

‘‘regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

because of the small number of water 

snakes in preserves and the 

vulnerability from lack of regulatory 

protection outside of preserves.’’ As 

described above in Factor A, The 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range, a substantial amount 

of Lake Erie watersnake habitat has been 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50695 

protected since 1999 by management 

agreements, conservation easements, or 

deed restrictions. Protected habitat 

includes 18.25 km (11.41 mi) of summer 

habitat and 1.287 km2 (318.18 ac) of 

hibernation habitat within 69 m (226 ft) 

of shore (Table 2). This amount of 

habitat is sufficient to support 

approximately 50 percent of the 

recovered population goal of 5,555 adult 

Lake Erie watersnakes, and is 

distributed throughout the U.S. range of 

the subspecies. 

In addition to the protected habitat, 

since the time of listing a substantial 

portion of additional island habitat has 

been acquired by the Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources. These lands 

include 0.5 km2 (123 ac) of Middle Bass 

Island and 2.4 km2 (593 ac) of North 

Bass Island. The portions of these 

islands within 69 m (226 ft) of shore are 

included as protected habitat, but the 

remainder of these properties may also 

provide habitat for the 25 percent of 

Lake Erie watersnakes that hibernate 

greater than 69 m (226 ft) inland. 

Middle Bass Island State Park is 

dedicated to boating, camping, and 

recreation, while ODNR’s portion of 

North Bass Island will remain primarily 

natural (ODNR 2004, p. 1). 

Further, since the time of listing, the 

Lake Erie Islands Chapter of the Black 

Swamp Conservancy, a nonprofit land 

conservancy, was established and is 

acquiring conservation easements on 

island properties. All of their properties 

within 69 m (226 ft) of shore are 

included as protected habitat; however, 

an additional 0.04 km2 (9.6 acres) of 

land may also provide habitat for the 25 

percent of Lake Erie watersnakes that 

hibernate greater than 69 m (226 ft) 

inland. This habitat will remain in a 

natural state for the foreseeable future. 

The Cleveland Museum of Natural 

History maintains multiple preserve 

properties on Kelleys Island. All of their 

properties within 69 m (226 ft) of shore 

are included as protected habitat; 

however, an additional 0.4 km2 (99 

acres) of land may also provide habitat 

for the 25 percent of Lake Erie 

watersnakes that hibernate greater than 

69 m (226 ft) inland. This habitat will 

remain in a natural state for the 

foreseeable future. 

As described under Factor A, The 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range, several of the islands 

in Canada also support Lake Erie 

watersnake habitat that is permanently 

protected: Middle Island (18.5 ha (48 

ac)) is owned by Parks Canada and is 

part of Point Pelee National Park 

(Dobbie 2008, p. 8); East Sister Island 

(15 ha (37 ac)) is protected as a 

Provincial Nature Reserve by Ontario 

Parks (Ontario Parks 2009, p.1); Pelee 

Island, the largest Canadian island 

within the range of the Lake Erie 

watersnake, contains three nature 

reserves: Fish Point and Lighthouse 

Point (combined 114 ha (282 ac)), 

established and managed by the Ontario 

Ministry of Natural Resources; Stone 

Road Alvar (approximately 178 ha (439 

ac)), portions of which are owned by the 

Nature Conservancy of Canada, Ontario 

Nature, and Essex Region Conservation 

Authority (Municipality of Pelee Island 

2007, p. 1); and Mill Point (1.5–2 km of 

shoreline habitat) under the protection 

of the Essex Region Conservation 

Authority and Ontario Nature 

(COSEWIC 2006, p. 8). Habitat 

management to maintain native 

vegetation communities and to benefit 

species at risk (including Lake Erie 

watersnakes) and their habitat is 

ongoing on protected habitat in Canada 

(for examples, see Dobbie 2008, Ontario 

Parks 2009). 

As discussed under Factor A, The 

Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range, since the Lake Erie 

watersnake was listed in 1999, 

destruction and modification of 

watersnake summer habitat has been 

addressed under section 7 of the Act 

through the Corps section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act and section 404 

of the Clean Water Act authority. These 

laws provide the Service the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

all projects affecting Lake Erie 

watersnake foraging habitat, and many 

projects affecting shoreline habitat. 

Under these authorities, the Service has 

consistently recommended installation 

of rip-rap erosion control structures and 

crib docks in lieu of vertical concrete or 

sheet steel. This substantially reduced 

shoreline habitat degradation and 

resulted in the creation of artificial 

shoreline habitat for Lake Erie 

watersnakes on many islands. 

We anticipate that similar projects 

impacting the islands’ shorelines and 

the Lake Erie watersnake’s summer 

habitat will continue into the 

foreseeable future. As noted above, the 

vast majority of these projects are 

regulated by section 10 of the Rivers and 

Harbors Act and section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act, and as such, the 

Service will still have the opportunity to 

review and comment on these projects 

via the Corps’ Public Notice process, 

even when the watersnake is delisted. 

The Service plans to continue 

recommending rock structures as 

opposed to vertical structures on these 

types of projects, under the authority of 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

This regulatory mechanism will remain 

in place into the foreseeable future, 

allowing the Service to maintain some 

oversight and input relative to the 

condition of island shorelines for the 

Lake Erie watersnake. 

Currently, the Lake Erie watersnake is 

listed as a State endangered species 

under the Ohio Revised Code 1531.25. 

State endangered status is defined as: 

‘‘A native species or subspecies 

threatened with extirpation from the 

state. The danger may result from one or 

more causes, such as habitat loss, 

pollution, predation, interspecific 

competition, or disease’’ (ODNR 2008, 

p. 1). Coordination with ODNR Division 

of Wildlife indicates that the State 

supports delisting the Lake Erie 

watersnake as they believe that ‘‘the 

snake population appears secure and 

growing throughout its range,’’ and, 

‘‘[t]he snake warrants removal from 

Federal protection’’ (ODNR 2009, p. 1). 

