[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 173 (Friday, September 5, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51747-51781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20603]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 0808061060-81062-01]
RIN 0648-AW77
Endangered and Threatened Species; Proposed Critical Habitat for
the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), propose to
designate critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population
Segment (GOM DPS) of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). We previously
determined that naturally spawned and several hatchery populations of
Atlantic salmon which constituted the GOM DPS warrant listing as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA).
We are required to designate critical habitat for the GOM DPS as a
result of this listing. We propose to designate as critical habitat 45
specific areas occupied by Atlantic salmon at the time of listing that
comprise approximately 203,781 km of perennial river, stream, and
estuary habitat and 868 square km of lake habitat within the range of
the GOM DPS and on which are found those physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. The entire
occupied range of the GOM DPS in which critical habitat is being
proposed is within the State of Maine. We propose to exclude
approximately 1,463 km of river, stream, and estuary habitat and 115
square km of lake habitat from critical habitat pursuant to section
4(b)(2) of the ESA.
DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by November 4, 2008.
Two public hearings on the proposed rule will be held in conjunction
with the Atlantic salmon proposed listing rule (See the notice,
Proposed Endangered Status for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population
Segment of Atlantic Salmon, published in the Proposed Rules section of
the September 3, 2008, issue of the Federal Register) and we will alert
the public of the locations and dates of those hearings in a subsequent
Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW77, by any
of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected
Resources Division, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, Protected
Resources Division, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Facsimile (fax) to: 207-866-7342, Attention: Dan Kircheis.
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without
change. All personal identifying information (for example, name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly
accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or
otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted
in Microsoft Word, Excel, Word Perfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
The proposed rule, list of references and supporting documents,
including
[[Page 51748]]
the Biological Valuation, Economic Analysis, IRFA Analysis, and 4(b)(2)
Report, are also available electronically at the NMFS Web site http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/altsalmon/ altsalmon/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Kircheis, NMFS, at 207-866-7320,
[email protected]; Mary Colligan, NMFS, at 978-281-9116; or Marta
Nammack, 301-713-1401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; collectively
``the Services'') issued a final rule listing the GOM DPS of Atlantic
salmon as endangered on November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69459). The GOM DPS
was defined in the 2000 rule 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
and the Penobscot River above the site of the former Bangor Dam.
In September of 2006, a new Status Review for Atlantic salmon in
the United States (Status Review report) was made available to the
public (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/atlanticsalmon.pdf). The 2006 Status Review report identified the GOM
DPS of Atlantic salmon as being comprised of all anadromous Atlantic
salmon whose freshwater range occurs in the watersheds of the
Androscoggin River northward along the Maine coast to the Dennys River,
including all associated conservation hatchery populations used to
supplement natural populations; currently, such populations are
maintained at Green Lake and Craig Brook National Fish Hatcheries. The
most substantial difference between the 2000 GOM DPS and the GOM DPS
described in the 2006 Status Review report is the inclusion of the
Androscoggin, Kennebec, and Penobscot River basins. Subsequent to the
2006 Status Review report, the Services proposed to list Atlantic
salmon in the GOM DPS as endangered (See the notice, Proposed
Endangered Status for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of
Atlantic Salmon, published in the Proposed Rules section of the
September 3, 2008, issue of the Federal Register).
This proposed rule would designate critical habitat for the GOM DPS
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the ESA. Critical habitat is defined by
section 3 of the ESA 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 and biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protections; 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.'' Section 3 of
the ESA (16 U.S.C. 15332) defines the terms ``conserve,''
``conserving,'' and ``conservation'' as ``to use, and the use of, all
methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.''
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) requires that, before
designating critical habitat, we consider the economic impacts, impacts
on national security, and other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. Further, the Secretary may exclude
any area from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, unless excluding an
area from critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species
concerned.
Once critical habitat for Atlantic salmon in the GOM DPS is
designated, section 7(a)(2) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536) requires that
each Federal agency in consultation with and with the assistance of
NMFS, ensure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
This proposed rule summarizes the information gathered and the
analyses conducted in support of the proposed designation, and
announces our proposal to designate critical habitat for Atlantic
salmon in the GOM DPS proposed for listing under ESA.
Atlantic Salmon Life History
Atlantic salmon have a complex life history that includes
territorial rearing in rivers to extensive feeding migrations on the
high seas. During their life cycle, Atlantic salmon go through several
distinct phases that are identified by specific changes in behavior,
physiology, morphology, and habitat requirements.
Adult Atlantic salmon return to rivers from the sea and migrate to
their natal stream to spawn. Adults ascend the rivers of New England
beginning in the spring. The ascent of adult salmon continues into the
fall. Although spawning does not occur until late fall, the majority of
Atlantic salmon in Maine enter freshwater between May and mid-July
(Meister, 1958; Baum, 1997). Early migration is an adaptive trait that
ensures adults have sufficient time to effectively reach spawning areas
despite the occurrence of temporarily unfavorable conditions that occur
naturally (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Salmon that return in early spring
spend nearly 5 months in the river before spawning; often seeking cool
water refuge (e.g., deep pools, springs, and mouths of smaller
tributaries) during the summer months.
In the fall, female Atlantic salmon select sites for spawning.
Spawning sites are positioned within flowing water, particularly where
upwelling of groundwater occurs to allow for percolation of water
through the gravel (Danie et al., 1984). These sites are most often
positioned at the head of a riffle (Beland et al., 1982b), the tail of
a pool, or the upstream edge of a gravel bar where water depth is
decreasing, water velocity is increasing (McLaughlin and Knight, 1987;
White, 1942), and hydraulic head allows for permeation of water through
the redd (a gravel depression where eggs are deposited). Female salmon
use their caudal fin to scour or dig redds. The digging behavior also
serves to clean the substrate of fine sediments that can embed the
cobble/gravel substrate needed for spawning and reduce egg survival
(Gibson, 1993). As the female deposits eggs in the redd, one or more
males fertilize the eggs (Jordan and Beland, 1981). The female then
continues digging upstream of the last deposition site, burying the
fertilized eggs with clean gravel. A single female may create several
redds before depositing all of her eggs. Female anadromous Atlantic
salmon produce a total of 1,500 to 1,800 eggs per kilogram of body
weight, yielding an average of 7,500 eggs per 2 sea-winter (SW) female
(an adult female that has spent two winters at sea before returning to
spawn) (Baum and Meister, 1971). After spawning, Atlantic salmon may
either return to sea immediately or remain in freshwater until the
following spring before returning to the sea (Fay et al., 2006). From
1967 to 2003, approximately 3 percent of the wild and naturally reared
adults that returned to rivers where adult returns are monitored--
mainly the Penobscot River--were repeat spawners (USASAC, 2004).
Embryos develop in the redd for a period of 175 to 195 days,
hatching in late March or April (Danie et al., 1983). Newly hatched
salmon, referred to as
[[Page 51749]]
larval fry, alevin, or sac fry, remain in the redd for approximately 6
weeks after hatching and are nourished by their yolk sac (Gustafson-
Greenwood and Moring, 1991). Survival from the egg to fry stage in
Maine is estimated to range from 15 to 35 percent (Jordan and Beland,
1981). Survival rates of eggs and larvae are a function of stream
gradient, overwinter temperatures, interstitial flow, predation,
disease, and competition (Bley and Moring, 1988). Once larval fry
emerge from the gravel and begin active feeding they are referred to as
fry. The majority of fry (> 95 percent) emerge from redds at night
(Gustafson-Marjanen and Dowse, 1983).
When fry reach approximately 4 cm in length, the young salmon are
termed parr (Danie et al., 1984). Parr have eight to eleven pigmented
vertical bands on their sides that are believed to serve as camouflage
(Baum, 1997). A territorial behavior, first apparent during the fry
stage, grows more pronounced during the parr stage as the parr actively
defend territories (Allen, 1940; Kalleberg, 1958; Danie et al., 1984).
Most parr remain in the river for 2 to 3 years before undergoing
smoltification, the process in which parr go through physiological
changes in order to transition from a freshwater environment to a
saltwater marine environment. Some male parr may not go through
smoltification and will become sexually mature and participate in
spawning with sea-run adult females. These males are referred to as
``precocious parr.''
First year parr are often characterized as being small parr or 0+
parr (4 to 7 cm long), whereas second and third year parr are
characterized as large parr (greater than 7 cm long) (Haines, 1992).
Parr growth is a function of water temperature (Elliott, 1991), parr
density (Randall, 1982), photoperiod (Lundqvist, 1980), interaction
with other fish, birds, and mammals (Bjornn and Resier, 1991), and food
supply (Swansburg et al., 2002). Parr movement may be quite limited in
the winter (Cunjak, 1988; Heggenes, 1990); however, movement in the
winter does occur (Hiscock et al., 2002) and is often necessary, as ice
formation reduces total habitat availability (Whalen et al., 1999a).
Parr have been documented using riverine, lake, and estuarine habitats;
incorporating opportunistic and active feeding strategies; defending
territories from competitors including other parr; and working together
in small schools to actively pursue prey (Gibson, 1993; Marschall et
al., 1998; Pepper, 1976; Pepper et al., 1984; Hutchings, 1986; Erkinaro
et al., 1998; Halvorsen and Svenning, 2000; Hutchings, 1986; O'Connell
and Ash, 1993; Erkinaro et al., 1998; Dempson et al., 1996; Halvorsen
and Svenning, 2000; Klemetsen et al., 2003).
In a parr's second or third spring (age 1 or age 2, respectively),
when it has grown to 12.5 to 15 cm in length, a series of
physiological, morphological, and behavioral changes occur (Schaffer
and Elson, 1975). This process, called ``smoltification,'' prepares the
parr for migration to the ocean and life in salt water. In Maine, the
vast majority of naturally reared parr remain in freshwater for 2 years
(90 percent or more) with the balance remaining for either 1 or 3 years
(USASAC, 2005). In order for parr to undergo smoltification, they must
reach a critical size of 10 cm total length at the end of the previous
growing season (Hoar, 1988). During the smoltification process, parr
markings fade and the body becomes streamlined and silvery with a
pronounced fork in the tail. Naturally reared smolts in Maine range in
size from 13 to 17 cm, and most smolts enter the sea during May to
begin their first ocean migration (USASAC, 2004). During this
migration, smolts must contend with changes in salinity, water
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, pollution levels, and predator
assemblages. The physiological changes that occur during smoltification
prepare the fish for the dramatic change in osmoregulatory needs that
come with the transition from a fresh to a salt water habitat (Ruggles,
1980; Bley, 1987; McCormick and Saunders, 1987; McCormick et al.,
1998). Smolts' transition into seawater is usually gradual as they pass
through a zone of fresh and saltwater mixing that typically occurs in a
river's estuary. Given that smolts undergo smoltification while they
are still in the river, they are pre-adapted to make a direct entry
into seawater with minimal acclimation (McCormick et al., 1998). This
pre-adaptation to seawater is necessary under some circumstances where
there is very little transition zone between freshwater and the marine
environment.
The spring migration of post-smolts out of the coastal environment
is generally rapid, within several tidal cycles, and follows a direct
route (Hyvarinen et al., 2006; Lacroix and McCurdy, 1996; Lacroix et
al., 2004, 2005). Post-smolts generally travel out of coastal systems
on the ebb tide, and may be delayed by flood tides (Hyvarinen et al.,
2006; Lacroix and McCurdy, 1996; Lacroix et al., 2004, 2005); although
Lacroix and McCurdy (1996) found that post-smolts exhibit active,
directed swimming in areas with strong tidal currents. Studies in the
Bay of Fundy and Passamaquoddy Bay suggest that post-smolts aggregate
together and move near the coast in ``common corridors'' and that post-
smolt movement is closely related to surface currents in the bay
(Hyvarinen et al., 2006; Lacroix and McCurdy, 1996; Lacroix et al.,
2004). European post-smolts tend to use the open ocean for a nursery
zone, while North American post-smolts appear to have a more near-shore
distribution (Friedland et al., 2003). Post-smolt distribution may
reflect water temperatures (Reddin and Shearer, 1987) and/or the major
surface-current vectors (Lacroix and Knox, 2005). Post-smolts live
mainly on the surface of the water column and form shoals, possibly of
fish from the same river (Shelton et al., 1997).
During the late summer/autumn of the first year, North American
post-smolts are concentrated in the Labrador Sea and off of the west
coast of Greenland, with the highest concentrations between 56 [deg]N.
and 58 [deg]N. (Reddin, 1985; Reddin and Short, 1991; Reddin and
Friedland, 1993). The salmon located off Greenland are composed of both
1SW fish and fish that have spent multiple years at sea (multi-sea
winter fish, or MSW) immature salmon from both North American and
European stocks (Reddin, 1988; Reddin et al., 1988). The first winter
at sea regulates annual recruitment, and the distribution of winter
habitat in the Labrador Sea and Denmark Strait may be critical for
North American populations (Friedland et al., 1993). In the spring,
North American post-smolts are generally located in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, off the coast of Newfoundland, and on the east coast of the
Grand Banks (Reddin, 1985; Dutil and Coutu, 1988; Ritter, 1989; Reddin
and Friedland, 1993; and Friedland et al., 1999).
Some salmon may remain at sea for another year or more before
maturing. After their second winter at sea, the salmon over-winter in
the area of the Grand Banks before returning to their natal rivers to
spawn (Reddin and Shearer, 1987). Reddin and Friedland (1993) found
non-maturing adults located along the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador,
and Greenland, and in the Labrador and Irminger Sea in the later
summer/autumn.
Critical Habitat
Methods and Criteria Used To Identify Proposed Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined by section 3 of the ESA (and 50 CFR
424.02(d)) as ``(i) the specific areas within the geographic area
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance
[[Page 51750]]
with the provisions of [section 4 of this Act], 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 in
accordance with the provisions of [section 4 of this Act], upon a
determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.'' The Department of the Interior and the
Department of Commerce provide further regulatory guidance under 50 CFR
424.12(b), stating that the Secretaries shall ``focus on the principal
biological or physical constituent elements within the defined area
that are essential to the conservation of the species * * * Primary
constituent elements may include, but are not limited to, the
following: roost sites, nesting grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites,
seasonal wetland or dry land, water quality or quantity, host species
or plant pollinator[s], geological formation, vegetation type, tide,
and specific soil types.''
Identifying the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and Specific
Areas Within the Geographical Area
To designate critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, as defined under
Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA, we must identify specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed.
The geographic range occupied by the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon
includes freshwater habitat ranging from the Androscoggin River
watershed in the south to the Dennys River watershed in the north (Fay
et al., 2006), as well as the adjacent estuaries and bays through which
smolts and adults migrate.
The geographic range occupied by the species extends out to the
waters off Canada and Greenland, where post-smolts complete their
marine migration. However, critical habitat may not be designated
within foreign countries or in other areas outside of the jurisdiction
of the United States (50 CFR 424.12(h)). Therefore, for the purposes of
critical habitat designation, the geographic area occupied by the
species will be restricted to areas within the jurisdiction of the
United States. This does not diminish the importance of habitat outside
of the jurisdiction of the United States for the GOM DPS. In fact, a
very significant factor limiting recovery for the species is marine
survival. Marine migration routes and feeding habitat off Canada and
Greenland are critical to the survival and recovery of Atlantic salmon,
but the regulations prohibit designation of these areas as critical
habitat.
Because Atlantic salmon are anadromous, spending a portion of life
in freshwater and the remaining portion in the marine environment, it
is conceivable that some freshwater habitat may be vacant for up to 3
years under circumstances where populations are extremely low. While
there may be no documented spawning in these areas for that period of
time, they would still be considered occupied because salmon at sea
would return to these areas to spawn.
Current stock management and assessment efforts also need to be
considered in deciding which areas are occupied. In addition to the
stocking program managed by USFWS and the Maine Department of Marine
Resources (MDMR), there are small-scale stocking efforts carried out by
non profit organizations. Furthermore, in addition to stocking
programs, straying from natural populations can result in the
occupation of habitat.
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 10 (Level 5 watersheds) described by
Seaber et al. (1994) are proposed as the appropriate ``specific areas''
within the geographic area occupied by Atlantic salmon to be examined
for the presence of physical or biological features and for the
potential need for special management considerations or protections for
these features.
The HUC system was developed by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Office of Water Data Coordination in conjunction with the Water
Resources Council (Seaber et al., 1994) and provides (1) a nationally
accessible, coherent system of water-use data exchange; (2) a means of
grouping hydrographical data; and (3) a standardized, scientifically
grounded reference system (Laitta et al., 2004). The HUC system
currently includes six nationally consistent, hierarchical levels of
divisions, with HUC 2 (Level 1) ``Regions'' being the largest (avg.
459,878 sq. km.), and HUC 12 (Level 6) ``sub-watersheds'' being the
smallest (avg. 41-163 sq. km.).
The HUC 10 (Level 5) watersheds were used to identify ``specific
areas'' because this scale accommodates the local adaptation and homing
tendencies of Atlantic salmon, and provides a framework in which we can
reasonably aggregate occupied river, stream, lake, and estuary habitats
that contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. Furthermore, many Atlantic salmon
populations within the GOM DPS are currently managed at the HUC 10
watershed scale. Therefore, we have a better understanding of the
population status and the biology of salmon at the HUC 10 level,
whereas less is known at the smaller HUC 12 sub-watershed scale.
