[Federal Register: December 20, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 75473-75478]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de05-69]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[I.D. 121305B]
Endangered and Threatened Species: Notice of Availability for the
Final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment
of Atlantic Salmon
AGENCIES: National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce; and United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of recovery plan of Atlantic salmon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)(collectively, the Services)
announce the availability of the final recovery plan for the Gulf of
Maine (GOM) distinct population segment (DPS) of Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar).
ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the final recovery plan should be
addressed to the Atlantic Salmon Recovery Coordinator, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. A copy of the Final Recovery Plan can also be
downloaded from the following web address: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Pruden, NMFS Atlantic Salmon
Recovery Coordinator, (978) 281-9328 extension 6532.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA) requires the development of
recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote
the recovery of a particular species. Recovery Plans describe actions
considered necessary for the conservation and recovery of listed
species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting such species,
and estimate the time and costs required to implement recovery actions.
On December 17, 2000, the Services listed the GOM DPS of Atlantic
salmon as endangered under the ESA (65 FR 69459). On June 18, 2004, the
Services published a draft recovery plan for the DPS, and solicited
public comments (69 FR 34184).
The GOM DPS includes all naturally reproducing remnant populations
of Atlantic salmon from the Kennebec River downstream of the former
Edwards Dam site, northward to the mouth of the St. Croix River. DPS
salmon taken for hatchery rearing for broodstock purposes and any
captive progeny from these salmon are also included as part of the DPS.
These hatchery-held fish, however, do not count toward delisting or
reclassification goals as these goals refer to the status of naturally-
spawned salmon in the wild.
At the time of listing, there were at least eight rivers in the
geographic range of the GOM DPS known to still support wild Atlantic
salmon populations: the Dennys, East Machias, Machias, Pleasant,
Narraguagus, Ducktrap and Sheepscot Rivers, and Cove Brook. At the time
of listing, the Services deferred a decision whether the DPS range
included the mainstem of the Penobscot River and its tributaries above
the former site of the Bangor Dam. Presently a status review is
underway to determine the relationship of large river systems (e.g.,
the Penobscot and Kennebec Rivers) to the DPS as currently delineated.
This review will also determine the status of current salmon
populations within these large river systems, as well as any other
additional salmon populations present outside the geographic range of
the DPS. Decisions regarding the status of these populations may have
significant implications for the recovery strategy and recovery
criteria. The Services will consider the implications of these
decisions and, if necessary, amend or modify the recovery plan
accordingly.
The GOM DPS has declined to critically low levels. Adult returns,
and estimates of juvenile abundance and survival have continued to
decline since the listing. In 2004, total adult returns to the eight
rivers still supporting wild Atlantic salmon populations within the DPS
were estimated to range from 60 to 113 individuals. Therefore, while
full recovery will encompass the full range of the DPS from the
Kennebec to the St. Croix River, the initial focus of the recovery
program is to stabilize populations in the eight populations in the DPS
that were extant at the time of the listing
The recovery plan contains a synopsis of the biology and
distribution of Atlantic salmon, a description of factors affecting
species recovery, an outline of actions needed to recover the species,
and an implementation schedule for completing the recovery tasks. The
recovery plan, prepared with the assistance of the Maine Atlantic
Salmon Commission (ASC), provides a framework for addressing a
multitude of threats threatening the survival and conservation of the
GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon.
The Services published a notice of availability of the draft
recovery plan for the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon in the Federal
Register on June 18, 2004 (69 FR 34184). The Services distributed the
draft recovery plan for public review and comment. During the 90-day
public comment period, the Services held two formal public hearings, as
well as numerous meetings and briefings with Federal, state, local and
private stakeholders to discuss the recovery plan and solicit comments.
The Services received comments from a wide range of stakeholders
and interested parties including state, Federal and local government
agencies; local stakeholder groups; non-
[[Page 75474]]
governmental organizations; industry groups; and private citizens. The
comments received ranged from endorsements of the plan to disagreement
with specific as well as general elements contained in the plan. Many
of the comments received provided technical corrections and additional
information that the Services' considered and applied as appropriate in
preparing the final recovery plan.