ODNR Division of Wildlife has 

proposed that, upon Federal delisting, 

the Lake Erie watersnake would be 

reclassified to State threatened status, 

and is likely to remain as such for the 

foreseeable future (ODNR 2009, p. 1). 

State threatened status ‘‘affords a 

heightened perception of importance 

and conservation need by the public,’’ 

and ‘‘provides a mechanism for filing 

criminal charges against people who are 

responsible for direct mortality’’ (ODNR 

2009, p. 1). Therefore, State take 

prohibitions reducing the threat from 

intentional human persecution will still 

exist when the Lake Erie watersnake is 

federally delisted. 

The province of Ontario, Canada, 

designated the Lake Erie watersnake an 

endangered species under their 

Endangered Species Act in 1977, while 

COSEWIC listed the Lake Erie 

watersnake as endangered in April 1991 

(COSEWIC 2006, pp. 16, 19). Upon the 

passage of Canada’s Species At Risk Act 

(SARA) in 2003, the Lake Erie 

watersnake continued to be listed under 

Schedule 1 as an endangered species 

(Canada Gazette Part II 2009, p. 404). 

Once delisted in the United States, the 

Lake Erie watersnake will continue to be 

protected under these Federal and 

Provincial laws. The SARA (2002) 

makes it an offense to ‘‘kill, harm, 

harass, capture or take an individual of 

a listed species that is extirpated, 

endangered or threatened; possess, 

collect, buy, sell or trade an individual 

of a listed species that is extirpated, 

endangered or threatened, or its part or 

derivative; or, damage or destroy the 

residence of one or more individuals of 

a listed endangered or threatened 

species or of a listed extirpated species 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

if a recovery strategy has recommended 

its reintroduction.’’ 

Further, a recovery team for the Lake 

Erie watersnake has been established in 

Canada, and a preliminary draft 

Recovery Strategy has been developed 

(Government of Canada 2010, p. 4) to 

guide recovery efforts. These 

mechanisms and approaches to guide 

recovery of the Lake Erie watersnake in 

Canada are similar to those 

implemented in the United States. We 

have no reason to believe that these 

actions will be any less effective in 

Canada than they have been in the 

United States. Further, because Lake 

Erie watersnakes typically show site 

fidelity (King 2003, pp. 4, 11–17) and 

have only rarely been documented to 

move between islands (King 2002, p. 4), 

the status of the watersnake population 

on the Canadian islands is not likely to 

influence the status of the watersnake 

populations on U.S. islands. 

In summary, substantial protected 

habitat and permanently conserved 

natural habitat on the U.S. western Lake 

Erie islands have been established since 

the time of listing. These areas are 

sufficient to support approximately 50 

percent of the recovery population goal 

of 5,555 adult Lake Erie watersnakes. 

Additional protected habitat exists in 

Canada. Some jurisdiction over impacts 

to Lake Erie watersnake summer habitat 

will be maintained post-delisting via the 

Corps section 404 and section 10 

authorities. Further, the proposed State 

reclassification of the Lake Erie 

watersnake to a threatened designation 

will maintain the existing prohibition 

on intentional mortality of watersnakes 

and will provide a mechanism for filing 

criminal charges should intentional 

direct mortality occur. Lake Erie 

watersnakes maintain endangered status 

in Canada and Ontario, and recovery 

actions in Canada are ongoing. We have 

determined that these regulatory 

mechanisms and cooperative 

agreements are sufficient to ensure the 

persistence of Lake Erie watersnakes in 

the foreseeable future, and, therefore, 

Lake Erie watersnakes will not be 

threatened by the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms post-delisting. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Human Persecution and Other HumanInduced Mortality 

As indicated in the final listing rule 

for the Lake Erie watersnake (64 FR 

47131; August 30, 1999), ‘‘persecution 

by humans is the most significant and 

well documented factor in the decline of 

Lake Erie water snakes.’’ Therefore, the 

recovery strategy for the watersnake 

focused heavily on public outreach and 

education in an attempt to change the 

negative perception and behavior of 

some island residents and visitors 

toward the watersnake. As described in 

detail in Recovery above, public opinion 

surveys were conducted to gauge island 

landowner perception of the Lake Erie 

watersnake, and past, current, and likely 

future behavior toward the snake (Olive 

2008, Wilkinson 2008). 

Generally, the survey results indicate 

that Federal, State, and 

nongovernmental organizations’ 

outreach and education campaigns are 

reaching the vast majority of island 

residents, and are helping to increase 

their access to information about the 

watersnake (Wilkinson 2008, p. 5). 

While it is apparent that not all 

residents feel positively toward the 

snake, it is very notable that, despite 

human persecution being the most 

significant factor in the historical 

decline of the Lake Erie watersnake, 

only about 4 percent of respondents 

indicated they had knowingly killed a 

watersnake since the time of listing, and 

only about 14 percent of respondents 

said they would knowingly kill a 

watersnake if it was no longer protected 

by State or Federal laws (Wilkinson 

2008, p. 6). Of those Middle Bass Island 

residents interviewed by Olive (2008, 

pp. 112–113, 153), 7 percent admitted to 

killing a snake and 18 percent admitted 

they might kill a snake while it is listed. 

We interpret these responses to indicate 

that, while individual watersnakes still 

face some human persecution, the vast 

majority of islanders would not resort to 

lethal means if they encountered 

watersnakes on their property. 

Despite the admitted intentional 

mortality documented by both 

Wilkinson (2008, p. 6) and Olive (2008, 

pp. 112–113, 153), adult Lake Erie 

watersnake populations have increased 

substantially since the time of listing, 

both across the U.S. range and on each 

large island (King and Stanford 2010a, 

p. 11; King and Stanford 2009, pp. 6– 

7). This indicates that the adult Lake 

Erie watersnake population can tolerate 

some degree of intentional mortality of 

individual snakes and still persist at a 

recovery level. 

