Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination of Endangered Status for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon, 29344-29387 [E9-14269]
Download as PDF
29344
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
713–1401; Lori Nordstrom, USFWS, at
(207) 827–5938 ext. 13. Persons who use
a Telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
50 CFR Part 224
We issued a final rule listing the GOM
DPS of Atlantic salmon as endangered
on November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69469).
The GOM DPS was defined as all
naturally reproducing wild populations
and those river-specific hatchery
populations of Atlantic salmon having
historical, river-specific characteristics
found north of and including tributaries
of the lower Kennebec River to, but not
including, the mouth of the St. Croix
River at the U.S.-Canada border. In the
final rule listing the GOM DPS, we did
not include fish that inhabit the
mainstem and tributaries of the
Penobscot River above the site of the
former Bangor Dam, the upper
Kennebec River, or the Androscoggin
River within the GOM DPS (65 FR
69469; November 17, 2000).
In late 2003, we assembled the 2005
Biological Review Team (BRT)
composed of biologists from the Maine
Atlantic Salmon Commission (now the
Maine Department of Marine Resources
Bureau of Sea-run Fisheries and Habitat
(MDMR)), the Penobscot Indian Nation,
and both Services. The 2005 BRT was
charged with reviewing and evaluating
all relevant scientific information
relating to the current DPS delineation
(including a detailed genetic
characterization of the Penobscot
population and data relevant to the
appropriateness of including the upper
Kennebec and Androscoggin rivers as
part of the DPS), determining the
conservation status of the populations
not included in GOM DPS listed in
2000, and assessing their relationship to
the GOM DPS as it was listed in 2000.
The findings of the 2005 BRT, which are
detailed in the 2006 Status Review for
Anadromous Atlantic Salmon in the
United States (Fay et al., 2006),
addressed: the DPS delineation,
including whether populations that
were not included in the 2000 listing
should be included in the GOM DPS;
the extinction risks to the species; and
the threats to the species. The 2006
Status Review (Fay et al., 2006)
underwent peer review by experts in the
fields of Atlantic salmon biology and
genetics to ensure that it was based on
the best available science. Each peer
reviewer independently affirmed the
Background
[Docket No. 0808191116–9709–02]
RIN 0648–XJ93
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Determination of Endangered Status
for the Gulf of Maine Distinct
Population Segment of Atlantic
Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce; United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We (NMFS and USFWS,
collectively referred to as the Services)
have determined that naturally spawned
and conservation hatchery populations
of anadromous Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar) whose freshwater range occurs in
the watersheds from the Androscoggin
River northward along the Maine coast
to the Dennys River, including those
that were already listed in November
2000, constitute a distinct population
segment (DPS) and hence a ‘‘species’’
for listing. We have determined that the
Gulf of Maine (GOM) DPS warrants
listing as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Critical
habitat for the GOM DPS will be
designated in a subsequent Federal
Register notice.
DATES: This rule is effective July 20,
2009.
Comments and materials
received, as well as supporting scientific
information used in the preparation of
this rule, will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at: National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast
Regional Office, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester MA 01930. An
electronic copy of this final rule is
available at: https://www.nero.noaa.gov/
prot_res/altsalmon/. Public comments
received can be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory
Saunders, NMFS, at (207) 866–4049;
Jessica Pruden, NMFS, at (978) 282–
8482; Marta Nammack, NMFS, at (301)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
major conclusions presented in Fay et
al. (2006).
Policies for Delineating Species Under
the ESA
Section 3 of the ESA defines
‘‘species’’ as including ‘‘any subspecies
of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.’’ The
term ‘‘distinct population segment’’ is
not recognized in the scientific
literature. Therefore, the Services
adopted a joint policy for recognizing
DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR
4722) on February 7, 1996. The DPS
policy requires the consideration of two
elements when evaluating whether a
vertebrate population segment may be
considered a DPS under the ESA: (1)
The discreteness of the population
segment in relation to the remainder of
the species or subspecies to which it
belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species or
subspecies to which it belongs.
A population segment of a vertebrate
species may be considered discrete if it
satisfies either one of the following
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated
from other populations of the same
taxon (an organism or group of
organisms) as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative
measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of
this separation; or (2) it is delimited by
international governmental boundaries
within which differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA
(i.e., inadequate regulatory
mechanisms).
If a population segment is found to be
discrete under one or more of the above
conditions, its biological and ecological
significance to the taxon to which it
belongs is evaluated. This consideration
may include, but is not limited to: (1)
Persistence of the discrete population
segment in an ecological setting unusual
or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence
that the loss of the discrete population
segment would result in a significant
gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence
that the discrete population segment
represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more
abundant elsewhere as an introduced
population outside its historic range;
and (4) evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in
its genetic characteristics.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Listing Determinations Under the ESA
The ESA defines an endangered
species as one that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a threatened
species as one that is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (sections 3(6) and 3(20),
respectively). The statute requires us to
determine whether any species is
endangered or threatened because of
any of the following five factors: (1) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (2) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or
predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence (section 4(a)(1)(A–
E)). We are to make this determination
based solely on the best available
scientific and commercial data available
after conducting a review of the status
of the species and taking into account
any efforts being made by states or
foreign governments to protect the
species.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Atlantic Salmon Life History
Anadromous Atlantic salmon are a
wide ranging species with a complex
life history. The historic range of
Atlantic salmon occurred on both sides
of the North Atlantic: from Connecticut
to Ungava Bay in the western Atlantic
and from Portugal to Russia’s White Sea
in the Eastern Atlantic, including the
Baltic Sea.
For Atlantic salmon in the United
States, juveniles typically spend 2 years
rearing in freshwater. Freshwater
ecosystems provide spawning habitat
and thermal refuge for adult Atlantic
salmon; overwintering and rearing areas
for eggs, fry, and parr; and migration
corridors for smolts and adults
(Bardonnet and Bagliniere, 2000). Adult
Atlantic salmon typically spawn in
early November. During spawning, the
female uses its tail to scour or dig a
series of nests in the gravel where the
eggs are deposited; this series of nests is
called a redd. The eggs remain in the
redd until they hatch in late March or
April. At this stage, they are referred to
as alevin or sac fry. Alevins remain in
the redd for about 6 more weeks and are
nourished by their yolk sac until they
emerge from the gravel in mid-May. At
this time, they begin active feeding and
are termed fry. Within days, the fry
enter the parr stage, indicated by
vertical bars (parr marks) on their sides
that act as camouflage. Atlantic salmon
parr are territorial; thus, most juvenile
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
mortality is thought to be density
dependent and mediated by habitat
limitation (Gee et al., 1978; Legault,
2005). In particular, suitable
overwintering habitat may limit the
abundance of large parr prior to
smoltification (Cunjak et al., 1998).
Smoltification (the physiological and
behavioral changes required for the
transition to salt water) usually occurs
at age 2 for most Atlantic salmon in
Maine. The smolt emigration period is
rather short and lasts only 2 to 3 weeks
for each individual. During this brief
emigration window, smolts must
contend with rapidly changing
osmoregulatory requirements
(McCormick et al., 1998) and predator
assemblages (Mather, 1998). The
freshwater stages in the life cycle of the
Atlantic salmon have been well studied;
however, much less information is
available on Atlantic salmon at sea
(Klemetsen et al., 2003).
Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon migrate
vast distances in the open ocean to
reach feeding areas in the Davis Strait
between Labrador and Greenland, a
distance over 4,000 km from their natal
rivers (Danie et al., 1984; Meister, 1984).
During their time at sea, Atlantic salmon
undergo a period of rapid growth until
they reach maturity and return to their
natal river. Most Atlantic salmon (about
90 percent) from the Gulf of Maine
return after spending 2 winters at sea;
usually less than ten percent return after
spending 1 winter at sea; roughly one
percent of returning salmon are either
repeat spawners or have spent 3 winters
at sea (3 sea winter, or 3SW salmon)
(Baum, 1997).
In addition to anadromous Atlantic
salmon, landlocked Atlantic salmon
have been introduced to many lakes and
rivers in Maine, though they are only
native to four watersheds in the State:
The Union, including Green Lake in
Hancock County; the St. Croix,
including West Grand Lake in
Washington County; the Presumpscot,
including Sebago Lake in Cumberland
County; and the Penobscot, including
Sebec Lake in Piscataquis County
(Warner and Havey, 1985). There are
certain lakes and rivers in Maine where
landlocked salmon and anadromous
salmon co-exist. Recent genetic surveys
have confirmed that little genetic
exchange occurs between these two life
history types (Spidle et al., 2003; NMFS
unpublished data).
Delineation of the Gulf of Maine Distinct
Population Segment
Fay et al. (2006) concluded that the
DPS delineation that resulted in the
2000 listing designation (65 FR 69469;
November 17, 2000) was largely
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29345
appropriate, except in the case of large
rivers that were excluded in the
previous listing determination (Section
6.2.4 of Fay et al., 2006). As described
below in the analyses of discreteness
and significance of the population
segment, Fay et al. (2006) concluded
that the salmon currently inhabiting the
larger rivers (Androscoggin, Kennebec,
and Penobscot) are genetically similar to
the rivers included in the GOM DPS as
listed in 2000 (Spidle et al., 2003), have
similar life history characteristics, and
occur in the same zoogeographic region
(section 6.3 of Fay et al., 2006). Further,
the salmon populations inhabiting the
large and small rivers from the
Androscoggin River northward to the
Dennys River differ genetically and in
important life history characteristics
from Atlantic salmon in adjacent
portions of Canada (Spidle et al., 2003;
Fay et al., 2006). Thus, Fay et al. (2006)
(section 6.3.1.4 and 6.3.2.4) concluded
that this group of populations
(population segment) met both the
discreteness and significance criteria of
the DPS Policy and, therefore should be
considered a DPS. Fay et al. (2006)
recommended that the new GOM DPS
include all anadromous Atlantic salmon
whose freshwater range occurs in the
watersheds from the Androscoggin
River northward along the Maine coast
to the Dennys River, including all
associated conservation hatchery
populations used to supplement these
natural populations; currently, such
conservation hatchery populations are
maintained at Green Lake National Fish
Hatchery (GLNFH) and Craig Brook
National Fish Hatchery (CBNFH).
Delineating Geographic Boundaries
Determining the precise boundary of
the GOM DPS is difficult. In the case of
the GOM DPS, we use a wide array of
independent sources of information to
make this determination. These sources
of information include recent genetic
analyses, life history, and zoogeography,
among others. Recent genetic analyses,
in particular, have clarified these
distinctions, and we rely on them
heavily in the following analysis. When
using genetic data to make these
delineations, it is important to note that
extant populations must exist in order
to make meaningful comparisons. In the
case of determining the northern
boundary of the GOM DPS, extant
populations were used in genetic
analyses and thus inform the
determination. However, in the case of
the determination of the southern
boundary of the GOM DPS, many
populations south of the Androscoggin
are extirpated, and thus there are no
genetic data available to make these
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29346
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
comparisons. For this reason we rely on
additional information to delineate the
southern boundary of the GOM DPS
below.
We relied on genetic data to inform
our determination on the northern
terminus of the GOM DPS. At a broad
scale, it is clear that there are substantial
differences in genetic structure between
U.S. and Canadian populations of
Atlantic salmon (Spidle et al., 2003).
However, there are no genetic data on
the wild salmon that once occurred in
the St. Croix watershed along the U.S.Canada border. As listed in 2000, the
northern terminus of the GOM DPS was
the U.S.-Canada border at the St. Croix
River, but as described on page 54 of
Fay et al. (2006), the best available
science suggests that the St. Croix
groups with other Canadian rivers.
Genetic analyses found that salmon in
the Dennys River are more similar to
populations in the United States than to
Canadian salmon populations that are
geographically proximate to the Dennys
(Spidle et al., 2003). Therefore, we find
that the northern terminus of the GOM
DPS is the Dennys River watershed,
rather than the St. Croix.
We determined the southern terminus
of the GOM DPS to be the Androscoggin
River based on zoogeography rather
than genetics because there are
extremely few Atlantic salmon in the
rivers on which to base genetic analyses
as one moves southward. Due to the
combination of low numbers of Atlantic
salmon in some rivers (e.g.,
Androscoggin) and the complete
extirpation of the native stock in other
rivers to the south (e.g., Merrimack),
complete genetic data are not and may
never be available for the Services to be
able to genetically characterize these
populations. In the absence of clear
genetic data, we used ecological factors
to define the southern boundary of the
GOM DPS. The Androscoggin River lies
within the Penobscot-KennebecAndroscoggin Ecological Drainage Unit
(EDU) (Olivero, 2003) and the
Laurentian Mixed Forest Province
(Bailey, 1995), which separates it from
more southern rivers that were
historically occupied by Atlantic
salmon. EDUs are aggregations of
watersheds with similar zoogeographic
history, physiographic conditions,
climatic characteristics, and basic
geography (Olivero, 2003). The
substantial changes in physiographic
conditions south of the Androscoggin
drainage are reflected in the southern
terminus of both the Laurentian Mixed
Forest Province and the Penobscot—
Kennebec—Androscoggin EDU
occurring in that area. Basin geography,
climate, groundwater temperatures,
hydrography, and zoogeographic
differences between the Penobscot—
Kennebec—Androscoggin EDU and the
EDUs to the south (e.g., SacoMerrimack-Charles, Lower Connecticut,
Middle Connecticut, and Upper
Connecticut) likely had a strong effect
upon Atlantic salmon ecology and
production. These differences would
influence the structure and function of
aquatic ecosystems (Vannote et al.,
1980; Cushing et al., 1983; Minshall et
al., 1983; Cummins et al., 1984;
Minshall et al., 1985; Waters, 1995) and
create a different environment for the
development of local adaptations than
rivers, such as the Saco and Merrimack,
to the south.
In the proposed rule, we proposed to
include the entire Androscoggin,
Kennebec, and Penobscot Watersheds
within the GOM DPS boundary. Some
comments from the public appropriately
highlighted several impassable falls that
limited the upstream extent to which
anadromous salmon inhabited the rivers
of Maine. NMFS also evaluated
historical occupancy at the watershed
scale for the process of proposing
critical habitat for the GOM DPS. There
is also considerable information
provided in the 2006 Status Review
pertaining to impassable falls as well.
We are, therefore, using these
information sources (and others cited
therein) to delimit the upstream extent
of anadromy for GOM salmon in this
final rule.
We have identified seven impassable
falls that substantially limited the
upstream extent of the freshwater range
of GOM salmon. These include Rumford
Falls in the town of Rumford on the
Androscoggin River, Snow Falls in the
town of West Paris on the Little
Androscoggin River, Grand Falls in
Township 3 Range 4 BKP WKR, on the
Dead River in the Kennebec Basin; the
un-named falls (impounded by Indian
Pond Dam) immediately above the
Kennebec River Gorge in the town of
Indian Stream Township on the
Kennebec River; Big Niagara Falls on
Nesowadnehunk Stream in Township 3
Range 10 WELS in the Penobscot Basin;
Grand Pitch Falls on Webster Brook in
Trout Brook Township in the Penobscot
Basin; and Grand Falls on the
Passadumkeag River in Grand Falls
Township in the Penobscot Basin (Table
1).
TABLE 1—IMPASSABLE FALLS THAT LIMIT THE UPSTREAM EXTENT OF THE FRESHWATER RANGE OF GOM SALMON
Town
River
Basin
Rumford Falls ...........................................
Snow Falls ................................................
Grand Falls ...............................................
Un-named .................................................
Big Niagara Falls ......................................
Grand Pitch ..............................................
Grand Falls ...............................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Name of falls
Rumford ..................................................
West Paris ...............................................
Township 3 Range 4 BKP WKR .............
Indian Stream Township .........................
Township 3 Range 10 WELS .................
Trout Brook Township .............................
Grand Falls Township .............................
Androscoggin River .................................
Little Androscoggin River ........................
Dead River ..............................................
Kennebec River ......................................
Nesowadnehunk Stream .........................
Webster Brook ........................................
Passadumkeag River ..............................
Androscoggin.
Androscoggin.
Kennebec.
Kennebec.
Penobscot.
Penobscot.
Penobscot.
As a result, we have modified the
geographic boundaries of the freshwater
range of GOM salmon in the
Androscoggin, Kennebec, and Penobscot
Basins in the following ways: all
freshwater bodies in the Androscoggin
Basin are included up to Rumford Falls
on the Androscoggin River and up to
Snow Falls on the Little Androscoggin
River; all freshwater bodies in the
Kennebec Basin are included up to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
Grand Falls on the Dead River and the
unnamed falls (currently impounded by
Indian Pond Dam) immediately above
the Kennebec River Gorge; and all
freshwater bodies in the Penobscot
Basin are included up to Big Niagara
Falls on Nesowadnehunk Stream, Grand
Pitch on Webster Brook, and Grand
Falls on the Passadumkeag River.
We recognize that many other
potentially impassable waterfalls exist
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
throughout the range of GOM salmon.
While other impassable falls may exist
throughout the range, we did not
exclude any other areas (other than the
areas above the seven falls mentioned
above) for the following reasons: (1)
Their occurrence is typically in
headwater areas that preclude access
from relatively small portions of a given
watershed; (2) identifying every
impassable falls is impractical given
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
current information; and (3) no other
impassable falls were brought to our
attention during the public comment
period.
In addition, we recognize that within
every watershed, there is an upstream
extent of anadromy. However, it is
impossible to define that specific point
in every watershed. The upstream
extent of anadromy is ultimately limited
by the incremental narrowing of a given
river or stream. While a stream may be
too small for an adult salmon to swim
up any further, juveniles may ascend
further than that point in search of
suitable rearing habitat. In fact,
upstream movement of even fry can be
quite substantial. As such, we include
all the freshwater bodies as part of the
freshwater range of GOM salmon unless
above one of the impassable falls
mentioned in the text above.
Discreteness and Significance of the
GOM DPS
With respect to the ‘‘discreteness’’ of
this population segment, section 6.3.1 of
Fay et al. (2006) considered ecological,
behavioral, and genetic factors under
the first discreteness criterion of the
DPS Policy to examine the degree to
which it is separate from other Atlantic
salmon populations. Gulf of Maine
salmon are behaviorally and
physiologically discrete from other
members of the taxon because they
return to their natal GOM rivers to
spawn (a process called homing), which
leads to the separation in stocks that has
been observed between the Gulf of
Maine and other segments of the taxon.
River-specific adaptation is an
important mechanism that allows
anadromous salmon to occupy diverse
environments throughout their range.
River-specific adaptation is facilitated
by homing and is characteristic of all
other anadromous salmonids
(Klemetsen et al., 2003; Utter et al.,
2004). Baum and Spencer (1990) found
that roughly 98 percent of all tagged
salmon returned to their natal rivers to
spawn. As described below, these strong
homing tendencies have led to the
formation and maintenance of riverspecific adaptations for GOM salmon as
well.
Ecologically, GOM salmon are
discrete from other members of the
taxon. The core of the riverine habitat of
this population segment lies within the
Penobscot-Kennebec-Androscoggin EDU
(Olivero, 2003) and the Laurentian
Mixed Forest Province (Bailey, 1995).
These environmental conditions have
shaped life history characteristics of
GOM salmon. In particular, GOM
salmon life history strategies are
dominated by age 2 smolts and 2SW
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
adults, whereas populations to the north
of this population segment are generally
dominated by age 3 or older smolts and
1SW adults (called grilse). Smolt age
reflects growth rate (Klemetsen et al.,
2003), with faster growing parr
emigrating as smolts earlier than slower
growing ones (Metcalfe et al., 1990).
Smolt age is largely influenced by
temperature (Symons, 1979; Forseth et
al., 2001) and can therefore be used to
compare and contrast growing
conditions across rivers (Metcalfe and
Thorpe, 1990). For GOM populations,
smolt ages are quite similar across rivers
with naturally-reared (result of either
wild spawning or fry stocking) returning
adults predominantly emigrating at river
age 2 (88 to 100 percent) with the
remainder emigrating at river age 3 (Fay
et al., 2006). Smolt ages from naturallyreared returning adults in rivers south of
the Penobscot-Kennebec-Androscoggin
EDU are also dominated by river age 2
smolts with some emigrating at river age
3, but a substantial proportion of river
age 1 smolts are also present (See Table
6.3.1.1 in Fay et al., 2006).
The strongest evidence that GOM
salmon are discrete from other members
of the taxon is genetic. Fay et al. (2006)
described genetic structure of this
population segment and other stocks in
detail in section 6.3.1.3. In summary,
three primary genetic groups of North
American populations (Spidle et al.,
2003; Spidle et al., 2004; Verspoor et al.,
2005) are evident. These include the
anadromous GOM populations
(including salmon in the Kennebec and
Penobscot Rivers) (Spidle et al., 2003),
non-anadromous Maine populations
(Spidle et al., 2003), and Canadian
populations (Verspoor et al., 2005).
Because of these behavioral,
physiological, ecological and genetic
factors, we conclude that the GOM
anadromous population is discrete from
other Atlantic salmon populations
under the provisions of the DPS Policy.
With respect to the ‘‘significance’’ of
this population segment, Fay et al.
(2006) found that there are three
attributes which are described as
evidence for ‘‘significance’’ in the DPS
policy that are applicable to the GOM
DPS (section 6.3.2 of Fay et al., 2006).
Fay et al. (2006) (section 6.3.2.1)
concluded that this population segment
has persisted in an ecological setting
unusual or unique to the taxon for
several reasons. First, GOM salmon live
in and migrate through a unique marine
environment. The marine migration
corridor for GOM salmon begins in the
GOM that is known for unique
circulation patterns, thermal regimes,
and predator assemblages (Townsend et
al., 2006). Gulf of Maine salmon
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29347
undertake extremely long marine
migrations to feeding grounds off the
West Coast of Greenland because the
riverine habitat they occupy is at the
southern extreme of the current North
American range. While such vast marine
migrations are more common for stocks
on the northeast side of the Atlantic, the
combination of the long migration
distances and the unique setting of the
GOM, described above, make the
oceanic life history of the GOM DPS
quite different from those of other stocks
(ICES, 2008). In addition, the core of the
riverine habitat of this population
segment lies within the PenobscotKennebec-Androscoggin EDU (Olivero,
2003) and the Laurentian Mixed Forest
Province (Bailey, 1995). The importance
of this setting is evidenced by the
tremendous production potential of its
juvenile nursery habitat that allows
production of proportionately younger
smolts than Canadian rivers to the north
(Myers, 1986; Baum, 1997; Hutchings
and Jones, 1998). Thus, the combination
of the unique rearing conditions in the
freshwater portion of its range combined
with the unique marine migration
corridor led Fay et al. (2006) to
conclude that this population segment
has persisted in an ecological setting
unusual or unique to the taxon.
Fay et al. (2006) also concluded that
the loss of this population segment
would result in a significant gap or
constriction in the range of the taxon
(Section 6.3.2.2 of Fay et al., 2006). The
extirpation of this population segment
would represent a significant range
reduction for the entire taxon Salmo
salar because this population segment
represents the southernmost native
Atlantic salmon population in the
western Atlantic. The temperature
regimes in these southern rivers made
possible the tremendous growth and
production potential which resulted in
the historically very large populations
in these areas. Historic attempts to
enhance salmon populations (in GOM
rivers) using Canadian-origin fish failed.
This further illustrates the importance
of conserving native, river-specific
populations and the difficulties of
restoration if they are lost.
Fay et al. (2006) concluded that this
population segment differs markedly
from other populations of the species in
its genetic characteristics (Section
6.3.2.3 of Fay et al., 2006). While
genetic differences were used to
examine the ‘‘discreteness’’ of this
population segment, Fay et al. (2006)
suggested that the ‘‘significance’’ of
these observed genetic differences is
that they provide evidence of local
adaptation. That is, low returns of
exogenous smolts (i.e., Canadian-origin
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
29348
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
smolts stocked in Maine) and lower
survival of smolts from these Maine
rivers stocked outside their native
geographic range (e.g., into the
Merrimack River) indicate that this
population segment is adapted to its
native environment. Based on this
information related to significance, Fay
et al. (2006) concluded that this
population segment is significant to the
Atlantic salmon species, and therefore,
qualifies as a DPS (the new GOM DPS)
under the provisions of the DPS Policy.
Fay et al. (2006) (section 6.3.4)
explicitly considered whether to
include hatchery populations in the
GOM DPS and concluded that all
conservation hatchery populations
(currently maintained at GLNFH and
CBNFH) should be included in the GOM
DPS. This determination was based on
the fact that there is a low level of
genetic divergence between
conservation hatchery populations and
the rest of the GOM DPS because: (1)
The river-specific hatchery programs
collect wild parr or sea-run adults
annually (when possible) for inclusion
into the broodstock programs; (2)
broodstocks are used to stock fry and
other life stages into the river of origin,
and, in some instances, hatchery-origin
individuals represent the primary origin
of Atlantic salmon due to low adult
returns; (3) there is little evidence of
introgression from Canadian-origin
populations; and (4) there is minimal
introgression from aquaculture fish
because of a rigorous genetic screening
program in the hatchery. Because the
level of divergence is minimal, in
Section 6.3.4 Fay et al. (2006) suggested
that hatchery populations should be
considered part of the GOM DPS.
However, Fay et al. (2006) also noted
the dangers of reliance on hatcheries. In
short, genetic risks from hatcheries
include artificial selection, inbreeding
depression, and outbreeding depression,
in addition to other risks such as the
potential for disease outbreaks, loss of
funding, or other catastrophic failure at
one or more hatcheries. The reader is
directed to ‘‘Population Status of the
GOM DPS’’ section of this final rule and
Section 8.5.1 of Fay et al. (2006) for an
in depth discussion of these risks.
For the reasons described in Section
6 of Fay et al. (2006), we conclude that
the GOM DPS as described above
warrants delineation as a DPS (i.e., it is
discrete and significant). Specifically,
we conclude that the GOM DPS is
comprised of all anadromous Atlantic
salmon whose freshwater range occurs
in the watersheds from the
Androscoggin River northward along
the Maine coast to the Dennys River,
including all associated conservation
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
hatchery populations used to
supplement these natural populations;
currently, such populations are
maintained at GLNFH and CBNFH. We
consider the conservation hatchery
populations that are maintained at
CBNFH and GLNFH essential for
recovery of the GOM DPS because the
hatchery populations contain a high
proportion of the genetic diversity
remaining in the GOM DPS (Bartron et
al., 2006). Excluded are those salmon
raised in commercial hatcheries for
aquaculture and landlocked salmon
because they are genetically
distinguishable from the GOM DPS. The
marine range of the GOM DPS extends
from the Gulf of Maine to feeding
grounds off Greenland. The freshwater
range of the GOM DPS includes all
freshwater bodies in the watersheds
from the Androscoggin to the Dennys,
except those watersheds excluded
because of natural barrier falls as
described in the ‘‘Delineating
Geographic Boundaries’’ section of this
final rule. The most substantial
difference between the GOM DPS as
listed in 2000 and the GOM DPS
described in this final rule is the
inclusion of the majority of the
Androscoggin, Kennebec, and Penobscot
Basins as well as the associated
conservation hatchery population at
GLNFH.
Several rivers outside the range of the
GOM DPS in Long Island Sound and
Central New England contain Atlantic
salmon (Fay et al., 2006; section 6.4).
The native Atlantic salmon of these
areas south of the GOM DPS were
extirpated in the 1800s (Fay et al.,
2006). Efforts to restore Atlantic salmon
to these areas (e.g., Connecticut,
Merrimack, and Saco Rivers) involve
stocking Atlantic salmon that were
originally derived from the GOM DPS.
Atlantic salmon whose freshwater range
occurs outside the range of GOM DPS
do not interbreed with salmon within
the GOM DPS, are not considered a part
of the GOM DPS, and are not protected
under the ESA.
Population Status of the GOM DPS
In evaluating the status of Atlantic
salmon, we considered four basic
attributes that contribute to a viable
population: abundance, productivity,
genetic diversity, and spatial
distribution. The importance of
considering each of these factors is
briefly described below. However, it is
important to note that our ability to
conduct such analyses for Atlantic
salmon is often limited by the
availability of sufficient data. It is also
important to note that the most recent
data available at the time of writing of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
this final rule was from 2007. We
consider the U.S. Atlantic Salmon
Assessment Committee (USASAC)
reports to be the data of record with
respect to Atlantic salmon counts.
USASAC reports are generally not
available until several weeks after their
annual meeting in March. Thus, 2008
data are considered only preliminary at
the time of writing this final rule.
Considering abundance levels of a
given species is critical to evaluating
extinction risks. All else being equal,
small populations are at greater risk of
extinction than larger populations
because, generally, larger populations
are better able to withstand the effects
of environmental variation, genetic
processes, demographic stochasticity,
ecological feedback, and catastrophes
(Shaffer, 1981).
Population growth rate (productivity)
provides information regarding how a
population is performing in the habitat
it occupies. In evaluating extinction
risks, we ideally measure average
productivity at different life stages and
estimates of variance to describe the
level of uncertainty inherent in the
measurements. An example of life stagespecific data could be smolt emigration
estimates which represent: (a) The
population’s potential to increase or (b)
the population’s ability to weather
periods of poor marine conditions.
Measuring productivity rates over time
is quite difficult and resource intensive.
Therefore, simple measures such as
spawner population size and
replacement rates may be used to
provide more rapid detection of changes
in conditions affecting population
growth rates.
For small populations, spatial
distribution is important to reduce
extinction risks from genetic risks and
demographic stochasticity. A
population’s spatial distribution
depends on habitat quality (including
accessibility), population dynamics, and
dispersal characteristics of individuals
in the population. Analysis of spatial
distribution focuses primarily on
spawning group distribution (even
though spatial distribution is important
at all life stages) and connectivity of
populations. Since freshwater habitat is
often quite heterogeneous, spawning
habitat may be distributed as discrete
patches. Straying is an important
component contributing to spatial
distribution and, typically, straying
rates are higher at smaller scales (e.g.,
occurring within subpopulations rather
than between populations (Quinn,
1997)).
Genetic diversity allows species to
adapt to a variety of environments that
provide for the needs of the species and
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
protects against short-term
environmental change while also
providing the raw genetic material
necessary to survive long-term
environmental change. Natural
demographic and evolutionary
processes (patterns of mutation,
selection, drift, recombination,
migration, etc.) are important to
maintaining a species’ genetic diversity.
The influence of hatcheries on the
GOM DPS must be carefully considered
in evaluating the status of the species.
The influence of hatcheries can be both
positive and negative; we describe these
effects in some detail below in this
section of this final rule. It is important,
however, to first describe the general
operation of conservation hatcheries in
Maine.
The USFWS operates two hatcheries
in support of Atlantic salmon recovery
efforts in Maine. Together, Green Lake
National Fish Hatchery (GLNFH) and
Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery
(CBNFH) raise and stock over 600,000
smolts and 3.5 million fry annually
within the range of the GOM Atlantic
salmon DPS. The primary focus of the
conservation hatchery program for the
GOM Atlantic salmon DPS is to
conserve the genetic legacy of Atlantic
salmon in Maine until habitats can
support natural, self-sustaining
populations (Bartron et al., 2006). As
such, a great deal of consideration is
given to broodstock collection,
spawning protocols, genetic screening
for aquaculture escapees, and other
considerations as outlined by Bartron et
al. (2006). The current program started
in 1992, when a river-specific
broodstock and stocking program was
implemented for rivers in Maine
(Bartron et al., 2006). This strategy
complies with the North Atlantic
Salmon Conservation Organization
(NASCO) guidelines for stock rebuilding
(USASAC, 2005). The stocking program
was initiated for two reasons: (1) Runs
were declining in every river in Maine,
and numerous studies indicated that
restocking efforts are more successful
when the donor population comes from
the river to be stocked (Moring et al.,
1995); and (2) the numbers of returning
adult Atlantic salmon to the rivers were
very low, and artificial propagation had
the potential to increase the number of
juvenile fish in the river through fry and
other early life stage stocking.
Current practices of fry, parr, and
smolt stocking as well as recovery of
parr for hatchery rearing are designed to
ensure that river-specific brood stock is
available for future production. Atlantic
salmon from the Narraguagus, Pleasant,
Sheepscot, Machias, East Machias, and
Dennys populations are maintained at
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
CBNFH in East Orland, Maine. These
populations are augmented by annual
collections of parr from their respective
natal river; this program is described in
detail by Bartron et al. (2006).
Additionally, returning adult Atlantic
salmon are trapped at the Veazie Dam
on the Penobscot River throughout the
duration of the run, transferred to
CBNFH, and held until spawning in the
fall of each year. In addition, domestic
adults (i.e., offspring of the sea-run
adults representing all sea-run spawned
families) from the Penobscot River are
maintained at GLNFH in the event that
insufficient sea-run adults return to the
Veazie trap or in the event of a fish loss
at CBNFH. Adult Atlantic salmon (with
the exception of the Penobscot River)
are maintained in one of six riverspecific broodstock rooms at CBNFH.
Within each broodstock room, adults are
maintained separately by capture year.
Capture year is defined as the year parr
were collected from a river. Each
capture year may represent one to two
year classes. In addition, fully captive
lines, or ‘‘pedigree lines,’’ are
implemented when the recovery of parr
from the river environment is expected
to be too low to ensure future spawning
stock is available (Bartron et al., 2006).
Pedigree lines are established at the
time of stocking, where a proportional
representation of each family from a
particular river-specific broodstock is
retained in the hatchery while the rest
of the fry are stocked into the river. If
parr are recovered from the fry stocking
for the pedigree lines, individuals are
screened to determine origin and
familial representation and are
integrated into the pedigree line to
maintain some component of natural
selection while maintaining a broad
representation of the genetic diversity
observed in the broodstock.
The goals of the captive propagation
program include maintenance of the
unique genetic characteristics of each
river-specific broodstock and
maintenance of genetic diversity within
each broodstock (Bartron et al., 2006).
Evaluation of estimates of genetic
diversity within captive populations,
such as average heterozygosity,
relatedness, and allelic richness are
monitored within the hatchery
broodstocks according to the CBNFH
Broodstock Management Plan (Bartron
et al., 2006). Estimates of allelic
richness within each broodstock have
thus far, revealed consistent estimates
over the brief time series available
(generally 1994 to 2004; Bartron et al.,
2007). Information from genetic
monitoring is used to evaluate
management practices to reduce the
potential for artificially reducing overall
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29349
genetic diversity. Further details of
annual genetic monitoring are described
by Bartron et al. (2007).
The current low abundance of adult
returns, integration of the majority of
adult returns into the hatchery for the
Penobscot, and recapture of parr from
the wild for broodstock makes the wild
and hatchery populations interwoven.
In the following sections of this final
rule, we describe the four population
attributes of interest (abundance,
productivity, spatial structure, and
genetic diversity) and attempt to apply
them first to the wild population and
then discuss the impact the hatchery
has on that attribute. For the reasons
noted above, however, it is rarely
possible to completely separate the wild
and hatchery population in this
analysis.
Abundance
The abundance of Atlantic salmon
within the range of the GOM DPS has
been generally declining since the 1800s
(Fay et al., 2006). Data sets tracking
adult abundance are not available
throughout this entire time period;
however, Fay et al. (2006) in Figure
7.3.1 present a comprehensive time
series of adult returns to the GOM DPS
dating back to 1967. It is important to
note that contemporary abundance
levels of Atlantic salmon within the
GOM DPS are several orders of
magnitude lower than historical
abundance estimates. For example,
Foster and Atkins (1869) estimated that
roughly 100,000 adult salmon returned
to the Penobscot River alone before the
river was dammed, whereas
contemporary estimates of abundance
for the entire GOM DPS have rarely
exceeded 5,000 individuals in any given
year since 1967 (Fay et al., 2006).
Contemporary abundance estimates
are informative in considering the
conservation status of the GOM DPS
today. After a period of population
growth in the 1970s, adult returns of
salmon in the GOM DPS have been
steadily declining since the early 1980s
and appear to have stabilized at low
levels since 2000 (Figure 1). The
population growth observed in the
1970s is likely attributable to favorable
marine survival and increases in
hatchery capacity, particularly at
GLNFH, which was constructed in 1974.