Specific areas delineated at the HUC 10 watershed level correspond
well to the biology and life history characteristics of Atlantic
salmon. Atlantic salmon, like many other anadromous salmonids, exhibit
strong homing tendencies (Stabell, 1984). Strong homing tendencies
enhance a given individual's chance of spawning with individuals having
similar life history characteristics (Dittman and Quinn, 1996) that
lead to the evolution and maintenance of local adaptations, and may
also enhance their progeny's ability to exploit a given set of
resources (Gharrett and Smoker, 1993). Local adaptations allow local
populations to survive and reproduce at higher rates than exogenous
populations (Reisenbichler, 1988; Tallman and Healey, 1994). Strong
homing tendencies have been observed in many Atlantic salmon
populations. Stabell (1984) reported that fewer than 3 of every 100
salmon in North America and Europe stray from their natal river. In
Maine, Baum and Spencer (1990) reported that 98 percent of hatchery-
reared smolts returned to the watershed where they were stocked. Given
the strong homing tendencies and life history characteristics of
Atlantic salmon (Riddell and Leggett, 1981), we believe that the HUC 10
watershed level accommodates these local adaptations and the biological
needs of the species and, therefore, is the most appropriate unit of
habitat to delineate ``specific areas'' for consideration as part of
the critical habitat designation process.
Within the United States, the freshwater geographic range that the
GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon occupy includes perennial river, lake,
stream and estuary habitat connected to the marine environment ranging
from the Androscoggin River watershed to the Dennys River watershed.
Within this range, HUC 10 watersheds were considered occupied if they
contained either of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) (e.g.,
sites for spawning and rearing or sites for migration, described in
more detail below) along with the features necessary to support
spawning, rearing and/or migration. Additionally, the HUC 10 watershed
must meet either of the following criteria:
(a) Naturally spawned and reared Atlantic salmon have been
documented in the HUC 10 watershed or the watershed is believed to be
occupied
[[Page 51751]]
based on the biological valuation of HUC 10 watershed (See Biological
Valuation of Atlantic Salmon Habitat in the Gulf of Maine Distinct
Population Segment (2008)) and best professional judgment of state and
Federal biologists;
(b) The area is currently managed by the MDMR and the USFWS through
an active stocking program in an effort to enhance or restore Atlantic
salmon populations, or the area has been stocked within the last 6
years through other stocking programs, including those efforts by the
``Fish Friends'' program, where juvenile salmon could reasonably be
expected to migrate to the marine environment and return to that area
as an adult and spawn.
Within the range of the GOM DPS, 105 HUC 10 watersheds were
examined for occupancy based on the above criteria. Based on our
analysis, we considered 48 of these HUC 10 watersheds within the
geographic range to be occupied. Estuaries and bays within the occupied
HUC 10s in the GOM DPS are also included in the geographic range
occupied by the species.
Occupied areas also extend outside the estuary and bays of the GOM
DPS as adults return from the marine environment to spawn and smolts
migrate towards Greenland for feeding. We are not able at this time to
identify the specific features characteristic of marine migration and
feeding habitat within U.S. jurisdictional waters essential to the
conservation of Atlantic salmon and are, therefore, unable to identify
the specific areas where such features exist. Therefore, specific areas
of marine habitat were not proposed as critical habitat.
Physical and Biological Features in Freshwater and Estuary Specific
Areas Essential to the Conservation of the Species
We identify the physical and biological features essential for the
conservation of Atlantic salmon that are found within the specific
occupied areas identified in the previous section. To determine which
features are essential to the conservation of the GOM DPS of Atlantic
salmon, we first define what conservation means for this species.
Conservation is defined in the ESA as using all methods and procedures
which are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to
the point at which the measures provided by the ESA are no longer
necessary. Conservation, therefore, describes those activities and
efforts undertaken to achieve recovery. For the GOM DPS, we have
determined that the successful return of adult salmon to spawning
habitat, spawning, egg incubation and hatching, juvenile survival
during the rearing time in freshwater, and smolt migration out of the
rivers to the ocean are all essential to the conservation of Atlantic
salmon. Therefore, we identify features essential to successful
completion of these life cycle activities. Although successful marine
migration is also essential to the conservation of the species, we are
not able to identify the essential features of marine migration and
feeding habitat at this time. Therefore, as noted above, marine habitat
areas are not proposed for designation as critical habitat.
Within the occupied range of the Gulf of Maine DPS, Atlantic salmon
PCEs include sites for spawning and incubation, sites for juvenile
rearing, and sites for migration. The physical and biological features
of the PCEs that allow these sites to be used successfully for
spawning, incubation, rearing and migration are the features of habitat
within the GOM DPS that are essential to the conservation of the
species. A detailed review of the physical and biological features
required by Atlantic salmon is provided in Kircheis and Liebich (2007).
As stated above, Atlantic salmon also use marine sites for growth and
migration; however, we did not identify critical habitat within the
marine environment because the specific physical and biological
features of marine habitat that are essential for the conservation of
the GOM DPS (and the specific areas on which these features might be
found) cannot be identified. Unlike Pacific salmonids, some of which
use nearshore marine environments for juvenile feeding and growth,
Atlantic salmon migrate through the nearshore marine areas quickly
during the month of May and early June. Though we have some limited
knowledge of the physical and biological features that the species uses
in the marine environment, we have very little information on the
specifics of these physical and biological features and how they may
require special management considerations or protection. Therefore, we
cannot accurately identify the specific areas where these features
exist or what types of management considerations or protections may be
necessary to protect these physical and biological features during the
migration period.
Detailed habitat surveys have been conducted in some areas within
the range of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon, providing clear estimates
of and distinctions between those sites most suited for spawning and
incubation and those sites most used for juvenile rearing. These
surveys are most complete for seven coastal watersheds: Dennys, East
Machias, Machias, Pleasant, Narraguagus, Ducktrap, and Sheepscot
watersheds; and portions of the Penobscot Basin, including portions of
the East Branch Penobscot, portions of the Piscataquis and
Mattawamkeag, Kenduskeag Stream, Marsh Stream and Cove Brook; and
portions of the Kennebec Basin, including a portion of the lower
mainstem around the site of the old Edwards Dam and portions of the
Sandy River. Throughout most of the range of the GOM DPS, however, this
level of survey has not been conducted, and, therefore, this level of
detail is not available. Therefore, to determine habitat quantity for
each HUC 10 we relied on a GIS-based habitat prediction model (See
appendix C of the Biological Valuation of Atlantic Salmon Habitat
within the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment (2008)). The model
was developed using data from existing habitat surveys conducted in the
Machias, Sheepscot, Dennys, Sandy, Piscataquis, Mattawamkeag, and
Souadabscook Rivers. A combination of reach slope derived from contour
and digital elevation model (DEM) datasets, cumulative drainage area,
and physiographic province were used to predict the total amount of
rearing habitat within a reach. These features help to reveal stream
segments with gradients that would likely represent areas of riffles or
fast moving water, habitat most frequently used for spawning and
rearing of Atlantic salmon. The variables included in the model
accurately predict the presence of rearing habitat approximately 73
percent of the time. We relied on the model to generate the habitat
quantity present within each HUC 10 to provide consistent data across
the entire DPS and on existing habitat surveys to validate the output
of the model.
Although we have found the model to be nearly 75 percent accurate
in predicting the presence of sites for spawning and rearing within
specific areas, and we have an abundance of institutional knowledge on
the physical and biological features that distinguish sites for
spawning and sites for rearing, the model cannot be used to distinguish
between sites for spawning and sites for rearing across the entire
geographic range. This is because: (1) Sites used for spawning are also
used for rearing; and (2) the model is unable to identify substrate
features most frequently used for spawning activity, but rather uses
landscape features to identify where stream gradient conducive to both
spawning and rearing activity exists. As such, we have chosen to group
sites for
[[Page 51752]]
spawning and sites for rearing into one PCE. Therefore, sites for
spawning and sites for rearing are discussed together throughout this
analysis as sites for spawning and rearing.
In the section below, we identify the essential physical and
biological features of spawning and rearing sites and migration sites
found in the occupied areas described in the previous section.
(A). Physical and Biological Features of the Spawning and Rearing PCE
1. Deep, oxygenated pools and cover (e.g., boulders, woody debris,
vegetation, etc.), near freshwater spawning sites, necessary to support
adult migrants during the summer while they await spawning in the fall.
Adult salmon can arrive at spawning grounds several months in advance
of spawning activity. Adults that arrive early require holding areas in
freshwater and estuarine areas that provide shade, protection from
predators, and protection from other environmental variables such as
high flows, high temperatures, and sedimentation. Early migration is an
adaptive trait that ensures adults sufficient time to reach spawning
areas despite the occurrence of temporarily unfavorable conditions that
occur naturally (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Salmon that return in early
spring spend nearly 5 months in the river before spawning, often
seeking cool water refuge (e.g., deep pools, springs, and mouths of
smaller tributaries) during the summer months. Large boulders or rocks,
overhanging trees, logs, woody debris, submerged vegetation and
undercut banks provide shade, reduce velocities needed for resting, and
offer protection from predators (Giger, 1973). These features are
essential to the conservation of the species to help ensure the
survival and successful spawning of adult salmon.
2. Freshwater spawning sites that contain clean, permeable gravel
and cobble substrate with oxygenated water and cool water temperatures
to support spawning activity, egg incubation, and larval development.
Spawning activity in the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon typically
occurs between mid-October and mid-November (Baum, 1997) and is
believed to be triggered by a combination of water temperature and
photoperiod (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Water quantity and quality, as
well as substrate type, are important for successful Atlantic salmon
spawning. Water quantity can determine habitat availability, and water
quality may influence spawning success. Substrate often determines
where spawning occurs, and cover can influence survival rates of both
adults and newly hatched salmon.
Preferred spawning habitat contains gravel substrate with adequate
water circulation to keep buried eggs well oxygenated (Peterson, 1978).
Eggs in a redd are entirely dependent upon sub-surface movement of
water to provide adequate oxygen for survival and growth (Decola,
1970). Water velocity and permeability of substrate allow for adequate
transport of well-oxygenated water for egg respiration (Wickett, 1954)
and removal of metabolic waste that may accumulate in the redd during
egg development (Decola, 1970; Jordan and Beland, 1981). Substrate
permeability as deep as the egg pit throughout the incubation period is
important because eggs are typically deposited at the bottom of the egg
pit.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) content is important for proper embryonic
development and hatching. Embryos can survive when DO concentrations
are below saturation levels, but their development is often subnormal
due to delayed growth and maturation, performance, or delayed hatching
(Doudoroff and Warren, 1965). In addition, embryos consume more oxygen
(i.e., the metabolism of the embryo increases) when temperature
increases (Decola, 1970). An increase in water temperature, however,
decreases the amount of oxygen that the water can hold. During the
embryonic stage when tissue and organs are developing and the demand
for oxygen is quite high, embryos can only tolerate a narrow range of
temperatures.
These sites are essential for the conservation of the species
because without them embryo development would not be successful.
3. Freshwater spawning and rearing sites with clean, permeable
gravel and cobble substrate with oxygenated water and cool water
temperatures to support emergence, territorial development and feeding
activities of Atlantic salmon fry. The period of emergence and the
establishment of feeding territories is a critical period in the salmon
life cycle since at this time mortality can be very high. When fry
leave the redd, they emerge through the interstitial spaces in the
gravel to reach the surface. When the interstitial spaces become
embedded with fine organic material or fine sand, emergence can be
significantly impeded or prevented. Newly emerged fry prefer shallow,
low velocity, riffle habitat with a clean gravel substrate. Territories
are quickly established by seeking out areas of low velocities that
occur in eddies in front of or behind larger particles that are
embedded in areas of higher velocities to maximize drift of prey
sources (Armstrong et al., 2002). Once a territory has been
established, fry use a sit-and-wait strategy, feeding opportunistically
on invertebrate drift. This strategy enables the fish to minimize
energy expenditure while maximizing energy intake (Bachman, 1984).
These sites are essential for the conservation of the species
because without them fry emergence would not be successful.
4. Freshwater rearing sites with space to accommodate growth and
survival of Atlantic salmon parr. When fry reach approximately 4 cm in
length, the young salmon are termed parr (Danie et al., 1984). The
habitat in Maine rivers currently supports on average between five and
ten large parr (age one or older) per 100 square meters of habitat, or
one habitat unit (Elson, 1975; Baum, 1997). The amount of space
available for juvenile salmon occupancy is a function of biotic and
abiotic habitat features, including stream morphology, substrate,
gradient, and cover; the availability and abundance of food; and the
makeup of predators and competitors (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Further
limiting the amount of space available to parr is their strong
territorial instinct. Parr actively defend territories against other
fish, including other parr, to maximize their opportunity to capture
prey items. The size of the territory that a parr will defend is a
function of the size and density of parr, food availability, the size
and roughness of the substrate, and current velocity (Kalleberg, 1958;
Grant et al., 1998). The amount of space needed by an individual
increases with age and size (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Cover, including
undercut banks, overhanging trees and vegetation, diverse substrates
and depths, and some types of aquatic vegetation, can make habitat
suitable for occupancy (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Cover can provide a
buffer against extreme temperatures; protection from predators;
increased food abundance; and protection from environmental variables
such as high flow events and sedimentation.
These features are essential to the conservation of the species
because without them, juvenile salmon would have limited areas for
foraging and protection from predators.
5. Freshwater rearing sites with a combination of river, stream,
and lake habitats that accommodate parr's ability to occupy many niches
and maximize parr production. Parr prefer, but are not limited to,
riffle habitat associated with diverse rough gravel substrate. The
preference for these habitats by parr that use river and stream
habitats supports a sit-and-wait feeding strategy intended to
[[Page 51753]]
minimize energy expenditure while maximizing growth. Overall, large
Atlantic salmon parr using river and stream habitats select for diverse
substrates that predominately consist of boulder and cobble (Symons and
Heland, 1978; Heggenes, 1990; Heggenes et al., 1999).
Parr can also move great distances into or out of tributaries and
mainstems to seek out habitat that is more conducive to growth and
survival (McCormick et al., 1998). This occurs most frequently as parr
grow and they move from their natal spawning grounds to areas that have
much rougher substrate, providing more suitable over-wintering habitat
and more food organisms (McCormick et al., 1998). In the fall, large
parr that are likely to become smolts the following spring have been
documented leaving summer rearing areas in some headwater tributaries
and migrating downstream, though not necessarily entering the estuary
or marine environment (McCormick et al., 1998).
Though parr are typically stream dwellers, they also use pools
within rivers and streams, dead-waters (sections of river or stream
with very little to no gradient), and lakes within a river system as a
secondary nursery area after emergence (Cunjak, 1996; Morantz et al.,
1987; Erkinaro et al., 1998). It is known that parr will use pool
habitats during periods of low water, most likely as refuge from high
temperatures (McCormick et al., 1998) and during the winter months to
minimize energy expenditure and avoid areas that are prone to freezing
or de-watering (Rimmer et al., 1984). Salmon parr may also spend weeks
or months in the estuary during the summer (Cunjak et al., 1989, 1990;
Power and Shooner, 1966).
These areas are essential to the conservation of the species to
ensure survival and species persistence when particular habitats become
less suitable or unsuitable for survival during periods of extreme
conditions such as extreme high temperatures, extreme low temperatures,
and droughts.
6. Freshwater rearing sites with cool, oxygenated water to support
growth and survival of Atlantic salmon parr. Atlantic salmon are cold
water fish and have a thermal tolerance zone where activity and growth
is optimal (Decola, 1970). Small parr and large parr have similar
temperature tolerances (Elliott, 1991). Water temperature influences
growth, survival, and behavior of juvenile Atlantic salmon. Juvenile
salmon can be exposed to very warm temperatures (> 20 [deg]C) in the
summer and near-freezing temperatures in the winter, and have evolved
with a series of physiological and behavioral strategies that enable
them to adapt to the wide range of thermal conditions that they may
encounter. Parr's optimal temperature for feeding and growth ranges
from 15 to 19 [deg]C (Decola, 1970). When water temperatures surpass 19
[deg]C, feeding and behavioral activities are directed towards
maintenance and survival. During the winter when temperatures approach
freezing, parr reduce energy expenditures by spending less time
defending territories, feeding less, and moving into slower velocity
microhabitats (Cunjak, 1996).
Oxygen consumption by parr is a function of temperature. As
temperature increases, the demand for oxygen increases (Decola, 1970).
Parr require highly oxygenated waters to support their active feeding
strategy. Though salmon parr can tolerate oxygen levels below 6mg/l,
both swimming activity and growth rates are restricted.
These features are essential to the conservation of the species
because high and low water temperatures and low oxygen concentrations
can result in the cessation of feeding activities necessary for
juvenile growth and survival and can result in direct mortality.
7. Freshwater rearing sites with diverse food resources to support
growth and survival of Atlantic salmon parr. Atlantic salmon require
sufficient energy to meet their basic metabolic needs for growth and
reproduction (Spence et al., 1996). Parr largely depend on invertebrate
drift for foraging, and actively defend territories to assure adequate
food resources needed for growth. Parr feed on larvae of mayflies,
stoneflies, chironomids, caddisflies, blackflies, aquatic annelids, and
mollusks, as well as numerous terrestrial invertebrates that fall into
the river (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Nislow et al., 1999). As parr
grow, they will occasionally eat small fishes, such as alewives, dace,
or minnows (Baum, 1997).
Atlantic salmon attain energy from food sources that originate from
both allochthonous (outside the stream) and autochthonous (within the
stream) sources. What food is available to parr and how food is
obtained is a function of a river's hydrology, geomorphology, biology,
water quality, and connectivity (Annear et al., 2004). The riparian
zone is a fundamental component to both watershed and ecosystem
function, as it provides critical physical and biological linkages
between terrestrial and aquatic environments (Gregory et al., 1991).
Flooding of the riparian zone is an important mechanism needed to
support the lateral transport of nutrients from the floodplain back to
the river (Annear et al., 2004). Lateral transport of nutrients and
organic matter from the riparian zone to the river supports the growth
of plant, plankton, and invertebrate communities. Stream invertebrates
are the principal linkage between the primary producers and higher
trophic levels, including salmon parr.
These features are essential to the conservation of the species, as
parr require these food items for growth and survival.