Public opinion of the Lake Erie 

watersnake varies widely among those 

who support it, those who have no 

opinion, and those who dislike or fear 

the watersnake specifically, or snakes in 

general. Outreach efforts have reached 

nearly all island residents, increasing 

access to information about the Lake 

Erie watersnake, including nonlethal 

ways to address nuisance snakes. 

Opinion surveys indicate that most 

people do not now, and will not in the 

future, kill Lake Erie watersnakes; 

however, many people indicate that the 

sheer number of snakes along the 

shoreline has become a nuisance, and 

this may contribute to negative feelings 

toward the snake. As Lake Erie 

watersnake numbers have rebounded, 

and a significant amount of habitat has 

now been permanently protected to 

support its populations, the Lake Erie 

watersnake population can withstand a 

limited amount of intentional mortality. 

While the threat of intentional mortality 

likely can never be completely 

eliminated, results of public opinion 

surveys indicate that the amount of 

mortality anticipated from intentional 

human persecution on its own and with 

other residual threats is not likely to 

cause the subspecies to become 

threatened or endangered again within 

the foreseeable future. 

Continued outreach regarding the 

Lake Erie watersnake after delisting will 

be important in ensuring that island 

landowners and visitors maintain access 

to information about the biology of the 

snake, its conservation status, and its 

role in the ecosystem. Following 

delisting, outreach will continue to 

focus on changing the negative 

perceptions and behavior of some island 

residents and visitors toward the 

watersnake. Outreach activities will 

continue through various partners, 

focusing on establishing permanent 

informational displays at specific island 

locations. For example, an Ohio 

Environmental Education Grant was 

recently awarded to the Lake Erie 

Islands Nature and Wildlife Center and 

Lake Erie Islands Historical Society to 

design interpretive posters and a 

permanent display that specifically 

address the Lake Erie watersnake, its 

current status, and conservation needs 

(Stanford 2009, pers. comm.). 

The display will be housed at the 

Lake Erie Islands Nature and Wildlife 

Center on South Bass Island while the 

posters will be made available to local 

organizations and school teachers and 

will promote consistent education 

among a variety of audiences and 

locations (Stanford 2009, pers. comm.). 

The permanent display at the Lake Erie 

Islands Nature and Wildlife Center will 

provide education for the entire island 

community, as well as the estimated 

5,000–10,000 visitors anticipated per 

year (Stanford 2009, pers. comm.). This 

display will explain the current Lake 

Erie watersnake legal status and the 

protective guidelines, which will be 

updated when the snake is delisted 

(Stanford 2009, pers. comm.). Similarly, 

a permanent display on the Lake Erie 

watersnake is currently being developed 

at ODNR’s Aquatic Visitor’s Center on 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50697 

South Bass Island. Additional signage or 

displays about the Lake Erie watersnake 

are planned for ODNR’s Middle Bass 

Island State Park (Service 2008, p. 5) 

and the Scheef East Point Nature 

Preserve on South Bass Island (ODNR 

2007, pp. 6, 9). 

In addition to intentional human 

persecution, several sources of 

accidental human-induced mortality 

were examined to determine to what 

degree they contribute to overall 

mortality of Lake Erie watersnakes, and 

if they are a threat to the population. 

These include mortality from hook and 

line fishing, roadkill mortality, 

contaminants, and the interaction 

between Lake Erie watersnakes and 

invasive species. These potential threats 

are discussed in detail under Recovery, 

above. Based on recent research, 

accidental human-induced mortality 

occurring from boating, fishing, and 

roadkill events does not pose a threat to 

the adult Lake Erie watersnake 

population (King 2007, pp. 5–6; 

Stanford 2004, p. 4). Further, invasive 

species and contaminants do not 

threaten the adult Lake Erie watersnake 

population (Fernie et al. 2008, p. 334; 

Bishop and Rouse 2006, pp. 452, 454, 

456; King et al. 2006b, pp. 111–113) 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

One new source of potential injury 

and mortality to Lake Erie watersnakes 

has recently been identified. In May 

2008, erosion control blankets were 

placed over an excavated area on 

Gibraltar Island, a small Lake Erie 

island. Within three days, 25 adult Lake 

Erie watersnakes became entangled in 

the erosion control blankets that were 

placed over approximately 1347 m2

(0.33 ac) (Stanford 2008, pers. comm.). 

The erosion control blankets were single 

net, filled with straw, and 

photodegradable within 45 days 

(Stanford 2008, pers. comm.). 

Entanglement occurred on the first 

warm days of the summer, and we 

assume that many snakes were emerging 

to bask, forage, and mate. When the 

entangled snakes were discovered, they 

were cut from the blankets; however, 14 

adult male Lake Erie watersnakes died 

(Stanford 2008, pers. comm.). Mortality 

was thought to be due to suffocation or 

sun exposure, though necropsies were 

not conducted. Upon discovery of the 

snakes, all of the erosion mesh was 

immediately removed (Stanford 2008, 

pers. comm.). 

Since this event, when consulting on 

projects on the islands, the Service has 

requested that erosion control blankets 

not be used (for example, see Service 

2008, p. 2). When the species is 

delisted, we will continue to include 

this recommendation under the 

authority of the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act when reviewing 

Federal activities on the islands. 

Additionally, we have incorporated this 

recommendation into the revised Lake 

Erie Watersnake Management 

Guidelines for Construction, 

Development, and Land Management 

Activities (Service 2009, p. 2), which 

will be widely distributed, as described 

under Factor A above. We believe that, 

through these mechanisms, 

entanglement in erosion control 

blankets or similar materials will not 

pose a substantial threat to the Lake Erie 

watersnake population now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Small Population Size 

As noted in the listing document (64 

FR 47126; August 30, 1999), all of the 

known threats were exacerbated by the 

small population size and the insular 

distribution of Lake Erie watersnakes. 