Marine survival remained relatively
high throughout the 1980s, and salmon
populations in the GOM DPS remained
relatively stable until the early 1990s
when marine survival rates decreased,
leading to the declining trend in adult
abundance observed in the early 1990s.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29350
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Adult returns to the GOM DPS have
been very low for many years and
remain extremely low in terms of adult
abundance in the wild. Further, the
majority of all adults return to a single
river, the Penobscot, which accounted
for 91 percent of all adult returns to the
GOM DPS in 2007 (Table 2). As
illustrated by Table 3, of the 925 adult
returns to the Penobscot in 2007, 802
were the result of smolt stocking and
only the remaining 123 were naturallyreared. The term ‘‘naturally-reared’’
includes fish originating from natural
spawning and hatchery fry (USASAC,
2008). Hatchery fry are included
because hatchery fry are not marked;
therefore, they cannot be distinguished
from fish produced from natural
spawning. Because of the extensive
amount of fry stocking that takes place
in an effort to recover the GOM DPS, it
is likely that a substantial number of
fish counted as naturally-reared were
actually stocked as fry. The term
‘‘hatchery-origin’’ includes those fish
stocked as either parr or smolt from
either CBNFH or GLNFH.
The proportion of naturally reared
fish that is attributed to fry stocking
cannot be determined. Preliminary adult
return data for 2008 (https://
www.maine.gov/dmr/searunfish/
trapcounts.html) indicated higher
returns than in previous years, but
remain well below conservation
spawning escapement (CSE) goals that
are widely used (e.g., ICES, 2005) to
describe the status of individual
Atlantic salmon populations. When CSE
goals are met, Atlantic salmon
populations are generally selfsustaining. When CSE goals are not met
(i.e., less than 100 percent), populations
are not reaching full potential, and this
can be indicative of a population
decline. For all rivers in Maine, current
Atlantic salmon populations (including
hatchery contributions) are well below
CSE levels required to sustain
themselves (Fay et al., 2006) (section
7.1), which is further indication of their
poor population status. Furthermore,
calculation of returns relative to CSE for
Atlantic salmon include salmon of frystocked origin; because these fish are
not spawned in the wild, displaying
returns as a percentage of CSE
overestimates the degree to which the
population is achieving selfsustainability.
TABLE 2—ADULT RETURNS TO THE SMALL COASTAL RIVERS, THE PENOBSCOT RIVER, THE KENNEBEC RIVER, AND THE
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER FROM 2001 TO 2007. THESE DATA ARE SUMMARIZED FROM TABLE 3.2.1.2 AND TABLE 16 IN
THE UNITED STATES ATLANTIC SALMON ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REPORT (USASAC, 2008)
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Penobscot River
trap count
Kennebec River
trap count a
Androscoggin
River trap count
785
780
1112
1323
985
1044
............................
............................
............................
............................
............................
15
5
2
3
11
10
6
103
37
76
82
71
79
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Total known
returns
893
819
1191
1416
1066
1144
ER19JN09.002
Small coastal
rivers
Year
29351
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—ADULT RETURNS TO THE SMALL COASTAL RIVERS, THE PENOBSCOT RIVER, THE KENNEBEC RIVER, AND THE
ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER FROM 2001 TO 2007. THESE DATA ARE SUMMARIZED FROM TABLE 3.2.1.2 AND TABLE 16 IN
THE UNITED STATES ATLANTIC SALMON ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REPORT (USASAC, 2008)—Continued
2007 .................................................................
a Counts
Penobscot River
trap count
Small coastal
rivers
Year
Kennebec River
trap count a
Androscoggin
River trap count
925
16
20
53
Total known
returns
1014
not conducted on the Kennebec until 2006.
TABLE 3—ADULT RETURNS TO RIVERS WITHIN THE FRESHWATER RANGE OF THE GOM DPS BY ORIGIN IN 2007. THESE
DATA ARE SUMMARIZED FROM TABLE 1 IN THE UNITED STATES ATLANTIC SALMON ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REPORT (USASAC, 2008)
River
Hatchery-origin
Naturally-reared
Total
Androscoggin ...................................................................................................................
Kennebec .........................................................................................................................
Dennys .............................................................................................................................
Narraguagus ....................................................................................................................
Other GOM DPS ..............................................................................................................
Penobscot ........................................................................................................................
17
9
2
0
0
802
3
7
1
11
39
123
20
16
3
11
39
925
Total ..........................................................................................................................
830
184
1014
Declines in both hatchery-origin and
naturally reared salmon are evident in
the Penobscot River (Table 4). Declines
in hatchery-origin adult returns are less
sharp because of the effects of
hatcheries. In short, hatchery
supplementation over this time period
has been relatively constant, generally
fluctuating around 550,000 smolts per
year (USASAC, 2008). In contrast, the
number of naturally-reared smolts
emigrating each year is likely to decline
following poor returns of adults.
Although it is impossible to distinguish
truly wild salmon from those stocked as
fry, it is likely that some portion of
naturally reared adults are wild. Thus,
wild smolt production would suffer 3
years after there were low adult returns,
because the progeny of adult returns
typically emigrate 3 years after their
parents return. The relatively constant
inputs from smolt stocking coupled
with the declining trend of naturally
reared adults result in the apparent
stabilization of hatchery-origin salmon
and the decline of naturally reared
components of the GOM DPS observed
over the last 2 decades.
TABLE 4—ADULT RETURNS, BY ORIGIN (HATCHERY-ORIGIN AND NATURALLY REARED) AND AGE (1SW INDICATES THE INDIVIDUAL SPENT ONE WINTER AT SEA; 2SW INDICATES THE INDIVIDUAL SPENT TWO WINTERS AT SEA; 3SW INDICATES
THE INDIVIDUAL SPENT THREE WINTERS AT SEA; AND REPEAT INDICATES THE INDIVIDUAL WAS A REPEAT SPAWNER)
TO THE PENOBSCOT RIVER FROM 1996 TO 2007
Hatchery-origin
Naturally reared
Year
Total
1sw
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
The influence of CBNFH and GLNFH
on abundance of the GOM DPS is
positive, thus reducing short-term
extinction risks to the GOM DPS. Below,
we briefly describe the three
mechanisms by which the conservation
hatchery programs positively affect the
abundance of the GOM DPS:
1. Stocking of large numbers of smolts
(Penobscot beginning in 1974, Dennys
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
484
243
238
223
167
195
363
196
276
269
338
226
2sw
1,218
934
793
568
265
466
344
847
952
678
653
575
3sw
Repeat
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
0
1
0
18
14
10
11
15
3
15
4
16
8
4
1
beginning in 2001, and Narraguagus
beginning in 2008) increases adult
returns, thus reducing demographic
risks (i.e., extinction risks) to
populations that would otherwise be
smaller.
2. Stocking large numbers of smolts
also reduces the risks of catastrophic
loss because at least one cohort is
always at sea and could be collected as
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1sw
2sw
11
4
31
49
16
21
14
6
5
6
15
35
303
153
133
108
69
98
41
56
59
22
33
88
3sw
Repeat
3
2
1
0
0
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
4
9
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
2,044
1,355
1,210
968
534
785
780
1,112
1,323
985
1,044
925
broodstock in case of a catastrophic
event in freshwater (e.g., a large
contaminant spill) or in a hatchery (e.g.,
disease outbreak).
3. Rivers without large scale fry
stocking efforts have even fewer adult
returns than those rivers with large scale
stocking efforts. Further, rivers that lack
significant hatchery contributions (fry
stocking) have not experienced stable
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29352
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
levels of adult returns since the decline
in marine survival in the early 1990s.
For example, redd counts in the
Ducktrap River (a river which is not
stocked) have been steadily declining
since the 1990s to a point where no
redds were found in the Ducktrap River
in 2007, a year with favorable
conditions for redd counting and over
90 percent of spawning habitat surveyed
(USASAC, 2008).
As illustrated by the above data, the
abundance of Atlantic salmon in the
GOM DPS is low and either stable or
declining. The proportion of fish that
are of natural origin is very small
(approximately 10 percent) and is
continuing to decline. The conservation
hatchery has assisted in slowing the
decline and helped stabilize
populations at low levels, but has not
contributed to an increase in the overall
abundance of salmon and has not been
able to halt the decline of the naturallyreared component of the GOM DPS.
Productivity
The historic productivity of the GOM
DPS is unknown. Over long time frames,
it is expected that productivity
fluctuated widely according to a diverse
range of biotic factors such as food
availability and abiotic factors such as
temperature regime and sea level.
Contemporary productivity rates for
the GOM DPS can be inferred from
replacement rates. In short, populations
with a replacement rate of 1.0 or higher
are stable or increasing while
populations with a replacement rate less
than 1.0 are declining. The USASAC has
estimated the replacement rate for the
GOM DPS (as listed in 2000) over the
last several years. Replacement rate for
the GOM DPS (as listed in 2000) had
been below 1.0 for several generations
until 2007, when replacement rate for
the 2002 spawning cohort was 1.47.
This translates to on average, every
adult returning in 2002 replacing itself
with 1.47 adults in 2007. While this
increase is promising, it only represents
1 year; thus, it is premature to conclude
that this is indicative of an increasing
trend.
Replacement rate is a fairly imprecise
measurement of productivity for several
reasons. First, tracking adult to adult
return rates of naturally reared fish
necessarily includes those fish that
result from stocking. Thus, it is not true
replacement of fish in the wild because
each river with substantial returns of
adults is stocked with fry, or smolts as
in the case of the Penobscot,
Narraguagus, and Dennys Rivers. This
situation results in an overestimation of
productivity (because it does not
account for the contribution that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
stocking makes to adult returns) and
also emphasizes the importance of
hatcheries to the security of the GOM
DPS. Without stocking of hatchery fry
and smolts, adult returns would
presumably be lower and would result
in even lower replacement rates.
The influence of hatcheries on
productivity is not known with
certainty, but overall productivity (even
with hatchery supplementation) is quite
low. The first goal of the captive
broodstock program is to facilitate the
recovery of the natural populations and
minimize the risk of further decline or
loss of individual populations (Bartron
et al., 2006). Over time, more adult
returns should successfully spawn in
the wild and result in replacement rates
above 1.0. However, insufficient data
exist to determine whether adult returns
from hatchery contributions result in
more spawners and ultimately more
truly wild-origin adult returns. The
National Research Council (NRC, 2004)
and the Sustainable Ecosystems
Institute (SEI, 2007) identified this as a
key limitation in available data on the
recovery efforts for salmon in Maine.
Without this information, it is
impossible to estimate, with any
certainty, the effect of hatcheries on this
key population attribute (productivity).
Overall, however, replacement rates less
than 1.0 (as has been the case most years
since the early 1990s) are indicative of
low productivity.
As illustrated by the above,
productivity of the GOM DPS is low and
has not consistently had a replacement
rate above 1.0 such that population
growth would be expected. There is no
current evidence that hatcheries have
increased or will increase productivity
in the wild.
Spatial Distribution
The historic distribution of Atlantic
salmon in Maine has been described
extensively by Baum (1997) and Beland
(1984), among others. In short,
substantial populations of Atlantic
salmon existed in nearly every river that
was large enough to maintain a
spawning population. The upstream
extent of anadromy extended far into
the headwaters of even the largest
rivers. For example, Atlantic salmon
were found throughout the West Branch
of the Penobscot River as far as
Penobscot Brook, a distance over 350
river km inland (Atkins, 1870). In the
Kennebec River, Atlantic salmon ranged
as far inland as the Kennebec River
Gorge and Grand Falls on the Dead
River, 235 km inland (Foster and
Atkins, 1867; Atkins, 1887).
Today, the spatial structure of
Atlantic salmon is limited by
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
obstructions to passage and also by low
abundance levels. Fish passage
obstructions caused the decline of many
salmon populations (Moring, 2005).
Within the range of the GOM DPS, the
Kennebec, Androscoggin, Union, and
Penobscot Rivers contain dams that
severely limit passage of salmon to
significant amounts of spawning and
rearing habitat.
In addition, the low abundance of
salmon within the range of the GOM
DPS serves to concurrently limit spatial
distribution through two mechanisms:
(1) Lack of sufficient source
populations, and (2) hatchery
limitations. First, in properly
functioning salmon populations, some
areas have relatively abundant salmon
populations such that they may serve as
‘‘source’’ populations. Fish from source
populations may seek out areas with
fewer or no competitors. This is an
important dispersal mechanism for all
anadromous salmonids. Over
evolutionary timescales, this process led
to the colonization of nearly every river
in Maine by Atlantic salmon. Because
the abundance of salmon is so low
today, this dispersal mechanism is
likely not operating and will likely not
operate until trends in productivity and
abundance are reversed. Second, spatial
distribution is limited today by hatchery
capacity. The Penobscot River alone
would require 12.5 million fry in order
to properly seed all presently accessible
rearing habitat (Trial, 2006), while
GLNFH and CBNFH can only produce
roughly 3.5 million fry annually (Barton
et al., 2006). Thus, hundreds of
thousands of otherwise suitable habitat
units are currently unoccupied (NMFS,
2008). The Sheepscot, Narraguagus,
Dennys, Machias, East Machias, and
Pleasant Rivers are usually stocked with
as many fry as are needed to properly
seed the habitat, although no stocking
occurs within a 50-meter buffer around
areas known to have spawning activity
the previous year in order to reduce
competition between potentially wild
and hatchery fry (described in detail by
Trial, 2006). Hatchery space for the
Penobscot population is limited by
hatchery capacity, such that only 2.5
million fry are typically allocated and
stocked into the Penobscot River
annually. Other rivers within the
freshwater range of the GOM DPS have
been stocked to a very limited degree in
some years, usually with Penobscotorigin fry (see section 5 of Fay et al.,
2006, for a detailed review).
The influence of hatcheries on spatial
structure of the GOM DPS is positive.
Without hatchery contributions, fewer
juveniles would inhabit the rivers of
Maine. In section 7.2., Fay et al. (2006)
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
examined recent MDMR electrofishing
data, which demonstrated that rivers
with large scale stocking efforts have
much higher juvenile densities
compared to those rivers without large
scale stocking efforts. The hatchery,
therefore, has allowed for maintenance
of the current spatial structure of the
GOM DPS. Without the hatcheries, there
likely would have been a greater
reduction in spatial distribution. In
summary, spatial distribution of the
GOM DPS is positively influenced by
the Atlantic salmon conservation
hatchery supplementation program in
the following ways:
1. The use of captive broodstock from
seven separate populations reduces the
risks of random environmental and
demographic events;
2. Stocking maintains the spatial
distribution of the GOM DPS;
3. Stocking has been used to
repopulate unoccupied areas, when
determined to be an appropriate
management action.
As illustrated above, the spatial
distribution of the GOM DPS has been
significantly reduced from historic
levels and is currently limited by low
abundance of Atlantic salmon.
However, we conclude that spatial
distribution would have experienced
even greater reductions without the
influence of hatcheries.
Genetic Diversity
In general, large populations have
higher levels of genetic diversity than
small populations. As population sizes
decrease, and the potential for mating
related individuals increases, the threat
of inbreeding in a population also
increases. Inbreeding has been
documented to decrease overall fitness
of a population (Spielman et al., 2004;
Lynch and O’Hely, 2001), reducing the
long-term population viability. Thus,
maintaining sufficient levels of genetic
variability and structure is of utmost
importance to endangered and
threatened species.
Historical salmon populations within
the range of the GOM DPS were several
orders of magnitude higher than they
are today and occupied a greater
diversity of habitats. As such, genetic
diversity levels of the GOM DPS are
likely to have been higher historically as
well. Lage and Kornfield (2006)
demonstrated significant reductions in
diversity and effective population size
in the Dennys River from 1963 to 2001.
This raises concern that diversity levels
today are lower than historical levels.
However, results from genetic surveys
conducted by the USFWS suggest that,
overall, the GOM DPS is not currently
suffering significant negative effects due
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
to inbreeding. Estimates of genetic
diversity (e.g., average heterozygosity,
relatedness coefficients, and allelic
diversity and frequency) within captive
populations are evaluated within the
hatchery broodstocks according to the
CBNFH Broodstock Management Plan
(Bartron et al., 2006). Broodstock
management is evaluated annually and
is revised as needed to minimize the
potential for inbreeding and maintain
genetic diversity (Bartron et al., 2006).
The effects of hatcheries on genetic
diversity of the GOM DPS are both
positive and negative; however, the
positive effects outweigh the negative
effects at this time. Below, we describe
the positive and negative effects of
hatcheries on diversity levels of the
GOM DPS. Genetic diversity of the GOM
DPS is positively influenced by the
Atlantic salmon conservation hatchery
supplementation program in the
following ways:
1. A rigorous genetic screening
program reduces the risks of
outbreeding depression that may
otherwise result from aquaculture
escapees or their progeny being
integrated into the hatchery program;
2. The effective use of spawning
protocols preserves genetic variation
inherent in each of the genetically
unique river populations maintained at
CBNFH, ensures the long-term
maintenance of genetic variation, and
minimizes the potential for inbreeding
or domestication selection and
associated reductions in fitness in the
wild;
3. The use of pedigree lines for those
populations most at risk reduces the
chance of catastrophic loss of an entire
population;
4. Stocking of juveniles into rivers
significantly reduces the risks of
catastrophic loss at CBNFH. That is, if
a catastrophic loss of one or more
captive broodstock lines occurred at
CBNFH, a component of the genetic
variability lost could be recovered by
collecting parr for broodstock.
There are significant risks associated
with the current reliance on hatcheries
for the persistence of the GOM DPS. As
mentioned previously, these risks
include artificial selection, inbreeding
depression, and outbreeding depression.
Over the long term, artificial selection
for the hatchery environment is
considered a threat to survival. If parr
are not recovered in numbers sufficient
for broodstock and spawning
requirements, it becomes necessary to
establish pedigree lines, which means
that natural selection from fry to parr
stage may no longer be incorporated
into the life cycle (details of pedigree
line management are in Fay et al., 2006,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29353
and Bartron et al., 2006). Establishment
of pedigree lines is only resorted to in
instances when one of the following
criteria is met:
1. The number of broodstock for a
particular population is low (less than
collection target);
2. There is a threat of few or no
hatchery or wild spawned parr being
recovered; or
3. Loss of family variation through
general parr collection practices is
projected to cause appreciable losses in
local population diversity in the near
future.
In recent years, pedigree lines have
been established for broodstock from the
Pleasant River (due to insufficient parr
collection) and the Dennys River (due to
a large aquaculture escape event). Over
time, this process could result in a
population that is well adapted to the
artificial environment and poorly
adapted to the natural environment; this
form of artificial selection is widely
known as domestication selection (Hey
et al., 2005).
Both inbreeding depression and
outbreeding depression are widely
accepted as potential risks in artificial
propagation programs. As population
sizes decrease, and the potential for
mating related individuals increases, the
threat of inbreeding in a population also
increases. Inbreeding may also decrease
overall fitness of a population
(Spielman et al., 2004; Lynch and
O’Hely, 2001), reducing the long-term
population viability and, therefore,
inhibiting the success of restoration and
recovery efforts. Of similar concern is
the threat of outbreeding depression and
decreased fitness resulting from the
mating of individuals from populations
with significantly different genetic
composition.
Over time, these risks will increase
and more negative effects may appear.
At this time, however, results from
USFWS genetic screening programs
suggest that domestication, inbreeding
depression, and outbreeding depression
do not appear to be negatively
impacting the GOM DPS.
Summary
In summary, all available metrics of
abundance, productivity, spatial
distribution, and genetic diversity are
cause for concern for the GOM Atlantic
salmon DPS. Contemporary abundance
estimates of adult spawners are several
orders of magnitude lower than
historical abundance. Estimates of
productivity are well below those
required to sustain a viable population
over the long term. The spatial
distribution of the GOM DPS has been
severely reduced relative to historical
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29354
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
distribution patterns. Genetic diversity
levels, though apparently stable, are
likely much lower than they were
historically (Lage and Kornfield, 2006)
and lower than more abundant
populations in Canada (Spidle et al.,
2003). Finally, while conservation
hatcheries positively influence several
of these metrics, they have not yet been
able to reverse the observed declines in
wild adult spawners. In the following
sections of this final rule, we use this
information combined with recent
population viability analyses to analyze
the current conservation status of the
GOM DPS.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Population Viability Analyses
Statistical methods can be used to
quantitatively estimate population
growth, and more importantly,
extinction probabilities for a species.
The simplest type of model to perform
this can be referred to as a simple
Population Viability Analysis (PVA). A
simple PVA quantitatively estimates
population growth and extinction
probabilities for a single population
(Dennis et al., 1991). A simple PVA is
a stochastic exponential growth model
of population size. These types of
models are best used with census data
where the sampling variability is small
compared to the population or
environmental variability (Dennis et al.,
1991).
More complex versions of PVAs have
been developed where life history
characteristics, such as the age
distribution within abundance
measures, are accounted for within the
model. In addition, a modified approach
has been developed where different life
history processes are
compartmentalized within the model
allowing for the incorporation of such
things as juvenile survival rates, adult
survival rates, habitat limitations/
degradation, age-specific fecundity, or
migration rates (Brook et al., 1999;
Marmontel, 1997; Ratner et al., 1997;
Zhang and Wang, 1999). Other complex
PVAs have been developed to help
managers decide between competing
management regimes, whereby
population growth (or conversely
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
extinction probability) can be predicted
based on changes to survival at one or
more life stages. Thus, PVA models can
vary widely in complexity.
Some general caveats are associated
with the use and interpretation of PVAs.
It is particularly important to recognize
that PVAs are merely projections about
what might happen in the future based
on the data used to compile the model
and assumptions made to address
uncertainties (Ralls et al., 2002; Legault,
2005). Because PVAs do not account for
all potential sources of future
environmental variation and because of
the uncertainty inherent in predicting
future conditions, especially over longer
timeframes, we use PVA results
cautiously and consider them as just
one of the pieces of information we
evaluate in determining a species’
conservation status.
For the purpose of considering the
risks of extinction for Atlantic salmon,
we have two PVAs to consider: the
simple PVA conducted by Fay et al.
(2006), and the SalmonPVA (Legault,
2004; Legault, 2005). Both are
instructive in considering the relative
extinction risks to the GOM DPS. They
also help clarify the importance of
marine survival and hatchery
supplementation in considering
extinction risks. It is important to note
that the Services look at estimates of
how extinction probability changes over
multiple timeframes and not at only a
single estimate of the extinction
probability for a single time period. This
is consistent with the cautions noted by
Fay et al. (2006) and Legault (2005).
Fay et al. (2006) used a simple PVA
to assess the extinction risk to the GOM
DPS as defined in this final rule. This
PVA examined a number of different
scenarios and provided a wide range of
alternative outputs. In particular, it
included three different endpoints: 1
individual, 50 individuals, and 100
individuals. An endpoint greater than
zero, referred to as a quasi-extinction
threshold or QET, reflects the point at
which the population is considered to
be functionally extinct, that is, nonrecoverable due to loss of fitness of
individuals, inability of individuals to
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
carry out essential population functions,
or other problems. Compared with use
of an extinction threshold of zero, use
of a QET would produce a higher
probability of extinction over the same
time period or the same probability of
extinction over a shorter time period.
An extinction threshold of one
individual, which recognizes that there
is no longer a population to model, is
not typically referred to as a QET;
compared to a threshold of zero
individuals, it will not materially affect
a model’s results. Although a model’s
results using different extinction
thresholds are not directly comparable,
they do provide useful information
about the condition of the population
over time.
Fay et al. (2006) presented a range of
estimated extinction risks for a variety
of time horizons (0 to 100 years, with
20-year intervals). This analysis used
adult return data from two time series
(1980–2004 and 1991–2004) to estimate
population growth and extinction
probabilities for the GOM DPS. The two
time series were separated because of
the regime shift in marine survival
observed for Atlantic salmon throughout
the North Atlantic that began in 1991
(ICES, 2005). This regime shift
represents a change in productivity and
marine survival of Atlantic salmon in
the Northwest Atlantic that has
persisted to date. In short, projections
for the time period 1980 to 2004 are
more ‘‘optimistic’’ because those data
include roughly 10 years of higher
marine survival; projections for the time
period 1991 to 2004 are more
‘‘pessimistic’’ because they only include
observations during the recent period of
lower marine survival. Using this
method, Fay et al. (2006) provided a
wide range of extinction risks, but all
scenarios considered clearly trended
toward extinction. Comparing the two
time series clearly shows the
importance of marine survival;
extinction risks are more severe for the
1991 to 2004 time series (Figure 3)
compared to the 1980 to 2004 time
series (Figure 2).
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN09.004
29355
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
ER19JN09.003
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
29356
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
The results of the Fay et al. (2006)
PVA are based solely on the dynamics
of the population during the timeframes
examined (1980 to 2004) and are
dependent on the following
assumptions: (1) Hatchery
supplementation continues into the
future for up to 100 years at current
levels with similar survival rates, and
(2) similar threats to the species remain
operative into the future (i.e.,
environmental conditions remain
unchanged). The Fay et al. (2006) PVA
does not include the risk of disruptions
to hatchery operations (e.g., due to
disease outbreak) or the risk of genetic
effects (such as inbreeding and
domestication selection described
above) of hatchery supplementation.
The SalmonPVA (Legault, 2004) was
developed for the GOM DPS of Atlantic
salmon as listed in 2000 and does not
include the Penobscot population.
Given that smaller initial population
sizes exacerbate the extinction process
(Holmes, 2001), the probability of
extinction for any given time period for
the GOM DPS as defined in this final
rule, which includes the Penobscot
population, might be lower than the
estimates produced by the model for the
GOM DPS as listed in 2000. However,
the Penobscot population is also in
decline and subject to many of the same,
as well as additional, environmental
stressors. Thus, the model results are
still generally instructive for this
analysis. The SalmonPVA model was
developed to aid in the formation of
delisting criteria for the GOM DPS as
listed in 2000 and to assess the efficacy
of different management strategies
towards this delisting goal.
The SalmonPVA (Legault, 2004, 2005)
incorporates all salmon life stages,
different survival rates for each stage,
four different marine survival scenarios,
freshwater habitat capacity, harvest,
straying rates, and hatchery stocking as
inputs into the model. Extinction in the
SalmonPVA was defined as no fish alive
at any life stage; this model, unlike the
Fay et al. (2006) PVA, does not use
QETs (i.e., it does not identify an earlier
point in decline at which the population
would become functionally extinct).
The SalmonPVA (Legault, 2004, 2005)
demonstrates that current levels of
hatchery supplementation may reduce
extinction risk to the GOM DPS as listed
in 2000 depending on the rate of marine
survival. In simulations where current
low marine survival estimates increased
to the mean of the last 30 years, the
SalmonPVA estimated that the
extinction risk in the next 100 years (for
the GOM DPS as listed in 2000) was
approximately 1 percent in simulations
where hatchery supplementation
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
continued for 50 years, 72 percent if
continued hatchery supplementation
was reduced from 50 years to 30 years,
and near 100 percent if hatchery
supplementation ceased in 10 years.
Furthermore, in simulations using a
constant low marine survival scenario
representing the current environment,
there was a 100 percent chance of
extinction within 100 years regardless of
the number of years of stocking, and
extinction occurred within 20 years of
the last stocking event.
Like the results of the Fay et al. (2006)
PVA, the results of the SalmonPVA
(Legault 2004, 2005) are dependent on
assumptions about future conditions
remaining the same. These assumptions
include the level of hatchery
supplementation (i.e., number of fish
stocked), freshwater survival, freshwater
carrying capacity, and straying rates of
adult fish among rivers. Also like the
Fay et al. (2006) PVA, the SalmonPVA
(Legault 2004, 2005) does not include
the risk of disruptions to hatchery
operations (e.g., due to disease outbreak)
or the genetic risks (such as inbreeding
and domestication selection described
above) of hatchery supplementation. It
is expected that extinction would
proceed much faster than indicated by
the model’s simulation results if and
when these effects become operative in
the GOM DPS. The SalmonPVA does
include scenarios where hatchery
operations cease (without attributing
that to a cause which could be lack of
funding, disease outbreak or evidence of
significant genetic risks), and those
scenarios illustrate that declines rapidly
follow the elimination of the hatchery.
Both the Fay et al. (2006) and Legault
(2004, 2005) PVAs assumed that
hatchery supplementation would
continue at its present level even when
there were 100 or fewer returning adults
in the Penobscot. However, hatchery
supplementation (in particular, smolt
stocking) could not continue at the same
level in the future if returning adults fell
below 150 because that is the number of
adults necessary to make full use of the
current conservation hatchery capacity
for the smolt stocking program that
currently sustains the Penobscot
population (section 5.2.1 of Fay et al.,
2006). Smolt stocking increases the
number of returning adults, so if the full
number of smolts could not be produced
and stocked, there would be fewer
adults returning which would result in
an even smaller population. Adult
returns to the Penobscot constitute a
substantial proportion of the total
returns to the GOM DPS (Table 2).
Additional problems would arise if
there were 150 or fewer adult returns to
the Penobscot. If there were only 150
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
adult returns, it is likely all of their
production would be used for smolt
production (M. Bartron, USFWS, pers.
comm., 2009). Fry production for the
Penobscot would have to come from
domestic broodstocks. If the domestic
broodstocks (at GLNFH and other
sources) were not able to be sustained
because all the adult production was
being used for smolt production, then
there would be no fry production for the
Penobscot. If the total production from
150 fish were used to produce smolts,
and not to replenish domestic
broodstocks, then those backup
broodstocks for the Penobscot would no
longer exist (M. Bartron, USFWS, pers.
comm., 2009). Fry production in the
other rivers (those maintained at
CBNFH) would continue.
If there were 150 or fewer adults in
the Penobscot, or if smolt stocking and
fry stocking was curtailed, there would
be an increased risk of genetic problems
because the rate of loss of genetic
diversity (and the potential for
inbreeding) is inversely proportional to
the effective population size (number of
individuals reproducing). As the
number of individuals reproducing
decreases, the rate of loss of genetic
diversity increases, as does the potential
for inbreeding. The potential for loss of
genetic diversity further increases when
populations remain low for extended
periods of time. A faster population
decline and genetic impacts would
increase the probability of extinction
beyond the predictions of the two PVAs.
In addition to providing estimates of
extinction probability, the Fay et al.
(2006) and Legault (2004, 2005) PVAs
also provide useful projections
regarding the condition of the
population over time. For example, the
results of the Legault (2004, 2005) PVA
demonstrate that, while the estimated
extinction probability may be low under
certain scenarios of long-term hatchery
supplementation and improved marine
survival, the population can continue to
decline to extinction. For the model
scenario producing an extinction
probability estimate of 1 percent in 100
years if marine survival increased to the
30-year average and hatchery
supplementation continued for 50 years,
the replacement rate was still less than
1, indicating the simulated GOM DPS
was still in decline. Also under this
scenario, the model predicted that three
of the eight river populations would be
extirpated.
In summary, PVA results must be
interpreted carefully. The two PVAs
considered here do not include risks
associated with other sources of
environmental variation (e.g.,
aquaculture escapement and disease
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
outbreak in the wild) identified in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section. Because these PVAs do
not account for all potential sources of
future environmental variation, and
because of the uncertainty inherent in
predicting future conditions, especially
over longer timeframes, we do not
consider the numerical estimates of
extinction probabilities in the PVA of
Fay et al. (2006) and the SalmonPVA
(Legault 2004, 2005) to be the actual
extinction probabilities of the newly
defined GOM DPS.
We have no information to indicate
that marine survival will significantly
improve. We find that, based on the
available trend information, it is most
reasonable to assume that marine
survival will continue at approximately
its current low level. Therefore, we
conclude that the results of the Fay et
al. (2006) PVA and the Legault (2004,
2005) PVA that are based on marine
survival values above the current low
level are unrealistic.
Also, based on information on
diseases (see Factor C in the Factors
Affecting the Species section of this
final rule), or concerns such as
catastrophic loss to water supply or feed
contamination (P. Santavy, USFWS,
pers. comm., January 23, 2009), there is
a risk of disruptions to hatchery
operations. Based on the information on
long-term hatchery operations (NRC,
2004; Fay et al., 2006, at section 8.5.1;
SEI, 2007), there is a risk of genetic
problems from hatchery
supplementation. At present, these risks
are not quantifiable, and are therefore
not accounted for in either PVA.
However, we find that these risks are
substantial in the long term because of
the dependence on the conservation
hatchery program.
Because the models do not include
the risk of disruptions to hatchery
operations, the risk of genetic effects of
hatchery supplementation, and risks
associated with other sources of
environmental variation, we conclude
that all of the results of the Fay et al.
(2006) PVA and the Legault (2004, 2005)
PVA may considerably underestimate
the probability of extinction.
Nevertheless, the Fay et al. (2006) PVA
and the Legault (2004, 2005)
SalmonPVA do tell us much about
certain factors affecting the status of the
GOM DPS as defined in this rule,
especially the significance of hatchery
supplementation and marine survival,
and we use this information to provide
important context for evaluating threats
in the following sections of this rule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
Previous Federal Actions
In 1991, the FWS designated Atlantic
salmon in five rivers in Downeast Maine
(the Narraguagus, Pleasant, Machias,
East Machias, and Dennys Rivers) as
Category 2 candidate species under the
ESA (56 FR 58804; November 21, 1991).
Both Services received identical
petitions in October and November of
1993 to list the Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar) throughout its historic range in
the contiguous United States under the
ESA. On January 20, 1994, the Services
found that the petition presented
substantial scientific information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted (59 FR 3067).
The Services conducted a joint review
of the species in January 1995, and
found that the available biological
information indicated that the species
described in the petition, Atlantic
salmon throughout its range in the
United States, did not meet the
definition of ‘‘species’’ under the ESA.
Therefore, the Services concluded that
the petitioned action to list Atlantic
salmon throughout its historical United
States range was not warranted (60 FR
14410; March 17, 1995). In the same
notice, the Services determined that a
DPS consisting of populations in seven
rivers (the Dennys, East Machias,
Machias, Pleasant, Narraguagus,
Ducktrap, and Sheepscot Rivers) did
warrant listing under the ESA. On
September 29, 1995, after reviewing the
information in the status review, as well
as state and foreign efforts to protect the
species, the Services proposed to list the
seven rivers DPS as a threatened species
under the ESA (60 FR 50530; September
29, 1995). The proposed rule contained
a special rule under section 4(d) of the
ESA which would have allowed for a
State plan, approved by the Services, to
define the manner in which certain
activities could be conducted without
violating the ESA. In response to that
special provision in the proposed rule,
the Governor of Maine convened a task
force that developed a Conservation
Plan for Atlantic Salmon in the seven
rivers. That Conservation Plan was
submitted to the Services in March
1997.
The Services reviewed information
submitted from the public, current
information on population levels, and
assessed the adequacy of the Maine
Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan,
and, on December 18, 1997, withdrew
the proposed rule to list the seven rivers
DPS of Atlantic salmon as threatened
under the ESA (62 FR 66325). In that
withdrawal notice, the Services
redefined the species under analysis as
the GOM DPS to acknowledge the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29357
possibility that other populations of
Atlantic salmon could be added to the
DPS if they were found to be naturally
reproducing and to have wild stock
characteristics. NMFS maintained the
GOM DPS as a candidate species to
acknowledge ongoing concern over the
species’ status. In the 1997 withdrawal
notice, the Services outlined three
circumstances under which the process
for listing the GOM DPS of Atlantic
salmon under the ESA would be
reinitiated: (1) An emergency which
poses a significant risk to the well-being
of the GOM DPS is identified and not
immediately and adequately addressed;
(2) the biological status of the GOM DPS
is such that the DPS is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range; or (3) the biological
status of the GOM DPS is such that the
DPS is likely to become endangered in
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
The Services received the State of
Maine 1998 Annual Progress Report on
implementation of the Conservation
Plan in January 1999. On January 20,
1999, the Services invited comment
from the public on the first annual
report and other information on
protective measures and the status of
the species. The comment period
remained open until March 8, 1999 (64
FR 3067). The Services reviewed all
comments submitted by the public and
provided a summary of those, along
with their own comments, to the State
of Maine in March 1999. The State of
Maine responded to the Services’
comments on April 13, 1999.