(B). Physical and Biological Features of the Migration PCE
1. Freshwater and estuary migratory sites free from physical and
biological barriers that delay or prevent access of adult salmon
seeking spawning grounds needed to support recovered populations. Adult
Atlantic salmon returning to their natal rivers or streams require
migration sites free from barriers that obstruct or delay passage to
reach their spawning grounds at the proper time for effective spawning
(Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Physical and biological barriers within
migration sites can prevent adult salmon from effectively spawning
either by preventing access to spawning habitat or impairing a fish's
ability to spawn effectively by delaying migration or impairing the
health of the fish. Migration sites free from physical and biological
barriers are essential to the conservation of the species because
without them, adult Atlantic salmon would not be able to access
spawning grounds needed for egg deposition and embryo development.
2. Freshwater and estuary migration sites with pool, lake, and
instream habitat that provide cool, oxygenated water and cover items
(e.g., boulders, woody debris, and vegetation) to serve as temporary
holding and resting areas during upstream migration of adult salmon.
Atlantic salmon may travel as far as 965 km upstream to spawn (New
England Fisheries Management Council, 1998). During migration, adult
salmon require holding and resting areas that provide the necessary
cover, temperature, flow, and water quality conditions needed to
survive. Holding areas can include areas in rivers and streams, lakes,
ponds, and even the ocean (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991). Holding areas are
necessary below temporary seasonal migration barriers such as those
created by flow, temperature, turbidity, and temporary obstructions
such as debris jams and beaver dams, and adjacent to spawning areas.
Adult salmon can become fatigued when ascending high velocity riffles
or falls and require resting areas
[[Page 51754]]
within and around high velocity waters where they can recover until
they are able to continue their migration. Holding areas near spawning
areas are necessary when upstream migration is not delayed and adults
reach spawning areas before they are ready to spawn.
These features are essential to the conservation of the species
because without them, adult Atlantic salmon would be subject to
fatigue, predation, and mortality from exposure to unfavorable
conditions, significantly reducing spawning success.
3. Freshwater and estuary migration sites with abundant, diverse
native fish communities to serve as a protective buffer against
predation. Adult Atlantic salmon and Atlantic salmon smolts interact
with other diadromous species indirectly. Adult and smolt migration
through the estuary often coincides with the presence of alewives
(Alosa spp.), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). The abundance
of diadromous species present during adult migration may serve as an
alternative prey source for seals, porpoises and otters (Saunders et
al., 2006). As an example, pre-spawned adults enter rivers and begin
their upstream spawning migration at approximately the same time as
early migrating adult salmon (Fay et al., 2006). 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 (Fay et al., 2006; Saunders et al.,
2006). In the absence or reduced abundance of these diadromous fish
communities, it would be expected that Atlantic salmon will likely
become increasingly targeted as forage by large predators (Saunders et
al., 2006).
As Atlantic salmon smolts pass through the estuary during migration
from their freshwater rearing sites to the marine environment, they
experience high levels of predation. Predation rates through the
estuary often result in up to 50 percent mortality during this
transition period between freshwater to the marine environment
(Larsson, 1985). There is, however, large annual variation in estuarine
mortality, which is believed to be dependent upon the abundance and
availability of other prey items including alewives, blueback herring,
and American shad, as well as the spatial and temporal distribution and
abundance of predators (Anthony, 1994).
The presence and absence of co-evolutionary diadromous species such
as alewives, blueback herring, and American shad likely play an
important role in mitigating the magnitude of predation on smolts from
predators such as striped bass, double-crested cormorants
(Phalacrocorax auritus), and ospreys (Pandion haliaetus). The migration
time of pre-spawned adult alewives overlaps in time and space with the
migration of Atlantic salmon smolts (Saunders et al., 2006). Given that
when alewife populations are robust, alewife numbers not only likely
greatly exceed densities of Atlantic salmon smolts, making them more
available to predators, but the caloric content per individual alewife
is greater than that of an Atlantic salmon smolt (Schulze, 1996),
likely making the alewife a more desirable prey species (Saunders et
al., 2006).
These features are essential to the conservation of the species
because without highly prolific abundant alternate prey species such as
alewives and shad, the less prolific Atlantic salmon will likely become
a preferred prey species.
4. Freshwater and estuary migration sites free from physical and
biological barriers that delay or prevent emigration of smolts to the
marine environment. Atlantic salmon smolts require an open migration
corridor from their juvenile rearing habitat to the marine environment.
Seaward migration of smolts is initiated by increases in river flow and
temperature in the early spring (McCleave, 1978; Thorpe and Morgan,
1978). Migration through the estuary is believed to be the most
challenging period for smolts (Lacroix and McCurdy, 1996). Although it
is difficult to generalize migration trends because of the variety of
estuaries, Atlantic salmon post-smolts tend to move quickly through the
estuary and enter the ocean within a few days or less (Lacroix et al.,
2004; Hyvarinen et al., 2006; McCleave, 1978). In the upper estuary,
where river flow is strong, Atlantic salmon smolts use passive drift to
travel (Moore et al., 1995; Fried et al., 1978; LaBar et al., 1978). In
the lower estuary smolts display active swimming, although their
movement is influenced by currents and tides (Lacroix and McCurdy 1996;
Moore et al., 1995; Holm et al., 1982; Fried et al., 1978). In
addition, although some individuals seem to utilize a period of
saltwater acclimation, some fish have no apparent period of acclimation
(Lacroix et al., 2004). Stefansson et al., (2003) found that post-
smolts adapt to seawater without any long-term physiological
impairment. Several studies also suggest that there is a ``survival
window'' which is open for several weeks in the spring, and gradually
closes through the summer, during which time salmon can migrate more
successfully (Larsson, 1977; Hansen and Jonsson, 1989; Hansen and
Quinn, 1998).
These features are essential to the conservation of the species
because a delay in migration of smolts can result in the loss of the
smolts' ability to osmoregulate in the marine environment which is
necessary for smolt survival.
5. Freshwater and estuary migration sites with sufficiently cool
water temperatures and water flows that coincide with diurnal cues to
stimulate smolt migration. The process of smoltification is triggered
in response to environmental cues. Photoperiod and temperature have the
greatest influence on regulating the smolting process. Increase in day
length is necessary for smolting to occur (Duston and Saunders, 1990).
McCormick et al. (1999) noted that in spite of wide temperature
variations among rivers throughout New England, almost all smolt
migrations begin around the first of May and are nearly complete by the
first week in June. However, the time that it takes for the
smoltification process to be completed appears to be closely related to
water temperature. When water temperatures increase, the smolting
process is advanced, evident by increases in Na+, K+-ATPase activity--
the rate of exchange of sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) ions across the
gill membrane or the regulation of salts that allow smolts to survive
in the marine environment (Johnston and Saunders, 1981; McCormick et
al., 1998; McCormick et al., 2002). In addition to playing a role in
regulating the smoltification process, high temperatures also are
responsible for the cessation of Na+, K+-ATPase activity of smolts
limiting their ability to excrete excess salts when they enter the
marine environment. McCormick et al., (1999) found significant
decreases in Na+, K+-ATPase activity in smolts at the end of the
migration period, but also found that smolts in warmer rivers had
reductions in Na+, K+-ATPase activity earlier then smolts found in
colder rivers. Hence any delay of migration has the potential to reduce
survival of out-migrating smolts because as water temperatures rise
over the spring migration period, smolts experience a reduction in Na+,
K+-ATPase reducing their ability to regulate salts as they enter the
marine environment. Though flow does not appear to play a role in the
smoltification process, flow does appear to play an important role in
stimulating a migration response (Whalen et al., 1999b).
[[Page 51755]]
These features are essential to the conservation of the species
because elevated water temperatures that occur in advance of a smolts
diurnal cues to migrate can result in a decreased migration window in
which smolts are capable of transitioning into the marine environment.
A decrease in the migration window has the potential to reduce survival
of smolts especially for fish with greater migration distances.
6. Freshwater migration sites with water chemistry needed to
support sea water adaptation of smolts. The effects of acidity on
Atlantic salmon have been well documented. The effects of acidity cause
ionoregulatory failure in Atlantic salmon smolts while in freshwater
(Rosseland and Skogheim, 1984; Farmer et al., 1989; Staurnes et al.,
1996; Staurnes et al., 1993). This inhibition of gill Na+, K+-ATPase
activity can cause the loss of plasma ions and may result in reduced
seawater tolerance (Rosseland and Skogheim, 1984; Farmer et al., 1989;
Staurnes et al., 1996; Staurnes et al., 1993) and increased
cardiovascular disturbances (Milligan and Wood 1982; Brodeur et al.,
1999). Parr undergoing parr/smolt transformation become more sensitive
to acidic water, hence water chemistry that is not normally regarded as
toxic to other salmonids may be toxic to smolts (Staurnes et al., 1993,
1995). This is true even in rivers that are not chronically acidic and
not normally considered as being in danger of acidification (Staurnes
et al., 1993, 1995). Atlantic salmon smolts are most vulnerable to low
pH in combination with elevated levels of monomeric labile species of
aluminum (aluminum capable of being absorbed across the gill membrane)
and low calcium (Rosseland and Skogheim, 1984; Rosseland et al., 1990;
Kroglund and Staurnes, 1999).
These features are essential to the conservation of the species
because Atlantic salmon smolts exposed to acidic waters can lose sea
water tolerance, which can result in direct mortality or indirect
mortality from altered behavior and fitness.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
Specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species may
be designated as critical habitat only if they contain physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species that
``may require special management considerations or protection.'' It is
the features and not the specific areas that are the focus of the ``may
require'' provision. Use of the disjunctive ``or'' also suggests the
need to give distinct meaning to the terms ``special management
considerations'' and ``protection''. ``Protection'' suggests actions to
address a negative impact. ``Management'' seems broader than
protection, and could include active manipulation of the feature or
aspects of the environment. The ESA regulations at 50 CFR 424.02(j)
further define special management considerations as ``any methods or
procedures useful in protecting physical and biological features of the
environment for the conservation of listed species''. The term ``may''
was the focus of two Federal district courts that ruled that features
can meet this provision because of either a present requirement for
special management considerations or protection or possible future
requirements (see Center for Biol. Diversity v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d
1090 (D. Ariz. 2003); Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v.
DOI, 344 F. Supp. 108 (D.D.C. 2004)). The Arizona district court ruled
that the provision cannot be interpreted to mean that features already
covered by an existing management plan must be determined to require
additional special management, because the term additional is not in
the statute. Rather, the court ruled that the existence of management
plans may be evidence that the features in fact require special
management (Center for Biol. Diversity v. Norton, 1096-1100).
The primary impacts of critical habitat designation result from the
consultation requirements of ESA section 7(a)(2). Federal agencies must
consult with NMFS to ensure that their actions are not likely to result
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (or
jeopardize the species' continued existence). These impacts are
attributed only to the designation (i.e., are incremental impacts of
the designation) if Federal agencies modify their proposed actions to
ensure they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical
habitat beyond any modifications they would make because of listing and
the requirement to avoid jeopardy. Incremental impacts of designation
include state and local protections that may be triggered as a result
of designation, and education of the public about to the importance of
an area for species conservation. When a modification is required due
to impacts both to the species and critical habitat, the impact of the
designation is considered to be co-extensive with ESA listing of the
species.
The draft ESA 4(b)(2) (NMFS, 2008) Report and Economic Analysis
(IEc, 2008a) describe the impacts in detail. These reports identify and
describe potential future Federal activities that would trigger section
7 consultation requirements because they may affect the essential
physical and biological features.
We identified a number of activities and associated threats that
may affect the PCEs and associated physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of Atlantic salmon within the occupied
range of the GOM DPS. These activities, which include agriculture,
forestry, changing land-use and development, hatcheries and stocking,
roads and road crossings, mining, dams, dredging, and aquaculture have
the potential to reduce the quality and quantity of the PCEs and their
associated physical and biological features. There are other threats to
Atlantic salmon habitat including acidification of surface waters.
However, we are not able to clearly separate out the specific
activities responsible for acidification, and therefore are unable to
specifically identify a federal nexus.
Specific activities that may affect the PCEs and associated
physical and biological features are evaluated below based on whether
the spawning and rearing PCE and/or the migration PCE may require
special management considerations or protection. Specific areas where
these activities occur are represented in a table following the
evaluation of activities. Further evaluation of the activities listed
below is presented in detail in section 5 of Kircheis and Liebich
(2007).
(a). Agriculture
Agricultural practices influence all specific areas proposed for
designation and negatively impact PCE sites for spawning and rearing
and migration. Physical disturbances caused by livestock and equipment
associated with agricultural practices can directly impact the habitat
of aquatic species (USEPA, 2003). Traditional agricultural practices
require repeated mechanical mixing, aeration, and application of
fertilizers and pesticides to soils. These activities alter physical
soil characteristics and microorganisms. Tilling aerates the upper
soil, but causes compaction of finely textured soils below the surface,
which alters water infiltration. Use of heavy farm equipment and
construction of roads also compact soils, decrease water infiltration,
and increase surface runoff (Spence et al., 1996). Agricultural grazing
and clearing of riparian vegetation can expose soils and increase soil
erosion and sediment inputs into rivers.
[[Page 51756]]
Agricultural practices may also reduce habitat complexity and
channel stability through physical stream alterations such as:
Channelization, bank armoring, and removal of large woody debris (LWD)
and riparian vegetation (Spence et al., 1996). These effects often
result in streams with higher width to depth ratios which exhibit more
rapid temperature fluctuations and may also be subject to increased
embeddedness as a function of decreased water velocity affecting
habitat use in sites for spawning, juvenile rearing, and migration (Fay
et al., 2006).
Clearing of land for agricultural practices such as livestock
grazing and crop cultivation typically loosens and smoothes land
surfaces, increasing soil mobility and vulnerability to surface
erosion, thereby increasing sedimentation rates in affected streams
(Waters, 1995; Spence et al., 1996). Increased sedimentation can have
significant effects on Atlantic salmon habitat by embedding substrates
and increasing turbidity in spawning and rearing sites. Increased
turbidity can reduce light penetration and result in a reduction of
aquatic plant communities used for cover and foraging in juvenile
rearing sites. Sedimentation from agricultural practices can also
increase the inputs of nutrients such as phosphorus and ammonia as well
as contaminants such as pesticides and herbicides throughout a
watershed. An increase in nutrients can lead to eutrophication and
potential oxygen depletion in surface waters. Exposure of contaminated
sediments to anaerobic environments (lacking oxygen) often results in
the release of organically bound chemicals (EPA, 2003), possibly
creating a toxic environment for biotic communities downstream of these
agricultural areas.
Agricultural practices can affect stream hydrology through removal
of vegetative cover, soil compaction, and irrigation. Removal of
vegetation and soil compaction can increase runoff which can increase
the frequency and intensity of flooding (Hornbeck et al., 1970).
Increases in frequency and intensity of flood events can increase
erosion, increase sedimentation and scour affecting sites for spawning
and rearing. Direct water withdrawals and ground-water withdrawals for
crop irrigation can directly impact Atlantic salmon habitat by
depleting stream-flow (MASTF, 1997; Dudley and Stewart 2006; Fay et
al., 2006). Currently, the cumulative effects of individual irrigation
impacts on Maine rivers is poorly understood; however, it is known that
adequate water supply and quality are essential to all life stages of
Atlantic salmon and life history behaviors including adult migration,
spawning, fry emergence, and smolt emigration (Fay et al., 2006).
Fertilizer runoff can increase nutrient loading in aquatic systems,
thereby stimulating the growth of aquatic algae. If nutrient loading
due to fertilizer run-off is significant, resulting algal blooms may
have numerous detrimental impacts on multiple processes occurring
within the affected aquatic ecosystem. Surface algal blooms that block
sunlight can kill submerged aquatic vegetation important for juvenile
rearing. Loss of submerged vegetation can lead to a loss of habitat for
invertebrates and juveniles fishes and the decomposition of dead algae
consumes large quantities of oxygen, an impact which, at times, can
result in significant oxygen depletion (NMFS and FWS, 2005). A
reduction in submerged aquatic vegetation and dissolved oxygen (DO) can
cause both direct and indirect harm to salmon by affecting not only the
physiological function of salmon (e.g., oxygen deprivation) but by
impacting prey species and other necessary ecological functions sites
for rearing. We conclude that the spawning and rearing and migration
PCEs in each HUC 10 are and will likely continue to be negatively
affected by agricultural practices well into the future, and,
therefore, may require special management or protections which may
include increasing the riparian buffer between agriculture lands and
aquatic ecosystems that contain salmon habitat to prevent erosion and
the runoff or leaching of contaminants and nutrients.
(b). Forestry
Forestry practices influence all specific areas proposed for
designation and negatively impact PCE sites for spawning and rearing
and migration. Timber harvest can significantly affect hydrologic
processes. In general, timber removal increases the amount of water
that infiltrates the soil and reaches the stream by reducing water
losses from evapotranspiration (Spence et al., 1996). Soil compaction
can decrease infiltration and increase runoff, and roads created for
logging can divert and alter water flow. Logging can also influence
snow distribution on the ground, and consequently alter the melting
rates of the snowpack (Chamberlin et al., 1991). Through a combination
of these effects, logging can change annual water yield and the
magnitude and timing of peak and low flows (Spence et al., 1996).
Alteration of hydrologic regimes may impact sites for spawning,
migration and rearing.
The increased erosion and runoff caused by forestry practices and
road building can increase sedimentation affecting sites for spawning
and rearing and may impact migration. Compared to other forestry
activities, roads are the greatest contributor of sediment on a per
area basis (Furniss et al., 1991). Contribution of sediments by roads
most frequently occurs from mass failure of road beds (Furniss et al.,
1991). Other forestry practices generally cause surface erosion,
creating chronic sediment inputs. The combined effect of chronic and
mass erosion can cause elevated sediment levels even when a small
percentage of a watershed is developed by roads (Montgomery and
Buffington, 1993), which can embed cobble and gravel substrates used
for spawning and juvenile rearing.