According to the listing document, ‘‘the 

current low population densities and 

insular distribution of Lake Erie 

watersnake make them vulnerable to 

extinction or extirpation from 

catastrophic events, demographic 

variation, negative genetic effects, and 

environmental stresses such as habitat 

destruction and extermination’’ (64 FR 

47126; August 30, 1999). Since the time 

of listing, the adult Lake Erie 

watersnake population has increased 

substantially. Annual adult Lake Erie 

watersnake population censuses and 

estimates indicate that the population is 

growing by approximately 6 percent per 

year, and that the current snake 

population far outnumbers the goal of 

5,555 adult Lake Erie watersnakes 

required for the population to be 

recovered (King and Stanford 2011, p. 

17; King and Stanford 2009, pp. 6–7; 

Service 2003a, pp. 28–29, 33). 

King and Stanford (2009, pp. 5–8) 

recently analyzed Lake Erie watersnake 

survey data from the period 1996–2008, 

and used Program MARK to model adult 

survival, and used Jolly-Seber 

population estimates to estimate sex 

ratios in adult Lake Erie watersnakes. 

The generated estimates for adult sex 

ratio (1.6 male: 1 female) and adult 

survival (0.70) proved to be different 

than the sex ratio and adult survival 

rates used in setting the overall 

Population Persistence criterion of the 

2003 Lake Erie watersnake Recovery 

Plan at 5,555 adult Lake Erie 

watersnakes. Incorporating the new 

adult sex ratio and adult survival 

estimates into the formula used in the 

Recovery Plan to generate the adult Lake 

Erie watersnake population goal 

(Service 2003a, p. 31) yielded a revised 

population goal of 6,100 adult Lake Erie 

watersnakes (King and Stanford 2009, 

p. 8). 

King and Stanford (2009, p. 8) note 

that, ‘‘the estimated adult Lake Erie 

watersnake population size exceeds this 

value [6,100] for all years from 2002– 

2008.’’ Further, King and Stanford 

(2009, p.8) caution that the adult 

population goals ‘‘are based on a series 

of approximations. * * * As a 

consequence, such estimates are best 

viewed as ‘‘educated guesses’’ that may 

change as more information is 

obtained.’’ Irrespective of which adult 

population goal is used, 5,555 as 

outlined in the Recovery Plan (Service 

2003a, p. 28) or 6,100 as recently 

recalculated using more current 

information (King and Stanford 2009, p. 

8), the adult Lake Erie watersnake 

population has met and exceeded both 

of these goals for nine consecutive years 

(2002–2010) (King and Stanford 2011, p. 

17). Therefore, we no longer find that 

low population numbers increase the 

severity of any potential threats. 

The most recent COSEWIC 

Assessment and Update Status Report 

on the Lake Erie Watersnake in Canada 

(COSEWIC 2006, pp. 5–6, 12–13) 

concludes that in Canada the subspecies 

is likely restricted to four Canadian 

islands: East Sister, Hen, Middle, and 

Pelee. Further, it indicates that the 

population trajectory is declining from 

historic population sizes, but may have 

stabilized (COSEWIC 2006, p. 18). 

Population estimates have not been 

calculated systematically for Lake Erie 

watersnakes on Canadian islands as 

they have in the United States. As of the 

2006 status assessment, population 

estimates for all Canadian islands 

combined were ‘‘likely less than 1,000 

adults’’ (COSEWIC 2006, p. 19). Because 

Lake Erie watersnakes typically show 

site fidelity (King 2003, pp. 4, 11–17) 

and have only rarely been documented 

to move between islands (King 2002, p. 

4), the status of the watersnake 

population on the Canadian islands is 

not likely to greatly influence the status 

of the watersnake populations on U.S. 

islands or as a whole. 

Further, the presence of multiple 

subpopulations distributed throughout 

the range of the subspecies provides 

assurance that genetic diversity is being 

maintained, and provides multiple 

source populations should one 

subpopulation be eliminated due to a 

catastrophic event. Because Lake Erie 

watersnakes are an island-dwelling 

subspecies, and their range is naturally 

restricted to a series of relatively small 

islands in western Lake Erie, it is likely 

that they will always have a population 

size that may be considered small 

relative to species with a much larger 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

range. However, analysis of Lake Erie 

watersnake population size, as 

described in the Recovery Plan (Service 

2003a) indicates that a census 

population size of 5,555 adult 

watersnakes constitutes a viable, 

persistent population. Therefore, we no 

longer find that the insular distribution 

of the Lake Erie watersnake increases 

the severity of any potential threats. 

Climate Change 

Global climate change due to trapping 

of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon 

dioxide, within the atmosphere is 

widely predicted by scientists all over 

the world (IPCC 2007, p. 9). Within the 

Great Lakes region and Ohio 

specifically, climate change is expected 

to bring increased temperatures, 

increased but altered distribution 

patterns of precipitation, and greater 

intensity of extreme weather events 

including drought, storms, floods, and 

heat waves (Karl et al. 2009, p. 117; 

Kling et al. 2003, pp. 17–18). Winters 

will be of shorter duration and warmer 

temperatures and snow melt will occur 

earlier (Kling et al. 2003, pp. 17–18). 

These projected changes in seasonal 

temperature patterns may cause Lake 

Erie watersnakes to hibernate for shorter 

periods of time, to seek cover more 

frequently during the active season to 

escape extreme weather events, and to 

forage more frequently than they do 

now to compensate for an extended 

active season. It is unlikely that these 

potential behavioral changes brought on 

by warmer temperatures would 

constitute a threat to the species. 