In order to conduct a comprehensive
review of the protective measures in
place and the status of the species, as
was committed to in the 1997
withdrawal notice, the BRT was
reconvened to update the January 1995
Status Review for Atlantic salmon. The
1999 Status Review was made available
on October 19, 1999 (64 FR 56297). On
November 17, 1999, the Services
published a proposed rule to list as
endangered the GOM Atlantic salmon
DPS, which was defined to include all
naturally reproducing remnant
populations of Atlantic salmon from the
Kennebec River downstream of the
former Edwards Dam site northward to
the mouth of the St. Croix River at the
United States-Canada border. At that
time, the Services stated that, to date,
they had determined that these
populations were found in the Dennys,
East Machias, Machias, Pleasant,
Narraguagus, Sheepscot, and Ducktrap
Rivers and in Cove Brook, all in eastern
Maine. On November 17, 2000 (65 FR
69459), the Services published a final
rule listing the GOM Atlantic salmon
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
29358
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
DPS as endangered. In that final rule,
we noted that a determination as to the
appropriateness of adding the mainstem
and upper tributaries of the Penobscot
River to the DPS would be made upon
completion of genetic analyses.
The 2006 Status Review for
Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo
salar) in the United States (Fay et al.,
2006) assessed genetic and life history
information and concluded that the
GOM DPS as defined in 2000 should be
redefined to encompass the Penobscot,
Kennebec, and Androscoggin Rivers.
We received a petition to list the
‘‘Kennebec River population of
anadromous Atlantic salmon’’ as an
endangered species under the ESA on
May 11, 2005. NMFS published a notice
in the Federal Register on November 14,
2006 (71 FR 66298), concluding that the
petitioners (Timothy Watts, Douglas
Watts, the Friends of Merrymeeting Bay,
and the Maine Toxics Action Coalition)
presented substantial scientific
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
On September 3, 2008 (73 FR 51415),
we proposed to revise the extent of the
GOM DPS and list the DPS as
endangered; we also announced our 12month finding that listing was
warranted for the petition to list
Atlantic salmon in the Kennebec River
as endangered. On September 5, 2008
(73 FR 51747), NMFS proposed to
designate critical habitat for the revised
GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon.
The Services jointly administer the
ESA as it applies to anadromous
Atlantic salmon. In 2006, the USFWS
Region 5 and NMFS Northeast Region
entered into a Statement of Cooperation
to divide responsibility for ESA
implementation with respect to Atlantic
salmon in order to enhance efficiency
and effectiveness. Experience
implementing this agreement, changes
in structure of the recovery program,
and anticipated increases in workload
associated with this listing action
caused the Services to revisit the 2006
agreement. A new Statement of
Cooperation has been signed which
clarifies roles and responsibilities
between the Services. The Statement of
Cooperation assigns the following
responsibilities to NMFS: critical habitat
designation; section 7 consultations (for
both the species and critical habitat) on
activities within estuaries and marine
waters; ESA activities and actions to
address dams; assessment activities in
the estuary and marine environment;
and international science and
management. The Statement of
Cooperation assigns the following
responsibilities to USFWS:
Administrative lead for development of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
a new recovery plan; section 10
recovery permits; section 10 habitat
conservation plans (for all activities
except dams); section 7 consultations
(for both the species and critical habitat)
on activities in freshwater (except
dams); and the conservation hatchery
program.
Summary of Comments
With the publication of the proposed
listing determination for the GOM DPS
on September 3, 2008, we announced a
90-day public comment period
extending through December 2, 2008.
We held two public hearings at two
different locations to provide additional
opportunities and formats to receive
public input as announced on October
21, 2008 (73 FR 62459). A joint NMFS/
FWS policy requires us to solicit
independent expert review from at least
three qualified specialists, concurrent
with the public comment period (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994). In December 2004,
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) issued a Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
establishing minimum peer review
standards, a transparent process for
public disclosure, and opportunities for
public input. The OMB Peer Review
Bulletin, implemented under the
Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–
554), is intended to provide public
oversight on the quality of agency
information, analyses, and regulatory
activities, and applies to information
disseminated on or after June 16, 2005.
We solicited technical review of the
proposed listing determination from
four independent experts, and received
reviews from two of these experts. The
independent expert review under the
joint NMFS/FWS peer review policy
collectively satisfies the requirements of
the OMB Peer Review Bulletin and the
joint NMFS/FWS peer review policy.
Comments were submitted from
interested individuals; state, Federal
and tribal agencies; fishing groups;
environmental organizations; industry
groups; and peer reviewers with
scientific expertise. The summary of
comments and our responses below are
organized into seven general categories:
(1) Tribal comments (2) peer review
comments; (3) comments on the
delineation of the GOM DPS; (4)
comments on the conservation status of
the GOM DPS; (5) comments on the
Services’ identification and
consideration of specific threats; (6)
comments on the consideration of
conservation efforts in general as well as
in relation to the conservation status of
the GOM DPS; and (7) comments on the
Federal management of the GOM DPS.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
During the public comment period,
the Services met with a number of
groups to address specific concerns and
questions on the proposed listing
decision. The hydropower industry,
agriculture industry, and various state
agencies were among the groups with
which the Services met. These
discussions focused on clarification of
information in the proposed rule and
the potential implications of the listing
decision on Atlantic salmon
management and the ongoing operations
of industry. These meetings were not
held to solicit or receive comments on
the proposed rule, but rather to provide
clarification. Meeting participants were
instructed to submit comments on the
proposed rule through the regular
means, and those are identified and
addressed in the comments section of
this rule. The Services also met with
representatives from some of the Maine
Tribes, including the Penobscot Indian
Nation, The Houlton Band of Maliseets,
the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, and the
Passamaquoddy Tribe. The Services
appreciate the importance of our
Federal trust responsibilities and the
spirit of government-to-government
consultation embodied in Secretarial
Order 3206 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act) and Executive Order 13175
(Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments). The focus
of the government-to-government
consultation was on the implications of
the listing decision on Atlantic salmon
management and exploring options to
further enhance our cooperation on
Atlantic salmon recovery.
Tribal Comments
Comment 1: The Penobscot Indian
Nation commented that it maintains its
right to directly take Atlantic salmon for
sustenance purposes. Penobscot Indian
Nation members have not lethally taken
an Atlantic salmon since 1988 at which
time two Atlantic salmon were
harvested for ceremonial purposes. The
Penobscot Indian Nation has not
exercised its right to take any Atlantic
salmon for traditional purposes since
that time based upon concerns about the
health of the Penobscot Atlantic salmon
population. The Penobscot Indian
Nation stated that it will continue to
abstain from taking any Atlantic salmon
until the status of the Penobscot
population is healthy enough to be able
to sustain some level of harvest.
Response: The Services appreciate the
importance of Atlantic salmon to the
Penobscot Indian Nation in particular as
well as other Maine Tribes. The Services
recognize both the Penobscot Indian
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Nation’s tribal rights and the Services’
responsibility to implement the ESA.
Given that Penobscot Indian Nation has
not exercised its right to take Atlantic
salmon since 1988 on a voluntary basis,
the Services believe that there is no
conflict provided the Penobscot Indian
Nation continues to voluntarily abstain
from taking based upon continued
concerns about the conservation status
of the Penobscot population.
Comment 2: The Penobscot Indian
Nation commented that it would not
take any position on whether the
species should be listed as threatened or
endangered. The Penobscot Indian
Nation defers to the Services’ expertise
to make that determination.
Response: The Services have provided
justification for the listing decision in
this final rule.
Peer Review Comments
Comment 3: Both reviewers agreed
with the delineation of the GOM DPS of
Atlantic salmon. However, both
reviewers felt there were parts of the
text that could be further clarified,
specifically consideration of available
genetic data for the northern and
southern boundaries in relation to the
zoogeographic information used.
Response: The Services received
comments from both peer reviewers and
the general public regarding necessary
clarification of the data used to support
the southern boundary delineation in
particular. The Services have clarified
the text in the DPS delineation section
of this final rule.
Comment 4: One of the peer reviewers
stated that the discussion of the
population PVA was perhaps
overemphasized and could be
simplified while still communicating
extinction risk. The reviewer notes that
there are simpler deterministic
equilibrium models that could have
been used to more simply state
extinction risk.
Response: The Services have clarified
the text of the rule addressing PVAs and
the projections. The Services
acknowledge that there are a number of
different types of models that could
have been used to project extinction risk
or demonstrate the conservation status
of the species. The Services chose the
PVA models because they are useful in
assessing extinction risks. Further, the
Atlantic salmon conservation and
management community in Maine are
more familiar with them than with other
models, given the public’s previous
exposure to them during the recovery
planning process and the development
of the 2006 Status Review. We agree
with the peer reviewer that the PVA is
just one piece of information considered
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
in the listing determination; in the text
of this final rule, we have clarified our
findings with respect to the PVAs and
how they factor into the biological
status of the species.
Comment 5: Both reviewers noted that
the proposed rule lacked necessary
description for how threats were
categorized as either primary or
secondary threats. Neither felt that this
was an incorrect way to communicate
the magnitude of the threat; rather, the
basis for this determination should be
better explained and supported in the
text.
Response: The Services agree that the
description of threats as primary or
secondary could have been better
explained in the proposed rule. Upon
review, the Services decided to take a
different approach to describing the
magnitude of the threat and its
influence on the conservation status of
the GOM DPS under the ESA. Rather
than comparing the magnitude of the
threats to each other, we have identified
the relative impact of each of the threats
on the species and its habitat. The text
has been modified accordingly.
Comment 6: One of the reviewers had
concerns about the discussion of
artificial propagation under Factor E
(Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting its Continued Existence).
While the reviewer agrees with the
Services’ conclusion that the
conservation hatchery program is
reducing the risk of extinction of the
GOM DPS, he highlighted areas where
the text should be clarified. Specifically,
the short- and long-term goals of the
conservation hatchery program should
be better described in relation to how
the program is currently being
conducted.
Response: Upon closer review and in
response to the peer review, the
Services have changed the way in which
artificial propagation and specifically
the conservation hatchery program are
described and considered. While there
are both positive and negative effects
resulting from any artificial propagation
program, the Services have determined
that it would be more appropriate to
move the discussion of the role of the
conservation hatchery program and its
influence on the current status of the
species and recovery to the section of
the rule describing the status of the
species rather than describing it in the
section pertaining to the threats. The
Services have also revised the
description of the program and its role
in recovery of the GOM DPS in response
to comments received from both peer
reviewers and the general public.
Comment 7: One reviewer
recommended minor clarifications to
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29359
the text in Factor E addressing
diadromous fish communities, marine
survival, and competition.
Response: The Services have clarified
the text in these sections to be
responsive to comments from both peer
reviewers and the general public.
Comment 8: Both reviewers
commented that the section applying
the Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts when making
Listing Decisions (PECE) to conservation
actions was unclear and seemed
incomplete. They questioned the
analysis of only one conservation
initiative, the Penobscot River
Restoration Project (PRRP).
Response: The Services agree that
analysis of conservation efforts under
PECE is more transparent if a complete
analysis of a variety of efforts is
included in the rule. We have revised
the section addressing analysis of
conservation actions.
Comment 9: Both reviewers
commented that the determination to
list the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon as
endangered was sound and only
suggested minor clarifications to the
text.
Response: The Services have made
minor changes and clarified the text in
this section.
Public Comments
Comment 10: Many commenters
believe that certain river systems,
particularly the Androscoggin and the
Union, should not be included within
the GOM DPS boundaries. They argue
that we erred in using different criteria
(zoogeographic and genetic) to delineate
the southern and northern boundaries of
the DPS and that we should delay the
decision to include the Androscoggin in
the DPS until the naturally reared
population in Androscoggin can be
genetically characterized. Commenters
also suggest that river systems where the
species has been extirpated, such as the
Union, should not be included within
the DPS range.
Response: The 1996 Interagency
Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Populations Under
the Endangered Species Act (61 FR
4722) (DPS Policy) states that a
population segment may be considered
discrete in relation to the remainder of
the species to which it belongs if ‘‘it is
markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological or behavioral factors.
Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation.’’
The DPS Policy does not restrict the
Services to using only one measure to
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
29360
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
define discreteness of a population
segment. In fact, the introduction to the
second element (significance) that must
be met in evaluating whether a
population qualifies as a DPS says that
a population segment may be
considered discrete based on ‘‘one or
more’’ of the discreteness conditions.
As more thoroughly described in the
‘‘Review of Species Delineation’’ section
of this final rule, genetic data were
available for us to delineate the northern
boundary of the GOM DPS. These data
show clear genetic differentiation
between populations inhabiting rivers
in Maine and rivers in New Brunswick,
with the Dennys River population
clustering more closely with the Maine
population and the St. Croix River
population clustering more closely with
populations in New Brunswick.
Therefore, we used the Dennys
watershed as the northern boundary of
the DPS. However, because of the
combination of low numbers of Atlantic
salmon in some rivers (e.g., only three
naturally reared adult returns to the
Androscoggin River (Table 3)) and the
complete extirpation of the native stock
in other rivers (e.g., Merrimack River),
complete genetic data are not, and may
never be, available for us to genetically
characterize these populations.
In the absence of clear genetic
information to define the southern
boundary of the GOM DPS, we used
ecological factors in addition to the
genetic factors described above. In
particular, we used the zoogeographic
boundary (the Penobscot-KennebecAndroscoggin EDU and the Laurentian
Mixed Forest Province) that ecologically
separates the Androscoggin watershed
from watersheds to the south (e.g., Saco,
Merrimack, and Connecticut
watersheds). EDUs, defined by Olivero
(2003), are aggregations of watersheds
with similar zoogeographic history,
physiographic conditions, climatic
characteristics, and basin geography.
EDUs generally have similar
physiographic and climatic conditions
(Higgins et al., 2005). These differences
would influence the structure and
function of aquatic ecosystems (Vannote
et al.,1980; Cushing et al., 1983;
Minshall et al., 1983; Cummins et al.,
1984; Minshall et al., 1985; Waters,
1995) and create a different
environment for the development of
local adaptations than rivers to the
south. Therefore, we believe this
zoogeographic boundary sufficiently
satisfies the criteria to define
discreteness for the southern edge of the
GOM DPS.
In listing the GOM DPS, our goal is
ultimately to recover the species so it no
longer requires the protection of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
ESA. Therefore, we have delineated
boundaries for the GOM DPS that
include all the areas of current and
historical occupation of Atlantic salmon
where those salmon would be identified
as belonging to the GOM DPS. During
recovery planning, we will further
evaluate the recovery needs of the GOM
DPS. It is likely that different levels of
attention will be paid to the recovery of
the DPS in different watersheds, based
in part on the threats within a particular
watershed and the habitat potential
within a watershed. Delineating the
entire GOM DPS conserves this
ecosystem for Atlantic salmon survival
and recovery, in addition to supporting
straying, providing refugia, and
buffering against catastrophic events.
Comment 11: Some commenters
suggest that the boundaries of the DPS
delineation should not extend into
watersheds that were historically
unoccupied by Atlantic salmon because
they are upstream of historical, natural
barriers (e.g., waterfalls).
Response: Based on the comments
received, analyses by NMFS (2008), and
information contained in the 2006
Status Review, we delimited the
freshwater range of the GOM DPS to
include only those areas downstream of
substantial barrier falls. For this final
rule, we have modified the geographic
boundaries of the freshwater range of
the GOM DPS in the Androscoggin,
Kennebec, and Penobscot Basins in the
following ways: All freshwater bodies in
the Androscoggin Basin are included up
to Rumford Falls on the Androscoggin
River and up to Snow Falls on the Little
Androscoggin River; all freshwater
bodies in the Kennebec Basin are
included up to Grand Falls on the Dead
River and the un-named falls (currently
impounded by Indian Pond Dam)
immediately above the Kennebec River
Gorge; and all freshwater bodies in the
Penobscot Basin are included up to Big
Niagara Falls on Nesowadnehunk
Stream, Grand Pitch on Webster Brook,
and Grand Falls on the Passadumkeag
River. See the ‘‘Delineating Geographic
Boundaries’’ section of this final rule.
Comment 12: Many commenters
stated that the Services did not
accurately determine the conservation
status of the GOM DPS. These
commenters disagreed with the
Services’ proposal that the GOM DPS
should be listed as endangered under
the ESA. Instead, they argued that a
threatened listing determination was
more appropriate. The definition of
endangered is ‘‘in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ Several commenters argued
the results of the PVA conducted by
Legault (2004, 2005) demonstrated that
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the GOM DPS had a less than one
percent chance of extinction provided
that hatchery supplementation
continued into the future. Thus, some
commenters felt that the definition of
threatened, ‘‘likely to become
endangered * * *’’ was more
appropriate given the role of hatcheries
in preventing extinction. Commenters
also cited the success of the
conservation hatchery program as
evidenced by the status of rivers within
the 2000 GOM DPS that were supported
by hatchery supplementation versus
those that were not. The replacement
rate reported by the USASAC was also
cited as evidence of the positive
contribution of the hatchery program to
returns within the GOM DPS.
Response: We agree that the
conservation hatcheries (CBNFH and
GLNFH) provide a buffer against shortterm extinction risks. Without these
facilities in place, the status of the GOM
DPS would be even more dire. However,
as described in the ‘‘Population Status
of the GOM DPS’’ section of this final
rule, only three of the four population
attributes of interest (abundance, spatial
structure, and genetic diversity) are
enhanced by the conservation
hatcheries. In particular, the lack of any
evidence that hatchery fish have the
potential to result in wild returns over
successive generations remains a
significant concern. While the increase
in replacement rate reported in 2007 by
the USASAC is a positive sign, the
overall trend remains negative when
taken together. Further, 1 year of
positive population growth is
insufficient to justify threatened status.
The extended timeframes for
extinction (provided that hatchery
supplementation continues) projected
by Legault (2005) are further evidence of
the buffering effect of hatcheries.
However, these projections do not
include any consideration of the
negative effects of reliance on hatcheries
over successive generations. Recent
evidence suggests that the negative
effects of domestication, inbreeding
depression, and outbreeding depression
can accrue over just a few generations
(Araki et al., 2007). While we do not
believe these negative effects are
substantially reducing the long-term
viability of the GOM DPS at this time,
each successive generation will likely
have higher risks of reduced fitness
because of these effects. These additive
risks over time are not modeled or
otherwise accounted for in the
extinction risks scenarios described by
Legault (2005). The PVA results of
Legault demonstrate that extinction
occurs quickly when the conservation
hatchery is eliminated. This provides
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
further evidence that the wild
population is currently in danger of
extinction.
Finally, the SalmonPVA (Legault
2005) showed that at the constant low
marine survival scenario representing
the current environment, there was a
100 percent chance of extinction within
100 years regardless of the number of
years of stocking, and extinction
occurred within 20 years of the last
stocking event. Legault (2005)
demonstrated that an increase in marine
survival substantially decreased the
extinction probabilities. The scenario in
which Legault found there to be a 1
percent chance of extinction assumed
an increase in marine survival to the
high of the previous 30 years.
Unfortunately, we have no information
to indicate that marine survival will
significantly improve; therefore, there is
no scientifically sound basis for
assuming there is only a one percent
chance of the GOM DPS going extinct.
Comment 13: One commenter felt that
both hatchery-origin and naturally
reared Atlantic salmon should be
equally weighted in terms of their
population contribution to the GOM
DPS. This commenter felt that the
inclusion of both hatchery-origin and
naturally reared Atlantic salmon in the
GOM DPS was inconsistent with the
way in which the Services weighted the
relative contribution of each group to
recovery. The Services’ determination of
the conservation status of the GOM DPS
placed a higher weight on naturally
reared fish in terms of their contribution
to recovery versus hatchery origin fish
(fish stocked as parr, smolts, or adults).
Response: The stated purpose of the
ESA is ‘‘to provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered
species and threatened species depend
may be conserved’’ (16 U.S.C.
§ 1531(b)). Using captive propagation as
a recovery tool is clearly warranted
when necessary, as in the case of the
GOM DPS. However, the intent of the
ESA is quite clear: the ultimate goal of
species recovery efforts should be
recovery in the wild, free from human
intervention. While CBNFH and GLNFH
clearly reduce the immediate risk of
extinction of the GOM DPS, they have
not been shown to substantially
contribute to recovery in the wild. The
influence of hatcheries on productivity
is not known with certainty, but overall
productivity (even with hatchery
supplementation) is quite low. Hatchery
fish are included in the GOM DPS
because they are essential to recovery,
and the sole purpose of the conservation
hatchery is recovery. But, recovery
means recovery in the wild, so the goal
of the hatchery is to, over time, increase
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
the percentage of returns that are of wild
origin to the point that the GOM DPS
becomes self-sustaining and is no longer
dependent on the hatchery. Over time,
more adult returns should successfully
spawn in the wild, resulting in
replacement rates above 1.0. However,
the idea that adult returns from hatchery
contributions result in more spawners
and, ultimately, more truly wild-origin
adult returns, remains an untested
hypothesis. The National Research
Council (NRC, 2004) and the
Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI,
2007) identified this as a key limitation
in available data on the recovery efforts
of salmon in Maine. Without this
information, it is impossible to estimate,
with any certainty, the effect of
hatcheries on this key population
attribute (productivity). The
conservation hatchery has assisted in
slowing the decline and helped stabilize
populations at low levels, but has not
contributed to an increase in the overall
abundance of wild salmon.
Comment 14: Several commenters felt
that the Services’ listing determination
placed too much emphasis on the
potential for a catastrophic failure at the
conservation hatchery facilities.
Commenters acknowledged that this
may have been an issue when the
Services initially listed the GOM DPS in
2000, given that all broodstock were
held at CBNFH. However, the expansion
of the GOM DPS to include the
Penobscot and other rivers means that
there are now several facilities that
house broodstock (e.g., GLNFH, the
USDA facility, and the Cooke Facility
on the Kennebec). Thus, loss of all
broodstock due to a catastrophic failure
is highly unlikely.
Response: The Services agree that the
loss of all potential broodstock would be
extremely unlikely. However, it would
not take the loss of all broodstock to
significantly jeopardize the long-term
viability of the GOM DPS. Catastrophic
broodstock loss or a catastrophic loss of
fry, parr, or smolt cohorts would result
in a decrease in effective population
size, loss of genetic diversity, and a
multi-year lag while life stages rebuild,
during which time there would be
limited or no hatchery production or
stocking.
Domestic broodstock for the
Penobscot is currently maintained at
facilities in addition to GLNFH. These
domestic broodstocks should be viewed
as backups. These sources are meant to
be replenished annually (i.e., new
domestic broodstock lines are created
each year) for GLNFH to reduce longterm selection to the hatchery
environment. If there was a situation
where the numbers of adult returns
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29361
were reduced to 150 or less, then all
production would go toward smolt
production and not to fry stocking or to
replenish domestic broodstocks. These
backup broodstocks would no longer
exist (M. Bartron, USFWS, pers. comm.,
2009). If these domestic broodstocks
were used to propagate future domestic
broodstocks, there would be greater
concerns about the decreased fitness of
their offspring in the wild from
successive generations of selection to
captivity.
The Services have concluded that the
conservation hatcheries significantly
contribute to the maintenance of the
genetic diversity of the GOM DPS.
However, there are both long-term and
short-term risks of reliance on
hatcheries that have been considered
above in the ‘‘Population Status of the
GOM DPS’’ section of this final rule. In
addition, recent events provide
additional evidence of the potential for
catastrophic events to further exacerbate
extinction risks. In January 2009,
significant mortality occurred to eggs of
Penobscot origin at CBNFH. Low egg
survival rates in the Penobscot
population required the use of the
domestic line for smolt production
(50,000) for the first time ever. The
relative fitness rate of the sea-run line
has not been compared to the domestic
line, so the demographic effects are
unpredictable. The cause for the low egg
survival rate is unknown, but is being
investigated at the time of writing of this
rule.
Comment 15: Several commenters felt
that by increasing the geographic scope
of the GOM DPS to include additional
populations, one being the Penobscot,
which has the highest returns to the
DPS, the extinction risk is substantially
reduced. Therefore, these commenters
felt that a threatened listing
determination is warranted.
Response: All things being equal,
larger populations do have lower
extinction risks. However, the inclusion
of the Penobscot population in the GOM
DPS does not alter the trends in
abundance, which are pointing toward
extinction. The addition of the
Penobscot population does provide
some measure of security from
immediate extinction risks, but does not
reverse the long-term trend which is
toward extinction.
Comment 16: At least one commenter
argued that a threatened listing
determination could be justified based
upon the returns to both the Penobscot
and Downeast Salmon Habitat Recovery
Units (SHRU). These two SHRUs,
according to the commenter, satisfy the
minimum recovery criteria by having at
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
29362
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
least 500 (naturally reared and hatchery
origin) salmon within each SHRU.
Response: In developing its draft
recovery criteria for use in the critical
habitat designation process, NMFS
specifically noted that in order to be
eligible for recovery, SHRUs would not
only need to meet a minimum
population size of 500 individuals, but
also show a positive population growth
rate for at least two generations (10
years). Further, only wild-origin salmon
are included in these measures because
the goal of recovery is to achieve a selfsustaining population; a population that
relies on hatchery stocking is not selfsustaining and therefore does not
contribute to achievement of the
recovery criteria. These criteria have
clearly not been met in either case given
the long-term downward trends in
abundance and preponderance of
hatchery-origin salmon composing the
GOM DPS as described throughout this
final rule. NMFS’ draft recovery
guidelines (2008) also state that in order
to delist the GOM DPS, the threats
identified at the time of listing must be
addressed.
Comment 17: Many commenters
argued that the PVA results of Legault
(2004, 2005) and Fay et al. (2006),
coupled with low returns and poor
marine survival, demonstrate that the
Services are correct in their proposal to
list the GOM DPS as endangered under
the ESA. These commenters felt that the
intent behind the ESA is to recover wild
populations and that hatchery origin
fish are only a temporary option until
the wild population recovers.
Response: We concur. We also
recognize the long-term risks of reliance
on hatcheries that are not accounted for
in either PVA. Therefore, we are issuing
this final rule to list the GOM DPS of
Atlantic salmon as endangered.
Comment 18: A small number of
commenters argued against listing the
expanded GOM DPS at all. They argued
that the rivers included in the
expansion are heavily stocked and do
not represent self-sustaining
populations. They also stated that
existing regulatory mechanisms are
sufficiently protective, and thus, listing
under the ESA is not necessary.
Response: Many endangered species
are currently not self-sustaining. In fact,
this is a key factor in determining
whether a species should be listed; selfsustaining populations are generally less
likely to need the protection of the ESA,
depending on the threats facing the
species. The Services do recognize the
long history of stocking to support
Atlantic salmon recovery in Maine. We
describe both the positive and negative
effects of hatchery supplementation in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
the ‘‘Population Status of the GOM
DPS’’ section of this final rule. The
weight of the available genetic, life
history, and ecological data clearly
indicates that the GOM DPS (including
conservation hatchery populations used
to supplement natural populations)
satisfies both the discreteness and
significance criteria of the DPS Policy,
and therefore, is a DPS. The fact that the
GOM DPS is not self-sustaining with the
existing regulatory mechanisms and is
trending toward extinction indicates it
warrants the protection of the ESA.
Comment 19: Several commenters felt
that the threat posed by dams was
overstated. Specifically, they disagree
with the Services’ assertion that current
fish passage technology results in a high
level of mortality and that dams
contribute to significant changes in fish
assemblages and predation. One
commenter stated that in focusing on
the threat posed by dams, the Services
failed to recognize hydropower as a
clean source of energy production.
Response: The Services disagree that
the threat posed by dams is overstated.
The National Research Council stated in
2004 that the greatest impediment to
self-sustaining Atlantic salmon
populations in Maine is obstructed fish
passage and degraded habitat caused by
dams. There are many studies that
support this conclusion that are
reviewed and cited in Section 8 of Fay
et al. (2006). Dams result in direct loss
of production habitat, alteration of
hydrology and geomorphology,
interruption of natural sediment and
debris transport, and changes in
temperature regimes (Wheaton et al.,
2004). Riverine areas above
impoundments are typically replaced by
lacustrine habitat following
construction. Dramatic changes to both
upstream and downstream habitat
directly result in changes in the
composition of aquatic communities,
predator/prey assemblages, and species
composition (NRC, 2004; Fay et al.,
2006; Holbrook, 2007). Upstream
changes in habitat are known to create
conditions that are ideal for known
predators of Atlantic salmon such as
chain pickerel, smallmouth bass, and
avian predators like double crested
comorants (Fay et al., 2006).
Furthermore, dams not only change
predator-prey assemblages, but dam
passage also negatively affects predator
detection and avoidance in salmonids
(Raymond, 1979; Mesa, 1994). Adults
may also be susceptible to predation
when they are attempting to locate and
pass an upstream passage facility at a
dam when stressed by higher summer
temperatures (Power and McCleave,
1980).
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Even highly effective passage facilities
cause Atlantic salmon mortality.
Passage inefficiency and delays occur at
biologically significant levels, resulting
in incremental losses of pre-spawn
adults, smolts, and kelts (a life stage
after Atlantic salmon spawn). Dams are
known to typically injure or kill
between 10 and 30 percent of all fish
entrained at turbines (EPRI, 1992). With
rivers containing multiple hydropower
dams, these cumulative losses could
compromise entire year classes of
Atlantic salmon. Studies in the
Columbia River system have shown that
fish generally take longer to pass a dam
on a second attempt after fallback
compared to the first (Bjornn et al.,
1999). Thus, cumulative losses at
passage facilities can be significant and
are an important consideration.
The Services do recognize that
hydropower does not contribute to air
pollution as do many other energy
sources. However, dams remain a direct
and significant threat to Atlantic
salmon.
Comment 20: Several commenters
stated that existing recreational fishing
regulations in the State of Maine are
sufficiently protective of Atlantic
salmon. Specifically, minimum and
maximum length limits are cited for
landlocked salmon and brown trout, as
well as gear restrictions, area closures,
and outreach programs to educate
anglers on identification and mandatory
regulations. Several of these
commenters highlighted the importance
of the support of the angling community
to the conservation and recovery effort.
They encouraged the Services to
coordinate with the angling community
prior to enacting regulations to ensure
that unnecessary regulations are not
enacted and that angling opportunities
are made available when biologically
appropriate and that any changes are
consistent with the 1996 Policy for
Conserving Species Listed or Proposed
for Listing Under the ESA While
Providing and Enhancing Recreational
Fishing Opportunities. Several
commenters directly stated that the
health of the Penobscot population
could indeed support a directed catch
and release fishery.
Response: There are a number of
minimum and maximum length limits
that help reduce the threat of take of
juvenile and adult anadromous Atlantic
salmon. Similarly, closures have been
enforced in certain areas where
anadromous Atlantic salmon may be
particularly susceptible to take.
However, the Services believe that many
of these regulations are still not
sufficiently protective of outmigrating
smolts and of adults. Minimum and
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
maximum length limits should be
adjusted to be more protective,
specifically, the maximum length limit
of 25 inches (63.5 cm) for landlocked
salmon should be decreased to 16
inches (40.6 cm) in certain areas.
Closures should be prompted by the
presence of adult Atlantic salmon in
certain areas such as thermal refugia,
overwintering areas, and holding pools.
Some closures mandated by the State
have been the result of emergency
action following the lethal take of
Atlantic salmon. A proactive approach
to closures and regulation
implementation will be more effective
in terms of salmon recovery.
The Services recognize that the
angling community has lent significant
support to the conservation and
recovery of Atlantic salmon in the GOM
DPS. We believe that we have been very
inclusive and transparent with respect
to the angling community and issues of
concern. We invited representatives of
angler organizations to participate as
members of the Atlantic Salmon
Recovery Team and have been engaged
and participated in critical discussions
in other forums such as the Maine
Atlantic Salmon Technical Advisory
Committee and NASCO. We will
continue to coordinate and collaborate
with the angling community as we move
forward with recovery and management
of the GOM DPS. We believe that we
have been consistent with the 1996
Policy for Conserving Species Listed or
Proposed for Listing Under the ESA
while Providing and Enhancing
Recreational Fishing Opportunities in
our communication and coordination
with the angling community, and we
will continue to be consistent in the
future.
It is not biologically appropriate, at
this time, to allow a directed catch and
release fishery on the Penobscot River.
The Atlantic salmon population in the
Penobscot River is highly dependent on
hatchery stocking; broodstock goals
have not been met in most recent years;
and the population is less than 10
percent of its spawning escapement
target. Given these low numbers, it is
important to meet broodstock goals and
also to allow some returning adults to
spawn naturally in the river. Decreasing
the chances of reaching both of these
goals by allowing targeted fishing on
returning adults does not further the
conservation of the species. There also
are legal restrictions on targeted fishing
for a listed species.
Comment 21: Maine’s Department of
Inland Fish and Wildlife (MIFW) stocks
a variety of fish species to provide
angling opportunities to Maine citizens.
The bulk of the comments on MIFW
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
stocking programs were submitted as
comments on Factor B (Overutilization
for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific
and Educational Purposes). While
stocking programs do cause take of
Atlantic salmon due to angling, they
also can have a negative impact on
Atlantic salmon due to competition,
particularly from non-native species.
Factor E (Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence) addresses the issue of
competition. Thus, comments related to
stocking and potential competition
issues are addressed in the section of
the response to comments under Factor
E.
Comments that were directly related
to the impact of stocking programs on
Atlantic salmon as a result of the
expansion or increase in angling
opportunities cite coordination with the
MDMR as evidence that measures are
taken to minimize any harmful effects of
stocking practices on Atlantic salmon.
Commenters also stated that in some
areas where the habitat is not fully
seeded with Atlantic salmon, informal
agreements between MDMR and MIFW
have been reached to allow for a certain
level of fish stocking to enhance angling
opportunities without creating a
significant threat to salmon that may be
in the area. One commenter also cited
guidelines that are in the process of
being finalized that will be used to
manage rainbow trout stocking. Several
commenters disagree with the Services’
conclusion that these stocking programs
are harmful to Atlantic salmon.
Response: MIFW stocking practices
that create more angling opportunities
in areas occupied or used by Atlantic
salmon contribute to the potential for
take to occur as a result of
misidentification, bycatch, or poaching.
MIFW stocking programs are not
directed to Atlantic salmon recovery or
ecosystem restoration. They are
intended to create and enhance angling
opportunities, and, where these overlap
with salmon, there is increased risk to
salmon. MIFW currently stocks
landlocked Atlantic salmon, brown
trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, and
splake in Atlantic salmon drainages,
posing a threat to Atlantic salmon in the
GOM DPS (Fay et al., 2006). The
information presented by commenters
with respect to angling regulations and
stocking program management does not
change our conclusion that angling and
stocking programs associated with
increased angling opportunities pose an
ongoing threat to Atlantic salmon in the
GOM DPS. While coordination may
reduce or minimize exposure of Atlantic
salmon to increased angling pressure,
the fact remains that angling pressure is
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29363
higher than it would be in the absence
of these stocking programs.
Comment 22: One commenter was
concerned that the text on the threat of
disease did not reflect the State of
Maine’s effort to attain Class A fish
health ratings for the hatcheries
managed by MIFW.
Response: The text has been changed
to reflect the effort on behalf of the State
of Maine to achieve the Class A fish
health rating. With this effort, disease
issues still pose a threat to Atlantic
salmon as described in Factor C below.
Comment 23: One commenter felt that
the text in the predation threat analysis
did not acknowledge the restoration
efforts of the State of Maine, specifically
the Penobscot River Multi-species
Management Plan and the Penobscot
Interagency Technical Committee.
Response: The Services believe that
these two conservation actions are more
appropriately described and evaluated
in the analysis of conservation efforts
under the Policy for Evaluating
Conservation Efforts. We have revised
that analysis to incorporate information
on both of these efforts.
Comment 24: Many commenters
disagree with the Services’ conclusion
that the regulatory mechanisms to
address the threat posed by dams are
inadequate. These commenters stated
that a number of laws directly (e.g.,
Federal Power Act (FPA)) and indirectly
(e.g., ESA, National Environmental
Policy Act) allow Federal resource
agencies to influence passage issues and
hydropower agreements. They state that
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) process is very
transparent and allows for public
involvement. For non-FERC dams,
commenters cited the oversight of the
State of Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (MDEP) in
addressing fish passage, flow regimes,
and water quality.
Response: Notwithstanding the ESA,
the current state and Federal regulatory
mechanisms in place to address
operation of dams were not designed to
address survival or recovery of
endangered species. The Services
recognize that there are a number of
laws that create a process whereby
industry, Federal resource agencies, the
public, state agencies and other groups
are involved in relicensing, brokering
settlement agreements, or prescribing
fish passage. However, as described in
the section of this rule that addresses
Factor D, there are substantial
shortcomings associated with these
processes. First, most of these processes
require a ‘‘balancing’’ of energy and
environmental resources. Under the
ESA, deference is given to the species.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
29364
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
The FERC process is extremely lengthy,
and any contentious fishway
prescriptions could potentially take
years to agree on and implement.