The most direct effect of logging on stream temperature is the
reduction in shade provided by riparian vegetation. Alterations in
water temperature can affect egg development and alter foraging
behaviors of juvenile salmon in both spawning and rearing sites.
Removal of riparian vegetation also affects evaporation, convection and
advection of water by altering wind speed and the temperature of
surrounding land areas (Beschta et al., 1987, 1995). In general,
greater effects on stream temperatures are more apparent in smaller
streams; however, the magnitude of these effects is dependent on stream
size and channel morphology in relation to the quantity of riparian
vegetation harvested (Beschta et al., 1995). Removal of riparian
vegetation can also lead to increased maximum temperatures and
increased daily fluctuations in stream temperatures (Beschta et al.,
1987, 1995).
Timber harvest and preparation of soil for forestry practices can
decrease LWD as well as increase erosion. Removal of LWD and increased
erosion can have many harmful effects in sites for rearing, spawning
and migration by reducing channel complexity, reducing in-stream cover
and riffle/pool frequency, decreasing sediment retention and channel
stability and reducing availability of microhabitats (Spence et al.,
1996). Loss of riparian vegetation can also reduce the presence of
overhanging banks that are frequently used for cover by salmon (Spence
et al., 1996). We conclude that the spawning, rearing and migration
PCEs in each specific area are and will likely continue to be
negatively affected by forestry practices, and, therefore, may require
special management considerations or protections which may include the
use of best management
[[Page 51757]]
practices that reduce erosion, support contributions of LWD, and limit
thermal impacts.
(c). Changing Land-Use and Development
Changing land-use and development affects all specific areas
proposed for designation and negatively impact PCE sites for spawning,
rearing and migration. Changing land-use patterns include a shift from
forestry and agriculture to construction of housing, commercial
shopping and business centers, and industrial facilities. Increased
development and population growth can cause declines in water and
habitat quality caused by increases in erosion, reduction of riparian
vegetation, increases in sediment deposition, homogenizing of habitat
features, and an overall reduction in water quality resulting from
point and non-point source pollution.
Development can affect sites for spawning, rearing and migration by
reducing soil infiltration rates and increasing erosion. Construction
of impervious surfaces can indirectly influence habitat by increasing
surface water runoff while concurrently reducing groundwater recharge.
Surface runoff from developed areas can increase erosion rates, carry
pollutants from developed areas, and increase flooding (Morse and Kahl,
2003), whereas a reduction in groundwater recharge can lead to reduced
summer baseflows, potentially reducing available aquatic habitat (Morse
and Kahl, 2003).
Development practices can redirect, channelize, and/or armor stream
banks to accommodate and protect the development. Certain development
practices can clear riparian areas, decreasing shade and altering
thermal regimes and nutrient inputs. These practices can also remove
vegetation that would otherwise intercept rainfall and therefore reduce
runoff. As more water is carried downstream during rain events or when
stream channels are altered, streambed widening or scouring may
increase. Streambed widening or scouring can directly reduce the
quality and quantity of habitat available to Atlantic salmon. As a
result, development can lead to alterations in physical habitat within
sites for spawning, rearing and migration. We conclude that the
spawning, rearing and migration PCEs in each HUC 10 are and will likely
continue to be negatively affected by contaminants into the future,
and, therefore, may require special management considerations or
protections which may include improvements in the handling of waste
water discharge to limit inputs of contaminants and assuring sufficient
riparian buffers between development sites and aquatic ecosystems that
support salmon habitats.
(d). Hatcheries and Stocking
Hatcheries and stocking occur in all specific areas proposed for
designation and can negatively affect PCE sites for spawning and
rearing. Use of hatcheries may be essential for rebuilding Atlantic
salmon populations; however, without proper adherence to genetic,
evolutionary, and ecological principles, the use of hatcheries could
have adverse consequences for naturally reproducing fish that may
undermine other rehabilitation efforts. Stocking of juvenile Atlantic
salmon that are river specific, non-river specific, or a combination of
both, is taking place in many rivers within the range of the GOM DPS.
Captive-reared adult brood stock are also being stocked back into their
natal rivers in small numbers in most rivers within this range (NRC,
2004). Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) and chain pickerel (Esox
niger), important non-native predators of juvenile salmon, have also
been introduced throughout a large portion of the range of the GOM DPS
(Fay et al., 2006). These species, along with a host of other native
and non-native fish, may compete for food and space with Atlantic
salmon in freshwater, affecting sites for juvenile rearing and
spawning. We conclude that the spawning and rearing PCEs in each
specific area are and will likely continue to be negatively affected by
hatcheries and stocking, and, therefore, may require special management
considerations or protections. Management considerations or protections
may include efforts that employ genetic and stock management of
Atlantic salmon such that stocked fish do not present a genetic or
competitive risk to natural populations, and stocking of other species
that do not introduce threats of predation, competition, genetics or
disease.
(e). Roads and Road Crossings and Other In-Stream Activities
Roads and road crossings occur in all specific areas proposed for
designation and negatively affect sites for spawning and rearing, and
sites for migration. Roads, which are typically built in association
with logging, agriculture, and development, are often negatively
correlated with the ecological health of an area (Trombulak and
Frissell, 2000). Road networks modify the hydrologic and sediment
transport regimes of watersheds by accelerating erosion and sediment
loading, altering channel morphology and accelerating runoff (Furniss
et al., 1991), all of which can affect sites for spawning and rearing.
The construction of roads near streams can prevent natural channel
adjustments, and urban roads may increase runoff of pollutants (Spence
et al., 1996).
The use of culverts and bridges can impair habitat connectivity,
limiting accessibility of habitat to juvenile and adult salmon, as well
as other fish and aquatic organisms (Furniss et al., 1991). Culverts,
if not properly installed or maintained, can fragment a watershed and
make reaches inaccessible to migratory fish while simultaneously
preventing upstream movement of resident fish and invertebrates.
Conditions induced by culverts that block fish passage include high
water velocities through the culvert over extended distances without
adequate resting areas; water depth within the culvert that is too
shallow for fish to swim; and culverts that are perched or hanging and
exclude fish from entering the culvert (Furniss et al., 1991). Bridges,
while preferred to culverts (Furniss et al., 1991), may also induce
negative ecological impacts. Poorly designed bridges, like culverts,
can alter sediment transport, natural alluvial adjustments, and
downstream transport of organic material, particularly large woody
debris. This alteration can affect sites for spawning, rearing and
migration.
Other in-stream activities, such as alternative energy projects,
may also affect the PCEs. Because the two projects analyzed by NMFS
(only one of which has received a preliminary permit from FERC) are in
the early planning stages, NMFS has yet to make specific
recommendations regarding the protection of Atlantic salmon habitat.
Until specific plans for the projects are made available, the potential
impact on the critical habitat for Atlantic salmon will remain
uncertain, as will any modifications that might be requested to
mitigate adverse impacts. We seek comment on the potential impact of
critical habitat on these activities, and also whether additional
alternative energy projects should be considered in our analysis.
We conclude that the migration PCE and the spawning and rearing PCE
in each specific area are and will likely continue to be negatively
affected by roads and road crossings into the future, and, therefore,
may require special management considerations or protection that may
include applying best management practices that reduce sedimentation
and pollution, and allow
[[Page 51758]]
for unobstructed passage of juvenile and adult Atlantic salmon at road
crossings.
(f). Mining
Sand, gravel, cement, and some varieties of stone (e.g., slate and
granite) and clay are mined extensively throughout Maine and this
activity can negatively affect PCE sites, predominately those for
spawning and rearing. Mining is known to occur within 36 specific areas
proposed for designation. Mining of these materials in Maine occurs to
the extent that Maine is largely self-sufficient with respect to these
commodities (Lepage et al., 1991). Sand and gravel mining can occur in
the form of gravel pits and in some cases can involve dredging of
streambeds. Sand and gravel mining in or adjacent to streams can affect
sites for spawning and rearing by increasing fine and coarse particle
deposition and elevating turbidity from suspended sediments (Waters,
1995).
We conclude that the spawning and rearing PCE is and will likely
continue to be affected by sand and gravel mining into the future, and,
therefore, may require special management or protections through
increased riparian buffers that protect streams from sedimentation.
Direct mining of gravel from streambeds does not currently occur in any
of the specific areas, though such mining has been proposed in the past
and may be proposed in the future. Therefore, spawning and rearing
sites affected by streambed mining may require special management or
protections, which may include relocation of streambed mining
operations.
Maine's crystalline rocks are potential hosts to an array of metals
including copper, zinc, lead, nickel, molybdenum, tin, tungsten,
cobalt, beryllium, uranium, manganese, iron, gold and silver (Lepage et
al., 1991) and mining of these metals can negatively affect sites for
spawning and rearing and sites for migration. Many metals occur
naturally in rivers and streams and in trace concentrations are
considered essential for proper physiological development of fish
(Nelson et al., 1991). The process of mining for metals can introduce
toxic metals into streams as acid stimulation mobilizes metal ions from
metalliferous minerals (Nelson et al., 1991) and therefore may alter
water chemistry in sites for spawning, rearing and migration. The most
frequent metals that are released into streams and may be toxic to
salmon depending on their concentration include arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and
zinc (Nelson et al., 1991). Dissolved copper is known to affect a
variety of biological endpoints in fish (e.g., survival, growth,
behavior, osmoregulation, sensory system, and others (reviewed in
Eisler, 1998)). Laboratory exposure of 2.4 micrograms/L dissolved
copper in water with hardness 20 mg/L resulted in avoidance behavior by
juvenile Atlantic salmon and 20 micrograms/L dissolved copper in water
with a hardness of 20 mg/L resulted in interrupted spawning migrations
in the wild (Sprague et al., 1965). A combined effect of copper-zinc
may result in a complete block of migration at 0.8 toxic units (Sprague
et al., 1965). Currently metal mining does not occur within any of the
specific areas, though recent mining exploration within the state
suggests that metal mining may occur in the future. We conclude that
spawning, rearing and migration PCEs in each specific area may, in the
future, be negatively affected by metals mining and, therefore, may
require special management considerations or protections, possibly
through implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that protect
rivers and streams from pollutants.
There are only two active, though limited, peat mining operations
in Maine, both of which are located in Washington County (USGS, 2006)
in the Narraguagus River HUC 10 (HUC code 105000209). Although there is
currently no direct evidence that peat mining in other countries (i.e.,
Ireland, Norway) has affected Atlantic salmon, studies have shown that
peat mining can affect water quality, wetlands, aquatic resources and
sediment load (MASTF, 1997). One potential effect of peat mining on
Atlantic salmon habitat is from runoff that may have historically
exacerbated depressed pH in DPS rivers (NMFS and FWS, 1999). Low pH
levels are known to impair smolt migrations as they transfer from the
freshwater environment to the marine environment (Staurnes et al.,
1995; Brodeur et al., 2001). We conclude that peat mining may
negatively affect PCE sites in the Narraguagus River HUC 10,
particularly for migration, as depressed pH levels are known to
adversely affect migration smolts, and, therefore, may require special
management considerations or protections through measures that protect
rivers and streams from acid discharge of waste water or runoff.
(g). Dams
Dams occur in 40 specific areas proposed for critical habitat
designation and negatively affect sites for spawning and rearing and
sites for migration PCEs. Dams obstruct migration of Atlantic salmon
which can delay or preclude adult salmon access to spawning sites and
smolts from access to the marine environment. Dams also preclude or
diminish access of co-evolved diadromous fish communities that likely
serve as buffers from predators of migrating salmon (Saunders et al.,
2006). They can also degrade spawning and rearing sites through
alterations of natural hydrologic, geomorphic and thermal regimes
(American Rivers et al., 1999; Heinz Center, 2002; NRC, 2004; Fay et
al., 2006). Dams are also the most significant contributing factor to
the loss of salmon habitat connectivity within the range of the DPS
(Fay et al., 2006) and have been identified as the greatest impediment
to self-sustaining Atlantic salmon populations in Maine (NRC, 2004).
As discussed in the economic analysis prepared in support of this
designation, we recognize that impacts to hydropower operations may
occur as a result of this designation. We solicit information on these
impacts to inform our final designation.
We conclude that the migration, spawning and rearing PCEs are and
will likely continue to be negatively affected by dams into the future,
and, therefore, may require special management considerations or
protection through dam removal or improved fish passage devices.
(h). Dredging
Dredging frequently occurs within bays and estuaries along the
coast of Maine and can negatively affect the migration PCEs. Dredging
may occur within 25 specific areas proposed for designation in the GOM
DPS and is often a temporary activity depending on the size and
duration of the dredging project. Dredging is the practice of removing
sediment from an aquatic system and commonly occurs in freshwater,
estuarine, and marine environments. Nightingale and Simenstad (2001a)
place dredging practices into one of two categories: the creation of
new projects and waterway deepening, or maintenance dredging for the
purpose of preserving already existing channels. Nightingale and
Simenstad (2001a) list some examples of why dredging might be used and
include activities such as maintaining water depths, creating or
expanding marinas, mining gravel or sand for shoreline armoring,
opening channels for passage of flood flows, retrieving cement mixture
ingredients, and removing contaminated sediments.
Dredging can cause a range of negative impacts to water quality in
the
[[Page 51759]]
affected area, particularly in sites for migration where dredging is
most likely to occur. Of greatest concern is the associated temporary
increase in the water's turbidity (the measure of suspended solids in
the water column). Increased turbidity can have adverse effects upon
the impacted area's fish community that include a range of impacts from
difficulty absorbing oxygen from the water, altered feeding behavior,
and changes in predator-prey relationships (Nightingale and Simenstad,
2001a). In addition, increased turbidity causes reductions in the
light's ability to penetrate the water column. Light penetration plays
a central role in the level of productivity of aquatic environments,
predator-prey relationships, schooling behavior, and fish migration
(Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001a).
Juvenile salmonids migrating through and residing in estuaries are
naturally capable of coping with high levels of turbidity; however,
suspended solids introduced via dredging can produce material that is
of the right size and shape to adversely affect the young salmon by
inhibiting their ability to diffuse oxygen through their gills
(Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001a). According to Nightingale and
Simenstad (2001b), suspended solids in concentrations of >= 4,000 mg/L
have been shown to cause erosion to the terminal ends of fish gills. In
addition to impacting juvenile salmon, suspended solids at levels of 20
mg/L and 10 mg/L have been shown to result in avoidance behaviors from
rainbow smelt, and Atlantic herring, respectively (Wildish and Power,
1985). We conclude that the migration PCE is and will likely continue
to be negatively affected by dredging into the future, and, therefore,
may require special management considerations or protections which may
include time of year restrictions and employment of sediment control
measures.
(i). Aquaculture
Aquaculture occurs in four specific areas proposed for designation
within the range of the GOM DPS and can negatively affect PCE sites for
spawning and rearing, and migration. The influence of aquaculture on
Atlantic salmon is most frequently related to the interactions between
wild fish and fish that have escaped from aquaculture facilities. Most
escapes of farm salmon occur in the marine environment and involve
smolts, post-smolts and adults. Escaped farmed salmon generally migrate
up the nearest rivers. Large escapes of aquaculture fish have occurred
in Maine and Canada and escaped farm salmon are known to return to
Maine rivers. Escapes have been caused by storms, cage failure, anchor
failure, human error, vandalism, and predator attacks (e.g., seals;
NMFS/FWS, 2005). Although there is little direct information about the
effects of net-pen salmon aquaculture on wild Maine salmon (NRC, 2004),
potentially harmful interactions between wild and farmed salmon can be
divided into ecological and genetic interactions. Ecological
interactions can occur in sites for migration, resulting in alterations
in disease transmission and changes to competition and predation
pressures, whereas genetic interactions occur in spawning sites, which
can modify the timing of important life history events and thereby
alter selection pressures and fitness. These interactions are not
mutually exclusive, and the effects of each may compound and influence
the effects of the other. We conclude that the spawning and rearing PCE
and the migration PCE in each affected HUC 10 is, and will likely
continue to be, negatively affected by aquaculture into the future,
and, therefore, may require special management considerations or
protections which may include better containment of aquaculture fish to
prevent escapement and enhanced disease and parasite control
procedures.
Table 1--Specific Areas Within the Geographic Area Occupied by a Species and the Associated Special Management
Considerations or Protections That May Be Required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUC code Watershed name.. ....... Special management considerations*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
105000205............ Machias River... A F C/L H/S R ...... Da Dr
105000204............ East Machias A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
River.
105000208............ Pleasant River.. A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
105000201............ Dennys River.... A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
105000207............ Chandler River.. A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
105000209............ Narraguagus A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
River.
105000213............ Union River Bay. A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr Q
105000203............ Grand Manan A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr Q
Channel.
105000206............ Roque Bluffs A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
Coastal.
105000210............ Tunk Stream..... A F C/L H/S R ...... Da Dr
105000212............ Graham Lake..... A F C/L H/S R M Da
102000202............ Grand Lake A F C/L H/S R ...... Da
Matagamon.
102000203............ East Branch A F C/L H/S R
Penobscot River.
102000204............ Seboeis River... A F C/L H/S R ...... Da
102000205............ East Branch A F C/L H/S R ...... Da
Penobscot River.
102000301............ West Branch A F C/L H/S R M Da
Mattawamkeag
River.
102000302............ East Branch A F C/L H/S R M
Mattawamkeag
River.
102000303............ Mattawamkeag A F C/L H/S R M
River.
102000305............ Mattawamkeag A F C/L H/S R M
River.
102000306............ Molunkus Stream. A F C/L H/S R
102000307............ Mattawamkeag A F C/L H/S R M Da
River.
102000401............ Piscataquis A F C/L H/S R ...... Da
River.