The Maine ASC coordinated the review of the draft plan by state
agencies. The state agencies involved in the plan review were the Maine
ASC, Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR), Maine Department of
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IFW), Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), Maine Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural
Resources (DAFRR), Maine Bureau of Pesticide Control (BPC), Maine
Department of Conservation (DOC), Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands
(BPL), Maine Forest Service (MFS), Maine Geological Service (MGS),
Maine Department of Transportation (DOT), and Maine State Planning
Office (SPO).
In addition to public review, the recovery plan underwent peer-
review. The Services and the State identified and contacted 27 peer
reviewers with specific technical and other relevant expertise,
requesting review and comment on the draft recovery plan. These
individuals were asked to review relevant sections of the plan for
technical accuracy and completeness. The peer-reviewers were also asked
to identify any specific issues or information that the Services should
consider in the preparation of a final recovery plan. The Services
received eight responses from the individuals contacted.
In conjunction with efforts to prepare a final recovery plan, the
Services and the Maine ASC conducted a 2-day Threats Assessment
Workshop in December 2004. The Services assembled a team of technical
experts from Maine ASC, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS to conduct a
structured threats analysis to evaluate the geographic extent and life
stage affected by threats, and the severity of these effects. During
this workshop, the Services and workshop participants reviewed and
considered the recommendations of the National Research Council's (NRC)
(2004) report on Atlantic Salmon in Maine, as well as relevant public
and peer review comments received during the comment period. The
workshop resulted in the following threats being identified in the
final recovery plan as high priority for action to reverse the decline
of Atlantic salmon populations in the GOM DPS: (1) Acidified water and
associated aluminum toxicity which decrease juvenile survival; (2)
aquaculture practices, which pose ecological and genetic risks; (3)
avian Predation; (4) changing land use patterns (e.g., development,
agriculture, forestry); (5) climate change; (6) depleted diadromous
fish communities; (7) incidental capture of adults and parr by
recreational fishermen; (8) introduced fish species that compete or
prey on Atlantic salmon; (9) low marine survival; (10) poaching of
adults in DPS rivers; (11) recovery hatchery program (potential for
artificial selection/domestication); (12) sedimentation; and (13) water
extraction.
The public and peer review comments received during the public
comment period have been fully considered in the preparation of this
recovery plan. In response to comments received, the Services have made
revisions to the draft plan as appropriate. In addition, the Services
have reviewed and considered the recommendations of the 2004 NRC report
on Atlantic Salmon in Maine and incorporated the recommendations as
appropriate.
Comments and Responses
The majority of the comments received on the draft recovery plan
were editorial and were incorporated as received. More substantive
comments and responses to these comments are summarized below.
Threats Assessment
Comment 1: A number of comments were submitted questioning the
relationship between the threats assessment and the text related to
those identified threats and/or their priorities in the implementation
table. It was suggested that better documentation of the risk
assessment method used to identify the top threats would be instructive
for the reader. Others commented that some of the threats were more
applicable to some watersheds and not to others. Finally, some
questioned the estimates of costs in the Implementation Schedule and
the State of Maine suggested that they could assist the Federal
Services, with the assistance of the Recovery Team, to refine these
estimates.
Response: A workshop was held with state and Federal agency experts
to conduct a threats assessment. The purpose of this workshop was to
address the concerns submitted by the public with the goal of expanding
the section of the recovery plan to include an explanation of the
process utilized and factors considered in conducting the threats
assessment. Another goal was to attempt to link the threats assessment
to the implementation schedule and to ensure consistency in addressing
threats throughout the body of the recovery plan. The final plan
includes a revised threat assessment that was the product of the
workshop mentioned above.
Water Use
Comment 2: Some comments recommended that the plan take a broader
approach to addressing water use related to hydrologic manipulation of
river flow. Others stated that the terms ``excessive or unregulated
withdrawals'' were not accurate or instructive and stated that the Plan
did not adequately acknowledge the existing state regulatory programs
that are in place to guard against threats to habitat due to water
withdrawal. It was suggested that too much emphasis was placed on water
withdrawal in the plan and that the plan should focus on a solution-
based approach as agreed to by private and public, state and Federal
partners in the Downeast Rivers Water Use Management Plan (WUMP)
developed under the State Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan instead of
focusing on water-use permitting.