Furthermore, neither upstream nor
downstream fish passage measures are
100 percent efficient. Their limitations
contribute to juvenile and adult injury
and mortality, as well as habitat
alterations that affect the health and
survival of all life stages of Atlantic
salmon. Sections 10(a) and 10(j) of the
FPA could be used by the Services to
address the impact of dams on habitat;
however, these regulatory mechanisms
are often discretionary and not
necessarily required by FERC (Fay et al.,
2006). Section 4(e) of the FPA may also
be used to recommend fisheries
enhancements; however, this section is
only applicable to certain Federal lands
which are a rare occurrence in Maine
(Fay et al., 2006).
It is also important to recognize that,
while settlement agreements can be a
very useful tool to address passage
issues, they are not necessarily
removing the issue of passage mortality
or in some cases, even ensuring passage
facilities. For example, the Kennebec
Hydro Developers Accord uses
biological triggers to establish sequential
upstream passage. If these biological
triggers are not met, upstream passage
could be suspended further into the
future.
The majority of dams within the GOM
DPS range do not require a FERC license
or water quality certificate from the
MDEP. These non-jurisdictional dams
are usually small, non-generating dams
that were historically used for flood
control, water storage, and other
purposes. Virtually none of these dams
have fish passage facilities, and almost
all of them are impacting historical
salmon habitat. While there is a process
whereby the public can petition the
State of Maine to set minimum flows
and water levels, the State has no
authority to prescribe fishery
enhancements without public request or
petition. To our knowledge, no fishways
have ever been installed at any dam in
the State of Maine using the fishway
petition process outlined pursuant to 12
Maine Revised Statutes Annotated
(MRSA) § 12760. Therefore, significant
issues are ongoing with respect to the
current mechanisms in place to address
the threat of both FERC and non-FERC
licensed dams.
While regulations exist, these
regulations have not proven effective in
preventing impacts or quickly
responding to remove impacts. In fact,
the most progress on fish passage issues
has been accomplished by working
outside of these regulatory mechanisms
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
in the negotiation of fish passage
agreements. Aspects of the current
regulations we find inadequate include
the time delays experienced, extensive
resource requirements, and inability to
prescribe a solution which eliminates
the impacts from dams.
Comment 25: Some commenters
stated that Maine’s existing water
quality standards and criteria and its
antidegradation policy under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) as administered by the
State of Maine (Maine Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (MPDES))
are sufficiently protective of all life
stages of Atlantic salmon. Furthermore,
commenters state that lack of requests
by the Services to condition permits to
avoid substantial impairment to Atlantic
salmon is evidence that the present
standards and criteria are protective of
Atlantic salmon.
Response: Maine’s water classification
program, of which the State’s
antidegradation policy is a part,
provides for different water quality
standards for different classes of waters
(e.g., there are four classes for
freshwater rivers, all of which are found
within the GOM DPS range). Some
portions of the GOM DPS are in the
highest water quality classification
where water quality standards are the
most stringent. These standards become
progressively less stringent with each
lower water classification. These
standards were not defined specifically
for Atlantic salmon. Additionally,
permits allow an area of initial dilution
or mixing zone where water quality
requirements are reduced. Salmon in or
passing through such zones would be
exposed to discharges below water
quality standards.
Even where water quality standards
are believed to be sufficiently protective
when met, there are circumstances and
conditions where discharges do not
meet water quality standards. There are
documented cases where minimum
dissolved oxygen standards were not
met in class C waters (MDEP, 2008).
Adequate dissolved oxygen
concentrations are necessary for fish
health (Decola, 1970). The observed
incidents of low dissolved oxygen were
potentially harmful to any salmon
present.
The fact that the Services have not
requested that permits be conditioned to
protect Atlantic salmon does not mean
that water quality standards are
sufficiently protective of Atlantic
salmon. Currently, the Services review
only permits that may affect salmon
where listed in 2000, and the number of
permits issued in this area has been
relatively small. Expansion of the DPS
as a result of this final rule will
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
encompass rivers for which there are
many more activities requiring Maine
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(MPDES) permits, and where water
classifications and associated water
quality standards are lower, which
causes us to be concerned about
potential impacts to salmon. See Factors
A and D, below, for our analysis of the
impact of water quality on the GOM
DPS.
Comment 26: Some commenters
stated that we inaccurately emphasized
the effects of Overboard Discharges
(OBD) on Atlantic salmon. They explain
that the number of OBDs, the volume of
discharge, and the treatment
requirements result in a negligible effect
on water quality within the range of the
GOM DPS.
Response: In the proposed rule, we
stated that we were concerned about the
potential negative impacts of OBDs on
water quality and identified OBDs as a
threat to the GOM DPS. While we
remain concerned about the potential
for OBDs to impact Atlantic salmon, we
have determined that we have
insufficient information to determine
whether OBDs are currently causing or
will cause harm to the GOM DPS.
Therefore, we have removed OBDs as an
identified stressor under Factors A and
D below.
Comment 27: Commenters
emphasized the importance of Maine’s
water rule (MDEP Chapter 587 Rule) in
protecting in-stream flows and habitat
for aquatic life.
Response: We agree that the Water
Rule represents substantial progress
toward limiting negative impacts on instream flows due to water withdrawals,
particularly for class AA waters.
However, there are aspects of the water
rule that are not sufficiently protective
of Atlantic salmon. Because the flow
standards for class A, B, and C waters
are based on the seasonal base flow (the
average flow over an entire season),
withdrawals would be allowed that
maintain flow above the seasonal base
flow but reduce flow below the median
monthly flow. During times when flows
are naturally low, allowing withdrawals
to reduce flows further, to levels below
the median monthly flow, would
negatively impact Atlantic salmon. See
Factors A and D, below, for our analysis
of the impacts of water withdrawals
under Maine’s water rule on the GOM
DPS.
Comment 28: Some commenters
noted Maine’s forestry-related
regulations and standards that are
protective of Atlantic salmon.
Response: We concur that activities
conducted in compliance with the
Shoreland Zoning Act, Maine Forest
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Practices Act, Natural Resource
Protection Act, Protection and
Improvement of Waters Act, Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Law, and the
Statewide Standards for Timber
Harvesting and Related Activities in
Shoreland Areas reduce threats to
Atlantic salmon from sedimentation and
other impacts related to forestry
activities. The State’s compliance
monitoring and enforcement of these
regulations and standards will assist in
evaluating and confirming that forestryrelated impacts to salmon are
minimized. We discuss forestry
activities and other potential non-point
sources of pollution under Factors A
and D below.
Comment 29: Several commenters
indicated that the threat of poor marine
survival was understated. They felt that
considering that poor marine survival
was characterized as one of the primary
threats to the GOM DPS, the Services
have failed to adequately address it in
either the proposed rule or the 2006
Status Review.
Response: The Services agree and
have incorporated additional
information on marine survival into the
final rule to properly reflect the
significance of the threat of poor marine
survival to the recovery of the GOM
DPS. Marine survival and climate
change are both addressed through
analysis of the five factors specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
Comment 30: One commenter
disagreed with the identification of
depleted diadromous fish communities
as a threat to the GOM DPS. The
commenter felt that the State of Maine
is making strides in implementing
management actions aimed at
restoration of diadromous fish
communities. These programs will need
time to achieve success; however, the
commenter argues that the threat need
not be considered given that there are
programs in place to address
diadromous fish restoration.
Response: The Services acknowledge
the efforts by the State of Maine at
diadromous species restoration in the
analysis of State protective efforts.
While the goal of these efforts is to
restore the full suite of diadromous
fishes, that goal is far from being
realized. Further, there is not a high
level of certainty that these actions will
be implemented and effective. It is very
encouraging that the role of restored
diadromous fish communities is
recognized; however, significant
coordination, effort, and commitment
are necessary to achieve the goal. Thus,
the threat of depleted diadromous fish
communities remains. The PECE
analysis section of this rule contains the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
Services’ evaluation of these programs
as well as other conservation efforts.
Comment 31: One commenter
disagreed that MIFW sport fish stocking
programs pose a threat to Atlantic
salmon. These comments were
submitted under Factor B, but in large
part were directed at the way the
Services characterized the threat of
competition due to stocking under
Factor E. The commenter stated that
coordination between MIFW and
MDMR is evidence that measures are
taken to minimize any harmful effects of
stocking practices on Atlantic salmon.
In some areas where the habitat is not
fully seeded with Atlantic salmon,
informal agreements allow for a certain
level of stocking without adversely
affecting Atlantic salmon. The
commenter also cited guidelines that are
in the process of being finalized that
will be used to manage rainbow trout
stocking.
Response: The Services disagree with
the commenter that the threat posed by
MIFW stocking programs is adequately
addressed by the current stocking
management program. Text has been
added to the section of the rule that
discusses competition to provide
additional detail to clarify the negative
impact current stocking programs have
in terms of contributing to the threat of
competition between other species and
Atlantic salmon. The Services do
recognize that a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) exists between
MDMR and MIFW that establishes a
process for the management and
stocking of freshwater salmonid fish
species in Atlantic salmon river systems
in Maine to ‘‘reduce the effects of
competing finfish species on Atlantic
salmon populations.’’ The MOU states
that on an annual basis, at the very least,
before April each year, biologists from
MDMR and the MIFW will meet as a
joint committee to: (1) Identify all
current stocking programs for all finfish
in identified Atlantic salmon river
systems; (2) according to the best
available scientific information on
species interactions, assess the possible
interactions between Atlantic salmon
and inland fisheries management
proposals; (3) identify and evaluate
areas of concern and assess ways to
minimize impacts; (4) implement agreed
upon management actions or changes
(no fish stocking or changes in
management programs on these rivers
shall take place other than in
accordance with this agreement); and
lastly, (5) develop recommendations for
the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries &
Wildlife and the other members of the
Board of the Atlantic Salmon
Commission for areas of concern that
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29365
cannot be resolved by the joint
committee. While this MOU does
provide a process for managing stocking
practices, it does not address all of the
threats posed by the State’s stocking
practices. Some of the issues this
process does not address include, but
are not limited to, the following: (1)
Cumulative effects of repeated stockings
and multi-species stocking on Atlantic
salmon; (2) competition for suitable
over-wintering areas; (3) threats from
introduction of parasites or disease from
stocking; (4) the threats posed by
Atlantic salmon/brown trout hybrids;
and (5) management of other fish
species (smallmouth bass, chain
pickerel, etc.). Because these and other
issues still have not been addressed
fully, state stocking programs continue
to pose a threat to the GOM DPS as is
described in this rule.
Comment 32: Several commenters felt
that the Services did not give enough
consideration to ongoing conservation
efforts in the GOM DPS. Commenters
used specific examples, including, but
not limited to, the Penobscot River
Restoration Project, the Kennebec Hydro
Agreement, and Project SHARE (Salmon
Habitat and River Enhancement). Many
commenters felt that the PECE was not
appropriately applied. Commenters
suggested that the Services may need to
use the PECE to reevaluate projects like
the Penobscot River Restoration Project
for which funding and certainty of
implementation may have changed
since publication of the proposed rule.
Response: The Services agree that
analysis of conservation efforts under
PECE is more transparent if a more
complete analysis of major efforts is
included in the rule. We have revised
the section addressing analysis of
conservation efforts.
Comment 33: Some commenters are
concerned that having two Federal
agencies (NMFS and USFWS) share
jurisdiction of Atlantic salmon is
inefficient, which is detrimental to the
overall conservation of Atlantic salmon.
As a result, some recommended that
NMFS be assigned the lead Federal
agency for management of Atlantic
salmon.
Response: Joint jurisdiction of
Atlantic salmon was first established in
1994, when the Services worked
together jointly to respond to a listing
petition for Atlantic salmon. While we
acknowledge that sharing jurisdiction
for an endangered species is
challenging, we believe that both
agencies can contribute positively to
recovery. Therefore, we will continue to
share jurisdiction for Atlantic salmon.
The goal of both agencies is the recovery
of Atlantic salmon; to that end we will
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29366
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
strive to work cooperatively and
effectively to conserve Atlantic salmon.
To clarify roles and responsibilities of
each agency and help resolve potential
differences, we have developed a
Statement of Cooperation (NMFS and
USFWS, 2009). The preamble to this
rule identifies how roles and
responsibilities have been divided
between the two agencies.
Comment 34: Some commenters were
concerned about the lack of resources to
fulfill the requirements of the ESA for
Federal agencies, the State, Tribes, or
the regulated community as will be
required by listing the Atlantic salmon
in a larger area.
Response: As required by section
4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA, listing decisions
are to be made solely on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data
available. We fully recognize that
resources are limited and intend,
through our collaborative partnership
with the State and Tribes, to make most
efficient use of our collective resources
to conserve and recover Atlantic
salmon. The challenge of addressing
high workload with limited resources is
one of the reasons the Services have
divided responsibility for ESA
implementation by activity as noted in
the response above. We will work
within the ESA’s flexible framework to
achieve the regulatory requirements of
the ESA.
Comment 35: Several commenters
suggested that listing determinations
should consider the likelihood of future
cooperation and collaboration toward
recovery.
Response: Under the ESA, the
Services must make each listing
determination solely on the best
available data on the status of the
species, the five factors specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, and the
efforts being made to protect the
species. The possibility of enhanced
cooperation in future recovery actions is
not one of the five statutory factors.
While we recognize the importance of
cooperation in achieving recovery, it is
not one of the factors identified by the
ESA for making listing determinations.
Therefore, we have not considered it in
this determination.
Summary of Factors Affecting the GOM
DPS
Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424 set forth procedures for adding
species to the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Species.
Under section 4(a) of the ESA, we must
determine if a species is threatened or
endangered because of any of the
following five factors: (A) The present or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
We have described the effects of
various factors leading to the decline of
Atlantic salmon in previous listing
determinations (60 FR 50530,
September 29, 1995; 64 FR 62627,
November 17, 1999; 65 FR 69459,
November 17, 2000) and supporting
documents (NMFS and USFWS, 1999;
NMFS and USFWS, 2005). The reader is
directed to section 8 of Fay et al. (2006)
for a more detailed discussion of the
factors affecting the GOM DPS. In
making this finding, information
regarding the status of the GOM DPS of
Atlantic salmon is considered in
relation to the five factors specified in
section 4(a)(1) of the ESA.
In making this evaluation, we have
carefully considered the relative
demographic effects of each threat to the
GOM DPS. In particular, there are large
distinctions between marine survival
and freshwater survival that are
important to characterize the current
status of the GOM DPS. From a
demographic viewpoint, incremental
increases in marine survival have a
much greater impact on the population
than do increases in freshwater survival;
although, increases in marine survival
may be more difficult to achieve. It is
important to note that marine survival is
calculated from the last time smolts are
counted in a river until adults return to
spawn. Thus, marine survival estimates
may include some portion of freshwater,
estuarine, and near-shore mortality in
addition to open ocean mortality.
The historical range of freshwater
survival for U.S. populations is
estimated to be approximately 0.13 to
6.09 percent (Legault, 2005). These
estimates are based on numerous
studies on different life stages of the
freshwater phase across a wide spatial
and temporal scale. Current marine
survival (smolt to adult) for U.S.
populations is estimated to range from
0.09 to 1.02 percent based on total smolt
cohort return rates for the Penobscot
(hatchery smolt returns, 1995 to 2004)
and Narraguagus Rivers (naturally
reared smolt returns, 1997 to 2004)
(ICES, 2008). For the reasons mentioned
above, marine survival estimates of
hatchery smolts in the Penobscot also
include dam-related mortality.
Improvements in these survival rates
are necessary to reach the point where
each fish is replacing itself and to
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
eventually result in population growth
toward recovery. Increases in freshwater
survival will enhance the probability of
recovery; however, improvements in
marine survival are necessary to achieve
stability and growth. While numerous
natural and anthropogenic factors
during the freshwater phase influence
Atlantic salmon populations (Baum et
al., 1983; McCormick et al., 1998;
Parrish et al., 1998), the effects of
marine survival are thought to have a
greater influence on population levels
(Friedland et al., 2003; Jonsson and
Jonsson, 2004; Chadwick, 1987) in part
because the annual variation in marine
survival is nearly four times greater than
that in freshwater (Bley, 1987; Reddin et
al., 1988). Thus, marine survival has a
significant impact on adult production.
As a result, marine survival must
improve in order to recover the GOM
DPS (Legault, 2005), and, thus, low
marine survival is one of the most
important threats contributing to the
poor status of the species. Other factors
affecting the freshwater stages of salmon
within the range of the GOM DPS can
be quite pervasive (e.g., poor
connectivity due to improperly sized
culverts). Below, these factors are
described as stressors that collectively
contribute to the poor status of the GOM
DPS; however, those factors that affect
later life stages (typically considered as
marine survival) have the greatest
demographic effect.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Changes to the GOM DPS’s natural
environment are ubiquitous. Both
contemporary and historic land and
water use practices such as damming of
rivers, forestry, agriculture,
urbanization, and water withdrawal
have substantially altered Atlantic
salmon habitat by: (1) Eliminating and
degrading spawning and rearing habitat,
(2) reducing habitat complexity and
connectivity, (3) degrading water
quality, and (4) altering water
temperatures. These impacts and their
effects on salmon are described in detail
by Fay et al. (2006). Here, we summarize
the stressors that are having the greatest
impact on the GOM DPS.
Dams
Dams are among the leading causes of
both historical declines and
contemporary low abundance of the
GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon (NRC,
2004). Dams directly limit access to
otherwise suitable habitat. Prior to the
construction of mainstem dams in the
early 1800s, the upstream migrations of
salmon extended well into headwaters
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
of large and small rivers alike, unless a
naturally impassable waterfall existed.
For example, Atlantic salmon were
found throughout the West Branch of
the Penobscot River (roughly 350 km
inland) and as far as Grand Falls
(roughly 235 km inland) on the Dead
River in the Kennebec Drainage (Foster
and Atkins, 1867; Atkins, 1870). Today,
however, upstream passage for salmon
on the West Branch of the Penobscot is
nonexistent and on the Kennebec is
limited to trapping and trucking salmon
above the first mainstem dam. Dams
also change hydraulic characteristics of
rivers. These changes, combined with
reduced, non-existent, or poor fish
passage, influence fish community
structure. Specifically, dams create
slow-moving impoundments in formerly
free-flowing reaches. Not only are these
altered habitats less suitable for
spawning and rearing of Atlantic
salmon, they may also favor nonnative
competitors such as smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu) over native
species such as brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis) and American shad (Alosa
sapidissima). Fish passage inefficiency
also leads to direct mortality of Atlantic
salmon, including both smolts and
adults; these later life stages are
particularly important from a
demographic perspective as described
above. Upstream passage effectiveness
for anadromous fish species never
reaches 100 percent, and substantial
mortality and migration delays occur
during downstream passage through
screen impingement and turbine
entrainment. The cumulative losses of
smolts incrementally diminish the
productive capacity of all freshwater
rearing habitat above hydroelectric
dams. The demographic consequences
of low marine survival (described
above) are similar to those of the
cumulative losses of adults at dams.
Comprehensive discussions of the
impacts of dams are presented in
sections 8.1, 8.3, and 8.5.4 of Fay et al.
(2006) and NRC (2004).
In short, dams directly and
substantially reduce survival rates of
salmon through the following ways:
1. Dams directly limit access to
otherwise suitable habitat. This has
reduced spatial distribution of the GOM
DPS over the last 200 years.
2. Dams also directly kill and injure
a significant number of salmon on both
upstream and downstream migrations.
Injury and mortality due to dams occurs
at the smolt and adult life stages. These
older life stages are particularly
important from a demographic
perspective (similar to marine survival)
since slight changes in survival rates at
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
older life stages can drive demographic
trends.
3. Dams also degrade the productive
capacity of habitats upstream by
inundating formerly free-flowing rivers,
reducing water quality, and changing
fish communities.
Dams are also one of three primary
factors that led to the declining
abundance trends that began in the
1800s. The other two factors (pollution
and overfishing), though still operative,
have been greatly reduced in severity
(Moring, 2005). Dams, however,
represent a significant threat during the
current period of decline (1800s to
present) and are generally more
pervasive (over 300 within the
freshwater range of the GOM DPS today)
over that same time period. These
effects have led to a situation where
salmon abundance and distribution
have been greatly reduced, and thus, the
species is more vulnerable to extinction
through processes such as demographic
and environmental stochasticity, natural
catastrophes, and genetic drift inherent
in all small populations (Shaffer, 1981).
As stated above, dams directly limit
access to otherwise suitable habitat,
directly kill and injure a significant
number of salmon during both upstream
and downstream migration, and degrade
the productive capacity of habitats
upstream by inundating formerly freeflowing rivers, reducing water quality,
and changing fish communities. Dams
affect multiple life stages in multiple
ways, particularly by preventing or
impeding access to spawning habitat for
returning adult salmon; impacts at this
late life stage have the greatest
demographic effect. Therefore, dams
represent a significant threat to the
survival and recovery of the GOM DPS.
Habitat Complexity
Some forest, agricultural, and other
land use practices have reduced habitat
complexity within the range of the GOM
DPS of Atlantic salmon. Large woody
debris (LWD) and large boulders are
currently lacking from many rivers
because of historical timber harvest
practices. When present, LWD and large
boulders create and maintain a diverse
variety of habitat types. Large trees were
harvested from riparian areas; this
reduced the supply of LWD to channels.
In addition, any LWD and large
boulders that were in river channels
were often removed in order to facilitate
log drives. Historical forestry and
agricultural practices were likely the
cause of currently altered channel
characteristics, such as width-to-depth
ratios (i.e., channels are wider and
shallower today than they were
historically). Channels with large width-
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29367
to-depth ratios tend to experience more
rapid water temperature fluctuations,
which are stressful for salmon,
particularly in the summer when
temperatures are warmer. Further
discussions of the impacts of reduced
habitat complexity are presented in
section 8.1.2 of Fay et al. (2006).
Reduced habitat complexity acts as a
stressor on the GOM DPS by reducing
spaces for hiding from predators and
increasing water temperature.
Habitat Connectivity
Over the last 200 years, habitat
connectivity within the freshwater range
of the GOM DPS has been reduced
because of dams and poorly designed
road crossings. Further discussions of
the impacts of reduced habitat
connectivity are presented in section
8.1.2 of Fay et al. (2006). As a highly
migratory species, Atlantic salmon
require a diverse array of wellconnected habitat types in order to
complete their life history. Impediments
to movement between habitat types can
limit access to potential habitat and,
therefore, directly reduce survival in
freshwater. In some instances, barriers
to migration may also impede recovery
of other diadromous fishes as well. For
example, alewives (Alosa
pseudoharengus) require free access to
lakes to complete their life history. To
the extent that salmon require other
native diadromous fishes to complete
their life history (see ‘‘Depleted
Diadromous Communities’’ in ‘‘Factor
E’’ of this final rule), limited
connectivity of freshwater habitat types
may limit the abundance of salmon
through diminished nutrient cycling,
and a reduction in the availability of coevolved diadromous fish species that
provide an alternative prey source and
serve as prey for GOM DPS Atlantic
salmon. Restoration efforts in the
Machias, East Machias, and Narraguagus
Rivers have improved passage at road
crossings by replacing poorly-sized and
poorly-positioned culverts. However,
many barriers of this type remain
throughout the range of the GOM DPS.
Reduced habitat connectivity is a
stressor to the GOM DPS because it
prevents salmon from fully using
substantial amounts of freshwater
habitat and changes fish community
structure by preventing access for other
native fish.
Water Quantity
Water withdrawals can directly
impact salmon spawning and rearing
habitat (Fay et al., 2006). Survival of
eggs, fry, and juveniles is also mediated
by stream flow. Low flows constrain
available habitat and limit populations.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29368
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Water quantity can be affected by the
withdrawal of water for irrigation or
other consumptive water uses as
described in section 8.1.1.2 of Fay et al.
(2006). The potential for water
withdrawals reducing in-stream flows to
levels that may impact Atlantic salmon
is a concern in rivers classified under
Maine’s ‘‘In-stream flow and water level
standards’’ as class A, B, or C. The flow
standards for class A, B, and C waters
are based on seasonal base flows (the
average flow over an entire season)
rather than median monthly flows.
Because these flow standards are based
on the seasonal base flow, withdrawals
would be allowed that, while not
reducing flow below the seasonal base
flow, reduce flow below the median
monthly flow. In some months, flows
are naturally low (e.g., late summer
months), which is stressful to fish
because habitat is more limited, water
temperature increases, and dissolved
oxygen decreases. During times when
flows are naturally low, allowing
withdrawals to reduce flows further, to
levels below the median monthly flow,
would negatively impact Atlantic
salmon. Therefore, water withdrawal
that reduces the instream flow below
the median monthly flow is a stressor
on the GOM DPS because it may reduce
habitat, increase water temperature, and
decrease dissolved oxygen during the
months of naturally low flow.
Water Quality
Atlantic salmon likely are impacted
by degraded water quality caused by
point and non-point source discharges.
The MDEP administers the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program under the CWA and
issues permits for point source
discharges from freshwater hatcheries,
municipal facilities, and other industrial
facilities. Maine’s water classification
system provides for different water
quality standards for different classes of
waters (e.g., there are four classes for
freshwater rivers, all of which are found
within the GOM DPS range); however,
these standards were not developed
specifically for Atlantic salmon. Some
portions of the GOM DPS are in areas
with the highest water quality
classification where water quality
standards are the most stringent. These
standards become progressively less
stringent with each lower water
classification. Additionally, permits
allow an area of initial dilution or
mixing zone where water quality
requirements are reduced. Salmon in or
passing through such zones would be
exposed to discharges below water
quality standards. The impacts to
salmon passing through these zones are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
unknown. We are concerned that water
quality standards for Class A, B, and C
waters and mixing zones may not be
sufficiently protective of all life stages of
Atlantic salmon, particularly the more
sensitive salmon life stages (e.g.,
smolts).
Even where water quality standards
are believed to be sufficiently
protective, there are circumstances and
conditions where discharges do not
meet water quality standards. For
example, there are documented cases in
class C waters where dissolved oxygen
standards (the lower bound of which is
5.0 ppm) were not met. This occurred in
portions of the mainstem Androscoggin
River, and in the East Branch of the
Sebasticook River and Sabattus River
(MDEP, 2008). When dissolved oxygen
concentrations are less than 5.0 ppm,
adult salmon breathing functions
become impaired, embryonic
development is delayed, and parr
growth and health are impacted;
conditions become lethal for salmon at
dissolved oxygen concentrations less
than 2.0 ppm (Decola, 1970). When
water quality reaches levels that are
harmful to salmon, it is a stressor to the
GOM DPS.
Non-point source discharges such as
elevated sedimentation from forestry,
agriculture, urbanization, and roads can
reduce survival at several life stages,
especially the egg stage. Sedimentation
can alter in-stream habitat and habitat
use patterns by filling interstitial spaces
in spawning gravels, and adversely
affect aquatic invertebrate populations
that are an important food source for
salmon. Acid rain reduces pH in surface
waters with low buffering capacity, and
reduced pH impairs osmoregulatory
abilities and seawater tolerance of
Atlantic salmon smolts. A variety of
pesticides, herbicides, trace elements
such as mercury, and other
contaminants are found at varying levels
throughout the range of the GOM DPS.
The effects of chronic exposure of
Atlantic salmon, particularly during
sensitive life stages such as fry
emergence and smoltification, to many
contaminants is not well understood.
Fay et al. (2006) provide a discussion of
water quality concerns in section 8.1.3.
For these reasons, non-point source
pollution, particularly sedimentation
and acid rain, is a stressor to the GOM
DPS.
In summary, we have determined that
degraded water quality is a stressor on
the GOM DPS because of the known
situations when water quality did not
meet standards and was at levels that
negatively impact salmon and because
of the impacts of non-point source
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
pollution, particularly sedimentation
and acid rain.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon has
supported important tribal, recreational,
and commercial fisheries. In the past,
these fisheries have been conducted
throughout nearly all of the GOM DPS’
habitats, including in-river, estuarine,
and off-shore (section 8.2 of Fay et al.
(2006)).
Atlantic salmon are an integral part of
the history of Native American tribes in
Maine, particularly the Penobscot
Indian Nation. The species represents
both an important resource for food, and
perhaps more importantly, a cultural
symbol of the deeply engrained
connection between the Penobscot
Indian Nation and the Penobscot River.
In accordance with the Maine Indian
Land Claims Settlement Act, the
Penobscot Indian Nation retains the
right of its members to harvest Atlantic
salmon for sustenance purposes, and to
self-regulate that harvest. The Penobscot
Indian Nation harvested two salmon
under these provisions in 1988, and has
voluntarily chosen not to harvest any
Atlantic salmon since then because of
the depleted status of the species
(Francis, Penobscot Indian Nation in
litt., 2009).
Recreational fisheries for Atlantic
salmon in Maine date back to the early
to mid-1800s. Since 1880, over 25,000
Atlantic salmon have been landed in
Maine rivers, roughly 14,000 in the
Penobscot River alone (Baum, 1997).
Historically, Atlantic salmon sport
anglers practiced very little catch and
release. Beginning in the 1980s as runs
decreased, the Maine Atlantic Sea Run
Salmon Commission imposed
increasingly restrictive regulations on
the recreational harvesting of Atlantic
salmon in Maine. The allowable annual
harvest per angler was reduced from 10
salmon in the 1980s to one grilse in
1994. Angling was closed on the
Pleasant River from 1986 to 1989. In
1990, a one-year catch and release
fishery was allowed on the Pleasant
River. In 1995, regulations were
promulgated for catch and release
fishing for sea-run Atlantic salmon
throughout all other Maine salmon
rivers, closing the last remaining
recreational harvest opportunities for
sea run Atlantic salmon in the United
States. In 2000, all directed recreational
fisheries for sea run Atlantic salmon in
Maine were closed until 2006 when a
short experimental catch and release
fishery was opened on the Penobscot
River below Veazie Dam. The 30-day
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
angling season began on September 15,
2006, and resulted in one Atlantic
salmon being caught and released on
September 20, 2006. This fishery was
opened again on September 15, 2007. In
2008, the Maine Atlantic Salmon
Commission Board authorized a 30-day
catch and release fishery for the spring
of 2008. This fishery poses a risk to
returning sea-run Atlantic salmon
because it occurs at a time of year before
broodstock have been collected;
broodstock are essential to maintaining
current levels of conservation hatchery
supplementation, and lack of
broodstock would further reduce the
likelihood of achieving the scientifically
sound and mutually-agreed goals set
forth in the Broodstock Management
Plan (P. Kurkul, NOAA, in litt. February
1, 2008).
Poaching and incidental capture
remain concerns to the status of Atlantic
salmon in Maine. Incidental capture of
parr and smolts, primarily by trout
anglers, and of adult salmon, primarily
by striped bass anglers, has been
documented. Targeted poaching for
adult salmon occurs at low levels as
well. Low returns of adult salmon to
Maine rivers highlight the importance of
continuing to reduce any source of
mortality, particularly at later life stages.
While current state regulations for
recreational angling do include
minimum and maximum size limits for
certain species (e.g., landlocked
salmon), area closures, and outreach
and education programs, there is still a
threat of take of Atlantic salmon from
recreational angling.
Commercial fishing for Maine
Atlantic salmon historically occurred in
rivers, estuaries, and on the high seas.
While most directed commercial
fisheries for Atlantic salmon have
ceased, the impacts from past fisheries
are important in explaining the present
low abundance of the GOM DPS. Also,
the continuation of offshore fisheries for
Atlantic salmon, albeit at reduced
levels, influences the current status of
the GOM DPS.
Nearshore fisheries for Atlantic
salmon in Maine were quite common in
the late 1800s. In 1888, roughly 90
metric tons (mt) of salmon were
harvested in the Penobscot River alone.
As stocks continued to decline through
the early 1900s, the Maine Atlantic Sea
Run Salmon Commission closed the
nearshore commercial fishery for
Atlantic salmon after the 1947 season
when only 40 fish (0.2 mt) were caught.
Any future opportunities for directed
fisheries for Atlantic salmon in U.S.
territorial waters were further limited by
regulations implementing the Atlantic
Salmon Fishery Management Plan
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
(FMP) in 1987 (NEFMC, 1987). These
regulations prohibit possession of
Atlantic salmon in the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone. While nearshore
fisheries for Atlantic salmon have
ceased, the impacts from past fisheries
are important in explaining the present
low abundance of the GOM DPS.
Directed fishing for other species has
the potential to intercept salmon as bycatch. Beland (1984) reported that fewer
than 100 salmon per year were caught
incidental to other commercial fisheries
in the coastal waters of Maine. Recent
investigations also suggest that by-catch
of Atlantic salmon in herring fisheries is
not a significant source of mortality for
U.S. stocks of salmon (ICES, 2004).
Offshore, directed fisheries for
Atlantic salmon continue to affect the
GOM DPS, though these fisheries have
been substantially reduced in recent
years. The combined harvest of 1SW
Atlantic salmon of U.S. origin in the
fisheries off West Greenland and Canada
averaged 5,060 fish, and returns to U.S.
rivers averaged 2,884 fish from 1968 to
1989 (ICES, 1993). We estimate that
roughly 87 percent of all U.S. adult
returns during the time period 1968 to
1989 originated from the GOM DPS as
defined in this rule, and thus, roughly
2,519 of the 2,884 U.S. returns were
GOM DPS fish. ICES (1993) estimated
that adult returns to U.S. rivers could
have potentially been increased by 2.5
times in the absence of the West
Greenland commercial fishery (closed in
2001) and Labrador fisheries (closed in
1998) during that time period. The
United States joined with other North
Atlantic nations in 1982 to form NASCO
for the purpose of managing salmon
through a cooperative program of
conservation, restoration, and
enhancement of North Atlantic stocks.
NASCO achieves its goals by managing
the exploitation by member nations of
Atlantic salmon that originated within
the territory of other member nations.
The United States’ interest in NASCO
stemmed from its desire to ensure that
intercept fisheries of U.S. origin fish did
not compromise the long-term
commitment by the states and Federal
government to rehabilitate and restore
New England Atlantic salmon stocks.
Since the establishment of NASCO in
1982, commercial quotas for the West
Greenland fishery have steadily
declined, as has the abundance of most
stocks that make up this mixed stock
fishery (including the GOM DPS). The
West Greenland fishery has been
restricted to an internal use fishery (i.e.,
no fish were exported) in the following
years: 1998–2000; 2003–2008. From
2002 to 2005, the internal-use fishery
harvested between 19 and 25 mt
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29369
(reported and estimated unreported
catch) annually. Genetic analysis
performed on samples obtained from the
2002 to 2004 fisheries estimated the
North American contribution at 64–73
percent, with the U.S. contributing
between 0.1 and 0.8 percent of the total.
The 90 percent confidence interval for
the U.S. estimates are 0 to 141 salmon
in 2002, 5 to 132 salmon in 2003, and
0 to 64 salmon in 2004 (ICES, 2006).
In addition, a small commercial
fishery occurs off St. Pierre et Miquelon,
a French territory south of
Newfoundland. Historically, the fishery
was very limited (2 to 3 mt per year).
There is great interest by the United
States and Canada in sampling this
catch to gain more information on stock
composition. In recent years, there has
been a reported small increase in the
number of fishermen participating in
this fishery. A small sampling program
was initiated in 2003 to obtain
biological data and samples from the
catch. Genetic analysis on 134 samples
collected in 2004 indicated that all
samples originated from North America,
and approximately 1.9 percent were of
U.S. origin. The 90-percent confidence
interval around this estimate was 0–77
U.S.-origin salmon (ICES, 2006), and
since roughly 87 percent of all U.S.
returns originated from the GOM DPS
(as defined in this rule) in 2004
(USASAC, 2005), we estimate that up to
67 fish harvested in this fishery
originated from the GOM DPS. Efforts to
continue and increase the scope of this
sampling program are ongoing through
NASCO. These data are essential to
understanding the impact of this fishery
on the GOM DPS.
A multi-year conservation agreement
was established in 2002 between the
North Atlantic Salmon Fund and the
Organization of Hunters and Fishermen
in Greenland, effectively buying out the
commercial fishery for Atlantic salmon
for a 5-year period. The internal-use
fishery was not included in the
agreement. In June 2007, the agreement
was extended and revised to cover the
2007 fishing season. The agreement may
continue to be extended on an annual
basis through 2013.