102000402............ Piscataquis A F C/L H/S R M Da
River.
102000404............ Pleasant River.. A F C/L H/S R ...... Da
102000405............ Seboeis Stream.. A F C/L H/S R ...... Da
102000406............ Piscataquis A F C/L H/S R M Da
River.
102000501............ Penobscot River A F C/L H/S ...... M Da
at Mattawamkeag.
102000502............ Penobscot River A F C/L H/S R M Da
at West Enfield.
102000503............ Passadumkeag A F C/L H/S R M Da
River.
102000505............ Sunkhaze Stream. A F C/L H/S R
102000506............ Penobscot River A F C/L H/S R M
at Orson Island.
[[Page 51760]]
Table 1--Specific Areas Within the Geographic Area Occupied by a Species and the Associated Special Management
Considerations or Protections That May Be Required--Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUC Code Watershed Name.. Special Management Considerations*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102000507............ Birch Stream.... A F C/L H/S R M
102000509............ Penobscot River A F C/L H/S R M Da
at Veazie Dam.
102000510............ Kenduskeag A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
Stream.
102000511............ Souadabscook A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
Stream.
102000512............ Marsh River..... A F C/L H/S ...... M Da Dr
102000513............ Penobscot River. A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
105000218............ Belfast Bay..... A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
105000219............ Ducktrap River.. A F C/L H/S R ...... Da Dr Q
105000301............ St. George River A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
105000302............ Medomak River... A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
105000305............ Sheepscot River. A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
103000306............ Kennebec River A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
at Waterville
Dam.
103000305............ Sandy River..... A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
103000312............ Kennebec at A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr Q
Merrymeeting
Bay.
105000306............ Sheepscot Bay... A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
105000307............ Kennebec River A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
Estuary.
104000210............ Little A F C/L H/S R M Da Dr
Androscoggin
River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A = Agriculture; F = Forestry, C/L = Changing Land Use; H/S = Hatcheries and Stocking; R = Roads and Road
Crossings; M = Mining; Da = Dams; Dr = Dredging; Q = Aquaculture.
``Specific Areas Outside the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species
* * * Essential to the Conservation of the Species''
The ESA 3(5)(A)(ii) further defines ``critical habitat'' as
``specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of [section
4 of this Act], upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species''. For the reasons
stated above in the discussion of specific occupied areas, we
delineated the specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by
the species using HUC 10 (level 5) watersheds. To determine whether
these unoccupied areas are essential for the conservation of the
species, we: (1) Established recovery criteria to determine when the
species no longer warrants the protections of the ESA (See Appendix A
of Biological valuation of Atlantic salmon habitat within the range of
the GOM DPS) and the amount of habitat needed to support the recovered
population; and (2) determined the amount of habitat currently occupied
by the species relative to the amount of habitat necessary to achieve
recovery.
To establish recovery criteria, we determined the characteristics
of a recovered GOM DPS. We first established a geographic framework
represented by three Salmon Habitat Recovery Units, or SHRUs, within
the DPS (see appendix A of the Biological valuation of Atlantic Salmon
Habitat within the range of the GOM DPS, 2008). The SHRU delineations
were established to aid in developing criteria for recovery to ensure
that Atlantic salmon are widely distributed across the DPS such that
recovery of the species is not limited to one river or one geographic
location within the GOM DPS. As explained in more detail in the
Biological valuation of Atlantic salmon habitat within the range of the
GOM DPS, Appendix A, we determined that all three SHRUs must fulfill
the criteria described below for the overall species, the GOM DPS, to
be considered recovered. The three SHRUs will provide protection from
genetic and demographic stochasticity as well as depensatory effects
whereby a decrease in the population can lead to reduced survival and
production of eggs and offspring. Recovery of the GOM DPS, whereby each
of the three SHRUs meet the criteria described below, also assures
diversity across the geographic range such that fish from one SHRU may
be particularly well adapted to one environment or set of conditions
(e.g., long migration corridors, high gradient reaches, warm
temperatures, etc.) to which fish from another SHRU may not be well
adapted.
Criteria
As explained further in the Biological valuation of Atlantic Salmon
Habitat within the range of the GOM DPS, Appendix A, we determined that
if the census population (N) of adult spawners within any of the three
SHRUs were to fall below 500, the GOM DPS should be evaluated as
threatened pursuant to the factors set forth in the ESA. A census
population of 500 adult spawners within all three SHRUs also serves as
the starting point in which to make a determination of recovery for the
entire GOM DPS. Franklin (1980) introduced 500 as the approximate
effective population size necessary to retain sufficient genetic
variation and long term persistence of a population. Though there has
been much debate in the literature regarding the application of
assigning a general number to represent when populations are
sufficiently large enough to maintain genetic variation (Allendorf and
Luikart, 2007), the ``500 rule'' introduced by Franklin (1980) has not
been superseded by any other rule and does serve as useful guidance for
indicating when a population may be at risk of losing genetic
variability (Allendorf and Luikart, 2007).
We have chosen to use 500 adult spawners (1 or 2 sea-winter salmon)
in each SHRU as the indicator of when the populations in each of the
three SHRUs may be at risk of losing genetic variability. We used the
census number rather than an effective population size (Ne) primarily
because determining an effective population size for natural
populations with highly complex life histories can be extremely
difficult and highly variable from one year to the next (Waples and
Yokota, 2007; Reiman and Allendorf, 2001). In Atlantic salmon
populations, where cross-generational breeding, iteroparity, and
precocious parr all contribute to the breeding population, computing an
effective population size of the natural population would most likely
generate values with substantial error surrounding the data, and
therefore not be particularly useful in determining when the population
is at risk of becoming endangered.
[[Page 51761]]
Additionally, an N of 500 per SHRU provides only a starting point
from which to establish criteria for delisting and will not necessarily
be the actual number at which the DPS warrants delisting. Geographic
distribution, population trends, and the results of Population
Viability Analyses (PVAs) are other factors that will be used in
determining extinction risks to the GOM DPS (see appendix A of
Biological valuation of Atlantic salmon habitat within the GOM DPS
(2008)) and the determination of when the GOM DPS warrants delisting.
Furthermore, objective, measurable criteria as required under ESA Sec.
4(f)(1)(B)(ii) will further establish thresholds for recovery and will
be determined in a final recovery plan for the expanded GOM DPS. As a
result, the actual number of fish needed to warrant a delisting
decision will likely be greater than 500 for each SHRU based upon the
demographics of the population leading up to the point at which a
decision is made.
Given a population size of 500 adult spawners in any SHRU as a
threshold in which the GOM DPS should be evaluated for listing as a
threatened species, we determined that a recovered GOM DPS would be one
that is not likely to become threatened, because a recovered GOM DPS
should not be a population that teeters on the line between a GOM DPS
that is recovered, and a GOM DPS that is threatened.
Therefore, for the GOM DPS to be considered recovered, each SHRU
must have a less than 50-percent chance of the adult spawner population
falling below 500 over the next 15 years (see Appendix A of Biological
valuation of Atlantic salmon habitat within the GOM DPS). Additionally,
the entire GOM DPS must reflect sustainable positive population growth
for a period of 10 years (or two generations) to ensure that population
trends are substantive (see Appendix A of Biological valuation of
Atlantic Salmon Habitat within the GOM DPS, 2008). The criteria
described above were then applied to aid in determining whether
designating any specific unoccupied habitat areas are essential for the
conservation of the species by estimating the amount of habitat needed
to support a recovered GOM DPS.
Using demographic data for the period between 1991-2006, a period
considered to have had exceptionally low survival, we applied the
criteria described above in conjunction with a Population Viability
Analysis (PVA) to determine how many adults would be required in each
SHRU to weather a similar downturn in survival while having a greater
than 50-percent chance of remaining above 500 adults (see Appendix B of
Biological valuation of Atlantic salmon habitat within the GOM DPS,
2008). This analysis projected that a census population of 2,000
spawners (1000 male and 1000 female) would be needed in each of the
three SHRUs for the GOM DPS to weather a downturn in survival such as
experienced over the time period from 1991-2006. Based on this
analysis, enough habitat is needed in each of the three SHRUs to
support the offspring of 2,000 spawners. Using an average fecundity per
female of 7,200 eggs (Legault, 2004), and male to female ratio of 1:1,
or 1000 females, and a target number of eggs per one unit of habitat
(100 m\2\) of 240 (Baum, 1997) we determined that 30,000 units of
habitat is needed across each SHRU (7,200 eggs x 1000 females/240 eggs
= 30,000) to support the offspring of 2,000 spawners, which represents
the quantity of habitat in each SHRU essential to the conservation of
the species (Appendix B of Biological valuation of Atlantic Salmon
Habitat within the GOM DPS, 2008).
To calculate the existing quantity of habitat across the DPS both
within the currently occupied range and outside the occupied range, we
considered the measured quantity of habitat within each HUC 10 as well
as the habitat's quality to generate the habitat's functional
equivalent. The functional equivalent values are a measure of the
quantity of habitat (expressed in units where 1 unit of habitat is
equivalent to 100 m\2\ of habitat) within a HUC 10 based on qualitative
factors that limit survivorship of juvenile salmon utilizing the
habitat for spawning, rearing and migration. The functional equivalent
also accounts for dams within or below the HUC 10 that would further
reduce survivorship of juvenile salmon within the HUC 10 as they
migrate towards the marine environment. In HUC 10s that are not
believed to be limited by qualitative factors or dams, the functional
equivalent would be identical to the measured quantity of habitat
within the HUC 10. In HUCs where quality and dams are believed to be
limiting, the functional equivalent would be less than the measured
habitat within the HUC 10. The functional equivalent value is used in
the critical habitat evaluation process to determine the quantity of
functioning habitat within each HUC 10. It also determines the quantity
of functioning habitat within the currently occupied range relative to
the amount needed to support the offspring of 2000 adult spawners.
The functional equivalent was generated by multiplying the units of
habitat within each HUC 10 by the habitat quality score divided by 3
(e.g. 1 = 0.33, 2 = 0.66, and 3 = 1; discussed below under application
of ESA section 4(b)(2)). This value was then multiplied by the passage
efficiency of FERC dams with turbines raised to the power of the number
of dams both within and downstream of the HUC 10. Habitat quality
scores were divided by 3 to represent their relative values in terms of
percentages such that a ``1'' habitat quality score has a qualitative
value roughly 33 percent of habitat that is not limiting, ``2'' habitat
quality score is roughly 66 percent, and a ``3'' score equals 100-
percent habitat quality. We consider 0.85 to represent a coarse
estimate of passage efficiency for FERC dams with turbines based on the
findings of several studies (GNP, 1995; GNP, 1997; Holbrook, 2007;
Shepard, 1991c; Spicer et al. 1995) and therefore roughly equivalent to
a 15 percent reduction in functional equivalent. The number of dams
present both within and downstream of the HUC 10 was used as an
exponent to account for cumulative effects of dams. A full review of
how habitat quantities and habitat qualities were computed is provided
in the Biological Valuation of Atlantic Salmon Habitat within the GOM
DPS, 2008.
Table 2 represents the total amount of measured habitat within the
occupied areas of each SHRU; the habitats functional equivalent for
each SHRU; amount of habitat proposed for exclusion; the amount of
functional habitat (represented as functional equivalent) after
exclusion; and the amount of habitat still needed to support the
offspring of 2,000 adult spawners within each SHRU.
[[Page 51762]]
Table 2--Total Habitat and Functional Habitat for Occupied Areas
Among the Three SHRUs in the GOM DPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
habitat needed
to support the
Total habitat Functional Proposed Functional offspring of
SHRU units equivalent exclusion habitat after 2,000 adult
exclusions spawners
(i.e., 30,000
units)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merrymeeting Bay................ 372,639 40,001 0 40,001 0
Penobscot Bay................... 323,740 66,263 3,205 63,058 0
Downeast Coastal................ 61,395 29,111 0 29,111 889
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In both the Penobscot and Merrymeeting Bay SHRUs there are more
than 30,000 units of functional habitat within the currently occupied
area to support the offspring of adult spawners. In the Downeast SHRU,
the amount of functional habitat available to the species is estimated
to be 889 units short of what is needed to support 2000 adult spawners.
Nonetheless, we determined that no areas outside the occupied
geographical area within the Downeast SHRU are essential to the
conservation of the species. This is because of the 61,395 total
habitat units in Downeast Maine, the habitat is predicted to be
functioning at the equivalent of only 29,111 units because of the
presence of dams or because of degraded habitat features that reduce
the habitats functional value. Through restoration efforts, including
enhanced fish passage and habitat improvement of anthropogenically
degraded features, a substantial portion of the approximate 32,000
units of non-functioning habitat may be restored to a functioning
state. The Union River, for instance, has over 12,000 units of habitat,
though its functional potential is estimated to be equivalent to
approximately 4,000 units of habitat. This is largely because of dams
without fish passage that preclude Atlantic salmon access to portions
of the Union River watershed. Dam removal or improved fish passage has
the potential to restore a significant amount of the 8,000 units within
the Union River declared to be non-functioning habitat.
Throughout Maine, there has been substantial effort on behalf of
state and Federal agencies and non-profit organizations in partnership
with landowners and dam owners to restore habitat through a combination
of land and riparian protection efforts, and fish passage enhancement
projects. Project SHARE, the Downeast Salmon Federation, watershed
councils, Trout Unlimited, and the Atlantic Salmon Federation, for
example, have conducted a number of projects designed to protect,
restore and enhance habitat for Atlantic salmon ranging from the
Kennebec River in south central Maine to the Dennys River in Eastern
Maine. Projects include (though are not limited to) dam removals along
the Kennebec, St. George, Penobscot, and East Machias Rivers, land
protection of riparian corridors along the Machias, Narraguagus,
Dennys, Pleasant, East Machias, Sheescot, Ducktrap rivers and Cove
Brook; surveying and repair of culverts that impair fish passage; and
outreach and education efforts on the benefits of such projects. The
Penobscot River Restoration Project is another example of cooperative
efforts on behalf of Federal and state agencies, non-profit
organizations and dam owners. The PRRP goal is to enhance runs of
diadromous fish through the planned removal of two mainstem dams and
enhanced fish passage around several other dams along the Penobscot
River. These cooperative efforts can increase the functional potential
of Atlantic salmon habitat by both increasing habitat availability as
well as increasing habitat quality. Therefore, we do not believe that
it is essential to designate critical habitat outside of the currently
occupied range.
Activities That May Be Affected (Section 4(b)(8))
Section 4(b)(8) of the ESA requires that we describe briefly and
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation to designate critical
habitat, those activities that may destroy or adversely modify such
habitat or that may be affected by such designation. A wide variety of
activities may affect critical habitat and, when carried out, funded,
or authorized by a Federal agency, will require an ESA section 7
consultation. Such activities (detailed in the economic analysis)
include, but are not limited to agriculture, transportation,
development and hydropower.
We believe this proposed critical habitat designation will provide
Federal agencies, private entities, and the public with clear
notification of critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and the boundaries
of such habitat. This designation will allow Federal agencies and
others to evaluate the potential effects of their activities on
critical habitat to determine if ESA section 7 consultation with NMFS
is needed given the specific definition of physical and biological
features.
Application of ESA Section 4(a)(3)(B)(1)
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a-670f, as
amended), enacted on November 18, 1997, required that military
installations with significant natural resources prepare and implement
an integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP) in cooperation
with the USFWS and state fish and wildlife agencies, by November 18,
2001. The purpose of the INRMP is to provide the basis for carrying out
programs and implementing management strategies to conserve and protect
biological resources on military lands. Because military lands are
often protected from public access, they can include some of the
nation's most significant tracts of natural resources. INRMPs are to
provide for the management of natural resources, including fish,
wildlife, and plants; allow multipurpose uses of resources; and provide
public access where appropriate for those uses, without any net loss in
the capability of an installation to support its military mission.
In 2003, the National Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 108-136)
amended the ESA to limit areas eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(B)(i)) states: ``The Secretary shall 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 prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 67a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
[[Page 51763]]
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
Within the specific areas identified as critical habitat for the
Gulf of Maine DPS, there are three military sites, one of which has
been decommissioned and recently transitioned to civilian ownership.
The two active military sites within the occupied range of the DPS
include: (1) The 3,094 acre Brunswick Naval Air Station in Brunswick,
Maine, of which 435 acres are within Little Androscoggin HUC 10
watershed in the Merrymeeting Bay SHRU; and (2) the Brunswick Naval Air
Stations cold weather survival, evasion, resistance and escape school
which occupies 12,000 acres near Rangeley, Maine and occupies 5,328
acres of the Sandy River HUC 10 watershed in the Merrymeeting Bay SHRU.
We have contacted the Department of Defense and requested information
on the existence of INRMPs and the benefits any INRMPs would provide to
Atlantic salmon. If any INRMPs covering these sites are determined, in
writing, to provide a benefit to Atlantic salmon, we would be precluded
from designating the Atlantic salmon habitat within these sites, which
is comprised of 9.56 km of river and streams containing physical and
biological features in the Sandy River HUC, and 0.81 km of river and
streams containing physical and biological features in the Lower
Androscoggin HUC.
Application of ESA Section 4(b)(2)
The foregoing discussion described the specific areas within U.S.
jurisdiction that meet the ESA definition of critical habitat because
they contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of Atlantic salmon that may require special management
considerations or protection. Before including areas in a designation,
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA requires the Secretary to consider the
economic impact, impact on national security, and any other relevant
impacts of designation of any particular area. The Secretary has the
discretion to exclude any area from designation if he determines that
the benefits of exclusion (that is, avoiding some or all of the impacts
that would result from designation) outweigh the benefits of
designation based upon the best scientific and commercial data
available. The Secretary may not exclude an area from designation if
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. Because the
authority to exclude is discretionary, exclusion is not required for
any particular area under any circumstances.