Warmer temperatures and decreased 

ice cover across the Great Lakes region 

predicted by multiple models could 

result in warmer water temperatures 

and water levels between 0.3–0.6 m (1– 

2 ft) below current levels in Lake Erie 

(Karl et al. 2009, pp. 119, 122; Kling et 

al. 2003, pp. 23–24). Decreases in Lake 

Erie water levels, which define the 

boundaries of the western Lake Erie 

islands, can lead to increases in the area 

of the island exposed, expansion or loss 

of coastal wetland habitat (depending 

on elevation and topography), changes 

in extent or composition of island 

shoreline habitat, and changes in 

erosion and accretion patterns. Over all, 

lower water levels will likely create 

additional linear footage of island 

shorelines within the western Lake Erie 

basin, potentially expanding Lake Erie 

watersnake summer terrestrial habitat 

areas. Portions of former foraging habitat 

may dry, requiring watersnakes to seek 

out additional foraging territories. Water 

depth decreases of 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2 

ft) are unlikely to disturb large portions 

of Lake Erie watersnake foraging habitat. 

As noted previously, Lake Erie 

watersnakes’ diets are composed 

primarily of round goby, which are 

plentiful in the warm waters of the 

western Lake Erie island region, and 

would likely remain plentiful despite 

potential effects from climate change. It 

is unlikely that lower water levels 

would significantly change Lake Erie 

watersnake behavior, or represent a 

threat to the population. 

Climate change projections for Lake 

Erie indicate that increases in water 

temperature during the summer may 

result in lower dissolved oxygen 

(hypoxia), and prolonged stratification 

of lake water, resulting in an increase in 

the potential for dead-zones to occur or 

expand across time and space (Karl et 

al. 2009, p. 122; Kling et al. 2003, p. 22). 

Further, goby are susceptible to hypoxic 

and anoxic events and may die when 

dead-zones form. However, the western 

Lake Erie basin is generally shallow, 

with an average depth of 7.4 m (24 ft), 

and stratification is rare here, and brief 

when it does occur (USEPA and 

Environment Canada 2008, p. 18), and 

therefore we do not anticipate a threat 

to the population from this projected 

change. However, low dissolved oxygen 

could also result in more easily 

mobilized mercury and other 

contaminants that exist in Lake Erie 

sediments, and introduction of 

increased contaminant loads into the 

food chain (Karl et al. 2009, p. 122). It 

is possible that additional contaminant 

loads could result in physiological or 

reproductive impacts to Lake Erie 

watersnakes, but what the effective 

concentrations of these contaminants 

are is unknown. As discussed above, 

contaminants have been detected in 

Lake Erie watersnakes in relatively high 

levels, but have not been documented to 

cause adverse effects; therefore, we do 

not anticipate that a potential increase 

in contaminant mobilization within the 

waters of Lake Erie due to warming 

water temperatures poses a threat to 

Lake Erie watersnakes. 

Warmer lake waters are anticipated to 

result in coldwater habitat being 

eliminated or shifting north in some 

areas, potentially changing the fish 

communities in these areas (Karl et al. 

2009, p. 122; Kling et al. 2003, pp. 53– 

54). However, the western basin of Lake 

Erie is composed of warm water habitat 

already (USEPA and Environment 

Canada 2008, p. 18) and is too shallow 

to support coldwater habitat. Therefore, 

we do not anticipate shifts in fish 

species composition within the western 

Lake Erie basin due to climate change, 

and subsequently no threat to the Lake 

Erie watersnake is anticipated. 

At this time, we do not have sufficient 

information to document that climate 

change poses a significant threat to the 

continued existence of the Lake Erie 

watersnake. 

Summary of Factor E: Intentional 

human-induced mortality is a residual 

threat to the Lake Erie watersnake. 

However, Lake Erie watersnake numbers 

have rebounded, and a significant 

amount of habitat has now been 

protected to support Lake Erie 

watersnake populations. The Service 

believes that the Lake Erie watersnake 

population can withstand a limited 

amount of intentional mortality and still 

maintain recovery-level population size. 

While the threat of intentional mortality 

likely can never be completely 

eliminated, results of public opinion 

surveys indicate that the amount of 

mortality anticipated from intentional 

human persecution on its own and with 

other residual threats is not likely to 

cause the subspecies to become 

threatened or endangered again within 

the foreseeable future. 

Unintentional human-induced 

mortality, such as occurs from road-kill, 

hook and line fishing, contaminants, 

and impacts of invasive species, has 

been researched throughout the 

recovery period and has not been 

documented to cause take at levels 

sufficient to impact the adult Lake Erie 

watersnake population. Unintentional 

mortality through entanglement in 

erosion control fabrics, though rare, will 

be addressed through continued 

outreach and through coordination with 

the Corps on projects that impact Lake 

Erie watersnake summer habitat. Lake 

Erie watersnake persistence is no longer 

threatened by small population size or 

limited distribution, as they have 

substantially increased in number and 

expanded in range since the time of 

listing, and protected habitat sufficient 

to support 50 percent of the recovery 

population is distributed across all of 

the large islands. Finally, we have 

assessed the potential for climate 

change to impact the Lake Erie 

watersnake based on projected habitat 

changes in Great Lakes-regional and 

Ohio models, and have determined that 

we do not have sufficient information to 

document that climate change poses a 

significant threat to the continued 

existence of the Lake Erie watersnake. 

Therefore, we find that other natural or 

man-made factors, coupled with any 

other residual threats are not likely to 

cause the subspecies to become 

threatened or endangered again within 

the foreseeable future. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50699 

Summary of Threats 

As demonstrated in our Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species, threats to 

the Lake Erie watersnake have been 

abated or sufficiently minimized over 

the U.S. range of the subspecies. 

Recovery actions and a reduction or 

abatement of threats have lead to 

demonstrated population growth at 

multiple sites, increasing population 

estimates, range expansion within the 

historical range, proof of resiliency of 

the Lake Erie watersnake to some 

habitat modification, and protection of a 

significant amount of summer and 

hibernation habitat throughout the 

range. 