In summary, overutilization for
recreational and commercial purposes
was a factor that contributed to the
historical declines of GOM DPS.
Intercept fisheries in West Greenland
and St Pierre et Miquelon, bycatch in
recreational fisheries, and poaching act
as stressors on the GOM DPS because
they result in direct mortality or cause
stress reducing reproductive success
and survival.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29370
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Fish diseases have always represented
a source of mortality to Atlantic salmon
in the wild (for a more thorough
discussion see section 8.3.2 of Fay et al.
(2006)). Atlantic salmon are susceptible
to numerous bacterial, viral, and fungal
diseases. Bacterial diseases common to
New England waters include Bacterial
Kidney Disease (BKD), Enteric
Redmouth Disease (ERM), Cold Water
Disease (CWD), and Vibriosis (Mills,
1971; Gaston, 1988; Olafsen and
Roberts, 1993; Egusa, 1992). To reduce
the likelihood of disease outbreaks or
epizootic events, cultured salmon used
for aquaculture purposes routinely
receive vaccinations for these pathogens
prior to stocking into marine sites.
Fungal diseases such as furunculosis
can affect all life stages of salmon in
both fresh and salt water, and the
causative agent (Saprolignia spp.) is
ubiquitous to most water bodies. The
risk of an epizootic occurring during
fish culture operations is greater
because of the increased numbers of
host animals reared at much higher
densities than would be found in the
wild. In addition, stressors associated
with intensive fish culture operations
(i.e., handling, stocking, tagging, and
sea-lice loads) may increase
susceptibility to infections. Disease from
fish culture operations may be spread to
wild salmon directly through effluent
discharge or indirectly from either
escapes of cultured salmon, or through
smolts and returning adults passing
through embayments where pathogen
loads are increased to a level such that
infection occurs and diseases may be
transferred.
A number of viral diseases that could
affect wild populations have occurred
during the culture of Atlantic salmon,
such as Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis,
Salmon Swimbladder Sarcoma Virus,
Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA), and
Salmon Papilloma (Olafsen and Roberts,
1993). In 2007, the Infectious Pancreatic
Necrosis virus was isolated in sea run
fish in the Connecticut River program.
These fish most likely contracted the
disease during their time at sea, and it
was detected in the hatchery due to the
rigorous fish health monitoring and
assessment protocols. ISA is of
particular concern for the GOM DPS
because of the nature of the pathogen
and the high mortality rates associated
with the disease. Most notably, a 2001
outbreak of ISA in Cobscook Bay led to
an emergency depopulation of all
commercially cultured salmon in the
Bay. In addition to complete
depopulation of all cultured salmon, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
MDMR ordered all cages be thoroughly
cleaned and disinfected, all sites be
fallowed for 3 months, and subsequent
re-stocking of cages occur at lower
densities with only a single year class.
These measures were initially
successful; however, subsequent testing
for ISA revealed additional detections of
the virus in Cobscook Bay (Maine) sites
in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
In summary, the MIFW, MDMR, and
the federally managed conservation
hatcheries all must adhere to rigorous
disease prevention and management
regulations and protocols; despite these
protocols there remains a risk of disease
outbreaks. Additionally, there is a risk
of a disease outbreak in the wild. While
disease(s) can have devastating
population-wide effects when they
occur, there are efforts in place to
prevent and manage disease outbreaks
in conservation hatcheries and
aquaculture facilities. Disease is not
presently impacting the GOM DPS.
However, the efforts in place to manage
this risk cannot completely eliminate
the potential for disease outbreak.
Further, if a large outbreak were to
occur, it could have significant impacts
on the GOM DPS.
Predation
Predation is a natural and necessary
process in properly functioning aquatic
ecosystems (for a comprehensive
discussion see section 8.3.1 of Fay et al.
(2006)). Native freshwater fishes known
to prey on Atlantic salmon include
brook trout, burbot, American eel,
fallfish, and common shiners. In
estuarine and marine environments
Atlantic salmon are prey to striped bass,
Atlantic cod, pollock, porbeagle shark,
Greenland shark, Atlantic halibut, and
many other species. Many species of
birds, mink, and several species of seal
also prey on Atlantic salmon. Thus,
predation levels may contribute to the
low marine survival regimes currently
experienced by the GOM DPS.
Atlantic salmon have evolved a suite
of strategies that allow them to co-exist
with the numerous predators they
encounter throughout their life cycle.
However, natural predator-prey
relationships in aquatic ecosystems in
Maine have been substantially altered
through the spread of nonnative fish
species (e.g., smallmouth bass); habitat
alterations; site specific and cumulative
delay, injury, or stress experienced
during migration and passage over/
through dams; and the decline of other
diadromous species that would
otherwise serve as an alternative prey
source for fish that feed on Atlantic
salmon smolts and adults. For example,
in the estuarine environment,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
cormorants are an important predator of
outmigrating smolts. However, the
abundance of alternative prey sources
such as alewives likely minimized the
impact of cormorant predation on the
GOM DPS historically. Similarly,
changes in fish assemblages due to
stocking of non-native species have
resulted in predator species inhabiting
many of the same areas used by Atlantic
salmon. This is particularly true of
smallmouth bass and brown trout (van
de Ende, 1993; MASC and MIFW, 2002).
The threat posed by these predator
species is simply compounded in areas
where Atlantic salmon are experiencing
physiological stress due to obstructions
to passage (Raymond, 1979; Mesa, 1994;
Blackwell et al., 1997) and poor habitat
quality and complexity (Cunjak, 1996;
Blackwell and Krohn, 1997; Larinier,
2000).
In summary, the impact of predation
on the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon is
important because of the imbalance
between the very low numbers of adults
returning to spawn and the increase in
population levels of some native
predators such as double-crested
cormorants, striped bass, and several
species of seals as well as non-native
predators, such as smallmouth bass.
Predation acts as a stressor on the GOM
DPS because of high levels of predators
and low numbers of Atlantic salmon.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
A variety of state and Federal statutes
and regulations directly or indirectly
address potential threats to Atlantic
salmon and their habitat. These laws are
complemented by international actions
under NASCO and many interagency
agreements and state-Federal
cooperative efforts specifically designed
to protect Atlantic salmon.
Implementation and enforcement of
these laws and regulations could be
strengthened to further protect Atlantic
salmon.
Dams
As stated previously, Atlantic salmon
require a diverse array of well
connected habitat types in order to
complete their life history. Present
conditions within the range of the GOM
DPS only allow salmon to access a
fraction of the habitat that was
historically accessible. Even where
salmon can presently access suitable
habitat, they must often pass several
dams to reach their natal spawning
habitat.
Hydroelectric dams: Hydroelectric
dams in the GOM DPS are licensed by
the FERC under the FPA. Currently,
within the historical range of Atlantic
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
salmon in the GOM DPS there are 19
hydroelectric dams in the Androscoggin
watershed, 18 in the Kennebec
watershed, and 23 in the Penobscot
watershed. In the Androscoggin
watershed 16 hydroelectric dams within
the range of the GOM DPS are
impassable due to the lack of fishways.
In the Kennebec watershed, 15 dams are
impassable, along with 12 dams in the
Penobscot watershed. Presently, 15
dams in the Androscoggin, 7 dams in
the Kennebec, and 9 dams in the
Penobscot are FERC-licensed without
any specific fish passage requirements.
1. Mechanisms Available at
Hydroelectric Dams Outside of FERC
(Re)licensing
Several mechanisms exist within the
framework of the FPA that could
potentially be used to address impacts
of dams. However, many of these
mechanisms are only available in
relicensing. Of the 70 dams licensed by
FERC in Maine, 3 are currently in
relicensing, 3 are covered by the
Penobscot River Restoration Project
with plans to remove them before
expiration of their licenses, and 8 will
be up for relicensing in the 2010s, 22 in
the 2020s, 19 in the 2030s, 11 in the
2040s, and 4 in the 2050s. Thus, the
bulk of these projects will not be up for
relicensing for 10 to 20 years or more.
The current licenses for many, though
by no means all, of these projects
contain reservations of FPA section 18
authority that could allow fishways to
be prescribed by the Services (16 U.S.C.
811). However, exercise of that authority
requires administrative proceedings
before the FERC and the Services which
could themselves take several years, and
the outcome is far from certain. As to
the remainder of the projects whose
licenses contain no reserved authority,
reopening of these licenses may be
dependent upon the success of a
petition to the FERC to exercise its own
reserved authority. This is not a
dependable recourse as the decision to
even consider such a petition is subject
to FERC’s discretion. Additional
avenues may be available, consistent
with the Interagency Task Force Report
on Improving Coordination of ESA
Section 7 Consultation with the FERC
Licensing Process, but these remain
largely untested.
Furthermore, lack of fish passage is
not the only threat to salmon caused by
hydroelectric dams. The effects of
habitat degradation and the altered
environmental features that favor
nonnative species pose an equal or even
greater impediment to Atlantic salmon
recovery via reduction in production
capacity of freshwater rearing areas
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
above dams. These threats may not be
addressed by the Services’ reserved
authority under Section 18 of the FPA;
the only mechanism available outside of
relicensing is a petition to FERC to
exercise its own discretionary authority.
2. Mechanisms Available at
Hydroelectric Projects in FERC
(Re)licensing
Even in relicensing, the regulatory
mechanisms for protection of salmon
are inadequate to remove the significant
threat to the survival of the species
posed by dams. First, fish passage may
be addressed by the Services in
relicensing pursuant to their mandatory
authority under Section 18 of the FPA
(16 U.S.C. 811). However, as noted
above, this requires a lengthy
administrative proceeding before the
Services and FERC, and the outcome is
not certain. Moreover, the result is a
FERC license containing a requirement
to construct and operate fish passage.
However, a substantial amount of
mortality and passage inefficiency may
occur even with fishways in place,
given that fish passage facilities are
never 100 percent efficient. Further,
enforcement of FERC licenses can be
done only by FERC, is subject to
administrative processes with uncertain
outcome, and has frequently, in the
Services’ view, been less than prompt
where fish passage or fish habitat issues
have been at stake.
The other threats posed by dams to
Atlantic salmon, besides lack of fish
passage, may also be addressed in
relicensing by the Services, via Sections
10(a) and 10(j) of the FPA (16 U.S.C.
sections 797 and 803). However, these
are mechanisms for making
recommendations to the FERC, which
factors them into the balancing of
factors in its public interest
determination under Section 10(a) of the
FPA. There is no guarantee that species
protection would be a controlling factor
in the FERC’s decision. In practice, such
recommendations are often not required
by the FERC (Black et al., 1998).
The Services recognize that they and
the FERC are not the only authorities
with a role to play in protecting fish in
hydropower relicensing. For a
hydropower project to be relicensed by
the FERC, the State of Maine must first
certify that continued operation of the
project will comply with Maine’s water
quality standards pursuant to Section
401 of the CWA. The MDEP is the
certifying agency for all hydropower
project licensing and relicensing in the
State of Maine, except for projects in
unorganized territories subject to
permitting by the Land Use Regulation
Commission (LURC). Through the water
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29371
quality certification process, the State of
Maine can require fish passage and
habitat enhancements at FERC licensed
hydroelectric projects (See S.D. Warren
v. Maine Board of Environmental
Protection 547 U.S. 370, 126 S.Ct. 1843
(2006)). As with Section 18 authority,
though section 401 authority is binding
on the FERC, it requires administrative
proceedings with uncertain outcomes.
Also, it is not clear that this mechanism
is available except in relicensing, or
where MDEP has specifically reserved
authority to alter the terms of its prior
certification. Authority under section
401 of the CWA permits the certifying
state to certify that the discharge will
comply with the terms of the CWA,
including any state water quality
standards. It is not clear that section 401
permits regulation of conditions in the
reservoirs above dams, except indirectly
where the water quality of the reservoir
is controlled by the quality of discharges
from an upstream dam.
Finally, in other parts of the country,
mandatory conditioning authority under
section 4(e) of the FPA is often used by
the Services in relicensing to
recommend fisheries enhancements.
However, this authority is only available
to a Federal agency where there are
Federal lands under its jurisdiction
within the project boundary, and acts as
a mechanism to protect the
‘‘reservation.’’ Federal lands where
Section 4(e) could be applied are rare in
Maine, and 4(e) does not provide an
adequate mechanism for protection of
Atlantic salmon throughout the GOM
DPS.
Non-hydroelectric dams: The vast
majority of dams within the range of the
GOM DPS do not require either a FERC
license or MDEP water quality
certificate. These dams are typically
small dams historically used for a
variety of purposes, including flood
control, storage, and process water (for
industries such as blueberry harvesting).
Because they do not generate electricity,
they are not subject to the jurisdiction
of the FERC under the FPA. Practically
none of these dams within the range of
the GOM DPS have fish passage
facilities, and all impact historical
Atlantic salmon habitat. Many of these
non-jurisdictional dams are no longer
used for their intended purposes;
however, many smaller dams maintain
water levels in lakes and ponds. Lack of
fish passage and other impacts to
salmon may currently be addressed only
through the mechanisms of State law.
Fish passage may be required by the
State of Maine under 12 M.R.S.A section
12760. However, this requires an
administrative process and a hearing, if
one is requested by the dam owner. An
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29372
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
order to construct fish passage under
this statute requires a finding that fish
can be restored ‘‘in substantial
numbers’’ and that habitat above the
dam ‘‘is sufficient and suitable to
support a substantial commercial or
recreational fishery.’’ These are very
different considerations from the ESA’s
focus on prevention of extinction.
Furthermore, this statute has never been
used to require fish passage at any dam
in Maine, and, despite the one hearing
ongoing at this time, the statute remains
untested in the courts and at the
administrative level. Nor, of course,
does it address threats beyond lack of
fish passage.
Finally, although the MDEP can be
petitioned by the public to set minimum
flows and water levels at the dams not
under FERC jurisdiction, the MDEP has
no direct statutory authority under
Maine law to require fisheries related
enhancements without public request or
petition. Removal of non-hydropower
generating dams in Maine may require
a permit under the Maine Natural
Resources Protection Act or the Maine
Waterway Development and
Conservation Act. Owners of nonhydroelectric dams can petition the
MDEP to be released from ownership;
however, the MDEP does not have the
authority to require dam removal
without the consent of the owner.
In summary, the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms for
dams significantly affects the GOM DPS
because dams pose a significant threat.
Existing regulatory mechanisms do not
provide a timely and dependable means
to eliminate the effects of dams on
salmon and their habitat.
Water Withdrawals
The State of Maine has made
substantial progress in regulating water
withdrawals. In 2007, it finalized a new
rule (Chapter 587 of the Code of Maine
Rules ‘‘In-stream flow and water level
standards’’) that establishes river and
stream flows and lake and pond water
levels to protect aquatic life and other
designated uses in Maine’s waters. The
new standards are based on maintaining
natural variation of flows and water
levels, but allow variances if water use
will still be protective of applicable
state and Federal water quality
classifications. The flow standards are
based on seasonal aquatic base flows.
We believe that the water rules for class
AA waters will be protective of Atlantic
salmon because the flow standards are
based on natural flows, and exceptions
are allowed only under clearly defined
limits. However, the flow standards for
class A, B, and C waters are based on
seasonal base flows, which allow
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
withdrawals when flow is at or below
median monthly flow. These standards
are not sufficiently protective of
Atlantic salmon because they allow
reduced in-stream flows that reduce
habitat, increase water temperature, and
decrease dissolved oxygen (as described
in Factor A, above).
Water withdrawals that reduce flow
below the median monthly flow are a
stressor on the GOM DPS (see Factor A).
These withdrawals are allowed under
the Maine flow standards; therefore, the
existing regulatory mechanisms for
water quantity are inadequate.
Water Quality
As described above in Factor A, the
MDEP administers the NPDES program
under the CWA (known as the MPDES
program). MDEP issues permits for
point source discharges from freshwater
hatcheries, municipal facilities, and
other industrial facilities. Maine’s water
classification system provides for
different water quality standards for
different classes of waters (e.g., there are
four classes for freshwater rivers all of
which are found within the GOM DPS
range). However, these standards are not
based on water quality requirements of
Atlantic salmon. Also, as described
under Factor A above, there have been
cases when water quality did not meet
standards and was at levels that
negatively impact salmon. Therefore, we
are concerned that water quality
standards may not be sufficiently
protective of Atlantic salmon and that
lack of compliance with existing
standards may continue to harm
salmon.
Factor A also describes concerns we
have regarding non-point source
discharges. Sedimentation and other
non-point source discharges related to
forestry activities are regulated by the
Shoreland Zoning Act, Maine Forest
Practices Act, Natural Resource
Protection Act, Protection and
Improvement of Waters Act, Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Law, and the
Statewide Standards for Timber
Harvesting and Related Activities in
Shoreland Areas. Non-compliance with
these regulatory mechanisms has
resulted in impacts to Atlantic salmon
habitat and continues to pose a risk to
the GOM DPS (Fay et al., 2006, page 83).
In summary, the MPDES program and
the associated water quality standards
do not regulate all potential water
quality problems for salmon. We have
determined that lack of compliance with
existing water quality standards and
with regulations to reduce
sedimentation from forestry activities
may continue to impact Atlantic
salmon. Therefore, we find that
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for water quality is a
stressor to the GOM DPS.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Artificial Propagation
In the proposed rule we included a
discussion of artificial propagation
under Factor E. However, because of the
essential role of conservation hatcheries
in currently sustaining the GOM DPS of
Atlantic salmon, in this final rule we
evaluated the positive and negative
effects of hatcheries in the status of the
species section. We find that, in the
short-term, conservation hatcheries are a
benefit to the GOM DPS. The role of the
conservation hatchery program is
discussed above in the ‘‘Status of the
GOM DPS’’ section.
Aquaculture
Atlantic salmon that escape from
farms and commercial hatcheries pose a
threat to native Atlantic salmon
populations (Naylor et al., 2005)
because captive-reared fish are
selectively bred to promote behavioral
and physiological attributes desirable in
captivity (Hindar et al., 1991; Utter et
al., 1993; Hard et al., 2000); for further
discussion of the threat of aquaculture
see section 8.5.2 in Fay et al. (2006)).
Experimental tests of genetic divergence
between farmed and wild salmon
indicate that farming generates rapid
genetic change as a result of both
intentional and unintentional selection
in culture and those changes alter
important fitness-related traits
(McGinnity et al., 1997; Gross, 1998).
Consequently, aquaculture fish are often
less fit in the wild than naturally
produced salmon (Fleming et al., 2000).
Annual invasions of escaped adult
aquaculture salmon can disrupt local
adaptations and reduce genetic diversity
of wild populations (Fleming et al.,
2000). Bursts of immigration also
disrupt genetic differentiation among
wild Atlantic salmon stocks, especially
when wild populations are small (Mork,
1991). Natural selection may be able to
purge wild populations of maladaptive
traits but may be less able to if the
intrusions occur year after year. Under
this scenario, population fitness is likely
to decrease as the selection from the
artificial culture operation overrides
wild selection (Hindar et al., 1991;
Fleming and Einum, 1997), a process
called outbreeding depression. The
threat of outbreeding depression is
likely to be greater in North America
where aquaculture salmon have been
based, in part, on European strain. To
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
minimize these risks, the use of nonNorth American strains of salmon has
been phased out in the United States.
In addition to genetic effects, escaped
farmed salmon can disrupt redds of
wild salmon, compete with wild salmon
for food and habitat, transfer disease or
parasites to wild salmon, and degrade
benthic habitat (Windsor and
Hutchinson, 1990; Saunders, 1991;
Youngson et al., 1993; Webb et al., 1993;
Clifford et al., 1997). Farmed salmon
have been documented to spawn
successfully, but not always at the same
time as wild salmon (Lura and Saegrov,
1991; Jonsson et al., 1991; Webb et al.,
1991; Fleming et al., 1996). Late
spawning aquaculture fish could limit
wild spawning success through redd
superimposition. There has also been
recent concern over potential
interactions when wild adult salmon
migrate past closely spaced cages,
creating the potential for behavioral
interactions, disease transfer, or
interactions with predators (Lura and
Saegrov, 1991; Crozier, 1993; Skaala and
Hindar, 1997; Carr et al., 1997; DFO,
1999). In Canada, the survival of wild
postsmolts moving from
Passamaquoddy Bay to the Bay of
Fundy was inversely related to the
density of aquaculture cages (DFO,
1999).
Atlantic salmon aquaculture has
developed and expanded in the North
Atlantic since the early 1970s.
Production of farmed Atlantic salmon in
2007 was estimated at over 1.27 million
metric tonnes worldwide, 859,103
metric tonnes in the North Atlantic, and
8.16 metric tonnes in Maine (ICES,
2008). The Maine Atlantic salmon
aquaculture industry is concentrated in
Cobscook Bay near Eastport, Maine. The
industry in Canada, just across the
border, is approximately twice the size
of the Maine industry. Five freshwater
commercial hatcheries in the United
States have provided smolts to the sea
cages and produce up to four million
smolts per year.
Three primary broodstock lines have
been used for farm production. The
lines include fish from the Penobscot
River, St. John River, and historically an
industry strain from Scotland. The
Scottish strain was imported into the
United States in the early 1990s and is
composed primarily of Norwegian
strains, frequently referred to as
Landcatch. Milt of Norwegian origin
was also imported by the industry from
Iceland (Baum, 1998). However,
placement of reproductively viable nonNorth American origin Atlantic salmon
into marine cages in the United States
has been eliminated.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
Escaped farmed salmon are known to
enter Maine rivers. For example, at least
17 percent (14 of 83 fish) of the rod
catch in the East Machias River were
captive-reared adults in 1990. In
addition to the frequency and
magnitude of escape events that drive
annual variability, returns of captivereared adults to Maine rivers are
influenced by the amount of production
and proximity of rearing sites in
adjacent bays. About 60 percent of
commercial salmon production in
Maine occurs at sites on Cobscook and
Passamaquoddy Bays, into which the
Dennys River flows; 35 percent on
Machias Bay and the estuary of the
Little River, within 11.26 kilometers of
the Machias and East Machias Rivers;
and the remainder on the estuaries of
the Pleasant and Narraguagus Rivers, or
adjacent to Blue Hill Bay. The
percentage of captive-reared fish in
adult returns is highest in the St. Croix
(not a part of the GOM DPS) and Dennys
Rivers and lowest in the Penobscot
River (less than 0.01 percent in the years
1994 to 2001), with the Narraguagus
runs having low and sporadic
proportions of captive-reared salmon.
A large escape event occurred in 2005
when four marine salmon aquaculture
sites in Western New Brunswick,
Canada, were vandalized from early
May through November 2005, resulting
in approximately 136,000 escaped
farmed salmon. Most escapees were
unmarked 1SW salmon of similar size (2
to 5 kg). Escaped aquaculture-origin
salmon from these vandalism events
entered the Dennys River and possibly
other Eastern Maine rivers in 2005. The
Services and MDMR cooperated to
implement a program to minimize
genetic and ecological risks from this
escape (Bean et al., 2006).
Aquaculture escapees and resultant
interactions with native stocks are
expected to continue to occur within the
range of the GOM DPS given the
continued operation of farms. While
recent containment protocols have
greatly decreased the incidence of losses
from hatcheries and pens, the risk of
large escapes occurring is still
significant. Escaped farmed fish are of
great concern in Maine because, even at
low numbers, they can represent a
substantial portion of the returns to
some rivers. Wild populations at low
levels are particularly vulnerable to
genetic intrusion or other disturbance
caused by escapees (Hutchings, 1991;
DFO, 1999).
Despite the concerns with aquaculture
described above, recent advances in
containment and marking of
aquaculture fish limit the negative
impacts of aquaculture fish on the GOM
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29373
DPS. Permits issued by the Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE) and MDEP require:
genetic screening to ensure that only
North American strain salmon are used
in commercial aquaculture; marking to
facilitate tracing fish back to the source
and cause of the escape; containment
management plans and audits; and
rigorous disease screening.
In summary, aquaculture is a stressor
to the GOM DPS. If the current
regulatory measures were no longer in
place, were less protective, or less
effective, the threat from aquaculture
would be much greater.
Low Marine Survival
As noted previously, Atlantic salmon
leave Maine rivers as smolts, and the
majority spend 2 years at sea before
returning to spawn. Survival during the
time at sea directly influences the
number of adults that return to spawn.
During this extensive marine migration,
U.S. Atlantic salmon can be affected
directly and indirectly by commercial
fisheries (discussed in Factor B) and
natural mortality. Given significant
reductions in commercial intercept
fisheries, the continued low marine
survival rates indicate that natural
mortality is having a significant impact.
Natural mortality in the marine
environment can be attributed to four
general sources: predation (Factor C),
starvation, disease/parasites (Factor C),
and abiotic factors (e.g., ocean
conditions). While our understanding of
the marine ecology of Atlantic salmon
has increased substantially in the past
decade, the specific role or contribution
of the four sources identified above
remains unclear.
In general, return rates for Atlantic
salmon across North America have
declined over the last 30 years (ICES,
1998). Chaput et al. (2005) reported on
the possibility of a phase (or regime)
shift of productivity for Atlantic salmon
in the Northwest Atlantic. A phase or
regime shift refers to a large and sudden
change in abundance (Beamish et al.,
1999). Evidence is presented that the
productivity of North American Atlantic
salmon in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean
has decreased since the early 1990s,
likely the result of reduced marine
survival (Chaput et al., 2005).
Specifically, there has been a decrease
in the recruit-per-spawner relationship
for these populations, which likely
occurred over several years in the late
1980s into the early 1990s. This has
resulted in a similar number of lagged
spawners (index of the parental stock
that produced the pre-fishery
abundance) resulting in a 2–3 fold
decrease in the number of pre-fishery
abundance fish (number of North
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
29374
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
American 2SW salmon in the ocean at
a specific time) when comparing preearly 1990s to post-early 1990s. The
concept of phase shift has previously
been documented and discussed for
Pacific salmon populations (Beamish et
al., 1999). Chaput et al. (2005) did not
speculate on the causes of the reduced
marine survival.
The phase shift described above
resulting in lower survival of salmon in
the Northwest Atlantic beginning in the
1990s is supported by documented low
marine survival rates since 1991 for U.S.
stocks of Atlantic salmon, (see section
8.5.3 of Fay et al. (2006)). For the period
2003 to 2007, 2SW return rates for wild
Narraguagus River smolts ranged from
0.54 to 0.94 percent. Return rates for
this same period for 2SW hatchery
Penobscot River smolts ranged from
0.11 to 0.17 percent (ICES, 2008). Data
for 2007, which is based on the 2005
and 2006 smolt cohorts, showed that
1SW and 2SW adult returns for hatchery
and wild populations in many rivers in
Newfoundland, Quebec, Scotia-Fundy,
and the United States were the lowest
in the available time series (1971–2000)
(ICES, 2008).
North American stocks have
experienced greater declines than
European stocks, and southern stocks
have experienced greater declines than
northern stocks. Bley and Moring (1988)
have suggested that Atlantic salmon
with longer migration routes typically
suffer from lower marine survival rates.
Stock abundances and management
regimes are highly variable throughout
the range. The synchronous population
declines on both sides of the North
Atlantic despite diverse management
regimes suggests that large scale
processes in the common marine
environment are affecting Atlantic
salmon in the ocean and are at least
partially responsible for the negative
trends in abundance (Friedland et al.,
2003; Jonsson and Jonsson, 2004;
Friedland et al., 2005; Spares et al.,
2007). Furthermore, sonic telemetry
studies of emigrating smolts in southern
European and North American rivers
suggest that smolt mortality in estuaries,
though variable, is broadly similar in
both regions (ICES, 2008). Numerous
ultrasonic tracking studies have begun
to provide estimates of nearshore
mortality for a number of different
populations (Dieperink et al., 2002;
Lacroix et al., 2005; Kocik et al., 2008),
and it has been suggested that nearshore
survival has a particularly large
influence on overall marine survival
(Ritter, 1989; Dieperink et al., 2002;
Potter et al., 2003). These and other
studies demonstrate that poor marine
survival is being experienced
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
throughout the Atlantic Ocean and is
heavily influenced by nearshore
survival in addition to open ocean
survival and that patterns of decline are
most evident in southern stocks (ICES,
2008). Higher freshwater productivity in
southern populations may offset poorer
marine survival; however, as mentioned
above, marine survival is much more
variable and has a highly significant
impact on adult production regardless
of freshwater production.
Efforts to understand marine survival
are being undertaken at national and
international levels. NMFS is
specifically engaged in activities at the
national level (e.g., smolt trapping and
telemetry studies, and post-smolt trawl
surveys) in an effort to understand
migration/survival dynamics of smolts,
survival estimates by ecological zone,
smolt health and behavior during
transition to the marine environment,
and environmental conditions/
ecosystem health during smolt
migration. Data collected from these
studies inform salmon management at
the national levelands contribute to
international efforts. As stated
previously, the United States is a
member of NASCO, an international
treaty organization. Through NASCO,
the United States participates in high
seas sampling, marine research, and the
sampling program for the West
Greenland fishery. NMFS is also
currently participating in an effort
supported by NASCO called Salmon At
Sea (SALSEA), an initiative to develop
international scientific collaboration to
understand marine survival issues.
SALSEA is geared towards
understanding marine survival issues on
the high seas. Ongoing SALSEA work
includes, but is not limited to, efforts to
merge genetics and ecology data to try
and understand marine migration and
distribution patterns, trawl surveys, and
fishery sampling.
Marine survival is thus critical to
shaping recruitment patterns in Atlantic
salmon, with low marine survival
causing the low abundance of adult
salmon; however, the mechanisms of
the observed persistent decline in
marine survival remain unknown. It is
clear that marine survival has to
improve dramatically in the future in
order to reverse the GOM DPS decline.
It is important to note that the above
discussion focuses primarily on survival
at sea, beyond the territorial waters of
any one country. Mortality of
outmigrating smolts in the estuaries and
bays of the GOM DPS is also affecting
the population. Tagging and tracking
studies conducted by NMFS indicate
that approximately half of the smolts
leaving our rivers do not enter the open
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ocean. Improvements in survival in this
transition zone could ultimately result
in improvements in marine survival. It
is also likely that if we are able to
identify the factors affecting survival of
outmigrating smolts in our estuaries and
bays, we will have a greater chance of
influencing those factors than the
factors that may be affecting salmon
survival at sea. In summary, the
observed, persistent decline in marine
survival is directly responsible for the
low abundance of adult salmon. Low
marine survival poses a significant
threat to the GOM DPS because it is
driving population status and
projections for recovery. Recovery of the
species is dependent on increases in
marine survival. The mechanisms
driving low marine survival remain
unknown.
Depleted Diadromous Communities
The ecological setting in which Maine
Atlantic salmon evolved is considerably
different than what exists today.
Ecological changes that have occurred
over the last 200 years are ubiquitous
and span a wide array of spatial and
temporal scales. Of particular concern
for Atlantic salmon recovery efforts
within the range of the GOM DPS is the
dramatic decline observed in the
diadromous fish community. At historic
abundance levels, Fay et al. (2006) and
Saunders et al. (2006) hypothesized that
several of the co-evolved diadromous
fishes may have provided substantial
benefits to Atlantic salmon through at
least four mechanisms: serving as an
alternative prey source for salmon
predators; serving as prey for salmon
directly; depositing marine-derived
nutrients in freshwater; and increasing
substrate diversity of rivers. A brief
description of each mechanism is
provided below.
Fay et al. (2006) and Saunders et al.
(2006) hypothesized that the historically
large populations of clupeids (i.e.,
members of the family Clupeidae, such
as alewives, blueback herring, and
American shad) likely provided a robust
alternative forage resource (or prey
buffer) for opportunistic native
predators of salmon during a variety of
events in the salmon’s life history. First,
pre-spawn adult alewives likely served
as a prey buffer for migrating Atlantic
salmon smolts. Evidence for this
relationship includes significant spatial
and temporal overlap of migrations,
similar body size, numbers of alewives
that exceeded salmon smolt populations
by several orders of magnitude (Smith,
1898; Collette and Klein-MacPhee,
2002), and a higher caloric content per
individual (Schulze, 1996). Thus,
alewives were likely a substantial
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
alternative prey resource (i.e., prey
buffer) that protected salmon smolts
from native predators such as
cormorants, otters, ospreys, and bald
eagles within sympatric migratory
corridors (Mather, 1998; USASAC,
2004). Second, adult American shad
likely provided a similar prey buffer to
potential predation on Atlantic salmon
adults by otters and seals. Pre-spawn
adult shad would enter these same
rivers and begin their upstream
spawning migration at approximately
the same time as adult salmon.
Historically, shad runs were
considerably larger than salmon runs
(Atkins and Foster, 1869; Stevenson,
1898). Thus, native predators of
medium to large size fish in the
estuarine and lower river zones could
have preyed on these 1.5 to 2.5 kg size
fish readily. Third, juvenile shad and
blueback herring may have represented
a substantial prey buffer from potential
predation on Atlantic salmon fry and
parr by native opportunistic predators
such as mergansers, herons, mink, and
fallfish. Large populations of juvenile
shad (and blueback herring, with similar
life history and habitat preferences to
shad) would have occupied mainstem
and larger tributary river reaches
through much of the summer and early
fall. Juvenile shad and herring would
ultimately emigrate to the ocean, along
with juvenile alewives from adjacent
lacustrine habitats, in the late summer
and fall. Recognizing that the range and
migratory corridors of these juvenile
clupeids would not be precisely
sympatric with juvenile salmon habitat,
there nonetheless would have been a
substantial spatial overlap amongst the
habitats and populations of these
various juvenile fish stocks. Even in
reaches where sympatric occupation by
juvenile salmon and juvenile clupeids
may have been low or absent, factors
such as predator mobility and instinct
driven energetic efficiency (i.e., optimal
foraging theory) need to be considered
since the opportunity for prey switching
would have been much greater than
today, and the opportunity for prey
switching may produce stable predatorprey systems with coexistence of both
prey and predator populations (Krivan,
1996).
At historical abundance levels, other
diadromous species also represented
significant supplemental foraging
resources for salmon in sympatric
habitats. In particular, anadromous
rainbow smelt are known to be a favored
spring prey item of Atlantic salmon
kelts (Cunjak et al. 1998). A 1995 radio
tag study found that Miramichi River
(New Brunswick, Canada) kelts showed
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
a net upstream movement shortly after
ice break-up (Komadina-Douthwright et
al., 1997). This movement was
concurrent with the onset of upstream
migrations of rainbow smelt (KomadinaDouthwright et al., 1997). In addition,
Moore et al. (1995) suggested that the
general availability of forage fishes
shortly after ice break-up in the
Miramichi could be critical to the
rejuvenation and ultimate survival of
kelts as they prepared to return to sea.
Kelts surviving to become repeat
spawners are especially important, from
a demographic perspective, due to
higher fecundity (Baum, 1997; NRC,
2004). The historical availability of
anadromous rainbow smelt as potential
kelt forage in lower river zones may
have been important in sustaining the
viability of this salmon life stage.
Conversely, the broad declines in
rainbow smelt populations may be
partially responsible for the declining
occurrence of repeat spawners in
Maine’s salmon rivers.
Historically, the upstream migrations
of large populations of adult clupeids,
sea lamprey, and salmon themselves,
provided a conduit for the import and
deposition of biomass and nutrients of
marine origin into freshwater
environments. Mechanisms of direct
deposition included discharge of urea,
discharge of gametes on the spawning
grounds, and deposition of adult
carcasses (Durbin et al., 1979).
Migrations and other movements of
mobile predators and scavengers of
adult carcasses likely resulted in further
distribution of imported nutrients
throughout the freshwater ecosystem.
Conversely, juvenile outmigrants of
these sea-run species represented a
massive annual outflux of forage
resources for Gulf of Maine predators,
while also completing the cycle of
exporting base nutrients back to the
ocean environment. These types of
diffuse mutualism are only recently
being recognized (Hay et al., 2004). Sea
lampreys also likely played a role in
nutrient cycling. Lampreys prefer
spawning habitat that is very similar
(location and physical characteristics) to
that used by spawning Atlantic salmon
(Kircheis, 2004). Adult lampreys spawn
in late spring, range in weight from 1 to
2 kg, and experience 100 percent postspawning mortality on spawning
grounds (semelparous). This results in
the deposition of marine-origin
nutrients at about the same time that
salmon fry would be emerging from
redds and beginning to occupy adjacent
juvenile production habitats. These
nutrients would likely have enhanced
the primary production capability of
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29375
these habitats for weeks or even months
after initial deposition, and would
gradually be transferred throughout the
trophic structure of the ecosystem,
including those components most
important to juvenile salmon (e.g.,
macroinvertebrate production).