The 4(b)(2) exclusion process is conducted for a ``particular
area,'' not for the critical habitat as a whole. This analysis is
therefore conducted at a geographic scale that divides the area under
consideration into smaller sub-areas. The statute does not specify the
exact geographic scale of these ``particular areas.'' For the purposes
of the analysis of economic impacts, a ``particular area'' is
equivalent to a ``specific area'', defined as a HUC 10 (level 5)
standard watershed. There are 48 ``specific areas'' (HUC 10s) occupied
by the species on which are found those physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protection.
Where we considered impacts on Indian Tribes, we delineated
particular areas based on land ownership. Where we consider impacts on
national security particular areas will be delineated based on lands
identified by the military as areas where critical habitat will have an
impact on national security. These areas may only account for a small
fraction of a HUC 10 watershed or, in some circumstances, may span
across several HUC 10 watersheds. Factors that were considered in
determining whether or not the benefits of exclusion outweighed the
benefits of designating the particular areas as critical habitat:
(1) The quantity of functional habitat proposed for exclusion
relative to the quantity of habitat needed to support a recovered
population;
(2) The relative biological value of a particular area to the
conservation of the species, measured by the quantity and quality of
the physical and biological features with the particular area;
(3) The anticipated conservation loss that would be accrued through
not designating a particular area based upon the conservation value of
that particular area; and
(4) Whether exclusion of habitat within the particular area, based
upon the best scientific and commercial data, would result in the
extinction of the species concerned.
Assigning Biological Value
To determine the benefits of including an area as critical habitat,
we assigned a Final Biological Value to each HUC 10 watershed based on
the quantity and quality of Atlantic salmon spawning and rearing
habitat and the migratory needs of the species (see Biological
valuation of Atlantic salmon habitat in the GOM DPS (2008)). The Final
Biological Value indicates each areas current value to Atlantic salmon
spawning, rearing and migration activities and is applied in the
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, where it is weighed against the economic,
national security, and other relevant impacts to consider whether
specific areas may be excluded from designation. (The final biological
value also aided in determining those areas currently occupied by the
species described earlier in the proposed rule under ``Identifying the
Geographical Area Occupied by the Species and Specific Areas within the
Geographical Area'').
The variables used to develop the Final Biological Value include a
combination of habitat units, habitat quantity, habitat quality, and
the value of the HUC 10 to migration of smolts and adults.
A habitat unit represents 100 m\2\ of spawning and rearing habitat.
A ``habitat unit'' is used in North America and Europe to quantify
habitat features most frequently used for spawning and juvenile rearing
(e.g., riffles and runs). Habitat units for each HUC 10 were calculated
using the GIS based habitat prediction model described earlier in the
proposed rule under Physical and Biological Features in Freshwater and
Estuary Specific Areas Essential to the Conservation of the Species.
Habitat quantity is the estimate of habitat units generated by the
model and was calculated separately for each HUC 10. The units of
habitat were then binned into four categories for each of the three
SHRUs. A HUC 10 with no habitat was assigned a score of ``0'' and was
considered unoccupied. HUC10's with the lowest 25 percent of total
units of habitat across the entire SHRU received a ``1'' score, the
middle 50 percent received a ``2'' score, and the upper 25 percent
received a ``3'' score. A ``3'' score represents the highest relative
habitat quantity score. This method resulted in the majority of the
habitat receiving a score of ``2'' representing an average habitat
quantity. Habitat scores outside the middle 50 percent were considered
to have above average habitat quantity or below average habitat
quantity.
Habitat quality scores were assigned to HUC 10s based on
information and input from fisheries biologists working with the Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the MDMR, NMFS, and
Kleinschmidt Energy and Water Resource Consultants who possess specific
knowledge and expertise about the geographic region. For each of the
three SHRUs, a minimum of three biologist with knowledge of and
expertise in the geographic area were asked to independently assign
habitat scores,
[[Page 51764]]
using a set of scoring criteria developed by Fisheries Biologists from
NMFS, to HUC 10s based on the presence and quality of the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species (see
Biological valuation of Atlantic salmon habitat within the GOM DPS
(2008)). The scoring criteria ranked qualitative features including
temperature, biological communities, water quality, and substrate and
cover, as being highly suitable (``3''), suitable (``2''), marginally
suitable (``1'') or not suitable (``0'') for supporting Atlantic salmon
spawning, rearing and migration activities. A habitat value of ``0''
indicates that one or more factors is limiting to the point that
Atlantic salmon could not reasonably be expected to survive in those
areas; a score of ``1'', ``2'' or ``3'' indicates the extent to which
physical and biological features are limiting, with a ``1'' being most
limiting and a ``3'' being not limiting. In HUC 10s that are and have
always been inaccessible due to natural barriers, the entire HUC 10 was
automatically scored as ``0'' and considered not occupied by the
species. During the scoring process, biologists were given the option
to consider all the HUC 12 sub-watersheds present within each HUC 10
watershed to aid in reaching a final HUC 10 watershed score. Emphasis
was placed on identifying whether or not the physical and biological
features needed for Atlantic salmon spawning and rearing are present
and of what quality the features are. The overall habitat quality score
for each HUC 10 was typically an average determined by the compilation
of scores and comments provided from the biologists.
Final Habitat Values were generated for each HUC 10 by combining
habitat quantity and habitat quality scores within each HUC 10. HUC 10s
with zero scores for either habitat quantity or quality received a zero
score for Final Habitat Value. Combined scores were then binned on a
scale of one to three with the lowest 25 percent receiving a ``1''
score, the middle 50 percent receiving a ``2'' score, and the upper 25
percent receiving a ``3'' score. A ``3'' score represents the highest
relative Final Habitat Value.
A final migration score was generated based on the final habitat
values and the migratory requirements of adults to reach spawning areas
and smolts to reach the marine environment. We determined the final
migration score of a HUC 10 to be equal to the highest final habitat
value upstream from the HUC 10 as we concluded that access to spawning
and rearing habitat was equally as important as the spawning and
rearing habitat itself.
The final biological value for each HUC 10, which is the value used
in weighing economic cost against the biological value of habitat to
salmon, was determined by selecting the higher of the final habitat
score and the final migration score of each HUC10. This approach
assures the preservation of spawning and rearing habitat as well as
migration habitat (see Biological valuation of Atlantic salmon habitat
within the range of the GOM DPS, 2008).
Consideration of Economic Impacts, Impacts to National Security and Any
Other Relevant Impacts
The impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat
occurs primarily through section 7 of the ESA. Once critical habitat is
designated, section 7(a)(2) requires that Federal agencies ensure any
action they authorize, fund or carry out (this action is called the
``Federal nexus'') is not likely to result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)).
Parties involved in section 7 consultations include NMFS or the USFWS,
a Federal action agency, and in some cases, a private entity involved
in the project or land use activity. The Federal action agency serves
as the liaison with NMFS. Under Section 7(a)(2), when a Federal agency
proposes an action that may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, it must initiate formal consultation with NMFS (or the USFWS,
as applicable) or seek written concurrence from the Services that the
action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or its
designated critical habitat. Formal consultation is a process between
the Services and a Federal agency designed to determine whether a
proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, an action
prohibited by the ESA. If the action is likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, then the Federal agency may be required to
implement a reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) to the proposed
action to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. In addition, conservation benefits to the listed species would
result when the consultation process avoids destruction or adverse
modification of its critical habitat through inclusion of RPAs, or
avoids lesser adverse effects to critical habitat that may not rise to
the level of adverse modification through inclusion of harm avoidance
measures.
Outside of the Federal agencies' obligation to critical habitat and
project modifications that may be required to avoid destruction or
adverse modification, the ESA imposes no requirements or limitations on
entities or individuals as result of a critical habitat designation.
Economic Impacts
As discussed above, economic impacts of the critical habitat
designation result from implementation of section 7 of the ESA. Section
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS to ensure their
proposed actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. These economic impacts may include both administrative and
project modification costs. Economic impacts may also be associated
with the conservation benefits of the designation.
Economic impacts were assessed for each specific HUC 10 area
proposed for designation, as well as for unoccupied areas within the
range of the GOM DPS. While we are not proposing to designate
unoccupied areas, we evaluated the economic impacts in the event that
we determined in the biological valuation process, or determine as a
result of public comment or subsequently available information, that
some or all of the unoccupied areas were found to be to be essential to
the conservation of the species. For the entire range of the GOM DPS,
the present value of estimated economic impacts ranges from
approximately $222 million to $259 million, with most of the economic
impact resulting from impacts to hydropower and development (IEc,
2008a). The estimated economic impact of designation of the occupied
areas before economic exclusions ranges from approximately $165 million
to $190 million. We solicit comment on the economic impacts to
activities that may be affected as a result of this designation,
particularly hydropower activities and alternative energy projects.
Information received will be considered in the development of the final
designation.
For the designation of critical habitat for the GOM DPS, economic
exclusions within the 48 occupied HUC 10s throughout the DPS were
considered by weighing biological value determined in the biological
valuation and the economic cost determined in the economic analysis. As
described earlier, the Biological Values were assigned a score of 1, 2,
or 3, with a ``1'' being of lowest biological value and a ``3'' being
of highest biological value. Areas could also be assigned a biological
value of ``0'' if the physical and biological
[[Page 51765]]
features in those areas were so degraded that they were not considered
essential to the conservation of salmon. Areas assigned a ``0'' score
were not included in the economic exclusion analysis. As stated above,
we consider these areas to be unoccupied, and we determined that no
unoccupied areas were essential to the conservation of the GOM DPS.
To compare economic cost with biological value, we ranked the range
often monetized categories provided in the economic analysis (IEc,
2008a) as being high (``3''), medium (``2'') or low (``1'') economic
impact. These categories illustrate economic costs over the range of
the GOM DPS. The high, medium and low scores assigned to economic costs
were then used to weigh economic cost against the corresponding
biological value (also scored as high, medium or low) of each HUC 10.
When developing criteria for comparing economic costs the use of a
dollar value was chosen. A score of ``1'' (low economic costs)
represents a cost ranging from $24,000 to $432,000; a score of ``2''
represents a medium economic cost ranging form $432,001 to $2,810,000;
and a score of ``3'' represents a high economic cost ranging from
$2,810,001 to $26,300,000. These dollar thresholds do not represent an
objective judgment that low-value areas are worth no more than
$432,000, medium-value areas are worth no more than $2,810,000, or high
value areas are worth no more than $26,300,000. Under the ESA, we are
to weigh dissimilar impacts given limited time and information. The
statute emphasizes that the decision to exclude is discretionary. Thus,
the economic impact level at which the economic benefits of exclusion
outweigh the conservation benefits of designation is a matter of
discretion and depends on the policy context. For critical habitat, the
ESA directs us to consider exclusions to avoid high economic impacts,
but also requires that the areas designated as critical habitat are
sufficient to support the conservation of the species and to avoid
extinction. In this policy context, we selected dollar thresholds
representing the levels at which we believe the economic impact
associated with a specific area would outweigh the conservation
benefits of designating that area.
Given the low abundance and endangered status of Atlantic salmon,
we exercise our discretion to consider exclusion of specific areas
based on three decision rules: (1) specific areas with a biological
value of medium (``2'') or high (``3'') score were not eligible for
exclusion regardless of the level of economic impact, because of the
endangered status of Atlantic salmon; (2) specific areas with a low
biological value (``1'') were excluded if the economic costs were
greater than $432,000 (economic score of ``2'' or ``3''); (3) specific
areas were not considered for exclusion, including those areas having a
low biological value (``1''), if the area had no dams both within it or
below it given that these areas are not subject to the deleterious
effects that dams have on migration of adults and smolts (GNP 1995; GNP
1997; Holbrook 2007; Shepard 1991c; Spicer et al. 1995). These dollar
thresholds and decision rules provided a relatively simple process to
identify, in a limited amount of time, specific areas warranting
consideration for exclusion.
We propose to exclude three particular areas (HUC 10s) in the
Penobscot Bay SHRU due to economic impact, out of a total of 48
occupied HUC 10s within the range of the GOM DPS. Areas proposed for
exclusion include 1,243 km of river, stream and estuary habitat and 97
sq. km of lakes in all of Belfast Bay (HUC 105000218), Passadumkeag
River (HUC 102000503), and Molunkus Stream (HUC 102000306). The
combined economic impact of the designation in those particular areas
was estimated to be $8,391,000 to $9,412,000 before they were
considered for exclusion. The estimated economic impact for the
proposed critical habitat following exclusions ranges from
approximately $97 million to $120 million. The estimated economic
impact of the proposed critical habitat designation for each SHRU are
in Table 3.
Table 3--Summary of Economic Impact for Occupied HUC 10 by SHRU in the
GOM DPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHRU Low estimate High estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downeast Coastal........................ $7,473,000 $10,488,000
Penobscot Bay........................... 17,393,100 22,346,900
Merrymeeting Bay........................ 72,520,000 87,310,000
-------------------------------
Total............................... 97,386,100 120,144,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Security
As stated above, within the areas identified as critical habitat
for the GOM DPS, there are three military sites, one of which has been
decommissioned and recently transitioned to civilian ownership. The two
active military sites within the occupied range of the DPS include: (1)
The 3,094 acre Brunswick Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine, of
which 435 acres are within Little Androscoggin HUC 10 watershed in the
Merrymeeting Bay SHRU; and (2) the Brunswick Naval Air Stations cold
weather survival, evasion, resistance and escape school which occupies
12,000 acres near Rangeley, Maine and occupies 5,328 acres of the Sandy
River HUC 10 watershed in the Merrymeeting Bay SHRU. We have contacted
these installations concerning the national security impacts of
designation of these areas as critical habitat. If these areas are
eligible for designation (i.e., not covered by INRMPs that provide a
benefit to the GOM DPS) and any identified national security impacts
are determined to outweigh the benefits of designation, we would
exclude from the designation the Atlantic salmon habitat within these
military sites, which is comprised of 9.56 km of river and streams
containing physical and biological features in the Sandy River HUC, and
0.81 km of river and streams containing physical and biological
features in the Lower Androscoggin HUC.
Other Relevant Impacts: Tribal Lands
The Penobscot Indian Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe own and
conduct activities on lands within the Gulf of Maine DPS. Activities
may include agriculture; residential, commercial, or industrial
development; in-stream construction projects; silviculture; water
quality monitoring; hunting and fishing; and other uses. Some of these
activities may be affected by the designation of critical habitat for
the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon.
Secretarial Order 3206 recognizes that Tribes have governmental
authority and the desire to protect and manage their resources in the
manner that is most beneficial to them. Pursuant to the Secretarial
Order, and consistent with
[[Page 51766]]
the Federal government's trust responsibilities, the Services must
consult with the affected Indian Tribes when considering the
designation of critical habitat in areas that may impact tribal trust
resources, tribally-owned fee lands, or the exercise of tribal rights.
Critical habitat in such areas, unless determined to be essential to
conserve a species, may not be designated.
The Indian lands specifically proposed for exclusion are those
defined in Secretarial Order 3206 and include: (1) Lands held in trust
by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe; (2) lands
held in trust by the United States for any Indian Tribe or individual
subject to restrictions by the United States against alienation; (3)
fee lands, either within or outside the reservation boundaries, owned
by the tribal government; and, (4) fee lands within the reservation
boundaries owned by individual Indians.
The Penobscot Indian Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe own and
conduct activities on approximately 182,000 acres of land throughout
the entire GOM DPS. Both tribes that own lands within the GOM DPS have
actively pursued or participated in activities to further promote the
health and continued existence of Atlantic salmon and their habitats.
The Penobscot tribe has developed and maintained its own water quality
standards that state ``it is the official policy of the Penobscot
Nation that all waters of the Tribe shall be of sufficient quality to
support the ancient and historical traditional and customary uses of
such tribal waters by members of the Penobscot Nation.'' The Tribe is
also currently participating in the Penobscot River Restoration Project
that has the intended goal of restoring 11 species of diadromous fish,
including Atlantic salmon. The Passamaquoddy Tribe has continued to
maintain efforts to balance agricultural practices with natural
resources. In a tract of Tribal land in Township 19, which accounts for
approximately 12 km of the 27.8 km of rivers and streams on
Passamaquoddy land that contain physical and biological features
essential to salmon, the tribe has established an ordinance to govern
its water withdrawals for these lands. This ordinance states ``it is
important to the Tribe that its water withdrawals at T. 19 do not
adversely affect the Atlantic salmon in any of its life stages, or its
habitat,'' and restricts water withdrawals to avoid adverse impact on
the Atlantic salmon.
Within the occupied range proposed for designation, the Tribes own
approximately 84,058 acres of land within 16 HUC 10 watersheds. NMFS
proposes that the rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries of all 84,058
acres of tribal land within the areas occupied by the GOM DPS also be
excluded from critical habitat designation based on the principles of
the Secretarial Order discussed above. Of the 84,058 acres, 26,401
acres overlap with particular areas being proposed for exclusion based
on economic impacts.
Determine Whether Exclusion Will Result in Extinction of the Species
Section 4(b)2 states that particular areas shall not be excluded
from critical habitat if the exclusion will result in extinction of the
species. Our decision to only propose for exclusion particular areas
based on economic impacts that had low biological value, unless dams
were absent from the particular area, led to proposed exclusions only
in the Penobscot SHRU. No economic exclusions were proposed in the
Downeast or Merrymeeting Bay SHRUs. Given that exclusions based on
economic impacts within the Penobscot SHRU were only made in areas
considered to have little biological value to Atlantic salmon, those
exclusions are not considered to jeopardize the species' continued
existence because those areas do not diminish the functional equivalent
below what is needed to support a recovered GOM DPS.
We do not believe that exclusions of tribal lands will reduce the
conservation value or functional equivalent of Atlantic salmon habitat
within those particular areas given the ongoing cooperative efforts
between the Tribes and the agencies. The combined habitat within the
two military installations that contain critical habitat includes a
total of 10 km of river and stream habitat out of roughly 4,394 km of
river and stream habitat within the Merrymeeting Bay SHRU. These areas
do not further reduce the amount of functional habitat within the
Merrymeeting Bay SHRU below the amount needed to support the offspring
of 2,000 adult spawners, and exclusion of these areas would therefore
not likely result in the extinction of the species. Further evaluation
of the impacts of excluding these military sites based on national
security will be completed upon receipt of information requested from
the Department of Defense.
Public Comments Solicited
We solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned
governments and agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested party concerning the proposed designation and
exclusions, the biological valuation, the economic analysis, and the
4(b)(2) report. You may submit your comments and materials concerning
this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES). Copies of
the proposed rule and supporting documentation, including the
biological valuation, economic analysis, and 4(b)(2) report, can be
found on the NMFS Northeast Region Web site at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/altsalmon/ altsalmon/. We will consider all comments
pertaining to this designation received during the comment period in
preparing the final rule.
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for
purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. We have integrated the
regulatory principles of the E.O. into the development of this proposed
rule to the extent consistent with the mandatory duty to designate
critical habitat, as defined in the ESA.
We have determined that this action is consistent to the maximum
extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved
coastal management program of the State of Maine. The determination has
been submitted for review by the responsible State agency under section
307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).
An environmental analysis as provided for under the National
Environmental Policy Act for critical habitat designations made
pursuant to the ESA is not required. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. Denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).
We prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA)
pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601, et seq.)(IEc, 2008b). This IRFA only analyzes the impacts
to those areas where critical habitat is proposed and is available at
the location identified in the ADDRESSES section. The IRFA is
summarized below, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The IRFA
describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would
have on small entities. A summary of the IRFA follows:
A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the
objectives of and legal basis for this action are contained in the
preamble of this rule and are not repeated here.
After reviewing the land use activities evaluated in the economic
analysis conducted for this action, the types of small entities that
may be impacted if this rule were adopted include those entities
involved in hydropower, agriculture, and development activities.
[[Page 51767]]
The total number of affected small entities includes up to 12 dam
owners and 65 farms. There are an unknown number of small entities
involved in development projects. Because impacts are calculated on a
per acre basis and not for specific projects, it is not possible to
identify specific landowners. We seek public comment on this topic.
This action does not contain any new collection-of-information,
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements beyond the
potential economic impacts described below and any reporting
requirements associated with reporting on the progress and success of
implementing project modifications, which do not require special skills
to satisfy. Third party applicants or permittees may also incur costs
associated with participating in the administrative process of
consultation along with the permitting Federal agency.
No Federal laws or regulations duplicate or conflict with the
proposed rule. Existing Federal laws and regulations overlap with the
proposed rule only to the extent that they provide protection to marine
natural resources generally. However, no existing laws or regulations
specifically prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat for, and focus on the recovery of, Atlantic salmon.
The IRFA estimates that approximately 65 small farms (average
annual receipts of less than $750,000), or roughly nine percent of the
farms across the DPS, may be affected by critical habitat designation
(IEc, 2008b). The average annual revenue of these farms was estimated
at $76,000 (USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture). The estimated average
losses per small farm are estimated at $6,100 (IEc, 2008b).
Impacts to development are based on impacts to landowners
associated with constraints on development within a 30-meter buffer of
streams within the study area. The present value of impacts to all
development projects is estimated at $94.6 million to $127 million.
Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines small business as any firm
that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field of operation. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has
developed size standards to carry out the purposes of the Small
Business Act, and those size standards can be found in 13 CFR 121.201.
Size standards are expressed either in number of employees or annual
receipts in millions of dollars depending on the specific type of
business. Because impacts to development projects are determined on a
per acre basis and not by the specific type of development project, we
were unable to determine who the specific affected landowners are. In
some cases, some portion of these landowners are likely individuals and
not business, and therefore not relevant to the small business
analysis, while it is also likely that some of these landowners are
businesses, including small businesses, that may be impacted by
constraints.
Land developers and subdividers are one type of small business that
may be affected by constraints stemming from the proposed critical
habitat designation (IEc, 2008b). The available data suggests that 188
small land developers operate in counties that overlap the 48 HUCs
containing proposed critical habitat, accounting for 97 percent of the
subdividers in the region (IEc, 2008b). The information available,
however, is insufficient to estimate the impacts on these entities or
to identify other potentially affected landowners (IEc, 2008b).
Impacts to hydropower were estimated for small hydropower producers
identified by the Small Business Administration as those producing less
than four billion kilowatt-hours annually and are likely to experience
impacts associated with the critical habitat designation. The IRFA
analysis (IEc, 2008b) estimates 12 hydropower producers within the 48
HUCs where critical habitat is proposed may be affected with an
estimated costs accrued by these dam owners between $17 annually to
$507,000 annually (IEc, 2008b).
We considered and rejected the alternative of not designating
critical habitat for any of the specific areas because such an action
does not meet the legal requirements of the ESA. We also considered not
excluding any specific areas within the occupied range for reasons of
economic impact given the critically low abundance of the species. We
concluded, however, that the quantity of habitat is less of a factor
limiting the abundance of the species than are the accessibility to the
habitat through barriers to migration and marine survival issues.
Therefore, allowing for exclusion of some specific areas that have low
biological value would not likely further reduce recovery efforts. We
also considered a more straightforward comparison of economic cost and
biological value such that any areas for which the costs of designation
were greater than the biological value of the area to the species would
qualify for exclusion. We chose, however, to exclude only those areas
that have a biological value score of ``1'' (unless the area is without
dams) because excluding all of specific areas for which the costs of
designation were greater than the biological value of the area to the
species would reduce the quantity of habitat below what is needed to
achieve conservation of the species.
Critical habitat designation may encourage landowners to develop
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). Under section 10 of the ESA,
landowners seeking an incidental take permit must develop an HCP to
counterbalance the potential harmful effects that an otherwise lawful
activity may have on a species. The purpose of the habitat conservation
planning process is to ensure that the effects of incidental take are
adequately minimized and mitigated. Thus, HCPs are developed to ensure
compliance with section 9 of the ESA and to meet the requirements of
section 10 of the ESA. Neither the IRFA nor the Economic Analysis of
Critical Habitat Designation for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population
Segment of Atlantic Salmon forecasts effects associated with the
development of HCPs. We solicit comment on such impacts, particularly
with respect to the development of HCPs by small entities.
Pursuant to the Executive Order on Federalism, E.O. 13132, the
Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs will
provide notice of the proposed action and request comments from the
appropriate officials in Maine where Atlantic salmon occur.
The data and analyses supporting this proposed action have
undergone a pre-dissemination review and have been determined to be in
compliance with applicable information quality guidelines implementing
the Information Quality Act (IQA) (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554).
In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued
a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review pursuant to the
IQA. The Bulletin established minimum peer review standards, a
transparent process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and
opportunities for public participation with regard to certain types of
information disseminated by the Federal government. The peer review
requirements of the OMB Bulletin apply to influential or highly
influential scientific information disseminated on or after June 16,
2005. To satisfy our requirements under the OMB Bulletin, we obtained
independent peer review of the scientific information that supports the
proposal to designate critical habitat for the GOM DPS of Atlantic
salmon and incorporated the peer review comments prior to dissemination
of this proposed
[[Page 51768]]
rulemaking. A Draft 4(b)(2) Report (NMFS, 2008) that supports the
proposal to designate critical habitat for the GOM DPS of Atlantic
salmon was also peer reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the
Bulletin and is available on our Web site (see ADDRESSES).
This action does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule making can be
found on our Web site at http://www.nero.noaa.gov/prot_res/altsalmon/,
and is available upon request from the NMFS Northeast Regional Office
in Gloucester, Massachusetts (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226
Endangered and threatened species.
Dated: August 29, 2008.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR
part 226 as set forth below:
PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
2. Add Sec. 226.217, to read as follows:
Sec. 226.217 Critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine Distinct
Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar).
Critical habitat is designated to include all perennial rivers,
streams, and estuaries and lakes connected to the marine environment
within the range of the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of
Atlantic Salmon (GOM DPS) except for those particular areas within the
range which are specifically excluded. Within the GOM DPS, the primary
constituent elements (PCEs) for Atlantic salmon include sites for
spawning and incubation, sites for juvenile rearing, and sites for
migration. The physical and biological features of habitat are those
features that allow Atlantic salmon to successfully use sites for
spawning and rearing and sites for migration. These features include
substrate of suitable size and quality; rivers and streams of adequate
flow, depth, water temperature and water quality; rivers, streams,
lakes and ponds with sufficient space and diverse, abundant food
resources to support growth and survival; waterways that allow for free
migration of both adult and juvenile Atlantic salmon; and diverse
habitat and native fish communities in which salmon interact with while
feeding, migrating, spawning, and resting.
(a) The GOM DPS is divided into three salmon habitat recovery units
(SHRUs) within the range of the GOM DPS: These are the Downeast Coastal
SHRU, the Penobscot Bay SHRU and the Merrymeeting Bay SHRU. Critical
habitat is only being considered in specific areas currently occupied
by the species. Critical habitat specific areas are identified by
hydrological unit codes (HUC) and counties within the States of Maine.
Hydrological units are those defined by the Department of Interior
(DOI), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publication, ``Hydrologic Unit
Maps'' Water Supply Paper (Seaber et al., 1994) and the following DOI,
USGS 1:500,000 scale hydrologic unit map: State of Maine: these
documents are incorporated by reference. The incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the USGS publication and
the maps may be obtained from the USGS, Map Sales, Box 25286, Denver,
CO 80225. Copies may be inspected at NMFS, Protected Resources
Division, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/Federal_register/code_of_Federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Critical habitat is designated in the Maine counties and towns
for the three SHRUs described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(2) of
this section. The textual descriptions of critical habitat for each
SHRU are included in paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(6) of this section,
and these descriptions are the definitive source for determining the
critical habitat boundaries. General location maps are provided at the
end of each SHRU description (paragraph (b)(2) of this section) and are
for general guidance purposes only, and not as a definitive source for
determining critical habitat boundaries.
(1). Maine counties and towns affected. Critical habitat is
designated for the following SHRUs in the following counties and towns.
(i) Counties and Towns Partially or Entirely Within Areas Containing Critical Habitat
in the Downeast Coastal SHRU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-basin County Town
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Washington Hancock.............. Penobscot................. Clifton, Eddington, Grand Falls Twp,
Greenfield Twp, Summit Twp.
Hancock.................... Waltham, Bucksport, Dedham, Eastbrook,
Ellsworth, Fletchers Landing Twp,
Franklin, Great Pond, Hancock, Lamoine,
Mariaville, Oqiton Twp, Orland, Osborn,
Trenton Otis, Sullivan, Surry, T10 SD,
T16 MD, T22 MD, T28 MD, T32 MD, T34 MD,
T35 MD, T39 MD, T40 MD, T41 MD, T7 SD,
T9 SD.
Washington................. Addison, Alexander, Baileyville, Baring
Plt, Beddington, Centerville Twp,
Charlotte, Cherryfield, Columbia,
Columbia Falls, Cooper, Crawford,
Cutler, Deblois, Dennysville, Devereaux
Twp, East Machias, Edmunds Twp,
Harrington, Jonesboro, Jonesport, Lubec,
Machias, Machiasport, Marion Twp,
Marshfield, Meddybemps, Milbridge, No 14
Twp, No 21 Twp, Northfield, Princeton,
Roque Bluffs, Sakom Twp, Steuben,
Trescott Twp, Whiting, Whitneyville,
Wesley T18 ED BPP, T18 MD BPP, T19 ED
BPP, T19 MD BPP, T24 MD BPP, T25 MD BPP,
T26 ED BPP, T27 ED BPP, T30 MD BPP, T31
MD BPP, T36 MD BPP, T37 MD BPP, T42 MD
BPP, T43 MD BPP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51769]]
(ii) Counties and Towns Partially or Entirely Within Areas Containing Critical Habitat in the
Penobscot Bay SHRU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-basin County Town
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piscataquis............................ Penobscot................. T4 Indian Purchase Twp, Long A Twp,
Seboeis Plt, Mattamiscontis Twp,
Maxfield, Lagrange, Charleston, Howland,
T3 R9 NWP, Edinburg, Hopkins Academy
Grant Twp, Garland.
Piscataquis................ Shawtown Twp, TA R11 WELS, TA R10 WELS,
TB R10 WELS, Greenville, T7 R9 NWP,
Bowdoin College Grant West Twp, T4 R9
NWP, Ebeemee Twp, Moosehead Junction
Twp, Lake View Plt, Brownville, Milo,
Blanchard Twp, Sebec, Dover-Foxcroft,
Abbot, Kingsbury Plt, Parkman,
Wellington, Frenchtown Twp, Medford,
Sangerville, TB R11 WELS, Katahdin Iron
Works Twp, Elliottsville Twp, Shirley,
Guilford, Atkinson, Beaver Cove,
Williamsburg Twp, Bowdoin College Grant
East Twp, Barnard Twp, Monson, Orneville
Twp.
Somerset................... Squaretown Twp, Mayfield Twp, Brighton
Plt, East Moxie Twp, Bald Mountain Twp
T2 R3.
East Branch............................ Aroostook................. Moro Plt, T7 R5 WELS.
Penobscot.................. Mount Chase, East Millinocket,
Grindstone Twp, Herseytown Twp, Medway,
Patten, Soldiertown Twp T2 R7 WELS,
Stacyville, T1 R6 WELS, T2 R8 WELS, T3
R7 WELS, T3 R8 WELS, T4 R7 WELS, T4 R8
WELS, T5 R7 WELS, T5 R8 WELS, T6 R6
WELS, T6 R7 WELS, T6 R8 WELS, T7 R6
WELS, T7 R7 WELS, T7 R8 WELS, T8 R6
WELS, T8 R7 WELS, T8 R8 WELS.
Piscataquis................ Mount Katahdin Twp, Nesourdnahunk Twp,
Trout Brook Twp, T3 R10 WELS, T4 R10
WELS, T4 R9 WELS, T5 R11 WELS, T5 R9
WELS, T6 R10 WELS, T6 R11 WELS, T7 R10
WELS, T7 R11 WELS, T7 R12 WELS, T7 R9
WELS.
Mattawamkeag........................... Aroostook................. Amity, Bancroft, Benedicta Twp, Crystal,
Dudley Twp, Dyer Brook, Forkstown Twp,
Moro Plt, North Yarmouth Academy Grant
Twp, Oakfield, Orient, Reed Plt,
Sherman, Silver Ridge Twp, Smyrna, Upper
Molunkus Twp, Webbertown Twp, Weston, T1
R5 WELS, T2 R4 WELS, T3 R3 WELS, T3 R4
WELS, T4 R3 WELS, T7 R5 WELS, TA R2
WELS.
Penobscot.................. Carroll Plt, Drew Plt, Herseytown Plt,
Kingman Twp, Lee, Lincoln, Mattawamkeag,
Mount Chase, Patten, Prentiss Twp T7 R3
NBPP, Springfield, Stacyville, Webster
Plt, Winn, T1 R6 WELS, T4 R7 WELS, T6 R6
WELS.
Washington................. T8 R3 NBPP, T8 R4 NBPP.
Penobscot.............................. Aroostook................. Benedicta TWP, Molunkus Twp, Sherman, T1
R5 WELS.
Hancock.................... Amherst, Blue Hill, Bucksport, Castine,
Dedham, Great Pond, Oqiton Twp, Orland,
Penobscot, Surry, Verona Island, T3 ND,
T32 MD, T34 MD, T35 MD, T39 MD, T40 MD,
T41 MD.
Penobscot.................. Alton, Argyle Twp, Bangor, Brewer,
Burlington, Carmel, Charleston, Chester,
Clifton, Corinna, Corinth, Dexter,
Dixmont, Eddington, Edinburg, Enfield,
Etna, Exeter, Garland, Glenburn, Grand
Falls Twp, Hampden, Hermon, Herseytown
Twp, Holden, Howland, Hudson, Indian
Island, Kenduskeag, Lagrange, Lakeville,
Lee, Levant, Lincoln, Lowell,
Mattamiscontis Twp, Mattawamkeag,
Maxfield, Medway, Milford, Newburgh,
Newport, Old Town, Orono, Orrington,
Passadumkeag, Plymouth, Seboeis Plt,
Springfield, Stacyville, Stetson, Summit
Twp, Veazie, Winn, Woodville T1 R6 WELS,
T2 R8 NWP, T2 R9 NWP, T3 R1 NBPP, T3 R9
NWP, TA R7 WELS.
Piscataquis................ Medford.
Waldo...................... Brooks, Frankfort, Jackson, Knox,
Monroe, Montville, Prospect, Searsport,
Stockton Springs, Swanville, Thorndike,
Waldo, Winterport.
Penobscot Bay.......................... Waldo..................... Belfast, Belmont, Brooks, Frankfort,
Knox, Lincolnville, Monroe, Montville,
Morrill, Northport, Searsmont,
Searsport, Swanville, Waldo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Counties and Towns Partially or Entirely Within Areas Containing Critical Habitat in the Merrymeeting Bay
SHRU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-basin County Town
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Androscoggin..................... Androscoggin.............. Auburn, Durham, Greene, Leeds, Lewiston,
Lisbon, Sabattus, Wales.
Cumberland................. Brunswick, Freeport.
Kennebec................... Litchfield, Monmouth.
Sagadahoc.................. Bath, Bowdoin, Bowdoinham, Richmond,
Topsham.
Merrymeeting Bay....................... Androscoggin.............. Livermore Falls.
Franklin................... Avon, Carthage, Chesterville,
Farmington, Freeman Twp, Industry, Jay,
Madrid Twp, Mount Abram Twp, New Sharon,
New Vineyard, Perkins TWP, Phillips,
Redington Twp, Salem Twp, Sandy River
Plt, Strong, Temple, Township 6 North of
Weld, Township E, Washington Twp, Weld,
Wilton.
Kennebec................... Augusta, Benton, Chelsea, China,
Clinton, Farmingdale, Fayette, Gardiner,
Hallowell, Manchester, Oakland,
Pittston, Randolph, Rome, Sidney,
Vassalboro, Vienna, Waterville, West
Gardiner, Windsor, Winslow.
Lincoln.................... Alna, Dresden, Whitefield, Wiscasset.
Sagadahoc.................. Bowdoinham, Perkins Twp Swan Island,
Richmond, Woolwich.
[[Page 51770]]
Somerset................... Anson, Athens, Bingham, Brighton Plt,
Canaan, Cornville, Fairfield, Hartland,
Madison, Mayfield Twp, Mercer,
Norridgewock, Pittsfield, Skowhegan,
Smithfield, Solon, Starks.
Coastal Drainages East of Small Point.. Cumberland................ Brunswick.
Kennebec................... Albion, Pittston, Windsor.
Knox....................... Appleton, Camdem, Cushing, Friendship,
Hope, Rockland, Rockport, Saint George,
South Thomaston, Thomaston, Union,
Warren, Washington.
Lincoln.................... Alna, Boothbay, Boothbay Harbor, Bremen,
Briston, Dresden, Edgecomb, Hibberts
Gore, Jefferson, Newcastle, Nobleboro,
Somerville, Southport, Waldoboro,
Westport Island, Whitefield, Wiscasset.
Sagadahoc.................. Arrowsic, Bath, Bowdoinham, Georgetown,
Phippsburg, West Bath, Woolwich.
Waldo...................... Belmont, Freedom, Liberty, Lincolnville,
Montville, Morrill, Palermo, Searsmont.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2). Critical habitat boundaries. Critical habitat includes the
stream channels within the designated stream reaches, and includes a
lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high-water line (33 CFR
329.11). In areas where the ordinary high-water line has not been
defined, the lateral extent will be defined by the bankfull elevation.
Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the
channel and move into the floodplain and is reached at a discharge
which generally has a recurrence interval of 1 to 2 years on an annual
flood series. Critical habitat in estuaries is defined by the perimeter
of the water body as displayed on standard 1:24,000 scale topographic
maps or the elevation of extreme high water, whichever is greater.
(i) Downeast Coastal SHRU. The Downeast Coastal SHRU encompasses
fourteen HUC 10 watersheds covering approximately 1,847,698 acres
within Washington and Hancock Counties in Eastern Maine that contain
approximately 6,039 km of perennial rivers, streams, and estuary and
approximately 365 square km of lakes connected to the marine
environment. Within this basin 11 HUC 10s are considered to be
currently occupied (Figure 1) and contain critical habitat (Figure 2).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 51771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE08.000
[[Page 51772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE08.001
[[Page 51773]]
(ii) Penobscot Bay SHRU. The Penobscot Bay Salmon Habitat Recovery
Unit (SHRU) includes the entire Penobscot Basin and extends west as far
as, and including the Ducktrap watershed, and east as far as, and
including the Bagaduce watershed. The Penobscot Bay SHRU drains
54,942,705 acres containing approximately 17,443 km of perennial
rivers, streams, and estuary and 1,115 sq. km of lakes connected to the
marine environment and occupies sections of Aroostook, Hancock,
Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Waldo, and Washington counties (Baum,
1983). The Penobscot SHRU encompasses forty-six HUC 10 watersheds
embedded within six major sub-basins; the West Branch, East Branch,
Piscataquis, Mattawamkeag, Penobscot River and Penobscot Bay. Within
the Penobscot SHRU, there are twenty-nine HUC 10 watersheds containing
a combination of perennial rivers, lakes, streams and/or estuaries
connected to the marine environment that have been identified as
critical habitat (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The waters in the remaining
fifteen HUC 10 watersheds are currently unoccupied habitat and
therefore not designated as critical habitat.
[[Page 51774]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE08.002
[[Page 51775]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE08.003
[[Page 51776]]
(iii) Merrymeeting Bay SHRU. The Merrymeeting Bay SHRU extends west
as far as, and including the Androscoggin and east as far as, and
including the St. George watershed. The Merrymeeting Bay SHRU contains
approximately 21,002 km of perennial rivers, streams and estuary and
1,372 sq. km of lakes that drain a land area of 6,651,620 acres. The
Merrymeeting Bay SHRU contains forty-five HUC 10 watersheds embedded
within six major sub-basin which include the Upper Androscoggin, Lower
Androscoggin, Kennebec River above Forks, Dead River, Kennebec at
Merrymeeting Bay, and coastal drainages east of small point. Of the
forty-five HUC 10 watersheds, nine are considered occupied and contain
rivers, lakes, streams and estuary considered to be critical habitat
(Figure 5 and Figure 6). The remaining thirty-six HUC 10's are not
occupied and do not contain critical habitat.
[[Page 51777]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE08.004
[[Page 51778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE08.005
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 51779]]
(3) Primary constituent elements. Within the GOM DPS, the primary
constituent elements (PCEs) for the conservation of Atlantic salmon
include sites for spawning and incubation, sites for juvenile rearing,
and sites for migration. The physical and biological features of the
habitat that are essential to the conservation of Atlantic salmon are
those features that allow Atlantic salmon to successfully use sites for
spawning and rearing and sites for migration. These features include:
(i) Deep, oxygenated pools and cover (e.g. boulders, woody debris,
vegetation, etc.), near freshwater spawning sites, necessary to support
adult migrants during the summer while they await spawning in the fall;
(ii) Freshwater spawning sites that contain clean, permeable gravel
and cobble substrate with oxygenated water and cool water temperatures
to support spawning activity, egg incubation and larval development;
(iii) Freshwater spawning and rearing sites with clean gravel in
the presence of cool, oxygenated water and diverse substrate to support
emergence, territorial development and feeding activities of Atlantic
salmon fry;
(iv) Freshwater rearing sites with space to accommodate growth and
survival of Atlantic salmon parr, and population densities needed to
support sustainable populations;
(v) Freshwater rearing sites with a combination of river, stream,
and lake habitats, that accommodate parr's ability to occupy many
niches and to maximize parr production;
(vi) Freshwater rearing sites with cool, oxygenated water to
support growth and survival of Atlantic salmon parr;
(vii) Freshwater rearing sites with diverse food resources to
support growth and survival of Atlantic salmon parr;
(viii) Freshwater and estuary migratory sites free from physical
and biological barriers that delay or prevent access to spawning
grounds needed to support a recovered population;
(ix) Freshwater and estuary migration sites with abundant, diverse
native fish communities to serve as a protective buffer against
predation;
(x) Freshwater and estuary migration sites free from physical and
biological barriers that delay or prevent emigration of smolts to the
marine environment;
(xi) Freshwater and estuary migration sites with sufficiently cool
water temperatures and water flows that coincide with diurnal cues to
stimulate smolt migration;
(xii) Freshwater migration sites with water chemistry needed to
support sea water adaptation of smolts; and
(xiii) Freshwater and marine sites with diverse, abundant
assemblages of native fish communities to enhance survivorship as
Atlantic salmon smolts emigrating through the estuary.
(4) Exclusion of Indian lands. Critical habitat does not include
occupied habitat areas on Indian lands. The Indian lands specifically
excluded from critical habitat are those defined in the Secretarial
Order 3206, including:
(i) Lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any
Indian Tribe;
(ii) Lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of
any Indian Tribe or individual subject to restrictions by the United
States against alienation;
(iii) Fee lands, either within or outside the reservation
boundaries, owned by the tribal government; and
(iv) Fee lands within the reservation boundaries owned by
individual Indians. Within the GOM DPS, approximately 79,000 acres of
tribal lands in the Penobscot SHRU and 5,000 acres in the Downeast
Coastal SHRU have been identified as particular areas that contain
sites for spawning and rearing and sites for migration and are proposed
for exclusion from critical habitat.
(5) Lands owned or controlled by the Department of Defense.
Additionally, critical habitat does not include the following areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a).
Excluded from designation are:
(i) The 435 acres of the Brunswick Naval Air Station in Brunswick,
Maine within the Little Androscoggin HUC 10 watershed in the
Merrymeeting Bay SHRU.
(ii) The 5,328 acres of the Brunswick Naval Air Station's cold
weather survival, evasion, resistance and escape school within the
Sandy River HUC 10 watershed in the Merrymeeting Bay SHRU.
(6). Description of critical habitat. Critical habitat is
designated to include the areas defined in the following hydrological
units in the three SHRUs with the exception of those particular areas
specifically identified:
(i) Downeast Coastal SHRU. Critical Habitat, Exclusions and Exclusion Type by HUC 10 Watersheds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat Excluded areas [type] \1\
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUC 10 code HUC 10 watershed name River, River, stream
stream and Lake (sq. km) and estuary Lake (sq. km)
estuary (km) (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Washington Hancock sub-basin....... 0105000201 Dennys River................. 218 45 .............. ..............
0105000203 Grand Manan Channel.......... 641 15.5 .............. ..............
0105000204 East Machias River........... 575 70 16 [T] 0.1 [T]
0105000205 Machias River................ 991 58 .............. ..............
0105000206 Roque Bluffs Coastal......... 321 1 .............. ..............
0105000207 Chandler River............... 154 0.1 .............. ..............
0105000208 Pleasant River............... 325 6.5 .............. ..............
0105000209 Narraguagus River............ 573 15.5 .............. ..............
0105000210 Tunk Stream.................. 117 14 .............. ..............
0105000212 Graham Lake.................. 976 121 .............. ..............
0105000213 Union River Bay.............. 303 18 .............. ..............
0105000211 Bois Bubert Coastal.......... -- -- .............. ..............
0105000214 Lamoine Coastal.............. -- -- .............. ..............
0105000215 Mt. Desert Coastal........... -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exclusion types: [E] = Economic, [M] = Military, and [T] = Tribal.
-- considered unoccupied at the time of listing.
[[Page 51780]]
(ii) Penobscot Bay SHRU. Critical Habitat, Exclusions and Exclusion Type by HUC 10 Watersheds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat Excluded areas [type] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-basin HUC 10 code HUC 10 watershed name River, stream River, stream
and estuary Lake (sq. km) and estuary Lake (sq. km)
(km) (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Branch Penobscot sub-basin.......... 0102000202 Grand Lake Matagamon........ 320 25.5 6 [T] 0.5 [T]
0102000203 East Branch Penobscot River 178 3 1 [T] ..............
(2).
0102000204 Seboeis River............... 418 31 .............. ..............
0102000205 East Branch Penobscot River 585 5 3 [T] ..............
(3).
0102000201 Webster Brook............... -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Branch Penobscot sub-basin.......... 0102000101 North Branch Penobscot River -- -- .............. ..............
0102000102 Seeboomook Lake............. -- -- .............. ..............
0102000103 W. Br. Penobscot R. at -- -- .............. ..............
Chesuncook.
0102000104 Caucomgomok Lake............ -- -- .............. ..............
0102000105 Chesuncook Lake............. -- -- .............. ..............
0102000106 Nesowadnehunk Stream........ -- -- .............. ..............
0102000107 Nahamakanta Stream.......... -- -- .............. ..............
0102000108 Jo-Mary Lake................ -- -- .............. ..............
0102000109 West Branch Penobscot River -- -- .............. ..............
(3).
0102000110 West Branch Penobscot River -- -- .............. ..............
(4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mattawamkeag River sub-basin............. 0102000301 West Branch Mattawamkeag 657 22 .............. ..............
River.
0102000302 East Branch Mattawamkeag 315 12 .............. ..............
River.
0102000303 Mattawamkeag River (1)...... 192 0.5 .............. ..............
0102000305 Mattawamkeag River (2)...... 451 8 .............. ..............
0102000307 Mattawamkeag River (3)...... 226 3 .............. ..............
0102000306 Molunkus Stream............. 0 0 438 [E] 11 [E]
0102000304 Baskahegan Stream........... -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piscataquis River sub-basin.............. 0102000401 Piscataquis River (1)....... 762 15 .............. ..............
0102000402 Piscataquis River (3)....... 382 6 .............. ..............
0102000404 Pleasant River.............. 812 17 16 [T] ..............
0102000405 Seboeis Stream.............. 308 31 12.2 [T] 5 [T]
0102000406 Piscataquis River (4)....... 328 30 .............. ..............
0102000403 Sebec River................. -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penobscot River sub-basin................ 0102000501 Penobscot River (1) at 287 4.5 5 [T] 2.5 [T]
Mattawamkeag.
0102000502 Penobscot River (2) at West 474 23.5 80 [T] 5.5 [T]
Enfield.
0102000503 Passadumkeag River.......... 0 0 583 [E] 79 [E]
0102000505 Sunkhaze Stream............. 117 0.5 .............. ..............
0102000506 Penobscot River (3) at Orson 205 0.5 6 [T] ..............
Island.
0102000507 Birch Stream................ 105 1 15 [T] ..............
0102000509 Penobscot River (4) at 225 10 .............. ..............
Veazie Dam.
0102000510 Kenduskeag Stream........... 420 1.5 .............. ..............
0102000511 Souadabscook Stream......... 341 5.5 .............. ..............
0102000512 Marsh River................. 319 3 .............. ..............
0102000513 Penobscot River (6)......... 514 29 .............. ..............
0102000504 Olamon Stream............... -- -- .............. ..............
0102000508 Pushaw Stream............... -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penobscot Bay sub-basin.................. 0105000218 Belfast Bay................. 177 9 .............. ..............
0105000219 Ducktrap River.............. 76 4 .............. ..............
0105000216 Bagaduce River.............. -- -- .............. ..............
0105000217 Stonington Coastal.......... -- -- .............. ..............
0105000220 West Penobscot Bay Coastal.. -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exclusion types: [E] = Economic, [M] = Military, and [T] = Tribal--considered unoccupied at the time of listing.
[[Page 51781]]
(iii) Merrymeeting Bay SHRU. Critical Habitat, Exclusions, and Exclusion Type by HUC 10 Watershed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat Excluded areas [type] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-basin HUC 10 code HUC 10 watershed name River, stream River, stream
and estuary Lake (sq. km) and estuary Lake (sq. km)
(km) (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennebec River above the Forks sub-basin. 0103000101 South Branch Moose River.... -- -- .............. ..............
0103000102 Moose River (2) above Attean -- -- .............. ..............
Pond.
0103000103 Moose River (3) at Long Pond -- -- .............. ..............
0103000104 Brassua Lake................ -- -- .............. ..............
0103000105 Moosehead Lake.............. -- -- .............. ..............
0103000106 Kennebec River (2) above The -- -- .............. ..............
Forks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dead River sub-basin..................... 0103000201 North Branch Dead River..... -- -- .............. ..............
0103000202 South Branch Dead River..... -- -- .............. ..............
0103000203 Flagstaff Lake.............. -- -- .............. ..............
0103000204 Dead River.................. -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merrymeeting Bay sub-basin............... 0103000305 Sandy River................. 1215 15.8 12 [M] 0.2 [M]
0103000306 Kennebec River at Waterville 794 14 .............. ..............
Dam.
0103000312 Kennebec River at 621 22 .............. ..............
Merrymeeting Bay.
0103000310 Messalonskee Stream......... -- -- .............. ..............
0103000301 Kennebec River (4) at Wyman -- -- .............. ..............
Dam.
0103000302 Austin Stream............... -- -- .............. ..............
0103000303 Kennebec River (6).......... -- -- .............. ..............
0103000304 Carrabassett River.......... -- -- .............. ..............
0103000307 Sebasticook River at -- -- .............. ..............
Pittsfield.
0103000308 Sebasticook River (3) at -- -- .............. ..............
Burnham.
0103000309 Sebasticook River (4) at -- -- .............. ..............
Winslow.
0103000311 Cobbosseecontee Stream...... -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Androscoggin sub-basin............. 0104000101 Mooselookmeguntic Lake...... -- -- .............. ..............
0104000102 Umbagog Lake Drainage....... -- -- .............. ..............
0104000103 Aziscohos Lake Drainage..... -- -- .............. ..............
0104000104 Magalloway River............ -- -- .............. ..............
0104000105 Clear Stream................ -- -- .............. ..............
0104000106 Middle Androscoggin River... -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Androscoggin sub-basin............. 0104000210 Little Androscoggin River... 549 10.5 1 [M] ..............
0104000201 Gorham-Shelburne Tributaries -- -- .............. ..............
0104000202 Androscoggin River at -- -- .............. ..............
Rumford Point.
0104000203 Ellis River................. -- -- .............. ..............
0104000204 Ellis River................. -- -- .............. ..............
0104000205 Androscoggin River above -- -- .............. ..............
Webb River.
0104000206 Androscoggin River at Riley -- -- .............. ..............
Dam.
0104000207 Androscoggin River at -- -- .............. ..............
Nezinscot River.
0104000208 Nezinscot River............. -- -- .............. ..............
0104000209 Androscoggin R. above L. -- -- .............. ..............
Andro. R.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Drainages East of Small Point sub- 0105000301 St. George River............ 624 32 .............. ..............
basin.
0105000302 Medomak River............... 318 6 .............. ..............
0105000305 Sheepscot River............. 553 19 .............. ..............
0105000306 Sheepscot Bay............... 220 2 .............. ..............
0105000307 Kennebec River Estuary...... 276 3.5 .............. ..............
0105000303 Johns Bay................... -- -- .............. ..............
0105000304 Damariscotta River.......... -- -- .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exclusion types: [E] = Economic, [M] = Military, and [T] = Tribal--considered unoccupied at the time of listing.
[FR Doc. E8-20603 Filed 9-2-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P