The biological principles under which 

we evaluate the rangewide population 

status of the Lake Erie watersnake 

relative to its long-term conservation are 

representation, redundancy, and 

resiliency (Groves, et al. 2003, pp. 30– 

32). At the time of listing, the Lake Erie 

watersnake population had declined 

substantially from historical numbers, 

and its range had contracted due to 

extirpation from several U.S. and 

Canadian islands. Since listing, 

population numbers have rebounded, 

real population growth at multiple sites 

has been documented, and the range has 

expanded to include multiple stable or 

increasing subpopulations across most 

of its historical range (West Sister Island 

is the only U.S. exception, as discussed 

in Factor A above) (King and Stanford 

2009, pp. 6–9). Thus, there is adequate 

representation (occupancy of 

representative habitats formerly 

occupied by the Lake Erie watersnake 

across its range) and redundancy 

(distribution of populations in a pattern 

that offsets unforeseen losses across a 

portion of the range) to support the 

long-term persistence of the Lake Erie 

watersnake. 

The Lake Erie watersnake has 

demonstrated resilience and behavioral 

plasticity to both ecological and humaninduced changes in its environment in 

the recent past. As described above, the 

Lake Erie watersnake has made a nearly 

complete dietary shift since the invasion 

of the round goby in the early 2000s, 

indicating flexibility in prey selection 

(King et al. 2006b, p. 110). We now 

know that crib docks and armored 

shorelines provide valuable Lake Erie 

watersnake summer habitat and that the 

Lake Erie watersnake can persist in 

stable numbers in human-dominated 

island landscapes, as long as rocky or 

vegetated shorelines are present. 

Further, we have documented multiple 

situations where Lake Erie watersnakes 

have been able to identify and 

successfully use new hibernation sites 

when historical hibernation sites are 

destroyed or unavailable, indicating that 

the Lake Erie watersnake is more 

resilient to certain types of habitat 

modification than was previously 

known. The Lake Erie watersnake has 

also demonstrated its ability to naturally 

recolonize historical habitat after an 

absence of many years. Thus, despite 

any residual threats to individual 

watersnakes, we find that the Lake Erie 

watersnake has sufficient resiliency to 

persist within the foreseeable future. 

Intensive adult Lake Erie watersnake 

censuses and subsequent analysis of the 

census data over the past 10 years have 

demonstrated a growing population, 

range expansion, and successful 

reproduction over multiple generations 

(King and Stanford 2009, pp. 6–7, 9). 

There is no evidence of recent 

extirpations of subpopulations, nor of a 

population sink. As previously 

described, habitat destruction and 

modification are not thought to be 

significant threats to the population 

now or within the foreseeable future 

(see Factor A above). 

Recovery efforts have provided 

increased attention and focus on the 

Lake Erie watersnake and the habitat 

upon which it depends. Numerous 

conservation actions have been 

implemented by government agencies, 

universities, and conservation groups. 

Most notably, these include intensive 

research and population monitoring of 

Lake Erie watersnakes by NIU and other 

partners, and land purchase and 

conservation on many islands within 

the range of the subspecies by ODNR, 

LEIC–BSC, Western Reserve Land 

Conservancy, and Put-in-Bay Township 

Park District. 

Lake Erie watersnakes persist in 

Canada on 4 islands, though population 

estimates have not been calculated 

systematically for Lake Erie watersnakes 

on Canadian islands as they have in the 

United States. Protected habitat on 

Canadian islands totals 325.5 ha (806 

ac), and a Recovery Team and Draft 

Recovery Strategy have been established 

to guide recovery in Canada. Once 

delisted under the ESA, Lake Erie 

watersnakes occurring in Canada will 

remain protected by SARA and the 

Ontario Endangered Species Act. We 

have no reason to believe that the 

recovery actions implemented in 

Canada will be any less effective than 

they have been in the U.S. Further, 

because Lake Erie watersnakes typically 

show site fidelity (King 2003, pp. 4, 11– 

17) and have only rarely been 

documented to move between islands 

(King 2002, p. 4), the status of the 

watersnake population on the Canadian 

islands is not likely to influence the 

status of the watersnake populations on 

U.S. islands. 

In summary, all of the past, existing, 

or potential future threats to the Lake 

Erie watersnake, either alone or in 

combination, have either been 

eliminated or largely abated throughout 

all of its range. The major factors in 

listing the Lake Erie watersnake were 

human persecution and habitat 

destruction and modification. These 

threats have been abated as evidenced 

by the substantial recovery of the snake. 

Therefore, we have determined that the 

Lake Erie watersnake is no longer in 

danger of extinction, or likely to become 

so in the foreseeable future, throughout 

all of its range. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Analysis 

Having determined that the Lake Erie 

watersnake is not in danger of 

extinction or likely to become so in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range, we must next consider whether 

the subspecies is in danger of extinction 

or is likely to become so in any 

significant portion of its range. 

A portion of a species’ range is 

significant if it is part of the current 

range of the species (species used here 

is as defined in the Act, to include 

species, subspecies, or DPS) and if it is 

important to the conservation of the 

species because it contributes 

meaningfully to the representation, 

resiliency, or redundancy of the species. 

The contribution must be at a level such 

that its loss would result in a decrease 

in the ability to conserve the species. 

Applying the definition described 

above for determining whether a species 

is endangered or threatened in a 

significant portion of its range, we first 

addressed whether any portions of the 

range of the Lake Erie watersnake 

warranted further consideration. We 

examine whether any available 

information indicates a portion of the 

species’ range may be both significant 

and threatened or endangered. As 

described in Factor A and Factor E 

above, some threats to the species will 

remain post-delisting, primarily loss of 

hibernation habitat during the winter 

hibernation season and intentional 

human persecution. These threats exist 

across the range of the species, and are 

not concentrated in any one area. We 

concluded, however, that these threats 

were not substantial enough to pose a 

threat to the viability of the subspecies 

or pose a threat of extirpation to the 

species in any portion of its range. In 

addition, we have concluded that while 

movement between islands is rare, it 

occurs frequently enough that the 

species has demonstrated an ability to 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

recolonize historical habitat and its 

distribution across multiple islands 

provides multiple source populations 

should one subpopulation be eliminated 

due to a catastrophic event. 

