Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Lake Erie Watersnake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 50680-50702 [2011-20104]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50680-50702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20104]


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

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: https://www.regulations.gov and https://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,

[[Page 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

[[Page 50682]]

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 open-population methods to analyze the data (King et al. 
2006a, pp. 88-92). The preferred and most accurate method for 
calculating population size, the Jolly-Seber 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Four largest U.S. Islands with Lake Erie Watersnake populations       Small islands with Lake
               Year                ------------------------------------------------------------------------       Erie Watersnake         Combined U.S.
                                         Kelleys         South bass        Middle bass       North bass            populations *             islands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 50683]]

 
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-year-period 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 km\2\ (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 km\2\ (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

[[Page 50684]]

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 km\2\ 
(20.5 ac) inland;
    (ii) South Bass Island--minimum 1.1 km (0.70 mi) shoreline, 0.078 
km\2\ (19.3 ac) inland;
    (iii) Middle Bass Island--minimum 0.82 km (0.51 mi) shoreline, 
0.057 km\2\ (14.1 ac) inland; and
    (iv) North Bass Island--minimum 0.54 km (0.34 mi) shoreline, 0.037 
km\2\ (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 km\2\ (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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Length of shoreline     Land within 69 m of
                                                                   ------------------------          shore
                 Island                           Property                                 ------------------------                Partner
                                                                       (km)        (mi)       (km\2\)      (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelleys................................  Kelleys Island State             1.74        1.09       0.149       36.9   ODNR.
                                          Park; North Pond State
                                          Nature Preserve; Kelleys
                                          Island Alvar.
                                         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          0.8         0.5        0.052       12.9   ODNR.
                                          Park; Oak Point State
                                          Park.
                                         Scheef East Point Nature         0.52        0.32       0.026        6.4   PIBTPD, LEIC-BSC.
                                          Preserve.
                                                                   ------------------------------------------------
    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         2.74        1.71       0.197       48.7   ODNR.
                                          Park; Kuehnle Wildlife
                                          Area.
                                         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           0.22        0.14       0.017        4.3   PIBTPD, LEIC-BSC.
                                          Preserve.
                                                                   ------------------------------------------------
    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          9.9         6.19       0.683      168.8   ODNR.
                                          Park; Fox's Marsh
                                          Wildlife Area.
                                                                   ------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal...........................  .........................        9.9         6.19       0.683      168.8   ....................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Bass Goal........................  .........................        0.54        0.34       0.037        9.1   ....................................
Green..................................  Green Island Wildlife            1.7         1.06       0.066       16.34  ODNR.
                                          Area.
                                                                   ------------------------------------------------
        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

[[Page 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 Human-Induced 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 non-island 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

[[Page 50686]]

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 human-induced 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 human-induced 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 (https://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

[[Page 50687]]

anticipated from accidental human-induced 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 land-management 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 (https://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 human-inhabited 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 late- 1900s. * * * 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 3.4x10\5\ mussels per m\2\ 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 ([mu]g/g) (Bishop and Rouse 2006, pp. 454, 
456) and 167 [mu]g/g (Bishop and Rouse 2000, pp. 500-501)).
    Recent research compared the levels of contaminants in Lake Erie

[[Page 50688]]

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.

[[Page 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