Comment from Jody Jones, Maine Audubon

December 2, 2008 First Class Mail / Electronic Mail Attn [RIN 0648-XJ93; RIN 0648-AW77] Assistant Regional Administrator NMFS Northeast Regional Office Protected Resources Division One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 RE: Comments on National Marine Fisheries Service’s and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Proposed Endangered Status for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon; Proposed Critical Habitat for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon. Proposed Rule. 73 Fed. Reg. 204 (October 21, 2008). Please accept the following comments on behalf of Maine Audubon in response to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) proposed rule for expanding the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Atlantic salmon. We have also included brief comments regarding Critical Habitat designation. Maine Audubon is a state-wide conservation organization with over 11,000 members and supporters. Our comments are organized in the following way: 1. Expansion of the Gulf of Maine DPS 2. Need for Endangered Listing 3. Need exists for both Cooperative Agreements and Critical Habitat Designation Expansion of the Gulf of Maine DPS The 2006 Status Review provides compelling evidence for including Atlantic salmon populations in the Penobscot, Androscoggin and Kennebec rivers (known as the “large rivers”) in the Gulf of Maine DPS and is the best available data. Furthermore, during the initial listing of the species in 1999, the Atlantic Salmon Biological Review Team concluded that only a lack of genetic data and the possibility that the salmon in these three rivers were a separate DPS kept them from the initial listing. Based on more recent scientific data, the 2005 Biological Review Team has concluded that the hypothesis of the large rivers having evolved separately was incorrect and that anadromous salmon in these rivers have similar genetics and life histories (including smolt age, a trait that separates Canadian salmon from Maine Salmon) to the salmon already listed in Maine. These data indicate the salmon in the large rivers cannot be considered separately from salmon in rivers Downeast that were listed in 1999. Therefore, there would have to be substantial evidence in the record that salmon the Downeast rivers are moving towards recovery in order to support what the state of Maine is requesting; that a change in listing from endangered to threatened is warranted. All evidence in the record is contrary to such a recovery and therefore downlisting is not supportable. Need for an Endangered Listing All parties commenting on this proposal agree that the populations of wild Atlantic salmon are extremely low. The 2006 Status Review and listing proposal fully articulates the dramatic declines. The small number of salmon returning to spawn within the expanded DPS rivers (fewer than 1,500 since 1998 ) and the high risk of extinction (19%-75% within the next 100 years ) indicates Maine has no choice but to support a listing of endangered as well as the proposal to expand the DPS to these rivers. Furthermore, it is clear that the current population is but a fraction of what is needed to create a self-sustaining population in the wild as evidenced by the low number of wild, naturally-reproducing spawners. This conclusion is supported in the 2006 Status Review, where researchers estimated that the 2006 return of 1,144 adult salmon is only 10% of “target” needed under the “conservation spawning escapement” (CSE) goal. Recent data from 2008 shows a slight upswing in achieving the CSE goal, particularly on the Penobscot, but this single year of data is still but ¼ of the CSE goal. Unfortunately, the current hatchery program is not yet supporting wild runs of salmon. Population viability models conducted by C.M. Legault at Woods Hole have indicated that while the hatchery programs are preventing extirpation of the species, they are not sufficient to produce self-sustaining populations. This conclusion is supported by the fact that after 130 years of stocking, salmon remain at risk of extinction. Need exists for both Cooperative Agreements and Critical Habitat Designation We support voluntary conservation plans, but not to the exclusion of designated critical habitat in Maine. At this point, both are needed to restore this imperiled species. State regulations, procedures and programs have not yet translated into improved survival conditions for Maine’s salmon. The poor returns of wild salmon indicate that better restoration, improved fish passage (including dam removal), and protection of in-stream habitat is critical. Until programs are in place that document significant increases in returns of wild salmon, we must utilize all tools available including listing as endangered the salmon within the expanded DPS, critical habitat designation and cooperative agreements. Relying simply on voluntary or state agreements are not enough since there is no guarantee that these would actually be followed (or funded). There is no reason why critical habitat designation and voluntary conservation agreements should be mutually exclusive. NMFS does not mention any conflicts or provide any evidence that salmon critical habitat and conservation agreements in Maine cannot operate in tandem. There may be potential benefits to salmon realized from implementation of future conservation agreements (though as yet, those agreements are untested and the benefits uncertain). However, there are also clear benefits from designating critical habitat. Hagen and Hodges 2006 summarize the latest publications regarding why species are at risk today and the key role critical habitat designation plays in species recovery. Some key findings and conclusions include: • Habitat loss and adverse modification are the leading causes of species endangerment in North America as evidenced by the fact that more than 85% of ESA-listed species in the United States are affected by habitat-related threats. • The majority of recovery plans identify threats to habitat as the significant factor endangering species. • The last 6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biennial reports to Congress (through 2001-2002) have documented that species with critical habitat designated for two or more years were more than twice as likely to have increased in the 1990’s than species without critical habitat . • In the most recent USFWS report to Congress available at the time, designated critical habitat helped populations improve, increased knowledge about population trends and contributed to recovery goals. • Critical habitat confers unique protection for listed species even if the area included in the designation also has other protective regulations in place such as habitat reserves or use of “umbrella species” for management. • Legally, critical habitat provides two major benefits that are distinct from other protections under the ESA: unoccupied habitats can be protected and the adverse modification of habitat by actions that are federally conducted, funded, or authorized is prohibited. Conclusion The 2006 Status Review clearly documents the following: • Atlantic salmon runs in Maine are at critically low levels including within the proposed expanded DPS. • The danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range remains extremely high. • Current efforts to protect the Atlantic salmon are inadequate and have not yet resulted in improving the viability of wild salmon populations. The Atlantic salmon is in immediate danger of extinction in both the Downeast rivers as well as within the Kennebec, Penobscot and Androscoggin and must be listed as endangered and receive the full protection of the ESA. We also support critical habitat designation for this species due to its well documented benefits and believe historical habitat should be included since the recovery of the species will depend on recovery of this historical habitat. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Jody Jones Wildlife Ecologist