We conclude that the available 

information does not indicate that any 

portion of the species range is likely to 

be threatened or endangered. If no 

portion is likely to be threatened or 

endangered, there is no purpose to 

examining what portions may be 

significant. Therefore, based on the 

discussion of the threats above, we do 

not foresee the loss or destruction of any 

portions of the subspecies’ range such 

that our ability to conserve the 

subspecies would be decreased. 

Therefore, we find that the Lake Erie 

watersnake is not in danger of 

extinction and is not likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Effects of the Rule 

This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to 

remove the Lake Erie watersnake from 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. The prohibitions and 

conservation measures provided by the 

Act, particularly through sections 7 and 

9, no longer apply to this species. 

Federal agencies are no longer required 

to consult with us if any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out may affect 

the Lake Erie watersnake. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, 

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been recovered and delisted. The 

purpose of this requirement is to 

develop a program that detects the 

failure of any delisted species to sustain 

itself without the protective measures 

provided by the Act. If, at any time 

during the monitoring period, data 

indicate that protective status under the 

Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 

listing procedures, including, if 

appropriate, emergency listing. 

A post-delisting monitoring (PDM) 

plan has been developed for the Lake 

Erie watersnake, building upon and 

continuing the research that was 

conducted during the listing period. 

Public and peer review comments 

submitted in response to the draft postdelisting monitoring plan have been 

addressed within the body of the plan 

and summarized in an Appendix to the 

plan. In summary, the plan proposes to: 

(1) Conduct annual adult Lake Erie 

watersnake population censuses; (2) 

conduct diet composition studies and 

round goby abundance surveys; (3) 

monitor all areas included as protected 

habitat; (4) conduct public opinion 

surveys; and (5) monitor 

implementation of voluntary guidelines. 

The plan proposes to conduct annual 

adult Lake Erie watersnake population 

censuses, as have occurred throughout 

the listing period, for a period of 5 years 

post-delisting. The data collected will 

be used to generate annual adult Lake 

Erie watersnake population estimates 

for the population as a whole, and for 

each of the four large islands, using the 

same methods as used previously (King 

et al. 2006a, pp. 88–91). During years 

one, three, and five, the collective data 

will be used to calculate lambda (λ), the 

population growth parameter, as 

described in King and Stanford (2009, 

pp. 5–7). Annual reports detailing the 

population estimates and population 

growth (if applicable) will be submitted 

to the Service and ODNR upon 

completion of data analysis by the 

individuals or groups conducting the 

census. 

The diet of the Lake Erie watersnake 

underwent a dramatic change following 

the invasion of the North American 

Great Lakes by the round goby with 

round gobies now constituting more 

than 90 percent of prey consumed, and 

possibly fueling Lake Erie watersnake 

population recovery (King et al. 2006b, 

King et al. 2008, Jones et al. 2009). Lake 

Erie watersnake diet composition 

studies will be conducted during years 

three and four, as will round goby local 

abundance surveys. The data gathered 

from these studies will be used to 

evaluate round goby availability as a 

prey item for the snake. Researchers 

conducting these studies will actively 

look for indications of changing 

predator-prey interactions including 

potential loss of prey base that may lead 

to watersnake population declines. 

Results of the diet composition studies 

will be summarized in the annual 

reports during years 3 and 4. Results of 

the round goby local abundance surveys 

will be submitted in a final report to the 

Service after the surveys are completed 

in year 4. 

Additionally, all areas included as 

protected habitat will be monitored 

once per year, in collaboration with 

partners that manage the protected 

habitat (for example, ODNR, LEIC–BSC). 

The monitoring will ensure that the 

management plans, conservation 

easements, or other documents are being 

implemented as agreed, and that Lake 

Erie watersnakes or suitable habitat 

persists on the site. Written 

documentation of the protected habitat 

monitoring will be filed in the Service’s 

Ohio Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public opinion surveys will be 

conducted during year four of the postdelisting monitoring. These surveys will 

follow the same protocol and ask similar 

questions as the survey conducted in 

2008, and responses will be compared 

to determine if and how public opinion 

of Lake Erie watersnakes may be 

changing, and if and to what extent 

human persecution may be impacting 

the Lake Erie watersnake population 

post-delisting. 

During each year of the post-delisting 

monitoring period, the Service will 

coordinate with local government 

agencies on Kelleys, Middle Bass, and 

South Bass Islands, to monitor 

compliance with the ‘‘Lake Erie 

Watersnake Management Guidelines for 

Construction, Development, and Land 

Management Activities’’ (Service 2009). 

Documentation of local government 

responses will be filed in the Service’s 

Ohio Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). Compliance with 

the voluntary guidelines will be used to 

assess the extent to which mortality of 

Lake Erie watersnakes due to excavation 

activities during the hibernation period 

may be affecting the adult watersnake 

population. 

The post-delisting monitoring plan 

identifies measurable management 

thresholds and responses for detecting 

and reacting to significant changes in 

Lake Erie watersnake protected habitat, 

distribution, and persistence. If declines 

are detected equaling or exceeding these 

thresholds, described below, the Service 

in combination with other post-delisting 

monitoring participants will investigate 

causes of these declines, including 

considerations of habitat changes, 

substantial human persecution, 

stochastic events, or any other 

significant evidence. The result of the 

investigation will be to determine if the 

Lake Erie watersnake warrants 

expanded monitoring, additional 

research, additional habitat protection, 

or resumption of Federal protection 

under the Act. 