Sea lampreys likely provide an
additional benefit to Atlantic salmon
spawning activity in sympatric reaches.
In constructing their nests, lamprey
carry stones from other locations and
deposit them centrally in a loose pile
within riffle habitat and further utilize
body scouring to clean silt off stones
already at the site (Kircheis, 2004).
Ultimately, a pile of silt-free stones as
deep as 25 cm and as long as a meter
is formed (Leim and Scott, 1966; Scott
and Scott, 1988), into which the
lamprey deposit their gametes. The
stones preferred by lampreys are
generally in the same size range as those
preferred by spawning Atlantic salmon.
Thus, lamprey nests can be attractive
spawning sites for Atlantic salmon
(Kircheis, 2004). Kircheis (2004) also
notes the lamprey’s silt-cleaning
activities during nest construction that
may improve the ‘‘quality’’ of the
surrounding environment with respect
to potential diversity and abundance of
macroinvertebrates, a primary food item
of juvenile salmon.
Depleted diadromous fish
communities are a stressor to the GOM
DPS. Because diadromous fish
populations have been significantly
reduced, ecological benefits from
marine derived nutrient deposition,
prey buffering, and alternative sources
of food for Atlantic salmon are likely
significantly lower today compared to
historical conditions. These impacts
may be contributing, at some
undetermined level, to decreased
marine survival through the reduction
of prey for reconditioning kelts, through
increased predation risks for smolts in
lower river and estuarine areas, and
through increased predation risks to
adults in estuarine and lower river
areas. Although these impacts do not
occur in the open ocean, the
demographic impact to the species
occurs after smolt emigration, and is
thus a component of the marine survival
regime.
Competition
Prior to 1800, the resident riverine
fish communities in Maine were
relatively simple, consisting of brook
trout, cusk (burbot), white sucker, and a
number of minnow species. Today,
Atlantic salmon co-exist with a diverse
array of nonnative resident fishes,
including brown trout, largemouth bass,
smallmouth bass, and northern pike
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
29376
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(MIFW, 2002). The range expansion of
nonnative fishes is important, given
evidence that niche shifts may follow
the addition or removal of other
competing species (Fausch, 1998). For
example, in Newfoundland, Canada,
where fish communities are simple,
Atlantic salmon inhabit pools and lakes
that are generally considered atypical
habitats in systems where there are
more complex fish communities
(Gibson, 1993). Use of lacustrine (or
lake) habitat, in particular, can increase
smolt production (Matthews et al.,
1997). Conversely, if salmon are
excluded from these habitats through
competitive interactions, smolt
production may suffer (Ryan, 1993).
Even if salmon are not completely
excluded from a given habitat type, they
may select different, presumably suboptimal, habitats in the presence of
certain competitors (Fausch, 1998).
Thus, competitive interactions may
limit Atlantic salmon production
through niche constriction (Hearn,
1987).
The range expansion of nonnative
species (e.g., smallmouth bass, brown
trout, and rainbow trout) is of particular
concern since these species often
require similar resources as salmon and
are, therefore, expected to be
competitors for food and space. MIFW
currently stocks landlocked Atlantic
salmon, brown trout, brook trout,
rainbow trout and splake in Atlantic
salmon river drainages, posing a threat
to Atlantic salmon in the GOM DPS (Fay
et al., 2006). The range of northern pike
has also been expanded through
stocking, and they now exist in at least
16 lakes within the Kennebec and
Androscoggin drainages as well as
Pushaw Lake that drains into Lower
Penobscot River (MIFW, 2001). Yellow
perch, white perch, and chain pickerel
were historically native to Maine,
though their range has been expanded
by stocking and subsequent colonization
(MIFW, 2002).
Brown trout, rainbow trout, and
splake are all non-native species known
to prey on Atlantic salmon and have
been stocked throughout the range of
the GOM DPS by the MIFW (Fay et al.,
2006). The species most likely to
compete for food and habitat with
Atlantic salmon in the GOM DPS
include brown trout, land locked
Atlantic salmon, brook trout, and
smallmouth bass (Fay et al., 2006).
Atlantic salmon and rainbow trout
juveniles require similar resources;
therefore, competition is expected to be
significant in areas of overlap (Fay et al.,
2006). Rainbow trout would be
important competitors if they
overlapped with Atlantic salmon to a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
greater extent (Fay et al., 2006).
Rainbow trout are present in at least
three reaches of the Kennebec River and
in the Androscoggin (Fay et al., 2006).
Illegal introductions and legal stocking
programs continue to expand their range
(Pellerin, 2002). Atlantic salmon and
rainbow trout juveniles require similar
resources; therefore, competition is
expected to be significant in areas of
overlap (Fay et al., 2006).
There are some areas within the range
of the GOM DPS where landlocked
Atlantic salmon spawn successfully and
rear in sympatry with anadromous
Atlantic salmon (Fay et al., 2006). For
these populations, competitive
interactions for food and habitat are
expected to be very high given the
nearly identical early life history
requirements of the two ecotypes (Fay et
al., 2006). Competition between brown
trout and Atlantic salmon is expected to
be significant in areas where they cooccur given similarities in their life
history requirements (Fay et al., 2006).
Brown trout currently inhabit the
Androscoggin, Kennebec Rivers, and the
Piscataquis River in the upper
Penobscot watershed, as well as many
lakes and ponds (Boland, 2001; MIFW,
2002). Most evidence suggests that
brown trout will displace or otherwise
outcompete Atlantic salmon from pool
habitats in both summer and winter
(Kennedy and Strange, 1986; Harwood
et al., 2001). The ability of brown trout
to outcompete Atlantic salmon has
significant negative effects on Atlantic
salmon, including changes in habitat
use and behavior that may limit salmon
production through niche constriction
when the two species co-occur (Hearn,
1987; Fausch, 1988). In summary,
competition is a stressor to the GOM
DPS because it can exclude salmon from
preferred habitats, reduce food
availability, and increase predation.
Climate Change
Since the 1970s there has been a
historically significant change in
climate (Greene et al., 2008). Climate
warming has resulted in increased
precipitation, river discharge, and
glacial and sea-ice melting (Greene et
al., 2008). The past 3 decades have
witnessed major changes in ocean
circulation patterns in the Arctic, and
these were accompanied by climate
associated changes as well (Greene et
al., 2008). Shifts in atmospheric
conditions have altered Arctic ocean
circulation patterns and the export of
freshwater to the North Atlantic (Greene
et al., 2008; IPCC, 2006). With respect
specifically to the North Atlantic
Oscillation (NAO), changes in salinity
and temperature are thought to be the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
result of changes in the earth’s
atmosphere caused by anthropogenic
forces (IPCC, 2006). The NAO impacts
climate variability throughout the
northern hemisphere (IPCC, 2006). Data
from the 1960s through the present
show that the NAO index has increased
from minimum values in the 1960s to
strongly positive index values in the
1990s and somewhat declined since
(IPCC, 2006). This warming extends
over 1000 m deep and is deeper than
anywhere in the world oceans and is
particularly evident under the Gulf
Stream/North Atlantic Current system
(IPCC, 2006). On a global scale, large
discharges of freshwater into the North
Atlantic subarctic seas can lead to
intense stratification of the upper water
column and a disruption of North
Atlantic Deepwater (NADW) formation
(Greene et al., 2008; IPCC, 2006). There
is evidence that the NADW has already
freshened significantly (IPCC, 2006).
This in turn can lead to a slowing down
of the global ocean thermohaline (largescale circulation in the ocean that
transforms low-density upper ocean
waters to higher density intermediate
and deep waters and returns those
waters back to the upper ocean), which
can have climatic ramifications for the
whole earth system (Greene et al., 2008).
The changes in freshwater export and
circulation patterns have resulted in
significant salinity changes (IPCC,
2006), leading to two main ecological
shifts (Pershing et al., 2005; Greene and
Pershing 2007; Greene et al., 2008). The
first major ecological shift is the
biogeographic range expansion by
Boreal Plankton, including trans-Arctic
exchanges of Pacific species with the
Atlantic (Greene et al., 2008). The
second ecological shift had mainly
affected the Northwest Atlantic where,
during the early 1990s, a dramatic shift
in shelf ecosystems occurred (Pershing
et al., 2005; Greene and Pershing, 2007;
Greene et al., 2008). The major shifts
observed specifically in the GOM and
Scotian shelf ecosystems in the early
1990s are specifically linked to these
changes in salinity and lower trophic
level communities (Pershing et al.,
2005; Greene and Pershing, 2007;
Greene et al., 2008). These changes may
be related to changes in higher trophic
level consumer populations as well
(Greene et al., 2008). Shifts in ecological
communities in the Northwest Atlantic
include commercially harvested fish
and crustacean populations, both of
which underwent large changes in
abundance during the 1990s (Frank et
al., 2005; Pershing et al., 2005;
Vilhjalmsson et al., 2005). While
overfishing was the predominant cause
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
of the collapse of cod in particular, the
cold, low-salinity Arctic waters entering
the northern portion of the range of cod,
seem to have hampered their
subsequent recovery (Rose et al., 2000;
Vilhjalmsson et al., 2005). Other
species, such as shrimp and snow crab,
have increased in abundance in the
absence of cod predation (Frank et al.,
2005).
With respect to the GOM DPS, Greene
et al. (2008) describe that changes in
salinity can result in more localized
effects on ocean circulation patterns and
climate that are confined to the North
Atlantic basin and the adjacent
landmasses. For example, these changes
specifically affect thermal regimes
within the range of the GOM DPS (see
section 8.1.4 of Fay et al. (2006)). Within
the range of the GOM DPS, the spring
runoff occurs earlier; water content in
snow pack for March and April has
decreased; and the duration of river ice
has been reduced (Dudley and
Hodgkins, 2002). Several studies
indicate that small thermal changes may
substantially alter reproductive
performance, smolt development,
species distribution limits, and
community structure of fish populations
(Van Der Kraak and Pankhurst, 1997;
McCormick et al., 1997; Keleher and
Rahel, 1996; McCarthy and Houlihan,
1997; Welch et al., 1998; Schindler,
2001). For Atlantic salmon specifically,
Juanes et al. (2004) suggest that
observed changes in adult run timing
may be a response to global climate
change. Friedland et al. (2005)
summarized numerous studies that
suggest that climate mediates marine
survival for Atlantic salmon as well as
other fish species. Recent analyses of
bottom water temperatures found that
negative NAO years are warmer in the
north and cooler in the Gulf of Maine
(Petrie, 2007). Positive NAO years are
warmer in Gulf of Maine and colder in
the north (north of 45° N) (Petrie, 2007).
Strength of NAO is related to annual
changes in diversity of potential
predators: at southern latitudes, there
are more species during positive NAO
years (Fisher et al., 2008). The effect is
system-wide where 133 species showed
at least a 20 percent difference in
frequency of occurrence in years with
opposing NAO states (Fisher et al.,
2008).
This is currently leading to different
hypotheses regarding the effect these
changes may be having on Atlantic
salmon. One hypothesis is that salmon
migrating during positive NAO years
confront a steeper gradient of cooler to
warmer water. This gradient may be
resulting in changes in the composition
of species as Atlantic salmon undertake
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
their marine migration, potentially
increasing the vulnerability of Atlantic
salmon to predators (Gibson, 2006;
NMFS Nearshore Workshop #2, 2009).
Other hypotheses being explored relate
to potential linkages between ocean
climate and effects on wind velocities
and nearshore wind driven currents and
adverse impacts on post smolt
migration, as well as the potential
influence of air temperatures and sea
surface temperature and potential
impacts on migration cues (NMFS
Nearshore Workshop #2, 2009). These
current efforts to understand changes in
ocean productivity are focused on
whether environmental changes could
be contributing, whether there are any
other species where similar shifts in
productivity have had negative effects,
and whether there are correlations
between this particular phase shift and
population dynamics of other species.
While some physiological changes at
the individual level are quite
predictable when changes in
temperature are known, we do not
understand how or to what degree
climate change may affect the
freshwater and marine environment of
the GOM DPS. At this time, we do not
have enough information to determine
whether the GOM DPS is threatened or
endangered because of the effects of
climate change.
Efforts Being Made To Protect the
Species
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires
the Secretary of Commerce to make
listing determinations solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available after taking
into account efforts being made to
protect a species. Therefore, in making
a listing determination, we first assess a
species’ level of extinction risk and
identify factors that have led to its
decline. We then assess existing efforts
being made to protect the species to
determine if these conservation efforts
improve the status of the species such
that it does not meet the ESA’s
definition of a threatened or endangered
species.
In judging the efficacy of existing
protective efforts, we rely on the
Services’ joint ‘‘Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions’’ (‘‘PECE;’’ 68 FR
15100; March 28, 2003). PECE provides
direction for the consideration of
protective efforts identified in
conservation agreements, conservation
plans, management plans, or similar
documents (developed by Federal
agencies, state and local governments,
tribal governments, businesses,
organizations, and individuals) that
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29377
have not yet been implemented, or have
been implemented but have not yet
demonstrated effectiveness. The policy
articulates several criteria for evaluating
the certainty of implementation and
effectiveness of protective efforts to aid
in determining whether a species
should be listed as threatened or
endangered. Evaluation of the certainty
that an effort will be implemented
includes whether: (1) The conservation
effort, the party(ies) to the agreement or
plan that will implement the effort, and
the staffing, funding level, funding
source, and other resources necessary to
implement the effort are identified; (2)
the legal authority of the party(ies) to
the agreement or plan to implement the
formalized conservation effort, and the
commitment to proceed with the
conservation effort are described; (3) the
legal procedural requirements (e.g.
environmental review) necessary to
implement the effort are described, and
information is provided indicating that
fulfillment of these requirements does
not preclude commitment to the effort;
(4) authorizations (e.g., permits,
landowner permission) necessary to
implement the conservation effort are
identified, and a high level of certainty
is provided that the party(ies) to the
agreement or plan that will implement
the effort will obtain these
authorizations; (5) the type and level of
voluntary participation (e.g., number of
landowners allowing entry to their land,
or number of participants agreeing to
change timber management practices
and acreage involved) necessary to
implement the conservation effort is
identified, and a high level of certainty
is provided that the party(ies) to the
agreement or plan that will implement
the conservation effort will obtain that
level of voluntary participation (e.g., an
explanation of how incentives to be
provided will result in the necessary
level of voluntary participation); (6)
regulatory mechanisms (e.g., laws,
regulations, ordinances) necessary to
implement the conservation effort are in
place; (7) a high level of certainty is
provided that the party(ies) to the
agreement or plan that will implement
the conservation effort will obtain the
necessary funding; (8) an
implementation schedule (including
incremental completion dates) for the
conservation effort is provided; and (9)
the conservation agreement or plan that
includes the conservation effort is
approved by all parties to the agreement
or plan. The evaluation of the certainty
of an effort’s effectiveness is made on
the basis of whether the effort or plan
meets the following elements: (1) The
nature and extent of threats being
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29378
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
addressed by the conservation effort are
described, and how the conservation
effort reduces the threats is described;
(2) explicit incremental objectives for
the conservation effort and dates for
achieving them are stated; (3) the steps
necessary to implement the
conservation effort are identified in
detail; (4) quantifiable, scientifically
valid parameters that will demonstrate
achievement of objectives, and
standards for these parameters by which
progress will be measured, are
identified; (5) provisions for monitoring
and reporting progress on
implementation (based on compliance
with the implementation schedule) and
effectiveness (based on evaluation of
quantifiable parameters) of the
conservation effort are provided; and (6)
principles of adaptive management are
incorporated.
PECE also notes several important
caveats. Satisfaction of the above
mentioned criteria for implementation
and effectiveness establishes a given
protective effort as a candidate for
consideration, but does not mean that
an effort will ultimately change the risk
assessment for the species. The policy
stresses that, just as listing
determinations must be based on the
viability of the species at the time of
review, so they must be based on the
state of protective efforts at the time of
the listing determination. PECE does not
provide explicit guidance on how
protective efforts affecting only a
portion of a species’ range may affect a
listing determination, other than to say
that such efforts will be evaluated in the
context of other efforts being made and
the species’ overall viability. There are
circumstances where threats are so
imminent, widespread, and/or complex
that it may be impossible for any
agreement or plan to include sufficient
efforts to result in a determination that
listing is not warranted.
Outlined below are current and future
protective efforts that may minimize
threats facing the GOM DPS. Each of
these efforts or projects is measured
against the PECE criteria to evaluate the
certainty of implementation and
effectiveness to determine the relative
contribution of the efforts to reducing
extinction risk.
Fish Passage, Dams, and Hydropower
The Services are involved in
hydroelectric project relicensing and
other fish passage issues. Fisheries
agencies in Maine continue to work to
establish and improve upstream and
downstream fish passage, and to remove
dams and other blockages to habitat
connectivity. The majority of fish
passage work in the range of the GOM
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
DPS focuses on FERC licensed dams on
the Penobscot, Kennebec, and
Androscoggin watersheds and on
opportunities to enhance passage
throughout historical Atlantic salmon
habitat. This includes participating in
the Penobscot River Restoration Project,
negotiating improved passage on a
number of dams on the Kennebec River
pursuant in part to the 1998 Lower
Kennebec River Comprehensive
Hydropower Settlement Accord,
replacing culverts on highways and
logging roads, and removing dams. The
Services, in coordination with other
state and Federal agencies, are also
making efforts to improve fish passage
on the Narraguagus and Sheepscot
Rivers. Information regarding some of
the most notable efforts made to
improve passage for Atlantic salmon in
the GOM DPS is summarized below.
(1) Lower Kennebec River
Comprehensive Hydropower Settlement
Accord (KHDG Accord, May 26th, 1998):
The KHDG Accord addresses fish
passage issues at eight hydroelectric
projects on the Kennebec River and
Sebasticook River. The 1998 Accord was
signed by various state and Federal
fishery agencies and approved by the
FERC. In addition, the Anson and
Abenaki Offer of Settlement (January 30,
2002), also signed by various state and
Federal fishery agencies and approved
by FERC, addresses fish passage
provisions on two hydroelectric projects
within the middle reaches of the
Kennebec River (Anson and Abenaki
Projects). On the Kennebec River, fish
passage agreements were reached at the
lower four hydroelectric projects
including the Lockwood, HydroKennebec, Shawmut, and Weston as
part of the KHDG Accord. The
lowermost hydroelectric project,
Edwards Dam, was removed as part of
the KHDG Accord. On the Sebasticook
River, fish passage agreements were
reached on the Benton and Burnham
Projects, and in 2008, the Fort Halifax
dam was breached pursuant to the
passage agreement.
During the spring of 2006, upstream
fish passage facilities were installed at
the Lockwood Dam, the lowermost dam
in the Kennebec, pursuant to the KHDG
Accord. Fish passage at the Lockwood
Dam currently consists of a fish lift with
trap and truck facilities. Atlantic salmon
captured at the Lockwood Dam are
transported upstream to suitable habitat
in the Sandy River. In 2006, upstream
fish passage, in the form of a fish lift,
was also installed at the Benton Falls
and Burnham facilities on the
Sebasticook River, a tributary to the
Kennebec. Currently on the Kennebec,
only the Lockwood Dam has upstream
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
fish passage facilities for Atlantic
salmon (FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC,
2008). While some salmon rearing
habitat is now available in the restored
reach below Lockwood, the vast
majority of salmon habitat (nearly 90
percent) in the Kennebec River
watershed is located above Lockwood.
The KHDG Accord and AnsonAbenaki Settlement contain biological
triggers for implementing upstream
passage on the Kennebec River. Based
upon the KHDG biological triggers, the
next mainstem dam upstream of
Lockwood (Hydro-Kennebec) may not
have upstream fish passage facilities
installed until 2010 at the earliest, and
the last dam with upstream habitat may
not have fishways until 2020. The main
biological trigger to sequential
implementation of upstream passage at
the remaining KHDG dams is the
establishment of a large run of shad in
the Kennebec that will be trapped at
Lockwood. The shad program in the
Kennebec is supported by stocking;
however, that program is limited by
funding and production capabilities.
Funding was secured through 2008;
however, funding for the stocking
program for 2009 and beyond is highly
uncertain. The KHDG Accord does offer
one other alternative to state and
Federal resource agencies to trigger
fishway installation. Text in the Accord
states the alternative approach is
available to state and Federal resource
agencies ‘‘should the growth of salmon
or river herring runs make it necessary
to adopt an alternative approach for
triggering fishway installation.’’
However, this process would have to be
handled through FERC, and the
Licensee would have to agree to the
proposed alternative triggers. Even after
fish passage facilities are installed in the
Kennebec River in accordance with this
plan, Atlantic salmon will need to pass
at least six mainstem dams (Lockwood,
Hydro-Kennebec, Shawmut, Weston,
Abenaki, and Anson).
The KHDG Accord and AnsonAbenaki Settlement are legally binding,
requiring all parties to fulfill their
obligations as stated in the agreement.
When all of the conditions in the
Accord and Settlement have been
fulfilled, passage on the Kennebec River
and some of the tributaries will be
improved, allowing Atlantic salmon and
other diadromous species access to
important habitat. However, neither the
Accord nor the Settlement is likely to
recover Atlantic salmon in the
Kennebec watershed in the foreseeable
future. The legal procedural
requirements in the agreements are
based upon biological triggers that
currently are contingent upon the
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
success of a shad stocking program for
which production capacity and funding
are uncertain for 2009 and beyond.
Therefore, the second, third and seventh
criteria in the PECE for certainty of
implementation are not satisfied. Under
PECE, the effectiveness of the
agreements to fully address passage
issues for Atlantic salmon in the
Kennebec River, or the entire GOM DPS,
also can not be fully guaranteed at this
time, given that all objectives and
project parameters are based upon
biological triggers that are uncertain.
Thus, while the Accord and the
Settlement have time tables associated
with implementation, monitoring
components, and project objectives
(effectiveness criteria two, three, and
five), these are contingent upon
biological triggers being met.
(2) Penobscot River Restoration
Project (PRRP): Perhaps the most
significant of the agreements mentioned
above is the PRRP. The PRRP is the
result of many years of negotiations
between Pennsylvania Power and Light
(PPL), U.S. Department of the Interior
(i.e., USFWS, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
National Park Service), Penobscot
Indian Nation, the state of Maine (i.e.,
Maine State Planning Office, Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife, MDMR), and
several non-governmental organizations
(NGOs; Atlantic Salmon Federation,
American Rivers, Trout Unlimited,
Natural Resources Council of Maine,
among others). If implemented, the
PRRP would lead to the removal of the
two lowermost mainstem dams on the
Penobscot River (Veazie and Great
Works) and would decommission the
Howland Dam and construct a naturelike fishway around it. This initiative
would improve habitat accessibility for
all diadromous species. For example,
less than 7 percent of post-project
salmon habitat will be above four or
more dams, and at least 43 percent of
the habitat would require, at most, one
dam passage in each direction with
conventional passage facilities. At least
15 percent of salmon habitat would
have no intervening dams remaining,
compared to 2.5 percent presently (see
section 8.1 in Fay et al., 2006).
In addition to improved habitat
accessibility for Atlantic salmon and
other diadromous species, the PRRP
will also provide an opportunity to
study the ecological linkages between
Atlantic salmon and the 11 other
diadromous species with which they coevolved. The linkage between other
diadromous species and Atlantic
salmon may be crucial to recovering
Atlantic salmon to self-sustaining levels.
As stated previously, this co-evolution
likely provided ecological benefits to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
the diadromous species complex (e.g.,
marine-derived nutrient deposition and
prey buffering), which may enhance
Atlantic salmon survival at key life
stages. Therefore, a full understanding
of these benefits and a multi-species
approach is required for the successful
recovery of Atlantic salmon to the
Penobscot system.
In June 2004, the Parties to the
negotiations signed the Penobscot
Multiparty Settlement Agreement
(MPA). The MPA includes a 5-year
option period during which time the
‘‘Penobscot River Restoration Trust’’
raised the necessary funds to purchase
the dams. In addition, another $25–30M
is required for decommissioning and
removal. NOAA’s budget for the 2008
fiscal year contained $10M to support
the PRRP.
There is a significant effort on behalf
of the Parties to the MPA and other
Federal and non-Federal bodies to
secure funds for the purchase,
decommissioning, and removal of the
dams. However, as stated above, the
certainty of that funding is not known
at this time. While the necessary
funding has been committed by the
government and other private donors to
achieve the purchase of the dams, a
significant amount of money still must
be acquired in order for the parties to
exercise the option to decommission
and remove the dams as well as
construct a nature like fishway. While
significant progress has been made in
fundraising and permitting, staffing,
funding level, funding source and other
resources necessary to fully implement
the PRRP are not identified at this time.
There is not currently a high level of
certainty that the necessary funding will
be obtained. Therefore, at this time, the
PRRP does not satisfy criteria one and
seven in the certainty of implementation
of the PECE. Permitting and regulatory
requirements are also uncertain at this
stage because they are contingent upon
the ability of the parties to raise the full
amount of funds necessary, FERC
approval of the Trust’s permit to
surrender the dams, and completion of
required environmental review. Thus,
the PRRP does not satisfy criterion four
of the PECE, which requires that all
authorizations (e.g., permits, land owner
permission) necessary to implement the
conservation effort are identified and
that there is a high certainty that the
parties to the agreement will obtain all
necessary authorizations. If proper
funding is acquired to fulfill the MPA
and the project undergoes the
appropriate environmental and
regulatory review and permitting,
Atlantic salmon in the Penobscot River
will clearly benefit. However, it is not
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29379
possible to state at this time with a high
level of certainty that this project will be
fully implemented, especially in light of
the present economic conditions and
energy issues facing the United States.
If the removal option is not exercised,
fishway prescriptions issued by the
Services will be implemented.
The PRRP provides unique
opportunities for restoration efforts.
Many species will benefit from the
PRRP directly, but many other passage
impediments exist in the basin. Some
diadromous fish species, such as
Atlantic salmon, alewife, and shad, may
require additional habitat improvements
(barrier removal, fishways, etc.) or
stocking. Thus, additional active
restoration measures may be required to
realize the full potential of the PRRP.
Due to the high profile of the project
and the high costs involved, there is a
need to prioritize restoration efforts in
the basin to increase the probability for
project success. There are many ways to
determine what a ‘‘successful’’ PRRP
would look like. In March 2008, the
Penobscot Interagency Technical
Committee (PNITC) was formed to
develop operational management plans
for diadromous fish within the basin.
Members of the PNITC include
managers and scientists from MDMR,
MIFW, NMFS, the Penobscot Indian
Nation, and FWS. The PNITC has been
tasked with developing one set of
restoration goals and priorities for the
basin. To help facilitate this goal, we
have begun developing an ecologicallybased GIS tool to help set goals and to
help identify and prioritize various
restoration efforts. The outputs of this
tool will help to ensure that achievable
goals are established, and that funding
and restoration efforts are applied in the
most appropriate manner. The PNITC,
in conjunction with NMFS, are making
strides towards defining the scope of
restoration efforts and operational plans
for diadromous species including
Atlantic salmon. Despite these efforts,
the effectiveness of the PRRP is still
uncertain given that explicit
incremental objectives and an
implementation plan still need to be
identified (criteria two and three);
quantifiable, scientifically valid
parameters by which to measure
progress have yet to be established
(criterion four); and provisions for
reporting and monitoring have not been
established (criterion five).
(3) New England Atlantic Salmon
Committee (NEASC): In addition to
these efforts, NEASC requested that the
USASAC provide a list of the top
priority fish passage projects in New
England. NEASC hopes to use this
information to leverage funding from a
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29380
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
variety of sources to implement these
projects. The prioritized list was
developed by soliciting information
from representatives from each of the
New England states responsible for
managing Atlantic salmon. NEASC
hopes that this initiative will result in
a large scale effort to improve passage
and remove obstructions for salmon and
other diadromous fish species
throughout New England. This effort
may result in gaining both support and
resources for improved passage.
However, the outcome of this effort is
highly uncertain in terms of both
implementation and effectiveness.
Therefore, the NEASC effort to prioritize
fish passage projects in hopes to
leverage funding for implementation
does not satisfy any of the six
effectiveness and nine implementation
criteria of the PECE.
Adaptive Management Initiatives
(1) Habitat Connectivity: In 2006, 18
stream habitat connectivity projects
were completed in 3 of the Downeast
Rivers. The principal funding sources
were Natural Resources Conservation
Service-Wildlife Habitat Improvement
Program, USFWS, Maine Atlantic
Salmon Conservation PartnershipStudent Career Experience Program,
Project Salmon Habitat and River
Enhancement, Washington County Soil
and Water Conservation District, and
private landowner contributions. Four
stream-road crossings (culverts) were
completely removed in the Machias
River watershed. The remaining 14
projects replaced undersized culverts
with open bottom arches that spanned
1.2 times bankfull stream width in the
Machias, Narraguagus, and East Machias
watersheds. These restoration projects
are effectively contributing to salmon
recovery by improving access to habitat
for Atlantic salmon and other
diadromous species. These types of
restoration initiatives are likely to
continue; however, they are contingent
upon the continued availability of
funding sources, voluntary participation
of landowners and other groups, and
identification of specific
implementation dates. Therefore, while
the aforementioned projects are deemed
to be effective, the certainty of
implementation of additional projects is
unknown and the future initiatives do
not satisfy certainty of implementation
criteria one, five, seven and eight.
(2) Watershed Councils: Watershed
councils are actively engaged in
cooperative Atlantic salmon
conservation activities. Local watershed
councils, formed under the auspices of
the Maine Atlantic Salmon
Conservation Partnership, continue to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
play an important role in recovery
activities in their respective watersheds,
particularly the planning and
implementation of watershed-specific
habitat protection and restoration.
Watershed councils have
representatives from state and Federal
agencies, conservation groups,
industries, towns, landowners and other
interested groups or individuals. These
groups coordinate their efforts with
those of local groups with similar goals.
The councils continue to review the
status of threats in each watershed and
determine the need for continued or
new efforts to further minimize any
potential threat to Atlantic salmon from
future activities present in the
watershed. The process ensures that all
stakeholders in the watersheds have the
opportunity to participate in decisions
concerning conservation actions. The
activities of watershed councils are
largely voluntary and vary by council,
depending on the level of participation
from members. Many of the efforts
undertaken by watershed councils have
been and continue to be extremely
effective at contributing to salmon
recovery. Future efforts will likely
continue to make positive contributions
as well, provided that voluntary
participation within each council
continues. There is no overarching
management plan that outlines the
collective work or goals of the councils
into the future; therefore, it is uncertain
what projects will be implemented on
an annual basis, and whether the
necessary resources will be available to
implement the projects in terms of both
funding sources and voluntary
participation. PECE criteria one, five,
seven and eight require a high level of
certainty that: the necessary resources
are identified and secured; the
necessary voluntary participation and
permissions to implement conservation
plan have been obtained; and an
implementation schedule for the project
is provided. While past activities have
been effective in restoring salmon
habitat and improving access, the
effectiveness of future efforts can not be
evaluated in terms of the conservation
contribution to the status of the species.
(3) Large Woody Debris Project:
Maine’s rivers have experienced
dramatic changes over the last 300
years. One of the most sweeping is the
removal, lack of recruitment, and
subsequent attrition of LWD. The result
is that the rivers likely have very low
loading of LWD, and thus, have less
complex fish habitat compared to the
past. LWD creates pools, retains gravel
and nutrients, supports benthic
macroinvertebrates, influences current
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
velocities and water depth, provides
cover, and during high water, refugia for
fishes. The value of LWD in promoting
productive Atlantic salmon habitat is
undocumented. In October 2006, a
project was implemented to enhance
habitat at a scale that will have
population-level benefits, with a design
that evaluates the effects of LWD
additions on stream geomorphology.
LWD was added to two sites, each with
a paired control site, in Creamer Brook,
East Machias Drainage. Streams in the
Narraguagus, Machias, and East Machias
drainages were also evaluated for
potential LWD additions. The Creamer
Brook sites were scouted and surveyed
for similarity and surveyed for fish
populations immediately prior to the
habitat work. Each site was
electrofished using multiple pass
depletion, and fish were weighed,
measured, and released into their site.
LWD was added at a rate of
approximately 12 pieces per 100m by
cutting trees in the riparian zone and
adjusting their placement to achieve
either stability or geomorphologic effect.
In addition, all LWD (existing and
added) in the treatment sites was tagged
with metal numeric tags and marked
with spray paint. The site was surveyed
before and after LWD placements. Trees
were also felled in the riparian zone to
increase roughness to minimize channel
migration as a result of the LWD
additions.
The LWD project directly incorporates
the principles of adaptive management.
The project is aimed at improving the
complexity of fish habitat through the
addition of LWD. The project plan lays
out explicit objectives, qualitative and
quantitative parameters by which
progress will be measured, and sites to
be monitored, fulfilling two through six
of the PECE effectiveness criteria. The
effectiveness of this project has not been
demonstrated because LWD additions
have not been shown to enhance salmon
survival. Therefore, it is not yet clear to
what extent the LWD project is
addressing the threat posed by the loss
of habitat complexity; thus, criterion
one of the certainty of effectiveness is
not satisfied.
(4) The Penobscot Indian Nation
Water Quality Monitoring Program:
Water quality is a critical issue to the
Penobscot Indian Nation, given that
many of the fish and other aquatic
species serve as an important source of
traditional food. Industrial discharge
has resulted in the presence of harmful
chemicals in the waters that flow
through reservation waters. The
Penobscot Indian Nation has
implemented a rigorous water quality
testing program to: ensure that water
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
quality standards are being met and that
licensed discharges are in compliance
with permit conditions; upgrade river
and tributary classifications; identify
and remediate sources of non-point
source pollution; and gather data
needed to support the role of the tribe
in hydroelectric re-licensing. The
Penobscot Indian Nation also has a
cooperative agreement with the MDEP
to share water quality data and technical
assistance. The data provided by the
Penobscot Indian Nation has led to the
revision of water classifications for over
500 rivers and streams and improved
water quality. The Penobscot Indian
Nation’s water quality monitoring
program satisfies all of the certainty of
effectiveness and implementation
criteria. While this program is very
important in terms of improving water
quality and the health of aquatic
organisms, the results of the program in
terms of threat abatement across the
entire GOM DPS are not sufficient to
warrant a change in the listing status of
the GOM DPS.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
International Efforts
(1) North Atlantic Salmon
Conservation Organization: The
Convention for the Conservation of
Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean,
ratified by the United States in 1982,
provides a mechanism for managing the
international commercial fishery for
Atlantic salmon for the purpose of
conserving and restoring salmon stocks.
The Convention provides a forum for
coordination among members,
proposing regulatory measures, and for
making recommendations regarding
scientific research. The Convention was
adopted by the United States, Canada,
Greenland (as represented by Denmark),
Iceland, Faroes Islands, Norway, and the
European Commission. Russia joined
later. The NASCO was formed by this
Convention. The United States became
a charter member of NASCO in 1984.
NASCO is charged with the
international management of Atlantic
salmon stocks on the high seas. NASCO
is composed of three geographic
Commissions: Northeast Atlantic, West
Greenland, and North American.
NASCO seeks scientific advice from the
International Council for the
Exploration of the Seas (ICES) on the
status of stocks, the effectiveness of
management measures, monitoring and
data needs, and catch options. NASCO
uses this scientific advice as a basis for
formulating biologically sound
management recommendations for the
conservation of North Atlantic salmon
stocks. Providing catch options for the
fishery at West Greenland is one area
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
where this advice is specifically
applied.
The West Greenland fishery was one
of the last directed Atlantic salmon
commercial fisheries in the Northwest
Atlantic. In 2005, in recognition of the
depressed status of the stocks and the
fact that the resulting scientific advice
was unchanged year-to-year, the
NASCO Parties asked ICES for multiannual regulatory advice. Based on this
advice, a provisional multi-annual
regulatory measure was adopted at the
2006 annual meeting of NASCO to
restrict the fishery in 2006 to internal
use only and conditionally also for 2007
and 2008. The provisional multi-annual
regulatory measure adopted in 2006 was
contingent upon finalization and
acceptance of a finalized Framework of
Indicators (FWI). ICES provided NASCO
with a finalized FWI for the mixed stock
off West Greenland that all Parties
accepted in 2007. The multi-annual
regulatory measure agreed to in 2006
were continued for 2007 and 2008. This
measure, like those of recent years,
limits harvest in West Greenland to
internal use only (estimated to be about
20 mt). Denmark, representing
Greenland and the Faroe Islands, stated
that it would accept the FWI for a fixed
period 2006–2008 and would consider
accepting new multi-annual catch
advice at the 2009 Annual Meeting in
light of further development of the FWI,
the continued research of the mortality
of salmon stocks, and possible
improvement of the stocks.
