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

Table 4. Species disposition
Species put back
Species passed
Species to be removed
downriver
upriver
Northern pike None identified at this time Native inland species
Largemouth bass Atlantic salmon
Central mud minnow alewife
Black Crappie blueback herring
Green Sunfish American shad
Brown trout striped bass
Rainbow trout sea lamprey
Splake
Other non-native / exotic new
American eel
species
Chain pickerel
Smallmouth bass
Comment: Objective 16.0 identifies a 90 percent efficiency or higher at fish passage
facilities for mainstem dams within 10 years to ensure diadromous fish conservation.
The Service prefers not to prescribe passage efficiencies at fishways and are not able
to support a performance stand of 90 percent.
Response: DMR fully understands the Service’s rationale, as it is extremely difficult to
pinpoint efficiency of passage facilities. There are whole suites of factors that can affect
passage including discharge, water temperature, timing of arrival at the facility, location
of the facility, the number of facilities, etc. The comment seems peculiar at this time
since the Service was a signatory to two recent settlement agreements (Madison Paper
and Saco) where 80% (interim facilities) and 90% (permanent facilities) passage
efficiencies were included as performance standards and, to my knowledge, the Service
did not object to their inclusion. Part of the difficulty with passage is the ambiguity in
“safe, timely, and effective”. There is no ‘black and white’ in the sense that a facility
needs to perform at a standard and if it does not, alternatives need to be pursued. For
example, a passage facility is “safe” if target species pass without injury or death no
matter how long they take to pass; is “effective” if target species pass the facility
whether they pass immediately upon approach to the facility or three months after
approach since the desired result (passage) was achieved; the key is “timely” but even
the language above – “without detrimental delay” – is vague. When does delay become
detrimental? We will revise the narrative and objectives accordingly and discuss the
substitution of “safe, timely, and effective” for efficiency standards.
Section 3 – Habitat
Comment: A commenter urged us to include changes to regulations that allow pollution
and sprawl to occur.
Response: DEP, DOT, and SPO are the State agencies that have the statutory authority
to address these issues. We are recommending that we continue to work with these
agencies in Objective 29.
Comment: Use references suggested by SHARE in the Habitat Section.
Response: We will incorporate the SHARE references into the document.
PRFP Page 340