The management thresholds for 

determining how the Service will 

respond to various monitoring outcomes 

are as follows: 

(1) Post-delisting monitoring indicates 

that the species remains secure without 

the Act’s protections if all the following 

are met: (a) Realized population growth 

parameter, lambda (λ), is greater than or 

equal to 1.0 for two out of three periods 

for which it is calculated, including the 

last period, (b) the adult population 

estimates are greater than or equal to 

5,555 overall, and (c) each of the four 

large islands’ subpopulation estimates 

are greater than or equal to the goals 

defined in the recovery plan (Service 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 50701 

2003a, pp. 28–29): Kelleys Island, 900; 

South Bass Island, 850; Middle Bass, 

620; and North Bass, 410 (Service 

2003a, pp. 28–29). Under these 

circumstances there would be no reason 

to relist the species, or continue PDM. 

(2) Post-delisting monitoring indicates 

that the species may be less secure than 

anticipated at the time of delisting, but 

information does not indicate that the 

species meets the definition of 

threatened or endangered if the realized 

population growth parameter, lambda 

(λ), is less than 1.0 for two consecutive 

periods for which it is calculated. 

Should this situation occur, the Service 

would look closely at the results of the 

dietary study, round goby local 

abundance, public opinion survey, 

status of protected habitat, and 

implementation of voluntary guidelines 

to determine if any residual threats or 

concerns may be contributing to 

population declines. Further we will 

consider if other emerging threats, for 

example new invasive species or 

communicable diseases, may be 

impacting the Lake Erie watersnake 

population. Variable courses of action 

may be considered to address any 

residual or emerging threats. 

The Service will also consider 

whether the population may be reaching 

carrying capacity and these population 

declines are a result of normalization 

around carrying capacity. If the 

population growth parameter was less 

than 1 for the first two consecutive 

periods (Years 1 and 3, 2011 and 2013), 

PDM would continue as planned, but 

population growth would be calculated 

in Year 4 as well. If the population 

growth parameter was less than 1 for the 

last two consecutive periods (Years 3 

and 5, 2013 and 2015) the Service 

would extend the PDM period for the 

Lake Erie watersnake for 2 additional 

years. All relevant data would be 

examined to ensure that the population 

does not meet the definition of 

threatened or endangered. 

(3) Post-delisting monitoring yields 

substantial information indicating 

threats are causing a decline in the 

species’ status since delisting, such that 

listing the species as threatened or 

endangered may be warranted if 

realized population growth parameter, 

λ, is less than 1.0 for three consecutive 

periods for which it is calculated. 

Should this situation occur, the Service 

would look closely at the results of the 

dietary study, round goby local 

abundance, public opinion survey, 

status of protected habitat, and 

implementation of voluntary guidelines 

to determine if any residual threats or 

concerns may be contributing to 

population declines. Further we will 

consider if other emerging threats, for 

example new invasive species or 

communicable diseases, may be 

impacting the Lake Erie watersnake 

population. Variable courses of action 

may be considered to address any 

residual or emerging threats. The 

Service will also consider whether the 

population may be reaching carrying 

capacity and these population declines 

are a result of normalization around 

carrying capacity. Further, the Service 

would consider whether listing the Lake 

Erie watersnake as threatened or 

endangered is warranted. If listing is not 

warranted, PDM would be extended for 

2 additional years to continue to 

monitor Lake Erie watersnake 

population trends. 

(4) Post-delisting monitoring 

documents a decline in the species’ 

probability of persistence, such that the 

species once again meets the definition 

of a threatened or endangered species 

under the Act if realized population 

growth parameter, λ, is less than 1.0 for 

two consecutive periods for which it is 

calculated, and one of the two following 

situations occurs: Range-wide adult 

Lake Erie watersnake population 

estimate is less than the recovery goal of 

5,555 during the most recent census, or 

one or more of the large island 

subpopulation estimates is less than the 

population recovery goal specified in 

the recovery plan (Service 2003a pp. 

28–29), when using the Jolly-Seber 

method of population estimation (Jolly 

1965, Seber 1965). 

The Service will complete a final 

report at the end of the 5-year postdelisting monitoring period, assessing 

the current status of the Lake Erie 

watersnake population. It is the intent of 

the Service to work with all of our 

partners toward maintaining the 

recovered status of the Lake Erie 

watersnake. 

The final post-delisting monitoring 

plan is available on the Service’s 

Midwest region Web site: http:// 

www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered. 

Required Determinations 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) 

define a collection of information as the 

obtaining of information by or for an 

agency by means of identical questions 

posed to, or identical reporting, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements imposed on, 10 or more 

persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 

1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more 

persons’’ refers to the persons to whom 

a collection of information is addressed 

by the agency within any 12-month 

period. For purposes of this definition, 

employees of the Federal Government 

are not included. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. This rule does not 

include any new collections of 

information that require approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. We do not anticipate a need to 

request data or other information from 

10 or more persons during any 12- 

month period to satisfy monitoring 

information needs. If it becomes 

necessary to collect standardized 

information from 10 or more nonFederal individuals, groups, or 

organizations per year, we will first 

obtain information collection approval 

from OMB. We anticipate requesting 

data or other information from 10 or 

more persons during public opinion 

surveys planned in 2014. Prior to 

conducting collection of standardized 

information from 10 or more nonFederal individuals, groups, or 

organizations per year, we will first 

obtain information collection approval 

from OMB. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with 

regulations adopted under section 4(a) 

of the Act. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no tribal 

lands affected by this rule. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the Internet 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
50702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

at http://www.regulations.gov, or upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Columbus, Ohio Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Columbus, 

Ohio Field Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[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; Public Law 

99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise 

noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the 

entry ‘‘Snake, Lake Erie water’’ under 

‘‘Reptiles’’ from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

Dated: July 27, 2011. 

James J. Slack, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20104 Filed 8–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES