Operational Plan for the Restoration of Diadromous Fishes to the ...

Comment: Several people requested that we better define the timetable for Schoodic,
Seboeis, and Sebec and note Phase 2 and 3 timetables to clarify plans in the future.
Response: DMR will use a three-phased approach for alewife restoration with each
phase potentially requiring up to 16 years of annual stocking. Within these broad
categories, lakes will be prioritized based on previously described attributes. Lakes
identified as Phase 1 in the Operational Plan remain unchanged. Phase 2 and Phase 3
lakes will be stocked using broodstock collected at the Milford fishlift. Phase 3 lakes,
which were cooperatively identified by DMR and DIFW, will be stocked last, and some
will require further investigation before stocking. Phase 3 waters include Cold Stream
Pond, Upper Cold Stream Pond, Nicatous Lake, West Lake, Duck Lake, Gassabias
Lake, Seboeis Lake, Schoodic Lake, Sebec Lake, Piper Pond, Upper Pond, and
Pleasant Lake). Collectively these lakes are the source water for a hatchery, support
classic cold-water fisheries, are blocked to prevent spread of pike, or may be above
historically impassable falls. The remaining lakes are included in Phase 2.
Comment: A commenter recommends a reduction in the extent of Phase I alewife
restoration from 13 to 7 historical lakes (Chemo, Pushaw, Boyd, Little Pushaw, Mud,
Saponac, and Madagascal), lakes to which there is presently access without the need
for passage through either the Howland or West Enfield dams.
Response: Phase I alewife lakes were purposely chosen to include historical habitat
above the Howland, West Enfield, and Pumpkin Hill dams. Passage efficiency at these
dams needs to be assessed for multiple species, and improved if necessary. The most
cost-effective approach is to test efficiency for all species in a limited time frame, and
make improvements once that benefit all species. In addition, the Settlement
Agreement provides for a 15-year period after the Milford fishlift becomes operational
for effectiveness testing of the Howland bypass.
Comment: NOAA and USFWS comments on alewife restoration concern the source of
broodstock to be used. USFWS recommends that the Plan states that: 1) a priority is
placed on using in-basin broodstock sources for alewives to the greatest extent
possible; 2) if it is determined that out-of-basin broodstock sources are necessary,
follow the “next nearest neighbor concept” in selecting sources of fish to stock the
Penobscot, and 3) that waterbodies that are initially stocked with in-basin fish should be
limited to the use of those same in-basin sources. In a case where the in-basin source
is not large enough to fully meet the stocking requirement, then in-basin sources should
be used first; other sources could then be used to meet the remaining fish requirement.
NOAA recommends inclusion of the decision process for assessing feasibility of
different broodstock sources.
Response: DMR’s experience is that successful alewife restoration does not require inbasin
or next-nearest-neighbor sources of broodstock. For example, the large alewife
population (>1.3 million in 2009) on the Sebasticook River was restored using
Androscoggin River broodstock, which was restored using Royal River broodstock,
which was stocked with fish from the Damariscotta River. However, we have stated our
willingness to use in-basin broodstock as a first option and next-nearest-neighbor
broodstock as a second option if certain conditions are met. The conditions are: 1) on
the basis of existing information DMR, NOAA, and USFWS determine that a donor
PRFP Page 333