The Downeast Salmon Federation (DSF) commented that the draft plan
should specifically state that the Water Use Management Plan (WUMP) is
not comprehensive enough to truly deserve the name, and that a reader
of the recovery plan unfamiliar with the WUMP might conclude that these
``plans'' address cumulative as well as individual withdrawals. DSF
commented that the WUMP actually addresses only those withdrawals made
by the larger industry users and does not do a thorough or
precautionary job of planning or managing water use in these
watersheds. Lastly, DSF commented that the documents referred to as the
WUMP provide a basis from which to move forward, but are lacking in
addressing the impact of the full range of irrigators within these
watersheds.
Response: The Recovery Plan endorses the implementation of the WUMP
as an important recovery action for the DPS. The Services agree with
the comment that the practical threat of water use is much less today
than it was in 1995 when the State Conservation Plan was being
developed. As explained in the draft recovery plan, the WUMP is a
significant accomplishment and provides an excellent foundation as a
planning document. In order for it to be effective as a tool for the
protection and recovery of Atlantic salmon, however, the WUMP needs to
be endorsed by the
[[Page 75475]]
state regulatory agencies and consistently applied in the State of
Maine in both organized and unorganized territories. While voluntary
compliance with the WUMP by growers may be reducing the practical
threat of water withdrawals to salmon and their habitat today, it does
not provide security into the future that this threat will remain
reduced.
Forestry
Comment 3: Some comments were submitted concurring with the
conclusion in the draft plan that current timber harvesting activities
do not represent a significant threat under current management measures
and harvest practices. Other commenters questioned the basis for this
conclusion. They cited the following potential impacts from forest
practices: sedimentation, thermal loading, altering water chemistry,
altering hydrology and limiting large woody debris. Other commenters
raised concerns that changes in land ownership could lead to increased
harvesting and impacts to Atlantic salmon and their habitat. One
comment requested that the Services review the state laws that govern
forest management and timber harvesting and another comment
specifically stated that the State of Maine's Forest Practices Act
provides little protection to smaller order streams. In addition, some
stated that there was little to no enforcement of existing forest laws
and regulations. Some commenters contend that the draft plan does not
adequately describe the forestry issue. DSF stated that forestry
practices impact watershed productivity particularly when first order
streams do not receive adequate protection from cutting activities.
These commenters state that these streams receive the least protection
under current law and the least emphasis under current conservation
easement strategies and as a result these water bodies are experiencing
the most abuse and neglect.
Response: In the recovery plan the Services acknowledge that
forestry practices can negatively impact Atlantic salmon habitat. Due
to state laws and best management practices (BMPs), widespread problems
with forestry practices have not been documented. These impacts can
occur, however, and in some cases the protective measures currently in
place are best management practices that are not regulatory in nature.
In general, landowners are required to protect water quality and to
utilize best management practices to ensure that water quality is not
negatively impacted by harvesting. The BMPs are not prescriptive in
nature, however, and instead require what is necessary to achieve the
outcome of preventing negative impacts to water quality. Foresters are
provided with a range of BMPs and training in those techniques, but the
ultimate decision of what specific techniques to apply is left to their
discretion in light of the site specific circumstances. We acknowledge
that land ownership patterns are changing in Maine and we cannot take
for granted the excellent relationship we have had with landowners in
the past who have voluntarily adopted protective measures for Atlantic
salmon. Efforts to work with new landowners are ongoing and Project
SHARE has been very instrumental in this effort. It will be important
during implementation of the recovery plan for the Services to continue
to work with landowners and the Maine Forest Service to ensure that
salmon habitat is not negatively impacted by forestry practices.
Land Acquisition and Riparian Buffers
Comment 4: Some suggested land acquisition and conservation
easements should be pursued in areas that are threatened with serious,
immediate, development pressure, where the relationship between
specific land use changes and habitat degradation is firmly established
and where high value habitat is at risk. Others argued that the case
for riparian buffer protection is based on the presumed impacts of
sedimentation, removal of shade and associated increases in stream
temperature, alteration of natural processes that create large woody
debris, low dissolved oxygen from nutrient enrichment, runoff of
chemical contaminants from agricultural and silvicultural lands. These
individuals asserted that there is little evidence that these potential
impacts are actually a threat to the GOM DPS.
Response: The available scientific literature provides a strong
basis for the need for a riparian buffer zone to prevent adverse
impacts to water quality. Purchasing all of the land in the riparian
habitat in the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon is not possible and
is not necessary for salmon protection and recovery. The major focus of
the GOM DPS recovery program is to ensure that buffers are adequate in
a particular region to prevent adverse impacts to water quality in that
region. For example, if Atlantic salmon in a particular stream is
threatened by elevated temperatures, but not threatened by
sedimentation, then riparian buffers should be in place to prevent
increases in water temperature but necessarily to reduce sedimentation.
Our focus is, therefore, on ensuring that regulations and best
management practices to protect water quality are fully implemented and
evaluated. Where opportunities present themselves, the purchase of land
and conservation easements has been and likely will continue to be an
important tool in the effort to protect important riparian areas
adjacent to salmon habitat.
Aquaculture
Comment 5: Comments were provided stating that the section in the
draft plan on aquaculture was outdated and requesting that the final
recovery plan acknowledge progress made to address the threat of
aquaculture. Other comments identified areas where actions to address
the threat from aquaculture needed to be strengthened and specifically
cited disease management, the establishment of aquaculture free-zones
and bay management planning.
Response: We have updated the section in the recovery plan related
to aquaculture. As noted in the comments, the Services have been
working with the aquaculture industry and the State of Maine for a
number of years to implement measures to minimize the potential for
aquaculture practices to negatively impact Atlantic salmon and their
habitat. As correctly noted in the comments, significant progress has
been made recently to incorporate a number of these protective measures
in permit conditions. Aquaculture free-zones have been considered, but
not implemented due to the lack of adequate sites sufficiently removed
from the Gulf of Maine DPS. Bay management planning is an excellent
tool for ensuring that aquaculture practices are well coordinated and
that cumulative impacts are identified and assessed. We have included a
discussion on bay management in the final recovery plan.
Habitat Quality and Restoration
Comment 6: Comments were submitted stating that the recovery plan
needed to identify habitat as a limiting factor to Atlantic salmon
throughout Maine and placing habitat restoration as a top priority. One
comment stated that poor large parr survival indicated that habitat in
the rivers may be marginal and that greater emphasis should be placed
on investigating this further. Comments suggested that a greater
emphasis needed to be placed on restoring the structure and function of
these rivers. Another comment recommended that the size and scale of
riparian buffer zones needs to be carefully assessed to determine if
they
[[Page 75476]]
are adequate to meet the needs of Atlantic salmon and the rest of the
ecosystem.
Response: The plan does identify habitat quality as a significant
threat to the recovery of Atlantic salmon. As explained in the plan,
assessment activities have documented significant mortality occurring
to large parr during their last winter in the river, and to also smolts
are they migrate out of the river. These research findings indicate
that there are problems with habitat quality. Research and management
efforts are now concentrated on specifically identifying limiting
factors in the freshwater, estuarine and marine environments. Examples
include assessment of embeddedness and substrate permeability and its
relationship to productivity and consideration of a pilot liming study
to evaluate the benefits of buffering the river as smolts migrate into
saltwater. In addition, the final recovery plan discusses the need to
investigate the potential role of diminished habitat complexity in the
conservation of the DPS.
Ecosystem Restoration
Comment 7: Comments recommended that the plan needed to go further
in incorporating an ecosystem approach to recovering the DPS and should
consider rivers as entire systems. One comment stated that non-native
species should not be stocked into rivers within the DPS and another
recommended pursing the restoration of alewives. Other comments stated
that to restore salmon we need to restore the other species with which
it co-evolved over the years.
Response: The goal of the Endangered Species Act is to conserve the
ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend. The
plan acknowledges that recovery of endangered Atlantic salmon depends
on recovery of the rivers, estuaries and marine environment. Recovery
includes restoration of other diadromous species which provide
important benefits to Atlantic salmon including serving as predator
buffers and contributing marine derived nutrients to the ecosystem.
Changing Land-Use Patterns
Comment 8: A comment recommended that changing land-use patterns
(i.e., development and sprawl) needs to be addressed more thoroughly in
the plan. It was also suggested that habitat protection needs to be
guided by an ecosystem management approach that looks at what is
happening across the landscape. One comment stated that if the long
term effects of historical land-use and impacts from current land-use
are not addressed rapidly and aggressively we will not see the
restoration of self-sustaining Atlantic salmon populations in Maine.
Response: The recovery plan focuses on threats to Atlantic salmon
habitat so the impacts of changing land-use patterns are addressed in a
variety of sections. As noted in the comment, development can impact
Atlantic salmon habitat by contributing sediments, chemicals and
nutrients and increasing water temperature. Land-use changes will
continue to be monitored during implementation of the recovery plan
with a focus on how those changes increase impacts to salmon habitat.
Stakeholder and Community Involvement
Comment 9: Comments stated that the plan does not identify many
areas where non-agency organizations and stakeholders are involved and
recommended that the plan identify more ways to include stakeholders
and the local knowledge that these individuals and groups possess.
Another comment stated that the Watershed Councils are essential for
salmon recovery and must have the backing of state and Federal agencies
involved in salmon restoration. It further suggested that the
``Implementation Schedule'' should include funding to support the full
time staff needed to keep the Watershed Councils functioning as an
effective component of salmon restoration efforts.
Response: The recovery plan acknowledges the critical role that
local citizens and organizations have and will continue to play in
recovery of Atlantic salmon. These individuals serve as the eyes and
ears in these watersheds and are frequently the first to identify
specific habitat problems that need to be addressed and opportunities
for habitat enhancement. The implementation schedule identifies the
actions at the local level and the funding estimated to be necessary to
carry out those activities. Included in these estimates are the
personnel resources needed to carry out these tasks.
Hatcheries
Comment 10: A number of comments were submitted on the existing
hatchery program. One comment suggested that the plan identify the need
to assess whether hatchery-reared fish, which are essentially land-
locked, are capable of transitioning to saltwater water. Another
comment suggested that there should not be a ``broodstock retirement''
program as currently exists and that instead these brood fish should be
producing progeny for other rivers to establish experimental
populations. It was suggested that stocking of additional streams might
provide a surprising result in terms of a few returning adults and
perhaps a catch and release fishery at some point in the future which
could go a long way toward rebuilding popular support for the recovery
program as a whole.
Response: The recovery plan supports the recommendation from the
2004 NRC report that the hatchery program should be reviewed. The
issues identified above, including the source of the fish taken into
the hatchery, the use of spent broodstock, life stage to be stocked,
and evaluation of hatchery products should all be included in a review
as recommended in the final recovery plan. The recovery plan also
includes a recommendation to evaluate additional stocking in other
rivers within the DPS.
West Greenland Fishery
Comment 11: A comment suggested that the management and
establishment of commercial quotas should not be left solely up to
NASCO and stated that NASCO failed to follow advice from the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to adopt
the zero quota for the WGF in 2001 and 2002. It suggested that the plan
recommend a continued suspension of a commercial fishery for Atlantic
salmon until such time as rivers within the United States have self-
sustaining populations. It further recommended that the recovery plan
explicitly support the existing 5-year Greenland Conservation agreement
and call for the continued elimination of the West Greenland Fishery as
a priority recovery action.
Response: NASCO is the international organization created with the
purpose of international coordination and cooperation for Atlantic
salmon conservation and management. It is the forum for the Untied
States to engage Denmark, on behalf of Greenland, in discussions on
management of Atlantic salmon fisheries. The recovery plan identifies
the commercial catch of Atlantic salmon off the coast of Greenland as a
threat to the recovery of the Gulf of Maine DPS. The model utilized by
ICES to provide management advice to NASCO estimates pre-fishery
abundance off Greenland and subtracts the spawning escapement needs for
all the rivers represented in that mixed stock and then allocates a
portion of the remainder to the Greenland fishery. While this, in
theory, offers adequate protection to all stocks contributing to the
mixed stock off Greenland, some stocks may be disproportionately
[[Page 75477]]
affected by the fishery. For instance, if Canadian and Northern
European stocks recovery more quickly than U.S. and Southern European
stocks then the pre-fishery abundance may increase enough to allow for
a commercial harvest off Greenland yet the stocks in the southern
portion of the range may still be significantly lower than spawning
escapement goals. Continued involvement in the international management
forum and involvement of conservation organizations is necessary to
ensure adequate protection of U.S. stocks.
Penobscot and Other Large Rivers
Comment 12: Several commenters stated that the Recovery Plan does
not adequately address the relationship and importance of the Penobscot
to the listed rivers. These comments stated that this is a serious
omission in the draft recovery plan, and that the recovery plan's
failure to adequately recognize the importance of the Penobscot to the
listed rivers is a serious omission and needs to be rectified in the
final plan. Likewise, the plan needs to look at the role of Maine's
other large salmon rivers, particularly those within the geographic
range of the DPS, i.e., the Kennebec, Androscoggin and St. Croix
rivers, as well as the Saco River.
Response: The recovery plan is for the listed entity the Gulf of
Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon that was listed in 2000. At the time of
the listing, the mainstem Penobscot River was excluded from the Gulf of
Maine DPS due to outstanding data and analysis. The plan properly
focuses on the threats to Atlantic salmon and their habitat as listed
and identifies actions necessary to avoid or minimize those threats in
the future.
Acid Rain
Comment 13: A comment offered support for efforts to mitigate the
effects of acid rain on the DPS, but stated that the draft plan does
not place adequate emphasis on mitigating the underlying causes of acid
rain. The comment recommended that the Services place a high priority
on consulting with the EPA on identifying point sources of air
pollution contributing to acid rain.
Response: The available information on acid deposition in Maine
indicates that, as a result of air pollution regulations, acid
deposition is decreasing. The current problems appear to be caused by
the removal of buffering capacity in these rivers over time which now
allows acid pulses to cause effects to Atlantic salmon. The mitigation
effort appears to be necessary to provide buffering capacity until such
time as the habitat recovers from the years of significant acid rain
deposition and leaching of buffering capacity from the watersheds.
Elevated Water Temperature
Comment 14: A comment stated that the draft recovery plan does not
adequately discuss the threat of elevated water temperature.
Response: There is no question in the literature as to the negative
effects of high temperature. The best available data seems to show a
significant number of days when the temperature goes above the
thresholds for feeding and survival. The draft recovery plan identifies
elevated water temperature as a threat to Atlantic salmon. As noted in
the comment, temperatures have been recorded at levels higher than that
preferred and sometimes even tolerable for salmon. The recovery plan
also identifies activities that can cause increased water temperature
including removal of vegetation in the riparian zone and water
withdrawals.
Education
Comment 15: A comment stated that education is an essential
component to species or population restoration and will require
substantial investment and commitment on the part of all of the players
in this recovery. The commenter stated that the recovery plan's
implementation schedule lacks funding and commitment for education.
Response: The Recovery Plan states that education and outreach
programs are a critical component of successful conservation and
recovery plans. The Recovery Plan states that public information and
outreach programs help build public support and a strong constituency
for Atlantic salmon recovery and conservation in Maine. The Recovery
Plan recommends that efforts to increase and improve public awareness
of Atlantic salmon conservation should continue through media,
educational material, public forums and workshops, demonstration
projects and technical assistance. The Recovery Plan notes that
virtually all successful conservation programs include education and
public outreach programs. Public awareness is important to the success
of Atlantic salmon recovery efforts in Maine.
The Recovery Plan states that education and outreach programs
inform the general public and interested parties, such as land owners,
business and industry, state and local government about the Atlantic
salmon recovery process. Education and information campaigns help
promote Atlantic salmon as an important national resource and encourage
individual and group involvement in the recovery process. The Recovery
Plan recommends that a comprehensive and coordinated Education and
Outreach Plan for the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon should be
developed. This plan should include a strategy to coordinate the
efforts of Federal, state and local organizations currently involved in
education and outreach programs. The plan should identify target
audiences, review existing programs and materials, evaluate the role of
public display of Atlantic salmon, identify education and outreach
needs, identify responsibilities and costs and develop strategies for
dissemination of information and materials.
Governance
Comment 16: A comment suggested that the plan should include a
discussion on governance and referenced the 2004 NRC report which also
suggested that this issue should be investigated. The comment suggested
that the Services should pull language from the 2004 NRC report and the
comments received to help create this new section. The DSF suggests a
review of the literature on the topic of natural resource ``co
management'' and referenced lobster fisheries co-management in Maine as
one example of an alternative and reasonably successful structure that
should be reviewed.
Response: The Recovery Plan recommends that Federal and state
agencies and local governments should continue to work cooperatively to
recover the DPS. Where necessary, interagency communication and
coordination should be strengthened. Existing coordination and
communication mechanisms between Federal and state agencies and local
conservation organizations and other constituency groups should be
reviewed and strengthened. The Plan acknowledges that there are many
organizations and groups involved in the protection and recovery of
Atlantic salmon. Ensuring inter-organizational coordination and
communication mechanisms are in place will increase the effectiveness
and efficiency of these groups. The implementation schedule in the
recovery plan identifies responsible entities for each of the recovery
plan actions. There are a number of organizations, agencies,
individuals and industries involved in Atlantic salmon protection and
recovery as noted in the 2004 NRC report. By assigning responsibility
appropriately for carrying out activities, the plan describes roles for
each of these groups in recovery
[[Page 75478]]
implementation. The recovery plan implementation team will also
coordinate actions and help reduce the potential for overlap. The
Recovery Plan has been revised to include an expanded discussion of the
issue of governance as it relates to the recovery of the DPS. The
Services agree that the complexity of the multiple state, Federal,
local and private groups involved in salmon recovery or related
activities presents specific challenges that must be addressed if
recovery is to be successful.
River-Specific Recovery Planning
Comment 17: Several comments stated that the recovery plan did not
address recovery action at a river-specific scale. These individual
state that the plan does not make any attempt to address individual
rivers, identify unique threats to salmon in each and describe actions
necessary to address each threat. In addition, the comments state that
the threats identified in the plan are not the most important in all
watersheds.
Response: The Recovery Plan considers threats to the DPS at a
river-specific scale and discusses regional differences that exist
between various watersheds and regions in Maine. The Recovery Plan
identifies site-specific management actions for all the threats the
Services have identified under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA five-factor
analysis. The Services acknowledge that the Recovery Plan does not
present comprehensive river specific recovery strategies for each of
the rivers still known to support wild salmon populations. The Services
agree that recovery implementation may be further facilitated by the
development of watershed or river-specific management plans that would
include and highlight those threats and accompanying actions applicable
within that particular area. The Recovery Plan acknowledges ongoing
recovery implementation activities that are currently responsive to the
specific circumstances within individual watersheds (e.g., NPS surveys,
nutrient management plans in the Sheepscot, liming project Downeast).
Management plans for specific issues of concern have been developed, or
are envisioned, for many of the rivers and watersheds within the DPS.
For example, the Maine ASC has been working to develop river-specific
fisheries management plans for individual DPS rivers. The State of
Maine, working in cooperation with multiple public and private
partners, has developed a water use management plan (WUMP) for the
Narraguagus and Pleasant rivers and for Mopang Stream (a tributary to
the Machias River). The WUMP was developed to address a specific issue
(i.e., agricultural water use) that was a concern in these three
rivers. In a number of instances, local conservation organizations have
begun the process of developing river-specific management plans for
specific issues.
Pesticides
Comment 18: The Services received a number of comments related to
pesticides. Comments provided by the State of Maine questioned the
factual basis of statements in the draft plan that drift of hexazinone
from aerial applications has been documented. The State stated that it
had no documentation of hexazinone drift in its records. The DSF
commented that the plan did not adequately present the extent of
pesticide use and the threat to the DPS posed by DPS by this activity.
The Services received comments that the threat from pesticides warrants
consultation between the Services and the EPA on the effects of
pesticide registration on the DPS. This commenter stated that
pesticides should not be used until this consultation has taken place.
Further, these comments stated the view that the recovery plan does not
place a high enough priority on measures to control pesticide use.
Lastly, the comments stated that no pesticides can be discharged into
DPS waters without a CWA, NPDES permit.
Response: The Services have revised the recovery plan based on
public comments received. An assessment of the magnitude and severity
of the threat posed to the survival and recovery of the DPS by chemical
contaminants resulted in the conclusion that pesticides currently are
not a high-level threat to the DPS recovery. The recovery plan
identifies a number of recovery actions related to continued monitoring
of any threat to the DPS related to pesticides. Should water quality or
other data indicate that pesticides applied in accordance with approved
labeling instructions may be adversely affecting the DPS, the Services
will consult with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
address any potential impact to the DPS.
Implementation of the Plan
NMFS and the FWS are committed to the implementation of the Gulf of
Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon Recovery Plan. The recovery plan may be
revised in the future on the basis of new information. Public notice
and an opportunity for public review and comment would be provided
prior to final approval of a revised recovery plan.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: December 14, 2005.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Dated: December 2, 2005.
Marvin E. Moriarty,
Regional Director, Region 5U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E5-7567 Filed 12-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S