In 2001, NASCO established an
International Atlantic Salmon Research
Board (IASRB) to promote collaboration
and cooperation on research on the
causes of marine mortality of Atlantic
salmon and the opportunities to
counteract this mortality. The IASRB
has made great progress in improving
coordination of the existing research
and supporting initiation of new
research projects. However, there are
still substantial gaps in our knowledge
of what factors may be affecting salmon
at sea. The IASRB, therefore,
commissioned the development of an
international program of cooperative
research on salmon at sea (SALSEA).
The SALSEA program has been
developed by scientists from all
NASCO’s Parties. The four areas on
which SALSEA is currently focusing
are: (1) Supporting technologies to assist
in the genetic identification of the origin
of salmon sampled at sea, improving
efficiency of sampling of salmon at sea,
and improving standardized scale
analysis of salmon at sea; (2) studying
early migration through the inshore
zone: fresh waters, estuaries, and coastal
waters to specifically understand what
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29381
factors may be influencing marine
mortality; (3) studying the distribution
and migration of salmon at sea; and (4)
improving communications and public
relations. The United States has
contributed $150,000 to the IASRB to
help fund SALSEA. The United States
has also participated in a marking
workshop sponsored by SALSEA and
actively participates in the West
Greenland Sampling Program on an
annual basis.
The West Greenland Sampling
Program is an international sampling
program of the internal use fishery at
West Greenland. Scale and tissue
samples are taken to allow examination
of stock origin, catch composition, and
fish health. This sampling program has
provided a wealth of information on the
extent, location, and origin of the catch.
Scale and genetic analyses have allowed
for detailed knowledge of the
characteristics of the catch, including
age and continent of origin. In recent
years, approximately 70 percent of the
catch has been of North American origin
and 30 percent of European origin.
The United States intends to continue
to participate fully in NASCO and
associated negotiations over the West
Greenland Fishery. The legislative
authority, funding, authorizations,
staffing resources, an approved plan
(U.S. Implementation Plan) and
associated schedule for implementation
of actions, and legal requirements
allowing for United States participation
in NASCO are certain. Although
NASCO does not have any regulatory
authority over any of the Parties, it has
been successful at influencing salmon
management in member states. The
West Greenland fishery is a prime
example of NASCO facilitating
negotiations and ultimately,
management, of this fishery for the
benefit of salmon as a whole in the
North Atlantic Ocean. However, while
NASCO has been successful in reducing
the threat of directed harvest of Atlantic
salmon in the West Greenland fishery,
a small, but significant, portion of the
catch continues to be Atlantic salmon of
U.S. origin. The NASCO guidelines and
agreements are contributing to reducing
threats to salmon recovery (e.g., fishing,
disease, aquaculture, habitat
destruction, stocking practices). While
the NASCO agreements and guidelines
appear to have reduced the threat from
direct harvest, the agreements and
guidelines are not regulatory. It is
incumbent on each Party to NASCO to
enforce the actions identified in the
Implementation Plan drafted by each
country as well as report on their
success relative to the health of salmon
stocks. Therefore, the effectiveness of
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29382
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
specific NASCO guidelines and
agreements is not certain. Some parties
have failed to develop rigorous
Implementation Plans with explicit
incremental objectives and dates for
achieving the action, scientific
parameters, and ability to report under
these plans. Thus, effectiveness criteria
two through five are not certain at this
time. There is also some uncertainty in
terms of the implementation of the
NASCO guidelines and agreements.
There is even more uncertainty about
the individual Implementation Plans,
given that, in some regions, there is not
the necessary voluntary support by
landowners, necessary funding to
implement the conservation measures,
or even the necessary regulatory
mechanisms within the jurisdiction of
each Party to regulate certain activities.
Thus, certainty of implementation
criteria four to seven cannot be satisfied
for the NASCO guidelines and
agreements. It is also unknown to what
extent current IASRB and SALSEA
activities will abate the threat from poor
marine survival.
(2) West Greenland Conservation
Agreement: In August 2002, a multi-year
conservation agreement with an annual
termination date (available to both
parties) was established between the
North Atlantic Salmon Fund and the
Organization of Hunters and Fishermen
in Greenland, effectively buying out the
commercial fishery for Atlantic salmon
for a 5-year period. The internal-use
fishery is not included in the agreement.
In June 2007, the agreement was
extended and revised to cover the 2007
fishing season with a provision which
allows the agreement to continue to be
extended on an annual basis through
2013. An implementation plan and
schedule are already developed as well
as the necessary authorizations and
legal authority. However, certainty of
implementation criteria five, seven, and
nine cannot be satisfied, considering the
certainty that the necessary funding has
not been secured, and it is not known
if all parties will agree to extend the
Agreement.
Summary of Protective Efforts
The current endangered status of the
GOM DPS as listed in 2000 and the
desire to restore the Penobscot to a free
flowing river have created an incentive
for various agencies, groups, and
individuals to carry out a number of
efforts aimed at protecting and
conserving salmon. These actions are
being directed at reducing threats faced
by Atlantic salmon and could contribute
to the recovery and restoration of the
GOM DPS and its ecosystem
substantially in the future. However,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
apart from the Penobscot Indian Nation
Water Quality Monitoring Program,
there is still considerable uncertainty
regarding the implementation and
effectiveness of these efforts in the
future. Therefore, they cannot be
considered to affect the listing status of
the GOM DPS.
Finding
As stated previously in this final rule,
the main difference between the GOM
DPS as listed in 2000 and the GOM DPS
as finalized in this rule is the inclusion
of the majority of the Androscoggin,
Kennebec, and Penobscot River basins.
The 2000 GOM DPS consisted of only
small coastal rivers on either side of the
Penobscot River.
The small coastal rivers were subject
to similar threats, including water
withdrawals, aquaculture escapees, and
habitat degradation. Although the rivers
to the east and west of the Penobscot are
exposed to different stressors, they have
more threats in common with each other
than with the larger river systems
included in the GOM DPS as currently
defined. Habitat degradation from poor
water quality and water withdrawals
still pose a threat to salmon within some
of the small coastal rivers. For the most
part, the small coastal rivers included
within the 2000 GOM DPS boundaries
are not dammed for hydroelectric
generation (an exception would be the
Union River), and, therefore, this threat
was not highlighted in the 2000 listing.
However, other barriers were identified
in the 2000 listing as impacting habitat.
The larger river basins face some
additional threats compared to the small
coastal rivers because they have higher
human population densities, more
development, and a significant number
of dams and other barriers. Dams are
present on all three of the larger rivers
within the range of the GOM DPS and
impact all salmon moving up and
downstream. Given the number of
salmon affected by dams and the
amount of the habitat within the GOM
DPS affected by dams, this threat is a
significant factor in this listing
determination.
Poor marine survival was identified as
one of the most significant threats in our
2000 listing. Since then, we have
improved our knowledge and
understanding of the impact of marine
survival on the GOM DPS. Survival and
eventual recovery of the GOM DPS
depends on an increase in marine
survival, which is why that threat is a
significant factor in this listing
determination.
There are extremely few naturallyreared, spawning adult salmon present
in the GOM DPS (184 in 2007). With the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
addition of Atlantic salmon in the
Penobscot and other large rivers to the
GOM DPS, the demographic security is
somewhat increased because
populations that are geographically
widespread are less likely to experience
spatially-correlated catastrophes.
However, the number of naturallyreared, spawning adults within the
GOM DPS is extremely low and the
majority of returning adults (whether
naturally-reared or smolt-stocked) are
found in the Penobscot River, despite
the addition of other large rivers to the
range of the DPS. In 2007, only 16
adults returned to the Kennebec and 20
returned to the Androscoggin.
The GOM DPS is sustained by a
carefully managed hatchery
supplementation program. Hatchery
supplementation is crucial to the
continued existence of the GOM DPS,
though we recognize that reliance on
artificial propagation carries risks that
cannot be completely avoided despite
managers’ best efforts. We have
carefully examined both the positive
and negative effects of hatchery
supplementation, including the risk of
disruptions to hatchery operations (e.g.,
due to disease outbreak) or the genetic
risks (such as inbreeding and
domestication selection). Although
hatchery supplementation of the GOM
DPS is currently important in
maintaining genetic diversity levels,
these programs have not been successful
at recovering or maintaining wild, selfsustaining populations of Atlantic
salmon.
Further, at the present time, there is
no evidence to suggest that marine
survival will increase in the near future.
In short, without both conservation
hatcheries continuing to operate and an
increase in marine survival, the risk of
extinction is high.
As described above, the demographic
effects of the currently low marine
survival on the GOM DPS are severe,
dams limit the viability of salmon
populations through numerous and
sometimes synergistic ways (e.g.,
blocking up and downstream passage,
entrainment, water quality effects, fish
community effects), and the existing
regulatory mechanisms for dams are
inadequate. As a result, we find that low
marine survival, dams, and the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for dams are each
significant factors in this listing
determination.
We find that threats from reduced
habitat complexity, reduced habitat
connectivity, and reduced water
quantity and degraded water quality
within Factor A; overutilization within
Factor B; disease and predation within
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Factor C; inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms for water
withdrawals and water quality within
Factor D; and aquaculture, depleted
diadromous fish communities, and
competition within Factor E all act as
stressors on the GOM DPS. Collectively,
these are significant factors in this
listing determination, contributing to
the poor status of the GOM DPS. At this
time, we do not have enough
information to determine whether
climate change (within Factor E) is a
threat to the long-term persistence of the
GOM DPS.
We have considered all the above
factors, efforts to protect the species,
and the status of the species. We have
concluded that the GOM DPS of
Atlantic salmon is in danger of
extinction. Therefore, we are listing it as
endangered.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include
recovery actions, requirements for
Federal agencies to avoid jeopardizing
the continued existence of the species,
and prohibitions against taking the
species, as defined in the ESA.
Recognition through listing may
improve public awareness and
encourage conservation actions by
Federal, state, and local agencies,
private organizations, and individuals.
The ESA provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the
States and provides for recovery actions
to be carried out for listed species. The
requirement of Federal agencies to avoid
jeopardy and the prohibitions against
take are discussed below.
Section 7(a) of the ESA, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions with respect to any species
that is listed as endangered or
threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is designated.
Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the
ESA are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies
to confer informally with us on any
action that is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a species
proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2)
requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical
habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
into formal consultation with us under
the provisions of section 7(a)(2) of the
ESA.
Several Federal agencies are expected
to have involvement under section 7 of
the ESA regarding the Atlantic salmon.
The Environmental Protection Agency
may be required to consult on its
permitting oversight authority for the
CWA and Clear Air Act. The ACOE may
be required to consult on permits it
issues under section 404 of the CWA
and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act. The FERC may be required to
consult on licenses it issues for
hydroelectric dams under the FPA. The
Federal Highway Administration may
be required to consult on transportation
projects it authorizes, funds, or carries
out.
ESA section 9(a) take prohibitions (16
U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(B)) apply to all species
listed as endangered. Those
prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take, import or
export, ship in interstate commerce in
the course of commercial activity, or sell
or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any wildlife species listed as
endangered, except as provided in
sections 6(g)(2) and 10 of the ESA. It is
also illegal under ESA section 9 to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or
ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Section 11 of the ESA
provides for civil and criminal penalties
for violation of section 9 or of
regulations issued under the ESA.
The ESA provides for the issuance of
permits to authorize incidental take
during the conduct of activities that may
result in the take of threatened or
endangered wildlife under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22,
17.23, and 17.32. Such permits are
available for scientific purposes, to
enhance the propagation or survival of
the species, and for incidental take in
the course of otherwise lawful activities
provided that certain criteria are met.
It is our policy, published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify, to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not likely constitute a violation
of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of
this policy is to increase public
awareness of the effects of the listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
a species’ range.
The Services believe that, based on
the best available information, the
following actions are unlikely to result
in a violation of section 9:
(1) Any incidental take of GOM DPS
Atlantic salmon resulting from an
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29383
otherwise lawful activity conducted in
accordance with the conditions of an
incidental take permit issued by one of
the Services under section 10 of the
ESA. Examples of such actions may
include operation of dams and fishways,
State sport fish stocking programs, State
recreational fishing programs for other
species, silviculture, agriculture, State
programs regulating water quality, and
State programs regulating water
withdrawals and instream flow;
(2) Any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by a Federal agency that is
likely to adversely affect the GOM DPS
of Atlantic salmon, when the action is
conducted in accordance with the terms
and conditions of an incidental take
statement issued by either of the
Services under section 7 of the ESA.
Examples of such actions may include
dam construction and operation, road
construction, discharge of fill material,
siting and operation of aquaculture
facilities, and stream channelization or
diversion; and
(3) Any action carried out for
scientific purposes or to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species
that is conducted in accordance with
the conditions of a permit issued by one
of the Services under section 10 of the
ESA. Examples of such actions may
include the river-specific hatchery
conservation program at CBNFH and
GLNFH, habitat restoration activities,
and scientific monitoring programs.
Activities that could lead to violation
of section 9 prohibitions against ‘‘take’’
of the GOM DPS of anadromous Atlantic
salmon include, but are not limited to,
the following:
(1) Unauthorized killing, collecting,
handling, or harassing of individual
GOM DPS Atlantic salmon. Examples of
such actions may include targeted
recreational or commercial fishing for
GOM DPS salmon, and non-targeted
recreational or commercial fishing for
other species (bycatch),
(2) Siting or operation of an
aquaculture facility without adopting
and implementing fish health practices
that adequately protect against the
introduction and spread of disease or
the destruction of habitat;
(3) Unauthorized destruction or
alteration of spawning, rearing, or
migration habitat. Examples of such
activities may include erecting or
operating structures that block
migration routes (such as dams,
culverts, or other barriers); instream
dredging, rock removal, operation of
heavy equipment, or channelization;
riparian and in-river damage due to
livestock; discharge of fill material; or
manipulation of river flow;
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29384
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
(4) Discharge or dumping of toxic
chemicals, silt, or other pollutants (e.g.,
fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, oil,
organic wastes) into the aquatic
environment of the GOM DPS.
Other activities not identified here
will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
to determine if violation of section 9 of
the ESA may be likely to result from
such activities. When there are
questions about the effect of an action
on the GOM DPS, the Services are
available to provide technical
assistance. We do not consider these
lists to be exhaustive, and we provide
them as general information to the
public.
Critical Habitat
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires us
to designate critical habitat for
threatened and endangered species ‘‘on
the basis of the best scientific data
available and after taking into
consideration the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any
other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.’’ This
section grants the Secretary of the
Interior or of Commerce discretion to
exclude an area from critical habitat if
the Secretary determines ‘‘the benefits
of such exclusion outweigh the benefits
of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat.’’ The Secretary may not
exclude areas if exclusion ‘‘will result in
the extinction of the species.’’ In
addition, the Secretary may not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan under
Section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a), if the Secretary determines in
writing that such a plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation (see
section 318(a)(3) of the National Defense
Authorization Act, Pub. L. 108–136).
The ESA defines critical habitat under
section 3(5)(A) as: ‘‘(i) the specific areas
within the geographical area occupied
by the species, at the time it is listed
* * *, on which are found those
physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the
species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or
protection; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed
* * *, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.’’
Once critical habitat is designated,
Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal
agencies to ensure they do not fund,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
authorize, or carry out any actions that
will destroy or adversely modify that
habitat. This requirement is in addition
to the other principal section 7
requirement that Federal agencies
ensure their actions do not jeopardize
the continued existence of listed
species.
The Secretary of Commerce is
designating critical habitat in a separate
rulemaking.
environmental impact statement (EIS)
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6.03(e)(1);
Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675
F. 2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981)). Thus, we
have determined that the final listing
determination for the GOM DPS of
Atlantic salmon described in this notice
is exempt from the requirements of
NEPA.
Peer Review
Information Quality Act
In December 2004, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review, establishing minimum
peer review standards, a transparent
process for public disclosure of peer
review planning, and opportunities for
public participation. The OMB Bulletin,
implemented under the Information
Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554), is
intended to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Federal government’s
scientific information, and applies to
influential or highly influential
scientific information disseminated on
or after June 16, 2005. We obtained
independent peer review of the
scientific information compiled in the
2006 Status Review (Fay et al., 2006)
that supports this proposal to list the
GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon as
endangered.
On July 1, 1994, the Services
published a policy for peer review of
scientific data (59 FR 34270). The intent
of the peer review policy is to ensure
that listings are based on the best
scientific and commercial data
available. During the public comment
period for the proposed rule to list the
GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon as
endangered, the Services solicited the
expert opinions of four qualified
specialists. These independent
specialists represented expertise from
the academic and scientific community.
Out of the four reviewers solicited, two
individuals completed a critical review
of the proposed rule. Peer review
comments are summarized and
addressed in the public comment
section of this rule, and the text of the
final rule has been changed where
necessary.
The Information Quality Act directed
the Office of Management and Budget to
issue government wide guidelines that
‘‘provide policy and procedural
guidance to Federal agencies for
ensuring and maximizing the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of
information (including statistical
information) disseminated by Federal
agencies.’’ Compliance of this document
with NOAA guidelines is evaluated
below.
Utility: The information disseminated
is intended to describe the species’ life
history, population status, threats, and
risks; management actions; and the
effects of management actions. The
information is intended to be useful to
state and Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, industry
groups and other interested parties so
they can understand the listing status of
the species.
Integrity: No confidential data were
used in the analysis of the impacts
associated with this document. All
scientific data considered in this
document and used to analyze the
proposed action, is considered public
information.
Objectivity: The NOAA Information
Quality Guidelines require disseminated
information to be presented in an
accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased
manner. This document was prepared
with these objectives in mind. It was
also reviewed by agency biologists,
policy analysts, and managers and
NOAA and Department of Commerce
attorneys.
References
A complete list of the references used
in this final rule is available upon
request (see ADDRESSES).
Classification
National Environmental Policy Act
ESA listing decisions are exempt from
the requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment (EA) or
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Administrative Procedure Act
The Federal Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) establishes procedural
requirements applicable to informal
rulemaking by Federal agencies. The
purpose of the APA is to ensure public
access to the Federal rulemaking
process and to give the public notice
and an opportunity to comment before
the agency promulgates new
regulations. These public notice and
comment procedures have been
completed in this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Coastal Zone Management Act
Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
requires that all Federal activities that
affect any land or water use or natural
resource of the coastal zone be
consistent with approved state coastal
zone management programs to the
maximum extent practicable. NMFS has
determined that this action is consistent
to the maximum extent practicable with
the enforceable policies of approved
Coastal Zone Management Programs of
Maine. A letter documenting NMFS’
determination and a copy of the
proposed rule was sent to the coastal
zone management program office in
Maine. The specific state contact and a
copy of the letter is available upon
request. A copy of the final rule will be
sent to the coastal zone management
program office in Maine.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132
Federalism
E.O. 13132, otherwise known as the
Federalism E.O., was signed by
President Clinton on August 4, 1999,
and published in the Federal Register
on August 10, 1999 (64 FR 43255). This
E.O. is intended to guide Federal
agencies in the formulation and
implementation of ‘‘policies that have
Federal implications.’’ Such policies are
regulations, legislative comments or
proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have
substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. E.O. 13132
requires Federal agencies to have a
process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications. A Federal
summary impact statement is also
required for rules that have federalism
implications.
Pursuant to E.O. 13132, the Assistant
Secretary for Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs provided
notice of the action at the proposed
rulemaking stage and requested
comments from the appropriate
official(s) in Maine. Comments were
received from Senators Snowe and
Collins, Congressman Michaud, and
from the State of Maine. Among other
concerns, they stated that a threatened
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:29 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
listing determination could be justified
under the ESA and advocated that the
Services suspend a decision on the
Androscoggin until further genetic data
could be gathered and analyzed. These
comments were considered by the
Services in preparing this final
rulemaking action and are addressed in
the Response to Public Comments
section above. A Federal summary
impact statement has been prepared and
sent to the appropriate State officials.
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 requires that
Federal actions address environmental
justice in decision-making process. In
particular, the environmental effects of
the actions should not have a
disproportionate effect on minority and
low-income communities. The final
listing determination is not expected to
have a disproportionately high effect on
minority populations and low-income
populations in Maine because the
implications of this listing action do not
adversely affect the human health of
low-income, minority, or other
populations or the environment in
which these various populations live.
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act,
and Paperwork Reduction Act
As noted in the Conference Report on
the 1982 amendments to the ESA,
economic impacts shall not be
considered when assessing the status of
a species. Therefore, the economic
analysis requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act are not applicable to the
listing process. In addition, this rule is
exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
This rule does not contain a collectionof-information requirement for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
E.O. 13175—Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
E.O. 13175 requires that, if we issue
a regulation that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments and imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on
those communities, we consult with
those governments or the Federal
government must provide the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments. This rule does not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
29385
the communities of Indian tribal
governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.
13175 do not apply to this final rule.
Nonetheless, we met with tribal
governments potentially affected by this
listing decision and to solicit their input
on the proposed rule. We have given
careful consideration to all written and
oral comments received and will
continue our coordination and
discussions with interested tribes as we
move forward specifically with
implementing this final rule as well as
salmon recovery and management in
general.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 224
Administrative practice and
procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Dated: June 11, 2009.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Dated: May 12, 2009.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR parts 17 and 224 are
amended as follows:
■
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.11(h) revise the entry for
‘‘Salmon, Atlantic’’, which is in
alphabetical order under FISHES, to
read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
(h) * * *
*
*
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
*
*
29386
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Species
Common
name
Scientific
name
*
Historic
range
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
*
*
*
When
listed
Status
*
Critical
habitat
*
Special
rules
*
FISHES
*
Salmon,
Atlantic,
Gulf of
Maine.
*
Salmo
salar.
*
U.S.A.,
Canada,
Greenland,
western
Europe.
*
*
*
U.S.A., ME, Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment. The
GOM DPS includes all anadromous Atlantic salmon whose
freshwater range occurs in the watersheds from the
Androscoggin River northward along the Maine coast to
the Dennys River, and wherever these fish occur in the
estuarine and marine environment. The following impassable falls delimit the upstream extent of the freshwater
range: Rumford Falls in the town of Rumford on the
Androscoggin River; Snow Falls in the town of West Paris
on the Little Androscoggin River; Grand Falls in Township
3 Range 4 BKP WKR, on the Dead River in the Kennebec
Basin; the un-named falls (impounded by Indian Pond
Dam) immediately above the Kennebec River Gorge in the
town of Indian Stream Township on the Kennebec River;
Big Niagara Falls on Nesowadnehunk Stream in Township
3 Range 10 WELS in the Penobscot Basin; Grand Pitch
on Webster Brook in Trout Brook Township in the Penobscot Basin; and Grand Falls on the Passadumkeag River
in Grand Falls Township in the Penobscot Basin. The marine range of the GOM DPS extends from the Gulf of
Maine, throughout the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, to the
coast of Greenland. Included are all associated conservation hatchery populations used to supplement these natural populations; currently, such conservation hatchery
populations are maintained at Green Lake National Fish
Hatchery (GLNFH) and Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery (CBNFH). Excluded are landlocked salmon and those
salmon raised in commercial hatcheries for aquaculture.
*
*
PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE
AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
3. The authority citation for part 224
continues to read as follows:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
■
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:29 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
*
E
*
*
..............
*
NA
*
NA
*
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543 and 16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
§ 224.101 Enumeration of endangered
marine and anadromous species.
4. Amend the table in § 224.101, by
revising the entry for ‘‘Atlantic salmon’’
in the table in § 224.101(a) to read as
follows:
*
■
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
(a) Marine and anadromous fish.
* * *
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
29387
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Species 1
Where listed
Common name
*
Salmo salar ..............
Citation(s) for
critical habitat
designation(s)
*
*
*
U.S.A., ME, Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment. The GOM DPS includes all anadromous
Atlantic salmon whose freshwater range occurs
in the watersheds from the Androscoggin River
northward along the Maine coast to the Dennys
River, and wherever these fish occur in the estuarine and marine environment. The following impassable falls delimit the upstream extent of the
freshwater range: Rumford Falls in the town of
Rumford on the Androscoggin River; Snow Falls
in the town of West Paris on the Little
Androscoggin River; Grand Falls in Township 3
Range 4 BKP WKR, on the Dead River in the
Kennebec Basin; the un-named falls (impounded
by Indian Pond Dam) immediately above the
Kennebec River Gorge in the town of Indian
Stream Township on the Kennebec River; Big
Niagara Falls on Nesowadnehunk Stream in
Township 3 Range 10 WELS in the Penobscot
Basin; Grand Pitch on Webster Brook in Trout
Brook Township in the Penobscot Basin; and
Grand Falls on the Passadumkeag River in
Grand Falls Township in the Penobscot Basin.
The marine range of the GOM DPS extends
from the Gulf of Maine, throughout the Northwest
Atlantic Ocean, to the coast of Greenland. Included are all associated conservation hatchery
populations used to supplement these natural
populations; currently, such conservation hatchery populations are maintained at Green Lake
National Fish Hatchery (GLNFH) and Craig
Brook National Fish Hatchery (CBNFH). Excluded are landlocked salmon and those salmon
raised in commercial hatcheries for aquaculture.
*
65 FR 69469; November 17, 2000;
74 FR [Insert page
number where the
document begins];
June 19, 2009.
*
Scientific name
*
Gulf of Maine Atlantic
salmon.
Citation(s) for listing
determination(s)
*
*
*
*
*
*
1 Species
NA
*
includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–14269 Filed 6–18–09; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES3
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:19 Jun 18, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19JNR3.SGM
19JNR3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 117 (Friday, June 19, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29344-29387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14269]
[[Page 29343]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 17 and 224
Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination of Endangered Status
for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 117 / Friday, June 19, 2009 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29344]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 224
[Docket No. 0808191116-9709-02]
RIN 0648-XJ93
Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination of Endangered
Status for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic
Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (NMFS and USFWS, collectively referred to as the Services)
have determined that naturally spawned and conservation hatchery
populations of anadromous Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) whose
freshwater range occurs in the watersheds from the Androscoggin River
northward along the Maine coast to the Dennys River, including those
that were already listed in November 2000, constitute a distinct
population segment (DPS) and hence a ``species'' for listing. We have
determined that the Gulf of Maine (GOM) DPS warrants listing as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Critical habitat for
the GOM DPS will be designated in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
DATES: This rule is effective July 20, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
scientific information used in the preparation of this rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at: National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office,
55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester MA 01930. An electronic copy of
this final rule is available at: https://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/altsalmon/. Public comments received can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Saunders, NMFS, at (207) 866-
4049; Jessica Pruden, NMFS, at (978) 282-8482; Marta Nammack, NMFS, at
(301) 713-1401; Lori Nordstrom, USFWS, at (207) 827-5938 ext. 13.
Persons who use a Telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We issued a final rule listing the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon as
endangered on November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69469). The GOM DPS was defined
as all naturally reproducing wild populations and those river-specific
hatchery populations of Atlantic salmon having historical, river-
specific characteristics found north of and including tributaries of
the lower Kennebec River to, but not including, the mouth of the St.
Croix River at the U.S.-Canada border. In the final rule listing the
GOM DPS, we did not include fish that inhabit the mainstem and
tributaries of the Penobscot River above the site of the former Bangor
Dam, the upper Kennebec River, or the Androscoggin River within the GOM
DPS (65 FR 69469; November 17, 2000).
In late 2003, we assembled the 2005 Biological Review Team (BRT)
composed of biologists from the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (now
the Maine Department of Marine Resources Bureau of Sea-run Fisheries
and Habitat (MDMR)), the Penobscot Indian Nation, and both Services.
The 2005 BRT was charged with reviewing and evaluating all relevant
scientific information relating to the current DPS delineation
(including a detailed genetic characterization of the Penobscot
population and data relevant to the appropriateness of including the
upper Kennebec and Androscoggin rivers as part of the DPS), determining
the conservation status of the populations not included in GOM DPS
listed in 2000, and assessing their relationship to the GOM DPS as it
was listed in 2000. The findings of the 2005 BRT, which are detailed in
the 2006 Status Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon in the United
States (Fay et al., 2006), addressed: the DPS delineation, including
whether populations that were not included in the 2000 listing should
be included in the GOM DPS; the extinction risks to the species; and
the threats to the species. The 2006 Status Review (Fay et al., 2006)
underwent peer review by experts in the fields of Atlantic salmon
biology and genetics to ensure that it was based on the best available
science. Each peer reviewer independently affirmed the major
conclusions presented in Fay et al. (2006).
Policies for Delineating Species Under the ESA
Section 3 of the ESA defines ``species'' as including ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature.'' The term ``distinct population segment'' is not
recognized in the scientific literature. Therefore, the Services
adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy;
61 FR 4722) on February 7, 1996. The DPS policy requires the
consideration of two elements when evaluating whether a vertebrate
population segment may be considered a DPS under the ESA: (1) The
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of
the species or subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) the significance
of the population segment to the species or subspecies to which it
belongs.
A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It
is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon (an
organism or group of organisms) as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures
of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this
separation; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms
exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA
(i.e., inadequate regulatory mechanisms).
If a population segment is found to be discrete under one or more
of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance to
the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This consideration may
include, but is not limited to: (1) Persistence of the discrete
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the
taxon; (2) evidence that the loss of the discrete population segment
would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence
that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving
natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historic range; and (4) evidence that
the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations
of the species in its genetic characteristics.
[[Page 29345]]
Listing Determinations Under the ESA
The ESA defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
threatened species as one that is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively). The statute requires us to
determine whether any species is endangered or threatened because of
any of the following five factors: (1) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (section 4(a)(1)(A-E)). We are to
make this determination based solely on the best available scientific
and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status
of the species and taking into account any efforts being made by states
or foreign governments to protect the species.
Atlantic Salmon Life History
Anadromous Atlantic salmon are a wide ranging species with a
complex life history. The historic range of Atlantic salmon occurred on
both sides of the North Atlantic: from Connecticut to Ungava Bay in the
western Atlantic and from Portugal to Russia's White Sea in the Eastern
Atlantic, including the Baltic Sea.
For Atlantic salmon in the United States, juveniles typically spend
2 years rearing in freshwater. Freshwater ecosystems provide spawning
habitat and thermal refuge for adult Atlantic salmon; overwintering and
rearing areas for eggs, fry, and parr; and migration corridors for
smolts and adults (Bardonnet and Bagliniere, 2000). Adult Atlantic
salmon typically spawn in early November. During spawning, the female
uses its tail to scour or dig a series of nests in the gravel where the
eggs are deposited; this series of nests is called a redd. The eggs
remain in the redd until they hatch in late March or April. At this
stage, they are referred to as alevin or sac fry. Alevins remain in the
redd for about 6 more weeks and are nourished by their yolk sac until
they emerge from the gravel in mid-May. At this time, they begin active
feeding and are termed fry. Within days, the fry enter the parr stage,
indicated by vertical bars (parr marks) on their sides that act as
camouflage. Atlantic salmon parr are territorial; thus, most juvenile
mortality is thought to be density dependent and mediated by habitat
limitation (Gee et al., 1978; Legault, 2005). In particular, suitable
overwintering habitat may limit the abundance of large parr prior to
smoltification (Cunjak et al., 1998). Smoltification (the physiological
and behavioral changes required for the transition to salt water)
usually occurs at age 2 for most Atlantic salmon in Maine. The smolt
emigration period is rather short and lasts only 2 to 3 weeks for each
individual. During this brief emigration window, smolts must contend
with rapidly changing osmoregulatory requirements (McCormick et al.,
1998) and predator assemblages (Mather, 1998). The freshwater stages in
the life cycle of the Atlantic salmon have been well studied; however,
much less information is available on Atlantic salmon at sea (Klemetsen
et al., 2003).
Gulf of Maine Atlantic salmon migrate vast distances in the open
ocean to reach feeding areas in the Davis Strait between Labrador and
Greenland, a distance over 4,000 km from their natal rivers (Danie et
al., 1984; Meister, 1984). During their time at sea, Atlantic salmon
undergo a period of rapid growth until they reach maturity and return
to their natal river. Most Atlantic salmon (about 90 percent) from the
Gulf of Maine return after spending 2 winters at sea; usually less than
ten percent return after spending 1 winter at sea; roughly one percent
of returning salmon are either repeat spawners or have spent 3 winters
at sea (3 sea winter, or 3SW salmon) (Baum, 1997).
In addition to anadromous Atlantic salmon, landlocked Atlantic
salmon have been introduced to many lakes and rivers in Maine, though
they are only native to four watersheds in the State: The Union,
including Green Lake in Hancock County; the St. Croix, including West
Grand Lake in Washington County; the Presumpscot, including Sebago Lake
in Cumberland County; and the Penobscot, including Sebec Lake in
Piscataquis County (Warner and Havey, 1985). There are certain lakes
and rivers in Maine where landlocked salmon and anadromous salmon co-
exist. Recent genetic surveys have confirmed that little genetic
exchange occurs between these two life history types (Spidle et al.,
2003; NMFS unpublished data).
Delineation of the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment
Fay et al. (2006) concluded that the DPS delineation that resulted
in the 2000 listing designation (65 FR 69469; November 17, 2000) was
largely appropriate, except in the case of large rivers that were
excluded in the previous listing determination (Section 6.2.4 of Fay et
al., 2006). As described below in the analyses of discreteness and
significance of the population segment, Fay et al. (2006) concluded
that the salmon currently inhabiting the larger rivers (Androscoggin,
Kennebec, and Penobscot) are genetically similar to the rivers included
in the GOM DPS as listed in 2000 (Spidle et al., 2003), have similar
life history characteristics, and occur in the same zoogeographic
region (section 6.3 of Fay et al., 2006). Further, the salmon
populations inhabiting the large and small rivers from the Androscoggin
River northward to the Dennys River differ genetically and in important
life history characteristics from Atlantic salmon in adjacent portions
of Canada (Spidle et al., 2003; Fay et al., 2006). Thus, Fay et al.
(2006) (section 6.3.1.4 and 6.3.2.4) concluded that this group of
populations (population segment) met both the discreteness and
significance criteria of the DPS Policy and, therefore should be
considered a DPS. Fay et al. (2006) recommended that the new GOM DPS
include all anadromous Atlantic salmon whose freshwater range occurs in
the watersheds from the Androscoggin River northward along the Maine
coast to the Dennys River, including all associated conservation
hatchery populations used to supplement these natural populations;
currently, such conservation hatchery populations are maintained at
Green Lake National Fish Hatchery (GLNFH) and Craig Brook National Fish
Hatchery (CBNFH).
Delineating Geographic Boundaries
Determining the precise boundary of the GOM DPS is difficult. In
the case of the GOM DPS, we use a wide array of independent sources of
information to make this determination. These sources of information
include recent genetic analyses, life history, and zoogeography, among
others. Recent genetic analyses, in particular, have clarified these
distinctions, and we rely on them heavily in the following analysis.
When using genetic data to make these delineations, it is important to
note that extant populations must exist in order to make meaningful
comparisons. In the case of determining the northern boundary of the
GOM DPS, extant populations were used in genetic analyses and thus
inform the determination. However, in the case of the determination of
the southern boundary of the GOM DPS, many populations south of the
Androscoggin are extirpated, and thus there are no genetic data
available to make these
[[Page 29346]]
comparisons. For this reason we rely on additional information to
delineate the southern boundary of the GOM DPS below.
We relied on genetic data to inform our determination on the
northern terminus of the GOM DPS. At a broad scale, it is clear that
there are substantial differences in genetic structure between U.S. and
Canadian populations of Atlantic salmon (Spidle et al., 2003). However,
there are no genetic data on the wild salmon that once occurred in the
St. Croix watershed along the U.S.-Canada border. As listed in 2000,
the northern terminus of the GOM DPS was the U.S.-Canada border at the
St. Croix River, but as described on page 54 of Fay et al. (2006), the
best available science suggests that the St. Croix groups with other
Canadian rivers. Genetic analyses found that salmon in the Dennys River
are more similar to populations in the United States than to Canadian
salmon populations that are geographically proximate to the Dennys
(Spidle et al., 2003). Therefore, we find that the northern terminus of
the GOM DPS is the Dennys River watershed, rather than the St. Croix.
We determined the southern terminus of the GOM DPS to be the
Androscoggin River based on zoogeography rather than genetics because
there are extremely few Atlantic salmon in the rivers on which to base
genetic analyses as one moves southward. Due to the combination of low
numbers of Atlantic salmon in some rivers (e.g., Androscoggin) and the
complete extirpation of the native stock in other rivers to the south
(e.g., Merrimack), complete genetic data are not and may never be
available for the Services to be able to genetically characterize these
populations. In the absence of clear genetic data, we used ecological
factors to define the southern boundary of the GOM DPS. The
Androscoggin River lies within the Penobscot-Kennebec-Androscoggin
Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU) (Olivero, 2003) and the Laurentian Mixed
Forest Province (Bailey, 1995), which separates it from more southern
rivers that were historically occupied by Atlantic salmon. EDUs are
aggregations of watersheds with similar zoogeographic history,
physiographic conditions, climatic characteristics, and basic geography
(Olivero, 2003). The substantial changes in physiographic conditions
south of the Androscoggin drainage are reflected in the southern
terminus of both the Laurentian Mixed Forest Province and the
Penobscot--Kennebec--Androscoggin EDU occurring in that area. Basin
geography, climate, groundwater temperatures, hydrography, and
zoogeographic differences between the Penobscot--Kennebec--Androscoggin
EDU and the EDUs to the south (e.g., Saco-Merrimack-Charles, Lower
Connecticut, Middle Connecticut, and Upper Connecticut) likely had a
strong effect upon Atlantic salmon ecology and production. These
differences would influence the structure and function of aquatic
ecosystems (Vannote et al., 1980; Cushing et al., 1983; Minshall et
al., 1983; Cummins et al., 1984; Minshall et al., 1985; Waters, 1995)
and create a different environment for the development of local
adaptations than rivers, such as the Saco and Merrimack, to the south.
In the proposed rule, we proposed to include the entire
Androscoggin, Kennebec, and Penobscot Watersheds within the GOM DPS
boundary. Some comments from the public appropriately highlighted
several impassable falls that limited the upstream extent to which
anadromous salmon inhabited the rivers of Maine. NMFS also evaluated
historical occupancy at the watershed scale for the process of
proposing critical habitat for the GOM DPS. There is also considerable
information provided in the 2006 Status Review pertaining to impassable
falls as well. We are, therefore, using these information sources (and
others cited therein) to delimit the upstream extent of anadromy for
GOM salmon in this final rule.
We have identified seven impassable falls that substantially
limited the upstream extent of the freshwater range of GOM salmon.
These include Rumford Falls in the town of Rumford on the Androscoggin
River, Snow Falls in the town of West Paris on the Little Androscoggin
River, Grand Falls in Township 3 Range 4 BKP WKR, on the Dead River in
the Kennebec Basin; the un-named falls (impounded by Indian Pond Dam)
immediately above the Kennebec River Gorge in the town of Indian Stream
Township on the Kennebec River; Big Niagara Falls on Nesowadnehunk
Stream in Township 3 Range 10 WELS in the Penobscot Basin; Grand Pitch
Falls on Webster Brook in Trout Brook Township in the Penobscot Basin;
and Grand Falls on the Passadumkeag River in Grand Falls Township in
the Penobscot Basin (Table 1).
Table 1--Impassable Falls That Limit the Upstream Extent of the Freshwater Range of GOM Salmon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of falls Town River Basin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumford Falls....................... Rumford................ Androscoggin River.... Androscoggin.
Snow Falls.......................... West Paris............. Little Androscoggin Androscoggin.
River.
Grand Falls......................... Township 3 Range 4 BKP Dead River............ Kennebec.
WKR.
Un-named............................ Indian Stream Township. Kennebec River........ Kennebec.
Big Niagara Falls................... Township 3 Range 10 Nesowadnehunk Stream.. Penobscot.
WELS.
Grand Pitch......................... Trout Brook Township... Webster Brook......... Penobscot.
Grand Falls......................... Grand Falls Township... Passadumkeag River.... Penobscot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, we have modified the geographic boundaries of the
freshwater range of GOM salmon in the Androscoggin, Kennebec, and
Penobscot Basins in the following ways: all freshwater bodies in the
Androscoggin Basin are included up to Rumford Falls on the Androscoggin
River and up to Snow Falls on the Little Androscoggin River; all
freshwater bodies in the Kennebec Basin are included up to Grand Falls
on the Dead River and the unnamed falls (currently impounded by Indian
Pond Dam) immediately above the Kennebec River Gorge; and all
freshwater bodies in the Penobscot Basin are included up to Big Niagara
Falls on Nesowadnehunk Stream, Grand Pitch on Webster Brook, and Grand
Falls on the Passadumkeag River.
We recognize that many other potentially impassable waterfalls
exist throughout the range of GOM salmon. While other impassable falls
may exist throughout the range, we did not exclude any other areas
(other than the areas above the seven falls mentioned above) for the
following reasons: (1) Their occurrence is typically in headwater areas
that preclude access from relatively small portions of a given
watershed; (2) identifying every impassable falls is impractical given
[[Page 29347]]
current information; and (3) no other impassable falls were brought to
our attention during the public comment period.
In addition, we recognize that within every watershed, there is an
upstream extent of anadromy. However, it is impossible to define that
specific point in every watershed. The upstream extent of anadromy is
ultimately limited by the incremental narrowing of a given river or
stream. While a stream may be too small for an adult salmon to swim up
any further, juveniles may ascend further than that point in search of
suitable rearing habitat. In fact, upstream movement of even fry can be
quite substantial. As such, we include all the freshwater bodies as
part of the freshwater range of GOM salmon unless above one of the
impassable falls mentioned in the text above.
Discreteness and Significance of the GOM DPS
With respect to the ``discreteness'' of this population segment,
section 6.3.1 of Fay et al. (2006) considered ecological, behavioral,
and genetic factors under the first discreteness criterion of the DPS
Policy to examine the degree to which it is separate from other
Atlantic salmon populations. Gulf of Maine salmon are behaviorally and
physiologically discrete from other members of the taxon because they
return to their natal GOM rivers to spawn (a process called homing),
which leads to the separation in stocks that has been observed between
the Gulf of Maine and other segments of the taxon. River-specific
adaptation is an important mechanism that allows anadromous salmon to
occupy diverse environments throughout their range. River-specific
adaptation is facilitated by homing and is characteristic of all other
anadromous salmonids (Klemetsen et al., 2003; Utter et al., 2004). Baum
and Spencer (1990) found that roughly 98 percent of all tagged salmon
returned to their natal rivers to spawn. As described below, these
strong homing tendencies have led to the formation and maintenance of
river-specific adaptations for GOM salmon as well.
Ecologically, GOM salmon are discrete from other members of the
taxon. The core of the riverine habitat of this population segment lies
within the Penobscot-Kennebec-Androscoggin EDU (Olivero, 2003) and the
Laurentian Mixed Forest Province (Bailey, 1995). These environmental
conditions have shaped life history characteristics of GOM salmon. In
particular, GOM salmon life history strategies are dominated by age 2
smolts and 2SW adults, whereas populations to the north of this
population segment are generally dominated by age 3 or older smolts and
1SW adults (called grilse). Smolt age reflects growth rate (Klemetsen
et al., 2003), with faster growing parr emigrating as smolts earlier
than slower growing ones (Metcalfe et al., 1990). Smolt age is largely
influenced by temperature (Symons, 1979; Forseth et al., 2001) and can
therefore be used to compare and contrast growing conditions across
rivers (Metcalfe and Thorpe, 1990). For GOM populations, smolt ages are
quite similar across rivers with naturally-reared (result of either
wild spawning or fry stocking) returning adults predominantly
emigrating at river age 2 (88 to 100 percent) with the remainder
emigrating at river age 3 (Fay et al., 2006). Smolt ages from
naturally-reared returning adults in rivers south of the Penobscot-
Kennebec-Androscoggin EDU are also dominated by river age 2 smolts with
some emigrating at river age 3, but a substantial proportion of river
age 1 smolts are also present (See Table 6.3.1.1 in Fay et al., 2006).
The strongest evidence that GOM salmon are discrete from other
members of the taxon is genetic. Fay et al. (2006) described genetic
structure of this population segment and other stocks in detail in
section 6.3.1.3. In summary, three primary genetic groups of North
American populations (Spidle et al., 2003; Spidle et al., 2004;
Verspoor et al., 2005) are evident. These include the anadromous GOM
populations (including salmon in the Kennebec and Penobscot Rivers)
(Spidle et al., 2003), non-anadromous Maine populations (Spidle et al.,
2003), and Canadian populations (Verspoor et al., 2005). Because of
these behavioral, physiological, ecological and genetic factors, we
conclude that the GOM anadromous population is discrete from other
Atlantic salmon populations under the provisions of the DPS Policy.
With respect to the ``significance'' of this population segment,
Fay et al. (2006) found that there are three attributes which are
described as evidence for ``significance'' in the DPS policy that are
applicable to the GOM DPS (section 6.3.2 of Fay et al., 2006). Fay et
al. (2006) (section 6.3.2.1) concluded that this population segment has
persisted in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon for
several reasons. First, GOM salmon live in and migrate through a unique
marine environment. The marine migration corridor for GOM salmon begins
in the GOM that is known for unique circulation patterns, thermal
regimes, and predator assemblages (Townsend et al., 2006). Gulf of
Maine salmon undertake extremely long marine migrations to feeding
grounds off the West Coast of Greenland because the riverine habitat
they occupy is at the southern extreme of the current North American
range. While such vast marine migrations are more common for stocks on
the northeast side of the Atlantic, the combination of the long
migration distances and the unique setting of the GOM, described above,
make the oceanic life history of the GOM DPS quite different from those
of other stocks (ICES, 2008). In addition, the core of the riverine
habitat of this population segment lies within the Penobscot-Kennebec-
Androscoggin EDU (Olivero, 2003) and the Laurentian Mixed Forest
Province (Bailey, 1995). The importance of this setting is evidenced by
the tremendous production potential of its juvenile nursery habitat
that allows production of proportionately younger smolts than Canadian
rivers to the north (Myers, 1986; Baum, 1997; Hutchings and Jones,
1998). Thus, the combination of the unique rearing conditions in the
freshwater portion of its range combined with the unique marine
migration corridor led Fay et al. (2006) to conclude that this
population segment has persisted in an ecological setting unusual or
unique to the taxon.
Fay et al. (2006) also concluded that the loss of this population
segment would result in a significant gap or constriction in the range
of the taxon (Section 6.3.2.2 of Fay et al., 2006). The extirpation of
this population segment would represent a significant range reduction
for the entire taxon Salmo salar because this population segment
represents the southernmost native Atlantic salmon population in the
western Atlantic. The temperature regimes in these southern rivers made
possible the tremendous growth and production potential which resulted
in the historically very large populations in these areas. Historic
attempts to enhance salmon populations (in GOM rivers) using Canadian-
origin fish failed. This further illustrates the importance of
conserving native, river-specific populations and the difficulties of
restoration if they are lost.
Fay et al. (2006) concluded that this population segment differs
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics (Section 6.3.2.3 of Fay et al., 2006). While genetic
differences were used to examine the ``discreteness'' of this
population segment, Fay et al. (2006) suggested that the
``significance'' of these observed genetic differences is that they
provide evidence of local adaptation. That is, low returns of exogenous
smolts (i.e., Canadian-origin
[[Page 29348]]
smolts stocked in Maine) and lower survival of smolts from these Maine
rivers stocked outside their native geographic range (e.g., into the
Merrimack River) indicate that this population segment is adapted to
its native environment. Based on this information related to
significance, Fay et al. (2006) concluded that this population segment
is significant to the Atlantic salmon species, and therefore, qualifies
as a DPS (the new GOM DPS) under the provisions of the DPS Policy.
Fay et al. (2006) (section 6.3.4) explicitly considered whether to
include hatchery populations in the GOM DPS and concluded that all
conservation hatchery populations (currently maintained at GLNFH and
CBNFH) should be included in the GOM DPS. This determination was based
on the fact that there is a low level of genetic divergence between
conservation hatchery populations and the rest of the GOM DPS because:
(1) The river-specific hatchery programs collect wild parr or sea-run
adults annually (when possible) for inclusion into the broodstock
programs; (2) broodstocks are used to stock fry and other life stages
into the river of origin, and, in some instances, hatchery-origin
individuals represent the primary origin of Atlantic salmon due to low
adult returns; (3) there is little evidence of introgression from
Canadian-origin populations; and (4) there is minimal introgression
from aquaculture fish because of a rigorous genetic screening program
in the hatchery. Because the level of divergence is minimal, in Section
6.3.4 Fay et al. (2006) suggested that hatchery populations should be
considered part of the GOM DPS. However, Fay et al. (2006) also noted
the dangers of reliance on hatcheries. In short, genetic risks from
hatcheries include artificial selection, inbreeding depression, and
outbreeding depression, in addition to other risks such as the
potential for disease outbreaks, loss of funding, or other catastrophic
failure at one or more hatcheries. The reader is directed to
``Population Status of the GOM DPS'' section of this final rule and
Section 8.5.1 of Fay et al. (2006) for an in depth discussion of these
risks.
For the reasons described in Section 6 of Fay et al. (2006), we
conclude that the GOM DPS as described above warrants delineation as a
DPS (i.e., it is discrete and significant). Specifically, we conclude
that the GOM DPS is comprised of all anadromous Atlantic salmon whose
freshwater range occurs in the watersheds from the Androscoggin River
northward along the Maine coast to the Dennys River, including all
associated conservation hatchery populations used to supplement these
natural populations; currently, such populations are maintained at
GLNFH and CBNFH. We consider the conservation hatchery populations that
are maintained at CBNFH and GLNFH essential for recovery of the GOM DPS
because the hatchery populations contain a high proportion of the
genetic diversity remaining in the GOM DPS (Bartron et al., 2006).
Excluded are those salmon raised in commercial hatcheries for
aquaculture and landlocked salmon because they are genetically
distinguishable from the GOM DPS. The marine range of the GOM DPS
extends from the Gulf of Maine to feeding grounds off Greenland. The
freshwater range of the GOM DPS includes all freshwater bodies in the
watersheds from the Androscoggin to the Dennys, except those watersheds
excluded because of natural barrier falls as described in the
``Delineating Geographic Boundaries'' section of this final rule. The
most substantial difference between the GOM DPS as listed in 2000 and
the GOM DPS described in this final rule is the inclusion of the
majority of the Androscoggin, Kennebec, and Penobscot Basins as well as
the associated conservation hatchery population at GLNFH.
Several rivers outside the range of the GOM DPS in Long Island
Sound and Central New England contain Atlantic salmon (Fay et al.,
2006; section 6.4). The native Atlantic salmon of these areas south of
the GOM DPS were extirpated in the 1800s (Fay et al., 2006). Efforts to
restore Atlantic salmon to these areas (e.g., Connecticut, Merrimack,
and Saco Rivers) involve stocking Atlantic salmon that were originally
derived from the GOM DPS. Atlantic salmon whose freshwater range occurs
outside the range of GOM DPS do not interbreed with salmon within the
GOM DPS, are not considered a part of the GOM DPS, and are not
protected under the ESA.
Population Status of the GOM DPS
In evaluating the status of Atlantic salmon, we considered four
basic attributes that contribute to a viable population: abundance,
productivity, genetic diversity, and spatial distribution. The
importance of considering each of these factors is briefly described
below. However, it is important to note that our ability to conduct
such analyses for Atlantic salmon is often limited by the availability
of sufficient data. It is also important to note that the most recent
data available at the time of writing of this final rule was from 2007.
We consider the U.S. Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee (USASAC)
reports to be the data of record with respect to Atlantic salmon
counts. USASAC reports are generally not available until several weeks
after their annual meeting in March. Thus, 2008 data are considered
only preliminary at the time of writing this final rule.
Considering abundance levels of a given species is critical to
evaluating extinction risks. All else being equal, small populations
are at greater risk of extinction than larger populations because,
generally, larger populations are better able to withstand the effects
of environmental variation, genetic processes, demographic
stochasticity, ecological feedback, and catastrophes (Shaffer, 1981).
Population growth rate (productivity) provides information
regarding how a population is performing in the habitat it occupies. In
evaluating extinction risks, we ideally measure average productivity at
different life stages and estimates of variance to describe the level
of uncertainty inherent in the measurements. An example of life stage-
specific data could be smolt emigration estimates which represent: (a)
The population's potential to increase or (b) the population's ability
to weather periods of poor marine conditions. Measuring productivity
rates over time is quite difficult and resource intensive. Therefore,
simple measures such as spawner population size and replacement rates
may be used to provide more rapid detection of changes in conditions
affecting population growth rates.
For small populations, spatial distribution is important to reduce
extinction risks from genetic risks and demographic stochasticity. A
population's spatial distribution depends on habitat quality (including
accessibility), population dynamics, and dispersal characteristics of
individuals in the population. Analysis of spatial distribution focuses
primarily on spawning group distribution (even though spatial
distribution is important at all life stages) and connectivity of
populations. Since freshwater habitat is often quite heterogeneous,
spawning habitat may be distributed as discrete patches. Straying is an
important component contributing to spatial distribution and,
typically, straying rates are higher at smaller scales (e.g., occurring
within subpopulations rather than between populations (Quinn, 1997)).
Genetic diversity allows species to adapt to a variety of
environments that provide for the needs of the species and
[[Page 29349]]
protects against short-term environmental change while also providing
the raw genetic material necessary to survive long-term environmental
change. Natural demographic and evolutionary processes (patterns of
mutation, selection, drift, recombination, migration, etc.) are
important to maintaining a species' genetic diversity.
The influence of hatcheries on the GOM DPS must be carefully
considered in evaluating the status of the species. The influence of
hatcheries can be both positive and negative; we describe these effects
in some detail below in this section of this final rule. It is
important, however, to first describe the general operation of
conservation hatcheries in Maine.
The USFWS operates two hatcheries in support of Atlantic salmon
recovery efforts in Maine. Together, Green Lake National Fish Hatchery
(GLNFH) and Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery (CBNFH) raise and stock
over 600,000 smolts and 3.5 million fry annually within the range of
the GOM Atlantic salmon DPS. The primary focus of the conservation
hatchery program for the GOM Atlantic salmon DPS is to conserve the
genetic legacy of Atlantic salmon in Maine until habitats can support
natural, self-sustaining populations (Bartron et al., 2006). As such, a
great deal of consideration is given to broodstock collection, spawning
protocols, genetic screening for aquaculture escapees, and other
considerations as outlined by Bartron et al. (2006). The current
program started in 1992, when a river-specific broodstock and stocking
program was implemented for rivers in Maine (Bartron et al., 2006).
This strategy complies with the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Organization (NASCO) guidelines for stock rebuilding (USASAC, 2005).
The stocking program was initiated for two reasons: (1) Runs were
declining in every river in Maine, and numerous studies indicated that
restocking efforts are more successful when the donor population comes
from the river to be stocked (Moring et al., 1995); and (2) the numbers
of returning adult Atlantic salmon to the rivers were very low, and
artificial propagation had the potential to increase the number of
juvenile fish in the river through fry and other early life stage
stocking.
Current practices of fry, parr, and smolt stocking as well as
recovery of parr for hatchery rearing are designed to ensure that
river-specific brood stock is available for future production. Atlantic
salmon from the Narraguagus, Pleasant, Sheepscot, Machias, East
Machias, and Dennys populations are maintained at CBNFH in East Orland,
Maine. These populations are augmented by annual collections of parr
from their respective natal river; this program is described in detail
by Bartron et al. (2006). Additionally, returning adult Atlantic salmon
are trapped at the Veazie Dam on the Penobscot River throughout the
duration of the run, transferred to CBNFH, and held until spawning in
the fall of each year. In addition, domestic adults (i.e., offspring of
the sea-run adults representing all sea-run spawned families) from the
Penobscot River are maintained at GLNFH in the event that insufficient
sea-run adults return to the Veazie trap or in the event of a fish loss
at CBNFH. Adult Atlantic salmon (with the exception of the Penobscot
River) are maintained in one of six river-specific broodstock rooms at
CBNFH. Within each broodstock room, adults are maintained separately by
capture year. Capture year is defined as the year parr were collected
from a river. Each capture year may represent one to two year classes.
In addition, fully captive lines, or ``pedigree lines,'' are
implemented when the recovery of parr from the river environment is
expected to be too low to ensure future spawning stock is available
(Bartron et al., 2006). Pedigree lines are established at the time of
stocking, where a proportional representation of each family from a
particular river-specific broodstock is retained in the hatchery while
the rest of the fry are stocked into the river. If parr are recovered
from the fry stocking for the pedigree lines, individuals are screened
to determine origin and familial representation and are integrated into
the pedigree line to maintain some component of natural selection while
maintaining a broad representation of the genetic diversity observed in
the broodstock.
The goals of the captive propagation program include maintenance of
the unique genetic characteristics of each river-specific broodstock
and maintenance of genetic diversity within each broodstock (Bartron et
al., 2006). Evaluation of estimates of genetic diversity within captive
populations, such as average heterozygosity, relatedness, and allelic
richness are monitored within the hatchery broodstocks according to the
CBNFH Broodstock Management Plan (Bartron et al., 2006). Estimates of
allelic richness within each broodstock have thus far, revealed
consistent estimates over the brief time series available (generally
1994 to 2004; Bartron et al., 2007). Information from genetic
monitoring is used to evaluate management practices to reduce the
potential for artificially reducing overall genetic diversity. Further
details of annual genetic monitoring are described by Bartron et al.
(2007).
The current low abundance of adult returns, integration of the
majority of adult returns into the hatchery for the Penobscot, and
recapture of parr from the wild for broodstock makes the wild and
hatchery populations interwoven. In the following sections of this
final rule, we describe the four population attributes of interest
(abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and genetic diversity) and
attempt to apply them first to the wild population and then discuss the
impact the hatchery has on that attribute. For the reasons noted above,
however, it is rarely possible to completely separate the wild and
hatchery population in this analysis.
Abundance
The abundance of Atlantic salmon within the range of the GOM DPS
has been generally declining since the 1800s (Fay et al., 2006). Data
sets tracking adult abundance are not available throughout this entire
time period; however, Fay et al. (2006) in Figure 7.3.1 present a
comprehensive time series of adult returns to the GOM DPS dating back
to 1967. It is important to note that contemporary abundance levels of
Atlantic salmon within the GOM DPS are several orders of magnitude
lower than historical abundance estimates. For example, Foster and
Atkins (1869) estimated that roughly 100,000 adult salmon returned to
the Penobscot River alone before the river was dammed, whereas
contemporary estimates of abundance for the entire GOM DPS have rarely
exceeded 5,000 individuals in any given year since 1967 (Fay et al.,
2006).
Contemporary abundance estimates are informative in considering the
conservation status of the GOM DPS today. After a period of population
growth in the 1970s, adult returns of salmon in the GOM DPS have been
steadily declining since the early 1980s and appear to have stabilized
at low levels since 2000 (Figure 1). The population growth observed in
the 1970s is likely attributable to favorable marine survival and
increases in hatchery capacity, particularly at GLNFH, which was
constructed in 1974. Marine survival remained relatively high
throughout the 1980s, and salmon populations in the GOM DPS remained
relatively stable until the early 1990s when marine survival rates
decreased, leading to the declining trend in adult abundance observed
in the early 1990s.
[[Page 29350]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19JN09.002
Adult returns to the GOM DPS have been very low for many years and
remain extremely low in terms of adult abundance in the wild. Further,
the majority of all adults return to a single river, the Penobscot,
which accounted for 91 percent of all adult returns to the GOM DPS in
2007 (Table 2). As illustrated by Table 3, of the 925 adult returns to
the Penobscot in 2007, 802 were the result of smolt stocking and only
the remaining 123 were naturally-reared. The term ``naturally-reared''
includes fish originating from natural spawning and hatchery fry
(USASAC, 2008). Hatchery fry are included because hatchery fry are not
marked; therefore, they cannot be distinguished from fish produced from
natural spawning. Because of the extensive amount of fry stocking that
takes place in an effort to recover the GOM DPS, it is likely that a
substantial number of fish counted as naturally-reared were actually
stocked as fry. The term ``hatchery-origin'' includes those fish
stocked as either parr or smolt from either CBNFH or GLNFH.
The proportion of naturally reared fish that is attributed to fry
stocking cannot be determined. Preliminary adult return data for 2008
(https://www.maine.gov/dmr/searunfish/trapcounts.html) indicated higher
returns than in previous years, but remain well below conservation
spawning escapement (CSE) goals that are widely used (e.g., ICES, 2005)
to describe the status of individual Atlantic salmon populations. When
CSE goals are met, Atlantic salmon populations are generally self-
sustaining. When CSE goals are not met (i.e., less than 100 percent),
populations are not reaching full potential, and this can be indicative
of a population decline. For all rivers in Maine, current Atlantic
salmon populations (including hatchery contributions) are well below
CSE levels required to sustain themselves (Fay et al., 2006) (section
7.1), which is further indication of their poor population status.
Furthermore, calculation of returns relative to CSE for Atlantic salmon
include salmon of fry-stocked origin; because these fish are not
spawned in the wild, displaying returns as a percentage of CSE
overestimates the degree to which the population is achieving self-
sustainability.
Table 2--Adult Returns to the Small Coastal Rivers, the Penobscot River, the Kennebec River, and the Androscoggin River From 2001 to 2007. These Data
are Summarized From Table 3.2.1.2 and Table 16 in the United States Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee Report (USASAC, 2008)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small coastal Penobscot River Kennebec River Androscoggin Total known
Year rivers trap count trap count \a\ River trap count returns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.......................................................... 103 785 ................ 5 893
2002.......................................................... 37 780 ................ 2 819
2003.......................................................... 76 1112 ................ 3 1191
2004.......................................................... 82 1323 ................ 11 1416
2005.......................................................... 71 985 ................ 10 1066
2006.......................................................... 79 1044 15 6 1144
[[Page 29351]]
2007.......................................................... 53 925 16 20 1014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Counts not conducted on the Kennebec until 2006.
Table 3--Adult Returns to Rivers Within the Freshwater Range of the GOM DPS by Origin in 2007. These Data Are
Summarized From Table 1 in the United States Atlantic Salmon Assessment Committee Report (USASAC, 2008)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River Hatchery-origin Naturally-reared Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin.............................................. 17 3 20
Kennebec.................................................. 9 7 16
Dennys.................................................... 2 1 3
Narraguagus............................................... 0 11 11
Other GOM DPS............................................. 0 39 39
Penobscot................................................. 802 123 925
-----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 830 184 1014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Declines in both hatchery-origin and naturally reared salmon are
evident in the Penobscot River (Table 4). Declines in hatchery-origin
adult returns are less sharp because of the effects of hatcheries. In
short, hatchery supplementation over this time period has been
relatively constant, generally fluctuating around 550,000 smolts per
year (USASAC, 2008). In contrast, the number of naturally-reared smolts
emigrating each year is likely to decline following poor returns of
adults. Although it is impossible to distinguish truly wild salmon from
those stocked as fry, it is likely that some portion of naturally
reared adults are wild. Thus, wild smolt production would suffer 3
years after there were low adult returns, because the progeny of adult
returns typically emigrate 3 years after their parents return. The
relatively constant inputs from smolt stocking coupled with the
declining trend of naturally reared adults result in the apparent
stabilization of hatchery-origin salmon and the decline of naturally
reared components of the GOM DPS observed over the last 2 decades.
Table 4--Adult returns, by origin (hatchery-origin and naturally reared) and age (1sw Indicates the Individual Spent One Winter at Sea; 2sw Indicates
the Individual Spent Two Winters at Sea; 3sw Indicates the Individual Spent Three Winters at Sea; and Repeat Indicates the Individual was a Repeat
Spawner) to the Penobscot River from 1996 to 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatchery-origin Naturally reared
Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total
1sw 2sw 3sw Repeat 1sw 2sw 3sw Repeat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.......................................................... 484 1,218 6 18 11 303 3 1 2,044
1997.......................................................... 243 934 4 14 4 153 2 1 1,355
1998.......................................................... 238 793 0 10 31 133 1 4 1,210
1999.......................................................... 223 568 0 11 49 108 0 9 968
2000.......................................................... 167 265 0 15 16 69 0 2 534
2001.......................................................... 195 466 0 3 21 98 2 0 785
2002.......................................................... 363 344 0 15 14 41 1 2 780
2003.......................................................... 196 847 1 4 6 56 0 2 1,112
2004.......................................................... 276 952 10 16 5 59 3 2 1,323
2005.......................................................... 269 678 0 8 6 22 0 2 985
2006.......................................................... 338 653 1 4 15 33 0 0 1,044
2007.......................................................... 226 575 0 1 35 88 0 0 925
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The influence of CBNFH and GLNFH on abundance of the GOM DPS is
positive, thus reducing short-term extinction risks to the GOM DPS.
Below, we briefly describe the three mechanisms by which the
conservation hatchery programs positively affect the abundance of the
GOM DPS:
1. Stocking of large numbers of smolts (Penobscot beginning in
1974, Dennys beginning in 2001, and Narraguagus beginning in 2008)
increases adult returns, thus reducing demographic risks (i.e.,
extinction risks) to populations that would otherwise be smaller.
2. Stocking large numbers of smolts also reduces the risks of
catastrophic loss because at least one cohort is always at sea and
could be collected as broodstock in case of a catastrophic event in
freshwater (e.g., a large contaminant spill) or in a hatchery (e.g.,
disease outbreak).
3. Rivers without large scale fry stocking efforts have even fewer
adult returns than those rivers with large scale stocking efforts.
Further, rivers that lack significant hatchery contributions (fry
stocking) have not experienced stable
[[Page 29352]]
levels of adult returns since the decline in marine survival in the
early 1990s. For example, redd counts in the Ducktrap River (a river
which is not stocked) have been steadily declining since the 1990s to a
point where no redds were found in the Ducktrap River in 2007, a year
with favorable conditions for redd counting and over 90 percent of
spawning habitat surveyed (USASAC, 2008).
As illustrated by the above data, the abundance of Atlantic salmon
in the GOM DPS is low and either stable or declining. The proportion of
fish that are of natural origin is very small (approximately 10
percent) and is continuing to decline. The conservation hatchery has
assisted in slowing the decline and helped stabilize populations at low
levels, but has not contributed to an increase in the overall abundance
of salmon and has not been able to halt the decline of the naturally-
reared component of the GOM DPS.
Productivity
The historic productivity of the GOM DPS is unknown. Over long time
frames, it is expected that productivity fluctuated widely according to
a diverse range of biotic factors such as food availability and abiotic
factors such as temperature regime and sea level.
Contemporary productivity rates for the GOM DPS can be inferred
from replacement rates. In short, populations with a replacement rate
of 1.0 or higher are stable or increasing while populations with a
replacement rate less than 1.0 are declining. The USASAC has estimated
the replacement rate for the GOM DPS (as listed in 2000) over the last
several years. Replacement rate for the GOM DPS (as listed in 2000) had
been below 1.0 for several generations until 2007, when replacement
rate for the 2002 spawning cohort was 1.47. This translates to on
average, every adult returning in 2002 replacing itself with 1.47
adults in 2007. While this increase is promising, it only represents 1
year; thus, it is premature to conclude that this is indicative of an
increasing trend.
Replacement rate is a fairly imprecise measurement of productivity
for several reasons. First, tracking adult to adult return rates of
naturally reared fish necessarily includes those fish that result from
stocking. Thus, it is not true replacement of fish in the wild because
each river with substantial returns of adults is stocked with fry, or
smolts as in the case of the Penobscot, Narraguagus, and Dennys Rivers.
This situation results in an overestimation of productivity (because it
does not account for the contribution that stocking makes to adult
returns) and also emphasizes the importance of hatcheries to the
security of the GOM DPS. Without stocking of hatchery fry and smolts,
adult returns would presumably be lower and would result in even lower
replacement rates.
The influence of hatcheries on productivity is not known with
certainty, but overall productivity (even with hatchery
supplementation) is quite low. The first goal of the captive broodstock
program is to facilitate the recovery of the natural populations and
minimize the risk of further decline or loss of individual populations
(Bartron et al., 2006). Over time, more adult returns should
successfully spawn in the wild and result in replacement rates above
1.0. However, insufficient data exist to determine whether adult
returns from hatchery contributions result in more spawners and
ultimately more truly wild-origin adult returns. The National Research
Council (NRC, 2004) and the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI,
2007) identified this as a key limitation in available data on the
recovery efforts for salmon in Maine. Without this information, it is
impossible to estimate, with any certainty, the effect of hatcheries on
this key population attribute (productivity). Overall, however,
replacement rates less than 1.0 (as has been the case most years since
the early 1990s) are indicative of low productivity.
As illustrated by the above, productivity of the GOM DPS is low and
has not consistently had a replacement rate above 1.0 such that
population growth would be expected. There is no current evidence that
hatcheries have increased or will increase productivity in the wild.
Spatial Distribution
The historic distribution of Atlantic salmon in Maine has been
described extensively by Baum (1997) and Beland (1984), among others.
In short, substantial populations of Atlantic salmon existed in nearly
every river that was large enough to maintain a spawning population.
The upstream extent of anadromy extended far into the headwaters of
even the largest rivers. For example, Atlantic salmon were found
throughout the West Branch of the Penobscot River as far as Penobscot
Brook, a distance over 350 river km inland (Atkins, 1870). In the
Kennebec River, Atlantic salmon ranged as far inland as the Kennebec
River Gorge and Grand Falls on the Dead River, 235 km inland (Foster
and Atkins, 1867; Atkins, 1887).
Today, the spatial structure of Atlantic salmon is limited by
obstructions to passage and also by low abundance levels. Fish passage
obstructions caused the decline of many salmon populations (Moring,
2005). Within the range of the GOM DPS, the Kennebec, Androscoggin,
Union, and Penobscot Rivers contain dams that severely limit passage of
salmon to significant amounts of spawning and rearing habitat.
In addition, the low abundance of salmon within the range of the
GOM DPS serves to concurrently limit spatial distribution through two
mechanisms: (1) Lack of sufficient source populations, and (2) hatchery
limitations. First, in properly functioning salmon populations, some
areas have relatively abundant salmon populations such that they may
serve as ``source'' populations. Fish from source populations may seek
out areas with fewer or no competitors. This is an important dispersal
mechanism for all anadromous salmonids. Over evolutionary timescales,
this process led to the colonization of nearly every river in Maine by
Atlantic salmon. Because the abundance of salmon is so low today, this
dispersal mechanism is likely not operating and will likely not operate
until trends in productivity and abundance are reversed. Second,
spatial distribution is limited today by hatchery capacity. The
Penobscot River alone would require 12.5 million fry in order to
properly seed all presently accessible rearing habitat (Trial, 2006),
while GLNFH and CBNFH can only produce roughly 3.5 million fry annually
(Barton et al., 2006). Thus, hundreds of thousands of otherwise
suitable habitat units are currently unoccupied (NMFS, 2008). The
Sheepscot, Narraguagus, Dennys, Machias, East Machias, and Pleasant
Rivers are usually stocked with as many fry as are needed to properly
seed the habitat, although no stocking occurs within a 50-meter buffer
around areas known to have spawning activity the previous year in order
to reduce competition between potentially wild and hatchery fry
(described in detail by Trial, 2006). Hatchery space for the Penobscot
population is limited by hatchery capacity, such that only 2.5 million
fry are typically allocated and stocked into the Penobscot River
annually. Other rivers within the freshwater range of the GOM DPS have
been stocked to a very limited degree in some years, usually with
Penobscot-origin fry (see section 5 of Fay et al., 2006, for a detailed
review).
The influence of hatcheries on spatial structure of the GOM DPS is
positive. Without hatchery contributions, fewer juveniles would inhabit
the rivers of Maine. In section 7.2., Fay et al. (2006)
[[Page 29353]]
examined recent MDMR electrofishing data, which demonstrated that
rivers with large scale stocking efforts have much higher juvenile
densities compared to those rivers without large scale stocking
efforts. The hatchery, therefore, has allowed for ma