2013 VGP and sVGP BE

i The primary technical contact for this document is:

Dr. Ryan Albert

(202) 564-0763

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (Mail Code: 4203M) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564-6392 (fax)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Table of Contents

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

SECTION 1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION ........................... 1-1

SECTION 2 SCOPE OF PROPOSED ACTIONS ................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Legal and Procedural Background ....................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 VGP.......................................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.2 sVGP ........................................................................................................ 2-3

2.2 Affected Vessels .................................................................................................. 2-3

2.2.1 Vessels Covered by the VGP ................................................................... 2-4

2.2.2 Vessels Covered by the sVGP ................................................................. 2-6

2.2.2.1 Commercial Fishi ng Vessels.................................................. 2-7

2.2.2.2 Other Non-recreational Vessels ............................................. 2-8

2.3 Summary Descriptions of the Proposed Permit Actions ...................................... 2-8

2.3.1 2013 VGP................................................................................................. 2-9

2.3.1.1 Vessel Discharges Eligible for Coverage Under the VGP ..... 2-9

2.3.1.2 Effluent Limitations Speci fied in the VGP .......................... 2-11

2.3.1.3 Inspections, Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping .... 2-14

2.3.1.4 Summary of Most Significant Changes from 2008 VGP .... 2-14

2.3.2 2013 sVGP Detailed Summary Description .......................................... 2-16

2.3.2.1 Vessel Discharges Eligible for Coverage under the sVGP .. 2-16

2.3.2.2 Effluent Limitations Speci fied in the sVGP ........................ 2-17

2.3.2.3 Additional Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations ........ 2-23

2.3.2.4 Recordkeeping and Quarterly Inspections ........................... 2-23

2.3.3 Summary of Findings from Other Lega l Requirements Relevant to the

Permit Actions in this BE ...................................................................... 2-24

2.3.3.1 Ocean Discharge Criteria ..................................................... 2-24

2.3.3.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultations ................................... 2-25

2.4 References .......................................................................................................... 2-26

SECTION 3 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION APPROACH ................................................ 3-1 3.1 Vessel Types Requiring Detailed Analysis.......................................................... 3-3

3.1.1 VGP Vessels ............................................................................................ 3-3 3.1.1.1 Barges .................................................................................... 3-4

3.1.1.2 Oil and Gas Tankers ............................................................... 3-5 3.1.1.3 Large Commercial Fishing Vessels ....................................... 3-5 3.1.1.4 Large Cruise Ships ................................................................. 3-5 3.1.1.5 Medium Cruise Ships ............................................................. 3-6 3.1.1.6 Large Ferries .......................................................................... 3-6 3.1.1.7 Cargo [Bulk] and Other Carriers ............................................ 3-6 3.1.1.8 Emergency and Research Vessels .......................................... 3-6

3.1.2 sVGP Vessels ........................................................................................... 3-7 3.2 Vessel Discharges Meriting Detailed Analysis .................................................... 3-9 3.2.1 Vessel Discharge Selection ...................................................................... 3-9 3.2.2 Estimated Flow Rates for Discharges Selected for Detailed Analysis.................................................................................................. 3-242013 VGP and sVGP BE Table of Contents

iii 3.2.2.1 Ballast Water ........................................................................ 3-24 3.2.2.2 Bilgewater ............................................................................ 3-25

3.2.2.3 Deck Washdown .................................................................. 3-26 3.2.2.4 Engine Wet Exhaust Effluent ............................................... 3-27

3.2.2.5 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater ....................................... 3-28 3.2.2.6 Fish Hold and Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent ........................ 3-29 3.2.2.7 Graywater ............................................................................. 3-30 3.2.2.8 Stern Tube Packing Gland Effl uent and Discharges from

Other Oil/Water Interfaces ................................................... 3-31 3.2.3 Pollutants Requiring Detailed Analysis in Selected Vessel Discharges .............................................................................................. 3-33 3.2.3.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species .................................................... 3-33

3.2.3.2 Nutrients ............................................................................... 3-35 3.2.3.3 Pathogens ............................................................................. 3-36

3.2.3.4 Oil and Grease ...................................................................... 3-36

3.2.3.5 Metals ................................................................................... 3-37

3.2.3.6 Toxic and Non-Conventiona l Pollutants with Toxic

Effects .................................................................................. 3-40

3.2.3.7 Conventional and Non-Conve ntional Pollutants. ................ 3-42 3.2.4 Summary of Vessel Types, Discharges, and Corresponding

Pollutants/Constituents Selected for Detailed Evaluation in this BE .... 3-43

3.3 Selection of Reference Action Areas (RAAs) ................................................... 3-45 3.4 Listed Species and their Critical Habitats with in RAAs .................................... 3-46 3.4.1 Listed Species That May Be Affected ................................................... 3-46 3.4.2 Description of Species Within RAAs Used to Support the Effects Analysis.................................................................................................. 3-47

3.5 References .......................................................................................................... 3-50

SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE .................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Ecosystem Status within RAAs ........................................................................... 4-2 4.1.1 Ecosystem Status of Puget Sound/ Seattle, WA RAA ............................. 4-2 4.1.1.1 Ecosystem Description of Puget Sound /Seattle, WA ........... 4-3 4.1.1.2 Major Land Uses Near Puge t Sound/ Seattle, WA ................ 4-3 4.1.1.3 Vessel Populations Present in Puget Sound/ Seattle, WA ............................................................................ 4-6

4.1.1.4 Habitat Modification and Rest oration in Puget Sound/ Seattle, WA ............................................................................ 4-6 4.1.1.5 Water Quality Impairments in Puget Sound/Seattle, WA ..... 4-7

4.1.1.6 Historic ANS Introductions and Impacts in Puget Sound/ Seattle, WA ............................................................................ 4-9 4.1.2 Ecosystem Status of Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY RAA ....... 4-10 4.1.2.1 Ecosystem Description of Upper and Lower Bay /New York, NY .................................................................... 4-11 4.1.2.2 Major Land Uses Near Upper and Lower Bay/ New York, NY ..................................................................... 4-11 4.1.2.3 Vessel Populations Present in Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY.............................................................................. 4-132013 VGP and sVGP BE Table of Contents

iv 4.1.2.4 Habitat Modification and Rest oration Near Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY ............................................................. 4-13 4.1.2.5 Water Quality Impairments in Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY.............................................................................. 4-14

4.1.2.6 Historic ANS Introductions a nd Impacts in Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY ............................................................. 4-15 4.1.3 Ecosystem Status of Galveston Bay/Houston, TX RAA ....................... 4-16 4.1.3.1 Ecosystem Description of Galv eston Bay/ Houston, TX ..... 4-16 4.1.3.2 Major Land Uses Near Galves ton Bay/ Houston, TX ......... 4-18 4.1.3.3 Vessel Populations Present in Galveston Bay/
Houston, TX ......................................................................... 4-18

4.1.3.4 Habitat Modification and Rest oration of Galveston Bay/
Houston, TX ......................................................................... 4-18 4.1.3.5 Water Quality Impairment s in Galveston Bay/
Houston, TX ......................................................................... 4-19

4.1.3.6 Historic ANS Introductions and Impacts in Galveston Bay/Houston, TX ................................................................. 4-21 4.1.4 Ecosystem Status of Upper Miss issippi River at St. Louis,

MO RAA ................................................................................................ 4-21 4.1.4.1 Ecosystem Description of Upper Mississippi River at St. Louis, MO ....................................................................... 4-22 4.1.4.2 Major Land Uses Near Upper Mississippi River at St. Louis, MO ....................................................................... 4-24 4.1.4.3 Vessel Populations Present in Upper Mississippi River at St. Louis, MO ....................................................................... 4-25

4.1.4.4 Habitat Modification and Rest oration in Upper Mississippi River at St. Louis, MO ......................................................... 4-25 4.1.4.5 Water Quality Impairments in Upper Mississippi River at St. Louis, MO ....................................................................... 4-26

4.1.4.6 Historic ANS Introductions and Impacts in Upper Mississippi River at St. Louis, MO ......................................................... 4-28 4.1.5 Ecosystem Status of St. Louis Ri ver Estuary/Duluth, MN RAA .......... 4-28 4.1.5.1 Ecosystem Description of St. Louis River Estuary/ Duluth, MN .......................................................................... 4-30 4.1.5.2 Major Land Uses Near St . Louis River Estuary/ Duluth, MN .......................................................................... 4-32 4.1.5.3 Vessel Populations Present in St. Louis River Estuary/Duluth,

MN ....................................................................................... 4-33

4.1.5.4 Habitat Modification and Rest oration of St. Louis River Estuary/ Duluth, MN ............................................................ 4-33 4.1.5.5 Water Quality Impairments in St. Louis River Estuary/ Duluth, MN .......................................................................... 4-34 4.1.5.6 Historic ANS Introduction and Impacts in St. Louis River Estuary/ Duluth, MN ............................................................ 4-36 4.1.6 Ecosystem Status of Sa n Francisco Bay Estuary/ San Francisco, CA RAA ........................................................................ 4-372013 VGP and sVGP BE Table of Contents

v 4.1.6.1 Ecosystem Description of San Francisco Bay Estuary San Francisco, CA ............................................................... 4-38 4.1.6.2 Major Land Uses Near San Francisco Bay Estuary/ San Francisco, CA ............................................................... 4-40 4.1.6.3 Vessel Populations Present in San Francisco Bay Estuary/ San Francisco, CA ............................................................... 4-41

4.1.6.4 Habitat Modification and Rest oration in San Francisco Bay Estuary/ San Francisco, CA ................................................. 4-41 4.1.6.5 Water Quality Impairments in San Francisco Bay Estuary/ San Francisco, CA ............................................................... 4-42

4.1.6.6 Historic ANS Introductions a nd Impacts in San Francisco Bay Estuary/ San Francisco, CA .......................................... 4-46 4.1.7 Ecosystem Status of Bisca yne Bay, Miami, FL RAA ........................... 4-46 4.1.7.1 Ecosystem Description of Biscayne Bay/ Miami, FL ............................................................................ 4-48 4.1.7.2 Major Land Uses Near Biscayne Bay/ Miami, FL ............................................................................ 4-49 4.1.7.3 Vessel Populations Presen t in Biscayne Bay/ Miami, FL ............................................................................ 4-50

4.1.7.4 Habitat Modification and Rest oration in Biscayne Bay/ Miami, FL ............................................................................ 4-50 4.1.7.5 Water Quality Impairments in Biscayne Bay/ Miami, FL ............................................................................ 4-51

4.1.7.6 Historic ANS Introductions a nd Impacts in Biscayne Bay/ Miami, FL ............................................................................ 4-52 4.2 Factors Affecting Current Status of Listed Species in RAAs ............................ 4-54

4.3 References .......................................................................................................... 4-90

SECTION 5 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Qualitative Effects Analysis on Pollutants Lacking Specific Concentration-Response Related To xic Effect Thresholds ................................. 5-1

5.1.1 ANS.......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1.1 What are ANS? ...................................................................... 5-2

5.1.1.2 Vessels as a Vector for ANS Introduction ............................. 5-4

5.1.1.3 Ballast Water Discharge ........................................................ 5-4

5.1.1.4 Vessel Biofouling................................................................... 5-8

5.1.1.5 Other Vessel Discharges Pote ntially Harboring ANS ......... 5-14

5.1.1.6 Mechanisms of Vessel-Mediated ANS Invasions ................ 5-14

5.1.1.7 Examples of ANS Invasions in the U.S. .............................. 5-18

5.1.1.8 Documented Impacts of ANS on Listed Species ................. 5-25

5.1.1.9 Conclusion Regarding Risk of ANS in Vessel Discharge

Vectors ................................................................................. 5-26

5.1.2 Pathogens ............................................................................................... 5-27

5.1.3 Oil and Grease ........................................................................................ 5-27

5.1.4 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) ................................................... 5-28

5.2 Methodology for the Quantitative E ffects Analysis of Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants w ith Toxic Effects ....................................................... 5-282013 VGP and sVGP BE Table of Contents

vi 5.2.1 Hypothetical Harbor and Estimation of Exposure Concentrations ........ 5-29

5.2.1.1 Hypothetical Harbor Scenarios ............................................ 5-30

5.2.1.2 RAA Loading Scenarios ...................................................... 5-32

5.2.1.3 Receiving Water Model Scenarios ....................................... 5-33

5.2.1.4 Exposure Concentrations ..................................................... 5-34

5.2.2 Effects Data and Estimation of Chr onic Toxicity Effect Thresholds and Representative RQs ......................................................................... 5-38

5.2.3 Direct Effects Analysis .......................................................................... 5-39

5.2.3.1 Basis of CTET Used to Support Direct Effects to Aquatic Listed Species from Water-only Exposure .......................... 5-41

5.2.3.2 Basis of CTET Used to Support Direct Effects to Aquatic Listed Species from Multiple Routes of Exposure .............. 5-42

5.2.3.3 Basis of CTET Used to Support Direct Effects to Aquaticdependent Listed Species ..................................................... 5-44

5.2.4 Indirect Effects Analysis ........................................................................ 5-46

5.2.5 Risk Conclusions for All Listed Species ............................................... 5-46

5.2.6 Uncertainties and Limitations in the Effects Analysis ........................... 5-49

5.2.6.1 Estimation of Exposure Concentrations Used to Support Effects Analysis ................................................................... 5-49

5.2.6.2 Selection of Chronic Toxicity Values Representative of the Sensitivity of Aquatic Organisms ........................................ 5-52

5.2.6.3 Use of Surrogate Species Effects Information for Listed Species ................................................................................. 5-53

5.2.6.4 Estimation of Risk for Aquatic-dependent Birds

and Mammals ....................................................................... 5-55

5.2.6.5 Representativeness of Results to Other Listed Species ....... 5-56

5.3 Pollutant-Specific Risk Summaries ................................................................... 5-56

5.3.1 Classical Pollutants ................................................................................ 5-57

5.3.1.1 Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) ............................................ 5-57

5.3.1.2 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ............................................. 5-62

5.3.2 Metals ..................................................................................................... 5-66

5.3.2.1 Aluminum (Total) ................................................................ 5-67

5.3.2.2 Arsenic (Dissolved and Total) ............................................. 5-73

5.3.2.3 Cadmium (Dissolved) .......................................................... 5-79

5.3.2.4 Chromium (Dissolved)......................................................... 5-85

5.3.2.5 Copper (Dissolved) .............................................................. 5-91

5.3.2.6 Lead (Dissolved) .................................................................. 5-98

5.3.2.7 Nickel (Dissolved) ............................................................. 5-104

5.3.2.8 Selenium (Dissolved and Total) ......................................... 5-110

5.3.2.9 Zinc (Dissolved) ................................................................. 5-116

5.3.3 Nutrient and Nutrient-related Toxicity ................................................ 5-122

5.3.3.1 Total Phosphorus ............................................................... 5-123

5.3.3.2 Total Ammonia Nitrogen ................................................... 5-126

5.3.4 VOCs and SVOCs................................................................................ 5-131

5.3.4.1 MAHs and PAHs ............................................................... 5-132

5.3.4.2 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate a nd 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ..... 5-1382013 VGP and sVGP BE Table of Contents

vii 5.4 Uncertainties in the Quantita tive Effects Analysis .......................................... 5-139

5.4.1 Uncertainty Variation Associated with Estimation of Chronic Toxicity .................................................................................. 5-140

5.4.2 Uncertainty and Evaluation of Ri sk from Possible Exposure to

Pollutant Mixtures ................................................................................ 5-142

5.5 Summary of Risk Conclusions for Li sted Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species and their Critical Habitats Represented within RAAs ........................ 5-145

5.6 References ........................................................................................................ 5-152

SECTION 6 ANTICIPATED EFFE CT OF PROPOSED ACTIONS ON

MITIGATING IMPACT TO LISTED SPECIES ........................................... 6-1 6.1 Mitigation of Risk to Listed Species from the VGP’s Control of ANS in Vessel Discharges ................................................................................................ 6-2

6.1.1 Mitigating Risk of ANS by Reduc ing Propagule Pressure ...................... 6-2 6.1.1.1 Predicting the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and

Risk of ANS Invasion and Establishment .............................. 6-3 6.1.1.2 Population Viability Anal ysis (PVA) Models ....................... 6-4 6.1.1.3 Use of PVA Models in the USCG Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ........................................... 6-4 6.1.1.4 Recommendations from the National Academy of Science Regarding the Use of Risk-Release Models .......................... 6-5

6.1.2 Reducing Propagule Pressure by Ba llast Water Management ................. 6-6 6.1.2.1 No Management of Ballast Water (Unmitigated discharge) .. 6-7 6.1.2.2 Interim Management Pre-2006 (Mandatory Ballast Water Exchange on the Great Lakes and Voluntary Exchange Nationwide)............................................................................ 6-7 6.1.2.3 Interim Management post-2006 (Mandatory Ballast Water Exchange and Flushing on the Great Lakes and Mandatory Ballast Water Exchange Nationwide) .................................... 6-8

6.1.2.4 IMO/USCG Ballast Water Mana gement (Numerical Discharge Standards) ............................................................................ 6-10

6.1.2.5 2013 VGP............................................................................. 6-12 6.1.2.6 Feasibility of More Stringent Numerical Discharge Limits for

the 2013 issuance of the VGP .............................................. 6-13 6.1.2.7 Evidence Supporting Effectiveness of Ballast Water Management ......................................................................... 6-14

6.1.2.8 Effectiveness of Ballast Wa ter Exchange and Flushing to Reduce Propagule Pressure in Fres h Waters vs. Coastal Waters (no osmotic shock benefit) ................................................... 6-15

6.1.3 Reducing Propagule Pressure by Biofouling Management ................... 6-16 6.1.3.1 Reducing the Biofouling Vector by Selection of Appropriate AFCs ................................................................ 6-18 6.1.3.2 Reducing Propagule Pressure from Underwater Cleaning ............................................................................... 6-19 6.1.3.3 Management of Biofouling in Seawater Cooling Systems .................................................................. 6-212013 VGP and sVGP BE Table of Contents

viii 6.1.4 Control of ANS Discharges in Chain Locker Effluent and

Fish Hold Effluent.................................................................................. 6-21

6.1.5 Inspection, Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping ......................... 6-22

6.1.6 Measures in the sVGP to Reduce Risk from ANS ................................ 6-23

6.1.7 Specific Examples of Anticipated Mitigation of Risk in Ballast Water by Permits .................................................................................... 6-23 6.1.7.1 Mitigation of Risk to Listed Species from a Freshwater

Macroinvertebrate: Case of the Bloody Red Shrimp ........... 6-24 6.1.7.2 Mitigation of Risk to Listed Species from a Saltwater

Macroinvertebrate: Case of th e European Green Crab ........ 6-25 6.2 Mitigation of Risk to Listed Species from Discharge of Pollutants Lacking Specific Concentration-Response Toxic Effect Thresholds .............................. 6-27

6.2.1 Pathogens ............................................................................................... 6-27

6.2.2 Oil and Grease ........................................................................................ 6-28

6.2.3 BOD ....................................................................................................... 6-29 6.3 Mitigating Risk to Listed Species from Vessel Discharges of Toxic and

Non-Conventional Pollutants with Toxic Effects .............................................. 6-29 6.4 Mitigating Risk to Listed Species from Coal Ash from Coal Fired Propulsion Systems on Ferries ........................................................................... 6-32

6.5 References .......................................................................................................... 6-32

SECTION 7 EFFECTS SUMMA RY AND DETERMINATION ......................................... 7-1 7.1 Methodology for Effects Determinations for ANS .............................................. 7-1 7.1.1 Example “Not Likely to Advers ely Affect” With Low Potential Exposure: Valley Elderberry Long Beetle ............................................... 7-2 7.1.2 Example “Not Likely to Adve rsly Affect” With Very Low Potential Exposure: Marbled Murrelet ..................................................... 7-37.1.3 Example “May Affect” Determination for ANS for an Aquaticdependent Species: California clapper rail .............................................. 7-4 7.2 Methodology for Effects Determinati ons for Pollutants Selected for

Detailed Evaluation .............................................................................................. 7-4 7.3 Effects Determination for All Species ................................................................. 7-7

SECTION 8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................. 8-1

SECTION 9 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS ............................ 9-1

Appendix A. Discharge-Specific Technology-ba sed Effluent Limits, Except Ballast Water, Required by the VGP for All Covered Vessels

Appendix B. Vessel Class-Specific Technology- based Effluent Limits Required by the

VGP for Select Permitted Vessels

Appendix C. Ballast Water Technology-based E ffluent Limits Required by the VGP for

All Covered Vessels2013 VGP and sVGP BE Table of Contents

ix Appendix D. Water Quality and Other Benchmark Values Used to Screen the Vessel Discharge Data

Appendix E. Methodology for Determining th e Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May Be Affected by the 2013 VGP and sVGP

Appendix F. Species Descriptions for Listed Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species from One of Seven RAAs Selected to Support Effects Analysis

Appendix G. Methodology for Hypothetical Harbor Modeling

Appendix H. Summary of RQs for Aquatic Multiple Routes of Exposure and Oral Ingestion by Aquatic and Aquati c-Dependent Wildlife Species

Appendix I. Basis of Critical Body Burden Calculations for Benzo(a)pyrene and Benzene Used as CTET to Calculate RQ A,M in Quantitative Effects Analysis2013 VGP and sVGP BE List of Tables

x LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 2-1. Population of Op erational, Domestic MISLE Ve ssels Potentially less than 79 Feet in Length by General Vessel Type ............................................................. 2-6

Table 3-1. Summary of VGP Vessel Attributes by Vessel Type ............................................. 3-4

Table 3-2. Number of Vessels <79 f eet in Length by Vessel Type ......................................... 3-8

Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select Vessel Discharges for Detailed Analysis for

the BE.................................................................................................................... 3-11

Table 3-4. Ballast Water Capacity for Vesse ls Selected for Detailed Analysis ..................... 3-25

Table 3-5. Estimated Bilgewater Discharge Ra tes for the Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis................................................................................................................. 3-25

Table 3-6. Estimated Deck Washdown Disc harge Rates for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis .................................................................................................. 3-26

Table 3-7. Estimated Propulsion and Generato r Engine Wet Exhaust Discharge Rates for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis ........................................................... 3-27

Table 3-8. Estimated Exhaust Gas Scrubbe r Washwater Discharge Rates for the Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis ................................................................. 3-29

Table 3-9. Estimated Fish Hold Effluent Di scharge Rates by Type of Fishing Vessel ......... 3-30

Table 3-10. Estimated Fish Hold Cleaning Effl uent Discharge Rates by Type of Fishing

Vessel .................................................................................................................... 3-3 0

Table 3-11. Estimated Graywater Discharge Rates for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis................................................................................................................. 3-31

Table 3-12. Estimated Volume of Stern Tube Packing Gland Efflue nt Discharge Rates for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis ........................................................... 3-32

Table 3-13. Pollutant Categories Associated with Vessel Discharges Selected for Detailed Analysis .................................................................................................. 3-33

Table 3-14. Average Nutrient Concentrations in Vessel Discharges at Levels Above Screening Level Benchmarks ............................................................................... 3-35

Table 3-15. Oil and Grease Concentrations Measured in Vessel Discharges Requiring Detailed Analysis .................................................................................................. 3-37

Table 3-16. Average Concentrations of Total Metals in Vessel Disc harges at Levels Above Screening Level Benchmarks .................................................................... 3-38

Table 3-17. Average Concentrations of Disso lved Metals in Vessel Discharges at Levels Above Screening Level Benchmarks ........................................................ 3-39

Table 3-18. Estimated Amount of Copper Leach ed from Anti-fouling Coatings Applied to Various Vessel Types ....................................................................................... 3-402013 VGP and sVGP BE List of Tables

xi Table 3-19. Average Concentrations of VO Cs and Total Residual Chlorine in Vessel Discharges at Levels Above Sc reening Level Benchmarks ................................ 3-41

Table 3-20. Average Concentra tion of sVOCs and PAHs in Ve ssel Discharges at Levels Above Screening Level Benchmarks .................................................................... 3-42

Table 3-21. Average BOD and TSS Concentrat ions in Vessel Discharges at Levels Above the Screening Level Benchmarks .............................................................. 3-43

Table 3-22. RAAs Selected to Support the BE Analysis and Water bodies and Ecosystems Represented ....................................................................................... 3-45

Table 3-23. Listed Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species in Respective RAAs .................. 3-47

Table 4-1. Area of Land Use Categorie s Within the Puget Sound Basin ................................ 4-5

Table 4-2. Causes for Impairment in Puget Sound Action Areas – 2008 ................................ 4-7

Table 4-3. Pollutants of C oncern in Puget Sound .................................................................... 4-9

Table 4-4. Causes for Impairment in Uppe r and Lower New York Bay RAA – 2010 .......... 4-14

Table 4-5. Aquatic Nuisance Species in the New York/New Jersey Harbors ....................... 4-15

Table 4-6. Causes for Impairment in Galveston Bay Area – 2008 ........................................ 4-20

Table 4-7. Aquatic Nuisance Spec ies in the Galveston Bay .................................................. 4-21

Table 4-8. Area of Land Use Categories with in Upper Mississippi River Reach 3 ............... 4-24

Table 4-9. Approximate Concentration (mg/L) of Contaminants near the Mouths of Select Upper Mississippi River Tributaries – 1993 to 1996 ................................. 4-26

Table 4-10. St. Louis River Habitat Pl an Habitat Type Descriptions ...................................... 4-30

Table 4-11. Major Land Us es of the SLRE .............................................................................. 4-32

Table 4-12. Wisconsin 303(d) list for the St. Louis River Area of Concern ............................ 4-34

Table 4-13. Minnesota 303(d) List for th e St. Louis River Area of Concern .......................... 4-35

Table 4-14. Aquatic Nuisance Species Current ly in the St. Louis River Estuary .................... 4-36

Table 4-15. California San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 2010 303(d) List ............................................................................................................. 4-43

Table 4-16. Sources of Select Po llutants of Concern in SFBE ................................................ 4-45

Table 4-17. Major Land Use of the South Miami-Dade Watershed ........................................ 4-49

Table 4-18. Verified List of Impaired Waters in the Biscayne Bay-Southeast Coast Basin .... 4-51

Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Stat us of Listed Species in RAAs ............................... 4-56

Table 5-1. Estimates of Invasive Species in Several Major Water Systems ............................ 5-3

Table 5-2. Concentration of Various Or ganism Types Reported in Unexchanged Ballast Water Sampled Upon Arrival of Ships to Particular Regions .................... 5-5

Table 5-3. River and Estuary Harbors Selected for Model Input Parameter Development ......................................................................................................... 5-302013 VGP and sVGP BE List of Tables

xii Table 5-4. Hypothetical Es tuary Harbor Scenarios and Input Values ................................... 5-31

Table 5-5. Hypothetical River Harbor Scenarios and Input Values ....................................... 5-31

Table 5-6. Average Daily Vessel Populat ion Equivalents in the RAAs ................................ 5-33

Table 5-7. Receiving Wate r Model Scenarios ........................................................................ 5-33

Table 5-8. Estimated Receiving Water Con centrations in a Hypothetical Estuary

Harbor ................................................................................................................... 5-35

Table 5-9. Estimated Receiving Water Concentra tions in a Hypothetical River Harbor ....... 5-36

Table 5-10. RQ Scale for Risk Conclusion and Overall Health Concern Determination ........ 5-40

Table 5-11. Listed Species Taxonomic Groupi ngs Based on Listed Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Species within the Seven RAAs .......................................................... 5-47

Table 5-12. Crosswalk for Surrogate Species Ty pe to Listed Species Taxonomic Group ...... 5-53

Table 5-13. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Residual Chlorine (freshwater) and Chlorine-produced Oxidants (saltwater) ............................................................... 5-59

Table 5-14. Risk Quotients Based on Division of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to TRC/CPO ................................................................................ 5-60

Table 5-15. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to TRC ........................................................................................................ 5-61

Table 5-16. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ........................ 5-64

Table 5-17. Risk Quotients Based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) ............................................... 5-64

Table 5-18. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to TSS......................................................................................................... 5-65

Table 5-19. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Aluminum ............................................. 5-69

Table 5-20. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to To tal Aluminum ...................................................................... 5-70

Table 5-21. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to Total Aluminum ..................................................................................... 5-72

Table 5-22. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Arsenic .......................................... 5-75

Table 5-23. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Th resholds of Representative Surrogate

Taxa to Arsenic ..................................................................................................... 5-772013 VGP and sVGP BE List of Tables

xiii Table 5-24. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Arsenic .................................................................................. 5-78

Table 5-25. Summary of Chr onic Toxicity Values for A quatic and Aquatic-dependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Cadmium ......................................................... 5-81

Table 5-26. Risk Quotients Based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Th resholds of Representative Surrogate

Taxa to Dissolved Cadmium ................................................................................. 5-82

Table 5-27. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Cadmium ............................................................................... 5-84

Table 5-28. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Chromium ...................................... 5-87

Table 5-29. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Dissolved Chromium............................................................... 5-89

Table 5-30. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Chromium ............................................................................. 5-90

Table 5-31. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Copper ........................................... 5-94

Table 5-32. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Dissolved Copper .................................................................... 5-95

Table 5-33. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in RAAs to Dissolved Copper ................................................................................... 5-96

Table 5-34. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Lead ............................................. 5-100

Table 5-35. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Dissolved Lead ...................................................................... 5-101

Table 5-36. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Lead .................................................................................... 5-103

Table 5-37. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Nickel .......................................... 5-106

Table 5-38. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Dissolved Nickel ................................................................... 5-107

Table 5-39. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Nickel .................................................................................. 5-109

Table 5-40. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Selenium ............................................. 5-1122013 VGP and sVGP BE List of Tables

xiv Table 5-41. Risk Quotients Based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Total Selenium ...................................................................... 5-114

Table 5-42. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to Total Selenium ..................................................................................... 5-115

Table 5-43. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Zinc .............................................. 5-118

Table 5-44. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Dissolved Zinc....................................................................... 5-119

Table 5-45. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Zinc ..................................................................................... 5-121

Table 5-46. Summary of St atewide and Site-specific (waterbody) Approved Water Quality Standards for Total Phosphorus across the United States ...................... 5-124

Table 5-47. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Lowest Water Qualit y Criteria for Total Phosphorus ........... 5-125

Table 5-48. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in RAAs to Total Phosphorus ................................................................................. 5-126

Table 5-49. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Ammonia Nitrogen ............................. 5-128

Table 5-50. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Total Ammonia Nitrogen ...................................................... 5-129

Table 5-51. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Critical Habitats in RAAs to Total Ammonia Nitrogen ..................................................................... 5-130

Table 5-52. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to MAHs and PAHs .......................................... 5-134

Table 5-53. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to MAHs and PAHs ................................................................... 5-136

Table 5-54. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Bis(2-et hylhexyl) phthalate ................................................... 5-138

Table 5-55. Summary of Chroni c Toxicity Effect Threshol ds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to 2,4,6-Trichlorphenol ..................................... 5-139

Table 5-56. Summary of Speci es-Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species in RAAs .................................................................. 5-141

Table 5-57. Sum of RQs for Metals Unde r Pre- and Post-Permit Conditions ....................... 5-144

Table 5-58. Sum of RQs for PAHs Under Post-Permit Conditions ....................................... 5-1442013 VGP and sVGP BE List of Tables

xv Table 5-59. Summary of Speci es-Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species in RAAs .................................................................. 5-147

Table 6-1. Estimated Percent Reduction in Pollutant Load Following Issuance of the

2013 VGP and sVGP ............................................................................................ 6-31

Table 7-1. Effects Determinations by Taxonomic Group for Pollutants Selected for

Detailed Evaluation ................................................................................................. 7-6

Table 7-2. Effects Determination for Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species that May Be Affected by the 2013 VGP and sVGP ............................................................... 7-82013 VGP and sVGP BE List of Figures

xvi LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 2-1. NOI Vessels by Vessel Type .................................................................................. 2-5

Figure 2-2. Estimated Number of Commercial Fishing a nd Non-Recreational Vessels Potentially Less than 79 Feet in Length Recorded in MISLE, by Vessel Service (Category) .................................................................................................. 2-7

Figure 4-1. Land Use and Physical Feature Map of Puget Sound/ S eattle, WA RAA .............. 4-4

Figure 4-2. Land Use and Physical Feature Map of Upper and Lower Bay/ New York,

NY RAA ............................................................................................................... 4-12

Figure 4-3. Land Use and Physical Feature Ma p of Galveston Bay/ Houston, TX RAA ....... 4-17

Figure 4-4. Land Use and Physical Feature Map of UMR at St. Louis, MO RAA ................. 4-23

Figure 4-5. Land Use and Physical Featur e Map of St. Louis River Estuary/ Duluth, MN RAA.................................................................................................. 4-29

Figure 4-6. Land Use and Physical Featur e Map of San Francisco Bay Estuary, CA

RAA ...................................................................................................................... 4-39

Figure 4-7. Land Use and Physical Feature Ma p of Miami/ Biscayne Bay, FL RAA ............ 4-47

Figure 5-1. Variables Altering the Probability of Establishment of ANS Released in

Ballast Water and Sediments. Processe s in the Right-hand Column Impact the Outcome of Survival, Reproduction and Establishment ................................. 5-152013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 1- B ackground and Purpose of Consultation

1-1 

## SECTION 1

BACKGROUND AND PURPOS E OF CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies are required to “insure that any action authori zed, funded, or carried out by su ch agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existen ce of any endangered or threaten ed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of any habitat of such species determined to be critical unless an exemption has been granted.” 16 U.S.C. § 15 36(a)(2). If the agency determines that the proposed actions may affect listed species or cri tical habitats, consultatio n with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively “the Services”) is required.

To comply with Section 7 of the ESA unde r regulation (50 CFR §402.14(c)), EPA must submit, with this request for formal consultation, the following:

 a description of the act ions being considered;

 a description of the specific area that may be affected by the actions;

 a description of any listed species or criti cal habitats that may be affected by the actions;

 a description of the manner in which the actions may affect any listed species or critical habitats, and an analysis of any cumulative effects;

 relevant reports, including any environm ental impact statements, environmental assessments, biological assessment or othe r analyses prepared on the proposal; and

 any other relevant studies or other information available on the actions, the affected listed species, or critical habitats.

EPA has prepared and is submitting this biol ogical evaluation (BE) in support of the Agency’s obligations under ESA Section 7 cons ultation. The BE was prepared using the best

scientific and commercial information available for pollutant discharges from vessels proposed to be regulated under two separate permit ac tions: the 2013 re-issuance of the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and a new (2013) Small Vessel Gene ral Permit (sVGP). The information was used by the Agency to determine whether the actions of issuing the two general permits is likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or designated critical habita ts; (2) jeopardize the continued existence of species that are proposed for listi ng; or (3) adversely modify proposed critical habitats or (4) result in no effect to listed species where applicable. EPA commenced informal consultation with both FWS and NMFS in early December 2011 on this issuance of the VGP. This BE is intended to suppor t the initiation of formal c onsultation, where appropriate.

This document has been subs tantially updated from a May 2008 draft BE to support the

initiation of formal consultation to reflect the Agency’s actions of the 2013 re-issuance of the VGP, as well as the new permit action of the propos ed sVGP. In addition, this BE uses new information found since completion of the 2008 BE , and includes revisions that respond to concerns expressed in written comments provided by FWS in their July 22, 2008 letter addressed to James Hanlon, Director of the USEPA Office of Wastewater Management, regarding the May 2008 Draft BE and related correspondence. Additionally, this BE uses new peer reviewed literature, government reports, and other information.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-1 

## SECTION 2

SCOPE OF PROPOSED ACTIONS

This section presents an overview of the actions that are the subject of this BE, consisting of two parts:

 The 2013 re-issuance of the Vessel General Pe rmit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels. 1

 The new proposed Small Vessel General Perm it (sVGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Less than 79 Feet.

2.1 L EGAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA ) provides that “the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful” unless the discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). Th e CWA defines “discharge of a pollutant” as “(A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous zone or ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A “point source” is a “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance” and in cludes a “vessel or other floa ting craft.” 33 U.S.C. 1362(14).

The term “pollutant” includes among othe r things, “garbage...chemical wastes...and industrial, municipal, and agri cultural waste discharg ed into water.” The Act’s definition of “pollutant” specifically excludes “sewage from ve ssels or a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces” within the meaning of CWA §312. 33 U.S.C. 1362(b).

One way a person may discharge a polluta nt without violating the Section 301 prohibition is by obtaining authoriz ation to discharge (referred to herein as “coverage”) under a Section 402 NPDES permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). U nder section 402(a), EPA may “issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combin ation of pollutants, not withstanding section 1311(a)” upon certain conditions required by the CWA.

An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a specified amount of a pollutant or pollutants into a receiving wa ter under certain conditions. Th e two basic types of NPDES permits are individual and general permits. The actions that are the subject of this BE are general permits. Under 40 CFR § 122.28, general permits may be written to cover categories of point sources having common elements, such as facilities that involve the same or substantially similar types of operations, that discharg e the same types of wastes, or that are more appropriately regulated by a general permit th an by individual permits. Courts have approved of the use of general permits. See e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle , 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977);

EDC v. USEPA , 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9 th Cir. 2003). A general permit is developed and issued by a permitting authority (in this case, EPA) and is subject to public comment. A general permit covers multiple facilities within a specific ca tegory for a specific period of time (not to exceed

1 The first VGP (2008 VGP) expires on December 19, 2 013. This second issuance of the VGP (2013 VGP) will replace that permit at that time, but will be issued as a final permit in November 2012.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-2 5 years), after which the permit e xpires. General permits may be re-issued. As with any permit, the CWA requires the general permit to contain technology-based effluent limits, as well as any more stringent limits when necessary to meet applicable state water quality standards.

2.1.1 VGP

In December 2003, a long-standing exclusion of discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the NPDES program b ecame the subject of a lawsuit in the U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of Ca lifornia. On March 30, 2005, that court determined that the exclusion exceeded EPA’s authority und er the CWA. Following submission of briefs and oral argument by parties and intervenors on the issue of a proper remedy, the District Court

issued a final order in September 2006 providing that:

The blanket exemption for discharges incide ntal to the normal operation of a vessel, contained in 40 CFR 122.3(a), shall be vacated as of September 30, 2008 [see Northwest

Envtl. Advocates et al. v. United States EPA , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 (N.D. Cal. 2006)].

EPA appealed the District Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit, and on July 23, 2008, the Circuit Court upheld the decision [see Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. EPA , 537 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2008)].

This meant that, effective December 19, 2008, except for those vessels exempted from NPDES permitting by Congressional legislation (v essel exemptions discussed in Section 2.1.2), discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels which were excluded from NPDES permitting by 40 CFR 122.3(a) were subject to CWA Section 301’s prohibition against discharging, unless auth orized by an NPDES permit. The CWA authorizes civil and criminal enforcement for violations of that prohibition an d allows for citizen su its against violators.

In response to the court decisions, EPA issued the VGP in December 2008. 2 Given the large number of vessels requiring NPDES permit c overage and the discharges common to these vessels, EPA believed that it made administrative sense to issue the general permit, rather than issuing individual permits to each vessel. The use of the general permit approach here allowed

EPA to allocate resources in an efficient manner and to provide more timely coverage, particularly in light of the time constr aints imposed by the Court’s vacatur.

The 2008 VGP went into effect in Decembe r of 2008 with an expiration date of

December 2013. The renewal of the VGP in 2013 includes improvements to the control measures implemented in the earlier 2008 VGP by making recommended changes and including additions based on information gathered during th e previous permit action. Section 2.3.1.4 of this document provides a brief summary of some of the key provisions included the 2013 VGP that differ from the current (2008) VGP.

2 Due to a subsequent extension of the vacatur date by the district court, NPDES pe rmits were not required for incidental discharges from VGP vessels until February 6, 2009.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-3 2.1.2 sVGP

In late July 2008, Congress enacted two pieces of legislation to exempt discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain type s of vessels from the need to obtain an NPDES permit. The first of these, entitled the Clean Boating Act of 2008, amended the CWA to provide that discharges incidental to the normal operatio n of recreational vessels were not subject to NPDES permitting, and instead, created a new regul atory regime to be implemented by EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard under new § 312(o) of the CWA. S. 2766, Pub. L. 110-188 (July 29, 2008). As defined in § 3 of that law, recreational vesse ls are defined as any ve ssel that is manufactured or used primarily for pleasure or leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person, but does not include a vessel that is subject to Coast Guard inspection and that is engaged

in commercial use or carries paying passengers. As a result of this legislation, discharges incidental to the normal operation of recreati onal vessels are not subject to NPDES permitting. EPA is currently developing regulations as dir ected under the Clean Boat ing Act for recreational

vessels. For more information on this action, please see: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/law sguidance/cwa/vessel/CBA/about.cfm

.

The second piece of legislation, P.L.110-299, provided for a temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting for discharges subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion from (1) commercial fishing vessels (as defined in 46 U.S.C. § 2101 a nd regardless of size) and (2) those other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. (July 31, 2008). The statute’s NPDES permitting moratorium ran for a two-year period beginni ng on its July 31, 2008 en actment date and was subsequently extended to December 18, 2013 by P.L. 111-215.

During the period of the moratorium, EPA studi ed the relevant discharges and issued a Report to Congress, entitled “Study of Discha rges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels a nd Other Non-Recreational Vessel s Less Than 79 Feet” in August 2010 (EPA, 2010). That report is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/v essels/reportcongress.cfm . To ensure that permit coverage is available to commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length in the event the moratorium expires, EPA has proposed the sVGP.

2.2 A FFECTED V ESSELS

The re-issuance of the VGP provides a mechanism for controlling the discharge of pollutants incidental to the normal operation of non-military, non-recreati onal vessels generally greater than 79 feet. The new sVGP provides a mechanism for controlling the discharge of pollutants incidental to the normal operation of non-military, non-recreationa l vessels 79 feet or less. The combination of vessels subject to the two permits operate on all “waters of the United States,” as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 as certa in inland waters and the territorial sea, which generally extends three nautic al miles (nm) from shore 3 . Note that the CWA does not require NPDES permits for vessels or other floating craft operating beyond the territori al seas, i.e., in the contiguous zone or ocean for their discharges in cidental to the normal operation of the vessel. See CWA Section 502(12)(B) and 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 (definition of “discharge of a pollutant”).

3 More specifically, CWA section 502(8) de fines “territorial seas” as “the belt of the seas measured from the line of the ordinary low water along that portion of the coast wh ich is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and exte nding seaward a distance of three (nautical) miles.”2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-4 2.2.1 Vessels Covered by the VGP

The types of vessels covered under the 2013 VGP are expanded from the 2008 VGP to include the approximately 2,000 large commercial fi shing vessels greater th an 79 feet included in the P.L. 110-299 permitting moratorium. Almost all of the newly covered large commercial fishing vessels are less than 300 gross tons 4 . Vessels currently covered under the 2008 VGP include: cruise ships, ferries, barges, mobile offshore drilling units, oi l tankers or petroleum tankers, bulk carriers, cargo ship s, container ships, other cargo freighters, refrigerant ships, research vessels, emergency response vessels, including firefighting and police vessels, and any other vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation. Vessels of the Armed Forces of the United States are not eligible for covera ge by this permit. While all non-recreational, nonmilitary vessels may seek coverage under this permit, the permit requirements are tailored for vessels that are at least 79 feet in length. A se parate, streamlined permit (the sVGP) is available

for vessels less than 79 feet. See Section 2.2.2 fo r discussion of vessels covered under the sVGP.

EPA used two existing databases (the Ma rine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) and Waterborne Transpor tation Lines of the Un ited States (WTLUS) databases) to create a mast er database to estimate the population (number and type) of domestically-flagged vessels subject to the VGP. EPA used the master database to obtain a comprehensive estimate of the domestic ve ssel population of approximately 60,000 vessels subject to the VGP. Using the Foreign Traffi c Vessel Entrances and Clearances (FTVEC)

database 5 , EPA estimates another approximately 12,400 fo reign-flagged vessels are also subject to the VGP requirements.

EPA compared this estimated vessel populati on to the 43,431 active Notices of Intent (NOIs) submitted under the 2008 VGP as of Augus t 2010 to fact check the accuracy of these estimates. The NOI database is useful to genera lly identify covered vessels by major vessel type, although the NOI database cannot be used alone to estimate the num ber of vessels covered by the permit. This is because only vessels greater than 300 gross tons or with the capacity to carry more than 8 cubic meters (m 3 ) of ballast water were requir ed to submit NOIs under the 2008 VGP. Therefore, there are vessels that were co vered under 2008 VGP that were not required to

fill out and submit NOIs.

The NOI form listed nine types of vessels under which the vessel ow ners/operators could classify their vessel. Of the 36,642 vessels for which EPA has more complete information (see Figure 2-1), 24,241 correspond with one of the follo wing eight types of ve ssels (in declining order of number of vessels represented): barges (of all types); oil or gas tankers; commercial fishing vessel (with ballast water); large crui se ships (500+ passengers ); large ferries (250+ passengers or more than 100 tons of cargo, e.g., cars, trucks, trains, or other land-based transportation); research vesse ls; emergency vessels; and medium cruise ships (100 to 499 passengers). Respondents for the rema ining 12,401 vessels that provided vessel

4 Only those vessels greater than 300 gross tons or with the capacity to carry more than 8 cubic meters of ballast water were required to complete an Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage under the VGP. Only 146 commercial fishing vessels submitted NOIs (see Figure 2-1). Note that both the proposed 2013 VGP and sVGP mandate that vessels owner/operators not required to submit an NOI to complete a Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection Form and keep it onboard their vessel.

5 The FTVEC database provides information on foreign vessels entering or clearing U.S. Customs ports in calendar year 2008, the most recent year for wh ich data are published (USACE, 2010).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-5 tonnage/ballast water capacity se lected “Other” as a ve ssel type and wrote in the specific type. Of the 12,401 “Other” vessels for which respondents submitted information, the owners/operators of 2,562 (21 perc ent) wrote in a designated type as requested by EPA, whereas the majority (9,839 owners/operators or 79 percent) did not. Cargo carriers (of all sorts, e.g., bulk carrier, roll-on/roll-off) comprised the vast majo rity of the “Other” vessels sub-classified as requested (2,044 vessels), followed by much fewe r tugs/tow boats (143), crew/supply/support vessels (115), chemical/oil tankers (83), barges (34), and passenger ve ssels (18). The specific subtypes of cargo carriers were dominated by: general cargo/not ot herwise specified (91 percent); car/truck carrier (3.6 pe rcent); refrigerated cargo (2.3 percent); log/lumber/woodchip carrier (1.2 percent); and roll- on roll-off cargo, cement, grain/ore and ore/oil (cumulatively less than one percent) (USEPA, 2012). See EPA’s VGP NOI Vessel Univ erse Summary Report (USEPA, 2012) and economic analysis for the VGP (USEPA, 2011) for more information about

the 2013 VGP vessel universe.

Figure 2-1. NOI Vessels by Vessel Type 6

6 Source: EPA NOI database, August 5, 2010. Note : Percentages are based on the total number of vessels within a given type out of the total 43,431 uniquely identified ve ssels in the NOI database. The rather large subset of 6,468 vessels within the “Uncertain” gr oup and identified as “Lacking Information” consist of those for which the information reported in the NOI database regarding vesse l tonnage or ballast water capacity was missing. These vessels were discussed further in Section 2.3 of the VGP NOI Vessel Universe Summary Report (USEPA, 2012), and have been excluded from the more detailed data summary and analysis included in Section 2.2 of that report. The 321 vessels identified as “Not App licable” were not analyzed in that re port because the tonnage and ballast water capacity reported in the NOI for these particul ar vessels are less than 300 gross tons and/or 8 m 3 , respectively. However, EPA noted that these vessels may have chos en to submit a NOI despite being smaller than these thresholds, or if the vessel is below 79 feet, may be s eeking coverage for the ballast water discharges only as

authorized in Part 1.2.1 of the 2008 VGP. Research Vessel, 82, 0.2%

Oil or Gas Tanker, 3,280, 7.6%

Medium Cruise Ship, 22, 0.1%

Large Cruise Ship, 127, 0.3% Barge, 20,410, 47.0% Large Ferry,

118, 0.3% Emergency Vessel,

56, 0.1% Commercial Fishing Vessel,

146, 0.3% Other, 12,401, 28.6%

Lacking Info,

6,468, 14.9%

Not Applicable, 321, 0.7% Uncertain,

6,789, 15.6% Number of Vessels2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-6 2.2.2 Vessels Covered by the sVGP

The sVGP addresses all vessels less than 79 feet in length, except recreational and military vessels, operating in a capacity as a me ans of transportation, that have discharges

incidental to thei r normal operation.

As they did for the VGP, EPA also estimated the population (number and type) of vessels subject to the sVGP. EPA estimates that th ere are between 118,000 to 140,000 vessels in the United States subject to the permitting moratorium established by P.L. 110-299 7 . Approximately 115,000 to 138,000 of these vessels are less than 79 f eet and subject to the sVGP. Approximately

half of these vessels are commerc ial fishing vessels involved in such activities as catching fish (e.g., longliner, shrimper, and trawler), fish processing 8 , fishing tenders, and charter fishing. The other half are distributed among a variety of vessel classes, including passenge r vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boats, harbor cruise ships, dive boats), utility vessels (e.g., tug/tow boats, research vessels, offshore suppl y boats), and freight barges.

Table 2-1 characterizes the popul ation of vessels potentially less than 79 feet in length

recorded in the U.S. Coast Guard’s MISLE databa se in terms of general vessel type: commercial fishing, other non-recreational, a nd unspecified. According to the MISLE database, and the total

number of small vessels tabulat ed in Table 2-1, there are 137,583 domestic vessels potentially eligible for coverage under the sVGP. Figure 2- 2 presents the MISLE population of operational,

domestic commercial vessels less than 79 feet in length according to several specific vessel service categories.

Table 2-1. Population of Operational, Domest ic MISLE Vessels Potentially less than 79 Feet in Length by General Vessel Type

Category Commercial Fishing Other

Non-Recreational Unspecified Total b

Less than 79 ft 54,176 32,799 15,011

Zero or Null a 13,537 9,696 12,364 Total (lower bound estimate) c 67,178 32,806 15,012 114,996 Total (upper bound estimate) d 67,713 42,495 27,375 137,583

Source: USEPA. 2011b. a) MISLE indicates a length of zero or the vessel length field is blank. b) Range indicates number of vessels when excluding (lower bound) vs. including (higher bound) vessels with zero or unknown length. Note that the estimates may in clude some vessels that are used in non-recreational service (e.g., commercial fishing or law enforcement) but that were manufactured as pleasure vessels. c) Includes a fraction of vessels with length reported as zero or null in the MISLE database, based on the share of vessels in the overall vessel population for each vessel type that are reported to be less than 79 feet (96% of commercial fishing vessels, 0.1% of other non-recreational vessels, and 0.0% of vessels of unspecified type). d) Assumes all vessels with length reported as zero or null in the MISLE database are less than 79 ft.

7 This range accounts for the exclusion and inclusion, resp ectively, of commercial fish ing, other non-recreational and unspecified vessels for which U.S. Coast Guard’s MISLE database does not record the length or for which the recorded length is zero. Note: under P.L. 110-299, the moratorium applied to all commercial fishing vessels regardless of length (approximately 69,944 vessels).

8 Seafood processing vessel discharges are an industrial activity; therefore, seafood processing activities are not eligible for coverage under this permit (or the VGP). EPA or state NPDES permitting authorities (as appropriate) issue separate NPDES permits for seafood processing vess els when they are engaged in this industrial activity.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-7 Figure 2-2. Estimated Number of Commercial Fishing and Non-Recreational Vessels Potentially Less than 79 Feet in Length Recorded in MISLE, by Vessel Service (Category) 9

The remainder of this section gives additional detail about vessels eligible for coverage

under the sVGP. For additional discussion about these vessels, please see EPA’s 2010 Vessels Report to Congress (USEPA, 2010).

2.2.2.1 Commercial Fishing Vessels

The approximately 54,000 to 68,000 commercial fi shing vessels less than 79 feet in length represent the largest cate gory of vessels potentially cove red by the sVGP. According to the vessel service categories used by the U.S. Coast Guard in MISLE, “commercial fishing

9 This figure is based on operational, U.S.-flagged comm ercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length reported in the U.S. Coast Guard’s MISLE databa se (2009). All information is compiled and presented in EPA’s 2010 Vessels Report to Congress (USEPA, 2010) on the study of discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial fishing vessels an d other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet. Note : Commercial fishing vessels also include fish processing vessels and fishing vessels . Passenger vessels include passenger (inspected ), passenger (uninspected), passenger barge (inspected), passenger barge (uninspected), and passenger ships . Public vessel, unclassified includes military and other public service vessels. EPA notes that military vessels are specifically excluded fr om NPDES permitting. Utility vessels include towing vessels (i.e., tugs), school ships, research vessels/ships, mobile offshore dr illing units, offshore vessels, offshore supply vessels, oil recovery vessels, and industrial vessels. Some vessel service categories did not fall into one of the listed categories. Therefore, based on the other classification fields (class, type, subtype), EPA determin ed an appropriate service

category.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-8 vessels” includes vessels involved in such activities as fish ca tching (e.g., longliner, shrimper, trawler), and charter fishing.

For purposes of the MISLE database, the U.S. Coast Guard generally describes commercial fishing vessels as incl uding fishing vessels, fish tende r vessels, and fish processing

vessels as follows:

 Fish processing vessel 10 means a vessel that commercially prepares fish or fish products other than by gutting, decapita ting, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing, or brine chilling.

 Fish tender vessel means a vessel that commer cially supplies, stores, refrigerates, or transports fish, fish products, or materials di rectly related to fishing or the preparation of fish to and from a fishing, fish processi ng, or fish tender vessel or a fish processing facility.

 Fishing vessel means a vessel that commerc ially engages in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish or an activity that can reasonably be expect ed to result in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish.

While there is some overlap in service us e for commercial fishing vessels and other vessel categories, such as passenger vessels (e .g., charter fishing), EPA assumed that the categorization used in MISLE ge nerally follows the U.S. Coast Guard definition of commercial fishing vessels (USEPA, 2010).

2.2.2.2 Other Non-recreational Vessels

The approximately 21,000 “passenger vessels” represent the second highest number of vessels less than 79 feet in lengt h. These vessels are further divi ded into subtypes according to the types of activities in whic h they are involved (e.g., diving vessels, charter fishing vessels, ferries, harbor cruise vessels, and sailing vessels ). The service category labeled “public vessel, unclassified” accounts for only approximately 700 vessels including lighthouse tender vessels, hospital ships, law enforcement vessels, and ice br eakers. The “utility vessels” category covers the remaining types of vessels, including tug/to w boats, school ships, research vessels/ships, mobile offshore drilling units, offshore vessels, o ffshore supply vessels, oil recovery vessels, and

industrial vessels. More than 11,000 vessels are classified as utility vessels in MISLE. 11 Freight barges (8,016 vessels), freight ships (768 vesse ls), tank barges (925 ve ssels), and tank ships (179 vessels) account for the remaining non-recr eational vessels covered under this permit.

2.3 S UMMARY D ESCRIPTIONS OF THE P ROPOSED P ERMIT A CTIONS

The requirements of the VGP and the sVGP are summarized in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. The information summarized and presented in these sections is from the 2013 VGP and sVGP proposed permits and corresponding fact sheets. In addition, specific mention of some of the key

differences between the 2008 VGP and the rei ssuance of the VGP in 2013 is included in

Section 2.3.1.4.

10 Please see footnote number # 8 discussing the applicability of the sVGP versus other NPDES permits to fish processing vessels.

11 Some vessel service categories did not fall into one of the listed categories. EPA determined an appropriate service category based on information provided in other vessel classification fields (class, type, subtype).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-9 2.3.1 2013 VGP

This general permit provides a mechanism fo r controlling the discharge of pollutants incidental to the normal operation of non-military, non-recreational vessels generally greater than 79 feet, that are operated as a means of transporta tion on inland waters and the territorial seas of

the United States. The VGP establishes effluent li mitations to control a va riety of pollutants and constituents of concern which, for the purposes of this BE, have been classified into major groups: aquatic nuisance species (ANS ), nutrients, pathogens (including E. coli and fecal coliform), oil and grease, metals, most c onventional pollutants (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), pH, and total suspended solids (TSS)), and other toxi c and non-conventional pollutants with toxic effects. Such materials are, depending on the particular vessel, constituents in the industrial waste, chemical waste and/or garbage “pollutant” discharge resulting from the activities of these vessels. Upon permit coverage, the permittee is responsible for complying with all effluent limits, inspection, monitoring, re porting, documentation and other requirements specified in the VGP (summarized in Section 2.3.1.3 of this BE).

Vessel owner/operators are required to meet the effluent limits applicable in Part 2 of the permit, as well as conduct corrective actions to remedy deficiencies and violations in Part 3. Part 4 of the permit lists visual monitoring, self-inspection, and reco rdkeeping and reporting requirements. Part 5 of the permit has additiona l requirements for certain vessel types (e.g., large and medium cruise ships, large fe rries). States, territories, and certa in tribes have the authority to require additional requirements under Section 401 of the CWA, which are incorporated into Part 6 of the 2008 permit. Like the 2008 VGP, EPA will incorporate State specific 401 certification requirement s into the 2013 VGP.

The summary below highlights the VGP’s vari ous control measures, which are designed to reduce or control discharges from regulated vessels so that both positive environmental impacts are realized and potential undesirabl e environmental effects (including effects to Federally-listed species and their critical habitats) from the seven major pollutant groups are

minimized to the maximum extent.

2.3.1.1 Vessel Discharges Eligible for Coverage Under the VGP

The discharges eligible for coverage under th e permit are those discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel covered by the excl usion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) prior to vacatur of that exclusion. Examples of disc harges eligible for coverage unde r the VGP include deck runoff, bilgewater, and ballast water (a fu ll list of eligible discharges is provided below). Some potential discharges are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and are not authorized under this permit. For example, intentionally adding used motor oil to the bilge tank would result in a bilgewater discharge that is not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and thus is prohibited by the permit. Furthermore, any discha rge that results from a failure to properly maintain the vessel and equipment, even if the disc harge is of a type that is otherwise covered by the permit, is not eligible for permit coverage an d constitutes a violation of the CWA. Discharges that are not covered by this permit or are exempt from Section 402 of the CWA must be covered under a separate individual or general permit.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-10 The 27 effluent streams listed below are discha rges incidental to th e normal operation of a vessel eligible for coverage unde r the VGP. These effluent stream s are described in detail in

Section 3.2.1 of this document (Vessel Discharge Selection):

 Deck Washdown and Runoff and A bove Water Line Hull Cleaning

 Bilgewater/Oily Water Separator Effluent

 Ballast Water

 Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings/Hull Coating Leachate

 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)

 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown

 Cathodic Protection

 Chain Locker Effluent

 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil-to-Sea Interfaces Including Lubrication Discharg es from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to

Immersion.

 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine

 Elevator Pit Effluent

 Firemain Systems

 Freshwater Layup

 Gas Turbine Washwater

 Graywater

 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge

 Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater

 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge

 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Including Non-Contact Engine Cooling Water, Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration Cooling Water)

 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention

 Boat Engine Wet Exhaust

 Sonar Dome Discharge

 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges

 Welldeck Discharges

 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels

 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge

 Fish Hold Effluent

Below are several discharge types that are not authorized by this permit. Hence, there is no risk associated with these discharges associat ed with this permit as they are not regulated by the VGP. The discharges are not authorized b ecause, among other things, the discharge is not within the scope of the current 40 CFR 122.3(a) ex clusion and/or not with in the scope of EPA’s NPDES permitting authority:

 Discharges not Subject to Former NPDES Permit Exclusion Including Vessels Being Operated in a Capacity other th an as a Means of Transportation

 Sewage from Vessels2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-11  Used or Spent Oil

 Rubbish, Trash, Garbage or Other Ma terials Discharged Overboard

 Photo-Processing Waste

 Effluent from Dry Cleaning Operations

 Discharges of Medical Wa ste and Related Materials

 Discharges of Noxious Liqui d Substance (NLS) Residues

 Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) Degreasers

 Discharges Currently or Previ ously Covered by Another Permit

2.3.1.2 Effluent Limitations Specified in the VGP 12

The CWA requires that all point source discharg es must meet technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs) representing the applicable levels of technology-based control. Water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) ar e required as necessa ry where the technologybased limitations are not sufficien t to meet applicable water qual ity standards (WQS). The use of

these two kinds of effluent limitations in th e VGP– technology-based an d water quality-based are briefly summarized in the following Subsections, 2.3.1.2.1 and 2.3.1.2.4.

2.3.1.2.1 Technology-Based Effluent Limits

EPA has determined that the non-numeric and numeric TBELs in this permit, taken as a whole, facilitate the reduction and/or elimina tion (to the extent achievable) of many of the pollutants in the permitted discharges. For all of the discharges in this permit, the TBELs are based on best professional judgment, as aut horized under CWA Section 402(a)(1) and 40 CFR 125.3. The TBELs are expressed as (1) general requirements applicable to all vessels, (2) discharge-specific requirement s applicable to all covered ve ssels that discharge them, and (3) vessel class-specific requireme nts applicable to all covered ve ssels in those vessel classes. For convenience, the discharge- and vessel class-specific TBELs are summarized in Appendices A and B of this BE, respectively, exce pt for ballast water, which are summarized separately in Appendix C.

2.3.1.2.2 Non-numeric TBELs

The general requirements applicable to al l vessels include (see Parts 2.1.1 through 2.1.6 in the VGP):

 Material Storage (Part 2.1.1)

 Toxic and Hazardous Materials (Part 2.1.2)

 Fuel Spills/Overflows (Part 2.1.3)

 Discharges of Oil, Includi ng Oily Mixtures (Part 2.1.4)

 Compliance with Other Statutes and Regula tions Applicable to Vessel Discharges (Part 2.1.5)

 General Training (Part 2.1.6)

12 EPA has summarized the requirements of the VGP for purp oses of the BE. However, please note that the VGP and the VGP fact sheet should be referenced to see the requ irements in full. If the summary presented in this section and the requirements of the VGP differ in any way from these summaries, the permit is the governing implementable document.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-12 In addition to these general requirement s, many other non-numeric TBELs require permittees to utilize specific best management practices (BMPs). Specifically, the VGP includes such non-numeric effluent limits developed for discharges for which the development and/or

calculation of numeric effluent lim its is infeasible at this time. These non-numeric TBELs are generally expressed in th e VGP as the following:

 Specific behavioral practices for minimi zing or eliminating the pollutants or constituents of concern in the discharge.

 Specific pollution prevention practices for mi nimizing or eliminating the pollutants or constituents of concern in the discharge.

 Narrative requirements to minimize polluta nts or constituents of concern in discharges or the discharges themselves. 13

 Limiting or eliminating discharges at certain times in protected waters for discharge types that can be limited or eliminated fo r short periods due to technology available on board the vessel and the vessel design (i .e., if the vessel can hold the discharge type for limited periods or reduc e production of the effluent).

2.3.1.2.3 Numeric TBELs

In some cases, such as with discharges of oil, including oily mi xtures, and graywater discharges from cruise ships (under certain circ umstances), numeric effluent limits have been established for the 2013 VGP to effectively reduce or eliminate specific pollutant constituents of concern (e.g., oil and grease, tota l residual chlorine). Additiona lly, the 2013 VGP proposes new, more stringent numeric TBELs to replace the no n-numeric limitations in the 2008 VGP for living organisms in ballast water 14 (see Appendix C). EPA has set the numeric effluent limit for ballast water as numbers of living organi sms per cubic meter of ballast water discharged (i.e., as a maximum acceptable concentration) because redu cing the concentration of living organisms will reduce inoculum densities of poten tial invasive species discharg ed in a vessel’s ballast water (NAS, 2011). As part of the permit reissuance, EP A has also established discharge limitations for

biocides and residuals in ballast wa ter discharges (see also Appendix C).

Owner/operators of vessels subject to the c oncentration-based numeric TBELs for ballast water may meet the TBELs in one of four ways:

 Discharge treated ballast wa ter meeting the applicable numeric limits (Part 2.2.3.5.5 of the VGP);

 Transfer of the ship’s ballast water to a third party for treatment at an NPDES permitted facility (which may be onshore or on another vessel such as a treatment barge);

 Use treated municipal/potable wa ter as ballast water; or

 Not discharging ballast water.

13 These types of effluent limits allow owner/operators to us e control measures appropriat e for their vessels to meet

these limits.

14 EPA’s proposed effluent limits for the discharge of living organisms is equivalent to the U.S. Coast Guard Phase 1 proposed discharge standard (USCG, 2009), which is roughly equivalent to the standard set forth in Regulation D-2 of the International Ballast Water Convention (IMO, 2008) (henceforth referred to as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) standard). These numerical limitations represent the most current and stringent standards that ballast water management systems can safely, effectiv ely, credibly, and reliably meet (EPA SAB, 2011).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-13 In addition, vessels enrolled in, and meeting the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) 15 , are deemed to be compliant with the permit requirements for ballast water treatment.

2.3.1.2.4 Additional Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

EPA generally expects that ve ssels that achieve the technology-based limits through the careful implementation of effec tive pollution control measures a nd BMPs included in the VGP are likely controlling their ve ssel discharges to a degree th at would make additional water quality-based controls u nnecessary. To ensure that this is the case, however, the permit includes water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) to c ontrol discharges as st ringently as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards wh ere the implementation of the technology-based requirements in the permit are not sufficient to meet the applicable receiving water’s water quality standards.

The WQBELs included in this permit ar e non-numeric. EPA relies on a narrative expression of the need to control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, and to employ additiona l controls where necessary to be consistent with applicable Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) in an approve d or established Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for impaired waters 16 , or to comply with a state or tribe’s anti-degradation policies. EPA believes this a reasonable approach for th e VGP because it has determined that it is infeasible to calculate numeric WQBELs limits for most vessel discharges at this time. EPA made every effort to identify generally appl icable BMPs beyond those already imposed on a technology basis for ballast water discharges; however, EPA was unable to do so with the exception of imposing a site-specific narrative WQ BEL on ballast water discharges for the Great Lakes. Additionally, vessels utilizing a ballast wa ter treatment system must also conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing (as applicab le) in addition to treati ng their ballast water if they meet the following requirements:

 The vessel operates outside the EEZ and more than 200 nm from any shore and then

enters the Great Lakes via the Sa int Lawrence Seaway System, and

 The vessel has taken on ballast water that ha s a salinity of less than 18 ppt from a coastal, estuarine, or freshwater eco system within the previous month.

If a vessel affected by these requirements has not taken on ballast wate r with a salinity of less than 18 ppt in the previous mont h, the master of the vessel must certify to this effect in their ballast water recordkeeping requirement s before entering the Great Lakes.

15 The STEP program has encouraged pioneering vessel owner/operators to install ballast water treatment systems, has contributed to the development of effective sampling methods, and allowed for the collection of valuable shipboard ballast water treatment data needed to evalua te the efficacy of ballast wa ter treatment systems. EPA believes that, as systems are developed and refined, the STEP program will play a valuable role in supporting the development of technologies which exceed the performance of the IMO standard, and thus, will play a key role in the development of a greater range of systems which can meet the limits in the 2013 VGP.

16 Impaired waters or “water quality limited segment[s]” ar e those identified by a state or EPA pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA as not meeting applicable state wate r quality standards. Impaired waters may include both waters with EPA-approved or EPA-established TMDLs, and those for which EPA has not yet approved or

established a TMDL.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-14 2.3.1.3 Inspections, Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping

Other permit requirements include vesse l inspections, discharge monitoring, and information reporting and recordkeeping.

Under Part 4.1.1 of the VGP, all permittees are required to conduct routine visual inspections, including co llecting and analyzing a quarterly sample of discharge streams for visible materials of concern, in cluding discoloration, visible sheens, suspended solids, floating solids, foam, or changes to clarity. Permitt ees are also required to conduct an annual comprehensive inspection of the vessel under Pa rt 4.1.3 of the VGP, with specific emphasis on those areas most likely to result in a discharge likely to cause or contribute to exceedences of water quality standards or violations of effluent limits es tablished in the VGP. As required by Part 4.2 of the proposed VGP, owner/operators mu st maintain records of findings from these inspections, as well as any require d analytical monitoring results, effluent limit violations or other noncompliance, and corrective actions take n. Additional recordkeeping requirements apply if the vessel is equipped with ballast water tanks (see VGP Part 4.3). In addition, permittees must report to EPA once per year any instan ces of noncompliance (see VGP Part 4.4.1).

EPA is also proposing that ce rtain types of vessels must conduct targeted analytical monitoring. For instance, in orde r to demonstrate treatment syst em effectiveness and continued maintenance and compliance with the permit, large and medium-sized cruise ships (as defined in the permit) must analyze treated graywater for specific constituents (i.e., E. coli , total phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate/nitrit e, and total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), BOD, fecal coliform, suspended solids, pH, and total residual chlori ne) (see Part 5.1 and 5.2 of the VGP). Similar analytical monitoring of treated graywater discharges is also required for any vessel that is constructed on or after December 19, 2013 and has a maximum crew capacity greater or equal to 10 and provides overnight accommodations to thos e crew or operates on the Great Lakes and is

not a “commercial vessel” as defined in CWA Section 3.12(a)(10) (see Part 2.2.15 of the VGP for details).

Analytical monitoring requireme nts also apply to vessels required to achieve other numeric effluent limitations of the proposed VGP, such as those employing ballast water treatment (see Part 2.2.3.5) or exhaust gas scru bber (see Part 2.2.26.1) systems that result in washwater discharges, as well as those covered vessels that discha rge treated bilgewater within 3 nm of shore (Part 2.2.2).

2.3.1.4 Summary of Most Significant Changes from 2008 VGP

The reissuance of the VGP in 2013 affords EPA the opportunity to expand the control measures implemented in the current 2008 VGP by making a variety of improvements based on information gathered during the previous perm it action. In response to a notice seeking public input on potential improvements for the 2013 VGP (p rior to the VGP’s proposal), EPA received written comments from more than 4,500 stakeholders. All comments submitted by the public are available at www.regulations.gov and can be found under dock et number "EPA-HQ- OW-2010-

0828".

In addition to the several changes based on co mments garnered from stakeholders, EPA, through additional information gathering and vi a information gleaned from implementation of the 2008 VGP, has made the specific changes listed below to better reduce and control pollutant2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-15 constituents from the following regulated discharg es. Note that the specific changes highlighted below are meant only to present major aspects of the new provisions, and do not encompass the entire scope of each control meas ure and its applicability to the various vessel types, discharges, and other aspects of coverage as stated in th e VGP. For more specific details regarding these provisions, see Appendices A through C in this BE.

2.3.1.4.1 Ballast Water

Under the 2013 permit revision, certain vesse ls will have to meet numeric treatment limits, whereas vessels did not have numeri c treatment requirements in the 2008 VGP. See Appendix C for further information.

2.3.1.4.2 Oil to Sea Interfaces

All new vessels constructed after 19 December 2013 must use environmentally acceptable lubricants (EALs) for relevant equipmen t and, if feasible, existing vessels constructed prior to that date must also use EALs.

2.3.1.4.3 Graywater

The 2013 VGP revision includes new mon itoring requirements for new vessels

constructed after 19 December 2013 and for all vessels with a crew of 10 or greater that provide overnight accommodations. The permit also provid es further clarification of requirements for “commercial vessels” operating on the Great Lakes. Additionally, soaps and detergents that will be discharged in graywater must now be both phosphate free and non-toxic and biodegradable. Finally, new monitoring requirements for E coli , total phosphorus, ammonia, and nitrate, nitrite and TKN have been added in addition to the pr evious monitoring requirements for BOD, fecal coliform, TSS, pH, total residual chlorine.

2.3.1.4.4 Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust

Vessels with two-stroke engines must now use environmentally acceptable lubricants if

feasible.

2.3.1.4.5 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge

Washwater from exhaust gas scrubbers must meet new numeric discharge limits, and vessels must comply with new monitoring requirements.

2.3.1.4.6 Fish Hold Effluent

Effluent from fish holds is a newly aut horized discharge under the 2013 VGP revision. Best management practices include minimizing disc harge of fish hold water and ice slurry while in port, using physical separation methods prio r to discharge, and specific prohibitions for discharge of unused bait and for land-based seafood processors.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-16 2.3.1.4.7 Coal Ash Slurry

The discharge of coal ash slurry from coal fired propulsion systems on large ferries is no longer an authorized discharge.

2.3.2 2013 sVGP Detailed Summary Description 17

This general permit controls the discharge of pollutants incidental to the normal operation of non-military, non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length (see Section 2.2.2 of this BE). Like the VGP, the sVGP is also establishes e ffluent limitations to control the variety of pollutants and constituents of concern, classifi ed into the seven major groups: ANS, nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, metals, most conve ntional pollutants, a nd other toxic and nonconventional pollutants w ith toxic effects.

All vessels authorized under the sVGP are required to meet the effluent limits applicable in Part 2 of the permit. Part 3 of the pe rmit lists recordkeeping and annual inspection requirements. Additional permit requirements such as the need for alternative permits, permit compliance, duty to provide information, inspection and entry are located in Part 4 of the permit.

2.3.2.1 Vessel Discharges Eligible for Coverage under the sVGP

The discharges eligible for coverage under th e sVGP are those discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel covered by the excl usion in 40 CFR 122.3(a) prior to vacatur of that exclusion and the moratorium on NPDES permitting enacted by Congress in P.L.110-299 and extended under P.L. 111-215 (see Section 2.2.2 in this BE). Any discharg e not subject to that exclusion as of December 18, 2008 is not authorized under the permit.

Discharges covered under this permit include: ballast water (for vessels with less than 8 cubic meters of ballast water capacity), gray water, bilgewater, deck runoff and fish hold effluent. For the purposes of this permit, not all vessel discharges are not authorized under this permit. These non-incidental discharges are de scribed in 40 CFR 122.3 and include discharges from industrial operations (e.g., s eafood processing), medical waste as defined in 33 § U.S.C. 1362(20), and noxious liquid substance residues subject to 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart A.

In the sVGP, permit requirements are organized by management group rather than specifically to each discharge st ream, as the VGP is organized. Recognizing that small

commercial vessels are substantiall y different in how they operate than their larger counterparts, the draft sVGP is shorter and simpler. The full list of discharges el igible for coverage under this permit fall into one of the eight discharge management groups below:

 Fuel Management

 Engine and Oil Control

 Solid and Liquid Waste Management

 Deck Washdown and Runoff and A bove Water Line Hull Cleaning

 Vessel Hull Maintenance

17 EPA has summarized the requirements of the sVGP for purp oses of the BE. However, if the summary presented in this section and the requirements of the sVGP differ in any way from these summaries, the permit is the governing implementable document.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-17  Graywater

 Fish Hold Effluent

 Ballast Water

Descriptions of these discharge management groups are provided in Section 4 of the

sVGP Fact Sheet.

2.3.2.2 Effluent Limitations Specified in the sVGP

For the purposes of the sVGP and consistent with the technology-based requirements of the CWA, EPA prescribes BMPs to reduce and/or eliminate, to the extent achievable, pollutants (e.g., ANS, nutrients, metals, toxics) in light of be st marine practice. EPA believes that for most small vessel discharges, minimizatio n of pollutants in those discha rges can be ac hieved without using highly engineered, complex treatment sy stems. For other vessel discharges, highly engineered, complex, treatments systems that are reliable and approved fo r use on vessels are not currently available. The specific limits include d in Part 2 of the sVGP emphasize effective pollution prevention controls. For example, th e sVGP requires that all cleaners must be phosphate free, non-toxic and biodegradable. EPA be lieves that simple product substitution of a more environmentally-friendly cleaner will result in impr oving the quality of the vessel discharges with little to no cost to the vessel owner/opera tor. A second example of a general requirement requires that vessel owner/operators minimize the discharge of any antifreeze into waters subject to the permit, and prohibits th e discharge of antifreez e with toxic or known carcinogenic additives. In other cases, they requ ire more complex behavioral practices such as avoiding or minimizing ballast wa ter uptake in areas with a high potential to contain harmful organisms and only discharging the minimal amount s of ballast water nece ssary in coastal and internal waters. In yet other cases, more advan ced treatment may be necessary. These controls are summarized below according to level of complexity.

The following technology-based effluent lim its (TBELs) apply to covered vessels according to each permitted discharge management group.

2.3.2.2.1 Fuel Management

Vessels conduct fueling operations on a rout ine basis (see Section 4.2 of the sVGP Fact Sheet). The required best manageme nt practices for fuel management in Part 2.2 of the sVGP are designed to minimize the amount of fuel releas ed to receiving waters by requiring preventive maintenance that minimizes the occurrence of leaks and spills and by preventing any spills and leaks from entering receiving waters. Thus, owner/operators of permitted small vessels must:

(a) prevent overfilling and not top off fuel tanks; (b) if the permitted vessel does not have a functioning fuel-air separator or a fuel tank vent, use an oil absorbent material or othe r appropriate device while fueling the vessel to prevent any oil from entering waters subject to the permit; (c) regularly inspect the fuel and hydraulic systems for any damage or leaks; and (d) unless impracticable, fill portable tanks ons hore, instead of on the dock or on the

vessel.

The sVGP also includes a requirement for a ny new motorized vessels (constructed on or after 19 December 2013) to have a functioning fuel-a ir separator or a fuel tank vent to prevent a2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-18 fuel spill. EPA has included this requiremen t for new vessels because the Agency found it economically practicable and achieva ble (BPT/BAT) for these vessels.

2.3.2.2.2 Engine and Oil Control

Routine maintenance of engines and generators includes periodic insp ection of the engine for leaks or other damage; repair and replacement of engine parts; changing the oil in the engine, generators, and gear boxes; lubr icating bearings on the steeri ng components; and flushing the cooling systems. It also includes inspection and maintenance of bilge pumps, oily water separators, and any areas of segregated bilge on board a vessel. In addition, the water that collects in the bilge must be pumped out periodi cally, and some external surfaces on vessels are lubricated and submerged in, partially submer ged in, or directly exposed to water (see Section 4.3 of the sVGP Fact Sheet). The lubr icants on these machinery and equipment come into contact with water by design and can contaminate ambient water.

The required BMPs for engine and oil conten t in Part 2.3 of the sVGP are designed to minimize the amount spills, leaks, or overflows of oil and other engine fluids released to receiving waters using practices that are simple and inexpensive to implement. Owner/operators of permitted small vessels must:

(a) periodically inspect the engi ne for any loose or leaking hoses, gaskets, and/or seals and if needed, repair or replace da maged parts as soon as possible; (b) place oil absorbent material or other spill response equipment under the vessel engine or use other preventative practices to minimize oil entering the bilgewater; (c) clean up any spill or overflow of oil or othe r engine fluids immediately via absorbent pads, pillows, or other mate rials kept onboard as appropria te for use in addressing or remediating any such spills or overflows. Supplies should be checked quarterly and restocked as necessary; (d) dispose of used oil-absorbent materials ons hore in containers designed for oily waste disposal; (e) if the vessel has a bilge oily water separator, periodically check for the presence of a visible sheen in surrounding waters while di scharging. If a visible sheen is observed as a result of this discharge, suspend di scharge until the problem is corrected and clean up immediately; (f) if the vessel does not use a U.S. Coas t Guard type-approved bilge oily water separator, use an oil-absorbent material to remove any oil from the bilge before discharging; (g) not discharge packing gland or stuffing box effluent containing oil, including oily materials, in quantities that may be harmful, i.e., produce a visible sheen of oil or oily materials. Also, check daily for the presen ce of a visible sheen while the vessel is operational and manned segregated water wh ich contains drips from packing gland effluent or stuffing box effluent, if accessi ble. If not accessible while the vessel is operational and manned, check the surrounding water for the presence of a visible sheen (while operating). If a visible sheen is observed, appropriate measures such as

the use of oil absorbent materials must be us ed to remove the presence of oil before the effluent may be discharged. (Note: Di spersants or emulsifiers that remove the appearance of a visible sheen cannot be used). If a vi sible sheen in observed in2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-19 surrounding waters as a result of this di scharge, suspend the discharge until the problem is corrected and clean up immediately; (h) use environmentally acceptable lubricants (as defined in Part 6 of this permit) in all machinery and equipment, including but not limited to stern tubes, wires, and twostroke engines, where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely to occur, unless technically infeasible; and (i) inspect the bilgewater for an oily sheen prio r to pumping the bilge, unless infeasible. While pumping the bilge, examine the surround ing water for the presence of a visible

sheen. If a visible sheen is observed as a result of this bilge pumping, suspend the discharge until the problem is corrected and clean up immediately. Dispersants, detergents, emulsifiers, chemi cals or other substances that remove the appearance of a visible sheen may not be added to the bilge.

2.3.2.2.3 Solid and Liquid Waste Management

Solid and liquid wastes such as trash or ga rbage, fishing waste, loose items on the deck, and toxic materials such as used antifreeze, pa int, and out-of-date flares, can enter receiving waters by intentional disposal or by accidental di sposal due to vessel movement, wind, or rain. Such wastes may contain oil and grease, pe troleum hydrocarbons, surfactants, detergents, glycols, solvents, and general debris. The requi red BMPs for solid and liquid waste management

in Part 2.4 of the sVGP will eliminate the release of these materials by preventing their entry into any permitted wastestream. Therefore, owner/operators of permitted small vessels must:

(a) prevent trash or garbage, incl uding food waste, cigarette bu tts, bottles, and caps from entering any waste stream covered by this permit. This can be accomplished in part, by maintaining a tidy deck; (b) have appropriate receptacles for retaini ng trash or garbage onboard the vessel. Examples of appropriate receptacles include secured trash bags or coolers, bins, or trash cans with secure lids; (c) store any used antifreeze, paint, out-of-date fl ares, or other toxics in secure containers and dispose of them properly at onshore disposal facilities; (d) secure or otherwise prevent loose items on deck from entering any waste stream covered by the permit; (e) prevent monofilament line, fishing nets, line s, lures, rope, bait boxes, and hooks from entering any waste stream covered by the permit.

2.3.2.2.4 Deck Washdown and Runoff and Abo ve the Water Line Hull Cleaning

Deck and above the water lin e hull cleaning are conducted on a routine basis on vessels (see Section 4.5 of the sVGP Fact Sheet). The required BMPs for deck washdown, deck runoff

and above the water line hull clean ing in Part 2.5 of the sVGP are designed to minimize the amounts of soaps and cleaners, garbage, debris , spills, residue, and paint chips released to receiving waters. Owner/operators of permitted small vessels must:

(a) use all soaps and cleaners as directed by the label; (b) any soaps, detergents, or cleaners used on the vessel must be non-toxic, phosphatefree, and biodegradable. The use of soaps th at are labeled toxic or highly toxic is prohibited;2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-20 (c) prevent the introduction of on-deck debris, ga rbage, residue, and spills into deck washdown and runoff discharges; and (d) minimize the discharge of paint chips a nd residue, especially during cleaning, maintenance, paint application, and reappli cation by collecting and then disposing of chips and residues onshore in accordance with applicable requirements for the facility where operations are performed.

2.3.2.2.5 Vessel Hull Maintenance

Vessel hull maintenance includes the repair, in spection, cleaning, or ot her maintenance of the underwater portions of the ve ssel hull (see Section 4.6 of the sVGP Fact Sheet). The required

BMPs for vessel hull maintenance in Part 2.6 of the sVGP are designed to reduce or eliminate discharges from anti-fouling coatings (AFCs) and to prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species. In order to comply with provisions in the sVGP for vessel hull maintenance, owner/operators of permitted small vessels must:

(a) if the vessel is equipped with an anti-f oulant system, minimize the impact of that system or the discharges resulting fro m anti-foulant paints on the aquatic

environment: (i) consider whether the use of non-copper based paints adequately meets the

vessel’s anti-foulant needs and uses le ss toxic alternatives to the extent practicable and available; (ii) where drying or hull cleaning at hull-out is adequate for managing fouling (e.g., for vessels that are hauled frequently or for over-winter storage), do not use anti-fouling coating if not needed. (iii) since there is a zero-discharge standard for tributyltin (TBT) in the permit, either have no TBT coatings, or, have an effective overcoating that completely eliminates TBT discharges; (b) not clean anti-foulant paint which releases biocides for the first 90 days after application; (c) if the anti-foulant paint requires cleaning, ge ntly clean hulls on a regular basis (this minimizes the need for stronger clea ners and more abrasive brushes); (d) use only soft sponges when cleaning hulls co ated with anti-fouling paint while the

vessel is in the water. Examine the water wh ile cleaning to assure that the practice is not causing a plume of paint to form. Stop im mediately if any visible plume of paint appears in the water. Consider hiring a qualified, professional hull cleaner to do the work, and ensure they follow environmental guidelines; (e) when cleaning hulls coated with anti-fouling paint while the vessel is out of the water, ensure work always occurs away from the water in a location where paint chips and

dust will not be washed into the water. Als o, place a tarp under the area to catch loose particles, and properly dispose of pain t chips, dust, and other particles, and , if working in an area that is covered by an NPDES permit (e.g. marina or drydock), follow the cleaning requirements of that permit; (f) periodically inspect vessel hulls, and if necessary, clean to prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species; (g) minimize the transport of any visible livi ng aquatic organisms from one waterbody to another by regularly cleaning a nd maintaining the hull; and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-21 (h) prior to transporting the vessel from one waterbody to another overland, inspect the

visible areas of the vessel fo r any attached or visible st owaway living organisms. If organisms are found, remove and appropriate ly discard onshore. Removed organisms may not be discharged into wa ters subject to the permit.

2.3.2.2.6 Graywater

Graywater is water from showers, baths, si nks, and laundry facilities (see Section 4.7 of the sVGP Fact Sheet). The primary sources of graywater on vessels are sinks. Larger vessels may have additional graywater sources such as clothes washers, dishwashing machines, water fountains, showers, and tubs. The largest vessel s may have wastewater from additional sources, such as floor drains, ice machines, food garbage grinders, interior deck drains, hot tubs, and pools.

The required BMPs for graywater in Part 2.7 of the sVGP are designed to reduce the amount of graywater generated, reduce the amount of graywater discharged into sensitive water bodies, and lessen the environmental impacts of a ny graywater that is discharged. To comply with the provisions in this permit, owner/operators of small permitted vessels must:

(a) minimize graywater discharges in areas th at have heavy vesse l traffic or heavy recreational use and in marine sanctuaries, national wildlife refuges, national wild and scenic rivers, and national wilderness areas, a nd, if the vessel has the capacity to store graywater in these waters, it should be stored and later discharged in other waters or onshore; (b) minimize the production of graywater while the vessel is stationary in confined waters (e.g., marinas, harbors), and, if the vessel has the capacity to store graywater,

it should be stored and discha rged at an appropriately equipped onshore facility or discharged while the vessel is underway; (c) use soaps, detergents and cleaners th at are phosphate free, non-toxic and biodegradable for any activitie s that may result in their introduction into graywater;

and (d) not add excess oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils, used during cooking to the graywater system or into any ot her discharge covered by the permit.

2.3.2.2.7 Fish Hold Effluent

Commercial fishing vessels use different methods to keep seafood fresh after it is caught.

Most seafood is either dead wh en brought onboard or is killed s hortly thereafter, before being stored in a refrigerated seawat er holding tank, with the exception of certain shellfish (e.g., crab, lobster), which must be kept alive. The two most common methods of cooling seawater are by mechanical refrigeration or by adding ice. Mech anical refrigeration is common on tenders, purse seiners, and trawlers, while chi pped and slurry ice tanks are more common on trollers, longliners, gillnetters, and some trawlers. See Section 4.8 of the sVGP Fact Sheet for additional information.

The required BMPs for fish hold effluent in Part 2.8 of the sVGP are common practices that are easily implemented by vessel owner/opera tors, and are designed to reduce the amount of fish hold effluent discharged into sensitive wate r bodies and to lessen the environmental impact fish hold effluent that is discharged. The ow ner/operators of permitted fishing vessels must:2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-22 (a) if unloading catch at a shore-based seafood pr ocessor or other pier and a shore-based discharge facility is available and econo mically achievable, discharge effluent (including dirty ice) to that shore-based facility instead of discharging to surrounding

waters; (b) not discard any unused bait overboard, unless that bait was caught in that waterbody or watershed; (c) not discharge unused bait purchased fr om a bait shop or dealer overboard; (d) minimize the discharge of fish hold water or ice while in port; all reasonable steps must be taken to prevent th e discharge of excess fish hold water and ice while the vessel is stationary at the pier. If solid fish waste is contained in th e fish hold effluent, the fish hold effluent may not be disc harged while in port, unless a physical separation method is used (e.g., filt ers or removal of residuals); (e) when cleaning the fish hold, use non-toxic, phosphate-free, and biodegradable soaps and cleaners; and (f) while pierside and stationary, not wash a ny residual solids into surrounding waters.

2.3.2.2.8 Ballast Water

Vessels with a ballast water capacity of 8 c ubic meters or greater are not authorized to discharge under the sVGP, and must instead seek coverage under the VGP. EPA believes that it is not practicable and economically achievable (BPT/BAT) for vessels with less than 8 cubic meters or greater ballast water capacity that di scharge ballast water to install a ballast water treatment system (BWTS) and therefore, those ve ssels are more appropri ately controlled by the technology-based requirements outlined in Part 2.9 of the sVGP, which requires owner/operators

of small vessels with ballast water to:

(a) avoid the discharge or uptake of ballast wa ter in areas within, or that may directly affect, marine sanctuaries, marine preserve s, marine parks, shellfish beds, or coral reefs; (b) minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in the following areas and situations: (i) areas known to have infestations or populations of harmful organisms and pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms), (ii) areas near sewage outfalls, (iii) areas near dredging operations, (iv) areas where tidal flushing is known to be poor or times when a tidal stream is known to be turbid, (v) in darkness, when bottom-dwelling organi sms may rise up in the water column, (vi) where propellers may stir up the sediment, (vii) areas with pods of whales, converg ence zones, and boundaries of major

currents; (c) discharge only the minimal amount of ballast water essential for vessel operations if discharge of ballast wate r into waters covered by this permit is necessary; (d) when feasible, use one of the following meas ures to reduce the potential for transfer or introduction of organisms to waters of the U.S.: (i) use potable water for ballasting. (ii) utilize onshore treatment or disp osal methods for ballast water. (iii) for vessels that conduct fixe d routes, capture and reuse ballast water in each

port.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-23 2.3.2.3 Additional Water Quality-Ba sed Effluent Limitations

The sVGP includes water quality-based efflue nt limits (WQBELs) to control discharges as stringently as necessary to meet applicab le water quality standa rds. The provisions of Part 4.11 of the sVGP constitute the WQBELs for this permit, and supplement the permit’s technology-based effluent limits in Part 2. Wh ere the implementation of the technology-based requirements in this permit are not sufficient to meet the applicable receiving water’s water quality standards, the permittee may be subject to further WQB ELs. Prior to or after permit issuance and authorization to discharge, EPA may require additional WQBELs on a site-specific basis, or require the permittee to obtain c overage under an individual permit. Additional WQEBLs may be required if in formation in the NOI, required re ports, or from other sources indicates that, after meeting th e technology-based limits in Parts 2 and the WQBELs in Part 4.11, the facility is causing or c ontributing to an excursion a bove water quality standards. 18

2.3.2.4 Recordkeeping and Quarterly Inspections

Pursuant to CWA section 308 and 402(a)(2), 40 § CFR 122.43(a), and other applicable implementing regulations, the sVGP requires recordkeeping and an quarterly inspection (Parts 3.1 and 3.2). For the recor dkeeping requirement, vessel owne r/operators must maintain a signed paper copy of the Permit Authorizati on and Record of Inspection Form (PARI) 19 onboard the vessel. EPA, or EPA’s authorized represen tative, may use this form to determine basic compliance with the permit, including whether the owner/operator has read the terms of the permit and whether the owner/operator has cond ucted annual inspections as required by the permit. The form must be produced for EPA or EPA’s authorized representative upon request (see Part 4.5 of the sVGP).

For the quarterly inspection requirements, ve ssel owner/operators must include a detailed, thorough inspection of areas of the vessel that ar e difficult to inspect on a more regular basis, such as the vessel hull. The sVGP also requ ires that vessel owner/operators conduct an inspection on areas, which if not properly maintain ed or if damaged, are more likely to result in environmental degradation (e.g., protective seals, machinery). The quarterly inspection does not require the vessel be placed out of the water or into a drydock. The quarterly visual inspection of the vessel is intended to highlight problem areas of the vessel that may need additional attention. This allows the Master, owner, or operator to establish and implement additional procedures applicable to problem areas to reduce future problems. To this end, the routine quarterly inspection requires that all polluti on control equipment be inspected to ensure it is functioning properly. This requirement provides a reminde r and opportunity to complete maintenance activities on onboard equipment. The owner/opera tor is responsible fo r conducting a thorough inspection and taking corre ctive actions based on that inspec tion. To aid in determining permit compliance, each quarterly visual inspection must be recorded on the PARI Form. The form must be signed by the person conducting the inspection and must include basic information relating to the inspection and any corrective actions ta ken as a result of inspection findings.

18 See footnote #16.

19 A PARI is a Permit Authorization and Record of Insp ection Form (PARI) for vessels which need not complete NOIs, i.e., vessels less than 300 gross tons and do not have the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters (2,113 gallons) of ballast water.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-24 2.3.3 Summary of Findings from Other Legal Requirements Relevant to the Permit

Actions in this BE

As part of preparing the VGP and sVGP, EPA conducted additional evaluations of the impact of vessel discharges regulated under the VGP and sVGP on aquatic ecosystems. The most

relevant of those evaluations were conduc ted to fulfill require ments under the NPDES regulation’s Ocean Discharge Criteria and th e Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, respectively. EPA’s found that the issuance of the new sVGP and vessels’ applications for renewed coverage under the 2013 VGP are not expected to result in the lowering of water quality. In fact, EPA’s e xpectation for the water bodies evaluated ((i.e., the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the ocean and essen tial fish habitat, resp ectively) is that the issuance of the two permits should improve wa ter quality as vessels carry out the permit’s technology-based requirements.

2.3.3.1 Ocean Discharge Criteria

The Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart M) establish regulations for issuance of NPDES permits for discharges into th e territorial seas, the contiguous zone and the

ocean as these terms are defined in the CWA. Under 40 CFR 125.123(a), if EPA, on the basis of available information determines prior to permit issuance that the discharges authorized will not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine e nvironment, EPA may issue an NPDES permit, which may be conditioned as nece ssary to assure that the discha rge will not cause unreasonable degradation. After consideration of the Ocean Di scharge Criteria, EPA has determined that the discharges authorized by the NPDES permit into the territorial seas in accordance with permit requirements will not cause unreasonable degrada tion of the receiving waters for the following reasons (as provided in the VGP Fact Sheet):

1) The discharges authorized by the permit are limited to those discharges incidental to the normal operation the vessel, and except for ballast water and graywater from cruise ships, typically will be of limited volumes. In a ddition, because vessels in the territorial seas are likely to be underway as part of their voyage, any discharges

incidental to their norma l operation would typically be well-mixed upon discharge before they are subject to further disper sal and transport bey ond the area of the vessel’s operation.

2) In the case of ballast water, the VGP contains interim conditions (Part 2.2.3 of the VGP) related to exchange of ballast wate r and saltwater flushing of empty ballast tanks beyond the outer limits of the territori al seas to reduce the risk of introduction of invasive species resulti ng from vessel discharges to water of the United States

within territorial seas. EPA believes that these controls will prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment.

3) With respect to graywater from cruise sh ips, the permit also includes (Parts 5.1 and 5.2 of the VGP) additional conditions to reduc e the impacts of graywater discharges to acceptable levels. EPA believes that th ese provisions will prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-25 4) In developing the permits, the Agency has taken into consideration that discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels subject to the permits have the potential

to be contaminated with oil or other potentially persistent or bioaccumulative pollutants. The permits therefore contains a number of BMPs intended to avoid or reduce the potential for such contamina tion (e.g., Section 2.1 in the VGP and 2.2 and 2.3 in the sVGP). In addition, the permits require compliance with all federal

environmental laws that establish controls on oily or hazardous discharges, including among others, CWA section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321 ), the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 190-1915), the Federal Inse cticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. ), and the Oil Pollution Cont rol Act , 33 U.S.C. 2701-2761. EPA believes that these controls will prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine

environment.

5) The Agency also has taken into account the biological communities and receiving waters that would be exposed to the discharges incident al to the normal operation of vessels that will be authorized by the permits . This consideration has necessarily been complicated by the fact that vessels have the potential to traverse vast distances in the territorial sea while discharging. The Agen cy has taken an approach of identifying potentially sensitive areas in which vesse ls may operate and providing for additional controls when discharges occur in such areas. In addition to requiring compliance with marine sanctuaries provi sions of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C.

1431 et seq

. ) and implementing regulations found at 15 C.F.R. Part 922 and 50 C.F.R. Part 404 (Part 2.1.5), the permits include other conditions to impose additional controls and requirements on covered discharges in sensitive receiving waters.

6) These permits apply to discharges to the outer limit of the three mile territorial sea. State water quality standard s also apply within these waters and the permit thus contains effluent limitations as necessary to meet those applicable water quality standards. In addition, EPA has requested states’ certification s under section 401 of the CWA, and requested concurrence on EP A’s consistency determination for this permit from state coastal management agen cies, in accordance with section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Additional conditions have been incorporated into Part 6 of the VGP and Pa rt 5 of the sVGP, pur suant to CWA section 401, CZMA section 307(c), and implem enting regulations. Under 40 C.F.R. 125.122(b), EPA presumes that discharges in compliance with st ate water quality

standards will not to cause unr easonable degradation of th e marine environment with respect to specific pollutants or conditi ons specified in such standards.

2.3.3.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultations

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation an d Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), established pr ocedures to identify, conserve, and enhance essential fish habitat (EFH); that is, essen tial habitat for species regulated under a federal fisheries management plan (FMP). The Act requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions, or proposed actions, au thorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that might adversely affect EFH. Upon review, EP A has determined that issuance of this final permit will have no adverse effect on EFH because the VGP and sVGP will impose, CWA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 2- Scope of Proposed Actions

2-26 effluent limitations on discharges incidental to the normal ope ration of the vessel universe subject to the permits.

2.4 R EFERENCES

National Academy of Sciences National Re search Council (NAS). 2011. Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and In vasion Risk in Ballast Water. Committee on Assessing Numeric Limits for Living Organi sms in Ballast Water, National Research

Council. National Academies Press.

USEPA. 2010. Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incident al to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non Recreational Vessels less than 79 feet. EPA 833-R-10-005, U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2011. Economic and Benefits Analysis of the 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2012. Summary of the VGP Vessel Universe: Information Submitted by Vessel Owner/Operators for Coverage under th e Vessel General Permit (VGP). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-1 

## SECTION 3

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION APPROACH

Barring statutory changes, the VGP and sVGP will regulate incidental discharges from tens of thousands of vessels that operate and discharge in a variety of water bodies across the U.S. and its territories. The objectiv e of the BE is to provide a r obust assessment of the potentialeffects vessel discharges permitted by the VGP and sVGP may have on aquatic and aquaticdependent threatened and endangered species pres ent in all U.S. waters. EPA’s overall approach, developed in coordination with th e Services, is to evaluate in detail the risk posed by vessel discharges on an informative subset of lis ted aquatic and aquatic-dependent species in representative areas. EPA will use the risk conclusions from the representative areas to inform risk determinations for these sp ecies and their critical habitats, as well as the remaining listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent spec ies and critical habitats presen t in U.S. waters that may be affected by the proposed actions. EPA’s general approach for the BE includes the following

steps:

1) An initial focus on the most predominant vesse l types for detailed analysis in the BE;

2) Determining the most significant discharges from these vessels and their associated pollutants;

3) Identifying representative aquatic ecosys tems across the United States where an informative range of vessel types are likely to discharge;

4) Assess the risk to the listed a quatic and aquatic-dependent sp ecies and critical habitats that occur in those ecosystems posed by a range of assumed pollutant loads from incidental vessel discharges cove red under the VGP and sVGP; and

5) Use the risk analysis and conclusions fr om those ecosystems and vessel types to

inform effects determinations for other li sted aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and critical habitat that may be affected under the VGP and sVGP.

EPA used the following criteria to select th e most analytically us eful vessel types (see Section 3.1) for the BE:

 Number of vessels in each type;

 Vessel tonnage;

 Ballast water capacity;

 Number of crew and passengers onboard;

 Use on on-board treatment system(s); and

 Use of anti-fouling hull coatings.

These criteria inform the potenti al of incidental discharges from vessels to impact the aquatic environment. Based on the results from this assessment, EPA identified the following vessel types for detailed analysis : barges, bulk cargo carriers, co mmercial fishing vessels, large ferries, medium and large cruise ships, oil and gas tankers, passenger vessels such as tour boats and water taxis, and utilit y vessels such as tug and tow boats and supply ships.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-2 EPA’s selection criteria incl uded the volume of the discha rge, the concentration of pollutants in the discharge, and the number of vessels dischargi ng that discharge. In general, large volume discharges containing pollutants or other constituents of concern with toxic or other environmental effects, such as ballast water co ntaining aquatic nuisance species (ANS), are of much greater concern for risk assessment purposes than sma ll volume discharges containing relatively low levels of pollutants with toxic or other effects, such as distillation concentrate. This is because large volume discharges with high er pollutant concentrations have the potential to discharge greater amounts of po llutants with the potential to ca use environmental effects into a water body. EPA believes discharges that genera lly have combinations of low volume, low pollutant concentrations, and that are generated by relatively few ve ssels are expected to generate insignificant or discounta ble risks, if any.

EPA selected specific pollutant categories 1 in vessel discharges for detailed analysis in the BE to span a wide range of possible type s (e.g., toxics, nutrients, ANS) and modes of environmental effects. Therefore, EPA believes the pollutant categories provide an insightful, broad representation of the entirety of material s present in vessel discharges regulated by the proposed permits (see Section 3.2.3). The polluta nts and pollutant categories include: ANS, nutrients, pathogens, oil and greas e, metals, toxic organics, and most conventional pollutants. After considering pollutant categories and in formation regarding discharge volumes, EPA

determined that the BE should focus on anti-foul ing leachate from hull coatings, ballast water, graywater, bilgewater, deck washdown, exhaust gas scrubber wa shwater, fish hold effluent, graywater, stern tube discha rges, and engine effluent.

EPA used the following criteria for selecti ng the representative geographical locations (see Section 3.3), referred to as reference action areas (RAAs):

 Each RAA should be geographically distinct from each other;

 Combined, the RAAs incorporate a compre hensive range of fresh- and saltwater habitat types;

 The RAAs should harbor a significant number of aquatic and aquatic-dependent listed species spanning a comprehens ive range of trophic levels, biological taxa (plants, invertebrates, vert ebrates), and ecological niches; and

 Each RAA has a “Home Port” or “Port of Call” involving numer ous large and small commercial vessels in unique combinations that provide a comp rehensive range of pollutant discharge profiles.

In addition to meeting these f actors above, two additional, complementary RAA locations were suggested by Services staff during the informal consultation phase of this consultation and incorporated into the BE analysis (i.e., San Francisco and Miami).

Based on these criteria, EPA selected the fo llowing seven geographical locations for the BE analysis:

 Duluth, Minnesota (Lake Superior harbor);

 Houston, Texas (Galveston Bay);

1 When used in this analysis, pollutant categories also includ e ANS, which for purposes of the VGP and sVGP, EPA considers a

constituent of concern.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-3  Miami, Florida (Biscayne Bay);

 New York, New York (Upper and Lower bay);

 San Francisco, California (San Francisco Bay);

 Seattle, Washington (Puget Sound); and

 St. Louis, Missouri (M ississippi River).

EPA then determined the listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their designated critical habitats present in each of these locations (see Section 3.4).

The remainder of this section details the sele ction approach for vesse l types, discharges, RAAs and listed species/critical habitats.

3.1 V ESSEL T YPES R EQUIRING D ETAILED A NALYSIS

This section describes EPA’s rationale for selecting vessel types for the BE analysis.

VGP vessels and sVGP vessels are discussed se parately. Vessel selection criteria include primarily the number of vessels within a type, vessel size, th e number of persons on board, treatment systems on board, and hull husbandry activities.

3.1.1 VGP Vessels

EPA estimates that there are approximately 58,600 domestically flagged vessels that would be covered by the VGP; additionally, EPA estimates that approximately 12,400 foreign flagged vessels would be covered by the VGP (USEPA, 2011a). The primary source of information used to characterize these vessels and their discharges is EPA’s Notice of Intent (NOI) database. Part 1.5.1.1 of the VGP requires owne rs or operators of vessels that are greater than or equal to 300 gross tons, or that have the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 cubic meters (m 3 ) (2,113 gallons) of ballast water, to submit a complete and accurate NOI. 2,3 The NOIs provide EPA useful information about the vessels and the characteristics and conditions of their discharges. The information provided in th e NOIs (as submitted by owners/operators who applied for coverage under the VGP during the peri od of June 1, 2009) is relevant to this BE, and as such, is used throughout the remainder of this subsection to generally desc ribe the attributes of

the VGP vessels in the context of their significance to the later effects an alysis (Section 5.0).

2 A NOI is not required for vessels less than 300 gross tons that do not have the capacity to hold or discharge more than 8 m 3 of ballast water; these vessels that are VGP e ligible receive coverage under the permit an d are authorized to discharge in accorda nce with the conditions set forth within the VGP when they complete the Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection (PARI) form and retain it onboard. In evaluating the universe of covered ve ssels, EPA identified a logical distinction between larger and smaller vessels. The limited range of discharge types from smalle r vessels and the reduced likelihood for the introduction of significant quantities of toxic and conventional pollutants make requiring an NOI for the smaller vessels to be of little value at this time. In addition, EPA has access to ot her sources of data available for identify ing discharges from vessels covered by th e permit, including state registration information, MARAD vessel calls, U.S. Coast Guard registra tion and customs records, and

data from the National Ballast Water Inform ation Clearinghouse. See Section 3 of the VGP fact sheet for additional discussion.

3 Additional information for these vessels not submitting NOIs was obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database (USCG, 2009) , and EPA’s 2010 Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Co mmercial Fishing Vessels a nd Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet. (Currently, a Congressional moratorium initiated by Public Law 110-299 and subsequently extended by Public Law 111-215 exempts all incidental discharg es, with the exception of ballast water, from co mmercial fishing vessels and non-recreational, n onmilitary vessels less than 79 feet in length from having to obtain a Clean Water Act permit until December 18, 2013.)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-4 NOI Respondents were require d to provide detailed information for each uniquely identified vessel according to th e following four subcategories of vessel characteristics data:

 Vessel General Characteristics and Voyage Related Information – vessel subtypes; tonnage, length, and age; date of last dry dock; home/most frequented port; and crew/passenger size.

 Ballast Water and Treatment Related Information – ballast water capacity; ballast water management plan, tank cleaning and sediment disposal; and experimental ballast water treatment systems and asso ciated discharge of residual biocides.

 Vessel Discharge and Treatment System Related Information – applicable discharges and onboard treatment systems a nd the wastestreams they are designed to

treat.

 Anti-fouling Hull Coatings and Related Information – type of coating, interval since last application, and hull husbandry practices, incl uding the frequency with which the practices are implemented.

Table 3-1 summarizes key attributes for the various vessel types c overed under the VGP. Each of these vessel types is desc ribed in greater detail below.

Table 3-1. Summary of VGP Vesse l Attributes by Vessel Type

Vessel AttributeBargesOil and GasTankersLarge CommercialFishingaLarge CruiseShipsLarge FerriesMedium CruiseShipsBulk Cargo andOther CarriersResearch VesselsEmergency Vessels

Estimated Number of Vessels 20,410 3,280 2,326 b 127 118 22 2,044 82 56 Median Vessel Tonnage (gross tons) 705 24,908 1,997 53,526 1,451 4,584 15,939 1,780 563

Median Ballast Capacity (m 3 ) 206 23,893 1,388 3,136 404 364 10,198 425 332

Median Maximum Persons

Aboard 4 22 29 3,455 559 315 25 41 16

Percentage of Vessels with On-board Treatment Systems (%) 1 78 41 79 45 50 61 78 43

Percentage of Vessels Using Anti-fouling Hull Coatings (%) 4 80 85 84 86 82 65 95 96

Source: EPA’s NOI Report (USEPA, 2011e), unless otherwise specified. a) Large commercial fishing vessels are thos e greater than 79 feet in length. b) Source is USCG MISLE database, 2009.

3.1.1.1 Barges

Barges represent the greatest number of vessels permitted under the VGP, with 20,410 uniquely identified vessels. Barges are large, flat -bottomed boats typically used to move cargo in inland waterways. There are many types of barg es, including hopper barges, chemical barges, fuel barges, crane barges, dry bulk cargo barges, etc. Barges are usually not powered vessels, but are instead pushed or pulled by tugboats. Because of their relatively small size (vessel tonnage),2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-5 ballast capacity, and maximum persons aboard, most discharges incidental to the normal operation of these vessels are of limited concern. Due to the relatively large number of barges, however, detailed consideration of permitted discharges from barges is warranted for this analysis.

3.1.1.2 Oil and Gas Tankers

Oil and gas tankers represent the second great est number of vessels permitted under the VGP, with 3,280 uniquely identified vessels. Oil tankers are designed to carry oil and other petroleum products in bulk tanks. Oil and gas ta nkers are large utility vessels, second only to large cruise ships in size (median tonnage e qual to approximately 25,000 gross tons). Moreover, the median ballast water capacity of thes e vessels is very relatively large (24,000 m 3 ). Nearly all oil and gas tankers also use anti foulant coatings to reduce attachment of organisms to the vessel hull. Because of the prevalence of oil and gas ta nkers at certain ports, their overall size, their large ballast water capacity and likelihood they are engaged in l ong distance voyages, and their use of AFCs, this particular category of vessels warrants detailed analysis.

3.1.1.3 Large Commercial Fishing Vessels

Large commercial fishing vessels are those greater than 79 feet in length that are engaged in the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish, crab s, lobster, shrimp, or other aquatic organisms

for commercial sale. The MIS LE database (USCG, 2009) indi cates there are 2,326 commercial fishing vessels larger than 79 feet in length that are eligible for coverage under the VGP. 4 The median ballast water capacity of th ese vessels is moderately high (1,388 m 3 ), as is the number of crew/passengers aboard. Commercial fishing vess els generate fish hold and fish hold cleaning waste streams that are unique to commercial fish ing vessels, and these waste streams have been shown to contain relatively hi gh concentrations of conventio nal pollutants and nutrients (USEPA, 2010). Since most large commercial fi shing vessels are concentrated in a limited number of home ports, and since fish holds ar e frequently discharged and cleaned by vessel crews between catches, large commercial fishing ve ssels also warrant detailed analysis for this BE. (Note that industrial operati ons from vessels used as seafo od processing facilities are not subject to the VGP because these operations are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel engaged in a capacity of transportation).

3.1.1.4 Large Cruise Ships

Large cruise ships are the largest vessels ( by size) covered under the VGP. Median vessel tonnage (53,526 gross tons) is approximately twi ce that of even the large oil and gas tankers. While the actual number of large cruise ships seeking coverage under the 2008 VGP is low (only 127 vessels), the number of crew and passengers aboard is relatively high - approximately 3,500 per vessel. Because of the large number of crew and passengers living on-board cruise ships, graywater generation can average nearly 600 m 3 /day (158,500 gal/day). Median ballast water capacity of large cruise sh ips vessels is moderate (3,136 m 3 ). A high percentage of large

4 Public Law 110-299 subsequently extended by Public La w 111-215 provided for a temporary moratorium on NPDES permitting for all commercial fishing vessels. The moratorium on NPDES permitting for commercia l fishing vessels expires on December 18, 2013 and therefore all commercial fishing vessels larger than 79 feet will be required to obtain permit coverage

under the VGP in the event the moratorium is not extended.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-6 cruise ships also use AFC. Moreover, since aesthetics are important to the industry, deck washdowns may be performed more frequently on cr uise ships than other t ypes of vessels. All of these factors support detailed considerati on of large cruise ships in this BE.

3.1.1.5 Medium Cruise Ships

Medium cruise ships are those ships author ized to carry 100 to 499 passengers for hire and provide overnight accommodations to t hose passengers. Although onl y 22 medium cruise ships are included in EPA’s NOI database, these ve ssels are relatively larg e, ranging in size from approximately 1,500 gross tons up to 5,000 gross tons , and have ballast capacities ranging from approximately 350 to 400 m 3 . With passenger and crew capac ities up to 499 persons, medium cruise ships have the potential to generate mo re than 20,000 gallons/day of graywater. Untreated graywater from medium cruise sh ips has been shown to contain similar pollutants to those in untreated graywater discharges from large cr uise ships (ADEC, 2006 and ADEC, 2007a). In addition, most medium cruise ships use AFC to pr event biofouling of the vessel hull. Because of these issues, medium cruise ships warrant detailed consideration in this BE.

3.1.1.6 Large Ferries

Large ferries are vessels for hire that are designed to carry passenge rs and/or vehicles between two ports, usually in in land, coastal, or nearshore wa ters. For purposes of the VGP, large ferries are those ferries aut horized to carry a) more than 100 tons of cars, trucks, trains, or other land-based transportation or b) 250 or more people. Large fe rries usually travel the same route several times a day but do not provide overnight accommodations to their passengers. Because many ferries can travel the same rout e several times per day, they can discharge pollutants from a variety of sources (e.g., graywa ter, bilgewater, and seawater engine and exhaust cooling) to same water body. Because of these potential discharges, large ferries warrant detailed analysis in this BE.

3.1.1.7 Cargo [Bulk] and Other Carriers

Cargo carriers (e.g., bulk carrier, freighters, roll-on/roll-off, c ontainer ships) comprise the majority of the “Other” vessels classified in the NOI database. The attributes of this group of vessels are similar to those of the oil and gas tankers in terms of vessel size (median tonnage equal to approximately 16,000 gross tons) and median ballast water capacity (10,198 m 3 ). Approximately 61 percent of the owners/operato rs of these vessels reported using on-board treatment systems to treat the various waste st reams aboard the vessels, and fewer use AFC. Their ballast water capacity and prevalence at cert ain ports warrant detail ed analysis of these

vessels in the BE.

3.1.1.8 Emergency and Research Vessels

The emergency and research vessels types in clude relatively few numbers of vessels and are relatively small in size, ballast capacity, a nd number of passengers/crew. Additionally, these vessels do not tend to engage on longer voyages wh ere they can serve as a vector for invasive species (exceptions on voyage movements include large research vessels such as those operated by NOAA and the maritime services industry). Fu rthermore, the areas of operation for these vessels are not centrally located in any one home port or region. For these reasons, EPA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-7 considers discharges from these vessels to be discountable for purposes of the Endangered Species Act and does not consider that these vesse l types warrant extensive analysis in the BE.

3.1.2 sVGP Vessels

EPA estimates that between 115,000 and 138,000 vessels may be covered by the sVGP. Approximately half of these vessels are commercial fishing vessels involved in such activities as fish catching (e.g., longliner, shri mper, and trawler), fish proce ssing, fishing tenders, and charter fishing. The other half are di stributed among a variety of ve ssel types, including passenger vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boa ts, harbor cruise ships, dive bo ats), utility vessels (e.g., tug/tow boats, research vessels, offshore supply boats), and freight barges (USEPA, 2011b). The primary

source of information used to characterize th ese vessels and their discharges is EPA’s Study Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incident al to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing

Vessels and Other Non-recreati onal Vessels Less than 79 Feet (USEPA, 2010). In conducting this study, EPA sampled discharges from a total of 61 vessels in nine vessel types. To select vessel types for evaluation, EP A first developed a list of co mmercial vessel types based on published information and the EPA team’s existing understanding of vessels. Next, EPA narrowed the sampling scope to focus largely on t hose vessel types believed to consist primarily of vessels less than 79 feet in length. Some examples of vessel types on which EPA did not focus, due to their size, include cable laying ships, cruise ships, large ferries, oil and petroleum tankers, and freight ships/barges (because most vessels in these types are typically greater than 79 feet in length). Next, EPA eliminated vess el types outside the scope of study vessels, including stationary seafood processing vessels and vessels that can be secured to the ocean floor for mineral or oil exploration (because the industr ial discharges from these vessels were outside the scope of the previous 40 CF R Part 122.3(a) exclusion). After eliminating these vessels, the following common vessel types were selected for evaluation:

 Commercial fishing vessels and tenders (all major types, e.g., seiners, trawler, trollers),

 Tugs/towing vessels,

 Water taxis/small ferries, and

 Tour boats.

Table 3-2 summarizes key attr ibutes from USCG’s MISLE 5 database for the following three types of sVGP vessels, which encompa ss the priority vessel types listed above:

 Commercial fishing (seine rs, trawlers, trollers)

 Passenger (excursion/tour boats, water taxis)

 Utility (tow/salvage boats, tugboats, supply boats)

The fourth type of sVGP vessels , public vessels, generate sim ilar discharges as other sVGP vessels but are relatively few in number. Like Emergency and Research vessels covered under the VGP, the areas of operation for these vessels are not centrally located in any one home port

5 The U.S. Coast Guard’s Marine Informa tion for Safety and Law Enforcement (MIS LE) database provides a wide range of information regarding vessel and facility characteristics, accidents, marine pollution incidents, and other pertinent informati on tracked by the U.S. Coast Guard. The USCG MISLE database pr ovides information on a wide en semble of vessels, including identification numbers, vessel category, si ze, area of operation, passenger and crew capacity, propulsion method, construction material and design, and year built or age.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-8 or region and the smaller public vessels do not generally undertake l ong voyages. For these reasons, EPA considers discharges from these vesse l types to be discountable for purposes of the Endangered Species Act and does not consider that public vessels warrant extensive analysis in

the BE.

While VGP and sVGP vessels have similar ve ssel operations and processes and generate similar incidental discharges, VGP discharges greatly exceed those of sVGP vessels on a per vessel basis due to their larger size and greater likelihood for generating a larger range of discharge types. For example, Section 3.2.2 be low compares VGP and sVGP vessel discharge flow rates on a per vessel basis. However, the significantly greater number of sVGP vessels (between 115,000 and 138,000 vessels) as compar ed to the number of VGP vessels (71,000 domestically and foreign flagged ve ssels) warrant selection of sVGP vessels for detailed analysis for this BE. Appendix D of the Report to Congr ess presents additional vessel characterization information, including summaries of vessel subtyp es, the hailing port of domestically flagged vessels, and information on construction and pr opulsion of these vessels, including the vessel age, hull material type, propulsion method and type, and horsepower ahead (rated power of a vessel’s engine). Vessel age generally indicates the type and performance of equipment used onboard and the characteristics of discharges from this equipment. Type of hull material affects the type of AFCs that are applied and has imp lications on vessel discharges. For example, steelhulled vessels often have an anti-corrosive as we ll as anti-foulant coati ng. Self-propelled vessels that use mechanical propulsion methods have one or more engines, propeller shafts, and propulsion fuel tanks, all of which would affect the characteristics of discharges under normal operations. Finally, engine power may determine the amount and characteristics of discharges from operating vessels by affecting the size, type, and complexity of onboard propulsion equipment.

Table 3-2. Number of Vessels <79 f eet in Length by Vessel Type

Vessel Type Other Primary Type Description Number of Vessels

Commercial Fishing Vessel Fish Catching Vessel a 67,090 Fishing Catching/Processing Vessel 178

General 174 Motor Propelled Vessels 155 Fishing Support Vessel 116

Passenger Vessel General 12,559 Charter Fishing Vessel 2,053
Excursion/Tour Vessel 1,233 Diving Vessel (Recreational) 305

Water Taxi 298

Public Vessel, Unclassified General 145 Law Enforcement (Non-military) Vessel 47 Buoy/Lighthouse Tender 16

Search and Rescue Vessel 14 Patrol Ship 102013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-9 Table 3-2. Number of Vessels <79 f eet in Length by Vessel Type

Vessel Type Other Primary Type Description Number of Vessels

Utility Vessel Towing Vessel (includes tugboats) 7,372 Offshore Supply 650 Research Ship 488 Barge 396 School Ship 60
Source: Modified from Table B.1 in Report to Congress (USEPA, 2010) based on U.S. Coast Guard MISLE database, 2009. a) Fish catching vessel numbers from sVGP Fact Sheet an d include those from MISLE database that indicated a length of zero or the vessel length field is blank. Fish catching vessels do not include processing vessels, general, motor propelled vessels and fishing support vessels.

3.2 V ESSEL D ISCHARGES M ERITING D ETAILED A NALYSIS

This section describes EPA’s rationale fo r selecting for detailed evaluation various discharges incidental to the normal operation of the VGP and sVGP vessels. The section also provides estimated discharge volume by discharg e for use in calculating pollutant discharge loadings.

3.2.1 Vessel Discharge Selection

EPA used the following three general criteria to select the subset of discharges incidental to the normal operation of VGP and sVGP ve ssels of greatest significance to the BE:

1) Number and types of ve ssels discharging; 2) Discharge volume and frequency; and 3) Types of pollutants and their con centrations in vessel discharges.

EPA used a “high” (or in the case of polluta nts “potentially high” ) or “low” screening

level classification scheme in ev aluating vessel discharges based on the best available data and information including scientific literature, governmen t publications, and direct experience with vessel discharges. EPA used the “potentially hi gh” classification for pollutants so that the Agency could take a more conservative approach with this category (i.e., determine types of pollutants could be considered “potentially hi gh” based upon empirical evidence, limited data sets, or in the face of uncertainty). Using this approach, EPA conducted a case-by-case analysis, where we used best professional judgment, signi ficantly informed by this screening level rating system to evaluate whether the discharge should be selected for detailed an alysis for the BE. The examples below describe the analysis.

Example 1: Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent and Other Oil/Water Interfaces– Stern tube packing gland effluent and effluent from oil/water interfaces are generated on many vessels having inboard engines and propell er shafts that protrude thr ough the bases of the stern below the water line or have rudders, rudder bearings and lubricated equipment below the water line (Number of Vessels Discharging = High). Altho ugh the stern tube effluent volume (2 to 4 gallons per day) is low, it is generated near ly continuously while th e vessel is operating (Discharge Volume and Frequency = High). Stern tube packing gland effluent , together with the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-10 discharge associated with oil/water interfaces, may contain metals, oil and greases, suspended solids and phthalates (Amount and Types of Pollu tants Present in the Discharge = Potentially High). The stern tube packing gla nd effluent and discharges from other oil/water interfaces were selected as a discharge that warran ts detailed analysis in the BE because it received a “high” or “potentially high” score for a ll three screening categories.

Example 2: Firemain Discharges - Firemain sy stems are available on most vessels covered by the VGP and sVGP (Number of Vess els Discharging = High). While firemain systems can generate large volumes of water dur ing use, these systems are seldom used for fighting fires or even testing (Discharge Volu me and Frequency = Low). In addition, firemain systems use ambient water (e.g., seawater) for fighti ng fires, and most of the pollutants measured in the firemain discharge can be attributed to the ambient water (Amount and Types of Pollutants Present in the Discharge = Lo w) (USEPA, 2010). Therefore, firemain discharge was not be selected as a discharge that warrants detailed an alysis for the BE because it received a “high” or “potentially high” score for only one of the thr ee screening categories and that category was the number of vessels discharging – EPA expects both the pollutants contained within the discharge and the volume of the discharge to both be disc ountable for purposes of the Endangered Species Act. (Note that firemain discharges resulting from use of the firemain for deck washing as considered deckwash.)

Table 3-3 lists each of the incidental vessel discharges and screening level information used to select discharges for detailed anal ysis. As shown in Table 3-3, EPA selected the following nine discharges as warranting detailed analysis. Accordingly, these discharges will serve as the basis for determining the pollutants/ constituents upon which the effects analysis and

effects determinations in this BE will be primarily based.

 Anti-Fouling Leachate from Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings

 Ballast water

 Bilgewater

 Chair locker effluent

 Deck washdown

 Engine wet exhaust effluent

 Exhaust gas scrubber washwater

 Fish hold and fish hol d cleaning effluent

 Graywater

 Stern tube packing gland effluent and discharges from other oil/water interfaces

 Underwater ship husbandry discharges2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-11Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Anti-Fouling Leachatefrom Anti-Fouling HullCoatingsAnti-fouling coatings are applied to the vessel hull and seawater piping systems to limit attachment of aquatic species.Virtually all vessels that are permanently kept in saltwateruse anti-fouling coatings. Biocides such as copper containedin anti-fouling coatings continuously leach into surroundingwaters.High HighbPotentially HighbYesAqueous Film FormingFoam (AFFF)Firefighting agent added to fire suppression systems on somevessels to create foam. Used infrequently (annually or semiannually) to test equipment for maintenance, certification, ortraining. Constituents include fluorosurfactants and/orfluoroproteins.Low LowcPotentially HighcNodBallast Water Ballast water is water taken onboard in large volumes onlarge numbers of commercial vessels to assist with vesseldraft, buoyancy, and stability. Ballast capacities vary byvessel type, for example more than 20 million gallons forcontainer ships. Ballast water is a known transport vector forANS and can also contain metals and suspended solids.High HighePotentially HigheYesBilgewater Bilgewater is generated byall vessels and consists of waterand other residue that accumulates in a compartment of thevessel’s hull. The source of bilgewater is typically drainagefrom interior machinery, engine rooms, and from deckdrainage. Bilgewater typically contains seawater, oil, grease,nutrients, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds,inorganic salts, and metals.High HighfPotentially HighfYes2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-12Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Boiler/EconomizerBlowdownBoiler blowdown occurs on vessels with steam propulsion ora steam generator and is used to control the concentration ofscaling constituents in boiler systems. Boiler blowdown areinfrequent, of short duration (seconds), in small volumes, andat high pressure. The blowdown can contain water and steamor sludge-bearing water at elevated temperatures (above325°F). The discharge can contain metals or boiler watertreatment chemicals.Low LowgLowgNohCathodic Protection Nearly all vessels having steel hulls or metal hull appendagesuse cathodic protection systems to prevent corrosion. Basedon underwater hull inspections and maintenance records,one-half of anodes are consumed after three years. Theprimary pollutant released from cathodic protection is zinc.Average pierside and underway zinc generation rates are 1.3x 10-6and 5.1 x 10-6(lb zinc/square foot of underwatersurface area)/hr, respectively.High LowiLowiNojChain Locker Effluent Chain locker effluent is water that drips from the anchorchain and anchor during anchor retrieval. Discharge volumesare small and chain locker effluent is expected to containzinc, rust, paint, grease, and any constituents from thefiremain water. The small volume of chain locker effluentresults in small mass loadings and provides opportunity forthe transfer of non-indigenous species.High LowkLowkYes (ANSonly)l2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-13Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Coal Ash from CoalFired PropulsionSystems on FerriesCombusting coal in boilers produces a residue of combustibleflue constituents known as ash. Some of the ash consists ofvery fine particles that are entrained in the flue gas andcarries out of the furnace (fly ash), while heavier ash settlesat the bottom of the boiler (bottom ash). Bottom ash may behydraulically conveyed (i.e., sluiced with water). Thedischarge of coal ash slurry from coal fired propulsionsystems on a ferry is authorized by the 2008 VGP untilDecember 19, 2012.LowmHighmPotentially HighmNonDeck WashdownoDeck washdown occurs from all vessels as a result of deckcleaning. Constituents in the discharge can include detergent,soap, deck surface components (e.g., rust, paint chips) andanything dropped, spilled, dripped, or scattered onto the decksurface.High HighpPotentially HighpYesDistillation and ReverseOsmosis BrineDischarges of brine can occur on vessels that do not bunkerpotable water but instead use onboard plants to distillseawater or desalinate seawater using reverse osmosis (RO)to generate fresh water. Distillation units generate brine at arate of 17 gallons of brine for every gallon of fresh waterproduced. Reverse osmosis units generate approximately 4gallons of brine for every gallon of fresh water produced.The three sources of the constituents of brine discharge are:1) influent seawater; 2) anti-scaling treatment chemicals; and3) the purification plant components, including heatexchangers, casings, pumps, piping and fittings. The primaryconstituents of the brine discharge are identical to those inseawater; however, they are more concentrated due tovolume reduction.Low Highq,rLowq,rNos2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-14Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Elevator Pit Effluent Large vessels with multiple decks are equipped withelevators to facilitate the transportation of maintenanceequipment, people, and cargo between decks. A pit at thebottom of the elevator shaft collects small amounts of liquidsand debris from elevator operations and deck washdown andrunoff depending on the elevator configuration. Waterentering the elevator pit can contain materials that were onthe deck, including fuel, hydraulic fluid, lubricating oil,residual water, and AFFF. The runoff may also containlubricant applied to the elevator doors, door tracks, and othermoving elevator parts. Residuein the elevator car from thetransport of materials may alsobe washed into the elevatorpit. The cleaning solvent usedduring maintenance cleaningoperations, as well as liquid wastes generated by the cleaningprocess, can also drain into the elevator pit sump.Low LowtPotentially HightNouEngine Wet ExhaustEffluentEngine wet exhaust effluent is generated when gasoline ordiesel engine cooling water is injected into the engineexhaust. The engine cooling water decreases the exhausttemperature, reduces engine noise and reduces exhaustemissions. Engine wet exhaust discharge rates can rangefrom 5 to 10 gallons per minute for electrical generators tomore than 100 gallons per minute on larger diesel enginesoperating at high inputs. Most passenger vessels, a largenumber of fishing vessels, and utility vessels use engines thatgenerate wet engine exhaust. Large commercial vesselsoccasionally operate small auxiliary craft that dischargeengine wet exhaust (e.g., life boats on cruise ships); however,discharge volumes for these vessels are negligible. Pollutantsin the engine wet exhaust can include oil and grease, metals,volatile organic compounds and semi volatile organiccompounds.High HighvPotentially HighvYes2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-15Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Exhaust Gas ScrubberWashwater EffluentExhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge occurs as a resultof cleaning the exhaust gas system on marine diesel engines.The washwater discharge can be highly acidic, and can alsocontain traces of oil, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), heavy metals and nitrogen. Washwater volumes of2.8 million gallons per day are estimated from a 10 MWhengine.LowwHighxPotentially HighxYesFiremain Systems Firemain systems arefound on a large number of vessels anddraw in water through the sea chest to supply water for firehose stations and sprinkler systems. Systems are activatedduring testing or during an actual fire. Small amounts ofmetals may be added to the fire water from vessel pipingsystem.High LowyLowzNoaaFish Hold and Fish HoldCleaning EffluentAll fishing vessels generate some form of fish hold effluent.Fish hold effluent is composed of seawater, ice-melt, or iceslurry collected inside fish hold tanks. Fish hold effluentcontains pollutants which result from seafood catch and otheronboard vessel sources. These pollutants can includebiological wastes, metals, and nutrients, as well aswastewater resulting from fish hold cleaning activities. Thevolume of fish hold effluent can vary from less than 100gallons during off-loading to tens of thousands of gallons forlarge fish tenders.High HighbbPotentially HighbbYes2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-16Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Freshwater Layup Freshwater layup is generated when a vessel is pier side or inport for more than a few days, the main steam plant is shutdown, and the condensers do not circulate. A freshwaterlayup includes replacing the seawater in the system withpotable or surrounding freshwater (e.g., lake water).Freshwater layup discharges can be as large as 6,000 gallonsper evolution and can contain residual saltwater, freshwater,tap water, and possibly metals leached from the pipes ormachinery.Low LowccLowccNoddGas Turbine WaterWashGas turbines are used for propulsion and electricitygeneration on some vessels.Occasionally, they must becleaned to remove byproductsthat can accumulate and affecttheir operation. Although not subject to the VGP but similarin operation to VGP vessels regarding this discharge, largenaval vessels can generate up to 244 gallons of washwaterper day. Wash water can include salts, lubricants, andcombustion residuals.Low LoweePotentially HigheeNoffGraywater andGraywater Mixed withSewageNearly all VGP/sVGP vessels generate some form ofgraywater. Graywater is water from showers, baths, sinks,galleys, and laundry facilities. Graywater volumes varydepending on the number of passengers on board and canrange from a few gallons per day on small fishing vessels totens of thousands of gallons per day on large cruise ships.Graywater can contain high levels of pathogens, nutrients,soaps and detergents, and organics.High HighggPotentially HighggYes2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-17Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Motor Gasoline andCompensatingDischargeMotor gasoline is transported on vessels to operate vehiclesand other machinery. As the fuel is used, ambient water isadded to the fuel tanks to replace the weight. This ambientwater is discharged when the vessel refills the tanks withgasoline or when performing maintenance. Most vessels aredesigned not to have motor gasoline and compensatingdischarge. The volume of the compensating discharge isexpected to range from less than 50 gallons to up a fewhundred gallons. The discharge can contain small amounts offuel and other fuel-related pollutants.Low LowhhPotentially HighhhNoiiNon-oily MachineryWastewaterSome larger vessels are expected to have some non-oilymachinery discharges, such as distilling plants start-updischarge, chilled water condensate drains, fresh- andsaltwater pump drains, and potable water tank overflows.These flows are generally low in volume and are notexpected to contain significant amounts of pollutants.Low LowjjLowjjNokkRefrigeration and AirCondensate DischargeCondensation from cold refrigeration or evaporator coils ofair conditioning systems drips from the coils and collects indrip troughs which typically empty to a drainage system.Large numbers of vessels are equipped with refrigerationsystems to keep food and other perishable items fromspoiling. Air conditioning systems are also used forpassenger and crew comfort. Condensates may contain verysmall amounts of pollutants such as metals derived fromvessel piping systems.High LowllLowllNomm2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-18Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Seawater CoolingOverboard DischargennSeawater cooling systems useambient water to absorb theheat from heat exchangers, propulsion systems, andmechanical auxiliary systems. The water is typicallycirculated through an enclosedsystem that does not come indirect contact with machinery, but still may contain sedimentfrom water intake, traces of hydraulic or lubricating oils, andtrace metals leached or erodedfrom the piping within thesystem. Additionally, because it is used for cooling, theeffluent will have an increased temperature.High Low LowooNoppSeawater PipingBiofoulingqqSome vessels that use seawater cooling systems introduceanti-fouling compounds (e.g., sodium hypochlorite) in theirinterior piping and componentsurfaces to inhibit the growthof fouling organisms. These anti-fouling compounds are thentypically discharged overboard. Most vessels that haveseawater piping systems are expected to use piping materialssuch as copper to prevent biofouling rather than injectinghigh concentrations of anti-fouling compounds into theirpiping systems.Low Low Potentially HighrrNossSonar Dome DischargeWater is used to maintain the shape and pressure of domesthat house sonar detection, navigation, and rangingequipment on large vessels. Discharges occasionally occurwhen the water must be drained for maintenance or repair orfrom the exterior of the sonar dome. Although not subject tothe VGP but similar in operation to VGP vessels regardingthis discharge, sonar dome discharge volumes on navalvessels can range from 300 gallons per event up to 74,000gallons per event. Pollutant levels are expected to be low dueto the ban on the use of tributyl tin.Low LowttLowttNouu2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-19Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Stern Tube PackingGland Effluent andOther Oil/WaterInterfacesNearly all commercial vessels with in-board engines havestern tube packing gland(s) surrounding the propellershaft(s). The stern tube packing gland is designed to leak afew drops per minute of ambient water (4 to 8 gallons perday) to the cool the gland when the vessel is underway.Pollutants in the stern tube packing gland effluent includemetals, oil and grease, suspended solids, organics, andphthalates. Oil to sea interfaces include any mechanical orother equipment where seals or surfaces may release smallquantities of oil and grease into the sea. Examples includecontrollable pitch propellers, rudder bearings and wire ropesand cables that have lubricated(greased) surfaces which aresubmerged in seawater during use.High HighvvPotentially HighvvYesUnderwater ShipHusbandry DischargesUnderwater ship husbandry is grooming, maintenance, andrepair activities of hulls or hull appendages performed whilethe vessel is located in the water. Underwater ship husbandrydischarges can contain aquatic organisms and residue such asrust and biocide from AFC. Underwater ship husbandry istypically performed only when excessive biological growth iscausing vessel drag and excessive fuel consumption outsideof regular dry dock inspections.Low LowwwPotentially HighxxYes (ANSonly)yy2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-20Table 3-3. Screening Analysis to Select VesselDischarges for Detailed Analysis for the BEVessel DischargeDescriptionScreening Level ClassificationNumber ofVesselsDischargingaDischargeVolume andFrequencyAmount andTypes ofPollutantsPresent in theDischargeSelected forDetailedAnalysis?Well Deck Discharges The welldeck is a floodable platform used for launching orloading small satellite vessels, vehicles, and cargo fromselect vessels. Welldeck discharges may include water fromprecipitation, welldeck andstorage area washdowns,equipment and engine washdowns, and leaks and spills fromstored machinery. Potential constituents of welldeckdischarges include fresh water, distilled water, firemainwater, graywater, air-conditioning condensate, sea-saltresidues, paint chips, wood splinters, dirt, sand, organicdebris and marine organisms, oil, grease, fuel, detergents,combustion by-products, and lumber treatment chemicals.Low High LowzzNoaaaa)USEPA, Summary of the VGP Vessel Universe: Information Submittedby Vessel Owner/Operators for Coverage Under the Vessel General Permit (VGP), Table 2.17. EPA-833-K-11-102 (USEPA, 2011e). Sources for vessels that do not need to submit NOIs include the USCG MISLE database and USEPA, Reportto Congress: Study of DischargesIncidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational VesselsLess than 79 Feet, EPA-833-R-10-005, August 2010 (USEPA, 2010).b)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges, EPA-800-R-11-004, November 2011 (USEPA, 2011f). Vessel discharge volumeclassified as high, based on considerationof the volume of water potentially influenced by anti-fouling coatings as the vesselfloats on and moves through the water.c)USEPA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels Fact Sheet,November 2011 (USEPA, 2011a).d)Firefighting agent added to fire suppression systems on some vessels to create foam. While largequantities of fire fighting foam can be generated during use, these systems areused infrequently (annually or semi-annually)and often outside waters of the U.S. totest equipment for maintenance, certification, or training. AFFFs include fluorosurfactantsand/or fluoroproteins, such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoicacid (PFOA), which are persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals. Permitrequirements to collect and store AFFF foronshore disposal, or to usea substitute foaming agent(i.e., non-fluorinated), fordischarges associated with regulatory certification andinspection will significantly reduce the amount and types of pollutants present in the discharge. For these reasons, EPA did not select AFFF discharge for detailed analysis in thisBE.e)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Ballast Water Discharges from Vessels, EPA-800-R-11-003, November 2011 (USEPA, 2011g).f)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Oily Bilgewater Separators, EPA-800-R-11-007, November 2011 (USEPA, 2011h).g)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report: BoilerBlowdown. EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).h)EPA did not select boiler/economizerblowdown for detailed analysisin this BE because all three screening categories were assessed a “low” score.i)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report:Cathodic Protection.EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).j)While nearly all VGP and sVGP vessels having steel hulls or metal hull appendages areexpected to use cathodic protection, thecathode release rates (typically zinc) are low.While zinc is a toxic metal, it is not apersistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemical. Furthermore,permit requirements, including use of impressed current cathodic protection2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-21(ICCP) in place of or to reducethe use of sacrificial electrodes when technologically feasible,will minimize the release of cathode metals to water. For these reasons, EPA did notselect AFFF discharge for detailed analysis in this BE.k)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report: ChainLocker Effluent. EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).l)While chain locker effluent discharge is infrequent with relatively low discharge volumes, EPA selected this discharge for detailed analysis in this BE based on the potential fortransfer of ANS.m)The S.S. Badger (a Great Lakes ferry) is believed to be the only coal-fired vessel operating in the U.S. (all other coal-firedvessels are either no longer inservice or have convertedto other forms of propulsion). Lake Michigan Car Ferry, Inc.,SS Badger Petition for IndividualNPDES Permit. November 2, 2011(LMC, 2011).n)EPA did not select coal ash from coal fired propulsion systems on ferries for detailed analysisbecause the discharge is not authorized by the 2013 VGP.o)Deck runoff resulting from precipitation was not included because thedischarge volume is highly variable and is not expected to result in the same extent of deck pollutantremoval and discharge as deck washdown.p)USEPA, Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non Recreational Vessels less than 79 Feet,EPA-833-R-10-005, August 2010 (USEPA, 2010).q)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report:Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine.EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).r)Although the concentrations of constituents measured in distillation and reverse osmosis brine may be high, they are similar inconcentration to those of seawater. In general,distillation and reverse osmosis systems do not add pollutants, butrather increase pollutant concentrations due to water removal.s)Distillation and reverse osmosis brine discharges are applicable for only those vesselsthat use onboard plants to generate fresh water. While brine discharge volumes can besignificant during water production, pollutants in the brine can beattributed to the ambient water. Therefore, distillation and reverse osmosis brine discharge was not selected as adischarge that warrants detailed analysis for the BE becauseEPA assessed a “high” score foronly one screening category (discharge volume and frequency) and because EPAconsiders the pollutants contained in the discharge to bediscountable for purposes of the Endangered Species Act.t)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report:Elevator Pit Effluent. EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).u)Large vessels with multiple decks may be equipped with exposed elevators that generate relatively small volumes of elevator piteffluent that is discharged infrequently. Whileelevator pit effluent may contain toxic and hazardous pollutants, such as lubricants and cleaning solvents, permit requirementsauthorizing discharge only in cases of emergencywill minimize the release of these pollutants. For these reasons, EPA did not select elevator pit effluent discharge for detailed analysis in this BE.v)Flows and pollutant concentrations from USEPA,Report to Congress: Study of DischargesIncidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other NonRecreational Vessels less than 79 Feet, EPA-833-R-10-005, August 2010 (USEPA, 2010).w)Currently, no vessels currently useexhaust gas scrubbers on their marine diesel engines (prototype SOxscrubbers have been installed onboard three large ocean-going vessels;USEPA, 2009); however, these numbers may increase significantly with future International MaritimeOrganization requirements.x)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Exhaust GasScrubber Washwater Effluent, EPA-800-R-11-006, November 2011 (USEPA, 2011c).y)Wet-type firemain systems are frequently used as a water sourcefor deck washing; however, the volume of water and any associated pollutants are accounted for in the deckwashdown discharge category.z)Pollutant concentrations from USEPA, Report to Congress: Study ofDischarges Incidental to NormalOperation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non RecreationalVessels less than 79 Feet, EPA-833-R-10-005, August 2010 (USEPA, 2010).aa)Firemain systems are available on most vessels covered by the VGP and sVGP. While firemain systems can generate large volumes of water during use, these systems are seldomused for fighting fires or even testing. In addition, firemainsystems use ambient water for fighting fires, and most of the pollutants measured in the firemain discharge can beattributed to the ambient water. Therefore, firemain discharge was not selected for detailed analysis for the BE because EPA assessed a “high” score for only one screeningcategory (number of vessels discharging)and because EPA considers both the volume ofthe discharge and the pollutants contained in the discharge to be discountable for purposesof the Endangered Species Actbb)Flows and pollutant concentrations in fish hold and fish holdcleaning wastewaters from USEPA, Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation ofCommercial Fishing Vessels and Other NonRecreational Vessels less than 79 Feet,EPA-833-R-10-005, August 2010 (USEPA, 2010).cc)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report:Freshwater Layup. EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).dd)EPA did not select freshwater layup for detailed analysis in thisBE because all three screening categories wereassessed a “low” score.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-22ee)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report: GasTurbine Wash Water. EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).ff)Gas turbine water wash discharges are applicable for only those vessels that use gas turbines.While discharges may contain lubricants and combustion residues, discharge volumesare relatively small. Furthermore, permit requirements prohibit the discharge of gas turbine water wash into waters of the U.S.For these reasons, EPA did not select AFFFdischarge for detailed analysis in this BE.gg)USEPA, Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report. EPA 842-R-07-005, December 2008 (USEPA, 2008).hh)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report: MotorGasoline (MOGAS) Compensating Discharge.EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).ii)Motor gasoline compensating discharges are applicable for only those vessels that transport motor gasoline to operate vehiclesand other machinery; most vessels are designed notto have motor gasoline and compensating discharges. While discharges may contain fuel, discharge volumes are relatively small.Furthermore, permit requirements specify that thedischarge of motor gasoline and compensating effluent must not have oil in quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR110.3, which includes discharges resulting in avisible sheen, or an oil concentration thatexceeds 15 ppm. For these reasons, EPA didnot select AFFF discharge for detailed analysis in this BE.jj)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report: NonOily Machinery Discharge. EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).kk)EPA did not select non-oily machinery wastewater for detailed analysis in this BE because all three screening categories were assessed a “low” score.ll)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report:Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Condensate.EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).mm)Large numbers of VGP and sVGP vessels areequipped with refrigeration systems to keepfood and other perishable items from spoiling. Air conditioning systems are also used forpassenger and crew comfort. Refrigeration and air condensate discharge was not selectedfor detailed analysisfor the BE because EPA assessed a “high” score for only onescreening category (number of vessels discharging) and because EPA considers both the volume of the discharge and the pollutants contained in the discharge to be discountablefor purposes of the Endangered Species Act.nn)Discharge is for non-contact cooling only and does not include engine wet exhaust.oo)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report:Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge.EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).pp)Large numbers of VGP and sVGP vessels use ambient water for non-contact coolingof propulsion systems and other machinery and equipment. Seawater cooling overboarddischarge was not selected for detailed analysis for the BE because EPA assessed a “high” score for only one screening category(number of vessels discharging) and because EPAconsiders both the volume of the discharge and the pollutants contained in the discharge to be discountable for purposes of theEndangered Species Act.qq)Discharge does not include anti-fouling coatings used to inhibit biogrowth on vessel hulls; such discharges are considered anti-fouling leachate.rr)Chlorine is typically dosed at a concentration inthe mg/L range to prevent biological growth.ss)Some vessels introduce anti-fouling compounds (e.g., sodium hypochorite) in their interior piping and component surfaces to inhibit the growth of fouling organisms. Whilechlorine is toxic it is not it is not a persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemical. Furthermore, permit requirements, including minimizing the amount of biofouling chemicalsneeded to keep fouling under control, will reduce the release ofchlorine to water. For these reasons, EPA did not select seawater piping biofouling discharge for detailed analysisin this BE.tt)USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Nature of Discharge Report: SonarDome Discharge. EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999 (USEPA, 1999).uu)EPA did not select sonar dome discharge for detailed analysis in this BE because all three screening categories were assessed a“low” score.vv)Flows and pollutant concentrations from USEPA,Report to Congress: Study of DischargesIncidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other NonRecreational Vessels less than 79 Feet, EPA-833-R-10-005, August 2010 (USEPA, 2010).ww)Vessel cleaning is typically performed during scheduled dry docking. Source: USEPA, Technical Development Document (TDD): Underwater Hull Husbandry, EPA-800-R-11-004, November 2011 (USEPA, 2011f).xx)The biological growth and paint potentiallyreleased during underwater husbandry maycontain significant amounts of pollutants(Schiff, 2003).yy)While underwater ship husbandry is typically performed only when excessive biologicalgrowth is cause vessel drag and excessivefuel consumption outside of regular dry dockinspections, EPA selected this discharge for detailed analysisin this BE based on the potential for transfer of ANS.zz)Pollutants in well deck discharges are accounted for in other discharges, includingdeck washdown, refrigeration condensates, and oil/sea interfaces.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-23aaa)Some vessels are equipped with well decks for launching or loading small satellite vessels, vehicles and cargo. Discharge volume and frequency are considered high as theplatforms are floodable; however, pollutantsin well deck discharges are accounted for in other discharges, including deck washdown, refrigeration condensates, and oil/seainterfaces. For these reasons, EPA did not select well deck discharges for detailed analysis in this BE.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-24 3.2.2 Estimated Flow Rates for Discharges Selected for Detailed Analysis

One important component of the BE is to estimat e the flow rate of th e selected discharges from each vessel type analyzed in detail for th e purpose of calculating pollutant discharge loadings to receiving waters. To estimate the discharge flow rates, EPA used information published in sources such as EPA’s Report to C ongress on vessels less than 79 feet in length and commercial fishing vessels (USEPA, 2010), the Vessel General Permit Fact Sheet (USEPA, 2011a), the Small Vessel Genera l Permit Fact Sheet (USEPA, 2011b), EPA’s Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report (USEPA, 2008), EPA’s NOI database (USEPA, 2011e), and International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC, 2008). Where flow rate data were not available for a specific discharge, or where available flow rate data were not applicable for all sizes and ty pes of vessel, EPA used information from similar vessel discharge types, equipment vendor data, or used best professiona l judgment to estimate

flow rates.

The subsections below provide estimates of fl ow for 8 of the 11 discharges selected for detailed analysis for each selected vessel type . Anti-fouling leachate does not require a volume estimate to calculate pollutant loadings because the biocide loading to the surrounding surface water depends upon exposed vessel surface area rather than discharge flow rate. Chain locker effluent and underwater ship husbandry discharg es volumes were not estimated because EPA has not found available data to accurately estimate volume of these discharges. Furthermore, the Agency is taking a qualitative rather than quantita tive approach to assessing the risk of ANS to native species for the reasons discussed in Sections 5.1.1 and so volume data are not as analytically important as they are for the modeling conducted fo r the other discharge types.

3.2.2.1 Ballast Water

Ballast water is water taken onboa rd into ballast water tanks, a nd assists with vessel draft, buoyancy, and stability. Ballast wate r is taken from coastal port areas and transported with the ship to the next port of call where the water ma y be discharged or exchanged. If a ship is receiving or delivering cargo to a number of ports, it may release or take on a portion of ballast water at each port. Large commercial vessels (e .g., container ships, bul k carriers, other cargo vessels, tankers, and passenger vess els) normally have ballast tanks dedicated to this purpose, and some vessels may also ballast empty cargo holds. The discharge volume varies by vessel type, ballast tank capacity, and type of deballasting equipment.

Table 3-4 provides estimates of ballast wate r discharge volumes based on median ballast water capacity for those vessels that have ba llast tanks (USEPA, 2011e). Commercial fishing vessels less than 79 feet, passenger vessels, and util ity vessels are not exp ected to have ballast water tanks greater than 8 cubic meters. 6

6 The U.S. Coast indicates that vessels less than 100 feet “typica lly operate in more sheltered en vironments and do not load and discharge ballast. Their stability characte ristics generally accommodate the amount and type of cargo they carry, precluding th e need to use ballast as a stab ility enhancer.” (USCG, 2008)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-25 Table 3-4. Ballast Water Capacity for Ve ssels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Median Ballast Water Capacity (m 3 ) Median Ballast Water Capacity (gallons) Barges 206 54,400 Cargo/Bulk Carriers 10,198 2,694,300 Large Commercial Fishing 1,388 366,700 Large Cruise Ships 3,136 828,500 Medium Cruise Ships 364 96,200 Large Ferries 404 106,700
Oil and Gas Tankers 23,893 6,312,600 Commercial Fishing (except large) <8 <2,100 Passenger Vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boats) <8 <2,100

Utility Boats (tugs and tow boats) <8 <2,100

Source: USEPA, 2011e.

3.2.2.2 Bilgewater

Bilgewater consists of water and other resi due that accumulates in a compartment of the vessel’s hull. The source of bilgewater is typi cally drainage from interior machinery, engine rooms, and the weather deck. The amount of b ilgewater generated by a vessel varies based on vessel size, age, and the amount below-deck mech anical systems; discharges typically occur several times per week. Cruise sh ip bilgewater volumes are estimated at 25,000 gallons per week (3,570 gal/day) (USEPA, 2008). Bilgewater discharg es from fishing vessels are estimated to range from a few gallons per day up to 750 gallons/day (USEPA, 2010). Bilgewater water discharges rates for tour boats ar e approximately 11 gallons/day (0.04 m 3 /day) and for water taxis are approximately 34 gallons/day (0.13 m 3 /day). Tow and salvage boats discharge approximately 37 gallons/day (0.139 m 3 /day) of bilgewater (USEPA, 2010).

To estimate bilgewater flow rates for medi um cruise ships, large ferries, barges, cargo/bulk carriers, and oil tankers , EPA compared the vessel gross tons (see Table 3-1) to large cruise ships and multiplied by the bilgewater gene ration rate for large cruise ships. The example below shows how daily bilgewater discharge was estimated for cargo/bulk carriers using information for large cruise ships.

Example: 15,939 gross tons (cargo/bulk carrier)/53,526 gross tons (large cruise ship) x 3,570 gal/day = 1,063 gal/day

Table 3-5 provides the estimated bilgewater flow rates for each of the vessel types selected for detailed analysis.

Table 3-5. Estimated Bilgewater Discharge Rate s for the Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Estimated Bilgewater Discharge Rates (m 3 /day) Estimated Bilgewater Discharge Rates (gallons/day) Barges 0.18 47 Cargo/Bulk Carriers 4.0 1,063 Commercial Fishing 1.4 375 Large Cruise Ships 13.5 3,5702013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-26 Table 3-5. Estimated Bilgewater Discharge Rate s for the Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Estimated Bilgewater Discharge Rates (m 3 /day) Estimated Bilgewater Discharge Rates (gallons/day) Medium Cruise Ships 2.0 305 Large Ferries 2.0 97

Oil and Gas Tankers 6.3 1,661 Passenger Vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boats) 0.08 22

Utility Boats (tugs and tow boats) 0.14 37

Source: USEPA, 2008 and USEPA, 2010.

3.2.2.3 Deck Washdown

Deck washdown occurs from all vessels because of deck cleaning. Deck washdown volumes vary widely and are high ly dependent on a vessel’s purpos e, service, and practices. To estimate deck washdown volumes, EPA used information for commercial fishing vessels, passenger vessels and utility boats (USEPA, 2010) . For barges, cargo/bulk carriers, and oil and gas tankers, EPA estimated the deck washdown volumes by comparing vessel gross tons for these vessels (see Table 3-1) with the gross tons of a typical utility vesse l. EPA estimated utility vessels are 80 gross tons based on 50% of the utility vessels being a pproximately 65 feet long (USEPA, 2010). For medium and large cruise ships and large ferries, EPA estimated deck washdown volumes by comparing vessel gross tons for these vessels with that of a typical passenger vessel. EPA estimated passenger vessel s are 35 gross tons based on 50% of passenger vessels being 45 feet long (USEPA, 2010). The example below shows how EPA used the vessel gross tons and deck washdown discharge volume for passenger vessels to estimate the deck washdown flow for large ferries.

Example: 1,451 gross tons (large ferry)/35 gross tons (passenger vessel) x 27 gal/day = 1,083 gal/day

Table 3-6 shows the estimated daily volume of deck washdown water discharged from the vessels selected for detailed analysis.

Table 3-6. Estimated Deck Washdown Discha rge Rates for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Estimated Deck Washdown Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Deck Washdown Discharge Rate (gallons/day) Barges 0.88 232 Cargo/Bulk Carriers 19.9 5,259 Commercial Fishing a 0.39 103 Large Cruise Ships 152.9 40,396 Medium Cruise Ships 13.1 3,461 Large Ferries 4.1 1,083

Oil and Gas Tankers 31.1 8,216 Passenger Vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boats) b 0.10 272013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-27 Table 3-6. Estimated Deck Washdown Discha rge Rates for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Estimated Deck Washdown Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Deck Washdown Discharge Rate (gallons/day) Utility Boats (tugs and tow boats) c 0.05 14

Source: USEPA, 2010. a) Average discharge rate for a shrimper, trawler and troller. b) Average discharge rate for a tour boat and water taxi. c) Average discharge rate for a fire boa t, supply boat, tow boat and tug boat.

3.2.2.4 Engine Wet Exhaust Effluent

Engines used on some commercial fishing ve ssels, passenger vesse ls and utility boats have inboard marine engines that use ambient water to cool their engines and quiet their exhaust. These include both propulsion engines and generato r engines used to generate electricity on the vessel. Seawater, or freshwater, passes through po rtions of the engine (e .g., heat exchanger and gear oil cooler) and is then injected into th e engines’ exhaust stream. When ejected from the engine, the water contains some of the gaseous and particulate (solid) co mponents of the exhaust stream. Large engines, like those found on large fe rries, medium and large cruise ships, tankers and cargo/bulk container ships use dry engine exhaust systems and therefore do not generate engine wet exhaust effluent. Barges do not have engines and therefore do not generate engine

wet exhaust effluent.

Table 3-7 shows the estimated volume of wet engine exhaust discharged from the vessels selected for detailed analysis (USEPA, 2010).

Table 3-7. Estimated Propulsion and Genera tor Engine Wet Exhaust Discharge Rates for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Estimated Propulsion Engine

Wet Exhaust Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Propulsion Engine

Wet Exhaust Discharge Rate

(gallons/day) Estimated Generator Engine

Wet Exhaust Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Generator Engine Wet Exhaust Discharge Rate

(gallons/day)

Barges NA NA NA NA Cargo/Bulk

Carriers NA NA NA NA

Commercial Fishing a 15.8 4,161 1.41 372

Large Cruise Ships NA NA NA NA

Medium Cruise Ships NA NA NA NA

Large Ferries NA NA NA NA

Oil and Gas

Tankers NA NA NA NA

Passenger Vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boats) b 41 10,832 6.45 1,7042013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-28 Table 3-7. Estimated Propulsion and Genera tor Engine Wet Exhaust Discharge Rates for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Estimated Propulsion Engine

Wet Exhaust Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Propulsion Engine

Wet Exhaust Discharge Rate

(gallons/day) Estimated Generator Engine

Wet Exhaust Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Generator Engine Wet Exhaust Discharge Rate

(gallons/day)

Utility Boats (fire boat, tugs) c 36.3 9,590 1.80 475

Source: USEPA, 2010. NA: Vessel does not have an engine or is expected to have dry engine exhaust. a) Average propulsion and generator engine wet exhaust disc harge rate for a gillnetter and purse seiner (USEPA, 2010). b) Average propulsion and generator engine wet exhaust discharge rate for a tour boat and water taxi (USEPA, 2010). c) Propulsion and generator engine wet exhaust discharge rate for a fire boat (USEPA, 2010).

3.2.2.5 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater

Exhaust gas scrubbers would be used on la rge vessels such as oil and gas tankers, cargo/bulk carriers, large ferries and medium and large cruise ships burning high-sulfur bunker oil (USEPA, 2011c). The exhaust gas scrubbers re move sulfur dioxide generated by the vessel engines during combustion of the bunker oil. E xhaust gas scrubber systems using seawater typically generate 45 m 3 (11,900 gallons) of washwater per megawatt-hour (MWh) for scrubbing (MEPC, 2008). Closed freshwater exhaust gas sc rubber systems have much smaller discharge

rates than seawater scrubbers. Freshwater closed loop scrubbers generate 0.1 to 0.3 m 3 /MWh (26 to 79 gallons/MWh) of scrubber washwater (MEPC, 2008).

To estimate exhaust gas scrubber washwater flows for vessels like tankers, cargo/bulk carriers, ferries and cruise ships, EPA used in formation on the engine sizes for each type of vessel. Table 3-8 shows the range of engine sizes by vessel type and the estimated seawater and freshwater exhaust gas scrubber washwater flow rates based on engine size. The size of the propulsion engines for large cruise ships and la rge ferries was obtained from EPA’s Technical Development Document for Exhaust Gas Scr ubber Washwater Effluent (USEPA, 2011c). EPA assumed that the power requirements for propulsion engines on large ferries are similar to those for medium cruise ships. For o il and gas tankers and cargo/bulk carriers, EPA used information for the 80 MW (109,000 HP) engine onboard the Emma Maersk large container ship (Ship Technology, 2011). EPA assumed that for smaller vessels such as tour boats, water taxis, fishing boats and tug boats using low sulfur fuels will be a less expensive compliance alternative than installing and operating exhaust ga s scrubbers; therefore, exhaus t gas scrubber washwater flows for these vessel types were not estimated.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-29 Table 3-8. Estimated Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge Rates for the Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Average Propulsion

Power (MW) Estimated

Saltwater

Exhaust Gas

Scrubber

Washwater Discharge Rate(m 3 /hr) Estimated

Saltwater

Exhaust Gas

Scrubber

Washwater Discharge Rate

(gallons/hr) Estimated

Freshwater

Exhaust Gas

Scrubber

Washwater Discharge Rate (m 3 /hr) Estimated

Freshwater

Exhaust Gas

Scrubber

Washwater Discharge Rate

(gallons/hr) Barges NA NA NA NA NA Cargo/Bulk

Carriersa a 80 3,600 951,000 16 4,227

Commercial Fishing NA NA NA NA NA

Large Cruise Ships b 45 2,025 535,000 9 2,377

Medium Cruise Ships c 4.8 216 57,000 1 264

Large Ferries c 4.8 216 57,000 1 264

Oil and Gas

Tankers a 80 3,600 951,000 16 4,227

Passenger Vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boats) NA NA NA NA NA

Utility Boats (fire boat, tugs) NA NA NA NA NA

NA: Vessels do not have propulsion engines or are unlikely to install exhaust gas scrubbers. a) Representative propulsion engine size based on Emma Maersk large container ship (Ship Technology, 2011). b) Representative propulsion engine size based on the MS Zaandam , Holland America Li ne (USEPA, 2011c). c) Representative propulsion engine size based on Pride of Kent , P&O Lines (USEPA, 2011c).

3.2.2.6 Fish Hold and Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent

Fish hold effluent is composed of seawater, ice-melt, or ice slurry collected inside fish hold tanks. The volume of fish hold effluent ge nerated by commercial fish ing vessels varies by the type and size of vessel, a nd the methods used to preserve the catch. For example, some commercial fishing vessels preserve fish using chipped or slurry wet ice, while others have refrigerated seawater tanks. Ve ssels that use chipped or slurry ice generally remove the seafood and then discharge the spent ice overboard. Vessels with refriger ated seawater tanks typically extract the fish using a vacuum system that removes both the fish a nd refrigerated seawater simultaneously. Any excess refrigerated seawater that is not required to assist in fish extraction is typically pumped overboard. Tanks used to keep lobster and crab alive pump surrounding water into the tank constantly to maintain the highest water qual ity possible. The flow rate through these systems results in a nearly conti nuous discharge of fish hold effluent.

Table 3-9 lists various types of commercial fishing vesse ls and the estimated daily volume of fish hold effluent discharge (USEPA , 2010). As indicated in Table 3-9, fish hold effluent discharge rates can range from as low as 211 gal/day for a gillnetter to as high as 5,090 gallons per day for a tender vessel.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-30 Table 3-9. Estimated Fish Hold Effluent Di scharge Rates by Type of Fishing Vessel

Commercial Fishing Vessel Type Estimated Fish Hold Effluent Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Fish Hold Effluent Discharge Rate (gal/day)

Gillnetter 0.80 211

Lobster Boat 2.83 748 Longliner 2.83 748
Purse Seiner 16.3 4,306 Shrimper 1.25 330
Tender 19.3 5,099

Trawler 1.25 330

Troller 3.04 803

Source: USEPA, 2010.

Fish holds are also often clean ed or disinfected by vessel cr ews between catches. To rinse the tank, vessel crews use eith er municipal water from the pier or dock, or they pump surrounding ambient water. Cleaning may involve simply rinsing the tanks with this water or a thorough scrub down with the addition of detergents or disinfectants to maximize the removal of organic material. As a result, the effluent from fish hold cleaning contains a combination of residual fish hold water and ambient or municipal water and often contains soaps or detergents. Table 3-10 shows the volume of water discharged from various commercial fishing vessels during fish holding tank cleaning. Cleaning volumes range from 283 gal/day for purse seiners to 58 gallons per day for trawlers.

Table 3-10. Estimated Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent Discharge Rates by Type of Fishing Vessel

Commercial Fishing Vessel Type Estimated Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent Discharge Rate (gal/day)

Purse Seiner 1.07 283

Tender 0.66 174

Trawler 0.22 58

Troller 0.66 174

Source: USEPA, 2010.

3.2.2.7 Graywater

Graywater means galley, bath, and shower wate r, as well as wastewater from lavatory sinks, laundry, and water fountains generated on board vessels (USEPA, 2011d). The volume of graywater generated depends primarily on the ty pe of vessel and the number of passengers and crew onboard. For example, cruise ships generate more graywater than cargo ships since they have many more passengers and crew. Further, cruise ships also generate higher graywater volumes per capita than cargo ships because pass engers and crew on these vessels use galleys and accommodations (sinks and showers) to a greater extent than crew on cargo ships. Estimated graywater generation rates reporte d in response to EPA’s 2004 cruise ship survey ranged from 36 to 119 gallons/day/person, with an average of 67 gallons/day/person (USEPA, 2008) for large cruise ships. Finland’s Ministry of the Environment estimated cruise ship grey water generation at 120 liters per day (32 gall ons/day/person) (BMEPC, 2007). During EPA’s 2004 Alaskan cruise ship sampling program, graywater gene ration on one ship was 45 gallons/day/person (USEPA, 2006).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-31 Table 3-11 shows the estimated daily volume of graywater generated by each of the vessel types selected for detailed analysis for this BE. To calculate daily graywater generation, EPA multiplied the number of passengers and crew on the vessel by the 45 gallons/day/person graywater generation rate from a cruise ship. B ecause the graywater generation rate for cruise ships may be larger than the actual graywater generation rates for vesse ls such as cargo/bulk carriers, tankers and utility vessels, th e estimated rate may be biased high.

Table 3-11. Estimated Graywater Discharge Ra tes for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Number of Passengers and

Crew a Estimated Graywater

Generation Rate (gal/day/person) d Estimated Graywater Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Graywater Discharge Rate (gal/day) Barges 4 45 0.23 61 e Cargo/Bulk

Carriers 25 45 4.2 1,125

Commercial Fishing Vessels 29 45 4.9 1,305

Large Cruise Ships 3,455 45 588 155,475

Medium Cruise Ships 315 45 53.6 14,175

Large Ferries 559 45 95.2 25,155

Oil and Gas

Tankers 22 45 3.7 990

Passenger Vessels (tour boats, water taxis, etc.) 282 b 45 48 12,690

Utility Vessels (tug boats, off-shore vessels, etc.) 6 c 45 1 270

a) Number of crew and passengers from EPA’s NOI Report (USEPA, 2011e) unless otherwise specified. b) Average number of passengers and crew calculated based on information gathered from bot h personnel communication with operators and web site marketing data for tour boats, dinner cruise vessels, weddi ng party boats, whale watching tours, and shuttle service vessels. Vessels do not provide overnight accommodations. c) Based on personal contact w ith AEP River Operations. d) Generation rate based on USEP A, Sampling Episode Report for Holland America Veendam (Sampling Episode 6503). Washington, DC (USEPA. 2006). e) Average flow adjusted based on an estimated 33.8% of barg es are manned and would therefor e generate graywater (USEPA, 2011e, Section 2.2.1.5 and Figure 2.1-1).

3.2.2.8 Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent and Discharges from Other Oil/Water

Interfaces

The packing gland or stuffing box surrounds th e propeller shaft at the point it exits a boat’s hull underwater. The packing gland allows the propeller shaft to turn while preventing water from entering the hull. A stuffing box packed with greased flax rings is designed to leak a few drops per minute of ambient water to cool the gland when a vesse l is underway. Stuffing boxes are also used to seal rudder stocks that pe netrate the hull below the waterline. The packing gland effluent water is often collected in a segr egated section of the bilge that contains an automatic bilge pump.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-32 EPA has estimated the stern tube effluent ge neration rate is between 4 and 8 gallons per day for a tugboat having two propeller shafts (USEPA, 2010). To estimate stern tube effluent discharge rates for the other vesse l types requiring detailed analys is for this BE, EPA used the size of a utility vessel (measured as gross tons), compared this vessel size to the other vessel types, and applied an average st ern tube packing gland discharge rate of 6 gallons per day as shown in the example calculation below.

Example : 25 gross tons (fishing vessel)/80 gross tons (utility vessel) x 6 gal/day = 2 gal/day

Table 3-12 shows the vessel sizes and the estimated stern t ube packing gland discharge rates for the vessel types requiring detailed analysis. Flows range fr om as little as 2 gal/day for commercial fishing vessels to as great as 4,000 gal/day for large cruise ships.

Table 3-12. Estimated Volume of Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent Discharge Rates for Vessels Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Type Vessel Size (gross tons) a Estimate Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent Discharge Rate (m 3 /day) Estimated Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent Discharge Rate

(gallons/day) Barges 705 0 e 0 e Cargo/Bulk Carriers 15,939 4.5 1,195 Commercial Fishing 25 b 0.008 2 Large Cruise Ships 53,526 15.1 4,014 Medium Cruise Ships 4,584 1.3 343 Large Ferries 1,451 0.4 108
Oil and Gas Tankers 24,908 7.1 1,868 Passenger Vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boats) 35 c 0.01 2.6

Utility Boats (tugs and tow boats) 80 d 0.02 6

a) Vessel size from EPA’s NOI Report (USE PA, 2011e) unless otherwise specified. b) Vessel gross tons estimated assuming 50% of commercia l fishing vessels are 40 feet long (USEPA, 2010). c) Vessel gross tons estimated assuming 50% of pa ssenger vessels are 45 feet long (USEPA, 2010). d) Vessel gross tons estimated assuming 50% of u tility vessels are 65 feet long (USEPA, 2010). e) Barges do not have propeller shafts and associated stern tube packing glands.

To limit the environmental impacts caused by the passive release of oil and grease from

oil/water interfaces like those associated with rudder bearings, the 2013 VGP mandates the use of environmentally-acceptable lubricants (EALs) for existing vessels (subject to technical feasibility) and for all new build vessels. EALs such as those derived from vegetable oils and synthetic esters are biodegradable and generally have a lower toxi city to marine organisms than

traditional mineral oil based lubricants.

The rates that either mineral or oil based lubricants or EALs are passively released into the surrounding ambient water from vessels is not easily quantif iable. The Navy has estimated that approximately 5 percent of the grease associ ated with rudder bearings “washes out” between each 2-week lubrication cycle (USEPA, 1999). A loss of 5 percent equates to approximately 0.05 lbs of grease per week from rudder bearings . Oil losses from other submerged equipment has been estimated at 1.5 liters/day for utility vess els, 2 liters/day for commercial fishing vessels2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-33 and passenger vessels, 5 liters/day for tank ships, and 7 liters/day for cargo/bulk carriers (Edkin, 2010). EPA will use these oil and grease loss rates to estimate the amounts discharged to ambient waters from submerged equipment on the vessels of concern.

3.2.3 Pollutants Requiring Detailed Analysis in Selected Vessel Discharges

Table 3-13 lists the categories of pollutants associated with ea ch of the nine discharges

selected for detailed evaluation. Pollutant ca tegories include ANS, conventional pollutants, metals, nutrients, oil and grease, pathogens, a nd toxics and non-convent ional pollutants with

toxic effects.

Table 3-13. Pollutant Categories Associated with Vessel Discharges Selected for Detailed Analysis

Vessel Discharge Pollutant Categories Anti-fouling Leachate fro m Anti-fouling Hull Coatings Metals (copper)
Ballast Water ANS, metals, TSS Bilgewater Metals, oil and gr ease, VOCs/SVO Cs, nutrients

Chain Locker Effluent ANS Deck Washdown Oil and grease, metals, soaps and detergents Engine Wet Exhaust Effluent Oil and grease, metals, VOCs/SVOCs

Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Low pH, oil and grease, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, nutrients

Fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent Pathogens, metals, nutrients, soaps and detergents, classical pollutants such as BOD 5 , TDS, TSS, sulfide Graywater Pathogens, oil and grease, nutrients, metals Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent Oil and grease, metals, TSS, VOCs/SVOCs Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges ANS

The individual pollutants analyzed in deta il, and their concentrations in the vessel discharges, are discussed in the subsections below. In general, EPA examined pollutant concentration data from specifi c vessel discharges and consid ered for detailed evaluation only those pollutants having levels that exceeded the screening level benchmarks in EPA’s Report to Congress (USEPA 2010) or in other published litera ture such as EPA’s Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report (USEPA, 2008) and EPA’s Un iform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces (USEPA, 1999). The screening level benchmarks, provided in Appendix D of this BE, are preliminary meas ures used to determine if the pollutant concentrations in a discharge have the potential to cause or cont ribute to the nonattainment of a water quality standard in a receiv ing water body and, therefore, is generally protective of aquatic life. For those discharges that EPA did not mon itor for the Report to C ongress (i.e., anti-fouling hull coatings and scrubber wash water), EPA used published information to select pollutants for

detailed evaluation.

3.2.3.1 Aquatic Nuisance Species

Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS), also known as invasive species, are a persistent problem in U.S. coastal and inland waters. ANS may be introduced through a variety of vectors, including ballast water and sediment from ballast tanks as well as fouled vessel hulls. ANS pose several dangers to aquatic ecosystems, includi ng outcompeting native species, damaging habitat, changing food webs, and altering the chemical a nd physical aquatic environment. Furthermore,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-34 ANS have been documented to damage recreationa l and commercial fisheries, infrastructure, and

water based recreation and tourism.

Ballast water discharges have been cited as one of the primary sources or vectors for the spread of ANS (Carlton, 1995). Depending on where ships take on ballast water, virtually all organisms in the water column, either swimming or stirred up from bottom sediments, can be taken into ships’ ballast tanks . These organisms include holopla kton (free-floating), meroplakton (larval stages of bottom dwelling organisms) , upper water column nekton (active swimming), and demersal (near bottom dwelling nekton) orga nisms (California EPA, 2002). Because of the global shipping network, it is possible that new ANS could arrive in areas such as the Great Lakes from virtually any freshwat er port world-wide (Keller, 2011).

On any given day, approximately 7,000 individual species may be “in motion” in ballast tanks (Carlton, 2001), and there is no evidence that ships age, s easonal timing, or age of ballast water affects the abundance of individuals or sp ecies in the ballast tanks (Drake, 2007). When species in ballast tanks are tr ansported between water bodies a nd discharged, they have the potential for establishing new, non-indigenous populations that can cause severe economic and ecological impacts. The rate that which ANS can establish viab le populations ranges from one every 20 weeks in the Lower Columbia River Basi n (Sytsma, 2004) to one every 28 weeks in the Great Lakes (USEPA, 2011a). Attempting to quantitatively asse ss the number and type of ANS that have the ability to establish a viable population from the 7,000 indi vidual species currently being carried in ballast tanks is not possible (NAS, 2011).

Under current US laws, regulations, and permitting requirements, existing best management practices are required to help redu ce the potential impacts of ANS from ballast water discharges. These incl ude ballast water exchange 7 and saltwater flushing 8 for certain vessels/voyages. These practices have been shown to offer some protection in mitigating the transfer and potential introduction of invasive species. While useful in reducing the presence of potentially invasive organisms in ballast water, ballast water exchange is not feasible for all vessels (e.g., vessels that cannot voyage offshore), can have variable effectiveness, and in some circumstances may not be feasible due to vessel safety concerns (Albert, 2010).

One way to address these limitations associated with ballast water exchange is to require treatment of ballast water prior to discharge to m eet an established standard for the concentration of living organisms. On March 23, 2012, the US Coast Guard published final regulations which phase in ballast water treatment requirements wh ich became effective on June 21 of that year.

7 “Ballast Water Exchange” means to replace the water in a ball ast tank using either “Flow through exchange” or “Empty/refill exchange”. “Flow through exchange” means to flush out “ballast water” by pumping in water from the “mid-ocean” or “coastal exchange zone” (as applicable) into the bottom of the tank and continuously overflowing the tank from the top until three full volumes of water has been changed to minimize the number of original organisms remaining in the tank. “Empty/refill exchange” means to pump out the “ballast water” take n on in ports, estuarine, or territorial wa ters until the tank is empty, then refilli ng it

with water from the “mid-ocean” or “coa stal exchange zone” (as applicable); when conductin g empty/refill exchange, masters/operators should pump out as close to 100 percent of the “ballast water” as is safe to do so (adapted from 33 C.F.R 151.2025(b) (definition of “exchange”)).

8 “Saltwater flushing” means the addition of “mid-ocean” or “coastal exchange zone” water to empty ballast water tanks; the mixing of the added water with residual ball ast water and sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of the mixed water until loss of suction, such that the resulting residua l water remaining in the tank has either a salinity greater t han or equal to 30 parts per thousand (ppt) or a salinity concentration equal to the ambient salinity of the location where the uptake of the added water took place (adapt ed from 33 C.F.R. 401.30(f)(1)).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-35 These regulations established a standard for th e allowable concentrati on of living organisms contained in ships’ ballast water discharges. Th e Coast Guard’s numeric ballast water discharge standards for living organisms (USCG, 2012) ar e consistent with t hose proposed by EPA in

November 2011 in the VGP.

3.2.3.2 Nutrients

Nutrients, particularly ammonia nitroge n and total phosphorus, are constituents commonly found in bilgewater, deck washdown, fi sh hold and fish hold cleaning effluent, and graywater. These nutrients are associated with eutrophication, which can l ead to reduced levels of dissolved oxygen due to increased oxygen dema nd (sometimes to the extremes of hypoxia), reduced levels of light penetr ation and increased turbidity, and changes in the composition of aquatic flora and fauna. The process helps to fuel harmful algal blooms, which can have devastating impacts on both aquatic life and human health (National Science and Technology Council, 2000).

Studies of pollutants in vessel discharg es found that average ammonia nitrogen concentrations were above the screening level be nchmark of 1.2 mg/L in both fish hold effluent and fish hold cleaning effluent (USEPA, 2010) (see Appendix D of this BE for more information regarding screening level benchmarks). Protein, free amino acids, and nucleotides from fish and fish by-products are all potentia l sources of nitrogen in the fish hold effluent and fish hold cleaning effluent. Ammonia nitr ogen concentrations can also be above screening level benchmarks in graywater. EPA found the aver age ammonia nitrogen c oncentration from all graywater sources on cruise ships was 2.1 mg/L (USEPA, 2008) Average phosphorous concentrations were above the screening level be nchmark of 0.1 mg/L in bilgewater, graywater, deck washdown discharges, fish hold effluent, and fish hold cleaning efflue nt. The likely source of phosphorous in bilgewater and deck washdown water is liquid detergents used on board for deck washing. Sources of phosphorous in graywate r and fish hold effluent may reflect food or other wastes. Table 3-14 shows the average co ncentrations of ammonia nitrogen and total phosphorous in the various vessel discha rges requiring detailed analysis.

Table 3-14. Average Nutrient Concen trations in Vessel Discharges at Levels Above Screening Level Benchmarks

Vessel Discharge Requiring Detailed Analysis Average Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L) Average Total Phosphorous (mg/L) Bilgewater 1.7 3.0

Deck Washdown NA 1.7

Fish Hold Effluent 12 13 Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent 16 8.5 Graywater 1.3

2.1 a 1.4

10 a Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent NA 0.13

Source: USEPA, 2010, unle ss otherwise specified. NA: Pollutant does not exceed the screening level benchmark for this vessel discharge (see Appendix D of this BE for more information regarding scre ening level benchmarks). a) Average concentration in graywater from large cruise ships (USEPA, 2008, EPA sampling data).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-36 3.2.3.3 Pathogens

Pathogens are another constituent found in vessel discharges from vessels, particularly in graywater, bilgewater and possibl y in ballast water. EPA’s study of graywater discharges from cruise ships found that levels of pathogen indica tor bacteria exceeded enterococci standards for marine water bathing and fecal coliform standards for harvesting shellfish 66 percent and over 80 percent of the time, respectively (USEPA, 2008). EPA’s study of bilgewater discharges from commercial fishing vessels found that for each of the pathogen indicator parameters, the benchmark screening levels were exceeded in one half of the collected samples (USEPA, 2010) (see Appendix D of this BE for more inform ation regarding screening level benchmarks). Additional pathogens have been associated with ballast water di scharges, including E. coli

, enterococci

, Vibrio cholerae

, Clostridium perfingens

, Salmonella spp. Cryptosporidium spp., and Giardia spp., as well as a variety of viruses (Kni ght et al. 1999; Reynolds et al. 1999; Zo et al. 1999). Note that although these pathogens are harmful to humans, they are generally not harmful to aquatic or aqua tic dependent organisms.

3.2.3.4 Oil and Grease

Oil and grease are another known component of vessel discharges that may impact aquatic life. Certain constituents in oil are toxic and potentia lly carcinogenic, and can taint organisms that are consumed by wildlife and hu mans. Vessels discharge a variety of oils including lubricating oils, hydrauli c oils, and vegetable or organic oils in every day operations. Bilgewater contains drainage fr om interior machinery, engine rooms, and from decks, which may contain oils and greases. Graywater may c ontain vegetable or organic oils mainly from galley operations, while lubricati ng oils and hydraulic oil (primarily mineral oil) are associated

with stern tube effluent and on-deck and underw ater (submerged) machinery. Another potential source of oil and grease discharges is engine wet exhaust effluent. The impact of oil and grease discharges (not accidental spills ) to the marine ecosystem could be substantial. For example, losses of lubricating oils to marine waters from stern tubes alone have been estimated to be as high as 2.6 million gallons per year world-wide (C arter, 2011). As stated by the Urban Harbors Institute (2000), “while overall concentrations of oil toxins fro m chronic sources might be lower compared to concentrations following a catastrop hic spill in the marine environment, chronic pollution can be equally toxic to marine life if sustained over extended periods of time.”

Table 3-15 shows oil and grease data 9 measured by EPA from sources such as stern tube packing gland effluent, bilgewater, deck was hdown, engine wet exhaust effluent, fish hold effluent, fish hold cleaning effl uent, and graywater from smalle r vessels (e.g., those less than 79 feet). Oil and grease from each of the ve ssel discharges shown in Table 3-15 will be

considered in detail in this BE.

9 Oil and grease is measured as both hexane extractable material (HEM) and silica gel treated HEM (SGT-HEM). HEM measures the relatively non-volatile hydrocarbons, vege table oils, animal fats, wa xes, soaps, and greases. SGT-HEM measures non-polar oil and greases such as mineral oils.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-37 Table 3-15. Oil and Grease Concentrations Me asured in Vessel Discharges Requiring Detailed Analysis

Vessel Discharge Requiring Detailed Analysis Average Oil and Grease

Concentration a (mg/L) Average Oil and Grease

Concentration b
(mg/L) Bilgewater 9.3 (44) 4.4 (18) Deck Washdown 14 (130) 7.0 (84) Fish Hold Effluent 3.2 (16) 3.4 (4.4) Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent 5.4 (28) 4.9 (12) Graywater 39 (100)

149 c 8.1 (35)

36.6 c Stern Tube Packing Gland 14 (67) 13 (56)

Source: USEPA 2010. ( ) Maximum measured concentration. a) Oil and grease measured as hexane extractable material. b) Oil and grease measured as silica gel treated hexane extractable material. c) Average concentration in graywater from large cruise ships (USEPA, 2008, EPA sampling data).

3.2.3.5 Metals

Metals are a diverse group of pollutants, many of which are toxic to aquatic life and humans. Vessel discharges can contain a variety of metal constituents that can come from a variety of on-board sources. For example, EPA’s study of cruise ship graywater found a total of

13 different metals in at least 10 percent of samples, with copper , nickel and zinc detected in 100 percent of samples (USEPA, 20 08). Bilgewater has also been shown to contain numerous metals, the exact constituents of which vary dependent upon onboard activities on the vessel and

the materials used in the constr uction of the vessel. Ce rtain metals, such as copper, are known to leach from vessel hulls containing anti-fouling coatings (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2006).

EPA found that dissolved copper was the metal analyte detected in vessel discharges at concentrations that consistently posed the gr eatest potential risk for local impacts (USEPA, 2010). In the study, concentrations of dissolv ed copper were found to exceed benchmark screening levels in at least some samples for every sampled discharge type, except for outboard engine and generator engine effluents (see A ppendix D of this BE for more information regarding screening level benchmarks). The high est concentrations of dissolved copper were detected in the deck washdown, graywater, fish ho ld, and bilgewater discha rges from most vessel types (in this case, small commercial vessels), but particularly utility vessels (e.g., towboats, supply boats). In addition to dissolved copper, total aluminum was found at concentrations exceeding screening level benchmarks in at l east some samples for all discharge types, particularly from deck washdown discharges, fo llowed by fish hold discharges, and then stern tube packing gland discharges. Likewise, concentrations of ot her metals such as dissolved cadmium, lead and zinc were also found to be elevated, particularly in the deck washdown discharges from utility vessels.

Table 3-16 lists the concentrations of total metals selected for detailed analysis for the BE in the various vessel discharges requiring detailed evaluation. As i ndicated previously, these total metals were selected because their concentrations in certain vessel discharges were above EPA’s screening level benchmarks (USEPA, 2010). Only four total metals were measured at2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-38 concentrations that were above the screening benchmark levels a nd were not attributed to the

ambient water.

Table 3-16. Average Concentrations of Total Met als in Vessel Discharges at Levels Above Screening Level Benchmarks a

Vessel Discharge Requiring Detailed Analysis Aluminum (μg/L) Arsenic (μg/L) Nickel (μg/L) Selenium (μg/L) Bilgewater 370 NA NA NA
Deck Washdown 3,400 NA NA NA

Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater b NA 81 NA 100

Fish Hold Effluent 827 40 NA NA Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent 1,100 35 NA NA Graywater 380 2 NA NA Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent NA NA 610 NA

Source: USEPA 2010 unless otherwise specified. NA: Metal is not selected as a pollutant requiring detailed evalua tion in this discharge (see Appe ndix D of this BE for more information regarding screen ing level benchmarks). a) Includes only those metals whose concentrations are not influenced by the surrounding ambient water. b) USEPA Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Effluent, EPA 800-R-11-006, Novemb er 2011. Effluent concentrations for saltwater exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge; effluent concentrations for freshwater exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge are not available.

Table 3-17 lists the concentrations of dissolved metals selected for detailed analysis for the BE in various discharges warranting deta iled evaluation. These dissolved metals were

selected because their concentrations in certa in discharges were above the screening level benchmarks (USEPA, 2010). Dissolved copper wa s consistently above the screening level benchmark concentration of 3.1 μg/L for all vessel discharges selected for detailed evaluation.

Another source of copper is from anti-fouli ng coatings applied to the vessel hull to prevent biofouling. Copper can leach from anti-f ouling coatings at rates ranging from 4 to 17 μg/cm2/day (USEPA, 2011f). To estimate th e amount of copper leached from anti-fouling coatings on the various types of VGP vessels th e average vessel length and draft (i.e., depth below the water line) was estimated and an av erage copper leaching rate applied. Table 3-18 shows the estimated daily amount of copper l eached from VGP vessel types. Copper leaching rates range from 0.075 lbs/day for barges up to 2.6 lbs/day for large oil and gas tankers.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3–Biological Evaluation Approach3-39Table 3-17. Average Concentrations ofDissolved Metals in Vessel Dischargesat Levels Above Screening LevelBenchmarksaVessel Discharge RequiringDetailed AnalysisArsenic(μg/L)Cadmium(μg/L)Chromium(μg/L)Copper(μg/L)Lead(μg/L)Nickel(μg/L)Selenium(μg/L)Zinc(μg/L)Bilgewater NA 1.9 12 100 NA 9.2 NA 130Deck Washdown NA 1.3 NA 42 6 NA NA 260Engine Wet Exhaust EffluentbNA NA NA 16 NA NA NA NAExhaust Gas Scrubber Washwaterc81 NA NA 15 NA 12 94 NAFish Hold Effluent 31 0.77 NA 96 NA NA 9.2 180Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent 22 NA NA 34 2.7 NA 6.0 190Graywater NA NA NA 55 2.5 NA NA 400Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent NA NA 19 22 NA 210 NA NASource: USEPA 2010 unless otherwise specified.NA: Metal not selected as a pollutant requiring detailed evaluation in this discharge (see Appendix D of this BE for more information regarding screening level benchmarks).a)Includes only those metals whose concentrations arenot influenced by the surrounding ambient water.b)Includes only inboard diesel engines used for propulsion having wet exhaust.c)USEPA Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Effluent, Table 2, EPA 800-R-11-006, November2011. Effluent concentrations for saltwaterexhaust gas scrubber washwaterdischarge; effluent concentrationsfor freshwater exhaust gasscrubber washwater discharge are not available.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-40 Table 3-18. Estimated Amount of Copper Leac hed from Anti-fouling Coatings Applied to Various Vessel Types

Vessel Type Average

Vessel Length (ft) Estimated

Vessel Draft (ft) Wetted

Hull Area (ft 2 ) Average Copper Leaching Rate (ug/cm 2 /day) j Estimated Copper Leaching Rate (lbs/day/vessel) Barges 175 a 10 d 3,500 10.5 0.075

Oil and Gas

Tankers 797 b 75 e 120,257 10.5 2.6

Large

Commercial Fishing 250 a 17 f 8,500 10.5 0.18

Large Cruise Ships 995 c 28 g 55,706 10.5 1.2

Large Ferries 200 a 15.5 h 6,200 10.5 0.13

Medium Cruise Ships 325 a 15.5 h 10,075 10.5 0.22

Bulk Cargo and

Other Carriers 663 b 38 i 50,355 10.5 1.1

a) Average length estimated from Figure 1.3 of USEPA’s Report to Congress (USEPA, 2010). b) Average length for oil tankers and bulk cargo carriers from Chamber of Shipping of America, MSD Survey, 2010. c) Average cruise ship length calculated from the following cruise ships: Carnival Freedom, Disney Magic, Golden Princess

and Freedom of the Sea. d) Estimated draft for barges based on Barg e Number 4727, Ingram, Nashville, TN. e) Estimated draft for oil and gas ta nkers based on a Suezmax tanker, http://people.hofstra.edu/geotran s/eng/ch5en/appl 5en/tankers.html f) Estimated draft for large commercial fishing boats based on trawlers, http://maritimesales.com/fishing%20vessels.htm g) Estimated draft for large cruise ships based on Royal Caribbean Freedom of the Seas. h) Estimated draft for large ferries and medi um cruise ships based on Washington St ate Department of Transportation’s M/V Sealth, passenger/auto ferry. i) Estimated draft for bulk cargo vessels based on Golden Pegasus Navigati on S.A High Glow vessel. j) Average copper leaching rate from USEPA Underwat er Ship Husbandry Discharges, (USEPA, 2011f).

3.2.3.6 Toxic and Non-Conventional Po llutants with Toxic Effects

The term “toxic and non-conventional pollutant s with toxic effects, ” as it applies to constituents of vessel discharges, encompasses a variety of chemical compounds known to have a broad array of adverse impacts on aquatic spec ies. These pollutants include chlorine, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). For example, EPA’s study of cruise ship graywater found a total of

17 different volatile and semi-vol atile organic compounds in at le ast 10 percent of samples, for which the most significant rates and levels of detection were phthalates, phenol, and tetrachloroethylene. EPA also found elevated ptht halates (bis(2-ethylhexy l)phthalate) in a few bilgewater and stern tube packing gland effluent samples, as well as benzene in bilgewater (USEPA, 2010). Other notabl e toxics detected in in cidental discharges from vessels include free residual chlorine in bilgew ater, deck washdown, and graywater (USEPA, 2008 and USEPA, 2010).

These compounds can cause a variety of adverse impacts on ecosystems and living marine resources, including fisheries. Phthalates are known to interfere with reproductive health, liver and kidney function in both animals and humans (Sekizawa et al. 2003, DiGangi et al. 2002). Chlorine, though toxic to humans at high concen trations, is of greater concern to aquatic species, which can experience respiratory proble ms, hemorrhaging, and acute mortality even at relatively low concentrations (USEPA, 2008).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-41 Table 3-19 shows the average concentrations of VOCs and total residual chlorine measured in vessel discharges at levels above the screening level benchmarks (see Appendix D of this BE for more information regarding scr eening level benchmarks). For nearly all vessel discharges selected for detailed evaluation, total residual chlorine was measured at levels above the 0.0075 mg/L screening level. Average concentr ations of various VOCs were measured in a variety of discharges, with bilgewater containi ng the largest number of VOCs at levels above their screening level benchmarks.

Table 3-20 shows the average concentrations of sVOCs, including PAHs, measured in vessel discharges at levels above the screening level benchmarks (for those discharges for which data were available). As expecte d, sVOCs and PAHs at elevated le vels are associated with fuel and fuel combustion. One sVOC, bis(2-ethylhexyl)pht halate, was measured in four out of five discharges associated with fuels and fuel com bustion. Engine wet exhaust effluent from inboard diesel engines contained the broa dest range of sVOCs and PAHs as compared to the other vessel discharges.

Table 3-19. Average Concentrations of VOCs and Total Residual Chlorine in Vessel Discharges at Levels Above Screening Level Benchmarks a

Vessel Discharge Requiring Detailed AnalysisBenzene (μg/L)Bromodichloro-methane (μg/L)Total Residual Chlorine (μg/L)Dibromochloro-methane(μg/L)Tetrachloroethene (μg/L)Trichloroethene(μg/L)

Bilgewater 61 NA 0.077 NA NA 2.6

Deck Washdown 13 13 0.12 13 NA NA Engine Wet Exhaust Effluent b 12 NA NA NA NA NA

Fish Hold Effluent NA NA 0.096 NA NA NA Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent NA NA 0.29 NA NA NA Graywater NA NA 0.12 NA NA NA Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent NA NA NA NA 1.4 NA

Source: USEPA, 2010 unless otherwise specified. NA: Not a pollutant selected for detailed evaluation in this discha rge (see Appendix D of this BE for more information regardin g screening level benchmarks). a) Includes only those VOCs whose concentrations are no t influenced by the surrounding ambient water. b) Includes only inboard diesel engines us ed for propulsion having wet exhaust.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-42 Table 3-20. Average Concentration of sVOCs and PAHs in Vessel Discharges at Levels Above Screening Level Benchmarks a

Vessel Discharge Requiring Detailed AnalysisBenzo(a)-anthracene (μg/L)Benzo(a)-pyrene (μg/L)Benzo(b)-fluoranthene (μg/L)Benzo(k)-fluoranthene (μg/L)Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate (μg/L)Chrysene (μg/L)Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene (μg/L)2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (μg/L)

Bilgewater NA NA NA NA 15 NA NA 7.0

Deck Washdown NA NA NA NA 4.7 NA NA NA Engine Wet Exhaust Effluent b 3.3 3.2 2.8 3.1 1.7 3.3 2.5 NA

Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater c 0.262 0.136 NA NA NA 0.373 NA NA Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent NA NA NA NA 4.7 NA NA NA

Source: USEPA, 2010 unless otherwise specified. NA: Not a pollutant selected for detailed evaluation in this discha rge (see Appendix D of this BE for more information regardin g screening level benchmarks). a) Includes only those sVOCs/PAHs whos e concentrations are not influenced by the surrounding ambient water b) Includes only inboard diesel engines us ed for propulsion having wet exhaust. c) USEPA Exhaust Gas Scrubber Wa shwater Effluent, Table 3, EPA 800-R-11-006, November 2011. Effluent concentrations for saltwater exhaust gas scrubber washwa ter discharge; effluent concentrations for freshwater exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge are not available.

3.2.3.7 Conventional and Non-Conventional Pollutants.

Conventional pollutants discharg ed from vessels include BOD 5 , TSS, oil and grease, and fecal coliform bacteria. Oil and grease and fecal coliform (a pathogen) are discussed in previous

subsections. Other non-conventional pollutants affect pH, add heat, and/or increase turbidity or suspended sediment.

Elevated concentrations of conventional pollutants like BOD 5 and TSS are expected in bilgewater, deck washdown effluent and graywater. Other discharges such as ballast water can

contain sediments and have elev ated turbidity levels and TSS. Excessive levels of both BOD 5 and TSS in receiving waters can lead to reduced dissolved oxygen levels, impacting both aquatic and aquatic-dependent organisms. Table 3-21 shows the average concentrations of BOD 5 and TSS in vessel discharges selected for detaile d evaluation that exceed the screening level benchmark of 30 mg/L (see Appendix D of this BE for more information regarding screening level benchmarks). Both BOD 5 and TSS were selected for detailed evaluation in the BE with regard to depressed dissolved oxygen levels in r eceiving waters. Engine wet exhaust effluent and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-43 exhaust gas scrubber washwater vessel discharges are not included in Table 3-21 because they are not expected to contain appreciable levels of BOD 5 and TSS. 10

Table 3-21. Average BOD and TSS Concentrations in Vessel Discharges at Levels Above the Screening Level Benchmarks

Vessel Discharge Requiring Detailed Analysis BOD 5 (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Bilgewater 190 39

Deck Washdown 110 170

Fish Hold Effluent 840 210 Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent 470 190 Graywater 430 52 Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent NA 59

Source: USEPA, 2010.

NA: Pollutant not selected for detailed evaluation in this vesse l discharge (see Appendix D of this BE for more information regarding screening level benchmarks).

Some vessel discharges are more acidic or basic than the receiv ing waters, which can have a localized effect on pH (ADEC, 2007b). Fo r nearly all fish populations, pH more acidic than 5 or more basic than 10 will cause rapid mortality. In addition, many individual species are sensitive to more moderate changes in pH (Wurts and Durborrow 1992). For the vessel discharges requiring detailed anal ysis, exhaust gas scrubber washwa ter has the greatest potential to depress pH values in receiving waters because the discharge can have pH values as low as 3 (USEPA, 2011c).

Some vessel discharges may al so affect temperature locally (Battelle, 2007). Thermal impacts of vessel discharges are generally much smaller than those from better known sources such as dams, power plant cooling water, and runoff; however, even small temperature changes can impact some sensitive organisms’ growt h, reproduction, and even survival, which implies that some vessel discharges may have loca lized adverse impacts on aquatic organisms (Abbaspour et al. 2005, Govorushko 2007) . Vessel discharges requiring detailed analysis with the potential to cause localized temperature ch anges in receiving waters include engine wet exhaust effluent and exhaust gas scrubber wash water. Engine wet exhaust discharges are generally at temperatures that are less than 5 o C above surrounding ambient water; however, engines operating at full power can discha rge at temperatures as much as 27 o C above the surrounding ambient water (USEPA, 2010). Temperat ure increases in ambient water used as source water for exhaust gas scrubbers range from 11.9 to 16.9 o C (USEPA, 2011c).

3.2.4 Summary of Vessel Types, Discharges, and Corresponding Pollutants/Constituents

Selected for Detailed Evaluation in this BE

Considering the key attributes noted above, si x categories of VGP vessels were selected

for detailed evaluation in this BE:

10 Both engine wet exhaust effluent and e xhaust gas scrubber washwater discharges are generated by combustion processes. In combustion processes, fuel is oxidized ge nerating carbon dioxide, water and othe r common oxides; none of these combustion products are expected to exert an a dditional oxygen demand (i.e., BOD 5 ). TSS in these discharges result primarily from TSS concentrations in background ambient wa ter and small quantities of particulate matter emissi ons at close to background concentrations (USEPA, 2010). Furthermore, in the case of exhaust gas scrubber washwa ter, TSS is removed by the exhaust gas scrubber washwater treatment system prior to discharge.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-44  Barges

 Oil and Gas Tankers

 Large Commercial Fishing Vessels

 Large Cruise Ships

 Medium Cruise Ships and Large Ferries

 Bulk Cargo and Other Carriers

In addition, the following three categories of sVGP vessels were selected for detailed evaluation in this BE due to high number of these types of vessels:

 Commercial fishing vessels (s einers, trawlers, trollers)

 Passenger vessels (excursion/t our boats, water taxis)

 Utility (tow/salvage boats, tugboats)

After analyzing all the possible discharges incidental to normal vessel operations, EPA selected the discharges listed belo w to analyze in detail in this BE. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, these discharges were selected based on the num ber of vessels having th e discharge, the volume of the discharge and the amount of pollutants expect ed in the discharge.

 Anti-Fouling Leachate from Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings

 Ballast water

 Bilgewater

 Chain locker effluent

 Deck washdown

 Engine wet exhaust effluent

 Exhaust gas scrubber washwater

 Fish hold and fish hol d cleaning effluent

 Graywater

 Stern tube packing gland effluent and discharge from other oil/water interfaces

 Underwater ship husbandry discharges

Specific pollutants associated with each disc harge and the discharge volume are used to estimate the amount of pollutants being disc harged to hypothetical water bodies (see Section 5.2.1). The information used to esti mate analyte loading rates expected before and anticipated after implementation of the permit conditions fo r the specific pollutants, discharges, and vessel types stem from the same reference materials cited in the preceding sections (e.g., EPA’s Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Repor t, Vessel Report to Congress, Phase I UNDS, vessel discharge technical support documents, and the vessel general permits and fact sheets). These data represent the best scientific and commercial data available for characterizing the covered vessels and permitted discharges. Addi tional details regarding pollutant loading estimation and water quality modeling, and how th ese estimates are used to support the effects analysis, are the primary subject of Section 5.0 (Effects Analysis) in this BE document.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-45 3.3 S ELECTION OF R EFERENCE A CTION A REAS (RAA S )

EPA selected multiple RAAs to evaluate the potential effects of the permit actions on listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species, as well as their designated critical habitats. EPA used the following selecti on criteria to identify the RAAs evaluated in the BE:

 High density of vessels covered under th e VGP and sVGP to capture a reasonable “worst case” scenario;

 Varying percentages of vessel types present to capture the variability in pollutant loading rates;

 Selection of RAAs that provide broad cove rage of diverse ecosystem types and broad geographical representation; and

 Selection of “special intere st” locations with known or expected sensitivities for specific taxa and their critic al habitats (i.e., Pacific coast salmonid populations, sea turtles in Gulf of Mexico, etc.) and/or specific vulnerabilities (e.g., historic introduction and spread of ANS in the Great Lakes).

Using information primarily from EPA’s NOI Summary Report (Section 2.2.1.4, Home/Most Frequented Port and Geographical Area of Oper ation) and EPA’s Report to Congress on Vessel Discharges (Section 4.3.3, Number of Vessels Present in the Harbor), EPA identified the top Home/Hailing Ports for each ve ssel type identified for detailed evaluation in the BE (see Section 3.2.4). For both groups of cove red vessels (large and small), New York, NY; Houston, TX, and Seattle, WA were consistently among the top 10 port cities, as well as other ports such New Orleans, LA; Miami, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Norfolk, VA ; Pittsburgh, PA; and St. Louis, MO (to name a few). Among these por t cities, nearly all are representative of marine/estuarine ecosystems, except for inland port cities such as Jeffersonville (Indiana), Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Cincinnati (top port cities for barges on la rge inland rivers). Port cities on a large freshwater lake (Great Lakes) system do not appear to be among the most heavily

trafficked.

From this initial list of port cities, EPA se lected seven RAAs for detailed evaluation in the BE that were both ecologically and geograp hically diverse and captured several special interest locations identified during preliminary informal consultation meetings with the Services. Table 3-22 presents the seven RAAs and provides a brief explanation justifying the selection of

each area.

Table 3-22. RAAs Selected to Support the BE An alysis and Water bodies and Ecosystems Represented

Reference

Port/Harbor Waterbody Represented Ecosystem Represented Justification

Duluth, MN Lake Superior

Harbor Freshwater [Great]

Lake Major port in sensitive “cold-water” Great Lakes

area with know n ANS issues.

Houston, TX Galveston Bay Estuarine/Marine RAA with large population of oil and gas tankers, barges, and cargo carriers. Area also encompasses nesting ground of listed sea turtles.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-46 Table 3-22. RAAs Selected to Support the BE An alysis and Water bodies and Ecosystems Represented

Reference

Port/Harbor Waterbody Represented Ecosystem Represented Justification

Miami, FL Biscayne Bay Estuarine/Marine RAA with significant populations of cargo/bulk carriers and large population of cruise ships. Area encompasses extensive listed Johnson’s seagrass beds and represents a portion of Florida’s coral reef tract. In addition, Mi ami was requested to be an additional RAA during informal consultation with Services, in light of the presence of endangered species and their critical habitats with unique characteristics not found in other RAAs

New York, NY Upper and

Lower New York Bay Estuarine/Marine RAA with significant presence of all major vessel types, and in proximity to listed short nose sturgeon population along the Hudson River. RAA includes multiple critical habitat areas.

San Francisco,

CA San Francisco Bay Estuary Estuarine/Marine RAA with significant populations of cargo bulk carriers, utility boats, and commercial fishing vessels. Estuary is emblematic of one subjected to heavy ANS invasion. In addition, San Francisco was requested to be an additional RAA during

informal consultation with Services due to the presence of a significant number of endangered and threatened species from a broad range of taxa

and critical habitat areas.

St. Louis, MO Upper Mississippi

River Large Freshwater

River RAA with large barge and supporting utility vessel presence. The upper Mississippi River near St. Louis also represents a large freshwater river ecosystem home to a sensitive listed freshwater unionid mussel species.

Seattle, WA Puget Sound Marine/Estuarine RAA with significant large and small commercial fishing vessel presence. Puget Sound near Seattle

is home to several Pacific Northwest salmonid populations. RAA includes multiple critical habitat

areas.

3.4 L ISTED S PECIES AND THEIR C RITICAL H ABITATS WITHIN RAA S

The purpose of this section is to identify the listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats that may be affected by the permits, and to identify the subset of listed species from the RAAs for the detailed risk analysis that EPA intends to use to inform the effect

determinations in this BE.

3.4.1 Listed Species That May Be Affected

For the purpose of this BE, EPA assessed all fe derally-listed aquatic or aquatic-dependent species and critical habitats th at have more than limited exposure to “waters of the United

States.” From an initial list of over 1,900 federally-listed sp ecies identified by the Services 11

,

11 The Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) geographical information dataset provided by the Services included 1,973 unique species polygon ranges fo r listed species in the United States and its territories.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-47 EPA identified 612 aquatic and aquatic- dependent animal and plant species 12 that have more than limited exposure to “waters of the United St ates” that may be affected by ANS from vessel discharges covered under the proposed actions. Appendix E presents the methodology for identifying the 612 aquatic and aquatic-dependent animal and plant species and their critical habitats and provides a complete list of the species. This li st includes 44 mammals, 4 birds, 24 reptiles, 27 amphibians, 135 fish, 27 crustacean s, 34 snails, 93 bivalve mollusks (clams and abalone), 25 insects, 2 corals, 157 sea grasses and aquatic and wetland pl ants and 217 designated critical habitats that may be affected by the permits.

From the list of 612 aquatic and aquatic-depende nt animal and plant species identified in Appendix E, EPA identified 454 aquatic and aquati c-dependent animal and plant species whose range is concurrent with waters generally navigable by vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP. The list of 454 aquatic and aquatic-dependent animal and plant species identified in EPA’s analysis constitute the full range of species and their designated critic al habitats that may be affected by both ANS and traditional pollutants from the pe rmit actions. Appendix E presents the methodology for selecting the 454 aquatic and aquatic-depende nt animal and plant species and their critical habitats which might be expos ed to traditional polluta nts from covered vessel discharges.

3.4.2 Description of Species Within RAAs Used to Support the Effects Analysis

EPA identified 82 listed species and 39 critical habitats in the seven RAAs described in

Section 3.3 for detailed evaluation in the BE. EPA performed a thorough analysis of the potential direct and indirect risks posed by ANS and traditional pollutants in incidental discharges from vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP (see S ection 5.3) on the 82 RAA listed species and

their critical habitats. EPA used the risk conc lusion results from the RAA listed species, in combination with our individual sp ecies review, to inform the effects determinations for all 612 listed species and their critical habitats that may be affected by ANS and the 454 listed species and their critical habitats that may be affected by traditional pollutants from vessel discharges covered by the permits (see Section 7 for additiona l discussion). Table 3-23 presents the 82 listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent sp ecies within each RAA. Appendi x F provides a description of each of the 82 listed species organized by RAA wh ich includes a discussion of the following: species critical habitat (if designated), life history, populatio n dynamics, and current status and distribution (range-wide, not just within the RAAs).

Table 3-23. Listed Aquatic and Aquatic- dependent Species in Respective RAAs

Status Species Scientific Name Puget Sound, Seattle, WA

T Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
E,T Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas

E Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea
E,T Steller Sea-Lion Eumetopias jubatus

T Water Howellia Howellia aquatilis E Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae T Chum Salmon (Hood Canal summer-run) Oncorhynchus keta

12 For the purpose of this BE, EPA considered all possible status categories for aquatic and aquatic-dependent species (i.e., candidate, endangered, ex perimental, proposed endangered, propose d threatened, species of concern, and threatened.)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-48 Table 3-23. Listed Aquatic and Aquatic- dependent Species in Respective RAAs

Status Species Scientific Name E,T Steelhead Salmon (Puget Sound) Oncorhynchus mykiss E,T Chinook Salmon (Puget Sound) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

E Killer Whale Orcinus orca

E Short-Tailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus

T Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus

T Ute Ladies’-Tresses Spiranthes diluvialis T Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos horribilis Upper and Lower Bay, New York, NY

E Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum

T Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumilus

E Finback Whale Balaenoptera physalus T Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta E,T Piping Plover Charadrius melodus
E,T Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas T Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii

E Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea

E Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E North Atlantic Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis E Kemps’s Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii E Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae

E Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis

E Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii dougallii Galveston Bay, Houston, TX

E Finback Whale Balaenoptera physalus T Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta E,T Piping Plover Charadrius melodus
E,T Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas

E Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea

E Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E Whooping Crane Grus americana E Kemps’s Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii E Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae

E Smalltooth Sawfish Pristis pectinata

E West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus Mississippi River, Saint Louis, MO

T Decurrent False Aster Boltonia decurrens

E Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta

E Scaleshell Mussel Leptodea leptodon E Gray Bat Myotis grisescens

E Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis T Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera leucophaea E Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus

E Least Tern Sterna antillarum Saint Louis Estuary, Duluth, MN E,T Piping Plover Charadrius melodus San Francisco Bay Estuary, San Francisco, CA T Sturgeon, North American green Acipenser medirostris E Alopecurus, Sonoma Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis E,T Salamander, California tiger Ambystoma californiense T Seal, Guadalupe fur Arctocephalus townsendi
E Sunshine, Sonoma Blennosperma bakeri
T Murrelet, marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-49 Table 3-23. Listed Aquatic and Aquatic- dependent Species in Respective RAAs

Status Species Scientific Name E Fairy shrimp, conservancy Branchinecta conservatio E Fairy shrimp, longhorn Branchinecta longiantenna T Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta E Sedge, white Carex albida T Spurge, Hoover's Chamaesyce hooveri T Plover, western snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas
E Thistle, fountain Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale
E Thistle, Suisun Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum
E Bird's-beak, soft Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Mollis E Bird's beak, palmate-bracted Cordylanthus palmatus
E Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea T Beetle, valley elderberry longhorn Desmocerus californicus dimorphus T Beetle, delta green ground Elaphrus viridis
T Otter, southern sea Enhydra lutris nereis E Goby, tidewater Eucyclogobius newberryi
T Sea-lion, Steller Eumetopias jubatus
E Abalone, White Haliotis sorenseni
T Smelt, delta Hypomesus transpacificus T Sea turtle, Olive Ridley Lepidochelys olivacea E Tadpole shrimp, vernal pool Lepidurus packardi T Whipsnake (=striped racer), Alameda Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
T Grass, Colusa Neostapfia colusana E Woodrat, riparian Neotoma fuscipes riparia E,T Steelhead (Central and South Central CA) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss E Whale, killer (Southern Resident DPS) Orcinus orca E Orcutt grass, hairy Orcuttia pilosa E Allocarya, Calistoga Plagiobothrys strictus E Bluegrass, Napa Poa napensis T Frog, California red-legged Entire Rana draytonii
E Mouse, salt marsh harvest Reithrodontomys raviventris E Shrimp, California freshwater Syncaris pacifica T Snake, giant garter Thamnophis gigas
E Grass, Solano Tuctoria mucronata Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL E Sturgeon, shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum T Sturgeon, gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi T Coral, staghorn Acropora cervicornis
T Coral, elkhorn Acropora palmata E Sparrow, Cape Sable seaside Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis
E Whale, finback Balaenoptera physalus
E Bellflower, Brooksville Campanula robinsiae
E Wolf, red Canis rufus T Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta E,T Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas
T Crocodile, American Crocodylus acutus
E Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea T Snake, eastern indigo Drymarchon corais couperi
E Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata E Whale, North Atlantic Right Eubalaena glacialis T Seagrass, Johnson's Halophila johnsonii E Whale, humpback Megaptera novaeangliae2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-50 Table 3-23. Listed Aquatic and Aquatic- dependent Species in Respective RAAs

Status Species Scientific Name
E Stork, wood Mycteria americana E Bat, gray Myotis grisescens
E Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis
T Caracara, Audubon's crested Polyborus plancus audubonii
E Sawfish, smalltooth Pristis pectinata
E Panther, Florida Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi E Kite, Everglade snail Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
E Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana
T Tern, roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii
E Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus

3.5 R EFERENCES

Abbaspour, M., Javid, A.H., Moghimi, P., & Ka yhan, K. 2005. Modeling of thermal pollution in

coastal areas and its economical and environmental assessment. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2 : 13-26.

Alaska Department of Environmental Cons ervation (ADEC). 2006. Commercial Passenger Vessel Compliance Program 2006 Small Sh ip Wastewater Sampling Results.

Alaska Department of Environmental C onservation (ADEC). 2007a. Commercial Passenger Vessel Compliance Program 2007 Small Sh ip Wastewater Sampling Results.

Alaska Department of Environmental C onservation (ADEC). 2007b. Large Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater Discharge: Gene ral Permit Information Sheet. Retrieved

from http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise _ships/pdfs/GP%20Information%20Sheet.pdf.

Albert, R., Everett, R., Lishman, J., and Smit h, D. 2010. Availability and Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Background a nd Issue Paper. Prepared for Science Advisory Board.

Battelle. 2007. Technical support for EPA developm ent of a permitting framework to address the

vacatur of the NPDES vessel exclus ion. Revised Draft, September 2007.

Baltic Marine Environment Prot ection Commission (BMEPC), 28 th Meeting. 2007. Estimated Nutrient Load from Ship Originated Waste Waters in the Baltic Sea Area. Helsenki Commission, 7-8 March 2007.

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Evaluation of Ballast Water Treatment Technology for Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms, December 2002.

California Regional Water Quality Control Boar d, San Diego Region. 2006. Shelter Island Yacht Basin TMDL for Dissolved Copper. Retrieved from http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sand iego/tmdls/shelter%20island.html.

Carlton, J.T., D.M. Reid, and H. van Leeuwen. 1995. Shipping Study: The Role of Shipping in the Introduction of Nonindigenous Aquatic Or ganisms to the Coastal Waters of the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-51 United States (other than the Great Lakes) and an Analysis of Control Options. USCG Report No. CG-D-11-95.

Carlton, J.T. 2001. The Scale of Ecological Conseque nces of Biological Inva sions in the Worlds Oceans. Invasive Species and Biodiversity Ma nagement, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Carter, C. 2011. What Ship Owners Need to Know About Stern Tube Lubricating Oil Discharges. Shipping and Environmen tal Issues in 2011. Retrieved from www.compartevents.com/Master Mariners/PDF/Carter.pdf.

DiGangi, J., Schettler, T., Cobbing, M., & Rossi, M. 2002. Aggregate Exposures to Phthalate in

Humans. Health Care Without Harm.

Drake, J.M., and Lodge, D.M. 2007. Rate of Speci es Introductions in the Great Lakes via Ships

BallastWater and Sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64:(3), 530 – 538.

Edkin, D.S. 2010. Worldwide Analysis of In-Port Vessel Operational Lubricant Discharges and Leakages. 33 rd AMOP Technical Seminar on En vironmental Contamination and Response

, June 7-9, 2010. Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Govorushko, S.M. 2007. Effect of Human Activity on Rivers. International Conference on River Basin Management. Organized by the Genera l Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI), Turkey. Retrieved from http ://www.dsi.gov.tr/english/congress2007/.

Kasyan, V. 2010. Holoplankton of Ship Balla st Water in the Port of Vladivostok. Russian Journal of Marine Biology, 36(3): 167-165.

Keller, R.P. and Drake, J.M. 2011. Linking Envi ronmental Conditions and Ship Movements To Estimate Invasive Species Transpor t Across the Global Shipping Network. Journal of Conservation Biogeography, 17(1)

.

Knight, I.T., Wells, C.S., Wiggins, B., Russell, H., Reynolds, K.A., & Huq., A. 1999. Detection and enumeration of fecal indicators and pathoge ns in the ballast water of transoceanic cargo vessels entering the Great Lakes. In General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, pp. 546, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q71.

LMC. 2011. Letter to EPA Region 5 Regarding SS Badger Petition for Individual NPDES

Permit. November 2. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/r5water/npdest ek/badger/pdfs/petition.pdf.

MEPC. 2008. 58/23 Annex 16, Report of the Mari ne Environment Protection Committee on its fifty eighth session. Internationa l Maritime Organization, 2008.

National Academy of Sciences National Re search Council (NAS). 2011. Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and In vasion Risk in Ballast Water. Committee on Assessing Numeric Limits for Living Organi sms in Ballast Water, National Research

Council. National Academies Press.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-52 National Science and Technology Council. 2000. Na tional Assessment of Harmful Algal Blooms

in US Waters. October 2000

Reynolds, K., Knight, I., Wells, C., Pepper, I., & Gerba, C. 1999. Detection of human pathogenic protozoa and viruses in ba llast water using conventiona l and molecular methods. In General Meeting of the American Soci ety for Microbiology, pp. 594, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q318.

Schiff, K, D. Diehl, and A. Valkirs. 2003. Copper Emissions from Antifouling Paint on Recreational Vessels. Technical Report 405. Prep ared for the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. (June). Retrieved from http://www.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUM ENTS/TechnicalReports/405_recreationa l.pdf.

Ship Technology. 2011. Emma Maersk – Container Sh ip Fact Sheet. Retrieved from www.shiptechnology.com/projects/emmamaerskcontiners/.

Sytsma, M.D., J.R. Cordell, J.W. Chapman, and R.C. Draheim. 2004. Lower Columbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Survey 2001-2004: Final Technical Report. Prepared for

the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from www.clr.pdx.edu/docs/LCRA NSFinalReport.pdf.

USEPA. 1999. Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) for Vessels of the Armed Forces, Technical Development Do cument. EPA 821-R-99-001, April 1999.

USEPA. 2006. Sampling Episode Report for Ho lland America Veendam (Sampling Episode 6503). Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2008. Cruise Ship Discharge A ssessment Report. EPA 842-R-07-005, December 29,

2008.

USEPA. 2009. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Co ntrol of Emissions of Air Pollution from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines. EPA 420-R-09-19. Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December, 2009.

USEPA. 2010. Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incident al to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other N on Recreational Vessels less than 79 Feet

. EPA

833-R-10-005. U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2011a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit (VGP) for Discharges Incidental to th e Normal Operation of Vessels Fact Sheet. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.

USEPA. 2011b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels

Less than 79 Feet Fact Sheet. Retrie ved from www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.

USEPA. 2011c. Exhaust Gas Scrubber Wash water Effluent. EPA 800-R-11-006, November

2011.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 3- Biological Evaluation Approach

3-53 USEPA. 2011d. Graywater Discharges from Vessels. EPA 800-R-11-001, November 2011.

USEPA. 2011e. Summary of the VGP Vessel Universe: Information Submitted by Vessel Owner/Operators for Coverage Under the Vessel General Permit (VGP). EPA 833-K-11- 102, April, 2011.

USEPA. 2011f. Underwater Ship Husbandr y Discharges. EPA 800-R-11-004, November 2011.

USEPA. 2011g. Ballast Water Discharges from Vessels. EPA 800-R-11-003. November 2011.

USEPA. 2011h. Oily Bilgewater Sepa rators. EPA 800-R-11-007, November 2011.

USCG. 2012. Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters. Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard. 33 CFR Part 151; 46 CFR Part 162 [Docket No. USCG–2001–10486] RIN 1625–AA 32. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 57. Friday, March 23, 2012.

USCG. 2009. Marine Information for Safety a nd Law Enforcement (MISLE) Database. U.S. Coast Guard, Washington DC.

USCG. 2008. Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters Preliminary Regulatory Analysis a nd Internal Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
USCG-2001-10486, June 2008.

Urban Harbors Institute. 2000. Green Ports: Envi ronmental Management and Technology at US Ports. University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA.

Wurts, W.A. and R.M. Durborrow. 1992. Inter actions of pH, Carbon Dioxide, Alkalinity and Hardness in Fish Ponds. Southern Regiona l Aquaculture Center Publication No. 464.

Zo, Y., Grimm, C., Matte, M., Matte, G., Knight , I.T., Huq, A., & Colwell, R.R. 1999. Detection and Enumeration of Pathogenic Bacteria in Ballast Water of Transoceanic Vessels Entering the Great Lakes and Resistance to Common Antibiotics. In General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiol ogy, Chicago, IL, Abstract Q317.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-1 

## SECTION 4

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The environmental baseline considers all natura l and anthropogenic cons traints that affect

the abundance and distribution of listed species. The environmental baseline includes “the past and present impacts of all federal, state, or pr ivate actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impact s of all proposed Federal project s in the action area that have already undergone formal or earl y Section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the co nsultation in process.” (50 CFR §402.02). It is meant to present a "snapshot" of the species ' health at the present point in time.

The environmental baseline complements th e information provided in Sections 3.3 and

3.4 of this BE and is intended to provide the context with which to interpret the results of the risk

conclusions in Section 5. The BE evaluates e ffects identified in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 in

combination with the baseline to determine th e likelihood of adverse effects (Section 7) and cumulative effects (Section 8) to listed species or designated critical habitats due to EPA’s proposed permit actions.

Collectively, the two permit actions impact many waters in the United States, as

described in Section 3.3 of this BE. The focus of this discussion is on listed species in seven representative RAAs. As pr eviously discussed (see Tabl e 3-22 – RAA selection and corresponding justification), th ese seven areas are among areas which have the highest vessel densities and, hence, highest potential for risk to aquatic and aquati c-dependent wildlife. Moreover, the subset of 82 speci es (see list in Table 3-23 and corresponding descriptions in Appendix F) residing in these areas are generally representative of the broad range of aquatic or aquatic-dependent listed species and their habitats across the U.S ., The risk estimated for this subset of 82 listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats from seven

RAAs is used later in this document to inform effects findings for the full range of 454 (for

conventional toxics and non-conve ntional pollutants with toxic effects) or 612 (for ANS and other pollutants lacking specific toxic effects) listed species and the waters [all waters of the U.S. and its Territories] that might be affected by the permit actions. Again, EPA employed this approach because to the Agency believes this is a reasonable way to estimate the exposure potential for all listed species in all applicable waters.

As part of the baseline, anthropogenic fact ors are described larg ely on the basis of predominant land and water uses within each RAA because land use patterns often suggest certain habitat and water quality conditions due to potential stressors associated with a particular human land use. Background information on pollut ants in the aquatic environment is also provided, which, in addition to natural factors, describes the physical and chemical quality of waters in each RAA and the impact human activiti es have contributed to the current status of

listed resources in the seven geographically distinct areas. Finally, documented invasion by aquatic nuisance species (ANS) is also noted to provide context and supp ort qualitative analysis

and determinations in the ensui ng sections of this document.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-2 This section describes the current ecos ystem status of each respective RAA and summarizes the current major and minor threats id entified by the Services to each of the listed species subject to the effect s analysis in this BE.

4.1 E COSYSTEM S TATUS WITHIN RAA S

The following subsections provide overviews of the status of the eco system within each RAA, including a description of the:

 Ecosystem,

 Major Land Uses,

 Vessel Populations Present,

 Habitat Modification and Restoration,

 Water Quality Impairments, and

 Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS).

As demonstrated by the following discussions, baseline for the seven RAAs and their list of threatened and endangered species are affect ed by a broad range of anthropogenic and natural impacts that are common to many other listed species in the U.S ., and except for introduction of ANS, there is little evidence to suggest that ma naged vessel discharges are a major contributing

factor.

4.1.1 Ecosystem Status of Puget Sound/Seattle, WA RAA

Puget Sound is an estuary of the Pacific O cean in northwestern Washington. While the entire body of water that extends northward from Olympia, WA to the Canadian border and on

either side of Vancouver Island is often referred to as Puget Sound, in actuality, this area is comprised of several separate and distinct water b odies, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Strait of Georgia, the waters surrounding the San Juan Islands, Hood Canal, and Puget Sound (Figure 4-1). For the purposes of this document, the areas related to this RAA will be Puget Sound itself as well as the major channels that connect Puget Sound to th e Atlantic Ocean (i.e.,

Strait of Juan de Fu ca and Admiralty Inlet).

The Strait of Juan de Fuca is a 92 mile long, narrow body of water that passes between

Vancouver Island and the north end of Washi ngton State’s Olympic Peninsula (US Navy, 1996). It serves as the primary oceanic access to Puget Sound.

Puget Sound, a bay with numerous channels and branches, extends approximately 81

miles south from the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca to the City of Olympia, WA. Puget

Sound includes the water area south from the nor theast part of the Olympic Peninsula to the western extremity of Whidbey Is land, and eastward from the nor th end of Whidbey Island (US Navy, 1996). It has about 2,140 miles of shoreline and contains several ports and harbors, including the cities of Olympia, Tacoma and Seattl e, as well as several U.S. Navy installations.

Admiralty Inlet is a narrow body of water passing between Whidbey Island on the east and the northeast part of the Olympic Peninsula on the west (Figure 4-1). Included within the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-3 limits of Puget Sound, Admiralty Inlet begins at th e east end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and extends southward along the west coast of Whidbey Island for approximately 18 miles. All deep draft vessels entering or leaving Puget Sound must pass through Admi ralty Inlet (US Navy, 1996). Consequently, it is a busy tr affic area for large vessels.

The Puget Sound watershed (including norther n Puget Sound) covers 13,500 square miles

and consists of over ten thousand rivers and str eams that drain into the Sound (Figure 4-1). Over 80 percent of surface water flowing into P uget Sound comes from the following major river drainages: Cedar/Lake Wash ington canal, Duwamish/Green, Elwha, Nisqually, Nooksack, Puyallup, Skagit, Skokomish, Snohomish, and Stillaguamish.

4.1.1.1 Ecosystem Description of Puget Sound/Seattle, WA

Habitat types that occur w ithin the nearshore environm ent of Puget Sound include eelgrass meadows, kelp forest, mud flats, tidal ma rshes, sub-estuaries (tid ally influenced portions of river and stream mouths), sand spits, beaches and backshore, banks and bluffs, and marine riparian vegetation. These habita ts provide critical functions such as primary food production and support habitat for invertebrates, fis h, birds, and other wildlife (NMFS, 2009).

The Puget Sound basin is home to more than 200 fish and 140 mammalian species. Salmonids within the region include coho, Ch inook, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon, kokanee, steelhead, rainbow, cutthroat, a nd bull trout (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979; Kruckeberg, 1991). Important commercial fishes include the five Pa cific salmon and several rockfish species. A number of introduced species occur within the region, including brown and brook trout, Atlantic salmon, bass, tunicates (sea squirt s), and a salt marsh grass ( Spartina spp.). Estimates suggest that over 90 species have been intentionally or accidentally introduced in the region (Ruckelshaus and McClure, 2007). At present, ov er 40 species in the re gion are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, 14 of wh ich were selected for detailed evaluation in this BE (see Section 3.4).

4.1.1.2 Major Land Uses Near Puget Sound/Seattle, WA

Land use in the Puget Sound Lowland (the wa tershed roughly west of the Cascade Range and east of the Olympic Mountains) is composed of agricultural areas (including forests for timber production), urban areas (ind ustrial and residential use), and rural areas (low density residential with some agricultural activity). Ta ble 4-1 shows the types and areas of land use within the Puget Sound Basin.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-4 Figure 4-1. Land Use and Physical Featu re Map of Puget Sound/Seattle, WA RAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-5 Table 4-1. Area of Land Use Categories Within the Puget Sound Basin

Land Use Type Area (mi 2 ) Open Water 2,383

Perennial Snow/Ice 121 Developed, Open Space 618 Developed, Low Intensity 654 Developed, Medium Intensity 258 Developed, High Intensity 103

Barren Land 402

Deciduous Forest 386 Evergreen Forest 5,576

Mixed Forest 975

Shrub/Scrub 932

Herbaceous 369 Hay/Pasture 459 Cultivated Crops 100 Woody Wetlands 250 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 190

Source: NMFS, 2009.

In the 1930s, all of western Washington contai ned about 15.5 million acres of harvestable forestland. By 2004, the total acreage was nearly half that originally surveyed (PSAT, 2007). Forest cover in Puget Sound alone was about 5.4 million acres in the early 1990s. About a decade later, the region had lost about 200,000 acres of forest cover with some watersheds losing more than half the total forested acreage. Proj ected land cover changes i ndicate that trends are likely to continue over the next several d ecades as the population continues to increase (Ruckelshaus and McClure, 2007).

The Puget Sound Lowland contains the most densely populated area of Washington. The regional population in 2003 was an estimated 3.8 million people, with 86 percent residing inKing, Pierce, and Snohomish counties (Snohomish, Cedar-Sammamish Basin, GreenDuwamish, and Puyallup River watersheds). The ar ea is expected to attract 4 to 6 million new residents in the next 20 years (Ruckelshaus and McClure, 2007). The population of the

Snohomish River watershed is one of the fa stest growing watersheds in the region.

Although urban areas occupy only 2 percent of the Pacific Northwest land base, the impacts of urbanization on aquatic ecosystems ar e severe and long lastin g (Spence et al., 1996). According to the 2001 State of the Sound report (PSAT, 2007), impervious surfaces covered 3.3 percent of the region, with 7.3 percent of lowla nd areas (below 1,000 feet elevation) covered by impervious surfaces. From 1991 to 2001, the am ount of impervious surfaces increased 10.4 percent region wide. The increase in impervious su rfaces changes the rainfall delivery to streams altering stream flow regimes. P eak flows are increased and subse quent base flows are decreased. Stream channels are widened and deepened, and riparian vegetation is typically removed which2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-6 can cause increases in water temperature and reduce the amounts of woody debris and organic matter to the stream system.

Industries in this area incl ude aerospace, military, biot echnology, fishing, electronics, computers, forest products, marine industries, telecommunications, transportation and other commerce industries (WSDC, 201 0). More than 100 years of industrial pollution and urban development have affected water quality and sedi ments in Puget Sound. These issues are further

addressed in the next section.

4.1.1.3 Vessel Populations Present in Puget Sound/Seattle, WA

The Port of Seattle (Figure 4-1) is the larges t port in this RAA and represents the primary harbor area of focus in this assessment. It pl ays a key role in bringi ng international trade, transportation and travel to the Pacific Northwest, as well as s upporting a diversity of industries such as tourism and commercial fishing (Port of Seattle, 2012). Passenger cr uise terminals in the port handled 195 ship calls and an estimated 855,000 passengers during the 2011 season (Port of Seattle, 2012). State-of-the-art cargo handling facilities helped ra nk Seattle as the nation’s sixth busiest U.S. seaport in 2010, serving 22 intern ational steamship lines moving more than 2.1 million TEUs (20-foot equivalent unit containers) (P ort of Seattle, 2012). The Port of Tacoma is a separate seaport located south of the Port of Seattle. Its proximity to the Port of Seattle suggests that vessels bound for Tacoma may transit through the Puget S ound/Seattle, WA RAA.

4.1.1.4 Habitat Modification and Restoration in Puget Sound/Seattle, WA

Much of the region’s estuarine wetlands have been heavily modified, primarily from agricultural land convers ion and urban development (NRC, 1996). Although most estuarine

wetland losses result from convers ions to agricultural land by ditching, draining, or diking, these wetlands also experience increasing effects from industrial and urban causes. By 1980, an estimated 27,180 acres of intertidal or shore wetla nds have been lost at 11 deltas in Puget Sound (Bortleson et al., 1980). Only about 18 percent of the historical ex tent of tidal wetlands remains in Puget Sound (Collins and Sheikh, 2005). Coasta l marshes close to seaports and population centers have been especially vulnerable to conv ersion with losses of 50 to 90 percent. These land

conversions and losses of Pacific Northwest wetla nds constitute a major impact on native species including salmonids.

Urbanization has directly caused loss of ri parian vegetation and soils and significantly altered hydrologic and erosion rates. About 800 m iles of Puget Sound’s shorelines are hardened or dredged (PSAT, 2005; Ruckelshaus and McClur e, 2007). The area most intensely modified is the urban corridor, along the eastern shores of Puget Sound from Mukilteo to Tacoma. Here, nearly 80 percent of the shorelin e has been altered, mostly from shoreline armoring associated with railroad tracks (Ruckelshaus and McClure, 2007). Large areas of the lower rivers have been channelized and diked for flood control and to pr otect agricultural, indus trial, and residential development. Levee development within the ri vers and their deltas ha s isolated significant portions of former floodplain hab itat that was historically used by salmon and trout during rising

flood waters.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-7 Watershed development and associated ur banization throughout the Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and Strait of Juan de Fuca regions have increased sedimentation, raised water temperatures, decreased large woody debris a nd gravel recruitment, reduced river pools and spawning areas, and dredged and filled estuar ine rearing areas (Bis hop and Morgan, 1996).

4.1.1.5 Water Quality Impairments in Puget Sound/Seattle, WA

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Ac t requires that a state must identify its polluted water bodies and submit this list to EP A every two years. The state of Washington

identified a total of 576 different waterbodies within seven Puget Sound action areas as Category 5 (impaired) waters on their 2008 303(d) list (WDOE, 2008). A total of 43 different pollutants were identified as contributing to the impairments within these listed waters in the RAA (Table 4-2). While fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen a nd temperature were the major causes of impairments, persistent organic contaminants (PCBs, TCDD, PAHs), nutrients (phosphorus), heavy metals, and pesticides were also noted.

Table 4-2. Causes for Impairment in Puget Sound Action Areas – 2008

Parameter Puget Sound Action Area

Grand

Total Hood

Canal Juan

de

Fuca North

Central

Puget

Sound South

Central

Puget

Sound South Puget

Sound Whidbey

Island
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 6 2 1 10
4,4'-DDD 2 2
4,4'-DDE 3 3
4,4'-DDT 1 1

Aldrin 1 1 Alpha-BHC 1 1 2

Ammonia-N 1 1 2
Benzo[a]anthracene 1 1 2 4 Benzo[a]pyrene 1 1
Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1 1
Benzo[b]fluorene 1 1
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1 1
Benzo[k]fluorene 1 1

Bioassessment 8 2 1 11 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)

Phthalate 1 1

Chlordane 1 1

Chlorinated Pesticides 1 1 Chrysene 1 1 3 5 Copper 10 10

DDT 1 1
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 1 12013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-8 Table 4-2. Causes for Impairment in Puget Sound Action Areas – 2008

Parameter Puget Sound Action Area

Grand

Total Hood

Canal Juan

de

Fuca North

Central

Puget

Sound South

Central

Puget

Sound South Puget

Sound Whidbey

Island

Dieldrin 3 1 4

Dioxin 3 3 Dissolved Oxygen 46 20 62 94 60 98 380

Fecal Coliform 32 30 74 158 96 83 473

Fine Sediment 3 1 4

Hexachlorobenzene 1 1 2 High MW PAH 2 2 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 1

Lead 1 1 2 Mercury 1 1 3 1 6

PCB 2 1 2 23 15 5 48 pH 4 2 2 11 12 34 65 Sediment Bioassay 1 1 Temperature 34 68 7 74 64 24 271

Total Chlordane 2 2

Total Dioxins 1 1

Total Furans 1 1 Total Nitrogen 1 1 Total Phosphorus 1 1 11 9 8 30 Toxaphene 1 1 Turbidity 5 5

Zinc 2 2

Grand Total 122 132 156 419 268 269 1366

Source: WDOE, 2008.

Studies of rivers and streams in the Puge t Sound basin performed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) from 1996 to 1998 indi cated that federal and state water quality guidelines were met by many of the waterbodies, and in general, large rivers were more likely to meet guidelines than were small streams (USG S, 2000). Concentrations of fecal coliform indicator bacteria frequently ex ceeded EPA recreational criteria and state standards protecting beneficial uses of surface water, and insecticid e concentrations were occasionally higher than guidelines recommended to protect aquatic life. A total of 74 manmade organic chemicals were detected in streams and rivers, with different mixtures of chemicals linked to agricultural and urban settings (USGS, 2000).

Many different kinds of activit ies and substances release pollution into Puget Sound and the contributing waters. In 2004, the Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT) identified the primary pollutants of concern in Puget Sound and thei r sources as listed be low in Table 4-3.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-9 Table 4-3. Pollutants of Concern in Puget Sound

Pollutant Sources Heavy Metals: Pb, Hg, Cu, and others Vehicles, batteries, paints, dyes, stormwater runoff, spills, pipes. Organic Compounds: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Burning of petroleum, coal, oil spills, leaking

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Underg round fuel tanks, creosote, asphalt. Dioxins, Furans Byproducts of industrial processes. Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDTs) Chlorinated pesticides.

Phthalates Plastic materials, soaps, and other personal care products. Many of these compounds are in wastewater from sewage treatment plants.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) PBDEs are added to a wide range of textiles and plastics as a flame retardant. They easily leach

from these materials and have been found throughout the environment and in human breast

milk.

Source: PSAT, 2005.

In addition, 27 Superfund sites ar e currently listed within the Puget Sound watershed. Of those, six are described as significantly pollu ting surface waters and/or sediments in or immediately adjacent to Puget Sound (USEPA, 2011).

Puget Sound is unique among the na tion’s estuaries as it is a deep fjord-like structure containing many urban areas within its drainage basin (Collier et al., 2007). Because of the several sills that limit entry of oceanic water into Puget Sound, it is relatively poorly flushed compared to other urbanized estuaries of North America. Thus, toxic chemicals that enter Puget Sound have longer residence times within the syst em. This entrainment of toxics can increase biota exposure to contaminant concentrations wh en compared to other large estuaries. This hydrologic isolation also puts th e Puget Sound ecosystem at higher risk from other types of pollutants that enter the system, su ch as nutrients and pathogens.

Because Puget Sound is a deep, almost oceanic habitat, the tendency of a number of species to migrate outside of Puget Sound is limit ed relative to similar species in other large urban estuaries. This high degree of residency for many marine species, combined with the poor flushing of Puget Sound, results in greater expos ure of these species to contaminants. The combination of hydrologic and bi ological isolation makes th e Puget Sound ecosystem highly susceptible to inputs of toxic chemicals (Collie r et al., 2007).

4.1.1.6 Historic ANS Introductions and Impacts in Puget Sound/Seattle, WA

In 2004, a study commissioned by the Puget Sound Partnership reported that 54 nonnative species (both plants and animals) have established themselves permanently, and an additional 22 others have been sighted in the Puget Sound region but may not be established nor are reproducing (Cohen, 2004). This st udy incorporated data from a nu mber of previous invasive2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-10 species surveys, and attribut ed the introduction of numerous nuisance species to vessels operating within Puget Sound. The study indicated th at 33 established invasive plant and animal species were potentially introduced via ballast wa ter or hull fouling. Ballast water was implicated

in the introduction of 17 of these invasive specie s including the purple varnish clam, the Pacific transparent sea squirt, common sea grape, and cl ub tunicate, as well several other crustaceans and polychaete worms (Cohen, 2004).

Regional analysis of four major Northeast Pacific Ocean (NEP) estuaries in 2005 showed that Puget Sound and the contiguous Straits ha d the most introduced species, followed by Humboldt Bay, Coos Bay and Willa pa Bay (Wonham and Carlton, 2005). The authors’ review of literature and field surveys, documented 123 intro duced invertebrate, algal, fish, and vascular plant species in the NEP. Major invasion pathwa ys were shipping (hull fouling and solid and water ballast) from the 1500s to the present, a nd shellfish (particularl y oysters) and finfish imports, most common from the 1870s to mid-1900s (Wonham and Carlton, 2005).

4.1.2 Ecosystem Status of Upper a nd Lower Bay/New York, NY RAA

The New York/New Jersey Estuary connects the Hudson River to the Atlantic Ocean.

Located between the states of New York and New Jersey, its main components are the Upper and Lower New York Bays, connected by the Narrows (Figure 4-2). Upper New York Bay, also known as New York Harbor, is located along the western shore of Long Island, extending from

the confluence of the Hudson and East Rivers in the north to Lower New York Bay in the south. The New Jersey ports of Perth Amboy, Port El izabeth, Port Newark, Bayonne and others are accessible through tributaries that empty into Upper New York Bay (US Navy, 2009). Lower New York Bay includes Jamaica Bay to the east and Sandy Hook Bay to the south. Other waters of the New York Bay estuary include the Huds on River below Troy Dam, Newark Bay, Jamaica Bay, Raritan Bay, East River, Kill van Kull, and Ar thur Kull. For the purposes of this report, the areas related to this RAA include Upper and Lower New York Bay, Raritan Bay, and Kill van

Kull.

The urban core of the New York City metr opolitan area is centered around the Upper and Lower New York Bays. The urban core includes all the land area within a 25 mile radius of Central Park, Manhattan, NY; this 1,963 square mile area encompasses most of the urban developed land in the greater metropolitan Ne w York City region (USFWS, 1997). The Upper Bay, surrounding the Statue of Li berty, Ellis Island and Governor’s Island, is cl osely tied to portions of Manhattan, Brookl yn, and Staten Island, NY, as well as Hudson County, NJ (USACE, 2009).

The immediate New York Bay watershed consis ts of all rivers and waterways draining directly into it. Dominating the hydrology of th is system is the 320 mile Hudson River. The entire Hudson drains a watershed of 13,400 squa re miles, and has an average flow of 21,000 cubic feet/second, with large seasonal variations in fresh water inflow and inversely related levels of salt water intrusion (USFWS, 1997).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-11 4.1.2.1 Ecosystem Description of Upp er and Lower Bay/New York, NY

The convergence of three physiogra phic provinces (the sand, gravel s, and clays of the Atlantic Coastal Plain; the sandstones, shales, and igneous intrusions of the Piedmont Province; and the metamorphic crystalline rock ridges of the New York/New Jersey Highlands and Manhattan Hills extensions of the New England Province) provides a great diversity of landforms, bedrock types, and vegetational communities within the urban core. Overlaying this complex base is glacial till, glacial lake sedime nts, and glacial outwash sediment s. Much of the glaciated region tends to have complex surface drainage patterns, resulting in numerous fr eshwater wetlands that have developed in closed basins or kettles. Par ticularly significant in this area were two glacial lakes that persisted in the area for several thousan d years after the glacial retreat and now contain the extensive wetland systems of Hackensack Meadowlands and Passaic Meadows (Great Swamp/Troy Meadows). The complex geologic hist ory of the metropolitan region results in a wide range of aquatic and terres trial habitat types available in a relatively small area (USFWS, 1997).

In the area surrounding New York Bay, there are 1,538 hectares of salt marsh in New York City and 2,034 hectares of tidal wetlands in between New York City and the Troy Dam on

the Hudson River. These serve as a natura l means of flood control and water quality improvement (Montalto and Steenhuis, 2004).

At present, over 30 species in the region ar e listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, 14 of which were selected for detaile d evaluation in this BE (see Section 3.4).

4.1.2.2 Major Land Uses Near Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY

New York is the most populous city in the United States and the center of the New York Metropolitan Area, one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the world. In 2010, New York City had a population of 8,175,133 in an area of just 305 square miles of land (U.S. Census Bureau, March 24, 2011 Press Release). New Yo rk City is composed of five boroughs: Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. Located on one of the world's largest natural harbors, New York exerts a significant impact upon global commerce.

The city's land has been altered substantia lly by human interventi on, with considerable land reclamation along the waterfronts since Dutch colonial times. Because so much of the land around the New York Bay is developed, open spaces are important to wildlife. Currently, open spaces (public parks, playgrounds and nature preserves, cemeteries, amusement areas, beaches, stadiums and golf courses) comprise 27% of the lot area in New York City. The New York City Park System alone contains more than 10,500 hect ares (26,000 acres) and o ccupies 13 percent of the city's total area (NYCDCP, 2010). Although much of this parkland is developed for recreation, the park system also includes 2,830 hect ares (7,000 acres) of undeveloped forest, tidal and freshwater wetlands, and meadows (USFWS, 1997).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-12 Figure 4-2. Land Use and Physical Feature Map of Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY

RAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-13 4.1.2.3 Vessel Populations Present in Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY

The Port of New York and New Jersey (Figur e 4-2) is the largest oil importing port and third largest container port in the nation. Since the 1950s , the New York and Brooklyn commercial port has been almost completely eclipsed by the container ship f acility at nearby Port

Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal in Newark Bay, which handled the th ird largest amount of shipping of all ports as measured in tonnage in the U.S. in 2004 and is the largest such port on

the Eastern Seaboard. The New York harbor area in general is still serviced by several cruise lines, commuter ferries, and tourist excursi on boats (Port of New York and New Jersey, 2012 and U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011).

4.1.2.4 Habitat Modification and Restorat ion Near Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY

Starting in the 1700s, the New York shorelin e began to be significantly modified, channels were dredged, and wetlands filled or fragmented due to trade increases, population growth, transportation needs and urbanization. Many wetlands were also impaired through hydrologic alteration. It is estimated that with in the New York/New Jersey Estuary, which includes the Upper and Lower New York Bays, 75 per cent of wetlands have b een lost in the last century (Montalto and Steenhuis, 2004). LaGuardi a, John F. Kennedy, and Newark International Airports were constructed on filled wetlands (USACE, 2009). The Port of New York and New Jersey occupy 755 miles of shor eline. These facilit ies require shoresid e support, mooring facilities, and adequate channel depth. Of the estimated 90,653 hectares (224,000 acres) of

freshwater wetlands that existed in New York C ity prior to the American Revolution, only small areas remain. As of 2004, 26.3 hectar es of wetlands had been restor ed in the New York part of Long Island Sound (Montalto and Steenhuis, 2004).

Dredging, dredged material disposal, filling aquatic habitat to create land for port improvement or expansion, and degradation of wa ter quality are the most serious port-related threats and have been well recognized for their de leterious effects on livi ng marine resources and habitats (USFWS, 1997). Bulkheads, piers, and s horeline fill have reduced the near-shore zone of shallow, soft-bottom habitats, rocky outcroppings, wetlands, and sand beaches. These areas were ideal for fish nurseries. With the replacemen t of these waters, the quality of spawning and nursery areas was reduced (USACE, 2009).

The tidal waters of the Hudson River have b een changed since the 1800s via dredging for navigation, shoreline wetland alteration (often for railroad construction), and the construction of dams, which restrict water flow and fish movement through the watershed (Daniels et al., 2005).

Sediment carried from the Hudson River to th e New York Bay requires dredging the bay and upriver areas to maintain a 29.5 to 36 feet deep shipping channel (Daniels et al., 2005). According to Montalto and Steenhuis (2004), no wetlands have been restored along the Hudson

River.

Habitat alteration in Upper and Lower New Yo rk Bays has led to changes in species populations in the estuary. For example, th e Eastern oyster’s numbers have declined significantly, due to sedimentation smothering th e oyster beds, overharvesting, and poor water quality (USACE, 2009).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-14 4.1.2.5 Water Quality Impairments in U pper and Lower Bay/New York, NY

A total of six different pollutants were identif ied in the 2010 New York 303(d) list and an additional twelve pollutants were included in the 2010 New Jersey 303(d) list as c ontributing to the impairments within the listed waters of the Upper and Lower New York Bay RAA (Table 4-4). PCBs and other toxics were the most common causes of impairments. The New York 303(d) list describes “other toxi cs” as mercury, dioxins/furans, P AHs, pesticides and other heavy metals. Many of the “other toxics” on New York’s 303(d) list are counted as separate parameters in the New Jersey 303(d) list. Pathogens, floa table debris, cadmium, n itrogen, chlordane, DDT, DDD, DDE, and dissolved oxygen were also noted as causes of impairment (NYSDEC, 2010; NJDEP, 2007).

Table 4-4. Causes for Impairment in Upper and Lower New York Bay RAA – 2010

Parameter Upper New York Bay Lower New York Bay Kill van

Kull Raritan Bay Grand

Total

NY NJ NY NJ NY NJ NY NJ Pathogens 1 1

Floatables 1 1

PCBs 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 14

Other Toxics 1 2 1 3 7

Cadmium 1 1 3 5

Total Coliform 1 1

Enterococcus 1 1 Dioxins (including 2,3,7,8- TCDD) 1 1 2 2 6

Mercury 1 1 1 3

Chlordane 1 2 2 5

Dieldrin 1 2 2 5 Heptachlor Epoxide 1 2 3

Hexachlorobenzene 1 2 3

DDT 1 2 2 5

DDD 1 2 2 5

DDE 1 2 2 5 Dissolved Oxygen 2 2 Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) 1 2 2 5

Cause Unknown 1 2 3

Source: NYSDEC, 2010

.

The causes for these impairments include comb ined sewer overflows, toxic/contaminated sediment, urban storm runoff, on-site/septic sy stems (illegal connections), sediment mounds, other sanitary discharges, and industrial sources . Other sources are susp ected, but not confirmed (NYSDEC, 2011).

New York Bay receives high loadings of nut rients and organic matter that originate mainly from sewage treatment plants but also fr om a variety of other poi nt and nonpoint sources.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-15 These loadings result in low di ssolved oxygen concentrations in many parts of the Bay. Recently there have been significant incr eases in dissolved oxygen in some of the more degraded areas, such as the Upper New York Bay, but there have also been significant decreases in the Lower New York Bay. Low dissolved oxygen has acute and chronic effects on various life stages of benthic species and limits the use of the area by pelagic species.

Another water quality problem, low levels of light penetration, results from high suspended solids and phytoplankton biomass that can reduce the amount of light reaching the bottom to levels below those necessary to s upport submerged aquatic vegetation, especially eelgrass ( Zostera marina ). A recent attempt to restore eelgrass beds in Raritan Bay failed, apparently due to a combination of wave action, turbidity, shading and smothering by sea lettuce, fouling of eelgrass blades by inve rtebrates and epiphytic algae, and nitrate enrichment (USFWS, 1997).

4.1.2.6 Historic ANS Introductions and Impacts in Upper and Lower Bay/New York, NY

Many of New York’s plants and animals ar e non-native. Twenty-one macrophyte species, 67 fish species, and 4 species of amphibians and re ptiles have been introduced to the waters of New York (Benson et al., 2004). In a survey done in 2003, the National Estuary Program sampled three sites in the New York/New Jersey Estuary. A total of 98 introduced species were found in New York City waters. This survey only included the floating dock communities, and

not other habitats with in these waters (Pederson et al., 2005). Some common aquatic nuisance species in the New York/New Jersey Harbor are found in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5. Aquatic Nuisance Species in the New York/New Jersey Harbors

Aquatic Nuisance Species Type or organism Reason of Concern
Common reed, Phragmite australis Aquatic wetland plant Crowds out native species

Bartsch shipworm,

Teredi bartschi Mollusk-Bivalve Bore into woode n structures (piers, bulkheads, and boat hulls) Wood boring gribble, Limnoria tripunctata Crutacean-Isopod Bore into wooden structures (piers, bulkheads, and boat hulls)
Gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum Fish Competition for food resources with native species
Channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus Fish Competition with native species

Chinese mitten crab,

Eriocheir sinensis Crustacean-Crab Competition with native blue crab; promote erosion an habitat loss with burrowing habits
Water chestnut, Trapa natans Aquatic plant Compeition w ith native species; reduce dissolved oxygen levels; creates nearly impenetrable mats
Zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha Mollusk-Bivalve Competition with native species; biofouling capabilities; colonize pipe; reduce biomass of phytoplankton

Source: NYSISTF, 2005.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-16 4.1.3 Ecosystem Status of Galveston Bay/Houston, TX RAA

Galveston Bay is an estuary located in sout heastern Texas, near the Houston-Galveston area. It is the largest estuary along the Texas Gulf coast, with a total area of 384,000 acres. In this estuary, freshwater from the Trinity and Sa n Jacinto Rivers mix with the Gulf of Mexico. Galveston Bay is comprised of four major sub- bays: Galveston, Trinity, East, and West Bays. Overall, the bay extends 30 miles north-s outh and 17 miles east -west (Figure 4-3).

Galveston Bay contains several ports, includ ing the cities of H ouston, Galveston, and Texas City. The ports of Houston and Galvest on are located adjacent to Galveston Bay on the

northwest coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The en trance to Galveston Bay passes between Galveston

Island and Bolivar Peninsula. The Port of Houston is the larger of the two ports. It is situated on Buffalo Bayou at the northwest end of a long sh ipping channel (Houston Ship Channel) that begins in the Gulf of Mexico. The shipping ch annel crosses the western portion of Galveston Bay for approximately 22 nautical miles before entering the natural drainage paths of the San Jacinto River and Buffalo Bayou. Bu ffalo Bayou is one of the drainage basins for the City of Houston (PHA, 1996). Extensive petrochemical inst allations, including re fineries and storage tanks, are located along the Houston Ship Channel from the turning basin to Atkinson Island, and at Texas City. In addition to th e large industrial facilities, Ga lveston Bay has several smaller bays and harbors that are used fo r recreational boating (US Navy, 2009).

The Galveston Bay watershed covers 33,000 squa re miles of water and land (Figure 4-3). Upper Galveston Bay receives the outflow of the San Jacinto River and dr ainage from Houston through the Houston Ship Channel. Trinity Bay rece ives the outflow from the Trinity River. East Bay receives the inflow from Oyster Bayou and runoff from Chambers County. West Bay receives runoff from Chocolate Bayou, Mustang Bayou, and other local bayous.

4.1.3.1 Ecosystem Description of Galveston Bay/Houston, TX

Habitat types that occur within the nears hore environment of Galveston Bay include marshes, mud and sand flats, seagrass beds, oys ter reefs, open bay bottoms and open bay water (Sage and Gallaway, 2002). These habitats provide cr itical functions su ch as primary food production and support habitat for invertebrates, fish, birds, and other wildlife. Seagrass meadows are the preferred habitat for many juve nile fish and shellfish and provide food for threatened and endangered species of sea turtles.

Galveston Bay is home to a population of more than 162 species of finfish. While some species spend their entire life in the Bay, others migrate to the Gulf as newly hatched young until maturation. The Bay is also home to many migratory birds for at least part of the year, such as brown pelicans, egrets, pelican s, white-faced ibises, bald eagles and piping plovers.

At present, over 50 species in the region ar e listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, 13 of which were selected for detaile d evaluation in this BE (see Section 3.4).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-17 Figure 4-3. Land Use and Physical Feature Map of Galveston Bay/Houston, TX RAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-18 4.1.3.2 Major Land Uses Near Galveston Bay/Houston, TX

Major land uses in and around Galveston Bay in clude industrial activ ities, especially refining and petro-chemical indust ries, suburban development, and rural uses including livestock grazing and crop production. Growth of the petroleum industry has led to major changes of land use in and around Galveston Bay. Industrial activi ties, especially refini ng and petro-chemical industries, are most prominent in the eastern part of Harris County, near the Houston Ship Channel. Highly industrialized ar eas are located in several muni cipalities, including Houston, Pasadena, Baytown, Deer Park, and La Porte. Ga lveston County includes the urbanized eastern portion of Galveston Island and the industria lized Texas City-La Marque area. Further development in Galveston County is limited due to existing development, natural barriers, and lack of transportation access. Chambers County has some pe trochemical plants near the Harris County-border.

Suburban development exists in Dickinson, L eague City, and Friendswood in Galveston County. Two suburban areas of Br azoria County provide residen ces for commuters to Houston and the major petrochemical complexes. Ru ral areas include Chambers County, Brazoria County, and Liberty County, which is the fastes t growing county in th e area. Brazoria and Chambers Counties have large areas of land set aside for conservation and recreation.

While the western side of Galveston Bay is urbanized, the lands east of Trinity Bay and north of West Bay have more rural uses. Live stock grazing and crop production are the primary agricultural land uses. Impacts on the bay from rural land us es include nonpoint pollution

sources of fecal coliform bacteria from lives tock waste and the introduction of nutrients, herbicides and pesticides from crop management (Sage and Gallaway, 2002).

4.1.3.3 Vessel Populations Present in Galveston Bay/Houston, TX

The Port of Houston (Figure 4- 3), the primary harbor in th is RAA, is made up of the public terminals owned, managed an d leased by the Port of Hous ton Authority, and the 150-plus private industrial companies along the 52-mile long Houston Ship Channel (Port of Houston Authority, 2012). Each year, more than 200 million tons of cargo move through the Port of Houston, carried by more than 7,700 vessels and 150,000 barge calls (Port of Houston Authority, 2012). As one of the world’s busies t ports, the Port of Houston has played a key role for the City of Houston's development as a center of inte rnational trade. It is home to a $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest in the world. Approximately 100 steamship lines offer service linking Hous ton with 1,053 ports in 203 countries (Port of Houston Authority, 2012). The ship channel also intersects a very busy barge traffic lane, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Por t of Houston Authority, 2012).

4.1.3.4 Habitat Modification and Restoratio n of Galveston Bay/Houston, TX

Wetlands and seagrass meadows are two habita ts that have been heavily modified in Galveston Bay. Causes of wetland losses in th e Galveston Bay since the 1950s include land

subsidence and relative sea-level rise; land use conversion for agri cultural, urban, industrial, and transportation purposes; dredge-and-fill activities; and isolation projects. While sea-level rise and

subsidence has resulted in new we tlands being created upland, ther e has been an overall loss of2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-19 wetlands. Draining of wetlands led to the loss of 365,000 acres of wetla nds between 1950 and 1993 (Sage and Gallaway, 2002). While changes in the shoreline causing wetland and bay isolation have not directly destroyed wetlands, it has decreased the amount of estuarine wetlands in the Bay. The closure of the area near the mouth of the Trinity River, for example, eliminated 6,000 acres of shallow bay bottom and 10,000 acres of marshland (Ward, 1993). Another source

of wetland destruction is thr ough dredging. It is estimated th at 7,070 acres of marsh land was dredged between 1900 and 1990 (Ward, 1993). The Galveston Bay Plan

, a comprehensive conservation and management plan for the Galveston Bay ecosystem developed as a part of EPA’s National Estuary Program, cons iders the bay’s lost or degraded aquatic habitats as its top priority. As of 2000, approximately 1,440 acres of the Galveston Bay Plan’s goal of 8,600 acres

of wetland restoration has been achieved.

Seagrass meadows, which serve as nurser y, feeding, and sheltering grounds for many marine species, have been heavily reduced. Hi storically, seagrass mea dows flourished in the Trinity River Delta, along the western shorelin e of Galveston Bay from Seabrook to San Leon, along the southern shoreline of West Bay, and in Christmas Bay. Seagrass has been reduced to a mere 280 acres in Christmas Bay, with some wi dgeongrass scattered ne ar the Trinity River mouth, in Galveston Bay tributaries, and in isolated ponds (Sage and Gallaway, 2002). Approximately 80 percent of the Bay’s submerge d aquatic vegetation has been lost since the 1950s (GBEP, 2003). While the factors leading to the disappearance are not entirely understood, it is estimated that subsidence, hurricane Cala , decrease in light attenuation, and anthropogenic causes are among the contributing factors. Dredgi ng has both a direct and immediate effect on seagrass mortality due to burial. In addition, there are indirect losse s resulting from the

disturbance of sediments attri buted to lowered light conditions. Dredging may also create a hypoxic environment. It has also been suggested that seagrass meadows can also undergo erosion as a result of changes in hydrologic conditions occurring from the dredging of navigational channels (TPW, 1999).

State agencies approved a Seagrass Conser vation Plan for Texas (SCPT) in 1999. The SCPT focuses on regulatory, management, and edu cation goals. Further protection for seagrass beds is provided through the CWA Section 401 and 404 permitting process, which emphasizes seagrass bed avoidance. Thanks to improved wate r quality, slowed development in some areas, and the ceasing of open bay disposal of dredge d material, seagrass restoration is possible.

Terraces in Galveston Island State Park have been repopulated with a seagrass ecosystem.

4.1.3.5 Water Quality Impairments in Galveston Bay/Houston, TX

A total of 10 different pollutants were iden tified by Texas in 2008 as contributing to the impairments within the 303(d) listed waters in the Galveston Bay area (Table 4-6). While fecal coliform bacteria, dioxins, and PCBs were the ma jor causes of impairments, sulfate, dissolved oxygen, pH, toxic sediment and mercury contamin ation were also noted as causes (TCEQ, 2008). The San Jacinto and Trinity Rivers have the most impairments, followed by the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-20 Table 4-6. Causes for Impairment in Galveston Bay Area – 2008

Parameter Galveston Bay Area Impairments

Grand

Total Galveston Bay Trinity Bay East Bay West Bay San

Jacinto

River Houston Ship

Channel Trinity

River

Bacteria 4 1 1 2 15 9 11 43

Sulfate 13 13

Chloride 3 3

TDS 3 3

Dioxin 2 11 8 21

Dissolved Oxygen 2 7 9

Mercury 1 1

PCB 2 10 8 10 30 pH 2 2

Sediment Bioassay 1 1 2

Grand

Total 8 1 1 2 40 26 49 127

Source: TCEQ, 2008.

Contaminated stormwater runoff from non-poi nt sources is a significant problem for Galveston Bay. As human population and urbani zation increases, so does pollution from stormwater runoff. Point sources of pollution include sewage leaks, sewage bypasses, and sanitary sewer overflows from corroding wastew ater collection systems; improperly treated discharges from some small utility districts' wa stewater treatment plants ; and illicit connections to storm sewers. The combined point and non-point source pollution problems lead to low dissolved oxygen levels due to nutrients, c ontamination of water by metals and organic pollutants, and closure of shellfish harvesting ar eas due to fecal coliform bacteria contamination (GBEP, 2003).

Eutrophication caused by nutrient enrichment from point and non-point sources promotes the deterioration of seagrass meadows, which ar e a major habitat for many of Galveston Bay’s species. Eutrophication can cause th e growth of epiphytic and drif t microalgae, which inhibit the growth of seagrass. Nitrate toxicity can also inhibit seagrass health (TPW, 1999). Seagrass beds are critical coastal nursery habitat for estuarin e fisheries and wildlife and are a direct food sources for fish, birds, and sea turtles. They contribute organic matter to estuarine and marine food webs, participate in nutrient cycling processes, and can help stabilize coastal sedimentation and erosion processes (TPW, 1999).

Spills of oil and other materials affect both aesthetics and ecological functions of Galveston Bay. The concentration of industry, sh ipping operations and urban development in the watershed increases the risk of sp ills in the bay. Estuarine debris is concentrated along the bay's and tributaries' shorelines, where it accumulates due to the actions of winds, currents, and waves.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-21 There are 21 Superfund sites listed in the Galveston Bay-San Jacinto Watershed. These

facilities contributed le gacy pollutants to the Bay area from industries such as oil and gas refining, wood preserving, chemical manufactur ing, industrial waste co llection and recycling, sand mining, dry cleaning, metal casting foundry, a nd copper and tin smelting. Pollutants from these sources include: petrochemicals, wood pres ervatives, herbicides, organic and inorganic sludges, liquids and solids, oils, chromium, coppe r, lead mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc, PCBs and PAHs (USEPA, 2011).

4.1.3.6 Historic ANS Introductions and Impacts in Galveston Bay/Houston, TX

Based upon a comparative risk assessment performed for the Galveston Bay Estuary Program in 2003 (see Gossett et al., 2004), it is estimated that 145 non-indigenous aquatic species and 67 mammals have been introduced to th e Galveston Bay area. Of the aquatic species, 2 are crustacean, 7 are molluscs, 107 are fish, 4 are amphibian, 1 is an aquatic mammal, 3 are reptiles, and 21 are plants. As noted in the fina l report, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department also maintains a list of 33 exotic finfish, seven shellfish, and 11 plants that cannot be imported, possessed, sold, or introduced to Texas waters w ithout a permit (Gosset et al., 2004). In addition, the Texas Department of Agriculture developed a lis t of 27 aquatic and terres trial plants that are prohibited in the State of Texas (Gosset et al., 2004). Some of th e more common aquatic nuisance species found in Galvest on Bay are listed in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7. Aquatic Nuisance Species in the Galveston Bay

Aquatic Nuisance Species Type or organism Reason of Concern
Nutria, Myocastor coypus Mammal Overgrazing of wetland vegetation;

increase erosion Grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon

idella Fish Feed on emergent vegetation, destruction

of habitat

Blue tilapia,

Oreochromis aureus Fish Competition with native species, consume large amounts of vegetation; potential to hybridize

Nile tilapia,

Oreochromis niloticus Fish Competition with native species, consume large amounts of vegetation; potential to hybridize
Armored catfish, Pterygoplichthys

multiradiatus Fish Increase erosion from burrowing activities, competition with native species

Source: GBEP, 2010

.

The Galveston Bay Estuary Program has lis ted aquatic nuisance species among their priority problems (see Gosset et al., 2004).

4.1.4 Ecosystem Status of Upper Mississ ippi River at St. Louis, MO RAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-22 The Upper Mississippi River (UMR ) is the portion of the Mississ ippi River upstream of Cairo, IL where it is joined by the Ohio River (at Rive r mile 0). From its headwaters at Lake Itasca, MN, the UMR flows approximately 1,250 miles to Ca iro. The city of St. Louis, MO is located along the west side of the UMR in the vicinity of river mile 180 (Figure 4-4), south of the

confluence with the Missouri River. The areas related to this R AA include this segment of the UMR. This is the widest point on the Mississippi Rive r (nearly 1 mile across). The river here

forms the border between the stat es of Missouri and Illinois. Th e Illinois River joins with the UMR 23 miles upstream from St. Louis.

The UMR below St. Louis drains over 189,000 square miles (nearly 121 million acres) of land in the upper Midwest and en compasses portions of eight di fferent states. The basin has 30,700 miles of streams with 12 majo r tributaries to the UMR, incl uding the Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa Rivers (UMBRA, 2011). Becau se of the size of its drainage area, the Missouri and its tributaries are considered a sepa rate river region, but be cause the Missouri River enters the UMR a few miles above St. Louis, wa ter from the Missouri River also influences hydrology, water quality and habitat pa rameters within this RAA.

Along the Minnesota-Wisconsin border, the Mississippi River a nd its floodplain are between 1 and 3 miles wide. Further downriver, in the alluvial lowlands south of St. Louis, the width of the floodplain is much greater, about 50 miles wide (UMBRA, 2011). The average annual discharge on the UMR increases from 9,180 c ubic feet per second (cfs) near St. Paul, MN to 204,800 cfs at Thebes, IL. From St. Louis to th e Ohio River confluence, the Mississippi drops

in elevation a total of 220 feet over a distance of 180 miles fo r an average rate of 1.2 feet per

mile. At its confluence with the Ohio Rive r, the river is 315 f eet above sea level.

4.1.4.1 Ecosystem Description of Upper Mi ssissippi River at St. Louis, MO

The St. Louis RAA is within what is known as Reach 3 of the UMR. This reach is considered “open river”, meani ng the reach is downstream from the navigational dams and is unimpounded from the Melvin Price Lock and Dam at river mile 200 downstream to the confluence with the Ohio River and beyond. Th e open river of the UMR is unimpounded and relatively free-flowing. It is c onstrained by naturally high banks west of the channel and by flood

levees east of the channel. In it s natural state, the river corri dor here was physically complex with main and side channels, open and isolated channels, islands and deep pools, erosional and depositional areas, and backwaters and floodplains. Across this na tural template, the two most common substrates supporting benthic fauna were fi ne substrates such as gravel, sand, silt, or clay and plant material such as tree trunks, bran ches, roots, and aquati c macrophytes (Battle et al., 2007). Anthropogenic activities modified the physical structure of the channel here and throughout most of the UMR. Installment of da ms created lakes and widened the channel in

some locations while flood-control levees and dredging narrowed the channel and isolated the floodplain in other locations. Sedi ments were also redistribute d by dams and dredging, and by lateral wing dikes (a.k.a., wing da ms) that redirect flow towa rd the navigation channel and increased lateral sediment deposition. The riverb anks, which were formerly clay, silt and snags are now covered with erosion prot ection materials such as limestone rocks or articulated concrete mattresses. Woody debris is now sc arce or absent in the main ch annel (Battle et al., 2007). The

river at this location now contai ns almost no aquatic vegetation, a high proportion of the water is2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-23 Figure 4-4. Land Use and Physical Featu re Map of UMR at St. Louis, MO RAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-24 in channel habitats, and 82 percen t of the floodplain is located behi nd agricultural levees (USGS, 2011).

The UMR near Reach 3 supports at least 164 fish species from 29 families (Janvrin et al., 2010). Sixty-four of those fish species are consider ed common to abundant in at least one pool or

river reach. In addition to the fish species, the river supports 30 species of freshwater unionid mussels. Nearly 300 species of birds migrate thr ough the river valley in spring and fall. This “Mississippi Flyway” is used by more than 40 pe rcent of the migratory waterfowl traversing the U.S. At present, over 30 species in the region ar e listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, 8 of which were selected for detail ed evaluation in this BE (see Section 3.4).

4.1.4.2 Major Land Uses Near Upper Mississippi River at St. Louis, MO

Over two-thirds of the land in the UMR region is used for agricultural production. However, urban areas are expanding at a rate of 80,000 acres each year, generally spreading out over adjacent farmland (USACE, 2011). Land use ch anges have been significant in the region over the past 200 years. Much of the presettlemen t forest vegetation was converted to other land uses as land was drained, pr otected from flooding, or cleared to provide for agricultural production (MMRP, 2009). Table 4-8 outlines both the major land uses and recent land use changes in Reach 3. Overall, the past two decades have seen the losses in agricultural land uses offset by other uses: forest, wetland, and urban/suburban development, and sediment accumulation. Conservation programs have also had an impact over the past twenty years in shaping land use patterns. For example, the per centage of agricultural land cover in Reach 3 has decreased by 8%, while forested cover has in creased by 3%, marsh 2%, and grass and forbs approximately 1% (see Table 4-8; net land cover change 1989 to 2000).

Table 4-8. Area of Land Use Categories within Upper Mississippi

River Reach 3

Land Cover Type Acres in 2000 Net Land Cover Change 1989 to 2000 (acres) Agriculture 81,015 -9,475
Grasses/Forbs 3,160 +820
Forest 14,278 +3,703
Wetlands/Marsh 1,921 +1,901
Sand/Mud 1,648 +1,290
Water 10,480 -697 Developed 1,845 +1,330

Unknown 995 -

Total 115,342 -

Source: MMRP, 2009.

Approximately 850 miles of the UMR, extending from Minneapolis-St. Paul to the Ohio River, is commercially navigable. On the northern 670 miles, this is made possible by a series of 29 locks and dams, most built in the 1930s, which cr eate a “stairway” of water. In addition, the river is dredged to maintain a minimum main channel depth of 9 feet (UMBRA, 2011). In 2000,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-25 barges transported 122 million tons of commodities on the Upper Mississippi River, over half of which was grain for world export (UMBRA, 2011).

Recreational boating visits to the UMR re gion exceeded 11 million trips in 2000, more

than the number of annual vis its to most national parks, in cluding Yellowstone (UMBRA, 2011). There are approximately 500 boat access point s and marinas along the UMR between the

headwaters in Minnesota and the confluence with the Ohio River in southern Illinois.

Over 7 billion gallons of water are withdraw n from surface water sources each day in the 60 counties that border the navigable UMR. Over 80 percent of this water is used as cooling water for energy production and thus returned to rivers and streams. There are 29 power plants that use water from the 1,300 mile long UMR. From St. Cloud, MN in the north to Cape Girardeau, MO in the south, the UMR provides wa ter to 23 public water suppliers serving a combined population of approximately 2.8 m illion people (UMBRA, 2011). Approximately 278 facilities discharge wastewater to the UMR, including industrial f acilities and municipal sewage treatment plants.

4.1.4.3 Vessel Populations Present in Upper Mi ssissippi River at St. Louis, MO

The Port of Metropolitan St. Louis (PMSL) (Figure 4-4) is locat ed on the Mississippi River between river mile 171.9 and 191.2 AOR (Above Ohio River), and represents 19.3 miles

of riverbank at the heart of th e Inland Waterway (M issouri Port Authorities, 2005). It handles more than 32 million tons of freight each year and is a major shipper of grain, coal, petroleum products, scrap metals, aggregates, and chemicals (Missouri Port Authori ties, 2005). PMSL is the second largest inland port by trip-ton miles and third largest by tonnage (Missouri Port Authorities, 2005). It has over 130 piers, wharves, docks, fleeting, and other facilities with 16 public terminals (Missouri Port Authorities, 2005).

4.1.4.4 Habitat Modification and Restoration in Upper Mississippi River at St. Louis, MO

Generally, both the quantity and quality of a quatic habitat(s) in the majority of pools on the UMR are diminishing (Janvrin et al., 2010). These changes are due to the inevitable aging (i.e., sedimentation) of the manmade navigation pools and the environmental impacts associated with the numerous human uses of the system. Navigation related activi ties, flooding regimes, sedimentation, and land and recr eational use have major effect s on the river's ecosystem. The resulting physical changes impact the abundanc e, distribution and diversity of all aquatic inhabitants including fish (Janvrin et al., 2010).

Sedimentation has been identified as one of the largest problems facing the Mississippi River (Janvrin et al., 2010). Sediment input o ccurs primarily through non-point source pollution attributable to agricultural and urban land use practices. The improvements to commercial navigation (including the constr uction of the 29 navigation dams and other human activities) have increased sedimentation in the system, di minishing the quantity and quality of riverine

habitat. Pooled areas of the UM R, especially backwaters, are mo st susceptible to sedimentation. It is estimated that sediments are accumulating at an average of one inch per year in UMR2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-26 backwaters. Thus Mississippi River backwaters, which are the most productive habitat for fish and wildlife, may be lost within 50 to 100 years.

Both natural forces and anthropogenic activ ities are responsible for the erosion and sedimentation problems impacting the UMR Sy stem. Sedimentation degrades habitat by destroying fish spawning areas, decreasing light penetration to aquatic plants, and filling in shallow areas. Fine sediment accumulating in ba ckwaters, low-flow areas, and isolated side channels has already caused signifi cant habitat lo ss (USACE, 2004).

Habitat restoration projects have been impl ementing measures to restore and preserve high value fish and wildlife habitat areas. These pr ojects typically involve the use of dredging to

remove sediment from selected backwater and side channels to restore fl ow and/or provide deep water habitat; levee construction to keep silt-laden water out of prime habita t areas or to control water levels; and/or island construction to re duce the effects of wind fetch and waves (USACE, 2004).

4.1.4.5 Water Quality Impairments in Upper Mi ssissippi River at St. Louis, MO

Three pollutants, E. coli , lead and zinc, were identifie d in the proposed 2012 Missouri 303(d) list 1 . Eight pollutants were incl uded in the 2010 Illinois 303(d) list as contributing to the impairments of the Mississippi River: mercury (1 0 times), PCB (10 times), iron (1 time), TSS (1 time), pH (1 time), manganese (8 times), f ecal coliform (5 times), and TDS (1 time).

The tributaries that drain into the Upper Miss issippi differ in their physical and chemical

characteristics and have distin ct effects on the water qualit y of the river (USGS, 1999).
Concentrations of suspended sediments and nut rients in each of the major tributaries are

summarized in

Table 4

‐ 9 . The Missouri River is by far the largest tributary to the UMR and greatly alters the Mississippi River downstream of St. Louis. The Missouri River drainage area is more than

double and its flow is about two-th irds that of the UMR above St . Louis (USGS, 1999). It also carries a suspended sediment load more than twice that of the UMR (Meade, 1995 in USGS, 1999) but a relatively low nitr ogen concentration (Antweiler et al., 1995 in USGS, 1999).

Table 4-9. Approximate Concentration (mg/L) of Contaminants near th e Mouths of Select Upper Mississippi River Tributaries – 1993 to 1996

Tributary or location Suspended

solids (mg/L) Total nitrogen

(mg/L) Nitrate+nitrite nitrogen

(mg/L) Total phosphorus (mg/L) Mississippi River above Lake Pepin 40 3 2.0 0.2
Cannon River, MN 40 4 4.0 0.2 Chippewa River, WI 20 2 0.7 0.1
Black River, WI 10 2 0.8 0.2

1 Note: the Mississippi River was not identified in the 2010 Missouri 303(d) list.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-27 Table 4-9. Approximate Concentration (mg/L) of Contaminants near th e Mouths of Select Upper Mississippi River Tributaries – 1993 to 1996

Tributary or location Suspended

solids (mg/L) Total nitrogen

(mg/L) Nitrate+nitrite nitrogen

(mg/L) Total phosphorus (mg/L)
Wisconsin River, WI 20 2 0.6 0.2 Makquoketa River, IA 200 7 6.0 0.4 Wapsipinicon River, IA 200 5 4.0 0.3
Illinois River, IL 80 5 4.0 0.3
Missouri, River, MO 300 3 1.0 0.3
Headwaters Diversion, MO 40 1 0.5 0.2 Mississippi River near Cape Girardeau, MO 200 3 2.0 0.4

Source: USGS, 1999.

In reaches of the river upstream of St . Louis, dissolved oxygen concentrations, particularly in the main channel, are close to saturation (defined as the maximum concentration in equilibrium with the atmosphere). In the ma in channel below the Mi ssouri River confluence, dissolved oxygen concentrations are much lower, although still hi gher than the 5 mg/L level generally considered adequate for most aquatic biota (USGS, 1999).

Water and sediments in the UMR contain orga nic and inorganic contaminants that have originated from agricultural, indus trial, municipal, and resident ial sources (Meade, 1995). These contaminants include heavy metals (such as cadmium, lead, and mercury), pesticides, (herbicides, insecticides, a nd fungicides), synthetic organi c compounds including PCBs, and numerous other chemicals (Meade, 1995). Bottom sediments in extensive reaches of the UMR are contaminated with cadmium, copper, chro mium, lead, mercury, zinc, and PCBs (USGS, 1999).

Fish tissue contaminant data were also summarized by USEPA Region 5 in 2002. PCB levels in fish appeared to be highest in upper re aches of the Mississippi River, while levels of chlordane, a pesticide that was manufactured between 1948 and 1988 and commonly used for the control of termites and corn crop pests, was found to be highest in the lower portion of the UMR (USEPA, 2002). As was noted for PCBs, there appeared to be a reduction in chlordane contaminations in carp fillets over the period 1980 to 1999 that probably reflects chlordane use restrictions and decreased inputs.

Two Superfund sites are located within the imme diate area of the Mississippi River near St. Louis, both in the village of Sauget near Ca hokia, IL. These sites were waste disposal areas and landfills including old lagoons (USEPA, 2010). A variety of i ndustrial and municipal wastes and contaminated soil are present in the closed landfills. Contaminants include a variety of volative and semi-volatile organic compounds such as chlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene; herbicides such as pentachlorophe nol; PCBs, and metals (USEPA, 2010).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-28 4.1.4.6 Historic ANS Introductions and Impacts in Upper Mississippi River at St. Louis, MO

One of the first known introduc tions of ANS to the UMR dates to before 1883 when common carp were introduced (Rasmussen and Pitlo, 2004). More recently, several additional species of Asian carp have been introduced into the UMR (Rasmussen and Pitlo, 2004), including grass, bighead, silver and black carp. All these species have either been introduced intentionally or acciden tally (via non-vessel vectors), and a ll have expanded their numbers and range. Asian carp species are capable of growi ng to a very large size (up to 110 pounds), and they compete for food at some trophic levels w ith native fishes. According to the Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) fish collect ions, these species presently account for an annual proportion of native to non-native biomass of approximately 23 to 68 percent of the catch, with the common carp contributing the majority (72-98 percent) (Johnson and Hagerty, 2008). Though LTRMP data from 1993-2004 indicates that common carp have been declining in the upper pools, it also indicates that silver and bighead carp numbers have increased in the lower pools and are moving upstream (Johnson and Hagerty, 2008).

One of the most recent and devastating ANS introductions is the zebra mussel. It is believed that zebra mussels were transported by and released from ocean-going ship ballast and introduced into the Great Lakes in 1988. By the early 1990’s, they were established in all the Great Lakes, transported down the Illinois Ri ver and spread throughout the UMR (Rasmussen and Pitlo, 2004). Their populations rapidly exploded, and their ability to attach to hard substrate has caused millions of dollars’ worth of damage a nd destruction to other aquatic fauna and their habitat. The zebra mussels’ presence and distribu tion in the Mississippi River Basin alone covers approximately 1.2 million square miles representi ng about 17 percent of the continental U.S. (Rasmussen and Pitlo, 2004).

4.1.5 Ecosystem Status of St. Loui s River Estuary/Duluth, MN RAA

The mouth of the St. Louis River is a har bor and freshwater estuary, approximately 12,000 acres large, characterized by numerous backwater areas, bays and islands (MPCA and WDNR, 1992). It is ne stled between the cities of Supe rior, WI and Duluth, MN on the southwestern shore of Lake Superior. The St. L ouis River Estuary (SLRE) is comprised of three major bays: St. Louis Bay, Superior Bay and Al louez Bay, which are protected from the wave action of Lake Superior by a baymouth sand bar (known locally as Minnesota Point and Wisconsin Point) (See Figure 4-5).

The SLRE was created when the level of Lake Superior rose followi ng the retreat of the glaciers. The rising waters gra dually drowned the mouth of the St. Louis River along with its lower tributaries. The SLRE is fed by the St. Lo uis River and the Nemad ji River. The St. Louis River is the second largest tributary to Lake Superior, with an annua l discharge of 2,331 cubic feet per second. The watershed consists of 3,634 square miles in northeastern Minnesota and 263 square miles in northwestern Wisconsin. It flow s through various counties, the largest being St. Louis County in Minnesota (Figure 4-5). The lo wer 23 miles of the St. Louis River forms the

state border between Minnesota and Wisconsin.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-29 In 1987, the International Joint Commission, an advisory commission on U.S-Canadian border water issues, designated the lower St. Loui s River as one of the 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) because of concerns over environm ental quality in the area. The St. Louis River System AOC is the area being addressed by the St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and the Lower St. Louis River Habitat Pla n. While system-wide in its approach, the St. Louis River AOC focuses primarily on the 39 m iles of the St. Louis River below Cloquet, MN and the entire Nemadji River watershed. This area is also the main area of focus for the purposes

of this BE.

Figure 4-5. Land Use and Physic al Feature Map of St. Louis River Estuary/Duluth, MN

RAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-30 4.1.5.1 Ecosystem Description of St. Lo uis River Estuary/Duluth, MN

The circulation of water in the SLRE is impacted by seiches 2 from Lake Superior as well

as flow from the St. Louis River. The seiches act like a tidal force, reve rsing the circ ulation of water throughout the SLRE, and mixing water from La ke Superior with water from the lower St.

Louis River.

There is a wide variety of habitat types in th e St. Louis River waters hed, as identified in

the Lower St. Louis River Habitat Pl an and described in Table 4-10.

Table 4-10. St. Louis River Habitat Plan Habitat Type Descriptions

Habitat Types Physical

Characteristics Ecological Characteristics Ecological

Condition /

Health Large

Riverine

Reach High water velocity. Riffle-pool run structure.

No seiche effect. Little emergent of submergent vegetation. Prime spawning habitat for walleye, lake sturgeon, and other fish needing high water velocity. Fairly good

Upper

Estuarine (Undredged)

River

Channel Upper extent of seiche effect. Formerly dredged. Some hydrological

modification. Rich in fish species. Home to high

number of native mussels. Important wintering habitat for fish. Fair to good

Lower

Estuarine (Dredged Channel) Dredged regularly (to 27feet). Disturbed deepwater. Fish wintering habitat. Feeding area for fish-eating birds. Poor

Upper Estuary Flats Unmodified shoreline. Low water velocity.

Lake fluctuation is highly influential. Support submergent and emergent marshes. Support high abundance of forage fish, panfish and waterfowl. Fair

Sheltered Bays Pulse-stable community (sediment and water movement from seiches). Highest quality wetlands (extensive areas of submergent and emergent vegetation). Highest diversity of plant and animal species. Spawning

areas for fish. Provide resources to waterfowl and wading birds. Supports wild rice. Varies upon

location

2 A seiche is the back and forth movement of water in a lake that results in the fluctuation of water levels in the waterbody. Weather fronts and wind drive the seiches in Lake Superior which have a period of 7.9 hours (Stortz and Sydor, 1980).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-31 Table 4-10. St. Louis River Habitat Plan Habitat Type Descriptions

Habitat Types Physical

Characteristics Ecological Characteristics Ecological

Condition /

HealthClayInfluenced

River Mouths Long, narrow drowned

river mouths. Siech and tributary influenced. Steep, erodible, shoreline. High turbidity. Limited emergent and submergent vegetation. High fish species diversity but low abundance. Fair to poor

IndustriallyInfluenced Bays Four to five feet deep. Highest influence by

lake fluctuations.

Contains industrial

debris and contaminated

sediments. Varying occurrences of emergent and submergent vegetation. Very poor

Industrial Slips Regular ship movement. Frequently disturbed and turbid water. Sandy, scoured silty sediment. Little vegetation. Used by fish and wildlife despite human activities. Poor

Lower Estuary (Industrial Harbor) Flats Heavily altered by

industrial and commercial activity.

Modified shoreline. Seiche effect prevalent. Little vegetation remains. Native mussels present. Poor

ClayInfluenced Bay Shallow water. Protected bay with little waterexchange. Surface runoff dominated tributaries empty into it. Abundant emergent and submergent vegetation. High quali ty habitat for

fish and waterfowl. Mudflats present. Fish spawning area. Fair to good

ClayInfluenced

Tributaries 1 s t or 2 n d order streams. Medium to low gradient. Flow through clay deposits. Altered by ditches, wetland draining and other hydrological

modification. Provide habitat for fish. Varies

BedrockInfluenced

Tributaries 1 s t or 2 n d order streams. Medium to low gradient.

Flow over bedrock. Altered by ditches, wetland draining and other hydrological

modification. Provide habitat for fish. Varies

Source: SLRCAC, 2002.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-32 Although some of the habitats described above have been highly altered by human impacts, all areas of open water and wetland hab itat in the lower St. L ouis River are important because of the variety of fish and bird species that utilize each type, de pending on the individual species and its preferences. Approximately 45 na tive fish species have been documented in the St. Louis River Estuary, includi ng fish-eating species such as yellow perch, white bass, muskie, walleye, and northern pike, and prey species in cluding emerald shiner, spottail shiner, blacknose dace, and fathead minnow. Over 230 species of bi rds have been documented in the estuary, too. This area is both an important breeding area a nd a critical migratory stopover location. Common terns and other colonial nesting birds use sandy b eaches and other sparsely vegetated areas in the estuary. Piping plovers once nested on the beaches as well, but they are not known to have

nested in the Lower St. Louis River area since 1985. A wide ra nge of species nest in the emergent marshes, including sedge wren, mars h wren, Virginia rail, and sora rail, although several marsh-nesting species app ear to have disappeared from th e estuary over the last 30 or so years. Black tern colonies were historically present in the mars hes, but they are not known to have nested there in recent year s. The estuary supports a rich variety of plan ts, insects, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, and other food sources for birds.

Wild rice ( Zizania aquatica ), a vital food resource for mi gratory waterfowl, is also present in wetland plant commun ities of the SLRE. Although the sp ecies is not rare, it has experienced long-term declines in abundance in most wetland s where it occurs, and it has disappeared from some wetlands altogether.

At present, over 10 species in the region ar e listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, only one of which was selected for de tailed evaluation in this BE (see Section 3.4).

4.1.5.2 Major Land Uses Near St. Louis River Estuary/Duluth, MN

The SLRE is characterized as having wilder ness-like areas in its upper reaches while the lower estuary is comprised of urban developm ent, an industrial harbor, and a major port. According to the 2001 National Land Cover Dataset, the watershed is dominated (65 percent) by forests (Table 4-11).

Table 4-11. Major Land Uses of the SLRE

Land Use Type Percentage Cover

Forest 65

Wetland 11 Agriculture 9 Open Water & Open Space 8

Urban 2

Suburban 3

Grassland 2

Barren <1

Source: WDNR, 2010.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-33 4.1.5.3 Vessel Populations Present in St. Louis River Estuary/Duluth, MN

Portions of the SLRE serve as the Duluth-Supe rior Harbor (Figure 4- 5), the larg est harbor and international port on the Great Lakes (SLRCAC, 2002). A pproximately 1,100 vessels enter the Duluth-Superior Harbor each year, transporti ng 40 million metric tons of material. Principal cargoes include iron ore (40 %), coal (40 %), and grai n (10 %) (SLRCAC, 2002).

4.1.5.4 Habitat Modification and Restoration of St. Louis River Estuary/Duluth, MN

Human activities in the estuary from the la st two hundred years ha ve had a significant negative impact on fish and wildlife habitat. Hi storical habitat losses in the Lower St. Louis

River include the elimination of much of the Great Lakes coastal wetland complexes and estuarine aquatic habitats, which were filled to create land for various developments in the estuary or dredged for shipping. The St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan Stage One (MPCA and WDNR, 1992) summarizes these loss es, stating that appr oximately 3,000 acres of marsh and open water were filled in the lowe r estuary and roughly 4,000 acres of river bottom dredged. This left 5,000 acres whic h have not been drastically altered, mostly in the upper estuary (MIC, 1985).

These losses represent roughly 60 percent of the total area of the SLRE (DeVore, 1978). Dredging had significant effects on both the shorelin e and the riverbed. Since dredging began in the late 1800s, over 69,500,000 cubic yards of clay and mud mixed with sand have been dredged

from the river bottom and used as fill to create docks, to replenish eroded areas on Minnesota and Wisconsin Points, and to form ne w islands (SLRCAC, 2002). Although ongoing maintenance dredging and industrial and commercial activities still re sult in changes to the river, the major dredging and shoreline reconstruction activities took place within a relatively short period of time, between 1870 and 1920. The harbor had 17 miles of shipping channels excavated to a standard depth of 20 feet, and by 1960, most ch annels had been dredged to a depth of 27 feet (a very significant change to this once-shallow freshwater estuary).

Future or proposed commercial, industrial, a nd residential developmen t projects have the potential to cause further losses of Great Lakes coastal wetlands and estuarine aquatic habitats,

as well as inland wetlands. Forested habitats have also been lost to development and other land use changes. The development of the Duluth-Superior metropolitan area resulted in the loss of spruce-fir forests, northern conifer-hardwood forest s, and white pine-red pine forests. The loss of the unique dune pine forests on Minnesota and Wisc onsin Points is also significant; those forests

and associated communities will lik ely not be replaced, nor are they represented elsewhere in the region.

The four most critical sour ces of stress to the Lower St. Louis River AOC ecosystem

cited in the 2002 Hab itat Plan include:

 Residential, commercial, and industrial development within the watershed and

immediate harbor area result in the dir ect loss of upland and wetland habitat, increased erosion and sedimentation, degradation of water quality, and the introduction and spread of ANS.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-34  Commercial shipping results in the need for dredgi ng and filling, thereby contributing to direct loss of habitat; shipping also c ontributes to increased erosion as well as the introduction and spread of many ANS.

 Contaminated sediments from a variety of historic al industrial and commercial sources expose native species to toxins that may increase mortality and decrease reproduction.

 Forest management practices contribute to increased peak flows, which result in

increased erosion and sedimenta tion and degraded water quality.

4.1.5.5 Water Quality Impairments in St. Louis River Estuary/Duluth, MN

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resour ces identified six impaired waterbodies (Table 4-12) within the SLRE AOC in thei r proposed 2010 303(d) li st to USEPA (WDNR, 2011b). All of these impairments are categorized as 5A water/pollutant combinations, meaning they require development of tota l maximum daily loads (TMDLs).

Table 4-12. Wisconsin 303(d) list for th e St. Louis River Area of Concern

Water Body Pollutant(s) Impairment(s) Source(s)

Lake Superior E. coli ; Mercury; PCBs Recreational

Restrictions - Pathogens;

Contaminated Fish

Tissue Contaminated Sediments; Atmospheric Deposition - Toxics; Other Factors

Superior Bay Foam/Flocs/Scum/ Oil Slicks; PAHs; Unspecified Metals Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Contaminated Sediments

Crawford

Creek Creosote; PAHs Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Contaminated Sediments;

Industrial Point Source Discharge Nemadji

River Sediment/Total Suspended Solids Degraded Habitat Non-Point Source

Newton

Creek Foam/Flocs/Scum/ Oil Slicks; PAHs; Unspecified Metals Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Contaminated Sediments,

Petroleum/natural Gas

Production Activities (Permitted)

Saint

Louis

River PCBs; 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzopdioxin; Dieldrin; PAHs; DDT; Unspecified Metals; Mercury;

Lead Contaminated Fish Tissue; Chronic Aquatic Toxicity; Contaminated

Sediment Contaminated Sediments, Source Unknown, Atmospheric Deposition - Toxics,

Historic Point Sources - Legacy Pollutants

Source: WDNR, 2011b

.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-35 The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency identi fied 8 impaired waterbodies (Table 4-13) within the St. Louis River AOC estuary in th eir draft 2010 303(d) list (MPCA, 2011). While the

list does not include the sources of the pollutants, they are most likely similar to those listed in

Table 4-12 for Wisconsin.

Table 4-13. Minnesota 303(d) List for th e St. Louis River Area of Concern

Water Body Pollutant(s) Impairment(s)

St. Louis Bay DDT; Dieldrin; Dioxin (including 2,3,7,8- TCDD); Mercury (water column and fish tissue); PCB (water column & fish tissue); Toxaphene; Fecal Coliform Aquatic consumption; Aquatic recreation

St. Louis River (Fond

du Lac Dam to St. Louis Bay) DDT; Dieldrin; Mercury (water column and fish tissue); PCB (water column & fish tissue) Aquatic consumption

Thomson Reservoir Mercury (fis h tissue); PCB (fish tissue) Aquatic consumption Chub (Lake or Reservoir) Mercury (fish tissue) Aquatic consumption Sand (Lake or Reservoir) Mercury (fish tissue) Aquatic consumption Nemadji River Turbidity Aquatic life Deer Creek Turbidity Aquatic life Rock Creek Turbidity Aquatic life

Miller Creek Chloride; Lack of coldwater assemblage; Water temperature Aquatic life

Source: MPCA, 2011

.

Water quality in the SLRE continues to im prove, due to pollution prevention efforts, better pre-treatment programs and new stormwater management activities, including efforts to control storm-related "inflow and infiltration, " which has caused sewage bypasses in Duluth, resulting in untreated sewage fl owing directly into Lake Superi or. However, the estuary still suffers from legacy contaminated sediments in se veral locations. Industrial activity such as steel mills, oil refining, coal tar and coking operations, paper mills and other wood products manufacturing, as well as the shipping of coal, grain, iron ore, and tacon ite, have significantly

contributed to the contamination of the SLRE. Two Superfund sites, U.S. Steel and St. Louis River-Interlake Duluth Tar sites, on the Minnes ota shore of the river are polluted with toxic organic chemicals and metals. Toxic contaminati on has impaired several uses in the St. Louis River and its watershed, includi ng degradation of bottom-feedi ng invertebrate communities, increased incidence of fish tumors and other abnormalities, fish consumption advisories, and restrictions on dredging. Some se diment-derived contaminants also appear to be carried by the water column to Lake Superior.

With the recent increased emphasis on Great Lakes AOCs at a federal level, the states have been able to pursue several projects to cl ean up contaminated sedime nts and to evaluate the extent of contaminants in bottom sediments. Sp ecific projects include th e Hog Island Inlet and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-36 Newton Creek remediation project (with nearly 55,000 tons of contamin ated sediment being removed).

The St. Louis River Watershed TMDL Partnership is currently developing a TMDL for mercury. The TMDL process is designed to improve impaired waters such as the St. Louis River,

where all facilities w ith discharge permits ar e operating within thei r permitted limits, yet pollutant levels exceed state standards. The TMDL process will complement mercury reduction work that is already taking place in the watershed.

4.1.5.6 Historic ANS Introduction and Impacts in St. Louis River Estuary/Duluth,

MN

ANS are a potential threat to the Lower St . Louis River ecosystem. By competing for habitat, food, and breeding areas, ANS can cause lo calized eradication of native species, impact fisheries, spread disease, and reduce species biodiversity. Since the early 1800s, over 160 nonnative species have been introdu ced into the Great Lakes (Ricciardi and MacIsaac, 2000), many through unmanaged or untreated ballast water disc harges. At least 31 speci es currently found in Lake Superior are non-native, in cluding 16 fish, 5 invertebrates, 4 pathogens and parasites, and 6 wetland and aquatic plants (Mill s et al., 1993). These non-native species have been introduced via several pathways, and over 60 percent have arrived since 1960, following the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Duluth-Superior Harbor is an international port with annual traffic of approximately 1,100 vessels. Therefore, if ballas t water were to remain unmanaged, the Harbor would remain a likely site for additional introductions of ANS.

Table 4-14 lists several ANS that are curren tly found in or around the estuary and have known or likely impacts on the native bi ota of the Lower St. Louis River.

Table 4-14. Aquatic Nuisance Species Curren tly in the St. Louis River Estuary

Aquatic Nuisance Species Type or organism Reason of Concern

Zebra mussel,

Dreissena polymorpha Mollusk-Bivalve Competition with native species; biofouling capabilities; colonize pipe; reduce biomass of phytoplankton; habitat destruction
Eurasian ruffe, Gymnocephalus

cernuus Fish Competition with native species; predation of native species eggs

Round goby, Neogobius

melanostomus Fish Competition with native species; predation on native species eggs

Rainbow smelt,

Osmerus morax Fish Predation on native species eggs

Sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus Fish Parasitic to native fish species; virtually eliminated lake trout populations in Lake Superior2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-37 Table 4-14. Aquatic Nuisance Species Curren tly in the St. Louis River Estuary

Aquatic Nuisance Species Type or organism Reason of Concern

Rusty crayfish,

Orconectes rusticus Crustacean-Crayfish Competition with native species; predation on native species eggs; decrease abundance and diversity of aquatic plants Purple loosestrife, Lythrum salicaria Aquatic wetland plant Crowds out native species; decrease food resources for other animal species
Common reed, Phragmite australis Aquatic wetland plant Crowds out native species; decrease food resources for other animal species Reed canarygrass,

Phalarus

arundinacea Aquatic wetland plant Crowds out native species; decrease food resources for other animal species

Hybrid cattail, Typha x glauca Aquatic wetland plant Crowds out native species; decrease food resources for other animal species

Source: MDNR, Aquatic Invasive Species in Minnesota website: ( http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/index_aquatic.html )

4.1.6 Ecosystem Status of San Francisc o Bay Estuary/San Francisco, CA RAA

The San Francisco Bay Estuary (SFBE) (Figure 4- 6), at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers in central California, is renowned for its natural beauty, international commerce, recreation, and sports fishing. Along w ith being home to seven million people, the nine-county San Francisco Bay Ar ea (SFBA) is home to a dive rsity of wildlife and habitats, world-class recreational opport unities, and working farms and ranches. The SFBE is 1,600 square miles large, drains 40% of California’ s land, and connects to the Pacific Ocean at the Golden Gate Bridge (SCCC, 2010). The estuar y’s edges are a mix of development for transportation, housing, and industr y that also includes tidal we tlands and mudflats used by endangered species and migratory birds. The estuary has been greatly modified by 150 years of intensifying human activity (Nichols et al., 1986).

The Estuary’s watershed covers about 60,000 square miles (SFEP, 2010). This is the largest estuary in western North America and a biological resource of tremendous importance, providing critical winter feeding for over a millio n migratory birds, a productive nursery for juvenile fish and crabs, and a full-time home for many other plants and animals. Roughly half of California’s surface water supply falls as rain or snow within this re gion, and about half of that is diverted for use by farms, factories or house holds (SFEP, 2010). The San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta, the upstream section of the Estuary, is a thousand-square-mile triangle of diked and

drained wetland. Before it was dike d and drained, the Delta gathered in the fresh waters of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Mokelumne, and Cosu mnes rivers, and moved them all downstream, through a complex array of tidally influenced channels, into salty San Francisco Bay.

The numerous rivers that flow into the Sacr amento and San Joaquin Rivers and form the Delta are the estuary’s primary source of freshwat er. The Sacramento River is the largest river and watershed system in California. This 27,000-s quare-mile basin drains the eastern slopes of the Coast Range, Mount Shasta, th e western slopes of the southe rnmost region of the Cascades,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-38 and the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada (SRWP, 2010). The Sacramento River carries 31%

of the state’s total surf ace water runoff. Primary tributaries to the Sacramento River are the Pit, Feather, and American Rivers (SRWP, 2010). The San Joaquin River is about 300 miles long beginning in the Sierra Nevada mountain range on California’ s eastern border (SJRGA, 2006).

The river runs down the western slope of the Sierra and flow s roughly northwest through the Central Valley, to where it meets the Sacramento River at the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a 1,000-square-mile maze of channels and islands (SJRGA, 2006). In addition, numerous creeks and rivers surround the San Francisco Bay estuar y, such as Alameda Creek, San Francisquito Creek, Coyote Creek, the Guadalupe River, Suisun Creek, the Na pa River, and Sonoma Creek that are of importance for stee lhead trout and other wildlife th at depend on riparian habitat (SFEP, 2010).

As the mixing zone where fresh and salt water meet moves up and down the SFBE, salinity increases and decreases in Bay segments (SFEP, 2010). San Francisco Bay includes four smaller bays. Suisun Bay and the diked wetlands of Suisun Marsh are the least salty of these, just

downstream of the Delta. Saltier Sa n Pablo Bay is west of Carqui nez Strait (see Figure 4-6). The saltiest basins are the Central Bay, which conne cts with the ocean through the Golden Gate Bridge, and the South Bay, a large, shallow lobe extending south of Cent ral Bay to Dumbarton Narrows (SFEP, 2010).

The San Francisco Estuary Partnership was esta blished by the State of California and the EPA to better protect and restore the San Fr ancisco Bay Delta Estuary (SFEP, 2011). The Partnership created and oversees implementatio n of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, completed in 1993, that desc ribes over 200 actions aimed at improving the Estuary’s chemical, physical, and biological health. The project ar ea for the Partnership includes San Francisco Bay, the tributary watersheds of the Bay from the Golden Gate up to the Delta, and the Delta (SFEP, 2011). The San Francisco Estu ary Partnership Study Area is also the main area of focus for the purposes of this BE.

4.1.6.1 Ecosystem Description of San Franci sco Bay Estuary San Francisco, CA

The physical habitats of the SFBE include tidal marshes and tidal flats (baylands), estuarine open water, and sub tidal habitat (SFEP, 2011). Estuar ine open water habitat in the estuary is formed by the fresh water inflow from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, creating a mixing zone with the Pacific Ocean of brack ish (low salinity) ha bitat. The amount of

freshwater inflow determines where the this zone w ill occur from year to year in the estuary (i.e., when inflows are high, brackish water habitat is found further downstream, closer to the Golden Gate bridge) (SFEP, 2011).

Baylands are the tidal flat and marshes that are subject to inundati on from the Bay’s tides. Whereas tidal marshes support abunda nt vegetation, tidal flats are inte rtidal areas that lack rooted vegetation (SFEP, 2011). Tidal flats and tidal ma rshes form in relatively calm areas along the margins of the Bay where fine sediments ca rried by the Bay currents and waves tend to accumulate. Both of these habitat areas provide critical ecological and hydrological functions contributing to the overall health of the estuary. Tidal flats support dense colonies of shellfish

and other invertebrates which se rve as a source of food fish, birds and other wildlife (SFEP,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-39 Figure 4-6. Land Use and Physical Feature Map of San Francisco Bay Estuary, CA RAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-40 2011). Tidal marshes support many species of fish a nd waterfowl, while also acting as filters that trap fine sediment and break down some of the contaminants that enter the estuary (SFEP, 2011). The ability to trap and store fine sediment re duces the need for dredging of ports and shipping

channels.

Subtidal habitat is a criti cal piece of the estuary ecosystem and includes all of the submerged area beneath the bay’s water surface: mud, shell, sand, rocks, artificial structures, shellfish beds, eelgrass beds, macroalgal beds , and the water column above the bay bottom (SCC, 2010). This unique habitat provides diverse three-dimensional struct ures, including: sand waves more than three meters high; eelgrass and shellfish beds that act as ecosystem engineers and provide substrate for repr oduction and food resources for sp ecies such as herring and salmon; rocky outcrops that offer substrate for seaweeds and invertebrates; and mixed sediments

in shoals and channel banks that are used by a variety of other species (SCC, 2010). Many shellfish, invertebrates, fish, marine mammals, di ving ducks, and other wildlife feed, rest, hide, and reproduce in subtidal areas. Large populations of shorebirds feed on the estuary’s subtidal

and intertidal mudflats. The s ubtidal habitat also supports a variety of indirect ecosystem services, including nutrient cycling, climate regulation, flood protection, water quality maintenance, and sediment transport (SCC, 2010).

Herring and Dungeness crab, among many other speci es of fish and shellfish, rear in the estuary, while sturgeon, salmon, and steelhead feed a nd rest in the bay during their migrations to

and from its rivers and streams and the ocean (SCC, 2010). The vast open water, sloughs, rivers, streams, and baylands in the SFBE host millions of migratory birds every year as they move up and down the Pacific Flyway, as well as provide habitat for numerous resident water and shore birds. The bay also provides important habi tat for marine mammals, shellfish, and aquatic invertebrates (SCC, 2010). At present, over 149 speci es in the region are lis ted as threatened and endangered under the ESA, 58 of which were select ed for detailed evaluation in this BE (see Section 3.4).

4.1.6.2 Major Land Uses Near San Francisco Bay Estuary/San Francisco, CA

The SFBA consists of nine counties, 101 citi es, and comprises 7,000 square miles, with 7.1 million residents. It represen ts the fifth most populous metropolitan area in the United States (FOCUS, 2012). The SFBA is projected to incr ease to 8 million residents in 2030 (CADF, 2012). The SFBA has a land area of 4.4 million acres (e xcluding bay waters and large lakes). In 2000, approximately 16 percent (or a bout 700,000 acres) of the region's total acreage was developed for urban use. Of those developed acres, 61 percent are residentia l and 42 percent are nonresidential (e.g., employment, gove rnment, schools, and major in frastructure) (FOCUS, 2012).

San Francisco County is the most urbanized co unty in the SFBA with 82 percent of its land developed, while Napa is th e most rural county with less th an 4 percent of its land area developed. The remaining counties have deve loped land areas ranging from 7 percent to 28 percent (FOCUS, 2012). Like many large urban cent ers, the SFBA will continue to grow over the foreseeable future. Over the next 25 years, most people will live in San Francisco, the East Bay (including eastern Contra Costa County), an d the South Bay (in bot h San Mateo and Santa Clara counties) (FOCUS, 2012).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-41 State, local, and federal water pr ojects divert fresh water from the rivers flowing into the SFBE to serve drinking water to some 30 million people and irrigate four million acres of agricultural land (SFEP, 2011). At the same time, SFBA residents rely on the Bay to absorb over 500 million gallons of treated wastewater each day, as well as vast quantities of urban floodwaters during rainstorms. Each year, two million tons of sand for construction and 65,000 cubic yards of oyster shell depos its for calcium supplements are mined from the Bay. The Bay has many recreational opportunitie s for residents, and supports a $34 billion maritime industry including a commercial fishery fo r Pacific herring (SFEP, 2011).

Aggressive efforts by local land trusts and open-space acquisition agencies have helped bring the current total of perman ently protected lands to about 1 million acres (almost 25 percent of the region's total acreage) (Greenbelt Alliance, 2012). The ac reage already protected ranges from 5,831 acres in San Francisco to about 172,000 acr es in Marin.

4.1.6.3 Vessel Populations Present in San Fr ancisco Bay Estuary/San Francisco, CA

The Port of San Francisco (Figure 4-6) manages the 7.5 miles of San Francisco Bay shoreline stretching from Hyde Str eet Pier in the north to India Basin in the south (Port of San Francisco, 2012). The Port hosts 60-80 cruise sh ip calls and 200,000 passe ngers annually (Port of San Francisco, 2012). All types of cargo cross the terminals at th e Port of San Francisco with approximately 1,000,000 metric revenue tons of total cargo from only 37 vessel calls in 2011 (Port of San Francisco, 2012). The RAA also incl udes a second independent seaport of the Port of Oakland, located directly across San Francisco Bay from the Port of San Francisco. The Port of Oakland, with 7 container terminals covering 771 acres, is the fifth bus iest container port in the nation, receiving 1,973 vessels in 2010 (Port of Oakland, 2011).

4.1.6.4 Habitat Modification and Restoratio n in San Francisco Bay Estuary/San Francisco, CA

In the 1830s, San Francisco Bay covered almost 700 square miles, with almost a million fish passing through the estuary and 69 million acres of water flowing down from mountain headwaters toward the sea (San Francisco Estu ary Project, 1997). But in 1848, the Gold Rush began, and hydraulic mining plugged the rivers and bays with more than one billion cubic yards of sediments. Over time, farmers and city builders filled up more than 750 square miles of tidal marsh, and engineers built dams to block and store the rush of water from the mountains into the SFBE, as well as massive pumps and canals to convey this water to ci ties and farms throughout the state (San Francisc o Estuary Project, 1997).

More than 95% of the historic tidal marshe s have been leveed and filled, leading to subsequent losses in fish and wildlife habitat. Harbor and channel dredging has altered water flow patterns and salinity. Beginning in the early 1900s, water development for flood control, agricultural and municipal uses altered the vol ume and timing of freshwater inflows (San Francisco Estuary Project, 1997). For a number of the estuary’s fish and invertebrate species, it was estimated that a 10 km upstream shift in the location of the mixing zone in the spring around this time period corresponded to a two- to fi ve-fold decrease in abundance or survival. The freshwater inflow can vary significantly from year to year from natural conditions. However since the 1940s, large dams on th e estuary’s tributary rivers ha ve captured and stored the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-42 majority of fresh water, resulting in less input to the estuary. Analyses of the spring time mixing zone location benchmarks reveal a steady declin e in open water habitat (SFEP, 2011). Diversions to cities, farms and other uses remove an aver age of more than half the water that would otherwise reach the SFBE. Though about 70% of th e state's available water supply is carried by

Northern California rivers and st reams, 80% of the present dema nd for water comes from the San Joaquin Valley and south of the Tehachapi Moun tains (the Los Angeles area) (San Francisco Estuary Project, 1997).

Additionally, the amount and qua lity of the fresh water en tering into the SFBE from nearby watersheds can have a significant impact on the overall health of the system. The local watersheds surrounding San Francisc o Bay have been dramatically altered due to development, water diversions, and urban runoff. This has caused erosion and sedime ntation and negatively impacted water quality, hydrol ogy, and habitat for fish and ot her aquatic species (SCCC, 2010).

There have been numerous projects that ha ve improved the conditions in the SFBE over the last 20 to 25 years, including, but not limite d to: wetland restoration and enhancement; the development of an integrated Regional Wate r Management Plan; and the implementation of several invasive species prev ention control and eradication programs. One particularly noteworthy program is the Long Term Manageme nt Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material. Until the late 1980s most of the dredge d material from shipping lanes was disposed of in one of three areas in the Bay (SFEP, 2011). As a result of this management plan and subsequent actions, there has been a significant decrease in the amount of in -Bay disposal of dredged material with nearly 20 million cubic yards of dredged material being reused for beneficial purposes. Currently the program is on track to meet its long- term goal to reduce inBay disposal to 1.25 million cubic yards of material per year (SFEP, 2011).

4.1.6.5 Water Quality Impairments in San Fr ancisco Bay Estuary/San Francisco,

CA

The California San Francisco Bay Regiona l Water Quality Control Board 2010 303(d) list includes more than 270 listings in 88 water bodies. Table 4-15 provides a subset of these listings for the bays and major tri butaries of the Estuary (CEPA, 2012).

TMDL projects are currently being developed to address more than 160 of the 270 303(d) listings; however, one TMDL may address multiple listings. For example, the Diazinon/Pesticide Toxicity TMDL for urban creeks addressed more than 30 impaired creeks or creek segments. Table 4-16 below highlights the prim ary sources of the subset of pollutants listed above. (Note: while some sources may be specific for a waterbody segment, most pollutants have similar sources across waterbodies.)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-43 Table 4-15. California San Francisco Bay Region al Water Quality Control Board 2010 303(d) List

PollutantCarquinez Strait (5657 acres)Central Basin, San Francisco (part of SF Bay, Lower) (40 acres)Coyote Creek (Santa Clara Co.) (55 miles)Guadalupe River (18 miles)Napa River (65 miles)Oakland Inner Harbor (Fruitvale Site, part of SF Bay, Lower)(0.93 acres)Oakland Inner Harbor (Pacific Dry-dock Yard1 Site, part of SF Bay, Lower)(1.8 acres)Richardson Bay (2439 acres)Sacramento San Joaquin Delta (41736 acres)San Francisco Bay, Central (70992 acres)San Francisco Bay, Lower (92274 acres)San Francisco Bay, South (9204 acres)San Francisquito Creek (12 miles)San Leandro Bay (part of SF Bay, Lower) (588 acres)San Pablo Bay (68349 acres)Sonoma Creek (30 miles)Suisun Bay (25335 acres)Suisun Creek (19 miles)Suisun Marsh Wetlands (66339 acres)Tomales Bay (8545 acres)

Chlordane a a a a a a a a a a a a

Chlordane (sediment) a a

Coliform Bacteria a

Copper (sediment) a
DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) a a a a a a a a a a a

Diazinon b b b

Dieldrin a a a a a a a a a a a a

Dieldrin (sediment) a
Dioxin compounds (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD) a a a a a a a a a a a a

Furan Compounds a a a a a a a a a a a a

Invasive Species a a a a a a a a a a a a

Lead (sediment) a a

Low Dissolved Oxygen a

Mercury b b a b b b b b b b b b b a a

Mercury (sediment) b b b

Nutrients a a a a
Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen a

PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) (sediment) a a a

Pathogens b b b2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-44 Table 4-15. California San Francisco Bay Region al Water Quality Control Board 2010 303(d) List

PollutantCarquinez Strait (5657 acres)Central Basin, San Francisco (part of SF Bay, Lower) (40 acres)Coyote Creek (Santa Clara Co.) (55 miles)Guadalupe River (18 miles)Napa River (65 miles)Oakland Inner Harbor (Fruitvale Site, part of SF Bay, Lower)(0.93 acres)Oakland Inner Harbor (Pacific Dry-dock Yard1 Site, part of SF Bay, Lower)(1.8 acres)Richardson Bay (2439 acres)Sacramento San Joaquin Delta (41736 acres)San Francisco Bay, Central (70992 acres)San Francisco Bay, Lower (92274 acres)San Francisco Bay, South (9204 acres)San Francisquito Creek (12 miles)San Leandro Bay (part of SF Bay, Lower) (588 acres)San Pablo Bay (68349 acres)Sonoma Creek (30 miles)Suisun Bay (25335 acres)Suisun Creek (19 miles)Suisun Marsh Wetlands (66339 acres)Tomales Bay (8545 acres)

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) a a a a a a a a a a a

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) (dioxin-like) a a a a a a a a a a a

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) (sediment) a a

Pesticides (sediment) a

Salinity/TDS/Chlorides a

Sedimentation/Siltation a a a a

Sediment Toxicity a

Selenium a a a a a a a a

Temperature, water a

Trash a a a a a

Zinc (sediment) a a
Source: CEPA, 2012 a) A water segment where standards are not met and a TMDL is required, but not yet completed, for at least one of the pollutants being listed for this segment. b) A water segment where standards are not met and a TMDL is required, and has been completed and approved by US EPA for the pollutants listed for this segment.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-45 Table 4-16. Sources of Select Pollutants of Concern in SFBE

Pollutant Listed Pollutant Sources

Chlordane Nonpoint Source

Chlordane (sediment) Source Unknown

Coliform Bacteria Boat Discharges/Vessel Wastes; Septage Disposal; Urban

Runoff/Storm Sewers
Copper (sediment) Source Unknown

DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Nonpoint Source

Diazinon Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

Dieldrin Nonpoint Source; Unknown Nonpoint Source

Dieldrin (sediment) Source Unknown

Dioxin compounds (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD) Atmospheric Deposition

Furan Compounds Atmospheric Deposition

Invasive Species Ballast Water

Lead (sediment) Source Unknown

Low Dissolved Oxygen Habitat Modification; Removal of Riparian Vegetation;

Streambank Modification/Destabilization

Mercury Atmospheric Deposition; Flow Regulation/Modification; Industrial Point Sources; Mine Tailings; Minor Industrial Point Source; Municipal Point Sources; Natural Sources; Nonpoint Source; Resource Extraction; Urban

Runoff/Storm Sewers

Mercury (sediment) Point Source; Source Unknown; Urban Runoff/Storm

Sewers

Nutrients Agriculture; Construction/Land Development; Flow Regulation/Modification; Land Development; Urban

Runoff/Storm Sewers

Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen Flow Regulation/Modification; Urban Runoff/Storm

Sewers PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) (sediment) Point Source; Source Unknown; Urban Runoff/Storm

Sewers

Pathogens Construction/Land Development; Intensive Animal Feeding Operations; Land Development; Septage Disposal;

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Unknown Nonpoint Source; Unknown Point Source

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) (dioxin-like) Unknown Nonpoint Source

PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) (sediment) Source Unknown

Salinity/TDS/Chlorides Flow Regulation/Modification; Urban Runoff/Storm

Sewers
Sediment Toxicity Source Unknown

Sedimentation/Siltation Construction/Land Development; Land Development; Nonpoint Source; Upstream Impoundment; Urban

Runoff/Storm Sewers

Selenium Industrial Point Sources

Selenium Domestic Use of Ground Water; Exotic Species; Industrial Point Sources; Natural Sources2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-46 Table 4-16. Sources of Select Pollutants of Concern in SFBE

Pollutant Listed Pollutant Sources

Temperature, water Habitat Modification; Removal of Riparian Vegetation

Trash Illegal dumping; Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

Zinc (sediment) Source Unknown

Source: CEPA, 2012.

Toxic contaminant inputs from industrial, ag ricultural, and commerc ial activities are a high-priority concern in the changing SFBE. San Francisco Ba y receives effluents from 46 publicly owned wastewater-treatment plants and 65 large industrial discharges, which, together with a significant contribution of chemicals appl ied for agricultural purposes, combine to add as much as 40,000 tons of at least 65 contaminants into the SFBE each year. Many of these contaminants are toxic to plants or animals or pose threats to human heal th (Cloern et al., 1997).

4.1.6.6 Historic ANS Introductions and Impact s in San Francisco Bay Estuary/San Francisco, CA

ANS have been introduced in California wate rs via transoceanic ships, aquaculture, the aquarium trade, the bait industry, recreational ac tivities, biological research, environmental restoration projects, and fres hwater deliveries up and down th e state (SCDFG, 2008). However, in the San Francisco Bay Estuary, unmanaged or unt reated ballast water from international ships has been cited as the principal cause of invasi ve species (SCDFG, 2008). Statewide, researchers

have now identified 607 introduce d, or likely introduced, specie s in California’s estuarine waters. In San Francisco Bay, the rate at whic h ANS were becoming established increased from an average of one new species every 55 weeks prior to 1960, to one new species every 14 weeks between 1961 and 1995 (Cohen and Carlton, 1998).

More than 250 non-native species have b een found in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary (SCDFG, 2008). Some of the most problem atic ANS that have become established in

California include the Eu ropean green crab ( Carcinus maenas ), the Chinese mitten crab ( Eriocheir sinensis ), the Asian overbite clam ( Corbula amurensis ), as well as a plethora of aquatic plants with origins as far aw ay as Brazil and Japan (SCFDG, 2008).

These ANS cause major impacts: disrup ting agriculture, ship ping, water delivery, recreational and commercial fishing; undermini ng levees, docks and environmental restoration activities; impeding navigation and enjoyment of the state’s waterways; and damaging native habitats and the species that depend on them (SCDFG, 2008).

4.1.7 Ecosystem Status of Biscayne Bay, Miami, FL RAA

Biscayne Bay (Figure 4-7) is a shallow subt ropical estuary located along the southeastern coast of the state of Florida. The bay is a na tionally significant marine ecosystem, comprised of mangrove shorelines, scattered islands, living co ral reefs, and a large diversity of marine, terrestrial, and amphibious life (Bialczak et al., 2000). It is home to ten federally-listed endangered species, including the West Indian Ma natee and the American Crocodile, and four2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-47 threatened species, such as the American Allig ator. As a source of recreation, Biscayne Bay serves an impressive 16 percent of the State’s population, annuall y. Known as an excellent place to boat, sail, fish, snorkel, and dive, it is also home to Biscayne National Pa rk, the largest marine

Figure 4-7. Land Use and Physical Featu re Map of Miami/Biscayne Bay, FL RAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-48 park in the National Park System; Oleta River an d Bill Baggs State Parks; and the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Also located in the bay is one of the world’s largest passenger and commercial ports, as well as important s port and commercial fisheries.

Biscayne Bay consists of three sections : north, central, and south (BBRRCT, 2001). North Bay extends from Dumfoundling Bay sout h to the Rickenbacker Causeway. Two new inlets created after 1926 through south and north Miami Beach altered circulation in northern Biscayne Bay (BBRRCT, 2001). Central Biscay ne Bay extends from the Rickenbacker Causeway south to Black Point, and is bordere d mainly by Coral Gables and Coconut Grove on the west and Key Biscayne on the east. Much of this part of the bay is included as part of Biscayne National Park. It is the most well mixe d area, achieving direct ocean exchange. South Biscayne Bay is usually subdivi ded into two parts. The south bay section extends from Black Point to Mangrove Point, and encompasses th e lower portion of Biscayne National Park (BBRRCT, 2001). It is bordered by an intact mangrove shoreline that forms a narrow band along much of its coast. The extreme south bay stretc hes from Mangrove Point to Jewfish Creek, and includes Card Sound and Barnes Sound (BBRRCT, 2001) . For the purposes of this analysis all three sections of the Biscayne Bay ar e part of this RAA (see Figure 4-7).

The South Miami-Dade Watershed is located in the southeastern portion of Miami-Dade County between two national treasures: Biscayne National Park and Everglades National Park (Keith and Schnars, 2007). It is for this reason that this area is recognized as one of the most critical watersheds in Florida. The watershed, which comprises 371 square miles (237,440 acres), plays a vital role in the health of Biscayne Bay as well as providing for the urban and agriculture needs of the surrounding area (Keith and Schnars , 2007). It includes eight municipalities and 20 percent of the total land ar ea in Miami-Dade County.

4.1.7.1 Ecosystem Description of Biscayne Bay/Miami, FL

Prior to development, the Biscayne Bay wate rshed was a diverse landscape of freshwater marshes, sloughs, pine flatwoods and rockla nd, hardwood hammocks, scrub, sandhills, and coastal mangrove swamps (Keith and Schnars, 2007). In the Everglad es, a 60-mile wide "river of grass" slowly moved water primarily from La ke Okeechobee to Florida Bay. A coastal ridge within the watershed area kept most of the wa ter west, but some water flowed through rivers, sloughs, and groundwater and discharg ed to the east into Bisca yne Bay. The natural system's storage capacity was so enormous that rainfa ll from wet seasons and from wet years provided ample supply to maintain the ecosystem through dry seasons and dry years. The extent and

natural flows of the water limited the devel opment of the region (Keith and Schnars, 2007).

Biscayne Bay is a subtropical estuary that is 55 miles long an d varies from 1 to 10 miles

in width and 1 to 10 feet in depth. In some areas, where dred ging has occurred, the depth ranges from 30 to 40 feet (FDEP, 2006). Biscayne Bay is a naturally clear-wat er bay historically bounded by mangrove and herbaceous wetlands. Its sh allow depths and clear waters lead to productivity that is largely benthic-based. The benthic communities both filter particulates and stabilize sediments (Alleman et al., 2002). Biscayne Bay provides habitat fo r all kinds of sea life such as: pink shrimp, stone crabs, seagrasses, manatees, dolphins and a va riety of wading birds. The lush seagrass beds found throughout Biscayne Bay is a major part of the food chain. The Florida spiny lobster depends on this environmen t and shrimp, fish, sea turtles, and manatees2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-49 also use these productive underwat er pastures. Mangroves, with their complex system of prop roots, help stabilize the shoreline and provide sh elter for animals, birds and marine life. Their leaves become a vital part of the food chain when they fall into the water.

The coastal marine waters off southeast Flor ida support an extensive reef ecosystem that anchors highly diverse biological communities (F DEP, 2006). The reef ecosystems consist of distinct habitat types: near s hore patch reefs, mid-channel reef s, offshore patch reefs, seagrass beds, back reefs/reef flats, bank or transitional reefs, intermediate r eefs, deep reefs, outlier reefs, and sand/soft-bottom areas (FDEP, 2006). These r eefs provide habitat for many ecologically and economically significant organisms, including nume rous threatened or endangered species. Hard corals, soft corals, sponges, fish, and algae, along with a multitude of invertebrate species, make up the complex and fragile reef ecosystem. Multip le commercial and recreational fisheries (e.g., spiny lobster, grouper, snapper, grunt, and hogfish) are present in the near shore waters (FDEP, 2006). At present, over 61 species in the region are listed as threatened and endangered under the ESA, 28 of which were selected for detailed evaluation in this BE (see Section 3.4).

4.1.7.2 Major Land Uses Near Biscayne Bay/Miami, FL

The coastal areas of Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, constituting a band that extends from the northern Broward County line to south Miami, remain the most densely developed in the Biscayne Bay–Southeast Coast Basins. As co astal areas were built out, development was forced to spread eastward and southward. Over the years, drainage improvements made land to the west of the coastal ridge suitable for developm ent. Much of the land to the west of the urban coastal area is now covered by urban developmen t, which depends on a network of canals to make the region habitable (FDEP, 2006). East ern Broward County and northeastern and eastcentral Miami-Dade County include the most he avily developed urban ar eas of these counties and contain some of the more heavily urbanized areas in the state. Acco rding to the 2000 U.S. Census, Miami-Dade County ha d an average population dens ity of 1,157.9 people per square mile, and Broward County averaged 1,346.5 people per square mile. Over the 1990–2000 Census period, the population of Browar d County grew by approximately 29 percent, and Miami-Dade County by approximately 16 percent (FDEP, 2006) . The major land use (Table 4-17) in the South Miami-Dade watershed is the built (urban) environment.

Table 4-17. Major Land Use of the South Miami-Dade

Watershed
Land Use Type Percent Cover

Built Environment 50% Other Lands - Agriculture (Tree Ornamentals & Row Crops) 21%

Freshwater Wetlands (Freshwater Marsh) 13%

Coastal Wetlands (Coastal Mangrove) 9%

Transitional Lands (Australian Pine-Exotic & Brazilian Pepper-Exotic) 6%2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-50 Table 4-17. Major Land Use of the South Miami-Dade

Watershed
Land Use Type Percent Cover

Remnant Natural Forest (Pine Rockland & Oak Hammock) 1%

Source: Adapted from Keith and Sc hnars 2004. Near shore marine systems not included.

Nearly 90 percent of all munici pal water supply withdrawals in the basins are from the Biscayne aquifer, which also supplies 200 million gallons per day (mgd) for agriculture, irrigation, industry, mining, and recreational purpos es. Municipal withdrawals in Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties have increased 700 per cent over 45 years (FDEP, 2006). By the year 2020, municipal water demands are projected to reach 1,200 mgd and muni cipal water systems will serve 6 million people. Increased withdrawal s from the Biscayne aquifer have combined

with substantial land use changes to affect the balance betw een fresh and salt water in the ground water flow system (FDEP, 2006). Flow induced ch anges in salt balance may have implications

on native flora and fauna within the coastal wetland ecosystem (Erwin, 2009).

Much of the southern bay, despite substa ntial development in the watershed, has relatively pristine habitats, good water quality, and supports signi ficant production of fish and shellfish. Changes in freshwater input, however, have altered its estuarine characte r. In addition, vessel traffic, along with canals, rivers, and other factors, has c ontributed to elevated turbidity levels and is causing increasing damage to the benthic communities (BBRRCT, 2001).

4.1.7.3 Vessel Populations Present in Biscayne Bay/Miami, FL

The Port of Miami (Figure 4-7), also known as “Cargo Gateway of the Americas”, had 4.3 million passengers travel through the Port , and more than 7.4 million cargo tons and 850,000 TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent un its) of cargo transited through th e harbor in fiscal year 2010 (Port Miami, 2010). This commercial trade combin ed with the cruise ship business supported approximately 176,000 jobs and had an economic impact in the region of approximately $17 billion (Port Miami, 2010). The Po rt of Miami serves approximat ely 20 shipping lines that call on more than 100 countries and 250 ports across the world (Port Miami, 2010).

4.1.7.4 Habitat Modification and Restorat ion in Biscayne Bay/Miami, FL

The Biscayne Bay watershed is contiguous to the Everglades, and receives water from the Everglades that flows directly into the ba y. Beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s, extensive drainage projects began to make vast areas of land usable for agriculture and housing (Keith and Schnars, 2007). By 1927, the Everglades Drainage District ha d put in place 440 miles of canals, levees, locks, and dams. By the 1970s , a massive water management project called the

Central and Southern Florida Project (CSFP) was completed wh ich resulted in about 1,000 miles of levees and canals, 150 gates and other water control structures, and 16 major pump stations installed throughout South Florida (Keith and Schnars, 2007). The CSFP was highly successful at regulating the water resources for flood pr otection and water supply, but the natural flows through the Everglades, through th e coastal ridge, and into Bis cayne Bay were substantially changed. The coastal areas of Broward and Miami- Dade Counties were the first to be developed2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-51 because of the natural coastal ridge, which historically existed as well-drained, habitable land (FDEP, 2006). The completion of these projects and extent of urban development has changed the natural timing, quantity, quality, and distributi on of freshwater into Biscayne Bay and other natural areas (Keith and Schnars, 2007). Moreover, agricultural pr actices and the urbanization of

the area have contributed to alteration of lands in the watershed. The population of this area is expected to increase, which will exacerbate the impacts to the watershed and the resulting threat to the vitality of the bay (BBRRCT, 2001).

The mangrove margins north of Coconut Grove and Key Biscayne (northern Biscayne Bay) were largely covered by fill, and bulkheads were constructed in order to develop the shoreline. The dredging of areas to supply this fill material left 10-20 foot deep troughs in much of northern Biscayne Bay. New dredged islands, port facilities, and six cross-bay causeways further segmented northern Biscayne Bay. Cons truction of infrastructure items such as causeways and sewage treatment plants, whic h empty into the Bay, have resulted in approximately 40% of north Biscayne Bay being either too deep or too turbid for benthic communities. Nevertheless, some parts of th is bay area remain highly productive (BBRRCT, 2001).

Over the years, management plans and activ ities in the Biscayne Bay–Southeast Coast Basins have been implemented to eliminate wa stewater discharges; re duce the discharges of polluted stormwater from urban and agricultu ral areas; and protect, preserve, and restore important ecological areas. Some projects and groups that address wate r quality and quantity problems include the Everglades Construction Pr oject, Comprehensive Ev erglades Restoration Plan, Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improveme nt and Management Plan, Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative, Bisca yne Bay Restoration Coordinati on Team, South Miami-Dade Watershed Study and Plan, and the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (FDEP, 2006).

4.1.7.5 Water Quality Impairments in Biscayne Bay/Miami, FL

Of the 113 water segments in the Biscayne Bay–Southeast Coast Basins, 69 waters are impaired for at least one parameter, and a TMDL is required for these waters (FDEP, 2006). To identify impaired waters in each of the stat e’s river basins, the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection evalua ted water quality data using th e science-based methodology in the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) (R ule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]) (FDEP, 2006). Th e rule established specific cr iteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data sufficiency and data quality requirements. The methodology

described in the rule is based on a statistical a pproach designed to prov ide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment is correct. Table 4-18 list s impaired waters in the Biscayne Bay-Southeast Coast Ba sin verified using this approach.

Table 4-18. Verified List of Impaired Waters in the Biscayne Bay-Southeast Coast Basin

Waterbody Segmen t Name (WBID #) Waterbody Type Pollutant(s) causing impairment

ICWW Dade County (3226H) Estuary Fecal Coliforms Pompano Canal (3271) Stream Dissolved Oxygen; Nutrients C-13 East/Middle River (3274) Estuary Fecal Coliforms; Nutrient (his torical chlorophyll)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-52 Table 4-18. Verified List of Impaired Waters in the Biscayne Bay-Southeast Coast Basin

Waterbody Segmen t Name (WBID #) Waterbody Type Pollutant(s) causing impairment

Los Olas Isles Finger Canal System (3226G4) Estuary Fecal Coliforms

North Fork New River (3276A) Estuary Dissolved Oxygen; Fecal Coliforms; Nutrients (chlorophyll a ); Total coliforms South New River Canal (3277A) Estuary Fecal Coliforms; Nutrients (h istorical chlorophyll); Snake Creek Canal East (3283) Stream Fecal Coliforms; Nutrie nts (historical chlorophyll); C-8/Biscayne Canal (3285) Stream Fecal coliforms; Total coliforms C-7/Little River (3287) Stream Fecal coliforms; Total coliforms C-6/Miami River (3288) Estuary Copp er; Fecal coliforms ; Total coliforms C-6/Miami Canal (3290) Estuary Fecal coliforms Coral Gables Canal (3292) Stream Fecal coliforms; Total coliforms Upper Arch Creek (3226M2) Stream Fecal coliforms; Total coliforms Wagner Creek (3288A) Es tuary Dioxin; Fecal colif orms; Total coliforms C-6/Lower Miami River (3288B) Estuar y Fecal coliforms; Total coliforms C-111 Canal (3303) Stream Nutrient (historical chlorophyll) Florida Atlantic Coast (8998) Coastal Mercury in Fish

Source: FDEP 2006.

There are 113 permitted wastewater treatment facilities in the Biscayne Bay-Southeast Coast Basin, 68 of which have federal Nationa l Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharge to surface water (FDEP, 2006). Six of the NPDES facilities are domestic wastewater treatment plants and th ere are 19 permitted la ndfills, 21 brownfield redevelopment areas, and five fe deral Superfund sites (FDEP, 2006).

According to the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative, the most important challenges today regarding water and sediment quality are the loss of wetland and seagrass communities due to physical and ecological water quality changes. These changes include increased turbidity and inputs of dissolved nutrients, trace metals, or ganic chemicals, and particulates through stormwater runoff from agricultural and urban ar eas, canal discharges, and discharges from

industrial facilities or vessels (FDEP, 2006). Marinas also can be sources of pollution because of the solid waste dumping, fuel and oil pollution, and heavy metals that accumulate in the sediments there. In addition, cons truction and coastal development as well as dredging have put stress on the bay. Land use has a significant im pact on surface water quality. In many of the coastal areas in the region, the infrastructure to convey storm water and sewage is outdated and not environmentally protective (FDEP, 2006). De spite these impacts, Biscayne Bay overall remains highly productive. It supports extensive s eagrass beds and diverse fisheries resources (FDEP, 2006).

4.1.7.6 Historic ANS Introductions and Impacts in Biscayne Bay/Miami, FL

The U.S. Congress Office of Technology Asse ssment (1993) reported that the large influx of exotic plants entering the U.S. through various routes has set the stage for potential escapes and unintentional and inte ntional releases of ANS. Eight y-five percent of all plant shipments into the U.S. passed through the Mi ami Inspection Station (U .S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1993). Florida’s woody ornamental industry, worth $1 billion,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-53 continues to import large numbers of plants for the nursery and la ndscaping trades (U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1993). Fl orida’s aquaculture i ndustry is the largest in the U.S. The aquarium trade industry was re sponsible for introducing hydr illa into canals in

central Florida around 1950 and later into Mi ami canals (U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1993). These industries will continue to threaten native ecosystems if import regulations are not developed, es pecially for the importation of potentially invasive plants. Without early identification and importation re strictions, the number of invasive species

introduced into Florida will continue to rise.

Invasive animal species are a rapidly incr easing environmental and economic problem in

south Florida. Florida has been said to be second only to Hawaii in the severity of the threat posed by invasive species. The state is particular ly vulnerable to the introduction and spread of ANS because of its subtropical climate, numerous major ports of entry, and its plethora of pet, aquarium, and ornamental plant industries. Of the known and thriving animal species introduced into south Florida, 4 are amphibians, 32 are fi sh, 12 are birds, 46 are reptiles, 17 are mammals, and approximately 79 are invertebrates, according to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD, 2008; SFERTF 2010).

Some ANS present include the giant toad ( Bufo marinus ), Cuban brown treefrog ( Osteopilus septentrionallis ), green iguana ( Iguana iguana ), monk parakeet ( Myiopsitta

monachus ), Burmese python ( Python molurus bivittatus ), Mayan cichlid ( Cichlasoma urophthalmus ) and feral dog ( Canis familiaris ). Non-native invasive ve getation species present include melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenervia ), Australian pine ( Casuarina spp.), and Brazilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius ), among others (Ferriter et al ., 2008). The heaviest impacts from invasive plant species tend to occur in disturbe d areas, such as abandoned farmland and lands in the immediate vicinity of roads and berms. Th ese species cause significant ecological harm by crowding out and displacing native vegetation upon which native fish and wildlife depend for food and shelter (Ferriter et al., 2008). Other ne gative impacts of ANS can include alteration of soil types and soil and water chemistry, altera tion of ecosystem functions such as carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling, attenuation of gene pools and genetic diversity, reduction of native species diversity, and al teration of community compos ition (Ferriter et al., 2008). Additionally, according to Ferriter et al. (2008), most exotic plants provide little or no habitat value for native wildlife, ye t they can change hydrology and soil composition, degrade water quality, and decrease the biodive rsity of an entire ecosystem.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-54 4.2 F ACTORS A FFECTING C URRENT S TATUS OF L ISTED S PECIES IN RAA S

Table 4-19 summarizes the know n major and other threats co ntributing to the current status of each of the subset of 82 unique speci es (see Table 3-22 in Section 3.4.2) within the seven RAAs (and constituent elements 3 in the case of its critical habitat 4 ) to which the ensuing effects analysis applies. As mentioned at the begi nning of this section, the risk estimated to this subset of species from anticipated exposure to a select set of po llutants (see Section 3.2.3) is used

to inform determinations for the full list of aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats (Appendix E). The information pr ovided in this table is meant to be considered in the context of the preceding section on ecosystem status within each RAA, and is used to support the effects determinations made in Section 7 of this BE.

Identifying the primary past and on-going threat s to the listed species present within each

of the RAAs allows for consideration of whethe r (and how) the most signi ficant threats (i.e., the primary reasons a particular spec ies is considered threatened or endangered) may (or may not) be related to the Federal permit actions that are the s ubject of this BE. Furthermore, when viewed in

the context of the actions under consideration, conclusions may be drawn as to whether the issuance of the VGP and sVGP would likely cause or contribute to a change to the threats of any of the listed species.

The known and existing threats to the listed species range from human-created threats such as dredging, construction, fish ing, and logging to natural threat s such as predation, weather, disease and hybridization or othe r genetic threats. Many of the threats are physical in nature, such as destruction of habitat, shoreline de velopment, landscape alteration due to mining, and erosion, while others are more chemical in natu re such as general pollu tion (of both aquatic and terrestrial origin).

By far the most prevalent threat among the list ed species is habitat change. This category of threat can occur through activities such as construction and devel opment of shoreline and wetland areas, channel dredging and channel alte rations, urban and agri cultural development, and surface mining (gravel, strip, et c.). One or more of these type s of activities were listed as a threat to 76 of the 82 listed species specifically evaluated in this BE. In fact, the various forms of habitat change are listed as a threat 253 times in the table below. Since threatened and endangered species often have sp ecific habitat requirements, sm all changes or relatively small

3 Per ESA §3(5)(A)(i), 50 CFR §424.12(b), constituent elemen ts are physical and biological features of designated or proposed critical habitat essential to the conservation of the species, incl uding, but not limite d to: (1) space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographic and ecological distributions of a species.

4 Per ESA §3(5)(A)(i), critical habitat for listed species co nsists of: (1) the specific ar eas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (con stituent elements) (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special management cons iderations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the sp ecies at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Designated critical habitats are described in 50 CFR §17 and 226.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Secti on 4- Environmental Baseline

4-55 losses to their habitat can have ne gative impacts. None of the thre ats in this class are directly attributable to discharges incident al to the normal operation of vessels.

The second most commonly listed threat category is biological and natural threats such as weather, competition, predation, disease, invasive species and genetic threats. These threats

accounted for 137 occurrences in the table below. Th ese types of threats were noted for 67 of the 82 listed species specifically evaluated in this BE . Many of these threats can result in direct or indirect impacts that can occu r immediately, or over the c ourse of several generations. Introduction of invasive species is largely a result of huma n activity and many cases are attributable to vessel discharges such as unmanag ed or untreated ballast water. Some of these threats, however, are naturally occurring and may not be directly related to human activity of any

kind.

Direct disturbance by humans is the third most commonly listed threat category. Direct disturbance by humans was listed as a threat to 59 of the 82 listed species and occurred 123 times in Table 4-19. This threat category covers such activities as fishing and hunting, disturbance by

or collisions with boats or ot her vehicles, and recreational activ ities (e.g., beach combing). Direct human disturbance has the potential for injury /death to the animal (through collisions, entanglement, harvest, etc.) or di sturbance of their natural behavi ors leading to changes in their feeding, nesting, or breeding activi ties. While some of the threats in this category are directly related to the physical movement of watercraft (i.e., vessel traffic) , none of them are attributable to discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels.

Another threat category relevant to the effects analysis of this BE is pollution and other related water quality problems, the fourth most commonly listed threat category. While none of

the known threats in the table belo w specifically identify pollutant s from vessel discharges as a concern (i.e., most of the listings are very general such as pollution, contaminants, oil contamination, etc.), incidental vessel discharges could potentia lly contribute to some of the threat from pollutants. Various types of polluti on were listed as known threats for 47 of the 82 species in this BE and occurre d 74 times in the table below. Pollution can act upon the listed species in many ways, including directly causi ng a decrease in breeding success, increasing susceptibility to disease, or inducing sickness and death.

The threat category noted as primary threat the fewest number of times to the various listed species in the RAAs regards changes from su ch anthropogenic activities as forest removal, mowing, livestock grazing, and vegetation encroachme nt, as well as other significant changes to vegetative structure. These thre ats accounted for 20 occurrences in the table below and were listed as primary threat to the status of 19 of the 82 species listed in this BE. Changes in vegetation create loss in habitat, su ch as areas used for foraging or nesting, as well as result in increased predation due to the loss of hiding areas.

Overall, most of the past and on-going threats to the listed species in this BE are directly

related to habitat destruction a nd disturbance, non-specific polluta nt effects, and other natural and anthropogenic activities not specifically related to ve ssels or vessel discharges.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-56Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsShortnose sturgeon,Acipenser brevirostrumUpper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:•Commercial and recreational fishing•Bridge construction/demolition•Contaminants•Nutrient pollution•Dams•Reduced dissolved oxygen levels•Dredging•Cooling water intakes/power plants•Alteration of natural river flow•Loss or manipulation of thermal refugesOther threats:•Introduced species, including competitors andvirusesNorth American greensturgeon,Acipenser medirostrisSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:•Harvest bycatchOther threats:Modification of spawning habitats (e.g., as aresult of logging, agriculture, mining, roadconstruction, and urban development incoastal watersheds)Entrainment in water project diversionsPollution2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-57Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsGulf sturgeon,Acipenser oxyrinchusdesotoiBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)(1) abundant food items, such as detritus, aquatic insects,worms, and/or molluscs, within riverine habitats for larval andjuvenile life stages and abundant prey items, such asamphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, gastropods, ghost shrimp,isopods, molluscs and/or crustaceans, within estuarine andmarine habitats and substrates for subadult and adult lifestages;(2) riverine spawning sites with substrates suitable for eggdeposition and development, such as limestone outcrops andcut limestone banks, bedrock, large gravel or cobble beds,marl, soapstone, or hard clay;(3) riverine aggregation areas, also referred to as resting,holding, and staging areas, used by adult, subadult, and/orjuveniles, generally, but not always, located in holes belownormal riverbed depths, believed necessary for minimizingenergy expenditures during fresh water residency and possiblyfor osmoregulatory functions;(4) a flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration,seasonality, and rate-of-change of fresh water discharge overtime) necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival ofall life stages in the riverine environment, includingmigration, breeding site selection, courtship, egg fertilization,resting, and staging, and for maintaining spawning sites insuitable condition for egg attachment, egg sheltering, resting,and larval staging;(5) water quality, including temperature, salinity, pH,hardness, turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemicalcharacteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, andviability of all life stages;(6) sediment quality, including texture and other chemicalcharacteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, andviability of all life stages;(7) safe and unobstructed migratory pathways necessary forpassage within and between riverine, estuarine, and marinehabitats (e.g., an unobstructed river or a dammed river thatstill allows for passage).Major:OverfishingHabitat loss due to water control structuresOther threats:Dredge material disposalTree removalIncidental takeAquaculture and introductionsSlow growth and maturationPoor water qualityPesticide useHeavy metalsIndustrial contaminants2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-58Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsStaghorn coral,Acropora cervicornisBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)Substrate of suitable quality and availability to supportsuccessful larval settlement andrecruitment, and reattachmentand recruitment of fragments.Major:Thermal eventsAnchor damageDiseasesOther threats:HurricanesPredationBleachingAlgae overgrowthHuman impactsSedimentationSalinity and temperature variationElkhorn coral,Acropora palmataBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)Substrate of suitable quality and availability to supportsuccessful larval settlement andrecruitment, and reattachmentand recruitment of fragments.Major:Thermal eventsHurricanesDiseasesBleachingPredationOther threats:SedimentationSalinity and temperature variationSonoma alopercurus,Alopecurus aequalisvar. sonomensisSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/modification due tourbanizationLand use changesAlterations in hydrologyOther threats:Global climate change2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-59Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsSeabeach Amaranth,Amaranthus pumilusUpper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)No critical habitatMajor:•Beach stabilization structures•Beach erosion•Tidal inundation•Beach grooming•Predation by insects and animals•Urban developmentOther threats:•Off-road vehiclesCalifornia tigersalamander,AmbystomacalifornienseSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) standing bodies of fresh water which typically supportinundation during winter rains and hold water for a minimumof 12 weeks in a year of average rainfall;(2) upland habitats adjacent and accessible to and frombreeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows or otherunderground habitat;(3) accessible upland dispersal habitat between occupiedlocations that allow for movement between such sites.Major:Land use patterns and other anthropogeniceventsLand use changesConversion and isolation of vernal pool habitatsto agriculture and urbanizationLowering of the groundwater table by overdraftMortality of juvenile and adult salamanders byvehicles on roadsIntroduction of non-native predators such asmosquitofish, bullfrogs, and crayfish intobreeding habitatsThe widespread poisoning of California groundsquirrels and other burrowing rodentsInterbreeding with introduced salamandersoriginally brought in as live fish bait2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-60Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsCape Sable seasidesparrow,Ammodramusmaritimus mirabilisBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)(1) calcitic marl soils characteristic of the short-hydroperiodfreshwater marl prairies of the southern Everglades with soilsthat support the unique vegetation community and probablymany of the food items upon which sparrows depend;(2) herbaceous vegetation that includes greater than 15percent combined cover of live and standing dead vegetationof one or more of the following species (when measuredacross an area of greater than100 ft2 (9.3 m2)): Muhly grass(Muhlenbergia filipes), Florida little bluestem (Schizachyriumrhizomatum), blacktopped sedge (Schoenus nigricans), andcordgrass (Spartina bakeri), which act as cover and substratefor foraging, nesting, and normal behavior for sparrowsduring a variety of environmental conditions;(3) large, expansive, contiguous habitat patches with few orsparse woody shrubs or treeswith space for population andindividual growth;(4) hydrologic regime such that the water depth, as measuredfrom the water surface down tothe soil surface, does notexceed 7.9 inches (20 cm) for more than 30 days during theperiod from March 15 to June 30 at a frequency of more than2 out of every 10 years.Major:AgricultureWildfiresHurricanesHydroperiod alterationInvasion by brush and exotic treesIncrease in soil salinityGuadalupe fur seal,ArctocephalustownsendiSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Oil spills and offshore oil and gas explorationOther threats:Sonic boomsIncidental bycatch and entanglementFinback whale,Balaenoptera physalusGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)Upper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:•Boat collisions•Entanglement in fishing gear•Reduced prey abundance•Low-frequency noise•Legal and illegal hunting•Habitat degradation2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-61Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsSonoma sunshine,Blennosperma bakeriSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:•Habitat destruction/degradation andfragmentationOther threats:Off-road vehiclesErosionDecurrent false aster,Boltonia decurrensMississippi River(St. Louis, MO)No critical habitatMajor:•Habitat degradation•Siltation•Intensive agriculture•Marina constructions•Levee construction•Wetland drainingMarbled murrelet,BrachyramphusmarmoratusorBrachyramphusmarmoratusmarmoratusPuget Sound(Seattle, WA)San Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms;(2) forested areas within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) ofindividual trees with potential nesting platforms, and with acanopy height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height.This includes all such forest, regardless of contiguity.Major:•Genetic threats•Disease•Habitat destruction (loss of viable nesting)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-62Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsConservancy fairyshrimp,BranchinectaconservationSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) mounds and swales and depressions within a matrix ofsurrounding uplands that result in complexes of continuously,or intermittently, flowing surface water in the swalesconnecting pools;(2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools withunderlying restrictive soil layers that become inundatedduring winter rains and that continuously hold water for aminimum of 19 days, in all but the driest years, therebyproviding adequate water for incubation, maturation, andreproduction;(3) sources of food, expected tobe detritus occurring in thepools, contributed by overland flow from the pools’watershed, or the results of biological processes within thepools themselves, such as single-celled bacteria, algae, anddead organic matter, to provide for feeding;(4) structure within the pools, consisting of organic andinorganic materials, such as living and dead plants from plantspecies adapted to seasonally inundated environments, rocks,and other inorganic debris that may be washed, blown, orotherwise transported into the pools, that provide shelter.Major:Loss of habitat due to urban development andconversion to agricultureOther threats:Habitat reduction due to grazing regimesPesticide useInvasive weeds2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-63Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsLonghorn fairy shrimp,BranchinectalongiantennaSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) mounds and swales and depressions within a matrix ofsurrounding uplands that result in complexes of continuously,or intermittently, flowing surface water in the swalesconnecting pools,(2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools withunderlying restrictive soil layers that become inundatedduring winter rains and that continuously hold water for aminimum of 23 days, in all but the driest years; therebyproviding adequate water for incubation, maturation, andreproduction;(3) sources of food, expected tobe detritus occurring in thepools, contributed by overland flow from the pools’watershed, or the results of biological processes within thepools themselves, such as single-celled bacteria, algae, anddead organic matter, to provide for feeding;(4) structure within the pools, consisting of organic andinorganic materials, such as living and dead plants from plantspecies adapted to seasonally inundated environments, rocks,and other inorganic debris that may be washed, blown, orotherwise transported into the pools, that provide shelter.Major:Loss of habitat due to urban development andconversion to agricultureOther threats:Local extirpations from stochastic eventsbecause of the small number of isolatedpopulations for this speciesSevere droughtDegradation of habitat from invasive weedyplant speciesInappropriate grazing regimesBrooksville bellflower,Campanula robinsiaeBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:Residential and agricultural developmentRunoffOther threats:CollectingVandalismRed wolf,Canis rufusBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:DiseasesParasitesPoor nutritionPredationHybridization2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-64Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsLoggerhead sea turtle,Caretta carettaGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)Upper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)San Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)Critical habitat was designated but constituent elements couldnot be specifiedMajor (nesting):Habitat destruction/degradationCoastal development/maintenanceBeachfront lightingHuman disturbancePredation (native and non-native species)Major (marine):Entanglement/Ingestion of debrisCommercial fishing operationsHabitat degradationBoat collisionsSedimentation/SiltationAgricultural/Industrial pollutionChannel dredgingCommercial harvestWhite sedge,Carex albidaSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat encroachmentOther threats:Surrounding residential and agricultural uses inthe upper slopes of the watershed pose athreat on the hydrology of the marshHoover’s spurge,Chamaesyce hooveriSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) isolated mound and intermound complex within a matrixof surrounding uplands that result in continuously, orintermittently, flowing surface water in the depressionalfeatures including swales connecting pools, providing fordispersal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length inthe pools;(2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools withunderlying restrictive soil layers that become inundatedduring winter rains and that continuously hold water or whosesoils are saturated for a period long enough to promotegermination, flowering, and seed production of predominantlyannual native wetland speciesand typically exclude bothnative and nonnative upland plant species in all but the driestyears.Major:Habitat loss by agricultural conversionHabitat degradationExtirpation and threat by urban developmentprojectsInadequate regulatory mechanismsInvasive weedsOther threats:DroughtClimate changeSmall population size2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-65Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsWestern snowy plover(Pacific coastal pop.),Charadriusalexandrines nivosusSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) sparsely vegetated areas above daily high tides (such assandy beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an activebeach face, salt flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, dredgespoil sites, artificial salt ponds and adjoining levees) that arerelatively undisturbed by the presence of humans, pets,vehicles or human-attracted predators;(2) sparsely vegetated sandy beach, mud flats, gravel bars orartificial salt ponds subject to daily tidal inundation, but notcurrently under water, that support small invertebrates;(3) surf or tide-cast organic debris such as seaweed ordriftwood.Major:Poor reproductive success due to humandisturbanceHabitat loss due to developmentLimited nesting habitat due to beach grassNative and introduced predatorsPiping plover,Charadrius melodusGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)SaintLouis/Superior Bay(Lake Superior)(Duluth, MN)Upper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)(1) Gulf and Atlantic coasts along margins of sparselyvegetated interior bays, inlets, and lagoons;(2) prairie alkali wetlands and surrounding shoreline,including 200ft of uplands above the high water mark;(3) river channels and associated sandbars and islands; andreservoirs and their sparsely vegetated shorelines;(4) peninsulas, and islands; and inland lakes and their sparselyvegetated shorelines.Major:Habitat destruction/degradationUrban/Industrial developmentReservoir constructionChannel excavationHydrology alterationIncreased predationHuman disturbanceOther threats:Oil pollutionDisease, parasites, and pathogensPesticides2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-66Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsGreen sea turtle,Chelonia mydasGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)Puget Sound(Seattle, WA)Upper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)Critical habitat was designated but constituent elements couldnot be specifiedMajor (nesting):Habitat destruction/degradationCoastal development/maintenanceBeachfront lightingHuman disturbancePredation (native and non-native species)Major (marine):Entanglement/Ingestion of debrisCommercial fishing operationsHabitat degradationBoat collisionsSedimentation/SiltationAgricultural/Industrial pollutionChannel dredgingOther threats:Disease (Fibropapillomatosis)Commercial harvestFountain thistle,Cirsium fontinale var.fontinaleSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Loss of major pollinatorsOther threats:Habitat loss due to human projectsNon-native plant speciesSeed predationRoad wideningFireDumping of garden debrisSuisun thistle,Cirsium hydrophilumvar. hydrophilumSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) persistent emergent, intertidal, estuarine wetland at orabove the mean high-water line(as extended directly acrossany intersecting channels);(2) open channels that periodically contain moving water withocean-derived salts inexcess of 0.5 percent;(3) gaps in surrounding vegetation to allow for seedgermination and growth.Major:Habitat modificationChanges to natural tidal regimesFeral pigsMosquito abatement activitiesPlant invasionInsectsExtirpation of small populationsOther threats:Global climate change2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-67Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsBog turtle,Clemmys(Glptemys)muhlenbergiiUpper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/degradation andfragmentationWetland alterationDevelopmentDredgingWater diversionHydrological alterationOther threats:PollutionInvasive speciesNatural vegetation successionHeavy grazingIllegal wildlife tradePesticidesHigh raccoon populationsHuman impacts/developmentSoft bird’s-beak,Cordylanthus mollisssp. mollisSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) persistent emergent, intertidal, estuarine wetland at orabove the mean high-water line(as extended directly acrossany intersecting channels);(2) rarity or absence of plants that naturally die in late spring(winter annuals);(3) partially open spring canopy cover (approximately 790nMol/m2/s) at ground level, with many small openings tofacilitate seedling germination.Major:Marsh alteration and developmentMuting of tides and salinityInvasive speciesMosquito abatement activitiesSeed predationSea level rise/global warningOil spillsOther threats:Random events2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-68Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsPalmate-bracted bird’sbeak,Cordylanthus palmatusSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat lossUrban expansionChanges in hydrological regimeRandom/catastrophic eventsRoad maintenanceWetland fillingExotic plant encroachmentOff-road vehicle useLifestock wallowingOther threats:OzoneExcessive dustClimate changeAmerican crocodile,Crocodylus acutusBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)Critical habitat was designated but constituent elements couldnot be specifiedMajor:PoachingHabitat lossOther threats:Natural disastersRoad kill2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-69Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsLeatherback sea turtle,Dermochelys coriaceaGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)Puget Sound(Seattle, WA)Upper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)San Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)Critical habitat was designated but constituent elements couldnot be specifiedMajor (nesting):Habitat destruction/degradationCoastal development/maintenanceBeachfront lightingHuman disturbancePredation (native and non-native species)Major (marine):Entanglement/Ingestion of debrisCommercial fishing operationsHabitat degradationBoat collisionsSedimentation/SiltationAgricultural/Industrial pollutionChannel dredgingOther threats:Commercial harvestValley elderberrylonghorn beetle,Desmoceruscalifornicus dimorphusSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)Critical habitat was designated but constituent elements couldnot be specifiedMajor:Invasive speciesEastern indigo snake,Drymarchon coraiscouperiBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat loss, degradation, and conversionOther threats:Fire suppressionCollectionPersecutionDelta green groundbeetle,Elaphrus viridisSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat loss due to conversion to agricultureOther threats:Bug collectors2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-70Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsSouthern sea otter,Enhydra lutris nereisSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat degradationHuman takeOil spillsOther threats:Infectious diseaseCommercial fishing activitiesFood resource limitationHawksbill sea turtle,EretmochelysimbricateGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)Upper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)(1) pristine coral reefs with high sponge density for foraging;(2) reef ledges and caves for shelter and refuge frompredators;(3) undeveloped beach habitat,both insular and mainland fornesting.-Critical habitat areas include Mona and Monita Islands,Puerto Rico.Major (nesting):Habitat destruction/degradationCoastal development/maintenanceBeachfront lightingHuman disturbancePredation (native and non-native species)Major (marine):Commercial harvest (illegal shell trade)Entanglement/Ingestion of debrisCommercial fishing operationsHabitat degradationBoat collisionsSedimentation/SiltationAgricultural/Industrial pollutionChannel dredgingNorth Atlantic rightwhale,Eubalaena glacialisUpper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)(1) spring/early summer feedingarea and nursery in the GreatSouth Channel, NE;(2) late winter/spring feeding and nursery area in Cape CodBay, MA;(3) winter calving ground and nursery area in the coastalwaters of the southeastern US.Major:Boat collisionsNoise contaminantsPollutionHabitat degradationClimate changeFishing gear entanglement2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-71Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsTidewater goby,EucyclogobiusnewberryiSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat degradationDiversion of waterDredgingPollution from agriculture and effluentsSiltationUrban developmentCoastal road constructionOther threats:DroughtIntroduced predatory speciesPedestriansSteller sea-lion,Eumetopias jubatusPuget Sound(Seattle, WA)San Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)Constituent elements are not described in the FederalRegulation designating critical habitat for this species.Major:Boat collisionsPollutionHabitat degradationIllegal huntingSubsistence harvestOffshore oil and gas explorationFisheriesGear entanglementCompetition for food resourcesWhooping crane,Grus americanaGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)(1) brackish bays, marshes, salt flats and barrier islands insouthern US. Cropland and riverine habitat is preferred innorthern US, as well as available wetland mosaics;(2) additional upland areas for alternate food sources androosting;(3) due to territoriality, large expanses of undisturbedwetland/marsh habitat is a key element.Major (wild population):Collision with manmade objectso(power lines and fences)Illegal shootingChemical spills along intracoastal waterwaysPredatorsDiseaseHabitat destructionSevere weatherLoss of genetic materialMajor (captive population):DiseaseAccidentsIn-breeding2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-72Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsWhite abalone,Haliotis sorenseniSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Poor reproductive success due to size andfragmentation of existing populationsOther threats:Withering syndromeJohnson’s seagrass,Halophila johnsoniiBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)(1) locations with populations that have persisted for 10 years;(2) locations with persistent flowering populations;(3) locations at the northern and southern range limits of thespecies;(4) locations with unique genetic diversity;(5) locations with a documented high abundance of Johnson’sseagrass compared to other areas in the species’ range.Major:Habitat loss, degradation, and conversionDredging and fillingConstruction and shadingProp scarringAltered water qualitySiltationOther threats:Stochastic storm eventsWater howellia,Howellia aquatilisPuget Sound(Seattle, WA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/degradationUrban developmentChannelization and dam constructionAgricultural developmentOther threats:Timber harvestWetland successionNon-native species encroachmentDelta smelt,HypomesustranspacificusSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) shallow, fresh or slightly brackish backwater sloughs andedgewaters and substrates for egg attachment for spawning;(2) rivers and channels free from physical disturbance andflow disruption;(3) 2 ppt isohaline, shallow, protective, food-rich waters forlarvae and juveniles to mature;(4) adequate flow and water quality to attract migrating adultsto the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and tributaries.Major:Low fecundity and 1-year lifespanReduction or increase in outflowsEntrainment losses of larvae and adults due towater diversionChanges in food resourcesOther threats:Hybridization of the species2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-73Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsPink mucket,Lampsilis abruptaMississippi River(St. Louis, MO)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/degradationFlood controlNavigationHydroelectric powerRecreationSiltationStrip miningCoal washingDredgingFarmingLoggingRoad constructionPollutionAgricultural wasteInvasive speciesDamsKemp’s Ridley seaturtle,Lepidochelys kempiiGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)Upper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)No critical habitatMajor (nesting):Habitat destruction/degradationCoastal development/maintenanceBeachfront lightingHuman disturbanceDredgingPredation (native and non-native species)Major (marine):Entanglement/Ingestion of debrisCommercial fishing operationsHabitat degradationBoat collisionsSedimentation/SiltationAgricultural/Industrial pollutionChannel dredging2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-74Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsOlive Ridley sea turtle,Lepidochelys olivaceaSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Egg collection and adult killingShrimp trawlingOther threats:Incidental capturesVernal pool tadpoleshrimp,Lepidurus packardiSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) mounds and swales and depressions within a matrix ofsurrounding uplands that result in complexes of continuously,or intermittently, flowing surface water in the swalesconnecting pools, providing for dispersal and promotinghydroperiods of adequate length in the pools;(2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools withunderlying restrictive soil layers that become inundatedduring winter rains and that continuously hold water for aminimum of 41 days, in all but the driest years, for incubation,maturation, and reproduction;(3) sources of food, expected tobe detritus occurring in thepools, contributed by overland flow from the pools’watershed, or the results of biological processes within thepools themselves, such as single-celled bacteria, algae, anddead organic matter, to provide for feeding;(4) structure within the pools, consisting of organic andinorganic materials that provide shelter.Major:Habitat degradation and loss due to agricultureand urban developmentOther threats:GrazingOff-road vehicleHydrological modificationParasites2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-75Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsScaleshell mussel,Leptodea leptodonMississippi River(St. Louis, MO)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/degradationFlood controlNavigationHydroelectric powerRecreationSiltationStrip miningCoal washingDredgingFarmingLoggingRoad constructionPollutionAgricultural wasteInvasive speciesDamsAlameda whipsnake,Masticophis lateraliseuryxanthusSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) scrub/shrub communities with a mosaic of open andclosed canopy as characterized by the chamise, chamiseeastwood manzanita, chaparral whitethorn, and interior liveoak shrub vegetation series, occurring at elevations from sealevel to approximately 3,850 ft (1,170 m);(2) woodland or annual grassland plant communitiescontiguous to the above, comprised of one or more of thefollowing: Blue oak, coast live oak, California bay, Californiabuckeye, and California annual grassland vegetation series;(3) lands containing rock outcrops, talus, and small mammalburrows within or adjacent tothe above, essential for retreats(shelter), hibernacula, foraging, and dispersal, and provideadditional prey population support functions.Major:Residential and commercial development ofhabitatOvergrazing and removal of shrub and grasscoverOther threats:Wildfire2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-76Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsHumpback whale,MegapteranovaeangliaeGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)Puget Sound(Seattle, WA)Upper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:Entanglement with debrisCommercial fishing operationsBoat collisionWhale watching vesselsShipping channelsFisheriesHabitat displacementRecreational/Industrial use of marine areasOther threats:Acoustic equipmentWood stork,Mycteria americanaBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat loss, degradation, and modificationUtilization of the speciesDiseasePredationOther threats:ContaminantsElectrocutionRoad killInvasion of exotic speciesDisturbanceStochastic eventsGray bat,Myotis grisescensMississippi River(St. Louis, MO)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:Modifications to caves, mines, and surroundingareasHuman disturbance and vandalismHabitat destruction/degradationWhite-nose syndromeOther threats:Forest insecticides and crop pesticidesDeforestationWaterway impoundment2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-77Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsIndiana bat,Myotis sodalistMississippi River(St. Louis, MO)Upper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)(1) Shelter provided by caves and mines during wintermonths.-additional constituent elements could not be specifiedMajor:Modifications to caves, mines, and surroundingareasHuman disturbance and vandalismHabitat destruction/degradationNatural catastrophesColusa grass,Neostapfia colusanaSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) topographic features characterized by isolated mound andintermound complex within a matrix of surrounding uplandsthat result in continuously, or intermittently, flowing surfacewater in the depressional features including swales connectingpools, providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods ofadequate length in the pools;(2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools withunderlying restrictive soil layers that become inundatedduring winter rains and that continuously hold water or whosesoils are saturated for a period long enough to promotegermination, flowering, and seed production of predominantlyannual native wetland speciesand typically exclude bothnative and nonnative upland plant species in all but the driestyears.Major:Land conversion to urban development andirrigated croplandImpacts from surrounding land useNon-native plantsChanges to hydrologyOther threats:Human activitiesExtirpationRiparian woodrat,Neotoma fuscipesripariaSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Genetic, demographic, and random catastrophicevents due to small size of population andhabitatInbreeding depressionOther threats:Flooding (to woodrat housing)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-78Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsChum salmon,Oncorhynchus keta(Hood Canal summerrun)Puget Sound(Seattle, WA)(1) freshwater spawning;(2) freshwater rearing;(3) freshwater migration;(4) estuarine areas free of obstruction;(5) nearshore marine areas free of obstructions;(6) offshore marine areas with good water quality.The physical or biological features that characterize these sitesinclude water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage,adequate passage conditions, and floodplain connectivity.Major:Overharvest in fisheriesCompetition with native and non-native, andhatchery raised speciesDams (alteration of river hydrology)Gravel miningWater diversionsHabitat destruction/degradationIncrease water temperaturesLand use practicesAgricultureLoggingUrbanizationPollution2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-79Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsSteelhead salmon,Oncorhynchus mykiss(Puget Sound, CentralCA Coast, SouthCentral CA Coast, andSouthern CA Coast)Puget Sound(Seattle, WA)San Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitat for the Puget Sound steelhead troutCritical Habitat for CA Coast Populations:(1) freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and qualityconditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation andlarval development;(2) freshwater rearing sites with:(i) water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form andmaintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenilegrowth and mobility;(ii) water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;and(iii) natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanginglarge wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks;(3) freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction andexcessive predation with water quantity and quality conditionsand natural cover such as submerged and overhanging largewood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, sidechannels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adultmobility and survival;(4) estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predationwith:(i) water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditionssupporting juvenile and adult physiological transitionsbetween fresh- and saltwater;(ii) natural cover such as submerged and overhanging largewood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, sidechannels; and(iii) juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebratesand fishes, supporting growth and maturation.Major:Deterioration of marine food resourcesPredation by marine speciesEntanglement with debrisCommercial fishing operationsOverharvest in fisheriesCompetition with native and non-native, andhatchery raised speciesWater diversionsHabitat destruction/degradationLand use practicesAgricultureLoggingUrbanizationDiseasePollution2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-80Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsChinook salmon,Oncorhynchustshawytscha(Puget Sound)Puget Sound(Seattle, WA)(1) freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and qualityconditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation andlarval development;(2) freshwater rearing sites with:(i) water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form andmaintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenilegrowth and mobility;(ii) water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;and(iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanginglarge wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks;(3) freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction andexcessive predation with water quantity and quality conditionsand natural cover such as submerged and overhanging largewood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, sidechannels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adultmobility and survival;(4) estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predationwith:(i) water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditionssupporting juvenile and adult physiological transitionsbetween fresh- and saltwater;(ii) natural cover such as submerged and overhanging largewood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, sidechannels; and(iii) juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebratesand fishes, supporting growth and maturation;(5) nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessivepredation with:(i) water quality and quantity conditions and forage, includingaquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth andmaturation; andMajor:Competition with native and non-native, andhatchery raised speciesDams (alteration of river hydrology)Gravel miningWater diversionsHabitat destruction/degradationIncrease water temperaturesLand use practicesAgricultureLoggingUrbanizationPollution2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-81Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing Threats(ii) natural cover such as submerged and overhanging largewood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and sidechannels.;(6) offshore marine areas with water quality conditions andforage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supportinggrowth and maturation.Killer whale,Orcinus orcaPuget Sound(Seattle, WA)San Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)Critical habitat was designated but constituent elements couldnot be specifiedMajor:PollutionDepletion of prey (overfishing)Habitat degradationShip collisionsOther threats:Acoustic equipmentEntanglement in fish gearWhale watching vesselsIllegal huntingHairy orcutt grass,Orcuttia pilosaSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) topographic features characterized by isolated mound andintermound complex within a matrix of surrounding uplandsthat result in continuously, or intermittently, flowing surfacewater in the depressional features including swales connectingpools, providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods ofadequate length in the pools;(2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools withunderlying restrictive soil layers that become inundatedduring winter rains and that continuously hold water or whosesoils are saturated for a period long enough to promotegermination, flowering, and seed production of predominantlyannual native wetland speciesand typically exclude bothnative and nonnative upland plant species in all but the driestyears.Major:Changes in natural hydrologyHabitat lossOther threats:AgricultureUrbanizationOvergrazingNon-native plantsTrampling2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-82Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsShort-tailed albatross,Phoebastria albatrusPuget Sound(Seattle, WA)No critical habitatMajor:Natural environmental conditionsSmall population sizeLimited number of breeding coloniesOther threats:Long-line fishingPlastic pollutionOil contaminationAirplane strikesCalistoga allocarya,Plagiobothrys strictusSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat loss due to developmentAlteration of hot springs hydrologyRestricted range, number, and population sizeInadequate regulatory mechanismsOther threats:Climate changeNon-native plantsEastern prairie fringedorchid,PlatantheraleucophaeaMississippi River(St. Louis, MO)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/degradationUrban developmentInvasive species competitionGrazingCutting hay in midsummerOver-collectionNapa bluegrass,Poa napensisSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat loss due to developmentAlteration of hot springs hydrologyRestricted range, number, and population sizeInadequate regulatory mechanismsOther threats:Climate changeNon-native plants2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-83Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsAudubon’s crestedcaracara,Polyborus plancusauduboniiBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat conversion to agricultureResidential developmentShooting and trappingRoad killDeforestationInvasion of woody speciesPredationSmalltooth sawfish,Pristis pectinataGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)(1) dense red mangrove habitat;(2) shallow, euryhaline habitat characterized by water depthsbetween the mean high water lineand 3 ft (0.9m) measured atmean lower low water.Major:Entanglement with debrisCommercial fishing operationsHabitat destruction/degradationInjury from saw removalPollutionHuman disturbanceDivers and other marine activitiesFlorida panther,Puma concolor coryiBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat loss and alterationLoggingDrainageOil field activityHousing developmentCitrus agricultureRoad constructionMercury contaminationVehicle collisionsOther threats:Genetic variabilityLoss of food due to hunting (deer)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-84Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsCalifornia red-leggedfrog,Rana draytoniiSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) standing bodies of fresh water (with salinities less than 4.5ppt) for aquatic breeding habitat, including natural andmanmade ponds, slow-moving streams or pools withinstreams, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies thattypically become inundated during winter rains and holdwater for a minimum of 20 weeks in all but the driest of years;(2) freshwater pond and stream habitats, as described above,for non-breeding habitat, that provide for shelter, foraging,predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal of juvenile and adultCalifornia red-legged frogs, including, but are not limited toplunge pools within intermittent creeks, seeps, quiet waterrefugia within streams during high water flows, and springs ofsufficient flow to withstand short-term dry periods;(3) upland areas adjacent to orsurrounding breeding and nonbreeding aquatic and riparian habitat up to a distance of 1 mi(1.6 km) in most cases (i.e., depending on surroundinglandscape and dispersal barriers) including variousvegetational types such as grassland, woodland, forest,wetland, or riparian areas that provide shelter, forage, andpredator avoidance for the California red-legged frog,maintaining the hydrologic, geographic, topographic,ecological, and edaphic featuresthat support and surround theaquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat;(4) accessible upland or riparian habitat within and betweenoccupied or previously occupiedsites that are located within 1mi (1.6 km) of each other, and that support movementbetween such sites as dispersal habitat, including variousnatural habitats, and altered habitats such as agriculturalfields, that do not contain barriers (e.g., heavily traveled roadswithout bridges or culverts) to dispersal.Major:Wetland destruction, fragmentation, anddegradationUrbanizationResidential developmentReservoir constructionStream channelizationLivestock grazingOff-road vehicle useDroughtOverharvestingExotic speciesConversion of habitat to more permanent pondsOther threats:Climate changeUV-B radiationAirborne contaminantsDiseaseSalt marsh harvestmouse,ReithrodontomysraviventrisSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:FillingDikingSubsidenceSalinity changes2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-85Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsEverglade snail kite,Rostrhamus sociabilisplumbeusBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)Critical habitat was designated but constituent elements couldnot be specifiedMajor:Habitat destruction through wetland drainageand agriculture conversionAgriculture runoffIntroduction of exotic plantsOther threats:Illegal shootingsBull trout,Salvelinus confluentusPuget Sound(Seattle, WA)(1) cold water temperature;(2) streams and rivers with riffles, deep pools, undercut banksand large amounts of large woody debris;(3) water bodies connecting to headwater streams forspawning and feeding migration routes.Major:Overharvest in fisheriesCompetition with native and non-native, andhatchery raised speciesHybridizationDams (alteration of river hydrology)Gravel miningWater diversionsHabitat destruction/degradationIncrease water temperaturesLand use practicesAgricultureLoggingUrbanizationPollutionPallid sturgeon,Scaphirhynchus albusMississippi River(St. Louis, MO)No critical habitatMajor:Construction/operation of large dams and riverchannelizationHabitat degradationIllegal commercial harvestPollutionHybridization2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-86Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsAmerican chaffseed,Schwalbea americanaBiscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat development and successionFire suppressionOther threats:TramplingHerbicide applicationRoad maintenanceHerbivoryUte ladies’-tresses,Spiranthes diluvialisPuget Sound(Seattle, WA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/degradationUrban developmentChannelization and dam constructionAgricultural developmentOvercollectionCompetition with non-native speciesHerbicidesOther threats:RecreationMowing from hay productionGrazingHydrology changesReduction in pollinatorsLeast tern,Sterna antillarum(athalassos)(Interior population)Mississippi River(St. Louis, MO)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/degradationUrban developmentChannelization and dam constructionRecreational activitiesOther threats:PredationVegetation encroachmentHuman disturbance2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-87Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsRoseate tern,Sterna dougalliidougalliiUpper/Lower NewYork Bay(New York, NY)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/degradationUrban developmentHuman disturbanceIncreased predation where human garbageattracts predatorsOther threats:PollutionCalifornia freshwatershrimp,Syncaris pacificaSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat loss/degradation due to urbanizationAgricultural development and inappropriategrazingPollutants and contaminantsWater developmentGiant garter snake,Thamnophis gigasSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)No critical habitatMajor:Wetland loss, fragmentation, and degradationMaintenance of flood controlWeed abatementRodent controlContaminantsOvergrazingOther threats:Introduced speciesParasitesRoad kills2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-88Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsWest Indian manatee,Trichechus manatusGalveston Bay(Houston, Texas)Biscayne Bay(Miami, FL)Critical habitat was designated but constituent elements couldnot be specifiedMajor:Boat collisionsLoss of natural springsWater diversionsPower plant shutdownFlood gates and canal locksOther threats:Fishing gear and trash entanglementCold wintersRed tide bloomsHuman disturbanceDiseaseSolano grass,Tuctoria mucronataSan Francisco BayEstuary(San Francisco,CA)(1) topographic features characterized by isolated mound andintermound complex within a matrix of surrounding uplandsthat result in continuously, or intermittently, flowing surfacewater in the depressional features including swales connectingpools, providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods ofadequate length in the pools;(2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools withunderlying restrictive soil layers that become inundatedduring winter rains and that continuously hold water or whosesoils are saturated for a period long enough to promotegermination, flowering, and seed production of predominantlyannual native wetland speciesand typically exclude bothnative and nonnative upland plant species in all but the driestyears.Major:Habitat modification, destruction, degradation,and fragmentationAltered site hydrologyInappropriate grazing levelsInvasive plantsThatch build upContaminant run offDroughtClimate changeOther threats:Small population size2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline4-89Table 4-19. Factors Affecting Current Statusof Listed Species in RAAs (OrganizedAlphabetically by Scientific Name)SpeciesApplicable RAA(s)Designation of Critical Habitat and/or ConstituentElementsKnown/Existing ThreatsGrizzly bear,Ursus arctos horribilisPuget Sound(Seattle, WA)No critical habitatMajor:Habitat destruction/degradation andfragmentationIncrease human-bear interactionsHunting (legal and illegal)Other threats:Non-native species threatening food resourcesDisplacement of native plantsForestryMiningRoad buildingSources: Information sources identified on a species-specific basis in Appendix F.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline

4-90 4.3 R EFERENCES

Alleman, R.W., J.A. Browder, S.M. Markley and P.B. Ortner. 2002. A strategic science plan for Biscayne Bay. Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Systems Program Management

Committee. Retrieved from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/sfer pm/bbscienceplandraft.pdf.

Antweiler, R.C., D.A. Goolsby and H.E. Taylor . 1995. Nutrients in the Mi ssissippi River. Pages 73-86, In: R.H. Meade, editor. Contaminants in the Mississippi River, 1987-92. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1133, Denver, Colorado.

Battle, J.M., J.K. Jackson and B.W. Sween ey. 2007. Annual and spatial variation for macroinvertebrates in the Upper Mississipp i River near Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Fundamental and Applied Limnology. 168 (1) : 39-54.

BBRRCT. 2001. 2001 Biscayne Bay Regional Restoration Coordi nation Team Annual report.

Retrived from http://www.sfrestore.org/rrct/bbay/do cuments/bbrrct_2001_ annual_report.pdf.

Benson, A.J., C.C. Jacono, P.L. Fuller, E.R. McKercher and M.M. Richerson. 2004. Summary report of nonindigenous aquatic species in U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service Region 5. U.S. Geological Service. Retrieved from http://n as.er.usgs.gov/publicati ons/R5finalre port.pdf.

Bialczak, M., J.F. Murley and L. Cantral. (2000). Biscayne Bay partnership initiative. Coasts at the Millennium: proceedings of the seventeenth international confer ence of the Coastal Society, 9-12 July, 2000, the Portland Marriott Riverfront, Portland, OR.

Bishop, S. and A. Morgan. (eds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural chinook salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget S ound areas of Washington State. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA, 105 p. (Retrieved from Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 6730 Martin Way E., Olympia, WA 98506).

Bortleson, G.C., M.J. Chrzastowski and A.K. He lgerson. 1980. Historical changes of shoreline and wetland at eleven major deltas in the Puget Sound region, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologi c Investigations Atlas HA- 617, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 11 p.

California Department of Finance . (CADF). 201 2. Interim Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2010-2050. May 2012. Retrieved from http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographi c/reports/projections/interim/view.php.

CEPA. 2012. Statewide Category 5 Final 2010 Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). State Water Resources Cont rol Board. US EPA Final Approval October 11, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/p rograms/tmdl/2010state_ir_reports/categor y5_report.shtml.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline

4-91 Cloern, J.E., S.N. Luoma and F.H. Nichols. 1997. Managing coastal resources of the U.S. Access USGS - San Francisco Bay and Delta. Retrieved from http://sfbay.wr.usgs.gov/general_f actsheets/coastal_resources.html.

Cohen, A.N. 2004. An Exotic Species Detect ion Program for Puget Sound. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, California. Publication # OTH04-02. May, 2004. 60 p. Retrieved from http://www.sfei.org/s ites/default/files/ 2004-PugetSoundESDP380.pdf.

Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary. Sci.,

279 : 555-558.

Collier, T.K., S.M. O’Neill, J.E. West, and N.L. Scholz. 2007. Toxic Chemical Contaminants and Puget Sound. Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Basin/ Puget Sound Research Conference, Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/uwconf/2007psgb/2007proceedings/index.html.

Collins, B.D. and A.J. Sheikh. 2005. Historical reconstruction, classification, and change analysis of Puget Sound tidal marshes. Final report to Washington Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Resources Division, Ol ympia, Washington. Retrieved from http://riverhistory.ess.washington.edu/p roject_reports/fin alrpt_rev_aug12_2005.pdf.

Daniels, R.A., K.E. Limburg, R.E. Schmidt, D. L. Strayer and R.C. Chambers. 2005. Changes in fish assemblages in the tidal Hudson River, New York. American Fisheries Society Symposium., 45: 471-503.

DeVore, P.W. 1978. Fishery resources of the Superi or-Duluth Estuary. Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies, Univer sity of Wisconsin, Superior.

Erwin, K.L. 2009. Wetlands and global climate cha nge: The role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetlands Ecol. Management., 17: 71–84.

FDEP. 2006. Water quality assessment report: Biscayne Bay-southeast coast. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Divi sion of Water Management. Tallahassee,

FL.

Ferriter, A, B. Doren, R. Winston, D. Thayer, B. Miller, B. Thomas, M. Barrett, T. Pernas, S. Hardin, J. Lane, M. Kobza, D. Schmitz, M. Bodl e, L. Toth, L. Rodgers, P. Pratt, S. Snow and C. Goodyear. 2008. Chapter 9: The status of nonindigenous species in the south

Florida environment. 2008. South Florida E nvironment Report, Volume I: The South

Florida Environment.

FOCUS. 2012. Bay area focused growth . Retrieved from http://www.ba yareavision.org/bayarea/.

GBEP. 2003. The Bay’s Priority Problems . Retrived from http://www .gbep.state.tx.us/priorityproblems/.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline

4-92 GBEP. 2010. The Quiet Invasion: A Guide to In vasive Species of the Galveston Bay Area. Retrieved from http://www.galvbayinvasives.org/.

Gosset, L., J. Lester and L. Gonzales. 2004. Galves ton Bay invasive species risk assessment final report. Prepared for: Galveston Bay Estuary Program, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Webster, TX.

Greenbelt Alliance. 2012. At Risk: Th e Bay Area Greenbelt. Retrieved from http://www.greenbelt.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012/05/AtRisk_2012_FINAL.pdf.

Janvrin, J., D. Dieterman, K. Hans en, D. Sallee, T. Moore, R. Fr ietsche, R. Benjamin, S. Yess and T. Boland. 2010. Upper Mississippi Rive r fisheries plan 2010. Upper Mississippi

River Conservation Committee. Fish T echnical Committee. Onalaska, WI. 36 p.

Retrieved from http://www.umrcc.org/Reports/Fish%20S ection/FishPlanFinalcompressed.pdf.

Johnson, B.L. and K. H. Hagerty. (eds). 2008. Status and trends of select ed resources of the Upper Mississippi River. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midw est Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin, December 2008. Technical Report LTRMP 2008-T002. 102 p.

Keith and Schnars, P.A. 2004. South Miami-Dade watershed study and plan: sub-task 1.4 final work product. Keith and Schnars, P.A. Fort Lauderdale, FL. Retrieved from http://southmiamidadewatershed.net/.

Keith and Schnars, P.A. 2007. South Miami-Dade watershed study and plan: planning for a sustainable, healthy environment and economy. Keith and Schnars, P.A. Fort Lauderdale, FL. Retrieved from http://southmiamidadewatershed.net/.

Kruckeberg, A. R. 1991. The natu ral history of Puget Sound Count ry. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

Meade, R.H. 1995. Setting: Geology, hydrology, sedime nts, and engineering of the Mississippi River. Pages 13-28, In: R.H. Meade, editor. C ontaminants in the Mississippi River, 1987- 92. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1133, Denver, Colorado.

MIC. 1985. Superior-Duluth Harbor natural resources management program. Arrowhead Regional Development Commission, Duluth, MN.

Mills, E.L., J.H. Leach, J.T. Carlton and C.L. S ecor. (1993). Exotic species in the Great Lakes: A history of biotic crises a nd anthropogenic introductions. Journal Great Lakes Research,

19 : 1-54.

Missouri Port Authorities. 2005. City of St. Louis Port Authority. Retrieved from http://www.missouriports.org/stlouis.html.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline

4-93 MMRP. 2009. Regional Corridor Reach Report - Reach 3 Assessment. Middle Mississippi River Partnership, MMR Regional Corridor Reach Reports, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.swircd.org/mmrp/ Reach%203%20Assessment.pdf.

Montalto F.A. and T.S. Steenhuis. 2004. The lin k between hydrology and restoration of tidal marshes in the New York/New Jersey Estuary. Wetlands, 24(2) : 414-425.

MPCA. 2011. Minnesota’ Impaired Waters and TMDLs, Impaired Waters List. Retrieved from http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/wate r/water-types-and-programs/minnesotasimpaired-waters-and-tmdls/assessment-and- listing/303d-list-of-impaired-waters.html.

MPCA and WDNR. 1992. The St. Louis River Sy stem Remedial Acti on Plan: Stage One. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://www.stlouisriver.org/rap.html.

Nichols, F.H., J.E. Cloern, S.N. Luoma and D. H. Peterson. 1986. The modification of an estuary.
Sci., 231: 567-573.

NJDEP. 2007. New Jersey’s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters w ith Priority Ranking. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/dep /wms/bwqsa/docs/2006AppendixB303d.pdf.

NMFS. 2009. National Marine Fisheries Se rvice Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation. Draft Biological Opinion. E nvironmental Protection Agency Registration of Pesticides Containing Carbaryl, Carbof urn, and Methomyl (605 p.). National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/nscep/index.html.

NRC. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4976&page=381.

NYCDCP. 2010. New York City, Department of City Planning - 2010 Primary Land Use: Each Borough's Lot Area by Land Use Type. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/lan dusefacts/landuse_tables.pdf .

NYSDEC. 2010. Final New York State 2010 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters Requiring a TMDL/Other Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wa ter_pdf/303dlistfinal10.pdf.

NYSDEC. 2011. New York State’s No Discharge Zones. Retrieved from http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/73875.html.

NYSISTF. 2005. Final Report of the New York Stat e Invasive Species Task Force. New York State Department of Envir onmental Conservation. New Yo rk State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Retrieved from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/w ildlife_pdf/istfreport1105.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline

4-94 Pederson, J., R. Bullock, J. Carlton, J. Dijkstra, N. Dobroski, P. Dyrynda, R. Fisher, L. Harris, N. Hobbs, G. Lambert, E. Lazo-Wasem, A. Mathieson, M.-P. Miglietta, J. Smith, J. Smith III and M. Tyrrell. 2005. Marine Invaders of the Northeast: Rapid assessment survey of non-native and native marine spec ies of floating dock communities , August 2003. Retrieved from http://seagrant.m it.edu/media/publica tions/MITSG_05-3.pdf.

PHA. 1996. Port of Houston Handbook and Indu strial Guide 1996-1997. Booklet published by the Port of Houston Authority, 111 East Loop North, Houston, TX 77029-4327.

Port Miami. 2010. Port information. Retrieved from http://www.miamidade.gov/portofmiami/information.asp.

Port of Houston Authority. 2012. Overview. Retrieved from http://www.portofhouston.c om/about-us/overview/.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 20 12. 2012 Port Guide, The Port of New York and New Jersey. Retrieved from http://www.seaportsinfo.com/panynj/pdf/PANYNJ_2012.pdf.

Port of Oakland. 2011. Port of Oakland, Your Port, Your Partner. Retrieved from http://www.portofoakland.c om/pdf/PortPartner.pdf.

Port of San Francisco. 2012. City & county of Sa n Francisco. Port of San Francisco. Retrieved from http://www.sf-port.org/index.aspx.

Port of Seattle. 2012. About the port. Retrieved from http://www.portseattle.org /About/Pages/default.aspx.

PSAT. 2005. State of the Sound 2004. State of Wa shington, Office of the Governor, Olympia, Washington.

PSAT. 2007. State of the Sound 2007. State of Wash ington, Office of the Governor, Publication Number PSAT 07-01, Olympia, Washington. Retrieved from http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/S OS07/2007_stateofthesound_fulldoc.pdf.

Rasmussen, J.L. and J.M. Pitlo. 2004. UMRCC fisheries compendium 3rd edition. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee – Fish Technical Committee. Rock Island, IL. 274 p.

Ricciardi, A. and H. MacIsaac. 2000. Recent mass invasion of the North American Great Lakes by Ponto-Caspian species. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15: 62-65.

Ruckelshaus, M.H. and M.M. McClure. 2007. Sound Science: Synthesizing ecological and socioeconomic information about the Puge t Sound ecosystem. Prepared in cooperation

with the Sound Science Collaborative Team. U.S. Department of Commerce, National2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline

4-95 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Nation al Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattl e, Washington. Retrieved from http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research /shared/sound_science/index.cfm.

Sage, T. and A. Gallaway. 2002. The State of the Bay: A Characterization of the Galveston Bay Ecosystem, 2nd ed. Lester, J. and L. Gon zales (Eds.). The Galveston Bay Estuary Program. University of Houston, Clear Lake, TX.

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1997. State of the estuary, 1992-1997: Vital statistics, new science, environmental management. San Fr ancisco Estuary Partnership, Oakland, CA.

SCC. 2010. San Francisco Bay subtidal habitat goals project. State Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.

SCCC. 2010. Overview: The San Francisco Bay Ar ea. State of California Coastal Conservancy. Retrieved from http://scc.ca.gov/ove rview-the-san-fran cisco-bay-area/.

SCDFG. 2008. California aquatic invasive species management plan. State of California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/plan/.

SFEP. 2010. San Francisco Estuary Partnershi p. Strategic plan for 2010-2012. San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Oakland, CA.

SFEP. 2011. The state of San Francisco Bay 2011. San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Oakland,

CA.

SFERTF. 2010. Invasive exotic an imals: managing a threat to Everglades restoration. Working Group and Science Coordination Group of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task

Force. Retrieved from http://www.sfrestore.org/informa tion_brief/Final_Apr_06_10_Exotics.pdf.

SFWMD. 2008. South Florida Environmental Repor t. Chapter 9: The Status of Nonindigenous Species in the South Florida Environment.

SJRGA. 2006. About the San Joaquin Ri ver and watershed. Retrieved from http://www.sjwatershed.org/about_river.html.

SLRCAC. 2002. Lower St. Louis River Habita t Plan. St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee, Duluth, MN. 107 p. Retrieved from http://www.stlouisriver.org/IAh abitatplan/habitatplan.html.

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lolimicky, R.M. Hughes and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to

salmonid conservation. Man Tech Environmen tal Research Services Corps, TR-4501-96- 6057, Corvallis, Oregon. 23 p. Retrieved from http://www.calwater.ca. gov/Admin_Record/D-051874.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline

4-96 SRWP. 2010. The Sacramento River Basin. A road map to watershed management. Sacramento River Watershed Program. Retrieved from http://www.sacriver.org /aboutwatershed/roadmap.

Stortz, K.R. and Sydor M. 1980. Transpor ts in the Duluth-Superior Harbor. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 6(3) : 223-231.

TCEQ. 2008. 2008 Texas 303(d) List. Texas Comm ission on Environmental Quality. Retrieved

from http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public /compliance/monops/water/08twqi/2008_303d.pd

f.

TPW. 1999. Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texa s. Resource Protection Division. Texas Parks and Wildlife. Austin, TX. 84 p. Retrieved from http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publ ications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_r0400_0041.pdf.

UMBRA. 2011. River and Basin Facts. Retrieve d from http://www.umbra.org/facts.htm.

USACE. 2004. Water Resources Devel opment in Iowa 2004. Retrieved from http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/PublicAffairsO ffice/iowawrb04/upperm ississippiriverreg

ion.html.

USACE. 2009. Hudson-Raritan Estuary Comprehensiv e Restoration Plan. Vol. 1. Retrieved from http://www.harborestuary.org/wate rsweshare/resources.htm#crp.

USACE. 2011. Water Resources Devel opment in Iowa 2004. Retrieved from http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/PublicAffairsO ffice/iowawrb04/upperm ississippiriverreg

ion.html.

U.S. Congress. 1993. Harmful nonindigenous species in the Unites States. Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-F-565. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Transporation, Maritime Administration. 2011. Vessel Calls at U.S. Ports Snapshot (updated 6/13/2011). Retrieved from http://www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/d ata_and_statistics/Da ta_and_Statistics.

htm.

USEPA. 2002. Upper Mississippi River Wate r Quality Assessment Report. March 2002.

USEPA. 2006. New York Harbor Complex UAA. Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/scitech/s wguidance/standards/uses /uaa/upload/2006_12_05_standard s_uses_uaa_cs_ny_harbor.pdf.

USEPA. 2010. Region 5 Superfund sites, updated 2010. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/region5superfund. (Accessed November 2011).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline

4-97 USEPA. 2011. Office of Solid Waste and Emerge ncy Response (OSWER): Cleanups. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oswer/cleanup/index.html.

USFWS. 1997. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed. Southern New England – New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program. Charlestown,

RI.

USGS. 1999. Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center. Ecological St atus and Trends of the Upper Mississippi River System. April 1999. LTRMP 99-T001. 236 pp.

USGS. 2000. Water-quality assessment of th e Puget Sound basin, Washington and British Columbia, 1996-98. James C. Ebbert, et al.- USGS Circular 1216.

USGS. 2011. Upper Midwest Environmenta l Sciences Center. Retrieved from http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/rivers/upper_mi ssissippi/select_a_reach.html. (Accessed November 2011).

US Navy. 1996. Puget Sound area heavy weather port guide. November 1996. Retrieved from http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/port_studies/puget_sound/text/frame.htm.

US Navy. 2009. Houston/Galveston, TX. In : Hurricanes Haven Handbook. Brand, S. (Ed.). Marine Meteorology Division, Naval Resear ch Lab, Monterey, CA. Retrieved from http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/~cannon/tr8203nc/houston/text/sect1.htm.

Ward, G.H. 1993. Dredge and fill activities in Galveston Bay. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-28. Webster, Texas. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-31. Webster, Texas.

WDNR. 2010. St. Louis and Lower Nemadji River Watershed Plan 2010. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/superior/w tplans/LS01/LS01_WTPLAN.pdf. (Accessed November 2011).

WDNR. 2011a. Resources VHS website. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/vhs/vhsfacts.html. (Accessed November 2011).

WDNR. 2011b. Wisconsin’s Impair ed Waters. Retrieved from http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/wqs /303d/. (Accessed November 2011).

WDOE. 2008. Washington State’s Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List. Retrieved from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/program s/wq/303d/2008/index.html.

Wonham, M.J. and J.T. Carlton. 2005. Trends in marine biological i nvasions at local and regional scales: The Northeast Pa cific Ocean as a model system. Biological Invasions (Springer Netherlands), 7(3) : 369-392.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 4- Environmental Baseline

4-98 WSDC. 2010. Washington State Community, Trade, and Economic Development. Business and Project Development: Top Industries. Retrieved from http://www.choosewashington.com/industries/ Pages/default.aspx. (Accessed November 2011).

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fish es of Washington. University of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-1 

## SECTION 5

EFFECTS ANALYSIS

There are two types of analyses (quantitative and qualitative) us ed in this BE to evaluate the potential effects that pollutant s may exert on either aquatic and aquatic-dependent threatened or endangered species or their critical habita t. The pollutants requiring detailed analysis

identified in Section 3.2.3 of th is document fall into one of seve n different pollutant categories. The categories include ANS, conventional pollu tants, metals, nutrients, oil and grease, pathogens, and toxics and non-c onventional pollutants with toxic effects. The majority of pollutants covered in this BE are subjected to qua ntitative analysis as de scribed below in Section 5.2. However, the lack of species-specific chroni c response data for ANS, pathogens and a small number of other pollutants (e.g., oil and grease, B OD) precludes calculation of a risk quotient to support the quantitative effects anal ysis; therefore, a qual itative analysis is presented instead for these few pollutants based on a multiple lines of evidence approach (Section 5.1). Together, this information is used to support the effects determinations made in S ection 7 of this BE document.

5.1 Q UALITATIVE E FFECTS A NALYSIS ON P OLLUTANTS L ACKING S PECIFIC
C ONCENTRATION -R ESPONSE R ELATED T OXIC E FFECT T HRESHOLDS

In cases where a risk quotient cannot be calculated to support th e quantitative effects analysis and subsequent effects de terminations to be made in this BE, a qualitative approach is used instead. The qualitative approach consider s both potential for exposure and likelihood of adverse effects. Per above, this includes ANS, [human] pathogens and certain other pollutants (e.g., oil and grease, BOD). The qualitative analysis discusses the impacts of these pollutants and ANS and the mitigative effects provided by the issuance of the VGP and sVGP (see Section 6.0). Therefore, the issuance of these two permits not only improves water quality but also minimizes potential harm to listed species. The basis for th is conclusion is supported by the best scientific

and commercial data available for the various biological and other pollutants as follows.

5.1.1 ANS

ANS refers to aquatic organisms found outside of their native or historical range. In coastal environments, commercial shipping is the most important means of introducing ANS (Ruiz et al., 2000), in one study acco unting for one-half to three-qu arters of ANS introductions to North America (Fofonoff et al., 2003). Accordingly, th e nature of this threat to listed species, as

well as the measures in the VGP and sVGP fo r control of ANS in vessel discharges, are important issues to address in this BE. This s ection of the BE presents a literature review and discussion of the relationship between ANS expo sure (propogule pressure ) and the likelihood of effects (invasion success and risk s to listed species), including the factors and variables that influence this relationship. Sections 5.1.1.1 a nd 5.1.1.2 introduce ANS and the vessel “vector.” Sections 5.1.1.3 and 5.1.1.4 consider the most importa nt vessel discharge v ectors: ballast water and vessel biofouling. Other vessel discharge vectors for ANS are described in Section 5.1.1.5.

Section 5.1.1.6 reviews the literature regarding m echanisms of vessel-mediated ANS invasions, including both ballast water di scharge and biofouling vectors. Section 5.1.1.7 provides examples

of ANS invasions in the U.S. for which ve ssels may have been the invasion pathway.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-2 Section 5.1.1.7.4 addresses how ANS impact native species, and Section 5.1.1.8 reviews documented impacts of ANS on listed species.

As previously mentioned, EPA has taken a qua litative approach to assessing the risk of ANS to native species because the lack of ava ilable data and information prevents a precise quantification of this risk. The current state of science does not allow a quantitative evaluation of

the relative merits of various numeric discha rge standards in terms of invasion probability. However, numerous studies have concluded that the reduced discharge of viable organisms capable of establishing viable populations of or ganisms in U.S. waters reduces the risk of invasions (NAS, 2011). In its 2011 report, Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule

Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water , the NAS concluded, “it is abundantly clear that reducing propagule pressure (i.e., the qualit y, quantity, and frequency with which living organisms are introduced into a given location) will reduce the probability of invasions, when controlling for all other va riables,” noting that “there is bo th strong theoretic al and empirical support for this, across a diverse range of habitats, geographic re gions, and types of organisms.”

5.1.1.1 What are ANS?

ANS, also known as invasive species, are one of the largest threats to coastal and freshwater ecosystems, as well as being a major global concern. ANS are now generally recognized as one of the greatest threats to biodi versity globally and represent a major force of global change, resulting in si gnificant ecological, economic, and human health impacts (Candries, 2009). Non-native species have invaded over 80% of the world’s 232 marine ecoregions, including remote Antarctica (Williams , 2011), with particularly high levels of invasion in Northern California, the Hawaiia n Islands, the North Sea, and the Eastern Mediterranean (Molnar et al., 2008). In marine and coastal environments, invasive species have

been identified as one of the f our greatest threats to the worl d’s oceans (GISP, 2008). ANS affect biodiversity by displacing native species and by altering community structure, food webs and ecological processes.

Invasive species are a persistent proble m in U.S. coastal and inland waters. Although

introductions of ANS into waters of the U.S. ha ve occurred for more than 400 years, numerous

studies have shown that the rate of ANS introductions to waters of the United States is increasing (USCG, 2012). ANS in marine, estuarine and fres hwater environments ma y be transported to new regions through numerous human activit ies (Takata et al., 2006). Intentional and

unintentional releases of fish a nd shellfish, aquaculture escapes, releases from the aquarium and pet industries, floating marine debris, bait shipping, and accidental release by research institutions are some of the mechanisms, or “v ectors,” by which organisms are transferred (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004). However, the predominant vector for the human transport of invasive species in marine environments is known to be shipping (Ruiz and Carleton, 2003).

ANS may be introduced through a variety of vessel discharges, including ballast water and sediment discharged from ba llast tanks, biofouling, anchor chai ns and chain lockers. Of the vessel discharges, ballast water and biofouling are the primary mechanisms for the transport and

introduction of ANS in the U.S. in the modern shipping era (i.e., steel vessels utilizing water ballast) (Ruiz et al., 2000; Takata et al, 2011). It is gene rally agreed that th e rate, and thus the risk, of species invasions has increased signifi cantly during recent decades, as well as the number2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-3 and diversity of species being moved (McNeely et al., 2001). One of the primary factors leading

to this increase has been the expansion of global trade, which has lead to significantly more ballast water, fouled hulls, and associated organisms moving around the world (Minchin and Gollasch, 2003).

Although no reliable and comprehensive estim ates of total ANS introductions nationwide exist, case studies of several major bodies of water across the country, as summarized in Table 5-1, provide a sense of the extent of the problem.

Table 5-1. Estimates of Invasive Species in Several Major Water Systems

Region Estimated Historic Rate of

Invasion a Estimated Total Invasions to

Date

Great Lakes Once every 28 weeks b 182 b

Mississippi River System Unknown 100 c

San Francisco Bay Once every 14 weeks d 234 d

Lower Columbia River Basin Once every 22 weeks e 81 e

Gulf of Mexico Unknown 704 f

a) Ruiz and Reid (2007) suggest that these figure s may not reliably represent the true rate of introduction, as they are based on discovery data, wh ich may not always track with the underlying rate

of introduction. b) Ricciardi , 2006. c) USCG, 2009. d) Cohen and Carlton, 1998. e) Sytsma et al., 2004. f) Battelle, 2000.

ANS pose several dangers to aquatic ecosystem s, including outcompeting native species, damaging habitat, changing food webs, and al tering the chemical and physical aquatic

environment. ANS have been cited as the second largest threat to endangered species after habitat loss (Wilcove and Chen, 1998). However, as understanding of bioinvasions has grown,

some scientists have come to believe that i nvasive species have an even greater impact on biodiversity than habitat loss (Johnson et al., 2007).

One of the most well-known examples of ANS is the zebra mussel. Zebra mussels are native to Eurasia, near the Black and Caspian Seas , and were first discovered in U.S. waters in 1988. They were most likely introduced via the disc harge of ballast water. Populations of zebra

mussels were established in the Great Lakes an d are now found throughout most of the eastern

United States and in some western states. Zebr a mussels have profoundly altered biotic function and abiotic processes in many of the waters in wh ich they have proliferated. Further discussions

of zebra mussels and other ANS that have success fully invaded the U.S. are presented in Section 5.1.1.7, and Section 5.1.1.8 addresses how ANS impact native species.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-4 5.1.1.2 Vessels as a Vector for ANS Introduction

In the U.S., large commercial vessels (t hose displacing greater than 300 metric tons) arrive over 90,000 times per year in hundreds of di fferent ports in U.S. coastal waters including the Great Lakes (Miller et al., 2010). Approximately half of these ar rivals are from ports of call outside the U.S. and Canada; the remainder arri ve directly from another port within North America. In the period 2006-07, commercial ve ssels reported discharging 196 million metric

tons of ballast water in U.S. coastal waters (Miller et al., 2010). Th is is a minimum annual estimate of ballast water discharge since data were not available fo r all of the vessel arrivals to U.S. ports (NAS, 2011). If this quantity of ball ast water (equivalent to 2,300 cubic meters per second) was the annual discharge of a river, it would qualify as one of the 20 largest rivers in the U.S. according to the U.S. Geological Survey 1 . Thirty percent of this ballast water originated from outside of North America (i.e., it was ta ken on from a foreign source port), and the remainder came from other ports or lo cations within the U.S. and Canada.

Biofouling on the hulls of commercial vessels is also a significant vector for the transport and introduction of ANS. According to Miller et al. (2007), about 800 million square meters (800 square kilometers) of commercial shipping hull area arrives in th e U.S. from other bioregions each year. To put this in perspective, this annu al hull area is somewhat smaller than the area of San Francisco Bay (1,000 to 4,100 square kilometers).

While these figures quickly convey the sc ope of commercial shipping arriving from overseas, several other key points are noteworthy, according to the NAS (2011). First, there is tremendous variation among U.S. ports in the nu mbers of vessel arrivals and ballast water discharges. Second, the number of vessel arriva ls does not correlate with the ballast water discharges for these ports. As a consequence, the number of vessel arrivals is not a good predictor or proxy for the volume of ballast water discharged in a port. Likewise, the number of vessel arrivals may be a poor proxy for relative ballast volumes transported from other source regions (NAS, 2011). Similar analyses of the rela tionship between numbers of vessel arrivals in U.S. ports, commercial shipping hull area, and origin from othe r source regions are underway (Miller et al., 2007).

5.1.1.3 Ballast Water Discharge

Ballast water is necessary for the safe operati on of the vast majority of larger vessels to assist with vessel draft, trim, and stability. Almost all large commercial vessels have ballast tanks, pumps, piping and other equipment dedicated to this purpose. In lieu of or in addition to such dedicated systems, some vessels may also carry ballast water in otherwise empty cargo holds. Ballast water is typically drawn in from , and discharged directly to, ambient waters. Ballast water often contains sediment as well, which may accumulate in the bottom of ballast

tanks.

Aquatic organisms may be taken up with ball ast water and associated sediment prior to vessel embarkment or during the voyage. These organisms may be discharged when the vessel

1 U.S. Geological Survey. Largest Rivers in the United States. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/ofr87-242/ Accessed April 2012.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-5 discharges ballast tanks that contain such species , or when the vessel adds ballast water to tanks that contain such organisms in the residual wate r or sediment in the tank, and later discharges that mixture. When such organisms in ballast tanks are transported between waterbodies and discharged, the organisms may have the potential to establish viable new populations of species in waterbodies to which they are not native.

5.1.1.3.1 Volume and Discharge of Ballast Water

Ballast water discharge volumes vary by vesse l type, ballast tank cap acity, and type of deballasting equipment. The volume of ballast water discharge is also expected to vary proportionately to the size of the vessel. Volumes of ballast water discharg ed from large vessels are significant and can range from several hundred to many thousands of cubic meters of water. For instance, ultra-large crude ca rriers (ULCCs) have a representa tive ballast cap acity of about 95,000 cubic meters (about 25 million gallons), while large passenger vessels (cruise ships) have a representative ballast capacity of about 3,000 cubic meters (about 790,000 gallons) (ABS, 2010). Some vessels, such as small water ferries, may have as little as 5 cubic meters (about 1,300 gallons) of ballast water.

The discharge rate of ballast water is ge nerally proportional to the size of the ballast tanks, although there are notable exceptions (e.g., bulk carriers on the Great Lakes are often designed to load and unload cargo and ballast wate r quickly). The ballast water discharge rate and quality vary by vessel type, ballast tank capac ity, type of deballasting equipment, the quality

of the ambient water from which the ballast wa ter is drawn, the amount and quality of residual water or sediment in the tank, the efficacy of any ballast water manage ment practices and/or ballast water treatment employed. The types and quantities of aquatic organisms in bilge water

are discussed below.

5.1.1.3.2 Abundance and Diversity of Or ganisms in Ballast Water

The concentration of organisms present within a ship’s ballast water varies considerably due to tremendous temporal and spatial vari ation in organism abundance among sources and seasons, particular voyage conditions , characteristics of the ships themselves, and the nature of ballast water management prac tices, among other factors (NAS, 2011). For example, as many as 300 million cysts of toxic dinoflagellates have be en detected in a single tank. Past studies provide some estimates of abundances for various types of organisms in ballast tanks. Table 5-2 indicates concentrations of par ticular organism types found in th e ballast water of vessels that were sampled upon arrival to various ports (in the regi ons indicated).

Table 5-2. Concentration of Various Organism Types Reported in Unexchanged Ballast Water Sampled Upon Arrival of Ships to Particular Regions

Average Standard Error Number
Zooplankton (organisms/m 3 )
Chesapeake Bay (overseas) 1.94 x 10 3 10 x 10 1 113
Chesapeake Bay (domestic) 1.75 x 10 4 1.5 x 10 3 37

Prince William Sound, Alaska 1.26 x 10 4 5.53 x 10 3 1692013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-6 Table 5-2. Concentration of Various Organism Types Reported in Unexchanged Ballast Water Sampled Upon Arrival of Ships to Particular Regions

Average Standard Error Number
Phytoplankton (cells/liter)

Europe 2.99 x 10 5 1.84 x 10 5 273

Bacteria (cells/liter)
Chesapeake Bay 8.3 x 10 8 1.7 x 10 8 9
Chesapeake Bay 8.03 x 10 8 1.88x10 8 (sd) 53

Virus-like Particles (vlp/liter)
Chesapeake Bay 7.4x 10 9 2.3 x 10 9 7
Chesapeake Bay 1.39 x 10 10 1.57x10 10 (sd) 31

Source: NAS, 2011.

Thousands of species may be transported ac ross and between oceans in ballast water on a daily basis (Carlton, 1999), and the cumulative number of speci es transported over years to decades is undoubtedly enormous (NAS, 2011). This understanding comes from studies which have sampled ballast tanks of ships arriving to a pa rticular port, providing a snapshot of diversity for a small fraction of discharged ballast wa ter. Examples cited in NAS (2011) include:

 Over 400 species were found in about 150 Ja panese wood chip cargo vessels arriving in the Port of Coos Bay, Or egon (Carlton and Geller, 1993);

 342 phytoplankton taxa reported from only nine ships arri ving from a variety of overseas and domestic ports in the Port of Morehead City, Nort h Carolina (McCarthy and Crowder, 2000);

 One vessel from Europe had over 130 sp ecies of diatoms alone (McCarthy and Crowder, 2000);

 More than 221 species were found in 60 vessels sampled in the Chesapeake Bay (Smith et al., 1999); and

 147 species were gathered from 38 ships’ sa mples in the Great Lakes (Duggan et al., 2005).

The organisms collected from unexchanged and untreated ballast water and sediments span orders of magnitude in size, ranging fr om fishes (30 cm) down to diapausing eggs (~100

μ m) and microorganisms (protists, bacteria, and viruses; ~20 nm). Over 15 animal phyla have been detected in ballast (especially common ar e mollusks, crustaceans, worms, hydromedusae, and flatworms), as well as algae, seagrasses, viru ses, and bacteria. Many of the animals in ballast water are in planktonic stages (from larvae to adult), while those in ballast sediments may be adults as well as their diapau se (resting) forms (NAS, 2011).

Benthic (bottom-dwelling) communities can deve lop within ballast tanks that can include a diverse range of biota, including adults, larv ae, eggs, and resting st ages (NAS, 2011). Very high densities of resting stages can accumulate within ballast tanks. For example, Hallegraeff and Bolch (1992) found that 65% of 343 vessels in Australia had sediments, all of which contained diatom resting spores. Ba sed on this research and further studies of resting stages for a variety of taxa in the Great Lake s and elsewhere, it is clear that such bottom sediments serve as2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-7 “seed banks” with viable organisms that can be released from ballast tanks during operations (NAS, 2011).

5.1.1.3.3 Variability of Propagule Pressure from Ballast Water

Propagule pressure is a general term expres sing the quantity, qualit y, and frequency with which propagules are introduced to a given lo cation (NAS, 2011). Propa gules are any living biological material (such as pa rticles, cells, spores, eggs, la rvae, and mature organisms) transported from one location to another. In th e case of ballast water discharge, the propogule pressure is the product of the ba llast water discharge volume and the inoculum density. Inoculum density is usually reported as the number of organisms (propagules) per cubic meter of water, representing the number of individuals that coul d be released upon discharge. Inoculum density in ballast water, and therefore propoagule pr essure, can vary tremendously (Section 5.1.1.3.2). As noted in NAS (2011), ballast systems can also have attached fouling organisms on tank walls that form transient or permanent communities, as well as benthic assemblages. These fouling and benthic communities could contribute propagules (lar vae) to the water, such that ballast systems would then be essentially self-s eeded and could conceivably be released as well during ballast water discharge.

Inoculum frequency—the rate of propagule de livery per a given cohor t of vessels over a given time period—can vary widely. Thus, combin ing the concepts of in oculum density with propagule source and frequency, an enormous range of scenarios can potentially strongly

influence invasion outcomes. Pa tterns can range from one inoculum of ballast water being

released from one source at one time into one location, to multiple inoculations from multiple sources released at multiple times in multiple locations. As noted in NAS (2011), multiple

inocula can act as a “rescue” e ffect to sustain a nonindigenous population that might otherwise

not have become established. Small releases o ccurring close together in space and time can approximate a single large release with a co rrespondingly higher establishment probability.

The species composition of ballast water load ed from different sources can vary widely. ANS from distinct biogeographic zo nes are thought to experience di fferences in the capacity of their species to colonize a particular target location, assuming equal opportunity and similar habitat types, such as the in tertidal mudflat of a bay (NAS , 2011). The underlying mechanisms may include differences in physiological toleranc e, competitive ability, and life history. Biota from some geographic regions may be more succe ssful in invading, compared to others, due to competitive superiority or particular traits th at have evolved in t hose regions (NAS, 2011).

A number of other variable s can influence the propagule pressure of ANS in ballast water. These include progagule history (e.g., th e residence time in a ballast tank) and other conditions that can affect propogule quality during transport. For example, ballasted communities are often closed systems that change over time, such that the organisms present experience changes in temperature, water chem istry, and food that affect both physiological condition and survivorship. Due to these variab les, the relationship between propagule supply and probability of establishment may differ gr eatly among individual discharge events, even when controlling for inoculation density (NAS, 2011).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-8 5.1.1.4 Vessel Biofouling

Biofouling organisms attach to submerged ha rd surfaces of both naturally occurring and man-made structures (Railkin, 2004), and the hulls and other underwater su rfaces of vessels are no exception. Species that foul vessels are typical of natural, marine intertidal and subtidal fouling communities: arthropods (barnacles, amph ipods, and crabs), molluscs (mussels, clams, and sea slugs), sponges, bryozoans, coelenterate s (hydroids and anemones) , protozoans, annelids (marine worms), and chordates (sea squirts and fish), as well as macroalgae (seaweed). If these fouling communities become highly developed, they can also provide micro-habitats for mobile organisms such as fish.

Typically, there is a progre ssion of attachment of marine organisms to a vessel’s hull (Floerl et al., 2010). Primary biof ouling begins as soon as the surface of a vessel is submerged in seawater, with the formation of a slime layer cons isting of bacteria and mi croscopic algae. If the

hull is coated with an anti-foul ing coating (AFC) containing a bioc ide, the toxicant will act to deter the attachment of higher forms such as barnacles and tubeworms, but will usually allow primary biofouling within days or we eks of launching with fresh AFC.

As the vessel remains submerged in seawat er, the AFC “ages” and begins to lose effectiveness, allowing secondary biofouling proce sses to occur as organisms settle on top of the primary biofouling layer. Secondary biofouling usually includes ha rd encrusting animals such as acorn barnacles, bryozoans and se rpulid worms, but may also incl ude soft algal tufts and mobile amphipods. This is then followed by a more gene ral infestation, spreading beyond edges onto the flats of the ship hull. If allowed to progress, te rtiary biofouling then follows, generally consisting of larger organisms, such as sponges, sea squi rts, mussels, oysters and seaweeds that build up on the secondary biofouling layer, a nd mobile animals such as crabs and sea stars that can live in this growth.

Although biofouling progresses in a predictable manner as de scribed above, it is not a uniform process. Biofouling is not evenly di stributed on the submerged portion of a vessel,

because a vessel's hull is not a uniform surface. F ouling tends to be especially predominant in locations that either protrude from, or are reces sed into, the hull (“niche” areas). The presence of

niche areas varies with vessel t ype. Though much of the outer surf ace of vessel hulls are treated with AFCs designed to discourage fouling grow th, niche areas are particularly prone to biofouling because they are often not coated wi th AFCs (e.g., propellers, rudder stocks), are protected from water flow and turbulence (e.g., thru ster tunnels), or are exposed to high water flow and turbulence (e.g., sea ches t gratings). These areas on a ve ssel have been noted to have higher numbers and/or diversity of fouling organisms, even in cases where main portions of the hull are clean. Notably, these nich es or biofouling “hot spots” are also harder to clean.

5.1.1.4.1 Extent of Fouling on Commercial Vessels

As previously noted, about 800 million square meters of commercial shipping hull area arrives in the U.S. from other bioregions each year (Miller et al., 2007), indicating the significant potential for the vessel-mediated biofouling vector to transport fouling or ganisms and potentially

introduce ANS. Less well understood is the nature and extent of biofouling on the majority of2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-9 vessels entering U.S. ports. Mille r et al. (2007) investigated th e extent of biofouling on 21

commercial vessels and found that even the be st-maintained commercia l vessels could have biofouling on up to 5% of their wetted surface, while 10 drydocked ships were covered over 5 to >90% of their wetted surface. In 2009, Davi dson et al. studied biofouling on 22 in-service container ships at the Port of Oakland, and found that the extent of macroorganisms (invertebrates and algae) was very low, especially across the large surface areas of the hull. Less than 1% of the exposed hull was coloni zed for all except one of these vessels 2 . The low extent of fouling on container ships, compared to other ve ssel types (bulk and general cargo vessels), is apparently due to their relatively fast speed s and short port durations . Despite limited fouling, however, taxonomic richness was high among these c ontainer ships. A wide range of organisms were concentrated at more pr otected niche areas, including ru dders, stern tubes and intake gratings. Green algae and barnac les were most frequently samp led among vessels, but hydroids, bryozoans, bivalves and ascidians were also recorded. One vessel had 20 different species in its fouling assemblage, including non-na tive species (already establishe d in San Francisco Bay) and mobile species.

The hull husbandry practices currently used by commercial vessels are not completely effective, and ANS are still being transporte d by this means (Johnson et al., 2007). Although the IMO adopted Guidelines for the Control and Mana gement of Ships' Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species in 2011 (Annex 26 Resolution MEPC.207(62), the risk of ANS transport and release by the biofouling on th e universe of commercial vessels (as well as military and recreational vessels) is also still poorly understood. There is relatively little information on the ANS transport and release potential posed by the majority of the commercial vessel fleet that conducts regular vessel maintena nce, spends relatively little time in port, and travels at normal speeds. There is also little information on how well the current hull maintenance practices of the majority of the co mmercial vessel fleet limit the transport and

release of ANS.

Takata et al. (2011) analyzed data fro m Hull Husbandry Reporting Forms (HHRFs) submitted in 2008 and 2009 by all commercial vessels of 300 gross tons or more operating in

California waters. The HHRF includes informati on about each vessel’s hull husbandry practices and voyage characteristics. Th e hull husbandry practices employe d by the fleet of commercial vessels operating in California indicated that vessels were comp lying with current California law and were attempting to limit the amount of f ouling organisms that can accumulate. The HHRF data indicate that the fleet was relatively young. One third of the California fleet in 2009 were newly built and delivered within the past five years, and ove r 70% of these new builds were delivered within the past three years. Therefore the majority have had comparatively less time to accumulate fouling organisms. The remainder of th e vessels (67% of the fleet) appeared to be physically removing fouli ng organisms regularly.

Voyage characteristics examined from the Ca lifornia HHRFs suggested a gradient of risk

associated with different vessel types. Elevated traveling speed and shorter sedentary periods were associated with lower levels of fouling accumulation. Auto, containe r and passenger vessels

that visit California exhibited these characteristic s (travel at elevated speeds in excess of 16 knots

2 The outlying vessel was smaller and had an estimated coverage of 90% on the hull and also differed substantially from the other ships in terms of its recent voyage history, shorter voyage range and slower speeds.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-10 and spend a day or less in port) . In comparison, bulk vessels and th e "other" vessel type category travel at slower speeds and typically spend over three days in port.

5.1.1.4.2 The Relationship of Biofouling to Underwater Ship Husbandry

Mariners have long been aware of fouling as a nuisance to vessel operations as it relates to vessel performance, fuel efficiency, and an ti-fouling efficiencies. Fouling on the hull can create drag, increase fuel consumption and potenti ally cause engine strain. In pipes, fouling can block inflowing seawater used to cool machin ery. To prevent such problems, vessel operators periodically clean underwater vess el parts, and use anti-fouling pa ints and anti-f ouling systems. Underwater hull cleaning (as well as the related cleaning of niche areas, propellers, rudders, etc.)

is a ship husbandry practice that has multiple impacts upon the biofouling vector and the potential for ANS introduction.

Underwater hull cleaning can be viewed as a hull husbandry practice that helps control the biofouling vector for ANS by reducing the de nsity and diversity of fouling organisms on

vessel hulls. Even vessels with AFCs that are highly effective in preventing and controlling biofouling will succumb over time, particularly if the vessels are not operated frequently. Underwater hull cleaning can be highly effectiv e in removing fouling organisms from a vessel’s hull and other niche areas, especially if pe rformed regularly based upon monitoring of the fouling extent. Removing biofouling prior to a voyage also effectivel y reduces the risk of fouling-related ANS being tran sported to another location.

However, underwater hull cleaning using curr ently-available methods can also discharge (release) viable fouling organisms into receiving waters where the cleaning takes place. If these fouling organisms were accumulated on the vessel from different ports, then this discharge may include ANS. The appropriate use of underwater hull cleaning, to reduce and not promote the fouling-related ANS vector, is an important consideration. The VGP includes BMPs to minimize discharges from hull husbandry, which are al so consistent with the 2011 IMO biofouling

Guidelines. See Section 6.1 for a full discussion of mitigating effects of the VGP/sVGP on ANS in vessel discharges.

5.1.1.4.3 Abundance and Diversity of Organisms Entering U.S. Coastal Waters on

Vessel Hulls

Hull fouling may be the most underes timated pathway for non-native species introductions (Takata et al., 2006). For example, 90% of the 343 marine a quatic invasive species in Hawaii are thought to have arrived through hull fouling (Car lton, 2001), while 36% of the nonnative coastal marine species esta blished in continental North America could be attributed to hull fouling (Bax et al., 2003). Ballast water, by itself, only accounted for 20% (Carlton, 2001). Over the last decade, the possi ble transfer of species by hull fouling has received growing attention and it is now recognized as one of the most important pathways of ANS translocation (Candries, 2009).

Biofouling primarily transports species that have attached sedentar y or sessile, benthic habits, or species associated with these co mmunities (i.e., living in, between or on other2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-11 organisms; Minchin and Gollasch, 2003). Analysis of global data indicated that more species have life history characteristics associated with biofouling (55 pe rcent) than any other vector (Hewitt and Campbell, 2010). The second highest association was with ballast water (31 percent). However, it is difficult to establis h a firm link between an already-established introduced species and the vector (or sub-vect or) by which it arrived in the new location.

In a recent study, Sylvester and MacIsaac (2010 ) reported that hull biofouling appeared to pose a low risk of introducing ANS capable of surviving in the Great Lakes. The exterior

surfaces of 20 commercial transoceanic vessels were sampled and inspected for invertebrates shortly after their arri val in Great Lakes’ ports in 2007 and 2008. The total estimated abundance averaged > 170,000 invertebrates per ship belonging to 109 taxa. Abundance was dominated by barnacles (51%), cladocerans (1 9%), bivalves (12%) and amphi pods (11%). Sea-chest grating and the rudder were hot-spots for biofouling on these ships. Invertebrate diversity and total abundance were positively associated with total time spent in port during the prior year as well as time spent in Pacific South American ports. Di versity and total abundance were negatively related to time spent in high la titudes and sailing speed. Although some live, established invaders

such as Gammarus tigrinus and Dreissena rostriformis bugensis were found among the biofouling organisms, only one individual of a fr eshwater ANS not yet reported in the Great Lakes was detected. This animal’s poor c ondition and seemingly low population abundance

indicated the risk of live introdu ction by this vector was likely quite low. The authors concluded that hull fouling associat ed with international shipping did no t appear to be a strong vector for ANS introduction into freshwater ecosystems, and was not a management priority in the Great

Lakes.

This same research group sampled and inspec ted the hulls of 40 transoceanic vessels to assess biofouling propagule pressu re in Vancouver and Halifax, tw o dominant coastal ports in Canada (Sylvester et al., 2011) . Total abundance averaged up to 600,000 invertebrates per ship belonging to 156 species. The results varied si gnificantly between the ports, with Vancouver receiving much higher abundances and diversity of pot ential invaders. Propagule pressure was related to time spent in previ ous ports-of-call as well as the time since last AFC application, whereas colonization pressure in creased with time since last AFC application and with the number of regions visited by the ship. Both pr opagule and colonization pr essure were negatively related to the time spent at sea and the latitude of ports visited. Hull fouling was found to have a strong potential for introduc tion of many species to coastal marine habitats (unlik e fresh water).

5.1.1.4.4 Variability of Propagule Pressure from Fouling Organisms

Defining propogule pressure from fouling or ganism discharge is complex and must consider factors including the origin of the biofouling, organism viability following the voyage, hull husbandry practices, the presence and abun dance of ANS among the fouling assemblage on the hull of a vessel and whether the invasive orga nisms can be transferred from the vessel to the recipient port.

Although biofouling progresses in a predictable manner, it is not a uniform process. Biofouling is not evenly distribut ed on submerged portions of vessels, because a vessel's hull is not a uniform surface. Certain movement pattern s and vessel maintenance practices have been2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-12 observed to affect the diversity (variety of sp ecies) and the quantity of biofouling observed on commercial vessels. The factors likely to affect the rate of biofouling, which are also factors

associated with the risk of ANS trans port and introduction, in clude the following:

 Immobile periods - It has long been know n that ships on active duty tend to be less fouled than those which spend much of th eir time stationary. This is primarily because fouling organisms will only attach to slowly moving surfaces, but also because vessels with short port residency times generally invest in better anti-fouling measures (Candries, 2009).

 Vessel speed - Vessel speed influences the quantity and diversity of fouling species observed on vessels. At high speeds, many or ganisms are unable to remain attached to vessel hulls, or are less able to endure forceful water moving past the surface. Less robust organisms may be dislodged or may be unable to survive. Slow speeds are less stressful, allowing many fouling organisms to remain attached or continue settling on the vessel surface (Takata et al., 2011). T hus, slower moving vessels have been observed to accumulate thicker fouling as comp ared to faster vessels that travel over 18-20 knots (Minchin and Gollasch, 2003).

 Voyage duration - Shorter voyages have been observed to be more advantageous for the survival of coastal fouling organism s and communities than longer voyages. The prolonged exposure to harsh physical condi tions of the open ocean during a long voyage may be detrimental to fouling organism s, or they may be deprived of food for an untenable length of time (Coutts, 1999). Ships with effective AFCs tend to lack fouling if the vessel has trav eled for 10 days or more in open waters (Johnson et al., 2007).

 Anti-fouling system - Commercial vessels regularly use anti-fouling coatings to discourage hull growth that can create drag. The age of AFC is strongly related to the diversity and amount of f ouling organisms on both commercial vessels (Coutts, 1999; Floerl et al., 2005). Older coatings have been observed to be less effective, presumably because the activity of the bi ocidal toxins decreases with time.

 Hull husbandry (defouling) - The amount of time passed since the last hull cleaning may be the most important factor contri buting to fouling on hu lls (Cordell et al., 2009). Coutts and Taylor (2004) hypothesized that the relatively high levels of fouling they observed in archived main tenance videos was because the vessels sampled were all near the end of their maintenance cycles.

 Sea chests, propellers, and other sheltered or irregular underwater ‘niche’ areas - Areas that have either higher complexity like heterogeneous su rfaces or areas of uneven paint, or areas of low water veloci ty create conditions that encourage fouling organisms. In particular, recent res earch has documented extensive fouling communities in the sea chests of some vessels (Dodgshun and Coutts, 2002; Coutts et al., 2003). Larger mobile organisms, such as crabs, snails, and shrimp have been2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-13 found in sea chests, in addition to immobile , attached fouling organisms (Takata et al., 2006).

 Voyage movement patterns - Large estuarie s with international shipping serve as sources for species that become invasive in other geographic regions. In other words, larger ships likely accomplish most of the long-distance transport (primary introduction) while commercial fishing and recreational boats likely contribute to the transport of invasive species along the coas t (secondary introductio n) (Johnson et al., 2007)

 Environmental factors (salinity, temperature and nutrients) - The ac cretion of marine fouling can be highly variab le, depending on geographical location, time of year, and seasonal variations in weather. In genera l, fouling flourishes during warmer months

and diminishes in cooler months. There ar e many additional variables, such as the availability of nutrients to support the fouling communities. Classic (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1952) and modern (Hellio and Yebra, 2009) reviews of marine fouling are available.

Several other factors contribute to ANS ri sk from the point of a vessel’s arrival. Because fouling communities consist of orga nisms that are either physically attached or that associate with vessel surfaces, ANS must be transferred from the vessel to a recipient port for possibility of introduction. This may occur through diffe rent mechanisms (Takata et al., 2006):

 Spawning or Egg Release
- Spawning or egg release can e xpose a recipien t site to the young of fouling organisms even if the adults are otherwise unable to detach from a vessel (Takata et al., 2006).

 Detachment (Drop-off)
- Transfer to a recipient port may be accomplished by simply dropping off a vessel. Organisms capable of independent detachment associated with fouling communities include crabs, fishes, sea stars, shrimp, snails and plankton (Foster and Willan, 1979; Dodgshun and C outts, 2002; Coutts et al., 2003).

 Mechanical Removal (Hull Husbandry)
- Hull-fouling organisms or viable fragments are dislodged during the process of out-of-water or underwater cleanings. Out-ofwater cleanings during dry dock allow for the containment of materials, including fouling organisms that are removed from the vessel hull. Underwater c1eanings, however, may allow organisms to enter the water column and to be deposited on the seabed. Underwater cleaning, therefore, ha s increasingly come under scrutiny due to

concerns about ANS introducti ons (Takata et al., 2011).

Given a suitable habitat, the risks of ANS introduction from hull fouling primarily arise when competent organisms are released into a recipi ent region in the form of adult life stages or planktonic propagules. For some species (e .g., certain macroalgae, colonial bryozoans, compound ascidians, sponges), dispersal of orga nism fragments may also be a path to ANS

establishment in a new habita t (Valentine et al., 2007 cited in Hopkins and Forrest, 2008).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-14 5.1.1.5 Other Vessel Discharges Potentially Harboring ANS

Several other discharges in cidental to the normal operati on of a vessel can potentially

serve as vectors for ANS. These include effluents from chain lockers, seawater cooling systems, and use and disposal of live bait. Less is know n about these discharges and their potential to serve as ANS vectors; however, they are generally considered to be significantly less important than ballast water and biofouling.

Chain locker effluent is water that collects in the below-deck stor age area during anchor retrieval. A sump collects the liquids and material s that enter the chain locker and discharges it overboard or into the bilge. Chain locker effl uent can contain marine organisms including ANS.

The surfaces of seawater coo ling systems, especially sea chest intakes, can support the growth of fouling organisms including ANS. Sea ch est intakes have been identified as a niche

area on vessel hulls that are “hot spots” for biofouling (Section 5.1.1.4.4).

5.1.1.6 Mechanisms of Vessel-Mediated ANS Invasions

The introduction and establishment of orga nisms into a new environment is far more complex than a simple cause-effect relationship, and is so full of variability and uncertainty that Carlton and Geller (1993) compared species invasion to a game of ecological roulette. Predicting which organisms arrive; their origin; the time of th eir arrival; and whether they survive, persist, spread, and proliferate is excep tionally challenging. Furthermore, predicting the ecological or economic impacts of ANS is even more difficult si nce cause and effect re lationships would need to be established and well-defined (Carlton, 2001). The difficulty lies in the prediction of which organisms will be released, will become established, and what the associated impacts may be, even if the likelihood of organisms being released is considerable (USCG, 2012).

5.1.1.6.1 General Stages/Mechanisms of Species Invasions

In terms of ecological processes, invasi on proceeds as a series of stages. ANS introduction occurs when an organism survives tr ansport by a vector and is released into a new

environment. Establishment occurs when the introduced organism initially thrives. The establishment is successful when the organism is introduced, reproduces, and spreads in its new environment (USCG, 2012). Many factors affect the survival, spread, and proliferation of introduced organisms, including basic climatic factors, food resources, the nature of the reproductive biology of an organism, and the presen ce or absence of competitors, predators, and parasites (Carlton, 1996). Impacts occur when an introduced organism alters the ecology, food web, or fisheries, or otherwise disrupts the natural ecosystem or socioeconomics of an environment or region. If an introduced species establishes a reproductiv ely viable population, those impacts may be amplified (USCG, 2012). ANS that are able to establish reproductively viable populations are of particular concern because they are capable of expanding their population size and spreading to new loca tions without further human activity.

Figure 5-1 summarizes the sources of vari ation that are likely to influence the relationship between propagule supply and invasion outcome (NAS, 2011). Introduction2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-15 Figure 5-1. Variables Altering the Probability of Establishment of ANS Released in Ballast

Water and Sediments. Processes in the Ri ght-Hand Column Impact the Outcome of Survival, Reproduction and Establishment (NAS, 2011).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-16 commences at the release or discharge of ballast wa ter. At this stage, critical variables include various aspects of propagule pres sure: (1) inoculum abundance, density, and frequency, (2) the identity, diversity, source and history of the inoculating propagules, and (3) propagule quality. Although this figure makes specific reference to in troduction via ballast water discharge, similar

variables are relevant for biof ouling and other ANS introductions . The fate of the released propagules then becomes influenced by post-disc harge processes. Critic al variables for postdischarge include both species a nd environmental traits; both thes e traits cover a very broad range of biological and ecological phenomena.

5.1.1.6.2 Discharge (Release and Inoculation): Propagule Pressure

It is a long-standing presumption in i nvasion biology that an increase in propagule pressure (inoculums abundance, density, and frequency) will increase the probability of a species establishing a population in a new region (NAS , 2011; SAB, 2011). Conversely, when propagule

pressure decreases , the probability of species becoming established should also decrease. This assumption regarding risk is supported by a wide body of empirical, theoretical, and experimental evidence showing th at invasion success increases w ith an increase in propagule pressure, either by a higher concentration of orga nisms in an inoculation and/or by an increase in the frequency of inoculations (e.g., Simberloff, 1989, 2009; Ruiz et al., 2000; Kolar and Lodge, 2001, Ruiz and Carlton, 2003; Lockwood et al., 2005; Johnston et al., 2008).

5.1.1.6.3 Post Discharge Processes: Survival , Reproduction and Establishment

Further influencing the outcome of propagule rele ase is a host of fact ors that include both species traits and the recipient region’s environmental traits.

Species Traits

Species traits can profoundly influence the survival, reproduction a nd establishment of invading organisms. These include genetics, life history charact eristics, population density and abundance, habitat breadth, dispersal and mob ility, and environmental matching. Successful ANS tend to have specific traits or specific combinations of traits that allow them to outcompete native species. In some cases the competition is about rates of growth and reproduction. In other cases species interact with each other more di rectly. Common invasive species traits include:

 Parthenogenetic (asexual) and sexual reproduction,

 Fast growth,

 Rapid reproduction,

 High dispersal ability (e.g., lecithotrophic or planktonic-dispersing larva that live off yolk supplied via the egg),

 Tolerance of a wide range of environmental conditions,

 Ability to forage on wide range of food types,

 Lack of pathogens or predators.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-17 Environmental Traits

Environmental traits also play a significant role in determ ining the invasion success of ANS. These include biotic characteristics (e.g., biol ogical interactions with resident species) as

well as abiotic traits such as habitat landscape (scale of habitat fragmenta tion/connectivity) and propagule retention in ha bitable environments.

5.1.1.6.4 Modeling the Invasion Process

Predicting the rate of invasion into specific water bodies from ballast water and/or other vectors with a high degree of accuracy is one of the most complex problems in applied ecology. NAS (2011) presented the theory underlying the relationship between ballast water organism concentration and the risk (probability) of ANS establishment (the risk–release relationship), which is focused on the role of propagule pre ssure. They evaluated se veral descriptive and

mechanistic mathematical models that have been developed to express this relationship, discussing their data needs as well as othe r strengths and weaknesses. The models are distinguished by whether they consider a single species vs. multiple species. Three of the methods discussed are the reaction-diffusion appr oach, the population viability analysis (PVA), and the per capita invasion probabi lity approach. In principle, a well-supported model of the relationship between invasion risk and organism re lease could be used to inform a ballast water discharge standard. For a give n discharge standard, the corre sponding invasion risk could be predicted, or, for a given target invasion risk, the corresponding target release level could be

obtained.

Lee et al. (2010) reviewed these same thre e modeling approaches for evaluating the risk

of invasion associated with balla st water discharges. All of the models indicate that reduction of inoculum densities should signifi cantly reduce the risk (either re lative or absolute) of invasion from ballast water discharges. The U.S. Coast Guard used PVA to predict effectiveness of 5 ballast water management/treatme nt alternatives in their 2012 Ballast Water Discharge Standard Final Programmatic Envir onmental Impact Statement. These models, including their strengths and limitations, are discussed in greater detail in Section 6.1.1.1 of this BE.

NAS (2011) recommended that discharge st andards should be based on models and be explicitly expressed in an adaptive framework to allow the models to be updated in the future

with new information. In the short term, NAS recommended mechanistic single-species models to examine risk-release relationships for best case (for invasion)-scenario sp ecies (those with life

histories that would favor establishment with the smallest inoculum density, including fastgrowth, parthenogenetic or other asexual reproductive ab ilities, and lecithot rophic larvae). The greatest challenge in this approach would be conv erting the results of small-scale studies to an operational discharge standard.

NAS also recommended development of a robust statistical model of the risk-release relationship. The greatest challenge in this approach is the insu fficient scope and scale of the

available data 3 . Since long-term historical data on ballast-organism density are limited, the

3 EPA, in partnership with other federal agencies and others, is currently working within the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to develop strategies to fill in key data gaps.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-18 committee recommends an extremely careful anal ysis and validation of any proxy variables. Models of any kind are only as informative as thei r input data. In the case of ballast water, both invasion risk and organism density discharged from ballast are ch aracterized by considerable and largely unquantified uncertainty.

At the multi-species scale in particular, the existing data (historical invasion records vs. recent ballast surveys) are substantially mismatched in time, and patchy in time, space, and taxonomy; current statistical rela tionships with these or proxy variables ar e of dubious value.

5.1.1.7 Examples of ANS Inva sions in the U.S.

Well known examples of ANS or pathogens that have been introduced to U.S. waters include Chinese mitten crab, European green crab, hydrilla, European looses trife, Eurasian water milfoil, round goby, melaluca, salt cedar, Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS), and zebra mussels. In the subsections that follow, sp ecific attention is given to ecosystems and environments that have been especially impacted by ANS.

Much of the data used to characterize th e history of ANS invasi on of North American waters is highly uncertain. NAS (2001) reviewed a diverse range of such studies, examining the patterns in terms of date of fi rst detection, mechanisms of introduction (or vector), native region, and source region. These analyses generally involved synthesis of occurrence records, which are gleaned from the literature and a diverse range of research programs, instead of an organized field-based monitoring program designed explic itly to detect invasions as they occur. Consequently, the resulting knowledge about invasi ons represents an underestimate of the total number of ANS that have colonized. Furthermore, the lag-time from invasion to detection is unknown; only the date of detec tion is certain (Ruiz et al., 2000; Solow and Costello, 2004).

Although NAS (2011) focused on ANS introduc tion via ballast water and sediment discharge, they note that ballast water is one of many potential vectors that now transport marine, estuarine, and freshwater species between continents and oceans. These additional vectors form what is known as a polyvectic world (Carlton and Ruiz, 2005) and include vessel fouling (on and in many regions of a ship), aquaculture, live bait i ndustries, aquarium and pet industries, the live seafood industry, and the availabil ity of hundreds if not thousands of species on the Internet for unregulated purchase and distributio n to the public at large (Lodge et al., 2006). As a result, it is often a challenge to determine which vector or ve ctors, from a variety of dispersal mechanisms, has led to a particul ar invasion (NAS, 2011).

5.1.1.7.1 Pelagic Environment

Microorganisms may constitute a majority of the species found in ballast water (USCG, 2012). Phytoplankton, particularly diatoms and dinof lagellates, can be especially abundant and may cause the harmful algal bloom (HAB) know n as “red tides” (Car lton and Geller, 1993; Hallegraeff, 1993; NRC, 1996) or produce toxic compounds. Toxins can bioaccumulate in high trophic level marine animals, which can accumula te relatively large amounts of the toxin and show symptoms of contamination (Bushaw- Newton and Sellner, 1999). ANS introduced via2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-19 ballast water discharge and other sources may have contributed to the increase in the frequency, intensity, and duration of HAB events in wate rs of the United Stat es (Hallegraeff, 1993).

5.1.1.7.2 Estuarine Ecosystems

A large number of estuarine systems have been highly invaded by ANS. For example, in San Francisco Bay over two hundred ANS have been identified, such as the Chinese mitten crab (Cohen and Carlton, 1995). Additionally, non-indigenous microorganisms have become established in many estuarine waters. The intr oduction of nonnative pathogens, such as VHS, which negatively impact native organisms thr ough parasite or disease transmission, can be particularly destructive to the es tuarine ecosystem (USEPA, 2008a).

For coastal marine ecosystems, California a nd western North America have received the most in-depth analyses of aquatic inva sions, with over 250 nonindigenous species of invertebrates, algae, and mi croorganisms having become established in tidal (marine and estuarine) waters of California alone. Of these, only about 10% are attribut ed solely to ballast water as a vector, but greater than 50% include ballast water as a possible vector among others (NAS, 2011).

There have also been exte nsive introductions of nonindige nous mollusks in estuarine ecosystems throughout North America since the earl y 19th century. Thirty species have become established on the Pacific Coast, eight on the Atla ntic Coast and one on the Gulf Coast. Nineteen

of the 30 Pacific Coast ANS occur in San Fran cisco Bay alone (Carlton, 1992). There, the Asian clam has reached high densities at the expense of native biota (Carlton, 1992). The overbite clam ( Corbula amurensis ) spread throughout the waterways surrounding San Francisco Bay within two years of being detected in 1986. The clam acc ounts for up to 95 % of the living biomass in some shallow portions of the bay floor. It is belie ved to be a major contri butor to the decline of several pelagic fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, including the threatened delta smelt, by reducing the planktonic food ba se of the ecosystem (Takata et al., 2011).

Invertebrate ANS have had severe ecologica l impacts in many regions of the U.S. The

elevated densities of Asian clams and other intr oduced invertebrates have become the primary mechanism controlling phytoplankton biomass in por tions of the San Francisco Bay. This has impacted native zooplankton, shrimp, and fish populations (Cohen and Carlton, 1995). Such breakdowns of established ecosyst ems can result in alterations of physical processes, such as sedimentation rates and nutrient cycling. The physical environment ma y experience elevated erosion rates due to burrowing by invertebrate ANS (e.g., isopods, crayfish, and crabs) (Cohen and Carlton, 1995).

There is relatively little research published on ballast water transport of plant species. However, it is known that floating and detached seaweeds and seagrasses may be entrained in ballast water (NRC, 1996). It is well established that the conse quences of nonindigenous aquatic plants have been extensive. The introduction of ANS can have deleterious effects on native aquatic plants as well as seri ous implications beyond the aquatic ecosystem level. In the San Francisco Bay estuary, more than 20 nonindigenous plant species have been identified (Cohen and Carlton, 1995). The potential adverse impacts of these species include competitive2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-20 replacement of native cordgrass; altered habitat for wetland plants and animals; altered sediment dynamics; and loss of shorebird foraging habitat (USCG, 2012).

Estuarine wetlands have been invaded and adversely affected by animal and plant ANS from ballast water and other sources (USEPA, 2004a). For example, the Chinese mitten crab, potentially introduced via ballast water discharg e, has affected native invertebrates and the ecological structure of estuarine wetland communities in California. It disrupts fishing operations by competing with and preying on native speci es, damaging native habitats, and reducing biodiversity (Cohen and Carlton, 199 7). The current species composition of U.S. estuarine plants includes many ANS that have become widely esta blished over time. In the waters of Florida alone, 23 nonindigenous aquatic plant species have become established (USCG, 2012).

5.1.1.7.3 Freshwater Ecosystems

U.S. freshwater ecosystem species have been significantly affected by ANS introductions. For example, ANS have become a significant component of the food web in the Great Lakes with 162 ANS identified by 2001 (NOA A, 2004). Transoceanic shipping activities

are attributed with 55% to 70% of an estimated 56 aquatic ANS invasions recorded in the Great Lakes since 1959 (Bailey et al., 2011). They asse mbled data on dates of discovery of shipmediated aquatic ANS reported in the Great Lake s after the opening of the modern St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959. Their analysis revealed 34 aqua tic ship-mediated ANS reported from the Great Lakes after that date. The rate of aquatic ANS discovery was relative ly linear between 1959 and the mid-1980s, after which time it began to increase. The peak number of discoveries occurred in 1992 when six ANS were reported, including five pa rasitic species associated with the Eurasion ruffe; the discovery rate begins to decline rapi dly after the peak. The authors note that this decline in ANS discovery correspon ds with two to six-year time lags following the inception of ballast water management practic es. Since 2000, shipping activities have been responsible for three of eight (37.5%) aquatic ANS introductions and no new species have been reported since 2006; this is the first time th ere has been a four-year gap in ship-mediated aquatic ANS discoveries since 1974-1977 (Bailey et al., 2011).

In the Mississippi River, more than 100 ANS have been identified across at least nine taxonomic groups (USGS, 2004). In the lowe r and middle Columbia River alone, 134 nonindigenous species have been identified (USG S, 2009). North America's rivers and stream species are being extirpated five times faster than animals living on land and three times faster than marine mammals (American Rivers, 2005). This is due in great measure to the threat posed by ANS to such fauna and the ease with which th ey spread in freshwater ecosystems (USCG, 2012).

Perhaps the best-known example of freshwate r invasion is the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. This mo llusk attaches itself to surfaces in such high densities that it can clog pipes and foul other im portant structures, such as boat hulls or buoy bases. Zebra mussels also have the capacity to crowd out nativ e mollusk species or interfere with such basic functions as respiration, reproduc tion, feeding, growth, and movement. Zebra mussels are filter feeders and can remove algae from the water co lumn that other native species depend on as a2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-21 food source and, therefore, zebra mussels out compete native (and sometimes endangered)

mollusks and other filter feeders.

Native mollusk communities have been affect ed by ANS – one estimate is that another 127 freshwater mussel species will become extin ct in the next 100 years if no conservation efforts are initiated (Ricciardi and Rasmusse n, 1999; Williams and Neves, 2003). The Eurasian zebra mussel and the Asiatic clam, two alien no nunionoid species, have caused significant harm to North American unionoids (Lyde ard et al., 2004). By attaching to native mussels such as the northern riffleshell in great numbers, zebra mussels make it difficult for the mussel to move and feed properly, thereby suffocating and killing the native species (USFWS, 1997). Studies of zebra mussels on unionids in Great Lakes waterway s have confirmed that unionid mortality may approach 100% when unionids are heavily encr usted with zebra mussels (Schloesser et al., 1998).

Other non-native species may also impact unionid survival through the reduction or redistribution of native fishes, of which the larv al (glochidia) life-stage is parasitic. Nonnative fish species such as the Eurasian ruffe ( Gymnocephalus cernuus ) and round goby ( Neogobius

melanostomus ) can completely displace native fish, t hus causing the functional extirpation of local unionid populations (USEPA, 2007a). Glochidi a of freshwater mussels generally display varying degrees of host specificity. Closely re lated mollusks have been shown to use banded sculpin, as well as dusky, redline, and spo tted darters (Yeager, 1986). Other possible hosts include: banded sculpin, greenside darter, logperch, redl ine darter, snubnose darter, and spotted darter (Yeager and Saylor, 1995).

In 2005, a freshwater strain of VHS was di scovered in freshwater drum from Lake Ontario, and subsequently it was found in numerous freshwater species throughout much of the Great Lakes. It has also been found in preser ved samples from as far back as 2003. Since 1988 the virus, a finfish pathogen, was only known to ex ist in marine fish off both coasts (USDA, 2006). Genetic studies have determin ed that the strain in the Great Lakes is most closely related to the North Atlantic strain (G agné et al., 2007). Ballast water is a plausible vector; however, there is no way to definitivelydetermine how this pathogen arrived in the Great Lakes. (USCG, 2012).

Eurasian watermilfoil ( Myriophyllum spicatum ) is a stringy and submerged plant that is highly invasive and aggressively competes with native plant communities, reducing biodiversity.

Dense mats of watermilfoil have less value as a food source for waterfowl than the native plants it replaces (Aiken et al., 1979) . Although fish may ini tially experience a favor able edge effect, overabundant growth of watermilfoil negates any shor t-term benefits that it may provide fish in healthy waters, because its high densities cause a lower abundance and diversity of invertebrates that serve as fish food (Keast, 1984). The growthand aging of the thic k watermilfoil vegetation also degrades water quality and depletes di ssolved oxygen levels (Engel, 1995; Honnell et al., 1992).

The common reed ( Phragmites australis ) is is another vigorous plan t competitor. It can grow up to more than four meters tall and form dense monospecific stands. Common reed is native to the United States, but more invasive European strains may have been unintentionally2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-22 introduced in ships’ ballast (Saltons tall, 2008). Involuntary transport of Phragmites seeds and rhizome fragments by commercial and recreational vessels can promote the spread of this weed. Other aquatic nuisance species that pose a si milar threat include the purple loosestrife ( Lythrum

salicaria ) and the yellow iris ( Iris pseudacorus ). Both taxa can out-compete native plants and spread through transport of seeds and propagules by vessels.

Once established in a new environment, fi sh can spread over broad geographic areas. A classic example is the Eurasian ruffe ( Gymnocephalus cernuus ), which was introduced via

ballast water to the St. Lawrence River in th e mid-1980s. Since its introduction, it has spread rapidly through rivers, bays, and lakes in the Gr eat Lakes area. Furthermore, the ecological and geographical expansion of the ruffe has injured native fish populations (OTA, 1993). Other nonindigenous fish, such as the round goby ( Neogobius melanostomus ), the common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), the alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus ), the white perch ( Morone americana ), and the sea lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ) have spread rapidly and caused major environmental and economic problems (USCG, 2012).

Competition and predation by introduced non-na tive species may have been factors that

contributed to the decline of the Rio Grande s ilvery minnow within its historic range (USFWS, 2007), and their survival continue s to be threatened by interact ions with non-native fishes (NatureServe, assessed April 2008). The intentional or accidental introductions and transfers of indigenous and non-indigenous min nows, e.g., live minnows from other drainages, may threaten wild Rio Grande silvery minnow populations by imposing genetic threats, increasing competition for food or habitat, or spreading diseases. It is also possible that rapid increases in abundance of other non-indigenous species (e.g., guppy Poecilia reticulata , goldfish Carassius auratus ) may affect Rio Grande silvery mi nnow food sources (e.g., diatoms, algae) and/or introduce new predators to compete for resource s of Rio Grande silvery minnow.

5.1.1.7.4 Mechanisms by which ANS Impact Native Species

ANS threaten the diversity or abundance of na tive species and the eco logical stability of the aquatic ecosystems they infest. They can permanently reduce biodiversity by preying on, parasitizing, out-competing, causing or carrying diseases, or alteri ng habitats of native species (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005). Marine ANS can change food webs and disrupt ecosystem services provided by marine wetland plan ts (salt marshes, sea grasses). Many of these impacts were noted above in the examples of AN S invasions. This section describes specific mechanisms by which ANS impact native species.

5.1.1.7.5 Competition

An introduced species might become invasive if it can outcompete native species for resources, such as nutrients, light, physical space or f ood. If the introduced speci es evolved under great competition or predation, the new environment may host fewer able competitors, allowing the invader to proliferate quickly. For example, zebra mussels are capable of reaching such high densities that they crowd out or encrust native mo llusk species; furthermore, their filtration rates are so high that they outcompete native filt er feeders for available phytoplankton.As an additional example, a variety of coral species have been introduced into United States waters via2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-23 ballast water discharge and other sources. Noni ndigenous coral species can harm native coral species by colonizing the native species’ habitat. This is a competition between invasive and native species over limited, overlapping resource n eeds, with the invaders ultimately replacing native species within the ecosystem.

5.1.1.7.6 Infection

Introduction of nonnative pathogens, such as viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), can negatively impact native organisms through paras ite or disease transmission. VHS is caused by

the Viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus , a finfish pathogen. It afflicts over 50 species of

freshwater and marine fish in se veral parts of the northern hemis phere (Disease Factsheets: Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia. Iowa State University, The Center for Food Security & Public Health. (http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Fa ctsheets/pdfs/viral_hemorrhagic _septicemia.pdf, accessed June 15, 2012). In 2005, a freshwater strain of VHS was discovered in freshwater drum from Lake Ontario, and subsequently it was found in numerous freshwater species throughout much of the Great Lakes. It has also been found in preser ved samples from as far back as 2003. Since 2005, massive die-offs have occurred amongst a wide va riety of freshwater species in the Great Lakes region.

As another example, sturgeon species appear to be susceptible to viruses enzootic to the west coast of the U.S., and fish introducti ons could further spread these diseases ( NatureServe, accessed April 2008 ).

5.1.1.7.7 Toxicity

HAB can produce toxic compounds, including brevetoxin, saxitoxin and microcystins. Toxins can bioaccumulate in high trophic level ma rine animals, which can accumulate relatively large amounts of the toxin and show symptoms of contamination (Bushaw-Newton and Sellner, 1999). The adverse effects of HAB on marine ma mmals can range from cell and tissue damage to organism mortality. Immune system responses have been affected by brevetoxin exposure in the endangered Loggerhead sea turtle.

Additional marine mammal species, like the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, have been exposed to neurotoxins by preying on highly contaminated z ooplankton (Durbin et al. 2002). The summertime habitat of the North A tlantic Right Whale ove rlaps with seasonal blooms of the toxic dinoflagellate Alexandrium fundyense . Foraging right whal es will ingest large concentrations of contaminated copepods, resulting in affects on respiratory capabilities, feeding behavior, and ultimately the reproductiv e condition of the population (Durbin et al. 2002).

5.1.1.7.8 Altered Food Web

Many of the negative affects of ANS are rela ted to changes in community structure. Species invasion causes a breakdown in structure and rapid reorgani zation (Sanders et al. 2003). ANS can exert bottom-up or top-down contro ls. Many ANS are filter feeders which, upon reaching high densities, can deplete phytoplankton that serve as the diet for many native species2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-24 (native zooplankton, shrimp, and fish populations), including thei r juvenile life stages. These effects may continue through the food web to fish, for example reducing the biomass of planktivorous fish.

Invasive species may be an inferior food. An example is the invasive diatom Melosira, which at certain times in the year can be the most abundant species of phytoplankton. This diatom grows in long chains and is very difficult for zooplankton to graze on; thus the change in composition and abundance of zooplankton may also be tied to the increased importance of this

diatom. Bythotrephes longimanus , the spiny water flea, is anothe r invasive species that may be an inferior food for plank tivores in the Great Lakes.

5.1.1.7.9 Predation

Invasive species may be highly effective pr edators capable of re ducing the abundance of various life history stages of native species. For example, the endangered Columbia spotted frog is particularly susceptible to displacement or predation by introduced species. For example,

various studies have document ed the vulnerability of Columbia spotted frogs to nonnative salmonid and Centrarchid (e.g., bass) species (B ull and Marx, 2002; Pilliod and Peterson, 2001; Werner et al., 1998). Other non-native fishes thought to be potentially im portant predators of Columbia spotted frogs in clude char and goldfish ( Carrasius auratus ) (Amphibiaweb.org website, accessed April 17, 2008). Invasive crayfish and American bullfrogs ( R

. catesbeiana ) might also be aggressive predator s of various life history stages of spotted frogs, including eggs and tadpoles (Reaser, 1997).

The effects of introduced species on the list ed California Freshwater Shrimp are mainly associated with predation. The shrimp is prey for native fish species at all life stages. The riparian habitat protects the shrimp from many native species, as do the intermittent pools that the shrimp also inhabit. Introduced speci es are a threat to the populations of S. pacifica particularly in areas where nati ve fish species are not abundant . These pools sometimes are of lesser water quality which prot ects the shrimp from many na tive species. However, the nonnative fish species, green sunfish ( Lepomis cyanellus ), is capable of surviving at extreme conditions, including high temperatures, low oxygen, and high alkali nities (USFWS, 1998).

5.1.1.7.10 Altered Biogeochemistry and Physical Habitat

Invasive species can affect water quality (neg atively or positively) in marine, estuarine, and riverine freshwater environments by alteri ng processes such as se dimentation rates and nutrient cycling. Introduced non-native algal species from ballast water (as well as other sources) combined with nutrient overloading may increase the intensity and freque ncy of algal blooms. An overabundance of algae can degrade wate r quality upon bacterial decomposition, which depletes oxygen levels in an ecosystem. Oxygen depletion can re sult in “dead zones,” murky water, seagrass and coral habitat degradation, and large-scale fish kills (Deegan and Buchsbaum, 2005).

Breakdowns of established ecosystems can resu lt in alterations of physical habitat. The physical environment may experience elevated erosion rates due to burrowing by invertebrate2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-25 ANS. ANS can also alter the environment to favo r introductions of additional nonnative species. Simberloff and Von Holle (1999) referred to this positive feedback loop as “invasional meltdown.” A recent series of invasions by eur yhaline organisms from the Black and Caspian seas might be the start of an invasional melt down in the North American Great Lakes (Rahel, 2002). It seems likely that zebra mu ssels have altered the benthic environment of the Great Lakes so as to facilitate invasions by additional exotic species. Zebra mussels have also increased the habitat complexity on lake floors, providing crevices in which invert ebrates live. This increase in complexity, together with the nutrition provide d by the waste products of mussel filter-feeding, increases the density and diversity of benthic invertebrate communities.

5.1.1.8 Documented Impacts of ANS on Listed Species

Some endangered species face threat from th e combined impact of ANS introduction and the existing environmental circumstances (USCG, 2012). For example, almost 40 native mussel species occur in the Mississippi River, some of which are federally listed as threatened or endangered (USFWS, 2003). The zebra mussel thr eatens some of these indigenous species of mussel with extinction (USCG, 2012).

ANS have been identified as a contributing factor in th e listing as threatened or endangered of more than 50% of fish species a nd 33% of invertebrates, which includes mollusks and crustaceans (USCG, 2012). Shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ), which are endangered and under many threats, amongst them habitat degradation and dredging operations. It is also anticipated that rapid increases in abundance of other non-indigenous species (e.g., Asian clams, zebra mussels, blue and flathead catf ish) in some rivers wi ll affect sturgeon prey and/or introduce new predators to compet e for resources of shortnose sturgeon ( NMFS and
USFWS, 1998 ).

Over 145 nonnative species have become establ ished in the North American Great Lakes (Mills et al., 1993). Especially noteworthy is that since 1985, 70% of the invading species are

native to fresh and brackish waters of the Pont o-Caspian region (Black, Caspian, and Azov seas) (Ricciardi and Maclsaac, 2000). Some of these species have achieved high abundance and now play a major role in Great Lakes food webs. Examples include ruffe Gymnocephalus cemuus

, round goby Neogobius melanostomus , tubenose goby Proterorhinus marmoratus , zebra mussel, quagga mussel Dreissena bugensis , and the amphipod Echinogammarus ischnus . Most of the invasions resulted from ship ball ast water releas e (Rahel, 2002).

5.1.1.8.1 Zebra Mussel Impacts on Native Mu ssels in Great Lakes and Mississippi

River

Freshwater mussels in the families Margaritiferidae and Unionidae are worldwide in distribution but reach their gr eatest diversity in North Amer ica with 281 species and 16 subspecies (Williams et al., 1993). They are the most imperiled freshwater fauna with 12% of the taxa listed as probably extinct and 60% consider ed endangered, threatened, or of special concern (Ricciardi et al., 1998). During th e twentieth century, the most im portant source of imperilment was destruction of habitat by da mming, dredging, and channelization of rivers, especially in the southeastern United States (Rahel, 2002).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-26 In the 1990s, a significant new threat was a dded with the establis hment of the zebra

mussel that smothered the shells of other mollusk s and competed with th em for food (Nalepa et al., 1996). The biological impacts of zebra mussels have the potential to harm native mussels in North America by interfering with their f eeding, growth, movement, respiration, and reproduction. This species has rapidly spread throughout the Great Lake s and the Mississippi River basin, often reaching densities in exce ss of 3,000 individuals per square meter and extirpating native mussel species within 4 to 8 year s. Ricciardi et al. (1998 ) projected that if the current rate (as of 1998) of sp read continues, the zebra mu ssel will accelerate the regional

extinction rates of North American freshwater mussels by ten-fold and will threaten the existence of over 60 endemic species in the Mississippi River basin.

Researchers are observing some of these eff ects as they study interactions between zebra

mussels and native mussels in the Great Lakes. In one study, biologists found that where zebra mussel densities were highest, in Lake St. Clair and in the western basin of Lake Erie, native mussels had declined after only two years of zebra mussel col onization (Bensen, 2012) and other

studies have shown an inverse correlation betw een zebra mussel biomass and the density of

native mussels.

5.1.1.8.2 Negative Effect of Zebra Mussel on Foraging and Habitat Use by Lake Sturgeon

Zebra mussels are also believed to nega tively impact native fish populations. Among benthic-feeding fis h, lake sturgeon ( Acipenser fulvescens ) are of particular concern. Lake sturgeon are threatened or endange red throughout much of their range . This species is native to lakes and large rivers in the Atlantic waters hed of North America in cluding the Hudson Bay, Laurentian, and Gulf of Mexico catchments (Lee et al., 1980). Through much of this range, lake sturgeon populations have been reduced from vi able populations to threatened or endangered status owing to overfishing and habitat destru ction (Auer, 1999). Zebra mussels now co-occur with lake sturgeon over much of their range, in cluding the Laurentian Great Lakes and portions of the Mississippi and Hudson Bay catchments, and may represent a novel threat to lake sturgeon. Juvenile sturgeon use sand y and silty habitats extensively during their growth. Invasive zebra mussels change the nature of these sandy and silty habitats because they settle on and coat

the habitat with the shel ls of living and dead individuals. Mc Cabe et al. (2006) assessed juvenile lake sturgeon habitat choice in laboratory expe riments, and zebra mussel impact on the foraging success of juvenile lake sturge on on three different prey specie s was measured. Sturgeon avoided

the zebra-mussel covered habitat more than 90% of the time. This combination of zebra mussel avoidance and reduced foraging in the presence of zebra mussels was suggested to be detrimental to sturgeon restocking programs utilizing smaller sturgeon in zebra-mussel-infested waterways.

5.1.1.9 Conclusion Regarding Risk of ANS in Vessel Discharge Vectors

Existing ANS are a persistent problem in U. S. coastal and inland waters. In coastal environments, commercial shipping is the most important means of introducing new ANS, and unmanaged ballast water discharge and biof ouling are the vectors responsible for the introduction of the majority of ANS in the U.S. ANS pose several dangers to aquatic ecosystems, including outcompeting native species, damaging habitat, changing food webs, and altering the chemical and physical aquatic environment. Nume rous studies have concluded that the reduced2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-27 discharge of viable organisms cap able of establishing a viable popul ation of the organism in U.S.

waters reduces the risk of invasions. While it is presently not possible to calculate the risk of ANS invasion associated with specific ANS con centrations in ballast water discharges, EPA believes that the two permits (VGP/sVGP) will reduce the propagule pressure substantially associated with vessel discharges, which will significantly reduce the risk that new ANS introductions pose to listed species. See Section 6.1 for a full discussion of mitigating effects of the VGP/sVGP on ANS in vessel discharges.

5.1.2 Pathogens

Several [human] pathogens ( E. coli , enterococci, fecal coliform) are found at levels exceeding screening level benchmarks in permitted discharges from covered vessels, particularly in graywater and bilgewater (see Sect ion 3.2.3.3). These and other pathogens ( Vibrio cholerae

, Clostridium perfingens

, Salmonella spp. Cryptosporidium spp., and Giardia spp.) as well as a variety of viruses have also b een associated with ballast wate r discharges (Knight et al., 1999; Reynolds et al., 1999; Zo et al., 1999).

Although pathogens can be harmful to huma ns via ingestion at relatively low concentrations, if and at what level these pat hogens may affect aquatic and aquatic-dependent organisms is unknown at this time. EPA is not aware of any outbreak of pathogenic disease among aquatic or aquatic-dependent species from vessel discharges. Fish and shellfish are known vectors of pathogens resulting in human impacts when consumed, but appear to be largely unaffected themselves. Since it is currently not possible to separate infections in aquatic and aquatic-dependent animals due to [human] or any other pathogens contributed from vessel discharges versus infection from existing na tural background conditions within a waterbody, and since it is highly improbable that any infection co uld occur at the levels detected in vessel discharges, EPA discounts any risk to pathogens in this BE to the listed species for which the analysis applies (Appendix E).

5.1.3 Oil and Grease

Concentrations of oil and gr ease in stern tube packing gla nd effluent, bilgewater, deck washdown, engine wet exhaust effluent, fish hol d effluent, fish hold cleaning effluent, and graywater have the potential to exceed the current 15 mg/L U.S. Coast Guard discharge standard screening level benchmark. Oil and grease is meas ured as hexane extractable material (HEM) while petroleum hydrocarbons are measured as s ilica gel treated hexane extractable material (SGT-HEM). Within the oil and grease compone nt measured by SGT-HEM are toxic petroleum and gasoline constituents as well as degradat es such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and benzene, ethylene, toluene, and xyl ene (BETX). The analysis of possible effects

from these toxic constituents of oil and grease are addresse d quantitatively in Section 5.3.4.1 below. This subsection provides a brief qualitative analysis of the possible effects from the nontoxic components of oil and grease (e.g., ve getable oils and “organic” grease).

Both petroleum and non-petroleum oils have similar properties that can harm wildlife when spilled into the environmen t (USEPA, 1997). Ingested oil or inhaled fumes [generally from petroleum] can be detrimental to seabirds; howev er, most mortality is caused by oiled feathers.

Oil that sticks to fur or feathers can cause a multitude of problems (AMSA, accessed April2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-28 2008). Oil in general readily adheres to the plum age of seabirds and can reduce the insulation and waterproofing properties of their feathers, often leading to hypothermia. Birds may become easy prey, as their oil matted feathers often inhi bit their ability to fl y away. Birds can also become dehydrated and can star ve as they give up or reduc e drinking and foraging for food.

While some of the adverse effects on sea bird s, marine mammals and turtles can be caused by crude petroleum oil or bunker fuel, they are more commonly caused by refined oil products (AMSA, accessed April 2008).

In general, because the non-petroleu m based oil and grease (i.e., non-volatile hydrocarbons, vegetable oils, animal fats, waxe s, and greases) nominally represented by HEM minus SGT-HEM is both biodegradable and far less toxic to aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife (USEPA, 2011a), EPA presumes any risk to listed species consider ed in this BE from these oil and grease components to be “remote” 4 (see also Section 6.2.2).

5.1.4 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

BOD is a measure of the oxygen used by micr oorganisms to oxidize the organic matter present in the water. Organic matter in wastewat er exerts an oxygen demand in receiving waters, thereby depressing dissolved oxygen concentratio ns. Low dissolved oxygen levels (hypoxia) can impair animal growth or reproduction, and the co mplete lack of oxygen (anoxia) will kill aquatic organisms. If there is a large qua ntity of organic waste in water, there will also be substantial bacteria present working to decompose this wa ste. In this case, the demand for oxygen will be high (due to all the bacteria) so the BOD leve l will be high. As the waste is consumed or dispersed through the water, BOD levels will be gin to decline. Vessel discharges that exert relatively high oxygen demand and the associated pot ential to depress DO concentrations in receiving waters include fish hol d effluent, bilgewater, and graywa ter. Excessive levels of BOD in these discharges exceed the sc reening level benchmark of 30 mg/L, 5 but due to the substantial

reduction in BOD that will be achieved via issu ance of the two permits (see Section 6.2.3), EPA presumes any risk to listed sp ecies considered in this BE fr om BOD (and subsequent low DO in receiving water) to be “remote”.

5.2 M ETHODOLOGY FOR THE Q UANTITATIVE E FFECTS A NALYSIS OF T OXIC AND N ON

CONVENTIONAL P OLLUTANTS WITH T OXIC E FFECTS

A quantitative analysis is used in this BE to evaluate the potential for select pollutants (i.e., pollutants with toxic effect s) to adversely affect aquati c and aquatic-dependent listed species and their critical habitats. This analysis is driven largely by EPA’s ability to calculate and compare risk quotients for specific pollutants befo re (pre-) and after (pos t-) issuance of the 2013 VGP and sVGP. Risk quotients provide a means for ev aluating the level of risk to a species from either individual pollutants or ce rtain mixtures of pollutants wher e toxicity is additive (i.e., metals and PAHs). Calculating risk quotients on a pre- and post-permit basis is used to illustrate

4 For the purpose of this BE, EPA established a sliding s cale to describe the risk conclusion and overall health concern from a given pollutant. EPA uses the term “remote” to describe the lowest possible risk level above no effect and presumes that the pollutant does not present a health risk to liste d species, See Section 5.2.3 for further discussion of the risk scale and how it is applied in the quantitative pollutant analysis.

5 The screening level benchmark for BOD is based on the 1984 secondary treatment limit for publically owned treatment works (see 49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-29 if and by how much the specific control measures implemented as part of the permits reduce pollution from permitted discharges. EPA fully expects any mitigation of pollutants from the various discharges realized via the issuance of the permits to im prove water quality, and at the same time, minimize harm to listed species a nd their critical habita ts (see Section 6).

The general risk paradigm used to support the quantitative effect s analysis in this BE is one where the risk quotient (RQ) is defined as:

ൌ ࡽࡾ ࡯ࡱ

ࢀࡱࢀ࡯ Equation 5-1

Where: RQ = Pollutant- and species-specific risk quotient. EC = Modeled pollutant-specific exposur e concentration before (pre-) and after (post-) issuance of the 2013 VGP and sVGP. CTET = Chronic toxicity effect threshold for a given species/taxon (or representative surrogate species/ta xon) exposed to that pollutant.

As described in Section 5.2.1 and Appendix G, EPA estimated pre- and post-permit exposure concentrations (ECs) for hypothetical estuary and river harbors that contain RAA-specific vessel populations and receive their associ ated total discharge pollutant loads. The estimated pollutantspecific concentrations within th e hypothetical estuary and river harbors are used in the risk equation (in comparison with CTETs ) to estimate risk and support both the direct and indirect effects analysis of individual pollutants on th e 82 RAA aquatic and a quatic-dependent listed species and their critical habitats (see Secti on 5.3 – Pollutant-Specific Ri sk Summaries, below). These species were identified in Section 3.4 and described in detail in Appendix F. The results of the analysis is then used to inform EPA’s effect s determination for all listed aquatic and aquaticdependent species and their cri tical habitats that may be affected by the VGP and sVGP (Appendix E). For aquatic species, risk is estimat ed based on laboratory-based chronic toxicity test data from water column-only exposure and, when applicable, from exposure to additional routes which may result in gr eater toxic effects (e.g., combina tion of waterbor ne and dietary toxicity as measured via polluta nt residues in whole body tissue). For aquatic-dependent bird and mammal species, risk is estimated from both di etary (prey) and waterborne (drinking water) toxicity in fresh water, and fr om dietary-only exposure in salt water, assuming that aquaticdependent birds and mammals do not drink salt water.

The methodology used to support the quantitativ e analysis described herein is predicated on principles established in EPA’s Draft Methodology for Conducti ng Biological Evaluations of Aquatic Life Criteria; Methods Manual , dated March 2005 (USEPA, 2005a). Additional details regarding estimation of exposure concentrations (ECs) and chroni c toxicity effect thresholds (CTETs) are as follows.

5.2.1 Hypothetical Harbor and Estima tion of Exposure Concentrations

For the purpose of the BE, EPA selected simple screening-level models to provide a “big picture” assessment of the overall potential for pollu tants in vessel discharges to impact listed species in estuarine and inland waters. EPA used the models to estimate exposure concentrations2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-30 in the receiving water from vessel discharges covered under the VGP a nd sVGP to support the quantitative effects analysis describe d in Sections 5.2.2 to 5.2.4 below.

EPA selected the “fraction of freshwater model” to calculate receiving water concentrations in a hypothetical estuarine harbor and a dilutio n equation to estimate receiving water concentrations in a hypothe tical river harbor. Appendix G pr ovides detailed descriptions of the model selection process for the BE and the equations used in the identified models. EPA chose to model a hypothetical harbor environment 6 to evaluate the rang e of potential receiving water concentrations (i.e., expos ure concentrations) that may o ccur given varying assumptions for receiving water characteristics (e.g., flow, salinity, flushing time) and vessel populations present. EPA used a range of water body fl ow, salinity, vessel popul ations, and loading assumptions to explore different “likely” a nd “worst-case” scenario s pollutant exposure concentrations resulting from vessel disc harges covered under the VGP and sVGP.

As inputs to the model, EPA developed a vessel population scenario for each RAA considered in the BE and collected receiving water characteristic data from a variety of estuaries

and rivers where vessels covered under VGP a nd sVGP are known to travel. EPA then modeled numerous scenarios combining the different ve ssel populations in different hypothetical harbors to represent a range of environmental conditions potentially observed within the action area applicable to this BE.

5.2.1.1 Hypothetical Harbor Scenarios

Given the wide variety of coastal and river harbor environments present in the action area, EPA developed several hypothetical harbors to re present the range of environmental conditions where threatened and endangered species may be impacted by vessel discharges covered under the VGP and sVGP. To develop model input values that represented realistic environmental conditions, EPA identified and collected environmental data on 11 estuarine harbors and 9 river harbors ( Table

5-3 ) that represented a geographically and enviro nmentally diverse group of water bodies and had the potential for a high density of vessels covered under VGP and sVGP.

Table 5-3. River and Estuary Harbors Select ed for Model Input Parameter Development

RAA City Name State Estuary Name River Name

Estuary

Harbor Boston Massachusetts Boston Inner

Harbor Charles River and Mystic River

Charleston South Carolina Charleston Harbor Cooper River and Ashley River Coos Bay Oregon Coos Bay Coos River

 Houston Texas Galveston Bay San Jacinto River and Buffalo Bayou Juneau Alaska Auke Bay Mendenhall River and Indian River

 Miami Florida Biscayne Bay Miami River and Little River

Mobile Alabama Mobile Bay Mobile River

 New York New York Upper and Lower

New York Harbor Hudson River

6 For this analysis, the “harbor environment” refers to a la rge body of water that could potentially have upto 370 VGP vessels present and up to 1000 sVGP vessels simultaneously discharging. EPA assumed that the harbor area included the immediate port area and surrounding waters within two to seven miles from the port depending on the

RAA.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-31 Table 5-3. River and Estuary Harbors Select ed for Model Input Parameter Development

RAA City Name State Estuary Name River Name

Norfolk Virginia Craford Bay Elizabeth River and James River

 San

Francisco California San Francisco Bay Sacramento River and San Joaquin

River

 Seattle California Puget Sound Duwamish Waterway and Dunguess

River

River

Harbor Cincinnati Ohio Ohio River

Decatur Alabama Tennessee River

 Duluth Minnesota St. Louis River

Lewiston Idaho Snake River Memphis Tennessee Mississippi River

Peoria Illinois Illinois River Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Ohio River

 St. Louis Missouri Mississippi River

St. Paul Minnesota Mississippi River

Using water body characteristic data from th e 11 estuarine harbors identified in Table 5-3, EPA identified two types of estuarine systems in common ly found in the port areas:

 Estuaries where tidal influence is the prim ary driver for mixing in the estuary as indicated by a lower river flow and higher salinity value; and

 Estuaries where the freshwater inflow is th e primary driver for mixing in the estuary as indicated by a higher river fl ow and lower salinity value.

Based on this analysis, EPA developed the two hypothetical estuary harbor scenarios presented in Table 5-4 for the BE effects analysis.

Table 5-4. Hypothetical Estuary Ha rbor Scenarios and Input Values

Hypothetical Estuary

Harbor Scenario Harbor Salinity, S x (PSU) Ocean Salinity, S s (PSU) River Flow into Estuary, Q fw (m 3 /day) Estuary Harbor Scenario 1 31.1 35 1,160,000
Estuary Harbor Scenario 2 13.4 35 49,100,000

For the river harbor model, the dilution equa tion requires the average annual river flow rate (Q river ) to calculate a receiving water concen tration. EPA selected the minimum and

maximum river flow rates from the nine river ha rbors identified in Table 5-3 to represent the bounding conditions for the hypothetical river harbors, resulting intwo hypothetical river harbor scenarios for the BE effects analysis (Table 5-5).

Table 5-5. Hypothetical River Harbor Scenarios and Input Values

Hypothetical River

Harbor Scenario Model Parameter Model Input Value Units

River Harbor Scenario 1 River Flow ( Qriver ) Minimum 9,000,000 m 3 /day River Harbor Scenario 2 River Flow ( Qriver ) Maximum 1,400,000,000 m 3 /day2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-32 Appendix G provides detailed descriptions of th e harbor characteristics used to develop the hypothetical estuary and river harbors used in the effects analysis.

5.2.1.2 RAA Loading Scenarios

Based on the vessel types, di scharges, and corresponding pollu tants selected for detailed evaluation in the BE (see Section 3.2.4), EPA id entified 32 pollutants to include in the modeling analysis. Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 present EPA’s assu mptions for vessel discharge flow rates and pollutant concentrations expected under pre-permit conditions. Next, EPA estimated reductions in vessel discharge pollutant con centrations and flow rates antici pated to occur as the result of issuance of the VGP and sVGP for the specific po llutants, discharges and vessel types identified for detailed evaluation. The following tables in Appendix G present EPA’s assumptions for vessel discharge flow and pollutant reductions es timated to result from the issuance of the VGP and sVGP, together with the estimated discharg e-specific pollutant loads for each vessel class under pre- and post- VGP and sVGP conditions:

 Table G-3 -EPA’s assumptions for pollutant concentration and flow reductions for VGP vessel classes following issuance of the permit.

 Table G-4 -EPA’s assumptions for pollutant concentration and flow reductions for sVGP vessel classes following issuance of the permit.

 Table G-5- Pre and post-permit vessel-specific pollutant loads for each wastestream, vessel type, and pollutant considered under the VGP.

 Table G-6- Pre and post-permit vessel-specific pollutant loads for each wastestream, vessel type, and pollutant considered under the sVGP.

Next, EPA developed a loading scenario for each of the seven RAAs by multiplying the vessel-specific pollutant loads in Tables G- 5 and G-6 by the number of vessel equivalents 7
present in the RAA harbors (Table G-7). EPA developed the vessel popula tions by contacting the RAA port authorities, using available Departme nt of Transportation port call data, and other

vessel related literature to charac terize the average daily vessel equivalents present in the RAA by vessel class. Table 5-6 presents EPA’s assump tions for vessels populations present in each of the seven RAAs. Appendix G provides detailed desc riptions of the data sources and assumptions used to develop the vessel population for each RAA. Tables G-8 and G-9 presents the total pollutant loads under pre and post-permit conditions for the seven loading scenarios used to calculate the exposure concentratio ns in the effects analysis.

7 Vessel populations presented are expressed as vessel equivalents where a vessel equivalent represents a single vessel discharging 24-hours per day in the harbor. For exam ple, 1 vessel equivalent could represent 24 vessels that each operate (and discharge) for 1 hour in the harbor environment each day.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-33 Table 5-6. Average Daily Vessel Population Equivalents 7 in the RAAs

Number of Vessels Presen t in Estuary RAA Harbors Number of Vessels

Present in River

RAA Harbors

Vessel Type Seattle,

WA Houston,

TX New York,

NY San Francisco,

CA Miami,

FL St Louis,

MO Duluth,

MN

VGP Vessel Types
Barges 12.8 340 62.4 2.77 2.88 60.1 0.00

Oil/Gas Tankers 0.09 18.3 5.39 2.92 0.00 0.00 0.00
Large Cruise Ships 4.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 Large Commercial Fishing 24.5 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Medium Cruise Ships 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54
Bulk Cargo Carrier 2.86 9.99 17.1 12.3 9.11 0.00 2.08

Large Ferry 4.00 0.00 50.0 4.11 4.11 0.00 0.00

sVGP Vessel Types
Commercial Fishing 1000 0.00 33.3 53.8 0.00 0.00 1.00
Passenger Vessel 15.0 0.10 10.0 4.43 4.94 2.00 1.64
Utility Boats 6.00 42.7 28.9 16.3 7.67 16.3 16.4

Total Number of Vessels Equivalents Assumed in

RAA Harbor 1070 412 214 101 36.7 79.4 21.7

5.2.1.3 Receiving Water Model Scenarios

EPA modeled a total of 14 receiving water concen tration scenarios based on combinations of the hypothetical harbor scenarios and the RAA loadi ng scenarios discussed in Sections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2.1.2, respectively. EPA developed 10 model scenario s (Scenarios 1 to 10) for the hypothetical estuary harbor that evaluated the combination of the two estuary har bor scenarios with the pollutant loading scenarios for the five estuar ine RAAs (i.e., Seattle, Houston, New York, San Francisco, and Miami). EPA developed four mo del scenarios (Scenarios 11 to 14) for the hypothetical river harbor that evaluated the eval uated the combination of the two river harbor scenarios with the pollutant loading scenarios fo r the two freshwater RAAs (i.e., St. Louis and Duluth). Table 5-7 lists the comb inations of hypothetical harbor and RAA loading scenarios used in calculating the receiving water concentratio ns evaluated in the effects analysis.

Table 5-7. Receiving Water Model Scenarios

Model Scenario Number Hypothetical Harbor Scenario RAA Loading Scenario Scenario 1 Estuary Harbor Scen ario 1 Seattle Pollutant Load Scenario 2 Estuary Harbor Scenario 1 Houston Pollutant Load Scenario 3 Estuary Harbor Scenar io 1 New York Pollutant Load Scenario 4 Estuary Harb or Scenario 1 San Francisco Pollutant Load Scenario 5 Estuary Harbor Scenario 1 Miami Pollutant Load Scenario 6 Estuary Harbor Scen ario 2 Seattle Pollutant Load Scenario 7 Estuary Harbor Scenario 2 Houston Pollutant Load Scenario 8 Estuary Harbor Scenar io 2 New York Pollutant Load2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-34 Table 5-7. Receiving Water Model Scenarios

Model Scenario Number Hypothetical Harbor Scenario RAA Loading Scenario Scenario 9 Estuary Harb or Scenario 2 San Francisco Pollutant Load Scenario 10 Estuary Harbor Scen ario 2 Miami Pollutant Load

Scenario 11 River Harbor Scenario 1 St. Louis Pollutant Load

Scenario 12 River Harbor Scenar io 1 Duluth Pollutant Load

Scenario 13 River Harbor Scenario 2 St. Louis Pollutant Load

Scenario 14 River Harbor Scenar io 2 Duluth Pollutant Load

EPA believes that the four harbor scenarios described in Section 5.2.1.1 are representative of the types of water bodies where VGP and sVGP vessels likely operate based on the wide geographical range of waterbodies used to develop the input values. By selecting the

minimum water characteristic values for the harbor scenarios, and evaluating the maximum pollutant loading values from the seven RAAs, EPA also believes that the model scenarios reasonably capture a “worst case” scenario with in the action area applicable to this BE. See

Section 5.2.6.1 for further discussion of the uncertainties and limitations of the modeling methodology used to estimate the exposure c oncentrations in the effects analysis.

5.2.1.4 Exposure Concentrations

Using the modeling results from the mode led scenarios listed in Section 5.2.1.3, EPA determined the estimated minimum, maximum, a nd average receiving water concentrations for a hypothetical estuary harbor and a hypothetical river harbor u nder both pre- and post VGP and sVGP conditions (Table 5-8 and Table 5-9, respec tively). In the quantitative effects analysis presented in Section 5.3, EPA uses the pre- and post VGP and sVGP exposure concentrations to

assess the reduction in risk to li sted species from the issuance of the permits. EPA evaluated the

reduction in risk from the estimated maximum exposure concentrations only in the effects analysis. This approach allows EPA to asse ss the risk from what are likely “worst case” scnenarios from incidental discharges from vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis5-35Table 5-8. Estimated Receiving Water Concentrations from Vessel Incidental Discharge Loadings ina Hypothetical EstuaryHarborClassAnalyteUnitsPre VGP and sVGP Receiving WaterConcentrationsPost VGP and sVGPReceiving WaterConcentrationsMinMaxAverageMinMaxAverageClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD)mg/L 0.00629 0.915 0.195 0.0053 0.676 0.162ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM)mg/L 0.00146 0.0656 0.0264 0.000701 0.0324 0.013ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM)mg/L 0.000438 0.0169 0.00684 0.000215 0.0089 0.00343Classicals Total Residual Chlorinemg/L 0.0000032 0.00214 0.000281 0.00000238 0.00066 0.000103Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS)mg/L 0.00335 0.202 0.0435 0.0015 0.13 0.0281Metals Aluminum, Totalμg/L 0.0542 1.28 0.405 0.0357 1.02 0.293Metals Arsenic, Dissolvedμg/L 0.0483 1.94 0.681 0.0476 1.94 0.68Metals Arsenic, Totalμg/L 0.0493 1.94 0.682 0.0484 1.94 0.681Metals Cadmium, Dissolvedμg/L 0.0000215 0.000867 0.000189 0.0000123 0.000697 0.000132Metals Chromium, Dissolvedμg/L 0.0000565 0.00191 0.000463 0.0000465 0.00185 0.000418Metals Copper, Dissolvedμg/L 0.0256 0.374 0.158 0.0252 0.37 0.154Metals Lead, Dissolvedμg/L 0.000116 0.00295 0.0011 0.00008 0.00262 0.000934Metals Nickel, Dissolvedμg/L 0.00718 0.291 0.102 0.00701 0.291 0.102Metals Nickel, Totalμg/L 0.000654 0.0125 0.00507 0.000654 0.0125 0.00507Metals Selenium, Dissolvedμg/L 0.0538 2.25 0.788 0.0536 2.25 0.788Metals Selenium, Totalμg/L 0.0565 2.39 0.837 0.0565 2.39 0.837Metals Zinc, Dissolvedμg/L 0.00813 0.493 0.145 0.00635 0.452 0.134Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)mg/L 0.0000232 0.00954 0.00149 0.0000209 0.00742 0.00123Nutrients Total Phosphorusmg/L 0.000112 0.0119 0.00267 0.00000632 0.000543 0.0000905SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenolμg/L 0.000012 0.00103 0.000178 0.00000607 0.000514 0.0000927SVOC Benzo(a)anthraceneμg/L 0.000393 0.00685 0.00306 0.000393 0.00685 0.00306SVOC Benzo(a)pyreneμg/L 0.000214 0.00614 0.00198 0.000214 0.00614 0.00198SVOC Benzo(b)fluorantheneμg/L 0.0000185 0.00486 0.000733 0.0000185 0.00486 0.000733SVOC Benzo(k)fluorantheneμg/L 0.0000205 0.00538 0.000812 0.0000205 0.00538 0.000812SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateμg/L 0.000122 0.00569 0.00117 0.000048 0.00424 0.0007542013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis5-36Table 5-8. Estimated Receiving Water Concentrations from Vessel Incidental Discharge Loadings ina Hypothetical EstuaryHarborClassAnalyteUnitsPre VGP and sVGP Receiving WaterConcentrationsPost VGP and sVGPReceiving WaterConcentrationsMinMaxAverageMinMaxAverageSVOC Chryseneμg/L 0.00055 0.00943 0.00399 0.00055 0.00943 0.00399SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneμg/L 0.0000165 0.00434 0.000655 0.0000165 0.00434 0.000655VOC Benzeneμg/L 0.000393 0.0311 0.00554 0.000186 0.0258 0.0042VOC Bromodichloromethaneμg/L 0.000139 0.00195 0.00085 0.0000364 0.000573 0.00025VOC Dibromochloromethaneμg/L 0.000139 0.00195 0.00085 0.0000364 0.000573 0.00025VOC Tetrachloroetheneμg/L 0.0000015 0.0000288 0.0000116 0.00000075 0.0000144 0.00000582VOC Trichloroetheneμg/L 0.00122 1.14 0.159 0.00000225 0.000191 0.0000344See Appendix G for the assumptions and equations used to estimate exposure concentrations under pre- and post- VGP and sVGP conditions.Table 5-9. Estimated Receiving Water Concentrations in a Hypothetical River HarborClassAnalyteUnitsPre VGP and sVGP Receiving WaterConcentrationsPost VGP and sVGPReceiving WaterConcentrationsMinMaxAverageMinMaxAverageClassicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) μg/L 0.0506 9.2 4.38 0.0459 9.11 4.17Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) μg/L 0.00445 0.855 0.396 0.00173 0.311 0.149Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) μg/L 0.00117 0.214 0.102 0.00049 0.0837 0.041Classicals Total Residual Chlorine μg/L 0.0000169 0.00328 0.00152 0.0000144 0.00319 0.00139Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) μg/L 0.0126 2.33 1.1 0.00764 1.62 0.72Metals Aluminum, Total μg/L 0.000162 0.0334 0.015 0.000102 0.0309 0.0119Metals Arsenic, Dissolved μg/L 0 0.164 0.0413 0 0.164 0.0413Metals Arsenic, Total μg/L 0.000000231 0.164 0.0413 0.000000231 0.164 0.0413Metals Cadmium, Dissolved μg/L 0.0000000653 0.0000129 0.0000059 0.0000000366 0.0000118 0.00000446Metals Chromium, Dissolved μg/L 0.000000142 0.0000399 0.0000158 0.000000137 0.0000338 0.0000141Metals Copper, Dissolved μg/L 0.0000173 0.033 0.00902 0.0000171 0.0328 0.00896Metals Lead, Dissolved μg/L 0.00000045 0.0000922 0.0000416 0.000000345 0.0000878 0.00003622013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis5-37Table 5-9. Estimated Receiving Water Concentrations in a Hypothetical River HarborClassAnalyteUnitsPre VGP and sVGP Receiving WaterConcentrationsPost VGP and sVGPReceiving WaterConcentrationsMinMaxAverageMinMaxAverageMetals Nickel, Dissolved μg/L 0.000000338 0.0246 0.0062 0.000000334 0.0246 0.0062Metals Nickel, Total μg/L 0.000000716 0.000723 0.000211 0.000000716 0.000723 0.000211Metals Selenium, Dissolved μg/L 0 0.191 0.0479 0 0.191 0.0479Metals Selenium, Total μg/L 0 0.203 0.051 0 0.203 0.051Metals Zinc, Dissolved μg/L 0.0000496 0.00968 0.00446 0.0000439 0.00948 0.00418Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) μg/L 0.000167 0.032 0.0149 0.000167 0.0285 0.014Nutrients Total Phosphorus μg/L 0.000271 0.0453 0.0225 0.0000242 0.00594 0.00248SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol μg/L 0.0000000626 0.0000113 0.00000539 0.0000000313 0.00000986 0.00000376SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene μg/L 0.00000164 0.0008 0.000268 0.00000164 0.0008 0.000268SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene μg/L 0.00000159 0.000536 0.0002 0.00000159 0.000536 0.0002SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene μg/L 0.00000139 0.000228 0.000114 0.00000139 0.000228 0.000114SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene μg/L 0.00000154 0.000252 0.000126 0.00000154 0.000252 0.000126SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate μg/L 0.00000118 0.000198 0.0000981 0.000000979 0.000175 0.0000839SVOC Chrysene μg/L 0.00000164 0.00102 0.000325 0.00000164 0.00102 0.000325SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene μg/L 0.00000124 0.000203 0.000102 0.00000124 0.000203 0.000102VOC Benzene μg/L 0.00000701 0.00117 0.000579 0.00000641 0.0011 0.000538VOC Bromodichloromethane μg/L 0.000000451 0.0000981 0.0000431 0.000000116 0.0000443 0.0000159VOC Dibromochloromethane μg/L 0.000000451 0.0000981 0.0000431 0.000000116 0.0000443 0.0000159VOC Tetrachloroethene μg/L 0.00000000164 0.00000166 0.000000484 0.000000000821 0.00000083 0.000000242VOC Trichloroethene μg/L 0.0000000232 0.237 0.0595 0.0000000116 0.00000366 0.0000014See Appendix G for the assumptions and equations used to estimate exposure concentrations under pre- and post- VGP and sVGP conditions.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-38 5.2.2 Effects Data and Estimation of Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds and Representative RQs

This section includes a brief discussion of the pollutant-specific ecotoxicological effects data used as chronic toxicity effect thresholds (CTETs) within the risk equation (Equation 5-1), as well as the specific toxicolo gical effects assessment endpoint s (effect measures) from which

these values were derived a nd used to calculate RQs.

Ecotoxicological effects data from studies included in EP A’s aquatic life ambient water quality criteria (ALC) documents (see http://water.epa.gov/scitech /swguidance/standards/ criteria/aqlife/index.cfm ) serve as the primary source of aquatic toxicity da ta used to support the risk analysis for the toxic and nonconventional pollutants with toxic effects selected for detailed evaluation in this BE (Section 3.2.3). These data have been reviewed following th e strict data quality ob jectives and secondary data acceptance criteria as defined in EPA’s: Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and their Uses (Stephan et al., 1985)

hereafter referred to as the 1985 Guidelines . The framework provided by the 1985 Guidelines has been instrumental in establishing unifo rmity in the derivation methodology for aquatic pollutants and for achieving technica lly rigorous and protective criter ia for the last 27 years. In

the event that no such data were available fo r aquatic organisms, data gleaned from EPA’s ECOTOX database ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ ) were utilized as a secondary data source, or,

limited web-based literature search es were conducted to fill key information data gaps. In the case of the need for and use of secondary source s of information, EPA reviewed the information following the same data quality and acceptance criteria established via the 1985 Guidelines in order to assure the same consistency and inte grity needed to support the effects analysis

described below.

Additionally, the same standard ecotoxicologi cal effects assessment endpoints used in the

1985 Guidelines were adopted in this BE, which include direct toxic effects on survival, growth, or reproduction of aquatic species (whichever is lower). The lowest (most conservative) CTET from a long-term chronic test (w ater-only and/or diet ary chronic exposure) with a representative surrogate species (or lowest rela ted taxon of that species) was pr eferentially used to calculate RQs in support of the quantitative effects analysis. In a select few cases wher e only acute (lethal, short-term) toxicity data were available fo r a species, an acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR 8 ) was used

to estimate a CTET from acute leth al toxicity test data for a target or surrogate species. When appropriate toxicity test specifi c or ACR derived chronic aquatic data were not available for a given taxonomic group of interest for a specific pollutant, but where a draft or final chronic criterion value (i.e., continuous criterion concentration or CCC) was available from EPA, then

the chronic criterion value was used to calculate the RQ. All CTETs used to calculate the RQ (and their sources or bases for deri vation) are provided in the pollu tant-specific tables included in support of the pollutant-specific risk su mmaries provided in Section 5.3 below.

8 Application of ACRs is one methodology used by the EPA to derive chronic criteria in ALC documents when insufficient aquatic chronic toxicity data exist to do so (see 1985 Guidelines - Stephan et al., 1985). The ACR is computed from paired acute and chronic toxicity data from toxicity tests with a particular pollutant to specific test organism where the concentrations are in the same units. Since the ACR represents an empirical method for estimating chronic toxicity from acute toxicity, the toxi c mode of action is not necessarily the same for the expression of acute and chronic toxi city. For chronic toxicity especially , the mechanisms can be diverse.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-39 The sources of CTETs used to calculate RQs for listed aquatic-dependent species exposed via oral ingestion of c ontaminated food (prey items) and drinking water (fresh water only) are also presented in the pollutant-specifi c tables supporting each risk summary provided in Section 5.3 below. These particular CTETs were calculated using the maximum exposure concentrations (ECs) based on pre- and post- permit conditions from Section 5.2.1. All aquaticdependent wildlife CTETs provided in the corre sponding pollutant-specific tables in Section 5.3

are based on chronic no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) from laboratory exposure of surrogate birds and mammals to oral ingestion of contaminated food and drinking water. Only NOAELs based on growth or reproduction are used as CTETs in this BE. The CTETs are largely the same as what was used to support similar analyses in EPA’s Biological Evaluation of Oregon’s Water Quality Criteria for Toxics , dated January 2008 (U SEPA, 2008b). The primary source for these values was Sample et al. (1996) - Toxicological Benchmar ks for Wildlife: 1996

Revision (Appendix A). NOAELs were sele cted as the basis for CTETs in this case as an extra

measure of conservatism because so few ecotoxi cological data exist for wildlife species in general (ecotoxicological data ge nerally exist for only rodents a nd select bird species, i.e., domestic chickens and mallard ducks).

Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) or bioaccu mulation factors (BAFs) are used in the analysis to calculate the concentr ation (mg/kg) of pollutant expected in tissue (whole body) of an aquatic organism exposed to the maximum concentration (mg/L) of pollutant modeled in a receiving water of interest in th is BE. In situations where lowe r trophic level (trophic levels 1 and 2) organisms are exposed to the pollutant vi a water only, the use of BCFs is the appropriate method of predicting pollutant conc entrations in the tissues of a quatic species. Use of BCFs is also appropriate for predicting tissue residues in higher trophic le vel (trophic levels 3 and 4) aquatic organisms from the concentration in water for many metals (e.g., aluminum, copper, cadmium, lead, nickel and zinc) and for organics with low octanol-water partition coefficients (e.g., benzene) because the tissue concentrations of these pollutants do not increase (biomagnify) from lower trophic levels to higher trophic leve ls (see USEPA, 2003a). Conversely, use of BAFs is the appropriate method for predicting pollutant concentrations in the tis sues of higher trophic level aquatic organisms in situations where the organism is exposed to the pollutant through all routes of exposure (i.e., water, diet, cutaneous), and where concen trations in tissue biomagnify up the food chain. The source of BCFs used for the analysis in this BE was also EPA’s Biological Evaluation of Oregon’s Water Quality Criteria for Toxics , dated January 2008 (USEPA, 2008b), except for arseni c and selenium (see Appendix H for the BAF values used for these metalloids and their corresponding sources) . BAFs for bioaccumulative organic pollutants (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene) were based on various sour ces and calculated using guidance described in USEPA (2003a) – Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000): Technical Support Docu ment, Volume 2: Development of National

Bioaccumulation Factors (see also, Appendix H for additional information).

5.2.3 Direct Effects Analysis

Direct effects to listed aq uatic (from water only and wa ter + dietary exposure) and aquatic-dependent species (from oral ingestion of contaminated food and drinking water) were interpreted using RQs as generally described using Equation 5-1 above. As a conservative

measure EPA selected the lowest CTET from a test with a listed (e.g., rainbow or steelhead trout) or surrogate (e.g., fathead minnow) species representing an enti re taxonomic group of2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-40 listed species (e.g., freshwater aquatic vertebrates) exposed to a given pollutant. EPA quantitatively compared the lowest CTET value with the maximum expected pre-permit and post-permit exposure concentrations derived for the pollutant base d on conservative assumptions of loading rates from varying vessel class and discharge combintations and various hypothetical harbor modeling scenarios. By using the maximu m EC estimated for a given pollutant in the hypothetical estuary or river harbors evaluated in Section 5.2.1, EPA assumes that the results of the effects analysis can be conveye d or extrapolated to the larger Action Area of interest in this BE. EPA designed the hypothetical harbors to capture a wide variety of environmental conditions and pollutant loadi ng scenarios to help bound the po tential pollutant EC for a multitude of areas. Therefore, EPA also expect s that the maximum ECs estimated for a given pollutant in the hypothetical estuary or river ha rbors represent reasonabl e “worst case” exposure scenarios for the direct effects analysis.

Under this risk paradigm, the higher the RQ , the higher the risk to the species. EPA acknowledges that different taxa will elicit differe nt risks to any particular pollutant based on the differences in chronic sensitivity among different taxa; however, in general EPA assumes that the higher the RQ the greater th e possible risk. Again, only CTETs were used to develop RQs in

this BE to assess direct effects of a particular pollutant from e xposure. For the purpose of this BE, EPA established a sliding scale to identify the risk conclusion based on the RQ value and establish the overall health concern from a given pollutant. As presented in Table 5-10, if the RQ is less than one, EPA presumes no risk from that pollutant, and a risk conclusion of “remote” or “negligible” is recorded for that species. If the RQ is greater than one, EPA presumes a low level for potential risk from that pollutant, and a risk conclusion of potentially significant isrecorded for that species. If the RQ is greater than 10, th e potential for risk is much more notable, and a risk conclusion of “potentially signifi cant” is recorded for that species.

Table 5-10. RQ Scale for Risk Conclusion and Ov erall Health Concern Determination

RQ Scale Risk Conclusion Overall Health Concern

RQ < 0.1 Remote No risk from pollutant. Risk conclusion clearly indicates the pollutant is not likely to adversely affect a listed species.

0.1 < RQ < 1.0 Negligible No risk from pollutant. Risk conclusion indicates the pollutant is not likely to adversely affect a listed species.

1.0 < RQ < 10 Potentially Significant Low level potential for risk from pollutant. Risk conclusion indicates a situation where EPA is reasonably confident a pollutant would not likely adversely affect a listed species.

RQ > 10 Likely Significant Potential risk from pollutant. Risk conclusion indicates a pollutant may affect a listed species, with a conclusion of likely to adversely affect probable in

many cases.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-41 5.2.3.1 Basis of CTET Used to Support Direct Eff ects to Aquatic Listed Species from Water-only Exposure

The appropriate definitive 9 chronic toxicity data are lack ing for nearly all of the listed aquatic species considered in th is BE; and therefore, CTETs are from tests with listed or surrogate species that gave the lowest (most se nsitive) value for that entire species group.

The risk paradigm used to support the quant itative effects analysis on aquatic listed species from water-only exposure to a pollutant is calculated by:

ܴܳ ஺,ௐ ൌ ܥܧ ௐ
ܶܧܶܥ ௐ,஺ Equation 5-2

Where: RQ AW = Pollutant- and species-specific risk quotient for aquatic organisms (basis for letter A designation) based on wate r-only exposure (bas is for letter W designation).

EC W = Modeled pollutant-specific exposure concentration in th e receiving water before (pre-) and after (post-) issuance of the 2013 VGP and sVGP.

CTET A,W = Chronic toxicity effect thres hold for a given aquatic listed (or representative surrogate) species fr om water-only chronic exposure to a pollutant.

In this analysis, the lowest chronic va lue from an acceptable water-only laboratory chronic toxicity test with a biol ogically important endpoint (morta lity, growth or reproduction) is

used as the basis for CTET A,W to estimate effects on aquatic plan ts, invertebrates, and vertebrates (fish and amphibians). The lowest CTET A,W is used here because EPA believes that this approach adds an appropriate measure of cons ervatism when determining effects to the listed aquatic species considered in this BE. For example, for Ch inook salmon listed in Oregon, the most sensitive vertebrate CTET (or CTET A,W in this case) may not necessarily be the CTET for another salmonid species (e.g., rainbow trout), but ra ther, a fish species in another family that was reported to be more se nsitive to the pollutant.

The three chronic test endpoint s (i.e., mortality, growth a nd reproduction) are considered to be biologically important endpoints because they have ecological significance in a risk assessment context, as do population level e ndpoints. The two purposes of the ESA are to conserve the ecosystems on which endangered speci es depend, and to provide a program for the

9 Definitive chronic toxicity data in this BE is defined as having come from a test that satisfied one of the definitions given in the 1985 Guidelines for a life-cycle, partial life-cycle, or early life-stage test, including the requirement of having been based on measured concentrations of the pollutant in the exposure (test) water, and, where the exposure was based on flow-through (as opposed to state or static renewal) test conditions (single exception being for chronic tests with cladocerans). A final requir ement was whether the pollutant used in the test caused an unacceptable reduction in (a) survival (if over any period of at least seve n days), or (b) growth (if the duration of the test is judged sufficiently long to capture growth reductions that are no t temporary - as determined on a species-specific basis) of the control organism population such that health of the test organisms was called into question.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-42 conservation of endangered species. “Conserv e” is defined under the ESA as “methods and procedures necessary to bring any endangered sp ecies to a point at wh ich measures provided within ESA are no longer necessary”.

All CTETs used to support the an alysis in this BE are derive d using the test acceptability and data quality criteria given by the 1985 Guidelines , as stated above (see Stephan et al., 1985).

Definitive CTETs in EPA ALC documents are calculat ed as either (a) the geometric mean of the highest no-observed-effect con centration (NOEC) and lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) for effects on survival, grow th, or reproduction in aquatic an imal chronic tests, or (b) the 10 or 20% Effect Concentration (EC10 or EC20) from such tests. As in the 1985 Guidelines

, chronic tests for invertebrate species are required to include the entire life-cycle, but for fish, partial life-cycle and early life-st age (ELS) testing protocols are accepted, the latter not including reproductive endpoints and not used if life-cycle or partial life-cycl e tests are available and show

more sensitive adverse chronic effects. In contra st, all tests with aquatic algae and plants are considered chronic tests, but onl y those chronic values from test s with aquatic rooted vascular plants (macrophytes) and where the endpoint measured was biologically significant (e.g., vegetative growth or reproduction) are consider ed relevant and meaningful (either in ALC development or in this BE). The focus on aqua tic macrophytes, as opposed to algae and diatoms, is due largely to the fact that the rapid recove ry rate of phytoplankton exposed to many toxic and non-conventional pollutants with t oxic effects precludes risk anal ysis as defined in this BE. Phytoplankton (algae and diatoms) a nd vascular plants in general ar e rarely as sensitive as fish and macroinvertebrates to pollu tants with toxic effects.

All CTETs for aquatic organisms considered in this BE must have been conducted under flow-through test conditions (or renewal tests for cladocerans) in the laboratory where test

concentrations were measured throughout the test and water qu ality characteristics were well defined – to ensure validity and defensibility of CTET A,W

.

5.2.3.2 Basis of CTET Used to Support Direct Eff ects to Aquatic Listed Species from Multiple Routes of Exposure

Studies that expose aquatic species to pollu tants only in water ex clude other potentially important exposure routes (i.e., sediment, diet ), which eliminates the possibility that simultaneous exposure of aquatic species through multiple routes may result in greater toxic effects than might be predicted from water column toxicity tests alone. Unfortunately, investigations of the eff ects of other routes of exposure such as ingestion from diet are much less common than water-column only toxi city tests, and also do not have well standardized methods.

Although the processes controlling waterborne and dietary pollutant uptake in aquatic species are generally independent of each ot her, whole body pollutant concentrations are integrators of tissue residues resulting from waterborne and dietary contaminant uptake. Numerous investigators have presented eviden ce and now recognize that whole body residues are a reasonable surrogate for the pollutant concen tration at the site of toxic action (Landrum et al. 1991; Cook et al. 1992; McCarty and Mackay 1993 in EPA 2008 OR Toxics BE); thus, whole body pollutant residue is considered here as usef ul for making screening- level risk predictions from exposure to pollutants. If the tissue residue (whole body burden) of a pollutant in an aquatic2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-43 organism reflects its integrated exposure to that pollutant from a specific pollutant concentration in water, the potential risk from the adverse effects of that pollutan t can be evaluated by comparing the amount of that pollutant bioaccumulat ed in the tissues of that organism in relation

to the manifestation of adverse chronic toxicity effects such as reduced growth or reproduction.

The risk paradigm used to support the quant itative effects analysis on aquatic listed species from multiple routes of exposure to a pollutant is calculated by:

ܴܳ ஺,ெ ൌ ܥܧ ்
ܶܧܶܥ ,்஺ Equation 5-3

Where: RQ A,M = Pollutant- and species-specific risk quotient for aquatic organisms (basis for letter A designation) from multiple routes of exposure (basis for letter M designation).

EC T = Estimated pollutant-specific expos ure concentration in whole body tissue (basis for letter T designation; wet we ight basis) of an aquatic organism that has accumulated that polluta nt from modeled receiving water concentrations before (pre-) and af ter (post-) issuan ce of the 2013 VGP

and sVGP.

CTET A,T = Chronic toxicity effect threshold of a pollutant measured in tissue (mg/kg wet wt.) for an aquatic listed (or representative surrogate) species

associated with adverse chronic effects on reproduction and growth.

The approach used to evaluate toxicity to aquatic species from multiple concurrent routes of exposure in this BE is based on similar rationale as described in EPA’s Biological Evaluation of Oregon’s Water Quality Criteria for Toxics , dated January 2008 (USEPA, 2008b), hereafter referred to as the Oregon Toxics BE. In this analysis, however, estimations of whole body tissue pollutant concentrations accumulated from expo sure to the modeled maximum concentrations predicted in receiving wate r were derived simply as:

EC T = (BCF or BAF) x EC W Equation 5-4

Where:

EC T = Estimated pollutant-specific exposure c oncentration in whole body tissue (basis for letter T designation; wet we ight basis) of an aquatic organism that has accumulated that polluta nt from modeled receiving water concentrations before (pre-) and af ter (post-) issuance of the 2013 VGP

and sVGP.

BCF = Bioconcentration factor: the ratio (L/kg of wet tissu e weight) of the concentration of a pollutant in the ti ssue of an aquatic organism to its

concentration in water in situations where the organism is exposed through the water only (used in this analysis for all metals, except arsenic and selenium, and organic pollutant s with low octanol:water partition

coefficient or K OW ; e.g., benzene).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-44 BAF = Bioaccumulation factor: the ratio (L/kg of fresh tissue) of the concentration of a pollutant in the ti ssue of an aquatic organism to its

concentration in water in situations where the organism is exposed through all routes of exposure (water, diet, sediment) – used for arsenic, selenium and organic pollutants that biomagnify (e.g., some polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons).

EC W = Modeled pollutant-specific exposure concentration in th e receiving water before (pre-) and after (post-) issuance of the 2013 VGP and sVGP.

All whole body tissue pollutant concentrations in this BE are presented as mg/kg whole body, wet weight.

Risk comparison using EC T was made for all toxic and non-conventional pollutants with

toxic effects selected for detailed evaluation in this BE except thos e that do not bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate (e.g., ammonia, total residual chlo rine, total phosphorous, total suspended solids). Again, all BCF and BAF values used to calculate EC T in this BE are provided in Appendix H. Whole body tissue pollutant concen trations associated with ad verse effects on growth or reproduction (i.e., CTET A,T ) were as provided in the Oregon T oxics BE from literature available in Jarvinen and Ankley (1999), the Environmenta l Residue Effects Database (ERED, available at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ered/), and other sources identified in the primary literature (see also, Appendix H). As noted above in Secti on 5.2.3.1, the lowest observed effect residue on growth or reproduction for each species (or representative surrogate species) for which

information is available was used as the basis for CTET A,T

.

5.2.3.3 Basis of CTET Used to Support Direct Ef fects to Aquatic-dependent Listed Species

Aquatic-dependent wildlife speci es are reptiles, birds, and mammals whose diet contains an appreciable proportion of aquatic organisms. To evaluate whet her aquatic-dependent wildlife are at risk to ingestion of po llutants from drinking water and c onsuming aquatic prey organisms, an oral ingestion expos ure concentration (EC O ) based on exposure of wildlife to prey and/or drinking water at the maximum mode led concentration of that pollu tant in a receiving water is

used. The wildlife EC O combines the ingested dose of a pollutant from both drinking surface water (presumed fresh water only) and ingesting aquatic prey that have also accumulated target pollutants from the same surface water, expressed as a combined oral dose for a surrogate bird or mammal. Since there were no data readily available to calculate EC O for reptiles in the analysis, EPA used data from birds (as the closes t related surrogate). If the calculated EC O is lower than the chronic toxicity effect threshold (CTET O ) estimated for that pollutant based on the oral dose administered to a bird or mammal species in a chronic toxicity study, then the modeled pollutant concentration in surface water is not high enough to result in an ingested oral dose sufficient to elicit adverse effects in aquatic-dependent wildlife.

The risk paradigm used to support the quantit ative effects analysis on aquatic-dependent listed species from oral ingestion of a pollutant via inge stion of prey and/or drinking water (fresh water) is calculated by:2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-45 ܴܳ ௐ௜௟ௗ ൌ ܥܧ ை
ܶܧܶܥ ை Equation 5-5

Where: RQ Wild = Pollutant- and species-specific ri sk quotient for aquatic-dependent (wildlife) species from oral ingestion of a pollutant via ingestion of prey and/or drinking water (fresh water).

EC O = Combined oral dose (basis for lette r O designation) of pollutant ingested by an aquatic-dependent bird or mammal from consuming prey or drinking water from a surface water with the modeled receiving water concentrations before (pre-) and af ter (post-) issuan ce of the 2013 VGP

and sVGP.

CTET O = Chronic toxicity effect threshold (in this case, a No Observed Adverse Effect Level or NOAEL) for a gi ven surrogate aq uatic-dependent (wildlife) species based on the measured concentration of that pollutant administered orally (food and/or wa ter) from studies examining chronic effects on growth or reproduction.

In this analysis, the pollutant exposure is based solely on the or al ingestion pathway because pollutant exposure experienced by wild life through both the dermal and inhalation pathways is “negligible” (Sample et al., 1997). Fu rthermore, sediment ingestion rates of many wildlife species are low, generally 2% or less of the total food i ngestion rate (Beyer et al., 1994). Thus, for the purposes of this BE, EPA assumes that the oral ingestion of a pollutant in water by an aquatic-dependent species can be described simply as the sum of its ingestion of the pollutant in drinking water and aquatic prey items at pred icted concentrations of that pollutant in a receiving water. If the aquatic-dependent wildli fe species under evaluation is known to feed on aquatic biota 10 , it follows that the oral dose of the po llutant from consumption of contaminated prey (E prey ) can be estimated from the product of the pr edicted concentration of that pollutant in water and a BCF or BAF (see Equa tion 5-4). If the food and water ingestion rates for a wildlife species are known or can be estimated, and assuming the concentration of the pollutant in prey is proportional to its concentration in water as above, it is possible to calculate the exposure of aquatic-dependent wildlife to a pollutant from its consumption of prey and water. Such

information can then be used to calculat e the oral dose exposur e concentration (EC O ) that can be compared to CTET O to assess risk to wildlife from the co mbined ingestion of contaminated food and water (Sample et al., 1997; USEPA, 2008b). Here,

EC O = (IRD x EC W ) + (IRF x EC T ) Equation 5-6

Where:

EC O = As defined in Equation 5-5 above (in mg/kg/day) IRD = Ingestion rate of drinking water calculated as the quotient of the water intake rate and body weight of a surrogate species (L/kg fresh body weight/day)

EC W = As defined under Equation 5-2above (in mg/L)

10 The animal does not have to feed exclusively on aquatic species for this estimate to be valid.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-46 IRF = Ingestion rate of food calculated as the quotient of the food intake rate and body weight of a surrogate specie s (kg/kg fresh body weight/day)

EC T = As defined under Equation 5-3 and calculated in Equation 5-4 above (mg/kg wet tissue)

Again, for the purposes of this BE, EPA uses a wildlife no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) as CTET O . Calculations EC O in this BE are provided in Appendix H.

5.2.4 Indirect Effects Analysis

EPA assessed indirect effects of pollutant e xposure to listed species semi-quantitatively, based on the value (level of significance) of the RQs calculated above. EPA assumes that the potential impact of indirect e ffects on water quality, shelter, prey/forage items, etc. either required or important for the health and well bein g for each species is proportional to the direct effect RQs. The indirect effects assessment follows the logic that the great er the risk of potential direct effects of a pollutant on a listed speci es’ food source or its ha bitat, the greater the likelihood of potential indirect e ffects on the species as well. A pollutant may be assumed to pose no significant indirect effect to a listed species if risk from direct toxicity is not determined for an important prey item or constitu ent element of its critical habitat, and , if other information used to support the direct effects analysis are supportable (e.g., valid BCF or BAF is available for a pollutant).

As part of the indirect effects analysis, EP A also considered the potential for indirect exposure pathways to affect vi tal ecological characteristics (e .g., feeding habits, life history, geographic distribution, prefe rred habitat) for each of the 82 RAA listed species.

5.2.5 Risk Conclusions for All Listed Species

The purpose of the risk conclusi on analysis is to inform fo r the effects determinations presented in Section 7 for all 612 (or 454 species for pollutants other than ANS) aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habi tats that may be affected by the VGP and sVGP (Appendix E). EPA chose to evaluate the potential risk to listed aquati c and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats in a subset of representative geographical areas (referred to as reference action areas, RAAs) selected to reflect the major ports of call an d types of ecosystems potentially impacted by vessel discharges covere d by the VGP and sVGP. Section 3.3 identified the seven RAAs selected for the BE analysis, and Section 3.4.2 identified the 82 aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats present in the RAAs to be considered in the risk analysis described a bove (Sections 5.2.1 to Section 5.2.4). For the qualitative and quantitative risk analyses for pollutants selected for detailed evaluation, EPA intends to use the species-specific risk conclusions for the 82 RAA listed species to inform effects determinations for the full list of 612 listed species and their critical ha bitats that may be affected by the VGP and sVGP. The approach is performed by fi rst grouping the 82 RAA listed species into appropriate taxonomic groups; called listed spec ies taxonomic groups (see Table 5-11). EPA established 18 listed species taxonomic groups ba sed on the 82 RAA listed species for the risk conclusion analysis. Next, EPA categorized each of the 612 listed species evaluated in the BE into one of the 18 listed speci es taxonomic groups (see Appendix E). Therefore, the listed species taxonomic group serves as the key link between the risk conclusions from the 82 RAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-47 species and effects determinations for the 612 listed species that may be affected by the VGP and

sVGP. Finally, for each pollutant evaluated in th e quantitative analysis (Section 5.3), EPA presents a risk conclusion for each of the established 18 listed species taxonomic groups, taking

into consideration both direct a nd indirect effects from the pollutant to all of the RAA listed species captured within each taxonomic group. 11

Table 5-11. Listed Species Taxonomic Groupi ngs Based on Listed Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Species within the Seven RAAs

Major

Taxonomic Grouping Listed Species

Taxonomic

Group a Listed Species/ Taxa RAA(s) b Potential Relevant Exposure Pathway

Mammals Terrestrial

Mammal Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse SFBE Water + Diet Riparian Woodrat SFBE Water + Diet Gray Bat UMR, BB Water + Diet

Indiana Bat ULB, UMR,

BB Water + Diet

Grizzly Bear PS Water + Diet

Red Wolf BB Water + Diet

Florida Panther BB Water + Diet

Marine Mammal West Indian Manatee GB, BB Water + Diet Southern Sea Otter SFBE Diet Only Guadalupe Fur Seal SFBE Diet Only Steller Sea-Lion PS, SFBE Diet Only Finback Whale ULB, GB Diet Only

Humpback Whale PS, ULB, GB,

BB Diet Only

North Atlantic Right Whale ULB, BB Diet Only Killer Whale PS, SFBE Diet Only

Birds Coastal/Marine

Bird Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow BB Diet Only

Piping Plover ULB, GB,

SLE Diet Only

Western Snowy Pacific Pl over SFBE Diet Only Marbled Murrelet PS, SFBE Diet Only Least Tern UMR Diet Only Roseate Tern ULB, BB Diet Only Short-Tailed Albatross PS Diet Only Whooping Crane GB Diet Only Wood Stork BB Diet Only Audubon's Crested Caracara BB Diet Only Everglade Snail Kite BB Diet Only

11 Risk conclusions for ANS for the 82 RAA listed species ar e considered in the effects determinations for all 612 listed species that may be affected by the permit acti ons and are heavily informed based on the listed species taxonomic grouping; however, EPA conducted additional speci es-specific life history analyses to further support the effects determinations for ANS. Section 7.1 outlines the methodology for assessing the life history data for all 612 listed species to support the e ffects determination for ANS.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-48 Table 5-11. Listed Species Taxonomic Groupi ngs Based on Listed Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Species within the Seven RAAs

Major

Taxonomic Grouping Listed Species

Taxonomic

Group a Listed Species/ Taxa RAA(s) b Potential Relevant Exposure Pathway

Reptiles Snake and Other Reptiles Bog Turtle ULB Water + Diet

American Crocodile BB Water + Diet Eastern Indigo Snake BB Water + Diet Giant garter Snake SFBE Water + Diet Alameda Whipsnake SFBE Water + Diet

Sea Turtle Green Sea Turtle PS, ULB, GB, BB, SFBE Diet Only

Hawksbill Sea Turtle ULB, GB, BB Diet Only Kemps’s Ridley Sea Turtle ULB, GB Diet Only

Leatherback Sea Turtle PS, ULB, GB, BB, SFBE Diet Only

Loggerhead Sea Turtle ULB, GB, BB Diet Only Olive Ridley Sea Turtle SFBE Diet Only

Insects Beetle and Aquatic Insects Valley Elderberry Longhorn

Beetle SFBE Water + Diet

Delta Green Ground Beetle SFBE Water + Diet

Freshwater Aquatic

Vertebrates Amphibian California Red-legged Frog SFBE Water + Diet California Tiger Salamander SFBE Water + Diet

Freshwater

Fish/Inland

Salmonid Bull Trout PS Water + Diet

Freshwater

Fish/Inland Sturgeon Pallid Sturgeon UMR Water + Diet

Anadromous

Salmonid Chinook Salmon (Puget Sound) PS Water + Diet Chum Salmon (Hood Canal summer-run) PS Water + Diet

Steelhead Salmon (Puget Sound and CA Coast) PS, SFBE Water + Diet

Anadromous Sturgeon Shortnose Sturgeon ULB, BB Water + Diet Gulf Sturgeon BB Water + Diet

North American Green Stur geon SFBE Water + Diet

Freshwater Aquatic

Invertebrates Unionid Mussel Pink Mucket UMR Water Only Scaleshell Mussel UMR Water Only

Freshwater Shrimp/

Crustacean Conservancy Fairy shrimp SFBE Water + Diet Longhorn Fairy shrimp SFBE Water + Diet Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp SFBE Water + Diet California Freshwater Shrimp SFBE Water + Diet

Estuarine/

Marine Aquatic

Vertebrates Estuarine/Marine

Fish Tidewater Goby SFBE Water + Diet

Delta Smelt SFBE Water + Diet

Smalltooth Sawfish BB, GB Water + Diet

Estuarine/

Marine Aquatic

Invertebrates Saltwater Corals Elkhorn Coral BB Water Only Staghorn Coral BB Water Only

Saltwater Bivalve

Mollusk White Abalone SFBE Water Only2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-49 Table 5-11. Listed Species Taxonomic Groupi ngs Based on Listed Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Species within the Seven RAAs

Major

Taxonomic Grouping Listed Species

Taxonomic

Group a Listed Species/ Taxa RAA(s) b Potential Relevant Exposure Pathway

Plants FreshwaterSaltwater Aquatic

and Wetland

Plants Sonoma Sunshine SFBE Water Only Colusa Grass SFBE Water Only Hairy Orcutt Grass SFBE Water Only Solano Grass SFBE Water Only Hoover's Spurge SFBE Water Only Sonoma Alopecurus SFBE Water Only White Sedge SFBE Water Only American Chaffseed BB Water Only Fountain Thistle SFBE Water Only Palmate-bracted Bird's Beak SFBE Water Only Calistoga Allocarya SFBE Water Only Napa Bluegrass SFBE Water Only Ute Ladies’-Tresses PS Water Only Water Howellia PS, SFBE Water Only Decurrent False Aster UMR Water Only Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid UMR Water Only Brooksville Bellflower BB Water Only Seabeach Amaranth ULB Water Only Suisun Thistle SFBE Water Only Soft Bird's Beak SFBE Water Only Seagrass Johnson's Seagrass BB Water Only
a) Listed species taxonomic groupings are meant to roughly coincide with the Species Group provided in USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), but with further delineation according to life history information and attributes to demonstrate the strong representation given by the subset of 82 RAAs listed species to the 612 aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats that may be affected by the

VGP and sVGP. b) BB = Biscayne Bay, GB = Galveston Bay, PS = Puget Sound, SFBE = San Francisco Bay Estuary, SLE = Saint Louis River Estuary, UMR = Upper Mississippi River, ULB = Upper and Lower [New York] Bay.

5.2.6 Uncertainties and Limitations in the Effects Analysis

This section highlights the primary uncertainties and limitations associated with the approach and effects analyses undertaken in the BE. There are five major categories of uncertainty in this BE potentially limiting the interpretation of re sults and corresponding conclusions, including: (1) estimation of “expected” and “anticipated” water exposure concentrations used to support the effects analys is; (2) selection of ch ronic toxicity values representative of the sensitivity of aquatic or ganisms; (3) use of surrogate species effects information for listed species; (4) estimation of risk for aquatic-dependent birds and mammals; and (5) representativeness of results to listed sp ecies in other action areas. Pollutant-specific

limitations and uncertainties are addressed on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis in Section 5.4.

5.2.6.1 Estimation of Exposure Concentrations Used to Support Effects Analysis

The action area applicable to the evaluation of pollutants identified for detailed consideration includes all U.S. waters naviga ble by vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-50 (Appendix E). EPA selected two sc reening-level models to represent the estuarine and river

water bodies included within the sc ope of the applicable action ar ea and to estimate the exposure concentrations evaluated in the risk analysis. The purpose of the screen ing-level water quality models are to identify major water quality i ssues, provide valuable information on potential pollutants of concern, and identify data gaps . Known limitations and uncertainties associated with the screening-level model approach used by EPA include:

 Model pollutant load inputs reflect the da ta limitations in available vessel discharge data (discharge flow, discharge conc entrations, and vesse l populations);

 Model inputs assume no background concentrat ions of pollutants are present in the receiving water; and

 Model is not designed to evaluate localized impacts or stressors.

EPA used the best scientific and commercial data available to deve lop the pollutant loads used in the modeling anal ysis; however, data gaps exist for the various combinations of vessel types, discharges, pollutants, and vessel popul ations. Although EPA used best professional judgment to extrapolate the pollutant concentrat ions and flow information among the different vessel types and vessel populations, the extrapola tion of information represents a source of uncertainty in the analysis. Data collected as part of the monitoring requirements proposed in VGP and sVGP will improve the quality of information used for EPA’s future analyses. For example, EPA requires monitoring of ballast water treatment system metrics and certain discharge parameters. EPA can la ter use these results to evaluate the whether ballast water treatment systems continue to pe rform after installati on, and whether EPA continunes to meet its objectives for reducing risk fr om ballast water discharges.

For purposes of the model, EPA assumed that the background concentration for all pollutants in the hypothetical harbor was zero. Although this assumption is likely unrealistic, removing other loading consider ations from model calculations allowed EPA to evaluate whether incidental discharges from vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP alone have the potential to cause exposure concentrations in the receiving waters that exceed the pollutantspecific effects thresholds presented in Section 5.3. Therefore, the model output used to inform the effects analysis does not dir ectly evaluate the potential for ve ssels to contribute to pollutant impairments or quantify if vessel pollutant load s serve as the “tipping point” between exceeding and not exceeding a given effect threshold. Ho wever, by looking at the risk quotent number, EPA can get a sense as to whether incidental vessel discharges covered under the VGP and

sVGP would make notable or si zable contributions to exposure concentrations which exceed pollutant specific thresholds.

Both the fraction of freshwater estuary model and the river dilution model assume instantaneous and universal mixing within the h ypothetical harbor. The sc reening models are not designed to examine impacts on a local scale such as stagnant side embayments or coves within the larger water bodies evaluated to support th e effects analysis. EPA selected model input values to represent the range of conditions like ly to occur within the broader action area, and when appropriate, identified model parameters to bound in the analysis and reflect a “worst case” scenario (e.g., minimum river flow from the nine rivers considered in the analysis). EPA assumes

that within the context of the broader water bodi es potentially receiving vessel discharge loads2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-51 equivalent to 3 to 370 VGP vessels and 12 to 1,000 sVGP vessels discharging continuously the screening-level models appr opriately characte rizes the range of potential exposure concentrations and subsequent pollutant risk. EP A believes that the analysis also represents vessel discharges to intracoastal wa terways for two primary reasons:

 Several of the major water bodi es (e.g., Elizabeth River, Charleston Harbor, Biscayne Bay) that are part of the A tlantic and Gulf intracoastal waterway were considered in developing the receiving characterist ics for the estuary model; and

 EPA assumes that the daily ve ssel equivalent population is likely significantly lower

in these waters than in a harbor envi ronment even though a significant amount of vessel traffic travels these waters on a daily basis.

Although listed species present in intracoastal waterways may be directly exposed to a vessel discharge plume, EPA expects the exposure duration to be brief su ch that the chronic

effects thresholds considered in the BE are not of concern.

Although the ECs calculated for the effects analysis do not specficially account for localized effects, EPA considered the potential risk posed by vessel discharges in other unique

environments and determined vesse l discharges are unlikely a concern. For example, in the case of localized changes in buffering capacity du e to climate change, exhaust gas scrubber discharges have the greatest potenti al to depress pH values in r eceiving waters as the discharge can have pH values as low as 3 (USEPA, 2011b) . As discussed in EPA’s economic and benefit analysis for the 2013 VGP, EPA believes that a maxi mum of 5 to 10 percent of affected vessels would install this treatment by th e end of the permit period. EPA a ssumes that the concurrence of site-specific changes in buffering capacity with a significant population of vessels discharging exhaust gas scrubber water is high ly unlikely to occur. Similar to the assessment of intracoastal waterways, EPA assumes that any localized effects caused by dire ct exposure to an exhaust gas scrubber discharge plume will be brief such that ri sk effects to listed species considered in the

BE are not of concern.

Lakes and reservoirs isolated from the ma jor rivers navigable by vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP represent another unique envi ronment that was not specifically modeled in the EC analysis; however, EPA believes that th e maximum exposure concentrations estimated in the hypothetical river harbor can be used to info rm effects determinations for species identified in the lake environment. As described in Appe ndix E, EPA conducted internet searches to assess the potential vessel populations that operate on lake s and reservoirs greater than 0.5 square mile. EPA determined that vessel populations operati ng on lakes and reservoirs are significantly smaller than vessel populations opera ting in river harbors, and that the vessels also operate (and discharge) for limited periods of time (e.g., a tw o hour dinner cruise several times per week). Therefore, EPA concluded that the permitted vessel equivalents in lake environments are very likely to be significantly lower than the vessel equivalents estimated in the two river RAAs included in the effects analysis, which would resu lt in lower estimated pollutant concentrations in a lake environment than the maximum expos ure concentration calculated for the hypothetical river harbor. Given this assumption, EPA believe s that the calculated river EC values and subsequent risk conclusions for freshwater specie s adequately capture the potential “worst case” scenario pollutant concentrations an d risks in a lake environment.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-52 5.2.6.2 Selection of Chronic Toxicity Values Rep resentative of the Sensitivity of Aquatic Organisms

The consideration and selection of appropriate chronic values from empirical laboratory toxicity test data from which ri sk to aquatic organisms is assesse d is similar to that of EPA ALC development, in that the quality and acceptability of the data depend on the test conditions and

the care with which tests were conducted. Chroni c toxicity tests in general encompass a variety of specific test types, each with their own asso ciated uncertainties. For example, full and partial life cycle tests contain the lowest uncertainty, but due to time and a ssociated costs, these tests are rarely conducted. In contrast, early life-stag e (ELS) tests are far more common, but because

these tests exclude certain life stages (e.g., adult) they cannot be used to quantify effects on reproduction. With all chronic tests, using w ild-caught test organisms introduces greater uncertainty than using test organisms reared in the laboratory, although cer tain species cannot be reared under laboratory conditions. Uncertainty is al so associated with th e selection of chronic endpoints. Nearly all chronic tests measure gr owth and survival, whereas reproduction endpoints can only be measured in full and partial life cycle tests. The specific sele ction of endpoints used to measure growth and reproduction can also intr oduce test uncertainty. For example, measures of fish reproduction can include different co mbinations of egg production, viability and hatchability. Many reproductive endpoints are known to be hi ghly variable; however, reduced reproduction may be one of the mo st ecologically signifi cant toxicological responses pertinent to listed species (Mount et al., 2003). Growth can be measured as mean individual wet or dry weight (or wet or dry weight gain ); standard body, fork or total le ngth; or biomass (total wet or dry weight of survivors). Finall y, the statistical method by which chronic toxicity is quantified can introduce uncertainty. Histor ically, most chronic toxicity data were evaluated using hypothesis testing to derive a no observed effect concentration (NOEC) and lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) (and resultant maximum acceptable toxicant concentration or MATC) from the test concentrati on series. The resulting values are highly dependent on the test concentrations selected, and the number of replic ates at each treatment level. In many cases, the level of protection afforded by the NOEC-LOEC approach is driven more by study design and data precision than ecological significance (see Mount et al., 2003 for more discussion). In contrast, the use of point estimates of chronic toxicit y, such as the EC 10 or EC 20 , overcome many of the shortcomings of the NOEC-LOEC appr oach, although the reporti ng of point estimates associated with a chronic effect is historically less common, and debate continues with regards to the significance to the individual organism (and population) of an estimated 10% reduction in chronic response, such as growth.

In addition to survival, growth and re production, there are many more biological responses that have been obser ved in response to chronic toxi cant exposure, both at the whole organism level (e.g., behavior) a nd at lower levels of biologi cal organization (e.g., biochemical or histological changes). For many of these e ndpoints, the relationship to the assessment goal (for this analysis) of “pro tection of listed aquatic orga nisms” is less direct. Although consideration of endpoints not proscribed by the 1985 Guidelines is an option under any approach, the applicability of th e endpoint to the assessment goal, and the level of uncertainty surrounding the endpoint, requires care ful consideration. As a general rule, the use of alternative2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-53 endpoints is discouraged unless a compelling argume nt can be made that inclusion would reduce the overall level of uncertainty in the analysis towards achieving the assessment goal.

EPA broadly classifies the uncertainty regard ing estimation of chronic toxicity in this analysis into three areas:

 Degree of data availability (e.g., spec ies versus genus versus family);

 Test and endpoint uncertainty (e.g., full or partial life cycl e versus ELS test; selection of endpoint); and

 Method of effect quantification (NOE C-LOEC versus point estimate).

All of these issues strongly influence evalua tion of the potential ri sk of a given exposure concentration. Given the potential uncertainty surrounding these considerations for even the “best” data used in this appro ach, it is no surprise that chronic values obtained using lower tiered data can exhibit high variability.

EPA relies on the 1985 Guidelines data requirements and data selection process as the process by which information is fully-vetted for its utility and applicability in this BE analysis.

5.2.6.3 Use of Surrogate Species Effects Information for Listed Species

For listed aquatic and aquatic-d ependent species, appropriate chronic toxicity data are simply non-existent with only a few exceptions (e.g., ammonia toxicity to listed unionid mussel species). Considering that adequa te chronic toxicity data are limited for nearly all pollutants selected for detailed evaluation in this BE, partic ularly for saltwater organisms, use of surrogate data from other representative spec ies is required in order to facil itate acceptable risk assessment. For each pollutant evaluated in Section 5.3, EPA pr esents the surrogate species data used to calculate the RQ values to support the risk conclusions for the 18 listed species taxonomic groups. EPA established the surrogate species types in Table 5-12 to classify the chronic toxicity data and to provide a consistent presentation of the RQ values in the quantitative analysis. Table 5-12 presents the crosswalk for how surrogate species data and th e resulting RQs were used to inform the pollutant-specific risk conclusions fo r the 18 listed species ta xonomic groups at the end of each pollutant discussion.

Table 5-12. Crosswalk for Surrogate Species Type to Listed Species Taxonomic Group

Listed Species Taxonomic Group a Surrogate Species Type Terrestrial Mammal Mammals (Freshwater) Marine Mammal Mammals (Saltwater) Coastal/Marine Bird Birds (Saltwater) Snake and Other Reptiles Birds (Freshwater) b

Sea Turtle Birds (Saltwater) b

Beetle and Aquatic Insects Freshwater Invertebrate Amphibian Freshwater Vertebrate

Freshwater Fish/Inland Salmonid Freshwater Vertebrate Freshwater Fish/Inland Sturgeon Freshwater Vertebrate2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-54 Table 5-12. Crosswalk for Surrogate Species Type to Listed Species Taxonomic Group

Listed Species Taxonomic Group a Surrogate Species Type Anadromous Salmonid (Juvenile life-stages only) Freshwater Vertebrate Anadromous Salmonid (Adults) Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate Anadromous Sturgeon (Juvenile life-stages only) Freshwater Vertebrate Anadromous Sturgeon (Adults) Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

Unionid Mussel Freshwater Invertebrate Freshwater Shrimp/Crustacean Freshwater Invertebrate Freshwater-Saltwater Aquatic and Wetland Plants Freshwater Plant (Vascular) and Saltwater Plant (Vascular)

Estuarine/Marine Fish Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

Saltwater Corals Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Seagrass Saltwater plant (Vascular)
a) Listed species taxonomic groupings are meant to ro ughly coincide with the Species Group provided in USFWS Environmental Conservation Online Sy stem (ECOS), but with further delineation according to life history information and attributes to demonstrate th e strong representation given by the subset of 82 RAAs listed species to the 61 2 aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats that may be affected by the VGP and sVGP. b) No data are readily available to calculate exposure concentrations for reptiles; therefore, EPA used data from birds as the closest related surrogate.

There are two primary areas of uncertainty asso ciated with the use of chronic effects data gleaned from tests with surrogate species. First, the surrogate species selected for use in this BE were not necessarily the taxonomically closest related organism for which information was available. Instead, the most se nsitive surrogate species was se lected, which provides an added measure of conservatism in the risk analysis. From a taxonomic perspective, the best surrogates

would be those that are most cl osely related (within same Genus or Family), live in the same environment, and consume the same food as the listed species of interest. However, there may be relatively little toxicity data for such closely- aligned surrogates, and ot her surrogate species may be considerably more sensitive to a given pollutant. Both of these considerations (quantity/representativeness of t oxicity data and sensitivity) influenced EPA’s selection of surrogate species, with preference given toward selecting the most sens itive surrogate species. For example, fewer data exist describing the e ffects of toxic pollutants on chinook and sockeye salmon, but a wealth of information exists descri bing the effects of toxic pollutants on rainbow trout. Thus, the approach taken here was designed to be appropriately cons ervative rather than eliminate some of the potential uncertainty of the extrapolation of surr ogate data to listed species.

The second area of uncertainty has to do with the assumption that listed species may be uniquely sensitive to pollutants compared to surroga te species. EPA is currently not aware of any one factor that could be applied universally to surrogate data to ensure protection to listed aquatic species. However, comparative analysis of the extreme chronic sensitivity of the darter species, Etheostoma fonticola , and the generally-sen sitive surrogate specie s rainbow trout, to copper (Besser et al., 2005a) suggest s that a factor of 2.0 may be a reasonable safety factor. In addition to the Besser study, rela ted studies (e.g., Dwyer et al . 2005; Gensemer et al. 2007; Mayer et al. 2008) have shown that derivation of an appropriate sa fety adjustment factor of 2.02013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-55 may be applicable with the use of taxonomically-representative and pollutant-sensitive surrogate taxa. Ecotoxicological data from aquatic toxicity tests with four pollutants with different mode of action were used, as well as re adily available predictive tools and other scientifically-accepted conventions (e.g., acute-chronic ratios). Combined, these studies suggest that: 1) listed aquatic vertebrate species are not universally more sens itive to contaminant exposure than other aquatic vertebrates on a toxicological ba sis, and, perhaps equally importa nt, 2) surrogate fish species appear to represent other listed fish species toxicologically. For example, with regard to acute toxicity, it has already been es tablished that rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), a sensitive surrogate freshwater fish species, is equal to or more sensitive than listed and related aquatic vertebrate species 80 percent of the time (Dwyer et al., 2005; Mayer et al., 2008). For this BE, application of a risk adjustment factor of 2.0 to EPA’s chroni c criterion for a pollutant (i.e., CCC) is used as a final “ground-truthing” measure to evaluate overall level of potential risk to listed aquatic species (or taxa). A risk adjustme nt factor of 2.0 has recently been recommended

for use on listed freshwater fi sh species (Mayer et al., 2008).

5.2.6.4 Estimation of Risk for Aquati c-dependent Birds and Mammals

Estimation of risk for aquatic-dependent bi rds and mammals from direct exposure to a pollutant in water is complicated because the ex posure pathway of primary concern is via the oral [ingestion] route. Proper risk analysis would consider potentia l food web effects (e.g., biomagnification), which would require considerat ion of a pollutant’s fate properties (e.g., water solubility, persistence, octanol: water pa rtition coefficient or log Kow, etc.).

The risk analysis performed by EPA in th is BE as described in Section 5.2.3 and conveyed in Section 5.3 below incor porates food and water ingesti on data for the wildlife species

available from the literature to estimate an i ngested dose for wildlife based on a maximum water [exposure] concentration. This oral dose was then compared to an oral dose (NOAEL) from the literature that would likely be pr otective of listed wildlife species. However, very few wildlife species ingest only one type of prey species. Prey of wildlife sp ecies may come from different trophic levels, which in turn may exhibit BAFs that differ from each other. This is particularly true for organic pollu tants with large K

ow values, which also tend to be the pollutants with the greatest potential for biomagnification. EPA has inco rporated the use of different BAFs for prey from only two trophic levels (macroinvertebra tes indicative of trophic level 2 secondary consumers and vertebrates indicative of trophic level 3 and 4 fishes) to estimate potential pollutant concentrations in prey during the calculation of the ingested dose to wildlife from exposure to maximum concentrations in water. With the exception of benzo(a)pyrene, it was

determined that such consideration of bioaccumu lation in different trophic levels is largely

unwarranted.

As noted above in Section 5.2.6.3, due to lim ited chronic toxicity data available for wildlife species, data from surrogate wildlife speci es were used, but in th is case, selection was not always based on the surrogate species with the lowest NOAEL just because it was the only species for which an NOAEL exists. The ramification for the effects analysis is that adequacy of surrogacy is uncertain. For example, while many of the test species may be grainivoruous (seed eating) birds , such as domestic chickens and doves, the listed species may be more piscivorous2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-56 (fish eating) birds. However, data on differences in dietary absorpti on of the pollutants in this BE were not available for specific dietary differenc es between the listed a nd surrogate species.

5.2.6.5 Representativeness of Results to Other Listed Species

As discussed in Section 5.2.5, EPA uses th e risk conclusions for the 82 RAA listed species to inform its effects determinations for the 612 aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their crticial habitats that may be affect ed by the VGP and sVGP by establishing 18 listed species taxonomic groups as the link between the two lists (Table 5-11). In general, the listed species taxonomic groupings determined by the s ubset of 82 RAA species are representative of all the listed species evaluated in this BE (Appendix E). Numerically, the 82 RAA listed species represents approximately 13 percent of the fu ll list of 612 species to which the effects determinations for ANS apply, and approximately 18 percent of the 454 species to which the effects determinations for pollutants id entified for detailed evaluation apply.

In terms of overall taxonomic representati on, EPA estimates that the subset of 82 RAA listed species represents the vast majority of the t ypes of threats, critical life stages, and habitats associated with the full listed of 612 listed speci es that may be affected by the VGP and sVGP. The 18 listed species taxonomic groups established by the R AA listed species adequately captures several potentially sens itive groups such as unionid musse ls and inland and anadromous fishes, freshwater planktonic crustaceans, amphi bians, seagrasses (Johnson’ s), saltwater corals and bivalve mollusks, coastal/mar ine birds, and marine and terrestrial mammals. The list of 82 RAA listed species spans nearly the full range of critical life stages (e .g., aquatic developmental in the case of amphibians) and habitats (e.g., ne ar shore coastal for manatee and nesting piping plover) representative of the entire action area, speci es, critical habitats th at may be affected by the VGP and sVGP. Absent among the 82 RAA listed species are several list ed freshwater snails and benthic crustaceans where major threats and cri tical life stages and/or habitat may not be adequately represented. However, in these particular cases EPA be lieves that the current list of 82 RAA listed species provides adequate overall coverage even among taxa that are only distantly related. Existing and curr ent literature (Mayer and Elle rseick, 1986; Mayer et al., 2008)

indicates that freshwater unionid mussels are good ecotoxicologically-sensitive surrogates for gill-bearing snails, planktonic crus taceans are good sensitive surroga tes for all other crustaceans, and salmonids are good surrogates for ot her fresh- and saltwater fish.

5.3 P OLLUTANT -S PECIFIC R ISK S UMMARIES

The following text and corresponding tables are used to identify and de scribe all pertinent information considered in summarizing risk to li sted aquatic and aquati c-dependent species and

their critical habitats based on the approach described in Sect ion 5.2. The subsections below are subdivided by pollutant categor y (classical, metals, moncyclic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and further subdivide d by individual pollutant. Each pollutant-specific subsection includes a summary of direct a nd indirect effects data used to support the analysis and corresponding data tables with the various RQs th at have been calculated. Risk from direct exposure is evaluated according to major ta xonomic group separated according to fresh-and saltwater habitat (i.e., Freshwat er Aquatic Vertebrates, Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrates, Freshwater Aquatic Plants, etc.) as described in Section 5.2.5. E ach pollutant-specific subsection is followed by the semi-quantitative analysis of risk from indirect effects, which is then followed2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-57 by a final table summarizing risk conclusions made for the major listed species taxonomic groupings provided in Table 5-11. Co llectively, the risk conclusions conveyed in this subsection

are used with other information to inform EPA’s effects determination presented in Section 7 of

this BE.

5.3.1 Classical Pollutants

Classical pollutants combine several standa rd water quality parameters such as conductivity, salinity, te mperature, pH, etc. with other para meters EPA defines as conventional pollutants (e.g., total suspended solids). For c onvenience, this group also includes another common pollutant, total residual chlorine. Of this diverse group of classical pollutants, only those pollutants with toxic effect s to aquatic and aquatic-depende nt species lend themselves to analysis of quantitative effects. Within the list of pollutants sel ected for detailed analysis (see Section 3.2.3 of this document), these are limited to just tota l residual chlorine and total suspended solids.

5.3.1.1 Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)

Total residual chlorine is detected in bilgewater, deck washdown, and graywater discharges from covered vessels (see Secti on 3.2.3.6). Because of the low boiling point of chlorine (-34.04°C), chlorine is a gas under e nvironmental conditions (HSDB, 2009). Chlorine gas released into water first di ssolves and then undergoes imme diate conversion into two forms of free chlorine: hypochlorous acid ( HOCl) and the hypochlorite ion (OCl - ). If the water contains ammonia, the solution will likely also contain tw o forms of combined chlorine: monochloramine

and dichloramine. Because all four of these forms of chlorine can be toxic to aquatic organisms,

the term “total residual chlorine or TRC” is us ed to refer to the sum of free chlorine and combined chlorine in fresh water. However, be cause salt water contains bromide, addition of chlorine also produces hypobromous acid (HOBr), hypobromous ion (OBr - ), and bromamines (USEPA, 1984a); hence, th e term “chlorine-produced oxidants or CPO” is used to refer to the sum of these oxidative products in salt water. Both terms, TRC (fresh water) and CPO (salt water), are intended to refer to the sum of free and combined chlorine and bromine as measured by standard methods.

Chlorine is not expected to bioaccumulate in plants or animals since it reacts with the moist tissues of living systems (Compton, 1987; Schreuder and Brewer, 2001; Schmittinger et al., 2006). Also, chlorine is toxic to microbial communities; therefore, biodegradation is not considered to be a relevant fate process (Vetrano, 2001). In general, the hypochlorous acid formed during the dissolution of chlorine in natu ral waters reacts with organic and inorganic materials, ultimately forming chloride ion, oxidi zed inorganics, chloramines, trihalomethanes, oxygen, and nitrogen. Consequently, chlorine (as well as CPO and TRC) does not persist in the aquatic environment.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-58 5.3.1.1.1 Direct Effects from TRC

Table 5-13 summarizes the chronic toxi city data available for calculating RQ A,W for aquatic listed species exposed to predicted conc entrations of TRC in water receiving permitted discharges from covered vessels. Table 5-14 pr esents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in the hypothetical estuary and river harbor under pre- and post-permit conditions, as well as the corresponding RQ A,W s calculated for each taxonomic group based on the various chronic toxicity threshold values (in this case, CTET A,W ) readily available for representative
surrogate taxa.

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - TRC

The overall risk to freshwater aquatic or ganisms from maximum exposure to TRC from permitted vessels is low. All RQ A,W s are below a value of 0.01, particularly for freshwater vascular plants. The highest RQ is 0.000877 estima ted for freshwater invertebrates under the prepermit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to TRC from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 3 percent.

Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - TRC

The risk to saltwater aquatic organisms fr om maximum exposure to TRC (or equivalent CPO) from permitted vessels is also low. The RQs for saltwater vertebrate and invertebrate species are substantially below a RQ A,W of 0.01. The highest RQ calcula ted from toxicity studies

is 0.0983 estimated for saltwater invertebrates under the pre-permit condition using an acute toxicity value divided by an a ppropriate ACR. No appropriate da ta are available for saltwater vascular plants exposed to TRC, however cal culating pre- and post-permit RQs using the CCC indicates “negligible” to “remote” 12 risk, with RQ A,W s of 0.286 and 0.088, respectively. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of th e permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all saltwater species exposed to TRC from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 69 percent.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - TRC

The risk of exposure to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from TRC found in permitted vessel discharges is via drinking of [fresh] surface water alone, because TRC does not

bioaccumulate in the tissues of prey [food] organisms. Furthermore, as noted above, TRC has a short half-life in water, and th erefore, does not remain readily available to the organism for uptake. The chronic [oral i ngestion] toxicity threshol d value (in this case, CTET O ) for rodents is 15 mg/kg of body weight per day based on the abse nce of toxicity in rodents that received chlorine as hypochlorite in drinki ng water for up to 2 years (equivale nt to a tolerable daily intake or TDI of 5 mg/L) – WHO (2003). No such data are available for birds, but CTET O is not expected to be different.

12 In this BE, EPA defined the terms “n egligible” and “remote” as the pollutant presents no risk to listed species (Table 5-10). See Section 5.2.3 for additional discus sion of the risk scale established in this BE.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-59 Table 5-13. Summary of Chronic Toxicity EffectThresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Resi dual Chlorine (freshwater) and Chlorineproduced Oxidants (saltwater)

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

Freshwater

Vertebrate Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas LC Test –

Growth and

Survival on

progeny 6 - 21 11.22 Arthur et al. 1975 (1984 ALC doc.)

Freshwater

Invertebrate Cladoceran, Daphnia magna LC Test –

Survival 2 - 7 3.742 Arthur et al. 1975 (1984 ALC doc.)

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum 4-d Test –

Reduced weight gain of total plant and

shoots - 50 Watkins and Hammerschlag

1984 (1984 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate Tidewater silverside,

Menidia ELS Test –

Growth and

Survival 40 - 54 46.48 Goodman et al.

1983 (1984 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate Eastern oyster,

Crassostrea virginica Acute LC50 =

26 / Estuarine

ACR (ACR=1.192) - 21.81 (estimated) Goodman et al. 1983 (estuarine ACR); Roberts and

Gleeson 1978 (LC50)

Estuarine/Marine Plant (Vascular) Not Available - - 7.5 (CCC) USEPA 1984 ALC

Document

SurrogateAquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Rodents 2yr Drinking

water NOAEL - growth 15 WHO 2003

Birds Not Available - - - -

LC = Life cycle, ELS = Early-life stage2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-60 Table 5-14. Risk Quotients Based on Division of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Th resholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to

TRC/CPO

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.00328 0.00319 11.22 0.000292 0.000284

Freshwater Invertebrate 3.742 0.000877 0.000852 Freshwater plant (Vascular) 50.00 <0.0001 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

2.14 0.66 46.48 0.0461 0.0142

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 21.81 0.0983 0.0303 Saltwater plant (Vascular) 7.5 0.286 0.088

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.00328 0.00319 15 NA a NA a
Birds (Freshwater) - NA a NA a
Mammals (Saltwater) 2.14 0.66 - NA a NA a
Birds (Saltwater) - NA a NA a

a) Not applicable because TRC do es not accumulate in tissue, and therefore, a risk quotie nt cannot be calculated as in Equation 5-5.

5.3.1.1.2 Indirect Effects from TRC

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-14 i ndicate “remote” risk for direct effects of TRC to listed aquatic and aquatic- dependent species in this BE. Furthermore, discharge of TRC

from covered vessels does not result in measur eable concentrations in estuaries and freshwater receiving water bodies due to its low persistence and short half-life as discussed above, even under semi-continuous discharge.

Due to its low persistence, interactions between the sediments and the water column and potential effects on benthos are not expected with this polluta nt. There is also no basis for assuming indirect effects on listed species vi a TRC exposure and corresponding toxicity-related reduction in the prey base [loss of prey] av ailable to upper trophic level organisms. The

information summarized in Table 5-14 indicates that TRC at maximum exposure concentrations calculated from pre-, and especially after post-permit conditions, has essentially no risk of causing direct effects on vascular freshwater plants, thus indirect effects typically associated with the loss of aquatic and riparian vegetation, includ ing loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters, are not expected for TRC.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-61 Risk Conclusion Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Li sted Species and Their Critical Habitats in

RAAs - TRC

Based on the consideration of potential direct and indirect effects as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-15). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.

Table 5-15. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Li sted Species and Critic al Habitats in RAAs

to TRC

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumption

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low po tential for direct chronic effects

 Fate of TRC indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters)

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a conservative ACR of 17.64 for amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus (USEPA, 1984a) and recent acute 96-hr EC50s from sensitive life stages (glochidia) of freshwater mussels (>40 μg/L – see Wang et al., 2007a). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of 0.00145 and 0.00141, respectively.

Saltwater Bivalve

Mollusk Remote  RQ directly applicable since estimated for C. virginica as presented

in Table 5-14 above Freshwater Shrimp/

Crustacean Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 No taxon-specific acute or chronic toxicity data readily available.

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using chronic toxicity data from a 21-day test for juvenile Coho salmon (Larson et al., 1977 in USEPA, 1984a). Calculation results in post-permit RQs approximately 0.060 or less in fresh- and saltwater.

Anadromous Salmonid Remote  Same as Freshwater Inland Salmonids – no chronic toxicity data are

available for salmonids tested in seawater

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. peninsulae as presented in Table 5-14 above Beetle and Aquatic

Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Amphibian Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-62 Table 5-15. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Li sted Species and Critic al Habitats in RAAs

to TRC

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumption

Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic and Wetland

Plants Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Because toxicity for chlorine is already expressed on the basis for TRC (or CPO), which

includes several toxic forms of combined chlorine such as monochloramine and dichloramine, risk from mixtures is already represented in this analysis.

5.3.1.2 Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Total suspended solids are expected in apprec iable concentrations in bilgewater, deck washdown effluent, graywater, and ballast water. Each of these vessel discharges can contain

sediments and have elevated turb idity levels and TSS (see Section 3.2.3.7). It is important to note here that while the focus of this analysis is on TSS, both turbidity and TSS are terms that define the measurement of solids or sediment in the water column. These metrics (along with measures of water clarity), however, measure different aspe cts of suspended sediments, and thus, are often incorrectly used interchangeably in water quality monitoring and research papers. Turbidity is defined as the optical property of water where suspended and dissolved materials such as silt, clay, finely divided organic a nd inorganic matter, pollutants, plankton, and other microscopic organisms cause light to be scattered rather than transmitted in straight lines. Turbidity is usually measured in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). TSS, on the other hand, represents the actual gravimetric measure of the mineral and organi c particles suspended in a water sample.

Both fluctuating TSS and turbidity levels in the water column can affect aquatic life from fish to phytoplankton. At high TSS concentrations, for example, suspended sediment causes a range of “physical” environmenta l effects, including benthic sm othering and irritation of fish gills (Bash et al., 2001). Much of the impact of suspended sediment at lower concentrations is related to its light attenuation, which reduces visual range in wa ter and light availability for photosynthesis.

For this BE, it should be noted that the Ag ency has published water quality criteria for turbidity, which include scientific assessments of the effects of turbid ity on aquatic life (see http://www.epa.gov/waterscien ce/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf ), but the problem that remains is translating the turbidity threshold into equivalent concentrations of suspended solids. In general, and to support the quantitative effects analysis of TSS in this BE, EPA assumes a conversion factor to convert from NTU to TSS (expressed in units of mg/L) ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 (see http://www.lakesuperiorstreams.org/ understanding/para m_turbidity.html ). Recent review of the

literature indicates that adverse effects to aquatic organisms are not observed at turbidities below 5-10 NTU in freshwater (see Turbidity: A Water Quality Measure." Water Action Volunteers, Monitoring Factsheet Series. UW-Extension, Envi ronmental Resources Center). Thus, applying the highest NTU:TSS conversion fa ctor of 1.5 to the lowest chr onic effects value to aquatic organisms of 5 NTU results in a TSS concentr ation of 3.33 mg/L, which is the conservative2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-63 value for CTET A,W used to calculate risk quotients for the direct effects to fresh- and saltwater aquatic organisms below.

5.3.1.2.1 Direct Effects for TSS

Table 5-16 summarizes the chronic toxi city data available for calculating RQ A,W for aquatic listed species exposed to predicted conc entrations of TSS in water receiving permitted discharges from covered vessels. Table 5-17 pr esents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in the hypothetical estuary and river harbor under pre- and post-permit conditions, as well as the corresponding RQ A,W s calculated for each taxonomic group based on the various chronic toxicity threshold values (CTET A,W ) readily available for representative surrogate taxa.

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - TSS

The overall risk to freshwater aquatic or ganisms from maximum exposure to TSS from permitted vessels is remote. A RQ A,W of only 0.000701 is estimated under the pre-permit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to TSS from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 30 percent.

Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - TSS

The overall risk to saltwate r aquatic organisms from maximum exposure to TSS from permitted vessels is also remote. A RQ A,W of only 0.0607 is estimated under the pre-permit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all saltwater species exposed to TSS from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 36 percent.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - TSS

No risk of exposure to aquatic-dependent birds and mammals to TSS from permitted vessel discharge is anticipated because TSS does not bioaccumulate in aquatic prey items, and therefore, is not expected to be available to wildlife for uptake.

Turbidity standards do exist to ensure the qua lity of drinking water in the United States. Drinking water produced by treatmen t systems that use conventional or direct filtration methods cannot have turbidities higher than 1 NTU, and at least 95 percen t of the drinking water samples

collected in a month must have turb idities less than or equal to 0.3 NTU (http://water.epa.gov/drink/ contaminants/index.cfm# ). Assuming this level [for humans] adequately reflects the concentration of turbidit y at which taste may be impaired and drinking intake diminished, risk to wildlife from TSS at maximum concentrations is expected to be “remote” (i.e., 0.3 NTU x conversion factor of 1.5 = 0.45 mg TSS/L; EC W (pre-permit condition) of 0.00233 mg TSS/L ÷ 0.45 mg TSS/L= RQ of only 0.00518).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-64 Table 5-16. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type No Adverse Effect Concentration for Turbidity

measured in NTU

(see text above) NTU:TSS Ratio CTET A,W (mg/L)

Freshwater and

Estuarine/Marine 5 - 10 1 5.00

Freshwater and

Estuarine/Marine 5 - 10 1.5 3.33

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Assessment Type CTET A,W (mg/kg bw/d)

Mammals Not Available - -

Birds Not Available - -

Table 5-17. Risk Quotients Based on Division of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa for Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition);

(mg/L) EC W(PostPermit Condition);

(mg/L) CTET A,W (mg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Environment 0.00233 0.00162 3.33 0.000701 0.000488

Estuarine/Marine

Environment 0.202 0.13 3.33 0.0607 0.0389

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition);

(mg/L) EC W(PostPermit Condition);

(mg/L) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.00233 0.00162 - NA a NA a
Birds (Freshwater) - NA a NA a
Mammals (Saltwater) 0.202 0.13 - NA a NA a
Birds (Saltwater) - NA a NA a

a) Not applicable because TSS does not accumulate in tissue, and therefore, a ri sk quotient cannot be calculated as in Equation 5-5.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-65 5.3.1.2.2 Indirect Effects for TSS

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-18 i ndicate “remote” risk for direct effects of TSS to listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent specie s in this BE. Furthermore, discharge of TSS from covered vessels are not expected to result in appreciable concentrat ions in estuaries and freshwater receiving water bodies, likely due to rapid settling of solids on bottom surfaces.

There is no basis for assuming indirect eff ects on listed species via TSS exposure and corresponding toxicity-related reducti on in the prey base [loss of pr ey] available to upper trophic level organisms. Since the information summa rized in Table 5-17 indicates that TSS at maximum exposure concentrations calculated from pre-, and especi ally after post-permit conditions, has little risk of dir ectly affecting fresh- and saltwa ter aquatic organisms, indirect effects typically associated w ith physical smothering, including loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters, are al so not expected for TSS.

Risk Conclusion for Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Listed Species and Their Critical Habitats

in RAAs - TSS

Based on the consideration of potential direct and indirect effects as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table

5-18 ). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.

Table 5-18. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to TSS

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects.

 Fate of TSS indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and cha nge in habitat/water quality parameters)

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed since the preponderance of data used as CTET was salmonid-specific toxicity data

as summarized in Ba sh et al. (2001).

Anadromous Salmonid Remote Same as above for Freshwat er Inland Salmonids – no chronic toxicity data are availa ble for salmonids in seawater

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-66 Table 5-18. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to TSS

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Amphibian Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

5.3.2 Metals

One of the key factors in evalua ting risk from exposure to meta ls is the bioavailability of the metal to an organism. Exposure to metals at toxic levels (which is partially dependent on the essentiality of the metal) can cause a variety of changes in biochemical, physiological, morphological, and behavioral patterns in aqua tic organisms. In the aquatic environment,

elevated concentrations of dissolved metals can be toxic to many species of algae, crustaceans,

and fish because it is this dissolved form of th e metal that is most readily available and taken up and internalized by an organism. As indicated above, some metals have a strong tendency to adsorb to suspended organic matter and clay mine rals, or to precipitate out of solution, thus removing the metal from the water column. Th e tendency of a given metal to adsorb to suspended particles is typically controlled by the pH and salinity of the waterbody, as well as the organic carbon content of the susp ended particles. If the metal is highly sorbed to particulate matter, then it is likely to not be in a dissolved form that aquatic organisms can process, i.e.,

bioavailable.

Accordingly, the protection of aquatic life for metals is typically expressed in the

dissolved metal form. This is true in the cases of seve ral metals in fresh water, e.g., cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. Because of the we ll known influence of water hardness (calcium and magnesium) on metal toxicity which compe titively excludes the free metal ion from adhering to binding sites on a biot ic ligand, and thus, preventing against its toxicity (see Wood et al., 1997), it is appropriate to also normalize the toxicity values fo r these metals to a standard water hardness (e.g., 100 mg/L expressed as CaCO 3 ). In contrast, the use of total metals is more important for aquatic-dependent animals where th e primary route of exposure is assumed to be through the consumption of aquatic organisms, a nd where the digestive process is assumed to

transform all forms of metals to the dissolved phase, thus incr easing the amount of biologically

available metals. This latter is also applicable in a quatic animals exposed to metalloids such as

arsenic and selenium.

The bioavailability of metals is a relati ve term and depends on many factors. For example, particulate metals complexed to susp ended organic matter or clay minerals may be recycled into the water column and become bi oavailable due to physical re-suspension (dredging activities) of bed sediments or bioturbation (t he stirring or mixing of sediment particles by2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-67 benthic animals). Depending on co nditions in the water column and microbiological activity within the surficial sediment-overlying water su rface layers, these physical and biological actions might re-mobilize the metals in the dissolved bioavailable form for potential uptake by aquatic organisms. Likewise, certai n benthic organisms called deposit feeders might consume particulate-bound metals and re-r elease metals via digestion a nd excretion or introduce metals into the food chain when consumed by predator s. Except possibly for selenium, there is an

absence of scientific and commercial data av ailable to accurately account for these other pathways of potential exposur e in this BE for metals.

5.3.2.1 Aluminum (Total)

Total aluminum is expected to be found at a ppreciable concentrations in at least some samples for all discharge types selected for detaile d analysis in this BE, and particularly from deck washdown discharges, followed by fish hold di scharges, and then stern tube packing gland discharges (see Section 3.2.3.5). Because kinetic considerations, complex formation, and other interactions in natural waters greatly infl uence the form of aluminum in the aqueous environment, aluminum speciation in ambient wa ters is not easily pr edicted, and no available analytical measurement (besides total recoverabl e aluminum) is known to be ideal for accurately expressing toxicity for aluminum.

Aluminum, like other metals, generally acts as a surface active toxicant, exerting its damage by binding to anionic sites on respirat ory surfaces of aquatic animals, such as a fish gill (Wood et al., 1997). The physiological manifestation of these deleterious surface effect s at the gill include both ionoregulatory and respirator y effects. Ionoregulatory effect s of aluminum predominate at low pH (e.g., less than pH 5.0) and include a mech anism similar to hydrogen ion toxicity alone, i.e., sodium uptake blockade (Pla yle and Wood, 1989). In moderately acidic water, it is generally the respiratory effects of aluminum that predominat e. Respiratory effects ar e likely the result of the physical coating of the gills which occurs when aluminum-rich water passes into the more basic gill microenvironment (Gensemer and Playle , 1999). Overall, aluminum toxicity to fish species is substantially greater at low pH, par ticularly for salmonids, a nd aquatic invertebrates are generally less sensitive to aluminum when compared with fish. For this BE and based on recent evidence from EPA’s Vessel Study Report to Congress (USEPA, 2010), EPA assumes pH in ambient receiving waters above 6.0 and less than 9.0.

5.3.2.1.1 Direct Effects from Aluminum

Table 5-19 summarizes the chronic toxicity values available for calculating the risk quotients for aquatic and aquatic-dependent sp ecies exposed to tota l aluminum. Table 5-20 presents maximum exposure concentrations es timated in ambient receiving waters (EC W ), in tissues of aquatic organisms expos ed to those concentrations (EC T ), and in oral doses of aquaticdependent animals ingesting food (prey) and water in those receiving waters (EC O ). Maximum exposure concentrations in ambient receiving wa ter are from the hypothetical harbor modeling (pre- and post-permit condition), as described above in Section 5.2.1.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-68 Risk to Freshwater Aquatic An imal and Plant Sp ecies - Aluminum

The overall risk to freshwater aquatic or ganisms as a result of maximum exposure in ambient waters from aluminum discharged by permitted vessels is remote. All RQ A,W s are below a value of 0.001. The highest RQ is 0.00069 estima ted for freshwater vertebrates under the prepermit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to total aluminum from permitted vessel discharges by appr oximately 8 percent.

While aluminum does not bioaccumulate to hi gh levels in aquatic animals, EPA believes it is prudent to incorporate an analysis on multip le routes of exposure in this BE for this nonessential metal. The evaluation of potential ri sks from bioaccumulated aluminum provides a means of identifying potential risks to listed aquatic species via exposure to criteria concentrations from all exposure routes combined.

The only RQs that could be calculated for a freshwater organism was for vertebrates

based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues (i.e., 10 mg Al/kg wet wt tissue

measured in Salmo trutta ) from continuous exposure to maximum concentrations of total aluminum in ambient receiving waters of 0.0334 and 0.0309 μ g/L, pre- and post-permit conditions, respectively (see Table 5- 20). Corresponding RQs were 0.000167 and 0.000154, respectively, indicating “remote” risk to freshw ater vertebrates from aluminum accumulated in

tissues.

Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) A quatic Animal and Plant Species - Aluminum

The overall risk to saltwater aquatic or ganisms from maximum exposure to total aluminum from permitted vessels is also remote. An RQ A,W of only 0.0384 is estimated for invertebrates under the pre-permit condition. Cont rol measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipat ed to lower the risk to all sa ltwater species exposed to total aluminum from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 20 percent.

EPA did not calculate a RQs for saltwater or ganisms based on estimated concentrations

of aluminum accumulated in tissues of these organisms, because no such data exist from which an appropriate CTET A,T could be determined.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Aluminum

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for total aluminum is required because of the apparent ability of some organisms to accumulate aluminum in tissues, albeit to low le vels. The RQs estimated for surrogate mammals and birds based on the quotient of EC O and CTET O for total aluminum range from values that are low (<0.01) to very low (<0.001), respectiv ely, indicating only “remote” risk.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-69 Table 5-19. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Aluminum

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate a Atlantic salmon,

Salmo salar ELS Test -

Growth 33 - 71 48.40 Buckler et al.

1995 (GLEC NODA Review)

Freshwater Invertebrate Cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia

dubia LC Test - Reproduction 460 - 930 650 ENSR 1992 (GLEC NODA Review)

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum 32-day EC50 (root weight) - 2,500 Stanley 1974 (GLEC NODA Review)

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate Not Available - - - -

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate Polychaete

worm, Ctenodrilus

serratus Genus Mean

Acute Value of 97 μg/L ÷

Freshwater

ACR (ACR=2.900) - 33.45 (estimated ) ENSR 1992; McCauley et al. 1986; Kimball 1978 (ACR);

Petrich and Reish 1979 (LC50) (GLEC NODA Review)

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) Not Available - - - -

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt.) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate a Atlantic salmon,

Salmo trutta 5-day

waterborne to 230 μg/L at pH 5 Decreased growth, no

effect on

survival or

mucus cell

b 10.00 Segner et al.

1988

Freshwater Invertebrate Not Available

- - - -

Estuarine/

Marine Vertebrate Not Available

- - - -

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Not Available

- - - -2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-70 Table 5-19. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Aluminum

Surrogate AqauticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Mouse 3 generation

oral via water Reproduction 1.93 Sample et al.

1996 (OR Toxics BE)

Birds Ringed Dove 4 month oral

in diet Reproduction 109.7 Sample et al.

1996 (OR Toxics BE)

a) Listed species.

Table 5-20. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate

Taxa to Total Aluminum

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.0334 0.0309 48.4 0.00069 0.000637

Freshwater Invertebrate 650 <0.0001 <0.0001
Freshwater plant (Vascular) 2,500 <0.0001 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

1.28 1.02 NA a

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 33.45 0.0384 0.0306

Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA a

- -

Taxa EC T (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt.) EC T (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt.) CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt.) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.00167 0.00154 10.00 0.000167 0.000154

Freshwater Invertebrate NA - -
Freshwater plant (Vascular) NA - -

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

0.0642 0.0511 NA - -

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate NA - -

Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA - -2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-71 Table 5-20. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate

Taxa to Total Aluminum

Taxa EC O (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) EC O (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.000268 0.000248 1.930 0.000139 0.000128
Birds (Freshwater) 0.00202 0.00187 109.7 <0.0001 <0.0001
Mammals (Saltwater) 0.00992 0.0079 1.930 0.00514 0.00409
Birds (Saltwater) 0.0775 0.0618 109.7 0.000707 0.000563
a) Not applicable because a CCC for aluminum in saltw ater has not been calculated by EPA due to lack

of sufficient data.

5.3.2.1.2 Indirect Effects from Aluminum

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-21 i ndicate “remote” risk for direct effects of total aluminum to listed aquatic and aquatic- dependent species in this BE. Furthermore, discharge of total aluminum from covered ve ssels likely will not result in appreciable

concentrations in estuaries and freshwater recei ving water bodies, likely due to rapid complex formation and subsequent settling on bottom surfaces.

There is no basis for assuming indirect eff ects on listed species via total aluminum exposure and corresponding toxicity-re lated reduction in the prey base [loss of prey] available to upper trophic level organisms. Since the informa tion summarized in Table 5-20 indicates that total aluminum at maximum exposure concentrati ons calculated from pre-, and especially after post-permit conditions (8-20 percent reduction), has li ttle risk of directly affecting fresh- and saltwater aquatic animals and plants (freshwate r only, no data for saltwat er plants), indirect effects typically associated with exposure, incl uding loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters, are also not e xpected for this metal.

Risk Conclusion for each of List ed Species in RAAs - Aluminum

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-21). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-72 Table 5-21. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Total Aluminum

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects

 Fate of total aluminum indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters) – at the concentrations predicted

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 15-d study with the non-North- American species, swan mussel ( Anodonta cygena ), and a MATC (decrease in duration of shell gape) of 353.0 μg/L. Hardness was not provided (Kadar et al., 2001) . Calculation results in preand post-permit RQs below 0.0001.

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using an ACR of 2 (no saltwater ACR available) for the barnacle ( Balanus eburneus ) and a LC50 of 240 μg/L (Taneeva, 1973). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs

of less than 0.011. Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote RQ directly applicable since estimated for S. salar as presented in Table 5-19 above

Anadromous Salmonid Remote Same as above for Freshwat er Inland Salmonids – no chronic toxicity data are avai lable for salmonids tested in

seawater
Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using acute toxicity data for the non-North-American species, Australian bass ( Macquaria novemaculeata ), with reduced survival at 200 μg/L at 25 mg/L hardness, or 634.3 μg/L normalized to 100 mg/l hardness (Hyne and Wilson ,1997). Using a freshwater fish ACR of 6.06 ( P. promelas ) resulted in a chronic e ffect estimate of 104.7 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-exposure RQs of 0.0123 and 0.0098, respectively. Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 14- d study with an aquatic beetle ( Tropistermus lateralis

nimbatus ) that changed the body fat composition at 200 μg/L (only conc.) (Wooldridge and Wooldridge, 1969). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs below

0.0002.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-73 Table 5-21. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Total Aluminum

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Amphibian Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 7-d study with common toad ( Bufo bufo ) with NOEC (survival) >320 μg/L at 50 mg/L hardness, or 569.8 μg/L normalized to 100 mg/L hardness (Gardner et al., 2002). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs

are below 0.0001. Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. spicatum as presented in Table 5-19 above

.

5.3.2.2 Arsenic (Dissolved and Total)

Arsenic is found at concentrations exceeding screening level benchmarks primarily in exhaust gas scrubber effluent, but also in fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent (see Section 3.2.3.5). Compared to most of the other metals a nd metalloids selected fo r detailed evaluation in this BE, this non-essential metalloid is among the least toxic to aquatic organisms (McIntyre and Linton, 2012). In general, inorgani c arsenic is substantially more toxic to aquatic organisms than organic arsenic, and arsenite (AsIII) is more toxic than arsenate (AsV).

Arsenic bioaccumulates in tissues of aqua tic organisms, but does not appear to biomagnify up the aquatic food chain (USEPA, 2003b; Williams et al., 2006). Arsenic BAFs in upper trophic level freshwater and estuarine fish and shellfish typically consumed by wildlife generally range between 5 L/kg at 100 μ g/L in laboratory or ambien t surface water, to greater than 1,000 L/kg at 0.1 μ g/L (USEPA, 2003b; Williams et al., 2 006). Despite the recent attention focused on arsenic uptake and accumulation in aquatic biota, there is still much uncertainty about the mechanisms and bioaccumulation potential of the various forms of arsenic in the

environment. Tissue data collected from the most recent arsenic bioaccumulation studies appear to confirm the presumption that the majority of arsenic in fish is rela tively non-toxic organic arsenic, i.e., arsenobetaine (AsB ), arsenocholine (AsC), or mo no- and dimethylated arsenic (McIntyre and Linton, 2012). This is esp ecially true for saltwater fishes.

For this analysis, EPA assumes that all in organic arsenic in fresh- and saltwater is dissolved arsenic, and that the ev aluation of risk from both direct and indirect effects is best addressed using aquatic toxicity data based on the more toxic ar senite (AsIII) form of this

metalloid.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-74 5.3.2.2.1 Direct Effects from Arsenic

Table 5-22 summarizes the chronic toxicity values available for calculating the risk quotients for aquatic and aquatic-dependent spec ies exposed to arsenic. Table 5-23 presents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in ambient receiving waters (EC W ), in tissues of aquatic organisms exposed to those concentrations (EC T ), and in oral doses of aquatic-dependent animals ingesting food and water in those receiving waters (EC O ). Maximum exposure concentrations in ambient receiving water are from the hypothetical harbor modeling, as described above in Section 5.2.1. In this case, EPA’s risk analysis is based on the use of maximum exposure concentration estimated vi a the post-permit condition only since maximum exposure concentrations based on pre-permit condition was the same.

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic An imal and Plant Species - Arsenic

The risk to freshwater aquatic organisms fr om maximum exposure to arsenic in ambient receiving water from discharges of covered vessels is remote. Using the maximum exposure concentration (post-permit condition only since pre- and post-permit exposure concentrations are essentially the same, per above), RQs for freshw ater organisms are all well below a value of 0.001 (Table 5-23).

RQs were also calculated for freshwater vert ebrates and invertebrates based on estimated

concentrations accumulated in tissues from cont inuous exposure to maximum concentrations of

dissolved arsenic in ambien t receiving waters of 0.164 μ g/L. Corresponding RQs were 0.00623 (for vertebrates) and 0.00181 (for invertebrates), respectively, i ndicating “remote” risk to these organisms from arsenic accumulated in tissues (see Table 5-23).

Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) A quatic Animal and Plant Species - Arsenic

The risk to saltwater aquatic organisms fr om maximum exposure to arsenic in ambient receiving water from discharges of covered vess els is also remote. Using the maximum exposure concentration estimated under the post-permit c ondition, RQs for saltwater organisms are below 0.05 for vascular plants (based on EPA’s cons ervative CCC for AsIII in saltwater) and 0.002 for

vertebrates and invertebrates.

EPA could not calculate RQs for saltwater or ganisms based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues of these organisms, because no such data exist upon which a CTET A,T could be determined.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-75 Risk to Birds and Mammals - Arsenic

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for arsenic is required because of the known propensity of some organisms to accumulate arsenic in tissues. The RQs estimated for surrogate mammals and birds based on the quotient of EC O and CTET O for arsenic ranges from a value of approximately 0.1 predicted for

saltwater mammals to 0.00118 for freshwater birds (Table 5-23). These RQs indicate “remote” to “negligible” risk of arsenic to aquatic-dependent birds and mammals.

Table 5-22. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Expose d to Dissolved Arsenic

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC - LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

ARSENIC (as Arsenic (III) and assuming a dissolved: total Arsenic ratio of 1.0)

Freshwater Vertebrate Flagfish,

Jordanella floridae ELS Test -

Growth 2,130 - 4,120 2,962 Call et al. 1983; Lima et

al. 1984 (1985 ALC

Freshwater Invertebrate Cladoceran, Daphnia

magna LC Test -

Survival and growth 633.0 - 1,320 914.1 Call et al. 1983; Lima et

al. 1984 (1985 ALC

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Eurasian watermilfoil, Myriophyllum spicatum 32-day EC50

Biomass - 2,600 Stanley 1974 (NODA Review)

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus Acute LC50 of 3,339 μg/L ÷

FACR (FACR=3.803) - 3,339 (estimated) Cardin 1982 (1985 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Mysid, Americamysis

bahia LC Test -

Survival 631 - 1,270 895.2 Lussier et al.

1985 (NODA Review)

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) Not Available - - 36 (CCC) CCC from

USEPA 1985a2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-76 Table 5-22. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Expose d to Dissolved Arsenic

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt.) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate Bluegill, Lepomis

macrochirus 16 week outdoor

mesocosm to
arsenical

herbicide

i i 2 320 Decreased juvenile

survival and growth 0.97 Gilderhus

1966

Freshwater Invertebrate Cladoceran,

Moina

macrocopa 14 day Lab Food

Chain Experiment Reduced growth 3.58 Maeda et al.

1990

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Not Available

- - - -

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Not Available

- - - -

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Mouse 3 generation oral

via water Reproduction 0.126 Sample et al.

1996 (OR Toxics BE)

Birds Mallard 128-day oral via

diet Mortality 5.14 Sample et al.

1996 (OR Toxics BE)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-77 Table 5-23. Risk Quotients based on Division of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Arsenic

Taxa EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.164 2,962 <0.0001

Freshwater Invertebrate 914.1 0.00018 Freshwater plant (Vascular) 2,600 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

1.94 3,339 0.00058

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate 895.2 0.00216 Saltwater plant (Vascular) 36 0.0538

Taxa EC T (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt.) CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt.) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate 0.00604 0.970 0.00623

Freshwater Invertebrate 0.00647 3.58 0.00181 Freshwater plant (Vascular) - NA -

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

0.0852 NA -

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate NA -
Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA -

Taxa EC O (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.000983 0.126 0.0078 Birds (Freshwater) 0.000608 5.14 0.000118 Mammals (Saltwater) 0.0132 0.126 0.104 Birds (Saltwater) 0.00852 5.14 0.00166

5.3.2.2.2 Indirect Effects from Arsenic

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-24 i ndicate generally “remote” risk for direct effects of dissolved arsenic (expressed as AsII I in its dissolved form) to listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species in this BE, except for saltwater mammals where the risk is estimated to be “negligible”. Furthermore, discharge of dissolved arseni c does not appear to result in appreciable concentrations in estuaries and freshwater receiving water bodies under highly

conservative scenarios.

There is no basis for assuming indirect effect s on listed species via arsenic exposure and corresponding toxicity-related reducti on in the prey base [loss of pr ey] available to upper trophic level organisms. Additionally, exposure of wildli fe via the water or via the food web to this metalloid appears to be of limited (negligible) consequence. Since the information summarized

in Table 5-23 indicates that arsenic at maximum exposure concentrations under post-permit2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-78 conditions has little risk of di rectly affecting fresh- and salt water aquatic animals and plants (freshwater only, no toxicity data fo r saltwater plants), indirect e ffects typically associated with exposure, including loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters, are also not expected

for this metal.

Risk Conclusion for each of Li sted Species in RAAs - Arsenic

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-24). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.

Table 5-24. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Arsenic

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects

 Fate of dissolved arsenic indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters)

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 2-d study with a Pacific oyster ( Crassostrea gigas ) LC50 of 326 μg/L (Martin et al., 1981). Dividing by the FACR (3.803) results in a chronic value of 85.72 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs are

below 0.02. Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using 28-d study with rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ) and a LC50 of 540μg/L (Birge, 1978). Calculation results in pre- and postpermit RQs less than 0.004.

Anadromous Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using 10-d study with pink salmon ( O. gorbuscha ) and a LC54 of 3,787 μg/L (Holland et al., 1960). Calculation results in pre-post permit RQs less than 0.001.

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for C. variegatus as presented in Table 5-22 above Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Amphibian Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-79 Table 5-24. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Arsenic

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 4-d study with a giant toad ( Bufo marinus ) LC50 of 123,000 μg/L (Johnson, 1976). Dividing by the FACR (3.803) results in a chronic value of 32,343 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs are below 0.0001. Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Marine Mammal Negligible Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. spicatum as presented in Table 5-22 above

5.3.2.3 Cadmium (Dissolved)

Dissolved cadmium was detected in bilgew ater and deck washdown discharges at concentrations above benchmark screening levels (see Section 3.2.3.5). Cadmium occurs naturally in the aquatic environment, but has no known biological use and is considered one of the most toxic of metals to fish (Sorense n, 1991). Background concentrations of cadmium in streams and rivers range from <0.01 to 0.2 μ g/L and are usually less than 0.05 μ g/L in waters unimpacted by man (Korte, 1983; USEPA, 1985b; Eisler, 1985a; Wren et al., 1995).

Cadmium is bioconcentrated by organisms, but is not biomagnified through the food chain (Eisler, 1985a). Toxicity of cadmium to aquatic organisms varies with water hardness, alkalinity, the type and life st age of organisms, presence of organic matter, presence of other toxicants, and the duration of exposure (USEPA, 2001). Ca dmium is a known teratogen, carcinogen, and a probable mutagen to fres hwater organisms (Eisler, 1985a).

One known mechanism of cadmium toxicity to fish is s uppression of calcium uptake (Verbost et al., 1987). Calcium is vital for growth in fish (Pelgrom et al., 1997), and bone repair mechanisms are probably inhibited due to th e hypocalcemic effect of cadmium (DWAF, 1996). Since cadmium toxicity to freshwater aquatic an imals has been shown to be related to water hardness, it is appropriate to normalize chronic toxi city effect thresholds for freshwater aquatic animals to a standard water hardness (i.e., 100 mg/L as CaCO 3 ) for comparative purposes and to support risk calcula tion (USEPA, 2005b).

5.3.2.3.1 Direct Effects from Cadmium

Table 5-25 summarizes the chronic toxicity values available for calculating the risk quotients for aquatic and aquatic-dependent spec ies exposed to dissolved cadmium. Table 5-26 presents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in ambient receiving waters (EC W ), in tissues of aquatic organisms expos ed to those concentrations (EC T ), and in oral doses of aquatic-2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-80 dependent animals ingesting food (prey) and water in those receiving waters (EC O ). Maximum exposure concentrations in ambient receiving wa ter are from the hypothetical harbor modeling (pre- and post-permit condition), as described above in Section 5.2.1.

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic An imal and Plant Species - Cadmium

The overall risk to freshwater aquatic or ganisms as a result of maximum exposure in

ambient waters from dissolved cadmium discha rged by permitted vesse ls is “remote”. All RQ A,W s are <0.0001, with the highest RQ of 0.000068 estimated for freshwater invertebrates under the pre-permit condition. Control measures im plemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to dissolved cadmium from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 8 percent.

While cadmium does not bioaccumulate to high levels in aquatic animals, EPA believes it is prudent to incorporate the analysis on multiple routes of exposure in this BE for this nonessential metal. The evaluation of potential risks from bioaccumulated cadmium provides a means of identifying potential risks to listed aquatic species via exposure to criteria concentrations from all exposure routes combined.

RQs were calculated for freshwater verteb rates and invertebrates based on estimated

concentrations accumulated in tissues from cont inuous exposure to maximum concentrations of

dissolved cadmium in ambient re ceiving waters of 0.0000129 and 0.0000118 μ g/L, pre- and post-permit conditions, respectively (see Tabl e 5-26). Corresponding RQs were all below 0.00010, indicating “remote” risk to freshwater aq uatic animals from cadmium accumulated in

tissues.

Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) A quatic Animal and Plant Species - Cadmium

The overall risk to saltwate r aquatic organisms as a result of maximum exposure in ambient waters from dissolved cadmium discharg ed by permitted vessels is also “remote”. All RQ A,W s are 0.0001 or less. Control measures implemente d as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all saltwater species expos ed to dissolved cadmium from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 20 percent.

RQs were calculated for saltwater vertebra tes and invertebrates based on estimated

concentrations accumulated in tissues from cont inuous exposure to maximum concentrations of

dissolved cadmium in ambient receiving waters of 0.000867 and 0.000697 μ g /L, pre- and postpermit conditions, respectively (see Table 5-26). Corresponding RQs were all below 0.001, again, indicating “remote” risk to aquatic anim als (saltwater in this case) from cadmium

accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Cadmium

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for dissolved cadmium is required because of the apparent ability of some organisms to2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-81 accumulate cadmium in tissues, albeit to low le vels. The RQs for representative freshwater and

saltwater mammals and birds based on the chronic t oxicity values in relation to the oral effects

concentrations calculated for this BE are all extremely low (<0.00001). These RQs indicate “remote” risk of cadmium to aqua tic-dependent birds and mammals.

Table 5-25. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Values for Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Cadmium

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC - LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

CADMIUM - Dissolved (* data normalized to hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3 using USGS derived chronic slope of 0.6247 and EPA dissolved conversion factor of 1.101672-[(ln hardness)(0.041838)]-freshwater and 0.994-estuarine/marine)

Freshwater

Vertebrate Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss ELS Test -

Survival 1.3 - 2.7 1.87 ( 1.672 *) Besser et al. 2007 (NODA Review)

Freshwater

Invertebrate Cladoceran, Daphnia magna LC Test - Reproduction 0.16 - 0.28 0.2117 ( 0.1889 *) Chapman et al. Manuscript (2001 ALC doc.)

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Duckweed, Lemna gibba 96-hr - Growth <1 – 1 <1 Megateli et al.

2009 (NODA Review)

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Striped bass,

Morone saxatilis Acute LC50 ÷

Estuarine ACR (ACR=9.11) 75.0 ÷ 9.11 8.232 ( 8.182 *) (estimated) Genitle et al. 1982;

Nimmo et al. 1977; Lussier et al. 1985 (ACR);

Palawski et al. 1985 (LC50)

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Mysid, Americamysis

bahia LC Test - Reproduction 5.1 – 10 7.141 ( 7.099 *) Gentile et al. 1982;

Lussier et al. 1985 (2001 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) Not Available - - 9.3 CCC from USEPA

20012013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-82 Table 5-25. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Values for Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Cadmium

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt.) Study (source)

Freshwater

Vertebrate a Atlantic salmon,

Salmo salar ELS Test Reduction in growth 0.0050 Rombough and

Garside 1982

Freshwater

Invertebrate Amphipod, Hyalella azteca 42-d

Mesocosm Study Significant

decrease in

weight 0.118 Stanley et al. 2005

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate European flounder, Platichthys flesus - Reduction in percentage of eggs that hatch 0.04 von Westernhagen

and Dethlefsen

1975

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Starfish,

Asterias rubens 5 mo Semifield Study 76% reduction

in normal

embryo development 0.14 den Besten et al.

1989

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Rat 6-wk oral

gavage Reproduction 1 Sample et al. 1996 (OR Toxics BE)

Birds Mallard 90-d oral in

diet Reproduction 1.45 Sample et al. 1996 (OR Toxics BE)

a) Listed species.

Table 5-26. Risk Quotients Based on Divisi on of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to

Dissolved Cadmium

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.0000129 0.0000118 1.672 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater Invertebrate 0.1889 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater plant (Vascular) 1.000 <0.0001 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

0.000867 0.000697 8.182 0.000106 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 7.099 0.000122 <0.0001

Saltwater plant (Vascular) 9.3 <0.0001 <0.00012013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-83 Table 5-26. Risk Quotients Based on Divisi on of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to

Dissolved Cadmium

Taxa EC T (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt.) EC T (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt.) CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt.) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.000000489 0.000000448 0.0050 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater Invertebrate 0.1180 <0.0001 <0.0001
Freshwater plant (Vascular) NA - -

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

0.0000329 0.0000265 0.040 0.000824 0.000662

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 0.140 0.000235 0.000189

Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA - -

Taxa EC O (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) EC O (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.0000000394 0.0000000361 1.00 <0.00001 <0.00001
Birds (Freshwater) 0.0000000492 0.000000045 1.45 <0.00001 <0.00001
Mammals (Saltwater) 0.00000264 0.00000212 1.00 <0.00001 <0.00001
Birds (Saltwater) 0.00000329 0.00000265 1.45 <0.00001 <0.00001

5.3.2.3.2 Indirect Effects from Cadmium

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-27 i ndicate “remote” risk for direct effects of dissolved cadmium to listed aquatic and aquatic- dependent species in th is BE. Furthermore, discharge of dissolved cadmium from cove red vessels will not result in appreciable concentrations in estuaries and freshwater receiving water bodies.

There is no basis for assuming indirect eff ects on listed species via dissolved cadmium exposure and corresponding toxicity-re lated reduction in the prey base [loss of prey] available to upper trophic level organisms. Since the informa tion summarized in Table 5-26 indicates that dissolved cadmium at maximum exposure concentr ations calculated from pre-, and especially after post-permit conditions (8 to 20 percent reduction, freshwater and saltwater receiving water, respectively) has little risk of directly affecting fresh- and salt water aquatic animals and plants, indirect effects typically associ ated with exposure, including lo ss of cover and changes in water quality parameters, are also not expected for this metal.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-84 Risk Conclusion for each of Li sted Species in RAAs - Cadmium

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-27). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.

Table 5-27. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Cadmium

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects

 Fate of dissolved cadmium indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters)

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 77-d study with zebra mussel ( Dreisena polymorpha ) with an EC50 of 130 μg/L at a hardness of 268 mg/L (70.22 μg/L normalized to 100 mg/L hardness) (Kraak et al., 1992). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs

far below 0.000001.

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a chronic study with the common mussel ( Mytilus edulis ) with 6% mortality at 200 μg/L (only conc.) at a hardness of 31 mg/L (415.6 μg/L normalized to 100 mg/L hardness) (Geret et al., 2002). Calculation results in preand post-permit RQs far below 0.000001. Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 24- hr acute study with fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus proboscideus ) with a LC50 of 250 μg/L at hardness of 250 mg/L (116.1 μg/L normalized to 100 mg/L hardness) (Crisinel et al., 1994). Using an ACR for

freshwater invertebrates of 34.30 results in a chronicvalue of 3.384 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and postpermit RQs below 0.000001.

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for O. mykiss as presented in Table 5-25 above

Anadromous Salmonid Remote Same as Freshwater Inland Salmonids – no chronic toxicity

data are available for salmonids tested in seawater

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as above

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. saxatilis as presented in Table 5-25 above2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-85 Table 5-27. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Cadmium

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Amphibian Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 60-d study with American toad ( Bufo americanus ) reduced growth at 5 μg/L (lowest concentration tested) at hardness 51.2 mg/L (7.60 μg/L normalized to 100 mg/L hardness) (James and Little, 2003). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs below 0.000001. Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for L. gibba as presented in Table 5-25 above

5.3.2.4 Chromium (Dissolved)

Dissolved chromium was found to be present in bilgewater and stern tube packing gland

effluent at concentrations above benchmark sc reening levels (see Section 3.2.3.5). Chromium is a naturally occurring metallic element present in minute concentrations in the environment. The

most common forms of chromium are trival ent (chromium III) and hexavalent chromium (chromium VI). Chromium (III) occurs naturally in the environment and is an essential nutrient. Chromium (VI), in contrast, is generally man-ma de and more toxic to aquatic organisms because its oxidizing potential is high and it easily pe netrates biological memb ranes (Steven et al., 1976, Taylor and Parr, 1978).

Eisler (1986) reported that b ackground levels of chromium in rivers and lakes ranged

between 1 and 10 μ g/L, and average 9.7 μ g/L in streams. In freshwat er environments, hydrolysis and precipitation are the most important processes in determining the environmental fate of chromium, while absorption and bioaccumulation are considered minor.

Inorganic forms of chromium do not biomagni fy (Eisler, 1986). Ch romium toxicity to aquatic biota is significantly influenced by abiotic variables such as wate r hardness, temperature, pH, and salinity (Eisler, 1986). Sensitivity to chromium varies widely, even among closely related species (Eisler, 1986).

For this analysis, EPA assumes that analysis of direct and indir ect effects is best addressed using aquatic toxicity data published for surrogate species based on the more toxic (chromium VI) form of this meta l, although the form of chromium measured in discharges was not specifically dissolved chromium VI, but rather, dissolved chromium (III and VI).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-86 5.3.2.4.1 Direct Effects from Chromium

Table 5-28 summarizes the chronic toxicity values available for calculating the risk quotients for aquatic and aquatic-dependent spec ies exposed to dissolved chromium. Table 5-29 presents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in ambient receiving waters (EC W ), in tissues of aquatic organisms expos ed to those concentrations (EC T ), and in oral doses of aquaticdependent animals ingesting food (prey) and water in those receiving waters (EC O ). Maximum exposure concentrations in ambient receiving wa ter are from the hypothetical harbor modeling (pre- and post-permit condition), as described above in Section 5.2.1.

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic Anim al and Plant Species - Chromium

The overall risk to freshwater aquatic or ganisms as a result of maximum exposure in ambient waters from dissolved chromium discharged by permitted vessels is “remote”. All RQ A,W s are well below a value of 0.0001, particularly for freshwater vertebrates and vascular plants. The highest RQ is 0.00002 estimated for freshwater invertebrate s under the pre-permit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species expos ed to dissolved chromium from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 15 percent.

Because chromium is a nutritionally essent ial inorganic element, chromium has the potential to accumulate in tissues of aquatic animals. Like other essential metals, aquatic organism exposure to chromium concentrations in excess of nutritional needs via other potential routes of exposure in addition to direct waterborne toxicity (e.g. dietary toxicity) may pose a threat to listed species. While chromium does not bioaccumulate to hi gh levels in aquatic animals (Reid, 2012), EPA believes it is prudent to incorporate an analysis on multiple routes of exposure in the analysis of this pollutant. The evaluation of potential ri sks from bioaccumulated chromium provides a means of identifying potential risks to listed species via exposure to criteria concentrations from all exposure routes combined.

An RQ was calculated for freshwater vert ebrates based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues (1.28 mg chromium/kg wet tissue; Chinook salmon) from continuous exposure to maximum concentrations of dissolved chromium in ambient receiving waters of

0.0000399 and 0.0000338 μ g dissolved chromium/L, pre- and post-permit conditions, respectively (see Table 5-18). Corresponding RQ s were all below 0.00001, indicating “remote” risk to freshwater aquatic animals from chromium accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) A quatic Animal and Plant Species - Chromium

The overall risk to saltwate r aquatic organisms as a result of maximum exposure in ambient waters from dissolved chromium discharged by permitted vessels is also “remote”. All RQ A,W s are 0.0001 or less. Control measures implemente d as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all saltwater species expos ed to dissolved chromium from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 3 percent.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-87 An RQ was calculated for saltwater invert ebrates based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues (3.20 mg Cr/kg wet tissue; flower crab) from continuous exposure to

maximum concentrations of dissolved cadmi um in ambient receiving waters of 0.00024 and

0.00020 μ g dissolved chromium/L, pr e- and post-permit conditions, respectively (see Table 5-29). Corresponding RQs were below 0.00001, agai n, indicating “remote” risk to aquatic animals (saltwater in this case) from chromium accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Chromium

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for dissolved chromium is required beca use of the apparent abi lity of some organisms to accumulate chromium in tissues, albeit to low levels. The RQs for representative freshwater

and saltwater mammals and birds based on the chr onic toxicity values in relation to the oral

effects concentrations calculated for this BE are all extremely low (<0.00001). These RQs

indicate “remote” risk of chromium to aquatic-dependent birds and mammals.

Table 5-28. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Chromium

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

CHROMIUM VI - Dissolved (* using EPA dissolved conversion factor of 0.962 freshwater and 0.993 estuarine/marine)

Freshwater Vertebrate a Atlantic salmon,

Salmo salar ELS Test -

Survival 10.1 - 97 31.30 ( 30.11 *) Grande and

Andersen 1983 (NODA review)

Freshwater Invertebrate Cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia

dubia LC Test - Reproduction 0.8 - 3.2 1.6 ( 1.539 *) Spehar and

Fiandt 1986 (NODA

review )

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Esthwaite waterweed, Hydrilla

verticillata 3-d test -

Decrease chlorophyll

content 10 - 100 31.62 ( 30.42 *) Rai et al. 1995 (NODA review)

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Atlantic silverside,

Menidia

menidia Acute LC50

÷ Estuarine

ACR (ACR=15.38) 14,271 ÷

15.38 927.9 ( 921.4 *) (estimated) Lussier et al. 1985 (ACR); Cardin 1982; 1985a (LC50) (NODA review)

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Polychaete

worm, Neanthes

d LC Test - Reproduction 12.5 - 25 17.68 ( 17.56 *) Oshida et al. 1981 (NODA review)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-88 Table 5-28. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Chromium

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) Fungus, Apergillus flavus 15-d Biomass

Test 100,000 - >100,000 >100,000 ( >99,300 *) Vala et al. 2004 (NODA review)

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt.) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate a Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 134 d

Juvenile Exposure (Laboratory) 29.2% weight reduction, morphological

changes in kidney, DNA damage 1.28 Farag et al.

2006

Freshwater Invertebrate Not Available

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Not Available

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Flower crab,

Portunus pelagicus - Decreased

size of crabs 3.20 Mortimer and

Miller 1994

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Rat 1-yr oral in

water body weight

and food consumption 3.28 Sample et al.

1996 (OR Toxics BE)

Birds Chick - - 8.59 Romoser et al.

1961 (OR Toxics BE)

a) Listed species.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-89 Table 5-29. Risk Quotients based on Divisi on of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate

Taxa to Dissolved Chromium

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.0000399 0.0000338 30.11 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater Invertebrate 1.539 <0.0001 <0.0001
Freshwater plant (Vascular) 30.42 <0.0001 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

0.00191 0.00185 921.4 <0.0001 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 17.56 0.000109 0.000106

Saltwater plant (Vascular) 99,300 <0.00001 <0.00001

Taxa EC T (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt.) EC T (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt.) CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt.) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.0000016 0.00000135 1.28 <0.00001 <0.00001

Freshwater Invertebrate NA - -
Freshwater plant (Vascular) NA - -

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

0.0000765 0.0000742 NA - -

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 3.20 <0.00001 <0.00001

Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA - -

Taxa EC O (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) EC O (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.000000128 0.000000109 3.28 <0.00001 <0.00001
Birds (Freshwater) 0.00000121 0.00000103 8.59 <0.00001 <0.00001
Mammals (Saltwater) 0.00000612 0.00000593 3.28 <0.00001 <0.00001
Birds (Saltwater) 0.000058 0.0000562 8.59 <0.00001 <0.00001

5.3.2.4.2 Indirect Effects from Chromium

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-30 i ndicate “remote” risk for direct effects of dissolved chromium (expressed as chromium VI) to listed aquatic and aq uatic-dependent species in this BE. Furthermore, discharge of dissolved chromium from covered vessels will not result in appreciable concentrations in estuarie s and freshwater receiving water bodies.

There is no basis for assuming indirect effect s on listed species via dissolved chromium exposure and corresponding toxicity-re lated reduction in the prey base [loss of prey] available to upper trophic level organisms. Since the informa tion summarized in Table 5-29 indicates that dissolved chromium at maximum exposure concentr ations calculated from pre-, and especially after post-permit conditions (15 to 3 percent reduction, freshwater and saltwater receiving water,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-90 respectively), has little risk of directly affecting fresh- and salt water aquatic animals and plants (particularly saltwater plants), i ndirect effects typically associated with exposure, including loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters , are also not expected for this metal.

Risk Conclusion for each of Li sted Species in RAAs - Chromium

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-30). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.

Table 5-30. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Chromium

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects

 Fate of dissolved chromium indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters) – at the concentrations predicted

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using an acute toxicity data for a juvenile mussel ( Andonta

imbecillis ) with an LC50 of 39 μg/L (Keller and Zam, 1991). Dividing the acute value by the freshwater

invertebrate ACR of 5.00 results in a chronic value of 7.8 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs are below 0.00001.

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 7-d study with Asian clam ( Potamocorbula amurensis ) with an MATC (survival) of 14,664 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs far below 0.00001. Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 24- hr acute study with fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus

texanus ) and an LC50 of 53.1 μg/L (Crisinel et al. 1994). Dividing by the freshwater invertebrate ACR of 5.00 results in a chronic value of 10.62 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs below 0.00001.

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using an ELS test with Atlantic salmon ( S. salar ) and an MATC (survival) of 31.30 μg/L (Grande and Andersen, 1983). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs below

0.00001.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-91 Table 5-30. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Chromium

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Anadromous Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 15-d study with Coho/silver salmon ( O. kisutch ) and an MATC (survival) of 23,792 μg/L (Holland et al., 1960). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs far

below 0.00001.

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. menidia as presented in Table 5-28 above Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Amphibian Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using chronic toxicity data with Montevido tree frog ( Hypsiboas pulchellus ) and an MATC (survival) of 4,243 μg/L (Natale et al., 2006). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs far below 0.00001. Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for A. flavus as presented in Table 5-28 above Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for H.

verticillata as presented in Table 5-28 above

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for A. flavus as presented in Table 5-28 above

5.3.2.5 Copper (Dissolved)

Dissolved copper is ubiquitous in vessel disc harges, often at concen trations that could potentially pose risk based on screening leve l benchmarks (see Section 3.2.3.5). The highest

concentrations of dissolved c opper were detected in the deck washdown, graywater, fish hold, and bilgewater discharges from most covered ve ssels, particularly worki ng “utility” vessels (e.g., towboats, supply boats). Dissolv ed copper is also expected to continuously leach into surrounding waters from copper-bas ed anti-fouling coatings speci fically applied to the vessel hull and sea water piping systems to limit attachment of aquatic species.

The toxicity of copper is dependent on c opper speciation where free ionic copper (Cu 2+ ) is the main toxic form of copper. In general, fr ee ionic copper, and thus po tential toxicity, will be2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-92 high in waters of low ionic strength, low concentr ations of natural organic matter, and low pH (Grosell, 2012). In addition recentstudies have revealed that ex treme salinities, low as well as high (33 ppt), render euryhaline fish more sensit ive to copper than intermediate salinities, although fish in seawater show greater overall to lerance to copper than those in freshwater (Grosell et al., 2007).

Copper is an essential element for all aerobic organisms where it is utilized by mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase, as well as a cofactor for a high number of other enzymes (Solomon and Lowery, 1993). Specific evidence for an important role for copper as a

micronutrient in teleost fish comes from observati ons of reduced growth under conditions of low ambient and dietary copper (Ogino and Yang, 1980; Gatlin and Wilson, 1986; Kamunde et al., 2002). Owing to its relatively str ong essentiality where copper uptake is under homeostatic control (i.e., carrier-mediate d and a function of concentr ation in water and diet), biomagnification is not consider ed a major factor for copper (Grosell, 2012). In fact, BCFs (accumulation from dissolved sources) and BAFs (accumulation from dissolved and dietary sources combined) for copper in freshwater or ganisms in general are inversely related to exposure concentrations (McGeer et al., 2003; DeForest et al., 2007).

Since copper toxicity to freshw ater aquatic animals has been shown to be related to water hardness, it is appropriate to normalize chronic toxi city effect thresholds for freshwater aquatic animals to a standard water hardness (i.e., 100 mg/L as CaCO 3 ) for comparative purposes and to support risk calcula tion (USEPA, 2005b).

5.3.2.5.1 Direct Effects from Copper

Table 5-31 summarizes the chronic toxicity values available for calculating the risk quotients for aquatic and aquatic-dependent spec ies exposed to dissolved copper. Table 5-32 presents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in ambient receiving waters (EC W ), in tissues of aquatic organisms expos ed to those concentrations (EC T ), and in oral doses of aquaticdependent animals ingesting food (prey) and water in those receiving waters (EC O ). Maximum exposure concentrations in ambient receiving wa ter are from the hypothetical harbor modeling (pre- and post-permit condition), as described above in Section 5.2.1.

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic An imal and Plant Species - Copper

The risk to freshwater aquatic organisms fr om maximum exposure to dissolved copper in ambient receiving water from discharges of covere d vessels is expected to generally be low. RQs

for freshwater vertebrates and the more “chroni cally copper-sensitive” fr eshwater invertebrates are 0.007 and 0.008, respectively, and indicate only “remote” risk (Table 5-32). The RQ for freshwater vascular plants is substantially lower at approxi mately 0.0003, also indicative of “remote” risk. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to dissolved copper from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 1 percent.

Because copper is a nutritiona lly essential inorganic elemen t for all species, both plant and animal, copper has the potential to accumulate in tissues of aquatic animals, as long as water2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-93 column or dietary concentrati ons are not so high as to overw helm homeostatic mechanisms, aquatic species are able to re gulate their internal body burden of copper. Aquatic organism exposure to copper concentrations in excess of nutriti onal needs via other pot ential routes of exposure in addition to direct wa terborne toxicity (e.g. dietary toxicity) may pose a threat to listed species. While copper does not bioaccumula te to high levels in aquatic animals, EPA believes it is prudent to incorporate an analysis on multiple routes of exposur e in their analysis of this pollutant. The evaluation of potential risks from bioaccumulated copper provides a means of identifying potential risks to li sted species via exposure to crit eria concentrations from all exposure routes combined.

RQs for freshwater aquatic vertebrate s and invertebrates based on estimated

concentrations accumulated in tissues from cont inuous exposure to a maximum concentration of dissolved copper in ambient receiving water of 0.0328 μ g/L (post-permit condition) are approximately 0.00318 and 0.00251, respectively, indicati ng “remote” risk to freshwater aquatic animals from copper accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) A quatic Animal and Plant Species - Copper

The risk to saltwater aquatic organisms fr om maximum exposure to dissolved copper in ambient receiving water is lower than the same ri sk predicted for freshwat er organisms. The risk

to saltwater invertebrates is “r emote” (RQ of approximately 0.047), as are the risks to saltwater vascular plants and vertebrates (RQs below 0.01). Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticip ated to lower the risk to al l saltwater species exposed to dissolved copper from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 1 percent.

RQs for saltwater aquatic vertebrates and inve rtebrates based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues from continuous exposur e to a maximum concentration of dissolved copper in ambient receiving water of 0.37 μ g/L (post-permit condition) are approximately 0.0234 and 0.0275, respectively, indicating “remote” risk to saltwater aquatic animals from copper

accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Copper

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for dissolved copper is required because of the need for and ability of organisms to accumulate copper in tissues at low levels. The RQs for representative freshwater and saltwater mammals and birds based on the chronic toxicity values in relation to the oral effects

concentrations calculated for this BE are at or less than 0.002. These RQs indicate “remote” risk of dissolved copper to aquatic-d ependent birds and mammals.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-94 Table 5-31. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Copper

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC - LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

COPPER - Dissolved (*freshwater data normalized to hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3 using EPA derived acute slope of 0.8545 and EPA dissolved conversion factor of 0.960; or, using dissolved conversion factor of 0.83 only in estuarine/marine)

Freshwater

Vertebrate a Fountain darter,

Etheostoma fonticola 28-day juvenile F,M/

Survival - 4.69 * Mayer et al. 2008

Freshwater

Invertebrate Rotifer,

Brachionus calyciflorus LC Test -

Intrinsic growth rate 2.5 - 5.0 3.535 (3.899 *) Janssen et al. 1994 (2007 ALC doc.)

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Duckweed,

Lemna minor 7-d EC50 - 119 ( 114.2 *) Walbridge 1977 (2007 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus ELS Test –

Growth 172 - 362 249 ( 206.7 *) Hughes et al. 1989 (2007 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Rotifer,

Brachionus plicatilis 96-hr Growth 6.1 - 10.3 7.9 (dissolved) Arnold et al. 2010 (Cu Dev. Assoc. work)

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) Giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera 96-hr EC50 – Photosynthesis - 60 ( 49.8 *) Clendenning and

North 1959 (2003 Draft ALC Update)

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt.) Study (source)

Freshwater

Vertebrate Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss ELS Test Reduction in growth 3.0 Seim et al. 1984

Freshwater

Invertebrate Cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia

dubia LC Test 25% reduction offspring produced 3.8 Schwartz et al.

2004

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Grey mullet,

Chelon labrosus 10-wk juvenile dietary

exposure Decreased growth and food intake, induced hepatic lipid 4.59 Baker et al. 1998

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Copepod,

Acartia clausi - Reduced egg production 3.9 MoraitouApostolopoulos and Verriopoulos

19792013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-95 Table 5-31. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Copper

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Mink 357-d oral in

diet Reproduction 11.7 Sample et al. 1996 (Oregon Toxics BE)

Birds Chicken 10-wk oral in

diet Growth, mortality 47 Sample et al. 1996 (Oregon Toxics BE)

a) Listed species.

Table 5-32. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Th resholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Dissolved Copper

Taxa EC W (Post-Permit Condition) (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ (Post-Permit)

Freshwater Vertebrate 0.0328 4.690 0.007

Freshwater Invertebrate 3.899 0.00842 Freshwater plant (Vascular) 114.2 0.000288

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate 0.37 206.7 0.00179

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 7.900 0.0469

Saltwater plant (Vascu lar) 49.80 0.00743

Taxa EC T (Post-Permit Condition) (mg/kg wet wt) CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt) RQ (Post-Permit)

Freshwater Vertebrate 0.00953 3.00 0.00318

Freshwater Invertebrate 3.80 0.00251 Freshwater plant (Vascular) NA -

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate 0.107 4.59 0.0234

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 3.90 0.0275

Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA -

Taxa EC O (Post-Permit Condition) (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ (Post-Permit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.00131 11.7 0.000112 Birds (Freshwater) 0.00722 47.0 0.000154 Mammals (Saltwater) 0.0147 11.7 0.00126 Birds (Saltwater) 0.0813 47.0 0.001732013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-96 5.3.2.5.2 Indirect Effects from Copper

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-32 i ndicate “remote” risk for direct effects of dissolved copper to listed aquati c and aquatic-dependent specie s in this BE. Furthermore, discharge of dissolved copper does not appear to result in appreciable concentrations in modeled estuaries and freshwater receiving water bod ies under highly cons ervative scenarios.

There is no basis for assuming indirect effect s on listed species via copper exposure and corresponding toxicity-related reducti on in the prey base [loss of pr ey] available to upper trophic level organisms. Additionally, exposure of wildli fe via the water or via the food web to this essential metal appears to be of limited (neg ligible) consequence. Since the information summarized in Table 5-32 indicates that copp er at maximum exposure concentrations under post-permit conditions has only reomte risk of di rectly affecting fresh- and saltwater aquatic animals and plants, indirect eff ects typically associated with e xposure, including loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters, ar e also not expected for this metal.

Risk Conclusion for each of Listed Species in RAAs - Copper

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-33). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.

Table 5-33. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in RAAs to Dissolved Copper

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct chronic

effects

 Fate of dissolved copper indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters) – at the concentrations predicted

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using 4-d acute toxicity data with the non-North American coral ( Galaxea fascicularis ) with an LC50 of 32 μg/L (26.82 μg/L dissolved; Sabdono, 2009). Dividing this by the FACR of 3.22 results in a chronic value of 8.33 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of approximately 0.019.

Unionid Mussels Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using acute study with the mussel ( Actinonaias sp. ) SMAV from the 2007 ALC doc. of 11.33 μg/L (Keller, unpublished) and dividing by the FACR of 3.22, which results in a chronicvalue of 3.519 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and postpermit RQs of approximately 0.0094.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-97 Table 5-33. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in RAAs to Dissolved Copper

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Bivalve

Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using 7-d study with blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ) and a LOEC (mortality) of 200 μg/L (167.6 μg/L dissolved; Scott and Major, 1972). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of approximately 0.0009. Freshwater Shrimp/

Crustacean Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a chronic study with rainbow trout ( O. mykiss ) and an MATC (growth) of 7.29 μg/L (normalized to 100 mg/L on a dissolved basis)(Mayer et al., 2008). Calculation results in pre- and postpermit RQs of approximately 0.045.

Anadromous Salmonid Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using acute toxicity data with the shovelnose sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus platorynchus ) from the 2007 ALC doc., which has an SMAV of 69.63 μg/L (Dwyer et al., 1999). Dividing by the FACR of 3.22 results in a chronic value of 21.62 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of approximately 0.0015. Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for L. variegatus as presented in Table 5-31 above Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Amphibian Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using acute toxicity data with the boreal toad ( Bufo boreas ) from USEPA 2007b ALC document, which has an SMAV of 47.49 μg/L (Dwyer et al., 1999). Dividing by the FACR of 3.22 results in a chronic value of 14.75 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of approximately 0.0022.

Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. pyrifera as presented in Table 5-31 above

Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic and Wetland

Plants Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for L. minor as presented in Table 5-31 above

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. pyrifera as presented in Table 5-31 above2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-98 5.3.2.6 Lead (Dissolved)

Dissolved lead is found at levels exceedi ng screening level benchmarks in the deck washdown discharges from most covered vessels, particularly working “utility” vessels (e.g., towboats, supply boats), and to a lesser extent, in graywater and fish hold discharges (see Section 3.2.3.5). Lead is a naturally o ccurring, ubiquitous compound in freshwater present at concentrations gene rally less than 3 μ g/L in most streams (Moore and Ramamoorthy, 1984).

Measured concentrations in rivers and streams of the United States averaged between 5 and 23

μ g/L nationwide (Eisler, 1988). Highe r concentrations are associat ed either with anthropogenic

sources or occur in hi ghly mineralized regions.

The solubility of lead compounds in water depends heavily on pH and ranges from about
10,000,000 μ g/L of lead at pH 5.5 to 1 μ g/L at pH 9.0 (Hem and Durum, 1973). The bioavailability of lead increases in environmen ts with low pH, low organic content, and low metal salt content (Eisler, 1988) . Invertebrates tend to have higher BCFs than vertebrates (USEPA, 1984b).

Toxicity of lead to aquatic organisms varies with water temperature, pH, water hardness, metal salt concentrations, orga nic matter, and suspended solid concentration (USEPA, 1984b). Organic lead compounds are generally more toxic than inorganic (Eisler, 1988).

Since lead toxicity to freshwater aquatic anim als has been shown to be related to water hardness, it is appropriate to normalize chronic toxi city effect thresholds for freshwater aquatic animals to a standard water hardness (i.e., 100 mg/L as CaCO 3 ) for comparative purposes and to support risk calcula tion (USEPA, 2005b).

5.3.2.6.1 Direct Effects from Lead

Table 5-34 summarizes the chronic toxicity values available for calculating the risk quotients for aquatic and aquatic-dependent sp ecies exposed to disso lved lead. Table 5-35 presents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in ambient receiving waters (EC W ), in tissues of aquatic organisms expos ed to those concentrations (EC T ), and in oral doses of aquaticdependent animals ingesting food (prey) and water in those receiving waters (EC O ). Maximum exposure concentrations in ambient receiving wa ter are from the hypothetical harbor modeling (pre- and post-permit condition), as described above.

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - Lead

The overall risk to freshwater aquatic or ganisms as a result of maximum exposure in ambient waters from dissolved lead discharg ed by permitted vessels is “remote”. All RQ A,W s are well below a value of 0.0001, particularly for fres hwater vertebrates and vascular plants. The highest RQ is 0.00002 estimated for freshwater invertebrates under the pre-permit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issu ance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to di ssolved copper from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 5 percent.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-99 While lead does not bioaccumulate to high leve ls in aquatic animals, EPA believes it is prudent to incorporate the analysis on multiple r outes of exposure in this BE for this essential metal. The evaluation of potential risks from bioaccumulated lead provides a means of identifying potential risks to list ed aquatic species via exposure to criteria concentrations from all exposure routes combined.

RQs were calculated for freshwater verteb rates and invertebrates based on estimated

concentrations accumulated in tissues from cont inuous exposure to maximum concentrations of dissolved lead in ambient receiving waters of 0.0000922 and 0.0000878 μ g/L, pre- and postpermit conditions, respectively (see Table 5-35 ). Corresponding RQs were also all below 0.0001, indicating “remote” risk to fr eshwater aquatic animals from lead accumulated in tissues. Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - Lead

The overall risk to saltwate r aquatic organisms as a result of maximum exposure in ambient waters from dissolved lead discharged by permitted vessels is also “remote”. All RQ A,W s are 0.0004 or less. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all saltwater species exposed to dissolved lead from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 11 percent.

An RQ was calculated for saltwater invert ebrates based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues from continuous exposure to maximum concentrations of dissolved lead in ambient receiving waters of 0.00295 and 0.00262 μ g/L, pre- and post-permit conditions, respectively (see Table 5-35). Corresponding RQ s were at or below 0.0001, again, indicating “remote” risk to aquatic animals (saltwater in this case) from lead accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Lead

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for dissolved lead is required because of the apparent ability of some organisms to accumulate lead in tissues, albeit to low levels . The RQs for representative freshwater and

saltwater mammals and birds based on the chronic t oxicity values in relation to the oral effects

concentrations calculated for this BE are all extremely low (<0.00001). These RQs indicate “remote” risk of lead to aqua tic-dependent birds and mammals.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-100 Table 5-34. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Lead

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

LEAD - Dissolved (* normalized using EPA pooled slope of 1.442 and using dissolved conversion factor of 1.46203-[(ln hardness)(0.145712)] freshwater and 0.951 estuarine/marine)

Freshwater Vertebrate Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss ELS Test - Development 13.2 - 27 18.88 ( 93.62 *) Goettl et al. 1972;

Davies and Everhart 1973;

Davies et al. 1976 (1980 ALC doc.)

Freshwater Invertebrate Amphipod, Hyalella azteca LC Test 7.9 - 18 11.92 ( 6.050 *) Besser et al.

2005b (NODA review)

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Duckweed,

Lemna minor 96-hr EC50 –

Growth - 8,000 Wang 1986

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys

marmoratus Acute LC50 ÷

Estuarine

ACR (ACR=124.8) 1,500 ÷ 124.8 12.02 ( 11.43 *) (estimated ) Dinnel et al. 1989 (LC50); Lussier et al. 1985 (ACR)

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Mysid, Americamysis

bahia LC Test - Reproduction 17 - 37 25.08 ( 23.85 *) Lussier et al.

1985 (1984 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) Not Available - - 8.1 CCC from

USEPA 1980a (ALC doc.)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-101 Table 5-34. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Lead

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate Brook trout,

Salvelinus fontinalis 3 Generation Laboratory Study Reduced hatchability

and survival of

third generation fish 0.40 Holcombe et al.

1976

Freshwater Invertebrate Amphipod, Hyalella azteca 42-d

concurrent exposure in

water and diet Fewer offspring produced 4.20 Besser et al.

2005b

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Not Available

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Cockle,

Cerastoderma

edule - Partial

inhibition of burrowing 260.00 Amiard et al.

1986

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Rat 3 generations (>1 year) oral

in diet Reproduction 8 Sample et al.

1996 (Oregon Toxics

BE )

Birds Japanese quail 12-wk oral in

diet Reproduction 1.13 Sample et al.

1996 (Oregon Toxics BE)

Table 5-35. Risk Quotients based on Divisi on of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate

Taxa to Dissolved Lead

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.0000922 0.0000878 93.62 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater Invertebrate 6.050 <0.0001 <0.0001
Freshwater plant (Vascular) 8,000 <0.0001 <0.00012013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-102 Table 5-35. Risk Quotients based on Divisi on of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate

Taxa to Dissolved Lead

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

0.00295 0.00262 11.43 0.000258 0.000229

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 23.85 0.000124 0.00011

Saltwater plant (Vascular) 8.1 0.000364 0.000323

Taxa EC T (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt) EC T (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt) CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.00000452 0.0000043 0.40 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater Invertebrate 4.20 <0.0001 <0.0001
Freshwater plant (Vascular) NA - -

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

0.000144 0.000128 NA - -

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 260 <0.0001 <0.0001

Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA - -

Taxa EC O (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) EC O (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.000000363 0.000000346 8.00 <0.00001 <0.00001
Birds (Freshwater) 0.00000343 0.00000327 1.13 <0.00001 <0.00001
Mammals (Saltwater) 0.0000116 0.0000103 8.00 <0.00001 <0.00001
Birds (Saltwater) 0.000109 0.0000972 1.13 <0.00001 <0.00001

5.3.2.6.2 Indirect Effects from Lead

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-36 i ndicate “remote” risk for direct effects of dissolved lead to listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species in this BE. Furthermore, discharge

of dissolved lead from covered vessels will not re sult in appreciable concentrations in estuaries and freshwater receiving water bodies.

There is no basis for assuming indirect eff ects on listed species via dissolved lead exposure and corresponding toxicity-re lated reduction in the prey base [loss of prey] available to upper trophic level organisms. Since the informa tion summarized in Table 5-35 indicates that dissolved lead at maximum exposure concentrations calculated from pre- , and especially after post-permit conditions (11 to 5 percent reductio n, saltwater and freshwater receiving water, respectively), has little risk of directly affecting fresh- and salt water aquatic animals and plants2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-103 (particularly freshwater pl ants), indirect effects typically asso ciated with exposure, including loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters , are also not expected for this metal.

Risk Conclusion for each of Listed Species in RAAs - Lead

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-36). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.

Table 5-36. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Lead

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects

 Fate of dissolved lead indi cates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters) – at the concentrations predicted

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 40-d study with blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ) and an LC50 of 30,000 μg/L (28,530 μg/L dissolved) (Talbot et al., 1976). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs

far below 0.00001. Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for O. mykiss as presented in Table 5-35 above

Anadromous Salmonid Remote Same as Freshwater Inland Salmonids – no chronic toxicity

data are available for salmonids tested in seawater

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for S.

marmoratus as presented in Table 5-34 above Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Amphibian Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 30-d study of leopard frog ( Rana pipiens ) with an effect concentration (death) of 100 μg/L (note hardness not provided cannot be normalized) (Kaplan et al., 1967). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of less

than 0.00001. Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-104 Table 5-36. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Lead

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for L. minor as presented in Table 5-34 above

5.3.2.7 Nickel (Dissolved)

Dissolved and total nickel are ubiquitous in vess el discharges, often at concentrations that could pose potential risk based on screening le vel benchmarks (see Section 3.2.3.5). The highest

concentrations of nickel were detected in th e stern tube packing gland effluent, followed by exhaust gas scrubber effluent and bilgewater discharges.

Nickel occurs naturally in the United States and has been noted to range between 0.4 and

3.8 μ g/L, but is typically less than 10 μ g/L (Eisler, 1998).

Nickel can be carcinogenic, may be mutagenic, but is not teratogenic. Nickel essentiality in plants and microorganisms is well establishe d, but of all the known ni ckel-containing enzymes have been isolated from plants or microorganism s, none, as yet, have been isolated in animal tissues (Pyle and Couture, 2012). In fish, the eviden ce for possible nickel esse ntiality is based on: 1) the observations that nickel c oncentrations in fish tissues re main relatively constant despite

wide fluctuations in environmental concentratio ns (Tja ̈lve et al., 1988; Ray et al., 1990), 2) nickel can be reabsorbed by th e kidney (Sreedevi et al., 1992 b; Ptashynski and Klaverkamp, 2002), and 3) nickel uptake from food and water a ppears to be regulated (Lapointe and Couture, 2009). Thus, nickel is bioconcentrated and bioacc umulated by aquatic organisms (Eisler, 1998), but only to low levels.

Toxicity of nickel to aquatic organisms is dependent on water hardness, pH, ionic composition, pollutant form, type and concentrat ion of ligands, presence of mixtures, and availability of solid surfaces for adsorption (Eisler, 1998). Nickel interacts with many compounds to produce altered patter ns of accumulation, metabolism, and toxicity (Eisler, 1998). Mixtures of metals containing ni ckel salts can be more toxic to daphnids and fishes than are predicted on the basis of individu al components (Ens erink et al., 1991).

For this analysis, because dissolved nick el concentrations exceeded total nickel concentrations on the average, EPA is only consid ering risk to listed species based on dissolved nickel, the most bioavailable (and th erefore, toxic) form of the metal. Also, since nickel toxicity to freshwater aquatic animals has been shown to be related to water hardness, it is appropriate to normalize chronic toxicity effect thresholds for freshwater aquatic animals to a standard water hardness (i.e., 100 mg/L as CaCO 3 ) for comparative purposes and to support risk calculation (USEPA, 2005b).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-105 5.3.2.7.1 Direct Effects from Nickel

Table 5-37 summarizes the chronic toxicity values available for calculating the risk quotients for aquatic and aquatic-dependent spec ies exposed to dissolved nickel. Table 5-38 presents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in ambient receiving waters (EC W ), in tissues of aquatic organisms expos ed to those concentrations (EC T ), and in oral doses of aquaticdependent animals ingesting food and wa ter in those receiving waters (EC O ). Maximum exposure concentrations in ambient receiving wa ter are from the hypothetical harbor modeling, as described above. Since maximum exposure co ncentrations based on pre- and post-permit conditions are essentially the same, the following risk analysis is based on the use of maximum exposure concentrations predicted under the post-permit condition only

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic An imal and Plant Species - Nickel

The risk to freshwater aquatic organisms from maximum exposure to dissolved nickel in ambient receiving water from discharges of covered vessels is “remote”. The RQ A,W for

freshwater invertebra tes is 0.00349 while the RQ A,W for freshwater vertebrates and vascular plants are less than 0.00 02 and 0.0001, respectively.

Because nickel is a nutritiona lly essential inorganic elem ent, it has the potential to accumulate in tissues of aquatic animals. Like other essential metals, aquatic organism exposure

to nickel concentrations in excess of nutritiona l needs via other potential routes of exposure in

addition to direct waterborne to xicity (e.g. dietary toxicity) may pose toxicity threats to some species. While nickel does not bioaccumulate to high levels in aquatic animals (Pyle and Couture, 2012), EPA believes it is prudent to in corporate an analysis on multiple routes of exposure in their analysis of this pollutant. The evaluation of potential risks from bioaccumulated nickel provides a means of identifying potential ri sks to listed species via exposure to criteria concentrations from all exposure routes combined.

An RQ was calculated for freshwater invert ebrates based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues (1.15 mg nickel/kg wet tissue; amphipod - Hyalella azteca ) from continuous exposure to a maximum concentration of dissolved nickel in ambient receiving

waters of 0.0246 μ g/L (see Table 5-38). The corresponding RQ was 0.001, indicating “remote” risk to freshwater aquatic animals from nickel accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) A quatic Animal and Plant Species - Nickel

The risk to saltwater aquatic organisms from maximum exposure to dissolved nickel in ambient receiving water from discharges of covered vessels is also “remote”. Using the maximum exposure concentration estimated unde r the post-permit condition, RQs for saltwater organisms are approximately 0.0354 for vascular plants, 0.0133 for invertebrates and <0.0001 for

vertebrates.

An RQ was calculated for saltwater invert ebrates based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues (26.4 mg nickel/kg wet tissue; sea urchin – Lytechinus pictus ) from2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-106 continuous exposure to a maximum concentration of dissolved nickel in ambient receiving

waters of 0.291 μ g/L (see Table 5-38). The co rresponding RQ was 0.000518, indicating “remote” risk to saltwater aquatic animal s from nickel accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Nickel

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for dissolved nickel is required be cause of the ability of (and need for) aquatic organisms to accumulate this essential metal in tissues. The RQs estimated for surrogate mammals and birds based on the quotient of EC O and CTET O for nickel are all below 0.0001. These RQs indicate “remote” risk of nickel to aquatic-dependent birds and mammals.

Table 5-37. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Nickel

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

NICKEL - Dissolved (*normalized using EPA pooled slope of 0.8460 and using EPA dissolved conversion factor of 0.997 freshwater and 0.990 estuarine/marine)

Freshwater Vertebrate Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss ELS Test - 62 - 134 91.15 ( 158.0 *) Nebeker et al.

1985 (1986 ALC doc.)

Freshwater Invertebrate Cladoceran, Daphnia magna LC Test - 5 - 10 (hardness not

provided) 7.071 ( 7.050 *) Lazareva 1985 (1986 ALC doc.)

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Duckweed,

Lemna minor 28-d EC50 - (hardness not

provided) 340 ( 339.0 *) Brown and Rattigan 1979 (1986 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Topsmelt, Atherinops affinis LC Test 3,240 - 5,630 4,270 ( 4,227 *) Hunt et al. 2002 (Ni saltwater addendum)

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Mysid, Mysidopsis intii LC Test 10.0 - 48.8 22.09 ( 21.87 *) Hunt et al. 2002 (Ni saltwater addendum)

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) Not Available - - 8.2 (CCC) CCC in USEPA 1986 (ALC doc.)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-107 Table 5-37. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Nickel

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate Not Available

Freshwater Invertebrate Amphipod, Hyalella azteca 4-wk Exposure to nickel-spiked

sediment ED25 for

reduced growth 1.15 Borgmann et al.

2001

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Not Available

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Sea urchin, Lytechinus pictus - Inhibited

normal development of embryos 26.40 Timourian and

Watchmaker

1972

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Rat 3 generations (>1 yr) oral in

diet Reproduction 40 Sample et al.

1996 (Oregon Toxics BE)

Birds Mallard 90-d oral in

diet Mortality, growth,

behavior 77.4 Sample et al.

1996 (Oregon Toxics BE)

Table 5-38. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-Permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Th resholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to

Dissolved Nickel

Taxa EC W (Post-Permit Condition) (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ (Post-Permit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.0246 158.0 0.000156

Freshwater Invertebrate 7.050 0.00349 Freshwater plant (Vascular) 339.0 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

0.291 4.227 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate 21.87 0.0133
Saltwater plant (Vascular) 8.2 0.03542013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-108 Table 5-38. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-Permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Th resholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to

Dissolved Nickel

Taxa EC T (Post-Permit Condition) (mg/kg wet wt) CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt) RQ (Post-Permit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.00116 NA -

Freshwater Invertebrate 1.15 0.001
Freshwater plant (Vascular) NA -

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

0.0137 NA -

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate 26.4 0.000518
Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA -

Taxa EC O (Post-Permit Condition) (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ (Post-Permit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.0000929 40.0 <0.0001 Birds (Freshwater) 0.000116 77.4 <0.0001 Mammals (Saltwater) 0.00109 40.0 <0.0001 Birds (Saltwater) 0.00137 77.4 <0.0001

5.3.2.7.2 Indirect Effects for Nickel

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-39 i ndicate “remote” risk for direct effects of dissolved nickel to listed aqua tic and aquatic-dependent specie s in this BE. Furthermore, discharge of dissolved nickel from covered vess els will not result in appreciable concentrations

in estuaries and freshwat er receiving water bodies.

There is no basis for assuming indirect eff ects on listed species via dissolved nickel exposure and corresponding toxicity-re lated reduction in the prey base [loss of prey] available to upper trophic level organisms. Since the informa tion summarized in Table 5-38 indicates that dissolved nickel at maximum exposure concentrati ons under post-permit conditions has little risk of directly affecting fresh- a nd saltwater aquatic animals and pl ants (particularly freshwater plants), indirect effects typical ly associated with exposure, in cluding loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters, are also not expected for this metal.

Risk Conclusion for each of Li sted Species in RAAs - Nickel

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-39). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-109 Table 5-39. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Nickel

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects

 Fate of dissolved nickel indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters) – at the concentrations predicted

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 4-d study with southern fatmucket ( Lampsilis straminea

claibornen ) and an LC50 of 132 μg/L (131.6 μg/L dissolved; note: hardness not provided) (Keller, 2000). Dividing by a FACR of 17.99 results in a chronic valueof 38.41 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and postpermit RQs of approximately 0.0006.

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a lifecycle test with red abalone ( Haliotis rufescens ) MATC of 26.43 μg/L (26.17 μg/L dissolved; Hunt et al., 2002). Calculations result in pre- and post-permit RQs of approximately 0.011. Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for O. mykiss as presented in Table 5-37 above

Anadromous Salmonid Remote Same as Freshwater Inland Salmonids – no chronic toxicity

data are available for salmonids tested in seawater

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for A. affinis as presented in Table 5-39 above Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Amphibian Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 7-d study of narrow-mouthed toad ( Gastrophryne

carolinensis ) with an EC50 (death and deformity) of 50 μg/L (50.27 μg/L dissolved and normalized to 100 mg/L hardness) (Birge and Black, 1980). Calculations result in pre- and post-permit RQs of approximately 0.0005. Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-110 Table 5-39. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Nickel

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for L. minor as presented in Table 5-39 above

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a study with an unknown duration with giant kelp ( Macrocystis pyritera ) and an EC50 (reduction in photosynthesis) of 2,000 (1,980 dissolved) (Clendenning and North, 1959). Calculations result in pre- and post-permit RQs less than 0.0001.

5.3.2.8 Selenium (Dissolved and Total)

Both total and dissolved selenium have been detected in exhaust gas scrubber effluent

and fish hold and fish hold cleani ng effluent that could potentia lly pose risk based on screening level benchmarks (Section 3.2.3.5). Selenium is an abundant trace element in soils derived from rocks formed principally in the Cretaceous period (Stephens a nd Waddell, 1998). Typical background concentrations of [total] se lenium have been estimated at 0.25 μ g/L (Wilber, 1980),

0.1 to 0.3 μ g/L (Lemly, 1985), 0.2 μ g/L (Lillebo et al, 1988), and 0.1 to 0.4 μ g/L (average <0.2, Maier and Knight, 1994). Selenium is also an esse ntial trace element that becomes toxic in living systems at concentrations only sl ightly higher than the optimum concentration (Porcella et al. 1991; Maier and Knight, 1994). For example, a quatic and terrestrial organisms require 0.5 μ g/g dry weight (approximately 0.1 mg/kg wet weight ti ssue) of selenium in their diet to sustain metabolic processes, whereas concentrations of selenium that are only an order of magnitude greater than the required level have been show n to be toxic to fish. This unique feature of selenium has generated a great deal of academic and regulatory research over the past several

decades. Its role as either a nutrient or toxican t depends on both its concentration and its form (Spallholz and Hoffman, 2002).

In aquatic systems selenium exists in bot h inorganic and organic forms, each with different bioavailability and t oxicity properties (see USEPA, 2002). Much like with arsenic, selenium is a metalloid and can exist in aquatic systems in a broad range of oxidation states, but only elemental selenium, selenites (HSeO 3 - and SeO 3 2- ), and selenate (SeO 4 2- ) exist in thermodynamic equilibrium under most conditions observed in freshwater (EPRI, 2003). Primary

sources in freshwater and estuarine environments originate from various land use practices, point source discharges and natural background, includi ng: fly-ash from coal-fired power plants, agricultural irrigation drainage, natural background levels includi ng weathering of seleniferous

shales and soils in the Western United States. The propensity of selenium to bioaccumulate in aquatic and aquatic-dependent organisms directly affected by these point sources has received special attention over the last few decades. Fr om these and other inte nsively studied aquatic systems, including several corroborating laboratory studies, it has become clear that the greatest threat posed by selenium to aquatic organisms resu lts from chronic selenium exposure, leading to2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-111 elevated selenium concentrations in tissues (and often to chro nic toxic effects), principally during early life stag es (USEPA, 2002).

Much like in the case with arsenic, for this analysis, EPA assumes that all selenium in

fresh- and saltwater is dissolved se lenium, and that analysis of dire ct and indirect effects is best addressed using aquatic toxicity data published for surrogate species based on this form of the metalloid in tissues of aquatic organisms especially.

5.3.2.8.1 Direct Effects from Selenium

Table 5-40 summarizes the chronic toxicity values available for calculating the risk quotients for aquatic and aquatic-dependent sp ecies exposed to tota l selenium (assumed equivalent to 100 percent dissolved). Table 5-41 presents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in ambient receiving waters (EC W ), in tissues of aquatic organisms exposed to those concentrations (EC T ), and in oral doses of aquatic-depe ndent animals ingesting food (prey) and water in those receiving waters (EC O ). Maximum exposure concentrations in ambient receiving water are from the hypothetical harbor modeling, as described above in Section 5.2.1. As with arsenic, EPA’s risk analysis is based on the use of maximum exposure concentration estimated via the post-permit condition only since maximu m exposure concentrations based on pre-permit

condition was the same.

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic An imal and Plant Species - Selenium

The risk to freshwater aquatic organisms fr om maximum exposure to total selenium in ambient receiving water from discharges of c overed vessels is remote. Using the post-permit maximum exposure concentrations, RQs for fres hwater vertebrates a nd invertebrates are approximately 0.002 (Table 5-41). The RQ for freshw ater vascular plants is substantially lower at less than 0.0001, indicativ e of “remote” risk.

Because selenium is a nutritiona lly essential inorganic elemen t for all species, both plant and animal, selenium has the potential to accumula te in tissues of aquatic animals, as long as water column or dietary concentrations ar e not so high as to overwhelm homeostatic mechanisms, aquatic species are able to regulate their internal body burde n of selenium. Aquatic organism exposure to selenium concentrations in excess of nutritional ne eds via other potential routes of exposure in addition to direct waterborne toxicity (e.g. dietary toxicity) poses the greatest threat to listed species. While selenium does bioaccumulate in aquatic animals, it does not biomagnify (EPRI, 2003), and it is thus both important and prude nt to incorporate an analysis on multiple routes of exposure in the analysis of this pollutant for this BE. The evaluation of potential risks from bioaccumulated selenium provi des a means of identifying potential risks to listed species via exposure to criteria concentr ations from all exposure routes combined.

RQs for freshwater aquatic vertebrate s and invertebrates based on estimated

concentrations accumulated in tissues from cont inuous exposure to a maximum concentration of total selenium in ambient receiving water of 0.203 μ g/L are approximately 0.0105 and 0.028, respectively, indicating “remote” risk to fres hwater aquatic animals from total selenium

accumulated in tissues.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-112 Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) A quatic Animal and Plant Species - Selenium

The risk to saltwater aquatic organisms from maximum total selenium exposure in ambient receiving water is higher than the same risk predicted for freshwater organisms (Table 5-41). The risk to saltwater vertebrates and i nvertebrates is “remote” (0.01 and less), and only slightly higher for saltwater va scular plants when us ing EPA’s CCC for selenium in saltwater at

the basis for CTET A,W (RQ equal to 0.034).

An RQ for saltwater aquatic vertebrates based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues from continuous exposure to maximum concentrations of tota l selenium in ambient receiving water of 2.39 μ g/L is approximately thirteen times higher (i.e., 0.136) than for vertebrates in freshwater, indica ting a “negligible” risk to saltwa ter aquatic animals from total

selenium accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Selenium

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for total selenium is required because of the need for and ability of organisms to

accumulate selenium in tissues at low levels . The RQs for representative freshwater and

saltwater mammals and birds based on the chronic t oxicity values in relation to the oral effects concentrations calculated for this BE range from 0.0101 to 0.0203 for freshwater birds and mammals, respectively, and from 0.054 to 0.108 for sa ltwater birds and mammals (Table 5-41).

Table 5-40. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Selenium

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss ELS Test - 60 - 130 88.32 Goettl and Davies

1977 (2004 Draft ALC doc.)

Freshwater Invertebrate Cladoceran, Daphnia magna LC Test - 70 - 120 91.65 Kimball 1978 (2004 Draft ALC doc.)

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Duckweed,

Lemna minor EC50 - 2,400 Wang 1986 (2004 Draft ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus ELS Test - 470 - 970 675.2 Ward et al. 1981 (2004 Draft ALC doc.)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-113 Table 5-40. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Selenium

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Mysid, Americamysis

bahia LC Test - 140 - 320 211.7 USEPA 1978;

Ward et al. 1981 (2004 Draft ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) Not Available - - 71 CCC from

USEPA 1987a (ALC doc.)

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss Dietary and

waterborne(Field StudyLuscar River, Alberta) Cranio-facial deformity in

larvae 4.84 Holm 2002;

Holm et al. 2003

in 2004 Draft

ALC document (see USEPA 2004b)

Freshwater Invertebrate Mayfly, Centroptilum triangulifer - Reproduction 5.28 2004 Draft ALC document (see USEPA 2004b)

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Fish Based on

tissue-based

Final Chronic

Value of 7.91 ug/g dw tissue assuming

75% moisture Survivorship 1.98 2004 Draft ALC document (see USEPA 2004b)

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Not applicable

-

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Rat 1-yr oral in

diet Reproduction 0.2 Sample et al. 1996 (OR Toxics BE)

Birds Mallard 78-d oral in

diet Reproduction 0.5 Sample et al. 1996 (OR Toxics BE)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-114 Table 5-41. Risk Quotients Base d on Division of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to

Total Selenium

Taxa EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.203 88.32 0.0023

Freshwater Invertebrate 91.65 0.00221 Freshwater plant (Vascular) 2,400 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate

2.39 675.2 0.00354

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 211.7 0.0113

Saltwater plant (Vascular) 71 0.0337

Taxa EC T (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt) CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate 0.0507 4.84 0.0105

Freshwater Invertebrate 0.148 5.28 0.028
Freshwater plant (Vascular) - NA -

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrate 0.27 1.98 0.136

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate - NA -

Saltwater plant (Vascular) - NA -

Taxa EC O (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.00406 0.20 0.0203 Birds (Freshwater) 0.00507 0.50 0.0101 Mammals (Saltwater) 0.0216 0.20 0.108 Birds (Saltwater) 0.027 0.50 0.054

5.3.2.8.2 Indirect Effects from Selenium

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-42 indicate “remote” risk to all freshwater aquatic and aquatic-dependent spec ies, and “negligible” risk to saltwater animal species based primarily on direct effects of total selenium vi a the food web. Because risk is “remote” to listed aquatic species via direct water borne toxicity and “negligible” fr om multiple routes of exposure (water and diet), a reduction in prey base (loss of prey) to upper trophic level organisms is not expected. The low risk from direct toxicity also indicates that total selenium will not affect vascular plants, thus indirect e ffects typically associated with the loss of aquatic and riparian vegetation, including loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters , are not expected to be significant for total selenium.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-115 Risk Conclusion for each of Listed Species in RAAs - Selenium

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-42). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.

Table 5-42. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Total Selenium

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects

 Fate of total selenium indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters)

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using acute toxicity data for Pacific oyster ( Crassostrea gigas ) with a SMAV of >10,000 μg/L (USEPA, 1987) Dividing by the FACR of 8.314 results in a chronic value of 1,203 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs less than 0.002. Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for O. mykiss as presented in Table 5-40 above Anadromous Salmonid Negligible Same as Freshwater Inland Salmonids – no chronic toxicity data are available for salmonids tested in seawater

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Negligible Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Estuarine/ Marine Fish Negligible  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for C. variegatus as presented in Table 5-40 above Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Amphibian Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Marine Mammal Negligible Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for L. minor as presented in Table 5-40 above2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-116 5.3.2.9 Zinc (Dissolved)

Dissolved zinc is ubiquitous in vessel discharg es, often at concentrations that may pose a risk based on screening level benchmarks (see Section 3.2.3.5). The highest concentrations of

dissolved zinc were detected in the deck wa shdown, graywater, fish hold, and bilgewater discharges from most covered vess els, particularly util ity vessels (e.g., towboa ts, supply boats).

Zinc occurs naturally in the aquatic envir onment, typically as leachate from igneous rocks. Background concentrations in freshwater systems are estimated to range between 0.5 μ g/L

and 40 μ g/L (Groth, 1971; Moore and Ramamoor thy, 1984; Eisler, 1993 ). Although most naturally introduced zinc is adsorbed to se diments, a small amount remains dissolved.

Zinc interacts with many pollutants to produce altered patterns of accumulation, metabolism, and toxicity; some interactions reduce toxicity and others incr ease toxicity (Eisler, 1993). Most of the zinc introduced into aquatic environments is eventually partitioned into sediments (Eisler, 1993). Zinc bioavailability from sediment is increased under conditions of high DO, low salinity, low pH, and high levels of inorganic oxides and humic substances.

Zinc bioconcentrates but does not biomagnify in the aquatic food chain (USEPA, 1987b). The essentiality of zinc is unequivocal; zinc is present in every plant and animal tissue that was measured (Hogstrand, 2012). There can be literally thousands of zinc proteins in animals, the majority of which use zinc to create folds in th e protein structure or to join different gene products together (Andreini et al., 2005; Passerini et al., 2007; Maret and Li, 2009). In addition to its structural and catalytic ro les in proteins, there is also a growing appreciation for zinc as a signaling substance and role as a neuromodulator or transmitter substance (Laity and Andrews, 2007; Hirano et al., 2008; Besse r et al., 2009; Hogstrand et al., 2009; Sensi et al., 2009; Hershfinkel et al., 2010).

Toxicity of zinc to aquatic organisms is dependent on wate r hardness, pH, DO, presence of mixtures, and trophic level (Sorensen 1991, Eisl er 1993). Since zinc toxi city to freshwater aquatic animals has been shown to be related to water hardness, it is appropriate to normalize chronic toxicity effect threshol ds for freshwater aquatic animal s to a standard water hardness (i.e., 100 mg/L as CaCO 3 ) for comparative purposes and to support risk calc ulation (USEPA, 2005b).

5.3.2.9.1 Direct Effects from Zinc

Table 5-43 summarizes the chronic toxicity values available for calculating the risk quotients for aquatic and aquatic-dependent sp ecies exposed to disso lved zinc. Table 5-44 presents the maximum exposure concentrations estimated in ambient receiving waters (EC W ), in tissues of aquatic organisms expos ed to those concentrations (EC T ), and in oral doses of aquaticdependent animals ingesting food (prey) and water in those receiving waters (EC O ). Maximum exposure concentrations in ambient receiving wa ter are from the hypothetical harbor modeling (pre- and post-permit condition), as described above in Section 5.2.1.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-117 Risk to Freshwater Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - Zinc

The overall risk to freshwater aquatic or ganisms as a result of maximum exposure in ambient waters from dissolved zinc discharged by permitted vessels is remote. All RQ A,W s are well below a value of 0.01, particularly for fr eshwater vascular plants (RQ < 0.0001). The highest RQ is 0.000395 estimated for freshwater invertebrates under the pre-permit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issu ance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to di ssolved zinc from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 2 percent.

Because zinc is a nutritionally essential inor ganic element for all species, both plant and animal, zinc has the pote ntial to accumulate in tissues of aquatic animals, as long as water column or dietary concentrati ons are not so high as to overw helm homeostatic mechanisms, aquatic species are able to regul ate their internal b ody burden of zinc (Hogstrand, 2012). Aquatic organism exposure to zinc concentrations in exce ss of nutritional needs vi a other potential routes of exposure in addition to direct waterborne toxicity (e.g. dietary toxicity) may pose a threat to listed species. While zinc does not bioaccumulate to high levels in aquatic animals, EPA believes it is prudent to incorporate an analysis on multiple routes of exposure in their analysis of this pollutant. The evaluation of potential risks from bioaccumulated zinc provides a means of identifying potential risks to li sted species via exposure to crit eria concentrations from all exposure routes combined.

RQs were calculated for freshwater verteb rates and invertebrates based on estimated

concentrations accumulated in tissues from cont inuous exposure to maximum concentrations of dissolved zinc in ambient receiving waters of 0.00968 and 0.00948 μ g/L, pre- and post-permit conditions, respectively (see Table 5-44). Corresponding RQs were also all below 0.0001, indicating “remote” risk to fr eshwater aquatic animals from zinc accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - Zinc

The overall risk to saltwate r aquatic organisms as a result of maximum exposure in ambient waters from dissolved zinc discharged by permitted vessels is also remote. All RQ A,W s are 0.01 or less. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all saltwater species exposed to dissolved zinc from permitted vessel discharges by appr oximately 8 percent.

An RQ was calculated for saltwater invert ebrates based on estimated concentrations accumulated in tissues from continuous exposure to maximum concentrations of dissolved zinc in ambient receiving waters of 0.493 and 0.452 μ g/L, pre- and post-permit conditions, respectively (see Table 5-44). Corresponding RQ s were at or below 0.001, again, indicating “remote” risk to aquatic animals (saltwater in this case) from zinc accumulated in tissues.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Zinc

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-118 predicted for dissolved zinc is required because of the ability of and need for organisms to accumulate zinc in tissues, albeit to low levels . The RQs for representative freshwater and

saltwater mammals and birds based on the chronic t oxicity values in relation to the oral effects

concentrations calculated for th is BE are all extremely low (< 0.0001), except saltwat er birds with post-permit RQ of 0.0011. These RQs indicate “remot e” risk of zinc to aq uatic-dependent birds

and mammals.

Table 5-43. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Zinc

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

ZINC - Dissolved (*normalized using EPA pooled slope of 0.8473 and using EPA dissolved conversion factor of 0.986 freshwater and 0.946 estuarine/marine)

Freshwater Vertebrate Flagfish,

Jordanella floridae LC Test - 26 - 51 36.41 ( 71.98 *) Spehar 1976 (1987 ALC doc.)

Freshwater Invertebrate Cladoceran, Daphnia magna LC Test - 42 - 52 46.73 ( 24.47 *) Chapman et

al. Manuscript (1987 ALC doc.)

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Duckweed,

Lemna minor Growth -

EC50 - 10,000 ( 9,860 *) Wang 1986 (1987 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys

marmoratus Acute LC50 ÷

Estuarine

ACR (ACR=2.997) 191.4 ÷ 2.997 63.86 ( 60.41 *) (estimated) Dinnel et al. 1983 (ACR) (1987 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Mysid, Americamysis

bahia LC Test – Survival, reproduction 120 - 231 166.5 ( 157.5 *) Lussier et al.

1985 (1987 ALC doc.)

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) Giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera 96-hr EC50 - Photosynthetic

rate - 10,000 ( 9,460 *) Clendenning

and North 1959 (1987 ALC doc.)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-119 Table 5-43. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Dissolved Zinc

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss Zinc deficiency Study Increased mortality,

decreased

growth 7.70 Spry et al.

1988

Freshwater Invertebrate Cladoceran, Daphnia magna Zinc

Accumulation

and Regulation Study Decreased reproduction,

growth and

energy 17.40 Muyssen and

Janssen

2002

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Not Available

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Amphipod,

Allorchestes

compressa 4-wk Dietary

Accmulation Study Reduction in growth 24.00 Ahsanullah

and Williams

1991

Surrogate AquuticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect Endpoint CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Rat Days 1 -16 of gestation, oral

in diet Reproduction 160 Sample et al. 1996 (OR Toxics BE)

Birds White leghorn

chicken 44-wk oral in

diet Reproduction 14.5 Sample et al. 1996 (OR Toxics BE)

Table 5-44. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Th resholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to

Dissolved Zinc

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.00968 0.00948 71.98 0.000134 0.000132

Freshwater Invertebrate 24.47 0.000395 0.000387
Freshwater plant (Vascular) 9,860 <0.0001 <0.00012013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-120 Table 5-44. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Th resholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to

Dissolved Zinc

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

0.493 0.452 60.41 0.00817 0.00749

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 157.5 0.00313 0.00287

Saltwater plant (Vascular) 9,460 <0.0001 <0.0001

Taxa EC T (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt) EC T (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg wet wt) CTET A,T (mg/kg wet wt) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.000455 0.000445 7.70 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater Invertebrate 17.40 <0.0001 <0.0001
Freshwater plant (Vascular) NA - -

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

0.0232 0.0213 NA - -

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate 24.00 0.000966 0.000886

Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA - -

Taxa EC O (Pre-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) EC O (Post-Permit Condition); (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.0000366 0.0000358 160 <0.0001 <0.0001
Birds (Freshwater) 0.000346 0.000338 14.5 <0.0001 <0.0001
Mammals (Saltwater) 0.00186 0.0017 160 <0.0001 <0.0001
Birds (Saltwater) 0.0176 0.0161 14.5 0.00121 0.00111

5.3.2.9.2 Indirect Effects from Zinc

The RQs summarized above and in Table 5-45 i ndicate “remote” risk for direct effects of dissolved zinc to listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species in this BE. Furthermore, discharge

of dissolved zinc from covered vessels will not re sult in appreciable concentrations in estuaries and freshwater receiving water bodies.

There is no basis for assuming indirect eff ects on listed species via dissolved zinc exposure and corresponding toxicity-re lated reduction in the prey base [loss of prey] available to upper trophic level organisms. Since the informa tion summarized in Table 5-44 indicates that dissolved zinc at maximum exposure concentrations calculated from pre- , and especially after post-permit conditions (8 to 2 percent reduction, saltwater and freshwater receiving water, respectively), has little risk of directly affecting fresh- and salt water aquatic animals and plants, indirect effects typically associ ated with exposure, including lo ss of cover and changes in water quality parameters, are also not expected for this metal.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-121 Risk Conclusion for each of Listed Species in RAAs - Zinc

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs (see Table 5-45). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determin ations made in Section

7 of this document.

Table 5-45. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Zinc

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects

 Fate of dissolved zinc indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters)

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using acute toxicity data for Asiatic clam ( Corbiucla fluminea ) with an LC50 of 6,040 μg/L (8,692 μg/L dissolved and normalized to 100 mg/L hardness) (Cherry et al., 1980; Rodgers et al., 1980). Dividing by the FACR of 2.208 results in a chronic value of 3,936 μg/L. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of less than 0.0001.

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 23-d study of Pacific oyster ( Crassostrea gigas ) with an LC50 of 75 μg/L (70.95 μg/L dissolved; Watling, 1983). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of 0.0070 and 0.0064, respectively. Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using an ELS study of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) with an MATC of 371.1 μg/L (1,184 μg/L dissolved and normalized to 100 mg/L hardness) (Chapman, 1975). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of less

than 0.0001.

Anadromous Salmonid Remote Same as Freshwater Inland Salmonids – no chronic toxicity

data are available for salmonids tested in seawater

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for S.

marmoratus as presented in Table 5.2-32 above Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-122 Table 5-45. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in

RAAs to Dissolved Zinc

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Amphibian Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using a 7-d study of narrow-mouthed toad ( Gastrophryne

carolinensis ) with an EC50 (death and deformity) of 10 μg/L (5.599 μg/L dissolved and normalized to 100 mg/L hardness). Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of 0.0017. Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. pyrifera as presented in Table 5-43 above Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for L. minor as presented in Table 5-43 above

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. pyrifera as presented in Table 5-43 above

5.3.3 Nutrient and Nutrient-related Toxicity

Nutrient pollution is one of the leading cause s of water quality impair ment in the nation, primarily because the quantity of nutrients reaching the nations wa ters has dramatically escalated over the past 50 years (USEPA, 2009a). Nutrient loadings in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus to waterbodies impact water quality by stimulating plant and algae growth which subsequently may result in depletion of dissolv ed oxygen, degradation of habitat, development of harmful algal blooms, impairment of the wate rbody’s designated use, and impairment of drinking water sources. In cases where the waterbody is shown to be impaired, it is scientifically prudent to attempt to demons trate the source–response relati onship by first identifying the causative agent, whether it is nu trients or another factor such as hydrologic conditions, and then determining the limiting nutrient (WERF, 2010). In general, nitrogen is most often the limiting nutrient in estuarine waters, and phosphorus is mo re often limiting in freshwater systems. This means that the growth of phytoplankton is subs tantially controlled by the concentration and availability of phosphorus in freshwater systems. Increased phosphorus concentrations can lead to changes in composition of flora and fauna pr esent, increased eutroph ication of a water body, rates of ecosystem functioning, nutrient uptak e, recycling rates of the ecosystem, and decomposition rates (WERF, 2010). Determining risk to aquatic life from excess nutrients (e.g., eutrophication) is complicated because nitr ogen and phosphorus are essential for primary production in aquatic ecosystems, and over-enric hment problems involve multiple interrelated

variables.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-123 The most visible symptom of eutrophication is the excessive algal growth that reduces water clarity. Eutrophication can also significantly affect phyt oplankton community structure resulting in a greater ab undance of less desirable taxa such as blue-green algae. These changes in the phytoplankton community can have cascading effects on highe r trophic levels and the eventual transfer of organic carbon from the primary producers to less desired species – for example, the replacement of seagrasses with less desirable vegetation types (WERF, 2010).

5.3.3.1 Total Phosphorus

Total phosphorus is detected in bilgewater, deck washdow n, and graywater discharges

from covered vessels at concentrations that likely causes risk ba sed on screening level benchmarks (see Section 3.2.3.2). Excessive increas es in phosphorus can lead to a decreased photic zone and increase of turbidity, local extinc tion of intolerant or specialized aquatic flora, high pH, and a decrease in dissolved oxygen (W ERF, 2010). These changes in turn can cause loss of habitat and other impacts to aquatic a nd aquatic-dependent spec ies, including listed species which use or would otherwise use thes e eutrophic waters. Generally, there would be little, if any, impact to listed species from total phosphorus in brackish estuaries and coastal waters where nitrogen is us ually the limiting factor.

Under natural conditions, freshwater eco systems generally have low phosphorous concentrations (< 100 μ g/L), but each waterbody is different , and there are numerous factors which impact how any particular waterbody will respond to excess nutri ent loading, including hydraulic residence time, freshwater inflow, clar ity and light attenuati on, geologic substrate, depth, temperature, and degree of physical al terations, such as cha nnelizing. Additionally, excessive phosphorus and the resulting problems a ssociated with nutrient enrichment in general are frequently widespread and manifested at a location remote from the sources, and may not show themselves for some time after significan t inputs to the system have occurred (WERF, 2010).

Because of the above, EPA is using the lowest statewide and/or site-specific water quality criteria for total phosphorus (10 μg/L) as the basis for CTET A,W in the analysis.

5.3.3.1.1 Direct Effects from Total Phosphorus

Table 5-46 summarizes the statewide and si te-specific water quality criteria values available for calculating the risk quotients for aq uatic and aquatic-depende nt species exposed to total phosphorus. Table 5-47 presents the maximum before (expected or pre-permit condition) and after (anticipated or post- permit condition) exposure concentr ations estimated in ambient receiving waters from the hypothetical harbor mo deling, as well as the RQs calculated for each taxonomic group potentially exposed to total phosphor us in relation to the lowest water quality criterion for this nutrient (i.e., 10 μ g/L – see Table 5-46).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-124 Risk to the Freshwater Environment Inclusi ve of Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - Total Phosphorus

The risk to the freshwater environment and its aquatic organisms from maximum exposure to total phosphorus from permitted vess els is “remote”. The RQ estimated under the pre-permit exposure condition is 0.00453, but when the control measures are implemented and enforced as part of the issuance of the permits, the RQ is anticipa ted to be substantially reduced to only 0.000594. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits are anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to total phosphorus from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 87 percent.

Risk to the Saltwater Environment Inclusive of Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - Total Phosphorus

The risk to the saltwater environment and its aquatic organisms from maximum exposure to total phosphorus from permitted vessels is also dependent on pre- and post-permit exposure concentrations. The RQ estimat ed under the pre-permit conditi on is 1.19, but when the control measures are implemented and enforced as part of the issuance of the permits, the RQ is anticipated to be dramatically reduced to only 0.0543. Control measures imp lemented as part of the issuance of the permits are anticipated to lowe r the risk to all saltwater species exposed to total phosphorus from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 95 percent, reducing the risk to listed saltwater organisms from “potentiall y significant” to “remote”. Irrespective of the phosphorus loading reduction itself, the “remote” risk conclusion is especially true in most saltwater environments since nitrogen, not phosphorus, is often the limiting nutrient in coastal/estuarine waters (WERF, 2010), making it far less likely for phosphorus to be a stressor

in these environments.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Total Phosphorus

The risk of exposure to aquatic-dependent birds and mammals from total phosphorus from permitted vessel discharge is via drinking of surface water alone b ecause total phosphorus does not bioaccumulate in the tissues of prey organisms. There is no NOAEL for phosphorus via oral exposure of wildlife via drinking water, a lthough the maximum “safe” level for phosphate in drinking water for human consumption from the World Health Organization is 5 mg/L.. A RQ based on the WHO phosphate drinking water standardwould indicate a “remote” risk to aquaticdependent birds and mammals.

Table 5-46. Summary of Statewide and Site-specific (waterbody) Approved Water Quality Standards for Total Phosphorus across the

United States

State Types Statewide

Criteria (μg/L) Site-Specific

Criteria (μg/L)

AZ Rivers/Streams - 50-1,000

CA Rivers/Streams - 5-250

FL Rivers/Streams 60-490 -2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-125 Table 5-46. Summary of Statewide and Site-specific (waterbody) Approved Water Quality Standards for Total Phosphorus across the

United States

State Types Statewide

Criteria (μg/L) Site-Specific

Criteria (μg/L)

HI Rivers/Streams 30-50 -

IL Rivers/Streams - 50

MT Rivers/Streams - 20-39

NJ Rivers/Streams 100 -

NM Rivers/Streams - 100

NV Rivers/Streams - 100-330

OK Rivers/Streams - 37

RI Rivers/Streams - 25

TN Rivers/Streams - 10-250

UT Rivers/Streams 50

VT Rivers/Streams - 10

WI Rivers/Streams 75-100 -

CA Estuaries - 25-50

DE Estuaries - 10

HI Estuaries 250 60

Source: U.S. survey conducted in April 2011 by GLEC for Jack Oliver, US EPA, HECD.

Table 5-47. Risk Quotients based on Division of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Lowest Water Quality Criteria for Total Phosphorus

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition); (μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit Condition); (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater

Environment 0.0453 0.00594 10 0.00453 0.000594

Estuarine/ Marine

Environment 11.9 0.543 10 1.19 0.0543

5.3.3.1.2 Indirect Effects from Total Phosphorus

The RQs summarized above indicate a large reduc tion in risk to listed species in this BE

via the issuance of the VGP and sVGP. Furthermor e, the information summarized in Table 5-47

indicates that the maximum concentration modeled under post-permit conditions for total phosphorus in ambient receiving waters [fresh in part icular] is of “remote” risk of causing direct effects on the plant and animal communities there, and thus, indirect effects typically associated with the loss of aquatic and riparian vegeta tion, including loss of cove r and changes in water quality parameters, are no longer expected – becaus e the water quality criterion used as CTET to2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-126 calculate RQ in this analysis already considers and is based on protection of listed species from

such indirect effects.

Risk Conclusion for each of Listed Species in RAAs - Total Phosphorus

Based on the exposure and direct and indirect effects assessment as outlined above, EPA

concludes there is a “remote” risk of impact from total phosphorus to all listed species in the RAAs (Table 5-48). This information is used to inform decisions in the effects determinations

made in Section 7 of this document.

Table 5-48. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Li sted Species and Critic al Habitats in RAAs to Total Phosphorus

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Phosphorus is only limiting in freshwater ecosystems

 Risk quotients inclusive of di rect and indirect chronic effects to entire plant and animal community

Unionid Mussels Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Salmonid Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Amphibian Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

5.3.3.2 Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Ammonia (expressed as total ammonia nitr ogen) is a constituent commonly found in bilgewater, deck washdown, fish hold and fish hold cleaning efflue nt, and graywater at concentrations that may potentially pose risk based on screening level benchmarks (Section 3.2.3.2). Ammonia is found throughout the environment in the air, soil, and water, where is excreted by animals, including humans. Ammonia occurs naturally and is also produced by human activity. Ammonia is rapi dly taken up by plants, bacteria , and animals where it is an important source of nitrogen. Because of this, ammonia does not build up in the food chain, but does serve as a nutrient for plants and bacteria (USEPA, 2009b).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-127 The pollutant form of ammonia in water c onsists of two species , a larger component which is the ammonium ion (NH 4 + ), and a smaller component which is the non-dissociated or un-ionized ammonia (NH 3 ) molecule. The sum of the two forms is usually expressed as total ammonia-nitrogen. The ratio of un-ionized ammo nia to ammonium ion, dependent upon both pH and temperature, generally increases by 10-fold for each rise of a single pH unit and by approximately 2-fold for each 10 ° C rise in temperature over the 0-30 ° C range (Erickson, 1985).

Toxicity of ammonia to aquati c life was initially thought to arise largely from the small uncharged NH 3 molecule (Wuhrmann and Woker, 1948, Do wning and Merkens, 1955), but the ammonium ion has since proved toxic as well, pa rticularly at low pH (Armstrong et al., 1978; Tomasso et al., 1980); thus, toxicity of ammonia is best expresse d as a function of pH and/or temperature and on the basis of to tal ammonia nitrogen (USEPA, 2009b).

For this purpose of comparison and risk calculation in this BE, CTET A,W s for freshwater aquatic organisms are expressed on the basis of total ammonia nitrogen at pH 8.0 (freshwater vertebrates), or, pH 8 and 25 o C (freshwater invertebrates) wh ere a functional relationship between toxicity and pH and/or temperat ure has been demonstrated (USEPA, 2009b). Conversely, CTET A,W s for saltwater aquatic vertebrates a nd invertebrates are expressed simply as total ammonia nitrogen.

5.3.3.2.1 Direct Effects from Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Table 5-49 summarizes the chronic toxi city data available for calculating RQ A,W for aquatic listed species exposed to predicted conc entrations of total ammonia in water receiving permitted discharges from covered vessels. Table 5-50 presents the maximum before (expected or pre-permit condition) and afte r (anticipated or post-permit c ondition) exposure concentrations estimated in these waters from the hypothetical harbor modeling, as well as the corresponding RQ A,W s calculated for each taxonomic group based on the various chronic toxicity threshold values (in this case, CTET A,W ) readily available for representative surrogate taxa.

Risk to Freshwater Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - Total Ammonia Nitrogen

The overall risk to freshwater aquatic organisms from maximum exposure to total ammonia from permitted vessels is remote. All RQ A,W s are below a value of 0.001, particularly for freshwater vertebrates and vascular plants (estimated using EPA’s CCC). The highest RQ is

0.00484 estimated for freshwater invertebrates u nder the pre-permit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the pe rmits is anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to total ammonia fr om permitted vessel discharges by approximately 11 percent.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-128 Risk to Saltwater (Estuarine/Marine) Aquatic Animal and Plant Species - Total Ammonia Nitrogen

The risk to saltwater aquatic organisms fr om maximum exposure to total ammonia from permitted vessels is also remote. The RQs for saltw ater vertebrate and invertebrate species are below a RQ A,W of 0.005. No appropriate data are availabl e for saltwater vascular plants exposed to total ammonia, although saltwat er plants are likely not any mo re sensitive to total ammonia

than saltwater animals. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits is anticipated to lower the risk to all saltwater species exposed to total ammonia from permitted vessel discharges by approximately 22 percent.

Risk to Birds and Mammals - Total Ammonia Nitrogen

The risk of exposure to aqua tic-dependent birds and mammals from total ammonia from permitted vessel discharge is via drinking of [fr esh] surface water alone because total ammonia does not bioaccumulate in the tissues of prey [food] organisms. Furthermore, as noted above, total ammonia has a short half-life in water, and therefore, does not remain readily available to the organism for uptake.

There is no NOAEL for ammonia via oral exposure of wild life via drinking water; therefore, EPA assumes zero risk to wildlife via oral ingestion.

Table 5-49. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (mg N/L) CTET A,W (mg N/L) Study (source)

Freshwater Vertebrate Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomis

macrochirus ELS Test -

Biomass - 1.349 (EC20) Smith et al. 1984 (2009 Draft Update ALC doc.)

Freshwater Invertebrate Fatmucket, Lampsilis siliquoidea 28-day

Juvenile Test -

Survival - 0.3027 (IC20) Wang et al. 2007 (2009 Draft Update ALC doc.)

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) - 1.2 CCC from ALC Update document (USEPA, 1999)

Estuarine/ Marine

Vertebrate Inland silverside, Menidia beryllina ELS Test -

Growth 2.1 – 4.2 2.970 (2.446) Miller et al. 1990 (2004 GLEC Update File)

Estuarine/ Marine

Invertebrate Greenlip abalone, Haliotis laevigata 95-day Test –

Growth 1.46-2.65 1.97 Harris et al. 19982013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-129 Table 5-49. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/

Effect Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (mg N/L) CTET A,W (mg N/L) Study (source)

Estuarine/ Marine Plant (Vascular) - -

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure Type Effect CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Rodents -

Birds Not Available - - - -

Table 5-50. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Taxa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition)

(mg/L) EC W(PostPermit Condition) (mg N/L) CTET A,W (mg N/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.000032 0.0000285 1.349 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater Invertebrate 0.3027 0.000106 <0.0001
Freshwater plant (Vascular) 1.2 <0.0001 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

0.00954 0.00742 2.446 0.0039 0.00303

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate 1.97 0.00484 0.00377 Saltwater plant (Vascular) - - -

Taxa EC O (Pre-Permit Condition) (mg/kg bw/d) EC O(PostPermit Condition)

(mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals NA a NA a - - - Birds - - -
a) Not applicable because ammonia does not accumulate in tissue, and ther efore, a risk quotient cannot be calculated as in Equation 5-5.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-130 5.3.3.2.2 Indirect Effects from Total Ammonia Nitrogen

The RQs summarized above indicate “remote” risk of direct effects of total ammonia to the aquatic and aquatic-depende nt listed species in this BE . Furthermore, total ammonia discharges from covered vessels does not result in measureable concentrations in estuaries and freshwater receiving water bodies due to it s non-persistence and short half-life.

Due to its low persistence, interactions between the sediments and the water column and potential effects on benthos are not expected with this polluta nt. There is also no basis for assuming indirect effects on listed species via total ammonia exposure and corresponding toxicity-related reduction in th e prey base [loss of prey] av ailable to upper trophic level organisms. The information summarized in Tabl e 5-50 indicates that total ammonia at maximum exposure concentrations calculated from pre-, a nd especially after post-permit conditions, has no risk of causing direct effects on vascular freshw ater plants, thus indi rect effects typically associated with the loss of aquatic and riparian vegetation, including loss of cover and changes in water quality parameters, are also not expected for this pollutant.

Risk Conclusion for Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Listed Species and Their Critical Habitats in RAAs - Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Based on the consideration of potential direct and indirect effects as outlined above, the following risk conclusions are being made for each of the listed species in the RAAs. This

information is used to inform decisions in the ef fects determinations made in Section 7 of this

document.

Table 5-51. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in RAAs to Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

Saltwater Corals Remote  Exposed via water column only

 Risk quotient indicates very low potential for direct

chronic effects

 Fate of total ammonia indicates very low potential for indirect effects (loss of prey and change in habitat/water quality parameters) –at the concentrations predicted

 Surrogate CTET is representative and appropriate

Unionid Mussels Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for L. siliquoidea as presented in Table 5-49 above

Saltwater Bivalve Mollusk Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for H. laevigata as presented in Table 5-49 above Freshwater Shrimp/ Crustacean Remote Sa me as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Freshwater Fish/ Inland

Salmonid Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using chronic toxicity data from a 62-d test on the hatchability of embryonic sockeye salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka ) (Rankin, 1979) with a chronic value of <4.160 mg N/L at pH 8. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-131 Table 5-51. Summary of Risk Conclusions for Listed Species and Cr itical Habitats in RAAs to Total Ammonia Nitrogen

Listed Species Taxonomic Group Risk

Conclusion Presumptions

less than 0.0001. Anadromous Salmonid Remote Same as Freshwater Inland Salmonids – no chronic toxicity

data are available for salmonids tested in seawater

Freshwater Fish/ Inland Sturgeon Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 Risk conclusion is confirmed via estimation using acute toxicity data for shortnosed sturgeon ( Acipenser

brevirostrum ) with an LC50 of 36.49 mg N/L at pH 8 (Fontenot et al. 1998). Dividing by the FACR of 6.8 (USEPA, 2009b) results in a chronic value of 5.37 mg N/L at pH 8. Calculation results in pre- and post-permit RQs of less than 0.002. Anadromous Sturgeon Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

Estuarine/ Marine Fish Remote  Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

 RQ directly applicable since estimated for M. beryllina as presented in Table 5-49 above Beetle and Aquatic Insect Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Amphibian Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Snakes and Other Reptiles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Sea Turtles Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Coastal/Marine Birds Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Marine Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Terrestrial Mammal Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Seagrass Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions Freshwater- Saltwater Aquatic

and Wetland Plants Remote Same as Saltwater Corals’ Presumptions

5.3.4 VOCs and SVOCs

A number of volatile organic compounds (VOC s) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including monocyclic aromatic hydro carbons (MAHs) and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), were identified in Section 3.2.3.6 as pollu tants for detailed evaluation in this BE. Many of these pollutants were identifie d because their levels measured in select discharges (e.g., those

associated with fuel and fuel combustion) exceeded screening level benchmarks. Several VOCs

and SVOCs identified for detailed evaluation we re included for consideration because their concentrations in vessel discharges exceeded sc reening level benchmarks for the protection of human health via consumption of fish and drinki ng water. EPA’s human health criteria are riskbased criteria designed to protect human health by preventing a one in a million chance of causing cancer from the oral ingestion of the pollutant. For many of the VOCs and SVOCs, there are no definitive chronic toxicity te st data available for aquatic organisms, as well as no data to support selection of a wildlife CTET (or CTET O ) based on growth or reproduction. Therefore, in this analysis, only the following VOCs and SV OCs are subjected to a quantitative effects analysis based on the availability of appropriate chronic toxicity data from which risk can be

calculated as described in this BE:2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-132  Benzo(a)anthracene

 Benzo(a)pyrene

 Benzo(b)fluoranthene

 Benzo(k)fluoranthene

 Chrysene

 Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

 Benzene

 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

 2,4,6-Trichlorphenol

EPA identified chronic toxicity data for fi ve polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) with four or more carbon rings : benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a) pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, and ideno(1,2,3 -cd)pyrene. For all other PAHs, EPA used chronic toxicity data for benzo( a)pyene to calculate RQs from multiple routes of exposure to aquatic organisms and for oral ingestion by aquatic-depende nt wildlife. EPA selected benzo(a)pyene because it is one of the most toxi c PAHs and because the a ppropriate data exist to support risk calculations.

5.3.4.1 MAHs and PAHs

The toxicity of oil and grease measured as SGT-HEM to aquatic and aquatic-dependent

animals is most often attributed to the wa ter-soluble monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or MAHs (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, otherwise known as BTEX), and the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs (M cGrath and DiToro, 2009). The MAH compounds like benzene are low-molecular-weight compounds th at usually do not persist in the environment because they are volatile and highly biode gradable. Conversely, the PAH compounds (particularly those with four or more carbon rings) are high-molecular-weight compounds that are less volatile and degrade more slowly, and thus , persist in the aquatic environment. Because MAHs and PAHs are Type I narcotic compounds, the toxicity of these compounds in water (and sediments) is most easily assessed using what is called the target lipid model or TLM (DiToro and McGrath, 2000). The TLM has been successfully used to predict the acute and chronic toxicity of MAHs and PAHs to aquatic animals as single pollutants and as mixtures by allowing for the calculation of a critical body burden in the target lipid of an organism. Here, EPA used the the critical body burden of benzo(a)pyene a nd benzene in lipid to develop CTET in support of the risk analysis below.

5.3.4.1.1 Direct Effects from MAHs and PAHs

Table 5-52 summarizes what is referred to as “predicted chronic five percent hazard concentrations” (or HC5, used here as CTET A,W ) from McGrath and DiToro (2009) for calculating RQ A,W for listed species exposed to predicte d concentrations of the MAH pollutant benzene and several “heavy molecular weight” PAHs in water receiving permitted discharges from covered vessels. Table 5-53 presents th e maximum before (expected or pre-permit condition) and after (anticipated or post-permit condition) exposure concentrations estimated in these waters from the hypothetical harbor mode ling. Table 5-53 also presents the corresponding RQs calculated for all aquatic and aquatic-depende nt organisms based on the HC5 derived from2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-133 the TLM, which is proved to be a benchmark th at closely approximates the level of protection necessary to prevent adverse chronic effects on survival, growth and reproduction to aquatic animals and the aquatic-dependent animals that may consume them (invertebrates and vertebrates, fresh- and saltwat er). The basis for the various RQs calculated to support this analysis is provided in Appendices H and I.

Risk to Freshwater and Saltwater Aquatic Organisms - MAHs and PAHs

The overall risk to freshwater aquatic orga nisms from maximum exposure to the various PAHs and benzene in receiving water from permitted vessels is remote. All RQ A,W s are either below or well below a value of 0.02. The highest RQ is approximately 0.0218 estimated for saltwater organisms potentially exposed to benz o(a)pyrene (the most toxic PAH) under the postpermit condition (because there is no anticipated reduction in P AHs via the issuance of the permits). No risk from direct t oxicity is expected to aquatic or ganisms from exposure to benzene under any exposure condition.

PAHs (and to a lesser extent, MAHs) accumulate in tissues of aquatic organisms as well as biomagnify up the food chain. Unlike the situati on with metals and metalloids, the partitioning and subsequent bioaccumulation of PAHs occurs in the lipid fraction of these organisms. The TLM accounts for this partitioning and predicts a critical body burden in the lipid of aquatic organisms. When paired with an appropriate “e xpected” tissue concentration predicted from theproduct of the maximum concentration of the PAH (or MAH) in receiving water and freelydissolved BAF for animals in the trophic level of interest, the critical bod y burden in the lipid of the organism serves as the basis for calculating RQ A,M in this BE (see Equation 5

- 3 in Section 5.2.3.2 and corresponding values included in Appendi x H). While PAHs do not bioaccumulate to particularly high levels in aquatic animals in the field due to biotransformation and detoxification, EPA believes it is still prudent to incorporate an analysis on multiple routes of exposure in the BE.

The evaluation of potential risks from bio accumulated PAHs and MAHs in this BE are limited to just benzo(a)pyrene and benzene because : 1) benzo(a)pyrene is the most toxic of the PAHs being considered here, and thus, the most relevant for evaluating risk, and 2) benzene is the only MAH for which a critical lipid body bur den exists to support risk evaluation from multiple routes of exposure (as well as exposure via oral ingestion by wildlife).

RQs were calculated for freshwater verteb rates and invertebrates based on estimated

concentrations accumulated in tissues from cont inuous exposure to maximum concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene and benzene in ambient receiving waters under post-pe rmit (benzo(a)pyerene) and pre- and post-permit conditions (benzene), respectively (see Table 5-54). Corresponding RQs for both pollutants were all below 0.01, indicat ing “remote” risk to fresh- and saltwater aquatic animals from benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs) and benzene (representative MAH) accumulated in

tissues.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-134 Risk to Birds and Mammals - MAHs and PAHs

An evaluation of risk to aquatic-depende nt birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for benzo(a)pyrene and benzene is required because of the propensity of aquatic organisms to accumulate these pollutants in tissues. The oral exposure concentration (EC O ) for aquatic-dependent wildlife repres ents the pollutant concentrati on (in mg/kg body weight per day) ingested from consumption of prey and drinking water (fresh only) in surface water at maximum concentrations of benzo(a) pyrene and benzene. The CTET O for a representative wildlife species is then compared to this value to estimate ri sk. The RQs estimated for surrogate mammals based on the quotient of EC O and CTET O for benzo(a)pyrene and benzene are below 0.02 and ≤ 0.0001, respectively. These RQs indicate “remote” risk of MAHs and PAHs to aquatic-dependent mammals. EPA did not quantitatively evaluate risk to birds because of the la ck of toxicity data; however, based on the very low RQ for mammals, the risk to birds is not expected to be significant.

Table 5-52. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to MAHs and PAHs

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Pollutant Exposure Type Effect CTET A,W a (μg/L) Study (source)

Aquatic animals Benzo(a)pyrene Water

column Long-term survival, growth and reproduction 0.281 McGrath and

DiToro 2009

Aquatic animals Benzo(k)fluorant

hene Water

column Same as

above 0.286 Same as for Benzo(a)pyrene

Aquatic animals Benzo(b)fluorant

hene Water

column Same as

above 0.325 Same as for Benzo(a)pyrene

Aquatic animals Ideno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene Water

column Same as

above 0.530 Same as for Benzo(a)pyrene

Aquatic animals Chrysene Water

column Same as

above 0.99 Same as for Benzo(a)pyrene

Aquatic animals Benzo(a)anthrac

ene Water

column Same as

above 1.08 Same as for Benzo(a)pyrene

Aquatic animals Benzene Water

column Same as

above 2,413 Same as for Benzo(a)pyrene2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-135 Table 5-52. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to MAHs and PAHs

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Pollutant Exposure Type Effect CTET T (mg/kg wet wt) Study (source)

Vertebrate (Pink salmon – Oncorhynchus gorbuscha ) Benzo(a)pyrene Critical lipid body burden Acute

converted to

chronic using ACR

of 3.83 71.74 Calculated this

BE based on data

from McGrath

and DiToro 2009 – See Appendix I

Invertebrate (Amphipod – Rhepoxyinus abronius ) Benzo(a)pyrene Same as

above Same as

above 18.27 Same as for Benzo(a)pyrene

Vertebrate (Pink salmon – Oncorhynchus gorbuscha ) Benzene Same as

above Same as

above 38.68 Same as for Benzo(a)pyrene

Invertebrate (Amphipod – Rhepoxyinus abronius ) Benzene Same as

above Same as

above 9.898 Same as for Benzo(a)pyrene

Surrogate AquaticDependent Species Type Pollutant and Surrogate

Species Exposure Type Effect CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) Study (source)

Mammals Benzo(a)pyrene -

Mouse Oral

intubation during days

7 16 f Reproductio

n 1.0 Sample et al. 1996 (OR Toxics BE)

Birds Not Available - - - -

Mammals Benzene - Mouse Oral gavage during days

6-12 of Reproductio

n 26.36 Sample et al. 1996 (OR Toxics BE)

Birds Not Available - - - -

a) Represented here as an HC5, see text.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-136 Table 5-53. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to MAHs and PAHs

Pollutant (Aquatic

Environment) EC W(PrePermit Condition)

(μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit

Condition)

(μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Benzo(a)pyrene - FW NA 0.000536 0.281 - 0.00191
Benzo(a)pyrene - SW NA 0.00614 0.281 - 0.0218
Benzo(k)fluoranthene - FW NA 0.000252 0.286 - 0.000882
Benzo(k)fluoranthene - SW NA 0.00538 0.286 - 0.0188
Benzo(b)fluoranthene - FW NA 0.000228 0.325 - 0.000701
Benzo(b)fluoranthene - SW NA 0.00486 0.325 - 0.0149
Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene - FW NA 0.000203 0.530 - 0.000384
Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene - SW NA 0.00434 0.530 - 0.00818
Chrysene - FW NA 0.00102 0.99 - 0.00103
Chrysene - SW NA 0.00943 0.99 - 0.00952
Benzo(a)anthracene - FW NA 0.0008 1.08 - 0.00074
Benzo(a)anthracene - SW NA 0.00685 1.08 - 0.00635

Benzene – FW 0.00117 0.0011 2,413 <0.0001 <0.0001

Benzene - SW 0.0311 0.0258 2,413 <0.0001 <0.0001

Pollutant and Taxa EC T(PrePermit Condition) (mg/kg wet wt) EC T (Post-Permit

Condition) (mg/kg wet wt) CTET T (mg/kg wet wt) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Benzo(a)pyrene – FW

Vertebrates NA 0.00699 71.74 - <0.0001

Benzo(a)pyrene –SW

Vertebrates NA 0.000393 71.74 - <0.0001

Benzo(a)pyrene –FW

Invertebrates NA 0.08 18.27 - 0.00112

Benzo(a)pyrene –SW

Invertebrates NA 0.0045 18.27 - 0.000246

Benzene – FW Vertebrates 0.000102 0.0000964 38.68 <0.0001 <0.0001

Benzene – FW Invertebrates 0.000102 0.0000964 9.898 <0.0001 <0.0001

Benzene – SW Vertebrates 0.00273 0.00226 38.68 <0.0001 <0.0001

Benzene – SW Invertebrates 0.00273 0.00226 9.898 0.000276 0.0002282013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-137 Table 5-53. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Thresholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to MAHs and PAHs

Pollutant and Taxa EC O(PrePermit Condition)

(mg/kg bw/d) EC O (Post-Permit

Condition) (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Benzo(a)pyrene – FW

Mammals NA 0.00108 1.0 - 0.00108

Benzo(a)pyrene – SW

Mammals NA 0.0124 1.0 - 0.0124

Benzo(a)pyrene – All Birds NA NA - - -

Benzene – FW Mammals 0.0000161 0.0000152 26.36 <0.0001 <0.0001

Benzene – SW Mammals 0.000422 0.000349 26.36 <0.0001 <0.0001

Benzene – All Birds NA NA - - -

FW = Freshwater, SW = Saltwater

5.3.4.1.2 Indirect Effects from MAHs and PAHs

The RQs summarized above indicate “negligibl e” potential for direct effects of PAHs and benzene to listed species aquati c and aquatic-dependent in this BE. This is the case despite discharge of these pollutants from covered vessel s resulting in detectable concentrations in estuaries and freshwater receiving water bodie s where the heavy-molecular-weight PAHs, but not benzene (and other MAHs), could persist due to l onger half-lives.

The critical lipid body burdens ca lculated in this BE are incl usive of possible interactions

between the sediments and the water column an d any potential effects on benthic and pelagic aquatic organisms. Because of the low risk to a ll aquatic organisms from direct effects of PAHs (represented by benzo(a)pyrene) at maximum exposure concentrations calculated from pre-, and especially after post-permit conditions), indirect effects typically associated with the loss of aquatic and riparian vegetation, including loss of cover and change s in water quality parameters, are also not expected.

Risk Conclusion Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Li sted Species and Their Critical Habitats in

RAAs - MAHs and PAHs

Based on the consideration of potential direct and indirect effects as outlined above, the

risk conclusion made for each of the li sted species in the RAA is remote.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-138 5.3.4.2 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

Ecotoxicological data for to bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and 2,4,6-trichlorphenol are severely limited. EPA only identif ied sufficient data to support risk assessments of aquaticdependent species exposure to maximum concentr ations of bis(2-ethy lhexyl) phthalate in receiving water and risk to fr eshwater aquatic species from predicted exposure to 2,4,6- trichlorophenol.

Risk of Direct Effects of Bis(2- ethylhexyl) phthalate to Birds and Mammals

In theory, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, with a log(K

ow ) or octanol-water partition coefficient of 4.0, can accumulate in tissues of aquatic organisms and potentially biomagnify up the food chain, although the trophic tran sfer factor is likely small ( no greater than a factor of 1.23 from trophic level 2 to 3 – see USEPA, 2003a). Thus, using log(K

ow ) and the appropriate trophic transfer factor, EPA calculated BAFs for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate of 10,000 and 12,300 L/kg for invertebrates and vertebrates, respectively. Th ese BAFs are an overestimate of the true BAFs likely for this pollutant because they are not ba sed on the fraction of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate that is freely dissolved.

The evaluation of risk to aquatic-dependent birds and mammals from exposure via consumption of prey items or drinking ambien t surface water at the maximum concentrations predicted for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is driven by the info rmation calculated in Table 5-54. The RQs estimated for surrogate birds and mammals based on the quotient of EC O and CTET O for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate were all below or well below a value of 0.08, particularly for freshwater and saltwater mammals (all RQs are less than 0.001). The highest RQ is approximately 0.0768 estimated for sa ltwater birds potential ly exposed to this pollutant under the pre-permit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits are anticipated to lower the risk to all aquatic-depende nt species exposed in freshwater by 12 percent, and in saltwater by 25 percent. These RQs indicate “remote” ri sk of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate to aquatic-depe ndent birds and mammals.

Table 5-54. Risk Quotients based on Divi sion of Pre- and Post-permit Exposure Concentrations by Chronic Toxicity Effect Th resholds of Representative Surrogate Taxa to Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

Taxa – Aquatic Environment EC O (Pre-Permit Condition) (mg/kg bw/d) EC O (Post-Permit

Condition) (mg/kg bw/d) CTET O a (mg/kg bw/d) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Mammals – FW 0.000376 0.000332 18.3 <0.0001 <0.0001

Birds – FW 0.00294 0.0026 1.1 0.00267 0.00236

Mammals – SW 0.0108 0.00806 18.3 0.000591 0.000441

Birds – SW 0.0845 0.063 1.1 0.0768 0.0573
a) Values based on studies reported in Sample et al. (1996); see Appendices H and I for calculations.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-139 Risk of Direct Effects of 2,4,6-Trichlorphenol to Fres hwater Aquatic Organisms

Table 5-55 summarizes the chronic toxi city data available for calculating RQ A,W for aquatic listed species exposed to predicted concentrations of 2,4,6-tr ichlorphenol in water receiving permitted discharges from covered vessels. Values are provided for the maximum before (expected or pre-permit condition) and after (anticipated or post-permit condition) exposure concentrations estimated in rivers from the hypothetical harbor modeling, as well as the corresponding RQ A,W s calculated for each major taxonomic group based on the various chronic toxicity threshold valu es (in this case, CTET A,W ) readily available for representative surrogate

taxa.

The overall risk to freshwater aquati c organisms from maximum exposure to 2,4,6- Trichlorpheno from permitted vessels is remote. All RQ A,W s are below a value of 0.0001, particularly for freshwater ve rtebrates and vascular plants. The highest RQ is 0.000024 estimated

for freshwater invertebrates under the pre-permit condition. Control measures implemented as part of the issuance of the permits are anticipated to lower the risk to all freshwater species exposed to this pollutant from permitted vesse l discharges by approximately 13 percent.

Table 5-55. Summary of Chronic Toxicity E ffect Thresholds for Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Organisms Exposed to 2,4,6-Trichlorphenol

Surrogate Aquatic Species Type Surrogate Species Exposure/Effe ct Endpoint NOEC -

LOEC (μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) Study (source)

Freshwater

Vertebrate Fathead minnow, Pimephales

l ELS Test 530-970 720 USEPA 1980b

Freshwater

Invertebrate Cladoceran, Daphnia magna - - 0.464 USEPA 1980b

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) Duckweed,

Lemna minor Undescribed

Test/Chlorosis LC50 equivalent 5,923 Blackman et al.

1955 in USEPA

1980b

T axa EC W (Pre-Permit Condition)

(μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit

Condition)

(μg/L) CTET A,W (μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater

Vertebrate 0.0000113 0.00000986 720 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater

Invertebrate 0.0000113 0.00000986 0.464 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater Plant (Vascular) 0.0000113 0.00000986 5,923 <0.0001 <0.0001

5.4 U NCERTAINTIES IN THE Q UANTITATIVE E FFECTS A NALYSIS

As described above in Section 5.2.5, there are fi ve major categories of uncertainty in this BE potentially limiting interpretation of results and corresponding conclusions, including:2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-140 1. Estimation of exposure concentrations us ed to support the e ffects analysis;

2. Selection of chronic toxicity values representative of the sensitivity of aquatic organisms;

3. Use of surrogate species effects information for listed species

4. Estimation of risk for aquatic-dep endent birds and mammals; and

5. Representativeness of results to other listed species.

Of these five major categories of uncertaint y, uncertainty regarding selection of chronic toxicity values represen tative of the sensitivity of aquatic organisms (#2), and use of surrogate species effects information for listed species (#3) , are further addressed below in terms of their relevance to interpreting the results of the quant itative effects analysis, as well as to the overall uncertainty regarding possible risk to pollutant mixtures.

5.4.1 Uncertainty Variation Associated with Estimation of Chronic Toxicity

From Section 5.2.6.2, it is understood that uncertainty variatio n exists with regard to estimation of chronic toxicity in this analysis due to three key areas:

 Degree of data availability (e.g., spec ies versus genus versus family);

 Test and endpoint uncertainty (e.g., full or partial life cycl e versus ELS test; selection of endpoint); and

 Method of effect quantification (NOE C-LOEC versus point estimate).

All of these issues strongly influence evalua tion of the potential ri sk of a given exposure

concentration.

In addition to the above, it s hould also be understood that:

 Very little scientifically a nd commercially available, de finitive ecotoxicological data exist for the vast majority of listed speci es (exception, steelhead trout) because of restrictions in place preventing use of su ch species for toxicity testing, and

 What data do exist are limited to only a few pollutants (ammonia, copper, carbaryl, 4- nonylphenol, pentachlorophenol, and permethr in) and freshwater/euryhaline fish species (shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon, bonytail chub, Cape Fear shiner, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, Apache tr out, Lahontan and greenback cutthroat trout, and desert and Leon Spring pupfish; again, steelhead trout excluded).

In terms of the latter, side-by-side acute and chro nic toxicity testing clearl y indicates that listed fish species do not appear universally more sens itive than other common surrogate fish species (Mayer et al., 2008). Such conclusion is assumed for all other species groups as well (e.g., listed

freshwater unionid mussels are no more sensitiv e to ammonia and copper than other surrogate freshwater bivalve mollusk species, i.e., non-th reatened or endangere d freshwater unionid mussels, Asian clam, fingernail clam, etc. – see USEPA, 2005c and 2009b)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-141 Finally, if it were feasible, the least uncerta in chronic toxicity e ffect threshold value

would be one determined from numerous fiel d tests with individua l pollutants (and their mixtures) added to a wide variety of unpolluted bodies of fresh (or sa lt) water containing an array of aquatic and aquatic-depe ndent organisms. It would be necessary to add various amounts of the material to each body of water in order to determine the highest concentration that would not cause any unacceptable long-term or short-term effect on the organisms or their uses. The lowest of these highest concentrations would se rve as the basis for de rivation of a toxicity threshold value that would be protective of all sp ecies, including listed species. Because it is not

feasible to conduct such field test s, nor are such results scientifi cally or commercially available, EPA believes that the approach used in this analysis provides an objective, internally consistent, appropriate, and feasible way of determining risk to listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species, which is also intended to provide roughly the same level of protection as the infeasible field testing approach described above.

In order to account for any possible (a lthough unexpected) difference in sensitivity between a listed species and its surrogate spec ies, EPA opted to apply its recently published safety adjustment factor of 2.0 (see Mayer et al., 2008) to the Agency’s criterion continuous

concentration to further evaluate the risk to the 82 RAA listed species and subsequent 454 listed species considered in the quantitative effects analysis. Table 5-56 presents the pre- and postpermit RQ values for water-only exposure of listed fish species to the estimated maximum exposure concentrations in the hypoth etical estuary and river harbor.

Table 5-56. Summary of Species-Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Species in RAAs

Pollutant EC W (Pre-Permit Condition)

(μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit

Condition)

(μg/L) CCC/2.0 b
(μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Freshwater

Total Residual Chlorine 0.00328 0.00319 5.5 0.000597 0.00058

Aluminum, Total 0.0334 0.0309 44 0.000759 0.000701

Arsenic, Dissolved 0.164 0.164 75 0.00219 0.00219

Cadmium, Dissolved 0.0000129 0.0000118 1.1 <0.0001 <0.0001

Chromium, Dissolved 0.0000399 0.0000338 5.5 <0.0001 <0.0001

Copper, Dissolved 0.033 0.0328 1.5 c 0.022 0.0219

Lead, Dissolved 0.0000922 0.0000878 1.3 <0.0001 <0.0001

Nickel, Dissolved 0.0246 0.0246 26 0.000946 0.000945

Selenium, Total 0.203 0.203 2 d 0.101 0.101

Zinc, Dissolved 0.00968 0.00948 60 0.000161 0.000158

Total Ammonia Nitrogen 0.000032 a 0.0000285 a 0.28 a 0.000114 0.000102

Saltwater

Total Residual Chlorine 2.14 0.66 3.8 0.564 0.174

Aluminum, Total 1.28 1.02 - <0.0001 <0.0001

Arsenic, Dissolved 1.94 1.94 18 0.108 0.1082013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-142 Table 5-56. Summary of Species-Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and Aquaticdependent Species in RAAs

Pollutant EC W (Pre-Permit Condition)

(μg/L) EC W (Post-Permit

Condition)

(μg/L) CCC/2.0 b
(μg/L) RQ(PrePermit) RQ(PostPermit)

Cadmium, Dissolved 0.000867 0.000697 4.7 0.000184 0.000148

Chromium, Dissolved 0.00191 0.00185 25 <0.0001 <0.0001

Copper, Dissolved 0.374 0.37 1.6 0.234 0.231

Lead, Dissolved 0.00295 0.00262 4.1 0.000719 0.000639

Nickel, Dissolved 0.291 0.291 4.1 0.0709 0.0709

Selenium, Total 2.39 2.25 36 0.0664 0.0624

Zinc, Dissolved 0.493 0.452 40 0.0123 0.0113

Total Ammonia Nitrogen 0.00954 a 0.00742 a - - - a) Total ammonia nitrogen exposure concentrat ions and CCCs are expressed in mg N/L. b) CCCs are either final or publically-available draf t (ammonia) values expressed as in the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, i.e., as diss olved metals and normalized to 100 mg/L CaCO 3 , or pH=8

and 25 o C in the case of ammonia –see http://water.epa.g ov/scitech/swguidance/standards/current/index.cfm. c) From EPA’s 2005 Biotic Ligand Model-based ALC (USEPA, 2005c). d) Recommended water-based CCC for total selenium back-calculated from a recommended tissue-based chronic toxicity value for freshwater fish (Lemly, 1993).

The RQs provided in Table 5-56 support the results presented in the preceding analysis. That is to say, all but one of the pollutants analyzed show “remote” (RQ<0.1) or “negligible” (RQ<1.0) risk to listed aquatic sp ecies (and likely also to the a quatic-dependent species that may consume them) under maximum pre-permit a nd post-permit exposure concentrations.

5.4.2 Uncertainty and Evaluation of Risk from Possible Exposure to Pollutant Mixtures

Although organisms are simultaneously exposed to multiple pollutants in their natural environment, environmental toxicologists and EP A have historically assessed the risk from exposure to a single pollutant present in the environment. Assessing mixture toxicity is extremely complicated due to the vast number of combinations of pollutants that could be present in a mixture, the limited amount of information on interactions among pollutants in mixtures, and the differing mechanisms of acti on among pollutants within a given mixture. In addition, determining the actual dose of each polluta nt within the mixture to which an organism is exposed presents a significant amount of un certainty due to the num erous factors that can control the bioavailability and uptake of an i ndividual pollutant by the organism within the

mixture.

Given that real world environments c ontain a mix of pollutants with differing mechanisms of action, any approach that hopes to accurately predict mi xture toxicity must ultimately be based upon toxicity data for all of the individual pollutants within the mixture. Evaluating and quantifying the effect s of mixtures is challenging as the toxic effects of pollutants in mixture can be less than those predicted for the same pollutants singly, greater than, or have no appreciable difference. Concen tration addition is a common method used to assess mixture2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-143 toxicity; however, this method is accurate only wh en the mixture consists solely of pollutants with the same toxicological mechanism of acti on. Perhaps the best known examples of pollutant mixtures where toxicity is addi tive is for metals and type 1 narcotics such as PAHs (USEPA, 2005c; McGrath and DiToro, 2009).

As an additional assessment of the risk pos ed to listed aquatic sp ecies from incidental discharges from vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP, EPA calculated the additive toxicity

of metals and PAHs in mixture from vessel disc harges. In this analysis, EPA summed the RQs for water-column only exposure based on a mixture of metals and PAHs to give a total RQ representative of the risk of those mixtures to listed aquatic species. The RQs of individual metals and PAHs in mixture are provided in Table 5-57 and Table 5-58 below, along with the sum of RQs representing their mixture. Based on the results of this analysis, EPA believes that exposure to the maximum exposure concentrations of metals and PAHs in mixture presents a “remote” risk to listed species.

Although EPA limited the quantitative mixture analysis to metals and PAHs, the postpermit RQ values for all of the pollutants evalua ted in the BE were low to extremely low (i.e., <0.1 to <0.01) suggesting that any additive risk from the pollutants from vessel discharges in mixture is likely not of concern.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis144Table 5-57. Sum of RQs for Metals Under Pre- and Post-Permit ConditionsTaxaCd RQCrVI RQCu RQPb RQNi RQZn RQSumRQ

Pre-Permit ConditionsFreshwater Fish 0.00000770.000001330.007050.0000009850.0001560.0001340.00735Freshwater Invertebrate 0.0000682 0.0000259 0.00847 0.0000152 0.00349 0.000395 0.0125Freshwater plant 0.0000129 0.00000131 0.000289 0.0000000115 0.0000725 0.000000981 0.000377Estuarine/Marine Fish 0.000106 0.00000208 0.00181 0.000258 0.0000688 0.00817 0.0104Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate0.000122 0.000109 0.0474 0.000124 0.0133 0.00313 0.0642Saltwater plant 0.0000932 0.0000000193 0.00752 0.000364 0.0355 0.0000522 0.0435

Post-Permit ConditionsFreshwater Fish 0.00000705 0.00000112 0.007 0.000000937 0.000156 0.000132 0.0073Freshwater Invertebrate 0.0000624 0.000022 0.00842 0.0000145 0.00349 0.000387 0.0124Freshwater plant 0.0000118 0.00000111 0.000288 0.000000011 0.0000725 0.000000961 0.000374Estuarine/Marine Fish 0.0000851 0.00000201 0.00179 0.000229 0.0000688 0.00749 0.00966Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate0.0000981 0.000106 0.0469 0.00011 0.0133 0.00287 0.0633Saltwater plant 0.0000749 0.0000000187 0.00743 0.000323 0.0354 0.0000478 0.0433Table 5-58. Sum of RQs for PAHsUnder Post-Permit ConditionsTaxaBenzo(a)-anthraceneBenzo(a)-pyreneBenzo(b)-fluorantheneBenzo(k)-fluorantheneChryseneIdeno-(1,2,3-cd)-pyreneBenzeneSum RQAll Freshwater Taxa 0.00074 0.00191 0.000701 0.000882 0.00103 0.000384 0.000000455 0.00565All Saltwater Taxa 0.00635 0.0218 0.0149 0.0188 0.00952 0.00818 0.0000107 0.07972013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-145 5.5 S UMMARY OF R ISK C ONCLUSIONS FOR L ISTED A QUATIC AND A QUATIC -D EPENDENT S PECIES AND THEIR C RITICAL H ABITATS R EPRESENTED WITHIN RAA S

EPA qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated the potential for ANS and pollutants in vessel discharges to adversely affect listed spec ies potentially impacted by the issuance of these permits. EPA’s qualitative analysis considered both potential for e xposure and likelihood of adverse effects from vessel discharges within the context of the species-specific life history information provided in Appendix F. EPA’s quantit ative analysis assessed pollutant-specific risk based on the calculation of risk quotients (RQs) for listed and surrogate species exposed to maximum pollutant concentrations in a hypotheti cal estuary and river harbor under pre- and post-permit conditions. For the quantit ative analysis, EPA considered both the potential for direct

and indirect effects to the 82 R AA listed species within the context of the life history information provided in Appendix F. Table 5- 59 summarizes EPA’s risk conclusions for each of the 82 listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent sp ecies and their critical habita ts potentially exposed to vessel discharges covered under the VGP and sVGP. Tabl e 5-59 also includes highlights of important life history information for individual species that were taken into consideration in determining

the indirect effect risk conclusions

.

EPA’s qualitative analysis for ANS presente d in Section 5.1.1 indicates a potential ongoing risk in U.S. coastal and inland waters to li sted (and other) species du e to the risk of new invasions resulting from vessel di scharges, albeit one that is significantly reduced with the

issuance of the VGP and sVGP. Coastal environments in particular are vulnerable to ANS due to unmanged ballast water discharges and biofouling from commerci al shipping vessels. Numerous

studies have concluded that the reductions in the discharge of viable organisms capable of establishing a viable population will reduce the ri sk of invasions (NAS, 2011). Thus, while it is presently not possible to calculate the risk asso ciated with ANS, EPA believes that the VGP and sVGP will significantly reduce the risk of ANS to aquatic and aquatic-dependent listed species and their critical habitats that may be affect ed by the permit actions. See Section 6.1 for a full discussion of mitigating effects of the VGP and sVGP on ANS in vessel discharges.

EPA qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated the effects of the 32 pollutants identified as requiring detailed evaluation and determined that the risks unde r post-permit conditions ranged from “remote” to “negligible ”. The pollutants that resulted in the highest RQ values (all less than 1.0 indicating “negligible” risk) in the quantitative analysis for listed and surrogate aquatic species were selenium, total residual chlorine, total phosphor us, and arsenic. The conclusion of “negligible” risk to aquatic listed species from expos ure to several of the pollutants was subsequently corroborated by applying a safety adjustment factor of 2.0 to the Agency’s

criterion continuous concentration (Table 5-56). EPA’s analysis of the potential risk of various metals and PAHs in mixture also resulted in RQ values less than 0.1, thus , EPA assumes that the risk to aquatic species from mixtures is “remote”. Finally, the majority of the RQs calculated for aquatic-dependent wildlife species were very low (<0.001) or low (<0.1) such that the estimation of risk based on use of CTETs from surrogate species should still be predictive even when extrapolating differences in diet ary absorption between actual li sted versus surrogate species. Based on these results, EPA concluded that the discharge of toxic and conventional pollutants with toxic effects from VGP and sVGP vessels pr esents a “remote” to “negligible” risk to the 82 RAA listed species.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-146 In addition to the qualitative and quantit ative risk analyses, EPA evaluated and considered the stressors currently affecting the 82 RAA listed species (see Table 4-19). Biological and natural threats (e .g., competition, predation, disease, and genetic threats) with no relationship to vessel discharges were the pr edominant stressors documented for the 82 RAA listed species. EPA identified 23 of the 82 RAA species with known threats from water pollution and other related water quality problems; how ever, none of the species-specific threat information identified vessel discharges as a sp ecific pollution source of concern. The results of the quantitative analysis estimated RQ values in dicate a “remote” to “negligible” risk to listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent spec ies and their critical habitats from vessel discharges alone. The RAAs evaluated in the effects analysis are heavily impacted by pollutant sources other than vessel discharges such as industrial discharg es, urban storm water, superfund sites, and agricultural runoff (see RAA-specific discussion of water quality impairments in Section 4). The magnitude of the pollutant loads associated with these other pollu tant sources in the RAAs are likely greater than the pollutant loads associated with the vess el populations present in RAAs. Given that pollutant loads from vessel discharges are comparatively lower than those from other sources in the RAAs, and given that the estimated RQs from incidental vessel discharges are extremely low, EPA believes that vessel disc harges covered under the VGP and sVGP are unlikely a primary pollution source for listed species with identified sensitivities to water pollution.

EPA also determined 24 of the 82 RAA liste d species designated existing ANS as a major threat of concern, 14 of which are wetland plants. Therefore, based on this information, it appears that only a select number of the 82 RAA li sted species have a higher historic sensitivity to ANS (and therefore have a documented elevated risk from past exposure to ANS). Given this assessment, EPA concluded that even when know n threats are taken into consideration and potentially more vulnerable specie s (i.e., species with water quali ty and/or ANS designated as a known threat) are exposed to post-permit vessel discharges the risk remains “remote” or “negligible” that vessel discharges will adversel y affect the aquatic and aquatic-dependent and their crititical habitats that may be affected by the VGP and sVGP. Give n this and all of the supporting information provided in Section 5.2, EPA is confident that the use of the risk conclusions (see Section 5.2.5) pr esented in Table 5-59 for the 82 RAA listed species to support the effects determinations in Section 7.0 appr opriately captures the sp ecies variability in taxonomic group, spatial scale, life history, and e nvironmental stressors for all 612 aquatic and aquatic-dependent listed species and their critical habitats that may be affected by the VGP and sVGP (Appendix E).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis5-147Table 5-59. Summary of Species-Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species in RAAsListed Species/ TaxaRAA(s)aExposurePathway ofConcernbDirectEffectscPotential for Indirect Effects via -Loss of PreycLoss ofHabitatWaterQualityAdditional RiskConsiderationsdAlameda Whipsnake SFBE Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteAmerican Chaffseed BB FW wetland RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteAmerican Crocodile BB Aq Mult - FW, SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteAudubon's Crested CaracaraBB Aq Dep – FW RemoteNegligible – SeRemoteRemoteBog Turtle ULB Aq Mult – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteANS sensitivity; PollutionsensitivityBrooksville Bellflower BBWet prairie, edgesof pondsRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteBull Trout PS Aq Mult – FW RemoteRemote RemoteRemotePollution sensitivityCalifornia FreshwaterShrimpSFBE Aq Mult – FW RemoteRemote RemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pools;Pollution sensitivityCalifornia Red-legged Frog SFBE Aq Mult – FW Remote RemoteRemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (predation)California Tiger Salamander SFBE Aq Mult – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteAquatic life-stage limited tovernal pools; ANS sensitivity(predation)Calistoga Allocarya SFBE Wetland-riparian RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pools; ANSsensitivity (plants)Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow BB Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteChinook Salmon (PugetSound)PS Aq Mult - FW, SWNegligible– SeRemote RemoteRemoteRemote risk to (juvenile FWlifestage); PollutionsensitivityChum Salmon (Hood Canalsummer-run)PS Aq Mult - FW, SWNegligible– SeRemote RemoteRemoteRemote risk to (juvenile FWlifestage); PollutionsensitivityColusa Grass SFBEFW wetland,vernal pools,wetland-riparianRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pools; ANSsensitivity (plants)Conservancy Fairy shrimp SFBE Aq Mult – SW RemoteRemote RemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pools; ANSsensitivity (plants)Decurrent False Aster UMRLakes shores,stream banksRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteDelta Green Ground Beetle SFBE Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemote RemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pool habitat2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis5-148Table 5-59. Summary of Species-Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species in RAAsListed Species/ TaxaRAA(s)aExposurePathway ofConcernbDirectEffectscPotential for Indirect Effects via -Loss of PreycLoss ofHabitatWaterQualityAdditional RiskConsiderationsdDelta Smelt SFBE Aq Mult - FW, SWNegligible– SeRemote RemoteRemoteEastern Indigo Snake BB Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteEastern Prairie FringedOrchidUMRPothole marsh, fen– FWRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (plants)Elkhorn Coral BBAq Water Only –SWRemote Remote Remote Remote NoneEverglade Snail Kite BB Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (plants)Finback Whale ULB, GB Aq Mult – SWNegligible– As, SeNegligible – SeRemoteRemoteLimited nearshore exposureFlorida Panther BB Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited aquatic-dependenceFountain Thistle SFBE Wetland-riparian RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (plants)Giant garter Snake SFBE Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteANS sensitivityGray Bat UMR, BB Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited aquatic-dependenceGreen Sea TurtlePS, ULB,GB, BB,SFBEAq Mult – SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited nearshore exposureGrizzly Bear PS Aq Dep – FW RemoteNegligible – Se RemoteRemoteGuadalupe Fur Seal SFBE Aq Mult – SWNegligible– As, SeNegligible – SeRemoteRemotePollution sensitivity (oilspills)Gulf Sturgeon BB Aq Mult - FW, SWNegligible– SeRemote RemoteRemoteRemote risk to (juvenile FWlifestage); Pollutionsensitivity (heavy metals)Hairy Orcutt Grass SFBEFW wetland,vernal pools,wetland-riparianRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pools; ANSsensitivity (plants)Hawksbill Sea TurtleULB, GB,BBAq Mult – SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited nearshore exposureHoover's Spurge SFBEFW wetland,vernal pools,wetland-riparianRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pools; ANSsensitivity (plants)Humpback WhalePS, ULB,GB, BBAq Mult – SWNegligible– As, SeNegligible – SeRemoteRemoteLimited nearshore exposure2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis5-149Table 5-59. Summary of Species-Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species in RAAsListed Species/ TaxaRAA(s)aExposurePathway ofConcernbDirectEffectscPotential for Indirect Effects via -Loss of PreycLoss ofHabitatWaterQualityAdditional RiskConsiderationsdIndiana BatULB,UMR, BBAq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited aquatic-dependenceJohnson's Seagrass BBIntertidal zones,coastal lagoonsRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteKemps’s Ridley Sea Turtle ULB, GB Aq Mult – SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited nearshore exposureKiller Whale PS, SFBE Aq Mult – SWNegligible– As, SeNegligible – SeRemoteRemotePollution sensitivityLeast Tern UMR Aq Dep - FW, SW RemoteNegligible – SeRemoteRemoteLeatherback Sea TurtlePS, ULB,GB, BB,SFBEAq Mult – SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited nearshore exposureLoggerhead Sea TurtleULB, GB,BBAq Mult – SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited nearshore exposureLonghorn Fairy shrimp SFBE Aq Mult – FW RemoteRemote RemoteRemoteLimited to vernal poolsMarbled Murrelet PS, SFBE Aq Mult – SW RemoteNegligible – SeRemoteRemoteNapa Bluegrass SFBE Wetland-riparian RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pools; ANSsensitivity (plants)North American GreenSturgeonSFBE Aq Mult - FW, SWNegligible– SeRemote RemoteRemoteRemote risk to (juvenile FWlifestage); PollutionsensitivityNorth Atlantic Right Whale ULB, BB Aq Mult – SWNegligible– As, SeNegligible – SeRemoteRemoteLimited nearshore exposure;Pollution sensitivityOlive Ridley Sea Turtle SFBE Aq Mult – SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited nearshore exposurePallid Sturgeon UMR Aq Mult – FW Remote Remote RemoteRemotePollution sensitivityPalmate-bracted Bird's Beak SFBE Wetland-riparian RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (plants)Pink Mucket UMRAq, Water only –FWRemoteRemote RemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (zebramussels); Pollution sensitivityPiping PloverULB, GB,SLEAq Dep - FW, SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemotePollution sensitivity (oilcontamination)Red Wolf BB Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited aquatic-dependenceRiparian Woodrat SFBE Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteRoseate Tern ULB, BB Aq Dep – SW RemoteNegligible – SeRemoteRemotePollution sensitivity2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis5-150Table 5-59. Summary of Species-Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species in RAAsListed Species/ TaxaRAA(s)aExposurePathway ofConcernbDirectEffectscPotential for Indirect Effects via -Loss of PreycLoss ofHabitatWaterQualityAdditional RiskConsiderationsdSalt Marsh Harvest Mouse SFBE Aq Dep – SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteScaleshell Mussel UMRAq, Water only –FWRemoteRemote RemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (zebramussels); Pollution sensitivitySeabeach Amaranth ULB Beach – SW Remote RemoteRemoteRemoteShortnose Sturgeon ULB, BB Aq Mult - FW, SWNegligible– SeRemote RemoteRemoteRemote risk to (juvenile FWlifestage); ANS sensitivity(competition, viruses);Pollution sensitivity(nutrients)Short-Tailed Albatross PS Aq Mult – SW RemoteNegligible – SeRemoteRemotePollution sensitivity (oilcontamination)Smalltooth Sawfish GB, BB Aq Mult – SWNegligible– SeRemote RemoteRemotePollution sensitivitySoft Bird's Beak SFBECoastal salt marsh,wetland-riparianRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (plants);Pollution sensitivity (oilspills)Solano Grass SFBEFW wetland,vernal pools,wetland-riparianRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pools; ANSsensitivitySonoma Alopecurus SFBEFW wetland,wetland-riparian,FW marshRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteSonoma Sunshine SFBEFW wetland,vernal pools,wetland-riparianRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited to vernal poolsSouthern Sea Otter SFBE Aq Mult – SWNegligible– As, SeNegligible – SeRemoteRemotePollution sensitivity (oilspills)Staghorn Coral BBAq Water Only –SWRemoteRemote RemoteRemoteNoneSteelhead Salmon (PugetSound and CA Coast)PS, SFBE Aq Mult - FW, SWNegligible– SeRemote RemoteRemoteRemote risk to (juvenile FWlifestage); Pollutionsensitivity2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis5-151Table 5-59. Summary of Species-Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and Aquatic-dependent Species in RAAsListed Species/ TaxaRAA(s)aExposurePathway ofConcernbDirectEffectscPotential for Indirect Effects via -Loss of PreycLoss ofHabitatWaterQualityAdditional RiskConsiderationsdSteller Sea-Lion PS, SFBE Aq Mult – SWNegligible– As, SeNegligible – SeRemoteRemotePollution sensitivitySuisun Thistle SFBECoastal salt marsh,wetland-riparianRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (plants)Tidewater Goby SFBE Aq Mult - FW, SWNegligible– SeRemote RemoteRemoteANS sensitivity (predation);Pollution sensitivityUte Ladies’-Tresses PSRiparian, wetland– FWRemote RemoteRemoteRemoteValley Elderberry LonghornBeetleSFBE Aq Dep – FW RemoteRemote RemoteRemoteSpends entire life-cycle onelderberry tree; ANSsensitivity (plants)Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp SFBE Aq Mult – FW RemoteRemote RemoteRemoteLimited to vernal poolsWater Howellia PS, SFBE Ponds – FW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteLimited to vernal pools; ANSsensitivity (plants)West Indian Manatee GB, BB Aq Mult - FW, SWNegligible– As, SeRemoteRemoteRemoteWestern Snowy PacificPloverSFBE Aq Dep – SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteWhite Abalone SFBEAq Water Only –SWRemoteRemote RemoteRemoteNoneWhite Sedge SFBEFW wetland,wetland-riparian,FW marsh,bogs/fensRemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteWhooping Crane GB Aq Dep - FW, SW RemoteRemoteRemoteRemoteWood Stork BB Aq Dep – FW RemoteNegligible – Se RemoteRemoteANS sensitivitya)RAA designations: PS=Puget Sound RAA; ULB=Upper and Lower Bay RAA;GB=Galveston Bay RAA; UMR=Mississippi River RAA; SLE=Saint LouisEstuary RAA; SFBE=San Francisco Bay Estuary RAA; BB=Biscayne Bay RAA.b)FW = Freshwater; SW = Saltwater, Aq = Aquatic, Aq Dep = Aquatic Dependent, Mult = Multiple Routes of Exposurec)As = arsenic, Se = selenium.d)EPA identified species as sensitive to ANS and or pollution basedon the identified threats presented inTable 4-19. EPA limitedthe additional riskconsiderations in this table to ANS and pollution threats that could reasonably be attributed to vessel discharges covered under the VGP and sVGP. Forexample, a species identified as sensitive to pollution from entanglement with debris is not designated as sensitive to pollution in this table as discharge ofdebris is not allowed under the VGP or sVGP.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-152 5.6 R EFERENCES

Ahsanullah, M. and A.R. Williams. 1991. Subletha l effects and bioaccumulation of cadmium, chromium, copper and zinc in the marine amphipod Allorchestes compressa. Mar. Biol.,

108: 59-65.

Aiken, S.G., P.R. Newroth and I. Wile. 1979. Th e biology of Canadian weeds. 34. Myriophyllum spicatum L. Can. J. Plant Sci., 59: 201-215.

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). 2010. Ba llast Water Treatment Advisory. 8 June 2010.

Retrieved from http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortal WEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Refer

ences/ABS%20Advisories/BWMAdviso ryNotice. Accessed June 16, 2010.

American Rivers. 2005. Endangere d Species. Retrieved from http://www.americanrivers.org/site/Pag eServer?pagename=AMR_content_2a88.

Amiard, J.C., C. Amiard-Triquet, B. Berthe t and C. Metayer, 1986. Contribution to the ecotoxicological study of cadmium, lead, copper and zinc in the mussel Mytilus edulis. I. Field study. Mar. Biol. (Berlin), 90(3): 425-31.

Amphibiaweb.org. 2008. Rana lute iventris Columbia Spotted Frog. Amphibiaweb.org website, accessed April 17, 2008. Digital Library Project at the University of California, Berkeley.

Austrailian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) . 2008. Effects of Oil on Wildlife. Retrieved

from http://www.amsa.gov.au/marine_environment_pr otection/educational_resources_and_inf ormation/teachers/the_effects_of_oil _on_wildlife.asp. (Accessed April 2008).

Andreini, C., Banci, L., Bertini, I., and Rosa to, A. 2005. Counting the zinc-proteins encoded in the human genome. J . Proteome Res., 5: 196–201.

Armstrong, D.A., D. Chippendale, A.!?. Knight, a nd J.E. Colt. 1978. Interaction of ionized and

un-ionized ammonia on short-term survival a nd growth of prawn la rvae, Macrobrachium rosenbergii, Biol. Bull. 154(l): 15-31.

Arnold. WR, RL Diamond and DS Smith. 2010. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Copper to the Euryhaline Rotifer, Brachionus plicati lis (“L” Strain). Arch Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 60(2): 250-260.

Arthur, J.W., et al. 1975. Comparative toxicity of sewage-effluent disi nfection co freshwater aquatic life. EPA-600-3-75-012. National Techni cal Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

Auer NA. 1999. Lake sturgeon: a unique and impe riled species in the Great Lakes. In Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Bi national Perspective. Taylor WW, Ferreri CP (eds). MSU Press: East Lansing, MI, 557-564.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-153 Bailey, S.A., Deneau, M.G., Jean, L., Wiley, C.J., Leung, B. and H.J. MacIsaac. 2011. Evaluating Efficacy of an Environmental Policy to Prevent Biological Invasions.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 45 : 2554-2561.

Baker, R.T.M., R.D. Handy, S.J. Davies a nd J.C. Snook. 1998. Chronic dietary exposure to copper affects growth, tissue lipid peroxi dation, and metal composition of the grey mullet, Chelon labrosus . Mar. Environ. Res., 45 : 357-365.

Bash, J., Berman, C. and S. Bolton. 2001. Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Solids on Salmonids. Center for Streamside Studies, University of Washington. November, 2001.

Retrieved from https://dlib.lib.washingt on.edu/dspace/bitstream/ha ndle/1773/16382/Salmon%20and%20 Turbidity.pdf?sequence=1.

Battelle. (2000). An Initial Survey of Aquatic In vasive Species Issues in the Gulf of Mexico Region. EPA 855-R-00-003. New Orleans, LA . (September). Retrieved from http://nis.gsmfc.org/pubs/Initial%20S urvey%20of%20Invasive%20Species.pdf.

Bax, N., Williamson, A., Aguero, M., Gonzalez E. and W. Geeves. 2003. Marine invasive alien species: a threat to global biodiversity. Marine Policy, 27 : 313-323.

Bensen, A. 2012. Endangered Species: The Exot ic Zebra Mussel.U.S. Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/cla ms/zebra.html. (Accessed April 2012).

Besser, J.M., N. Wang, F.J. Dwyer, F.L. Ma yer and C.G. Ingersoll. 2005a. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of endangered and th reatened aquatic species: Part II. Chronic toxicity of copper and pentachlorophenol to two endangered species and two surrogate species. Arch. Environ. Cont am. Toxicol., 48: 155-165.

Besser, J. M., W. G. Brumbaugh, E. L. Brunson and C. G. Ingersoll. 2005b. Acute and chronic toxicity of lead in wa ter and diet to the am phipod Hyalella azteca. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 24(7): 1807-1815.

Besser, J. M., Mebane, C. A., Mount, D. R., Ive y, C. D., Kunz, J. L., Greer, I. E., May, T. W., and Ingersoll, C. G. 2007. Sensitivity of Mottled Sculpins ( Cottus bairdi ) and Rainbow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) to Acute and Chronic Toxic ity of Cadmium, Copper, and

Zinc. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 26(8) : 1657-1665.

Besser, L., Chorin, E., Sekler, I., Silverman, W. F ., Atkin, S., Russell, J. T., and Hershfinkel, M. (2009). Synaptically released zinc triggers metabotropic signali ng via a zinc-sensing receptor in the hippocampus. J. Neurosci., 29 : 2890-2901.

Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. J. Wildl. Manage., 58 : 375-382.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-154 Birge, W. J. 1978. Aquatic Toxicology of Trace Elements of Coal and Fly Ash. In: J.H.Thorp and J.W.Gibbons (Eds.), Dep.Energy Symp.S er., Energy and Environmental Stress in Aquatic Systems, Augusta, GA 48, 219-240.

Birge,W.J., Black,J.A. 1980. Aquatic Toxiciology of Nickel. In: J.O.Nriagu (Ed.), Chapter 13, Nickel in the Environment, Wiley, NY. pp. 349-366.

Borgmann, U., R. Neron and W.P. Norwood. 2001. Qu antification of bioavailable nickel in

sediments and toxic thres holds to Hyalella azteca . Environ. Pollut., 111 : 189-198.

Brown, BT and BM Rattigan. 1979. Toxicity of sol uble copper and other metal ions to Elodea

Canadensis. Environ. Pollut., 20 : 303-314.

Buckler, D.R., L. Cleveland, E.E. Little, and W.G. Brumbaugh. 1995. Survival, Sublethal Responses, and Tissue Residues of Atlant ic Salmon Exposed to Acidic pH and

Aluminum. Aquat. Toxicol., 31(3): 203-216.

Bull, E.L., and D.B. Marx. 2002. Influence of fi sh and habitat on amphibian communities in high

elevation lakes in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science, 76 : 240-248.

Bushaw-Newton KL, Sellner KG. 1999. Harmful alga l blooms. State of the Coast Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, SilverSpring, MD, USA. Available at http://state-ofcoast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/hab_14/hab.html.

Call, D.J., et al. 1983. Toxicicy and metabolism st udies wirh EPA priority pollutants and related chemicals in freshwater organisms. PB83-263665. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

Candries, M. 2009. Proposed criteria for safe in-w ater hull husbandry pract ices with respect to the risk of transferring Non-Indigenous Speci es with particular attention to Surface Treated Coatings. Subsea Industries Techni cal Report No. 2009.4 Revision 0. April 2009.

Retrieved from http://www.hydrex.be/sources/pdf/Subs ea%20Industries%20TR%202009.4%20Rev.%20 0.pdf.

Cardin, J.A. 1982. Memorandum to J.H. Gentile. U.S. EPA, Narrangansett, Rhode Island.

Cardin, J.A. 1985. Results of Acute Toxicity Tests Conducted with Chromium at ERL, Narragansett. U.S. EPA, Narragansett, RI :2.

Carlton J., and J. Geller. 1993. Ec ological roulette: the global tr ansport of nonindigenous marine organisms. Science, 261 : 78-82.

Carlton JT. 1999. Quo vadimus exo tica oceanica? Marine bioinvasi on ecology in the twenty-first century. In Pederson J, ed, Marine Bioinva sions: Proceedings of the First National

Conference. Massachusetts Institute of T echnology Sea Grant College Program and MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 6-23.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-155 Carlton, J. T. 1992. Introduced marine and estuar ine mollusks of North America: an end-of-the20th-century perspective. Journal of Shellfish Research, 11 : 489-505.

Carlton, J. T., and G. Ruiz. 2005. Vector scie nce and integrated vector management in bioinvasion ecology: conceptu al frameworks. Pp. 36–58 In: Invasive Alien Species: A New Synthesis. H. A. Mooney, R. N. Mack, J. A. McNeely, L. E. Neville, P. J. Schei, and J. K. Waage, editors. Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Carlton, J.T. 1996. Marine Bioinvasions: Th e Alteration of Marine Ecosystems by Nonindigenous Species. Oceanography, 9(1) : 36-43.

Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and Management Priorities. Pew O ceans Commission, Arlington, VA.

Chapman, G.A., S. Ota and F. Recht. Manuscript. Effects of water hard ness on the toxicity of

metals to Daphnia magna . USEPA, Corvallis, Oregon. Av ailable from: C.E. Stephan, USEPA, Duluth, MN.

Chapman, G.A. 1975. Toxicity of copper, cadmium and zinc to Pacific northwest salmonids. Interim Report. U.S. EPA, Corvallis, OR. Available from: C.E. Stephan, U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.

Cherry, D.S., J.H. Rodgers, Jr., R.L. Graney and J. Cairns, Jr. 1980. Dynamics and control of the Asiatic clam in the New River, Virginia. Bull. 123. Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Blacksburg, VA.

Clendenning, K.A. and W.J. North. 1959. Effects of wastes on the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera. I n: E.A. Pearson, (ed.), Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Waste Disposal in the Marine Environment. Berkeley, California. p. 82.

Cohen AN, Carlton JT. 1997. Transoceanic tran sport mechanisms: The introduction of the

Chinese mitten crab Eriocheir sinensis to California. Pacific Science, 51(1): 1-11.

Cohen, A. N. and J. T. Carlton. 1998. Acceleratin g Invasion Rate in a Highly Invaded Estuary.
Science, 279: 555-558.

Cohen, A. N., and J. T. Carlton. 1995. Biologi cal Study. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. A Report for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, and The National Sea Grant College Progr am, Connecticut Sea Grant, NTIS Report

Number PB96-166525.

Compton JAF. 1987. Chlorine. In: Military chem ical and biological ag ents. Chemical and toxicological properties. Caldwe ll, NJ: Telford Press, 113-118.

Convention on Biological Diversity . 2005. Invasive Alien Species Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/iyb/doc/prints/fact sheets/iyb-cbd-factsheet-ias-en.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-156 Cook, P.M., A.R. Carlson and H. Lee II. 1992. Tissue Residue Approach. In Sediment

Classification Methods Co mpendium. Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wa shington, DC, USA. p. 7-1 - 7-10.

Cordell, J., Sosik,E., Faulkner, M. and C. Sc ianni. 2009. Characterizing Risk Associated with Vessel Fouling and Nonindigenous Species in Prince William Sound. Prepared by the School of Aquatic and Fishery Science, Un iversity of Washington and the California

State Lands Commission for the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory

Council. October 2009. Retrieved from http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0081980.UWHullFouling.pdf.

Coutts, A.D.M. 1999. Hull fouling as a modern vector for marine biological invasions: Investigation of merchant vessels visiting northern Ta smania. Thesis. Australian Maritime College. 283 pgs.

Coutts, A.D.M. and M.D. Taylor. 2004. A pre liminary investigation of biosecurity risks associated with biofouling on me rchant vessels in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of
Marineand Freshwater Research, 38: 215-229.

Coutts, A.D.M., K.M. Moore, C.L. Hewitt. 2003. Ships’ sea-chests: an overlooked transfer mechanism for non-indigenous marine species? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46: 1504-

1515.

Crisinel, A., L. Delaunay, D. Rossel, J. Tarradellas , H. Meyer, H. Saiah, P. Vogel, C. Delisle and C. Blaise. 1994. Cyst-based ecotoxicological tests using anostracan s: comparison of two species of Streptocephalus. Environ. Toxicol. Water Qual., 9(4): 317-326.

Davidson, I.C., Brown, C.W., Sytsma, M.D., Ruiz , G.M. 2009. The role of containerships as transfer mechanisms of marine biofouling species. Biofouling, 25(7): 645-655.

Davies, P.H. and W.E. Everhart. 1973. Effects of chemical variations in aquatic environments: lead toxicity to rainbow tr out and testing application f actor concept. EPA-R3-73-011C.

National Technical Information Se rvice, Springfield, Virginia.

Davies, P.H., J.P. Goettl Jr., J.R. Sinley, and N.F. Smith. 1976. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Lead to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gair dneri) in Hard and Soft Water. Water Res., 10:(3),

199-206.

Deegan LA, Buchsbaum RN. 2005. The effect of ha bitat loss and degradation on fisheries. In Buchsbaum RN, Robinson WE, Pederson J, eds, The Decline of Fisheries Resources in New England: Evaluating the Impact of Overfishing, Contamination, and Habitat Degradation. MITSG 05-5. MIT Sea Grant College Program, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp

67-96.

DeForest, D.K., K.V. Brix and W.J. Adams. 200 7. Assessing metal bioaccumulation in aquatic environments: The inverse relationship between bioaccumulation factors, trophic transfer factors and exposure concentrations. Aquat. Toxicol., 84: 236-246.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-157 den Besten, P.J., H.J. Herwig, A.C. Smaal, D.I. Zandee and P.A. Voogt. 1989. Effects of cadmium and PCBs on reproduction of the sea star Asterias rubens : Aberrations in the early development. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 18: 173-180.

Di Toro, DM and JA McGrath. 2000. Technical ba sis for narcotic chemicals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon criteria. II. Mi xtures and sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 19:

1971-1982.

Dinnel, P.A., J.M. Link, Q.J. Stober, M.W. Letourneau, and W.E. Roberts. 1989. Comparative Sensitivity of Sea Urchin Sperm Bioassays to Metals and Pesticides. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 18(5): 748-755.

Dinnel, PA et al. 1983. Methodolog y and validation of a sperm ce ll toxicity test for testing

substances in marine waters. FRI-UW-8306. Fi sheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Dodgshun T. and A. Coutts. 2002. Ships’ sea chests : a “side door” for marine pests? Cawthron Institute. 9 pgs.

Downing, K.Y. and J.C. Metkens. 1955. The infl uence of dissolved-oxygen concentration on the toxicity of un-ionized ammonia to rai nbow trout (Salmo gairdneri Richardson). Ann. Appl. Biol., 43(2): 243-246.

Duggan, I.C., C.D.A. van Overdijk, S.A. Bailey, P.T. Jenkins, H. Limen and H.J. MacIsaac.

2005. Invertebrates associated with residua l ballast water and sediments of cargocarrying ships entering the Great Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 62 : 2463-2474.

DWAF. 1996. South African Water Quality Guide lines, Volume 7: Aquatic Ecosystems. First Edition, 1996. Department of Water Affa irs and Forestry. Retrieved from http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/CSRM/Document s/Aquatic_Ecosystems_Guidelines.pdf

Dwyer, F.J., D.K. Hardesty, C.E. Henke, C.G. Ingersoll, D.W. Whites, D.R. Mount, C.M. Bridges. 1999. Assessing Contaminant Sens itivity Of Endangered and Threatened Species: Toxicant Classes. EPA 600-R-99-098.

Dwyer, F.J., F.L. Mayer, L.C. Sappington, D.R. Buckler, C.M. Bridges, I.E. Greer, D.K. Hardesty, C.E. Henke, C.G. Ingersoll, J.L. Kunz, D.W. Whites, T. Augspurger, D.R. Mount, K. Hattala and G.N. Neuderfer. 2005. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of endangered and threatened aquatic species: Part I. Acute toxicity of five chemicals. Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 48 :143-154.

Eisler, R. 1985. Cadmium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bi ological Report 85(1.2).

Eisler, R. 1986. Chromium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Bi ological Report 85 (1.6). 60 pp.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-158 Eisler, R. 1988. Lead hazards to fish, wildlife, an d invertebrates: A synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bi ological Report 85(1.14).

Eisler, R. 1993. Zinc hazards to fish, wildlife, an d invertebrates: A synoptic review. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 10, Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report 26.

Eisler, R. 1998. Nickel hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: A synoptic review. U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Sc ience Report USGS BRD-BSR-1998-0001. Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report 34.

Engel, S. 1995. Eurasian watermilfo il as a fishery management tool. Fisheries, 20(3) : 20-27.

Enserink, E. L., J. L. Maas-Diepeveen, and C. J. Van Leeuwen. 1991. Combined effects of metals; an ecotoxicological evaluation. Water Res., 25(6) : 679-687.

ENSR Consulting and Engineering. 1992. Acute Toxicity of Aluminum to Ceriodaphnia dubia

Under Static Renewal Test Conditions at Four Levels of Water Hardness. Climax Metals Company, Climax Metals Company, Golden, CO .

EPRI. 2003. Fate and Effects of Selenium in Len tic and Lotic Systems. Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, CA. 11401.

Erickson, R.J. 1985. An Evaluation of Mathema tical Models for the Effects of pH and Temperature on Ammonia Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms. Water Res., 19 : 1047-1058.

Farag, A.M., T. May, G.D. Marty, M. Easton, D.D. Harper, E.E. Little and L. Cleveland. 2006. The effect of chronic chromium expos ure on the health of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Aquat. Toxicol., 76 : 246-257.

Floerl, O., Inglis, G.J. and H.M. Marsh. 2005. Selectivity in vector management: An investigation of the effectiven ess of measures used to prev ent transport of non-indigenous species. Biological Invasions, 7(3) : 459–75.

Floerl, O., Peacock, L., Seaward, K. and G. Inglis. 2010. Review of Biosecurity and

Contaminant Risks Associated with In-water Cleaning. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Commonwealth of Australia. September 2010. Retrieved from http://www.marinepests.gov.au/marine_pests/pu blications/research_reports/review_of_bi osecurity_and_contaminant_risks_as sociated_with_in- water_cleaning.

Fofonoff, P.W., G.W. Ruiz, B. Steves, and J.T. Carlton. 2003. In ships or on ships? Mechanisms

of transfer and invasion for non- native species to the coasts of North America. In Ruiz, G.M. and J.T. Carlton (eds). Invasive sp ecies: vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington, DC. pp. 152-182.

Fontenot, Q. C., J. J. Isely, and J. R. Tomass o. 1998. Acute toxicity of ammonia and nitrite to shortnose sturgeon fingerlings. The Progressive Fish Culturist, 60 : 315-318.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-159 Foster, B.A. and R.C. Willan. 1979. Foreign barn acles transported to New Zealand on an oil platform. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research., 13 : 143-149.

Gagné N, MacKinnon AM, Boston L, Souter B, C ook-Versloot M, Griffiths S, Olivier G.. 2007. Isolation of viral haemorrhag ic septicaemia virus from mummichog, stickleback, striped

bass and brown trout in eastern Canada. J Fish Dis, 30 : 213-223.

Gardner, M. J., Dixon, E., Sims, I. and Wh itehouse, P. 2002. Importance of Speciation in Aquatic Toxicity Tests with Aluminum . Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 68(2) : 195-200.

Gatlin, D. M., and Wilson, R. P. (1986). Dietar y copper requirements of fingerling channel

catfish. Aquaculture, 54 : 277–285.

Gensemer and Playle.1999. The bioavailability and toxicity of aluminum in aquatic

environments. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 29 : 315-450.

Gensemer, R.W., D.K. DeForest, R.D. Cardwell, D. Dzomback, and R. Santore. 2007. Scientific review of cyanide ecotoxicol ogy and evaluation of ambient wa ter quality criteria. Water Environment Research Founation, Alexandria, VA.

Gentile, S.M., et al. 1982. Chronic effects of cadmium on two species of mysid shrimp: Mysidopsis bahia and Mysidopsis bigelowi. Hydrobiol., 93 : 195.

Geret, F., Jouan, A., Turpin, V., Bebianno, M. J., and Cosson, R. P. 2002. Influence of Metal Exposure on Metallothionein S ynthesis and Lipid Peroxidati on in Two Bivalve Mollusks: The Oyster ( Crassostrea gigas ) and the Mussel ( Mytilus edulis ). Aquat. Living Resour., 15(1) : 61-66.

Gilderhus, P.A. 1966. Some effects of sublethal con centrations of sodium arsenite on bluegills in the aquatic environment. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc, 95 : 289-296.

GISP. 2008. Marine Biofouling: An Assessment of Risks and Management Initiatives. Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) a nd the UNEP Regional Seas Programme. 68pp.

Goettl, J.P., Jr. and P.H. Davies. 1977. Water pol lution studies. Job Progress Report, Federal Aid Project F-33-R-12. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. pp. 39-42.

Goettl, Jr., J. P., J. R. Sinley and P. H. Davies. 1972. Water pollution studies. In: Water Pollution Studies Job Progress Report, Fed. Aid Proj . F-33-R-7, Colorado Div. of Wildl., Ft. Collins, CO. 1-47.

Goodman, L.R., et al. 1983. Early li fe-stage toxicity test with tidewater silversides (Menidia peninsulae) and chlorine-produced oxidants. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 2 : 337.

Grande, M. and Andersen, S. 1983. Lethal Effects of Hexavalent Chromium, Lead and Nickel on Young Stages of Atlantic Salmon ( Salmo Salar L .) In Soft Water. Vatten, 39(4) : 405-416.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-160 Grosell, M. 2012. Chapter 2. Copper, In: CM Wo od, AP Farrell, and CJ Brauner, eds., Fish Physiology, Homeostasis and Toxicology of Essential Metals: Volume 31A, Elsevier Inc., pp. 52-133.

Grosell, M., Blanchard, J., Brix, K. V., a nd Gerdes, R. 2007. Physiology is pivotal for interactions between salinity and acute copper toxicity to fish and invertebrates. Aquat. Toxicol., 84 : 162–172.

Groth, P. 1971. Untersuchungen uber ei hige spur en elemente in Seen. Arch. Hydrobiol. 68:305- 375. as cited in Draft Biological Evaluation for Reissuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for the Potlatch Corporation, Lewiston, Idaho.

1993.

Hallegraeff GM. 1993. A review of harmful algal blooms and their apparent global increase. Phycologia, 32(2) : 79-99.

Hallegraeff, G. M., and C. Bolch. 1992. Transport of diatom and dinoflagella te resting spores in ships’ ballast water: implications fo r plankton biogeography and aquaculture. Journal of
Plankton Research, 14 : 1067–1084.

Harris, J.O., G.B. Maguire, S. Edwards, S.M. Hindrum 1989. Effect of ammonia on the growth rate and oxygen consumption of juvenile greenlip abalone, Haliotis laevigata Donovan. Aquaculture, 160: 259-272.

Hellio, C. and D.M. Yebra. 2009. Advances in Ma rine Anti-fouling Coatings and Technologies. Oxford. Woodhead Publishing in Materials.

Hem, JD and WH Durum. 1973. Solubility a nd occurrence of lead in surface water. Amer. Water Works Assoc. J., 16 : 562-568.

Hershfinkel, M., Aizenman, E., Andrews, G. and Se kler, I. (2010). Zinc be lls rang in Jerusalem! Sci. Signal. 3, mr2.

Hewitt, C. and M. Campbell. 2010. The Relative C ontribution of Vectors to the Introduction and Translocation of Invasive Marine Species. Department of Agricu lture, Fisheries and Forestry. Commonwealth of Australia. Se ptember 2010. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Commonwealth of Australia. September 2010. Retrieved from http://www.marinepests.gov.au/__data/assets /pdf_file/0004/1804513/Relative_contributi on_of_vectors_to_the_introduction_and_trans location_of_invasive_marine_species.pdf.

Hirano, T., Murakami, M., Fukada, T., Nishida, K., Yamasaki, S., and Suzuki, T. (2008). Roles of zinc and zinc signaling in immunity: zinc as an intracellular signaling molecule. Adv.
Immunol., 97 : 149–176.

Hogstrand, C. 2012. Chapter 3. Zinc, In: CM Wood, AP Farrell, and CJ Brauner, eds., Fish Physiology, Homeostasis and Toxicology of Essential Metals: Volume 31A, Elsevier Inc., pp. 135-200.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-161 Hogstrand, C., Kille, P., Nicholson, R. I., and Taylor, K. M. (2009). Zinc transporters and cancer: a potential role for ZIP7 as a hub for tyrosine kinase activation. Trends Mol.
Med., 15 : 101–111.

Holcombe, G.W., D.A. Benoit, E.N. Leonard an d J.M. McKim. 1976. Long-term effects of lead exposure on three generations of broo k trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Can., 33 :1731-1741.

Holland, G. A., Lasater, J. E., Neumann, E. D ., and Eldridge, W. E. 1960. Toxic Effects of Organic and Inorganic Pollutants on Young Salmon and Trout. Res.Bull.No.5, State of Washington Dept.Fish., Seattle, WA , 263 p.

Holm, J. 2002. Sublethal effects of selenium on rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Masters Thesis. Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.

Holm, J., V.P. Palace, K. Wautier, R.E. Evan s, C.L. Baron, C. Podemski, P. Siwik and G. Sterling. 2003. An assessment of the deve lopment and survival of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salve linus fontinalis) exposed to elevated selenium in an area of active coal mining. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Larval Fish Conference 2003, Bergen, Norway. ISBN 82-7461-059-B.

Honnell, D., J.D. Madsen and R.M. Smart. 1992. E ffects of aquatic plants on water quality in pond ecosystems. In: Proceedings, 26 Annual Meeting, Aquatic Plant Control Research Program, Report A-92-2. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Hopkins, G.A. and B.M. Forrest. 2008. Management options for vessel hull fouling: an overview of risks posed by in-water cleaning. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65 : 811-815.

HSDB. 2009. Chlorine. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved from http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov. March 11, 2009.

Hughes, M.M., M.A. Heber, G.E. Morrison, S.C. Schimmel and W.J. Berry. 1989. An evaluation

of a short-term chronic effluent toxic ity test using sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) larvae. Environ. Pollut., 60(1) : 1-14.

Hunt, JW, Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Tjeerdema RS, Puckett HM, Stephenson M, Tucker DW, Watson D. 2002. Acute and chronic toxicity of ni ckel to marine organisms: Implications for water quality criteria. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 21(11) : 2423-2430.

Hyne, R. V. and Wilson, S. P. 1997. Toxicity of Acid-Sulphate Soil Leachate and Aluminium to the Embryos and Larvae of Australian Bass ( Macquaria novemaculeata ) in Estuarine

Water. Environ. Pollut., 97(3) : 221-227.

James, S. M. and Little, E. E. 2003. The Eff ects of Chronic Cadmium Exposure on American Toad (Bufo americanus) Tadpoles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 22(2) : 377-380.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-162 Janssen, C.R., G. Persoone, and T.W. Snell. 1994. Cy st-based toxicity test s. VIII. Short-chronic toxicity tests with the freshwater rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Aquat. Toxicol., 28(3-4) : 243-58.

Jarvinen, A.W. and G.T. Ankle y. 1999. Linkage of Effects to Tissu e Residues: Development of a Comprehensive Database for Aquatic Orga nisms Exposed to Inorganic and Organic Chemicals. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, USA.

Johnson, C. R. 1976. Herbicide Toxicities in So me Australian Anurans and the Effect of Subacute Dosages on Temperature Tolerance. Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 59(1) : 79-83.

Johnson, L., Gonzalez, J., Alvarez, C., Takada , M. and A. Himes. 2007. Managing Hull-Borne Invasive Species and Coastal Water Quality for California and Baja California Boats Kept in Saltwater. ANR Publication 8359 – Ca lifornia Sea Grant College Program Report Number T-061. University of California C ooperative Extension – Sea Grant Extension Program. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8359.pdf.

Johnston, E.L., Piola, R.F., and Clark, G.F. 2008. Chapter 7. The Role of Propagule Pressure in Invasion Success. In: Rilov, G. and Crooks, J.A. (eds.) Biological Invasions in Marine Ecosystems: Ecological, Management, and Geogr aphic Perspectives (Ecological Studies). Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp:133-151.

Kadar, E., Salanki, J., Jugdaohsingh, R., Powell, J. J., McCrohan, C. R., and White, K. N. 2001. Avoidance Responses to Aluminium in the Freshwater Bivalve Anodonta cygnea. Aquat. Toxicol., 55(3/4) : 137-148.

Kamunde, C., M. Grosell, D. Higgs and C.M. Wood. 2002. Copper metabolism in actively growing rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ): Interactions between dietary and waterborne copper uptake. J. Exp. Biol., 205 : 279-290.

Kaplan, H.M., et al. 1967. Toxicity of lead ni trate solutions for frogs (Rana pipiens). Lab.
Animal Care, 17 : 240.

Keast, A. 1984. The introduced aquatic macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum , as habitat for fish and their macroinvertebrate prey. Canadian Journal or Zoology, 62 : 1289-1303.

Keller, A.E. 2000. Personal Communi cation to U.S. EPA: Water Quality and Toxicity Data for Unpublished Unionid Mussel Tests. Memo to R. Pepin and C. Roberts,U.S. EPA Region 5,Chicago, IL. 14 p.

Keller, A.E. Unpublished. Persona l Communication to U.S. EPA.

Keller, A. E. and Zam, S. G. The Acute Toxicity of Selected Metals to the Freshwater Mussel,

Anodonta Imbecilis. Environ.Toxicol.Chem., 10(4) : 539-546.

Kimball, G. 1978. The Effects of Lesser Known Metals and One Organic to Fathead Minnows ( Pimephales promelas ) and Daphnia magna . Manuscript, Dep.of Entomology, Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN:88.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-163 Knight, I.T., C.S. Wells, B. Wiggins, H. Ru ssell, K.A. Reynolds and A. Huq. 1999. Detection and enumeration of fecal indicators and pathoge ns in the ballast water of transoceanic cargo vessels entering the Great Lakes. Gene ral Meeting of the Am erican Society for Microbiology, Chicago, IL. Abstract Q-71, p. 546.

Kolar, C.S. and Lodge, D.M. 2001. Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16 : 199-204.

Korte, F. 1983. Ecotoxicology of cadmium: general review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety, 7 : 3-8.

Kraak, M.H.S., D. Lavy, W.H.M. Peeters and C. Davids. 1992. Chronic ecotoxicity of copper

and cadmium to the zebra mu ssel Dreissena polymorpha. Arch. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol., 23 : 363-369.

Laity, J. H., and Andrews, G. K. (2007). U nderstanding the mechanisms of zinc-sensing by metal-response element binding tr anscription factor-1 (MTF-1). Arch. Biochem. Biophys.,

463 : 201–210.

Landrum, P.F., B.J. Eadie and W.R. Faust. 1991. Toxicity and toxicokine tics of a mixture of sediment-associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to the amphipod, Pontoporeia hoyi.

Lapointe, D., and Couture, P. (2009). Influence of the route of exposure on the accumulation and

subcellular distribution of ni ckel and thallium in juvenile fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 57 : 571–580.

Larson, C.L., F.E. Hutchins and D.A. Schlesin ger. 1977. Laboratory determination of acute and

sublethal toxicities of inor ganic chloramines to early life stages of coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 106 : 268.

Lazareva, LP. 1985. Changes in biological characte ristics of Daphnia magna from chronic action of copper and nickel to low concentrations. Hydrobiol. J., 21(5) : 59-62.

Lee DS, Gilbert CR, Hocutt CH, Jenkins RE, Mc Allister DE, Stauffer JR. 1980. Atlas of North

American Freshwater Fishes. North Caro lina State Museum of Natural History,

Publication #1980-12 of the North Caroli na Biological Survey, Raleigh, NC.

Lee, H., II, D. A. Reusser, M. Frazier, and G. Ruiz. 2010. Density matters: review of approaches to setting organism-based ballast wate r discharge standards. EPA/600/R-10/031. EPA

Office of Research and Deve lopment, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division.

Lemly, A.D., 1985. Toxicology of selenium in a freshwater reservoir: Implications for environmental hazard evaluation and safety. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety.

10 : 314.

Lemly, A.D. 1993. Guidelines for evaluating se lenium data from aquatic monitoring and

assessment studies. Environmental Monitori ng and Assessment., 28(1) : 83.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-164 Lillebo, H.P., S. Shaner, D. Carlson, N. Richar d, and P. DuBowy. 1988. Water quality criteria for selenium and other trace elements for protec tion of aquatic life and its uses in the San Joaquin Valley. SWRCB Order No. W.Q. 85-1 Technical Committee Report, Appendix

D. California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA.

Lima, A.R., C. Curtis, D.E. Hammermeister, T. P. Markee, C.E. Northcott, and L.T. Brooke.

1984. Acute and chronic toxicities of arsenic (III) to fathead minno ws, flagfish, daphnids, and an amphipod. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 13 : 595-601.

Lockwood, J. L., Cassey, P., and Blackburn, T. 2005. The role of propagule pressure in explaining species invasions. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20 : 223–228.

Lodge, D. M., S. L. Williams, H. J. MacIsaac, K. R. Hayes, B. Leung, S. Reichard, R. N. Mack, P. B. Moyle, M. Smith, D. A. Andow, J. T. Carlton, and A. McMi chael. 2006. Biological invasions: recommendations for U.S. policy and management . Ecological Applications,

16 : 2035–2054.

Lussier, S.M., J.H. Gentile and J. Walker. 1985. Acute and chronic effects of heavy metals and cyanide on Mysidopsis bahia (Crustacea: Mysidacea). Aquat. Toxicol., 7(1-2) : 25-35.

Lydeard C., Cowie R.H., Ponder W.F., Bogan A. E., Bouchet P., Clark S.A., Cummings K.S., Frest T.J., Gargominy O., Herbert D.G., He rsheler R., Perez K.E., Roth B., Seddon M., Strong E.E., Thompson F.G. 2004. The globa l decline of nonmarine mollusks. BioSci, 54 : 4321-30.

Maeda, S., R. Inoue, T. Kozono, T. Tokuda, A. Ohki and T. Takeshita. 1990. Arsenic

metabolismin a freshwater food chain. Chemosphere, 20 : 101-108.

Maier, K.J., A.W. Knight. 1994. Ecotoxicology of Selenium in Freshwater Systems. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 134 : 31-48.

Maret, W., and Li, Y. (2009). Coordination dynamics of zinc in proteins. Chem. Rev., 109 : 4682–4707.

Martin, M., Osborn, K. E., Billig, P., and Glicks tein, N. 1981. Toxicities of Ten Metals to Crassostrea Gigas and Mytilus Edulis Em bryos and Cancer Magister Larvae. Mar.Pollut.Bull. 12(9), 305-308 (A uthor Communication Used).

Mayer, F.L. and Ellersieck, M.R. 1986. Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpreation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwat er Animals. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serv ice. Resource publication 160. 506 p.

Mayer, F.L., D.R. Buckler, F.J. Dwyer, M.R. El lersieck, L.C. Sappington, J.M. Besser, and C.M. Bridges. 2008. Endangered aquatic vertebrate s: Comparative and probabilistic-based toxicology. EPA 600-R- 08-045, Washington, DC.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-165 McCabe, D. J., M. A. Beekey, A. Mazloff, and J.E. Marsden. 2006. Negative effect of zebra mussels on foraging and habitat use by la ke sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens). Aquatic Conservation, 16 : 493-500.

McCarthy, H. P., and L. B. Crowder. 2000. An overlooked scale of global transport: phytoplankton species richness in ships' ballast water. Biological Invasions, 2 : 321–322.

McCarty, L.S. and D. Mackay. 1993. Enhanci ng ecotoxicological modeling and assessment.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 27 : 1719-1728.

McCauley, D. J., Brooke, L. T., Call, D. J ., and Lindberg, C. A. 1986. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Aluminum to Ceriodaphnia dubia at Various pH's. Cent er for Lake Superior Environmental Stud., University of Wisc onsin-Superior, Superior, WI , 15 pp.

McGeer, J.C., K.V. Brix, J.M. Skeaf, D.K. DeFo rest, S.I. Brigham, W.J. Adams and A. Green. 2003. Inverse relationship between bioconcentr ation factor and exposure concentration for metals: Implications for hazard assessmen t of metals in the aquatic environment.

Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22:1017-1037.

McGrath, JA and DM Di Toro. 2009. Validation of th e target lipid model for toxicity assessment of residual petroleum constituents: Monocyc lic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28 (6):1130-1148.

McIntyre, DO and TK Linton. 2012. Chapter 6. Ar senic, In: CM Wood, AP Farrell, and CJ Brauner, eds., Fish Physiology, Homeostasi s and Toxicology of N on-Essential Metals: Volume 31B, Elsevier Inc., pp. 297-349.

McNeely, J.A., H.A. Mooney, L.E. Neville, P. Schei, and J.K. Waage (eds). 2001. A global

strategy on invasive alien species . IUCN Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK, in

collaboration with the Global Invasive Species Programme.

Megateli, S., Semsari, S., and Couderchet, M. 2009. Toxicity and Removal of Heavy Metals (Cadmium, Copper, and Zinc) by Lemna Gibba. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 72(6): 1774-

1780.

Miller, A. W., T. Huber, M. S. Minton, and G. M. Ruiz. 2010. Status and trends of ballast water management in the United States: Third Bi ennial Report to the United States Coast Guard. Edgewater, MD: National Ballast Information Clearinghouse, Smithsonian

Environmental Research Center.

Miller, A.W., Lion, K., Minton, M.S., and Ruiz, G. M. 2007. Status and Trends of Ballast Water Management in the United States. Third Biennial Report of the National Ballast Information Clearinghouse. (January 2004 to December 2005). Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Report Subm itted to the United States Coast Guard. 62 pp. Retrieved from http://invasions.si.e du/nbic/reports/NBIC_Bi ennial_Report3_2004- 05.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-166 Miller, D.C., S. Poucher, J.A. Cardin, and D. Hansen 1990. The Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Ammonia to Marine Fish and a Mysid Ar ch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.19(1):40-48 / In: 116th Annu.Meeting, Am.Fish.Soc., Providence, RI :45.

Miller, W., Ruiz, G. and I. Davidson. 2007. Marine Invasive Species and Shipping. Presented at National Paint and Coatings International Marine and Offshore Co atings Conference. June 20, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.pa int.org/meetings/marine/marine4_07.pdf.

Mills, E. L., J. H. Leach, J. T. Carlton, and C. L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species in the Great Lakes: A history of biotic crises a nd anthropogenic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 19 : 1–54.

Minchin, D. and S. Gollasch. 2003.Fouling and sh ips' hulls: How changing circumstances and spawning events may result in th e spread of exotic species. Biofouling, 19(SUPPL.) : 111-

22.

Molnar, J. L., R. L. Gamboa, C. Revenga and M. D. Spalding. 2008. Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6 : 485-492.

Moore, J.W., and S. Ramamoorthy. 1984. Heavy me tals in natural waters: Applied monitoring and impact assessment. Springer-Verlag, New York Inc. 268 pp.

Moraitou-Apostolopoulos, M. and G. Verri opoulos. 1979. Some eff ects of sub-lethal concentrations of copper on a marine copepod. Mar. Poll. Bull., 10 : 88-92.

Mortimer, M.R. and G.J. Miller. 1994. Susceptibili ty of larval and juven ile instars of the sand crab, Portunus pelagicus (L.), to sea water contaminated by chromium, nickel or copper.
Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 45 : 1107-1121.

Mount, D.R. and fourteen co-authors. 2003. Effect s assessment. Chapter 3, In: Reily, M. and six co-editors, Re-evaluation of the state of the science for water-quality criteria development. Pellston Workshop on Re-evaluati on of the State of the Science for WaterQuality Criteria Development (1998, Fairm ont Hot Springs, Montana). Pensacola, FL. Society of Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). pp. 53-106.

Muyssen, B.T.A. and C.R. Janssen. 2002. A ccumulation and regulation of zinc in Daphnia

magna : Links with homeostasis and toxicity. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 43 : 492-

496.

Nalepa, T.F., D.J. Hartson, G.W. Gostenik, D.L. Fanslow, and G.A. Lang. 1996. Changes in the freshwater mussel community of Lake St . Clair: from Unionidae to Dreissena polymorpha in eight years. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 22(2) : 354-369.

Natale, G. S., Ammassari, L. L., Basso, N. G., Ronco, A. E., and G.S.Natale. 2006. Acute and Chronic Effects of Cr(VI) on Hypsiboa s Pulchellus Embryos and Tadpoles. Dis. Aquat.Org., 72(3) : 261-267.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-167 National Academy of Sciences Natio nal Research Council (NAS). (2011). Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water. Committee on Assessing Numeric Limits fo r Living Organisms in Ballast Water,

National Research Council. National Academies Press.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 104 pages.

NatureServe, 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An onlin e encyclopedia of lif e [web application]. Version 7.0. NatureServe, Arlingt on, VA, USA. Retrieved from http://www.natureserve.org/ex plorer. (Accessed April 2008).

Nebeker, AV, C Savonen and DG Stevens. 1985. Sens itivity of rainbow trout early life stages to

nickel chloride. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 4 : 233-239.

Nimmo, D.R., et al. 1977. Mysidopsis bahia: an estuarine species su itable for life-cycle toxicity tests to determine the effects of a pollutant . In: F.L. Mayer and J.L. Hamelink (eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Evaluati on. ASTM STP 634. American Society for Testing and Materials, Phila delphia, Pennsylvania. p. 109.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2004. GLERL Nonindigenous Species Research Program. U.S. Depart ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Retrieved from http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/nsmain.html.

NRC. 1996. Stemming the Tide – C ontrolling Introductions of N onindigenous Species by Ships’

Ballast Water. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Ogino, C., and Yang, G. Y. (1980). Requirement s of carp and rainbow trout for dietary manganese and copper. Bull. Jpn. Soc. Scient. Fish., 46 : 455–458.

Oshida, P. S., Word, L. S., and Mearns, A. J. 1981. Effects of Hexavalent and Trivalent Chromium on the Reproduction of Neanthes Arenaceodentata (Polychaeta).
Mar.Environ.Res., 5 : 41-49.

OTA. 1993. Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC.

Palawski, D., J.B. Hunn and F.J. Dwyer. 1985. Se nsitivity of young striped bass to organic and inorganic contaminants in fresh and saline water. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 114 : 748-753.

Passerini, A., Andreini, C., Menchetti, S., Rosa to, A., and Frasconi, P. (2007). Predicting zinc binding at the proteome le vel. BMC Bioinform. 8, 39.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-168 Pelgrom, SMGJ, RAC Lock, PHM Balm, and SEW Bonga. 1997. Calcium Fluxes in Juvenile Tilapia, Oreochromis mossambicus, Exposed to Sublethal Waterborne Cd, Cu, or

Mixtures of These Metals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 16(4) : 770-774.

Petrich, S. M. and Reish, D. J. 1979. Effects of Aluminum and Nickel on Survival and Reproduction in Polychaetous Annelids. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 23(4/5) : 698-

702.

Pilliod DS and Peterson CR. 2001. Local and lands cape effects of introdu ced trout on amphibian populations in historica lly fishless watersheds. Ecosystems, 4 : 322-333.

Playle, R. C., and Wood, C. M. (1989). Wate r pH and aluminum chemistry in the gill

microenvironment of rainbow trout du ring acid and aluminum exposure. J. Comp. Physiol. B, 159 : 539–550.

Porcella, D.B., G.L. Bowie, J.G. Sanders, a nd G.A. Cutter. 1991. Assessing Selenium Cycling and Toxicity in Aquatic Ecosystems. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 57-58 : 3.

Ptashynski, M. D., and Klaverkamp, J. F. (2002). Accumulation and distribu tion of dietary nickel in lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). Aquat. Toxicol., 58 : 249

- 264.

Pyle, G and P. Couture. 2012. Chapter 5. Nickel , In: CM Wood, AP Farrell, and CJ Brauner, eds., Fish Physiology, Homeostasis and Toxi cology of Essential Metals: Volume 31A, Elsevier Inc., pp. 255-289.

Rahel, F.J. 2002. Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33 : 291-315.

Rahel, F.J. 2002. Homogenizati on of Freshwater Faunas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 33 : 291

- 315.

Rai, U. N., Tripathi, R. D., Sinha, S., and Chandra, P. 1995. Chromium and Cadmium Bioaccumulation and Toxicity in Hydrilla Verticillata (L.f.) Royle and Chara Corallina

Wildenow

. J.Environ.Sci.Health Part A, 30(3) : 537-551.

Railkin, A.I. 2004. Marine Biofouling: Coloni zation Processes and Defenses. CRC Press. Washington, DC. 303 pgs.

Rankin, D.P. 1979. The Influence of Un-ionized Ammonia on the Long-term Survival of Sockeye Salmon Eggs. Technical Report N o. 912, Fisheries and Marine Service, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. 17 pp.

Ray, D., Banerjee, S. K., and Chatterjee, M. (19 90). Bioaccumulation of nickel and vanadium in

tissues of the catfish Clarias batrachus. J. Inorg. Biochem, 38 : 169

- 173.

Reid, SD. 2012. Chapter 8. Molybdenum and Chro mium, In: CM Wood, AP Farrell, and CJ Brauner, eds., Fish Physiology, Homeosta sis and Toxicology of Essential Metals, Volume 31A, Elsevier Inc., pp. 377-415.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-169 Reaser JK. 1997. Amphibian declines: conser vation science and adaptive management. PhD

dissertation. Stanford Univer sity, Stanford, CA, USA.

Reynolds KA, Knight IT, Wells CS, Pepper IL, Gerba CP. 1999. Detection of human pathogenic protozoa and viruses in balla st water using conventional a nd molecular methods. Abstract Q-318. General Meeting of the American So ciety for Microbiology, Chicago, IL, USA.

Ricciardi A, Maclsaac HJ. 2000. Recent mass inva sion of the North American Great Lakes by Ponto-Caspian species. Trends Ecol. Evol., 15 : 62-65

Ricciardi A, Neves RJ, Rasmussen JB. 1998. Impending extinctions of North American freshwater mussels (Unionoida) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)

invasion. J. Anim. Ecol., 67 : 613-19

Ricciardi, A. 2006. Patterns of invasion of the Laur entian Great Lakes in relation to changes in vector activity. Diversity and Distributions, 12 : 425–433.

Ricciardi, A., and J. B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinc tion Rates of North American Freshwater

Fauna. Conservation Biology, 13(5): 1220–2.

Roberts, M.H., Jr., and R.A. Gleeson. 1978. Acute to xicity of bromochlorinaced seawater co selected estuarine species with a compar ison to chlorinated seawater toxicity. Mar. Environ. Res., 1 : 19.

Rodgers, J.H., Jr., D.S. Cherry, R.L. Graney, K.L. Dickson and J. Cairns, Jr. 1980. Comparison of heavy metal interactions in acute and arti ficial stream bioassay techniques for the Asiatic clam ( Corbicula fluminea ). In: Aquatic toxicology. Eaton, J.G., P.R. Parrish and A.C. Hendricks (Eds.). ASTM STP 707. Ameri can Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 266-280.

Rombough, P.J. and E.T. Garside. 1982. Cadmium t oxicity and accumulation in eggs and alevins

of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

. Can. J. Zool., 60 : 2006-2014.

Romoser, G.L., W.A. Du dley, L.J. Machlin and L. Loveless. 1961. Toxicity of vanadium and chromium for the growing chick. Poultry Sci., 40 : 1171-1173.

Ruiz, G. M. and J. T. Carlton. 2003. “Invasi on Vectors: A Conceptual Framework for Management”. In: Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies , G. M. Ruiz and J. T. Carlton, eds. Pp. 459-504. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Ruiz, G. M., and D. F. Reid, editors. 2007. Current state of understanding about the effectiveness of ballast water exchange (BWE) in re ducing aquatic nonindigenous species (ANS)

introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesapeake Bay, USA: Synthesis and analysis of existing information. NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL-142, National Ocean and Atmospheric Ad ministration, Ann Arbor.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-170 Ruiz, G.M., P.W. Fofonoff, J.T. Carlton, M. J. Wonham and A.H. Hines. 2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North America: Apparent patterns, processes, and biases. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31 : 481-531.

Sabdono, A. 2009. Heavy metal levels and their potential toxic effect on coral Galaxea fascicularis from Java Sea, Indonesia. Res. J. Environ. Sci., 3(1) : 96-102.

Saltonstall K. 2008. Least wanted: Common reed ( Phragmites australis ). Plant Conservation Alliance, Alien Plant Working Group. Available at www.nps.gov/plants/ALIEN/fact/phau1.ht m. Accessed on April 16th, 2008.

Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko and G.W. Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. Report ES/ER/TM-86/R3, Risk Assessment Program, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 43 pp.

Sample, B.E., G.W. Suter II, M.B. Sheaffer, D.S. Jones, and R.A. Efroymson. 1997. Ecotoxicological profiles for selected metals and other inorganic chemicals (ES/ER/TM210). Risk Assessment Program, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Sanders NJ, Gotelli NJ, Heller NE, Gordon DM . 2003. Community disassembly by an invasive species. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 100(5) : 2474-2477.

Schloesser DW, Kovalak WP, L ongton GD, Ohnesorg KL, Smithee RD. 1998. Impact of zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena spp.) on freshwater unionids (B ivalvia: Unionidae) in the

Detroit River of the Great Lakes. Amer Midland Naturalist, 140(2) : 299-313.

Schmittinger P, Florkiewicz T, Curlin LC, et al. 2006. Chlorine. In: Ullm ann's encyclopedia of industrial chemistry. Wiley-VCH Verl ag GmbH & Co. Retrieved from http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co m/emrw/9783527306732/ueic/article/a06_399/curr ent/pdf. (Accessed March 2007).

Schreuder MDJ, Brewer CA. 2001. Effects of short-term exposure to chlorine gas on morphology and physiology of Pinus ponderosa and Pseudotsuga menziesii. Ann Bot, 88 : 187-195.

Schwartz, M.L., J.C. McGeer, B. Vigneault and J.C. Beyak. 2004. Internalized metal in relation to copper and zinc acute and s ublethal toxicity to freshwat er organisms. Poster PT159, 25th Annual Meeting, Society of Environmen tal Toxicology and Chemistry, Portland, OR, November 14-18, 2004.

Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA SAB). (2011). Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems. Report published by the U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency Science Advisory Board. Ecological Processes and Effects Committee.

Scott, D.M. and C.W. Major. 1972. The effect of copper (II) on survival, respiration, and heart rate in the common blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. Biol. Bull., 143 : 679-688.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-171 Segner, H., R. Marthaler and M. Linnenbach. 19 88. Growth, aluminum uptake and mucous cell morphometrics of early life stages of brown trout, Salmo trutta , in low pH water.
Environ. Biol. Fish., 21 : 153-159.

Seim, W.K., L.R. Curtis, S.W. Glenn and G. A. Chapman. 1984. Growth and survival of developing steelhead trout ( Salmo gairdneri ) continuously or intermittently exposed to

copper. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 41 : 433-438.

Sensi, S. L., Paoletti, P., Bush, A. I., and Se kler, I. (2009). Zinc in the physiology and pathology

of the CNS. Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 10 : 780–791.

Simberloff D, Von Holle B. 1999. Positive inte ractions of nonindigenous species: invasional

meltdown? Biol. Invasions, 1 :21

- 32

Simberloff, D. 1989. Which insect introductions and which fail? Pp. 61–75 In: Biological invasions: A global perspective. J. A. Drake, H. A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. Williamson, editors. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Simberloff, D. 2009. The role of propagul e pressure in biol ogical invasions. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 40 : 81

- 102.

Smith, L. D., M. Wonham, L. McCann, G. Ruiz , A. Hines, and J. Carlton. 1999. Invasion pressure to a ballast-flooded estuary a nd an assessment of inoculant survival. Biological
Invasions, 1 : 67

- 87.

Smith, W.E., T.H. Rough, and .JJ. Fiandt. 1984. Toxi city of ammonia to ear ly life stages of the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). EPA 600

- X

- 84

- 175, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. 11 p.

Solomon, E. I., and Lowery, M. D. (1993). Elec tronic structure contributions to function in bioinorganic chemistry. Science, 259 : 1575

- 1581.

Solow, A., and C. Costello. 2004. Estimating the rate of species introductio ns from the discovery

record. Ecology, 85 : 1822

- 1825.

Sorensen, E.M.B. 1991. Metal Poisoning in Fish. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Spallholz, J.E., and D.J. Hoffman. 2002. Selenium Toxicity: Cause and Effects in Aquatic Birds. Aquatic Toxicology. Vol. 57, p. 27.

Spehar, R. L. and Fiandt, J. T. 1986. Acute and Ch ronic Effects of Water Quality Criteria Based Metal Mixtures on Three Aquatic Species. EPA 600/S3-85-074, U.S.EPA, Duluth, MN , 2 p.

Spehar, R.L. 1976. Cadmium and Zinc Toxicity to Jordanella floridae. EPA 600-3-76-096. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-172 Spry, D.J., P.V. Hodson and C.M. Wood. 1988. Relativ e contributions of di etary and waterborne zinc in the rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 45 : 32

- 41.

Sreedevi, P., Suresh, A., Sivaramakrishna, B., Prabhavathi, B., and Radhakrishnaiah, K. (1992b). Bioaccumulation of nickel in the organs of the freshwater fish, C yprinus carpio, and the freshwater mussel, Lamellidens marginalis, under lethal and sublethal nickel stress. Chemosphere, 24 : 29

- 36.

Stanley, J.K., B.W. Brooks and T.W. LaPoint. 2005. A comparison of chronic cadmium effects

on Hyalella azteca in effluent-dominated stream mesocosms to similar laboratory exposures in effluent and reconstituted hard water. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 24 : 902

- 908.

Stanley, R. A. 1974. Toxicity of Heavy Meta ls and Salts to Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.). Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol., 2(4) : 331

- 341.

Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman and W.A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numeri cal National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. EP A 822-R85-100, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Stephens, D.W., and B. Waddell 1998. Selenium Sources and Effects on Biota in the Green River Basin of Wyoming, Colorado, and Uta h. Environmental Chemistry of Selenium. New York: W.T. Frankenberger, Engberg, R.A.

Steven, J. D., L. J. Davies, E. K. Stanley, R. A. Abbott, M. Ihnat, L. Bidstrup, and J. F. Jaworski. 1976. Effects of chromium in the Canadian environment. Nat. Res. Coun. Canada, NRCC No. 15017. 168 pp. Avail. from Publications , NRCC/CNRC, Ottawa, Canada, K1A OR6.

Sylvester, F. and H.J. MacIsaac. 2010. Is vesse l hull fouling an invasi on threat to the Great

Lakes? Diversity and Distributions, 16 : 132

- 143.

Sylvester, F., Kalaci1, O., Leung, B., Lacoursie re-Roussel, A., Murray, C.C., Choi, F.M., Bravo, M.A., Therriault, T.W. and Hugh J. MacIsaac. 2011. Hull fouling as an invasion vector: can simple models explain a complex problem? Journal of Applied Ecology. 48(2): 415

- 423.

Sytsma MD, Cordell JR, Chapman JW, Drah eim RC. 2004. Lower Columbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Survey 2001-2004: Final Technical Repor t. Prepared for the U.S.

Coast Guard and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from http://www.clr.pdx.edu/docs/LCRANSFina lReport.pdf. (Accessed December 2007).

Takata, L. Falkner, M. and S. Gilmore. 2006. Commercial Vessel Fouling in California: Analysis, Evaluation, and Recommendations to Reduce Nonindigenous Species Release

from the Non-Ballast Water Vector. Produced for the California State Legislature by the California State Lands Commission, Marine Facilities Division. Ap ril 2006. Retrieved from http://groups.ucanr.org/Ballast_Outreach/files/25918.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-173 Takata, L., Dobrowski, N., Scianni, C. and M. Faulkner. 2011. 2011 Biennial Report on the

California Marine Invasive Species Program. Produced for the California State Legislature by the California State Lands Commission, Marine Fa cilities Division. January, 2011.

Talbot, V., R. J. Magee and M. Hussai n. 1976. Lead in Port Phillip bay mussels. Mar. Pollut.
Bull., 7 : 234-237.

Taneeva, A. I. 1973. Toxicity of Some Heavy Metals for Hydrobionts. In: V.N. Greze (Ed.), Proc. Mater. Vses. Simp. Izuch. Chern. Sred izemnogo Morei, Ispol'Z Okhr. Ikh. Resur. Kiev, USSR Ser. 4 , 114-117 (RUS).

Taylor, F. G., Jr. and P. D. Parr. 1978. Distri bution of chromium in vegetation and small mammals adjacent to cooling towers. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci., 53 : 87

- 91.

Timourian, H. and G. Watchmaker. 1972. Nickel uptake by sea urchin embryos and their subsequent development. J. Exp. Zool., 182 : 379

- 388.

Tja ̈lve, H., Gottofrey, J., and Borg, K. (1988) . Bioaccumulation, distribution and retention of 63Ni2+ in the brown trout (Salmo trutta). Wat. Res., 22 : 1129

- 1136.

Tomasso, J.R.) C.A. Goudie, B.A. Simco, and K. B. Davis. 1980. Effects of environmental pH

and calcium on ammonia toxi city in channel catfish. Trans. Am. Fish. Sot, 109(2) : 229

- 234.

USCG. 2009. Proposed Ballast Wate r Discharge Standard Rulemaking. Fact sheet produced for U.S. Coast Guard Office of Operating and Environmental Standards. Retrieved from http://www.safinah.co.uk/uploads/assets//PDF s/Ballast_Water_Discharge_Standard.pdf. The proposed rulemaking can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov. Enter docket

number USCG-2001-10486 in the Search box.

USCG. 2012. USCG Ballast Water Discharge St andard Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by the Unite d States Coast Guard. February 2012.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Governor’s Draft, Washington, DC. April 2004.

USDA. 2006. Viral hemorrhagic septicemia: Em erging disease notice. Retrieved from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/c eah/cei/taf/emergingdiseaseno tice_files/vhsg reatlakes.htm

.

USEPA. 1978. In-depth studies on health and environmental impacts of selected water pollutants. Table of data available from C.E. Stephan, U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.

USEPA. 1980a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Lead. EPA 440

- 4

- 80

- 057. Office of Water,

United States Environmental Prot ection Agency ,Washington, DC.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-174 USEPA. 1980b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorinated Phenols. Prepared by the Office

of Health and Environmen tal Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH for the Office of Wa ter Regulations and Standards, Washington,

DC.

USEPA. 1984a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorine - 1984. EPA 440

- 5

- 84

- 030. Office of Water, Office of Scien ce and Technology. Washington, DC.

USEPA, 1984b. Ambient Aquatic Life Wate r Quality Criteria for Lead. EPA 440

- 5

- 84

- 029.Office of Water, United States Environm ental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,

USEPA. 1985a. Ambient Water Qualit y Criteria for Arsenic – 1984. EPA 440

- 5

- 84

- 033.Office of Water, United States Environmenta l Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1985b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. EPA 440

- 5

- 84

- 032. Office of Water, United States Environmenta l Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Nickel. EPA 440-5-86-004. Office of Water,

United States Environmental Prot ection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1987a. Ambient Water Quality Criter ia for Selenium. EPA- 440-5-87-006. Office of Water, United States Environmenta l Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1987b. Ambient Water Quality for Zi nc – 1987. EPA 440-5-87-003. Office of Water. Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1997. Oil pollution preventi on; non-transportation related on shore facilities; denial of petition requesting amendment of the Facility Response Plan rule. FRL–5909–5. Federal Register 62(202).

USEPA. 1999. 1999 Update of Ambient Water Qu ality Criteria for Ammonia. EPA 822-R-99- 014. Office of Water, United States Environm ental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2001. 2001 Update of Ambient Water Qu ality Criteria for Cadmium. EPA 822-R-01- 001. Office of Water, United States Environm ental Protection Agenc y, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2002. Draft Aquatic Life Water Qu ality Criteria for Selenium 2002. EPA-822-D-04-

001. Office of Water and Office of Sc ience and Technology, February 2002.

USEPA. 2003a. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Wa ter Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000): Technical Support Do cument, Volume 2: Development of

National Bioaccumulation Factors. EPA 822- R-03-030. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2003b. Technical Summary of Inform ation Available on the Bioaccumulation of Arsenic in Aquatic Organism s. EPA 822-R-03-032. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. Washington, DC.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-175 USEPA. 2004a. America’s Wetlands: Our Vita l Link Between Land and Water. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.epa .gov/owow/wetlands/vital/toc.html.

USEPA. 2004b. Draft Aquatic Life Water Qual ity Criteria for Selenium – 2004. EPA 822-D-04-

001. November 2004.

USEPA. 2005a. Draft Methodology for Conducting Biological Evaluations of Aquatic Life Criteria; Methods Manual, dated March 2005. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division. Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2005b. National Recommended Wate r Quality Criteria. Retrieved from http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPU RL.cgi?Dockey=P1003R9X.txt.

USEPA. 2005c. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Orga nisms: Metal Mixtures (Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc). EPA 600-R- 02-011. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2007a. Appendix H: Base line Status and Cumulative Eff ects for the Fat Pocketbook and

Northern Riffleshell Mussels. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effect s/appendix_h_baseline_ and_cumulative.pdf.

USEPA. 2007b. Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwat er Quality Criteria – Copper, 2007 Revision. EPA 822-R-07-001. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington,

DC.

USEPA. 2008a. Proposed Issuance of Nationa l Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Recreational Vessel General Permit (R GP) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel Fact Sheet . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA 2008b. Biological Evaluatio n of Oregon’s Water Quality Criteria for Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y, Region 10. Dated January, 2008.

USEPA. 2009a. An Urgent Call to Action – Report of the State. U.S. EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group, August 2009.

USEPA. 2009b. Draft 2009 Update Aquatic Life Am bient Water Quality Cr iteria for Ammonia –

Freshwater. EPA 822-D-09-001. Office of Wa ter, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2010. Vessels Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels less than 79 Feet. EPA 833-R-10-005. Washington, DC.

USEPA, 2011a. Technical Memorandum on Envir onmentally Acceptable Lubricants. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agenc y, Office of Wastewater Management, March 23, 2011.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-176 USEPA. 2011b. Exhaust Gas Scrubber Wash water Effluent. EPA 800-R-11-006, November

2011.

USFWS. 1977. Correction and Augmentation of P ublished Rulemaking. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 42(184).

USFWS. 2003. “Chicago Summit Generates Possible Solutions to Exchange of Harmful Invasive Species in Midwestern Waterways”. U.S. Fi sh and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from www.fws.gov/midwest/chicago/summit.pdf.

USFWS. 2007. Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (H ybognathus amarus) Draft Revised Recovery Plan. Southwest Region, U.S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.

USGS. 2004. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. U. S. Geological Service. Retrieved from http://nas.er.usgs.gov/.

USGS. 2005. Fish Can Get Diseases Too. USGS FS 2006-3066. U.S. Geological Survey.

USGS. 2009. Nonindigenous Species Database. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from http://nas.er.usgs.gov.

Vala, A. K. , Anand, N., Bhatt, P. N., and Jo shi, H. V. 2004. Tolerance and Accumulation of Hexavalent Chromium by Two S eaweed Associated Aspergilli. Mar.Pollut.Bull., 48( 9/10) : 983-985.

Valentine, P. C., Carman, M. R., Blackw ood, D. S., and Heffron, E. J. 2007. Ecological

observations on the colonial ascidian Didemn um sp. in a New England tide pool habitat. Journal of Experimental Ma rine Biology and Ecology, 342 : 109-121.

Verbost, P.M., J. Van Rooij, G. Flik, R. A.C. Lock, and S.E. Wendelaar Bonga. 1989. The movement of cadmium through freshwater trout branchial epithelium and its interference with calcium transport. J. Exper., Biol. 145 : 185-197.

Vetrano KM. 2001. Molecular chlorine: H ealth and environmental effects. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol, 170 : 75-140.

von Westernhagen, H. and V Dethlefsen. 1975. Combined effects of cadmium and salinity on development and survival of flounder eggs. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K., 55 : 945-957.

Walbridge, C.T. 1977. A flow-through testing procedure with duckw eed (Lemna minor L.). EPA 600-3-77-108, National Technical Informa tion Service, Springfield, Virginia.

Wang, N., CG Ingersoll, DK Hardesty, CD Ive y, JL Kunz, TW May, FJ Dwyer, AD Roberts, T Augspurger, CM Kane, RJ Neves, MC Ba rnhart. 2007a. Acute toxicity of copper, ammonia, and chlorine to glochidia and j uveniles of freshwater mussels (unionidae). Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 26(10) : 2036–20472013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-177 Wang, N., C.G. Ingersoll, D.K. Hardesty, I.E. Gr eer, D.J. Hardesty, C.D. Ivey, J.L. Kunz, W.G. Brumbaugh, F.J. Dwyer, A.D. Roberts, J.T. Augspurger, C.M. Kane, R.J. Neves and M.C. Barnhart. 2007b. Contaminant sensitivity of freshwater mussels: Chronic toxicity of copper and ammonia to juvenile freshwater mussels (Unionidae). Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 26(10) : 2048-2056.

Wang, W. 1986. Toxicity tests of aquatic pollutants by usi ng common duckweed. Environ. Pollut., 11B(1) : 1-14.

Ward, G.S., T.A. Hollister, P.T. Heitmuller and P.R. Parrish. 1981. Acute and chronic toxicity of selenium to estuarine organisms. Northeast Gulf Sci., 4 : 73-78.

Watkins, C.H. and R.S. Hammerschlaq. 1984. The toxicicy of chlorine to a common vascular aquatic plant. Water Res., 18 : 1037.

Watling, H.R. 1983. Comparative study of the effects of metals on the settl ement of Crassostrea giga s

. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 31 : 344-351.

WERF. 2010. Linking Receiving Water Impacts to Sources and to Water Quality Management Decisions: Using Nutrients As An Initi al Case Study. WERF 3C10. IWA Publishing,

London.

Werner JK, Plummer T, Weaselhead J. 1998. Amphi bians and reptiles of the Flathead Indian

Reservation. Intermountain J Sci., 4 : 33-49.

WHO. 2003. Chlorine in Dri nking-water, Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. (Origi nally published in Guidelines for drinkingwater quality, 2nd ed. Vol.2. Health Criteri a and Other Supporting Information. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1996).

Wilber, C.G. 1980. Toxicology of selenium: A review. Clin. Toxicol., 17 : 171-230.

Wilcove DS, Chen LY. 1998. Management costs for endangered species. Conserv. Biol., 12(6) : 1405-1407.

Williams JD, Neves RJ. 2003. Freshwater mussels: A neglected and declining aquatic resource. In LaRoe ET, et al., Our Living Resources, A Report to the Nati on on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Anim als, and Ecosystems. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Biological Serv ice, Washington, DC, USA, pp 177-179.

Williams JD, Warren ML Jr, Cummings KS, Harri s JL, Neves RJ. 1993. Conservation status of

freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries, 18(9) : 6-22

Williams, L., R.A. Schoof, J.W. Yage r and J.W. Goodrich-Mahoney. 2006. Arsenic

bioaccumulation in freshwater fishes. Human. Ecol. Risk Assess., 12 : 904-923.

Williams, S. 2011. From Sea to Sea: Effects of Inva sive Species in Marine Systems. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Associ ation for the Advancement of Science.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 5- Effects Analysis

5-178 Washington, DC. February 20, 2011. Retrieved from http://aaas.confex.com/aaas /2011/webprogram/Paper2695.html

.

Wood, CM and ten co-authors. 1997 . Chapter 4. Environmental T oxicology of Metals, In: HL Bergman and EJ Dorward-King, eds., Reassessm ent of Metals Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, pp. 31-56.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 1952. Marine Fouling and its Prevention. Annapolis, Maryland, US Naval Institute.

Wooldridge, C. R. and Wooldri dge, D. P. 1969. Internal Damage in an Aquatic Beetle Exposed to Sublethal Concentrations of Inorganic Ions. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am., 62(4) : 921-933.

Wren, C.D., S. Harris, and N. Harttrup. 1995. Ec otoxicology of Mercury and Cadmium. Chapter 17 in Handbook of Ecotoxicology, Hoffman, David J., B.A. Rattner, G.A. Burton Jr., and J. Cairns Jr., Editors. Lewis Publishers 1995. Pp. 392-423.

Wuhrmann, K. and H. Woker. 1948. Beitrzge zur Toxikologie der Fische. 11. Experimentalle Untersuchungen uber die Ammoniak- und Blau sgurevergif tung. (Cont ributions to the toxicology of Fishes. 11. Experimental inves tigations of ammonia and hydrocyanic acid poisoning. Hydrol., 11 : 210-244. (In English translation).

Yeager BL. 1986. Epioblasma brevidens, Epioblasma capsaeformis and Epioblasma triquetra. In Hill DM, ed, Activity 3: Identification of Fish Hosts. Tennessee Valley Authority

Cumberlandian Mollusk Conservation Pr ogram, Norris, TN, USA. pp. 15-16, 40-49.

Yeager BL, Saylor CF. 1995. Fish hosts for four species of freshwater mussels (Pelecypoda: Unionidae) in the Upper Tennessee River Dr ainage. Amer Midland Naturalist 133:1-6.

Zo Y, Grimm C, Matte M, Matte G, Knight IT, Huq A, Colwell RR. 1999. Detection and enumeration of pathogenic bacteria in ballast water of transoceanic vessels entering the

Great Lakes and resistance to common antibiotics. Abstract Q-317. General Meeting of the American Society for Micr obiology, Chicago, IL, USA.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-1 

## SECTION 6

ANTICIPATED EFFECT OF PROPOSED ACTIONS ON

MITIGATING IMPACT TO LISTED SPECIES

EPA has determined that the combined numer ic and narrative technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) in the VGP and sVGP achieve th e reduction and/or elimin ation of many of the pollutants in the permitted discharges, in most cases without using highly engineered, complex treatment systems (see Section 2.3). All discharge- and vessel class-specific TBELs (except for ballast water) are included in the permit excer pts included in Appendices A and B. Limits for

ballast water are included separately in Appendix C and discu ssed in greater detail in Section 6.1 below. Collectively, EPA used this informati on to support both the qual itative and quantitative effects analyses presented in Section 5.0, and specifically, calculation of the post-permit exposure concentrations for pollutants selected for detailed evaluati on (see Section 3.2.3).

EPA’s evaluation of the permit’s ability to m itigate risk to listed species falls into two broad categories: reduced risk of the introduction of ANS (e.g., ballast water), and improved environmental quality from reduced pollutant load s. EPA evaluated the mitigation of risk from these two categories by c onsidering the likelihood for reductions in ANS and pollutant loads to

affect both direct and indirect effects of the proposed actions on listed species and their critical

habitats.

For both ANS and the pollutants identified fo r detailed evaluation, EPA anticipates that any potential negative impact (direct or indire ct) to listed species from incidental vessel discharges will be minimized or eliminated fo llowing implementation of the VGP and sVGP due to the reduction in ANS and pollutant loads anti cipated from the permit actions. The reduction in ANS and pollutant load is anticipate d to be achieved one of three ways:

 A significant reduction in fl ow (volume) of the pollutant-containing discharge;

 A significant reduction in concentration of the pollutant in a discharge; or

 The combination of a reduction in flow and concentration of pollutant in a discharge (e.g., Parts 2.2, 5.1, and 5.2 of the VGP).

Sections 6.1 through 6.4 below describe the an ticipated ability of the proposed actions on mitigating impact to listed species for the following pollutant categories and/or vessel discharges:

 ANS in vessel discharges;

 Pollutants lacking specific concentration-response toxic effects thresholds (i.e., pathogens, BOD, and oil and grease);

 Toxic and non-conventional polluta nts with toxic effects; and

 Coal ash from coal fired propulsion systems on ferries.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-2 6.1 M ITIGATION OF R ISK TO L ISTED S PECIES FROM THE VGP’ S C ONTROL OF ANS IN
V ESSEL D ISCHARGES

EPA’s permit limits minimize the impacts of ANS in vessel ballast water discharge, biofouling, and other vessel discharges with both non-numeric best management practices and

numeric standards from ballast wa ter discharges. This approach combines the use of technologyand water quality-based BMPs in situations and circumstances where their application will control and mitigate the risk of ANS introductio n and establishment. EPA expects that such limitations will result in significant reductions in concentrations of living organisms beyond current management practices, and will result in di scharges with a very small absolute risk of invasion which will mitigate risk to endange red species and their critical habitats.

This section presents a qualitative assessmen t of the reduc tion of risk of ANS invasion and establishment via vessel discharge vectors to listed species expected due to EPA’s permit

limits. The assessment considers the relative effec tiveness of mitigation options to control the propagule pressure from ANS in vessel discharges . This information is being offered in support

of the effects determinations made in this BE regarding ANS and is organized as follows:

 The scientific framework for addressing ANS invasion and establishment, including using modeling methodologies, is reviewed in Section 6.1.1.

 This framework is followed by Section 6.1.2 wh ich presents the relative effectiveness of mitigation options to control propagul e pressure from ANS in ballast water discharges (the most-studied and previous ly-regulated vessel discharge vector).

 Finally, the relative effectiveness of mitig ation options to control the other major vessel discharge vector for ANS, biofouling (of hulls, recessed areas, seawater cooling systems, etc.), is addressed in Section 6.1.3.

 Section 6.1.4 considers BMPs included in th e VGP to control the discharge of ANS in two other vessel discharge vectors, chain lo cker effluent and fi sh hold effluent.

 VGP requirements for inspection, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping of vessels (and their operations) relevant to efforts to mitigate and control the discharge of ANS via ballast water discharge, biofouling, and other discharges are addressed in Section

6.1.5.

 Section 6.1.6 considers management measures included in the new sVGP to mitigate ANS discharges from small vessels.

 Finally, section 6.1.7 provides two specific ex amples of how EPA anticipates the use of the technology and water quality-based BMPs included in the permits will mitigate impacts of ANS on listed species from the ballast water vector.

6.1.1 Mitigating Risk of ANS by Reducing Propagule Pressure

As presented in Section 5.1.1, the concept that risk to invasi on from ANS decreases with decreasing propagule supply is the fundamental a ssumption behind efforts to mitigate risk from ANS in vessel discharges. This assumption is supported by a wide body of empirical, theoretical, and experimental evidence showing that the succ ess of ANS invasion decr eases with a decrease in propagule pressure, either by a lower concentr ation of organisms in a discharge and/or by a decrease in the number and frequency of disc harges (NAS, 2011). One challenge of quantifying2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-3 the risk of ANS invasion and establishment in general, is that the concentration-response (riskrelease) relationship for ANS in natural receiving waters is unknown and therefore cannot be quantified. A second challenge (in th e context of this BE) is that the impact of ANS from vessel discharges to listed species is itself unknown and cannot be quantitated or predicted 1 , except for a relatively few examples of negative impact s as described in Section 5.1.1.9, although ANS generally pose an array of threats to native species.

6.1.1.1 Predicting the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Risk of ANS

Invasion and Establishment

As established by the previous discussions of ANS, in Sections 5.1.1 and above, the lack of quantitative risk-release relationships for ANS in vessel discharges severely limits efforts to quantifiably mitigate ANS. A recent National Acad emy of Science publication titled “assessing the relationship between propagule pressure and invasion risk in ball ast water” (NAS, 2011) presents and critically reviews mathematical modeling approaches that have been developed to express the risk–release relations hip between ballast water organi sm concentration and the risk (probability) of ANS establishment. The NAS ev aluated several mathematical models and other approaches that have been developed to expres s this relationship, including a discussion on the data needed to support each model as well as ot her strengths and weakne sses. The models range from descriptive models that simply represen t the shape of the relationship to mechanistic models that define the processes generating the relationship. The models are also distinguished by whether they consider a single species vs. multiple species.

The NAS (2011) report discusse d three of the mathematical modeling approaches to project the risk–release relati onship: the reaction-diffusion a pproach, the per capita invasion probability approach, and populatio n viability analysis (PVA). Reaction-diffusion models predict the concentration of a “substance” that is simultaneously influenced by diffusion which dilutes it and by some type of reaction affecting its concentration. The primary use of such models in invasion biology has been the theoretical analysis of the pattern of invasion spread of terrestrial invaders. The only published example of a reaction-diffusion model applied to ballast water is that of Drake et al. (2005). Using changes in relative population densities, Drake et al. (2005) predicted the maximum safe volume of ballast water that could be exchanged. Because these predictions are volume based, they can not be used to generate organism-based standards (Lee et al., 2010). On a more general level, Lee et al. (2010) determined that the reaction-diffusion model assumption that species are passively distributed is generally violated and is likely to result in a substantial underestimation of the likelihood of establishment of a species. In particular, benthic species whose larval and/or juvenile phases actively settle out of the water column are much more likely to become established than predicted from dilution models. Thus, in aquatic environments, diffusion models are primarily limited to predicting invasions of small, holopla nktonic organisms, such pelagic copepods. Because of this limitation, diffusion models do not appear to be suitable for generating concentration-based discharge standards applicable to the wide range of taxa found in ballast water.

Lee et al. (2010) developed a “per capita invasion probability” (PCIP) approach to estimate

the likelihood of invasion based on historical invasion rates and calculated ballast-associated

1 To the best of EPA’s knowledge, the quantification or estimation of risk from ANS impacts to listed species associated with vessel discharges is not addressed in the scientific literature.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-4 propagule pressure, based on the general consensus that an increase in propagule supply increases the likelihood of invasion. The PCIP is the per year probability that an individual non-native propagule discharged from ballast water will become establis hed as a new ANS in a specified waterbody. Using a linear dose response assumption, the PCIP is calculated from the historical number of potential ballast-mediated invasions in a specified waterbody over a defined time period, the average annual total ballast discharged at that location during this time period, and the estimated organism concentration in the discharged ballast water. Once a PCIP is calculated from historical data, it can be used to predict the rate of new ballast-associated invasions in a waterbody with a projected ballast discharge volume and organism concentration. By altering the organism concentration, it is possible to generate risk scenarios predicting the number of new invaders for different discharge standards.

The NAS concluded that, in principle, a well-supported model of the relationship between invasion risk and organism release could eventually be used to derive a ballast water discharge standard that is “known” to be suffi cient to prevent successful ANS introductions, but there is currently a “p rofound lack of data” to populate the models. For a given discharge standard, the corresponding invasion risk could be predicted, or, fo r a given target invasion risk, the corresponding target release level could be obtained if there was sufficient data. For the purposes of this BE, the ensuing discussion is lim ited to the prospects of using existing modeling efforts to predict the relationship between propa gule pressure and risk of ANS establishment.

In the absence of data and models necessary to support a science-based quantitative approach to setting ballast wate r discharge standards, the NAS ( 2011) noted that expert opinion has been a common alternative. The NAS report discusses the strengths and weaknesses of nonquantitative, expert opinion-based methods for setting ballast water di scharge standards.

6.1.1.2 Population Viability Analysis (PVA) Models

Population viability analysis (PVA) models are a family of population growth models commonly used in the conservation field to pr edict the extinction proba bility of endangered species (Beissinger and McCull ough, 2002; Morris and Doak, 2002). The basic premise of PVA models is that any population undergoing stochas tic growth has a cert ain probability of going extinct even if it is presently showing positive growth. There is growi ng recognition that PVA models are a potential tool to predict the establis hment of ANS (Andersen, 2005). When used with ANS, the objective is to pred ict either the time to extincti on or the probability of extinction for an invader, where extinction is the converse of establishment.

6.1.1.3 Use of PVA Models in the USCG Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PVA modeling analysis was conducted fo r the US Coast Guard (USCG) Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement ( FPEIS) (USCG, 2012a) as part of the technical analysis used by the USCG in setting their prop osed ballast water discharge rule (USCG, 2012b). This is the only direct study that EPA is aware of that used a modeling approach to directly address ballast water standards. However, as disc ussed below, the formulation used in the FPEIS is not the only possible PVA methodology to ad dressing the risks associated with ballast discharges.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-5 A PVA model (Dennis et al., 1991) was used in the risk assessment for single and multispecies ANS invasion scenarios. The strategy taken by th e USCG in their FPEIS was to evaluate different discharge standards by pr edicting the relative increase in the probability of extinction of

the invader based on the fractiona l reductions in the number of organisms per cubic meter of ballast discharge. This is a rela tive approach and it was not the obj ective of the FPEIS analysis to predict the actual probability of invasion associated with any sp ecific organism. In other words, the FPEIS evaluated the reduction in probability of invasion using ballast water treatment relative to ballast water exchange, but could not predict the absolute risk of reduction.

In their analysis, the USCG considered five potential treatment alternatives for the >50 micron size group (which includes most hol oplanktonic organisms [e.g., calanoid copepods], pelagic species such as fish, and larval stages of benthic species). These alternatives ranged from No Action (ballast water exchange if vessels can conduct it, but no ballast water treatment), through three alternative order-of- magnitude reductions in organi sm density, to zero organisms (complete sterilization). Altern ative #1 (No Action) was taken as the baseline against which the other alternatives were compared. Ranges in or ganism concentrations for both un-exchanged and exchanged ballast water were used to establish this baseline. Alternative #5 was not formally analyzed because no invasions would o ccur with complete sterilization.

Lee et al. (2010) reanalyzed the probability of extinction of a single ANS from 10 identical ballast water discharge events using th e same PVA model applied by the USCG in their FPEIS. By considering the risk of multiple discharg e events, Lee et al. were able to highlight the importance of reducing organism concentrations in ballast water on a discharge by discharge basis. The key point from consider ation of the modeling re sults is that reductions in the organism

concentrations in ballast water result in re lative, ecologically signi ficant decreases in the invasion risk, even for species and environments with a naturally low invasion probability (Lee et al., 2010).

In addition to their analysis of a single sp ecies invasion scenario, USCG also used PVA modeling to address the probability of invasion by mo re than one ANS in a ballast discharge. In other words, the question the multiple species an alysis attempted to address was “What is the probability that at least one of the species in a ballast discharge will successfully invade?” The

conclusion that the USCG drew in their FPEIS from this analysis was that, “The specific reduction depends upon the [treatment] alternative selected and the size class of the organism considered, but the modeling results for multiple species support the conclusion that more stringent treatment alternatives will substant ially reduce the likelihood of new ballast water introductions” (USCG, 2012a). This particular analysis also emphasized the importance of evaluating the total risk potential from multiple speci es that may be present in ballast discharges.

6.1.1.4 Recommendations from the National Ac ademy of Science Regarding the Use

of Risk-Release Models

In its review of risk-release models, the NAS (2011) noted that the ri gorous use of riskrelease models requires that multiple candidate models be formulated and compared in their ability to represent the data. This approach, they also note, is well established in the population dynamic literature at the single-species scale. Howe ver, currently there are insufficient data to2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-6 distinguish among risk–release rela tionship models at the multi-species scale. NAS offered a

number of conclusions and reco mmendations to identify how mode ls might be put to use at present, and in the future, to help inform a nume ric discharge standard fo r ANS in ballast water.

As noted by the NAS (2011), models of any ki nd are only as informative as their input data. In the case of ballast water, both invasion risk and organism density discharged from ballast are characterized by considerable and largely un-quantified uncertainty. At the multi-species scale in particular, the existing data (historica l invasion records vs. recent ballast surveys) are substantially mismatched in time and patchy in time, space, and taxonomy; current statistical relationships with these or proxy variables are of dubious value.

To date, approaches to setting ballast discha rge standards have relied primarily on expert opinion to evaluate the risk–rel ease relationship (NAS, 2011). On- going research such as what has been summarized above provides EPA confiden ce that the approach of using statistical modeling to empirically examine ANS invasion under the risk-releas e paradigm is a potentially viable one, but so far, data ar e scattered too far across sites and usually too short-term in nature to be used in a more definitive manner (NAS , 2011). Clearly several models exist which can quantify the risk–release relationship, but suffici ent data are lacking. According to the NAS, until such a time that key data gaps are filled, risk of invasion cannot be quantif ied, and therefore, risk to listed species from ANS invasion via ballast water also cannot be quantified.

6.1.2 Reducing Propagule Pressure by Ballast Water Management

Ballast water discharge is a known vector for the spread of ANS, as discussed in Section 5.1.1.3. To reiterate from above, the risk of establishment of ANS is assumed to decrease with decreasing propagule supply, although the exact quantitative relationship between propagule pressure and invasion/establishment ri sk is unknown for any species, and, in fact, likely varies for any species over time and location. Nevertheless, significantly reducing propagule pressure will reduce the probability of invasions, when controlling for all other variables (NAS, 2011).

In this subsection, past and present appro aches to mitigate ANS propagule pressure in ballast water discharge are reviewed. The fo llowing approaches, which are ordered both chronologically and in terms of reducing propagule pressure, are presented below:

 No management of ballast water (unmitigated discharge),

 Interim management pre-2006 (Mandatory Ballast Water Exchange on the Great Lakes and Voluntary Exchange Nationwide),

 Interim management post-2006 (e.g., Manda tory Ballast Water Exchange and Flushing on the Great Lakes and Mandator y Ballast Water Exchange Nationwide),

 IMO/USCG Ballast Water Management (Numerical Discharge Standards),

 2013 VGP (Numerical Discharge Standa rds plus Risk-based BMPs), and

 Potentially more Stringent Numerical Discharge Limits.

For each mitigation approach, a summary of the literature documenting the reduction in propagule pressure is offered.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-7 6.1.2.1 No Management of Ballast Water (Unmitigated discharge)

The introductions of ANS via ballast water di scharge became an issu e in the late-1980s when massive infestations of the ship-mediated zebra mussel ( Dreissena polymorpha ) and

Eurasian ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua ) burgeoned in the Great Lakes (NAS, 2011). Propagule pressure from unmitigated ballast water disc harge is documented in Section 5.1.1.3. The impacts

of ANS invasion and establishment on native and listed species are discussed in Sections 5.1.1.7 and 5.1.1.8, respectively.

In 1990 Congress passed the Nonindigenous A quatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, also known as NANPCA (P.L. 101-646; 16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.,). NANPCA was the first U.S. federal law with the explicit purpose of regulating ballast di scharges of ANS (NAS, 2011). NANPCA required the USCG to issue vol untary guidelines within six months and regulations within two years of enactment to prevent new introductions of ANS by ships entering the Great Lakes. With these guide lines and regulations, the USCG ushered in the era of ballast water management to mitigate the discharge of ANS.

6.1.2.2 Interim Management Pre-2006 (Mandatory Ballast Water Exchange on the Great Lakes and Voluntary Exchange Nationwide)

Regulations implemented under NANPCA requi res ships entering the Great Lakes to undertake open-ocean ballast water exchange or use an alternative environmentally sound treatment method approved by the USCG that wa s at least as protective as ballast water exchange. Because there were generally no approv ed alternatives to ballast water exchange, it has been the most utilized pract ice to mitigate ballast mediated transfers of species (by reducing the densities of coastal organisms transferred among global regions).

In general, ballast water exchange operat es to reduce the conc entration of coastal organisms that are transferred among global regi ons by transferring water from a ship’s ballast system to the environment, with concomitant or subsequent uptake of wa ter. Coastal organisms are considered less likely to survive under oceanic conditions, and oceanic organisms are considered less likely to colonize coastal and inland waters, due to habitat and environmental mismatch. Numerous peer review ed studies and government reports by have shown that midocean ballast water exchange significantly reduc es the presence of living organisms adapted to surviving in coastal, estuarine, and freshwater environments (L ocke et al., 1993; Gray et al., 2007; McCollin et al., 2007; Ruiz and Reid, 2007). A diverse range of studies, mainly for the greater than 50 μ m organism size class, demonstrate the efficacy of ballast water exchange on the original contents of ballast tanks. The avai lable data suggest the process of ballast water exchange removes on average 88 to 99 percent of waterborne cont ents of ballast tanks when performed properly (see review by Ruiz and Reid, 2007). The effi cacy of exchange is highest when source ports are freshwater locations and lowest when it involves source ports of high salinity. For freshwater and estuarin e biota, exposure to high salinity waters often also results in osmotic shock and mortality, further increasing the efficacy of ballast water exchange (Santagata and Ruiz, 2007; Santagata et al., 2008). This co mbined effect is demonstrated in shipboard experiments, which exposed ballast tanks to sa ltwater (Gray et al., 2007 ; Bailey et al., 2011).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-8 From these experiments it was shown that the mean abundance of freshw ater invertebrates, measured as the number of individuals per cubic meter, is significantly reduced (>99.99 percent) following salt-water flushing. In addition, the variation (standar d error) is reduced greatly following exchange, further indicating the remova l of high density discharges, both for total abundance and freshwater species alone.

Ruiz and Reid (2007) concluded that: “Balla st Water Exchange s hould be considered a useful and beneficial ballast management practice to reduce species transfers and invasion risk. It is a valuable measure, especially because it is available now for immediate use on many vessels and shipping routes, in the absence of proven alternative treatment me thods.” Hence, ballast water exchange was an appropriate interim step toward mitigating the risk from the spread of ANS until effective treatment technology became available.

In 2001, the USCG reported to Congress that the proportion of vessels that provided information on ballast water management was around 25 percent, too low for a positive assessment of compliance with th e voluntary guidelines for vesse ls arriving outside the Great Lakes, thus resulting, in accordance with NISA, a transition to a national mandatory regulatory program of ballast management (USCG, 2001), w ith the guidelines bein g made mandatory in July 2004

.

The USCG requirements for the management of ballast water are li sted in 33 CFR Part 151, Subparts C (Great Lakes) and D (national). Th ese regulations require vessels transiting to

U.S. waters with ballast water that was taken on within 200 nautical miles (nm) of any shore into waters of the United States after operating be yond the U.S. EEZ to either conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange further than 200 nm from any shore prior to entering U.S. waters, retain

the ballast water on board while in U.S. wa ters, or use a USCG approved alternative environmentally sound method to manage the ballast water. The regulations also contain a safety exception from exchange , providing that the mast er of a vessel will not be prohibited from discharging unmanaged ballast wa ter, in areas other than the Great Lakes and the Hudson River north of the George Washington Bridge, if the ma ster decides the practi ces would be unsafe for the vessel (33 CFR 151.2030(b)). In addition, the USCG national re gulations state that vessels will not be required to deviate from, or delay, their voyage in order to conduct ballast water exchange.

6.1.2.3 Interim Management post-2006 (Manda tory Ballast Water Exchange and Flushing on the Great Lakes and Mandatory Ballast Water Exchange Nationwide)

Although ballast water exchange was documente d to be highly effective (as discussed above in Section 6.1.2.2), invasions by ANS discove red subsequent to ba llast water exchange requirements on ships entering the Great La kes, such as by the fishhook water flea ( Cercopagis pengoi ) in Lake Ontario in 1998, suggested that th e ballast water vector was still transmitting ANS species into the Great Lakes (NAS, 2011). One major cause of continued problems was likely incomplete application of ballast water exchange. As explained by Bailey et al. (2011), this was due to both changes in commercial shippi ng practices and deficien cies in understanding and effectively regulating ballast water discharg es. In the mid-1990s, concurrent with the advent2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-9 of the first ballast water excha nge regulatory program, a large pe rcentage of vessels entered the St. Lawrence Seaway laden at least partially wi th cargo (e.g., steel) (C angelosi and Mays, 2006), such that most vessels had less than 10 percent of their ballast tanks loaded with declarable (i.e., pumpable) ballast water (Bailey et al., 2011). Ballast water exchange at that time was considered safe and practicable only on fully ballasted ta nks (NAS, 2011). The USCG therefore exempted ships that were carrying cargo rather than ball ast from ballast water exchange. Ships had the option of declaring their conditi on as “No Ballast On Board” ( NOBOB) and those that did were not subject to any further scrutiny.

As a consequence, it is possible that some ships laden mostly with cargo but with one or more full, un-exchanged ballast tanks declared NOBOB in good faith and proceeded to discharge their un-exchanged ballast at ports of call in the Great Lakes in the 1990s a nd the first half of the following decade (NAS, 2011). In addition to the problems attendant to un-exchanged ballast water from this minority of full tanks discharged in to the Lakes, subsequent studies revealed that even the so-called “empty” tanks, carrying onl y un-pumpable residual water and sediment,

entrained a diverse but varied fl ora and fauna, and themselves c ould be a potentially important vector for new invasive species introductions to the Great Lakes (NAS, 2011). These ballast residuals were suspected as posing a risk owi ng to the predominance among vessels associated within the foreign trade, the live biota they cont ained, and the abundance of viable resting stages contained in residual sediments (e.g., Bailey et al ., 2003; Reid et al., 2007; Bailey et al., 2011).

In September 2000 a Code of Best Practices for Ballast Water Management for vessels entering the Great Lakes was codified by the Ship ping Federation of Canada. This Code required (among other things) more rigorous ballast wate r management practices that subject residual ballast water to similar flushing practices as filled tanks, to purge and kill live freshwater organisms, and to minimize sediment accumulation. In 2002, the twin Seaway authorities—the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corpor ation (USA) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (Canada)—required all fo reign flagged vessels to comply with these best management practices (BMPs). Transport Canada and the USCG later reinforced these regional requirements (NAS, 2011).

The purpose of mandatory saltwater flushing is to prevent the spread of ANS in ballast water tanks that appear empty, but often have unp umpable ballast water and/or residual sediment at the bottom of the tanks that may contai n organisms which can become ANS. Saltwater flushing has been shown to be effective in prev enting the introduction of ANS from vessels with

residual ballast wate r and sediment in their ballast water tanks. Ruiz and Reid (2007) concluded that: “the use of high-salinity water to flush NOB OB ballast tanks should be considered a useful and beneficial management practice to reduce sp ecies transfers and inva sion risks associated with NOBOB ships entering the Grea t Lakes. In the absence of pr oven alternatives, this practice provides some level of protection against some adult and larval life stages.”

While ballast water exchange and salt-water flushing (in th e case of NOBOB tanks) have a strong effect in reducing origin al organisms and appear to signi ficantly reduce the risk of ANS invasion and establishment by reducing propagule pressure, including species considered highrisk in the case of the Great Lakes, these prac tices have shortcomings. Some shipping industry stakeholders complained that ballast water exchange was difficult to implement and costly in2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-10 terms of fuel and carbon emissions; federal offici als found ballast water exchange was not able to be safely applied by all vess els or all vessel voyages and diffi cult to enforce; and scientists expressed concern that ballast water exchange and flushing were not sufficiently effective or consistent in reducing organism c oncentrations in ballast water, especially in coastal/estuarine environments (e.g., Locke et al., 1991; see also summary in Section 4.3.2 of USCG, 2012a).

In 2006, Canada implemented requirements th at all ballast water, including NOBOB residual water, be at a salinity of 30 or greate r. In 2008, the St. Lawrence Seaway management corporations harmonized their entr y rules with the Canadian regul ations. According to U.S. and Canadian officials, as of 2009 there is no unmanaged ballast wa ter entering the Great Lakes, including that associated with coastwise ve ssels. If salinity and fl ushing requirements are consistently applied and enforced for all vessels entering the Great Lakes, it is expected that a very significant redu ction in the risk of ballast-a ssociated ANS introductions to

the Great Lakes will be achie ved, especially compared to th e risk prior to 2006. However, the risk will not be zero (NOAA, 2012).

6.1.2.4 IMO/USCG Ballast Water Management (Numerical Discharge Standards)

In response to the criticism of ballast water exchange and salt-water flushing expressed above, national and international efforts began to evaluate other options for managing ballast water discharges. Congressional legislation (P .L. 104-332), Internationa l Maritime Organization (IMO) discussion, the USCG and other federal agencies, and the National Research Council (NRC, 1996) began recommending ballast water treatment in lieu of ballast water exchange as the best long-term solution to ballast-mediated ANS invasions (NAS, 2011). Concurrently, early treatment performance demonstratio ns suggested that mechanical operation of ba llast treatment on ships could be feasible and biologically effective (Cangelosi, 1997; Rigby et al., 1997; Parsons and Harkins, 2002). Ultimately, a key deci sion was made to base ballast water discharge

standards on the concentration of organisms in discharged ballas t water, rather than on the percentage of ballast water exchanged during mid- ocean exchanges. This was first expressed in

the IMO’s International Conventi on for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004). The convention was negotiated to reduce the spread of ANS through ballast water transport (IMO, 2004a).

The IMO treaty identifies two key standards (i n Regulations D-1 and D-2. D-1 is a ballast water exchange standard, requiring at least 95 percent volumetric exchange for empty-refill-style exchange, and three times the tank volume for vessels that conduct fl ow-through exchange. The D-2 standard sets maximum perm issible limits on live organisms in ballast effluent, based on the size or taxonomic category of organisms. The latt er (D-2) standard stat es that ships conducting ballast water management shall discharge:

 Less than 10 viable organisms per m 3 , for organisms greater than or equal to 50 μ m in minimum dimension;

 Less than 10 viable organisms per mL, for organisms less than 50 μ m in minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 μ m in minimum dimension; and

 Discharge of the indicator microbes shall no t exceed the specified concentrations. The indicator microbes, as a huma n health standard, include:2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-11 o Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) with less than 1 colony forming unit (CFU) per 100 mL or less than 1 CFU per 1 gram (wet weight) zooplankton samples;

o Escherichia coli with less than 250 CFU per 100 mL;

o Intestinal enterococci with less than 100 CFU per 100 mL.

The size classes contained in the IMO standa rd roughly coincide w ith taxonomic groups of plankton (i.e., zooplankton a nd phytoplankton for the larger and smaller class sizes, respectively) in marine systems.

A suite of studies have examined the e nvironmental protection offered by the IMO discharge standard, and all of them indicate a reduction in risk asso ciated with that standard from no ballast water management or ballast water ex change (see summary by Lee et al., 2010 or NAS 2011). EPA also notes that treatment to the IMO discharge standard will result in a significant

decrease in the concentration of living organisms discharged fr om ballast tanks for the vast majority of vessels applying treatment. Several studies have looked at the composition of living organisms found in ballast water tanks for some or all organisms greater than 50 μ m; comparing the results for this size class (50 μ m) meeting the VGP’s permit limits to the values in untreated ballast water illustrates that there would be a substantial decrease in inoculum density after treatment. For example, for each of the studies di scussed below, EPA derived the percentage that the discharge concentration would be reduced from the mean, median, or mode values (dependent on the study and how the authors pres ent the data). This pe rcent reduction is 99.67%

to 99.94% from mean and mode va lues presented in Minton et al. (2005), 99.63% from median values presented in Bailey et al. (2011), 99.994% from mean values presented in David et al. (2007), 95.15% from mean values presented (Murphy et al., 2002), and 99.93% from mean values presented in Verling et al. (2005). Th e maximum values presented by the authors show considerably more notable reduction; this is noteworthy because EPA assumes that these high concentration discharge events pose more risk. The discharge c oncentration would be reduced from the maximum value presented by 99.98% to 99.99% from the range of mean and upper 1.1% of density values presented in Minton et al. (2005), 99.96% from the range of median values presented in Bailey et al. ( 2011), 99.999% from the range of mean values presented in David et al. ( 2007), 99.41% from the range of mean values pres ented Murphy et al. (2002), and 99.97% from the range of mean values presented in Verli ng et al. (2005).

One specific study, (Bailey et al., 2009) evalua ted the efficacy of such limitations through the use of mesocosm experiments and modeling of certain parthenogenetic taxa (i.e., organisms that reproduce asexually) that are of significant c oncern for invasion to the Great Lakes. In this study, the authors conclu ded that the proposed IMO standards for >50 μ m organisms would reduce the probability of establishment of certain parthenogenic species by three fold. Even taking a “precautionary approach by deliberat ely investigating establishment success under favorable physical, chemical, a nd biological conditions (e.g., redu ced competition and predation inside enclosures)” results in “best fit estima tes of establishment proba bilities for inocula less than 10 individuals per cubic meter [that] are nil, indicating that th e proposed ballast water discharge standards [the IMO standard] will be very effective even for parthenogenetic taxa” (Bailey, 2009).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-12 6.1.2.5 2013 VGP

EPA is proposing new, more stringent numer ic technology-based effluent limitations to replace the non-numeric limitations in the 2008 VGP for ballast wate r in the 2013 VGP. The

reader is referred to Section 2.3.1.4 and Appendix C for a summary of the ballast water discharge provisions of the proposed VGP. The ballast wa ter discharge standard in the 2013 VGP will achieve significant reductions in the number of living organisms di scharged via ballast water into waters subject to this permit, in comparis on to ballast water exchange and flushing and IMO/USCG Ballast Water Management (discussed a bove), thereby reducing risk of the spread of aquatic nuisance species.

EPA is proposing numeric TBELs for the discha rge of living organisms equivalent to the USCG discharge standard (USCG, 2012b), which is generally equivalent to the standard set forth in Regulation D-2 of the IMO standard. EPA has set the numeric effluent limit for ballast water as numbers of living organisms per cubic meter discharged (i.e., as a maximum acceptable concentration) because reducing the concentrat ion of living organisms will reduce inoculum densities of potential inva sive species discharged in a vessel’s ballast water.

EPA has established the VGP permit limits because several treatment technologies have been shown to be safe, reliable and effective at reducing viable living orga nisms in ballast water discharges to meet these limits. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that several of these technologies are commercially available for ship board installation and their use is economically achievable. Several studies and publications ar e available that discuss current treatment technologies, their efficacy and performance, a nd whether they are commercially available for shipboard installation (ABS, 2010; Albert et al., 2010; CSLC, 2010; GLBWC, 2010; Lloyd’s List, 2010; WDNR, 2010; SAB, 2011; Dobroski et al., 2011). Establishment of a ballast water discharge limit at the USCG / IMO discharge standard will result in a substantial reduction in the concentration of living organisms in the vast majo rity of ballast water discharges, compared to discharges of ballast water managed by mid-o cean exchange or discharges of un-exchanged

ballast water.

In addition, EPA has determined that th e numeric limitations in the proposed VGP represent the most stringent standards that ball ast water management systems currently safely, effectively, credibly, and reli ably meet (SAB, 2011). The NAS (2011) recommended that: “as a logical first step, a benchmark discharge standard should be es tablished that clearly reduces concentrations of coastal organisms below curren t levels resulting from ballast water exchange (such as the IMO D-2 standard). This will serve to reduce the likelihood of invasion in coastal ecosystems beyond that of the present time.” EPA concurs with the NAS study that such limitations will result in significant reductions in concentrations of living organisms beyond current management practices (i.e., ballast wate r exchange and the othe r management practices described in the permit). The numeric discharge limitations for ballast water in the proposed permit are expected to be effective in reducing th e risk from untreated or exchanged ballast water discharges. EPA expects that compliance with the permit’s numeric effluent limitations will likely result in discharges that are controlled as necessary to result in a very small absolute risk

of invasion and thus are controlle d as necessary to achieve appli cable water quality standards.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-13 SAB (2011) noted that integrated sets of pr actices and technologies can be used to systematically advance ballast water manageme nt. These practices include managing ballast uptake to reduce the presence of invasive spec ies, reducing invasion risk through operational adjustments and changes in ship design to redu ce or eliminate the need for ballast water, development of voyage-based risk and/or hazard assessments, and treatment of ballast water in onshore reception facilities. Consistent w ith this recommendation, EPA has included management practices in the proposed VGP that reduce risks from ballast water at multiple points in the vessel voyage.

As in the 2008 VGP, EPA has included BMPs applicable to all ve ssels equipped with ballast water tanks that enter or operate within waters subject to this permit. These BMPs are designed to reduce the number of living organisms taken up in, a nd later discharg ed in, ballast water or to ensure that such discharges do not occur in known sensitive areas. Examples of these BMPs include avoiding or minimizing ballast wate r uptake in areas reco gnized as having a high potential to contain harmful or ganisms, only discharging the mi nimum amounts of ballast water necessary in coastal and internal waters, and regularly cleaning ballast water tanks to remove

sediment.

Like the 2008 VGP, the proposed 2013 VGP does not authorize the discharge of sediments from the cleaning of ballast tanks. He nce, the discharge of sediment removed from tanks by cleaning operations into waters subjec t to the permit, includ ing the discharge of sediments suspended as a result of ballast ta nk cleaning, are prohibited from being discharged into waters covered by this permit and must be disposed of in accordance with any applicable local, State, and Federal regulations.

6.1.2.6 Feasibility of More Stringent Numeri cal Discharge Limits for the 2013

issuance of the VGP

Though California and other states had previous ly adopted or proposed standards with the goal of “zero detectable living organisms” in ba llast water discharges, EPA did not find that technologies were available which met limits more stringent than the IMO standard. The

California State Lands Comm ission (CSLC) report: i.e., 2010 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability, and Environmental Impacts of Ba llast Water Treatment Systems for use in California Waters (CSLC, 2010; Dobroski et al., 2011) disc usses that States treatment limits and the ability of existing treatment systems to m eet those limits. California’s standards would be adopted in two phases, with an interim standa rd of “no detectable living organisms” >50 μ m in ballast discharged from ships constructed in 2010 to 2012, and a final st andard in 2020 of “no detectable discharge” of zoopl ankton, phytoplankton, protists, bact eria, or viruses in ballast discharges for ships constructed beginning in 2020.

EPA notes that the CSLC report has served a role in consolidating summary data regarding the efficacy of ballast water treatmen t systems (BWTS) and stating its conclusions from those data. However, the methodology employed by the State of Californ ia is not adequate to determine whether any of the treatment sy stems can reliably meet a significantly more stringent limit than that proposed for the term of the 2013 VGP. EPA believes that the data

California reviewed for their eval uation of ballast water treatmen t systems were generally from2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-14 tests to determine whether systems could meet the IMO limits, and do not have significant precision or resolution to detect efficacy signif icantly beyond those limits. As noted by the SAB (2011): “current methods (and associated detect ion limits) prevent tes ting of BWTS to any standard more stringent than D-2 and make it im practicable for verifyi ng a standard 100 or 1000 times more stringent.” Hence, EP A does not believe that the repor t can be used to support the assertion that technologies ar e available to meet a limit 100 or 1000 times more stringent than IMO. In fact, until better shipboa rd testing methods are developed, there is no way to efficiently detect organisms present in low concentrati ons (e.g., at or below the IMO standard) from a shipboard discharge. This means that, in practic e, the “no detectable living organism standard” proposed by California is no more stringent than the IMO standard at this time. This conclusion is supported by the 2011 NAS report, which states th at the zero-detectable organism standard “is functionally defined by the ability to characterize concentrations of organisms at low densities” and that the exact California discharge sta ndard “is largely undefi ned and contingent on sampling protocols.”

EPA believes that the work done recently by numerous scie ntists (Drake et al., 2005; USCG, 2012a; Lee et al., 2010) has greatly impr oved our understanding of the risk posed by ballast water discharge events, and acknowledges that some have even gone so far as to clearly quantify a relative reduction in risk by using various standards versus ballast water exchange (USCG, 2012a). However, EPA also agrees wi th the NAS (2011) that establishing a precise, quantified ballast water di scharge standard more stringent th an the numeric TBELs contained in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP at this time is not possibl e with available data and information, and thus, numeric water quality-based effluent limits are infeasible to calculate.

6.1.2.7 Evidence Supporting Effectiveness of Ballast Water Management

Evidence supporting the effectiv eness of ballast water management as a means of preventing ANS introductions from this vector comes from the Ba iley et al. (2011) study, which examined the efficacy of ballast water policies enacted to prevent biological invasions in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Bailey et al. (2011) analyzed 20 years of Great Lakes ANS invasion data post ballast water regulati on, by assembling data on dates of discovery of ship-mediated ANS reported in the Great Lakes after the opening of the modern St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959.

The cumulative and annual numbers of ANS di scovered over time was graphed and visually inspected to determine if the rate of discovery changed after implementation of ballast water regulations. The authors acknowledged that th eir analysis of ANS discovery rate was confounded by time lags (the gap between the date of introduction and the date of discovery), inconsistent research effort, taxonom ic bias, and insufficient data.

The analysis conducted by Bailey et al. ( 2011) revealed 34 aquatic ship-mediated ANS reported from the Great Lakes after 1959.The ra te of ANS discovery was relatively linear between 1959 and the mid-1980s, after which time it began to increase. The peak number of

discoveries occurred in 1992 when six ANS we re reported, including five parasitic species associated with the Eurasion ruffe; the discovery rate begins to decline rapidly after the peak. 1995 was identified as the most likely point of decline in discovery rate. This date may correspond with a six year time la g after the inception of voluntar y ballast water management in 1989, or a two year time lag after implementa tion of mandatory balla st water exchange2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-15 regulations. Since 2000, shipping ac tivities have been responsi ble for three of eight (37.5%) ANS introductions. No new ANS have been reported since 2006, the first time there has been a four-year gap in ship-mediated ANS discove ries since 1974-1977, indicating that NOBOB tank flushing regulations may have been an important component of ANS mitigation via the ballast water vector. Since Bailey et al. (2011) publis hed this study, the authors of this biological evaluation are unaware of any new invasions in the Great Lakes.

The comprehensive assessment of the Great Lakes’ ballast water management program, using multiple lines of evidence, indicates that the risk of ship-mediated ANS introductions has been markedly reduced (Bailey et al., 2011), because:

 Comprehensive laboratory and shipboard stud ies indicate that ballast water exchange and tank flushing can effectively decrease the number of viable propagules in ballast tanks. Modeling indicates that the combin ed effects of tank purging and osmotic shock are typically 99.993% effective at removing or exterminating freshwater zooplankton from being transpor ted between freshwater ports.

 Biological monitoring data confirms that at the operational level, ballast water exchange and flushing significantly reduce the probability for rare, high density, introduction events and nearly eliminate high risk taxa.

 Compliance rates by the general vessel popula tion appear very high, perhaps a direct

result of the intensive inspection regime. Only 4.2% of approximately2850 tanks

tested in 2007 contained ballast water with a salinity <30% and, because they were detected by inspectors, were prohibited from being discharged into the Great Lakes;

and

 Examination of the discovery rate of ANS in the Great Lakes basin supports a decline in ship-mediated introductions following the initiation of the ballast water
management program.

Bailey et al. (2011) acknowledge that ballast water can tran sport a variety of active and dormant taxa, ranging from microbes and bacteria to fishes and large sessile invertebrates. A complementary study examining efficacy of tank fl ushing on dormant invertebrate eggs in ballast sediments under operational conditions (see Briski et al., 2010) found signi ficant reductions in total egg density, viable egg density, and dens ity of eggs of high risk ANS. Unfortunately, a dearth of data precludes assessment of the Gr eat Lakes ballast water management regulations with respect to other taxa. Even so, it is clear that the prescribed management strategies will not provide complete protection agai nst aquatic invasions, since a large percentage reduction can still result in substantial propa gule pressure if initial densitie s were high (Bailey et al., 2011). Total propagule pressure, however, is not reflective of the effective invasion risk for Great Lakes ports, since many marine taxa will not be able to survive if introduced into fresh water. While these data are promising, they are not conclusive in demonstrating that ballast water exchange and salt-water flushing alone are sufficient to pr event ANS invasion due to a number of factors. For example, as noted by Bailey et al. (2011), analyses of discovery rate are confounded by time2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-16 lags (where there is a gap be tween the date of introduction and the date of discovery), inconsistent research effort, ta xonomic bias and insufficient data.

6.1.2.8 Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange and Flushing to Reduce Propagule

Pressure in Fresh Waters vs. Coastal Waters (no osmotic shock benefit)

Ballast water exchange and saltw ater flushing is mo st effective at eliminating organisms adapted to freshwater and low sa linity environments due to the combined impacts of saltwater shock and physical dilution. In the case of vessels arriving to the Great La kes, with tanks having been exposed to seawater by ballast water excha nge, many or most of the waterborne organisms are likely to be marine species which are less likely to successfully colonize the Great Lakes relative to freshwater biota. However, many fr eshwater species produce resting stages (e.g., cysts, resting eggs, ephippia) that may survive ba llast water exchange and be present in ballast sediments (e.g., Fahnenstiel et al., 2009; Gray and MacIsaac, 2010). Likewise, some diatoms can live for decades or longer in anoxic sediments a nd are unlikely to be affected by osmotic shock associated with saltwater flushing or balla st water exchange (Stoermer, E. personal communication, October 25, 2010 cited in NAS, 2011).

Ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing may reduce viable living organisms in

residual ballast water th rough dilution. Secondly, saltwater fl ushing reduces the number of viable living organisms and organisms in resting stages in the residual sediment. However, the efficacy of ballast water exchange and saltwater flushi ng is likely lower when it involves source and recipient ports of high salinity, as there is no ad ded benefit of “osmotic shock” to residual organisms. In such cases, without added morta lity, Minton et al. (2005) estimated that vessels implementing ballast water exchange/saltwater fl ushing would still deliver more than one million coastal zooplankton alone from the original source per discharge event. The numbers are greater for smaller organisms, simply because their densi ties in ballast tanks are much greater than those for zooplankton.

Numerous studies have indicat ed that ballast water exch ange and saltwater flushing significant reduction in risk for ballast water discharges. Ballast water management strategies

have resulted in overall reductions in propagule pressure and, theref ore, also in reducing the risk of ANS establishment in US waters. In this context, implementation of the ballast water

treatment standards in the new VGP will furt her reduce the likelihood of ANS invasion and establishment as these are expected to provide a higher degree of protec tion than ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing.

6.1.3 Reducing Propagule Pressure by Biofouling Management

Biofouling of vessel hulls, recessed areas, se awater cooling systems, etc. has been identified as an important pathway for the spr ead of ANS, as discu ssed in Section 5.1.1.4. The risks from vessel biofouling are prin cipally associated with the releas e of competent life stages of

ANS from the vessel into an environment in wh ich it does not already occur (Floerl et al, 2010). Competent life stages are those that are capable of establishi ng self-sustaining populations and could be adult life-stages, gametes, larvae or vegetative fragments (G rahame and Branch, 1985; Santelices, 1990; Ceccherelli and Cinelli, 1999). The likelihood of this happening in a given2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-17 receiving water body is influenced by factors such as local environmental conditions, the reproductive state of the organisms, and the length of time the vesse l spends in por t (Apte et al., 2000; Minchin and Gollasch, 2003). Left unmanaged, a fouled vesse l can pose an elevated ANS risk through the detachment and dispersal of viable material, and through spawning by adult taxa upon arrival in a recipient port or region.

Mitigating the ANS risks associated with ve ssel biofouling has proven challenging. Laws and management frameworks addressing hull hu sbandry vary widely between jurisdictions (Floerl et al, 2010), because there is little information on the effi cacy of management strategies for controlling the biofouling ANS vector, and b ecause the technologies em ployed in several hull husbandry practices (including use of anti-fouling coatings (AFCs) and underwater hull cleaning) continue to evolve. C oordination is needed, for example, to resolve conflicts between policies to control hull-b orne ANS via hull fouling and reduction of the release of toxic biocides (e.g., copper) from anti-fouling paint.

EPA recognizes that vessel hulls and hull appe ndages are a potential source for the spread of ANS and has included requirements in th e permits to address these sources. Vessel owner/operators must minimize the transport of at tached living organisms when they travel into waters subject to this permit from outside the U.S. economic zone or when traveling between COTP zones. Minimization techniques incl ude preventing the hull from fouling using appropriate anti-foulant paint and frequently removing fouling organisms from the hull.

The 2011 IMO Guidelines for the Control a nd Management of Ships' Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species (Annex 26 Resolution MEPC.207(62)) are intended to provide a globally cons istent approach to the manage ment of biofouling. As noted by the IMO Guidelines, implementing practices to c ontrol and manage biofouling can greatly assist in reducing the risk of the transfer of ANS . According to the Guid elines, a ship should implement biofouling management practices, incl uding the use of anti-fouling systems and other operational management practices to reduce th e development of biofouling, to minimize the

transfer of ANS. The intent of such practices is to keep th e ship's submerged surfaces, and internal seawater cooling systems, as free of biofouling as practical. A ship following this guidance and minimizing macrofouling would have a reduced potential for transferring invasive aquatic species via biofouling.

There are many different practices involved w ith effectively controlling biofouling and ANS prevention. For example, the selection, application, and mainte nance of effective AFCs are primary practices for controlling biofouling on vessel hulls. ANS biofouling risks can be managed effectively through the re moval of the vessel to land for de-fouling (e.g., drydocking). However, alternative methods are needed for sma ll vessels, as well as fo r large vessels fouled outside their drydocking schedule. Among the various treatment options, the underwater cleaning of vessel hulls and nich e areas is relatively common.

It has been suggested that unde rwater cleaning may enhance th e release of competent life stages through direct dislodgement from the ve ssel or by triggering repr oductive activity that causes propagules to be releas ed (e.g., see Hopkins and Forrest, 2008, and references therein). However, there is little empi rical evidence that propagules released in this manner are2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-18 competent. These propagules can be released or can detach from the vessel even when no cleaning is taking place.

In the 2013 VGP, EPA requires and recomm ends several BMPs to minimize the

likelihood of ANS introduction from vessel biof ouling. The VGP includes specific requirements regarding hull husbandry and BMPs designed to mitigate the biofouling vector. These include, but are not limited to, the selection of e ffective AFCs (Section 6.1.3.1), the drydock or underwater cleaning of vessel hulls and niche areas (Secti on 6.1.3.2), and management of biofouling in seawater cooling systems (Section 6.1.3.3).

6.1.3.1 Reducing the Biofouling Vector by Selection of Appropriate AFCs

Anti-fouling systems and operational practi ces are the primary means of biofouling prevention and control for existing ships' submer ged surfaces, including the hull and niche areas, according to the 2011 IMO Guidelines. An anti-fou ling system can be a coating system applied to exposed surfaces, biofouling resistant materials used for piping and other unpainted components, marine growth prevention systems (M GPSs) for sea chests a nd internal seawater cooling systems, or other innovative measures to control biofouling.

EPA has identified three types of BMPs relate d to AFCs for control of ANS from vessel hulls. The first type of BMP addresses the co ntents and application of the coating. EPA recognizes that different coating options are availa ble and believes that the types of active agents in hull coatings should be selected to maxi mize efficacy, while minimizing other potential adverse effects (e.g., minimizing copper leachate a nd eliminating TBT rel ease). The practice of applying coatings according to the instructions on the coating’s FIFRA label should currently be

a BMP for all vessels.

The second type of BMP addresses the need fo r particular coatings and selection of the type of coating to apply. The sele ction of an anti-fouling system for a particular vessel must be made in consideration of the vessel’s operati onal profile, including operating speed, dry docking requirements, and the waters in which the vesse l will be operating, because such factors affect the fouling rate of the hull and other underwater areas of the vessel. Fouling on vessels that typically operate at high speeds may be effectively managed with non-stick, low surface energy, AFC. Vessels traveling in waters with lower f ouling pressure (i.e., repr oduction and growth of hard- and soft-fouling organisms) and those that spend less time at dock are expected to have a lower fouling rate; consequently, such vessels should be able to use either non-biocidal coating

or AFC with lower biocide rel ease rates. The permit requires th at vessel operators minimize the use of AFC that are designed to control fouling in higher fouling-pressure environments than those in which the vessel is expected to ope rate. EPA believes these options should be used where feasible rather than opting for more environmentally-damaging coatings.

The third type of BMP is accomplished by matc hing the coating’s abilities or strength to dry dock cycles. Larger vessels, part icularly those used in trade a nd cargo transport, must adhere to requirements for safety inspections and mainte nance activities that dictate how frequently they must be dry docked. The major manu facturers of hull coatings for this industry will typically guarantee the effectiveness of their products for a certain pe riod of time based on ship and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-19 operational characteristics, so the owner/opera tor should match the hull coating choice to the appropriate dry docking interval. By factoring this schedule into the hull coating selection, EPA believes that vessel operators will make better deci sions regarding the use of coatings that will sufficiently protect the vessel for the period of ti me needed without creating additional leachate

or wastes.

6.1.3.2 Reducing Propagule Pressure from Underwater Cleaning

Despite the use of effective anti-fouling systems and operational practices, undesirable amounts of biofouling may still acc umulate during the intended lifetime of th e anti-fouling system. To maintain a ship as free of biofouling as practical, it may be advisable for the ship to undertake in-water inspection, clean ing and maintenance. In-water inspection can be a useful and flexible means to inspect the condition of anti-fou ling systems and the biofouling status of a ship. According to the IMO Biofouling Guidelines, in-water inspections should be undertaken periodically as a general means of routine surveillance, augmen ted by specific inspections as necessary to address any situations of elevat ed risk. Specific occasions when an in-water inspection may be appropria te, include the following:

 Before and after any planned period of inac tivity or significant or unforeseen change to the ship's operating profile;

 Prior to undertaking in-water cleaning to determine the presence of known or suspected invasive aquatic species or other species of concern on the ship;

 After a known or suspected marine pest or ot her species of concern is discovered in a ship's internal seawater cooling systems; and

 Following damage to, or premature failure of, the anti-fouling system.

The results of in-water biofouling inspecti on may indicate the need for cleaning or defouling of the vessel’s hull and/or niche areas . In the VGP, EPA recommends that extensive hull cleaning be conducted when the vessel is in drydock or when the bypr oducts of the cleaning can be contained and disposed of properly, especi ally when cleaning hulls using water pressure based systems. This VGP further encourages all wa ste to be collected and disposed of properly to

ensure that it is not washed in to nearby waters. While these pract ices do not specifically address the release of anti-fouling materials from hulls during vessel operations (i.e., hull coating leachate), they are critical to cont rolling levels of contaminants th at result in the same type of environmental degradation. In addition, these same practices are likely reduce the potential for release of ANS during hull cleaning and paint prep aration activities, beca use fouling organism fragments (which may be viable propagules ) removed by hydroblastin g or other cleaning techniques can be contained with the particul ate debris (paint chip s, corrosion, sediment) generated by hull cleaning (Floerl, 2005).

Between drydocking intervals, underwater cleaning can be an important part of biofouling management; however, it may also intr oduce different degrees of environmental risk, depending on the nature of biofouling (i.e. mi crofouling versus macrofouling), the amount of anti-fouling coating system residue released and the biocidal cont ent of the anti-fouling coating system. Hull cleaning and repair ac tivities conducted on the water can cause the release of a wide range of constituents, including elements of the vessel hull; hull coatings; cleaning agents; and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-20 any ANS that are attached to and are associated with the hull and other submerged areas of the vessel. Relative to macrofouling, microfouling can be removed with gentler techniques that minimize degradation of the anti-fouling coating system and/or biocide release. Microfouling removal may enhance a ship's hull efficiency, reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It is, therefore, recommended that the ship's hull is cleaned when practical by soft methods if significant microfouling occurs. In-water cleaning can al so reduce the risk of spreading ANS by preventing macrofouling accumulation.

Relatively few studies investigating the eff ectiveness of hull cleaning in mitigating ANS have been conducted and published. To examin e the ANS risks posed by various hull cleaning operations, researchers from the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric

Research ( NIWA) visited hull cleaning facilities in f our New Zealand ports where vessels were removed from the water for cleaning (drydock and haul-out facilities) or where fouling organisms were removed underwater by divers (Floerl, 2005). In al l of the cleaning operations examined, physical removal of fouling assemblages from vessel hulls did not result in mortality of all organisms. The overall vi ability of organisms removed from hulls was lowest in haul-out facilities (16 %) and drydock fac ilities (43 %), where fouling or ganisms were often exposed to air, high-pressure freshwater blasting and trampling. NIWA staff noted that survival viability was high for (1) hard-bodied organisms not directly attached to hull surfa ces (epibiota), and (2) organisms associated with clumps of mussels in th e protected sea chests of large ships. Survival and viability of organisms fo llowing underwater cleaning by di vers, which did not involve exposure to air or high-pressure water blasting, was significantly higher (72 %) than in shorebased operations.

EPA has not identified an alternative to underwater ship husbandry, a viable treatment technology, or specific practices th at will eliminate all releases of contamination. To limit such releases to the maximum extent possible, the Ag ency is requiring that vessel operators employ removal and cleaning methods that reduce the envi ronmental impacts due to releases of biocides, hull coating materials, and invasive species. EPA has determined that use of soft brushes when cleaning hulls reduce the release of paints and hull materials; hen ce, the softest brush practicable to effectively remove fouling from the vessel hull must be selected and used for underwater cleaning. Furthermore, when available, EPA reco mmends that vacuum cleaning technologies be employed in conjunction with mechanical scr ubbing to reduce releases of environmental contaminants. Vacuum cleaning allows the mate rials scrubbed from the vessel hulls to be collected and disposed of onshore. These approaches are not widely commercially available; hence, EPA has not required that they must be used in this permit.

The thorough examination of the vessel that occurs while it is in drydock provides owners/operators with an additional opportunity to implement the permit's requirements. For example, cleaning the vessel hull of attached organism s is much easier in drydock, and is safer for the environment because any attached organi sms can be properly disposed of away from water, minimizing the risk of an introducti on of ANS. Dry dock cleaning is the preferred alternative to underwater ship husbandry whenever possible.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-21 6.1.3.3 Management of Biofouling in Seawater Cooling Systems

Vessels often have specialized marine grow th protection systems (MGPSs) installed in

their sea chests to eliminate biofouling in seawater circula tion systems. Through the use of strategically placed anodes and cathodes, incoming s eawater is electrolyzed with either copper or hypochlorite ions, depending on the manufactur er. The resulting solutions provide an inhospitable environment for fou ling organisms. According to the IMO Biofouling Guidelines, the installation of MGPSs is encouraged to assist in treating the sea ches t and internal seawater piping as part of the biofouling management pl an. A careful evaluation of the consequential

effects of MGPSs should be made before inst allation, including potential effects on the ship

and/or the environment and the existence of regulations affecti ng the use of MGPSs.

Coutts et al. (2003) found not only typical fouling organisms, but also such surprising finds as the introduced European clam ( Corbula gibba ), and three introduced Green crabs ( Carcinus maenas ), two of which were ovigerous females capable of releasing viable propagules, were found in vessel sea chests. The same paper al so mentions that the unique habitat provided by a sea-chest has yielded an invasive sea-star, Asterias amurensis , and several species of small fish. In a later paper, Coutts and Dodgshun (2007) found that while MGPS systems significantly reduce fouling by sessile and sedentary organi sms, the systems have little influence on the occurrence of mobile species wi thin sea-chests; therefore, MGPS may reduce, but not eliminate entirely, the risk of sea-chests as vectors for introductions.

The requirements of the 2013 VGP reinforce current environmental regulations established under FIFRA. Under the permit, biofou ling chemicals for seawater piping must be used according to their FIFRA label and are prohibit ed from discharge if they are banned for use in the U.S. Vessel owner/operators must use th e minimum amount of biocide needed to keep fouling under control.

6.1.4 Control of ANS Discharges in Chain Lo cker Effluent and Fi sh Hold Effluent

The VGP includes BMPs to control the disc harge of ANS release from chain locker effluent and, where they may be relevant, fish hold effluent. Although th ese discharges are not generally considered to be significant vect ors of ANS introduction, requirements in the 2013

VGP reduce the limited risk of ANS introduction they pose.

BMPs to reduce or eliminate chain locker effl uent discharge require the vessel operator to ensure the chain itself is properly cleaned when brought out of the water to reduce the likelihood of transporting marine organisms and sediment. Th is practice is typically performed by vessels, using their firemain system, to remove sedime nts and other material. However, EPA believes vessel operators should use this practice routinely and be ad vised to perform more thorough wash downs to effectively prevent the transpor t of marine organisms between water bodies.

Additionally, EPA is requiring ocean-going vessels to clean out, rinse, or pump out chain lockers in open waters (greater than 50 nm from shore), if technically feasible, to reduce the chances of transporting organisms to other wate r bodies where they may cause potential harm. Vessels that leave waters subject to the permit at least once per month are not allowed to rinse or2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-22 pump chain lockers in waters subject to th e permit, unless not doing so would compromise safety.

Fish hold effluent also has the potential to introduce ANS into receiving waters from fish waste or water transported from one port to a nother. The effluent limits in the 2013 VGP are designed to reduce the amount of fish hold effluent discharged into enclosed, sensitive, or heavily trafficked water bodies, su ch as in ports, and to lessen the environmen tal impact of fish hold effluent that is discharge d. The requirement to physically se parate excess fish waste from fish hold effluent prior to discharge will reduce the amount and concentration of the discharge. EPA has also prohibited the discharge of fish hol d effluent pierside wher e shore based facilities are available: where they are available, vessels must utilize these facilities. This requirement will reduce fish hold effluent discharg es at piers. This permit also prohibits discarding unused bait overboard, unless the bait was caught in that water body or watershed. This requirement will help to prevent the spread or dispersal of poten tially invasive species if the bait is invasive species or is contaminated with invasive pathogens.

6.1.5 Inspection, Monitoring, Reporting and Recordkeeping

Many class societies and the United States Co ast Guard require that the vessel operator conduct drydock inspections before relaunching th e vessel. Based on discussion with technical experts, EPA assumes most, if not all vessels currently must undergo drydock inspections, and EPA requires the vessel to maintain a drydock insp ection report as a recor d. When a vessel is in drydock, it is much easier to access a wide ra nge of areas on the vesse l that are not easily

accessible while the vessel is in water. The thor ough examination of the vessel that occurs while it is in drydock provides owners/operators wi th an additional opportunity to implement the permit's requirements. As previously mentioned, cleaning the vessel hull of attached organisms is much easier in drydock. It also poses lower risk of releasing organisms from the hull into surrounding waters because any attached organism s can be disposed of shoreside (away from receiving waters), minimizing the risk of an introduction of ANS. For any drydock report, the permit requires that it include confirmation that the chain locker, hull, and cathodic protection have been inspected and cleaned, that anti-fouling hull coatings are maintained and applied in accordance with the permit's requirements, and that all pollution control equipment is maintained and properly functioning.

The 2013 VGP includes requirements for inspection, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping of vessels and their operations. Ma ny of these requirements are relevant to efforts to mitigate and control the discharge of ANS vi a ballast water discharge, biofouling, and other discharges as described above. Comprehensiv e vessel inspections must be conducted by qualified personnel at least once every 12 months, and cover all areas of the vessel affected by the requirements in the VGP that can be inspected without forcing a vessel into dry dock. Special attention should be paid to those areas most likely to result in disc harges that have the potential

to violate effluent limits established in the VGP. Inspectors must examine the vessel hull for attached living organisms, as well as flaking an ti-foulant paint, exposed TBT or other organotin surfaces. Vessel owner/operators must also ma ke any drydock reports prepared by the class society or their flag administrations available to EPA or an authorized representative of EPA upon request. Relevant to ANS, the drydock report must note that:2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-23  The chain locker has been cleaned for both sediment and living organisms;

 The vessel hull, propeller, rudder, thruster gratings, sea chest, and other surface areas of the vessel have been inspected for atta ched living organisms and those organisms

have been removed or neutralized; and,

 Any antifoulant hull coatings have been a pplied, maintained and removed consistent with the FIFRA label, if applicable; any exposed existing or any new coating does not

contain biocides or toxi cs that are banned for use in the United States.

6.1.6 Measures in the sVGP to Reduce Risk from ANS

The new sVGP also includes management m easures to mitigate ANS discharges from small vessels. These include vessel hull maintenance, fish hold effluent management, and ballast water management. Part 2.6 of the sVGP includes required BMPs for vessel hull maintenance that are designed to reduce or eliminate discha rges from AFC and to prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species. While vessel hull maintenance of AFC is necessary to prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive species, it unavoidably results in a release

of toxic biocides from AFC.

The required BMPs for fish hold effluent in Part 2.8 of the sVGP are designed to reduce the amount of fish hold effluent discharged in to sensitive water bodie s and to lessen the environmental impact fish hold effluent that is discharged. The requirement to physically separate excess fish waste from fish hold efflue nt prior to discharge will reduce the amount and concentration of the discharge. Requiring the discharge of fish hol d effluent to shore facilities

where available will reduce fish hold effluent discharges at pi ers. Prohibiting the discard of unused bait, unless the bait was caught in that water body or watershed, will help prevent the spread or dispersal of potentially invasive spec ies if the bait are invasive species or are contaminated with invasive pathogens. Minimizi ng fish hold effluent discharges when in port will reduce the amount of fish hold effluent discharged into these nearshore waters.

In addition, vessels with le ss than 8 cubic meters of ba llast water capacity must implement the management practices outlined in Part 2.9 of the sVGP. These BMPs include avoiding or minimizing ballast wa ter uptake in areas with a high potential to contain harmful organisms and only discharging the minimal amount s of ballast water nece ssary in coastal and internal waters. These requirements are common se nse measures that reduce the risk of vessels transporting potentially harmful pollution and aq uatic nuisance species from one water body to

another.

6.1.7 Specific Examples of Anticipated Mitigatio n of Risk in Ballast Water by Permits

As described above, the 2013 VGP and new sVGP include ballast water management measures that EPA anticipates should greatly mitigate risk to listed aquatic and aquaticdependent species and their cri tical habitats from discharge of ANS. This presumption is predicated on the fact that: i) the combination of ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing are highly effective at removing or exterminatin g freshwater zooplankton, and ii) with treatment of ballast water in the future to current pr oposed numeric standards, removal of a higher2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-24 percentage of living organisms from ballast water tanks (inclu ding dormant and other resilient (e.g., euryhaline) species is likel y. The following subsections provide examples of the anticipated mitigation of risk to list species from ANS from the issuance of VGP and sVGP.

6.1.7.1 Mitigation of Risk to Li sted Species from a Freshwater Macroinvertebrate: Case of the Bloody Red Shrimp

The bloody red shrimp ( Hemimysis anomala ) is a brackish water mysid shrimp able to adapt to freshwater environments. Salinity tole ration ranges from 0 to 19 ppt, and preferred water temperatures are from 9 to 20 o C (Pienimäki and Leppakoski, 2004; Jazdzewski et al., 2005). This shrimp is native to freshwater margins of th e Black Sea, the Azov Sea and the Eastern PontoCaspian Sea (USGS, 2012). It also historically occurred in the lowe r reaches of the Don, Danube, Dnieper and Dniester Rivers. It was repo rted for the first time in 2006 from two disjunct regions in the Great Lakes: s outheastern Lake Ontario at Ni ne Mile Point near Oswego, NY (May 2006 – J. Wyda, The Ecosystem Center, th e Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA; 2007, author communication used as repo rted in USGS, 2102), and from a channel connecting Muskegon Lake to Lake Michigan in November 2006 (Pothoven et al. 2007).

Scientists at USGS and others be lieve that the species is probably present at other locations in the Great Lakes Basin, but has escaped de tection (i.e., specimens resembling H. anomala were found in the stomach contents of white perch collected near Port Dover, Lake Erie in August 2006 – T. MacDougall, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource s, author communication used as reported in USGS, 2012).

Mature individuals range from 6 to 13 mm in length, with females being slightly larger than males. Sexual maturity occurs in less than 45 days, and females produce up to 2 to 4 broods (6 to 70 embroys per individual) per year. H. anomala is an opportunistic omnivore that feeds primarily on zooplankton, particularly cladoceran s, but also consumes plant and animal remains (detritus), phytoplankton (particu larly green algae and diatoms), a nd insect larvae (Ketelaars et al., 1999; Borcherding et al., 2006; Dumont, 2006) . Adults are fast swimmers and favor rocky substrates as opposed to soft se diments or areas with dense vege tation or high siltation (Janas and Wysocki 2005; Borcherding et al. 2006; Pothova n et al. 2007). Because this species avoids areas where other mysid species are found (Salem aa and Hietalahti, 1993) and because they are adapted to warmer temperatures relative to native freshwater shrimp (Bondarenko and Yablonskaya, 1979), H. anomala could become abundant in ma ny areas of the Great Lakes currently devoid of mysid shrimp, and, in tur n, could reduce zooplankton biomass and diversity in these areas, with cladocerans, rotifers and os tracods being most affect ed (Ketelaars et al., 1999). Conceptually, these direct effects of H. anomala on the food web could potentially indirectly affect special interest aquatic (e .g., Chinook salmon) and listed aquatic-dependent species (e.g., Lake Erie water sn ake) and their critic al habitats, although th ere are no recorded impacts yet associated with the relatively recent introduc tion of this species into the Great Lakes (USGS, 2012).

This species was likely introduced into the Great Lakes via ballast water release from transoceanic ships a few years before being di scovered in 2006 (USGS, 2012). This supposition is supported by the fact that the population in Lake Michigan at the port as Muskegon, which is not a high-traffic area for shipping, probably reflects an introduction from another invaded site in2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-25 the Great Lakes. Given its introduction into wate rs of the Great Lakes which preceded the post2006 provision of NBOB saltwater flushing in comb ination with ballast water exchange, and the fact this species is not known to tolerate salin ity in excess of 19 ppt, EPA thinks it highly likely that the risk to listed (and other) species from this ANS would have been completely mitigated had the provisions in the 2013 VGP and sVGP regarding ballast water exchange and saltwater flushing been in place prior to 2006.

6.1.7.2 Mitigation of Risk to Li sted Species from a Saltwater Macroinvertebrate: Case of the European Green Crab

The native range for the European green crab ( Carcinus maenas ) extends along the Atlantic coasts of Europe and northern Africa from Norway and the British Isles south to Mauritania (WDFW, 2001). The species now occu rs in coastal areas from Nova Scotia to Virginia on the East Coast, and from British Colu mbia to California on the West Coast (USGS, 2012). Earliest documentation of its occurrence in North America dates b ack to 1817 on the East Coast (Say, 1817). The species was first collected on the West Coast in San Francisco Bay in 1989 (Cohen and Carlton, 1995).

This species has colonized all types of prot ected and semi-protected marine and estuarine habitats, including habita ts with mud, sand, or rock substr ates, submerged aquatic vegetation, and emergent marsh (Cohen and Carlton, 1995). Du mbauld (as cited in Holmes, 2001) noted that the presence of green crabs in Washington's Willapa Bay was highly correlated with the

occurrence of Spartina alterniflora , another invasive species for the U.S. west coast (though it is a highly valued native species on the east coast). Green crabs are ecologically important in rocky intertidal communities in eastern North America (Menge, 1995); however, they have not yet occupied exposed rocky shores in western Nort h America (Grosholz and Ruiz, 2002). Postlarval

crabs are found in intertidal areas and in the subt idal zone as deep as 55 m (Grosholz and Ruiz, 2002). Reviewing studies from countries with established populations of the green crab, Grosholz and Ruiz (2002) noted that within its present range, C. maenas is often the most abundant crab species in soft-sediment bays and estuaries of Europe, Australia, and both coasts

of North America.

Green crabs are both euryhaline, tolerating sa linities from 4 to 52 ppt, and eurythermic, surviving in temperatures from 0 to 30 o C (Cohen and Carlton, 1995). Th e larvae are less tolerant of temperature and salinity extremes with successful development occurring at temperatures

between 11 and 25 o C and salinities between 26 and 39 ppt (WDFW, 2001). First stage zoeae are transported offshore with development to the me galopal stage occurring in approximately two

weeks. Reinvasion of nearshore waters occurs du ring the megalopal stage with molt to the first crab stage taking place in the upper intertidal zone (WDFW, 2001). Females may produce up to 185,000 eggs per sponge (Cohen and Carlton, 1995). Pr ey items include clams, mussels, oysters, and gastropods.

This species has the ability to disperse as adults by a variety of anthropogenic and natural mechanisms including: 1) ballast, 2) ship's hulls , 3) packing materials (seaweeds) used to ship live marine organisms, 4) bivalves moved for aquaculture, 5) rafting, 6) migration on surface currents, and 7) movement of submerged aqua tic vegetation for coas tal zone management2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-26 initiatives (USGS, 2012). Green crabs also spread by planktonic transport of larvae and once established in an area can expa nd their range rapidly (Grosholz, 1996; Grosholz and Ruiz, 2002). Research data strongly suggest that colonizati on of estuaries in Washington, Oregon and British Columbia was facilitated by the El Nino events of 1997 and 1998 (WDFW, 2001). Holmes (2001) also noted that the vector of introduc tion to Washington State was probably "simple larval transport" from established populations in California and Oregon.

According to Grosholz and Ruiz (2002), the green crab is one of the most successful invasive predators in coastal ecosystems with populations estab lished on five continents. These

authors noted that these crabs we re able to expand their range over 750 km in less than ten years on the Pacific coast of North America with popula tions firmly established in every significant bay and estuary from Monterey Bay, California to Gray's Harbor , Washington. Because of their ability to rapidly expand their range, Cohen et al. (1995) suggested that the species has the potential to spread and become established from Alaska to Baja California. Expansion of the range on the East Coast of North America thus far has been primarily northward.

The introductions of C. maenas have had a negative impact on soft-shell clams, young oysters, and native crabs in the Northeast be ginning in the 1950s (USGS, 2012). Significant impacts to commercial fisheries and natural ecosystems have been documented. Green crabs have been implicated in the destru ction of the soft-shell clam ( Mya arenaria ) fisheries in New England (Cohen and Carlton, 1995) and the redu ction of populations of other commercially important bivalves including the scallop, Argopecten irradians , and the northern quahog,

Mercenaria mercenaria (Morgan et al. 1980; Wa lton, unpublished data as cited in Grosholz and Ruiz, 2002). In Connecticut, weekly rates of crab predation on scallops were as high as 70% leading Tettlebach (1986) to obs erve that green crabs were responsible for most observed mortality in scallops and were a limiting fact or in population size. Ma cPhail et al. (1955) concluded that the green crab was "one of the wo rst, if not the worst, clam predators we know." Their ability to out compete native species for food resources, high re productive capacity, and

wide environmental tolerances lend them the capacity to fundamentally alter community structure in coastal ecosystems. Potentially, this species could directly affect coastal mollusk species such as the white abalone via predation or possibly even coastal short bi rds (e.g., least tern) or marine/estuarine fish species (e.g., Atla ntic sturgeon) via direct competition for similar prey items such as mollusks and/or crustaceans.

Briski et al. (2012) recently assessed the re lationship between macroinvertebrate presence

and the amount of sediment in ballast tanks in 62 ships (67 ballast tanks) following three distinct geographic pathways to Canadian ports on th e Saint Lawrence Seaway: transoceanic ships performing mid-ocean [ballast water] exchange, coastal ships performing mid-ocean exchange, and coastal ships without ballast water exchange . The authors documented the presence of the highly invasive Eurpoean green crab, as well as mud crab ( Rhithropanopeus harrisii ), common periwinkle ( Littorina littorea ), soft shell clam ( Mya arenaria ), and blue mussel ( Mytilus galloprovincialis ). The authors determined in this study that mid-ocean [ballast water] exchange did not affect macroinvertebrate occurrence, and that the relationship between amount of sediment and organism presence in ballast tanks was not signifi cant. They also found that while macroinvertebrates were present in the sediment co llected from empty ballast tanks of ships from all three pathways, half of the records (including for C. maenas ) were from ballast tanks of2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-27 coastal ships practicing mid-ocean exchange, sugge sting that this best management practice was ineffective for these particular taxonomic groups (marine mollusks and decapods). The average voyage length for these types of “inter-coastal transport” ships was only 4.47 days. Because C.

maenas is recognized as a species able to tolerate ambient salinity in the recipient port (Briski et al., 2012), the authors conclude th at risk for invasion of this species remains. By proposing numeric TBELs in the 2013 VGP, EPA recognizes th e importance of treatm ent of ballast water tanks in addition to other BMPs in mitigati ng risk to even resilient species such as C. maenas

. The Agency has every reason to believe that the likelihood for reductions in ANS such as C.

maenas , and therefore, reductions in risk to liste d (and other) species, are achievable with the combination of numerical discharge standards (found in Part 2.2.3.5 of the VGP) in addition to risk-based BMPs (found in Part s 2.2.3.1 through 2.2.3.4 of the VGP).

6.2 M ITIGATION OF R ISK TO L ISTED S PECIES FROM D ISCHARGE OF P OLLUTANTS L ACKING S PECIFIC C ONCENTRATION -R ESPONSE T OXIC E FFECT T HRESHOLDS

In addition to ANS, EPA identified three po llutants (i.e., pathogens , oil and grease, and BOD) for analysis where a risk quotient could no t be calculated to support a risk conclusion and subsequent effects determinations in the BE. Fo r these pollutants, EPA qualitatively evaluated the potential for exposure and lik elihood of adverse effects in Section 5.1. Although the lack of toxic effect thresholds prevented the quantifica tion of risk, EPA determin ed the issuance of the VGP and sVGP not only improves wa ter quality, but also reduces the risk to listed species to

“remote” 2 levels of concern as a re sult of the permits’ requirement s such that any impacts are discountable. This section describes the mitigation of risk to threatened and endangered species from the permit actions for pollutants lacking sp ecific concentration-re sponse toxic effect

thresholds.

6.2.1 Pathogens

As discussed in Section 5.1.2, EPA is unaware of any outbreak of pathogenic disease among aquatic or aquatic-dependent species from vessel discharges and c oncluded that it is highly improbable that any infec tion could occur at the levels detected in vessel discharges. Although the probability of risk from vessel discharges is extremely low, EPA anticipates the permit actions will further reduce exposure of listed species to pathogens. The primary discharges of concern for pathogens include graywater and fish hold effluent. Mitigating requirements to reduce the discharge of pathoge ns primarily focus on minimizing the discharge of graywater and fish hold effluent while in port or in the near s hore environment (i.e., less than 1 nm). EPA identified the following methods for reducing the discharge of graywater and fish

hold in the near shore environment:

 Delay laundry and scullery activities;

 Restrict length of showers while in po rt and use high efficiency faucets and showerheads;

2 For the purpose of this BE, EPA established a sliding s cale to describe the risk conclusion and overall health concern from a given pollutant. EPA uses the term “remote” to describe the lowest possible risk level above no effect and presumes that the pollutant does not present a health risk to liste d species, See Section 5.2.3 for further discussion of the sliding scale and how it is applied in the effects analysis.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-28  Store graywater and discharge greater than 1 nm from shore while the vessel is underway;

 Dispose graywater or fish hol d at onshore facilities;

 Use a physical separation method (e.g., filte rs for removal of residuals) prior to discharging fish hold effluent; and

 Avoid discarding unused bait overboard, unl ess that bait was ca ught in the same water body or watershed.

EPA anticipates that the highly improbable risk to listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats from pathogens under pre-permit conditions will be further reduced to extremely low exposure concentrations in the receiving water through implementation of the

VGP and sVGP.

6.2.2 Oil and Grease

Oil and grease is measured as hexane extrac table material (HEM) and silica gel treated hexane extractable material (SGT-HEM). The HEM method captures both the petroleum components of oil and grease, plus the non- petroleum components including non-volatile hydrocarbons, vegetable oils, animal fats, wa xes, soaps, and greases. The SGT-HEM method targets the petroleum components of oil and grease, including petroleum and gasoline byproducts as well as degradates such as polycyclic aromatic h ydrocarbons (PAHs) and benzene, ethylene, toluene, and xylene (BETX). Mitigation of exposure to SGT-HEM, specifically PAHs and benzene, is discussed in Section 6.3 below.

EPA anticipates that oil and grease from vege table oils, animal fats, waxes, soaps and greases constitutes anywhere from 48 percent (fish hold effluent) to as high as 83 percent (graywater) of all oil and greas e in vessel dischargers (see Sec tion 5.1.3 and data presented in Table 3-15). Permit requirements designed to mi nimize the discharge of non-petroleum oil and grease (i.e., HEM minus SGT-HEM) include:

 Minimizing the discharge of fish hold wa ter or ice while in port by holding the effluent or requiring that a ll reasonable steps be taken to prevent the discharge of

excess fish hold water and ice while th e vessel is stationary at the pier;

 Use a physical separation method (e.g., filte rs for removal of residuals) prior to discharging fish hold effluent;

 Store graywater and discharge greater than 1 nm from shore while the vessel is underway;

 Dispose graywater or fish hold at onshore facilities;

 Prohibition of discarding exce ss oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils, used during cooking to the graywater system or into any other discharge covered by the permit; and

 Prohibition of the discharge of oils and o ily mixtures in quantities that may be

harmful as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 110, i.e., that result in a visible sheen, a Best Practicable Technology (BPT) for oil and grease.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-29 Table 6-1. presents the estimated percent reduction in pollutant concentrations for modeled estuary and river harbors. EPA calcula ted the percent reduction based on the maximum pollutant concentration predicted from the hypothe tical harbor scenarios described in Section 5.2.1.3 under pre- and post-permit conditions. EPA es timates that as much as approximately 51 to 64 percent of oil and grease measured as HEM will be reduced via issuance of the permits (see Table 6-1). Consequently, the “remote” risk to li sted aquatic and aquati c-dependent species and

their critical habitats from HEM in vessel discharges under pre-pe rmit conditions is expected to be further reduced following implementation of the permits to extremely low exposure concentrations in the receiving water.

6.2.3 BOD

BOD loads from fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent can be problematic in fishing ports and harbors where discharges are concen trated within a limited area. Specific permit control measures designed to reduce BOD in fish hold and fi sh cleaning effluent include:

 Minimizing the discharge of fish hold wa ter or ice while in port by holding the effluent or requiring that a ll reasonable steps be taken to prevent the discharge of

excess fish hold water and ice while the vessel is stationary at the pier; and

 Using physical separation methods such as f ilters to remove fish waste and residuals prior to discharge in the port.

As described in Appendix G, EPA assumes th at all fishing vessels will reduce discharge flow and BOD concentrations by 25 percent as a result of the mitigation requirements in the VGP and sVGP (see Tables G-3 and G-4). While BOD is also expected to be found in appreciable concentrations from bilgewater, deck washdown effl uent, and graywater, control

measures to further reduce BOD in these discha rges focus primarily on minimizing the discharge of these waste streams while in port or in the ne ar shore environment (i.e., less than 1 nm). EPA estimates a 26 percent reduction in BOD from incidental vessel discharges in modeled estuarine harbors and anticipates a nominal reduction in BOD from incidental vessel discharges of 1 percent in modeled river harbors. The minimal re duction in river systems is due to the limited number of fishing vessels covered under the VGP present in these waters. EPA determined a

“remote” 3 risk to listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats under pre-permit conditions; thus, EPA assumes that any mitigation in BOD load via the permits, while measureable, will have little overall affect on fu rther reducing risk to listed species.

6.3 M ITIGATING R ISK TO L ISTED S PECIES FROM V ESSEL D ISCHARGES OF T OXIC AND N ON

C ONVENTIONAL P OLLUTANTS WITH T OXIC E FFECTS

In Section 5.3, EPA quantitativel y evaluated the risk to listedspecies from toxic and nonconventional pollutants with toxi c effects. Under pre-permit condi tions, EPA concluded the risk to aquatic and aquatic-dependent species and thei r critical habitats from pollutants with toxic effects is either “remote” (RQ<0.1) or “negligibl e” (RQ<1) with the exce ption of phosphorus in estuary harbors. Therefore, EPA assumes that any estimated reductions in pollutant loads will

3 See footnote 2 in this section.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-30 only further reduce the overall risk to listed sp ecies from pollutants with toxic effects to extremely low levels. Specific permit requirement s and EPA’s load reduction assumptions that contribute to the further mitigation of risk from pollutants with toxic effects is described in Appendix G (see Tables G-3 and G-4).

Phosphorus was the only pollutant under pre-permit conditions with an estimated risk of potentially significant (1< RQ <10). 4 EPA estimates that approximately 87 to 95 percent of total phosphorus will be reduced by the issuance of the pe rmits in modeled estuary and river harbors. The primary driver for phosphorus reductions in clude the permit requirements to use soaps, detergents, and cleaners that ar e phosphate-free, non-t oxic, and biodegradable for any activities that might result in their introduction into d eck washdown, fish hold cleaning, and graywater discharges. The mitigation of risk to aquatic ecosystems inclusive of all organisms, whether listed or otherwise, is of such magnitude that EPA concluded in Section 5.3.3.1 risk of phosphorus to listed species is “remote” (RQ< 0.1) under post-permit conditions for estuary
systems.

Although EPA concluded that the risk under pr e-permit conditions to aquatic and aquaticdependent species and their critic al habitats from all other po llutants with toxic effects was “remote” or “negligible”, EPA notes that seve ral of the pollutants unde rgo significant percent reductions following implementation of the VGP and sVGP. Pollutants with percent reductions greater than 50 percent include:

 HEM

 SGT-HEM

 Total Residual Chlorine

 2,3,6-Trichlorophenol

 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

 Bromodichloromethane

 Dibromochloromethane

 Tetrachloroethene

 Trichloroethene

While the absolute reduction in risk from these pollu tants is anticipated to be small (i.e., risk to listed species is “remote” to begin with), the reduction in pollutant loads indicates that implementation of the permits’ requirements will help improve overall water quality by reducing vessel discharge contributions to water quality impairments and exceedances of water quality standards. EPA anticipates that the pollutant load reductions associated with issuance of the VGP and sVGP will improve water quality and potential ly lower the risk to species with known sensitivities to pollution such as the Califor nia Freshwater Shrimp, Steelhead Salmon, Bog Turtle, Roseate Tern, and Pallid Sturgeon.

4 EPA calculated RQ values using the lowest statewide and/or site-specific water quality criteria for total phosphorus (10 μg/L) in an estuary or river environment.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-31 Table 6-1. Estimated Percent Reduction in Po llutant Load Following Issuance of the 2013

VGP and sVGP

Class Pollutant Percent Reduction in Hypothetical Estuary

Harbor a Percent Reduction in Hypothetical

River Harbor b

Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 26 1

Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) 51 64

Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) 47 61

Classicals Total Residual Chlorine 69 3

Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 36 30

Metals Aluminum, Total 20 8

Metals Arsenic, Dissolved 0 0

Metals Arsenic, Total 0 0

Metals Cadmium, Dissolved 20 8

Metals Chromium, Dissolved 3 15

Metals Copper, Dissolved 1 1

Metals Lead, Dissolved 11 5

Metals Nickel, Dissolved 0 0

Metals Nickel, Total 0 0

Metals Selenium, Dissolved 0 0

Metals Selenium, Total 0 0

Metals Zinc, Dissolved 8 2

Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) 22 11

Nutrients Total Phosphorus 95 87

SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 50 13

SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene 0 0

SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene 0 0

SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0 0

SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0 0

SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl ) phthalate 25 12

SVOC Chrysene 0 0

SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0 0

VOC Benzene 17 6

VOC Bromodichloromethane 71 55

VOC Dibromochloromethane 71 55

VOC Tetrachloroethene 50 50

VOC Trichloroethene 100 100

a) Percent reduction calculated based on the maximum receiving water concentration determined for the hypothetical estuary harbor under pre- and post-permit conditions. b) Percent reduction calculated based on the maximum receiving water concentration determined for the hypothetical river harbor under pre- and post-permit conditions.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-32 6.4 M ITIGATING R ISK TO L ISTED S PECIES FROM C OAL A SH FROM C OAL F IRED
P ROPULSION S YSTEMS ON F ERRIES

Combusting coal in boilers produces a residu e of combustible flue constituents known as ash. Some of the ash consists of very fine partic les that are entrained in the flue gas and carries out of the furnace (fly ash), while heavier ash settles at the bo ttom of the boiler (bottom ash). Bottom ash may be hydraulically conveyed (i.e., sluiced with water) a nd must be disposed.

A U.S. company, Lake Michigan Carferry Inc. (LMC) estimates that the S.S. Badger the only known coal-fired vessel operating in the U. S. and discharging that ash to U.S. waters 5

, generated 769.7 tons of coal ash in 2008 (GLEC, 2011). This as h was discharged to Lake Michigan via approximately 60 million gallons of coal ash slurry. Coal ash slurry discharge

characterization data are not availa ble from S.S. Badger; however, this discharge is expected to be similar to that generated by shoreside coal fire d power plants. Coal ash slurry from coal fired power plants is known to contain multiple metals. According to EPRI, 1997 and EPRI, 1997b, discharges from ash holding ponds (i.e., coal as h slurry following sedimentation in ponds) exceeded water quality criteria for arsenic, selenium, aluminum, antimony, copper, mercury, nickel, cadmium, and thallium. Discharge concentr ations exceeding Federal criteria indicate a potential risk to aquatic life, possibly including listed species.

In October 2008 during development of the 2008 VGP, LMC submitted comments on EPA’s Notice of Proposed Permit Issuance (LMC, 2008). Within these comments, LMC requested that EPA designate coal ash as a permitted discharge and suggested BMPs to mitigate any possible environmental impacts. LMC stated in their comments their intent to identify and implement an engineering solution that would elimin ate the discharge it its entirety in the future. In consideration of these comments, EPA include d coal ash from coal fired propulsion systems on ferries as a permitted discharge, subject to effluent limits provided in Part 5.3.2.3 of the permit. The permit also included a provision authorizing the discharge in waters subject to the permit until December 19, 2012, to provide time for LMC to eliminate the coal ash discharge. This provision remains in effect in the 2008 VGP; the 2013 VGP doe s not authorize discharge of coal ash from coal fired propulsion systems on ferries. By elim inating authorization to discharge, EPA’s 2008 VGP (after December 19, 2012) and 2013 VGP eliminat e all risk to listed species from coal ash from coal fired propulsion systems on ferries.

6.5 R EFERENCES

Albert, R., Everett, R., Lishman, J., and Smit h, D. 2010. Availability and efficacy of ballast water treatment technology: b ackground and issue paper. Pape r prepared to assist the Science Advisory Board Review of the availabi lity and efficacy of ballast water treatment technology. June, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ves sels_efficacy_ballast_final.pdf.

5 All other coal-fired vessels are believed no longer in service or to have converted to other forms of propulsion. At minimum, EPA is not aware of any coal fired vessel which discharges coal ash into inland or nearshore waters.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-33 American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). 2010. Ba llast Water Treatment Advisory. 8 June 2010.

Retrieved from http://www.eagle.org/eagleExternalPortal WEB/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Refer

ences/ABS%20Advisories/BWMAdviso ryNotice. (Accessed June 2010).

Andersen, M. 2005. Potential applications of populati on viability analysis to risk assessments for invasive species. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 11 : 1083-1095.

ANZECC. 1997. Code of Practice for Anti-fouling and In-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance.

Australian and New Zealand Environmen t Conservation Council (ANZECC) Maritime Accidents and Pollution Implem entation Group. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/pol lution/antifouling/code/pubs/code.pdf.

Apte, S, Holland, BS, Godwin, LS and Gardner, JPA. 2000. Jumping ship: A stepping stone event mediating transfer of a non-indige nous species via a potentially unsuitable

environment. Biological Invasions, 2(1) : 75-9.

Bailey, S. A., I. C. Duggan, C. D. A. van Ov erdijk, P. Jenkins and H. J. MacIsaac. 2003. Viability of invertebrate diapausing eggs collected from residual ballast sediment. Limnology and Oceanography, 48 : 1701-1710.

Bailey, S. A., M. G. Deneau, L. Jean, C. J. Wiley, B. Leung, and H. J. MacIsaac. 2011. Evaluating efficacy of an environmental policy to prevent biological invasions. Environmental Science and Technology, 45 : 2554-2561.

Bailey, S, L. Velez-Espino, O. Johannss on, M. Koops, and C. Wiley. 2009. Estimating establishment probabilities of Cladocera intr oduced at low density: an evaluation of the proposed ballast water discharge standards. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 66 : 261-276.

Beissinger, S.R. and McCullough, D.R. (eds.). 2002. Population Viability Analysis . University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 577 pp.

Bondarenko, M.V., and E.A. Yablonskaya. 1979. Th e rate of oxygen consumption by the mysid Paramysis lacustris (Czern.) from the northern Casp ian Sea. In Effect of water management on the biological productivit y of the Azov and Caspian seas. VNIRO, Moscow. pp. 65.69. (In Russian with English summary.)

Borcherding, J., S. Murawski, and H. Arndt . 2006. Population ecology, vertical migration and feeding of the Ponto-Caspian invader Hemimysis anomala in a gravel-pit lake connected

to the River Rhine. Freshwater Biology, 51 : 2376-2387.

Briski, E., S.A. Bailey, M.E. Cristescu and H.J. MacIsaac. 2010. Efficacy of ‘saltwater flushing’ in protecting the Great Lakes from biological invasions by invertebrate eggs in ships’

ballast sediment. Freshwater Biol., 55 : 2414-2424.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-34 California State Lands Commission (CSLC). 201 0. Draft (2010) Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in

California Waters. California SLC, Sacramento, CA, 149 pp.

Cangelosi, A. 1997. The Algonorth experiment. Seaway Revi ew, 25(3): January–March 1997.

Cangelosi, A. and N. Mays. 2006. Great Ships for th e Great Lakes? Commerci al Vessels Free of Invasive Species in the Gr eat Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System. A Scoping Report for the Great Ships Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.nemw.org/scopingreport.pdf. (Accessed June 2011).

Ceccherelli, G. and Cinelli, F. 1999. The role of vegetative fragmentation in dispersal of the invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia in the Mediterranean. Marine Ecology Progress Series,

182 : 299-303.

Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Sea Grant College Program, Connecticut. 262 pp.

Cohen, A.N., J.T. Carlton, and M. Fountain. 199 5. Introduction, dispersal, and potential impacts of the green crab Carcinus maenas in San Francisco Bay, California. Marine Biology,

122 : 225-237.

Coutts, A.D.M., K.M. Moore and C.L. Hew itt. 2003. Ships’ Sea-Chests: An Overlooked

Transfer Mechanism for Non- indigenous Marine Species? Mar. Poll. Bull., 46 : 1504-

1515.

Coutts, A.D.M. and T.J. Dodgshun. 2007. The nature and extent of organisms in vessel seachests: A protected mechanism for marine bioinvasions. Mar. Poll. Bull., 54 : 875-886.

David, M. et. al. 2007. Results from the first balla st water sampling study in the Mediterranean Sea - the Port of Koper study. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54(1) : 53-65.

Davidson, I., Ruiz, G., Sytsma, M. and Fofonoff. 2006. Hull Fouling on the vessels Point Loma

and Florence in the reserve fleet at Su isun Bay, CA: A pilot study with respect to potential transfer of non-nati ve species. US Department of Transportation, Maritime

Administration.

Dennis, B., Munholland, P.L., and Scott, J.M. 1991. Estimation of gr owth and extinction parameters for endangered species. Ecological Monographs, 61 : 115-143.

Dobroski, N., Scianni, C., and Takata, L. 2011. 2011 Update: Ballast Wate r Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State Lands Commission by the Marine Invasive Species Program. Retrieved from http://www.slc.ca.gov/Spec_Pub/MFD/Balla st_Water/Documents/2011TechUpdateFinal _1Sep2011.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-35 Drake, J., D. Lodge and M. Lewis. 2005. Theory and preliminary analysis of species invasions

from ballast water: controlli ng discharge volume and location. American Midland
Naturalist, 154 : 459-470.

Dumont, S. 2006. Notes and News. A new invasi ve species in the north-east of France, Hemimysis anomala G. O. Sars, 1907 (Mysidacea). Crustaceana,79 : 1269-1274.

Fahnenstiel, G., Y. Hong, D. Millie, M. D oblin, T. Johengen and D. Reid. 2009. Marine dinoflagellate cysts in the ball ast tank sediments of ships entering the Laurentian Great

Lakes. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie, 30 : 1035-1038.

Floerl, O. 2005. Factors that influence hull fouling on ocean-going vessels. Pp. 6-13. In Hull fouling as a mechanism for marine invasi ve species introductions: Proceedings of a workshop on current issues and potential management strategies. L.S. Godwin (ed.) Honolulu, HI. February 12-13, 2003.

Floerl, O., Peacock, L., Seaward, K. and G. Inglis. 2010. Review of Biosecurity and

Contaminant Risks Associated with In-water Cleaning. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Commonwealth of Australia. September 2010. Retrieved from http://www.marinepests.gov.au/marine_pests/pu blications/research_reports/review_of_bi osecurity_and_contaminant_risks_as sociated_with_in- water_cleaning.

GLEC. 2011. Great Lakes Environmen tal Center, Evaluation of the Potential Ecological Impacts of Coal Ash Slurry Discharges from the S.S. Badger to the Open Waters of Lake Michigan. Prepared for Lake Michig an Carferry Service. June 3, 2011.

Grahame, J. and Branch, G.M. 1985. Reproductiv e patterns of marine invertebrates, Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Reviews, 23 : 373-98.

Gray, D. K., T. Johengen, D. F. Reid and H. J. MacIsaac. 2007. Efficacy of open-ocean ballast water exchange as a means of preventing in vertebrate invasions between freshwater
ports. Limnology and Oceanography, 52 : 2386-2397.

Gray, D. and H. J. MacIsaac. 2010. Do zooplankt on eggs remain viable despite exposure to open-ocean ballast water exchange: eviden ce from in situ exposure experiments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 67 : 256-268.

Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative (GLBWC ). 2010. Report from the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative Meeting: Dulut h. July 20-21, 2010. Retrieved fromhttp://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/Ballast_Collaborative_ Report_and_WGReports_D uluth(Final).pdf. (Accessed August 2011).

Grosholz, E.D. 1996. Contrasting ra tes of spread for introduced speci es in terrestr ial and marine
systems. Ecology, 77 : 1680-1686.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-36 Grosholz, E. and G. Ruiz (editors). 2002. Mana gement Plan for the European Green Crab. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 55 pp.

Hallegraeff, G. M. 2001. Is a 99% Effective Ballast Water Treatment Sufficient? In: 1 st

International Ballast Water Treatment Standards Workshop Report. GloBallast Programme, 2001. Australia: University of Tasmania.

Holmes, D. 2001. The green crab invasion: a global perspective, with le ssons from Washington State. Master's Thesis, Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington.

Hopkins, G.A. and Forrest, B.M. 2008. Manageme nt options for vessel hull fouling: An overview of risks posed by in-water cleaning. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65(5) : 811-15.

IMO. 2004a. Adoption of the Final Act and Any In struments, Recommendations and Resolutions Resulting from the Work of the Conference. BWM/CONF/36, International Maritime Organization, London. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasi ve_species/BWMTreaty_36.pdf.

IMO. 2004b. Consideration of the Draft Inte rnational Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sedi ments. Ballast Water Discharge Standards - Regulation D-2. BWM/CONF/14. Intern ational Maritime Organization, London.

Janas, U., and P. Wysocki. 2005. Hemimysis anom ala G.O. Sars, 1907 (Crustacea, Mysidacea) –

first record in the Gulf of Gdansk. Oceanologia, 47 : 405-408.

Jazdzewski, K., A. Konopacka, and M. Gr abowski. 2005. Native and alien malacostracan crustacean along the Polish Baltic Sea coast in the twentieth century. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies XXXIV(suppl. 1): 175-193.

Ketelaars, H.A.M., F.E. Lambreqts-van de Clund ert, C.J. Carpentier, A.J. Waqenvoort, and W. Hooqenboezem. 1999. Ecological effects of the mass occurrence of the Ponto-Caspian invader, Hemimysis anomala G.O. Sars, 1907 (Crustacea: My sidacea), in a freshwater storage reservoir in the Netherlands, with notes on its autecology and new records. Hydrobiologia, 394 : 233-248.

Lee II, H., D.A. Reusser, M. Frazier and G. Ru iz. 2010. Density Matters: Review of Approaches to Setting Organism-Based Ballast Wa ter Discharge Standards. EPA-600-R-10-031.

Office of Research and Deve lopment, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory – West ern Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

LMC. 2008. Lake Michigan Carferry, Inc., Co mments on EPA’s 2008 Proposed Issuance of a NPDES Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Commercial and Large Recreati onal Vessels. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0432.1.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-37 Lloyd’s Register. 2010. Ballast water treatment technology: Current st atus. London, England: Lloyd’s Register. February, 2010.

Locke, A., Reid, D. M., Sprules, W. G., Carlton, J. T and van Leeuwen, H. C. 1991.

Effectiveness of mid-ocean ex change in controlling freshwater and coastal zooplankton in ballast water. Can. Tech. Report Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1822.

Locke, A., Reid, D.M., van Leeuwen, H.C., Spru les, W.G. and Carlton, J.T. 1993. Ballast water exchange as a means of controlling disp ersal of freshwater organisms by ships. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

, 50 : 2086-2093.

MacDougall, T. Ontario Minsitry of Natural Resources.

MacPhail, J.S., E.I. Lord, and L.M. Dickie. 1955. The green crab-a new clam enemy. Fisheries Research Board Canada, Progress Report 1:1-16.

McCollin, T., Shanks, A. and Dunn, J. 2007. The effi ciency of regional ballast water exchange: Changes in phytoplankton abundance and diversity. Harmful Algae. 6:531-546.

Menge, B.A. 1995. Indirect effects in marine ro cky intertidal interac tion webs: patterns and importance. Ecological Monographs, 65 : 12-74.

Minchin, D. and Gollasch, S. 2003. ‘Fouling and sh ips’ hulls: How changing circumstances and spawning events may result in the spread of exotic species ’, Biofouling 19(SUPPL.): pp.

111–22.

Minton, M.S., Verling, E., Miller, A.W. and Ruiz, G.M. 2005. Reducing propagule supply and coastal invasions via ships: E ffects of emerging strategies. Front Ecol. Environ., 3(6) : 304-308.

Morgan, D.E., J. Goodsell, G.C. Mathiessen, J. Garey, and P. Jacobson. 1980. Release of hatchery-reared bay scallops ( Argopecten irradians ) onto a shallow coastal bottom in Waterford, Connecticut. Proceedings World Mariculture Society, 11 : 247-261.

Morris, W.F. and Doak, D.F. 2002. Quantitative Conservation Biol ogy: Theory and Practice of Population Viability Analysis . Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 480 pp.

Murphy, K.R., Ritz, D. and Hewitt, C.L. 2002. Heterogeneous zooplankton distribution in a ship's ballast tanks. Journal of Plankton Research, 24(7) : 729-734.

National Academy of Sciences Natio nal Research Council (NAS). 2011. Assessing the Relationship Between Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water. Committee on Assessing Numeric Limits fo r Living Organisms in Ballast Water,

National Research Council. National Academies Press.

National Research Council (N RC). 1996. Stemming the Tide: C ontrolling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-38 National Oceanic Atmospheric Administrati on (NOAA). 2012. Ballast Water and Aquatic Nuisance Species Introductions to the Great Lakes. NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pubs/brochur es/ballast.pdf. (Accessed June 2012).

Parsons, M. G. and R. W. Harkins. 2002. Full- scale Particle Removal Performance of Three Types of Mechanical Separation Devices for the Primary Treatment of Ballast Water. Marine Technology, 39(4) : 211-222.

Pienimäki, M.E., and E. Leppäkoski. 2004. Invasi on pressure on the Finnish Lake District:

invasion corridors and barriers. 2004. Biological Invasions, 6 : 331-346.

Pothoven, S.A., I.A. Grigorovich, G.L. Fahnensti el, and M.D. Balcer. 2007. Introduction of the Ponto-Caspian bloody-red mysid Hemimysis anomala into the Lake Michigan basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 33 : 285-292.

Reid, D. F., T. H. Johengen, H. MacIsaac, F. Dobbs, M. Doblin, L. Drake, G. Ruiz and P. Jenkins. 2007. Identifying, verifying, and es tablishing options for best management practices for NOBOB vessels. Report to the Great Lakes Protection Fund. Retrieved from http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Tas k_rpts/2004/aisreid04-1.html . (Accessed June 2011).

Rigby, G., G. Hallegraeff and C. Sutton. 1997. Ballast Water Heating and Sampling Trials on the BHP Ship MV Iron Whyalla in Port Kembla and en-route to Port Headland. Herausgeber AQIS. Archiv UTas eCite RODA Server (Uni versity of Tasmania Research Output Digital Asset Repository). Retrieved from http://ecite.utas.edu.au/10654. ( Accessed June 2011).

Ruiz, G. M. and D. F. Reid. 2007. Current stat e of understanding about the effectiveness of ballast water exchange (BWE) in reduc ing aquatic nonindigenous species (ANS)

introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesapeake Bay, USA: Synthesis and analysis of existing information. NO AA Technical Memorandum, Great Lakes

Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) 142.

Salemaa, H., and V. Hietalahti. 1993. Hemimysis anomala G. O. Sars (Crustacea: Mysidacea) – immigration of a Pontocaspian mysid into the Baltic Sea. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 30(4) : 271-276.

Santagata, S. and G. Ruiz. 2007. Task 3: Characte rize source invertebra te populations and assess salinity toxicity as a barrier to prevent transf ers of high-risk species to the Great Lakes in ballast tanks. Pp. 67–96 In: A final report fo r the project “Identifying, verifying, and establishing options for best management prac tices for NOBOB Vessels.” Reid, D. F., T. Johengen, H. J. MacIsaac, F. C. Dobbs, M. Doblin, L. Drake, G. M. Ruiz, P. T. Jenkins, S. Santagata, C. van Overdijk, D. Gray, S. Ellis, Y. Hong, Y. Tang, F. Thomson, S. Heinemann, and S. A. Rondon (editors). Subm itted to The Great Lakes Protection Fund by the University of Michigan, Cooperativ e Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research, and National Oceanic and At mospheric Administration, Great Lakes2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-39 Environmental Research Laborator y, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Tas k_rpts/2004/aisreid04- 1.html . (Accessed June 2011).

Santagata, S., Z. R. Gasiunaite, E. Verling, J. R. Cordell, K. Eason, J. S. Cohen, K. Bacela, G. Quilez-Badia, T. H. Johengen, D. F. Reid, a nd G. M. Ruiz. 2008. Effect of osmotic shock as a management strategy to reduce tran sfers of non-indigenous species among lowsalinity ports by ships. Aquatic Invasions, 3 : 61-76.

Santelices, B. 1990. Patterns of reproduction, dispersal and recruitment in seaweeds. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Reviews. 28:177–276.Science Advisory Board (SAB). 2011

. Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems. Report published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy Science Advisory Board. Ecological

Processes and Effects Committee.

Say, T. 1817. An account of the Crustacea of the United States. Journal Academy Natural Sciences Philadelphia, 1 : 57-63.

Stoermer, E. personal communication, October 25, 2010 cited in NAS, 2011.

Takata, L. Falkner, M. and S. Gilmore. 2006. Commercial Vessel F ouling in California: Analysis, Evaluation, and Recommendations to Reduce Nonindigenous Species Release

from the Non-Ballast Water Vector. Produced for the California State Legislature by the California State Lands Commission, Marine Facilities Division. Ap ril 2006. Retrieved from http://groups.ucanr.org/Ballast_Outreach/files/25918.pdf.

Tettlebach, S.T. 1986. Dynamics of crustacean predation on the nor thern bay scallop, Argopecten irradians irradian s. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.

USCG. 2001. Report to Congress on the Volunt ary National Guidelines for Ballast Water Management, November 2001.

USCG. 2012a. United States Coast Guard Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Ballast Water Discharge St andards. February 2012. 346 pp.

USCG 2012b. Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters. Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard. 33 CFR Part 151; 46 CFR Part 162. Docket No. USCG–2001–10486] RIN 1625–AA 32. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 57. Friday, March 23, 2012.

USGS. 2012. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) information res ource for the United States Geological Survey, Retrieved from http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.a spx?speciesID=2627. (Accessed June 2012).

Verling, E., G. M. Ruiz, L. D. Smith, B. Ga lil, A. W. Miller, and K. R. Murphy. 2005. Supplyside invasion ecology: char acterizing propagule pressure in coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272 :1249-1257.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 6- Anticip ated Effect of Proposed Actions on Mitigating Impact to Listed Species

6-40 WDFW. 2001. Aquatic Nuisance Species, European Green Crab. Retrieved from http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fish/ans/greencrab.htm

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resour ces (WDNR). 2010. Wisconsin Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Determ ination. Prepared by Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources. Retrieved from http://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/WI_DNR_2010_BW_Feasib ility_Report_12-21-10.pdf. (Accessed September 2011).

Woods, C., Floerl, O., Fitri dge, I., Johnston, O., Robinson, K., Rupp, D. and N. Davey. 2007. Evaluation of the seasonal efficacy of hu ll cleaning methods. Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Report ZBS2005–22. 119 pp.

Wyda, J. - The Ecosystem Center, the Mari ne Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination

7-1 

## SECTION 7

EFFECTS SUMMARY AND DETERMINATION

This section provides EPA’s determinations regarding potential effects based on the analyses presented in Section 5.0. EPA used the ri sk analysis and conclusions in Section 5.5 for the 82 listed aquatic and aquatic- dependent species and their critical habitats identified in the

seven RAAs to inform EPA’s effects determinati ons for the full range of 612 listed species with respect to potential ANS impacts and for the 454 li sted species potentially exposed to all other pollutants (Appendix E). Risk conclusions outline d in Section 5.5 included consideration of species-specific life histories for the 82 listed sp ecies in the RAAs and the potential for direct and indirect effects from ANS and other pollu tants. EPA employed this risk extrapolation approach because the Agency believes it allowed for a more in-depth focus on the potential risks, exposures, and use of the best available data appl icable to evaluate potential effects for the full range of listed species listed in Appendix E. To further refine EPA’s effects determinations presented in this section, EPA conducted severa l additional species-specific assessments on the complete list of species that may be affect ed by the VGP and sVGP. For each aquatic and aquatic-dependent species identified for evalua tion, EPA confirmed the current status for each species and their associated cr itical habitats (see Appendix E). In addition, EPA conducted several geographical information sy stem (GIS) analyses to assess i ndividual species distributions with the concurrence of waters navigable by vessels covered under th e permit actions (see Appendix E). EPA further review ed and considered relevant life history, habitat status, constituent element requirements, principle food sources, and major threat information for all 612 species evaluated in this BE (see examples in Section 7.1 and the Affects Determination for

ANS column and associated footnotes in Table 7-2). EPA’s ultimate determinations are divided into categories of “no effect”, “not likely to adversely affect”, and “may affect” for all 612 species addressed by this BE.

7.1 M ETHODOLOGY FOR E FFECTS D ETERMINATIONS FOR ANS

EPA considered the individual life history for each of the 612 species addressed in this BE and assessed the potential for exposure and likelihood of adverse effects from ANS. Section 5.1.1 provided a literature review and discus sion of the relationship between exposure (propogule pressure) and the likelihood of effect s (invasion success and risks to listed species) from ballast water, vessel biof ouling, and other potential vessel discharge vectors for ANS (e.g., chain locker). When considered within the cont ext of other examples of ANS invasions in the U.S. and how ANS impact native species, EPA is confident the control measures in the VGP and sVGP will substantially reduce the probability of ANS invasions and their potential impact on listed species and critical habitats (s ee detailed discussi on in Section 6.1).

At this time, no data or associated predicti ve or probabilistic tool s exist to estimate or quantify potential adverse e ffects on listed aquatic or aquatic-dep endent species and their critical habitats due to ANS with any reasonable certainty. EPA anticipates both permits will significantly benefit listed species due to the an ticipated reduction in potential ANS release from ballast water due to the requirements of the VGP and sVGP. In all cases, the relatively low historic potential for adverse impacts from AN S introductions over the five-year permit term will2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination

7-2 be reduced significantly, partic ularly in comparison to the existing VGP and currently unpermitted discharges under the sVGP. The permit actions substantially reduce propagule pressure (as discussed in Secti on 6.1) and, thereby, significantly reduce the risk of ANS invasion (as discussed in Section 5.1.1).

Although EPA anticipates a significant redu ction in exposure to new ANS introductions under the requirements of the VGP and sVGP, EPA cannot state w ith certainty there will be no invasions of ANS from vessel discharges. Howeve r, EPA also believes that direct or future indirect effects on listed aquatic species and their critical habita ts due to discharges during the five-year term of the permits are unlikely. Noneth eless, in evaluating aquatic species and their critical habitats, in light of limited data and uncertainty quantifying risk of ANS introduction, EPA concluded an effects determination of “may affect”. For aquatic-dependent species and their critical habitats, given the anticipated prevention and contro l measures to reduce possible ANS introductions, EPA assessed a lower risk for adverse effects from ANS invasions over the permit terms. The potential for both harm and exposure is lower due to their more limited exposure to the aquatic environment. Notwithst anding, EPA evaluated the life histories of each aquatic-dependent species using the following criteria:

 Could any specific food and/or habitat (veget ation) requirements re asonably be affected by vessel-related ANS under post-permit conditions?

 Are invasive species which potentially are or were likely to be transmitted by ballast water and other incidental discharge vectors listed as a major threat? Do any critical habitat/constituent elements identify ANS (also where incidental discharge vessel mediated introduction is likely)? Though past introductions of ANS are not under consultation, this metric is simply used to see if past vulnerabilitie s have been identified.

 Is a significant portion of th eir life cycle spent in areas where vessel discharge-related ANS has potential occur?

The following subsections present examples of this further risk analysis for aquatic-dependent species using the methodology outlined above.

7.1.1 Example “Not Likely to Adversely Aff ect” With Low Potential Exposure: Valley Elderberry Long Beetle

The species profile for the Valley Elde rberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) given in Appendix F indicates that this sm all (approximately 2 cm long) terr estrial beetle is dependent on its host plant, the elderberry. In the Central Valley of California, the elderb erry tree is associated with riparian forest along rivers and streams. Recent surveys have re vealed that the VELB persists only in scattered localities along th e Sacramento, American, San Joaquin, Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers and their tributaries, which encompasses the entire California Central Valley and the Sacramento River Delta below 900 m (2,953 ft) elevati on. VELB habitat is defined as stands of elderberry shrubs that ar e adjacent to, or contiguous with, riparian forest, floodplains, or relict elderberry savannah. Critical habitat has b een designated for the VELB for Sacramento County in the Sacramento Zone and the American River Parkway Zone.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination

7-3 The VELB is associated with elderberry trees during its en tire life cycle. The adults emerge in the spring from pupation inside the wood of these trees as they begin to bloom. The adults eat the elderberry foliage until about June when they mate . The females lay their eggs in crevices in the bark. Upon hatching, the larvae then begin to tunnel into the tree where they will spend 1-2 years eating the interior wood, thei r sole source of food.

The greatest current threat to VELB is from the invasive non-native Argentine ant ( Linepithema humile ) and European earwig ( Forficula auricularia ), which predate VELB larvae (note: neither of these species were introduced by vessel discharge vectors regulated under the VGP or sVGP). Non-native invasive plant species such as black locust, giant reed, red sesbania, Himalaya blackberry, tree of heaven, Spanish br oom, Russian olive, edible fig, and Chinese tallowtree, may also have signi ficant indirect impact on VELB by impacting elderberry shrub vigor and recruitment (note: none of these spec ies were introduced by vessel discharge vectors regulated under the VGP or sVGP).

Though the VELB habitat and en tire life-cycle are exclusive to the elderberry tree and because the elderberry tree exists in riparian zones and floodplains , it is unlikely that invasive species transmitted via ballast water would impact this species. Hence, EPA believes that the Valley Elderberry Long Beetle is not likely to be adversely affected.

7.1.2 Example “Not Likely to Adversly Aff ect” With Very Low Potential Exposure:

Marbled Murrelet

The marbled murrelet ( Brachyramphus marmoratus ) is a small (approximately 9 inches long) seabird belonging to the Alcidae Family (s ee species profile in Appendix F). This species nests in trees in coastal, older forests throughout most of their current range in North America (currently Washington, Oregon a nd California where critical habi tat for the species has been designated) where breeding female s usually lay only one egg. Its migratory movements primarily

consist of small-scale seasonal shifts of hab itat where individuals m ove seasonally from outer coastal to protected waters, from inland waters of unknown locations, south of breeding areas, or to areas further offshore. Primary habitat requirements for the marbled murrelet include: (1) individual trees with potential ne sting platforms, and (2) forested areas within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of individual trees with pot ential nesting platforms, and w ith a canopy height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height. This includ es all such forest, re gardless of contiguity. These primary habitat elements are essential to provide and support suitab le nesting habitat for successful reproduction of the marbled murrelet.

Marbled murrelets feed primarily on small fish and invertebrates in near-shore marine environment, where it dives underwater and fo rages throughout the marine water column on small ocean fish, such as anchovy, herring, and sa rdines. Chicks are semiprecocial and are fed whole fish soon after hatching.

Two of the greatest threats for the marbled murrelet popula tion are genetic threats (and subsequent reduction in a populatio n’s gene pool) and disease. Loss of viable nesting habitat (in old growth coastal forest) is thought to be a prim ary factor responsible fo r its current threatened

status.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination

7-4 EPA does not believe that any specific f ood, habitat (vegetation) requirements could reasonably be affected by vessel-related ANS b ecause marbled murrelets exhibit a relatively diverse prey base in more open ocean waters whic h are not as likely to be subject to extensive invasion by vessel-related ANS and b ecause their critical habitat (old growth forest) is also not as likely to be affected by vessel-mediated ANS. In addition, ANS has not been identified as a major threat to this species, its critical habi tat/constituent elements do not identify ANS as an issue for the species, and a signi ficant portion of their life cycle is not spent in areas where vessel-related ANS has potential to occur. Given the weight-of-ev idence, EPA concluded that an

effects determination of not likel y to adversely affect from AN S on the marbled murrelet would be appropriate.

7.1.3 Example “May Affect” Determination for ANS for an Aquatic-dependent Species: California Clapper Rail

The California clapper rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus ) is a small (approximately 13– 19 inches from bill to tail) coasta l bird species that inhabits (almost exclusively) saltwater marshes south of the San Francisco Bay area (Mon terey and San Luis Obispo) where it uses the network of small tidal sloughs for foraging, cove r and nesting (EPA, 2010). Preference is for salt marshes dominated by both pickleweed ( Salicornia virginica ) and Pacific cordgrass ( Spartina foliosa ), but such refugia is being eliminated due to dyking for fill and land conversion, as well

as losses to do to erosion and non-native Spartina invasion (EPA, 2010; San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project, 2012)

California clapper rails primarily forage on mud flats or in very shallow water where mussels and clams are preferred prey items. A prim ary threat to rails is predation (e.g., Norway rat predation, red foxes and north ern harriers, red-tailed hawks, a nd peregrine falcons). Invasive Spartina species also pose a threat: these plan ts displace both pickleweed and native Sparina species. In particular, non-native S. alterniflora -hybrids are believed to be invading small tidal sloughs causing sediment accretion resulting in st eeper sided channels and the loss of gently sloping channel flats used by clapper rail for fo raging and cover. As discussed in Section 6.1.7, the European green crab ( Carcinus maenas ), a voracious predator of clams, mussels, oysters, and gastropods, has also recently invaded (1989) San Francisco Ba y (Cohen and Carlton, 1995), and thus, also presents a potential threat to the existence of this species.

For this analysis, because California clappe r rail exist in saltwate r marshes known to be susceptible to non-native invasive plant sp ecies, and because another vessel-mediated, historically-introduced, invasive species (i.e., the European gr een crab) has the potential to negatively impact major prey items of clapper ra il (i.e., clams and mussels), EPA believes that, though unlikely, this species could potentially be affected by new vessel discharge related ANS, and thus, EPA made a “may affect” determination.

7.2 M ETHODOLOGY FOR E FFECTS D ETERMINATIONS FOR P OLLUTANTS S ELECTED FOR
D ETAILED E VALUATION

EPA analyzed in detail 32 pollutants in vesse l discharges (Section 3.2.4). In Sections 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, and 5.3, EPA directly evaluated the potential exposure to and risk posed by each pollutant to the 82 aquatic a nd aquatic-dependent listed species and their critical habitats2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination

7-5 analyzed in-depth in the seven RAAs. EPA qualita tively discussed the potential threat to listed species posed by pollutants lacki ng specific concentration-response toxic effect thresholds (i.e., [human] pathogens, non-petroleum or HEM-rela ted oil and grease, and BOD) taking into consideration potential direct a nd indirect effects within the c ontext of the species life history information provided in Appendix F. For pollutant s with specific toxic effect threshold data, EPA quantitatively evaluated the risk posed by a given pollutant through various exposure pathways (e.g., water column only, multiple routes for aquatic species, ingestion of contaminated food and water for aquatic-dependent species) and assessed potentia l direct and indirect effects within the context of the sp ecies life history information. Based on these qualitative and quantitative evaluations, EPA reached a risk conc lusion for each of the 82 RAAs listed species (Table 5-57).

In Appendix E, EPA identified 612 listed aqua tic and aquatic-depende nt species and their

critical habitats to be addressed in this BE . EPA narrowed the scope of species potentially exposed to traditional polluta nts (everything but ANS) to onl y those species whose range coincide with U.S. waters navigable by vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP. As described in Appendix E, this left 454 species of the 612 for further consider ation. For the 158 listed species not occurring in covere d-vessels-navigable waters, EP A concluded vessel discharges would have “no effect” as these species are no t generally expected to be exposed to such discharges.

EPA reviewed the in-depth risk analysis for the 82 RAA listed species, as well as other individual species information, to inform and s upport effect determinations for the 454 species present in U.S. waters navigable by the releva nt vessels. EPA grouped the 82 RAA listed species into 18 taxonomic groups (Table 5-11) and used the in-depth analysis and risk conclusions presented in Table 5-57 to determine the gene ral risks from conventional pollutants to each taxonomic group (Table 7-1). In doing so, EPA conservatively assumed that the 454 listed species considered are as sensitive to a given pollutant as the most sensitive representative surrogate species for the taxonomic group.

As discussed in Section 5, moreover, EPA‘s in-depth risk evaluations were based on exposure to the maximum exposure concentrations in a hypothetical estu ary and river harbor. The actual likelihood of a listed species bei ng exposed to a given pollutant at these concentrations from vessel discharges is extremely low because of the conservative assumptions made during hypothetical harbor modeling and the potential for other water quality parameters (e.g., pH, dissolved organic carbon, water hardness, and salinity) to reduce bioavailability and therefore toxicity of ma ny pollutants to aquatic organisms. EP A then reviewed individual species information for possible unique concerns and made the effects determinations presented in Table

7-1.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-6Table 7-1. Effects Determinations byTaxonomic Group for Pollutants Selected for Detailed EvaluationListed Species Taxonomic GroupingPollutants Subjected toQualitative Effects AnalysisPollutants Subjected to Quantitative Effects AnalysisPathogens[Human]Oil andGrease[HEM]BODTRCTSSMetalsTPAmmoniaMAHsandPAHsOtherVOCsandSVOCsSaltwater CoralsNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAUnionid MusselNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAASaltwater Bivalve MolluskNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAFreshwater Shrimp/CrustaceanNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAAnadromous SalmonidNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAFreshwater Fish/Inland SturgeonNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAAnadromous SturgeonNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAEstuarine/Marine FishNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAABeetle and Aquatic InsectNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAAmphibianNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAASnakes and Other ReptilesNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAASea TurtleNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAACoastal/Marine BirdNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAATerrestrial MammalNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAMarine MammalNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAASeagrassNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAAFreshwater- Saltwater Aquatic andWetland PlantsNo Effect NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination

7-7 7.3 E FFECTS D ETERMINATION FOR A LL S PECIES

EPA analyzed potential effects from di scharges on 612 listed aquatic and aquaticdependent species and their cri tical habitats. Based on the me thodology described in Section 7.1, EPA determined that potential discharge-relate d ANS are “not likely to adversely affect” 80 aquatic-dependent species and their critical habi tats. EPA concluded that new introductions of ANS from vessel discharges “may affect” 532 aqua tic and aquatic-dependent species and/or their critical habitats. However, EPA believes that the permit conditions are designed to minimize the discharge of potential ANS which will substantia lly mitigate the likelihood of new introductions. Hence, the permits will significantly reduce risk from ANS to listed species and critical habitats - - especially when compared to pre-permit c onditions. EPA believes these conditions make a possible introduction of ANS over th e next five years which would impact listed species very uncertain and speculative. EPA further believes that given these permit conditions and the most recent research on ANS (see Sect ion 5.1.1), NLAA determinations could reasonably be made for all of the 532 species. Nonethele ss, given the limited available data and uncertainties in the science, EPA has concluded only th at potential ANS “may effect” th e relevant listed species and critical habitats, to afford the Services an oppor tunity to provide their biological opinion and views on additional mitigation that may be appropriate.

For pollutants other than ANS, EPA concl uded that 158 aquatic a nd aquatic-dependent species and their critical habita ts will experience “no effect” as these species are not present in U.S. waters navigable by vessels covered unde r the VGP and sVGP. In addition, EPA concluded that these pollutants are “not likely to adversely affect” the remaining 454 aquatic and aquaticdependent listed species and their critical habitats.

Table 7-2 presents the species-specific e ffects determinations for ANS and the other pollutants.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-8Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsAbalone, blackHaliotis cracherodiiSaltwaterBivalveMolluskE May Affect NLAAAbalone, whiteHaliotis sorenseniSaltwaterBivalveMolluskE SFBE May Affect NLAAAcornshell, southernEpioblasma othcaloogensisUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAAlbatross, short-tailedPhoebastria (=Diomedea)albatrusCoastal/MarineBirdE PS NLAAeNLAAAlligator, AmericanAlligator mississippiensisSnakes andOther ReptilesT(S/A) May Affect NLAAAmbersnail, KanabOxyloma haydeni kanabensisUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAAmphipod, diminutiveGammarus hyalleloidesFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanC May Affect No EffecthAmphipod, Hay's SpringStygobromus hayiFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAAAmphipod, Illinois caveGammarus acherondytesFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAAAmphipod, Kauai caveSpelaeorchestia koloanaFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-9Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsAmphipod, Noel'sGammarus desperatusFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect No EffecthAmphipod, Peck's caveStygobromus (=Stygonectes)peckiFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect No EffecthArrowhead, bunchedSagittaria fasciculataFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthAsphodel, bogNarthecium americanumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect NLAAAster, decurrent falseBoltonia decurrensFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT MR May Affect NLAAAtlantic sturgeon (Gulf of Maine)Acipenser oxyrinchusoxyrichusAnadromousSturgeonT May Affect NLAABankclimber, purple (mussel)Elliptoideus sloatianusUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAABat, grayMyotis grisescensTerrestrialMammalE MR; BB NLAAgNLAABat, Hawaiian hoaryLasiurus cinereus semotusTerrestrialMammalE NLAAd,eNLAABat, IndianaMyotis sodalisTerrestrialMammalEULB;MR; BBNLAAgNLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-10Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsBat, Ozark big-earedCorynorhinus (=Plecotus)townsendii ingensTerrestrialMammalE NLAAd,eNLAABat, Virginia big-earedCorynorhinus (=Plecotus)townsendii virginianusTerrestrialMammalE NLAAd,eNLAABeaked-rush, Knieskern'sRhynchospora knieskerniiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAABean, ChoctawVillosa choctawensisUnionidMusselsPE May Affect NLAABean, Cumberland (pearlymussel)Villosa trabalisUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAABean, purpleVillosa perpurpureaUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAABean, rayedVillosa fabalisUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAABear, American blackUrsus americanusTerrestrialMammalT(S/A) NLAAdNo EffecthBear, grizzlyUrsus arctos horribilisTerrestrialMammalT;XN PS NLAAeNLAABear, Louisiana blackUrsus americanus luteolusTerrestrialMammalT NLAAd,eNLAABear, polarUrsus maritimusTerrestrialMammalT NLAAeNLAABearded seal (Beringia)Erignathus barbatus nauticusMarineMammalPT May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-11Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsBeardtongue, PenlandPenstemon penlandiiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthBeauty, Harper'sHarperocallis flavaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAABeetle, Comal Springs dryopidStygoparnus comalensisBeetle andAquatic InsectE May Affect No EffecthBeetle, Comal Springs riffleHeterelmis comalensisBeetle andAquatic InsectE May Affect No EffecthBeetle, delta green groundElaphrus viridisBeetle andAquatic InsectT SFBE NLAAgNLAABeetle, Hungerford's crawlingwaterBrychius hungerfordiBeetle andAquatic InsectE May Affect NLAABeetle, valley elderberry longhornDesmocerus californicusdimorphusBeetle andAquatic InsectT SFBE NLAAgNo EffecthBellflower, BrooksvilleCampanula robinsiaeFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE BB May Affect NLAABird's-beak, salt marshCordylanthus maritimus ssp.maritimusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-12Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsBird's-beak, softCordylanthus mollis ssp.mollisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAABirds-in-a-nest, whiteMacbridea albaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAABittercress, small-antheredCardamine micrantheraFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthBlazingstar, Ash MeadowsMentzelia leucophyllaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthBlossom, green (pearlymussel)Epioblasma torulosagubernaculumUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthBlossom, tubercled(pearlymussel)Epioblasma torulosa torulosaUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAABlossom, turgid(pearlymussel)Epioblasma turgidulaUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAABlossom, yellow (pearlymussel)Epioblasma florentinaflorentinaUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-13Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsBluecurls, Hidden LakeTrichostema austromontanumssp. compactumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAABobwhite, masked (quail)Colinus virginianus ridgwayiCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNo EffecthBocaccioSebastes paucispinisEstuarine/Marine FishE May Affect NLAABrodiaea, Chinese CampBrodiaea pallidaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthBrodiaea, thread-leavedBrodiaea filifoliaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAABulrush, NortheasternScirpus ancistrochaetusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAButtercup, autumnRanunculus aestivalis(=acriformis)FreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAButterfly plant, ColoradoGaura neomexicana var.coloradensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-14Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsButterfly, lotis blueLycaeides argyrognomonlotisBeetle andAquatic InsectE NLAAeNLAAButterfly, Mitchell's satyrNeonympha mitchelliimitchelliiBeetle andAquatic InsectE NLAAeNLAAButterfly, Saint Francis' satyrNeonympha mitchelliifrancisciBeetle andAquatic InsectE NLAAeNLAAButterwort, Godfrey'sPinguicula ionanthaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAButton, Mohr's BarbaraMarshallia mohriiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAButton-celery, San DiegoEryngium aristulatum var.parishiiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAACaddisfly, SequatchieGlyphopsyche sequatchieBeetle andAquatic InsectC May Affect NLAACalistoga AllocaryaPlagiobothrys strictusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAACampeloma, slenderCampeloma decampiUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAACaracara, Audubon's crestedPolyborus plancus auduboniiCoastal/MarineBirdT BB NLAAgNLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-15Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsCatfish, YaquiIctalurus priceiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthCatspaw (=purple cat's pawpearlymussel)Epioblasma obliquataobliquataUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAACatspaw, white (pearlymussel)Epioblasma obliquataperobliquaUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthCavefish, AlabamaSpeoplatyrhinus poulsoniFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAACavefish, OzarkAmblyopsis rosaeFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAACavesnail, Tumbling CreekAntrobia culveriUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAACentaury, spring-lovingCentaurium namophilumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthChaffseed, AmericanSchwalbea americanaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE BB May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-16Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsChecker-mallow, KenwoodMarshSidalcea oregana ssp. validaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthChecker-mallow, Nelson'sSidalcea nelsonianaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAChecker-mallow, pedateSidalcea pedataFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthCheckermallow, WenatcheeMountainsSidalcea oregana var. calvaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAChub, bonytailGila elegansFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAChub, Borax LakeGila boraxobiusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthChub, ChihuahuaGila nigrescensFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-17Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsChub, GilaGila intermediaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthChub, headwaterGila nigraFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidC May Affect No EffecthChub, humpbackGila cyphaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAChub, Hutton tuiGila bicolor ssp.FreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAAChub, Mohave tuiGila bicolor mohavensisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthChub, OregonOregonichthys crameriFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAAChub, Owens tuiGila bicolor snyderiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-18Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsChub, Pahranagat roundtailGila robusta jordaniFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthChub, slenderErimystax cahniFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT;XN May Affect No EffecthChub, SonoraGila ditaeniaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthChub, spotfinErimonax monachusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT;XN May Affect NLAAChub, Virgin RiverGila seminuda (=robusta)FreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAChub, YaquiGila purpureaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthCinquefoil, Soldier MeadowsPotentilla basalticaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-19Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsClover, showy IndianTrifolium amoenumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAClubshellPleurobema clavaUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAClubshell, blackPleurobema curtumUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAClubshell, ovatePleurobema perovatumUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAClubshell, southernPleurobema decisumUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAACobana negraStahlia monospermaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAACombshell, CumberlandianEpioblasma brevidensUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAACombshell, southernEpioblasma penitaUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAACombshell, uplandEpioblasma metastriataUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAACoot, HawaiianFulica americana alaiCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAACoral, elkhornAcropora palmataSaltwaterCoralsT BB May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-20Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsCoral, staghornAcropora cervicornisSaltwaterCoralsT BB May Affect NLAACrake, spotlessPorzana tabuensisCoastal/MarineBirdC May Affect No EffecthCrane, Mississippi sandhillGrus canadensis pullaCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAd,eNLAACrane, whoopingGrus americanaCoastal/MarineBirdE;XN GB NLAAeNLAACrayfish, caveCambarus aculabrumFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAACrayfish, caveCambarus zophonastesFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect No EffecthCrayfish, NashvilleOrconectes shoupiFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAACrayfish, ShastaPacifastacus fortisFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAACress, Tahoe yellowRorippa subumbellataFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect NLAACrocodile, AmericanCrocodylus acutusSnakes andOther ReptilesE;T BB NLAAeNLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-21Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsCrow, Mariana (=aga)Corvus kubaryiCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAACrownscale, San Jacinto ValleyAtriplex coronata var.notatiorFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthCuckoo, yellow-billedCoccyzus americanusCoastal/MarineBirdC NLAAdNLAACui-uiChasmistes cujusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAACurlew, EskimoNumenius borealisCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAdNLAADace, Ash Meadows speckledRhinichthys osculusnevadensisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthDace, blacksidePhoxinus cumberlandensisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAADace, Clover Valley speckledRhinichthys osculusoligoporusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-22Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsDace, desertEremichthys acrosFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthDace, Foskett speckledRhinichthys osculus ssp.FreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAADace, Independence ValleyspeckledRhinichthys osculuslethoporusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthDace, Kendall Warm SpringsRhinichthys osculus thermalisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthDace, LaurelPhoxinus sayloriFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAADace, MoapaMoapa coriaceaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAADaisy, WillametteErigeron decumbens var.decumbensFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-23Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsDamselfly, blackline HawaiianMegalagrion nigrohamatumnigrolineatumBeetle andAquatic InsectPE May Affect NLAADamselfly, crimson HawaiianMegalagrion leptodemusBeetle andAquatic InsectPE May Affect NLAADamselfly, flying earwigHawaiianMegalagrion nesiotesBeetle andAquatic InsectE May Affect NLAADamselfly, oceanic HawaiianMegalagrion oceanicumBeetle andAquatic InsectPE May Affect NLAADamselfly, orangeblack HawaiianMegalagrion xanthomelasBeetle andAquatic InsectC May Affect NLAADamselfly, Pacific HawaiianMegalagrion pacificumBeetle andAquatic InsectE May Affect NLAADarter, amberPercina antesellaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAADarter, ArkansasEtheostoma craginiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidC May Affect NLAADarter, bayouEtheostoma rubrumFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAADarter, bluemask (=jewel)Etheostoma sp.FreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-24Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsDarter, boulderEtheostoma wapitiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE;XN May Affect NLAADarter, CherokeeEtheostoma scottiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthDarter, CumberlandEtheostoma susanaeFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAADarter, duskytailEtheostoma percnurumFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE;XN May Affect NLAADarter, EtowahEtheostoma etowahaeFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthDarter, fountainEtheostoma fonticolaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthDarter, goldlinePercina aurolineataFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-25Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsDarter, leopardPercina pantherinaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAADarter, MarylandEtheostoma sellareFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAADarter, NianguaEtheostoma nianguaeFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAADarter, OkaloosaEtheostoma okaloosaeFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAADarter, PearlPercina auroraFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidC May Affect NLAADarter, relictEtheostoma chienenseFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAADarter, rushEtheostoma phytophilumFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-26Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsDarter, slackwaterEtheostoma boschungiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAADarter, snailPercina tanasiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAADarter, vermilionEtheostoma chermockiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAADarter, watercressEtheostoma nuchaleFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAADarter, yellowcheekEtheostoma mooreiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAADesert-parsley, Bradshaw'sLomatium bradshawiiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAADragonfly, Hine's emeraldSomatochlora hineanaBeetle andAquatic InsectE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-27Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsDropwort, Canby'sOxypolis canbyiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAADuck, Hawaiian (=koloa)Anas wyvillianaCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAADuck, LaysanAnas laysanensisCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAAEbonyshell, roundFusconaia rotulataUnionidMusselsPE May Affect NLAAEider, spectacledSomateria fischeriCoastal/MarineBirdT NLAAeNLAAEider, Steller'sPolysticta stelleriCoastal/MarineBirdT NLAAeNLAAElepaio, OahuChasiempis sandwichensisibidisCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAAElimia, lacy (snail)Elimia crenatellaUnionidMusselsT May Affect No EffecthElktoe, AppalachianAlasmidonta ravenelianaUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthElktoe, CumberlandAlasmidonta atropurpureaUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAEulachon, PacificThaleichthys pacificusEstuarine/Marine FishT May Affect NLAAFairy shrimp, ConservancyBranchinecta conservatioFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE SFBE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-28Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsFairy shrimp, longhornBranchinecta longiantennaFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE SFBE May Affect NLAAFairy shrimp, RiversideStreptocephalus woottoniFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAAFairy shrimp, San DiegoBranchinecta sandiegonensisFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAAFairy shrimp, vernal poolBranchinecta lynchiFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanT May Affect NLAAFalse killer whale (HawaiiInsular)Pseudorca crassidensMarineMammalPE May Affect No EffecthFanshellCyprogenia stegariaUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAFatmucket, ArkansasLampsilis powelliUnionidMusselsT May Affect No EffecthFlycatcher, southwestern willowEmpidonax traillii extimusCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAd,eNLAAFrog, California red-leggedRana aurora draytoniiAmphibian T SFBE May Affect NLAAFrog, Chiricahua leopardRana chiricahuensisAmphibian T May Affect NLAAFrog, Columbia spottedRana luteiventrisAmphibian C May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-29Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsFrog, mountain yellow-leggedRana muscosaAmphibian E;C May Affect NLAAFrog, Oregon spottedRana pretiosaAmphibian C May Affect NLAAFrog, relict leopardRana oncaAmphibian C May Affect No EffecthGambusia, Big BendGambusia gaigeiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthGambusia, Clear CreekGambusia heterochirFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthGambusia, PecosGambusia nobilisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthGambusia, San MarcosGambusia georgeiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthGilia, MontereyGilia tenuiflora ssp. arenariaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAGnatcatcher, coastal CaliforniaPolioptila californicacalifornicaCoastal/MarineBirdT NLAAd,eNLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-30Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsGoby, tidewaterEucyclogobius newberryiEstuarine/Marine FishE SFBE May Affect NLAAGoldenrod, Houghton'sSolidago houghtoniiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAGoldenrod, Yadkin RiverSolidago plumosaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect No EffecthGoldfields, Burke'sLasthenia burkeiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAGoldfields, Contra CostaLasthenia conjugensFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAGrass, ColusaNeostapfia colusanaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT SFBE May Affect NLAAGrass, Tennessee yellow-eyedXyris tennesseensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAGrouse, greater sageCentrocercus urophasianusCoastal/MarineBirdC NLAAdNLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-31Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsGuajonEleutherodactylus cookiAmphibian T May Affect NLAAGumplant, Ash MeadowsGrindelia fraxino-pratensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthHahaCyanea grimesiana ssp.grimesianaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAHarperellaPtilimnium nodosumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAHawk, Puerto Rican broadwingedButeo platypterusbrunnescensCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAAHeartleaf, dwarf-floweredHexastylis nanifloraFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAHeauExocarpos luteolusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAHeelsplitter, Alabama (=inflated)Potamilus inflatusUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAAHeelsplitter, CarolinaLasmigona decorataUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-32Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsHellbender, OzarkCryptobranchus alleganiensisbishopiAmphibian E May Affect NLAAHiggins eye (pearlymussel)Lampsilis higginsiiUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAHiguero de sierraCrescentia portoricensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthHornshell, TexasPopenaias popeiUnionidMusselsC May Affect No EffecthHornsnail, roughPleurocera foremaniUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAHowellia, waterHowellia aquatilisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT PS May Affect NLAAIhi`ihiMarsilea villosaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAIsopod, Lee County caveLirceus usdagalunFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect No EffecthIsopod, Madison CaveAntrolana liraFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanT May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-33Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsIsopod, SocorroThermosphaeromathermophilusFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect No EffecthIvesia, Ash MeadowsIvesia kingii var. eremicaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthJaguarundi, Gulf CoastHerpailurus (=Felis)yagouaroundi cacomitliTerrestrialMammalE NLAAdNLAAJaguarundi, SinaloanHerpailurus (=Felis)yagouaroundi toltecaTerrestrialMammalE NLAAd,eNLAAJoint-vetch, sensitiveAeschynomene virginicaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAKampua`aHedyotis fluviatilisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect NLAAKidneyshell, flutedPtychobranchus subtentumUnionidMusselsC May Affect NLAAKidneyshell, southernPtychobranchus jonesiUnionidMusselsPE May Affect NLAAKidneyshell, triangularPtychobranchus greeniiUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAKite, Everglade snailRostrhamus sociabilisplumbeusCoastal/MarineBirdE BB May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-34Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsKnot, redCalidris canutus rufaCoastal/MarineBirdC May Affect NLAAKo`oko`olauBidens conjunctaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsPE May Affect NLAAKopikoPsychotria grandifloraFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAKuahiwi laukahiPlantago princepsFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAALadies'-tresses, Canelo HillsSpiranthes delitescensFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthLadies'-tresses, NavasotaSpiranthes parksiiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAALadies'-tresses, UteSpiranthes diluvialisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT PS May Affect NLAALampmussel, AlabamaLampsilis virescensUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-35Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsLiliwaiAcaena exiguaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAALilliput, pale (pearlymussel)Toxolasma cylindrellusUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAALily, Pitkin MarshLilium pardalinum ssp.pitkinenseFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthLily, WesternLilium occidentaleFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAALimpet, Banbury SpringsLanx sp.UnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthLioplax, cylindrical (snail)Lioplax cyclostomaformisUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAALizard, blunt-nosed leopardGambelia silusSnakes andOther ReptilesE NLAAd,eNLAALizard, St. Croix groundAmeiva polopsSnakes andOther ReptilesE NLAAeNLAALo`uluPritchardia kaalaeFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-36Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsLo`uluPritchardia napaliensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAALo`uluPritchardia remotaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAALo`ulu, (=Na`ena`e)Pritchardia hardyiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAALocoweed, Fassett'sOxytropis campestris var.chartaceaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAALogperch, ConasaugaPercina jenkinsiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAALogperch, RoanokePercina rexFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAALomatium, Cook'sLomatium cookiiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-37Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsLoosestrife, rough-leavedLysimachia asperulaefoliaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAMadtom, chuckyNoturus crypticusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthMadtom, NeoshoNoturus placidusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAAMadtom, pygmyNoturus stanauliFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE;XN May Affect NLAAMadtom, SciotoNoturus trautmaniFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthMadtom, smokyNoturus baileyiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE;XN May Affect No EffecthMadtom, yellowfinNoturus flavipinnisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT;XN May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-38Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsMakouRanunculus mauiensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect NLAAManatee, West IndianTrichechus manatusMarineMammalE GB; BB May Affect NLAAMapleleaf, wingedQuadrula fragosaUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAMarstonia, royal (snail)Pyrgulopsis ogmorhapheUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAMassasauga (=rattlesnake),easternSistrurus catenatus catenatusSnakes andOther ReptilesC NLAAeNLAAMeadowfoam, Butte CountyLimnanthes floccosa ssp.californicaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAMeadowfoam, large-floweredwoollyLimnanthes floccosa ssp.grandifloraFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthMeadowrue, Cooley'sThalictrum cooleyiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAMesa-mint, OtayPogogyne nudiusculaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-39Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsMilk-vetch, Ash meadowsAstragalus phoenixFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthMilk-vetch, coastal dunesAstragalus tener var. titiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAMilk-vetch, Fish SloughAstragalus lentiginosus var.piscinensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAMinnow, Devils RiverDionda diaboliFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthMinnow, loachTiaroga cobitisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAMinnow, Rio Grande silveryHybognathus amarusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthMoccasinshell, AlabamaMedionidus acutissimusUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAAMoccasinshell, CoosaMedionidus parvulusUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-40Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsMoccasinshell, GulfMedionidus penicillatusUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAMoccasinshell, OchlockoneeMedionidus simpsonianusUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAMonkeyface, Appalachian(pearlymussel)Quadrula sparsaUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAMonkeyface, Cumberland(pearlymussel)Quadrula intermediaUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAMonkey-flower, MichiganMimulus glabratus var.michiganensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAMonkshood, northern wildAconitum noveboracenseFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAMoorhen, Hawaiian commonGallinula chloropussandvicensisCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAAMoorhen, Mariana commonGallinula chloropus guamiCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAAMouse, Anastasia Island beachPeromyscus polionotusphasmaTerrestrialMammalE NLAAe,fNLAAMouse, Pacific pocketPerognathus longimembrispacificusTerrestrialMammalE NLAAeNLAAMouse, salt marsh harvestReithrodontomys raviventrisTerrestrialMammalE SFBE NLAAeNLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-41Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsMouse, southeastern beachPeromyscus polionotusniveiventrisTerrestrialMammalT NLAAd,e,fNLAAMucket, NeoshoLampsilis rafinesqueanaUnionidMusselsC May Affect NLAAMucket, orangenacreLampsilis perovalisUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAAMucket, pink (pearlymussel)Lampsilis abruptaUnionidMusselsE MR May Affect NLAAMudalia, blackElimia melanoidesUnionidMusselsC May Affect No EffecthMurrelet, Kittlitz'sBrachyramphus brevirostrisCoastal/MarineBirdC NLAAeNLAAMurrelet, marbledBrachyramphus marmoratusCoastal/MarineBirdT PS; SFBE NLAAgNLAAMurrelet, Xantus'sSynthliboramphus hypoleucusCoastal/MarineBirdC NLAAeNLAAMussel, oysterEpioblasma capsaeformisUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAMussel, scaleshellLeptodea leptodonUnionidMusselsE MR May Affect NLAAMussel, sheepnosePlethobasus cyphyusUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAMussel, snuffboxEpioblasma triquetraUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-42Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsMustard, Penland alpine fenEutrema penlandiiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthNani wai`ale`aleViola kauaiensis var.wahiawaensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAANapa BluegrassPoa napensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAANaucorid bug (=Furnace Creek),Nevares SpringAmbrysus funebrisBeetle andAquatic InsectC May Affect No EffecthNaucorid, Ash MeadowsAmbrysus amargosusBeetle andAquatic InsectT May Affect No EffecthNavarretia, few-floweredNavarretia leucocephala ssp.pauciflora (=N. pauciflora)FreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAANavarretia, many-floweredNavarretia leucocephala ssp.plieanthaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAANavarretia, spreadingNavarretia fossalisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-43Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsNiterwort, AmargosaNitrophila mohavensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthNo common nameCordia bellonisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAANo common nameGesneria paucifloraFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAANo common nameLysimachia filifoliaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAANo common nameNesogenes rotensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAANo common namePlatanthera holochilaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-44Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsNo common namePteris lidgateiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthNo common nameSanicula purpureaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAANo common nameViola helenaeFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthNohoanuGeranium multiflorumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAOcelotLeopardus (=Felis) pardalisTerrestrialMammalE NLAAd,eNLAAOha waiClermontia oblongifolia ssp.mauiensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAOrchid, eastern prairie fringedPlatanthera leucophaeaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT MR May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-45Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsOrchid, white fringelessPlatanthera integrilabiaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect NLAAOrcutt grass, CaliforniaOrcuttia californicaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAOrcutt grass, hairyOrcuttia pilosaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAAOrcutt grass, SacramentoOrcuttia viscidaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthOrcutt grass, San JoaquinOrcuttia inaequalisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthOrcutt grass, slenderOrcuttia tenuisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAOtter, Northern seaEnhydra lutris kenyoniMarineMammalT May Affect NLAAOtter, Southern seaEnhydra lutris nereisMarineMammalT;XN SFBE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-46Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsOwl's-clover, fleshyCastilleja campestris ssp.succulentaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthPalmate-bracted Bird's BeakCordylanthus palmatusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAAPamakaniViola chamissoniana ssp.chamissonianaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAPanic grass, Hirsts'Dichanthelium (=Panicum)hirstiiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect NLAAPanther, FloridaPuma (=Felis) concolor coryiTerrestrialMammalE BB NLAAgNLAAPawpaw, beautifulDeeringothamnus pulchellusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAPawpaw, Rugel'sDeeringothamnus rugeliiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAPearlshell, AlabamaMargaritifera marrianaeUnionidMusselsPE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-47Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsPearlshell, LouisianaMargaritifera hembeliUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAAPearlymussel, birdwingConradilla caelataUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAPearlymussel, crackingHemistena lataUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAPearlymussel, CurtisEpioblasma florentina curtisiiUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPearlymussel, dromedaryDromus dromasUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAPearlymussel, littlewingPegias fabulaUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPearlymussel, slabsideLexingtonia dolabelloidesUnionidMusselsC May Affect NLAAPebblesnail, flatLepyrium showalteriUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthPetrel, Hawaiian dark-rumpedPterodroma phaeopygiasandwichensisCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAAPigtoe, CumberlandPleurobema gibberumUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPigtoe, darkPleurobema furvumUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPigtoe, finerayedFusconaia cuneolusUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAPigtoe, flatPleurobema marshalliUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-48Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsPigtoe, fuzzyPleurobema strodeanumUnionidMusselsPT May Affect NLAAPigtoe, GeorgiaPleurobema hanleyianumUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPigtoe, heavyPleurobema taitianumUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPigtoe, narrowFusconaia escambiaUnionidMusselsPT May Affect NLAAPigtoe, ovalPleurobema pyriformeUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPigtoe, roughPleurobema plenumUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAPigtoe, shinyFusconaia corUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAAPigtoe, southernPleurobema georgianumUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPigtoe, taperedQuincuncina burkeiUnionidMusselsPT May Affect NLAAPikeminnow (=squawfish),ColoradoPtychocheilus luciusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE;XN May Affect NLAAPimpleback, orangefoot(pearlymussel)Plethobasus cooperianusUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-49Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsPink, swampHelonias bullataFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAPitcher-plant, Alabama canebrakeSarracenia rubraalabamensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAPitcher-plant, greenSarracenia oreophilaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAPitcher-plant, mountain sweetSarracenia rubra ssp. jonesiiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthPlover, pipingCharadrius melodusCoastal/MarineBirdE;TULB; GB;SLEMay Affect NLAAPlover, western snowyCharadrius alexandrinusnivosusCoastal/MarineBirdT SFBE May Affect NLAAPlymouth Red-Bellied TurtlePseudemys rubriventrisbangsiSnakes andOther ReptilesE May Affect NLAAPocketbook, fatPotamilus capaxUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPocketbook, finelinedLampsilis altilisUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAAPocketbook, Ouachita rockArkansia wheeleriUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-50Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsPocketbook, shinyrayedLampsilis subangulataUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPocketbook, speckledLampsilis streckeriUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAPondberryLindera melissifoliaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAPondweed, Little Aguja (=Creek)Potamogeton clystocarpusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthPoolfish, PahrumpEmpetrichthys latosFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAPopcornflower, roughPlagiobothrys hirtusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAPotentilla, Hickman'sPotentilla hickmaniiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAPrickly-apple, fragrantCereus eriophorus var.fragransFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-51Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsPrimrose, MaguirePrimula maguireiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthPseudoscorpion, Tooth CaveTartarocreagris texanaBeetle andAquatic InsectE NLAAd,eNo EffecthPu`uka`aCyperus trachysanthosFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAPupfish, Ash Meadows AmargosaCyprinodon nevadensismionectesFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthPupfish, Comanche SpringsCyprinodon elegansFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthPupfish, desertCyprinodon maculariusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAPupfish, Devils HoleCyprinodon diabolisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-52Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsPupfish, Leon SpringsCyprinodon bovinusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthPupfish, OwensCyprinodon radiosusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAPupfish, Warm SpringsCyprinodon nevadensispectoralisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthQuillwort, black sporedIsoetes melanosporaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthQuillwort, LouisianaIsoetes louisianensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAQuillwort, mat-formingIsoetes tegetiformansFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAARabbitsfoot, roughQuadrula cylindricastrigillataUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthRail, California clapperRallus longirostris obsoletusCoastal/MarineBirdE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-53Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsRail, light-footed clapperRallus longirostris levipesCoastal/MarineBirdE May Affect NLAARail, Yuma clapperRallus longirostrisyumanensisCoastal/MarineBirdE May Affect NLAARedhorse, SicklefinMoxostoma sp.FreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidC May Affect No EffecthReedgrass, MauiCalamagrostis expansaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect NLAARhododendron, ChapmanRhododendron chapmaniiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAARiffle beetle, Stephan'sHeterelmis stephaniBeetle andAquatic InsectC May Affect No EffecthRiffleshell, northernEpioblasma torulosarangianaUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAARiffleshell, tanEpioblasma florentinawalkeri (=E. walkeri)UnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthRing pink (mussel)Obovaria retusaUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAARinged seal (Arctic)Phoca hispida hispidaMarineMammalPT May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-54Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsRiversnail, Anthony'sAthearnia anthonyiUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAARockfish, CanarySebastes pinnigerEstuarine/Marine FishT May Affect NLAARockfish, YelloweyeSebastes ruberrimusEstuarine/Marine FishT May Affect NLAARocksnail, interrupted (=Georgia)Leptoxis foremaniUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAARocksnail, paintedLeptoxis taeniataUnionidMusselsT May Affect No EffecthRocksnail, plicateLeptoxis plicataUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAARocksnail, roundLeptoxis amplaUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAARose-mallow, Neches RiverHibiscus dasycalyxFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsC May Affect NLAARoseroot, Leedy'sSedum integrifolium ssp.leedyiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthSalamander, Austin blindEurycea waterlooensisAmphibian C May Affect No EffecthSalamander, Barton SpringsEurycea sosorumAmphibian E May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-55Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSalamander, California tigerAmbystoma californienseAmphibian E;T SFBE May Affect NLAASalamander, Cheat MountainPlethodon nettingiAmphibian T NLAAd,eNo EffecthSalamander, desert slenderBatrachoseps aridusAmphibian E NLAAeNo EffecthSalamander, flatwoodsAmbystoma cingulatumAmphibian T May Affect NLAASalamander, GeorgetownEurycea naufragiaAmphibian C May Affect No EffecthSalamander, Jollyville PlateauEurycea tonkawaeAmphibian C May Affect No EffecthSalamander, SaladoEurycea chisholmensisAmphibian C May Affect No EffecthSalamander, San MarcosEurycea nanaAmphibian T May Affect No EffecthSalamander, Santa Cruz long-toedAmbystoma macrodactylumcroceumAmphibian E May Affect NLAASalamander, Sonora tigerAmbystoma tigrinumstebbinsiAmphibian E May Affect No EffecthSalamander, Texas blindTyphlomolge rathbuniAmphibian E May Affect No EffecthSalmon, AtlanticSalmo salarAnadromousSalmonidE May Affect NLAASalmon, ChinookOncorhynchus tshawytschaAnadromousSalmonidE;T PS May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-56Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSalmon, chumOncorhynchus ketaAnadromousSalmonidT PS May Affect NLAASalmon, cohoOncorhynchus kisutchAnadromousSalmonidE May Affect NLAASalmon, sockeyeOncorhynchus nerkaAnadromousSalmonidE;T May Affect NLAAsandshell, SouthernHamiota (=Lampsilis)australisUnionidMusselsPE May Affect NLAASandwort, MarshArenaria paludicolaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAASawfish, smalltoothPristis pectinataEstuarine/Marine FishE GB; BB May Affect NLAASculpin, grottoCottus sp.FreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidC May Affect NLAASculpin, pygmyCottus paulus (=pygmaeus)FreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthSea Lion, StellerEumetopias jubatusMarineMammalE PS; SFBE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-57Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSea turtle, greenChelonia mydasSea Turtle E;TPS; ULB;GB;SFBE;BBNLAAeNLAASea turtle, hawksbillEretmochelys imbricataSea Turtle EULB; GB;BBNLAAeNLAASea turtle, Kemp's ridleyLepidochelys kempiiSea Turtle E ULB; GB NLAAeNLAASea turtle, leatherbackDermochelys coriaceaSea Turtle EPS; ULB;GB;SFBE;BBNLAAeNLAASea turtle, loggerheadCaretta carettaSea Turtle TULB; GB;SFBE;BBNLAAeNLAASea turtle, olive ridleyLepidochelys olivaceaSea Turtle E;T SFBE NLAAeNLAASeabeach AmaranthAmaranthus pumilusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT ULB May Affect NLAASeablite, CaliforniaSuaeda californicaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAASeagrass, Johnson'sHalophila johnsoniiSeagrass T BB May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-58Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSeal, Guadalupe furArctocephalus townsendiMarineMammalT SFBE May Affect NLAASeal, Hawaiian monkMonachus schauinslandiMarineMammalE May Affect NLAASeal, spottedPhoca larghaMarineMammalT May Affect NLAASedge, goldenCarex luteaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAASedge, NavajoCarex specuicolaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAShearwater, Newell's Townsend'sPuffinus auricularis newelliCoastal/MarineBirdT May Affect NLAAShiner, Arkansas RiverNotropis girardiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAAShiner, beautifulCyprinella formosaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthShiner, blueCyprinella caeruleaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-59Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsShiner, CahabaNotropis cahabaeFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAShiner, Cape FearNotropis mekistocholasFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthShiner, palezoneNotropis albizonatusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAShiner, Pecos bluntnoseNotropis simus pecosensisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthShiner, sharpnoseNotropis oxyrhynchusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidC May Affect No EffecthShiner, smalleyeNotropis bucculaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidC May Affect No EffecthShiner, TopekaNotropis topeka (=tristis)FreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-60Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsShrew, Buena Vista Lake ornateSorex ornatus relictusTerrestrialMammalE NLAAeNo EffecthShrimp, Alabama cavePalaemonias alabamaeFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAAShrimp, anchialine poolMetabetaeus lohenaFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanC May Affect NLAAShrimp, anchialine poolPalaemonella burnsiFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanC May Affect NLAAShrimp, anchialine poolProcaris hawaianaFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanC May Affect NLAAShrimp, anchialine poolVetericaris chaceorumFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanC May Affect NLAAShrimp, California freshwaterSyncaris pacificaFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE SFBE May Affect NLAAShrimp, Kentucky cavePalaemonias ganteriFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE May Affect NLAAShrimp, Squirrel Chimney CavePalaemonetes cummingiFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanT May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-61Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSilverside, WaccamawMenidia extensaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAASilversword, Mauna Loa (=Ka'u)Argyroxiphium kauenseFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAASkipper, Carson wanderingPseudocopaeodes eunusobscurusBeetle andAquatic InsectE May Affect NLAASkipper, Laguna MountainsPyrgus ruralis lagunaeBeetle andAquatic InsectE May Affect No EffecthSkullcap, FloridaScutellaria floridanaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAASlabshell, ChipolaElliptio chipolaensisUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAASmelt, deltaHypomesus transpacificusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT SFBE May Affect NLAASnail, armoredPyrgulopsis (=Marstonia)pachytaUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAASnail, Bliss RapidsTaylorconcha serpenticolaUnionidMusselsT May Affect No EffecthSnail, Chittenango ovate amberSuccinea chittenangoensisUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-62Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSnail, Diamond Y SpringPseudotryonia (=Tryonia)adamantinaUnionidMusselsC May Affect No EffecthSnail, Newcomb'sErinna newcombiUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAASnail, Pecos assimineaAssiminea pecosUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthSnail, Phantom CaveCochliopa texanaUnionidMusselsC May Affect No EffecthSnail, Snake River physaPhysa natricinaUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthSnail, tulotomaTulotoma magnificaUnionidMusselsT May Affect NLAASnake, Atlantic salt marshNerodia clarkii taeniataSnakes andOther ReptilesT May Affect NLAASnake, copperbelly waterNerodia erythrogasterneglectaSnakes andOther ReptilesT May Affect NLAASnake, eastern indigoDrymarchon corais couperiSnakes andOther ReptilesT BB NLAAgNLAASnake, giant garterThamnophis gigasSnakes andOther ReptilesT SFBE May Affect NLAASnake, San Francisco garterThamnophis sirtalistetrataeniaSnakes andOther ReptilesE May Affect NLAASneezeweed, VirginiaHelenium virginicumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-63Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSolano GrassTuctoria mucronataFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAASonoma AlopecurusAlopecurus aequalis var.sonomensisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAASparrow, Cape Sable seasideAmmodramus maritimusmirabilisCoastal/MarineBirdE BB NLAAeNLAASpectaclecaseCumberlandia monodontaUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAASpikedaceMeda fulgidaFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthSpinedace, Big SpringLepidomeda mollispinispratensisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthSpinedace, Little ColoradoLepidomeda vittataFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAASpinedace, White RiverLepidomeda albivallisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-64Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSpinymussel, AltamahaElliptio spinosaUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAASpinymussel, JamesPleurobema collinaUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthSpinymussel, Tar RiverElliptio steinstansanaUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAASpiraea, VirginiaSpiraea virginianaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAASpringfish, Hiko White RiverCrenichthys baileyi grandisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAASpringfish, Railroad ValleyCrenichthys nevadaeFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAASpringfish, White RiverCrenichthys baileyi baileyiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail (=Tryonia), PhantomTryonia cheatumiUnionidMusselsC May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, AlamosaTryonia alamosaeUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, Bruneau HotPyrgulopsis bruneauensisUnionidMusselsE May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-65Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSpringsnail, ChupaderaPyrgulopsis chupaderaeUnionidMusselsPE May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, elongate mudmeadowsPyrgulopsis notidicolaUnionidMusselsC May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, GonzalesTryoniacircumstriata(=stocktonensis)UnionidMusselsC May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, HuachucaPyrgulopsis thompsoniUnionidMusselsC May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, Koster'sJuturnia kosteriUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, PagePyrgulopsis morrisoniUnionidMusselsC May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, RoswellPyrgulopsis roswellensisUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, San BernadinoPyrgulopsis bernardinaUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, SocorroPyrgulopsis neomexicanaUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthSpringsnail, Three ForksPyrgulopsis trivialisUnionidMusselsE May Affect No EffecthSpurge, Hoover'sChamaesyce hooveriFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT SFBE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-66Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsStickleback, unarmoredthreespineGasterosteus aculeatuswilliamsoniFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAAStilt, HawaiianHimantopus mexicanusknudseniCoastal/MarineBirdE May Affect NLAAStirrupshellQuadrula stapesUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAStonecrop, Lake CountyParvisedum leiocarpumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAStork, woodMycteria americanaCoastal/MarineBirdE BB NLAAeNLAAStorm-petrel, band-rumpedOceanodroma castroCoastal/MarineBirdC NLAAeNLAASturgeon, AlabamaScaphirhynchus suttkusiAnadromousSturgeonE May Affect NLAASturgeon, greenAcipenser medirostrisAnadromousSturgeonT SFBE May Affect NLAASturgeon, gulfAcipenser oxyrinchus desotoiAnadromousSturgeonT BB May Affect NLAASturgeon, pallidScaphirhynchus albusFreshwaterFish/ InlandSturgeonE MR May Affect NLAASturgeon, shortnoseAcipenser brevirostrumAnadromousSturgeonE ULB; BB May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-67Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSturgeon, whiteAcipenser transmontanusAnadromousSturgeonE May Affect NLAASucker, JuneChasmistes liorusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAASucker, Lost RiverDeltistes luxatusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAASucker, ModocCatostomus micropsFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAASucker, razorbackXyrauchen texanusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAASucker, Santa AnaCatostomus santaanaeFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAASucker, shortnoseChasmistes brevirostrisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-68Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsSucker, WarnerCatostomus warnerensisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAASucker, Zuni blueheadCatostomus discobolusyarrowiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidC May Affect No EffecthSunflower, Pecos (=puzzle,=paradox)Helianthus paradoxusFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthSunshine, SonomaBlennosperma bakeriFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAATadpole shrimp, vernal poolLepidurus packardiFreshwaterShrimps/CrustaceanE SFBE May Affect NLAATern, California leastSterna antillarum browniCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAATern, leastSterna antillarumCoastal/MarineBirdE MR NLAAeNLAATern, roseateSterna dougallii dougalliiCoastal/MarineBirdE;T ULB; BB NLAAeNLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-69Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsThistle, Chorro Creek bogCirsium fontinale var.obispoenseFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAThistle, fountainCirsium fontinale var.fontinaleFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAAThistle, La GraciosaCirsium loncholepisFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAThistle, Loch Lomond coyoteEryngium constanceiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAThistle, Sacramento MountainsCirsium vinaceumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthThistle, SuisunCirsium hydrophilum var.hydrophilumFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAAThree-ridge, fat (mussel)Amblema neisleriiUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAThrush, small Kauai (=puaiohi)Myadestes palmeriCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAdNLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-70Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsTiger beetle, northeastern beachCicindela dorsalis dorsalisBeetle andAquatic InsectT NLAAeNLAATiger beetle, PuritanCicindela puritanaBeetle andAquatic InsectT NLAAeNLAATiger beetle, Salt CreekCicindela nevadicalincolnianaBeetle andAquatic InsectE NLAAeNo EffecthToad, arroyo (=arroyosouthwestern)Bufo californicus(=microscaphus)Amphibian E May Affect NLAAToad, HoustonBufo houstonensisAmphibian E May Affect No EffecthToad, WyomingBufo baxteri (=hemiophrys)Amphibian E May Affect NLAAToad, YosemiteBufo canorusAmphibian C May Affect No EffecthTopminnow, Gila (incl. Yaqui)Poeciliopsis occidentalisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE May Affect No EffecthTreefrog, ArizonaHyla wrightorumAmphibian C May Affect No EffecthTrout, ApacheOncorhynchus apacheFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAATrout, bullSalvelinus confluentusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT;XN PS May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-71Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsTrout, GilaOncorhynchus gilaeFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthTrout, greenback cutthroatOncorhynchus clarki stomiasFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAATrout, Lahontan cutthroatOncorhynchus clarkihenshawiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect NLAATrout, Little Kern goldenOncorhynchus aguabonitawhiteiFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthTrout, Paiute cutthroatOncorhynchus clarki selenirisFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidT May Affect No EffecthTrout, steelheadOncorhynchus mykissAnadromousSalmonidE PS; SFBE May Affect NLAATuctoria, Greene'sTuctoria greeneiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAATurtle, Alabama red-bellyPseudemys alabamensisSnakes andOther ReptilesE May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-72Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsTurtle, bog (=Muhlenberg)Clemmys muhlenbergiiSnakes andOther ReptilesT;T(S/A) ULB May Affect NLAATurtle, flattened muskSternotherus depressusSnakes andOther ReptilesT May Affect NLAATurtle, ringed mapGraptemys oculiferaSnakes andOther ReptilesT May Affect NLAATurtle, Sonoyta mudKinosternon sonorienselongifemoraleSnakes andOther ReptilesC May Affect No EffecthTurtle, yellow-blotched mapGraptemys flavimaculataSnakes andOther ReptilesT May Affect NLAAVervain, Red HillsVerbena californicaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect No EffecthVireo, least Bell'sVireo bellii pusillusCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAd,eNLAAVole, AmargosaMicrotus californicusscirpensisTerrestrialMammalE NLAAeNo EffecthVole, Florida salt marshMicrotus pennsylvanicusdukecampbelliTerrestrialMammalE NLAAeNLAAWarbler, nightingale reed (oldworld warbler)Acrocephalus lusciniaCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAAWartyback, white (pearlymussel)Plethobasus cicatricosusUnionidMusselsE;XN May Affect NLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-73Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsWatercress, Gambel'sRorippa gambelliiFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect NLAAWaterdog, black warrior (=SipseyFork)Necturus alabamensisAmphibian C May Affect NLAAWater-plantain, Kral'sSagittaria secundifoliaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsT May Affect NLAAWater-umbel, HuachucaLilaeopsis schaffneriana var.recurvaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthWedgemussel, dwarfAlasmidonta heterodonUnionidMusselsE May Affect NLAAWhale, belugaDelphinapterus leucasMarineMammalE May Affect NLAAWhale, blueBalaenoptera musculusMarineMammalE NLAAeNLAAWhale, bowheadBalaena mysticetusMarineMammalE May Affect NLAAWhale, finBalaenoptera physalusMarineMammalEULB; GB;BBMay Affect NLAAWhale, grayEschrichtius robustusMarineMammalE May Affect No Effecth2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-74Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsWhale, humpbackMegaptera novaeangliaeMarineMammalEPS; ULB;GB; BBNLAAeNLAAWhale, killerOrcinus orcaMarineMammalE PS; SFBE May Affect NLAAWhale, North Atlantic right whaleEubalaena glacialisMarineMammalE ULB; BB May Affect NLAAWhale, North Pacific right whaleEubalaena japonicaMarineMammalE May Affect NLAAWhale, seiBalaenoptera borealisMarineMammalE May Affect NLAAWhale, southern rightEubalaena australisMarineMammalE May Affect No EffecthWhale, spermPhyseter macrocephalusMarineMammalE May Affect NLAAWhipsnake (=striped racer),AlamedaMasticophis lateraliseuryxanthusSnakes andOther ReptilesT SFBE NLAAgNLAAWhite SedgeCarex albidaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE SFBE May Affect NLAAWild-rice, TexasZizania texanaFreshwaterSaltwaterAquatic andWetland PlantsE May Affect No EffecthWolf, redCanis rufusTerrestrialMammalE;XN BB NLAAgNLAA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 7- Effects Summary and Determination7-75Table 7-2. Effects Determination forAquatic and Aquatic-dependent Speciesthat May Be Affected by the2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupaListing StatusbRAASpeciescEffects Determinationfor ANSEffectsDeterminationfor TraditionalPollutantsWoodpecker, ivory-billedCampephilus principalisCoastal/MarineBirdE NLAAeNLAAWoodrat, riparian (=San JoaquinValley)Neotoma fuscipes ripariaTerrestrialMammalE SFBE NLAAgNLAAWoundfinPlagopterus argentissimusFreshwaterFish/InlandSalmonidE;XN May Affect NLAAa)Listed species taxonomic groups were determined based on taxonomic groups determined for 82 RAA listed species. See Section 5.2.5 for furtherinformation.b)Listing status designations include: T= threatened; E=endangered; C=candidate; XN=experiment population, non-essential; PT=proposed threatened; PE=proposed endangered; T(S/A)=threatened due to similarity of appearance.c)Species is present in one of the following RAAs: BB = Biscayne Bay, GB = Galveston Bay, PS = Puget Sound, SFBE = San FranciscoBay Estuary, SLE =Saint Luis River Estuary, UMR = Upper Mississippi River, ULB = Upper and Lower [New York] Bay.d)Source from NatureServe.e)Source from ecos.fws.gov’s information in the species profiles, including recovery plans, critical habitat, and other documentscontained therein.f)Source from http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/Beach-Mice-2005.htm.g)See Appendix F for information about this species, including sources.h)EPA has determined that there will be no effect for the listed species.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 8- Cumulative Effects

8-1 

## SECTION 8

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Section 7 regulations require EPA to provide an analysis of cumulative effects, along with other information, when reque sting initiation of formal cons ultation. Cumulative effects are

the effects of future state, tribal, local, and private actions, not involving a Federal action, that are reasonably certain to occu r within the action area under consideration. 50 C.F.R. § 402.02 (emphasis added).

EPA notes that most of the activities that are likely to impact species in the future are similar in nature to activities that have imp acted species in the pas t; these activities were

discussed in detail within the seven RAAs in the environmental baseline section of this BE (see Section 4.0). Anticipated non-federa l future activities that are reas onably certain to occur in or

near surface waters in the enti re action area applicab le in this BE include: timber harvesting, grazing, mining, agriculture, development, urban runoff, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, road building, sand and gravel operati ons, introduction of non-n ative species, climate change, and commercial and recreati onal fishing. These non-federal act ions are likely to continue exerting adverse effects on many or all of the listed species and de signated critical habitats at

issue.

There are also non-federal future activities reas onably certain to occu r in or near surface

waters in the action area that are likely to have beneficial effect s on some listed species and their designated critical habitat. These activities incl ude: implementation of water conservation and reuse programs; toxic reduction and pollution prevention programs; riparian improvement measures; best management practices associated with timber harvesting, grazing, agricultural activities, urban development and urban retrofit ting, and road building an d retrofitting; road abandonment; restrictions on recreational activitie s; fishing quotas or limitations, and other nonpoint source pollution controls. Ho wever, despite these beneficial effects and the positive impact of actions to implement recovery plans, where in place, EPA believes that the overall cumulative effects from future state, local and private actions are likely to continue to stress listed species

and their critical habitats.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Section 9- Interrelated and Interdependent

9-1 

## SECTION 9

INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS

Effects of the action under cons ultation are to be analyzed to gether with the effects of

other activities that are interrelat ed to, or interdependent with, th at action. An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and depends on the proposed action for its justification An interdependent activity is an ac tivity that has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation [50 CFR § 402.02.]

For the action under consultation, EPA is not aw are of any interrelated or interdependent activities with effects on listed species or critical habitats.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix A



### Appendix A. Discharge-Specific Techno logy-based Effluent Limits, Except Ballast Water, Required by the VGP for All Covered VesselsProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

21 referred to as “MARPOL vessels”) must have concentrations of oil less than 15 parts per million (ppm) (as measured by EPA Method 1664 or other appropriate method for determination of oil content as accepted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) (e.g. ISO Method 9377) or U.S. Coast Guard) before discharge. All MARPOL vessels must have a current International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate (IOPP) issued in accordance with 33 CFR §§ 151.19 or 151.21. All other discharges of oil including oily mixtures must not contain oil in quant ities that may be harmful, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110.

2.1.5 Compliance with Other Statutes and Regulations

As required by 40 CFR §122.44(p), you must comply with any applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guar d is operating that establish specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and storage of pollutants.

Any discharge from your vessel must comply with sections 311 (33 USC 1321) of the CWA, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS 33 USC §§ 1905-1915), the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, (16 USC 1431 et seq.) and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR Part 922 and 50 CFR Part 404, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 USC § 136 et seq.), and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA of 1990, 33 USC § 2701-2720).

The US Code of Federal Regulations containing these provisions can be found at: www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/

.

2.1.6 General Training

All owner/operators of vessels must ensure that the master, operator, person

- in

- charge, and crew members who actively take part in the management of incidental discharges or who may affect those discharges are adequately trained in implemen ting the terms of this permit. This training need not be formal or accredited courses; however, it is the vessel owners/operators’ responsibility to ensure these staff are given the necessary information to conduct shipboard activities in accordance with the terms of this permit.

Vessel owners/operators must also meet all training

- related recordkeeping requirements of Part

4.2 of this permit.

2.2 Effluent Limits and Related Requirements for Specific Discharge C ategories

The requirements in Part 2.2 constitute technology- based effluent limitations and related requirements except where it is specifically not ed that the requirements constitute water quality

based limits.

2.2.1 Deck Washdown and Runoff and Above Water Line Hull Cleaning

Vessel owner/operators must minimize the introduction of on-deck debris, garbage, residue, and spill into deck washdown and runoff discharges. Before deck washdowns occur, you must broom clean exposed decks or use comparable management measures and remove all existing debris. When required by their class societies (e.g., oil tankers), their flag Administrations, or the U.S.

Coast Guard , vessels must be fitted with and use perimeter spill rails and scuppers to collect theProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

22 runoff for treatment. Where feasible, machinery on deck must have coamings or drip pans where necessary to collect any oily discharge that may leak from machinery and p revent spills . The drip pans must be drained to a waste container for proper disposal and/or periodically wiped and cleaned. The presence of floating solids, visible foam, halogenated phenol compounds, and dispersants, or surfactants in deck washdowns must be minimized. Vessel owners/operators must minimize deck washdowns while in port.

Vessel owners/operators must maintain their topside surface and other above water line portions of the vessel to minimize the discharge of rust (and other corrosion by-produ cts), cleaning compounds, paint chips, non- skid material fragments, and other materials associated with exterior topside surface preservation. Furthermore, vessel owners/operators must minimize residual paint droplets from entering waters subject to this p ermit whenever they are conducting maintenance painting. Possible minimization techniques include, but are not limited to, avoiding paint spraying in windy conditions or avoiding overapplication of paint. This permit does not authorize the disposal of unus ed paint into waters subject to this permit.

If deck washdowns or above water line hull cleaning will result in a discharge, they must be

conducted with “non- toxic” and “phosphate free” cleaners and detergents as defined in Append ix

A of this permit. Furthermore, cleaners and detergents should not be caustic and must be biodegradable.

2.2.2 Bilgewater/Oily Water Separator Effluent

All bilgewater discharges must be in c ompliance with the regulations in 40 CFR Parts 110 (Discharge of Oil), 116 (Designation of Hazardous Substances), and 117 (Determination of Reportable Quantities for Hazardous Substances) and 33 CFR §151.10 (Control of Oil Discharges). In addition:

• Vessel operators may not use dispersants, detergents, emulsifiers, chemicals

, or other substances that remove the appearance of a visible sheen 1 in their bilgewater discharges. This requirement does not prohibit the use of these materials in machinery spaces for the purposes of maintaining or cleaning equipment.

• Except in the case of flocculants or other required additives (excluding any dispersants or surfactants) used to enhance oil/water separation during processing (after bilgewater has been removed from the bilge), vessel operators may not add substances that drain to the bilgewater that are not produced in the normal operation of a vessel. The use of oil solidifiers, flocculants, or other required additives are allowed only as part of an oil water separation system provided they

do not alter the chemical make -up of the oils being discharged and any discharge

of such materials into waters subj ect to this permit must be minimized . Routine cleaning and maintenance activities associated with vessel equipment and

1 40 CFR 110.4 states that: “addition of dispersants or emulsifiers to oil to be discharged that would circumvent the provisions of this part is prohibited.” 33 CFR 151.10 (g) states that: “No discharge into the sea shall contain chemicals or other substances introduced for the purpose of circumventing the conditions of discharge specified in this regulation.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

23 structures are considered to be normal operation of a vessel if those practices fall within normal marine practice.

• All vessels must mini mize the discharge of bilgewater into waters subject to this permit. This can be done by minimizing the production of bilgewater, disposing of bilgewater on shore where adequate facilities exist, or discharging into waters not subject to this permit (i.e., more than 3 nautical miles [nm] from shore) for vessels that regularly travel into such waters. Though not regulated under this permit, EPA notes that discharges of bilgewater outside waters subject to this permit (i.e., more than 3 nm from shore) are regulated under Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships as implemented by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and U.S. Coast Guard regulations found in 33 CFR part 151.

• Vessels greater than 400 gross tons shall n ot discharge untreated oily bilgewater into waters subject to this permit.

• Vessels greater than 400 gross tons that regularly sail outside the territorial sea (at least once per month) shall not discharge treated bilgewater within 1 nm of shore if technologically feasible (e.g., holding would not impact safety and stability, would not contaminate other holds or cargo, or would not interfere with essential operations of the vessel). Any discharge which is not technologically feasible to

avoid must be documen ted as part of the requirements in Part 4.2 and reported to EPA as part of the vessel’s annual report.

• Vessels greater than 400 gross tons shall not discharge treated bilgewater into

waters referenced in Appendix G unless the discharge is necessary t o maintain the safety and stability of the ship. Any discharge of bilgewater into these waters must be documented as part of the recordkeeping requirements in Part 4.2 and reported to EPA as part of the vessel’s annual report.

• For vessels greater than 400 gross tons that regularly sail outside the territorial sea (at least once per month), if treated bilgewater is discharged into waters subject to this permit, it must be discharged when the vessel is underway (sailing at speeds greater than 6 knots), unless doing so would threaten the safety and stability of the ship. EPA notes that vessel operators may also choose to dispose of bilgewater on

shore w here adequate facilities exist. Any discharge which is made for safety reasons must be documented as part of the requirements in Part 4.2 and repor ted to EPA as part of the vessel’s annual report.

Note: EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether to alter the bilgewater management regime for new build vessels and whether to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options. Please see Part 4.4.2 of the Fact Sheet for details.

2.2.3 Ballast Water

All discharges of ballast water must comply with the requirements in t his permit as described below. Additionally, owner/operators of all vessels subject to coverage under this permit which are equipped with Ballast Tanks must comply with any additional BMPs in this section.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

40 extraordinary condition, to effect a BWE before entering the EEZ prior to entering the Great Lakes, must employ another method of ballast water management listed in 33 CFR 151.1510 or otherwise comply with the provision of 33 CFR 151.1514.

Additionally, vessels utilizing a ballast water treatment system (see Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the permit) must also conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing (as applicable) in addition to treating their ballast water if they meet the following requirements:

• The vessel operates outside the EEZ and more than 200 nm from any shore and

then ent ers the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway System, and

• The vessel has taken on ballast water that has a salinity of less than 18 ppt from a coastal, estuarine, or freshwater ecosystem within the previous month.

If a vessel affected by these requirements has not taken on ballast water with a salinity of less than 18 ppt in the previous month, the master of the vessel must certify to this effect in their ballast water recordkeeping requirements before entering the Great Lakes.

2.2.3.8 Vessels in the U. S. Coast Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP)

Owner/operators of vessels are not required to meet the requirements of Parts 2.2.3.5 (except

Parts 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 2.2.3.5.1.1.6 ) and 2.2.3.6 of this permit if either:

• The vessel is accepted by the U.S. Coast Guard into the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP),

• The technology is operated in accordance with requirements of that program, and

• The acceptance has not been withdrawn

Owner/operators of these vessels are required to meet the requirements of Parts 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 and

2.2.3.5.1.1.6 of this permit.

2.2.4 Anti

- Fouling Hull Coatings/ Hull Co ating Leachate

• All anti -fouling hull coatings subject to registration under FIFRA (see 40 CFR § 152.15) must be registered, sold or distributed, applied, maintained, and removed in a manner consistent with applicable requirements on the coatings’ FIFRA lab el.

• For anti-fouling hull coatings not subject to FIFRA registration (i.e., not produced for sale and distribution in the United States), hull coatings must not contain any biocides or toxic materials banned for use in the United States (including those on EPA’s List of Banned or Severely Restricted Pesticides) . This requirement applies to all vessels, including those registered and painted outside the United States.

At the time of initial application or scheduled reapplication of anti

- fouling coatings, you must give consideration, as appropriate for vessel class and vessel operations, to the use of hull coatings with the lowest effective biocide release rates, rapidly biodegradable components (once separated from the hull surface), or non- biocidal altern atives, such as silicone coatings.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

41 Some ports and harbors are impaired by copper, a biocide used commonly in anti-foulant paints. These waters include Shelter Island Yacht Basin in San Diego, California, and waters in and around the ports of Los Angeles/Lo ng Beach. A complete list of such waters may be found at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. When vessels spend considerable time in these waters (defined as spending more than 30 days per year), or use these waters as their home port (i.e., house boats,

ferries or rescue vessels), vessel owners/operators shall consider using anti- fouling coatings that rely on a rapidly biodegradable biocide or another alternative rather than copper- based coatings. If after consideration of alternative biocides, vessel operators continue to use copper- based antifoulant paints, they must document in their recordkeeping documentation how this decision

was reached.

The discharge of Tributyltin (TBT) from any source (whether used as a biocide or not) or any other organotin compound used as a biocide is prohibited by this permit. Therefore, vessel owners/operators covered by this permit have a zero discharge standard for TBT (whether or not used as a biocide) or any other organotin compound used as a biocide. You may not use an antifoulant coating containing TBT or any other organotin compound used as a biocide. If the vessel has previously been covered with a hull coating containing TBT (whether or not used as a biocide) or any other organotin compound used as a biocide, vessels must be ef fectively overcoated so that no TBT or other organotin leaches from the vessel hull or the TBT or other organotin coating must have been removed from the vessel’s hull.

When used as a catalyst, an organotin compound other than TBT (e.g., dibutyltin) is not to be present above 2500 mg total tin per kilogram of dry paint. Furthermore, the coating shall not be designed to slough or otherwise peel from the vessel hull. Incidental amounts of coating discharged by abrasion during cleaning or after contact with o ther hard surfaces (e.g., moorings) are not prohibited.

2.2.5 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)

Discharges of AFFF are authorized for emergency purposes when needed to ensure the safety and security of the vessel and crew.

For vessels that sail outside of the ter ritorial sea more than once per month, maintenance and training discharges of fluorinated AFFF are not authorized within waters subject to this permit (any such discharges should be collected and stored for onshore disposal or scheduled when the

vessel is outside such waters). Discharge volumes associated with regulatory certification and inspection must be minimized and a substitute foaming agent (i.e., non-fluorinated) must be used if possible within waters subject to this permit.

For vessels that do not leave the territorial sea more than once per month, if vessel maintenance and training discharges are required, AFFF must be collected and stored for onshore disposal

unless the vessel uses a non -fluorinated or alternative foaming agent. Training should b e conducted as far from shore as is practicable. Maintenance and training discharges are not allowed in port.

For all vessels, AFFF discharges may not occur in or within 1 nm of a water referenced in Appendix G unless they are discharged:Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

42 • For emergency purposes;

• By rescue vessels such as fireboats for firefighting purposes; or

• By vessels owned or under contract to do business exclusively in or within 1 nm of those protected areas by the United States government or state or local
governments.

If AFFF discharges occur in waters referenced in Appendix G for emergency purposes, a written explanation must be kept in the ship’s log or other vessel recordkeeping documentation

consistent with Part 4.2 of this permit.

2.2.6 Boiler/Economizer Blowdown

You must minimize the discharge of boiler/economizer blowdown in port if chemicals or other additives are used to reduce impurities or prevent scale formation. For vessels greater than 400 gross tons which leave the territorial sea at least once per week, boiler/economizer blowdown may not be discharged in waters subject to this permit, unless:

• The vessel remains within waters subject to this permit for a longer period than the necessary duration between blowdown cycles;

• The vessel needs to conduct blowdown immediately before entering drydock; or

• For safety purposes.

For all vessels, boiler/economizer blowdown may not be discharged in waters referenced in Appendix G except for safety purposes. Furthermore, boiler/economizer blowdown should be discharged as far from shore as practicable.

2.2.7 Cathodic Protection

Cathodic protection must be maintained to prevent the corrosion of the ship’s hull. The discharge of zinc, magnesium, and aluminum are expected from properly functioning cathodic protection sacrificial electrodes. However, vessel operators must minimize the flaking of large, corroded portions of these anodes. Sacrificial anodes must not be used more than necessary to adequately prevent corrosion of the vessel’s hull, sea chest, rudder, and other exposed areas of the vessel. Vessel operators must appropriately clean and/or replace these anodes d uring periods of maintenance (such as drydocking), so that release of these metals to waters is minimized. Furthermore, when feasible, sacrificial anodes should be flush-fitted to the hull, or vessel operators must fill the space between the anode and hull backing to remove the potential for hotspots for fouling organisms.

Vessel operators should note that magnesium is less toxic than aluminum and aluminum is less toxic than zinc. If vessel operators use sacrificial electrodes, they must select electrode devices with metals that are less toxic to the extent technologically feasible and economically practicable and achievable. If a vessel selects aluminum, they must document in their recordkeeping documentation why they made this selection, and why use of magnesium is not appropriate. Likewise, if a vessel selects zinc, they must document why they did not select magnesium or

aluminum.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

43 EPA recommends the use of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) in place of or to reduce the use of sacrificial electrodes when technologically feasible (e.g., adequate power sources, appropriate for vessel hull size and design), safe, and adequate to protect against corrosion, particularly for new vessels. If vessel operators use ICCP, they must maintain

dielectric shields to prevent flaking.

2.2.8 Chain Locker Effluent

The anchor chain must be carefully and thoroughly washed down (i.e., more than a cursory rinse) as it is being hauled out of the water to remove sediment and marine organisms. In addition, chain lockers must be cleaned thoroughly during dry- docking to eliminate accumulated sediments and any potential accompanying pollutants. For vessels that regularly sail outside waters subject to this permit (at least once per month), if technically feasible, periodically clean, rinse, and/or pump out the space beneath the chain locker prior to entering waters subject to this permit (preferably mid

- ocean) if the anchor has been lowered into any nearshore waters. Furthermore, for vessels that leave waters subject to this permit at least once per month, chain lockers shall not be rinsed or pumped out in waters subject to this permit, unless not emptying them would compromise safety. Such a safety claim must be documented in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation consistent with Pa rt 4.2

.

2.2.9 Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic Fluid and Other Oil

- to

Sea Interfaces Including Lubrication Discharges from Paddle Wheel Propulsion, Stern Tubes, Thruster Bearings, Stabilizers, Rudder Bearings, Azimuth Thrusters, Propulsion Pod Lubrication, and Wire Rope and Mechanical Equipment Subject to Immersion

The protective seals on controllable pitch propellers, azimuth thrusters, propulsion pods, rudder bearings, or any other oil- to -sea interfaces must be maintained in good operating order to minimize the leaking of hydraulic oil or other oils. The vessel owner/operator must not discharge oil in quantities that may be harmful as de fined in 40 CFR Part 110 from any oil- to

- sea interface. If possible, maintenance activities on controllable pitch propellers, thrusters, and other oil- to

- sea interfaces should be conducted when a vessel is in drydock.

Minimize maintenance activities on st ern tube seals when a vesse l is outside of drydock. If maintenance or emergency repair must occur on stern tubes or other oil- to

- sea interfaces which have a potential to release oil in quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110, appropriate spill response equipment (e.g., oil booms) must be used to contain any oil leakage. Operators of the vessel must have ready access to spill response resources to clean up any oil spills.

After applying lubrication to wire rope and mechanical equipment s ubject to immersion, wire ropes, and other equipment must be thoroughly wiped down to remove excess lubricant.

All vessels constructed on or after December 19, 2013 must use an environmentally acceptable

lubricant in all oil

- to

- sea interfaces. “Environmentally acceptable lubricants” means lubricants that are “biodegradable” and “non

- toxic” and are not “bioaccumulative” as defined in Appendix

A of this permit.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

44 For all vessels built before December 19, 2013, unless technically infeasible, owners/operators must use an environmentally acceptable lubricant in all oil to sea interfaces. If a vessel is unable to use an environmentally acceptable lubricant, you must document in your recordkeeping

documentation consistent with Part 4.2 why you are unable to do so, and must report the use of a non-environmentally acceptable lubricant to EPA in your Annual Report. Use of an environmentally acceptable lubricant does not authorize the discharge of any lubricant in a quantity that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110.

2.2.10 Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine

Brine from the distillation system and reverse osmosis reject water shall not contain or come in contact with machinery or industrial equipment (other than that necessary for the production of potable water), toxic or hazardous materials, or wastes.

2.2.11 Elevator Pit Effluent

Discharges of untreated elevator pit effluent are not authorized within waters subject to this permit except in cases of emergency. Elevator pit effluent may be d ischarged into waters subject to this permit if it is managed with the vessel’s bilgewater and meets all the requirements of Part

2.2.2 of this per mit. Otherwise, it must be treated with an oily

- water separator and discharged with an oil content below 15 ppm for existing vessels, as measured by EPA Method 1664 or other appropriate method for determination of oil content as accepted by the IMO (e.g., ISO Method 9377) or U.S. Coast Guard. Emergency discharges must be documented in the ship’s log or other vessel recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part 4.2

.

2.2.12 Firemain Systems

Discharges from firemain systems are authorized for emergency purposes to ensure the safety and security of the vessel and her crew, other emergency situations, and testing and inspections of the firemain systems in orde r to assure its operability in an emergency. Firemain systems may be discharged in port for certification, maintenance, and training requirements if the intake comes directly from the surrounding waters or potable water supplies and there are no additions (e.g., AFFF) to the discharge. Furthermore, firemain systems may be used for deck washdown or other secondary uses if the intake comes directly from the surrounding waters or potable water supplies and the discharge meets all relevant effluent limitation associated with that activity. When feasible, maintenance and training should be conducted outside port and/or outside waters subject to this permit.

The vessel owner/operator shall not discharge firemain systems in waters listed in Appendix G except in emergency situations or when washing down the anchor chain to comply with anchor wash down requirements in Part 2.2.8

.

2.2.13 Freshwater Layup

Minimize the amount of disinfection or biocidal agents used in freshwater layup to the minimum required to prevent aquatic growth.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

45 2.2.14 Gas Turbine Washwater

Gas turbine washwater must not be directly discharged within waters subject to this permit. Where feasible, gas turbine washwater must be prevented from commingling with bilgewater that will be discharged in waters subject to this permit, for example by collecting it separately and properly disposing of it at an onshore facility. Under no circumstances may oils, including oily mixtures, from gas turbine washwater be discharged into waters subject to this permit in quantities that may be harmful as determine d in accordance with 40 CFR Part 110.

2.2.15 Graywater

All vessels must minimize the discharge of graywater while in port. For those vessels that cannot store graywater, the owner or operator and their crews must minimize the production of graywater in port. Examples of ways to minimize production of graywater include delaying laundry, scullery activities, and restricting length of showers while in port, and using high efficiency faucets and showerheads. All vessels that have the capacity to store graywater shall not discharge it in waters listed in Appendix G . For vessels that cannot store graywater, vessel operators must minimize the production of graywater while in waters listed in Appendix G

.

For vessels greater than 400 gross tons that regularly travel more than 1 nm from shore that have the capacity to store graywater for a sufficient period, graywater must be discharged greater than 1 nm from shore while the vessel is underway, unless the vessel meets the treatment standards and other requirements contained under Parts 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 or 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of this permit. Additional specific requirements for graywater apply to cruise ships (Parts 5.1 and 5.2 ) and large ferries (Part 5.3 ).

Vessels that do not travel more than 1 nm from shore shall minimize the discharge of graywater and, provided the vessel has available graywater storage capacity, must dispose of graywater onshore if appropriate faci lities are available and such disposal is economically practicable and achievable unless the vessel meets the treatment standards and other requirements contained

under Parts 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 or 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of this permit. You must also minimize the discharge of graywater when th e vessel is not underway.

If graywater will be discharged in waters subject to this permit, the introduction of kitchen oils to the graywater system must be minimized. When cleaning dishes, you must remove as much food and oil residue as practicable befor e rinsing dishes. Excess o ils used in cooking, including animal fats and vegetable oils, shall not be added to the graywater system. Under no circumstances may oil from the galley and scullery be discharged in quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40

CFR Part 110.

Vessel owners/operators must use phosphate-free and non-toxic soaps and detergents, as defined

in Appendix A of this permit, for any purpose if gray water will be discharged into waters subject to this permit. Soaps and detergents must be free from toxic or bioaccumulative compounds and not lead to extreme shifts in receiving water pH. For purposes of this part, extreme shifts means causing pH to fall below 6.0 or rise above 9.0 as a direct result of the discharge.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

46 If your vessel is underway in a nutrient- impaired water, or a water that is impaired as a result of nutrient enrichment (such as waters listed as impaired for phosphorus, nitrogen, or for hypoxia or

anoxia [low dissolved oxygen concentrations]), you must follow these additional requirements:

When the vessel has adequate graywater storage capacity, the vessel owner/operator shall not discharge graywater into nutrient

- impaired waters subject to this permit (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay). A complete list of such waters can be found at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels. Where the vessel does not have adequate storage capacity to eliminate such discharges, graywater production and discharge must be minimized in such waters. Any such discharge must be conducted while the vessel is underway in areas with significant circulation and depth to the extent feasible. Graywater stored while in such waters can later be disposed of onshore or discharged in accordance with the other requirements of this permit.

2.2.15.1 Additional Graywater Requirements for Certain VGP Vessels Operating in the

Great Lakes

Any vessel operating on the Great Lakes that is not a “commercial vessel” as defined in CWA section 312(a)(10) must meet one of the following requirements for graywater
management:

(i) The vessel must hold all graywater for onshore discharge to an appropriate shoreside facility; or

(ii) The graywater discharge must not exceed 200 fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters and contain no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids.

Vessels subject to this part must conduct monitoring required under Part 2.2.15.2 to demonstrat e treatment equipment maintenance and compliance with the limits of this part. Records of the sampling and testing results must be retained onboard for a period of 3 years in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part 4.2 of this permit.

2.2.15.2 Graywater Monitoring

The following monitoring requirements are applicable to vessels which discharge graywater into waters subject to this permit a nd meet one of the following conditions:

• The vessel is a new build vessel constructed on or after December 19, 2013, has a maximum crew capacity greater or equal to 10, and provides overnight accommodations to those crew; or

• The vessel is subject to Part 2.2.15.1 of this permit.

Vessel owners/operators must conduct and analyze two samples per year, at least 14 days apart, and report the results of those samples as part of their Annual Report. Samples must be taken for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), fecal coliform, suspended solids, pH, and total residual chlorine. Sampling and testing shall be conducted according to 40 CFR Part 136. If the vessel is subject to Part 2.2.15.1 , measured samples must meet the standards specified in that part. Records of monitoring information shall include:Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

47 • The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurement s;

• The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;

• The date(s) analyses were performed;

• The individual(s) who performed the analyses;

• The analytical techniques or methods used; and

• The results of such analyses.

Vessels subject to this part m ust note whether the graywater effluent is treated or untreated, and also note whether the effluent is graywater alone or if it is mixed with another effluent type (e.g., graywater mixed with sewage). Records of the sampling and testing results must be ret ained onboard for a period of 3 years in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part

4.2

.

Vessels which do not enter waters subject to this permit for the calendar year need not conduct monitoring for that year, but must clearly indicate on their Annual Report that they did not enter waters subject to this permit during that year.

2.2.16 Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge

The disch arge of motor gasoline and compensating effluent must not have oil in quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR § 110.3, which includes discharges resulting in a visible sheen, or an oil concentration that exceeds 15 ppm. Determination of oil con centration may be measured by EPA Method 1664 or other appropriate method for determination of oil content as accepted by the IMO (e.g., ISO Method 9377) or U.S. Coast Guard. Compliance with the 15 ppm oil concentration limitation may be established with v isual monitoring for an oily sheen. Minimize discharge of motor gasoline and compensating discharge in port. If an oily sheen is observed, the vessel operator must deploy appropriate oil containment practices. Vessels shall not discharge motor gasoline and compensating discharge in waters subject to this permit listed

in Appendix G

.

2.2.17 Non

- Oily Machinery Wastewater

If discharged directly overboard, non- oily machinery wastewater must be free from oils (in quantities that may be harmful pursuant to 40 CFR Part 110) and any additives that are toxic or

bioaccumulative in nature. Non- oily machinery wastewater may also be drained to the bilge.

2.2.18 Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge

You must not allow refrigeration and air condensate discharge to come into contact with oily or toxic materials if it is discharged directly overboard. Refrigeration and air conditioning condensate that is collected and plumbed f or internal recycling (e.g., recycled as “technical water”) is allowed to commingle with oily water; however, the commingled discharge must meet all requirements of Part 2.1.4 of this permit and Part 2.2.2 of this permit if applicable.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

48 2.2.19 Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge (Including Non-Contact Engine Cooling Water; Hydraulic System Cooling Water, Refrigeration Cooling Water)

When possible, non- contact engine cooling water, hydraulic system cooling water, refrigeration cooling water and other seawater cooling overboard discharges should occur when the vessel is underway to minimize any thermal impacts to the receiving water.

To reduce the production and discharge of seawater cooling overboard discharge, EPA recommends that vessel owner/operators use shore-based power when the vessel is in port i f:

• Shore power is readily available for vessel owner/operators from utilities or port authorities;

• Shore-based power supply systems are capable of providing all needed electricity required for vessel operations; and

• The vessel is equipped to connect to shore- based power and such systems are compatible with the available shore power.

Maintenance of all piping and seawater cooling systems must meet the requirements of Part

2.2.20 (Seawater -Piping Biofouling Prevention).

2.2.20 Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention

Seawater piping biofouling chemicals subject to FIFRA registration (see 40 CFR § 152.15) must be used in accordance with their FIFRA label. No p esticides or chemicals banned for use in the United States may be discharged into waters subject to this permit.

Vessel owner/operators must use the minimum amount of biofouling chemicals needed to keep fouling under control. Discharges containing active agents must contain as little chlorine as possible.

Vessel owner/operators must remove fouling organisms from seawater piping on a regular basis and dispose of removed substances in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Removed fouling organisms shall not be discharged into waters subject to this permit and EPA recommends that if discharged into any waters, should be discharged more than 50 nm from shore. Vessel owner/operators should remove any organisms while at sea to reduce the risk of invasive species introduction in ports.

2.2.21 Boat Engine Wet Exhaust

Vessel engines generating wet exhaust must be maintained in good operating order, well tuned, and function according to manufacturer specifications to decrease pollutant contributions to wet exhaust. Vessel owner/operators should use low sulfur or alternative fuels for their vessels to reduce the concentration of pollutants in discharges from boat engine wet exhaust.

EPA encourages vessel operators to consider four stroke engines instead of two stroke engines for vessels generating wet exhaust that are covered under this permit. Use of a four stroke engine may minimize the discharge of pollutants to waters subject to this permit. Where vessels utilize two stroke engines, environmentally accepta ble lubricants (as defined in Appendix A of thisProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

49 permit) must be used unless technologically infeasible. If technologically infeasible, the vessel owner/operator must document in their recordkeeping documentation why they are not using environmentally acceptable lubricants.

2.2.22 Sonar Dome Discharge

The water inside the sonar dome shall not be discharged into waters subject to this permit for maintenance purposes

. Vessel operators should not use biofouling chemicals that are

bioaccumulative for the exterior of sonar domes when non- bioaccumulative alternatives are

available.

2.2.23 Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges

Vessel owners/operators must minimize the transport of attached living organisms when traveling into U.S. waters from outside the U.S. economic zone or between Captain of the Port (COTP) zones.

Whenever possible, rigorous hull- cleaning activities should take place in drydock, or at a land

based facility where the remo val of fouling organisms or spent antifouling coatings paint can be

contained. If water

- pressure -based systems are used to clean the hull and remove old paint, you must use facilities which treat the washwater prior to discharging to waters subject to this permit in order to remove the antifouling compound(s) and fouling growth from the washwater. If mechanical means (scraping, etc.) are used to clean the hull and remove old paint, the materials removed from the hull during that process must be collected and disposed of properly (e.g., onshore). These materials must not be allowed to contaminate nearby waters.

Vessel owners/operators who remove fouling organisms from hulls while the vessel is waterborne must employ methods that minimize the discharge of fouling organisms and antifouling hull coatings. These shall include:

• Use of appropriate cleaning brush or sponge rigidity to minimize removal of antifouling coatings and biocide releases into the water column;

• Limiting use of hard brushes and surfaces to the removal of hard growth; and

• When available and feasible, use of vacuum or other control technologies to minimize the release or dispersion of antifouling hull coatings and fouling organisms into the water column.

Vessel owners/operators must minimize th e release of copper -based antifoulant paints during vessel cleaning operations. Cleaning of hull surfaces coated with copper -based antifoulant paint must not result in any visible cloud or plume of paint in the water; if a visible cloud or plume of paint develops, shift to a softer brush or less abrasive cleaning technique. A plume or cloud of paint can be noted by the presence of discoloration or other visible indication that is distinguishable from hull growth or sediment removal. Production of a plume or cloud of sediment or hull growth is normal in some cases during vessel hull cleaning, but this plume or cloud must be substantially paint free (e.g., paint should not be clearly identifiable in the plume or cloud). When feasible, attempts must be made to minimize the release of fouling organisms and antifouling systems (including copper-based coatings) into surrounding waters.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

50 Vessels that use copper

- based anti -fouling paint must not clean the hull in copper- impaired waters within the first 365 days after paint application unless there is a significant visible indication of hull fouling. EPA maintains a list of copper- impaired waters on its webpage at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels . If you clean before 365 days in copper- impaired waters , you must document in your recordkeeping documentation why this early cleaning was necessary.

2.2.24 Welldeck Discharges

Welldeck discharges that contain graywater from smaller vessels should not be discharged within waters subject to this permit except in cases of emergency. Welldeck discharges from washdown of gas turbine engines may not be discharged within waters subject to this permit. Welldeck discharges from equipment and vehicle washdowns must be free from garbage and must not contain oil in quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110.

2.2.25 Graywater Mixed with Sewage from Vessels

The commingled discharge of graywater mixed with sewage from vessels must comply with the effluent limits for graywater discharge in Part 2.2.15 or Part 5 of this permit if applicable. Though not a requirement of this permit, vessel owner/operators are advised that all discharges commingled with sewage must meet the re quirements set forth in section 312 of the CWA and its implementing regulations found at 40 CFR Part 140 and 33 CFR Part 159. Hence, discharges of graywater mixed with sewage must meet both standards to be in compliance with the CWA.

2.2.26 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge

Exhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge must not contain oil, including oily mixtures, in quantities that may be harmful as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Part 110. Sludge or residues generated in treating exhaust gas scrubber was hwater discharge must not be discharged in waters subject to this permit and must be delivered ashore to adequate reception facilities.

In addition, owner/operators of vessels with exhaust gas cleaning systems that result in washwater discharges must meet the numeric effluent limits found in Part 2.2.26.1 and the monitoring requirements found in Part 2.2.26.2 this permit. These limits are consistent with the IMO guidelines set forth in section 10 for Exhaust Gas Cleaning (EGC) Systems (resolution MEPC.184(59)). Among other things, these guidelines recommend t he establishment of limits for concentrations of pollutants in the effluent.

2.2.26.1 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Treatment Standards

2.2.26.1.1 pH

The discharge washwater from the exhaust gas scrubber treatment system must have a pH of no less than 6.5 measured at the ship’s overboard discharge, with the exception that during maneuvering and transit, the maximum difference between inlet and outlet of 2.0 pH units is allowed. This difference is to be measured at the ship’s inlet and overboard discharge.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

51 2.2.26.1.2 PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hyd rocarbons)

The maximum continuous PAH concentration in the washwater must not be greater than 50 μg/L PAHphe (phenanthrene equivalence) above the inlet water PAH concentration for washwater flow rates normalized to 45 t/MWh. MWh refers to the maximum continuous rating (MCR) or 80 percent of the power rating of the fuel oil combustion unit. For the purposes of this criterion, the

PAH concentration in the washwater must be measured downstream of the water treatment equipment, but upstream of any washwater dilution or other reactant dosing unit, if used, prior to discharge.

The 50- μg/L limit is adjusted upward for lower washwater flow rates per MWh, and vice

- versa, and the applicable permit limits are contained in Table 7

.

Table 7 : PAH Permit Limits in Exhaust Gas Scrubber Discharge

Flow Rate (t/MWh) Discharge Concentration Limit (μg/L PAH phe equivalents) Measurement Technology

0

- 1 2,250 Ultraviolet Light

2.5 900 Ultraviolet Light

5 450 Fluorescence

11.25 200 Fluorescence

22.5 100 Fluorescence

45 50 Fluorescence

90 25 Fluorescence

2.2.26.1.3 Turbidity

The washwater treatment system must be designed to minimize suspended particulate matter, including heavy metals and ash. The maximum turbidity (monitored continuously) in washwater must not be greater than 25 FNU (formazin nephelometric units) or 25 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units) or equivalent units, above the inlet water turbidity. However, during periods of high inlet turbidity, the precision of the measurement device and the time lapse between inlet

measurement and outlet measurement are such that the use of a difference limit is unreliable. Therefore, all turbidity difference readings must be a rolling average over a 15 -minute period to a maximum of 25 FNU or NTU. For the purposes of this criterion, the turbidity in the washwater must be measured downstream of the water treatment equipment but upstream of washwater dilution (or other reactant dosing) prior to discharge. For a maximum of one 15-minute period within any 12-hour period, the continuous turbidity discharge limit may be exceeded by 20
percent.

2.2.26.1.4 Nitrates +Nitrites

The washwater treatment system must prevent t he discharge of nitrates, plus nitrites beyond that associated with a 12 percent removal of NO x from the exhaust, or beyond 60 mg/l normalized for washwater discharge rate of 45 tons/MWh, whichever is greater. MWh refers to the MCR or 80 percent of the power rating of the fuel oil combustion unit. For the purposes of this criterion, the

nitrate concentration in the washwater must be measured downstream of the water treatmentProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

52 equipment, but upstream of any washwater dilution or other reactant dosing unit, if used, prior to discharge.

The 60-mg/L limit is adjusted upward for lower washwater flow rates per MWh, and vice- versa, and the applicable permit limits are contained in Table 8

.

Table 8 : Nitrates + Nitrites Permit Limits in Exhaust Gas Scrubber Discharge

Flow Rate (t/MWH) Discharge Concentration Limit (mg/L nitrate + nitrite)

0

- 1 2,700

2.5 1,080

5 640

11.25 240

22.5 120

45 60

90 30

2.2.26.2 Exhaust Gas Scrubber Analytical Monitoring Requirements

2.2.26.2.1 Continuous Monitoring

The data recording system must comply with the g uidelines in sections 7 and 8 of MEPC.184(59) and must continuously record pH, PAH, and turbidity.

When the EGC system is operated in waters subject to this permit, the washwater monitoring and recording must be continuous. The values monitored and recorded must include pH, PAH, turbidity, and temperature.

The pH electrode and pH meter must have a resolution of 0.1 pH units and temperature compensation. The electrode must comply with the requirements defined in BS 2586 or of equivalent or better performance and the meter should meet or exceed BS EN ISO 60746-

2:2003.

The PAH monitoring equipment must be capable of mon itoring PAH in water in a range of at least twice the discharge concentration limit given in the table above. A demonstration must be made that the equipment operates correctly and does not deviate more than 5 percent in washwater with turbidity within the working range of the application. For those applications discharging at lower flow rates and higher PAH concentrations, ultraviolet light monitoring technology or equivalent should be used due to its reliable operating range.

The turbidity monitoring equi pment must meet requirements defined in ISO 7027:1999 or

USEPA 180.1.

All continuous monitoring equipment must be calibrated as recommended by probe manufacturers or Exhaust Gas scrubber manufacturers. At a minimum, all probes must beProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

53 calibrated at least a nnually. EPA expects many probe types (e.g., turbidity probes) will need to be calibrated on a more frequent basis.

2.2.26.2.2 Quarterly Analytical Monitoring.

In addition to the continuous monitoring found in Part 2.2.26.2.1 of this permit, vessel owner/operators must collect and analyze one sample per quarter for each of the constituents analyzed in Part 2.2.26.2.3 to demonstrate treatment equipment maintenance, probe accuracy, and compliance with this permit. Records of the sampling and testing results must be retained onboard for a period of 3 years in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation consistent with Part

4.2

.

2.2.26.2.3 Analytes for Quarterly Analytical Monitoring

Vessels conducting monitoring as required by Part 2.2.26.2.2 must monitor for the following parameters, choosing either sufficiently sensitive EPA P art 136 methods or other methods if specifically allowed:

• Dissolved and Particulate Metals , including Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, Selenium, Thallium, and Zinc (recommend using EPA Methods 200.8 or 200.9);

• PAHs including Acenaphthylene, Acenaphthene, Anthracene Benz[ a ]anthracene, Benzo[ ghi ]perylene, Benzo[ a ]pyrene, Benzo[ b ]fluoranthene +, benzo[k]fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenz[ a,h ]anthracene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno[1,2,3, c,d ]pyrene, Naphthalene, Ph enanthrene, and Pyrene (recommend using EPA Methods 550.1, 610, 625, 8100, 8270c, 8310);

• Nitrates (recommend using EPA Method 353.2);

• pH (using Standard Methods (SM) 4500- H B);

• Turbidity (using SM 2130 B);

• Temperature (using SM 2550); and

• Dissolved Oxygen (using SM 4500- O G).

2.2.26.2.4 Monitoring Reporting

Vessel owners/operators must submit all monitoring data to EPA’s e -reporting system, unless exempted from electronic reporting consistent with Part 1.14 of this permit. Monitoring data must be submitted at least once per calendar year no later than February 28 of the following year on the vessel annual report. Data must be submitted on or attached to a DMR a vailable in Appendix I of this permit or submitted to EPA’s e

- reporting system available at www.epa.gov/vessels /eNOI. Data may be submitted as part of the vessel’s annual report.

2.2.27 Fish Hold Effluent

You must minimize the discharge of fish hold water and/or ice while in port. All reasonable steps must be taken to prevent the discharge of excess fish hold water and ice while the vessel is stationary at the pier. If fish waste is contained in the fish hold effluent, the fish hold effluentProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

54 may not be discharged while in port, unless a physical separation method is used (e.g., filters or

removal of res iduals).

• The discharge of fish hold effluent (including dirty ice) is prohibited if you are unloading your catch at a land-based seafood processing facility or pier. If a

shore- based discharge facility is otherwise available to receive your effluent, then discharge of fish hold effluent (including dirty ice) is prohibited if the facility meets the following:

– Its use is economically achievable, and

– The facility has a valid NPDES permit, or

– That facility discharges to an NPDES

- permitted sewage treatment faci lity.

• The discharge of unused bait overboard is prohibited, unless you caught that bait in the same water body or watershed. Unused bait purchased from a bait shop or dealer may not be discharged overboard.

2.3 Additional Water Quality- Based Effluent Limits

The requirements in Part 2.3 constitute the water quality

- based effluent limitations in this permit. These water quality

- based effluent limitations supplement this permit’s effluent limitations in

Parts 2.1

, 2.2

, 2.3.2 and 5 of this permit.

2.3.1 Water Quality

- Based Effluent Limitations

Your discharge must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards in the receiving water body or another water body impacted by your discharges.

EPA generally expects that compliance with the other conditions in this permit, including Parts

2.1

, 2.2 , and 5 , will control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. If at any time you become aware, or EPA determines, that your discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of applicable water quality standards, you must take corrective actions as required

in Part 3 ; you must also report the exceedanc e(s) to EPA as required in Parts 1.14 and 4.4.1

.

EPA may impose additional water quality

- based limitations on a site

- spec ific basis, or require you to obtain coverage under an individual permit, if information in your NOI (if applicable), required reports, or from other sources indicates that, after meeting the water quality- based limitations in this part, your discharges ar e not controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, either in the receiving water body or another water body impacted by your discharges. EPA or an authorized representative of EPA may inform vessel owner/operators of specific require ments.

2.3.2 Discharges to Water Quality Impaired Waters

Impaired waters or “water quality limited segment[s]” are those which have been identified by a state or EPA pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA as not meeting applicable state water quality

standards. I mpaired waters may include both waters with EPA -approved or EPA- established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and those for which EPA has not yet approved or

established a TMDL.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix B



### Appendix B. Vessel Class-Specific Technology-based Effluent Limits Required by the VGP for Select Permitted VesselsProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

69 5. V ESSEL -C LASS -S PECIFIC R EQUIREMENTS

You must comply with the requirements of Part 5 of this permit, Vessel

- Class

- Specific Requirements, associated with your vessel class in addition to any applicable requirements that apply to all vessels specified elsewhere in this permit.

5.1 Large Cruise Ships (authorized to carry 500 people or more for hire)

The requirements in Part 5.1 apply to vessel discharges from cruise ships providing overnight accommodations (i.e., cruise ships with onboard sleeping facilities) to passengers and authorized to carry 500 people or more for hire.

5.1.1 Additional Effluent Limits

5.1.1.1 G raywater Management

5.1.1.1.1 Graywater Discharge Location and Rate

Pierside Limits – While pierside, appropriate onshore reception facilities for graywater must be used unless the vessel treats graywater with a device to meet the standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2 . If such facilities are not reasonably available and you do not have the capacity to treat graywater to

meet the standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2 , you must hold the graywater until the vessel is underway and not in waters subject to this permit. Appropriate reception facilities are those authorized for use by the port authority or local municipality and that treat the discharge in accordance with its NPDES permit.

Operational Limits

– You must meet the following restriction:

• While operating within 3 nm from shore, discharges of graywater are prohibited unless they meet the effluent standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2

.

Limits Applicable to Operation in Nutrient Impaired Waters – If you operate in nutrient- impaired waters including, but not limited to, the Chesapeake Bay or the territorial sea surrounding the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico, you must:

• Not discharge any graywater in nutrient

- impaired waters subject to this permit unless the length of voyage in that water exceeds the vessel’s holding capacity for graywater; and

• Minimize the discharge of any graywater into nutrient

- impaired waters subject to this permit, which may require minimizing the production of graywater; and

• If your vessel’s holding capacity for graywater is exceeded, treat such excess graywater (above the vessel holding capacity) by a device meeting the standards

in Part 5.1.1.1.2 prior to discharge into nutrient- impaired waters subject to this permit; or

• Dispose of the graywater at an onshore facility which will discharge the effluent under a valid NPDES permit.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

70 A list of nutrient impaired waters is available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.

5.1.1.1.2 Graywater Treatment Standards

The discharge of treated graywater must meet the following standards:

1. The discharge must satisfy the minimum level of effluent quality specified in 40 CFR § 133.102;

2. The geometric mean of the samples from the discharge during any 30- day period may not exceed 20 fecal coliform/100 milliliters (ml) and not more than 10 percent of the samples may exceed 40 fecal coliform/100 ml; and

3. Concentrations of total residual chlorine may not exceed 10.0 micrograms per liter (μg/l).

5.1.1.1.3 Sculleries and Galleys

Cruise ship owners/operators must use soaps and detergents that are phosphate-free, non-toxic, and biodegradable. Degreasers must be non- toxic if they will be discharged as part of any wa ste

stream.

5.1.1.1.4 Other Materials

Waste from mercury -containing products, dry cleaners or dry cleaner condensate, photo processing labs, medical sinks or floor drains, chemical storage areas, and print shops using

traditional or non- soy -based inks and chlorinated solvents must be prevented from entering the ship’s graywater, blackwater, or bilgewater systems if water from these systems will be discharged into waters subject to this permit. Preventing these wastes from entering these systems can be accomplished b y plugging all drains that flow to the graywater, blackwater, or bilge systems in areas where these wastes are produced and creating alternate waste receptacles or replumbing drains to appropriate holding tanks.

Vessel owners/operators must not discharge any toxic materials, including products containing acetone, benzene, or formaldehyde into salon and day spa sinks or floor drains if those sinks or floor drains lead to any system which will be discharged into waters subject to this permit. This includes using these materials on passengers (or crew) and rinsing residuals into these sinks. Alternate waste receptacles or holding tanks must be used for these materials. Addition of these materials to any systems which will discharge into waters subject to this permit is a permit

violation.

5.1.1.2 Pool and Spa Discharges

Discharges of pool or spa water to waters listed in Appendix G are not authorized under this permit. Discharges from pools and spas are authorized into non- Appendix G waters subject to this permit, provided pool and spa water to be discharged is dechlorinated and/or debrominated, and discharge occurs while the vessel is underway. To be considered dechlorinated, the total residual chlorine in the pool or spa effluent must be less than 100 μg/l if the pool or spa water isProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

71 discharged without going through an Advanced Wastewater Treatment System (AWTS). To be considered debrominated, the total residual oxidant in the pool or spa effluent must be below 25 μg/l if the pool or spa water is discharged without going through an AWTS. Pool and spa water may be added to the graywater treatment systems; however, any resultant discharge must meet all standards and requirements found in Part 5.1.1.1 and must be dechlorinated and/or debrominated as applicable.

5.1.2 Monitoring Requirements

5.1.2.1 Untreated Graywater

The discharge of untreated graywater by large cruise ships is not authorized in waters subject to this permit. Any discharge of untreated graywater within waters subject to this permit must be reported to EPA as an incidence of noncompliance on the vessel’s Annual Report.

5.1.2.2 Treated Graywater

Prior to entering wate rs of the United States, vessel operators must demonstrate that they have an effective treatment system that complies with the standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2 if they will discharge graywater within 3 nm of shore.

5.1.2.2.1 Initial Monitoring

In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment system, the vessel operator must take at least five (5) samples from the vessel on different days over a 30

- day peri od that are representative of the treated effluent to be discharged. A vessel owner/operator that submitted data to EPA for a vessel’s discharge from an AWTS under the 2008 VGP requirements or submitted such data to the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the requirements of Section 1411(b) of Title XIV, Pub. L. 106-554 (Dec. 31, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763) [Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations] (codified at 33 USC 1901 note) does not need to conduct initial monitoring, and may instead immediately commence maintenance moni toring consistent with Part 5.1.2.2.2 of this permit.

Initial monitoring must be done within the first 90 days of permit coverage, within 90 days o f AWTS installation onboard the vessel, or before vessels discharge into waters subject to this permit, whichever is later. Samples must be taken for BOD, fecal coliform, suspended solids, pH, and total residual chlorine. Furthermore, samples must be taken for E. coli , total phosphorus (TP), ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). Sampling and testing shall be conducted according to 40 CFR Part 136. If the measured samples meet the standards specified

in Part 5.1.1.1.2 , then the owner/operator has demonstrated the effectiveness of their treatment system for controlling their graywater discharge. Records of the sampling and testing results must be retained onboard for a period of 3 years in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation. Records of monitoring information shall include:

• The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;

• The individual(s) who performed the samplin g or measurements;

• The date(s) analyses were performed;

• The individual(s) who performed the analyses;Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

72 • The analytical techniques or methods used; and

• The results of such analyses.

Analytical results for total residual chlorine below the method detection limit shall be deemed compliant with the effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a testing method with a detection limit no higher than 10.0 μg/L under ideal conditions. EPA recommends Method SM4500- CL G (DPD Colorimetric Method) for these purposes as it is able to reach 10 μg/L under ideal conditions and so meets these requirements. SM4500- Cl G is typically the method that Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)/U.S. Coast Guard uses for compliance monitoring.

Testing and reporting for total residual chlorine is not required if chlorine is not used as disinfectant in the wastewater treatment works process and no water is drained to the graywater system from water with onboard chlorine additions (e.g., swimming pools, spas).

If a permittee has already received certification for continuous discharges from an AWTS by the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the requirements of Title XIV, Pub. L. 106-554 (Dec. 31, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763) [Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations] (codified at 33 USC 1901 note), the vessel need not conduct initial monitoring and may commence conducting maintenance monitoring.

5.1.2.2.2 Maintenance Monitoring

After demonstrating the effectiveness of their system, vessel owners/operators must collect and analyze one sample per quarter for each of the constituents listed in Part 5.1.2.2.1 to demonstrate treatment equipment maintenance and compliance with this permit. Furthermore, samples must

be taken for E. coli , total phosphorus (TP), ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). Records of the sampling and testing results must be retained onboard for a period of 3 years in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation.

5.1.2.2.3 Monitoring Reporting

The owner/operator must submit data showing that the graywater standards are achieved by their treatment system to EPA’s e -reporting system or to EPA, ATTN: VGP Cruise Ship Monitoring Results, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., MC 4203M, Washington, DC 20460. Initial sampling data must be submitted at least 7 days before entering waters subject to this permit, within 90 da ys of obtaining permit coverage, or within 90 days of AWTS installation onboard the vessel, whichever is later. Maintenance monitoring data must be submitted at least once per calendar year no later than February 28 of the following year (e.g., 2014 data must be submitted by February 28, 2015). Data must be submitted on DMRs available in Appendix I of this permit or

submitted to EPA’s e

- reporting syst em available at www.epa.gov/vessels /eNOI. Data may be submitted as part of the vessel’s annual report.

5.1.2.2.4 Reserved Authority

Even if owners/operators have demonstrated their systems meet the standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2 , if EPA, its authorized representative, or the U.S. Coast Guard sample their graywater effluent andProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

73 find that they are not meeting these standards, the cruise ship owners/operators are liable for violating their effluent limits.

5.1.2.2.5 Treated Graywater Records

The owner/operator must maintain records estimating the quantity and quality of all discharges of treated graywater into waters subject t o this permit, including date, location and volume discharged, and pollutant concentrations monitored in their recordkeeping documentation. These records shall be maintained as part of or in combination with the vessel’s sewage and graywater discharge reco rd book required under 33 CFR § 159.315.

5.1.2.3 Treated Pool and Spa Discharges

Vessel owners/operators must monitor chlorine or bromine concentrations (as applicable) in pool or spa water before every discharge event using sufficiently sensitive 40 CFR Part 136 methods if they will discharge these streams directly into waters subject to this permit to ensure that the dechlorination/debromination process is complete. If vessel owners/operators are monitoring bromine concentrations, they may use a field test kit wh ich uses the colorimetric method in lieu of 40 CFR Part 136 methods to ensure waters have been debrominated, provided that test kit has a method detection limit no higher than 50 μg/l. You must record the location of the discharge,

the estimated volume of the discharge, and the concentration of chlorine or bromine (as applicable). Records of this monitoring must be kept with other graywater monitoring records.

For chlorine, analytical results below the method detection limit shall be deemed compliant with the effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a testing method with a detection limit no higher than 10.0 μg/L under ideal conditions. EPA recommends Method SM4500- CL G (DPD Colorimetric Method) for these purposes as it is able to reach 10 μg/L under ideal conditions and so meets these requirements. SM4500- Cl G is typically the method that ADEC/USCG uses for compliance monitoring. For bromine, analytical results below the method detection limit shall be deemed compliant with the effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a testing method with a detection limit no higher than 50.0 μg/l.

5.1.3 Educational and Training Requirements

The crews of cruise ships play a key role in minimizing the discharge of pollutants from cruise ship operations and passengers. Therefore, cruise ship operators must provide the following educational and training requirements to ship personnel:

• The ship’s crew members who actively take part in the management of a discharge or who may affect any discharge must receive training regardin g shipboard environmental procedures and must be able to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures;

• Advanced training in shipboard environmental management procedures must be provided for those directly involved in managing specific dischar ge types or areas of the ship and these crew members must be able to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures; andProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

74 • Appropriate reprimand procedures must be developed for crew whose actions lead to violations of any effluent limit set forth in this permit or procedures established by the cruise ship operator to minimize the discharge of pollutants.

Cruise ships must also educate passengers on their potential environmental impacts. The goals of these education efforts must include preventin g trash from entering any waste stream, eliminating the addition of unused soaps, detergents, and pharmaceuticals to the graywater or blackwater systems, and minimizing production of graywater. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways including, but n ot limited to, posting signage and informational material in guestrooms and common areas, incorporating environmental information passenger orientation presentations or packages at the start of cruises, incorporating this information into additional

lectur es and seminars, or broadcasting information via loudspeakers.

Vessel owners/operators must also meet all training

- related recordkeeping requirements of Part

4.2 of this permit.

5.2 Medium Cruise Ships (authorized to carry 100 to 499 people for hire)

The requirements in Part 5.2 apply to vessel d ischarges from cruise ships providing overnight accommodations (i.e., cruise ships with onboard sleeping facilities) to passengers and authorized to carry between 100 and 499 people for hire.

5.2.1 Additional Effluent Limits

5.2.1.1 Graywater Management

All medium cruise ships must meet all requirements of this part, including the requirements of Parts 5.2.1.1.1, unless they are a vessel unable to voyage more than 1 nm from shore and were constructed before December 19, 2008. Medium cruise ships unable to voyage 1 nm from shore and constructed before December 19, 2008 must meet the requirements in Parts 5.2.1.1.3

, 5.2.1.1.4

, 5.2.1.1.5

, 5.2.1.2

, 5.2.2.1

, 5.2.2.3 , and 5.2.3

.

5.2.1.1.1 Graywater Discharge Location and Rate

Pierside Limits – While pierside, appropriate onshore reception facilities for graywater must be used, unless the vessel treats graywater with a device to meet the standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2 . If such facilities are not reasonably available and you do not have the capacity to treat graywater to

meet the standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2 , you must hold the graywater until the vessel is underway and not in waters subject to this permit. Appropriate reception facilities are those authorized for use by the port authority or local municipality and that treat graywater in accordance with its NPDES permit.

Operational Limits

– You must meet the following restrictions: while operating within 3 nm from shore, discharges of graywater are prohibited unless they meet the effluent standards in Part

5.2.1.1.2

.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

75 Limits Applicable to Operation in Nutrient Impaired Waters – If you operate in nutrient- impaired waters including, but not limited to, the Chesapeake Bay or the territorial sea surrounding the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico, you must:

• Not discharge any graywater in nutrient

- impaired waters subject to this permit unless the length of voyage in that water exceeds the vessel’s holding capacity for

g raywater; and

• Minimize the discharge of any graywater into nutrient

- impaired waters subject to this permit, which may require minimizing the production of graywater; and

• If your vessel’s holding capacity for graywater is exceeded, treat such excess
graywat er (above the vessel

- holding capacity) by a device meeting the standards

in Part 5.2.1.1.2 prior to discharge into nutrient- impaired waters subject to this permit; or

• Dispose of the graywater properly onshore; or

• Discharge the graywater while the cruise ship is sailing at a speed of at least 6

knots.

A list of nutrient

- impaired waters is available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.

5.2.1.1.2 Graywater Treatment S tandards

The discharge of treated graywater must meet the following standards:

1. The discharge must satisfy the minimum level of effluent quality specified in 40 CFR § 133.102;

2. The geometric mean of the samples from the discharge during any 30- day period

ma y not exceed 20 fecal coliform/100 milliliters (ml) and not more than 10 percent of the samples exceed 40 fecal coliform/100 ml; and

3. Concentrations of total residual chlorine may not exceed 10.0 micrograms per liter (μg/l).

5.2.1.1.3 Sculleries and Galleys

Cruise ship owners/operators must use soaps and detergents that are non-toxic, phosphate free, and biodegradable. Degreasers must be non- toxic if they will be discharged as part of any waste

stream.

5.2.1.1.4 Other Materials

Waste from mercury -containing products, dry cleaners or dry cleaner condensate, photo processing labs, medical sinks or floor drains, chemical storage areas, and print shops using traditional or non-soy based inks and chlorinated solvents must be prevented from entering the ship’s graywater, bla ckwater, or bilgewater systems if water from these systems will ever be discharged into waters subject to this permit. Preventing these wastes from entering these systems can be accomplished by plugging all drains that flow to the graywater, blackwater, orProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

76 bilge systems in areas where these wastes are produced and creating alternate waste receptacles or replumbing drains to appropriate holding tanks.

Vessel owners/operators must not discharge any toxic materials, including products containing acetone, benz ene, or formaldehyde into salon and day spa sinks or floor drains if those sinks or floor drains lead to any system which will be discharged into waters subject to this permit. This includes using these materials on passengers (or crew) and rinsing residuals into these sinks. Alternate waste receptacles or holding tanks must be used for these materials. Addition of these materials to any systems which will discharge into waters subject to this permit is a permit

violation.

5.2.1.1.5 Graywater Discharge Location and Rate for Vessels Built before December 19, 2008

While pierside, appropriate onshore reception facilities for graywater must be used if available and their use is economically achievable (unless the vessel treats graywater with a device to meet

the standard s in Part 5.2.1.1.2 ). Appropriate reception facilities are those authorized for use by the port authority or local municipality and that treat the discharge in accordance with its NPDES permit.

If such facilities are not available and you do not have the capacity to treat graywater to meet the

standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2 , you must hold the graywater unless the vessel is underway and sailing at a speed of at least 6 knots in a water that is not a water listed in Appendix G

.

5.2.1.2 Pool and Spa Discharges

Discharges of pool or spa water to waters listed in Appendix G are not authorized under this permit. Discharges from pools and spas are authorized into non- Appendix G waters subject to this permit, provided pool and spa water to be discharged is dechlorinated and/or debrominated, and discharge occurs while the vessel is underway. To be considered dechlorinated, the total residual chlorine in the pool or spa effluent must be less than 100 μg/l if the pool or spa water is discharged without treatment through an AWTS. To be considered debrominated, the total residual oxidant in the pool or spa effluent must be below 25 μg/l if the pool or spa water is discharged without going through an AWTS. Pool and spa water may be added to the graywater treatment systems; however, any resultant discharge must meet all standards and requirements

found in Part 5.2.1.1 and must be dechlorinated and/or debrominated as applicable.

5.2.2 Monitoring Requirements

5.2.2.1 Untreated Graywater

The owner/operator must maintain records estimating all discharges of untreated graywater into waters subject to this permit, including date, location, and volume discharged in their recordkeeping documentation. These records can be maintained as part of the vessel’s sewage and graywater discharge record book required under 33 CFR § 159.315.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

77 5.2.2.2 Treated Graywater

Prior t o entering waters of the United States, vessel operators must demonstrate that they have an effective treatment system that complies with the standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2 if they will discharge graywater within 3 nm of shore.

5.2.2.2.1 Initial Monitoring

In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment system, the vessel operator must take at least five (5) samples taken from the vessel on different days over a 30 -day period that are representative of the treated effluent to be discharged. A vessel owner/operator that submitted data to EPA for a vessel’s discharge from an AWTS under the 2008 VGP requirements or submitted such data to the U.S. Coast Guard to meet the requirements of Section 1411(b) of Title XIV, Pub. L. 106-554 (Dec. 31, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763) [Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations] (codified at 33 USC 1901 note) does not need to conduct initial monitoring, and may instead immediately commence maintenance monitoring consistent with Part 5.2.2.2.2 of this permit.

Initial monitoring must be done within the first 90 days of permit cove rage, within 90 days of AWTS installation onboard the vessel, or before vessels discharge into waters subject to this permit, whichever is later. Samples must be taken for BOD, fecal coliform, suspended solids, pH, and total residual chlorine. Furthermore, samples must be taken for E. coli , TP, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and TKN. Sampling and testing shall be conducted according to 40 CFR Part 136. If the measured samples meet the standards specified in Part 5.2.1.1.2 , then the owner/operator has demonstrated the effectiveness of their treatment system for controlling their graywater discharge. Records of the sampling and testing results must be retain ed onboard for a period of 3 years in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation. Records of monitoring information shall include:

• The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;

• The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;

• The date(s) analyses were performed;

• The individual(s) who performed the analyses;

• The analytical techniques or methods used; and

• The results of such analyses.

Analytical results for total residual chlorine below the method detection limit shall be deemed

co mpliant with the effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a testing method with a detection limit no higher than 10.0 μg/L under ideal conditions. EPA recommends Method SM4500- CL G (DPD Colorimetric Method) for these purposes as it is able to reach 10 μg/L under ideal conditions and so meets these requirements. SM4500- Cl G is typically the method that ADEC/U.S. Coast Guard uses for compliance monitoring.

Testing and reporting for total residual chlorine is not required if chlorine is not used as

disinfe ctant in the wastewater treatment works process and no water is drained to the graywater system from water with onboard chlorine additions (e.g., swimming pools, spas).Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

78 5.2.2.2.2 Maintenance Monitoring

After demonstrating the effectiveness of their system, vessel ow ners/operators must collect and analyze one sample per quarter for each of the constituents listed in Part 5.2.2.2.1 to demonstrate treatment equipm ent maintenance and compliance with this permit. Records of the sampling and testing results must be retained onboard for a period of 3 years in the vessel’s recordkeeping

documentation.

5.2.2.2.3 Monitoring Reporting

The owner/operator must submit data showing that the graywater standards are achieved by their treatment system to EPA’s e -reporting system or to EPA, ATTN: VGP Cruise Ship Monitoring Results, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., MC 4203M, Washington, DC 20460. Initial sampling data must be submitted at least 7 days before entering waters subject to this permit, within 90 days of obtaining permit coverage, or within 90 days of AWTS installation onboard the vessel, whichever is later. Maintenance monitoring data must be submitted at least once per calendar year no later than February 28 of the following year (e.g., 2014 data must be submitted by February 28, 2015). Data must be submitted on DMRs available in Appendix I of this permit or

submitted to EPA’s e

- reporting system available at www.epa.gov/vessels /eNOI, which will be available within two years of finalization of this permit. Data may be submitted as part of the vessel’s Annual Report.

5.2.2.2.4 Reserved Authority

Even if owners/operators have demonstrated their system meets the standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2 , if EPA, it s authorized representative, or the U.S. Coast Guard sample their graywater effluent and find that they are not meeting these standards, the cruise ship owners/operators are liable for violating their effluent limits.

5.2.2.2.5 Treated Graywater Records

The owner/o perator shall maintain records estimating the quantity and quality of all discharges of treated graywater into waters subject to this permit, including date, location, and volume discharged, and pollutant concentrations monitored in their recordkeeping documentation. These records shall be maintained as part of or in combination with the vessel’s sewage and graywater discharge record book required under 33 CFR § 159.315.

5.2.2.3 Treated Pool and Spa Discharges

Vessel owners/operators must monitor chlorine or bromine concentrations (as applicable) in pool or spa water before every discharge event using sufficiently sensitive 40 CFR Part 136 methods if they will discharge these streams directly into waters subject to this permit to ensure that the dechlorination/debromination process is complete. If vessel owners/operators are monitoring bromine concentrations, they may use a field test kit which uses the colorimetric method in lieu of 40 CFR Part 136 methods to ensure waters have been debrominated, provided that test kit has a method detection limit no higher than 50 μg/l. You must record the location of the discharge, the estimated volume of the discharge, and the concentration of chlorine or bromine (as applicable). Records of this monitoring must be kept with other graywater monitoring records.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

79 For chlorine, analytical results below the method detection limit shall be deemed compliant with the effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a testing method with a detection limit no higher than 10.0 μg/L under ideal conditions. EPA recommends Method SM4500- CL G (DPD Colorimetric Method) for these purposes as it is able to reach 10 μg/l under ideal conditions and so meets these requirements. SM4500-Cl G is typically the method that ADEC/U.S. Coast Guard uses for complian ce monitoring. For bromine, analytical results below the method detection limit shall be deemed compliant with the effluent limits, provided the permittee uses a testing method with a detection limit no higher than 50.0 μg/l.

5.2.3 Educational and Training Requi rements

The crews of cruise ships play a key role in minimizing the discharge of pollutants from cruise ship operations and passengers. Therefore, cruise ship operators are responsible for providing the following educational and training requirements to ship personnel:

• The ship’s crew members who actively take part in the management of the discharge or who may affect the discharge must receive training regarding shipboard environmental procedures and must be able to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures;

• Advanced training in shipboard environmental management procedures must be provided for those directly involved in managing specific discharge types or areas of the ship and these crew members must be able to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures; and

• Appropriate reprimand procedures must be developed for crew whose actions lead to violations of any effluent limit set forth in this permit or procedures established by the cruise ship operator to minimize the discharge of pollutants.

Cruise ships must also educate passengers on their potential environmental impacts. The goals of these education efforts must include preventing trash from entering any waste stream, eliminating the addition of unused soaps, detergents, an d pharmaceuticals to the graywater or blackwater systems, and minimizing production of graywater. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, posting signage and informational material in guestrooms and common areas, incorporating environmental information passenger orientation presentations or packages at the start of cruises, incorporating this information into additional lectures and seminars, or broadcasting information via loudspeakers.

Vessel owner/operators must also meet all training

- related recordkeeping requirements of Part

4.2 of this permit.

5.3 Large Ferries

Ferries are vessels for hire that are designed to carry passengers and/or vehicles between two ports, usually in inland, coastal, or near- shore waters. “Large Ferry” means a “ferry” that: a) hasa capacity greater than or equal to 100 tons of cargo (e.g., for cars, trucks, trains, or other landbased transportation); or b) is authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard to carry 250 or more people. All large ferries autho rized to carry 100 or more tons of cars, trucks, trains, or other land- based transportation must meet the requirements in Part 5.3.1.1 (Deck Water) and Part 5.3.2 (EducationProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

80 and Training). Large ferries authorized by the Coast Guard to carry 250 or more people must meet the requirements of Part 5.3.1.2 (Graywater Management) and Part 5.3.2 (Education and Training Requirements).

5.3.1 Additional Effluent Limits

5.3.1.1 Deck Water

Large ferries may not discharge untreated below deck water from parking areas or other storage areas for motor vehicles or other motorized equipment into waters subject to this permit without first treating the effluent with an oily water separator or other appropriate wastewater treatment system. Large ferry operators must use oil absorbent cloths or other appropriate spill response resources to clean oily spills or substan ces from deck surfaces. Any effluent created by washing the decks may not be discharged into the waters subject to this permit listed in Appendix G

.

5.3.1.2 Graywater Management

5.3.1.2.1 Graywater Discharge Location and Rate

Pierside Limits – While pierside, appropriate onshore reception facilities for graywater must be used, if available and their use is economically achievable, unless the vessel treats graywater to

the limits found in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of the permit. If such facilities are not available, you must hold the graywater if the vessel has the holding capacity and discharge the effluent while the vessel is underway. Appropriate reception facilities are those authorized for use by the port authority or municipality and that treat the discharge in accordance with its NPDES permit.

Operational Limits

– Yo u must also meet the following restriction: if you operate within 3 nm from shore, discharges of graywater may only be released while the ferry is sailing at a speed of at least 6 knots if feasible. If not feasible, you must document why in your recordkeep ing

documentation.

5.3.2 Educational and Training Requirements

The crews of ferries play a key role in minimizing the discharge of pollutants from ferry operations and its passengers. Therefore, ferry operators are subject to the following requirements:

• The ship ’s crew members who actively take part in the management of the discharge or who may affect the discharge must receive training regarding shipboard environmental procedures and must be able to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures;

• Advanced training in shipboard environmental management procedures must be provided for those directly involved in managing specific discharge types or areas of the ship and these crew must be able to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures; a nd

• Appropriate reprimand procedures must be developed for crew whose actions lead to violations of any effluent limit set forth in this permit or procedures established by the ferry operator to minimize the discharge of pollutants.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

81 Ferry operators must also educate passengers on their potential environmental impacts. The goals of these education efforts should include eliminating the discharge of trash overboard, minimizing the production of trash from parking areas or other storage areas, eliminating the addition of unused soaps, detergents, and pharmaceuticals to the graywater or blackwater systems, and minimizing production of graywater. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, posting signage an d informational material in common areas, incorporating environmental information into orientation presentations, or broadcasting information via loudspeakers.

Vessel owners/operators of large ferries must also meet all training

- related recordkeeping

requ irements of Part 4.2 of this permit.

5.4 Barges (such as Hopper Barges, Chemical Barges, Tank Barges, Fuel Barges, Crane Barges, Dry Bulk Cargo Barges)

The requirements in Part 5.4 apply to vessel discharges from barges. Barges engaged in the transportation of oil or other petroleum products must also comply with Part 5.5 of this permit.

5.4.1 Additional Effluent Limits

Barges must minimize the contact of below deck condensation with oily or toxic materials and any materials containing hydrocarbon. Whenever barges are p umping water from below deck, the discharge shall not contain oil in quantities that may be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part

110. If a visible sheen , as defined in Appendix A of this permit, is noted, vessel operators must

initiate corrective action in accordance with Part 3 and meet recordkeeping requiremen ts in Part

4.2 of this permit.

All tank barges must have spill rails and must mechanically plug their scuppers before any cargo operations if required by vessel class society and/or 33 CFR Parts 155 and/or 156. Additionally, scuppers, when available, must be mechanically plugged during fueling of ancillary equipment (e.g., generators and compressors) located on the deck of the barge. If scuppers are unavailable, other types of secondary containment should be employed. If any spills result during loading or unloading of cargo, or other ancillary equipment fueling operations, vessel owners/operators must completely clean up spills or residue before scuppers are unplugged.

Vessel owners/operators must clean out cargo residues (i.e., broom clean) such that any remaining residue is minimized before washing the cargo compartment or tank and discharging

washwater overboard.

5.4.2 Supplemental Inspection Requireme nts

After every instance of pumping water from areas below decks, or immediately following washing down the decks, you must conduct a visual sheen test. The visual sheen test is used to detect free oil by observing the surface of the receiving water for the presence of an oily sheen. The operator should focus the inspection on the area surrounding the vessel where discharges from below deck or deck washings are discharges into the receiving water. A visible sheen is

defined in Appendix A of this permit. If a visible sheen is observed, you must initiate correctiveProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

82 actions required in Part 3 of this permit and meet recordkeeping and notification (reporting) requirements in Part 4.2 of this permit.

5.5 Oil Tankers, Petroleum Tankers, and Bulk Chemical Carriers

The requirements in Part 5.5 apply to vessel discharges from oil tankers, petroleum tankers, and bulk chemical carriers, as well as barges engaged in transportation of oil or petroleum products.

5.5.1 Additional Authorized Discharges

For vessels which have an inert gas system, the effluent produced from inert gas scrubbers (IGS) may be discharged into waters subject to this permit.

The discharges of water from deck seals are authorized when such seals are installed as an integral part of an IGS system.

5.5.2 Additional Effluent Limits

Owners/operators of oil tankers must plug scuppers during cargo loading and unloading operations to prevent the discharge of oil into waters subject to this permit. Any oil spilled must be cleaned with oil absorbent cloths or another appropriate approach. Additionally, owners/operators of oil tankers must comply with applicable requirements of 33 CFR § 155.310 and 33 CFR Part 156, Subpart A.

Vessel owners/operators must minimize the discharge of effluent produced from inert gas

scrubbers if fe asible for their vessel design.

5.5.3 Supplemental Inspection Requirements

After every instance of loading or unloading operations or immediately following washing down the decks, you must conduct a visual sheen test. The visual sheen test is used to detect free oil by observing the surface of the receiving water for the presence of an oily sheen. The owner/operator should focus the inspection on the area surrounding the vessel where effluent from loading operations or deck washings discharge into the receiving w ater. A visible sheen is

defined in Appendix A of this permit. If a visible sheen is observed, you must comply with all requirements contained in Part 4.4 of this permit, initiate corrective actions required in Part 3 of this permit, and meet recordkeeping and notification (reporting) requirements in Part 4.2 of this permit.

5.5.4 Educational and Traini ng Requirements

The crews of oil tankers play a key role in minimizing the discharge of pollutants from vessel operations. Therefore, oil tanker operators are subject to the following requirements:

• The ship’s crew members who actively take part in the management of the discharge or who may affect the discharge must receive training regarding shipboard environmental procedures and must be able to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures;Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

83 • Advanced training in shipboard environmental manage ment procedures must be provided for those directly involved in managing specific discharge types or areas of the ship and these crew must be able to demonstrate proficiency in implementing these procedures; and

• Appropriate reprimand procedures must be dev eloped for crew actions that lead to violations of any effluent limit set forth in this permit or procedures established by the vessel operator to minimize the discharge of pollutants.

Vessel owners/operators of tankers must also meet all training

- related recordkeeping requirements of Part 4.2 of this permit.

5.6 Research Vessels

The requirements in Part 5.6 apply to vessel discharges from research vessels. Research vessels are those that are engaged in investigation or experimentation aimed at discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of a ccepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws.

5.6.1 Supplemental Authorized Discharges

In addition to the discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel authorized elsewhere in this permit, owners/operators of research vessels are authorized to discharge tracers (dyes, fluorescent beads, SF6), drifters, tracking devices and the like, and expendable bathythermograph (XBT) probes, into waters subject to this permit, provided such di scharges are for the sole purpose of conducting research on the aquatic environment or its natural resources in accordance with generally recognized scientific methods, principles, or techniques.

5.6.2 Additional Effluent Limits

Owners/operators of research vess els must discharge only the minimal amount of materials

referenced in Part 5.6.1 necessary to conduct research on the aquatic environment or its nat ural resources in accordance with generally recognized scientific methods, principles, or techniques

.

5.7 Emergency and Rescue Vessels (Fire Boats, Police Boats)

The requirements in Part 5.7 apply to vessel discharges from emergency and rescue boats.

5.7.1 Supplemental Authorized Discharges

In addition to the discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel authorized elsewher e in this permit, owners/operators of emergency and rescue vessels are authorized to discharge waste streams in conjunction with training, testing, and maintenance operations, provided that they comply with all additional requirements of the CWA (e.g., section 311) and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300). This part does not relieve vessel operators of any additional responsibilities under the CWA and the National Contingency Plan which prohibits the discharge of oil for research or demonstration purposes without Administrator approval. The use of foaming agents for oil or chemical fire response must be implemented in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300).Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

84 5.7.2 Additional Effluent Limits

Owners/operators are strongly encoura ged to seek alternative formulations of AFFF that are less harmful to the aquatic environment, such as non-fluorinated foam, while maintaining their effectiveness in emergency operations. Furthermore, operators are encouraged to not use AFFF or discharge toxic substances in areas near active commercial or recreational fisheries, near swimmable waters, or in high traffic areas for maintenance or training purposes. Emergency vessel owners/operators are also encouraged to perform training, testing, and mainten ance operations outside of port and as far from shore as possible. The use of foaming agents for oil or chemical fire response, and the control of their discharge from a vessel, must be implemented in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix C



### Appendix C. Ballast Water Technology -based Effluent Limits Required by

the VGP for All Covered VesselsProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

23 structures are considered to be normal operation of a vessel if those practices fall within normal marine practice.

• All vessels must mini mize the discharge of bilgewater into waters subject to this permit. This can be done by minimizing the production of bilgewater, disposing of bilgewater on shore where adequate facilities exist, or discharging into waters not subject to this permit (i.e., more than 3 nautical miles [nm] from shore) for vessels that regularly travel into such waters. Though not regulated under this permit, EPA notes that discharges of bilgewater outside waters subject to this permit (i.e., more than 3 nm from shore) are regulated under Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships as implemented by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships and U.S. Coast Guard regulations found in 33 CFR part 151.

• Vessels greater than 400 gross tons shall n ot discharge untreated oily bilgewater into waters subject to this permit.

• Vessels greater than 400 gross tons that regularly sail outside the territorial sea (at least once per month) shall not discharge treated bilgewater within 1 nm of shore if technologically feasible (e.g., holding would not impact safety and stability, would not contaminate other holds or cargo, or would not interfere with essential operations of the vessel). Any discharge which is not technologically feasible to

avoid must be documen ted as part of the requirements in Part 4.2 and reported to EPA as part of the vessel’s annual report.

• Vessels greater than 400 gross tons shall not discharge treated bilgewater into

waters referenced in Appendix G unless the discharge is necessary t o maintain the safety and stability of the ship. Any discharge of bilgewater into these waters must be documented as part of the recordkeeping requirements in Part 4.2 and reported to EPA as part of the vessel’s annual report.

• For vessels greater than 400 gross tons that regularly sail outside the territorial sea (at least once per month), if treated bilgewater is discharged into waters subject to this permit, it must be discharged when the vessel is underway (sailing at speeds greater than 6 knots), unless doing so would threaten the safety and stability of the ship. EPA notes that vessel operators may also choose to dispose of bilgewater on

shore w here adequate facilities exist. Any discharge which is made for safety reasons must be documented as part of the requirements in Part 4.2 and repor ted to EPA as part of the vessel’s annual report.

Note: EPA is specifically seeking comment on whether to alter the bilgewater management regime for new build vessels and whether to provide existing vessels with additional bilgewater management options. Please see Part 4.4.2 of the Fact Sheet for details.

2.2.3 Ballast Water

All discharges of ballast water must comply with the requirements in t his permit as described below. Additionally, owner/operators of all vessels subject to coverage under this permit which are equipped with Ballast Tanks must comply with any additional BMPs in this section.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

24 In addition, as a condition of this permit, all discharges of ballast water must also comply with applicable U.S. Coast Guard regulations found in 33 CFR Part 151.

All discharges of ballast water may not contain oil, noxious liquid substances (NLSs), or hazardous substances in a manner prohibited by U.S. laws, including section 311 o f the Clean

Water Act.

2.2.3.1 Training

All owner/operators of vessels equipped with ballast water tanks must train the master, operator,

person- in

- charge, and crew members who actively take part in the management of the discharge or who may affect the discharge, on the application of ballast water and sediment mana gementand treatment procedures. As part of Ballast Water Management Plans under 2.2.3.2, a standalone training plan, or other recordkeeping documentation, owner/operators must maintain a

written trai ning plan describing the training to be provided and a record of the date of training provided to each person trained. Persons required to be trained must be trained promptly upon installation of treatment technology and in the event of a significant change in ballast water treatment practices or technology.

2.2.3.2 Ballast Water Management Plans

All owner/operators of vessels equipped with ballast water tanks must maintain a ballast water management plan that has been developed specifically for the vessel that w ill ensure that those responsible for the plan’s implementation understand and follow the vessel’s ballast water management strategy. Owner/operators must make that plan available upon request to EPA or its authorized representative. Vessel owner/operators must assure that the master and crew members who actively take part in the management of the discharge or who may affect the discharge understand and follow the management strategy laid out in the plan.

At a minimum, all vessels must have a plan which outlines how they will meet the requirements

of Part 2.2.3.3 of this permit. The plan must also include how vessels will comply with training require ments of 2.2.3.1 and meet all other subparts of Part 2.2.3 as applicable. EPA notes that a Ballast Water Management Plan is also required by the Uni ted States Coast Guard by 33 CFR Part 151. Provided owner/operators meet the requirements discussed above, EPA expects that vessels will need one ballast water management plan to meet both EPA and USCG requirements.

2.2.3.3 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Prac tices: Management measures required of all vessel owner/operators

Masters, owners, operators, or persons- in

- charge of all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that operate in waters of the U.S. must:

• Avoid the discharge or uptake of ballast water in areas / into waters subject to this permit within, or that may directly affect, marine sanctuaries, marine preserves, marine parks, or coral reefs or other waters listed in Appendix G waters (also called Part 12 waters).

• Minimize or avoid uptake of ballast water in the following areas and situations:Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

25 — Areas known to have infestations or populations of harmful organisms and pathogens (e.g., toxic algal blooms).

— Areas near sewage outfalls.

— Areas near dredging operations.

— Areas where tidal flushing is known to be poor or times when a tidal

stream is known to be turbid.

— In darkness, when bottom-dwelling organisms may rise up in the water

column.

— Where propellers may stir up the sediment.

— Areas with pods of whales, convergence zones, and boundaries of major

currents

• Clean ballast tanks regularly to remove sediments in mid

- ocean (when not otherwise prohibited by applicable law) or under controlled arrangements in port, or at dry dock.

• No discharge of sediments from cleaning of ballast tanks is authorized in waters subject to this permit.

• When dis charging ballast water in port, if the vessel is equipped with high and

low suction within ballast tank s, utilize the high suction for ballast tank discharge to minimize the discharge of entrained sediment. The low suction may be used to strip sediment from tanks when suitable disposal facilities are available

.

• Minimize the discharge of ballast water essent ial for vessel operations while in the waters subject to this permit.

Suggested control measures to minimize the discharge of ballast water include, but are not limited to, transferring ballast water between tanks within the vessel in lieu of ballast wate r discharge. Another option is to use public water supply for ballast.

2.2.3.4 Mandatory Ballast Water Management Practices for Existing Bulk Carrier vessels (commonly known as Lakers) built before January 1, 2009, confined exclusively to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal

Existing Bulk Carrier Vessels known as “Lakers” that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal (i.e. those vessels confined to the upper Great Lakes because they are too large to exit the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway) must meet the following additional ballast water management requirements:

• Each owner/operator must perform annual inspections on their vessel to assess sediment accumulations. Removal of sediment, if necessary, must be carried out.

E ach vessel owne r/operator must develop sediment removal policies as part of the Ballast Water Management Plan. Records of sediment removal and disposal (including facility name and location and all invoices) shall be kept onboard the

vessel. EPA notes th e discharge of sediments from cleaning of ballast tanks is not authorized in waters subject to this permit (see Part 2.2.3.3 of this permit).

• When p ractical and safe, vessels must minimize the ballast water ta ken dockside. This will typically mean limiting uptake to the amount of ballast water required to safely depart the dock and then complete ballasting in deeper water.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

26 • The vessel sea chest screen is the first line of defense in keeping large living organisms out of the vessel ballast water tanks. Owner/operators of Laker vessels must perform annual inspections of their sea chest screens to assure that they are fully intact. The inspection must assure that there is no deterioration which has resulted in wider openings or holes in the screen. If the screen has deteriorated such that there are wider openings than the screen design, the vessel owner operator must repair or replace the screen. Any re pairs must be of sufficient quality that they are expected to last at least one year.

If a confined Laker meets the permit limits found in Part 2.2.3.5 of this permit, the vessel owner/operator is not required to conduct the additional management measures found in Part

2.2.3.4 , but must still comply with Part 2.2.3.3

.

2.2.3.5 Ballast Water Numeric Discharge Limitations

Owners/operator mu st meet the following discharge limits consistent with the schedule found in

Part 2.2.3.5.2 , unless you are excluded from these requirements by Par ts 2.2.3.5.3 or 2.2.3.8 of this permit:

1. For organisms greater than or equal to 50 micrometers in minimum dimension: discharge must include fewer than 10 living organisms per cubic meter of ballast

water.
2. For organisms less than 50 micrometers and greater than or equal to 10 micrometers: discharge must include fewer than 10 living organisms per milliliter (mL) of ballast water.

3. Indicator microorganisms must not exceed: (i) For Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (serotypes O1 and O139): a concentration of less than 1 colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL. (ii) For Escherichia coli : a concentration of fewer than 250 cfu per 100 mL. (iii) For intestinal enterococci: a concentration of fewer than 100 cfu per 100

mL.

These limits may be met by using one of the ballast water management measures in Parts

2.2.3.5.1

., 2.2.3.5.1.2

, 2.2.3.5.1.3 , or 2.2.3.5.1.4

.

Note: EPA will continue to explore new technologies with industry and states, and when warranted, will make this numeric limit more stringent in the future (see discussion in section 4.4.3.5.1 of the fact sheet). Additionally, EPA encourages and anticipates, as part of this process, that states will continue to work with industry to test and provide opportunities for new technologies.

2.2.3.5.1 Ballast Water Management Measures

In addition to the other requirements of this permit, owner/operators of vessels with the capacity to carry greater than or equal to 8 cubic meters of b allast water may use one of the four following ballast water management methods to meet the numeric discharge limits in Part 2.2.3.5 :Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

27 2.2.3.5.1.1 Ballast Water Management using a Ballast Water Treatment System

Vessel owner/operators utilizing a ballast water treatment system (BWTS) must use a system which has been shown to be effective by testing in accordance with the EPA -ETV protocol for the verification of ballast water treatment technology conducted by an independent third party laboratory, test facility or test organization. Once the effluent limits in Part 2.2.3.5 become applicable to a vessel (see part 2.2.3.5.2 for applicability timeframes for specified categories of vessels), owners/operators of vessels utilizing a ballast water treatment system to meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5 of this permit must meet those limits as an instant aneous maximum.

Additionally, following installation of a BWTS, the master, owner, operator, agent, or person in charge of the vessel must maintain the BWTS in accordance with all manufacturer specifications. Furthermore, all treatment must be conducted in accordance with the BWTS manufacturer’s instructions. The BWTS must be used prior to any discharge of ballast water to waters of the

U.S.

2.2.3.5.1.1.1 Monitoring From Vessels Using Ballast Water Treatment Systems

The monitoring requirements in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 apply to ballast water discharges from vessels employing ballast water treatment systems that are required to achieve the effluent limitations of

Part 2.2.3.5 . The monitoring is divided into three components. The first, in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.2 , is required of all vessels and generally requires monitoring equipment performance to assure the system is fully functional. Vessels conducting this monitoring also must adequately calibrat e their equipment as required in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.3 . The second component, in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 requires monitoring from all ballast water systems for selected biological indicators. The third component, in part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 requires monitoring of the ballast water discharge itself for biocides and residuals to assure compliance with the effluent limitations established in part

2.2.3.5 of the permit, as applicable.

2.2.3.5.1.1.2 Ballast Water System Functionality Monitoring

Ballast water treatment systems use physical and/or chemical processes, or a combination

thereof

, to achieve reductio ns in living organisms. The use of physical/chemical indicators of treatment performance verifies that the ballast water treatment system is operating according to the manufacturers’ operating specifications. To assess the BWTS functionality, monitoring indicators of the BWTS functionality is required at least once per month for specific parameters that are applicable to your system. The required parameters to be monitored, with appropriate monitoring approaches are contained in Appendix J . For example, if your system uses a filter and chlorine dioxide, you must meet the requirements for systems using both filters and chlorine dioxide. If your system uses cavitation, UV, and hypochlorite generation, you must monitor conditions for all three treatment units. EPA expects that most ballast water treatment systems will make use of at least two physical and/or chemical processes.

Most ballast water tre atment systems have control and self diagnostic equipment such as sensors that continuously measure treatment parameters to verify performance. The metrics to be monitored are based on common approaches used in ballast water treatment systems. As newProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

28 approaches become commonly available, EPA will develop new monitoring parameters as appropriate.

2.2.3.5.1.1.3 Ballast Water monitoring equipment calibration

At a minimum, all applicable sensors and other equipment must be calibrated annually. Additionally, all applicable sensors and other control equipment must be calibrated no less frequently than recommended by the sensor or other equipment manufacturer, or by the ballast water treatment system manufacturer or when warranted based on device drift from a standard or

calib rated setting. EPA expects many sensor types (e.g., pH probes, TRO sensors, turbidity sensors) will need to be calibrated on a more frequent basis. Calibration of the sensors and equipment can be conducted on- board the vessel or they can be removed and sh ipped to the manufacturer or other vendor for calibration. During the period when the sensors are not installed (or otherwise inoperable thus significantly compromising the performance of the ballast water treatment system), the vessel must not discharge b allast water.

2.2.3.5.1.1.4 Effluent Biological Organism Monitoring

Once a ballast water treatment system is required to be installed onboard a vessel (see part

2.2.3.5.2 for applicability and timeframe for installation of such vessels), any ballast water discharges from such vessels will be subject to the effluent limitations in Part 2.2.3.5 of this permit. To ascertain compliance with the effluent limitation in that section, EPA is establishing the following biological indicator compliance monitoring. These samples can be taken by collecting a small volume sample from the ballast water discharge (consistent with the sampling guidance found in EPA’s Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology) and analyzing the sample for concentrations of certain biological indicator parameters. Analysis of concentrations of indicator organisms must include monitoring for the parameters in Table 2 below utilizi ng the methods in that table, or other EPA Part 136 methods as applicable.

Table 2 : Indicator Organism Monitoring Parameters

Measurement Instrument or Analysis EPA

Method Standard

Method ASTM ISO Other

Total heterotrophic

bacteria Plate counts SM 9215 ASTM

D5465 ISO

6222:1999

E. coli Selective

substrate EPA Method

1103.1 and

1603 SM 9223B ASTM

D5392

– 93 ISO 9308

- 1:2000 Colilert ®

Enterococci Selective

substrate EPA Method

1106.1 and

1600 SM 9230C ASTM

D5259

– 92(2006) ISO 7899

- 2:2000 Enterolert ®

Biological indicator compliance monitoring sampling of ballast water effluent must be conducted 2 times per year for vessels with type approved devices for which high quality type approval data are available, and 4 times per year for non -type approved devices or type approved devices for which high quality data are not available. Each sample must be tested independently and theProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

29 individual results must be reported and not averaged. Monitoring must be conducted at least 14 days apart from different discharge events

.

Type approved devices for which high quality type approval data are available means either:

a) any ballast water treatment system type approved by the United States f ederal
government; or

b) any ballast water treatment system :

i. type approved by a foreign administration;

ii. for which efficacy testing was conducted by an independent 3rd party testing organization, either in accordance with the ETV protocol or in a manner consistent with the ETV protocol with respect to QA/QC procedures, the use of validated methods including appropriate volumes of representative samples, and full description and do cumentation of test procedures, results and analyses; and

iii. all active substance data (e.g., the full data package submitted to the flag administration for type approval) have all been made available to the US EPA.

2.2.3.5.1.1.5 Requirements and Effluent Limitations for BWTS that use Active Substances (e.g., biocides)

2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1 Authorizati on of Residual Biocides Associated with Ballast Water Treatment Systems

Many ballast water treatment systems produce or use biocides as an agent to reduce living organisms present in the ballast water tank. In order to be eligible for coverage under this p ermit, any ballast water treatment system must not use any biocide that is a “pesticide” within the meaning of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C § 136 et seq .) unless that biocide has been registered for use in ballast water treatment under such Act. The requirement in the preceding sentence does not apply if such biocide is generated solely by the use of a “device” on board the same vessel as the ballast water to be treated by the biocide, as the

term “device” is defined in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. In addition, if the ballast water treatment system uses or generates biocides and you will discharge ballast water treated with biocides into waters subject to this permit, you must meet one of the following conditions to be eligible for permit coverage.

The discharge of biocides or residuals may not exceed the following instantaneous maximum limits expressed as micrograms per liter (μg/l).Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

30 Table 3 : Maximum Ballast Water Eff luent Limits for Residual Biocides

Biocide or Residual Limit (instantaneous maximum)

Chlorine Dioxide 200 μg/l

Chlorine (expressed as Total Residual Oxidizers (TRO as TRC)) 100 μg/l

Ozone (expressed as Total Residual Oxidizers (TRO as TRC)) 100 μg/l

Peracetic Acid 500 μg/l Hydrogen Peroxide (for systems using Peracetic Acid) 1,000 μg/l

Any other biocides or derivatives may not exceed acute water quality criteria listed in EPA’s 1986 Quality Criteria for Water [the Gold Book], and any subsequent revision, at the point of ballast water discharge. The Gold Book can be found at: www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf . Tables summarizing the subsequent

revision s can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/index.html. Discharges of biocide residuals or derivatives must also meet monitoring requirements under

Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.1 , and reporting and recordkeeping requirements in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.6

.

If the biocide used or produced by your system and its derivatives is not listed in the previous table or found in EPA’s Gold Book, you must notify EPA at least 120 days in advance of its use and provide any associated aquatic toxicity data for that biocide or its deriv atives of which you are aware. EPA may impose additional limitations on a treatment system

- specific basis, or require you to obtain coverage under an individual permit, if necessary. EPA may inform the

vessel owner/ operator of specific requirements. You may also seek coverage under an individual NPDES permit pursuant to Part 1.8.2 of this permit. You may not discharge the biocide at issue until you receive a response from EPA to your notification.

2.2.3.5.1.1.5.2 Residual Biocide and Derivative Monitoring

For vessels subject to Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.1 , you must con duct monitoring of the vessel ballast water discharge for any residual biocides or derivatives used in the treatment process, in part to demonstrate compliance with the conditions in Part 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1 . For instance, if chlorine is the biocide used in the ballast water treatment, you must test for residual chlorine in the vessel ballast water discharge to see if it complies with the standards in Pa rt 2.2.3.5.1.1.5.1

.

In order to demonstrate that residual biocides or derivatives are in compliance with this permit, that substantial quantities of harmful byproducts are not produced, and provide EPA with needed information about system functionality, the vessel operator initially must take samples according to the following:Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

31 Table 4 : Monitoring Schedule for Residual Biocid es or Derivatives of the Residual

Biocid e Type approved devices for which high quality type approval data are

available Type approved devices for

which high quality data are not

available

Initial Monitoring 3 times in the first 10 discharge events (not to exceed a 18 0 day period) 5 times in the first 10 discharge events (not to exceed a 18 0 day period)

Maintenance monitoring 2 times per year 4 times per year

Type approved devices for which high quality type approval data are available means either:

a) any ballast water treatment system type approved by the United States federal government; or

b) any ballast water treatment system:

i. type approved by a foreign administration;

ii. for which efficacy testing was conducted by an independent 3rd party testi ng organization, either in accordance with the ETV protocol or in a manner consistent with the ETV protocol with respect to QA/QC procedures, the use of validated methods including appropriate volumes of representative samples, and full description and documentation of test procedures, results and analyses; and

iii. all active substance data (e.g., the full data package submitted to the flag administration for type approval) have all been made

available to the US EPA.

Each sample must be tested independently and the individual results must be reported and not averaged. Samples must be tested as soon as possible after sampling, and may not be held longer than recommended for each tested constituent as given in 40 CFR Part 136. Sampling and testing

shall be con ducted using a sufficiently sensitive method according to 40 CFR Part 136 or may

use an alternate method if allowed in Table 5 below.

Table 5 : Residual Biocides and Biocide Derivative Monitoring Requirements

Biocide Analyte Analytical

Methods Minimum Sample

Volume Sample Holding

Time MDL Effluent

Limit or

Action Limit Type

Alkylamines Alkylamines EPA

Method

8360B and

8270D 25 mL (8260B) 14 days (8260B) Varies by compound (8260D); 10 μg/L (8270C) Report NAProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

32 Table 5 : Residual Biocides and Biocide Derivative Monitoring Requirements

Biocide Analyte Analytical

Methods Minimum Sample

Volume Sample Holding

Time MDL Effluent

Limit or

Action Limit Type

Chlorine or

Chlorine

dioxide Chlorine dioxide EPA

Method

327.0

- 1;

SM 4500

ClO 2 E 16 mL (327.0

- 1) 4 hours (327.0

- 1); As

soon as possible (SM) Varies (327.0 -1);

10 to 100 mg/L (SM) 200 μg/L Instantaneous

Maximum

Total Residual Oxidizers (TRO)

as Cl 2 SM 4500

- Cl G; ISO

7393/2 50 mL 15

minutes 10 μg/L,

under ideal

conditions 100 μg/L Instantaneous

Maximum

Chlorite* EPA

Method

300.1 250 mL 14 days Varies Report NA

Chlorate* EPA

Method

300.1 250 mL 28 days Varies Report NA

Total

trihalomethanes a* EPA

Method

8260 25 mL 14 days Varies Report NA

Haloacetic acids b* EPA

Method

552.2 40 mL 14 days Varies by compound Report NA

Menadione Menadione NA Report NA

Ozone Total Residual Oxidizers (TRO)

as Cl 2 SM 4500

- Cl G; ISO

7393/2 50 mL 15

minutes 10 μg/L,

under ideal

conditions 100 μg/L NA

Bromate* EPA

Method 317 ; EPA

Method 300.1;

ASTM D

6581

- 00 250 mL 28 days (317; 300.1) Varies (317; 300.1) Report NA

Bromoform* EPA

Method

8260 25 mL 14 days Varies Report NA

Total

trihalomethanes a* EPA

Method

8260 25 mL 14 days Varies Report NA

Haloacetic acids b* EPA

Method

552.2 40 mL 14 days Varies by compound Report NA

Peracetic Acid pH SM 4500

H+ 25 mL As soon

as possible 6.5

– 9

s.u. Instantaneous

Maximum

Peracetic acid Photometri c analysis (Pinkernell, 1997; EMD Chemicals, 2011;

CHEMetric s 2010) 25 mL As soon

as possible 500 μg/L Report NAProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

33 Table 5 : Residual Biocides and Biocide Derivative Monitoring Requirements

Biocide Analyte Analytical

Methods Minimum Sample

Volume Sample Holding

Time MDL Effluent

Limit or

Action Limit Type

Hydrogen peroxide/ Titimetric analysis (JIS K 1463:2007;

EMD Chemicals, 2011;

CHEMetric s 2010)) 25 mL As soon

as possible 500 μg/L Report NA

* Potential byproduct or derivative

a. Total trihalomethanes is the sum of the concentrations of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and

bromoform.

b. Haloacetic acids is the sum of the concentrations of mono

- , di

- , and trichloroacetic acids and mono

- and dibromoacetic

acids. ISO: International Organization for Standardization

SM: Standard Methods

MDL: Method detection limit NA: Not applicable

2.2.3.5.1.1.6 Ballast Water Treatment S ystem Recordkeeping and Reporting

Records of sampling and testing results required under Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 must be retained onboard for a period of three years in the vessel’s recordkeeping documentation. Vessels must also submit the testing results to EPA using EPA’s e -reporting system as part of the vessel’s annual report (unless you are eligible to submit a hard copy of the annual report).

Records of monitoring information shall include:

• The ballast water treatment system used, its type approval certificate, and records of whether the system is a vessel with type approved devices for which all type approval data have been made available;

• The individual(s) who performed the sampling, measurements, and/or inspections;

• The date(s) analyses and/or inspections were performed;

• Any sensor or other control equipment calibration and functional tests conducted during the inspection as applicable;

• The te chniques or methods used for any sensor or other control equipment calibration and functional tests as applicable;

• The date and time of all monitoring results (monitoring in Parts 2.2.3.5.1.1.2

, 2.2.3.5.1.1.4 , and 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 , as applicable);

• The analytical techniques or methods used as applicable, and

• The results of such analyses.

You must submit your monitoring data as part of your annual report. For systems al ready in use as of the effective date of this permit, initial sampling data must be submitted with the first annual report. For systems which are not already in use as of the effective date of this permit, initial sampling data must be submitted on the ann ual report following the calendar year of the system’s first use. Data must be submitted on the Ballast Water Treatment System Report formProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

34 attached to the annual report available in Appendix H of this permit or submitted to EPA’s e

reporting system available at www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels/eNOI

.

2.2.3.5.1.2 Onshore Treatment of Ballast Water

For those vessels who se design and construction safely allows for the transfer of ballast water to shore, if compatible onshore treatment for ballast water is available , the vessel owner/operator may use onshore treatment for any ballast water discharges to meet the requiremen ts of 2.2.3.5

. EPA notes that the lack of availability of adequate reception facilities is not an acceptable reason to discharge ballast water whi ch does not meet the treatment requirements found in Part

2.2.3.5.1.1 into waters subject to this permit, and such discharges would therefore const itute a permit violation.

Any vessel owner/operator utilizing onshore treatment must en sure that all piping and supporting

infrastructure up to the last manifold or valve immediately before the dock manifold connection of the receiving facility or similar appurtenance on a reception vessel must be fully free from any leaks or other avenues whereby untreated ballast may be discharged into waters subject to this permit

.

EPA notes that transferring ballast water to a treatment barge for eventual treatment and discharge could constitute “on-shore treatment” for purposes of this subpart. The discharge of treated ballast water (transferred from other vessels) from a treatment barge is not eligible for coverage under the VGP as this is a discharge from an industrial operations, not a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. Instead, these vessels must apply for individual NPDES permit coverage from the appropriate NPDES permitting authority, generally the State in which they are operating.

2.2.3.5.1.3 Use of Public Water Supply Water

Vessels may meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5 by using only water from a U.S. public water system or Canadian drinking water system (both referred to as PWS in this permit), as defined in a) 40 CFR 141.2 and subject to the requirements of 40 CFR parts 141 and 143 or b) Health Canada’s “Guidance For Providing Safe Drinking Water in Areas of Federal Jurisdiction,” as ballast water. Vessels using water from a PWS as ballast must maintain a record of which PWS they received the water and a receipt, invoice, or other documentation from the PWS indicating that water came from that system.

Vessels using water from a PW S must use such water exclusively for all ballast water to avoid contamination of the ballast water tank. Vessels using PWS water as ballast must have either:

• Previously cleaned the ballast tanks (including removing all residual sediments) and not subsequently introduced ambient water; or

• Never introduced ambient water to those tanks and supply lines.

Vessels utilizing water from a PWS as ballast water must certify in their recordkeeping documentation that they have met all the requirements of this section, including maintainingProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

35 certification by the master or NOI certifier that one of the two above conditions are met regarding contamination.

In the event a vessel that normally uses PWS water as ballast is forced for purposes of vessel safety to take on unt reated ballast water from a sea, estuary, lake or river source, such vessel may not return to using PWS water until the tanks and supply lines have been cleaned, including

removal of all residual sediments.

2.2.3.5.1.4 No Discharge of Ballast Water

Vessels may meet th e requirements of Part 2.2.3.5 of this permit by not discharging any ballast

water into waters subject to this permit. EPA notes that any discharge of untreated ballast water, including for reasons of unscheduled voyages, loading of unexpected cargo, etc., do not qualify as an acceptable reason to discharge untreated ballast water into waters subject to this permit, and therefore constitute a permit violation

. EPA notes that in the case of a shipboard emergency that endangers the safety of the vessel or its crew , ballast water may need to be pumped out quickly by bypassing the BWTS. I n such cases , the provisions regarding the prohibition of bypassing treatment where unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury of severe property damage may be applicable. See 40 CFR 122.41(m)(4)(A) and Part 1.13 of this permit.

2.2.3.5.2 Schedule for when Ballast Water Treatment Becomes BAT (and Therefore Required)

Table 6 describes when BWTS will become the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and thus when any ballast water discharges from such vessels will be subject

to the Effluent limitations in Part 2.2.3.5.1 of this permit. Vessels must meet the requirements in

Part 2.2.3.5.1 according to the schedule below in Table 6

.

Table 6 : Ballast Water Treatment to BAT Schedule

Vessel’s

Ballast Water Capacity Date Constructed Vessel’s Compliance

Date

New

vessels After January 1, 2012 On delivery

Existing

vessels Less than 1500 m 3 Before January 1, 2012 First scheduled drydocking after January 1, 2016

1500

- 5000 m 3 Before January 1, 2012 First scheduled drydocking after January 1, 2014

Greater than 5000 m 3 Before January 1, 2012 First scheduled drydocking after January 1, 2016

2.2.3.5.3 Vessels Not Required to Meet Part 2.2.3.5 Treatment Standards

The following Vessel Types are not required to meet Part 2.2.3.5 ballast water management

measures:Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

36 2.2.3.5.3.1 Vessels Engaged in Short- Distance Voyages

Vessels engaged in short distance voyages means vessels that:

• Operate exclusively in one Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone, or

• Vessels which do not travel more than 10 nm and cross no physical barriers or obstructions (e.g., locks), whether or not they operate within one U.S. Coast

Guard COTP zone.

2.2.3.5.3.2 Unmanned, Unpowered Barges

Unmanned, unpowered barges such as hopper barges are not required to meet the ballast water management measures of Part 2.2.3.5

.

2.2.3.5.3.3 Existing Bulk Carrier Vessels (Commonly Known as Lakers) Built Before January 1, 2009, Confined Exclusively to the Great Lakes Upstream of the Welland Canal

Existing Lakers built before January 1, 2009 confined exclusively to the Great Lakes upstream of the Welland Canal are not required to meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5

.

2.2.3.6 Interim requirements for vessels not meeting the ballast water management

measures in Part 2.2.3.5

Vessel owner/operators not meeting the requirements of Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit must meet the exchange and flushing requirements of this part as applicable. Ballast water exchange may not be used in lieu of meeting the numeric effluent limits in Part 2.2.3.5 of the permit once a vessel is required to meet these limits. Conversely, vessel owner/operators meeting the numeric effluent

limits in Part 2.2.3.5 before they are required to do so by the implementation schedule in Part

2.2.3.5.2 are not required to meet the exchange and flushing requirements of this subpart.

2.2.3.6.1 Requirements for Oceangoing Voyages While Carrying Ballast Water

Any vessels that carry ballast water that was taken on in areas less than 200 nautical miles from any shore that will subsequently operate beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and more than 200 nm from any shore must carry out an exchange of ballast wa ter for any tanks that will discharge ballast water into waters subject to this permit unless the vessel meets one of the exemptions in Part 2.2.3.6.6

.

This exchange must be conducted in compliance with the following standards prior to discharging ballast water into waters subject to this permit:

• The exchange must occur in waters beyond the U.S. EEZ;

• The exchange must occur in an area more than 200 na utical miles from any shore;

and

• The exchange must be commenced as early in the vessel voyage as possible, as long as the vessel is more than 200 nm from any shore.Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

37 2.2.3.6.2 Vessels Carrying Ballast Water Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages

Unless the vessel mee ts one of the exemptions in Part 2.2.3.6.6 , any vessel engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages that carries ballast water that was taken on in areas le ss than 50 nautical miles from any shore must carry out an exchange of ballast water in accordance with this Part before discharging from any tanks that carry ballast water into waters subject to this permit if the vessel travels through more than one COTP zone as listed in 33 CFR Part 3 or the vessel crosses

international boundaries.

Vessels engaged in Pacific nearshore voyages are:

• Vessels engaged in the Pacific coastwise trade and vessels transiting between Pacific ports that travel between more than one Captain of the Port Zone, and

• All other vessels that sail from foreign, non- U.S Pacific, Atlantic (including the Caribbean Sea), or Gulf of Mexico ports, which do not sail further than 200 nm from any shore, and that discharge or will discharge ballast wa ter into the

territorial sea or inland waters of Alaska or off the west coast of the continental

United States.

Ballast water exchange for vessels subject to this Part must occur in waters more than 50 nautical miles from any shore (US or otherwise), and in waters more than 200 meters deep, prior to discharging ballast water into waters subject to this permit. Exchange should occur as far from the shore, major estuary and oceanic river plumes, subsurface physical features (e.g. seamounts),

and known fisher y habitats as practicable. Vessels engaged in voyages that take them further than 200 nm from any shore and who will remain outside 200 nm for a sufficient period to conduct exchange, are not allowed to exchange ballast water between 50 and 200 nm from sho re to meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.6.1 (unless the master determines that flushing farther than

200 nm from shore would interfere with essen tial vessel operations or safety of the vessel but the master determines that the vessel is able to safely flush more than 50 nm from shore) and instead, must conduct exchange more than 200 nm from shore in accordance with Part 2.2.3.6.1 of this permit. Vessels engaged in the coastwise trade who are not outside 200 nm for a sufficient period to conduct exchange may conduct exchange outside 50 nm (even if they voyage beyond 200 nm) to meet the requirements of this permit.

2.2.3.6.3 Vessels with any Ballast Water Tanks that are Empty or have Unpumpable Residual

Water

For vessels that travel between more than one COTP Zone while undertaking voyages described

in Pa rt 2.2.3.6.1 and which either reported No Ballast on Board (NOBOB) in accordance with Coast Guard regulations or which have any ballast water tank that is empty or contains unpumpable residual water, you must follow the applicable requirements in Part 2.2.3.6.1 for

those tanks with ballast wate r. EPA notes that when the term “empty” tank is used, the Agency is also referring to tanks that contain unpumpable residual water. For those tanks which are empty or contain unpumpable residual water, you must either seal the tank so that there is no dis charge or uptake and subsequent discharge of ballast water within waters subject to this permit or conduct saltwater flushing of such tanks in an area 200 nm from any shore prior to the discharge or uptake and subsequent discharge of any ballast water to a ny U.S. waters subject to this permit,Proposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

38 unless you meet one of the exemptions in Part 2.2.3.6.6 . For the purposes of Part 2.2.3.6.3

, saltwater flushing means the addition of mid

- ocean water to empty ballast water tanks; the mixing of the added water with residual ballast water and sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of the mixed water until loss of suction, such that the resulting residual water remaining in the tank has either a salinity greater than or equal to 30 parts per thousand (ppt) or a salinity concentratio n equal to the ambient salinity of the location where the uptake of the added water took place. In order to conduct saltwater flushing, the vessel should take on as

much mid

- ocean water into each tank as is safe (for the vessel and crew).

For all vessel ow ner/operators subject to this section that contain some empty ballast water tanks and some full ballast water tanks, if you elect to seal those empty tanks, you must not allow water that will be discharged into waters subject to this permit to commingle wi th waters from the empty tanks if you have not conducted saltwater flushing as specified above.

2.2.3.6.4 Vessels Engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages with Unpumpable Ballast Water and Residual Sediment (including NOBOBs)

Unless the vessel meets one of the exemptio ns in Part 2.2.3.6.6

, any vessel engaged in Pacific Nearshore Voyages as defined in Part 2.2.3.6.2 which the owner/operator has reported as having No Ballast on Board in accordance with Coast Guard regulations, or which have any ballast water tank that is empty or contains unpumpable residual wa ter, must follow the applicable requirements in Part 2.2.3.6.2 for those tanks with ballast water and Part 2.2.3.6.4.1 for those tanks which are empty or contain unpumpable residual water.

2.2.3.6.4.1 Nearshore Saltwater Flushing Requirements

For those tanks which are empty or contain unpumpable residual w ater, you must either seal the tank so that there is no discharge or uptake and subsequent discharge of ballast water within waters subject to this permit or conduct saltwater flushing of such tanks in an area 50 nm from any shore and in waters at least 20 0 meters deep prior to the discharge or uptake and subsequent discharge of any ballast water to or from any waters subject to this permit. For purposes of Part

2.2.3.6.4 , saltwater flushing means the addition of water from the “coastal exchange zone” to empty ballast water tanks; the mixing of the flush water with residual water and sediment through the motion of the vessel; and the discharge of the mixed water, such that the resulting residual water remaining in the tank has either a salinity greater than or equal to 30 parts per thousand (ppt) or a salinity concentration equal to the ambient salinity of the location where the uptake of the added water took place. In order to conduct saltwater flushing, the vessel should take on as much coastal exchange zone water into each tank as is safe (for the vessel and crew). These requirements apply to all vessels on nearshore voyages carrying ballast water th at will enter any US port in the states of Alaska, California, Oregon, or Washington and that travels through more than one US Coast Guard Sector.

Vessels engaged in voyages that take them further than 200 nm from any shore and who will remain outside 200 nm for a sufficient period to flush ballast water, are not allowed to exchange ballast water between 50 and 200 nm from shore to meet the requirements of Part 2.2.3.6.3 (unless the master determines that flushing farther than 200 nm from shore would interfere with essential vessel operations or safety of the vessel but the master determines that the vessel is ableProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

39 to safely flush more than 50 nm from shore) and instead, must conduct flushing more than 200

nm from shore in accordance with Part 2.2.3.6.3 of this permit. Vessels engaged in the coastwise trade who are not outside 200 nm for a sufficient period to conduct flushing may flush outside 50 nm (even if they voyage beyond 200 nm) to meet the requirements of this permit.

For all vessel owner/operators subject to this section that contain so me empty ballast water tanks and some full ballast water tanks, if you elect to seal those empty tanks, you must not allow water from the full tanks to commingle with waters from the empty tanks if it will subsequently be discharged into waters subject to this permit.

2.2.3.6.5 Discharge Prohibitions

Vessels referenced in Parts 2.2.3.6.1

, 2.2.3.6.2

, 2.2.3.6.3 , and 2.2.3.6.4 may not discharge unexchanged or untreated ballast water or sediment in waters subject to this permit referenced in Appendix G . These waters include all National Parks and National Marine Sanctuaries

.

2.2.3.6.6 Exemptions

The operator or master of a vessel may elect not to exchange ballast water (or not conduct saltwater flushing if applicable) if the vesse l meets one of the following conditions:

• The master of the vessel determines, and justifies in writing, and documents in the log or record book, that it is unsafe to do so, in accordance with the Coast Guard Regulations at 33 CFR Part 151. If this exemptio n is claimed, the vessel operator must record the date, location, and reason for the claim in its recordkeeping documentation. Furthermore, the vessel owner/operator must report this information to EPA as part of its annual report.

• The master uses an alte rnative, environmentally sound method of ballast water management that has been approved by the Commandant of the Coast Guard prior to the vessel's voyage in accordance with 33 C.F.R. Part 151.

• The master retains all ballast water on board the vessel for t he duration of the vessel’s voyage in waters subject to this permit.

• The vessel is not engaged in an international voyage and does not traverse more

than one U.S. Coast Guard Sector.

Additionally, except for vessels entering the Great Lakes or into Appendix G waters, a vessel is not required to deviate from its voyage, or delay the voyage to conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing.

2.2.3.7 Vessels Entering the Great Lakes

In addition to complying with the requirements of this permit, all vessels that are equipped to carry ballast water and enter the Great Lakes must comply with 33 CFR Part 151, Subpart C titled: “Ballast Water Management for Co ntrol of Nonindigenous Species in the Great Lakes and Hudson River.” Vessels that operate outside the EEZ and more than 200 nm from any shore and then enter the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway System must also comply with 33

CFR Part 401.30. Ve ssels that are unable, due to weather, equipment failure, or otherProposed 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP)

40 extraordinary condition, to effect a BWE before entering the EEZ prior to entering the Great Lakes, must employ another method of ballast water management listed in 33 CFR 151.1510 or otherwise comply with the provision of 33 CFR 151.1514.

Additionally, vessels utilizing a ballast water treatment system (see Part 2.2.3.5.1.1 of the permit) must also conduct ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing (as applicable) in addition to treating their ballast water if they meet the following requirements:

• The vessel operates outside the EEZ and more than 200 nm from any shore and

then ent ers the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway System, and

• The vessel has taken on ballast water that has a salinity of less than 18 ppt from a coastal, estuarine, or freshwater ecosystem within the previous month.

If a vessel affected by these requirements has not taken on ballast water with a salinity of less than 18 ppt in the previous month, the master of the vessel must certify to this effect in their ballast water recordkeeping requirements before entering the Great Lakes.

2.2.3.8 Vessels in the U. S. Coast Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP)

Owner/operators of vessels are not required to meet the requirements of Parts 2.2.3.5 (except

Parts 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 2.2.3.5.1.1.6 ) and 2.2.3.6 of this permit if either:

• The vessel is accepted by the U.S. Coast Guard into the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP),

• The technology is operated in accordance with requirements of that program, and

• The acceptance has not been withdrawn

Owner/operators of these vessels are required to meet the requirements of Parts 2.2.3.5.1.1.5 and

2.2.3.5.1.1.6 of this permit.

2.2.4 Anti

- Fouling Hull Coatings/ Hull Co ating Leachate

• All anti -fouling hull coatings subject to registration under FIFRA (see 40 CFR § 152.15) must be registered, sold or distributed, applied, maintained, and removed in a manner consistent with applicable requirements on the coatings’ FIFRA lab el.

• For anti-fouling hull coatings not subject to FIFRA registration (i.e., not produced for sale and distribution in the United States), hull coatings must not contain any biocides or toxic materials banned for use in the United States (including those on EPA’s List of Banned or Severely Restricted Pesticides) . This requirement applies to all vessels, including those registered and painted outside the United States.

At the time of initial application or scheduled reapplication of anti

- fouling coatings, you must give consideration, as appropriate for vessel class and vessel operations, to the use of hull coatings with the lowest effective biocide release rates, rapidly biodegradable components (once separated from the hull surface), or non- biocidal altern atives, such as silicone coatings.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix D



### A ppendix D. Water Quality and Other Benchmark Values Used to Screen the

Vessel Discharge Data2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix D

D

- 1 To provide a context for the level of contaminant concentrations presented, EPA used National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) 1 and several other benchmarks as a preliminary screen for all discharge data with the potential to cause or contribute to the nonattainment of a water quality standard in a given receiving water body. The “screening

- level” benchmarks chosen for this purpose are shown in the Table D

- 1 below , and generally represent EPA’s most conservative (protective) concentration available for the specific analyte of interest. Several “legacy” standards (for BOD, TSS and total phosphorus) are also included with the screenin g benchmarks. For BOD and TSS, these benchmarks are EPA’s secondary treatment effluent limits for sewage treatment plants. 2 For total phosphorus, the benchmark of 0.1 mg/L is from EPA’s Gold Book (USEPA, 1986) and represents a concentration recommended to prevent nuisance algal blooms resulting from eutrophication in flowing waters. EPA did not consider it appropriate to apply ecoregional nutrient criteria for this project.

EPA’s NRWQC are recommended concentrations of analytes in a water body that are intended to protect human health, aquatic organisms and the water body uses from unacceptable effects from exposures to these pollutants. The NRWQC are not directly related to analyte concentrations in a discharge for a number of reasons. First, NRWQC not only have a concentration component, but also a duration and frequency component. Second, it is not always necessary to meet all water quality criteria within the discharge pip e to protect the integrity of a water body (USEPA, 1991). Under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(ii), when determining whether a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in

- stream excursion above a

narrative or numeric criteria within a state water quality standard, the permitting authority will use procedures that account for, where appropriate, the dilution of the effluent in the receiving water. A mixing zone allows for ambient concentrations above the criteri a in small areas near outfalls while dilution occurs. To ensure mixing zones do not impair the integrity of the water body, the permitting authority will determine the mixing zone such that it does not cause lethality to passing organisms and, considering likely pathways of exposure, significant human health risks.

Nevertheless, comparing analyte concentrations in vessel discharges to NRWQC (or other equivalent screening benchmark) provides a conservative screen of whether these discharges cause,

have th e reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to nonattainment of the water quality standards in a water body.

1 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) include acute (short

- term) and chronic (long

- term) criteria (toxicity threshold values) for the protection of aquatic life, as well as Human Health criteria for protection of humans from consumption of co ntaminated water or contaminated water and aquatic organisms. EPA's most recent compilation of NRWQC (2006) is presented as a summary table containing recommended water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health in surface water f or approximately 150 pollutants. These criteria are published pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and provide guidance for states and tribes to use in adopting water quality standards. EPA’s 2006 NRWQC are available at: http://www.epa.g ov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/ , hereafter referred to as EPA’s 2006 NRWQC.

2 Secondary treatment standards for sewage treatment plants were technology

- based limits developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and are not the same as the water

- quality

- based criteria in the 2006 NRWQC. Thus, the PHQs for BOD and TSS calculated as described below are not directly comparable to the PHQs based on criteria designed to protect aquatic life or human health but, by design, such standards are imposed to limit ec ological impacts.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix D

D

- 2 Table D

- 1

. Water Quality and Other Benchmark Values Used to Screen the Vessel Discharge Data

Analyte Screening

Benchmarks Units Sources

1,1,2,2

- Tetrachloroethane 0.17 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,1,2

- Trichloroethane 0.59 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,1

- Dichloroethene 330 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,2,4,5

- Tetrachlorobenzene 0.97 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,2,4

- Trichlorobenzene 35 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,2

- Dichlorobenzene 420 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,2

- Dichloroethane 0.38 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,2

- Dichloropropane 0.5 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,2

- Diphenyl hydrazine 0.036 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,3

- Dichlorobenzene 320 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,3

- Dichloropropane 0.34 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,4

- Dichlorobenzene 63 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2,3,7,8

- TCDD (Dioxin) 5.0E

- 09 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2,4,5

- Trichlorophenol 1,800 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol 1.4 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2,4

- Dichlorophenol 77 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2,4

- Dimethylphenol 380 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2,4

- Dinitrophenol 69 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2,4

- Dinitrotoluene 0.11 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

2

- Chloronaphthalene 1,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

2

- Chlorophenol 81 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

2

- Methyl

- 4,6

- Dinitrophenol 13 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
3,3'

- Dichlorobenzidine 0.021 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
4,4'

- DDD 0.00031 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH Org Only
4,4'

- DDE 0.00022 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH Org Only
4,4'

- DDT 0.001 μg/L 2006 NRWQC CCC
4,6

- Dinitro

- 2

- methylphenol 13 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Asbestos 7

, 000

, 000 fibers/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Acenaphthene 670 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Acrolein 6.0 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Acrylonitrile 0.051 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Aldrin 1.3 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CMC Alkalinity 20,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW CCC alpha

- BHC 0.0026 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O alpha

- Endosulfan 0.0087 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC
Aluminum, Total 87 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW CCC Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3

- N) 1.2 m g/L 2006 NRWQC FW CCC

Anthracene 8,300 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Antimony, Total 5.6 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Arsenic, Total 0.018 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Arsenic, Dissolved 36 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC
Barium, Total 1,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+ O

Benzene 2.2 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Benzidine 0.000086 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Benzo(a)Anthracene 0.0038 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Benzo(a)Fluoranthene 0.0038 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0038 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0038 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix D

D

- 3 Table D

- 1

. Water Quality and Other Benchmark Values Used to Screen the Vessel Discharge Data

Analyte Screening

Benchmarks Units Sources

Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 0.0038 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

beta

- BHC 0.0091 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

beta

- Endosulfan 0.0087 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC

Biochemical Oxygen Demand ( BOD) 30 mg/L 1984 Secondary Treatment Effluent

Limits Bis (2

- Chloroethyl) ether 0.030 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Bis (2

- chloroisopropyl)ether 1,400 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Bis(2

- Ethylhexyl) phthalate 1.2 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Bromodichloromethane 0.55 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Bromoform 4.3 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Bromomethane 47 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Butyl benzyl Phthalate 1,500 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Cadmium, Dissolved 0.25 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW CCC

Carbon tetrachloride 0.23 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Chlordane 0.004 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC

Chloride 230,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC

Chlorobenzene 130 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Dibromochloromethane 0.40 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Chloroform 5.7 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,

- TP) 10 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4

- D) 100 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Chloropyrifos 0.0056 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC
Chromium, Dissolved 11 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC

Chrysene 0.0038 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Copper, Dissolved 3.1 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC Copper, Total 1,300 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Cyanide 1.0 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CMC

Demeton 0.1 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW and SW CCC

Diazinon 0.17 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW CMC and CCC Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 0.0038 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Chlorodibromomethane 0.40 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Dichlorobromomethane 0.55 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Dieldrin 0.0019 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC Diethyl Phthalate 17,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Dimethyl phthalate 270,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Di

- n

- butyl phthalate 2,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Dinitrophenols 69 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

E. Coli by MPN 126 MPN/100

ml 1986 NRWQC B FW

Endosulfan Sulfate 62 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Endrin 0.0023 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC Endrin Aldehyde 0.29 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Enterococci by MPN 33 MPN/100

ml 1986 NRWQC B FW

Ether, Bis(Chloromethyl) 0.0001 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Ethylbenzene 530 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix D

D

- 4 Table D

- 1

. Water Quality and Other Benchmark Values Used to Screen the Vessel Discharge Data

Analyte Screening

Benchmarks Units Sources

Fecal Coliform by MF 14 MPN/100

ml 1976 QCW SH

Fluoranthene 130 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Fluorene 1,100 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Gamma

- BHC (Lindane) 0.16 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CMC

Guthion 0.01 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW and SW CCC Heptachlor 0.0036 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC Heptachlor Epoxide 0.0036 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC

Hexachlorobenzene 0.00028 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.44 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Hexachlorocyclo

- hexane

- Technical 0.0123 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 40 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Hexachloroethane 1.4 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) 15 mg/L MARPOL 73/78 Ideno(1,2,3

- cd)Pyrene 0.0038 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Iron, Total 300 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Isophorone 35 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Lead, Dissolved 2.5 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW CCC

Malathion 0.1 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW and SW CCC Manganese 50 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Mercury 0.77 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW CCC Methoxychlor 0.03 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW CCC Methylene chloride 4.6 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Mirex 0.001 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW and SW CCC
Nickel, Dissolved 8.2 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC
Nickel, Total 610 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Nitrates 10,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Nitrobenzene 17 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Nitrosamines 0.0008 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Nitrosodibutylamine,N 0.0063 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Nitrosodiethylamine,N 0.0008 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Nitrosopyrrolidine,N 0.016 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

N

- Nitroso Di

- n

- propylamine 0.005 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

N

- Nitrosodimethylamine 0.00069 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

N

- Nitrosodiphenylamine 3.3 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Parathion 0.013 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW CCC

Pentachlorobenzene 1.4 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Pentachlorophenol 7.9 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC

Phenol 21,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Phorphorus (as phosphate) 0.1 mg/L EPA 1986 Goldbook Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 0.000064 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Pyrene 830 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Selenium, Dissolved 5 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW CCC
Selenium, Total 170 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT

- HEM) 15 mg/L MARPOL 73/78
Silver, Dissolved 1.9 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CMC Solids Dissolved and Salinity 250,000 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Sulfide

- Hydrogen Sulfide 0.002 mg/L 2006 NRWQC FW and SW CCC2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix D

D

- 5 Table D

- 1

. Water Quality and Other Benchmark Values Used to Screen the Vessel Discharge Data

Analyte Screening

Benchmarks Units Sources

Tetrachloroethene 0.69 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Thallium, Total 0.24 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Toluene 1,300 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Total Nonylphenols 1.7 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC Total Phosphorus 0.1 mg/L 1986 NRWQC Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.000064 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH Org Only

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 30 mg/L 1984 Secondary Treatment Effluent

Limits Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) 0.0075 m g/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC Toxaphene 0.0002 μg/L 2006 NRWQC FW and SW CCC

trans

- 1,2

- Dichloroethene 140 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Tributyltin (TBT) 0.0074 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC

Trichloroethene 2.5 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O Vinyl chloride 0.025 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Zinc, Dissolved 81 μg/L 2006 NRWQC SW CCC
Zinc, Total 7400 μg/L 2006 NRWQC HH W+O

Sources: MARPOL 73/78: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 as modified by the

Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/88, 1978). 1976 QCW SH (shellfish harvesting): Note MPN is most probable number and approximate s the unit of measure for

fecal coliform in this study of CFU (colony forming units) (USEPA, 1976). 1984 Secondary Treatment Effluent Limits: 49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984. 1986 NRWQC B FW (bathing (full body contact) recreational waters

– fresh water): (USEPA, 1986). Quality Criteri a for Water 1986 (Goldbook) (USEPA, 1986). 2006 NRWQC FW CCC (freshwater chronic): (USEPA, 2006). 2006 NRWQC SW CCC (saltwater chronic) (USEPA, 2006). 2006 NRWQC SW CMC (saltwater acute) (USEPA, 2006). 2006 NRWQC HH Org Only (human health for the consumpti on of organism only) (USEPA, 2006). 2006 NRWQC HH W+O (human health for the consumption of water + organism) (USEPA, 2006).

References

MARPOL 73/78. 1978. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978. Retrieved from http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=258&doc_id=678.

“Secondary Treatment” 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 133.102.

USEPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water

- 1986. “Gold Book.” EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. (May). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/goldbook.pdf

.

USEPA. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. “Red Book.” EPA PB

- 263

- 943. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/redbook.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix D

D

- 6 USEPA. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality

- Based Toxics Cont rol. EPA 505

- 2

- 90

- 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix E



### Appendix E. Methodology for Dete rmining the Aquatic and AquaticDependent Species that May Be A ffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGP2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix E

E-1 EPA obtained an initial list of over 1,900 1 federally-listed aquatic , aquatic-dependent, and terrestrial species (including foreign species) from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). 2 From this list, EPA identified a subset of aquatic and aq uatic-dependent species that have mo re than limited exposure to “waters

of the United States” as defi ned by the following criteria:

 Species is a fully-aquatic species (e.g., fish);

 Species is an aquatic-dependent terrestria l species which has an important life-stage in aquatic ecosystems (e.g., amphibian);

 Species is an aquatic-dependent terrestria l species which has a substantial portion of its diet directly from the aquatic environment (e.g., shorebird);

 Species migration pattern include s an aquatic environment; or

 Species critical habitat in cludes or is dependent upon an aquatic environment.

EPA excluded listed species deemed to have onl y limited exposure to water (i.e., terrestrial species which do not have an important life-stage in a quatic systems and/or do not rely on aquatic systems for a substantial po rtion of their diet), from the BE analysis and determined there would be no effect on these species.

The initial list of aquatic and aquatic-depe ndent species and their critical habitats was originally prepared by EPA to support national 304(a) criteria ESA consultations and the 2008 VGP BE. EPA identified this list as an appropriate starting point for this BE because the list had been subjected to substantial quality contro l and assurance and because it represented the Agency’s most current and comprehensive co mpilation of aquatic a nd aquatic-dependent species. EPA updated the initial aqua tic and aquatic-depende nt species list for this BE to reflect additional species identified in a listing provi ded by the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) to EPA on March 15, 2012 to support th e 2013 VGP and sVGP BE. EPA also revised the list of aquatic and aquatic -dependent species to reflect changes in species status and designations of critical habitats based on the information availabl e in the ECOS database. Table E-1 presents the current list of 612 aquatic and aqua tic-dependent species and their critical habitats that may be affect ed by the 2013 VGP and sVGP. The list includes 44 mammals, 44 birds, 24 reptiles, 27 amphibians, 135 fish, 27 crus taceans, 34 snails, 93 bivalve mollusks (clams and abalone), 25 insects, 2 corals, and 157 s ea grasses and aquatic and wetland plants.

As described in Section 3.2.4, EPA identif ied ANS and 32 additional pollutants for

detailed evaluation in the BE. Vessel-related ANS are capable of being transported from the original site of discharge to upstream envir onments through multiple pathways and mechanisms. Given the migration potential for ANS once intr oduced and established (e.g., fish can swim upstream), EPA evaluated the full list of 612 aqua tic and aquatic-dependent species for potential

risks from vessel-related ANS in the BE. For th e 32 additional pollutants identified for detailed evaluation EPA assumes pollutant fate and tran sport is limited to downstream movement and dispersion and narrowed the scope of listed specie s considered in the BE to only those species

1 The Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) geographical information dataset provided by the Services included 1,973 unique species polygon ranges fo r listed species in the United States and its territories.

2 For the purpose of this BE, all listed species means a ll possible status categories: i.e., candidate, endangered, experimental, proposed endangered, proposed threatened, recovery, species of concern, and threatened.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix E

E-2 exposed to navigable waters traveled by vesse ls covered under the VGP and sVGP using the methodology described below. In this context, fo r the purpose of identif ying species potentially exposed to pollutants in vessel discharges covered under the VGP and sVGP, EPA includes downstream waters and nearby tidally-influenced waters within the term navigable waters traveled by vessels covered under the VGP a nd sVGP. This methodology excluded all aquatic and aquatic-dependent species located upstream from where ve ssel discharges are generally expected to occur based on the assumption that tr aditional pollutants (other than ANS) in vessel discharge will not migrate upstream and present a potential risk in onl y the immediate water body or downstream waters where vessels discharge.

To identify the subset of listed aquatic and aquatic-dependent species potentially impacted by pollutants in vessel discharges, EP A conducted a geographical information system (GIS) spatial analysis to determ ine the concurrence of the full list of 612 aquatic and aquaticdependent animal and plant species and their criti cal habitats to U.S. navigable waterways where VGP and sVGP vessels operate (and discharge) . EPA identified the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Waterw ay Network (NWN) GIS data as the best data available to represent U.S. navigable waterways where VGP a nd sVGP operate in the GIS analysis (Figure E-1). 3 The NWN data includes representations of shipping lanes in channels, intracoastal waterways, sealanes, and rivers, as well as path s in open water where no defined shipping lanes are present. In addition, the US ACE NWN includes channels for lakes connected to the USACE

NWN and channels for a select num ber of lakes that are not dire ctly linked to the USACE NWN. Figure E-1 presents the navigable rivers and shipping channels included in the USACE NWN used to identify species for inclusion in the BE.

Occasionally, small pockets of commercial vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP may also operate on lakes and reservoirs not conn ected to USACE NWN. EP A first identified all lakes and reservoirs greater th an 0.5 square miles in the Na tional Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Plus GIS dataset and performed internet searches to determine the vesse l populations likely to operate on different size lakes. Based on these searches, EPA determined that vessels covered by the VGP rarely operate on lakes smaller than 50 square miles. EPA also found that vessels covered under the sVGP are present in limited nu mbers (i.e., fewer than five vessels) on lakes smaller than 50 square miles, and that they op erate (and discharge) for only limited periods of time. For example, a smaller lake may have a singl e dinner cruise boat that operates three days a week for two hours a day during the summer seas on. Based these findings, EPA considers that the risk posed by covered vessel populations to li sted species present in lakes smaller than 50 square miles to be discountable. EPA identified all lakes and reservoirs greater than 50 square

miles included in the NHD Plus GIS dataset as an additional waterbody dataset for identifying aquatic and aquatic-dependent sp ecies potentially impacted by po llutants in vessel discharges. Figure E-1 presents the lakes a nd reservoirs greater than 50 s quare miles included in NHD Plus used in the GIS analysis.

3 EPA chose to use the USACE NWN navigable waterways da ta for this effort instead of the NHD Plus streams

attributed with Strahler or der to delineate waters navigable by vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP because it is likely that many significant factors such as navigation obstacles (i.e., dams) would be ignored if waters were

identified based on stream order alone. EPA obtained th e NWN data as ESRI Shapefile polylines and point files from the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Tr ansportation Statistics National Transportation Atlas (dated 2011).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix E

E-3 EPA obtained the species profile GIS da ta set from the USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). The ECOS GI S dataset represents cu rrent (as of March, 21 2012) USFWS field office reports of the spatial extent (by county, quadrangle, or watershed) of 1,902 listed species for U.S. States, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Territories. EPA compared the list of 612 species to the ECOS GIS dataset to determine the spatial range in GIS for all species that may be affected by the VGP and sVGP. EPA identified 564 matches ( by scientific name)

between the ECOS GIS dataset a nd the list of 612 aquatic and a quatic-dependent species. EPA identified 48 additional aquatic and aquatic-dependent species for further research that were not represented in the ECOS GIS dataset. 4 EPA extracted the 564 matchi ng species in the ECOS GIS dataset to a separate dataset for furthe r analysis with the USACE NWN data.

As the next step of this analysis, EPA overlaid the USACE NWN da taset in Figure E-1 with the ECOS GIS dataset and spatially selected all species range polygons that intersected with a USACE NWN line (i.e., the species range is estim ated to coincide with navigable waters). From this analysis, EPA determined that 367 species out of the 612 aquatic and aquaticdependent plant and animal species have some spatial concurrenc e to U.S. waterways navigable by vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP as defined by the USACE NWN dataset. EPA then overlaid the lakes and reservoirs greater than 50 square miles included in the NHD Plus dataset in Figure E-1 with the ECOS GIS dataset and spa tially selected all speci es range polygons that intersected with a NHD Plus polygon. From the lakes analysis, EPA identified an additional 49 species out of the 612 aquatic a nd aquatic-dependent pl ant and animal species that have some spatial concurrence with the se lected lakes a nd reservoirs.

Regarding the 48 species that were missing in the ECOS GIS data, EPA individually researched the species (by viewi ng on-line species’ distribution maps 5 and using best professional judgment) to determine if they should be included in the list of aquatic and aquaticdependent animal and plant species exposed to U.S. waters navigable by vessels covered by the

VGP and sVGP. EPA determined that 38 of the 48 species are likely to be exposed to U.S. waters navigable by vessels c overed by the VGP and sVGP.

Based on these analyses, EPA identified a subset of 454 listed aquatic and aquaticdependent species and their cri tical habitats for risk consid eration from exposure to the 32 additional pollutants in vessel disc harges identified for detailed evaluation in the BE. Table E-1 presents the full list of 612 species and their critical ha bitats to that may be affected by the permits and designates the subset of 454 species and their critical habitats identified as potentially exposed to pollutants from vessel discharges covered under the VGP and sVGP. EPA evaluated all aquatic and aquatic-de pendent species and their critical habitats in the United States

and its territories. To illustrat e the methodology, Figures E-2 and E-3 present examples of the geographic overlap among certain aquatic and aquatic-depende nt taxa and the USACE NWN

dataset and lakes from the NHD Plus dataset.

4 Some of the missing species were added explicitly at the request of researchers at the NMFS.

5 Generally available either in ECOS, NatureServe, or NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, Species Under the ESA website, at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/

.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-4Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgAbalone, blackHaliotis cracherodiiSaltwater BivalveMolluskEhAbalone, whiteHaliotis sorenseniSaltwater BivalveMolluskESFBEAcornshell, southernEpioblasma othcaloogensisUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Albatross, short-tailedPhoebastria (=Diomedea)albatrusCoastal/MarineBirdEPSAlligator, AmericanAlligator mississippiensisSnakes and OtherReptilesT(S/A)Ambersnail, KanabOxyloma haydeni kanabensisUnionid Mussel EjAmphipod, diminutiveGammarus hyalleloidesFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanCAmphipod, Hay's SpringStygobromus hayiFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanEAmphipod, Illinois caveGammarus acherondytesFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanEAmphipod, Kauai caveSpelaeorchestia koloanaFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 17.95(h)Amphipod, Noel'sGammarus desperatusFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 17.95(h)Amphipod, Peck's caveStygobromus (=Stygonectes)peckiFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 17.95(h)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-5Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgArrowhead, bunchedSagittaria fasciculataFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEAsphodel, bogNarthecium americanumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsCAster, decurrent falseBoltonia decurrensFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTMRAtlantic sturgeon (Gulf ofMaine)Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrichusAnadromousSturgeonThBankclimber, purple(mussel)Elliptoideus sloatianusUnionid Mussel T 17.95(f)Bat, grayMyotis grisescensTerrestrialMammalEMR; BBBat, Hawaiian hoaryLasiurus cinereus semotusTerrestrialMammalEBat, IndianaMyotis sodalisTerrestrialMammalE 17.95(a)ULB;MR; BBBat, Ozark big-earedCorynorhinus (=Plecotus)townsendii ingensTerrestrialMammalEBat, Virginia big-earedCorynorhinus (=Plecotus)townsendii virginianusTerrestrialMammalE 17.95(a)Beaked-rush, Knieskern'sRhynchospora knieskerniiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-6Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgBean, ChoctawVillosa choctawensisUnionid Mussel PEBean, Cumberland(pearlymussel)Villosa trabalisUnionid Mussel E;XNBean, purpleVillosa perpurpureaUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Bean, rayedVillosa fabalisUnionid Mussel EBear, American blackUrsus americanusTerrestrialMammalT(S/A)Bear, grizzlyUrsus arctos horribilisTerrestrialMammalT;XNPSBear, Louisiana blackUrsus americanus luteolusTerrestrialMammalT 17.95(a)Bear, polarUrsus maritimusTerrestrialMammalT 17.95(a)Bearded seal (Beringia)Erignathus barbatus nauticusMarine Mammal PThBeardtongue, PenlandPenstemon penlandiiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEBeauty, Harper'sHarperocallis flavaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEBeetle, Comal SpringsdryopidStygoparnus comalensisBeetle andAquatic InsectE 17.95(i)Beetle, Comal Springs riffleHeterelmis comalensisBeetle andAquatic InsectE 17.95(i)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-7Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgBeetle, delta green groundElaphrus viridisBeetle andAquatic InsectT 17.95(i)SFBEBeetle, Hungerford'scrawling waterBrychius hungerfordiBeetle andAquatic InsectEBeetle, valley elderberrylonghornDesmocerus californicusdimorphusBeetle andAquatic InsectT 17.95(i)SFBEBellflower, BrooksvilleCampanula robinsiaeFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEBBBird's-beak, salt marshCordylanthus maritimus ssp.maritimusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEBird's-beak, softCordylanthus mollis ssp. mollisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)SFBEBirds-in-a-nest, whiteMacbridea albaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTBittercress, small-antheredCardamine micrantheraFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEBlazingstar, Ash MeadowsMentzelia leucophyllaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-8Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgBlossom, green(pearlymussel)Epioblasma torulosagubernaculumUnionid Mussel EBlossom, tubercled(pearlymussel)Epioblasma torulosa torulosaUnionid Mussel E;XNBlossom, turgid(pearlymussel)Epioblasma turgidulaUnionid Mussel E;XNBlossom, yellow(pearlymussel)Epioblasma florentina florentinaUnionid Mussel E;XNBluecurls, Hidden LakeTrichostema austromontanumssp. compactumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTiBobwhite, masked (quail)Colinus virginianus ridgwayiCoastal/MarineBirdEBocaccioSebastes paucispinisEstuarine/MarineFishEhBrodiaea, Chinese CampBrodiaea pallidaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTBrodiaea, thread-leavedBrodiaea filifoliaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)Bulrush, NortheasternScirpus ancistrochaetusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-9Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgButtercup, autumnRanunculus aestivalis(=acriformis)FreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEjButterfly plant, ColoradoGaura neomexicana var.coloradensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)Butterfly, lotis blueLycaeides argyrognomon lotisBeetle andAquatic InsectEButterfly, Mitchell's satyrNeonympha mitchellii mitchelliiBeetle andAquatic InsectEButterfly, Saint Francis'satyrNeonympha mitchellii francisciBeetle andAquatic InsectEButterwort, Godfrey'sPinguicula ionanthaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTButton, Mohr's BarbaraMarshallia mohriiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTButton-celery, San DiegoEryngium aristulatum var.parishiiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsECaddisfly, SequatchieGlyphopsyche sequatchieBeetle andAquatic InsectC2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-10Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgCalistoga AllocaryaPlagiobothrys strictusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEiSFBECampeloma, slenderCampeloma decampiUnionid Mussel ECaracara, Audubon's crestedPolyborus plancus auduboniiCoastal/MarineBirdTBBCatfish, YaquiIctalurus priceiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Catspaw (=purple cat's pawpearlymussel)Epioblasma obliquata obliquataUnionid Mussel E;XNCatspaw, white(pearlymussel)Epioblasma obliquataperobliquaUnionid Mussel ECavefish, AlabamaSpeoplatyrhinus poulsoniFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Cavefish, OzarkAmblyopsis rosaeFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTjCavesnail, Tumbling CreekAntrobia culveriUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)jCentaury, spring-lovingCentaurium namophilumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)Chaffseed, AmericanSchwalbea americanaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEBB2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-11Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgChecker-mallow, KenwoodMarshSidalcea oregana ssp. validaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEChecker-mallow, Nelson'sSidalcea nelsonianaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTChecker-mallow, pedateSidalcea pedataFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsECheckermallow, WenatcheeMountainsSidalcea oregana var. calvaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a) Chub, bonytailGila elegansFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)jChub, Borax LakeGila boraxobiusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Chub, ChihuahuaGila nigrescensFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTChub, GilaGila intermediaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Chub, headwaterGila nigraFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidCChub, humpbackGila cyphaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)jChub, Hutton tuiGila bicolor ssp.Freshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTj2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-12Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgChub, Mohave tuiGila bicolor mohavensisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEChub, OregonOregonichthys crameriFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Chub, Owens tuiGila bicolor snyderiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Chub, Pahranagat roundtailGila robusta jordaniFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEChub, slenderErimystax cahniFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT;XN 17.95(e)Chub, SonoraGila ditaeniaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Chub, spotfinErimonax monachusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT;XN 17.95(e)Chub, Virgin RiverGila seminuda (=robusta)Freshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)jChub, YaquiGila purpureaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Cinquefoil, SoldierMeadowsPotentilla basalticaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsCjClover, showy IndianTrifolium amoenumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEClubshellPleurobema clavaUnionid Mussel E;XNClubshell, blackPleurobema curtumUnionid Mussel E2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-13Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgClubshell, ovatePleurobema perovatumUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Clubshell, southernPleurobema decisumUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Cobana negraStahlia monospermaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTCombshell, CumberlandianEpioblasma brevidensUnionid Mussel E;XN 17.95(f)Combshell, southernEpioblasma penitaUnionid Mussel ECombshell, uplandEpioblasma metastriataUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Coot, HawaiianFulica americana alaiCoastal/MarineBirdECoral, elkhornAcropora palmataSaltwater Corals T 17.95(j)BBCoral, staghornAcropora cervicornisSaltwater Corals T 17.95(j)BBCrake, spotlessPorzana tabuensisCoastal/MarineBirdCCrane, Mississippi sandhillGrus canadensis pullaCoastal/MarineBirdE 17.95(b)Crane, whoopingGrus americanaCoastal/MarineBirdE;XN 17.95(b)GBCrayfish, caveCambarus aculabrumFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanECrayfish, caveCambarus zophonastesFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-14Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgCrayfish, NashvilleOrconectes shoupiFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanECrayfish, ShastaPacifastacus fortisFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanEjCress, Tahoe yellowRorippa subumbellataFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsCjCrocodile, AmericanCrocodylus acutusSnakes and OtherReptilesE;T 17.95( c)BBCrow, Mariana (=aga)Corvus kubaryiCoastal/MarineBirdE 17.95(b) Crownscale, San JacintoValleyAtriplex coronata var. notatiorFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Cuckoo, yellow-billedCoccyzus americanusCoastal/MarineBirdCCui-uiChasmistes cujusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEjCurlew, EskimoNumenius borealisCoastal/MarineBirdEDace, Ash MeadowsspeckledRhinichthys osculus nevadensisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Dace, blacksidePhoxinus cumberlandensisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT Dace, Clover ValleyspeckledRhinichthys osculus oligoporusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-15Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgDace, desertEremichthys acrosFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Dace, Foskett speckledRhinichthys osculus ssp.Freshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTjDace, Independence ValleyspeckledRhinichthys osculus lethoporusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEDace, Kendall WarmSpringsRhinichthys osculus thermalisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEDace, LaurelPhoxinus sayloriFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEDace, MoapaMoapa coriaceaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEjDaisy, WillametteErigeron decumbens var.decumbensFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Damselfly, blacklineHawaiianMegalagrion nigrohamatumnigrolineatumBeetle andAquatic InsectPEDamselfly, crimsonHawaiianMegalagrion leptodemusBeetle andAquatic InsectPEDamselfly, flying earwigHawaiianMegalagrion nesiotesBeetle andAquatic InsectEDamselfly, oceanicHawaiianMegalagrion oceanicumBeetle andAquatic InsectPEDamselfly, orangeblackHawaiianMegalagrion xanthomelasBeetle andAquatic InsectC2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-16Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgDamselfly, Pacific HawaiianMegalagrion pacificumBeetle andAquatic InsectEDarter, amberPercina antesellaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Darter, ArkansasEtheostoma craginiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidCDarter, bayouEtheostoma rubrumFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT Darter, bluemask (=jewel)Etheostoma sp.Freshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEDarter, boulderEtheostoma wapitiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE;XN Darter, CherokeeEtheostoma scottiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTDarter, CumberlandEtheostoma susanaeFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE Darter, duskytailEtheostoma percnurumFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE;XN Darter, EtowahEtheostoma etowahaeFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEDarter, fountainEtheostoma fonticolaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Darter, goldlinePercina aurolineataFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTDarter, leopardPercina pantherinaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Darter, MarylandEtheostoma sellareFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Darter, NianguaEtheostoma nianguaeFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e) 2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-17Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgDarter, OkaloosaEtheostoma okaloosaeFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTDarter, PearlPercina auroraFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidCDarter, relictEtheostoma chienenseFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEDarter, rushEtheostoma phytophilumFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEDarter, slackwaterEtheostoma boschungiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Darter, snailPercina tanasiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Darter, vermilionEtheostoma chermockiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Darter, watercressEtheostoma nuchaleFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEDarter, yellowcheekEtheostoma mooreiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE Desert-parsley, Bradshaw'sLomatium bradshawiiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEDragonfly, Hine's emeraldSomatochlora hineanaBeetle andAquatic InsectE 17.95(i)Dropwort, Canby'sOxypolis canbyiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEDuck, Hawaiian (=koloa)Anas wyvillianaCoastal/MarineBirdE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-18Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgDuck, LaysanAnas laysanensisCoastal/MarineBirdEEbonyshell, roundFusconaia rotulataUnionid Mussel PEEider, spectacledSomateria fischeriCoastal/MarineBirdT 17.95(b)Eider, Steller'sPolysticta stelleriCoastal/MarineBirdT 17.95(b)Elepaio, OahuChasiempis sandwichensis ibidisCoastal/MarineBirdE 17.95(b)Elimia, lacy (snail)Elimia crenatellaUnionid Mussel TElktoe, AppalachianAlasmidonta ravenelianaUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Elktoe, CumberlandAlasmidonta atropurpureaUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f) Eulachon, PacificThaleichthys pacificusEstuarine/MarineFishThFairy shrimp, ConservancyBranchinecta conservatioFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 17.95(h)SFBEFairy shrimp, longhornBranchinecta longiantennaFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 17.95(h)SFBEFairy shrimp, RiversideStreptocephalus woottoniFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 17.95(h)Fairy shrimp, San DiegoBranchinecta sandiegonensisFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 17.95(h)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-19Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgFairy shrimp, vernal poolBranchinecta lynchiFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanT 17.95(h)False killer whale (HawaiiInsular)Pseudorca crassidensMarine Mammal PEFanshellCyprogenia stegariaUnionid Mussel E;XNFatmucket, ArkansasLampsilis powelliUnionid Mussel TFlycatcher, southwesternwillowEmpidonax traillii extimusCoastal/MarineBirdE 17.95(b)Frog, California red-leggedRana aurora draytoniiAmphibian T 17.95(d)iSFBEFrog, Chiricahua leopardRana chiricahuensisAmphibian T 17.95(d)jFrog, Columbia spottedRana luteiventrisAmphibian C Frog, mountain yellowleggedRana muscosaAmphibian E;C 17.95(d)Frog, Oregon spottedRana pretiosaAmphibian CFrog, relict leopardRana oncaAmphibian CGambusia, Big BendGambusia gaigeiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEGambusia, Clear CreekGambusia heterochirFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEGambusia, PecosGambusia nobilisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEGambusia, San MarcosGambusia georgeiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-20Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgGilia, MontereyGilia tenuiflora ssp. arenariaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEGnatcatcher, coastalCaliforniaPolioptila californicacalifornicaCoastal/MarineBirdT 17.95(b)Goby, tidewaterEucyclogobius newberryiEstuarine/MarineFishE 17.95(e)SFBEGoldenrod, Houghton'sSolidago houghtoniiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTGoldenrod, Yadkin RiverSolidago plumosaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsCGoldfields, Burke'sLasthenia burkeiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEGoldfields, Contra CostaLasthenia conjugensFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Grass, ColusaNeostapfia colusanaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)SFBE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-21Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgGrass, Tennessee yelloweyedXyris tennesseensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEGrouse, greater sageCentrocercus urophasianusCoastal/MarineBirdCGuajonEleutherodactylus cookiAmphibian T 17.95(d) Gumplant, Ash MeadowsGrindelia fraxino-pratensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)HahaCyanea grimesiana ssp.grimesianaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)HarperellaPtilimnium nodosumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEHawk, Puerto Rican broadwingedButeo platypterus brunnescensCoastal/MarineBirdEHeartleaf, dwarf-floweredHexastylis nanifloraFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTjHeauExocarpos luteolusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-22Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgHeelsplitter, Alabama(=inflated)Potamilus inflatusUnionid Mussel THeelsplitter, CarolinaLasmigona decorataUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Hellbender, OzarkCryptobranchus alleganiensisbishopiAmphibian EHiggins eye (pearlymussel)Lampsilis higginsiiUnionid Mussel EHiguero de sierraCrescentia portoricensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEHornshell, TexasPopenaias popeiUnionid Mussel CHornsnail, roughPleurocera foremaniUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Howellia, waterHowellia aquatilisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTPSIhi`ihiMarsilea villosaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Isopod, Lee County caveLirceus usdagalunFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanEIsopod, Madison CaveAntrolana liraFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanT2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-23Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgIsopod, SocorroThermosphaeroma thermophilusFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanEIvesia, Ash MeadowsIvesia kingii var. eremicaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)Jaguarundi, Gulf CoastHerpailurus (=Felis)yagouaroundi cacomitliTerrestrialMammalEJaguarundi, SinaloanHerpailurus (=Felis)yagouaroundi toltecaTerrestrialMammalEiJoint-vetch, sensitiveAeschynomene virginicaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTKampua`aHedyotis fluviatilisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsCKidneyshell, flutedPtychobranchus subtentumUnionid Mussel CKidneyshell, southernPtychobranchus jonesiUnionid Mussel PEKidneyshell, triangularPtychobranchus greeniiUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Kite, Everglade snailRostrhamus sociabilis plumbeusCoastal/MarineBirdE 17.95(b)BBKnot, redCalidris canutus rufaCoastal/MarineBirdC2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-24Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgKo`oko`olauBidens conjunctaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsPEKopikoPsychotria grandifloraFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Kuahiwi laukahiPlantago princepsFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Ladies'-tresses, Canelo HillsSpiranthes delitescensFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsELadies'-tresses, NavasotaSpiranthes parksiiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEjLadies'-tresses, UteSpiranthes diluvialisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTPSLampmussel, AlabamaLampsilis virescensUnionid Mussel E;XNLiliwaiAcaena exiguaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Lilliput, pale (pearlymussel)Toxolasma cylindrellusUnionid Mussel E2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-25Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgLily, Pitkin MarshLilium pardalinum ssp.pitkinenseFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsELily, WesternLilium occidentaleFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsELimpet, Banbury SpringsLanx sp.Unionid Mussel ELioplax, cylindrical (snail)Lioplax cyclostomaformisUnionid Mussel ELizard, blunt-nosed leopardGambelia silusSnakes and OtherReptilesELizard, St. Croix groundAmeiva polopsSnakes and OtherReptilesE 17.95(c)Lo`uluPritchardia kaalaeFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsELo`uluPritchardia napaliensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsELo`uluPritchardia remotaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Lo`ulu, (=Na`ena`e)Pritchardia hardyiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-26Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgLocoweed, Fassett'sOxytropis campestris var.chartaceaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTLogperch, ConasaugaPercina jenkinsiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Logperch, RoanokePercina rexFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidELomatium, Cook'sLomatium cookiiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Loosestrife, rough-leavedLysimachia asperulaefoliaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEMadtom, chuckyNoturus crypticusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEMadtom, NeoshoNoturus placidusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTjMadtom, pygmyNoturus stanauliFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE;XNiMadtom, SciotoNoturus trautmaniFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEMadtom, smokyNoturus baileyiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE;XN 17.95(e)Madtom, yellowfinNoturus flavipinnisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT;XN 17.95(e)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-27Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgMakouRanunculus mauiensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsCManatee, West IndianTrichechus manatusMarine Mammal E 17.95(a)GB; BBMapleleaf, wingedQuadrula fragosaUnionid Mussel E;XNMarstonia, royal (snail)Pyrgulopsis ogmorhapheUnionid Mussel EiMassasauga (=rattlesnake),easternSistrurus catenatus catenatusSnakes and OtherReptilesCiMeadowfoam, Butte CountyLimnanthes floccosa ssp.californicaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a) Meadowfoam, largeflowered woollyLimnanthes floccosa ssp.grandifloraFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Meadowrue, Cooley'sThalictrum cooleyiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEMesa-mint, OtayPogogyne nudiusculaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEMilk-vetch, Ash meadowsAstragalus phoenixFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-28Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgMilk-vetch, coastal dunesAstragalus tener var. titiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEMilk-vetch, Fish SloughAstragalus lentiginosus var.piscinensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)jMinnow, Devils RiverDionda diaboliFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Minnow, loachTiaroga cobitisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)jMinnow, Rio Grande silveryHybognathus amarusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Moccasinshell, AlabamaMedionidus acutissimusUnionid Mussel T 17.95(f)Moccasinshell, CoosaMedionidus parvulusUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Moccasinshell, GulfMedionidus penicillatusUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Moccasinshell, OchlockoneeMedionidus simpsonianusUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Monkeyface, Appalachian(pearlymussel)Quadrula sparsaUnionid Mussel E;XNMonkeyface, Cumberland(pearlymussel)Quadrula intermediaUnionid Mussel E;XNMonkey-flower, MichiganMimulus glabratus var.michiganensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEi2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-29Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgMonkshood, northern wildAconitum noveboracenseFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTMoorhen, HawaiiancommonGallinula chloropussandvicensisCoastal/MarineBirdEMoorhen, Mariana commonGallinula chloropus guamiCoastal/MarineBirdE Mouse, Anastasia IslandbeachPeromyscus polionotus phasmaTerrestrialMammalEMouse, Pacific pocketPerognathus longimembrispacificusTerrestrialMammalEMouse, salt marsh harvestReithrodontomys raviventrisTerrestrialMammalESFBEMouse, southeastern beachPeromyscus polionotusniveiventrisTerrestrialMammalTMucket, NeoshoLampsilis rafinesqueanaUnionid Mussel CMucket, orangenacreLampsilis perovalisUnionid Mussel T 17.95(f)Mucket, pink (pearlymussel)Lampsilis abruptaUnionid Mussel EMRMudalia, blackElimia melanoidesUnionid Mussel CMurrelet, Kittlitz'sBrachyramphus brevirostrisCoastal/MarineBirdCMurrelet, marbledBrachyramphus marmoratusCoastal/MarineBirdT 17.95(b)PS;SFBEMurrelet, Xantus'sSynthliboramphus hypoleucusCoastal/MarineBirdCMussel, oysterEpioblasma capsaeformisUnionid Mussel E;XN 17.95(f)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-30Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgMussel, scaleshellLeptodea leptodonUnionid Mussel EMRMussel, sheepnosePlethobasus cyphyusUnionid Mussel EMussel, snuffboxEpioblasma triquetraUnionid Mussel EMustard, Penland alpine fenEutrema penlandiiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTNani wai`ale`aleViola kauaiensis var.wahiawaensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Napa BluegrassPoa napensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEiSFBENaucorid bug (=FurnaceCreek), Nevares SpringAmbrysus funebrisBeetle andAquatic InsectCNaucorid, Ash MeadowsAmbrysus amargosusBeetle andAquatic InsectT 17.95(i)Navarretia, few-floweredNavarretia leucocephala ssp.pauciflora (=N. pauciflora)FreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEjNavarretia, many-floweredNavarretia leucocephala ssp.plieanthaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEj2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-31Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgNavarretia, spreadingNavarretia fossalisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)Niterwort, AmargosaNitrophila mohavensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)No common nameCordia bellonisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsENo common nameGesneria paucifloraFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT No common nameLysimachia filifoliaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)No common nameNesogenes rotensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsENo common namePlatanthera holochilaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-32Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgNo common namePteris lidgateiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)No common nameSanicula purpureaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)No common nameViola helenaeFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)NohoanuGeranium multiflorumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)OcelotLeopardus (=Felis) pardalisTerrestrialMammalE`Oha waiClermontia oblongifolia ssp.mauiensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Orchid, eastern prairiefringedPlatanthera leucophaeaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTMROrchid, white fringelessPlatanthera integrilabiaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsC2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-33Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgOrcutt grass, CaliforniaOrcuttia californicaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEOrcutt grass, hairyOrcuttia pilosaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)SFBEOrcutt grass, SacramentoOrcuttia viscidaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Orcutt grass, San JoaquinOrcuttia inaequalisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)Orcutt grass, slenderOrcuttia tenuisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a) Otter, Northern seaEnhydra lutris kenyoniMarine Mammal T 17.95(a)Otter, Southern seaEnhydra lutris nereisMarine Mammal T;XNSFBEOwl's-clover, fleshyCastilleja campestris ssp.succulentaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)Palmate-bracted Bird's BeakCordylanthus palmatusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEiSFBE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-34Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgPamakaniViola chamissoniana ssp.chamissonianaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Panic grass, Hirsts'Dichanthelium (=Panicum)hirstiiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsCPanther, FloridaPuma (=Felis) concolor coryiTerrestrialMammalEBBPawpaw, beautifulDeeringothamnus pulchellusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPawpaw, Rugel'sDeeringothamnus rugeliiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPearlshell, AlabamaMargaritifera marrianaeUnionid Mussel PEPearlshell, LouisianaMargaritifera hembeliUnionid Mussel T Pearlymussel, birdwingConradilla caelataUnionid Mussel E;XNPearlymussel, crackingHemistena lataUnionid Mussel E;XNPearlymussel, CurtisEpioblasma florentina curtisiiUnionid Mussel EPearlymussel, dromedaryDromus dromasUnionid Mussel E;XNPearlymussel, littlewingPegias fabulaUnionid Mussel E2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-35Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgPearlymussel, slabsideLexingtonia dolabelloidesUnionid Mussel CPebblesnail, flatLepyrium showalteriUnionid Mussel EPetrel, Hawaiian darkrumpedPterodroma phaeopygiasandwichensisCoastal/MarineBirdEPigtoe, CumberlandPleurobema gibberumUnionid Mussel EiPigtoe, darkPleurobema furvumUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Pigtoe, finerayedFusconaia cuneolusUnionid Mussel E;XNPigtoe, flatPleurobema marshalliUnionid Mussel EPigtoe, fuzzyPleurobema strodeanumUnionid Mussel PTPigtoe, GeorgiaPleurobema hanleyianumUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)jPigtoe, heavyPleurobema taitianumUnionid Mussel EPigtoe, narrowFusconaia escambiaUnionid Mussel PTPigtoe, ovalPleurobema pyriformeUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Pigtoe, roughPleurobema plenumUnionid Mussel E;XNPigtoe, shinyFusconaia corUnionid Mussel E;XNPigtoe, southernPleurobema georgianumUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Pigtoe, taperedQuincuncina burkeiUnionid Mussel PTi2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-36Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgPikeminnow (=squawfish),ColoradoPtychocheilus luciusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE;XN 17.95(e)jPimpleback, orangefoot(pearlymussel)Plethobasus cooperianusUnionid Mussel E;XNPink, swampHelonias bullataFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTPitcher-plant, AlabamacanebrakeSarracenia rubra alabamensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPitcher-plant, greenSarracenia oreophilaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPitcher-plant, mountainsweetSarracenia rubra ssp. jonesiiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPlover, pipingCharadrius melodusCoastal/MarineBirdE;T 17.95(b)ULB;GB;SLEPlover, western snowyCharadrius alexandrinusnivosusCoastal/MarineBirdT 17.95(b)SFBEPlymouth Red-BelliedTurtlePseudemys rubriventris bangsiSnakes and OtherReptilesE 17.95(c)Pocketbook, fatPotamilus capaxUnionid Mussel EPocketbook, finelinedLampsilis altilisUnionid Mussel T 17.95(f)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-37Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgPocketbook, Ouachita rockArkansia wheeleriUnionid Mussel EPocketbook, shinyrayedLampsilis subangulataUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Pocketbook, speckledLampsilis streckeriUnionid Mussel EPondberryLindera melissifoliaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPondweed, Little Aguja(=Creek)Potamogeton clystocarpusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPoolfish, PahrumpEmpetrichthys latosFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEjPopcornflower, roughPlagiobothrys hirtusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPotentilla, Hickman'sPotentilla hickmaniiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPrickly-apple, fragrantCereus eriophorus var. fragransFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEPrimrose, MaguirePrimula maguireiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-38Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgPseudoscorpion, Tooth CaveTartarocreagris texanaBeetle andAquatic InsectEPu`uka`aCyperus trachysanthosFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Pupfish, Ash MeadowsAmargosaCyprinodon nevadensismionectesFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Pupfish, Comanche SpringsCyprinodon elegansFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEPupfish, desertCyprinodon maculariusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)jPupfish, Devils HoleCyprinodon diabolisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEPupfish, Leon SpringsCyprinodon bovinusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Pupfish, OwensCyprinodon radiosusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEjPupfish, Warm SpringsCyprinodon nevadensispectoralisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEQuillwort, black sporedIsoetes melanosporaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEQuillwort, LouisianaIsoetes louisianensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-39Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgQuillwort, mat-formingIsoetes tegetiformansFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE Rabbitsfoot, roughQuadrula cylindrica strigillataUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Rail, California clapperRallus longirostris obsoletusCoastal/MarineBirdERail, light-footed clapperRallus longirostris levipesCoastal/MarineBirdERail, Yuma clapperRallus longirostris yumanensisCoastal/MarineBirdERedhorse, SicklefinMoxostoma sp.Freshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidCReedgrass, MauiCalamagrostis expansaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsCRhododendron, ChapmanRhododendron chapmaniiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsERiffle beetle, Stephan'sHeterelmis stephaniBeetle andAquatic InsectCRiffleshell, northernEpioblasma torulosa rangianaUnionid Mussel ERiffleshell, tanEpioblasma florentina walkeri(=E. walkeri)Unionid Mussel ERing pink (mussel)Obovaria retusaUnionid Mussel E;XNRinged seal (Arctic)Phoca hispida hispidaMarine Mammal PTh2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-40Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgRiversnail, Anthony'sAthearnia anthonyiUnionid Mussel E;XNRockfish, CanarySebastes pinnigerEstuarine/MarineFishThRockfish, YelloweyeSebastes ruberrimusEstuarine/MarineFishThRocksnail, interrupted(=Georgia)Leptoxis foremaniUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Rocksnail, paintedLeptoxis taeniataUnionid Mussel TRocksnail, plicateLeptoxis plicataUnionid Mussel ERocksnail, roundLeptoxis amplaUnionid Mussel TRose-mallow, Neches RiverHibiscus dasycalyxFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsCjRoseroot, Leedy'sSedum integrifolium ssp. leedyiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTSalamander, Austin blindEurycea waterlooensisAmphibian CSalamander, Barton SpringsEurycea sosorumAmphibian ESalamander, California tigerAmbystoma californienseAmphibian E;T 17.95(d)SFBESalamander, CheatMountainPlethodon nettingiAmphibian TSalamander, desert slenderBatrachoseps aridusAmphibian E2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-41Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgSalamander, flatwoodsAmbystoma cingulatumAmphibian T 17.95(d)Salamander, GeorgetownEurycea naufragiaAmphibian CSalamander, JollyvillePlateauEurycea tonkawaeAmphibian CSalamander, SaladoEurycea chisholmensisAmphibian CSalamander, San MarcosEurycea nanaAmphibian T 17.95(d)Salamander, Santa Cruzlong-toedAmbystoma macrodactylumcroceumAmphibian ESalamander, Sonora tigerAmbystoma tigrinum stebbinsiAmphibian ESalamander, Texas blindTyphlomolge rathbuniAmphibian ESalmon, AtlanticSalmo salarAnadromousSalmonidE 17.95(e)Salmon, ChinookOncorhynchus tshawytschaAnadromousSalmonidE;T17.95(e),226.212,226.204,226.205hPSSalmon, chumOncorhynchus ketaAnadromousSalmonidT17.95(e),226.212hPSSalmon, cohoOncorhynchus kisutchAnadromousSalmonidE17.95(e),226.210,226.212hSalmon, sockeyeOncorhynchus nerkaAnadromousSalmonidE;T17.95(e),226.212,226.205hsandshell, SouthernHamiota (=Lampsilis) australisUnionid Mussel PE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-42Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgSandwort, MarshArenaria paludicolaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsESawfish, smalltoothPristis pectinataEstuarine/MarineFishEGB; BBSculpin, grottoCottus sp.Freshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidC Sculpin, pygmyCottus paulus (=pygmaeus)Freshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTSea Lion, StellerEumetopias jubatusMarine Mammal E 226.202PS;SFBESea turtle, greenChelonia mydasSea Turtle E;T 226.208PS;ULB;GB;SFBE;BBSea turtle, hawksbillEretmochelys imbricataSea Turtle E17.95(c),226.209ULB;GB; BBSea turtle, Kemp's ridleyLepidochelys kempiiSea Turtle EULB;GBSea turtle, leatherbackDermochelys coriaceaSea Turtle E17.95(c),226.207PS;ULB;GB;SFBE;BBSea turtle, loggerheadCaretta carettaSea Turtle TULB;GB;SFBE;BB2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-43Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgSea turtle, olive ridleyLepidochelys olivaceaSea Turtle E;TSFBESeabeach AmaranthAmaranthus pumilusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTiULBSeablite, CaliforniaSuaeda californicaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsESeagrass, Johnson'sHalophila johnsoniiSeagrass T 226.213BBSeal, Guadalupe furArctocephalus townsendiMarine Mammal Th,iSFBESeal, Hawaiian monkMonachus schauinslandiMarine Mammal E 226.201hSeal, spottedPhoca larghaMarine Mammal ThSedge, goldenCarex luteaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Sedge, NavajoCarex specuicolaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)jShearwater, Newell'sTownsend'sPuffinus auricularis newelliCoastal/MarineBirdTShiner, Arkansas RiverNotropis girardiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Shiner, beautifulCyprinella formosaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-44Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgShiner, blueCyprinella caeruleaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTShiner, CahabaNotropis cahabaeFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEShiner, Cape FearNotropis mekistocholasFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Shiner, palezoneNotropis albizonatusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEShiner, Pecos bluntnoseNotropis simus pecosensisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Shiner, sharpnoseNotropis oxyrhynchusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidCShiner, smalleyeNotropis bucculaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidCShiner, TopekaNotropis topeka (=tristis)Freshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Shrew, Buena Vista LakeornateSorex ornatus relictusTerrestrialMammalE 17.95(a)Shrimp, Alabama cavePalaemonias alabamaeFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanEShrimp, anchialine poolMetabetaeus lohenaFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanCShrimp, anchialine poolPalaemonella burnsiFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanCShrimp, anchialine poolProcaris hawaianaFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanC2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-45Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgShrimp, anchialine poolVetericaris chaceorumFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanCShrimp, CaliforniafreshwaterSyncaris pacificaFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanESFBEShrimp, Kentucky cavePalaemonias ganteriFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 17.95(h)Shrimp, Squirrel ChimneyCavePalaemonetes cummingiFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanTSilverside, WaccamawMenidia extensaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Silversword, Mauna Loa(=Ka'u)Argyroxiphium kauenseFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Skipper, Carson wanderingPseudocopaeodes eunusobscurusBeetle andAquatic InsectEjSkipper, Laguna MountainsPyrgus ruralis lagunaeBeetle andAquatic InsectE 17.95(i)Skullcap, FloridaScutellaria floridanaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTSlabshell, ChipolaElliptio chipolaensisUnionid Mussel T 17.95(f)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-46Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgSmelt, deltaHypomesus transpacificusEstuarine/MarineFishT 17.95(e)SFBESnail, armoredPyrgulopsis (=Marstonia)pachytaUnionid Mussel ESnail, Bliss RapidsTaylorconcha serpenticolaUnionid Mussel TSnail, Chittenango ovateamberSuccinea chittenangoensisUnionid Mussel TjSnail, Diamond Y SpringPseudotryonia (=Tryonia)adamantinaUnionid Mussel CSnail, Newcomb'sErinna newcombiUnionid Mussel T 17.95(f)Snail, Pecos assimineaAssiminea pecosUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Snail, Phantom CaveCochliopa texanaUnionid Mussel CSnail, Snake River physaPhysa natricinaUnionid Mussel ESnail, tulotomaTulotoma magnificaUnionid Mussel TSnake, Atlantic salt marshNerodia clarkii taeniataSnakes and OtherReptilesTSnake, copperbelly waterNerodia erythrogaster neglectaSnakes and OtherReptilesTjSnake, eastern indigoDrymarchon corais couperiSnakes and OtherReptilesTBBSnake, giant garterThamnophis gigasSnakes and OtherReptilesTSFBESnake, San Francisco garterThamnophis sirtalis tetrataeniaSnakes and OtherReptilesE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-47Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgSneezeweed, VirginiaHelenium virginicumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTSolano GrassTuctoria mucronataFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)iSFBESonoma AlopecurusAlopecurus aequalis var.sonomensisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEiSFBESparrow, Cape Sable seasideAmmodramus maritimusmirabilisCoastal/MarineBirdE 17.95(b)BBSpectaclecaseCumberlandia monodontaUnionid Mussel ESpikedaceMeda fulgidaFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Spinedace, Big SpringLepidomeda mollispinispratensisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Spinedace, Little ColoradoLepidomeda vittataFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)jSpinedace, White RiverLepidomeda albivallisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Spinymussel, AltamahaElliptio spinosaUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Spinymussel, JamesPleurobema collinaUnionid Mussel ESpinymussel, Tar RiverElliptio steinstansanaUnionid Mussel E2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-48Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgSpiraea, VirginiaSpiraea virginianaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTSpringfish, Hiko WhiteRiverCrenichthys baileyi grandisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)jSpringfish, Railroad ValleyCrenichthys nevadaeFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)jSpringfish, White RiverCrenichthys baileyi baileyiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)Springsnail (=Tryonia),PhantomTryonia cheatumiUnionid Mussel CSpringsnail, AlamosaTryonia alamosaeUnionid Mussel ESpringsnail, Bruneau HotPyrgulopsis bruneauensisUnionid Mussel ESpringsnail, ChupaderaPyrgulopsis chupaderaeUnionid Mussel PESpringsnail, elongate mudmeadowsPyrgulopsis notidicolaUnionid Mussel CSpringsnail, GonzalesTryoniacircumstriata(=stocktonensis)Unionid Mussel CSpringsnail, HuachucaPyrgulopsis thompsoniUnionid Mussel CSpringsnail, Koster'sJuturnia kosteriUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Springsnail, PagePyrgulopsis morrisoniUnionid Mussel CSpringsnail, RoswellPyrgulopsis roswellensisUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Springsnail, San BernadinoPyrgulopsis bernardinaUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-49Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgSpringsnail, SocorroPyrgulopsis neomexicanaUnionid Mussel ESpringsnail, Three ForksPyrgulopsis trivialisUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Spurge, Hoover'sChamaesyce hooveriFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)SFBEStickleback, unarmoredthreespineGasterosteus aculeatuswilliamsoniFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEStilt, HawaiianHimantopus mexicanus knudseniCoastal/MarineBirdEStirrupshellQuadrula stapesUnionid Mussel EiStonecrop, Lake CountyParvisedum leiocarpumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEjStork, woodMycteria americanaCoastal/MarineBirdEBBStorm-petrel, band-rumpedOceanodroma castroCoastal/MarineBirdCSturgeon, AlabamaScaphirhynchus suttkusiAnadromousSturgeonE 17.95(e)Sturgeon, greenAcipenser medirostrisAnadromousSturgeonTSFBESturgeon, gulfAcipenser oxyrinchus desotoiAnadromousSturgeonT 17.95(e)BBSturgeon, pallidScaphirhynchus albusFreshwaterFish/InlandSturgeonEMR2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-50Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgSturgeon, shortnoseAcipenser brevirostrumAnadromousSturgeonEULB;BBSturgeon, whiteAcipenser transmontanusAnadromousSturgeonE 17.95(e)Sucker, JuneChasmistes liorusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)jSucker, Lost RiverDeltistes luxatusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEjSucker, ModocCatostomus micropsFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)jSucker, razorbackXyrauchen texanusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE 17.95(e)jSucker, Santa AnaCatostomus santaanaeFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Sucker, shortnoseChasmistes brevirostrisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidEjSucker, WarnerCatostomus warnerensisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)jSucker, Zuni blueheadCatostomus discobolus yarrowFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidCSunflower, Pecos (=puzzle,=paradox)Helianthus paradoxusFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsT 17.96(a)Sunshine, SonomaBlennosperma bakeriFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsESFBETadpole shrimp, vernal poolLepidurus packardiFreshwaterShrimp/CrustaceanE 17.95(h)SFBE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-51Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgTern, California leastSterna antillarum browniCoastal/MarineBirdETern, leastSterna antillarumCoastal/MarineBirdEMRTern, roseateSterna dougallii dougalliiCoastal/MarineBirdE;TULB;BBThistle, Chorro Creek bogCirsium fontinale var.obispoenseFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEThistle, fountainCirsium fontinale var. fontinaleFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsESFBEThistle, La GraciosaCirsium loncholepisFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Thistle, Loch LomondcoyoteEryngium constanceiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEjThistle, SacramentoMountainsCirsium vinaceumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTThistle, SuisunCirsium hydrophilum var.hydrophilumFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)SFBE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-52Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgThree-ridge, fat (mussel)Amblema neisleriiUnionid Mussel E 17.95(f)Thrush, small Kauai(=puaiohi)Myadestes palmeriCoastal/MarineBirdETiger beetle, northeasternbeachCicindela dorsalis dorsalisBeetle andAquatic InsectTTiger beetle, PuritanCicindela puritanaBeetle andAquatic InsectTTiger beetle, Salt CreekCicindela nevadica lincolnianaBeetle andAquatic InsectE 17.95(i)Toad, arroyo (=arroyosouthwestern)Bufo californicus(=microscaphus)Amphibian E 17.95(d)Toad, HoustonBufo houstonensisAmphibian E 17.95(d)Toad, WyomingBufo baxteri (=hemiophrys)Amphibian EjToad, YosemiteBufo canorusAmphibian CTopminnow, Gila (incl.Yaqui)Poeciliopsis occidentalisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidETreefrog, ArizonaHyla wrightorumAmphibian CTrout, ApacheOncorhynchus apacheFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTjTrout, bullSalvelinus confluentusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT;XN 17.95(e)PSTrout, GilaOncorhynchus gilaeFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTTrout, greenback cutthroatOncorhynchus clarki stomiasFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTjTrout, Lahontan cutthroatOncorhynchus clarki henshawiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTj2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-53Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgTrout, Little Kern goldenOncorhynchus aguabonitawhiteiFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidT 17.95(e)Trout, Paiute cutthroatOncorhynchus clarki selenirisFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidTTrout, steelheadOncorhynchus mykissAnadromousSalmonidE17.95(e),226.21hPS;SFBETuctoria, Greene'sTuctoria greeneiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)jTurtle, Alabama red-bellyPseudemys alabamensisSnakes and OtherReptilesETurtle, bog (=Muhlenberg)Clemmys muhlenbergiiSnakes and OtherReptilesT;T(S/A)ULBTurtle, flattened muskSternotherus depressusSnakes and OtherReptilesTTurtle, ringed mapGraptemys oculiferaSnakes and OtherReptilesTTurtle, Sonoyta mudKinosternon sonorienselongifemoraleSnakes and OtherReptilesCTurtle, yellow-blotched mapGraptemys flavimaculataSnakes and OtherReptilesTVervain, Red HillsVerbena californicaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTVireo, least Bell'sVireo bellii pusillusCoastal/MarineBirdE 17.95(b)Vole, AmargosaMicrotus californicus scirpensisTerrestrialMammalE 17.95(a)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-54Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgVole, Florida salt marshMicrotus pennsylvanicusdukecampbelliTerrestrialMammalEWarbler, nightingale reed(old world warbler)Acrocephalus lusciniaCoastal/MarineBirdE Wartyback, white(pearlymussel)Plethobasus cicatricosusUnionid Mussel E;XNWatercress, Gambel'sRorippa gambelliiFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEWaterdog, black warrior(=Sipsey Fork)Necturus alabamensisAmphibian CWater-plantain, Kral'sSagittaria secundifoliaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsTWater-umbel, HuachucaLilaeopsis schaffneriana var.recurvaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Wedgemussel, dwarfAlasmidonta heterodonUnionid Mussel EWhale, belugaDelphinapterus leucasMarine Mammal EhWhale, blueBalaenoptera musculusMarine Mammal EWhale, bowheadBalaena mysticetusMarine Mammal EhWhale, finBalaenoptera physalusMarine Mammal EULB;GB; BBWhale, grayEschrichtius robustusMarine Mammal E2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-55Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgWhale, humpbackMegaptera novaeangliaeMarine Mammal EPS;ULB;GB; BBWhale, killerOrcinus orcaMarine Mammal E 17.95(a)PS;SFBEWhale, North Atlantic rightwhaleEubalaena glacialisMarine Mammal E17.95(a),226.203ULB;BBWhale, North Pacific rightwhaleEubalaena japonicaMarine Mammal EhWhale, seiBalaenoptera borealisMarine Mammal EWhale, southern rightEubalaena australisMarine Mammal EWhale, spermPhyseter macrocephalusMarine Mammal EhWhipsnake (=striped racer),AlamedaMasticophis lateraliseuryxanthusSnakes and OtherReptilesT 17.95(c)SFBEWhite SedgeCarex albidaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsEiSFBEWild-rice, TexasZizania texanaFreshwaterSaltwater Aquaticand WetlandPlantsE 17.96(a)Wolf, redCanis rufusTerrestrialMammalE;XNBBWoodpecker, ivory-billedCampephilus principalisCoastal/MarineBirdEWoodrat, riparian (=SanJoaquin Valley)Neotoma fuscipes ripariaTerrestrialMammalEiSFBE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-56Table E-1. List of Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species that May BeAffected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPInverted Common NameaScientific NameListed SpeciesTaxonomicGroupbListing StatuscCriticalHabitatdEvaluatedforImpactsfrom ANSOnlyeEvaluatedfor Impactsfrom ANSandTraditionalPollutantsfRAASpeciesgWoundfinPlagopterus argentissimusFreshwater Fish/Inland SalmonidE;XN 17.95(e)ja)In the 2008 BE, EPA evaluated 664 aquatic and aquatic-dependentspecies. EPA identified a total of 612 aquatic and aquatic-dependent species for evaluationin the 2013 BE based reassessments of aquatic-dependent species, changes in status listings, and species identified by NMFS forconsideration in the 2013BE.b)Taxonomic groups are meant to roughly coincide with the SpeciesGroup provided in ECOS, butwith further delineation accordingto life history informationand attributes for the express purpose of showing the strong representation given by the subset of 82 species considered from the seven RAAs and the largerspecies datasets to which the risk conclusions and species-specific effects determinations made in this BE apply. See Section 5.2.5 for additional explanationof this relationship and extrapolation made between the subset of82 species and their linkages tothe larger taxonomic groupings.c)Listing status designations include: T= threatened; E=endangered; C=candidate; XN=experiment population, non-essential; PT=proposed threatened;PE=proposed endangered; T(S/A) =threatened due to similarity of appearance.d)Designation indicates where species’ critical habitat can be foundin 50 CFR; No entry indicates no critical habitat for the species.e)A check mark in this column indicates that this species is anaquatic or aquatic-dependent listed species with more than limited exposure to “waters of theU.S.” thatis notanticipated to be exposed to pollutants in vessel discharges covered under the VGP and sVGP.f)A check mark in this column indicates that this species is anaquatic or aquatic-dependent listed species with more than limited exposure to “waters of theU.S.” that may be exposed to ANS and pollutants in vessel discharges covered under the VGP and sVGP.g)RAA designations: PS=Puget Sound RAA; ULB=Upper and Lower Bay RAA; GB=Galveston Bay RAA; MR=Mississippi River RAA; SLE=Saint LouisEstuary RAA; SFBE=San Francisco Bay Estuary RAA; BB=Biscayne Bay RAA.h)Species included upon the recommendation of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).i)EPA identified 48 species that were missing in the ECOS GIS dataset out of the 612 aquatic and aquatic-dependent species that may be affected by the VGPand sVGP. For each of the missingspecies, EPA individually researched the species range by viewing on-line species distribution maps and reviewingavailable range information. EPA determined that the species range was concurrent with waters navigable by vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP basedon best professional judgment see page E-4 for more discussion.j)In addition to the 367 species identified as concurrent with the USACE NWN, EPA conducted further analysis to identify aquaticand aquatic-dependentspecies concurrent with lakes and reservoirs greater than 50 square miles. EPA identified an additional 49 aquatic and aquatic-dependent species whose rangeis range concurrent with NHD Plus lakes and reservoirs greater than 50 square miles, but not present in areas concurrent with the USACE NWN.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-57Figure E-1. Waters Navigable by VesselsCovered Under the VGP and sVGPUSACE National Waterway NetworkNHD Plus Lakes and Reservoirs Greater than 50 square miles2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-58Figure E-2. Range of Fish Species Present on the Continental U.S. thatMay Be Affected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPUSACE National Waterway NetworkAquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species RangeEvaluated for Risk fromANS Only in Vessel DischargesAqautic and Aquatic-Dependent Species RangeEvaluated for Risk from ANS and AdditionalPollutants in Vessel DischargesNHD Plus Lakes and ReservoirsGreater than 50 square miles2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix EE-59Figure E-3. Range of Amphibian Species Present on the Continental U.S. thatMay Be Affected by the 2013 VGP and sVGPUSACE National Waterway NetworkAquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Species RangeEvaluated for Risk fromANS Only in Vessel DischargesAqautic and Aquatic-Dependent Species RangeEvaluated for Risk from ANS and AdditionalPollutants in Vessel DischargesNHD Plus Lakes and ReservoirsGreater than 50 square miles2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F



### Appendix F. Species Descriptions for Listed Aquatic and Aquatic

- dependent Species from One of Seven RAAs Selected to Support Effects Analysis2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

i Table of Contents

F.1. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

................................ ................................ .......................... F

- 1

F.1.1. MARBLED MURRELET

................................ ................................ ...................... F

- 1

F.1.2. GREEN SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ .......................... F

- 3

F.1.3. L EATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ .......... F

- 6

F.1.4. STELLER SEA

- LION

................................ ................................ ............................ F

- 8

F.1.5. WATER HOWELLIA

................................ ................................ .......................... F

- 11

F.1.6. H UMPBACK WHALE

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 12

F.1.7. CHUM SALMON (Hood Canal summer

- run)

................................ ..................... F

- 15

F.1.8. STEELHEAD SALMON (Puget Sound)

................................ .............................. F

- 18

F.1.9. CHINOOK SALMON (Puget Sound)

................................ ................................ .. F

- 21

F.1.10. KILLER WHALE

................................ ................................ ................................ . F

- 25

F.1.11. SHORT

- TAILED ALBATROSS

................................ ................................ ......... F

- 29

F.1.12. BULL TROUT

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... F

- 31

F.1.13. UTE LADIES’

- TRESSES

................................ ................................ .................... F

- 34

F.1.14. GRIZZLY BEAR

................................ ................................ ................................ .. F

- 36

F.2. NEW YORK, NEW YORK

................................ ................................ ......................... F

- 39

F.2.1. SHORTNOSE STURGEON

................................ ................................ ................. F

- 39

F.2.2. SEABEACH AMARANTH

................................ ................................ ................. F

- 41

F.2.3. FINBACK WHALE

................................ ................................ .............................. F

- 43

F.2.4. LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ .......... F

- 46

F. 2.5. PIPING PLOVER

................................ ................................ ................................ . F

- 50

F.2.6. GREEN SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 53

F.2.7. BOG TURTLE

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... F

- 53

F.2.8. LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ........ F

- 55

F.2.9. HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ .............. F

- 56

F.2.10. NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE

................................ ............................... F

- 58

F.2.11. KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ....... F

- 61

F.2.12. HUMPBACK WHALE

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 63

F.2.13. INDIANA BAT

................................ ................................ ................................ .... F

- 64

F.2.14. ROSEATE TERN

................................ ................................ ................................ . F

- 66

F.3. HOUSTON, TEXAS

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... F

- 68

F.3.1. FINBACK WHALE

................................ ................................ .............................. F

- 68

F.3.2. LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ .......... F

- 682013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

ii F.3.3. PIPING PLOVER

................................ ................................ ................................ . F

- 68

F.3.4. GREEN SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 68

F.3.5. LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ........ F

- 69

F.3.6. HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ .............. F

- 69

F.3.7. WHOOPING CRANE

................................ ................................ .......................... F

- 69

F.3.8. KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ....... F

- 72

F.3.9. HUMPBACK WHALE

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 72

F.3.10. SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH

................................ ................................ ................. F

- 72

F.3.11. WEST INDIAN MANATEE

................................ ................................ ................ F

- 75

F.4. SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI

................................ ................................ ......................... F

- 78

F.4.1. DECURRENT FALSE ASTER

................................ ................................ ............ F

- 78

F.4.2. PINK MUCKET

................................ ................................ ................................ ... F

- 80

F.4.3. SCALESHELL MUSSEL

................................ ................................ ..................... F

- 82

F.4.4. GRAY BAT

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... F

- 84

F.4.5. INDIANA BAT

................................ ................................ ................................ .... F

- 86

F.4.6. EASTE RN PRAIRIE FRINGED ORCHID

................................ ......................... F

- 86

F.4.7. PALLID STURGEON

................................ ................................ .......................... F

- 88

F.4.8. LEAST TERN (Interior Population)

................................ ................................ ..... F

- 90

F.5. DULUTH, MINNESOTA

................................ ................................ ............................. F

- 92

F.5.1. PIPING PLOVER

................................ ................................ ................................ . F

- 92

F.6. SAN F RANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

................................ ................................ ............ F

- 92

F.6.1. NORTH AMERICAN GREEN STURGEON

................................ ...................... F

- 92

F.6.2. SONOMA ALOPECURUS

................................ ................................ .................. F

- 94

F.6.3. CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER

................................ ............................. F

- 97

F.6.4. GUADALUPE FUR SEAL

................................ ................................ .................. F

- 99

F.6. 5. SONOMA SUNSHINE

................................ ................................ ...................... F

- 101

F.6.6. MARBLED MURRELET

................................ ................................ .................. F

- 102

F.6.7. CONSERVANCY FAIRY SHRIMP

................................ ................................ .. F

- 102

F.6.8. LONGHORN FAIRY SHRIMP

................................ ................................ ......... F

- 104

F.6.9. LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ........ F

- 107

F.6.10. WHITE SEDGE

................................ ................................ ................................ .. F

- 107

F.6.11. HOOVER’S SPURGE

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 108

F.6.12

. WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER

................................ ................................ ......... F

- 110

F.6.13. GREEN SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ...................... F

- 1132013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

iii F.6.14. FOUNTAIN THISTLE

................................ ................................ ....................... F

- 113

F.6. 15. SUISUN THISTLE

................................ ................................ ............................. F

- 115

F.6.16. SOFT BIRD’S

- BEAK

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 117

F.6.17. PALMATE

- BRACTED BIRD’S BEAK

................................ ............................ F

- 119

F.6.18. LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ...... F

- 120

F.6.19. VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN BEETLE

................................ .......... F

- 121

F.6.20. DELTA GREEN GROUND BEETLE

................................ ............................... F

- 123

F.6.21. SOUTHERN SEA OTTER

................................ ................................ ................. F

- 124

F.6.22. TIDEWATER GOBY

................................ ................................ ......................... F

- 126

F.6.23. STELLER SEA

- LION

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 129

F.6. 24. WHITE ABALONE

................................ ................................ ............................ F

- 129

F.6.25. DELTA SMELT

................................ ................................ ................................ . F

- 131

F.6.26. OLIVE RIDLEY SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ........ F

- 134

F.6.27. VERNAL POOL TADPOLE SHRIMP

................................ .............................. F

- 137

F.6.28. ALAMEDA WHIPSNAKE

................................ ................................ ................ F

- 141

F.6.29. COLUSA GRASS

................................ ................................ ............................... F

- 143

F.6.30. RIPARIAN WOODRAT

................................ ................................ .................... F

- 145

F.6.31. STEELHEAD SALMON

................................ ................................ .................... F

- 147

F.6.32. KILLER WHALE

................................ ................................ ............................... F

- 148

F.6.33. HAIRY ORCUTT GRASS

................................ ................................ ................. F

- 148

F.6.34. CALISTOGA ALLOCARYA

................................ ................................ ............ F

- 151

F.6.35. NAPA BLUEGRASS

................................ ................................ ......................... F

- 153

F.6.36

. CALIFORNIA RED

- LEGGED FROG

................................ .............................. F

- 154

F.6.37. SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE

................................ ................................ . F

- 158

F.6.38. CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP

................................ ......................... F

- 160

F.6.39. GIANT GARTER SNAKE

................................ ................................ ................. F

- 162

F.6.40. SOLANO GRASS

................................ ................................ .............................. F

- 164

F.7. MIAMI, FLORIDA

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... F

- 167

F.7.1. SHORTNOSE STURGEON

................................ ................................ ............... F

- 167

F.7.2. GULF STURGEON

................................ ................................ ............................ F

- 167

F.7.3. STAGHORN CORAL

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 170

F.7.4. ELKHORN CORAL

................................ ................................ ........................... F

- 173

F.7.5. CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW

................................ ............................... F

- 175

F.7.6. FINBACK WHALE

................................ ................................ ............................ F

- 1772013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

iv F.7.7. BROOKSVILLE BELLFLOWER

................................ ................................ ..... F

- 177

F.7.8. RED WOLF

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ F

- 179

F.7.9. LOGGERH EAD SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ........ F

- 181

F.7.10. GREEN SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ...................... F

- 181

F.7.11. AMERICAN CROCODILE

................................ ................................ ............... F

- 181

F. 7.12. LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ...... F

- 184

F.7.13. EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE

................................ ................................ ............. F

- 184

F.7.14. HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE

................................ ................................ ............ F

- 186

F.7.15. NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE

................................ ............................. F

- 186

F.7.16. JOHNSON’S SEAGRASS

................................ ................................ ................. F

- 186

F.7.17. HUMPBACK WHALE

................................ ................................ ...................... F

- 188

F.7.18

. WOOD STORK

................................ ................................ ................................ .. F

- 189

F.7.19. GRAY BAT

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ F

- 191

F.7.20. INDIANA BAT

................................ ................................ ................................ .. F

- 191

F.7.21. AU DUBON’S CRESTED CARACARA

................................ ........................... F

- 191

F.7.22. SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH

................................ ................................ ............... F

- 193

F.7.23. FLORIDA PANTHER

................................ ................................ ........................ F

- 193

F.7.24

. EVERGLADE SNAIL KITE

................................ ................................ .............. F

- 196

F.7.25. AMERICAN CHAFFSEED

................................ ................................ ............... F

- 198

F.7.26. ROSEATE TERN

................................ ................................ ............................... F

- 200

F.7.27. WEST INDIAN MANATEE

................................ ................................ .............. F

- 200

F.8. REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ F

- 2002013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 1 The following subsections describe the listed aquatic and aquatic

- dependent species

identified in Table 3

- 22 for each of the seven RAAs evaluated in the BE. For each species presented, EPA collected information on the life history, population dynamics, and current status and distribution of each species using the sources identified at the beginning of each species subsection. The information and data are generally directly from the Services or a related government source. In order to avoid inaccurate paraph rasing, information is often directly collected and presented from these other government sources, and EPA does not claim ownership or authorship of all language found within this appendix. However, EPA believes that the compilation of information containe d within this appendix is a succinct collection of key, credible information used by the Agency to inform our effects determinations. Additionally, the listed sources at the beginning of the subsection represent the primary references EPA reviewed

to obtai n the presented species information and are cited in the reference section of this appendix. Additional citations provided within the text are as cited within the primary references. In the interest of brevity, bibliographical information for citations pre sented within the text are not contained within this appendix's bibliography and can be obtained from the reference sections from the species

- specific sources sections instead.



## F.1. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

F.1.1. Brachyramphus marmoratus or Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus MARBLED MURRELET

Family: Alcidae Threatened: CA, OR, and WA Not Listed: everywhere else

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfil e/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08C )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Brachyramp hus

+marmoratus )

• UMMZ, 2012

Description: Marbled murrelets are a small seabird, approximately 9 inches long. Adult breeding murrelets are dark above and heavily mottled below and have an entirely dark tail and black bill. The underparts are mostly white

. They belong to the Alcidae family, whose species are sometimes

referred to as the black

- and white “penguins of the north”. Birds in this family have set

- back legs that give them an upright stance on land. In flight, they zigzag on rapid wingbeats at up to

98 mph (USFWS

, 2004b).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The current range of B. m. marmoratus in the United States is Washington, Oregon, and California. Migratory movements primarily consist of small

- scale seasonal shifts of habitat

. Individuals move seasonally from outer coastal to protected waters, from inland waters to2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 2 unknown locations, south of breeding areas, or to areas further offshore. Winter ranges are poorly documented, but some individuals have been recorded in southern Cal ifornia and the extreme northwest coastline of Baja California, Mexico. The exact numbers of B. m. marmoratus are unknown. Based upon surveys completed in 1995, the estimates of number of individuals are: 5,000

- 6,500 in Washington, 6,600

- 20,000 in Oregon, and 6,450 in California.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) The murrelet's historic breeding habitat was forested areas along the coast from the Aleutian Archipelago in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and south to Santa Cruz County

in west

- cent ral California, and it wintered in northwest Mexico (USFWS

, 2004b). In the current range, marbled murrelets use older forest stands near the coastline for nesting. These forests are generally characterized by large trees (>80cm (32 inches) dbh), multi

- stor ied stands, and a moderate to high canopy closure. In certain parts of the range, marbled murrelets are also known

to use mature forest with an old

- growth component.

Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated on May 24, 1996 in Washington,

C alifornia and Oregon. In Oregon, a total of 1,515,300 acres are designated. Of this, habitat, 1,338,200 acres are federally owned, 175,100 acres belong to the State, 1,100 acres are County lands and the remaining 900 acres are privately held (USFWS

, 1996).

Primary constituent elements for the marbled murrelet include: (1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and (2) forested areas within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and with a canopy height of at least one

- half the site

- potential tree height. This includes all such forest, regardless of contiguity. These primary constituent elements are essential to provide and support suitable nesting habitat for successful reproduction

of the marbled murrel et (UFWS

, 1996).

Life History: Marbled murrelets nest in trees in coastal, older forests throughout most of their range in North America. They attend their breeding sites during periods of low light, and nest solitarily.

Murrelets have been one of the mos t difficult species to study because of their secretive behavior and elusive nests. The first verified nest was found in North America in 1974 (USFWS

, 2004b). Nest building commences in March to mid

- July. Nests are constructed on naturally occurring platfo rms in large

- diameter conifer limbs created by normal growth, disease, mistletoe, and deformed branching (especially in coastal redwoods). The murrelet adds needles and bits of debris to complete the nest. They usually lay only one egg. No data exists on r enesting after failure. Incubation lasts about 30 days and fledging takes another 28 days. Marbled murrelets do not reach sexual maturity until their second year. Courtship takes place at sea in early spring and throughout summer; pairs display synchronous flight and diving behaviors (USFWS

, 2004b).

Marbled murrelets feed primarily on fish and invertebrates in near

- shore marine environments. The murrelet dives underwater and forages throughout the marine water column on small ocean fish, such as anchovy, h erring, and sardines. Chicks are semiprecocial and are fed whole fish soon after hatching (USFWS

, 2004b).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 3 Historical Information: The North American subspecies of marbled murrelet ranges from the Aleutian Islands and

southern Alaska south to central Calif ornia, the largest portion of the population occurs in Alaska and British Columbia. Due to loss of older forests used for nesting sites, the species is declining. For example, current estimates indicate that the population has declined by 50% to 82%;

appro ximately 6,500 individual murrelets inhabit the area along the coast of California (OFWO

, 2003f). Using known population numbers relative to remaining suitable nesting habitat, it has been estimated that historically, 60,000 marbled murrelet pairs may have been found in this same area. Along the Oregon coast, recent surveys have shown a decline in murrelet numbers during

the 1990's.

Conservation Status: Although the population size of the marbled murrelet prior to 1980 is not known, scientists strongly su spect that industrial logging caused a significant decline in numbers prior to this year (Carter and Erickson

, 1992). Air surveys conducted in September 1993 in Oregon indicate that the highest densities of the birds occurred from Cape Lookout to Brookings (5.4

- 6.8 birds/km 2 ), with somewhat lower densities reported north of Cape Lookout (3.2

- 5.0 birds/km 2 ) (Varoujean

and Williams

, 1995). The current number of marbled murrelets in Oregon is also unknown, yet the number of birds at sea along the Oregon coast during the breeding season for three years (2000 to 2002) averaged 12,133, or 10.7 birds per km (Huff et al.

, 2003). In North America, it is estimated that there are approximately 947,500 birds, the majority of which are found in Alaska.

Summary of Major Threats: The greatest threats for the marbled murrelet population include genetic threats and disease

. Loss of viable nesting habitat is thought to be a primary factor responsible for an estimated annual 4% to 7% decline in marbled murrelet populations in Washington, Oregon, and California. It is unlikely that population numbers will increase rapidly due to the naturally low reproductive rate and the continued loss of nesting habitat indicates that the recovery of the species is likely to take decades (OFWO

, 2003f).

F.1.2. Chelonia mydas GREEN SEA TURTLE

Family: Cheloniidae Endangered: breeding colony populations in FL and on Pacific Coast of Mexico Threatened: everywhere else

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C00S )

• USFWS, 2012 c ( http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/green

- sea

- turtle.htm )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012 ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr63

- 46693.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012 ( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Chelonia+mydas )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 4 Description: The green sea turtle grows to a maxi mum size of about 4 feet and a weight of 440 pounds. It has

a heart

- shaped shell, small head, and single

- clawed flippers. Color is variable. Hatchlings generally have a black carapace, white plastron, and white margins on the shell and limbs. The

adult car apace is smooth, keelless, and light to dark brown with dark mottling; the plastron is whitish to light yellow. Adult heads are light brown with yellow markings. Identifying characteristics include four pairs of costal scutes, none of which borders the nuc hal scute, and only one pair of prefrontal scales between the eyes.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The green turtle has a worldwide distribution in tropical and subtropical waters. Major green turtle nesting colonies in the Atlantic occu r on Ascension Island, Aves Island, Costa Rica, and Surinam. Within the U.S., green turtles nest in small numbers in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and in larger numbers in Florida. The Florida

green turt le nesting aggregation is recognized as a regionally significant colony. About 200 to 1,100 females are estimated to nest on beaches in the continental U.S. In the U.S. Pacific, over 90 percent of nesting throughout the Hawaiian archipelago occurs at the F rench Frigate Shoals, where about 200 to 700 females nest each year. Elsewhere in the U.S. Pacific, nesting takes place at scattered locations in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Guam, and American Samoa. In the western Pacific, the largest green turtle nesting aggregation in the world occurs on Raine Island, Australia, where thousands of females nest nightly in an average nesting season. In the Indian Ocean, major nesting beaches occur in Oman where 6,000 to 20,000 females are reported to nest an nually.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Green turtles are generally found in fairly shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs, bays, and inlets. The turtles are attracted to lagoons and shoals with an abundance of marine grass and algae. Open be aches with a sloping platform and minimal disturbance are required for nesting.

Critical habitat includes: (50 CFR 226.208) Culebra Island, Puerto Rico

– Waters surrounding the island of Culebra from the mean high water line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5 .6 km). These waters include Culebra’s outlying Keys including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, Cayos Geniquí, Isla Culebrita, Arrecife Culebrita, Cayo de Luis PeZa, Las Hermanas, El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los Gemelos, and Piedra Steven.

Life History: Green turtles apparently have a strong nesting site fidelity and often make long distance migrations between feeding grounds and nesting beaches. Hatchlings have been observed to seek refuge and food in Sargassum rafts. Hatchling gr een turtles eat a variety of plants and animals, but adults feed almost exclusively on seagrasses and marine algae. Hatchling green turtles eat a variety of plants and animals, but adults feed almost exclusively on seagrasses and marine algae.

The nesting season varies with the locality. In the Southeastern U.S., it is roughly June through September. Nesting occurs nocturnally at 2, 3, or 4

- year intervals. Only occasionally do females produce clutches in successive years. A female may lay as a many as nine clutches within a2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 5 nesting season (overall average is about 3.3 nests per season) at about 13

- day intervals. Clutch size varies from 75 to 200 eggs, with an average clutch size of 136 eggs reported for Florida. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 75 days, d epending on incubation temperatures. Hatchlings generally emerge at night. Age at sexual maturity is believed to be 20 to 50 years.

Historical Information: Green turtles are primarily restricted to tropical and subtropical waters. In U.S. Atlantic and Gul f of Mexico waters, green turtles are found from Massachusetts to Texas and in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Caribbean populations of green turtles have diminished significantly from historical levels, primarily due to the directed turtle fisher y that existed prior to their listing under the ESA. Additionally, researchers have documented that habitat loss is a primary factor slowing the recovery of the species throughout its range. Degradation of seagrass beds has slowed recovery of green turtles in the Caribbean due to reduced carrying capacity of seagrass meadows (Williams, 1988). Therefore, the extent of habitat required for foraging green turtles is likely to be increasing due to the reduced productivity of remaining seagrass beds.

Conservati on Status: In U.S. Atlantic waters, green sea turtles occur around the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, where small numbers nest (islas Mona, Vieques, and Culebra, and St. Thomas, St. John, St. Croix), and a juvenile population exists in eastern portio n of Puerto Rican Bank (Collazo et al.

, 1992), and from Texas to Massachusetts. Relatively small numbers nest in Florida, particularly in Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward counties (CSTC

, 1990), mostly from Volusia County to Dade County (Ehrhart and Witherington

, 1992), with rare recent nesting on the Gulf Coast in Santa Rosa County (Ehrhart and Witherington

, 1992); important feeding areas in Florida include the Indian River, Florida Bay, Homossassa Bay, Crystal River,

and Ce dar Key (CSTC

, 1990). Rarely nests in Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas.

Summary of Major Threats: Sea turtles face nesting and marine threats. Nesting threats include: loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring, degradation of foraging habitat, landscaping, erosion, erosion control methods, disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting, beach and vehicle traffic, sand mining, beach cleaning, and excessive nest predation by

native and non

- native predators. Ma rine threats include: entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris, degradation of foraging habitat, boat collisions, sedimentation and siltation, agricultural and industrial pollution, oil spills, sewage, incidental take from channel dredging and

commer cial fishing operations, and illegal exploitation.

A major factor contributing to the green turtle's decline worldwide is commercial harvest for eggs and meat. Fibropapillomatosis, a disease of sea turtles characterized by the development of multiple tumo rs on the skin and internal organs, is also a mortality factor and has seriously impacted green turtle populations in Florida, Hawaii, and other parts of the world. The tumors interfere with swimming, eating, breathing, vision, and reproduction, and turtle s with heavy tumor burdens become severely debilitated and die.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 6 F.1.3. Dermochelys coriacea LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

Family: Dermochelyidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C00F )

• USFWS, 2012 c ( http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtl es/Turtle%20Factsheets/leatherback

- sea

turtle.htm )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Dermochelys+co

riacea )

• GLEC, 2011

Description: The leatherback is the largest, deepest diving, and most migratory and wide ranging of all sea

turtles. The adult leatherback can reach 4 to 8 feet in length and 500 to 2,000 pounds in weight. Its shell is composed of a mosaic of small bones covered by firm, rubbery skin with seven longitudinal ridges or keels. The skin is predominantly black with varying degrees of pale spotting, including a no table pink spot on the dorsal surface of the head in adults. A toothlike cusp is located on each side of the gray upper jaw; the lower jaw is hooked anteriorly. The paddle

- like, clawless limbs are black with white margins and pale spotting.

Geographic Bou ndaries and Spatial Distribution: The leatherback turtle is distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. It is also found in small numbers as far north as British Columbia, Newfoundland, and the British Isles, and as far south as Austr alia, Cape of Good Hope, and Argentina.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) The leatherback is the most pelagic of the sea turtles

. Adult females require sandy nesting beaches backed with vegetation and sloped sufficiently so the crawl to dry sand is not too far

. The preferred beaches have proximity to deep water and generally rough seas.

Critical habitat includes: (50 CFR 17.95) U.S. Virgin Islands

– A strip of land 0.2 miles wide (from mean high tide inland) at Sandy Point Beach on the western end of the i sland of St. Croix beginning at the southwest cape to the south and running 1.2 miles northwest and then northeast along the western and northern shoreline, and from the southwest cape 0.7 miles east along the southern shoreline. (50 CFR 226.207) Also incl udes the waters adjacent to Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin islands, up to and inclusive of the waters from the hundred fathom curve shoreward to the level of mean high tide with boundaries at 17 42’12" North and 64 50’00"

West.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 7 On January 5, 2010 , NMFS proposed regulations to revise the critical habitat designation for the endangered leatherback sea turtle by designating additional areas within the Pacific Ocean. Specific areas proposed for designation include two adjacent marine areas totaling ap proximately 46,100 square miles (119,400 square km), stretching along the California coast from Point Arena to Point Vincente, and one 24,500 square mile (63,455 square km) marine area, stretching from Cape Flattery, WA, to the Umpqua River (Winchester Bay ), OR, east of a line approximating the 2,000 meter depth contour. The areas proposed for designation comprise approximately 70,600 square miles (182,854 square km) of marine habitat.

Life History: Jellyfish are the main staple of its diet, but it is also known to feed on sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, tunicates, fish, blue

- green algae, and floating seaweed

. The turtles are exposed to cyanide dissolved in the water and through contaminated items in their diet.

In the United States, the females nest from about March to July

. Female leatherbacks nest an average of 5 to 7 times within a nesting season, with an observed maximum of 11 nests

. The average intra

- nesting interval is about 9 to 10 days

. The nests are constructed at night in clutches

of about 70 to 80 yolked eggs

. The white spherical eggs are approximately 2 inches in diameter

. Typically incubation takes from 55 to 75 days, and the hatchlings emerge at night

. Most leatherbacks remigrate to their nesting beaches at 2 to 3

- year intervals

. Leatherbacks are believed to reach sexual maturity in 6 to 10 years.

Historical Information: Endangered throughout its range ( Federal Register , June 2, 1970), recent estimates of global nesting populations indicate 26,000 to 43,000 nesting females annually, which is a dramatic decline from the 115,000 estimated in 1980

. This reduction is a result of exponential declines in leatherback nesting that has been documented over the last two decades along the Pacific coasts

of Mexico and Costa Rica

. The Mexico leatherback n esting population, once considered to be the world’s largest leatherback nesting population (65 percent of worldwide population), is now less than one percent of its estimated size in 1980.

Conservation Status: Oceanic distribution is nearly worldwide, bu t the number of nesting sites is few; many nesting areas have few breeding females and suffer from some human predation; range and number of occurrences have undergone reduction; recent severe population declines at some nesting

locations.

The largest nes ting populations now occur in the western Atlantic in French Guiana (4,500 to 7,500 females nesting/year) and Colombia (estimated several thousand nests annually), and in the western Pacific in West Papua (formerly Irian Jaya) and Indonesia (about 600 to 6 50 females nesting/year). In the United States, small nesting populations occur on the Florida east coast (35 females/year), Sandy Point, U.S. Virgin Islands (50 to 100 females/year), and Puerto Rico (30 to 90 females/year).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 8 Summary of Major Threats: Sea turtles face nesting and marine threats. Nesting threats include: loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring, degradation of foraging habitat, landscaping, erosion, erosion control methods, disorientation of hatc hlings by beachfront lighting, beach and vehicle traffic, sand mining, beach cleaning, and excessive nest predation by

native and non

- native predators. Marine threats include: entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris, degradation of foraging habitat, boat collisions, sedimentation and siltation, agricultural and industrial pollution, oil spills, sewage, incidental take from channel dredging and commercial fishing operations, and illegal exploitation.

F.1.4. Eumetopias jubatus STELLER SEA

- LION

Family: Otariidae Endangered: population segment west of 144° W longitude Threatened: everywhere else

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/spec iesProfile.action?spcode=A0FS )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/stellersealion.htm )

• UMMZ, 2012

Description:

The Steller se a

- lion is the largest member of the Otariidae (eared seal) family. Males may be up

to 10

- 11 feet in length and can weigh up to 2,400 lb. Females are smaller than males, 7.5

- 9.5 feet in length and up to 770 lb. in mass. Males and females are light buff to r eddish brown and slightly darker on the chest and abdomen; naked parts of the skin are black. Wet animals usually appear darker than dry ones. Pups are about 3.3 feet in length and 35

- 50 lb. at birth and grow to

about 65

- 90 lb. after 6

- 10 weeks. Pups are d ark brown to black until 4 to 6 months old when they molt to a lighter brown. By the end of their second year, pups have taken on the same pelage

color as adults.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution:

Steller sea

- lions are distributed across the North Pacific Ocean rim from northern Hokkaido, Japan, through the Kuril Islands, Okhotsk Sea, and Commander Islands in Russia, the Aleutian Islands, central Bering Sea, and southern coast of Alaska, and south to the Channel Islands off California. During the May

- to

- July breeding season, Steller sea

- lions congregate at more than

40 rookeries, where adult males defend territories, pups are born, and mating takes place. Non

reproductive animals congregate to rest at more than 200 haul

- out sites where little or no breeding takes place. Sea

- lions continue to gather at both rookeries and haul

- out sites outside of the breeding season (NMML

, 2004).

The world population of Steller sea

- lions includes two stocks (Western and Eastern) divided at 144° W longitude (Cap e Suckling, just east of Prince William Sound, Alaska). The stock2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 9 differentiation is based primarily on differences in mitochondrial DNA, but also on differing population trends in the two regions (NMML

, 2004).

Habitat: (has critical habitat)

Marine habitats of the stellar sea

- lion include coastal waters near shore and over the continental slope; sometimes rivers are ascended in pursuit of prey. When not on land, the sea

- lions may congregate at nearshore traditional rafting sites, or move out to the e dge of the continental shelf (Kajimura and Loughlin

, 1988). While offshore, the sea

- lions are most often found within

22 miles of shore (Kenyon and Rice

, 1961, Fiscus and Baines

, 1966) but may range out to

several hundred kilometers offshore. The distance sea

- lions move offshore varies seasonally, with fewer animals being sighted at sea during the summer (Fiscus et al.

, 1976, Bonnell et al.

, 1983).

The most commonly used terrestrial habitat types are rookeries and haulouts. Rookeries are areas

where adult s congregate for breeding and pupping. These habitats generally occur on beaches of remote islands with difficult access for humans and other mammalian predators (NMFS

, 1990). The beaches can be sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, or bedrock. Female sea

- lions t end to select locations for pupping that are gently sloping and protected from waves (Sandegren

, 1970). Females often use the same pupping site in successive years and tend to breed in or near their natal colony (Calkins and Pitcher

, 1982). Rookery sites m ay be used as haulout sites during the nonbreeding season. Independent juveniles usually avoid rookeries (Gentry

, 1970 ; Sandegren

1970 ; Calkins and Pitcher

, 1983 ; Hoover

, 1988). From about two weeks after birth, the pups begin to spend increasing amounts o f time in the intertidal areas and swimming near shore. Haulouts are areas used by adult sea

- lions during the nonbreeding season and by nonbreeding adults and subadults throughout the year (NMFS

, 1990). Haulout locations include exposed rocks, reefs, beach es, jetties, breakwaters, navigational aids, floating docks, and sea ice. Selection of both rookery and haulout sites appears to depend on a number of factors including substrate type, degree of exposure to wind and waves, proximity to food resources, trad ition of use, season, and the degree of human disturbance (Gentry

, 1970 ; Sandegren

, 1970 ; Calkins and

Pitcher

, 1983 ; Hoover

, 1988, Johnson et al.

, 1989).

Critical habitat areas, designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service on August 27, 1993, respond to requirements of the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 226.202). Steller sea

- lion critical habitat includes a 20 nautical mile buffer around all major haulouts and rookeries, as well as associated terrestrial, air and aquatic zones, and three large offshore foraging areas. NMFS has implemented a complex suite of fishery management measures designed to minimize competition between fishing and the endangered population of Steller sea

- lions in critical habitat areas. Those management measures are the St eller sea

- lion protection measures (NOAA

, 1993). Specific primary constituent elements for this species are not described in the regulation.

Life History: Bulls become mature between 3 and 8 years of age, but typically are not massive enough to hold

terri tory successfully until 9 or 10 years old. Females reproduce for the first time at 4 to 6 years of age, bearing at most a single pup each year. Pups are born from late May through early July, with peak numbers of births during the second or third week of J une. Females stay with their pups for about 9 days before beginning a regular routine of foraging trips to sea. Females mate2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 10 11 to 14 days after giving birth. Implantation takes place in late September or early October,

after a 3

- 4 month delay. Weaning is not sharply defined as it is for most other pinniped species, but probably takes place gradually during the winter and spring prior to the following breeding

season. It is not uncommon to observe 1

- or 2

- year

- old sea

- lions suckling from an adult female (NM ML

, 2004).

Steller sea

- lions are opportunistic predators, feeding primarily of a wide variety of fishes and cephalopods. Prey varies geographically and seasonally. Some of the more important prey species in Alaska include walleye pollock, Atka mackerel, P acific herring, Capelin, Pacific sand lance, Pacific cod, and salmon. Steller sea

- lions have been known to prey on harbor seal, fur seal, ringed seal, and possibly sea otter pups, but this would represent only a supplemental component to the diet (NMML

, 20 04).

Historical Information:

The number of Steller sea

- lions in the western stock declined by 75% between 1976 and 1990. The extent of this decline led the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to list the Steller

sea

- lion as threatened range

- wide unde r the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in April 1990. A

1992

- 93 analysis conducted by A. York, R. Merrick, and T. Loughlin (see York et al.

, 1996) of the National Marine Mammal Laboratory indicated that if the 1985

- 92 population trend continued, there was a ve ry high probability that sea lions would be extinct in Alaska from Prince William Sound westward within 100 years. The decline has continued for the western stock in Alaska, which was declared endangered in 1997. The eastern stock remains listed as

threate ned (NMML 2004).

Conservation Status: Between the late 1950s and the late 1970s, the total population of Steller sea

- lions had remained relatively stable at about 250,000

- 300,000 individuals. Breeding animals were distributed among 51 rookeries, 60% of wh ich included over 1000 adults; 38% of the recorded population was at nonbreeding haul

- out sites during the breeding season (Loughlin et al.

, 1984). In 1989, there were at least 4,000 sea

- lions in Washington, Oregon and California. The eastern population in 1994 was estimated at about 28,600 individuals (NMFS

, 1990) (18,600 non

- pups according to

Mello

, 1994). The eastern population segment has exhibited an overall increasing trend since 1990, although there have been reductions in the population in certain a reas.

Summary of Major Threats: Anthropogenic (or human

- induced) threats to Steller sea

- lions include boat strikes, contaminants/pollutants, habitat degradation, illegal hunting/shooting, offshore oil and gas exploration, direct and indirect interactions with fisheries, and subsistence harvests by natives in Alaska and Canada (150

- 300 taken a year). In the 1800s, they were targeted by hunters for their meat (food), fur hides (clothing), oil, and various other products. In the early 1900s, fishermen

killed and placed bounties on this species, which they blamed for stealing fish from them. Some

Steller sea

- lions were killed to limit their predation on fish in aquaculture facilities (fish farms), but intentional killing of Steller sea

- lions has not been permit ted since they were protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and listed under the ESA.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 11 Steller sea

- lions' direct and indirect interactions with fisheries are currently receiving significant attention and may possibly be an important factor in their decline. Direct fishing impacts are largely due to fishing gear (drift and set gillnets, longlines, trawls, etc.) that has the potential to entangle, hook, injure, or kill sea

- lions. These pinnipeds have been seen entangled in fishing equipment wi th what are considered "serious injuries." Steller sea

- lions are also indirectly threatened by fisheries because they have to compete for food resources and critical habitat may be modified by fishing activities.

F.1.5. Howellia aquatilis WATER HOWELLIA

Family: Campanulaceae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2RM )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012
( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Howellia+aquati

lis )

• USFWS, 2012 d ( http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/WaterHowellia/ )

Description: Water howellia is a winter annual aquatic plant that grows 4

- 24 inches high. It has extensively branched, submerged or floating stems and narrow, linear, alterna te (sometimes opposite) leaves up to 2 inches in length. Water howellia usually flowers in May and June, with small trumpet

shaped blooms ranging from white to light purple in color, at or above the water surface. There may also be small axillary flowers b eneath the water surface.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Howellia aquatilis is known to occur in California, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. Historically found in Oregon. The plant has also been found on Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge in Washington.

Habitat: (no critical habitat)

Its habitat consists of small vernal wetlands with a bottom surface of firm, consolidated clay and organic sediments . These include shallow, low

- elevation glacial pothole ponds and former river

oxbows with m argins of deciduous trees and shrubs. These habitats are inundated by spring rains and snowmelt runoff and typically dry out by the end of the growing season. The plants tend to root in the shallow water at the edges of deeper ponds that are (at lower elev ations) surrounded by deciduous trees such as black cottonwood and aspen.

Life History: A dry pond bed is required for seed germination, which begins shortly after the bottom is uncovered and continues until seeds are once again submerged. Most of the current year’s seed2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 12 crop germinates during that interval

. Plants begin to grow by early May, producing closed (cleistogamous) flowers below water and open (chasmogomous) flowers when they reach the surface. Both types of flowers are adapted for self

- pollination. Seed dispersal begins in June from the underwater fruits, and extends until late summ er as the emergent fruits mature. If a pond does not fill with water in spring, no seed will be produced. If the portion of the pond supporting the plant does not dry out at some point, that year’s seed crop will not germinate. The plants overwinter as see dlings. This results in annual variability in population size depending on the extent of the previous season’s drying.

Historical Information: Historically, this species occurred over a large area of the Pacific Northwest, but extant populations are mostl y clustered in 2 main population centers, one in eastern Washington and

one in northwestern Montana.

Conservation Status: The species has also been found recently at several sites in Mendocino County, California; extirpated in Oregon. Genetic variability is low throughout its range; the species may represent a single genotype that is narrowly adapted to specific habitat conditions. Populations vary widely in size from year to year and very wet or very dry seasons can have a detrimental effect on

abundance . The large fluctuations in annual numbers and low genetic variability indicate that isolated populations may be vulnerable to extirpation. Populations near the larger "population centers" may be inherently more resilient.

Summary of Major Threats:

In Ore gon, sites where Water howellia were historically found are now within developed urban areas. Channelization and construction of dams along the Columbia, Willamette, and other rivers has led to loss of suitable wetland habitats. The historical California p opulation may have been eliminated by cattle grazing and trampling. Idaho bottomland habitats have been altered by roads, development, and conversion to agriculture and pasture lands. Timber harvest, wetland succession, and encroachment by non

- native plant s such as reed canarygrass ( Phalaris

arundinaceae ) have also contributed to the decline of this species.

F.1.6. Megaptera novaeangliae HUMPBACK WHALE

Family: Balaenopteridae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A02Q )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nm fs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/humpbackwhale.htm )

• UMMZ, 20122013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 13 Description: Humpback whales generally have dark backs, with varying degrees of white on the flippers, sides and ventral regions. They often also have a number of scars (either white o r black) all across the body. Researchers distinguish individual humpbacks by the unique black and white patterns on the underside of their fluke (NMFS 2005). Humpback whales are well known for their long "pectoral" fins, which can be up to 15 feet in leng th. Their scientific name, Megaptera novaeangliae , means "big

- winged New Englander" as the New England population was the one best known to Europeans. These long fins give them increased maneuverability; they can be used to slow down or even go backwards.

Similar to all baleen whales, adult females are larger than adult males, reaching lengths of up to

60 feet. The maximum

- recorded size for a humpback whale is 59 feet (NMFS

, 2005). Humpback whales are the favorite of whale watchers, as they frequently per form aerial displays, such as breaching (jumping out of the water), or slapping the surface with their pectoral fins, tails, and

heads.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The humpback whale is distributed worldwide in all ocean basins, though it is less common in Arctic waters. Humpback whales are seasonal migrants and during winter (the breeding season), most humpbacks are found in temperate and tropical waters of both hemispheres. In summer (the feeding season), most are in waters of high bi ological productivity, usually in higher latitudes. There are currently four recognized stocks (based on geographically distinct winter ranges) of humpback whales in the U.S.: the Gulf of Maine stock (previously known as the western North Atlantic stock), the eastern North Pacific stock (previously known as the

California

- Oregon

- Washington stock), the central North Pacific stock, and the western North Pacific stock (NMFS

, 2005).

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Humpback whales make long migrations seasonally, swimming to polar waters in high latitudes in the summer and tropical waters in the low latitudes in the winter. Humpback whales are generally considered to inhabit waters over continental shelves, along their edges and around

some oceanic isla nds. They winter in warm waters at a small number of relatively specific locations. Summer ranges are often relatively close to shore, including major coastal embayments and channels. However, humpbacks may also summer offshore, as in the Gulf of Alaska, o r in the southern ocean, along the margin of the seasonal pack ice and in water of the Antarctic Convergence. Many summer habitats are apparently traditional feeding grounds, as evidenced by the long historic record of occupation (NMFS

, 2005).

Life Histor y: Winters are spent mating and calving in warmer waters and summers are spent feeding in colder waters. The age at sexual maturity is between 4 and 7 years. The gestation period is 11 to 12 months, with most births occurring between January and March. Fem ales typically give birth once every two to three years. During the summer, humpback whales feed on schooling fish and other small marine animals, including sand lance, herring, capelin, and krill.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 14 Most humpbacks migrate considerable distances to high lat itude summer areas, where they feed intensively. Calves probably learn migration routes and the location of feeding areas as they accompany their mothers. Major prey species are small schooling fishes (including herring, sand lance, capelin, mackerel, smal l pollock, and haddock) and large zooplankton, mainly krill. Sonar observations have shown humpback whales may dive as deep as 660 feet while pursuing prey. Humpback whales carry out the most diverse repertory of feeding behaviors known for any

baleen whal e. Among the unique feeding methods reported are: 1) use of column, clouds or nets of expelled bubbles to concentrate krill or fish; 2) herding, and possibly disabling, prey by maneuvering, flicking or pounding with the flukes and flippers; 3) using the wa ter surface as a barrier to prevent the escape of prey; 4) feeding in formation (“echelon feeding”); 5) apparent use of acoustic cues to synchronize feeding lunges; and 6) apparent short

- and long

- term (multi

year) cooperation between individuals, frequent ly mature females without calves (NMFS

, 2005).

Historical Information: The humpback whale was first listed on June 02, 1970. It is currently designated as endangered in the entire range (35 FR 8491). Within the area covered by this listing, this species i s known to occur off both coasts of the United States. Prior to commercial whaling, the worldwide population of humpback whales is thought to have been in excess of 125,000. American whalers alone killed between 14,000 and 18,000 humpbacks in the North Atl antic between 1805 and 1907. In addition, a total of approximately 28,000 humpbacks were killed in the North Pacific. Currently, it is estimated that the U.S. population of humpbacks is less than 7,000 whales (NMFS

, 2005).

Conservation Status: The world p opulation of humpback whales in the mid

- 1980s was estimated at 9,500

- 10,000, though census data were incomplete (NMFS

, 1985); subsequent estimates indicate a total population about twice this size. Various estimates in the 1980s placed the North Pacific

po pulation at 600

- 2,500 (IUCN

, 1991). With protection, some populations are showing signs of recovery, but populations remain far below pre

- exploitation levels.

Summary of Major Threats: Humpbacks can become entangled in fishing gear, either swimming off wi th the gear or becoming anchored. NOAA Fisheries has observed "incidental take" of humpback whales in the California/Oregon swordfish and thresher shark drift gillnet fishery. Potential entanglement from gear from several fisheries can occur on their long migration from Hawaii to Alaska. Humpbacks in Hawaii have been observed entangled in longline gear, crab pots, and other non

- fishery

related lines.

Whale watching vessels may stress or even strike whales. The Gulf of Maine stock is the focus

of whale watc hing in New England from late spring to early fall, particularly within the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The central North Pacific stock is the focus of a

whale

- watching industry on their wintering grounds in the Hawaiian Islands. The feeding aggregation in southeast Alaska is also the focus of a developing whale

- watching industry that may impact whales in localized areas.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 15 Shipping channels, fisheries, and aquaculture may occupy or destroy humpback whale aggregation areas. Recreational use of marine areas, including resort development and increased boat traffic, may displace whales that would normally use that area. In Hawaii, acoustic impacts from vessel operation, oceanographic research using active sonar, and military operations are

also of increasing concern.

F.1.7. Oncorhynchus keta CHUM SALMON (Hood Canal summer

- run)

Family: Salmonidae Threatened: All naturally spawned populations in the Columbia R. and its tributaries (OR, WA) and Columbia River and all naturally spawned summer

- run populations in Hood Canal and its tributaries and Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay (WA)

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E09Q )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureS erve?searchName=Oncorhynchus+

keta )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012 ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/chumsalmon.htm )

• UMMZ, 2012

• USEPA, 2009

Description: Chum salmon grow to be among the la rgest of Pacific salmon, second only to Chinook salmon in adult size, with individuals reported up to 3.5 feet in length and 46 lb. in weight. Average size for the species is around 8 to 15 lb. The species is best known for the enormous canine

- like fangs

a nd striking body color (a calico pattern, with the anterior two

- thirds of the flank marked by a bold, jagged, reddish line and the posterior third by a jagged black line) of spawning males. Females are less flamboyantly colored and lack the extreme dentiti on of the males.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The species has the widest natural geographic and spawning distribution of any Pacific salmonid, primarily because its range extends farther along the shores of the Arctic Ocean than that o f the other salmonids. Spawning populations are known from Korea and Japan and into the far north of Russia. Historically, in North America, chum salmon were distributed throughout the coastal regions of western Canada and the United States, as far south a s Monterey, California. Presently, major spawning populations are found only as far south as Tillamook Bay on the northern Oregon coast.

The Hood Canal summer

- run includes all naturally spawned populations of summer

- run chum

salmon in Hood Canal and its t ributaries as well as populations in Olympic Peninsula rivers between Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay, Washington (64 FR 14508). Eight artificial2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 16 propagation programs are considered as part of the Hood Canal summer

- run: the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery, Ha mma Hamma Fish Hatchery, Lilliwaup Creek Fish Hatchery, Union River/Tahuya, Big Beef Creek Fish Hatchery, Salmon Creek Fish Hatchery, Chimacum Creek Fish Hatchery, and the Jimmycomelately Creek Fish Hatchery summer

- run chum hatchery programs. NMFS determin ed that these artificially propagated stocks are no more divergent relative to the local natural population(s) than what would be expected between closely related natural populations within the species.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Chum salmon spend m ost of their lives (2

- 7 years, usually 3

- 5 years) in the ocean. Adults return to spawn in streams where they hatched, sometimes moving up to 1,200 miles upstream in rivers lacking major barriers in Alaska and Canada but usually spawning not far from salt w ater (usually within 60 miles). Spawning occurs in gravel riffles in rivers and streams of various sizes. The female digs a redd, or nest, by displacing gravel and making depressions in an area of

about 24 feet 2 (Moyle

, 1976).

Critical habitat for this sp ecies was designated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). Hood

Canal summer

- run chum salmon have primary constituent elements of: (1) Freshwater spawning, (2) freshwater rearing, (3) freshwater migration, (4) estuarine areas free of obstruction, (5)

nearsho re marine areas free of obstructions, and (6) offshore marine areas with good water quality. The physical or biological features that characterize these sites include water quality and quantity, natural cover, forage, adequate passage conditions, and flood plain connectivity.

Of 17 sub

- basins reviewed in NMFS’ assessment of critical habitat for the Hood Canal chum

salmon E volutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), 14 sub

- basins were rated as having a high conservation value, while only three were rated as having a medium value to the conservation. Limiting factors identified for this species include: (1) Degraded floodplain and mainstem river channel structure, (2) degraded estuarine water quality conditions and loss of estuarine habitat, (3) riparian area degrad ation and loss of in

- river wood in mainstem, (4) excessive sediment in spawning gravels, and (5) reduced stream flow in migration areas. These conditions also introduce sediment, nutrients, biocides, metals, and other pollutants into surface and ground

wat er and degrade water quality in the freshwater, estuarine, and coastal ecosystems throughout

the Pacific Northwest.

Life History: In order to mate, chum salmon adults migrate from a marine environment into the freshwater

streams and rivers of their birth (called anadromy). They spawn only once and then die (called semelparity). Unlike most species that rear extensively in fresh water, chum salmon form schools, presumably to reduce predation. Most chum salmon mature and return to their birth

stream to spawn between 3 and 5 years of age, with 60 to 90 percent of the fish maturing at 4 years of age. The species has only a single form (sea

- run) and does not reside in fresh water. As the time for migration to the sea approaches, juvenile chum salmon lose their p arr marks (vertical bars and spots useful for camouflage). They then gain the dark back and light belly coloration used by fish living in open water. They seek deeper water and avoid light; their gills and kidneys begin to change so that they can process s alt water. Chum salmon feed on insects and marine2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 17 invertebrates while in rivers. As adults, their diet consists of copepods, fish, mollusks, squid and

tunicates.

The Hood Canal summer

- run chum salmon are defined in the Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (WDF, WDW et al.

, 1993) as fish that spawn from mid

- September to mid

- October. However, summer chum have been known to enter natal rivers in late August. Fall

- run chum salmon are defined as fish that spawn from November through December or January. Run

- tim ing data for as early as 1913 indicated temporal separation between summer and fall chum salmon in Hood Canal (Johnson, Grant et al.

, 1997)

. Hood Canal summer chum salmon are genetically distinct from healthy populations of Hood Canal fall chum salmon orig inating within this area. Hood Canal summer chum salmon return to natal rivers to spawn during the August through early October period. The fall chum salmon spawn between November and December, when streams are higher and water temperature is lower.

The t ime to hatching varies among populations and among individuals within a population (Salo

, 1991). Fry tend to emerge when they had their best chances of surviving in streams and estuaries (Koski

, 1975). A variety of factors may influence the time to hatchin g, emergence from the gravel, or both. They include dissolved oxygen, gravel size, salinity, nutritional conditions, behaviour of alevins in the gravel and incubation temperature [reviewed in (Bakkala

, 1970; Schroder, Koski et al. 1974; Schroder

, 1977; Sal o
, 1991)]. The average residence time in estuaries for Hood Canal chum salmon is 23 days. Fry in Hood Canal have not been observed to display daily tidal migrations (Bax

, 1983). Fry movement is associated with prey availability.

Summer

- run chum salmon migrate up the Hood Canal and into the main body of Puget Sound. Fish may emerge from streams over an extended period or juveniles may also remain in Quilcene Bay for several weeks.

Historical Information: Historically, chum salmon were distributed throughout the coastal regions of western Canada and the U.S. Presently, major spawning populations are found only as far south as Tillamook Bay on the northern Oregon coast. Chum salmon may historically have been the most abundant of all Pacific salmonids. Seven of 16 historical spawning populations in the Hood Canal

Summer

- run ESU are extinct. Recently some of these populations have shown encouraging increases in numbers, but the 2005 status review report shows that the population trend overall is a 6% decline per year. In the Columbia River, historical populations reached hundreds of thousands to a million adults each year. In the past 50 years, the average has been a few thousand a year. Currently, it is thought that 14 of the 16 spawning populations in the Columbia River ESU are extinct. About 500 spawners occur in the ESU presently, and the long

- term trend is flat.

Conservation Status:

Hood Canal summer

- run chum salmon were lis ted as threatened on March 25, 1999, and reaffirmed as threatened on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). Adult returns for some populations in

the Hood Canal summer

- run chum salmon species showed modest improvements in 2000, with upward trends continuing in 2001 and 2002. The recent five

- year mean abundance is variable among populations in the species, ranging from one fish to nearly 4,500 fish. Hood Canal

summer

- run chum salmon are the focus of an extensive rebuilding program developed and implemented since 1992 by the state and tribal co

- managers. Two populations (the combined2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 18 Quilcene and Union River populations) are above the conservation thresholds established by the rebuilding plan. However, most populations remain depressed. Estimates of the fraction of

natu rally spawning hatchery fish exceed 60% for some populations. This indicates that reintroduction programs are supplementing the numbers of total fish spawning naturally in streams. Long

- term trends in productivity are above replacement for only the Quilcen e and Union River populations. Buoyed by recent increases, seven populations are exhibiting short

term productivity trends above replacement.

Of an estimated 16 historical populations in the ESU, seven populations are believed to have been extirpated or n early extirpated. Most of these extirpations have occurred in populations on the eastern side of Hood Canal, generating additional concern for ESU spatial structure. The widespread loss of estuary and lower floodplain habitat are a continuing threat to ESU spatial structure and connectivity. There is some concern that the Quilcene hatchery stock is exhibiting high rates of straying, and may represent a risk to historical population structure and diversity. However, with the extirpation of many local populat ions, much of this historical structure has been lost, and the use of Quilcene hatchery fish may represent one of a few remaining options for

Hood Canal summer

- run chum salmon conservation.

Summary of Major Threats: Chum salmon, like the other salmon NMFS has listed, have declined under the combined effects of overharvests in fisheries; competition from fish raised in hatcheries and native and non

- native exotic species; dams that block their migrations and alter river hydrology; gravel mining that impedes their migration and alters the dynamics of the rivers and streams that support juveniles; water diversions that deplete water levels in rivers and streams; destruction or degradation of riparian habitat that increase water temperatures in rivers and stream s sufficient to reduce the survival of juvenile chum salmon; and land use practices (logging, agriculture, urbanization) that destroy or alter wetland and riparian ecosystems. The above activities and features also introduce sediment, nutrients, biocides, metals, and other pollutants into surface and ground water and degrade water quality in the freshwater, estuarine, and coastal ecosystems throughout the Pacific

Northwest.

F.1.8. STEELHEAD SALMON Oncorhynchus mykiss (Puget Sound)

Family: Salmonidae Endangered: s outhern California coast Threatened: Upper Willamette River, upper Columbia River Basin, central California coast, south central California coast, Central Valley California, lower Columbia River, middle Columbia River, northern California, and Snake River Basin

Under Review: Klamath Mountains Province

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E08D )

• NatureServe Expl orer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Oncorhynchus+
mykiss )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 19 • NOAA Fisheries, 2012 ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelheadtrout.htm )

• UMMZ, 2012

• USEPA, 2009

Description: Steelhead trout can reach up to 55 pounds in weight and 45 inches in length, though average size

is much smaller. The y are usually dark

- olive in color, shading to silvery

- white on the underside with a heavily speckled body and a pink to red stripe running along their sides

. They are a unique species; individuals develop differently depending on their environment. While a ll Oncorhynchus mykiss hatch in gravel

- bottomed, fast

- flowing, well

- oxygenated rivers and streams, some stay in fresh water all their lives. These fish are called rainbow trout. The steelhead that migrate to the ocean develop a slimmer profile, become more silvery in color, and typically grow much larger than the rainbow trout that remain in fresh water.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: In the United States, steelhead trout are found along the entire Pacific Coast. Worldwide,

steelhead are n aturally found in the Western Pacific south through the Kamchatka peninsula. They have been introduced worldwide.

Puget Sound steelhead occupy river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington. Included are river basins a s far west as the Elwha River and as far north as the Nooksack River. Puget Sound's fjord

- like structure may affect steelhead migration patterns. For example, some populations of coho and Chinook salmon, at least historically, remained within Puget Sound a nd did not migrate to the Pacific Ocean. Even when Puget Sound steelhead migrate to the high seas, they may spend considerable time as juveniles or adults in the protected marine environment of Puget Sound. This is a feature not readily accessible to steel head from other areas of the Pacific Northwest. The species is primarily composed of winter steelhead but includes several stocks of summer steelhead, usually in subbasins of large river systems and above seasonal hydrologic barriers.

Habitat: (no critica l habitat) Steelhead are capable of surviving in a wide range of temperature conditions. They do best where dissolved oxygen concentration is at least 7 parts per million. In streams, deep low

velocity pools are important wintering habitats. Anadromous pop ulations occur in coastal rivers. Resident populations now inhabit small headwater streams, large rivers, lakes, or reservoirs;

often in cool clear lakes and cool swift streams with silt

- free substrate. In streams, deep low velocity pools are important win tering habitats (Sublette et al. 1990).

Steelhead usually require a gravel stream riffle for successful spawning. Lake populations move to tributaries to spawn. Eggs are laid in gravel in a depression made by the female. Salinity of 8 ppt is the upper li mit for normal development of eggs and alevins (Morgan et al.

, 1992).

Critical habitat has not yet been determined for the Puget Sound steelhead trout.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 20 Life History: Steelhead typically migrate to marine waters after spending 2 years in freshwater. They then reside in marine waters for 2 to 3 years prior to returning to their natal stream to spawn as 4

- or 5

- year

- olds. Depending on water temperature, steelhead eggs may incubate in redds for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as alevins (larval stage dependent on yolk sac as food). Following yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles (fry) and begin actively feeding. Juveniles rear in freshwater from 1 to 4 years, then mig rate to the ocean as smolts.

Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive ecotypes, based on their state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and the duration of their spawning migration. These two ecotypes are termed “stream matu ring” and “ocean maturing.” Stream maturing steelhead return to freshwater in a sexually immature condition and require several months to mature and spawn. Ocean maturing steelhead enter freshwater with well

- developed gonads and spawn shortly after

river e ntry. These two reproductive ecotypes are more commonly referred to by their season of freshwater entry (e.g., summer and winter steelhead).

In lakes, the species feeds mostly on bottom

- dwelling invertebrates (e.g., aquatic insects, amphipods, worms, fish eggs, sometimes small fish) and plankton. In streams, the species feeds primarily on drift organisms. They may also ingest aquatic vegetation (probably for attached invertebrates). Their diet changes seasonally. In the ocean, the diet consists of fishes a nd

crustaceans.

Historical Information: Historically, steelhead likely inhabited most coastal streams in Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as many inland streams in these states and Idaho. However, during the 20 th
century, over 23 indigenous, naturally reproducing stocks of steelhead are believed to have been extirpated, and many more are thought to be in decline in numerous coastal and inland streams.

In 1994, NMFS received a petition to list steelhead throughout its range in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On January 5, 2006, NMFS listed nine Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of west coast steelhead as threatened and one as endangered. Some of them had been prev iously listed between 1996 and 1998, but, because of legal and other issues, all listings were reaffirmed and/or revised in 2006.

Puget Sound steelhead were listed as a threatened species on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 26722). Run size was calculated in the early 1980s at about 100,000 winter

- run fish and 20,000

summer

- run fish. It is unclear what portion were hatchery fish. However, a combined estimate with coastal steelhead suggested that roughly 70% of steelhead in ocean runs were of hatchery origin. The percen tage in escapement to spawning grounds would be substantially lower due to differential harvest and hatchery rack returns. By the 1990s, total run size for four major stocks exceeded 45,000, roughly half of which was natural escapement.

Conservation Statu s: Nehlsen et al. (1997) identified nine Puget Sound steelhead stocks at some degree of risk or concern. The WDFW et al. (1993) estimated that 31 of 53 stocks were of native origin and predominantly natural production. The WDFW assessment of the status of these 31 stocks was2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 21 11 healthy, three depressed, one critical, and 16 of unknown status. Their assessment of the status of the remaining (not native/natural) stocks was three healthy, 11 depressed, and eight of

unknown status.

Of the 21 populations in the Puget Sound ESU reviewed by Busby et al. (1996), 17 had declining and four had increasing trends, with a range from 18% annual decline (Lake Washington winter

run steelhead) to 7% annual increase (Skykomish River winter

- run steelhead). Eleven of these

tre nds (nine negative, two positive) were significantly different from zero. These trends were for

the late

- run naturally produced component of winter

- run steelhead populations. No adult trend

data were available for summer

- run steelhead. Most of these trends were based on relatively short data series. The Skagit and Snohomish River winter

- run populations have been approximately three to five times larger than the other populations in the DPS, with average annual spawning of approximately 5,000 and 3,000 total adult spawners, respectively. These two basins exhibited modest overall upward trends at the time of the ( Busby et al.

, 1996) report

. ( Busby et al.

, 1996) estimated five

- year average natural escapements for streams with adequate data range from less than 100 to 7,200, with corresponding total run sizes of 550 to 19,800.

Summary of Major Threats: Declines in winter steelhead stocks from the Siuslaw River north to Tillamook Bay, Oregon, may have resulted from deterioration of ocean feeding conditions, wides pread use of hatchery stock, predation by marine mammals, and ocean drift

- net fishing (Nehlsen et al.

, 1991). Declining winter catches on the Illinois River (tributary to the Rogue River), Oregon, since the mid

- 1970s

have been attributed to water withdrawa l for irrigation (Nehlsen et al.

, 1991). In the Columbia River basin, winter stocks are threatened by habitat degradation, main stem passage problems, and interactions with hatchery fish (Nehlson et al.

, 1991). Declines in several winter populations

in the Puget Sound area of Washington have resulted from habitat degradation (e.g., water quality problems, siltation, and sedimentation); predation by sea lions has been reported as a problem for the Lake Washington population (Nehlsen et al.

, 1991). Whirling d isease has caused population declines in some areas. The disease is caused by a protozoan pathogen (inadvertently introduced from Europe) and involves tubifex worms as an alternate host.

F.1.9. CHINOOK SALMON Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Puget Sound)

Family: Salmonidae Endangered: Sacramento River (winter

- run), and Upper Columbia (spring

- run) Threatened: California coastal, Snake River (fall, spring/summer run), Central Valley (spring

run), upper Willamette River, Puget Sound, lower Columbia River

Sources:

• U SFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06D )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Oncorhynchus+t
shawytscha )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012 ( http://w ww.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/chinooksalmon.htm )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 22 • UMMZ, 2012

• USEPA, 2009

Description: Chinook salmon are easily distinguished from other Oncorhynchus species by their large size. Adults weighing over 120 pounds have been caught in North American waters. Chinook salmon are very similar to coho salmon in appearance while at sea (blue

- green back with silver flanks), except for their large size, small black spots on both lobes of the tail, and black pigment along

the base of the teeth.

Of the Pacific salmon species, Chinook salmon exhibit one of the most diverse and complex life history strategies. Chinook salmon are generally described as one of two races, within which there is substantial variation. One form, the “stream

- type” resides in freshwater for a y ear or more following emergence from gravel nests. Another form, the “ocean

- type” migrates to the ocean within their first year. The ocean

- type typifies populations north of 56oN (Healey

, 1991). Within each race, there is often variation in age at seaward migration, age of maturity, timing of spawning migrations, male precocity, and female fecundity.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Native range includes the Pacific Ocean and tributary drainages, in North America presently

from the Sacrament o

- San Joaquin system (sometimes farther south) north to Point Hope, Alaska, and in northeastern Asia, from northern Japan to the Anadyr River. The species has been widely

stocked elsewhere.

The boundaries of the Puget Sound E volutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) correspond generally with the boundaries of the Puget Lowland Ecoregion. The Puget Lowland Ecoregion begins in Washington at approximately the Dungeness River near the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and extends through Puget Sound to the British Columbia border and up to the Cascade foothills. The Puget Sound ESU includes all runs of Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound region from the North Fork Nooksack River to the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula. This ESU is comprised of 31 historica l populations. Of these, 22 populations are believed to be extant. Thirty

- six hatchery populations were included as part of the ESU, and five were considered essential for recovery and listed. They include spring Chinook salmon from Kendall Creek, the

Nort h Fork Stillaguamish River, White River, and Dungeness River, and fall run fish from the

Elwha River.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Among Chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. One race, described as a “stream

- type” Chinook, is found most commonly in headwater streams. Steam

- type Chinook salmon have a longer freshwater residency, and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their natal streams in the spring or summer months. The second race is called the “ocean

- type”

Chinoo k, which is commonly found in coastal streams in North America. Ocean

- type Chinook typically migrate to sea within the first 3 months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in freshwater before emigrating. They also spend their ocean life in coastal waters. Ocean

- type Chinook salmon return to their natal streams or rivers in spring, winter, fall, summer, and late

-2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 23 fall runs, but summer and fall runs predominate. The difference between these life history types is also physical, with both genetic and mo rphological foundations.

Juvenile steam

- and ocean

- type Chinook salmon have adapted to different ecological niches.

Ocean

- type Chinook salmon tend to use estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. The brackish water areas in estuar ies also moderate physiological stress during parrsmolt transition. The development of the ocean

- type life history strategy may have been a response to the limited carrying capacity of smaller stream systems and glacially scoured, unproductive watersheds, or a means of avoiding the impact of seasonal floods in the lower portion of many

watersheds.

Stream

- type juveniles are much more dependent on freshwater stream ecosystems because of

their extended residence in these areas. A stream

- type life history may be adapted to those watersheds, or parts of watersheds, that are more consistently productive and less susceptible to dramatic changes in water flow or that have environmental conditions that would severely limit the success of subyearling smolts. At the t ime of saltwater entry, stream

- type (yearling) smolts are much larger, averaging 73

- 134 mm depending on the river system, than their ocean

- type (subyearling) counterparts and are, therefore, able to move offshore relatively quickly.

Coast

- wide, Chinook sa lmon remain at sea for 1 to 6 years (more commonly 2 to 4 years), with the exception of a small proportion of yearling males, called jack salmon, which mature in

freshwater or return after 2 or 3 months in salt water. Ocean

- and stream

- type Chinook salmon are recovered differentially in coastal and mid

- ocean fisheries, indicating divergent migratory

routes. Ocean

- type Chinook salmon tend to migrate along the coast, while stream

- type Chinook

salmon are found far from the coast in the central North Pacific. D ifferences in the ocean distribution of specific stocks may be indicative of resource partitioning and may be important to the success of the species as a whole.

The critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook can be found at (70 FR 52630). The primary

c onstituent elements include: (1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate
supporting spawning, incubation and larval development;

(2) Freshwater rearing sites with:

i. Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and ma intain physical habitat
conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility;

ii. Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and

iii. Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams
and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, larg e rocks and boulders, side channels, and

undercut banks.

(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water
quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging
large wood, aquatic vegetatio n, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut
banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival;

(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with:2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 24 i. Water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult
physiological transitions between fresh

- and saltwater;

ii. Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation,
large rocks and boulders, side channels; and

iii. Juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and f ishes, supporting
growth and maturation.
(5) Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with:

i. Water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and
fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and

ii. Natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation,
large rocks and boulders, and side channels.

(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic
invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturatio n.

Life History: Chinook salmon in Puget Sound generally have an “ocean

- type” life history. Puget Sound populations exhibit both the early

- returning and late

- returning Chinook salmon spawners described by ( Healey

, 1997). However, within these two generali zed behavioral forms, substantial variation occurs in juvenile behavior and residence time in fresh water and estuarine environments. Hayman et al. (1996) described three juvenile life histories for Chinook salmon with varying freshwater and estuarine resi dency times in the Skagit River system in northern Puget Sound. Chinook salmon use the nearshore area of Puget Sound during all seasons of the year and can be found long distances from their natal river systems (Brennan, Higgins et al.

, 2004).

Historical Information: Chinook salmon are the largest of the Pacific salmon and historically ranged from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, Alaska in North America, and in northeastern Asia from Hokkaido, Japan to the Anadyr River in Russia (Healey 1991) . In addition, Chinook salmon have been reported in the Canadian Beaufort Sea (McPhail and Lindsey

, 1970).

Puget Sound Chinook salmon were listed as threatened in 1999 (64 FR 14308). This status was

re

- affirmed on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). This ESU ha s lost 15 spawning aggregations that were either demographically independent historical populations or major components of the life history diversity of the remaining 22 existing independent historical populations identified (Good, Waples et al.

, 2005). Ni ne of the 15 extinct spawning aggregations were early

- run type Chinook salmon (Good, Waples et al.

, 2005). The disproportionate loss of early

- run life history diversity represents a significant loss of the evolutionary legacy of the historical ESU.

Conser vation Status: Long

- term trends in abundance and median population growth rates for naturally spawning populations of Puget Sound Chinook salmon indicate that approximately half of the populations are declining and the other half are increasing in abundanc e over the length of available time series. Eight of 22 populations are declining over the short

- term, compared to 11 or 12 populations that have long

- term declines (Good, Waples et al.

, 2005). Widespread declines and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 25 extirpations of spring

- and summer

- run Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations represent a significant reduction in the life history diversity of this ESU (Meyers, Kope et al.

, 1998). The median overall populations of long

- term trend in abundance is 1, indicating that most populations are just replacing themselves. Populations with the greatest long

- term population growth rate are the North Fork Nooksack and White Rivers.

Regarding spatial structure, the populations (22) presumed to be extinct are mostly early returning fish. Most of these are in the mid

- to southern Puget Sound or Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The ESU populations with the greatest estimated fractions of hatchery

fish tend to be in the mid

- to southern Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Finally, all but one of the nine extinct Chinook salmon stocks is an early run population (or component of a population).

Summary of Major Threats: Initial cause of decline was adverse effects of logging, mining, irrigation withdrawals, and overfishing, then cons truction of hydroelectric dams that blocked migrations and resulted in high mortality of smolts in turbines (Nehlsen et al.

, 1991, Williams et al.

, 1992). Spawning runs continue to be threatened by construction of dams and degradation of natural environmen t. Extinctions or large declines of some local native populations in recent decades may have been masked by releases of non

- native hatchery stock (Williams et al.

, 1992).

Juveniles incur high mortality as they migrate through today's river systems and out to sea. Sources of mortality include hydroelectric turbines, mechanical bypass facilities (including transporation by barge or truck), and predation by non

- native fishes. Gas bubble trauma (GBT) associated with total dissolved gas supersaturation (TDGS) a t spillways also causes mortality and detrimental sublethal effects, but passage of juveniles through spillways may be the least damaging of the routes for juvenile passage at dams (Backman et al.

, 2002). In the Columbia River basin, adults were rarely obs erved with GBT, despite high TDGS levels (Backman and

Evans

, 2002). Concurrent with the construction of fish hatcheries, bacterial kidney disease became prevalent and may now play a significant role in mortality. A change in climate, beginning around 1977, led to poor ocean survival.

F.1.10.

Orcinus orca KILLER WHALE

Family: Delphinidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0IL )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/killerwhale.htm )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Orcinus+orca )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 26 Description: Killer whales are distinctively marked with a black back, white chest and sides, and a white patch above and behind the eye. Calves are born with a yellowish or orange tint that fades to white. Killer whales have a heavy and stocky body and a large dorsal fin with a dark grey "saddle patch" at the fin's rear. Males can be up to 31 feet and weigh in excess of 6.6 tons; it has been reported that especially large males have reached nearer 8.8 tons. Females are smaller, reaching up to 28 feet and a weight of about 5.5 tons. The longest killer whale ever recorded was a male from Washington state, measuring 32 feet. Calves at birth weigh about 400 lb. and are about 8 feet long. The killer whale's large size and strength make them the fastest marine mammals, often reaching speeds in excess of 35 mph.

I n the eastern North Pacific Ocean, three distinct forms, or types, of killer whales are recognized.

1. residents

2. transients

3. offshores

The three types differ in morphology, ecology, behavior, and genetics. A recent genetic study suggests the transient typ e has been separated from all other killer whales for approximately 750,000 years and might represent a separate species or subspecies. All three types of killer whales share at least part of a home range, yet they are not known to intermix with one anothe r. The resident and transient types both have multiple populations within their range.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Killer whales are found throughout the world's oceans and seas, from high latitudes to the equator; most common in cooler coastal waters of both hemispheres, with the greatest abundance

within 500 miles from continental coasts.

In the North Pacific Ocean, killer whales are often sighted in all parts of Alaska, including:

• Bering Sea

• Aleutian Islands

• Prince William So und

• southeastern Alaska

They are also often sighted in other areas of the North Pacific Ocean, such as:

• nearshore and intercoastal waterways of British Columbia, Canada and Washington State

• along the U.S. Pacific coast in Washington, Oregon, and Califo rnia

• along the Russian coast in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk

• on the eastern side of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands

In the North Atlantic Ocean, sightings of killer whales are commonly documented:

• up to the pack

- ice edge in Norwegian waters and around Iceland.

In the South Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, killer whales are frequently sighted

• along the pack ice of Antarctica

• off the coasts

o Patagonia2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 27 o southern Argentina

o New Zealand

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Critical habitat for the Southern Resident killer whale Distinct Population Segment (DPS) includes the entirety of Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca. The area extends to the northern portion of the San Juan islands, and far south with the exception of the Hood Canal area. Characteristics of critical habitat could not be specified.

Life History:

Resident Killer Whales are noticeably different from both transient and offshore forms. The dorsal fin is rounded at the tip and curved and tapering, or "falca te". Resident whales have a variety of saddle patch pigmentations with five different patterns recognized. They've been sighted from California to Russia. They primarily eat fish

. Resident killer whales in the North Pacific consist of the following populat ions:

• Southern Residents

• Northern Residents

• Southern Alaska Residents

• Western Alaska North Pacific Residents

Resident killer whales occur in large social groups termed "pods," which are defined to be groups of whales that are seen in association with one another greater than 50% of the time. The pods represent collections of matrilines (a matriarch and all her descendents), which have been found to be the stable social unit. In the North Pacific, the resident killer whale populations mainly feed on sal monids, such as Chinook salmon and chum salmon

The Southern Resident killer whale ("Southern Resident") population contains three pods (J pod, K pod, and L pod), considered one stock under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and as a "distinct populat ion segment" (therefore, "species") under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Their range during the spring, summer, and fall includes the inland waterways of Puget Sound, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Southern Georgia Strait. Their occurrence has been

documen ted in the coastal waters off of Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Island, central California, and Queen Charlotte Islands. Relatively little is known about the winter movements and range of the Southern Resident stock. Southern Residents have not been observe d associating with other resident whales, and genetic data suggest that Southern Residents rarely, if ever, interbreed with other killer whale populations.

Transient Killer Whales occur throughout the eastern North Pacific, and have primarily been

studied in coastal waters. Their geographical range overlaps that of the resident and offshore killer whales. The dorsal fin of transient whales tends to be more erect (straighter at the tip) than those of resident and offshore whales. Saddle patch pigmentation o f transient killer whales is restricted to two patterns, and never has the large areas of black pigmentation intruding into the white of the saddle patch that is seen in resident and offshore types. Transient type whales are often found in long

- term stable social units that tend to be smaller than resident social groups (e.g., fewer than 10 whales); these social units do not seem as permanent as matrilines are in resident type whales. Transient killer whales feed nearly exclusively on marine mammals.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 28 Offsh ore Killer Whales are similar to resident whales, but can be distinguished generally (these characteristics need to be further quantified) by features such as their:

• fins, which appear more rounded at the tip with multiple nicks on the trailing edge

• smal ler overall size

• tendency for males and females to be more similar in size (less "sexual dimorphism")

Offshore killer whales have the largest geographic range of any killer whale community in the

northeastern Pacific and often occur 9 miles or more offsh ore, but also visit coastal waters and occasionally enter protected inshore waters. Animals typically congregate in groups of 20

- 75 animals with occasional sightings of larger groups up to 200 whales. They are presumed to feed primarily on fish, though the y have been documented feeding on sharks. It has even been hypothesized that they may be shark specialists, but further observations are needed to confirm this theory. Genetic analyses indicate that offshore killer whales are reproductively isolated from

o ther forms.

Sexual maturity of female killer whales is achieved when the whales reach lengths of approximately 15

- 18 feet, depending on geographic region. The gestation period for killer

whales varies from 15

- 18 months, and birth may take place in any month. Calves are nursed for at least 1 year, and may be weaned between 1 and 2 years of age. The birth rate for killer whales is not well understood, but, in some populations, is estimated as every 5 years for an average period of 25 years.

Historical In formation: In November 2005, the Southern Resident killer whale Distinct Population Segment (DPS) was listed as endangered under the ESA (70 FR 69903)

. Little information is available on the historical abundance of killer whales worldwide. Nevertheless, it is likely that many populations have declined significantly since 1800 in response to greatly diminished stocks of fish, whales, and pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) in the ocean.

Conservation Status: The population size of killer whales is difficult to measure in many areas because of their general scarcity as well as their widespread and often unpredictable movement patterns. During the past few decades, populations have been surveyed primarily through photo

- identification studies and

line

- transect coun ts. Photo

- identification catalogs for killer whales were first established in the early 1970s for the resident communities of Washington and British Columbia and have since been initiated for most areas where population studies have been undertaken. Line

- t ransect surveys from ships or aircraft generally occur in large areas of open ocean where photo

identification is impractical. However, this technique cannot be used for gathering most demographic data, such as age of sexual maturity.

As top

- level predato rs, killer whales occur in low densities throughout most of their geographic range. Densities are typically much greater in colder waters than in tropical regions. One estimate put the worldwide population of killer whales at over 100,000 animals. However, the most recent estimate revised this figure to a minimum of about 50,000 animals. In the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 29 northeastern Pacific, from California to the western Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea, at least 2,250

- 2,700 resident, transient, and offshore whales are currently tho ught to exist.

Summary of Major Threats: Although all killer whales are protected under the MMPA (and some are protected under the ESA) and they have not been commercially hunted or captured in the past 40 years within the U.S. waters, historic live captu re for aquarium display and culling for depredation of fisheries reduced some killer whale populations, especially the Southern Resident killer whale DPS. Today, these killer whales still face many threats caused by human activities, such as contaminants ( e.g., PCBs), depletion of prey due to overfishing and habitat degradation, ship collisions, and oil spills. Additional threats may also include disturbance from such activities as noise from industrial and military activities, entanglement in fishing gear, and whale

- watching. Outside U.S. waters, directed catch of killer whales still occurs, though these levels are presumed

low.

F.1.11.

Phoebastria albatrus SHORT

- TAILED ALBATROSS

Family: Diomedeidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B00 )

• UMMZ, 2012

Description:

The short

- tailed albatross is a large pelagic bird with long narrow wings adapted for soaring just above the water surface. The bill, which is disproportionately large compared to the bills of other northern hemisphere albatrosses, is pink and hooked with a bluish tip, with external tubular nostrils, and a thin but conspicuous b lack line extending around the base. Adult short

- tailed albatrosses are the only North Pacific albatross with an entirely white back. The white head develops a yellow

- gold crown and nape over several years. Fledged juveniles are dark brown

black, but soon develop the pale bills and legs that distinguish them from black

- footed and Laysan albatrosses (Tuck 1978, Roberson, 1980).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution:

Short

- tailed albatrosses range throughout the North Pacific Ocean and north into th e Bering Sea during the non

- breeding season; breeding colonies are limited to two Japanese islands, Torishima

and Minami

- kojima. There are no breeding populations of short

- tailed albatrosses in the United States, but several individuals have been regularly observed during the breeding season on Midway Atoll in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. At

- sea sightings since the 1940s indicate

that the short

- tailed albatross, while very few in number today, is distributed widely throughout its historical foraging r ange of the temperate and subarctic North Pacific Ocean and is often found close to the U.S. coast, including the coastal water of Oregon (UFWFS, 2000). This2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 30 species is known to occur in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Northern Pacific

Ocea n, Japan, and Russia.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Available evidence from historical accounts and from current breeding sites indicates that short

tailed albatross nesting occurs on flat or sloped sites with sparse or full vegetation, and on

isolated w indswept offshore islands with restricted human access. The nest is a grass or moss

lined concave scoop about 2 feet in diameter (Tickell

, 1975).

Short

- tailed albatross forage at sea but specific geographic and seasonal distribution patterns

within the m arine range are not well understood. The short

- tailed albatross is a frequent visitor to the productive waters in shelf break areas of the Northern Gulf of Alaska, Aleutians Islands, and Bering Sea. The marine range of the short

- tailed albatross within U.S . territorial waters includes Alaska's vast coastal shelf break areas and the marine waters of Hawaii for foraging, but it is not know how much or to what extent it utilizes open ocean areas of the Gulf of Alaska, North Pacific Ocean, and Bering Sea. There is no specific habitat or area use patterns within the vast shelf break areas used by the species (USFWS

, 2000).

Life History:

Short

- tailed albatrosses are long

- lived and slow to mature; the average age at first breeding is 6 years old

. Breeding is restr icted to two small island groups, Torishima Island (approximately

580 km south of Japan) and Minami

- kojima (about 270 kilometers northeast of Taiwan) (USFWS

, 2000). At Torishima, birds arrive at the breeding colony in October and begin nest building. Egg

- l aying begins in late October and continues through late November. The female lays a single egg with incubation involving both parents, and lasts for 64

- 65 days. Eggs hatch in late December and January, and by late May or early June, the chicks are almost f ull grown and the adults begin abandoning their nests (Hasegawa and DeGange

, 1982). The chicks fledge soon after the adults leave the colony. By mid

- July, the breeding colony is totally deserted (Austin 1949). Breeding success (the percent of eggs laid tha t result in a fledged chick) varies between approximately 60 and 70 percent. Low breeding success occurs in years when catastrophic volcanic or weather events occur during the breeding season.

Non

- breeders and failed breeders disperse from the breeding co lony in late winter through spring (Hasegawa and DeGange

, 1982). There is no detailed information on breeding activities on

Minami

- kojima, but it is likely to be similar to that on Torishima. Short

- tailed albatrosses are monogamous and highly philopatric t o nesting areas (returning to the same breeding site year after year). Chicks hatched at Torishima return there to breed. However, young birds may occasionally disperse from their natal colonies to breed, as evidenced by the appearance of adult

birds on Mi dway Atoll that were banded as chicks on Torishima (Richardson

, 1994).

The short

- tailed albatross feeds at the water’s surface on items such as squid, fish, eggs of flying fish, shrimp, and other crustaceans. The birds will sometimes follow ships and feed on scraps and offal. Chicks are fed a mixture of stomach oil and partially digested, regurgitated food; nestlings are fed squid, flying fishes, large crustaceans, and similar foods (Hasegawa and DeGange 1982; Austin

, 1949).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 31 Historical Information:

The s hort

- tailed albatross ( Phoebastria albatrus ) was first listed on June 2, 1970. It is currently designated as endangered (65 FR 46643) in the entire range. At the beginning of the 20 th century, the species declined in population numbers to near extinction, primarily as a result of hunting at the breeding colonies in Japan. Albatross were killed for their feathers and various other body parts. The down feathers were used for quilts and pillows, and wing and tail feathers were used for writing quills; their bo dies were processed into fertilizer and rendered into fat, and their eggs were collected for food (Austin

, 1949).

Pre

- exploitation worldwide population estimates of short

- tailed albatrosses are not known; the total number of birds harvested may provide th e best estimate, since the harvest drove the species nearly to extinction. Between approximately 1885 and 1903, an estimated five

- million short

tailed albatrosses were harvested from the breeding colony on Torishima (Austin 1949), and

harvest continued unt il the early 1930s. By 1949, there were no short

- tailed albatrosses breeding at any of the historically known breeding sites, and the species was thought to be extinct (Austin 1949). The species persisted, however, and in 1950, there were reports of nestin g short

- tailed

albatross on the island of Torishima.

Conservation Status: Originally numbering in the millions, the current worldwide population of breeding age birds is approximately 1,200 individuals. Of these, the total number of breeding age birds is thought to be approximately 600 birds (UFWFS, 2000). The population on Tourishima Island is growing at a fairly rapid rate, especially given that it is a long

- lived and slow

- to

- reproduce species. Habitat management within the species main nesting colony h as increased its nest success rate and probably its population growth rate as well. Based on egg counts and breeding bird observations, it is estimated that there are currently approximately 267 nesting pairs on Torishima, and 40 pairs

on Minami

- kojima (Ha segawa 2002). The recent annual population growth rate is 7.5% on Torishima and 11% on the Senkaku Islands (COSEWIC

, 2004)

.

Summary of Major Threats: The worldwide population of short

- tailed albatrosses continues to be in danger of extinction throughout its range due to natural environmental threats, small population size, and the small number of breeding colonies. Longline fishing, plastics pollution, oil contamination, and airplane strikes are not viewed as threats to the species survival, but are consi dered threats to the species conservation and recovery (OFWO

, 2003h).

F.1.12. Salvelinus confluentus BULL TROUT

Family: Salmonidae Threatened: ID, MT, NV, OR and WA Experimental Population, Non

- Essential: Clackamas River subbasin and the mainstem

Willamette Rive r, from Willamette Falls to its points of confluence with the Columbia River, including Multnomah Channel2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 32 Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/ profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E065 )

• USFWS, 2003 ( http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/bulltrt03.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Salvelinus+confl

uentus )

• UMMZ, 2012

Description:

Bull trout are members of the char sub group of the Salmonid family. Bull trout, Dolly Varden trout, and lake trout are species of char native to the northwest. Char species such as bull trout live farther north than any other group of freshwater fish except Alaskan blackfish and are well adapt ed for life in very cold water. Bull trout living in streams grow to about four pounds while those in lake environments can weigh more than 20 pounds.

Biologists distinguish char from other salmonids such as trout and salmon by the absence of

teeth in th e roof of the mouth, the presence of light

- colored spots on a dark background (trout and salmon have dark spots on a lighter background), the absence of spots on the dorsal fin, their smaller scales, and differences in skeletal structure.

Geographic Boun daries and Spatial Distribution: Bull trout exist in five distinct population segments: coastal Puget Sound, St. Mary

- Belly River, Klamath River, Columbia River, and Jarbridge River. This species is known to occur in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Bull trout are seldom found in waters where temperatures are warmer than 15  ̊C to 18 ̊C. Besides very cold water, bull trout require stable stream channels, clean spawning gravel, complex and diverse cover, and un blocked migration routes (USFWS

, 2002a).

Critical habitat includes approximately 18,975 miles of streams and 488,252 acres of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Nevada for the wide

- ranging fish. In Washington, 754 miles of mari ne shoreline are included in the final designation

. These lands include complex habitats, streams with riffles and deep pools, undercut banks, and large logs

. These habitats often connect to headwater streams for annual spawning and feeding migrations.

On November 29, 2002, USFWS proposed to designate critical habitat for the Klamath River and Columbia River bull trout populations (67 FR 71235). On October 6, 2004, USFWS finalized the critical habitat designation for the Klamath River and Columbia River bu ll trout populations (69 FR 59995). On June 25, 2004, USFWS proposed to designate critical habitat for the Jarbidge River, coastal Puget Sound, and Saint Mary

- Belly River bull trout populations (69 FR 35767). On September 26, 2005, critical habitat was des ignate for the Klamath River, Columbia River, Jarbidge River, coastal Puget Sound, and Saint Mary

- Belly River populations of bull trout (70 FR 56212).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 33 Life History: Small bull trout eat terrestrial and aquatic insects but shift to preying on other fish a s they grow larger. Large bull trout are primarily fish predators. Bull trout evolved with whitefish, sculpins, and other trout and use all of them as food sources. In the Willamette River Basin, Chinook salmon are an important food source for bull trout. Adult bull trout are usually small, but can grow to 36 inches in length and up to 32 pounds. Bull trout reach sexual maturity at between 4 and 7 years of age and are known to live as long as 12 years. They spawn in the fall after temperatures drop below 9  ̊ C, in streams with abundant cold, unpolluted water, clean gravel and cobble substrate, and gentle stream slopes. Many spawning areas are associated with cold water springs or areas where stream flow is influenced by ground water. Bull trout eggs require a long incubation period compared with other salmon and trout, hatching in late winter or early spring. Fry may remain in the stream gravels for up to 3 weeks before emerging (USFWS

, 2002a).

Four life

- history forms of char are recognized, each exhibiting a specific behavioral or life history pattern (Brown 1994). Resident fish live their whole lives near areas where they were spawned. Migratory fish are usually spawned in small headwater streams and then migrate to larger streams or rivers (fluvial), lakes o r reservoirs (adfluvial), or salt water (anadromous) where they grow to maturity. Smaller resident fish remain near the areas where they were spawned in smaller, high elevation streams and seldom reach size of over 12 inches (Brown

, 1994; USFWS

, 2002a). La rger, migratory fish will move considerable distances to spawn when habitat conditions allow. For instance, bull trout in Montana's Flathead Lake have been known to migrate up to 150 miles to spawn (USFWS

, 2002a).

Historical Information:

Bull trout are na tive throughout the Pacific Northwest

. Historically bull trout occurred throughout the Columbia River Basin, east to western Montana, south to the Jarbidge River in northern Nevada, the Klamath Basin in Oregon, and the McCloud River in California, and nort h to Alberta, British Columbia, and possibly southeastern Alaska. It was first listed on June 10, 1998. It is currently designated as threatened (64 FR 58909) in the lower 48 states.

Conservation Status: Today bull trout are found primarily in upper trib utary streams and several lake and reservoir systems. They have been eliminated from or their numbers reduced in the main stems of most large rivers. The main populations remaining in the lower 48 states are in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington with a small population in northern Nevada. Bull trout no longer occur

in northern California.

Summary of Major Threats: Bull trout are vulnerable to many of the same threats that have reduced salmon populations. Because of their need for very cold waters and l ong incubation time, bull trout are more sensitive to increased water temperatures, poor water quality, and degraded stream habitat than many other salmonids. Further threats to bull trout include hybridization and competition with nonnative brook trout, b rown trout, and lake trout; overfishing; poaching; and man

- made structures that block migration (USFWS

, 2002a).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 34 In many areas, continued survival of the species is threatened by a combination of factors rather than one major factor. For example, past and continuing land management activities have degraded stream habitat, especially along larger river systems and streams located in valley bottoms. Degraded conditions have severely reduced or eliminated migratory bull trout as water temperature, stream flow, and other water quality parameters fall below the range of conditions that these fish can tolerate. In many watersheds, remaining bull trout are smaller, resident fish isolated in headwater streams. Brook trout, introduced throughout much of the range of bull trout, easily hybridize with them, producing sterile offspring. Brook trout also reproduce earlier and at a higher rate than bull trout, so bull trout populations are often supplanted by these non

natives. Dams and other instream structures also affec t bull trout by blocking migration routes, altering water temperatures, and killing fish as they pass through and over dams or are trapped in irrigation and other diversion structures (USFWS

, 2002a).

F.1.13. Spiranthes diluvialis UTE LADIES’

- TRESSES

Family: Orch idaceae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2WA )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Spiranthes+diluv

ialis )

Description:

Ute ladies’

- tresses is a perennial herb with erec t, glandular

- pubescent stems 5

- 24 inches tall arising from tuberous

- thickened roots. Basal leaves are narrowly linear, up to 0.5 inches wide and 11 inches long, and persist at the time of flowering. Leaves become progressively smaller up

the stem. The infl orescence is a sparsely pubescent 1

- 6 inches long spike of numerous small white or ivory

- colored flowers arranged in a gradual spiral. Individual flowers are 0.3

- 0.6 inches long and faintly fragrant (with a vanilla

- like scent). The lip petal is oval to lan ce

- shaped, narrowed at the middle, and has crispy

- wavy margins. Sepals are separate or fused only at the base (not fused into a hood

- like structure) and are often spreading at their tips. Fruits are cylindric capsules with numerous seeds.

Geographic Boun daries and Spatial Distribution: The species occurs in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. More specifically it is known from northern and south

- central Utah, central to north

central and northwestern Colorado, east

- c entral and southeastern Wyoming, eastern Idaho, southwestern Montana, eastern Nevada, western Nebraska, and central to north

- central Washington (Fertig et al.

, 2005); as well as British Columbia, where recently discovered (J. Penny, pers. comm. 2008).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 35 Ha bitat: (no critical habitat)

Ute ladies’

- tresses occupy various habitat types including: (1) alluvial banks, point bars, floodplains, or ox

- bows associated with perennial streams, with a high water table and short, perennial graminoid

- and forb

- dominated v egetation maintained by grazing, periodic flooding, or mowing; (2) river floodplain habitats which experience regular spring flooding and/or frequent large scale floods but maintain relatively stable, moist to wet soil in summer, within moist meadow, ripar ian woodland, or riparian shrubland communities; (3) shores of lakes and reservoirs, in mesic meadow

- type vegetation maintained by lake level fluctuations or seasonal flooding of gravel bars; (4) groundwater

- fed springs, sometimes in desert settings, or su b

irrigated meadows where edaphic characteristics (e.g. high water table and calcic soil), fire, and/or grazing are sufficient to prevent invasion of later seral vegetation; and (5) human

influenced habitats, including perennial stream, river, lakeshore, a nd spring sites directly

associated with human

- developed dams, levees, reservoirs, irrigation ditches, reclaimed gravel quarries, roadside barrow pits, and irrigated meadows. More than half of documented populations occur in sites in which natural hydrolog y has been influenced by dams, reservoirs, or supplemental irrigation, and many populations occur within agricultural or urban settings (Fertig

et al.

, 2005)

.

The riparian areas where it’s found are most concisely characterized as medium

- to

- large streams and rivers of moderate gradient (not slow and meandering), generally near the edge of the mountains or somewhat out onto the plains. It does not occur in dense shrub patches, although it can occur in small grassy openings. Soil must be moist on the surface throughout the growing season. This moisture level is usually maintained by capillary fringe from the water table.

Life History: Spiranthes diluvialis is a long

- lived perennial herb that probably reproduces exclusively by seed. The orchid can produce as many as 7300 tiny seeds per fruit. Seedlings may persist for up to 8 years as subterranean saprophytes dependent on mycorrhizal fungi. Small, inconspicuous leaf rosettes may emerge at the end of the growing season and overwinter. It flowers in August to early September and is often not in full flower until mid

- August. Individual plants may not flower in consecutive years or under adverse environmental conditions and may persist below ground with their mycorrhizal symbionts. Life ex pectancy for at least one Spiranthes species has been estimated at more than 50 years.

Historical Information:

When Ute ladies’

- tresses was listed in 1992 it was known primarily from moist meadows associated with perennial stream terraces, floodplains, an d oxbows at elevations between 4

, 300

- 6

, 850 feet. Surveys since 1992 have expanded the number of vegetation and hydrology types occupied by Ute ladies’

- tresses to include seasonally flooded river terraces, sub

- irrigated or spring

- fed abandoned stream channe ls and valleys, and lakeshores. In addition, 26 populations have been discovered along irrigation canals, berms, levees, irrigated meadows, excavated gravel pits, roadside barrow pits, reservoirs, and other human

- modified wetlands. New surveys have

also ex panded the elevational range of the species from 720

- 1

, 830 feet in Washington to 7

, 000

feet in northern Utah. Over one

- third of all known Ute ladies’

- tresses populations are found on alluvial banks, point bars, floodplains, or ox

- bows associated with peren nial streams.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 36 Conservation Status: Recognizing that most annual survey data underestimates the number of dormant, vegetative, and fruiting plants, the maximum number of flowering plants observed over a multi

- year period of monitoring can be used to estima te total population size. Based on the maximum number of plants reported for each known occurrence since 1985, the total range

- wide number is estimated as at least 83,316 plants (Fertig et al. 2005). However, most occurrences are relatively small, in

terms of both number of plants and area occupied. Of all extant occurrences, 39% contain fewer than 100 plants and 81% have less than ,1000 individuals; in addition, nearly 66% of all known occurrences are reported from areas of 0.1

- 10 acres, while only 5% occu py more than 50 acres (Fertig et al.

, 2005).

Population monitoring studies in Colorado and Utah have projected long

- term declines if not extirpations in both riparian corridor and wet meadow settings and under current land use practices without conservati on intervention. In Idaho, long

- term monitoring has detected local extirpation of subpopulations as habitat condition deteriorates through flooding or vegetative succession. Nevertheless, new monitoring and demographic research have documented that populat ions are more stable than originally suspected because most past monitoring studies had focused on counts of flowering plants, which are more likely to fluctuate than counts that include more cryptic vegetative, fruiting, and dormant plants (Fertig et al.

, 2005). Most of the multi

- year monitoring studies based on flowering plants exhibit an oscillating trend, alternating between periods of increase and decrease around a relatively stable mean (Fertig et al.

, 2005). This species also appears more tolerant of human

- induced disturbances than originally supposed, based on the discovery of additional populations in significantly human

- modified habitats (Fertig

et al.

, 2005).

Summary of Major Threats: In 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified habita t loss and modification (through urbanization, water development, and conversion of wetlands to agriculture), overcollection, competition from exotic weeds, and herbicides as the main current and potential threats to the long term survival of Ute ladies’

- t resses. Since 1992, other threats have been identified including impacts from recreation; mowing for hay production, (mowing, especially in conjunction with winter grazing, can have positive effects on Ute ladies’

- tresses by reducing competing vegetative

c over and protective cover for voles); grazing by cattle or horses; hydrology change (modification of wetland habitats through development, flood control, de

- watering, and other changes to hydrology); herbivory by native wildlife (particularly voles); reduc tion in the number and diversity of insect pollinators; drought; absence or rarity of mycorrhizal symbionts; and conflicting management with other rare species.

F.1.14.

Ursus arctos horribilis GRIZZLY BEAR

Family: Ursidae Threatened: lower 48 States, except wher e listed as an experimental population or delisted

Status Undefined: AK2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 37 Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spco de=A001 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_repor
t.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehen
sive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=102187&paging=home&save=tru

e &startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=102187&offPag
eSelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutt

on&selectedIndexes=102187&selectedIndexes=742339&selectedIndexes=777433&selec

tedIndexes=777441 )

• USEP A, 2010

Description: Grizzly bears reach weights of 400

- 1,500 lb

. The male is on average 1.8 times as heavy as the female, an example of sexual dimorphism. Their coloring ranges widely across geographic areas, from blond to deep brown or black. These differences, once attributed to subspeciation, are now thought to be pr imarily due to the different environments these bears inhabit, particularly with regard to diet and temperature. The grizzly has a large hump over the shoulders which is a muscle mass used to power the forelimbs in digging. The head is large and round with a concave facial profile. In spite of their massive size, these bears can run at speeds of up to 35 mph.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: In North America, present range includes Alaska, northern and western Canada, northern

Continental D ivide in Montana, Cabinet/Yaak mountains in Montana/Idaho, Selkirk Mountains in Idaho/Washington, Northern Cascades in Washington, and Yellowstone area, Wyoming/Montana/Idaho. Some bears in the Cabinet

- Yaak ecosystem of Montana and Idaho and Selkirk ecosys tem of Idaho and Washington mingle in the Purcell Mountains in southern British Columbia, and movement data indicate that the Cabinet

- Yaak and Selkirk populations are connected to a much larger population (several hundred bears) extending north into Britis h Columbia (USFWS

, 1999). However, the listed Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is confined to the U.S. portion of these ecosystems. Common only in Alaska, parts of the Yukon, northern and coastal British Columbia, and portions of the northern Rocky Mounta ins. USFWS has proposed reintroduction in the Bitterroot ecosystem of east

- central Idaho and adjacent Montana. In Europe, apart from northern Europe, distribution has shrunk to a few isolated populations in the Pyrenees, the Apenines, the Alps, the Balkan Peninsula, and the Carpathians (see Hartl and

Hell

, 1994).

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Grizzly bears need a very large home range (50 to 300 square miles for females; 200 to

500 square miles for males), encompassing diverse forests interspersed with mo ist meadows and grasslands in or near mountains. In the spring, bears usually range at lower elevations and go to higher altitudes for winter hibernation. For hibernating, they seek a high, remote mountain slope where deep snow will serve as insulation unt il spring. They are c ommon only where food is2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 38 abundant and concentrated (e.g., salmon runs, caribou calving grounds). They typically dig their own hibernation den, usually on steep northern slope.

Life History: Grizzlies often dig beneath the roots of a l arge tree to create their dens. Except for mating and caring for the young, grizzly bears primarily lead solitary lives, spending most of their time foraging, or looking for food. The grizzly bear will generally enter its den in October or November. Male g rizzly bears usually emerge from the den in March or April, while females emerge in late April and May. When a grizzly comes out of its den, the first food is sometimes carrion from animals that did not survive the winter. A grizzly will usually travel to lower elevations to reach vegetated areas.

Mating season is from June through July. Grizzly bear embryos do not begin to develop until the mother begins her winter hibernation, although mating may have taken place up to 6 months

before. As with other bea rs, if the mother has not accumulated enough fat to sustain her as well as developing cubs, the embryos may not implant (develop). In January, usually 1 to 3 cubs are born. Cubs remain dependent upon their mother’s milk for almost a year, stay with their m other for up to 3 years, and reach breeding maturity at about 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 years. In some cases they may not breed until 8 1/2 years of age. When they do reach breeding age, females usually only breed every 3 years. Grizzlies usually live to 15 to 20 yea rs of age, and a few survive for up to 30

years.

The grizzly is North America’s largest omnivore. About 80 to 90 percent of the grizzly’s food is green vegetation, wild fruits and berries, nuts, and bulbs or roots of certain plants. Grizzlies also

eat a g reat deal of insects, sometimes tearing rotten logs apart and turning over heavy stones in search of the adult insects or their larvae. Most of the meat in the grizzly’s diet comes from animal carcasses, or carrion, of big game animals, although it will so metimes prey on elk or moose calves or smaller mammals. For grizzlies along the west coast of Canada and in Alaska, salmon is an important food source.

Historical Information: Historically they were found throughout western North America, north from north ern Mexico northwestern Africa, all of the Palearctic from western Europe, Near and Middle East through the northern Himalayas to western and northern China and Chukot (Russia) and Hokkaido (Japan) (Wilson and Reeder

, 1993; Pasitschniak

- Arts

, 1993).

In 19 75, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the grizzly bear as a threatened species in the lower 48 states. In Alaska, where there are estimated to be over 30,000 grizzly bears, they are classified as a game animal with regionally established regulation s. The Yellowstone population of grizzly bears was declared recovered and removed from the threatened species list in April of

2007.

Conservation Status: The grizzly bear has disappeared over much of Holarctic range, and continues to decline in the

face o f habitat alienation, alteration, and loss, as well as increased human access to wilderness.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 39 In North America, there are currently about 30,000

- 35,000 grizzly bears in Alaska, 21,660 in Canada, and 800

- 1000 in the lower 48 states. Population estimates for Asian grizzlies are

unavailable.

Summary of Major Threats: There are a number of factors that that have led to the historical decline of the grizzly bear population including habitat loss and fragmentation, and killing by humans. Current primary

threats are habitat alienation, alteration, and loss, increased human access to wilderness and hunting (both legal and illegal). The increase in human

- bear contacts have resulted in the

destruction of bears. Other threats include non

- native species threatening fo od resources in some areas (e.g. white pine blister rust has killed whitebark pines whose seeds serve as food) and displacement of native plants that serve as food for bears and their prey. In addition forestry, mining, recreation, and road building activi ties have a negative effect on habitat (USFWS 1999).



## F.2. NEW YORK, NEW YORK

F.2.1. Acipenser brevirostrum SHORTNOSE STURGEON

Family: Acipenseridae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• NJDEP , 2012 ( http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/sturgeon.pdf )

• NYDEC , 2012 ( http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/26012.html )

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E00B )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm )

• GLEC, 2011

Description: The shortnose sturgeon is a fish that has a short and bluntly rounded snout, wide mouth, barbels, numerous dorsal, lateral and ventral scute s (bony or horny plates), and a heterocercal tail (the upper lobe of the tail fin is larger and contains the upturned end of the spinal column)

. Typically, the body is yellowish brown to nearly black on the head, and whitish to yellowish below

. At

initial maturity the length of this species ranges between 18

- 22 inches fork length (from the snout to the middle of the tail), for both males and females

. Maximum known fork lengths are nearly 49 inches for a female and nearly 39 inches for a male.

Geographic B oundaries and Spatial Distribution: The shortnose sturgeon is found on the Atlantic Coast of North America where its range extends from the Saint John River, New Brunswick, to the St. Johns River, Florida

. The federal recovery plan (NMFS

, 1998a) for the species identifies 19 Distinct Population Segments (DPSs), each associated with a river/estuarine system in which shortnose sturgeons have been captured in the generation time of the species (30 years)

.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 40 Habitat: (no critical habitat)

Rive r mouths, tidal rivers, estuaries, and bays serve as prime habitat for the shortnose sturgeon

. In addition, individuals occasionally enter the open ocean. Shortnose sturgeons generally occupy the main stem of their natal rivers, and migrate between freshwa ter and mesohaline river reaches

. They will move to upper freshwater areas for spawning, but will occupy fresh or saline habitats for feeding and overwintering

.

Life History: The shortnose sturgeon's life history is complex

. Much of its spawning behavior and early life stages are still not fully understood

. The shortnose sturgeon is anadramous, migrating from saltwater to spawn in freshwater

. In the Hudson River, it spawns from April to May

. Unlike most fish species, spawning is not a yearly event for mos t shortnose sturgeon

. Males spawn every other year and females every third year

. Females lay between 40,000

- 200,000 eggs, which hatch in approximately 13 days

. Newly

- hatched fry are poor swimmers and drift with the currents along the bottom

. As they grow a nd mature, the fish move down

- river into more brackish water.

Shortnose sturgeon are long

- lived; the oldest known female reached 67 years of age, and the

oldest known male was 32

. Shortnose sturgeons are bottom/benthic feeders that eat sludge

worms, aquat ic insect larvae, plants, snails and other gastropods, shrimp, and crayfish using their barbels to locate food and their extendable mouths to vacuum it up.

Historical Information: The shortnose sturgeon was first listed on March 11, 1967

. It is currently designated as endangered in its entire range

. The shortnose sturgeon has been federally listed as endangered since the inception of the Endangered Species Act in 1973.

No estimate of the historical population size of shortnose sturgeon is available. While the shortnose sturgeon was rarely the target of a commercial fishery, it often was taken incidentally in the commercial fishery for Atlantic sturgeon. In the 1950s, sturgeon fisheries declined on the

east coast which resulted in a lack of records of short nose sturgeon. This led the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to conclude that the fish had been eliminated from the rivers in its historic range (except the Hudson River) and was in danger of extinction.

Conservation Status:

A combination of factors can b e blamed for declines in shortnose sturgeon populations. During the 1800s and early 1900s, large tidal rivers, such as the Hudson, served as dumping grounds for pollutants that lead to major oxygen depletions and corresponding high fish losses

. At the same time, great demands for sturgeon eggs (caviar) and the fish's smoked flesh resulted in overexploitation of sturgeon stocks.

Summary of Major Threats: Some of the major threats facing the shortnose sturgeon are habitat loss (the construction of dams in pa rticular along the Atlantic seaboard), impingement on cooling water intake screens, dredging (resulting in an increase of suspended sediments and degraded water quality), and accidental capture from commercial fishing (NMFS

, 1998a)

.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 41 Some other threats ar e less known including the effects of introduced species (NMFS 1998a)

. It is anticipated, however, that intentional or accidental introductions and transfers of indigenous

and non

- indigenous sturgeon, e.g., white sturgeon ( A. transmontanus ) or lake sturgeo n ( A. fulvescens ), may threaten wild shortnose sturgeon populations by imposing genetic threats, increasing competition for food or habitat, or spreading diseases

. It is also anticipated that rapid

increases in abundance of other non

- indigenous species (e. g., Asian clams, zebra mussels, blue and flathead catfish) in some rivers will affect sturgeon prey and/or introduce new predators to compete for resources of shortnose sturgeon (NMFS

, 1998a).

Shortnose sturgeons are not the main prey item of any known sp ecies, and lethal parasites are uncommon (NatureServe, accessed April 2008)

. Sturgeon species, in general, do however appear to be susceptible to viruses enzootic to the west coast, and therefore fish introduced species could cause further spread these and other diseases

. One such pathogen of concern is viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS)

. In 2005, a freshwater strain of VHS was discovered in freshwater drum from Lake Ontario, and subsequently it was found in numerous freshwater species throughout much of

th e Great Lakes

. It has also been found in preserved samples from as far back as 2003

. Prior to 2003, the virus, a finfish pathogen, was only known to exist in marine fish off both coasts (USDA

, 2006)

. Genetic studies have determined that the strain in the G reat Lakes is most closely related to the North Atlantic strain (Gagné et al.

, 2007)

. Ballast water is a p ossible vector.

High nitrogen and phosphorus loadings, or nutrient pollution, resulting in eutrophication and oxygen depletion is stressful to aquati c life and to sturgeon as well (Jenkins et al.

, 1993; Campbell and Goodman 2004; Flournoy et al.

, 1992). The toxicity data available evaluating the sensitivity of shortnose sturgeon, and sturgeon species in general, is extremely limited with regard to petr oleum hydrocarbons, and non

- existent for other hydrocarbons, including animal

fat

- based hydrocarbons (grease). Several characteristics of shortnose sturgeon (i.e., long lifespan, extended residence in estuarine habitats, benthic predator) predispose the sp ecies to long

- term and repeated exposure to environmental contamination from oil and oil

- related derivatives (PAHs)

. There is also some evidence indicates that shortnose sturgeon is as sensitive to metals as rainbow trout, a sensitive salmonid fish species . In general, the relative rank sensitivity among fishes to heavy metals tends to be similar across the metals. Therefore, shortnose sturgeon may be presumed to be relatively sensitive to other heavy metals.

Because viability of sturgeon populations is a ffected greatly by variability in juvenile recruitment and survival (Anders et al.

, 2002; Gross et al.

, 2002; Secor et al.

, 2002), and because young

- of

the

- year shortnose sturgeon move downstream after hatching, but remain in fresh water for approximately a year (Kynard

, 1997), any threats to the species from degraded water quality or other factors (habitat loss, decrease in dietary food items, impingement on water intakes, competition from invasive species, among others) are presumed to be more important t o shortnose sturgeon in the freshwater environment.

F.2.2. Amaranthus pumilus SEABEACH AMARANTH

Family: Amaranthaceae2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 42 Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2MZ )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/Nature Serve?searchName=Amaranthus+pu

milus )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/961112b.pdf )

Description: Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant found on the dunes of Atlantic Ocean b eaches

. The stems are fleshy and pink

- red or reddish, with small rounded leaves that are 0.5

- 1 inch in diameter

. The leaves, with indented veins, are clustered toward the tip of the stem and have a small notch at the rounded tip

. Flowers and fruits are rel atively inconspicuous, borne in clusters along the stems

.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The species is currently found in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. More specifically it is ex tant from vicinity of Cape Hatteras, NC, to vicinity of Cape Romain, SC, and at scattered sites on Long Island, NY, and in coastal Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey. Its actual occupied area, even historically, is quite small, because it occurs only in a narrow band of suitable habitat.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Seabeach amaranth occurs on barrier island beaches, where its primary habitat consists of overwash flats at accreting ends of islands and lower foredunes and upper strands of non

- er oding

beaches

. It occasionally establishes small temporary populations in other habitats, including

sound

- side beaches, blowouts in foredunes, and sand and shell material placed as beach replenishment or dredge spoil

. Seabeach amaranth appears to be intole rant of competition and

does not occur on well

- vegetated sites

. The species appears to need extensive areas of barrier island beaches and inlets, functioning in a relatively natural and dynamic manner

. These

characteristics allow it to move around in the l andscape as a fugitive species, occupying suitable

habitat as it becomes available.

Life History: Germination takes place over a relatively long period of time, generally beginning in April and continuing at least through July. Upon germinating, this plan t initially forms a small unbranched sprig but soon begins to branch profusely into a clump, often reaching a foot in diameter and consisting of 5 to 20 branches. Occasionally a clump may get as large as a yard or more across,

with a hundred or more branch es.

Flowering begins as soon as plants have reached sufficient size, sometimes as early as June, but more typically commencing in July and continuing until the death of the plant in late fall

. Seed production begins in July or August and peaks in Septembe r during most years, but continues until the death of the plant

. Weather events, including rainfall, hurricanes, and temperature extremes, and predation by webworms have strong effects on the length of seabeach amaranth's2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 43 reproductive season

. As a result o f one or more of these influences, the flowering and fruiting period can be terminated as early as June or July

. Under favorable circumstances, however, the reproductive season may extend until January or sometimes later

. The species is an effective

sand b inder, building dunes where it grows.

Seeds are regularly produced by nearly all adult plants and fertility is assumed to be high (Baskin

and Baskin

, 1994). For an annual species such as seabeach amaranth, the presence of plants in any given year is evidence of reproduction in the former year or of reproduction in earlier years

and seed

- banking. The relative roles of the fresh seed crop and banked seed s are unknown in seabeach amaranth. It is known, however, that century

- old seeds of some species of amaranth are capable of successful germination and growth (David Brenner, University of Iowa, personal communication, 1990). Such controlled experiments, of course, have limited applicability to seed viability in the coastal environment, where salt, abrasion, temperature changes, and moisture changes are all factors likely to limit seed longevity.

Historical Information: Historically, seabeach amaranth occurred in 31 counties in nine States from Massachusetts to South Carolina. The species has now been completely eliminated from two

- thirds of its historic range (six of the States in its original range). Seabeach amaranth was listed as Threatened on April 7, 1993. Before its listing, seabeach amaranth had undergone a reduction in range, population sizes and populations

. At the time of listing, only 55 populations were known.

Conservation Status: Approximately 50 populations are estimated to remain, all in a narrow band of suitable habitat. As of 1990 (the last year a complete rangewide census was done), there were 55 remaining populations. Of these, 34 were in North Carolina, 8 were in South Carolina, and 13 were in New

York.

Summary of Major Threats:

The most serious threats to the continued existence of seabeach amaranth include the construction of beach stabilization structures (sea walls and dune fencing), beach erosion and tidal inundation, beach grooming, herbivory by insects and feral animals, devel opment, and, in certain circumstances, by off

- road vehicles.

F.2.3. Balaenoptera physalus FINBACK WHALE

Family: Balaenopteridae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A02O )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/finwhale. htm )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 44 • NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Balaenoptera+ph
ysalus )

Description:

Fin whales are th e second

- largest species of whale, with a maximum length of about 75 feet in the Northern Hemisphere and 85 feet in the Southern Hemisphere. Fin whales show mild sexual "dimorphism", with females measuring longer than males by 5

- 10%. Adults can weigh betwe en 80,000

- 160,000 lbs. (40

- 80 tons). Fin whales have a sleek, streamlined body with a V

- shaped head. They have a tall, "falcate" dorsal fin, located about two

- thirds of the way back on the body, that rises at a shallow angle from the animal's back. The spe cies has a distinctive coloration pattern: the back and sides of the body are black or dark brownish

- gray, and the ventral surface is white. The unique, asymmetrical head color is dark on the left side of the lower jaw, and white on the right side. Many in dividuals have several light

- gray, V

- shaped "chevrons" behind their head, and the underside of the tail flukes is white with a gray border. Fin whales can live 80

- 90

years.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: There are two named subspecies of fin whale, B. physalus physalus in the North Atlantic and B. physalus quoyi in the Southern Ocean. There is also a population of fin whales in the North Pacific, which most experts consider a separate, unnamed subspecies. These populations rarely mix, if at all, and there are geographical stocks within these ocean basins. Fin whales are migratory, moving seasonally into and out of high

- latitude feeding areas, but the overall migration pattern is complex, and specific routes have not been documented. Howeve r, acoustic recordings from passive

- listening hydrophone arrays indicate that a southward "flow pattern"

occurs in the fall from the Labrador

- Newfoundland region, past Bermuda, and into the West Indies (Clark

, 1995). There may be resident groups of fin wha les in some areas, such as the Gulf of California, the East China Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Fin whales are found in deep, offshore waters of all major oceans, primarily in temperate to polar latitudes, and less commonly in the tropics. They occur year

- round in a wide range of latitudes and longitudes, but the density of individuals in any one are a changes seasonally. Finback whales are migratory, moving seasonally into and out of high

- latitude feeding areas.

Life History: Fin whales can be found in social groups of 2

- 7 whales and in the North Atlantic are often seen feeding in large groups that include humpback whales, minke whales, and Atlantic white

- sided dolphins (Jefferson et al.

, 2008). Fin whales are large, fast swimmers, and the killer whale ( Orcinus orca ) is their only non

- human predator.

During the summer, fin whales feed on krill, smal l schooling fish (e.g., herring, capelin, and sand lance), and squid by lunging into schools of prey with their mouth open, using their 50

- 100

accordion

- like throat pleats to gulp large amounts of food and water. They then filter the food particles from th e water using the 260

- 480 baleen plates on each side of the mouth. Fin whales fast in the winter while they migrate to warmer waters.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 45 Little is known about the social and mating systems of fin whales. Similar to other baleen whales, long

- term bonds betwee n individuals are rare. Males become sexually mature at 6

- 10 years of age; females at 7

- 12 years of age. Physical maturity is attained at approximately 25 years for both sexes. After 11

- 12 months of gestation, females give birth to a single calf in tropica l and subtropical areas during midwinter. Newborn calves are approximately 18 feet long, and weigh 4,000

- 6,000 lb. (2 tons).

Historical Information: Finback whales were once widespread in Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Southern oceans; however their popul ations were greatly reduced by commercial whaling

. Approximately 102,000

- 122,000 remain from pre

- exploitation levels of over 450,000; threatened by general deterioration of the marine ecosystem.

Conservation Status: Most populations apparently have increa sed little if at all since commercial harvest was ended in the 1970s. Population off coast of eastern U.S. may be increasing (Ratnaswamy and Winn

, 1993). Ten

- year survey (published in 1989) of prime Antarctic waters yielded far fewer numbers than expected, raising concern (Matthews and Moseley

, 1990).

Although reliable and recent estimates of fin whale abundance are available for large portions of the North Atlantic Ocean, this is not the case for most of the North Pacific Ocean nor for the

Southern Oceans . The present status of populations in these ocean basins relative to their pre

whaling population size is uncertain.

For management purposes, fin whales in U.S. waters have been divided into four stocks:

• Hawaii

• California/Oregon/Washington

• Alaska (Nort heast Pacific)

• Western North Atlantic

Reliable estimates of current and historical abundance of fin whales in the entire northeast Pacific are currently not available. While reliable estimates of the minimum population size and population trends are available for a portion of this area, much of the North Pacific range has not been surveyed.

A 2002 shipboard line

- transect survey of the entire Hawaiian Islands EEZ resulted in an abundance estimate of 174 fin whales (Barlow 2003). As of the 2004 Hawaii stock assessment report, this was the best available abundance estimate for this stock.

The California/Oregon/Washington stock was estimated at 3,279 fin whales based on ship surveys in summer/autumn of 1996 (Barlow and Taylor

, 2001) and 2001 (Barlow

, 200 3). The 2003 stock assessment report lists the minimum population of this stock at approximately 2,541

animals.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 46 Although the full range of the Alaska (Northeast Pacific) stock of fin whales has not been surveyed, a rough estimate of the size of the popul ation west of the Kenai Peninsula is 5,700 (as of the 2007 stock assessment report). This is a minimum estimate for the entire Alaska stock because it was estimated from surveys which covered only a small portion of the range of this

stock.

The minimum po pulation estimate for the Western North Atlantic fin whale stock is 1,678. There are insufficient data to determine trends for this population.

Summary of Major Threats: Commercial whaling for this species ended in the North Pacific Ocean in 1976, in the Southern

Ocean in 1976

- 77, and in the North Atlantic Ocean in 1987. Fin whales are still hunted in Greenland and subject to catch limits under the International Whaling Commission’s “aboriginal subsistence whaling" scheme.

Other current threats are collis ions with vessels, entanglement in fishing gear, reduced prey abundance due to overfishing, habitat degradation, disturbance from low

- frequency noise and the possibility that illegal whaling or resumed legal whaling will cause removals at biologically

unsu stainable rates. Of all species of large whales, fin whales are most often reported as hit by vessels (Jensen and Silber 2004). Schooling fish constitute a large proportion of the fin whale's diet in many areas of the North Atlantic, so trends in fish popu lations, whether driven by fishery operations, human

- caused environmental deterioration, or natural processes, may strongly affect the size and distribution of fin whale populations.

F.2.4.

Caretta caretta LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE

Family: Cheloniidae

Threatened: wherever found Under Review: North Pacific population segment

Sources:

• NJDEP, 2012 ( http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/marinetrtls.pdf )

• USFWS, 2012 c ( http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/loggerhead

- sea

turtle.htm )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012 ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm )

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.a ction?spcode=C00U )

• GLEC, 2011

Description: Loggerheads were named for their relatively large heads, which support powerful blunt jaws and

enable them to feed on hard

- shelled prey, such as whelks and conch. The top shell (carapace) is slightly heart

- shaped and reddish

- brown in adults and sub

- adults, while the bottom shell2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 47 (plastron) is generally a pale yellowish color. The carapace has five pairs of costal scutes, with the first touching the nuchal scute

. There are three large inframarginal scutes on each of the bridges between the plastron and carapace

. The neck and flippers are usually dull brown to reddish brown on top and medium to pale yellow on the sides and bottom. Adults grow to an average weight of about 200 pounds.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The loggerhead sea turtle has been observed throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans

. However, the majority of loggerhead nesting is at the

western rims of the Atlantic and Indian oceans. In t he Atlantic, the loggerhead turtle's range extends from Newfoundland to as far south as Argentina. During the summer, nesting occurs primarily in the subtropics. Although the major nesting concentrations in the U.S. are found in South Florida, loggerheads nest from Texas to Virginia. The loggerhead nesting aggregations in Oman, the U.S., and Australia account for about 88% of nesting worldwide. Loggerheads are the most abundant species of sea turtle found in U.S. coastal waters.

In the eastern Pacific, lo ggerheads have been reported as far north as Alaska, and as far south as Chile. In the U.S., occasional sightings are reported from the coasts of Washington and Oregon, but most records are of juveniles off the coast of California. The west coast of Mexico , including the Baja Peninsula, provides critically important developmental habitats for juvenile loggerheads. The only known nesting areas for loggerheads in the North Pacific are found in southern Japan.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) The loggerhead is widely distributed within its range

. It may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers

. Coral reefs, rocky places, and ship wrecks are often used as feeding areas

. Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand

. Nests are typically made between the high tide line and the dune front.

In October 1978, critical habitat was proposed in the FEDERAL R EGISTER for the loggerhead sea turtle in the area of Port Canaveral navigation channel, Cape Canaveral, Florida

. This area was found to be a major hibernating and nesting area for the species.

Life History: Loggerheads occupy three different ecosystems d uring their lives:

• beaches (terrestrial zone)

• water (oceanic zone)

• nearshore coastal areas ("neritic" zone)

Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches, generally preferring high energy, relatively narrow, steeply sloped, coarse

- grained beaches. The United States nesting season extends from about May through August, primarily nesting at night

. Loggerheads are known to nest from one to seven times within a nesting season (mean is about 4.1 nests per season) at intervals of approximately 14 days

. Mean clutch size va ries from about 100 to 126 along the southeastern United States

coast

. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 95 days, depending on incubation temperatures, but2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 48 averages 55 to 60 days for most clutches in Florida

. Hatchlings generally emerge at night

. Remigrat ion intervals of 2 to 3 years are most common in nesting loggerheads, but remigration can vary from 1 to 7 years

. Age at sexual maturity is believed to be about 20 to 30 years.

Immediately after hatchlings emerge from the nest, they begin a period of fren zied activity. During this active period, hatchlings move from their nest to the surf, swim, are swept through the surf zone, and continue swimming away from land for up to several days.

After this swim frenzy period, post

- hatchling loggerheads take up re sidence in areas where surface waters converge to form local downwellings. These areas are often characterized by accumulations of floating material, such as seaweed (for example, Sargassum), and, in the southeast U.S., are common between the Gulf Stream a nd the southeast U.S. coast, and between the Loop Current and the Gulf Coast of Florida. Post

- hatchlings within this habitat are observed

to be low

- energy float

- and

- wait foragers that feed on a wide variety of floating items (Witherington

, 2002). As post

- h atchlings, loggerheads may linger for months in waters just off the nesting beach or become transported by ocean currents within the Gulf of Mexico and North

Atlantic.

Once individuals get transported by ocean currents farther offshore, they've entered t he oceanic zone. Within the North Atlantic, juvenile loggerheads have been primarily studied in the waters around the Azores and Madeira (Bolten

, 2003). Other populations exist (for example, in the region of the Grand Banks off Newfoundland), but data on t hese populations are limited. The juvenile turtles around the Azores and Madeira spend the majority of their time in the top 15 feet

of the water column.

Somewhere between 7

- 12 years old, oceanic juveniles migrate to nearshore coastal areas (neritic zone) and continue maturing until adulthood. In addition to providing critically important habitat for juveniles, the neritic zone also provides crucial foraging habitat, inter

- nesting habitat, and migratory habitat for adult loggerheads in the western North At lantic. To a large extent, these habitats overlap with the juvenile stage, the exception being most of the bays, sounds, and estuaries along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the U.S. from Massachusetts to Texas, which are infrequently used by adults. Howeve r, adult loggerheads are present year

- round in Florida Bay, an important feeding area, probably because of relatively easy access to open ocean and migratory routes. The predominate foraging areas for western North Atlantic adult loggerheads

are found thro ughout the relatively shallow continental shelf waters of the U.S., Bahamas, Cuba, and the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico. Migration routes from foraging habitats to nesting beaches (and vice versa) for a portion of the population are restricted to the continen tal shelf, while other routes involve crossing oceanic waters to and from the Bahamas, Cuba, and the Yucatán Peninsula. Seasonal migrations of adult loggerheads along the mid

- and southeast U.S. coasts

have also been documented.

The species feeds on mollu sks, crustaceans, fish, and other marine animals. The turtles are exposed to cyanide dissolved in seawater and through contaminated items in their diet.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 49 Historical Information: The loggerhead turtle was first listed as threatened throughout its range on J uly 28, 1978. In September 2011, NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed 9 Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) of loggerhead sea turtles under the ESA. NMFS and USFWS had proposed to list 9 DPSs of loggerhead sea turtles under the ESA in 2010.

Cons ervation Status: The most recent reviews show that only two loggerhead nesting beaches have greater than 10,000 females nesting per year: South Florida (U.S.) and Masirah Island (Oman). The status of the Oman nesting colony has not been evaluated recently. Total estimated nesting in the U.S. is approximately 68,000 to 90,000 nests per year. Recent analyses of nesting data from the Index Nesting Beach Survey program in southeast Florida show the population is declining. Similarly, long

- term nesting data show loggerhead nesting declines in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. In the Eastern Atlantic, the Cape Verde Islands support an intermediately

- sized loggerhead nesting assemblage. In 2000, researchers tagged over 1,000 nesting females on just 5 km (3.1 mi) of beach on Boavista Island (Ehrhart et al.

, 2003). In the Western Atlantic (excluding the U.S.), Brazil supports an intermediately

- sized loggerhead nesting assemblage. Published and unpublished reports provide an estimate of about 4,000 nests per year in Brazil (Ehrhart et al.

, 2003). Loggerhead nesting throughout the Caribbean is sparse.

In the Mediterranean, loggerhead nesting is confined almost exclusively to the eastern portion of the Mediterranean Sea. The main nesting assemblages occur in C yprus, Greece, and Turkey. However, small numbers of loggerhead nests have been recorded in Egypt, Israel, Italy, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia. Based on the recorded number of nests per year in Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Tunisia, and Turkey, loggerhead nesting i n the Mediterranean ranges from about 3,300 to 7,000 nests per season (Margaritoulis et al.

, 2003).

Loggerheads nest throughout the Indian Ocean and, with the exception of Oman, the number of nesting females is small. Most trends in loggerhead nesting pop ulations in the Indian Ocean are

unknown.

Loggerhead populations in Honduras, Mexico, Colombia, Israel, Turkey, Bahamas, Cuba, Greece, Japan, and Panama have been declining. This decline continues and is primarily attributed to incidental capture in fishi ng gear, directed harvest, coastal development, increased human use of nesting beaches, and pollution.

Summary of Major Threats: Loggerheads face threats on both nesting beaches and in the marine environment. The greatest

cause of decline and the continui ng primary threat to loggerhead turtle populations worldwide is incidental capture in fishing gear, primarily in longlines and gillnets, but also in trawls, traps and pots, and dredges

. There is a particular concern about the extensive incidental take of j uvenile loggerheads in the eastern Atlantic by longline fishing vessels from several countries. Directed harvest for loggerheads still occurs in many places (for example, the Bahamas, Cuba, and Mexico) and is a serious and continuing threat to loggerhead r ecovery. Other threats include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring, disorientation of2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 50 hatchlings by beachfront lighting, excessive nest predation by native and non

- native predators, degradation of foraging hab itat, marine pollution and debris accumulation, watercraft strikes, and

disease

F.2.5.

Charadrius melodus PIPING PLOVER

Family: Charadriidae Endangered: Great Lakes watershed Threatened: everywhere else

Sources:

• NJDEP, 2012 ( http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/plover.pdf )

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfil
e?spcode=B079 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012 ( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm )

• USFWS, 2012 c ( http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/pipingplover/pipingpl.html )

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B079 )

• GLEC, 2011

Description: The piping plover is a small shorebird with a black neck band and a black bar across the forehead. The upperparts are light sandy

- brown and the under par ts are white, providing the plover with camouflage against sandy beach backgrounds. The legs are bright orange and, in breeding plumage, the bill is also orange with a black tip. Although males and females are similar in appearance, males typically have da rker, more extensive neck bands. Juvenile and

winter

- plumage adults are similar in appearance. Both lack the black neck and forehead bands characteristic of breeding adults. Rather, there is a pale band around the neck. The bill is solid black and the legs are pale yellow.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Piping plovers are migratory birds. In the spring and summer they breed in northern U.S. and Canada. There are three locations where piping plovers nest in North America: the shorelines of the Great Lakes, the shores of rivers and lakes in the Northern Great Plains, and along the Atlantic Coast. Their nesting range has become smaller over the years, especially in the Great

Lakes area.

The Atlantic Coast Population of piping plovers nest alo ng beaches in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, southern Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Piping plovers migrate through the Great Lakes along t he river systems through the Bahamas and West Indies. They are currently found along the Atlantic Coast from Canada to North Carolina and along the shorelines of Lakes Michigan and Superior. Gulf Coast beaches from Florida to2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 51 Mexico, and Atlantic coast bea ches from Florida to North Carolina provide winter homes for plovers.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Piping plovers inhabit oceanfront beaches and barrier islands, typically nesting on the stretch of beach between the dunes and the high

- tide line. Nests are often located in flat areas with shell fragments and sparse vegetation. The coloration of piping plovers and their eggs blend in remarkably with sand and broken pieces of shell. Sparse vegetation, such as American beach grass ( Ammophila breviligulata ) or sea rocket ( Cakile endentula ), is favored, as it provides cover against predators and the elements. However, areas with dense vegetation, such as dunes, are avoided by nesting plovers, since these sites provide cover for predators. During the non

breedi ng season, piping plovers inhabit coastal beaches, barrier islands, inlets, sandflats, mudflats, and dredged material islands.

Critical habitat was designated for wintering piping plovers in July of 2001. This designation

identifies areas that are important to the plovers on their wintering grounds, and provides the public and resource agencies with information that can be used to minimize impacts to these areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service designated 137 areas along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas as critical habitat for the wintering Atlantic Coast population of the piping plover

. This includes approximately 2,891.7 kilometers of mapped shoreline and approximately 66,881 h ectares of mapped area along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and along margins of interior bays, inlets, and lagoons.

As of September 2001, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the northern great plains breeding population of th e piping plover

. This includes habitat in Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota totaling approximately 183,422 acres (ac) (74,228.4 hectares (ha)) and portions of 4 rivers totaling approximately 1,207.5 river miles (rm) (1,943.3 kilo meters (km))

. Critical habitat includes prairie alkali wetlands and surrounding shoreline, including 200 feet (ft) (61 meters (m)) of uplands above the high water mark; river channels and associated sandbars, and islands; reservoirs and their sparsely vege tated shorelines, peninsulas, and islands; and inland lakes and their sparsely vegetated shorelines and peninsulas.

Life History: Piping plovers begin returning to their Atlantic Coast nesting beaches in mid

- March

. Males

establish and defend territories a nd court females

. Eggs may be present on the beach from mid

April through late July

. Clutch size is generally four eggs, and the incubation period usually lasts

for 27

- 28 days

. Piping plovers fledge only a single brood per season, but may re

- nest several times if previous nests are lost

. Chicks develop fast

. They may move hundreds of yards from the nest site during their first week of life

. Chicks remain together with one or both parents until they fledge (able to fly) at 25 to 35 days of age

. Depending on date of hatching, flightless chicks may be present from mid

- May until late August, although most fledge by the end of July. Piping plovers forage on intertidal beaches, washover areas, exposed mudflats and sandflats, wracklines, and shorelines

. Food consi sts of worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates (Bent 1928)

. In New Jersey, intertidal polychaetes are the main prey of2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 52 plovers foraging at night (Staine and Burger 1994)

. The primary route of exposure to nickel is through contaminated prey items in the diet.

Historical Information: On December 11, 1985, the piping plover was listed Threatened (50 FR 50726

- 50734, 1985, December 11) in its entire range except in the Great Lakes watershed where it was listed endangered

. The Revised Recovery Plan for the Atlantic Coast Population was completed on May 2, 1996

.

Although common during the 1800s, the piping plover was on the verge of extirpation by the 1890s and early 1900s due to market hunting and egg collecting

. Protection af forded by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and changing fashion trends allowed plover populations to gradually recover during the 1920s and 1930s

. However, since the late 1940s, coastal development and the elevated recreational use of beaches have cau sed plover population

declines

. Human habitation along the shore has also resulted in elevated populations of many mammalian and avian predators.

Conservation Status: Atlantic coast populations experienced a 50 to 80 percent decline over the past 50 years . The Long Island and New York population declined from over 500 pairs (Wilcox

, 1939) to about

100 pairs in 1988 (Cairns and McLaren

, 1980, USFWS

, 1988). In 1980 the size of Atlantic coast populations was estimated at 910 pairs (Cairns and McLaren 1980); t his estimate declined to

790 pairs in 1986 (550 pairs in the U.S. and 240 pairs in Canada) (USFWS

, 1988). However, many populations have increased with management attention since the mid

- 1980s. Most of the increase since 1989 has been in New England; the M id

- Atlantic and Canadian Atlantic populations have declined somewhat since 1989 (USFWS

, 1996). The 1991

- 1996 international census data indicate an overall increase of 30.4 per cent, from about 1979 individuals to 2,581 (Plissner and Haig

, 2000)

. The Canadi an Atlantic populations declined 16.6 per cent over the same period, from about 513 individuals to 428 (Plissner and Haig

, 2000). Subsequently, these numbers began to increase again, reaching 475 in 1999 (USFWS

, 2002a).

The Great Lakes population of the p iping plover was at a perilously low level. But intensive

conservation efforts have seen the number of breeding pairs steadily climb from a low of 12 in

1983 . Also, the breed ing range has expanded from Michigan into Wisconsin and Canada.

Summary of Major Threats: Habitat alteration and destruction are the primary causes for the decline of the piping plover. Loss of sandy beaches and lakeshores due to recreational, residential , and commercial development has reduced available habitat on the Great Lakes, Atlantic Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico. Reservoir construction, channel excavation, and modification of river flows have eliminated sandbar nesting habitat along hundreds of mil es of the Missouri and Platte Rivers. Winter habitats along the Gulf coast are threatened by industrial and urban expansion and maintenance activities for commercial waterways. There are limited reports of oil pollution from

commercial or recreational wate rcraft affecting plover populations (Amirault

- Langlais et al.

, 2006).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 53 Predators remain one of the most burdensome threats to the piping plover, and developments near beaches provide food that attracts increased numbers of predators such as raccoons, skunk s, and foxes. Domestic and feral cats are also very efficient predators of plover eggs and chicks (U.S. FWS

, 2002b). On the breeding grounds, reproductive success can be curtailed by human disturbance. Vehicular and foot traffic also destroys eggs and chic ks. The presence of people on beaches and sandbar islands inhibits incubation and other breeding behavior.

F.2.6. Chelonia mydas GREEN SEA TURTLE

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

F.2.7. Clemmys ( Glyptemys ) muhlenbergii BOG TURTLE

Family: Emydidae Threatened: wherever found (except where Threatened) Similarity of Appearance (Threatened): GA, NC, SC, TN, and VA

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.g ov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C048 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_repor
t.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehen
sive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=101495&paging=home&save=tru

e&startIndex=1&nex tStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=101495&offPag
eSelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutt

on&selectedIndexes=101495 )

Description: This is the smallest emydid turtle, and one of the smallest turtles in the wo rld. Adult carapace length is 3.1 to 4.5 inches. The dark brown or black carapace may be marked with radiating light lines or a light blotch on the vertebral and pleural scutes. Scute annuli are usually prominent in juvenile and young adult specimens, but the carapace may be nearly smooth in old adults. The head, neck, and limbs are typically dark brown with variable reddish to yellow spots and streaks. A large reddish

- orange to yellow blotch is visible behind and above each tympanum, sometimes merging into a continuous band on the neck. The upper jaw is weakly notched. (Ernst, Lovich, and Barbour, 1994; Harding, 1997) The plastron is also brown or black, but often with lighter yellow blotches towards the medial and anterior scute edges. A mature male bog tu rtle has a concave plastron and a long, thick tail, with the vent posterior to the rear edge of the carapace with tail extended. The female has a flat plastron and a thinner, smaller tail, with the vent at or beneath the rear carapace edge. (Ernst, Lovich, and Barbour, 1994; Harding, 1997)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 54 Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The bog turtle has a discontinuous, spotty distribution

. The species is known to occur in New York (including remnant population at two sites in the Finger Lakes region), western Massachusetts, and western Connecticut southward to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and northern Delaware; southeastern Virginia through western and central North Carolina and extreme eastern Tennessee to western South Carolina and Georgia (Her petol. Rev. 14:55). There is a large hiatus of about 250 miles between the northern populations and the southern populations. In the north, Maryland has the largest number of occurrences and turtles; only about 20 populations thought to be viable exist out side Maryland and New Jersey. In the south, most occurrences and turtles are in North Carolina and Virginia (only a few viable populations elsewhere). Most populations occur on private property. The species is extirpated in western Pennsylvania and in the Lake George region of New York.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Bog turtles inhabit slow, shallow, muck

- bottomed rivulets of sphagnum bogs, calcareous fens, marshy/sedge

- tussock meadows, spring seeps, wet cow pastures, and shrub swamps. The habitat usually contains an abundance of sedges or mossy cover. The turtles depend on a mosaic of microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, and shelter (USFWS

, 2000). Bog turtles commonly bask on tussocks in the morning in spring and early summer. They b urrow into soft substrate of waterways, crawls under sedge tussocks, or enter muskrat burrows during periods of inactivity in summer (see Bury

, 1979). In Pennsylvania, bog turtles hibernated mainly in water and mud in muskrat burrows, and in mud

bottom of marsh rivulets under 5

- 15 cm of water. In New Jersey, hibernacula were in subterranean rivulets or seepage areas where water flowed continuously from underground springs; turtles were under 5

- 55 cm of water and mud (Ernst et al.

, 1989). In Maryland, large r population sizes were associated with sites with the following characteristics: circular basin with spring

- fed pockets of shallow water, bottom substrate of soft mud and rock, dominant vegetation of low grasses and sedges, and interspersed wet and dry po ckets; winter retreats were shallow, just below upper surface of frozen mud and/or ice (Chase et al.

, 1989). Studies in Maryland and Pennsylvania noted use of the lower portion of wetlands for overwintering. In Virginia, selected

habitats included wet mead ow, smooth alder edge, and bulrush; dry meadow and streams were avoided (Carter et al.

, 1999).

Life History: Bog turtles emerge from their muddy hibernation in early to mid

- April and by early May are actively seeking a mate. Adults are sexually mature at five to eight years of age. In June or July, the female lays a clutch of one to six small white elliptical eggs in a shallow “nest” she digs in a clump of sphagnum moss or tuft of grass above the water line. After seven or eight weeks of being incubated b y the sun, the inch

- long hatchlings emerge. Because they are born so late in the year, the hatchlings often spend their first winter near the nest.

They feed opportunistically on insects, worms, slugs, crayfish, snails, and other small invertebrates; also amphibian larvae and fruits. Diet generally is dominated by insects. Apparently forages on land and in water (Bury

, 1979).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 55 Historical Information: The northern population was listed as threatened and the southern population was listed as

“Threatened due to similarity of appearance” on November 4, 1997 (62 FR 59605), though the southern population had not experienced the extent of habitat loss that the northern population had. Because individuals from the northern and southern populations are almost identi cal, a poacher could claim that a turtle he collected from the threatened northern populations was taken from the south. In order to eliminate such confusion for law enforcement personnel, the southern populations was designated as “threatened due to simil arity of appearance,” which makes the poaching of bog turtles a federal offense anywhere within the species’ range. The southern population of the species is not subject to section seven consultations requirements under the Endangered Species Act.

Conserv ation Status: The northern population has declined by at least 50% over the past 20 years (USFWS 1997, 2000). The species is apparently extirpated in the majority of historical sites in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and nearly half of the historic occurrences in Maryland have been extirpated; most losses have occurred since the 1970s. Trend in abundance is unknown in most areas due to inadequate demographic information. Rangewide, it seems likely that there has been at least a 30% reduction in popu lation size over the past three generations.

Summary of Major Threats: The greatest threats to the bog turtle are the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of its habitat from wetland alteration (i.e. development, draining, dredging, water impoundment, wat er diversion, and other hydrological alterations). Other threats include pollution, invasive species, and natural vegetational succession. In some areas, successional changes (e.g., reforestation) and exotic plant species have reduced habitat quality (Morr ow et al.

, 2001). Heavy grazing is detrimental, especially when nesting females are disturbed or eggs are trampled (light grazing may be beneficial in some cases if it maintains an open canopy and avoid the problems just mentioned) (Morrow et al.

, 2001). H abitat fragmentation has made it difficult for turtles to cope with successional changes and ecosystem changes caused by humans or beavers (simply moving to another area is now often not an option).

The species is also threatened by collection for illegal wildlife trade. Laws against collecting have been largely ineffective in reducing that threat. In addition, mosquito control via pesticide application is a potential threat is some areas (impact turtles directly or affects food supply). Also abnormally hi gh raccoon populations, associated with human impacts, may result in excessive predation on turtles and eggs. Eggs are susceptible to trampling by humans walking through the habitat. Frequent human visits to single sites conceivably could interfere with th e turtles' basking behavior and may disturb females attempting to nest. Spotty distribution and specialized habitat requirements make this species vulnerable to local extirpation.

F.2.8. Dermochelys coriacea LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 56 F.2.9. Eretmochelys imbricata HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE

Family: Cheloniidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• UMMZ, 2012
( http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Eretmochelys_imbrica

ta.html )

• USFWS, 2012 c ( http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/hawksbill

- sea

turtle.htm )

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.acti on?spcode=C00E )

• GLEC, 2011

Description:

The hawksbill is a small

- to

- medium

- sized marine turtle with an elongated oval shell with overlapping scutes on the carapace, a relatively small head with a distinctive hawk

- like beak, and flippers with two claws

. Gen eral coloration is brown with numerous splashes of yellow, orange,

or reddish

- brown on the carapace

. The plastron is yellowish with black spots on the intergular and postanal scutes

. Juveniles are black or very dark brown with light brown or yellow

colorat ion on the edge of the shell, limbs, and raised ridges of the carapace

. As an adult, the hawksbill may reach up to 3 feet in length and weigh up to 300 lbs., although adults more commonly average about 2.5 feet in length and weigh between 95 to 165 lbs. It is the only sea turtle with a combination of two pairs of prefrontal scales on the head and four pairs of costal scutes on the carapace.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The hawksbill is found in tropical and subtropical regions of the Atl antic, Pacific, and Indian

Oceans

. The species is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean

. In contrast to all other sea turtle species, hawksbills nest in low densities on scattered small

beaches

. The Gulf and Caribbean coasts of the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico, where hawksbills nest on long expanses of beach in densities of 20 to 30 nests/km, are exceptions

.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Hawksbills frequent rocky areas, coral reefs, shallow coastal areas, lagoons or oceanic isl ands, and narrow creeks and passes

. They are seldom seen in water deeper than 65 feet

. Hatchlings are often found floating in masses of sea plants, and the females may nest on almost any undisturbed deep

- sand beach in the tropics

. Adult females are able to climb over reefs and rocks to nest in beach vegetation.

Designation of critical habitat for the hawksbill sea turtle was established September 1998 by NMFS, and includes coastal water surrounding Mona and Monita Islands, Puerto Rico

. These2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 57 waters contain diverse and pristine coral reefs, which are directly related to the species’ highly specific diet of sponges

. Additionally, the ledges and caves of reefs provide shelter for resting and refuge from predators

. Hawksbills also utilize both low

- and high

- ene rgy nesting beaches. Both insular and mainland nesting sites are known

. Hawksbills will nest on small pocket beaches and, because of their small body size and great agility, can traverse fringing reefs that limit access to other species. Nesting within the southeastern United States occurs principally in Puerto Rico and in the U.S. Virgin Islands

.

Life History: The hawksbill feeds primarily on sponges and is most often associated with the coral reef community

. Hawksbill turtles are exposed to cyanide disso lved in the water and through

contaminated items in their diet.

The nesting season varies with locality, but in most locations these turtles nest between April and

November

. Hawksbills nest at night and, on average, about 4.5 times per season at intervals of approximately 14 days

. In Florida and the U.S. Caribbean, clutch size is approximately 140 eggs, although several records exist of over 200 eggs per nest

. The incubation period averages 60 days

. Hawksbills are recruited into the reef environment at about 14 inches in length and are believed to begin breeding about 30 years later

. However, the time required to reach 14 inches in length is unknown, and growth rates vary geographically

. As a result, actual age at sexual maturity is not

known.

Historica l Information: The hawksbill sea turtle was first listed on June 2, 1970

. It is currently designated as endangered in the entire range

. Within the United States, this species has been found in: Alabama, American Samoa, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georg ia, Guam, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Northern Mariana Islands, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and the Virgin Islands.

Conservation Status:

The hawksbill sea t urtle has experienced global population declines of 80 percent or more during the past century, and continued declines are projected

. Most populations are declining, depleted, or are remnants of larger aggregations

. Only five regional populations remain wi th more than 1,000 females nesting annually (Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Australia)

.

Summary of Major Threats: The decline of this species is primarily due to human exploitation for tortoiseshell

. While the legal hawksbill shell trade ended when Japan agreed to stop importing shell in 1993, a significant illegal trade continues

. In addition, there are serious attempts by Cuba, with support from other countries, to delist hawksbills in Cuba to Appendix 2 of the Convention on International Tra de in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in order to make it possible to reopen trade with Japan and possibly other countries

. Other threats include loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring, disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting, excessive nest predation by native and non

- native predators, degradation of foraging habitat, marine pollution and debris accumulation, watercraft strikes and incidental take from commercial fishing operations.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 58 F.2.10. Eubalaena glacialis NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE

Family: Balaenidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProf ile.action?spcode=A02R )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale_northatlantic.htm )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Eubalaena+glaci

alis )

Description: The Northern Atlantic right whale is a large baleen w hale. Adults are generally between 45 and 55 feet in length and can weigh up to 70 tons. Females are larger than males. The distinguishing features for right whales include a stocky body, generally black coloration (although some individuals have white pat ches on their undersides), lack of a dorsal fin, a large head (about 1/4 of the body length), strongly bowed margin of the lower lip, and callosities on the head region. Two rows of long (up to about eight feet in length), dark baleen plates hang from the upper jaw, with about 225 plates on each side. The tail is broad, deeply notched, and all black with smooth trailing edge.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Right whales have occurred historically in all the world's oceans from temperate to subpolar latitudes. They primarily occur in coastal or shelf waters, although movements over deep waters are known. For much of the year, their distribution is strongly correlated to the distribution of their prey. During winter, right whales occur in lowe r latitudes and coastal waters where calving takes place. However, the whereabouts of much of the population during winter remains unknown. Right whales migrate to higher latitudes during spring and summer

Habitat: (has critical habitat)

The north Atlanti c right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ) has been sighted in waters off Massachusetts in most months. Most sightings occur between February and May, with peak abundance in late March. Right whales are frequently found in coastal or shelf waters, although movements over abyssal depths are known. The North Atlantic right whale is a migratory, slow

swimming whale that often travels in small groups. Like many North Atlantic whales, the right whale spends the winter calving and mating in warmer waters and the summer feeding in cooler

waters.

There are five well

- known habitats used annually by western North Atlantic right whales: 1) coastal Florida and Georgia, 2) the Great South Channel, east of Cape Cod, 3) Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays, 4) the Bay of Fundy, and 5) Browns and Baccaro Banks, south of Nova2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 59 Scotia. The first three areas occur in U.S. waters and were designated by NMFS as critical habitat in June 1994 (59 FR 28793).

The five primary habitats used by northern right whales during their annual migration, as described by Kenney, Winn and Macaulay (1994), include the following three areas off the eastern coast of the United States: (1) A spring/ early summer feeding and nursery area for a majority of the population in the Great South Channel (GSC), (2) a late winter/spring feeding

and nurs ery area for a small portion of the population in Cape Cod Bay (CCB), and (3) a winter calving ground and nursery area in the coastal waters of the southeastern United States (SEUS); and the following two areas located in Canadian waters: (4) a summer/fall feeding and nursery area for some animals, including nearly all mother/calf pairs, in the lower Bay of Fundy; and (5) a summer/fall feeding ground, with almost exclusively mature individuals, on the southern Nova Scotian shelf (73 FR 19000 19014).

NMFS h as designated areas essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, conservation and recovery of the northern right whale population. The following areas are designated as critical habitat: Great South Channel: The area designa ted as critical habitat in these waters is bounded by the following coordinates: 41 deg.40'N/69 deg.45'W; 41 deg.00'N/69 deg.05'W; 41 deg.38'N/68 deg.13'W; 42 deg.10'N/68 deg.31'W

. Cape Cod Bay: The area designated as critical habitat in these waters is bo unded by the following coordinates: 42 deg.04.8'N/70 deg.10.0'W; 42 deg.12'N/70 deg.15'W; 42 deg.12'N/70 deg.30'W; 41 deg.46.8'N/70 deg.30'W; and on the south and east, by the interior shoreline of Cape Cod, MA. Southeastern United States: The area designa ted as critical habitat in these waters encompasses waters between 31 deg.15'N (approximately located at the mouth of the Altamaha River, GA) and 30 deg.15'N (approximately Jacksonville, FL) from the shoreline out to 15 nautical miles offshore; and the wat ers between 30 deg.15'N and 28 deg.00'N (approximately Sebastian Inlet, FL) from the shoreline out to 5 nautical miles (73 FR 19000 19014).

Life History: Most known right whale nursery areas are in shallow, coastal waters. In the western North Atlantic, calving takes place between December and March. In both the northern and southern hemisphere, females give birth to their first calf at an average age of ni ne years (Best et al.

, 1998;

Hamilton et al.

, 1998a). Calves are 18

- 20 feet in length at birth (Best

, 1994). Gestation lasts from 357 to 396 days in southern right whales (Best

, 1994), and it is likely to be similar in the northern species. Weaning seems t o be variable, and has been reported as 8 to 17 months in North Atlantic right whales (Hamilton and Marx

, 1995).

Various species of large sharks and killer whales may be predators of right whales, particularly for young or sick individuals. However, no su ch attacks have been observed in this species. Scars from killer whale attacks have been photographed on North Atlantic right whales (Kraus

, 1990), although the level of killer whale attacks and the extent to which they result in death is not

known. In the western North Atlantic, right whales feed primarily on copepods, with Calanus finmarchicus believed to be the primary prey (Kraus et al.

, 1988; Wishner et al.

, 1988; Murison

and Gaskin

, 1989). However, other zooplankters are also taken, including Pseudoca lanus

, Centropages, and even cyprids (Mayo and Marx

, 1990). There is no evidence for consumption of euphausiids although, given the inclusion of this taxon in the diet of right whales elsewhere, it2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 60 would be surprising if North Atlantic right whales were di fferent in this regard. Unlike balaenopterid whales, right whales are skimmers; they feed by continuously filtering prey through their baleen while moving, mouth agape, through a patch of zooplankton.

Feeding occurs from spring through fall, and also in w inter in certain areas (e.g., Cape Cod Bay; Mayo and Marx

, 1990). Oceanographic and bathymetric features, such as relatively cooler water temperatures and 100

- 200 m depths adjacent to steeply sloping bottom topography, also seem to

be related to the utiliz ation of certain areas for feeding (Winn et al.

, 1986; Clapham

, 1999).

Historical Information: Right whales have occurred historically in all the world’s oceans from temperate to subpolar latitudes. The pre

- exploitation distribution of the North Atlantic right whale probably included coastal and continental shelf waters in temperate to subarctic latitudes of the North Atlantic

Ocean. Post

- exploitation distribution is much more limited.

The Northern right whale is among the rarest of all large whales, and among the rarest of all marine mammal species. Right whales have been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since its passage in 1973 (35 FR 8495). Although precise estimates of abundance are not available, it appears that the eastern North Atlantic population is nearly extinct and the western North Atlantic population numbers approximately 300 whales.

Conservation Status: Historically, right whale populations were severely depleted by commercial whaling. More recently, direct and ind irect impacts from human activities (mostly in the form of vessel collisions and entanglement in fishing gear) have contributed to a lack of recovery. While past population estimates were based on more limited information and may have been less accurate,

t he best estimate of population size for the North Atlantic right whale in 1991, when the first recovery plan was adopted, was 350 animals. The population is currently believed to contain only about 300 individuals and it remains unclear whether its abundan ce is static, undergoing modest growth or, as recent modeling exercises suggest, currently in decline. However, there has been no apparent sign of recovery in the last 15 years and the species may be rarer and more endangered than previously thought. Becau se the right whale is a long

- lived species, extinction may not occur in the near future, but the possibility of biological extinction in the next century is very real.

Summary of Major Threats: Ship collisions and entanglements in fishing gear are the mos t common anthropogenic causes of mortality in North Atlantic right whales. Other potential threats are habitat degradation, noise, contaminants, and climate and ecosystem change. It is necessary to further examine such threats to identify and modify activi ties that may pose risks to right whales.

Deaths resulting from human activities account for at least one

- third of all known mortalities in the western North Atlantic right whale population (Kraus

, 1990). The extent to which natural factors, such as disea se and predation, affect mortality rates is not known. Kraus (1990) used photo

- identification data from the western North Atlantic population to calculate an average mortality rate of 17 percent per year in first

- year right whales, while second

- through fo urth year2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 61 whales had an average mortality rate of 3 percent per year. Including all sources of mortality, both natural and anthropogenic, 27 percent of all western North Atlantic right whales die before reaching four years of age (Kraus

, 1990).

F.2.11. Lepidochelys kempii KEMP’S RI DLEY SEA TURTLE

Family: Cheloniidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfil
e?spcode=C00O )

• NJDEP, 2012 ( http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/marinetrtls. pdf )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012 ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/turtles/kemps.html )

• GLEC, 2011

Description: The Kemp's Ridley and olive Ridley sea turtles are the smallest of all extant sea turtles, with the weight of an adult generally being less than 45 kg, and with the straight carapace length around 65 cm. Adult Kemp's Ridleys' shells are almost as wide as long

. Coloration changes significantly during development, from the grey

- black carapace and plastron of hatchlings to the lighter grey

olive carapace and cream

- white or yellowish plastron of adults

. There are two pairs of prefrontal scales on the head, five vertebral scutes, five pairs of coastal scutes and generally twel ve pairs of marginals on the carapace

. In each bridge adjoining the plastron to the carapace, there are four scutes, each of which is perforated by a pore

. This is the external opening of Rathke's gland which secretes a substance of unknown function (possi bly a pheromone)

. Males resemble the

females in size and coloration

. Secondary sexual characteristics of male sea turtles include a longer tail, a more distal vent, recurved claws and, during breeding, a softened mid

- plastron

. Eggs are 34

- 45 mm in diameter and 24

- 40 g in weight

. Hatchlings range from 42

- 48 mm in straight line carapace length, 32

- 44 mm in width and 15

- 20 g in weight.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Kemp's ridley sea turtles are distributed throughout the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic seaboard, from Florida to New England. A few records exist for Kemp's ridley sea turtles near the Azores, waters off Morocco, and within the Mediterranean Sea. There is only one confirmed Kemp's ridley arribada in the state of Tamaulipas, Mex ico, where nearly 95% of worldwide Kemp's ridley nesting occurs. The three main nesting beaches in Tamaulipas, Mexico are Rancho Nuevo, Tepehuajes, and Barra del Tordo. Nesting also occurs in Veracruz, Mexico, and Texas, U.S., but on a much smaller scale. Occasional nesting has been documented in North Carolina, South Carolina, and the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of Florida.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 62 Habitat: (no critical habitat) Adult Kemp's ridleys primarily occupy "neritic" habitats. Neritic zones typically contain muddy or sandy bottoms where prey can be found. Their diet consists mainly of swimming crabs, but may also include fish, jellyfish, and an array of mollusks.

Depending on their breeding strategy, male Kemp's ridleys appear to occupy many different

areas within the Gulf of Mexico. Some males migrate annually between feeding and breeding grounds, yet others may not migrate at all, mating with females opportunistically encountered.

Female Kemp's ridleys have been tracked migrating to and from nesting beaches in Mexico.

Fem ales leave breeding and nesting areas and continue on to foraging zones ranging from the Yucatán Peninsula to southern Florida. Some females take up residence in specific foraging grounds for months at a time, leading scientists to suggest that females hav e a goal

- oriented migration, opposed to the suggested wandering strategy employed by olive ridleys. Kemp's ridleys rarely venture into waters deeper than 160 ft (50 m) (Byles and Plotkin, 1994).

Newly emerged hatchlings inhabit a much different environmen t than adult turtles. After emerging from the nest, hatchlings enter the water and must swim quickly to escape near shore predators. There is strong evidence that many sea turtle species employ an open ocean developmental stage because encounters with heal thy, neonate sea turtles are extremely rare in near shore waters. Some hatchlings remain in currents within the Gulf of Mexico while others may be swept out of the Gulf, around Florida, and into the Atlantic Ocean by the Gulf Stream.

Juveniles of many spe cies of sea turtles have been known to associate with floating sargassum seaweed, utilizing the sargassum as an area of refuge, rest, and/or food. This developmental drifting period is hypothesized to last about two years or until the turtle reaches a cara pace length of about 8 inches (20 cm). Subsequently, these sub

- adult turtles return to neritic zones of the Gulf of Mexico or northwestern Atlantic Ocean to feed and develop until they reach adulthood (Collard and Ogren, 1990).

On February 17, 2010, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS were jointly petitioned to designate critical habitat for Kemp's ridley sea turtles for nesting beaches along the Texas coast and marine habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. They are currently reviewing the petition.

Life History: Neonatal Kemp's ridleys feed on the available sargassum and associated infauna or other epipelagic species found in the Gulf of Mexico

. In post

- pelagic stages, the Kemp’s ridley is largely a crab

- eater, with a preference for portunid crabs

. The t urtles are exposed to cyanide dissolved in seawater and through contaminated items in their diet

. Age at sexual maturity is not known, but is believed to be approximately 7

- 15 years, although other estimates of age at maturity range as high as 35 years. Fe male Kemp's ridleys nest from May to July, laying two to three clutches of approximately 100 eggs, which incubate for 50

- 60 days.

Historical Information: The Kemp's ridley sea turtle was first listed on December 2, 1970

. It is currently designated as

enda ngered in the entire range

. Within the United States, this species is has been observed in:2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 63 Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolin a, Texas, Virginia; the Mexico

- Atlantic Coast, and in tropical and temperate waters in the Atlantic Basin.

Conservation Status: The Kemp's ridley has experienced a historical, dramatic decrease in arribada size. An amateur

video from 1947 documented an ex traordinary Kemp's ridley arribada near Rancho Nuevo. It has been estimated that approximately 42,000 Kemp's ridleys nested during that single day. This video has also served to measure the species' collapse. Twenty years after the video was filmed,

the la rgest arribada measured was just 5,000 individuals. Between the years of 1978 and 1991 only 200 Kemp's ridleys nested annually. Today, the Kemp's ridley population appears to be in the early stages of recovery. Nesting has increased steadily over the past decade.

During the 2000 nesting season, an estimated 2,000 females nested at Rancho Nuevo, a single arribada of 1,000 turtles was reported in 2001, and an estimated 3,600 turtles produced over 8,000 nests in 2003. In 2006, a record number of nests were re corded since monitoring began in 1978; 12,143 nests were documented in Mexico, with 7,866 of those at Rancho Nuevo.

On the Texas coast, 251 Kemp's ridley nests were recorded from 2002

- 2006. For the 2007 nesting season, 127 nests have been recorded in Texas, with 73 of those nests documented at Padre Island National Seashore. Those 127 nests are a record for the Texas coast, passing the

2006 record of 102 nests.

Summary of Major Threats: Kemp's ridleys face threats on both nesting beaches and in the ma rine environment. The greatest cause of decline and the continuing primary threat to Kemp's ridleys is incidental capture in fishing gear, primarily in shrimp trawls, but also in gill nets, longlines, traps and pots, and dredges in the Gulf of Mexico and N orth Atlantic. It is estimated that before the implementation of turtle exclusion devices, the commercial shrimp fleet killed 500

- 5000 Kemp's Ridley each year. Beginning in 1976, the U.S. and Mexican governments agreed to phase out U.S. shrimping

in Mexica n waters by 1979

. U.S. shrimp vessels continued to illegally operate off Mexico through the mid

- 1980s

. The Mexican shrimp fleet has declined and consists of only approximately 600 vessels, many of which do not operate

. Also since 1978, Mexico has closed

th e nearshore waters off Rancho Nuevo to fishing during the nesting season

. However, this closure has not been strictly enforced.

Dredging operations affect Kemp's Ridley turtles through incidental take and by degrading the

habitat

. Incidental take of Kemp ’s Ridley has been documented with hopper dredges

. In addition to direct take, channelization of the inshore and nearshore areas can degrade foraging and migratory habitat through spoil dumping, degraded water quality/clarity and altered current flow

. Egg collection was an extreme threat to the population, but since nesting beaches were afforded official protection in 1966, this threat no longer poses a major concern.

F.2.12. Megaptera novaeangliae HUMPBACK WHALE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 64 (See Seattle, Washington for information on this s pecies)

F.2.13. Myotis sodalis INDIANA BAT

Family: Vespertilionidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A000 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureSer ve?searchName=Myotis+sodalist )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/070416.pdf )

Description:

The Indiana bat is a medium

- sized Myotis , closely resembling the little brown bat ( Myotis lucifugus ) but differing in coloration. Its fur is a dull grayish chestnut rather than bronze, with the basal portion of the hairs on the back a dull

- lead color. This bat's underparts are pinkish to cinnamon, and its hind feet are smaller and more d elicate than in M. lucifugus . The calcar (heel of the foot) is strongly keeled.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The range extends west to the western Ozark region in eastern Oklahoma (Saugey et al. 1990) and Iowa (Clark et al. 1987), nort h and east to Michigan (Evers 1992, Kurta and Teramino 1994, Kurta 1995), New York, New England, and northern New Jersey, and south to northern Alabama and Arkansas, with accidental/nonregular occurrences outside this range.

Northern populations migrate south to Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia for winter. In winter, they are apparently absent from Michigan, Ohio, and northern Indiana where suitable caves and mines are unknown. The most important hibernating

caves are: Ba t Wing and Twin Domes caves (Indiana); Bat, Hundred Dome, and Dixon caves (Kentucky); and Bat Cave, Great Scott Cave, and Pilot Knob Mine (Missouri); Pilot Knob Mine is the largest colony (Lowe 1990). Half of the total population hibernates in southern Ind iana.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) During winter, Indiana bats are restricted to suitable underground hibernacula. The vast majority

of these sites are caves located in karst areas of the east

- central United States; however, Indiana

bats also hibernate in other cave

- like locations, including abandoned mines. Suitable hibernacula in the central and southern United States often provide a wide range of vertical structure. These hibernacula tend to have large volumes and often have large rooms and vertical or extensive passages, often below the lowest entrance. Cave volume and complexity help buffer the cave environment against rapid and extreme changes in outside temperature, and vertical relief helps provide a range of temperatures and roost sites. Most In diana bats hibernate in caves or mines where the ambient temperature remains below 10 ° C (50.0 ° F) but infrequently drops below freezing, and the temperature is relatively stable.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 65 In summer, most reproductive females occupy roost sites under the exfoliating bark of dead trees that retain large, thick slabs of peeling bark. Primary roosts usually receive direct sunlight for more than half the day. Roost trees are typically within canopy gaps in a forest, in a fence line, or along a wooded edge. Habitats in whi ch maternity roosts occur include riparian zones, bottomland and floodplain habitats, wooded wetlands, and upland communities. Indiana bats typically forage in semi

- open to closed (open understory) forested habitats, forest edges, and riparian areas.

Crit ical habitat was designated for this species on 24 September 1976 (41 FR 41914)

. These cave and mine refuges are necessary for seasonal wintering

. The following areas (exclusive of those existing man

- made structures or settlements which are not necessary t o the normal needs or survival of the species) are considered critical habitat for the Indiana bat ;

(1) Illinois

. The Blackball Mine, La Salle County

(2) Indiana

. Big Wyandotte Cave, Crawford County; Bay’s Cave, Greene County

(3) Kentucky

. Bat Cave, Car ter County; Coach Cave, Edmonson County

(4) Missouri

. Cave 021, Crawford County; Cave 009, Franklin County; Cave 017, Franklin County; Pilot Knob Mine, Iron County; Bat Cave, Shannon County; Cave 029, Washington County [numbers assigned by Division of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region].

(5) Tennessee

. White Oak Blowhole Cave, Blount County

(6) West Virginia

. Hellhole Cave, Pendleton County.

Life History: The Indiana bat is a temperate, insectivorous, migratory bat that hibernates colonially in caves and mines in the winter. In spring, reproductive females migrate and form maternity colonies where they bear and raise their young in wooded areas. Males and nonreproductive females typically do not roost in colonies and may stay close to their hibernaculum or migrate to summer habitat. Both males and females return to hibernacula in late summer or early fall to mate and

enter hibernation.

Biologically intrinsic needs of this species include limiting use of fat during hiberna tion, obligate colonial roosting, high energy demands of pregnant and nursing females, and timely parturition and rapid development and weaning of young. Factors that may exacerbate the bats vulnerability because of these constraints include energetic impa cts of significant disruptions to roosting areas (both in hibernacula and maternity colonies), availability of hibernation habitat, and connectivity and conservation of roosting

- foraging and migration corridors.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 66 Historical Information: Historically, the I ndiana bat had a winter range restricted to areas of cavernous limestone in the karst regions of the east

- central United States (Miller and Allen

, 1928, Hall

, 1962, Thomson 1982, Figure 1). Prior to and during much of the European settlement of the eastern United States, winter populations of Indiana bats likely occurred in karst regions of what would eventually become Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Okla homa, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Based on early accounts and other indirect evidence (Silliman et al.

, 1851, Blatchley

, 1897, Tuttle

, 1997, Tuttle

, 1999), some researchers have suggested that vast numbers, presumably the majority, of Indiana bats historically converged at a relatively small number of large complex cave systems to hibernate (e.g., Wyandotte Cave in Indiana; Bat, Coach, and Mammoth caves in Kentucky; Great Scott Cave in Missouri; and Rocky Hollow Cave in Vi rginia) and used other caves to a lesser extent (Olson

, 1996 ; Tuttle

, 1997 ; Tuttle

, 1999 ; Toomey et al.

, 2002 ; Whitaker et al.

, 2003).

The historic summer distribution and range for this species is poorly documented. The first maternity colony was not dis covered until the summer of 1971 in east

- central Indiana (Cope et

al.

, 1974). Nonetheless, based on our current knowledge of Indiana bat seasonal migration patterns and limits, and locations of historic and potential hibernacula, it is reasonable to assume that the species’ historic summer distribution was more or less similar to its current summer

distribution.

Conservation Status: The species was originally listed as in danger of extinction under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, and is cu rrently listed as endangered. The current Recovery Priority of the Indiana Bat is 8, which means that the species has a moderate degree of threat and high recovery potential. As of October 2006, the Service had records of extant winter populations at

appro ximately 281 hibernacula in 19 states and 269 maternity colonies in 16 states. The 2005 winter census estimate of the population was 457,000.

Summary of Major Threats: Threats to the Indiana bat vary during its annual cycle. At the hibernacula, threats in clude modifications to caves, mines, and surrounding areas that change airflow and alter microclimate in the hibernacula. Human disturbance and vandalism pose significant threats during hibernation through direct mortality and by inducing arousal and conse quent depletion of fat reserves. Natural catastrophes can also have a significant effect during winter because of the concentration of individuals in a relatively few sites. During summer months, possible threats relate to the loss and degradation of fores ted habitat. Migration pathways and swarming sites may also be affected by habitat loss and degradation. In addition to these threats, significant information gaps remain regarding the species’ ecology that hinder sound decision

- making on how best to manag e and protect the species.

F.2.14. Sterna dougallii dougallii ROSEATE TERN

Family: Laridae2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 67 Endangered: Northeast U.S. nesting population (CT, ME, MA, NJ, NY, NC, RI, and VA) Threatened: Western hemisphere except northeast U.S. (FL, GA, SC, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands)

Sources:

• NJDEP, 2012 ( http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/ensp/pdf/end

- thrtened/ros eatetern.pdf )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/SpeciesReport.do?spcode=B07O )

• NYDEC, 2012 ( http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7084.html )

• GLEC, 2011

Description:

The roseate tern is a medium

- sized, light colored tern with a dark cap and long tail

. In breeding plumage, the adult has a black cap and nape, and a pale gray back and lower wing surface

. Bla ck tips on the outer primaries contrast with the otherwise pale upper surface of the wing

. The tail is white and deeply forked with long streamers

. On perched birds, the tail extends beyond the wingtips

. The bill is black with a dark red base

. The legs and feet are dark red and the iris is

brownish

- black

. Sexes are alike in plumage

. The non

- breeding adult has brown legs, a black bill, and a white forehead with a black mask extending from the eye to the nape.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: In North America, the roseate tern breeds in two discrete areas: from Nova Scotia to Long Island, New York (northeastern population), and around the Caribbean Sea (including the Florida Keys)

. It is believed to winter in northern South America and along th e Brazilian coast

.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) The roseate tern is a coastal species that nests on barrier islands and salt marshes and forages over shallow coastal waters, inlets, and offshore seas

. Nesting colonies are located above the high

- tide li ne, often within vegetated dunes where dense concentrations of beach grasses and seaside goldenrod ( Solidago sempervirens ) provide cover

. In comparison to other terns, roseate terns nest at sites with more vegetative cover

. Infrequently, they may nest in o pen areas, especially when they are displaced from optimal sites by gulls.

Life History: Roseate terns arrive on their Atlantic coast breeding grounds in late April or early May and begin nesting one month later

. In New York, roseate terns are always foun d nesting with common

terns

. The nest may be only a depression in sand, shell or gravel, and may be lined with bits of grass and other debris

. It is usually placed in dense grass clumps, or even under boulders or rip

rap

. Both adults incubate the eggs for about 23 days, and the young fledge in 22

- 29 days

. One brood per season is typical, although two broods are sometimes produced. Migration begins in

late summer

. One banded individual from Great Gull Island, New York was 9 years old when

recovered

. The Ros eate tern is an aquatic

- dependent species that feeds primarily on small

freshwater and marine fishes.

Historical Information: From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, roseate tern populations along the Atlantic Coast were greatly reduced as a result of the millinery trade, in which birds were killed to acquire plumes for2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 68 women’s hats

. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which afforded legal protection to all migratory birds, coupled with a change in fashion styles, reduced the pressure on roseate terns, enabling populations to reestablish and increase. However, by the 1950s, populations again began to decline, and continued to do so for several decades.

The roseate tern was first listed on November 02, 1987

. It is currently designated as endangered

in the U.S.A. (Atlantic Coast south to NC), Canada (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec), and

Bermuda

. Within the United States, this species has been observed in: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia; and Canada (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Quebec).

Conservation Status: The total world population was estimated in 1998 at approximately 40,000 pairs

. The northeastern population has recently fluctuated around 3,500 pairs, with a low of 3,125 in 1992,

an d a high of 3,775 in 1996; including 125 pairs in Canada

. Various estimates placed the Caribbean population at between 5,000 and 8,500 pairs in 1993, and the Florida breeding population at about 350 pairs in 1995.

Summary of Major Threats:

Threats to the roseate tern include habitat loss on or near coastal barrier islands from development, and disturbance of beach

- nesting birds from human recreation and other activities in coastal areas. Predation by great black

- backed ( Larus marinus ) and herring ( Larus ar gentatus ) gulls is a threat in areas where human garbage provides an abundant food supply to attract and support these predator species (USFWS

, 1993)

. Reports of threat due to pollutants are extremely

limited

. Limited data are available for organochlorine contaminants, mercury, and oil pollution (USFWS

, 1993).



## F.3. HOUSTON, TEXAS

F.3.1. Balaenoptera physalus FINBACK WHALE

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.3.2.

Caretta caretta LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE

(See New York, New York for information on this sp ecies)

F.3.3.

Charadrius melodus PIPING PLOVER

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.3.4. Chelonia mydas GREEN SEA TURTLE2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 69 (See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

F.3.5. Dermochelys coriacea LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

F.3.6. Eretmochelys imbricate HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.3.7.

Grus americana WHOOPING CRANE

Family: Gruidae Endangered: wherever found, except where experimental populat ion Experimental Population, Non

- Essential: AL, AK, GA, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MS, MN, MI, MO, NC, OH, SC, TN, VA, WI, WV, CO, ID, FL, NM, and UT

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B003 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Grus+americana

)

Description: The whooping crane occurs only in North America and is North America’s tallest bird, with males approaching 5 feet when standing erect. The whooping crane adult plumage is snowy white except for black primaries, black or grayish alula (specialized feathers attached to the upper leading end of the wing), sparse black bristly feathers on the carmine crown and malar region (side of the head from the bill to the angl e of the jaw), and a dark gray

- black wedge

shaped patch on the nape. The common name "whooping crane" probably originated from the loud, single

- note vocalization given repeatedly by the birds when they are alarmed. Whooping cranes are a long

- lived species; current estimates suggest a maximum longevity in the wild of at least 30 years.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Current distribution includes just three populations: (1) the Aransas

- Wood Buffalo National Park Population that nests in Woo d Buffalo National Park and adjacent areas in Canada (south

- central Mackenzie and adjacent northern Alberta) and winters in coastal marshes in Texas, with significant migration stopovers in southern Saskatchewan, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma; (2)

a reint roduced non

- migratory Florida Population that occurs in central Florida; and (3) a reintroduced Eastern Migratory Population that migrates between Wisconsin (Necedah National Wildlife Refuge) and Florida (Chassahowitzka NWR) (CWS and USFWS

, 2007).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 70 Habitat: (has critical habitat) The whooping crane breeds, migrates, winters, and forages in a variety of wetland and other habitats, including coastal marshes and estuaries, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows and rivers, and agricultural fields. Whooping c ranes breed and nest in wetland habitat in Wood

Buffalo National Park, Canada. Bulrush is the dominant vegetation type in the potholes used for nesting, although cattail, sedge, musk

- grass, and other aquatic plants are common. Nest sites are primarily loca ted in shallow diatom ponds that contain bulrush. During migration, whooping cranes use a variety of habitats; however wetland mosaics appear to be the most suitable. For feeding, whooping cranes primarily use shallow, seasonally and semi permanently flood ed palustrine wetlands for roosting, and various cropland and emergent wetlands. In Nebraska, whooping cranes also often use riverine habitats. Wintering habitat in the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Texas, includes salt marshes and tidal flats on the m ainland and barrier islands, dominated by salt grass, saltwort, smooth cordgrass, glasswort, and sea ox

- eye.

Critical habitat determination was finalized June 1978 and included the following areas:

Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge (Colorado), Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge (Colorado), Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge and vicinity (Idaho), Cheyenne Bottoms State Waterfowl Management Area (Kansas), Quivira National Wildlife Refuge (Kansas), Platte River Bottoms between Lexington and Dehman (Nebrask a), Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge (New Mexico), Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge (Oklahoma), and Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and vicinity (Texas) (43 FR 20938 20942).

In August 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that whooping crane populations in four areas were considered experimental and nonessential, and thus delisted as critical habitat

. Those areas include Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge (New Mexico), Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge (Colorado), Al amosa National Wlidlife Refuge (Colorado), and Grays Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Idaho) (72 FR 29544).

Life History: Whooping cranes are omnivorous, probing the soil subsurface with their bills and taking foods from the soil surface or vegetation. Youn g chicks are fed by their parents. Summer foods include large nymphal or larval forms of insects, frogs, rodents, small birds, minnows, and berries. Foods utilized during migration are poorly documented but include frogs, fish, plant tubers, crayfish,

inse cts, and agricultural grains. The largest amount of time is spent feeding in harvested grain fields. In the winter, whooping cranes forage for blue crabs, clams and the plant wolfberry in the brackish bays, marshes, and salt flats on the edge of the Texas mainland and on barrier islands. Occasionally, cranes fly to upland sites when attracted by fresh water to drink or by foods such as acorns, snails, crayfish and insects, and then return to the marshes to roost. Uplands are particularly attractive when par tially flooded by rainfall, burned to reduce plant cover or when

food is less available in the salt flats and marshes.

The whooping crane is a bi

- annual migrant, traveling between its summer habitat in central Canada, and its wintering grounds on the Tex as coast, across the Great Plains of the U.S. in the spring and fall of each year. The migratory corridor runs in an approximately straight line from the Canadian Prairie Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan through the Great Plains states of

eastern Mont ana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 71 complete corridor is approximately 2,400 miles long by 220 miles wide, a zone that encompasses 95% of known sightings of whooping cranes. Autumn migration normally begins in mid

Se ptember, with most birds arriving on the Texas wintering grounds between late October and

mid

- November. Whooping cranes migrate south as singles, pairs, in family groups, or as small flocks of 3 to 5 birds. They are diurnal migrants and stop daily to feed and rest. Local weather conditions influence distance and direction of travel, but whooping cranes generally are capable of reaching the autumn staging grounds in the north central portion of the Saskatchewan agricultural area on the second day of migratio n, where they remain for 2 to 4 weeks. The remainder of the migration from Saskatchewan to the wintering grounds is usually rapid, probably weather

- induced, and may be completed in a week. Whooping cranes occupy winter areas for almost half a year. Althoug h close association with other whooping cranes is tolerated at times on the wintering grounds, pairs and family groups typically occupy and defend relatively discrete territories. As spring approaches, “dancing” behavior (running, leaping and bowing,

uniso n calling, and flying) increases in frequency, and is indicative of pre

- migratory restlessness. Spring migration departure dates are normally between March 25 and April 15, with the last birds usually leaving by May 1.

Whooping cranes are monogamous, for ming pairs and laying eggs as early as three years of age, although the average age of first egg production is five years. They show considerable fidelity to their breeding territories, and normally nest in the same general vicinity each year. These nestin g territories, termed "composite nesting areas", vary considerably in size, ranging from about 0.8 to

29 mi 2 but averaging 2.5 mi 2 . Adjoining pairs usually nest at least 0.6 miles apart. From the initiation of egg laying until chicks are a few months of ag e, the activities of pairs and family groups are restricted to the breeding territory. Eggs are normally laid in late April to mid

- May, and hatching occurs about one month later. The incubation period is from 29 to 31 days. Whooping cranes usually produce clutches of two eggs laid 48

- 60 hours apart. Incubation begins with the first egg laid, resulting in asynchronous hatching of the eggs. This asynchrony may follow the “insurance” hypothesis, where parents add marginal offspring to their clutch/brood as

a h edge against early failure of core brood members. Whooping crane parents share incubation

and brood

- rearing duties. Except for brief intervals, one member of the pair remains on the nest

at all times.

Historical Information: The historical range extended from the Arctic coast of North America south to central Mexico, and from Utah east to New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida; in the 19 th and 20 th
centuries, nesting occurred principally in the region extending from central Canada to the north

ce ntral United States (see CWS and USFWS

, 2007).

USFWS proposed to reintroduce whooping cranes into historic breeding habitat in Wisconsin; the population would winter in Florida and be designated a nonessential experimental population (Federal Register, 9 March 2001). On June 26, 2001, the final rule wa s passed to designate the eastern United States as an experimental nonessential population. Introduced Florida population is listed by USFWS as an experimental nonessential population (Federal Register, 22 January 1993). In 1996, USFWS proposed to designat e the Rocky Mountains population as an experimental nonessential population (Federal Register, 6 February 1996). Rocky Mountain population designated as experimental nonessential (Federal Register 21 July 1997).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 72 Southwestern Louisiana population designated as an experimental nonessential population, which will include the entire state of Louisiana as the geographic boundary (Federal Register, 3 February 2011). Everywhere else it is listed by USFWS as Endangered (Federal Register, 21 July 1997).

Conservatio n Status: Whooping cranes currently exist in the wild at three locations and in captivity at twelve sites. The July 2010 total wild population was estimated at 383. There is only one self

- sustaining wild population, the Aransas

- Wood Buffalo National Park p opulation, which nests in Wood Buffalo National Park and adjacent areas in Canada, and winters in coastal marshes in Texas at Aransas. In addition, there is a small captive

- raised, non

- migratory population in central Florida, and a small migratory populati on of individuals introduced beginning in 2001 that migrate between Wisconsin and Florida in an eastern migratory population. The last remaining wild bird in the reintroduced Rocky Mountain Population died in the spring of 2002. The captive population

cont ained 152 birds in July, 2010, with annual production from the Calgary Zoo, International Crane Foundation, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Audubon Species Survival Center, and the San Antonio Zoo. The total population of wild and captive whooping crane s in July, 2010,

was 535.

Summary of Major Threats: Historically, population declines were caused by shooting and destruction of nesting habitat in the prairies from agricultural development. The species was listed because of low population numbers, slow reproductive potential (sexual maturity is delayed and pairs average less than one chick annually), cyclic nesting and wintering habitat suitability, a hazardous 2,500 mile migration route that is traversed twice annually, and many human pressures on the w intering grounds. Current threats to wild cranes include collisions with manmade objects such as power lines and fences, shooting, chemical spills along the intracoastal waterways that bisects its winter habitat, predators, disease, habitat destruction, se vere weather, and a loss of two thirds of the original genetic material. Threats to the captive flock include disease, accidents, and in

- breeding.

F.3.8. Lepidochelys kempii KEMP’S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.3.9. Megaptera novaeangliae HU MPBACK WHALE

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

F.3.10. Pristis pectinata SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH

Family: Pristidae Endangered: wherever found2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 73 Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E0A9 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Pristis+pectinata

)

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/smalltoothsawfish.htm )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/smalltoothsawfish.pdf )

Description: Sawfish, like sharks, skates and rays, belong to a group of fish called elasmobranchs, whose skeletons are made of cartilage. Sawfish are actually modified rays with a shark

- like body and gill slits on their ventral side

. Early sawfish arose around 100 mil lion years ago, but these first sawfish are actually distant cousins to modern day sawfishes, which first appeared around 56 million years ago. Sawfish get their name from their "saws" (long, flat snouts edged with pairs of teeth) which are used to locate, stun, and kill prey. Their diet includes mostly fish but also some crustaceans. Smalltooth sawfish is one of two species of sawfish that inhabit U.S. waters. Smalltooth sawfish commonly reach 18 feet in length, and may grow to 25 feet. Little is known

abo ut the life history of these animals, but they may live up to 25

- 30 years, maturing after about 10 years.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Smalltooth sawfish have been reported in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and Gulf of Mexico;

however , the U.S. population is found only in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Historically, the U.S. population was common throughout the Gulf of Mexico from Texas to Florida, and along the east coast from Florida to Cape Hatteras. The current range of thi s species has contracted to peninsular Florida, and smalltooth sawfish are relatively common only in the Everglades region at the southern tip of the state.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Sawfish species inhabit shallow coastal waters of tropical seas an d estuaries throughout the world. They are usually found in shallow waters very close to shore over muddy and sandy bottoms. They are often found in sheltered bays, on shallow banks, and in estuaries or river mouths. Certain species of sawfish are known to ascend inland in large river systems, and they are among the few elasmobranchs that are known from freshwater systems in many parts of the

world. Larger animals can be found in the same habitat, but are also found offshore at depths up

to at least 400 fee t.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, smalltooth sawfish have no designated critical

habitat

. However, NMFS designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish in September 2009 (74 FR 45353)

. The critical habitat consists of two units: the C harlotte Harbor Estuary Unit, which comprises approximately 221,459 acres of coastal habitat; and the Ten Thousand Islands/ Everglades Unit (TTI/E), which comprises approximately 619,013 acres of coastal habitat. The2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 74 two units are located along the southwe stern coast of Florida between Charlotte Harbor and Florida Bay. These areas are considered nursery areas used by juveniles as critical habitat

.

Juvenile smalltooth sawfish use highly specific nearshore areas as nursery areas for the first several years of their lives, where vulnerable juveniles find protection from predators and ample food resources for early stage growth

. Juvenile sawfish need several essential physical and biological features: red mangroves and shallow, euryhaline habitats characterize d by water depths between the mean high water line and 3 ft (0.9 m) measured at mean lower low water

.

Life History: Life history characteristics are a limiting factor for the species’ ability to recover. Sawfish are slow growing, late maturing, and produ ce small numbers of young; hence, recovery will take decades, even if all threats are effectively eliminated. Like many elasmobranchs, smalltooth sawfish are ovoviviparous, meaning the mother holds the eggs inside of her until the young are ready to be bor n, usually in litters of 15 to 20 pups.

Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) reported that sawfish in general subsist chiefly on small schooling fish, such as mullets and clupeids. Bigelow and Schroeder also reported that they feed to some

extent on crustaceans a nd other bottom dwelling inhabitants. Breder (1952), in summarizing the literature on observations of sawfish feeding behavior, noted that they attack fish by slashing sideways through schools, and often impale the fish on their rostral teeth. These are su bsequently scraped off the teeth by rubbing them on the bottom and then ingested whole. The oral teeth of sawfish are ray

- like, having flattened cusps that are better suited to crushing or gripping.

Historical Information:

The smalltooth sawfish is a tropical marine and estuarine elasmobranch fish that has been reported to have a circumtropical distribution. In the western Atlantic, the smalltooth sawfish has been reported from Brazil through the Caribbean and Central America, the Gulf of Mexico, and

t he Atlantic coast of the United States. The smalltooth sawfish has also been recorded from Bermuda (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Forms of smalltooth sawfish have been reported from the eastern Atlantic in Europe and West Africa; the Mediterranean; South Af rica; and the Indo

West Pacific, including the Red Sea, India, Burma, and the Philippines (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Van der Elst 1981; Compagno and Cook 1995). Whether populations outside the Atlantic are truly smalltooth sawfish or closely related spec ies is unknown (Adams and Wilson 1995). Pacific coast records of smalltooth sawfish off Central America need confirmation (Bigelow and

Schroeder

, 1953; Compagno and Cook

, 1995).

The smalltooth sawfish was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) on April 1, 2003 (68 FR 15674) in response to a 1999 listing petition from The Ocean Conservancy (formerly the Center for Marine Conservation).

Conservation Status:

No accurate estimates of abundance trends over time are ava ilable for this species. However, available records, including museum records and anecdotal fisher observations, indicate that this species was once common throughout its historic range and that smalltooth sawfish have declined dramatically in U.S. waters over the last century. Based on the contraction in range and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 75 anecdotal data, it is likely that the population is currently at a level less than 5% of its size at the time of European settlement.

Summary of Major Threats: The primary reason for the decline of the smalltooth sawfish population has been by catch in various commercial and recreational fisheries, due to high propensity for entanglement in net

gear . The secondary reason for the decline of the smalltooth sawfish population is habitat loss and deg radation. Other threats to the species include entanglement in marine debris, injury from saw removal, pollution, and disturbance of natural behavior by divers and other marine activities.

F.3.11.

Trichechus manatus WEST INDIAN MANATEE

Family: Trichechidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A007 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Trichechus+man

atus )

Description: Manatees are marine mammals found in marine, estuarine, and fres hwater environments. The West Indian manatee, Trichechus manatus , includes two distinct subspecies, the Florida manatee ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ) and the Antillean manatee ( Trichechus manatus manatus ). While morphologically distinctive, both subspec ies have many common features. Manatees have large, seal

- shaped bodies with paired flippers and a round, paddle

- shaped tail. They are typically grey in color (color can range from black to light brown) and occasionally spotted with barnacles or colored by patches of green or red algae. The muzzle is heavily whiskered and coarse, single hairs are sparsely distributed throughout the body. Adult manatees, on average, are about nine feet long and weigh about 1,000 pounds. At birth, calves are between three and four feet long and weigh between 40 and 60 pounds.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: U.S. populations occur primarily in Florida, where they are effectively isolated from other populations by the cooler waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico and the deeper waters of the Straits of Florida (Domning and Hayek

, 1986). In the southeastern United States, manatees are more or less restricted to the vicinity of warm

- water sites in peninsular Florida during the winter, although a few may remain year

- r ound in Cumberland Sound, southeastern Georgia, where factory warm

- water outfalls allow survival of colder winter months (Reeves et al.

, 1992). Occasional manatees occur in summer from Texas to North Carolina. Those in Texas may be wanderers from Mexican p opulation, but DNA analysis of an individual captured linked it to the Florida population. Manatees range along most of the Gulf coast of Florida but infrequently occur north of the Suwannee River and between the Chassahowitzka River and Tampa Bay.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 76 They in habit the Atlantic coast of Florida from the Georgia coast to Biscayne Bay and the Florida Keys, including the St. Johns River, the Indian River lagoon system, and various other waterways (O'Shea and Ludlow

, 1992). In Florida, the most well

- used wintering areas are at Crystal River, Homosassa River, Tampa Bay, Ft. Myers, Port Everglades, Riviera Beach, near Titusville, and Blue Spring (O'Shea and Ludlow

, 1992).

Antillean manatees are found in coastal and riverine systems in South and Central America (from Brazil to Mexico) and in the Greater and Lesser Antilles throughout the Caribbean Basin. Due to a variety of human activities (hunting, loss of habitat, etc.), manatees have been extirpated from many areas and their distribution is patchy throughout the re gion. USFWS recovery activities primarily focus on manatees in Florida and Puerto Rico, although the species is managed throughout its range.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Florida and Antillean manatees range freely between marine and freshwater habitat s. Specific habitat types/use areas include foraging and drinking sites, resting areas, travel corridors and others. Florida manatees, living at the northern limit of the species' range, have little tolerance for cold. Historically, this sub

- species has so ught out natural, warm

- water sites, including springs, deep water areas, and areas thermally influenced by the Gulf Stream, as refuges from the cold. In the 1930s and 40s, industrial plants, including power plants, paper mills, etc., were built along coast al and riverine shoreline areas. Plants discharging large volumes of heated discharge water into areas accessible to manatees have attracted large numbers of wintering manatees to

these warm

- water sites ever since. In the spring, manatees leave the warm

- wa ter sites and may travel great distances during the summer, only to return to warm water sites in the fall.

Critical habitat characteristics were not specified, however, as of September 1977, The US Fish and Wildlife Service designated the following area s as critical habitat areas within the state of

Florida:

The Crystal River and its headwaters known as King’s Bay, Citrus County; the Little Manatee River downstream from the U.S. Highway 301 bridge, Hillsborough County; the Manatee River

downstream fro m the Lake Manatee Dam, Manatee County; the Myakka River downstream from Myakka River State Park, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties; the Peace River downstream from the Florida State Highway 760 bridge, De Soto and Charlotte Counties; Charlotte Harbor north

of the Charlotte

- Lee county line, Charlotte County; Caloosahatchee River downstream from the Florida State Highway 31 bridge, Lee County; all U.S. territorial waters adjoining the coast and islands of Lee County; all U.S. territorial waters adjoining the c oast and islands and all connected bays, estuaries, and rivers from Gordon’s Pass, near Naples, Collier County, southward to and including Whitewater Bay, Monroe County; all waters of Card, Barnes, Blackwater, Little Blackwater, Manatee, and Buttonwood sou nds between Key Large, Monroe County, and the mainland of Dade County: Biscayne Bay, and all adjoining and connected lakes, rivers, canals, and waterways from the southern tin of Key Biscayne northward to and including Maule Lake, Dade County; all of Lake Worth, from it northernmost point immediately south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and Florida State Highway A1A

- southward to its southernmost point immediately north of the town of Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County; the

Loxanatchee River and its he adwaters, Martin and West Palm Beach Counties; that section of the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 77 intracoastal waterway from the town of Seawalls Point, Martin County to Jupiter Inlet, Palm Beach County; the entire inland section of water known as the Indian River. from its

northernmost point immediately south of the Intersection of US Highway 1 and Florida State Highway 3, Volusia County, southward to its southernmost point near the town of Seawalls Point, Martin County, and the entire inland section of water known as the Banana River a nd all waterways between Indian and Banana rivers, Brevard County; the St. Johns River including Lake George, and including Blue Springs and Silver Glen Springs from their points of origin to their confluences with the St. Johns River; that section of the Intracoastal Waterway from its confluence with the St. Marys River on the Georgia

- Florida border to the Florida State Highway A1A bridge south of Coastal City, Nassau and Duval Counties.

Life History: Manatees are herbivores that feed opportunistically o n a wide variety of marine, estuarine, and freshwater plants, including submerged, floating, and emergent vegetation. Common forage plants include and are not limited to: cord grass, alga, turtle grass, shoal grass, manatee grass, eel grass, and other plan t types. (Calves initially suckle and may start feeding on plants when a few months of age. Weaning generally takes place within a year of birth.) Manatees also require sources of freshwater, obtained from both natural and anthropogenic sources.

Manatees mature at three to five years of age. Mature females go into heat for anywhere from two to four weeks. Mating activity can occur throughout the year. When in heat, females will attract numerous males and mate repeatedly; aggregations that include an estrus or focal female and numerous males are described as mating herds. Gestation lasts for about 13 months and cows usually give birth to a single calf; twinning is known to occur. While calving primarily peaks in the spring, calves may be born at any time of the year. Reproductive senescence is poorly described; a known female has given birth to seven individual calves over a period of about 30 years. A calf may remain with its mother for about two years. Calving intervals range from two and three years. The o ldest known manatee is 61 years of age.

Historical Information: The West Indian manatee, Trichechus manatus , was listed as endangered throughout its range for both the Florida and Antillean subspecies ( T. manatus latirostris and T. manatus manatus ) in

196 7 (32 FR 4061) and received federal protection with the passage of the ESA in 1973.

Conservation Status: Per a 2009 survey, there are at least 3,800 Florida manatees; Antillean manatees in Puerto Rico are thought to include about 350 animals. Both stocks are thought to be stable and perhaps increasing in certain areas. Survival and reproductive rates are generally positive, even in the face of increasing human

- related threats, including watercraft, habitat loss, and other activities.

Summary of Major Thre ats: Threats manatees face many threats to their survival throughout their range. Historically, they were hunted for their flesh, bones, and hide. Manatee fat was used for lamp oil, bones were used for medicinal purposes, and hides were used for leather. H unting is thought to be largely responsible for the initial decline of the species; however, hunting is no longer allowed in countries where manatees are protected.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 78 Today, the greatest threats to manatee survival are collisions with boats and, in Florida, loss of warm water habitat. Speeding boats can injure and kill manatees that are submerged just below the surface. Manatees that survive such encounters carry distinctive scars. In fact, biologists studying the species use the scars as ways of identifying individual animals. As a conservation measure, many areas now post speed

- limit signs for boats or prohibit them completely. The loss of natural springs as a result of the increasing demands on water usage from development pressure, and the potential loss of warm water from power plants that are eventually shut down, could limit the available habitat for manatees in the future. Biologists are working to secure sources of warm water for manatees in Florida to eliminate this future threat. Flood gates and

can al locks can kill manatees either by crushing them or drowning them; however, recent modifications of operating procedures have reduced the number of fatalities from this source. Fishing line and other trash discarded into the water are responsible for a s mall number of manatee deaths each year. Natural events also imperil manatees. Because manatees cannot survive long in cold water, unusually cold winters in Florida pose a serious threat. As the water temperature drops below 60°F, manatees become sluggish and stop eating. Young manatees are especially susceptible to the effects of cold temperatures. Periodic red tide blooms have also been associated with a number of manatee deaths. The microorganisms associated with red tide produce a toxin that can kill ma natees if the animals breathe them or eat them. Harassment of manatees from skin divers, fishermen, and boaters can interrupt feeding and breeding. During the winter, manatees may be driven into cooler water where they are susceptible to disease and cold

s tress.



## F.4. SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI

F.4.1.

Boltonia decurrens DECURRENT FALSE ASTER

Family: Asteraceae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q26A )

• USFWS, 2012 ( http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/plants/pdf/d

- f

- aster.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 20 12

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Boltonia+decurr

ens )

• USFWS, 2012 a ( http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/plants/decurrfa.html )

Description: A robust, short

- lived perennial herb, up to 6.5 feet tall, that produces numerous flower heads with white or pale violet ray flowers surrounding a yellow centra l disk

. Its branches are somewhat leafy with numerous aster

- like capitula.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 79 Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The decurrent false aster is known to or is believed to occur in Illinois, and Missouri.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) This plant is found on moist, sandy, floodplains and prairie wetlands along the Illinois River. It relies on periodic flooding to scour away other plants that compete for the same habitat.

Life History:

Boltonia decurrens blooms from August through October througho ut its range (Schwegman and Nyboer, 1985). Both seedlings and vegetatively

- produced rosettes can withstand prolonged periods of flooding (Stoecker, Smith and Melton, 1995), and have been observed to develop while completely submerged, to bolt above water l evel, flower and produce seeds (Smith, 1990). Seeds are conditionally dormant (Baskin and Baskin, 1988), with freshly

- produced seeds germinating at warmer temperatures (30  ̊C). Peak germination appears to be in spring (Smith, 1991). Seeds stored in a refrig erator at 4  ̊C for 6 years are still viable (50% germination percentage), and a recent study indicates that in the field seeds remain viable in the soil for at least two years (Smith, 1994).

Dispersal is chiefly by floodwater. The species is primarily out crossing, but some selfing occurs (Smith, 1995). Seed production is prolific with an average of 50,000 seeds produced per plant (Smith, 1990). Germination is 60% under laboratory conditions (Smith, 1990), but seedling

survival in the field is <1%. In late fall, as each flowering individual dies, leaving no persistent root stock, basal rosettes develop independent root systems. The rosettes overwinter, bolt the following spring, and flower.

Historical Information:

Historical collection records reveal that Boltonia decurrens formerly occurred in almost contiguous populations between LaSalle, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri within the Illinois and Mississippi River floodplain. It was listed as threatened on November 14, 1988.

Conservation Status:

The numbe r of distinct occurrences varies from about 10 to about 30, depending on the flooding regime. In 1989, following extensive searches by the Illinois and Missouri Departments of Conservation, a total of 18 populations were discovered in Illinois and 10 in Mi ssouri (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990). Following the flood of 1993, the number of populations declined to 10. By the end of the summer of 1994, population number had recovered again. In spite of record flooding on the Illinois River in the spring o f 1995, the total number of populations of Boltonia

decurrens increased to 34 in 1995. Because of the vulnerability of this species to changes in flooding regime, population numbers are expected to continue to fluctuate in upcoming years.

Summary of Major Threats: Excessive silting seems to be a major cause of the decurrent false aster's decline. Highly intensive agricultural practices have increased topsoil runoff, which smothers seeds and seedlings. Habitat destruction is another threat. Agriculture has eliminated wet prairies and marshes within the species' range, natural lakes have been drained and converted to row crops. Marina construction, building levees along rivers, and draining wetlands for cultivation has also2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 80 changed patterns of flooding and el iminated habitat. Herbicides also kill these plants and may be a factor in the decline of the species. Several communities of decurrent false asters have been

found in areas of low

- intensity agriculture. Biologists believe that the plant may actually benef it from occasional farming, which eliminates competitive plant species.

F.4.2. Lampsilis abrupta PINK MUCKET

Family: Unionidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=F00G )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Lampsilis+abrup

ta )

Description: The pink mucket is a medium

- sized (reaching up to approximately 100 mm in length) freshwater mussel with a smooth, yel low or yellowish green shell and faint green rays (INHS

, 1997,

VFWIS

, 2003). The life span of the species exceeds 50 years (VFWIS

, 2003). Like other freshwater mussels, the pink mucket feeds by filtering food particles from the water column. This species c an be easily confused with Lampsilis higginsi although the former is lighter in color, less inflated and more "humped". Young shells are more elongated and the beaks are less

elevated than L. higginsi

.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution:

This species has been known to occur in Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) The pink mucket typically inhabit s medium to large rivers with strong currents; however, it has also been able to survive and reproduce in areas of impounded reaches with river/lake conditions without standing water (NatureServe

, 2003, USFWS

, 1985)

. Substrate preferences include sand, gravel, and pockets between rocky ledges in high velocity areas and mud and sand in slower moving waters

. Individuals have been found at depths up to one meter in swiftly moving currents and in much deeper waters with slower currents (Gordon and Layzer

, 19 89).

Life History: The reproductive cycle of the pink mucket is similar to that of other native freshwater mussels. Males release sperm into the water column; the sperm are then taken in by the females through their siphons during feeding and respiration. The females retain the fertilized eggs in their gills until the larvae (glochidia) fully develop. The mussel glochidia are released into the water, and within a few days they must attach to the appropriate species of fish, which they parasitize for a2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 81 shor t time while they develop into juvenile mussels. Laboratory studies have confirmed that four of nineteen fish tested are suitable hosts for the pink mucket. These include the largemouth bass spotted bass, smallmouth bass, and walleye (Barnhart 1997). Other reported glochidial fish host species include the sauger and the freshwater drum (USFWS

, 1985, VFWIS

, 2003). The pink mucket is unique in that the females possess a spotted mantle flap which may serve to mimic a fish eyespot to attract host fish (USFWS

, 1 985).

The specific food habits of the species are unknown, but other juvenile and adult freshwater mussels have been documented to feed on detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton (Churchill and Lewis 1924)

. The diet of pink mucket glochidia, lik e other freshwater mussels, comprises water (until encysted on a fish host) and fish body fluids (once encysted).

Historical Information: This species has historically been considered as an Ohioan and Interior Basin species in origin. It was formerly sca ttered throughout the Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio and Cumberland River systems (USFWS, 1985). Historical occurrences (all rare and represented by few, if any, live individuals) include the Flint River, Alabama; Limestone Creek, Alabama; Duck River; Holsto n River; French Broad River; Cumberland River; Clinch River; Obey River; Ohio River; Allegheny River; Elk River, West Virginia; Kanawha River, West Virginia; Scioto River; Muskingum River; White River, Indiana; Wabash River, Indiana and Illinois; Mississip pi River, Illinois and Iowa; Illinois River; Ouachita River and Old River, Arkansas; Black River; Sac River, Missouri; and St. Francis River, Missouri (see USFWS, 1985). It was historically known from at least 25 river systems with a widespread distributio n (USFWS, 1985). It is now extirpated in Ohio except possibly small parts of the Ohio River (Watters, 1995; Matthews and Moseley, 1990; Cummings and Mayer, 1997), and is completely extirpated from Pennsylvania (Bogan, 1993) and New York (Strayer and Jirka, 1997).

On June 14, 1976, the pink mucket was designated as endangered throughout its entire range in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia (USFWS

, 1976). A recovery plan addressing the pink mucket was approved in January 24, 1985 (USFWS

, 1985).

Conservation Status: The overall range of this once very widespread species has diminished, but this species was always considered rare whenever it was found and it seems to be surviving and reproducing in sections of river that have been altered by impoundments. More dramatic has been the decline in area of occupancy (probably greater than 30%) as it continues to be found in historical sites but often only in very low numbers . Although currently known from a few dozen localities, most are represented by very few individuals and have poor viability. If populations west of the Mississippi River prove to be a different species the conservation status will need to be

reevaluated.

Summary of Major Threats: Continued threats to the survival of this species include alteration or destruction of stream habitat due to impoundment for flood control, navigation, hydroelectric power, and recreation and degradation of water quality. Other t hreats include siltation due to strip mining, coal washing,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 82 dredging, farming, logging, road construction, and pollution from municipal, industrial, and agricultural waste discharges (USFWS, 1985).

F.4.3. Leptodea leptodon SCALESHELL MUSSEL

Family: Unionidae

En dangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=F00W )

• USFWS, 2012 a ( http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/clams/scmu_fct.html )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Leptodea+leptod

on )

Description: The scaleshell is a relatively small freshwater mussel with a thin, fragile shell and faint green rays. It grows to about one to four inches in length. It has an elongated

- elliptical, compressed, thin, translucent shell with a rounded anterior margin. The inside of the shell is pinkish white or light purple and highly iridescent. The scaleshell gets its name from the scaly appearance of the shell, which is o nly seen in females.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Current range for this species is much reduced from its historic extent. Of the 53 locales in which the scaleshell has been collected historically, only 13 or 14 are believed to contain extant populations (USFWS, 1999; Szymanski, 1998). The species is considered extirpated from Minnesota with the only specimen collected in the Minnesota River at Pike Island in the late 1800s (Sietman, 2003). It has probably been extirpated from Tennessee rivers for at least several decades (Parmalee and Bogan, 1998). It has been extirpated from the Upper Mississippi River system for over 50 years where it historically occurred in eight rivers and tributaries in the system (Szymanski, 1998). It is also near ly extirpated from the previously known 25 rivers and tributaries within the Middle Mississippi River system with only about 4 or 5 rivers in the Missouri and Meramec River drainages currently containing populations (Szymanski, 1998). It is extirpated from Alabama, probably during the 1900s; but probably once occurred in the

Tennessee River across northern Alabama however all records are from Muscle Shoals (Williams et al., 2008). It is extirpated from Ohio with historical occurrences in the Ohio River at

C incinnati and Marietta, lower Muskingum River, and Scioto River at Columbus and Circleville (Watters et al., 2009).

Habitat: (no critical habitat)

Scaleshell live in medium

- sized and large rivers with stable channels and good water quality. They bury them selves in sand and gravel on the bottom with only the edge of their partially

opened shells exposed. This species occurs in riffles with moderate to high gradients in creeks to2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 83 large rivers. It is typically associated with riffles, relatively strong curren ts, and substrate of mud, sand, or assemblages of gravel, cobble, and boulder. It has been found completely buried in the substrate down to depths of 15 cm (Oesch, 1984; 1995). It occurs in medium to large rivers with low to moderate gradients in a variety of stream habitats including gravel, cobble, boulders, and occasionally mud or sand substrates (Buchanan, 1980; 1994; Oesch, 1995).

Life History: As river currents flow over them, they siphon particles out of the water for food such as plant debris, plan kton, and other microorganisms. The roles of scaleshell in river ecosystems are as food for wildlife like muskrats, otters, and raccoons and as filters which improve water quality.

The life cycle of the scaleshell, like most freshwater mussels, is unusual and complex. Their eggs develop into microscopic larvae (glochidia) within the gills of the female. The female discharges its glochidia into the river where they must attach to gills or fins of a fish to continue developing. Each mussel species has specif ic fish species (host fish) that are needed by the glochidia to develop. Freshwater drum have been identified as a host fish for the scaleshell but there may be other species. Glochidia continue growing on the fish and transform into juveniles. After a few weeks they drop off and land on the river bottom where they grow into adults.

Historical Information: Historically this species was distributed through 55 streams in much of the Interior Basin and a portion of the St. Lawrence drainage, including 13 stat es (USFWS, 2004). Within the latter, records are primarily from the Lake Erie basin incorporating portions of western New York, southern Ontario, and southern Michigan. Records from New York are doubtful, however and are likely attributed to wingless examp les of Leptodea fragilis (Szymanski, 1998). Interior Basin records are from streams in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, southern Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Extensive surveys for the species in

Minnesota have rev ealed no extant populations and only one historical record (MN DNR, 2004; Sietman, 2003). The only known extant populations are now restricted 13 streams in the Interior Highland divisions in Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma (see Oesch, 1984; 1995; Gordon, 1985; Harris and Gordon, 1987; Clarke, 1987; Cummings and Mayer, 1992; Parmalee and Bogan, 1998; Szymanski, 1998; and USFWS, 1999). An additional site in the lower Missouri River near St. Louis, was discovered in 1990 (Hoke, 2000) bringing the total to 14 . The species has not reported from Alabama since ompoundment of the Tennessee River (Mirarchi et al., 2004). Extensive surveys for the species in Minnesota have revealed no extant populations and only one historical record (MN DNR, 2004). Fresh dead shell s were recently discovered below Lewis and Clark Lake, Nebraska in the Missouri River (Hoke, 2005).

Conservation Status: This species has experienced a severe reduction in extant occurrences (approximately 75% reduction in number of streams) that has redu ced this species from a fairly widespread species to a "regional endemic" in the Interior Highlands region. Sub

- national extirpations have occurred in Alabama, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. While

it exists in 14 streams, only three or four populations are thought to be stable and most occurrences are widely disjunctive.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 84 Summary of Major Threats: This species is severely impacted by alteration and inundation of channels, siltation from agriculture and clear

- cu tting, chemical and organic pollution. The decline of scaleshell is primarily due to threats that cause habitat loss and degradation from construction activities and intensive land use (USFWS, 2004). Although sedimentation is a natural process, poor land u se practices, dredging, impoundments, intensive timber harvesting, heavy recreational use, and other activities may accelerate erosion and increase sedimentation. A sudden or slow blanketing

of the river bottom with sediment can suffocate freshwater mussel s because it is difficult for them to move away from the threat. Increased sediment levels may also make it difficult for scaleshells to feed, which can lead to decreased growth, reproduction, and survival.

Adult mussels are easily harmed by toxins and de clines in water quality from pollution because they are sedentary (stay in one place). Pollution may come from specific, identifiable sources such as factories, sewage treatment plants and solid waste disposal sites or from diffuse sources

like runoff from cultivated fields, pastures, cattle feedlots, poultry farms, mines, construction sites, private wastewater discharges, and road drainage. Contaminants reduce water quality and may directly kill mussels, reduce the ability of surviving mussels to have youn g, or result in poor health or disappearance of host fish.

Dams affect both upstream and downstream mussel populations by disrupting natural flow patterns, scouring river bottoms, changing water temperatures, and eliminating habitat. The scaleshell, a mus sel adapted to living in river currents, cannot survive in the still water impounded behind dams.

Scaleshells depend on their host fish as a means of moving upstream. Because dams are barriers that prevent fish from moving upstream they also prevent mussels from moving upstream. Upstream mussel populations then become isolated from downstream populatio ns. This isolation leads to small unstable populations which are more likely to die out.

The invasion of the exotic zebra mussel into the U.S. poses a substantial threat because it starves and suffocates native mussels by attaching to their shells in lar ge numbers.

F.4.4. Myotis grisescens GRAY BAT

Family: Vespertilionidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A04J )

• USFWS, 2012 e ( http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/endspecies/fact_sh eets/gray%20bat.pdf )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 85 • NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Myotis+grisesce

ns )

Description: Gray bat s are distinguished from other bats by the unicolored fur on their back. In addition, following their molt in July or August, gray bats have dark gray fur which often bleaches to a chestnut brown or russet. They weigh 7

- 16 grams. The bat's wing membrane co nnects to its ankle instead of at the toe, where it is connected in other species of Myotis . Their ears are dark, usually black and longer than in any other Myotis

.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The gray bat occupies a limited geographi c range in limestone karst areas of the southeastern United States. They are mainly found in Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. A few can be found in northwestern Florida, western Georgia, southeastern Kansas, southern Indiana, southern and southwestern Illinois, northeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Mississippi, western Virginia, and possibly western North Carolina. Summer and winter ranges are essentially the same.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) With rare exceptions, gray bats l ive in caves year

- round. During the winter gray bats hibernate in deep, vertical caves. In the summer, they roost in caves which are scattered along rivers. These caves are in limestone karst areas of the southeastern United States. They do not use houses or barns.

Tuttle (1979) showed that forested areas along the banks of streams and lakes provide important protection for adults and young. Young often feed and take shelter in forest areas near the entrance to cave roosts (Tuttle 1979). They do not feed in areas along rivers or reservoirs where the forest has been cleared (LaVal et al.

, 1977).

Life History: The gray bat migrates south for the winter. This species lives in caves year

- round, but during the summer uses multiple caves. In summer, the gray ba t uses caves that are warm and have flowing water or are close to rivers or reservoirs. Mating occurs in the fall, and one young per female is born in late May or early June. Young can fly by early to mid

- July. Females are very specific in selecting the ca ves in which they give birth and raise their young. All maternity caves contain a stream; therefore fewer than five percent of all caves are suitable for use by pregnant females. Females migrate in early September, while males and juveniles migrate in mid

- October. Some individuals migrate up to 300 miles to their winter cave. Males and females hibernate together in the winter in caves that are large and cold, and contain complex caverns. Almost all gray bats

hibernate in five caves in the southeastern U.S. The gray bat forages over water and forested areas. The bats eat a variety of flying aquatic and terrestrial insects present along rivers or lakes. The energy demands on adult females are tremendous during lactation, and individual females

sometimes feed c ontinuously for seven or more hours per night (Tuttle and Stevenson).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 86 Historical Information: The gray bat was listed as endangered on April 28, 1976.

Conservation Status: The species' present total population is estimated to number over 1,500,000; howev er, about 95 percent hibernate in only eight caves

-- two in Tennessee, three in Missouri, and one each in Kentucky, Alabama, and Arkansas. Although gray bat numbers are still relatively high, their total population has decreased significantly during recent years.

Summary of Major Threats: Cave disturbance has been the major factor in the decline. Cave protection efforts have greatly reduced this threat. Decline began with cave disturbance associated with saltpeter production during the Civil War. Some of th e largest colonies were lost as a result of cave commercialization. The commercialization of caves drives bats away. Any gating on the cave that prevents access or alters the air flow, temperature, humidity, and amount of light is harmful. The species is e specially vulnerable due to its high fidelity to particular favored caves, and it is very sensitive to disturbance, including the mere presence of humans with lights; disturbance may result in bats moving to less favorable roosting places.

White

- nose syn drome has been detected in this species, and this emerging disease must be regarded as the major threat and one that could cause large, rapid declines. The use of forestry insecticides and crop pesticides in areas adjacent to riparian corridors where gray bats forage may reduce the prey base or kill bats that ingest contaminated insects (Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center). Some maternity and hibernating colonies are susceptible to human disturbance (Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center). Other threats include pesticides, deforestation, and impoundment of waterways (and subsequent cave inundation).

F.4.5. Myotis sodalis INDIANA BAT

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.4.6. Platanthera leucophaea EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED ORCHID

Family: Orchidaceae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2GG )

• USFWS, 2012 a ( http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/plants/epfo.html )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( h ttp://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Platanthera+leuc
ophaea )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 87 Description: This plant is 8 to 40 inches tall and has an upright leafy stem with a flower cluster called an

inflorescence. The 3 to 8 inch lance

- shaped leaves sheath the stem. Each plant has one single flower spike composed of 5 to 40 creamy white flowers. Each flower has a three

- part fringed lip less than 1 inch long and a nectar spur (tube

- like structure) which is about 1 to 2 inches long.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Current range is the Midwest region of the U.S. The eastern prairie fringed orchid is known to or is believed to occur in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, and

Wisconsin.

Habitat: (no critical habit at) The eastern prairie fringed orchid occurs in a wide variety of habitats, from mesic prairie to wetlands such as sedge meadows, marsh edges, even bogs. It requires full sun for optimum growth and flowering and a grassy habitat with little or no woody en croachment. A symbiotic relationship between the seed and soil fungi, called mycorrhizae, is necessary for seedlings to become established. This fungus helps the seeds assimilate nutrients in the soil.

Life History: This orchid is a perennial herb that gr ows from an underground tuber. Flowering begins from late June to early July, and lasts for 7 to 10 days. Blossoms often rise just above the height of the surrounding grasses and sedges. The more exposed flower clusters are more likely to be visited by the hawkmoth pollinators, though they are also at greater risk of being eaten by deer. Seed capsules mature over the growing season and are dispersed by the wind from late August through September. Night flying hawkmoths pollinate the nocturnally fragrant flo wers of this white orchid. Visiting hawkmoths inadvertently collect pollen on their proboscises as they ingest nectar from the flower’s long nectar spurs.

Historical Information: The historic range of this species was east of the Mississippi River in the Great Lakes Region and the area that comprises the prairie peninsula: Nova Scotia and Ontario, Canada; Nebraska to Ohio and Louisiana. It was listed as threatened on September 28, 1989.

Conservation Status: The species is extirpated in much of its large historic range and is very rare throughout its current range. Most of this species' wet prairie habitat has been destroyed due to drainage and conversion to agriculture, fire suppression, and intensive mowing. Because of the destruction of

most of the natu ral grasslands east of the Mississippi River, large populations no longer occur anywhere in the United States (the only population with more than 2000 individuals is in Ontario, Canada). The mostly small, isolated populations that remain are not representa tive of populations supported by the once

- vast prairie habitat, and many are only infrequently visited by appropriate pollinators.

Summary of Major Threats: Early decline was due to the loss of habitat, mainly conversion of natural habitats to cropland

an d pasture. Current decline is mainly due to the loss of habitat from the drainage and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 88 development of wetlands for crop production, and commercial and residential development. Populations along the shores of the Great Lakes are threatened by high water leve ls and invasion of purple loosestrife. Other reasons for the current decline include succession to woody vegetation, competition from non

- native species, grazing by cattle and deer, cutting hay in midsummer (prevents seed dispersal) and over

- collection fro m humans.

F.4.7. Scaphirhynchus albus PALLID STURGEON

Family: Acipenseridae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile /speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06X )

• USFWS, 2012 a ( http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/fishes/palld_fc.html )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Scaphirhynchus

+albus )

Description: Pallid sturgeons have a unique dinosaur

- like appearan ce. They have a flattened snout, long slender tail and are armored with lengthwise rows of bony plates instead of scales. Their mouth is toothless and positioned under the snout for sucking small fishes and invertebrates from the river bottom. Pallid sturg eons can weigh up to 80 pounds and reach lengths of 6 feet, whereas the closely related shovelnose sturgeon rarely weights more than 8 pounds. The back and sides of pallid sturgeons are grayish

- white versus the brown color of the shovelnose sturgeons.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Range includes the Missouri River (from mouth to Fort Benton, Montana), lower Yellowstone River, lower Platte River, Mississippi River downstream from its junction with the Missouri River and upstream at leas t several kilometers from the Missouri River, and Atchafalaya River in central Louisiana (Reed and Ewing

, 1993 ; USFWS

, 2007). Occasional sightings have occurred near the mouths of various other large tributaries of the Mississippi River (e.g., Big Sunflower River and St. Francis River) and Missouri River (e.g., Kansas River and Platte River), but these instances may reflect fishes utilizing unusual flow conditions (USFWS

, 1989). The lower Yellowstone River and lower Platte River may be significant spawning t ributaries (see USFWS

, 2007).

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Pallid sturgeons evolved and adapted to living close to the bottom of large, silty rivers with natural a hydrograph. Their preferred habitat has a diversity of depths and velocities formed by

br aided channels, sand bars, sand flats and gravel bars

. Pallid sturgeons tend to select main channel habitats in the Mississippi River (Sheehan et al.

, 1998) and main channel areas with islands or sand bars in the upper Missouri River (Bramblett

, 1996). In the lower Platte River,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 89 Nebraska, hatchery

- reared individuals (age 6

- 7) usually were downstream of sand bars where currents converge (Snook et al.

, 2002). Specific characteristics of spawning habitat have not been

documented.

Life History:

Sexual maturit y for males is estimated to be 7

- 9 years, with 2

- 3 year intervals between spawning. Females are not expected to not reach sexual maturity until 7

- 15 years, with up to 10

- year intervals between spawning. Pallid sturgeons are long lived, with individuals per haps reaching 50 years of age. They feed opportunistically on aquatic insects, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids, eggs of other fishes, and sometimes other fishes (USFWS

, 1989).

Historical Information: Listed as endangered (55 Federal Register 36641) on September 6, 1990.

Conservation Status: The upper Missouri River supports a small, declining, wild population of a couple hundred adults; recruitment is very low or absent. The lower Missouri River contains a small wild population of probably fewer than 2 00 adults, with sporadic or limited recruitment. Population size in the Atchafalaya River may be a few thousand. Population size in the largest segments of the range

-- the Mississippi River

-- is unknown (USFWS

, 2007). According to Duffy et al. (1996),

the to tal range

- wide population size may be as few as 6,000 individuals or as many as 21,000.

Summary of Major Threats: Construction and operation of large dams and river channelization have eliminated and degraded preferred sturgeon habitat (Pflieger and Grace

, 1987). On the main stem of the Missouri River, approximately 36 percent of riverine habitat within the pallid sturgeon's range was eliminated by construction of six massive earthen dams between 1926 and 1952 (USFWS

, 1993); the dams are

believed to block migrations, and the reservoirs probably inundated historical spawning and nursery areas. Another 40 percent has been channelized. The remaining 24 percent has been altered due to changes in water flows caused by dam operations (USFWS

, 1993). USFWS (2007)

c oncluded that the species is still threatened by habitat loss and inadequate regulatory mechanisms in all or portions of the range. Habitat changes have severely reduced or eliminated successful reproduction. The low level of natural recruitment is a major concern and impediment

to recovery.

Past commercial exploitation likely exceeded biological recruitment. Illegal commercial harvest is currently occurring in portions of the lower Missouri River and Mississippi River; pallid sturgeon exhibits lower ages and higher mortality rates in areas where shovelnose sturgeons are commercially harvested (Colombo et al., in press). This threat is likely to increase as caviar

sources are reduced world

- wide and caviar prices increase (USFWS

, 2007). Limited data suggest that contaminants may have some effect on reproduction (USFWS

, 2007).

Significant hybridization with shovelnose sturgeon has been documented (USFWS

, 1989, Wills

et al.

, 2002). However, it is unclear whether hybridization is actually a threat (USFWS

, 2007)

.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 90 F.4.8.

Sterna antillarum ( athalassos ) LEAST TERN (Interior Population)

Family: Laridae Endangered: AR, CO, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA (Mississippi River and tributaries north of Baton Rouge), MS (Mississippi River), MO, MT, ND, NE, NM, OK, SD, TN, and TX (except within 50 miles of coast).

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07N )

• USFWS, 2012 a ( http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/birds/tern.html )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ser vlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_repor
t.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehen
sive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=103386&paging=home&save=tru
e&startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKe y=101508&offPag
eSelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutt

on&selectedIndexes=101508&selectedIndexes=103386&selectedIndexes=104205 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=species_Rpt
Comprehensive.wmt&loadTemplate=tabular_report. wmt&paging=home&elKey=103386
&save=false&page=2 )

Description: Least terns are the smallest member of the gull and tern family. They are approximately 9 inches in length. Unlike gulls, terns will dive into the water for small fish. The body of least terns i s predominately gray and white, with black “crown” streaking on the head. They have snowy whiter underside and forehead, grayish back and wings, orange legs, and a yellow bill with a black tip. Least terns have a forked tail and narrow pointed wings. Least terns less than a year old have less distinctive black streaking on the head and less of a forked tail.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Interior least terns breed in isolated areas along the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Red, and Rio

Gran de river systems. Their winter home is not known, but probably includes coastal areas of

Central and South America

. The Least tern (interior population) is known to or is believed to occur in Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, L ouisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) From late April to August, terns use barren to sparsely vegetated sandbars along rivers, sand and

gr avel pits, or lake and reservoir shorelines. In the breeding season they can be found along sea coasts, beaches, bays, estuaries, lagoons, lakes, and rivers (AOU

, 1983). Rests and loafs on sandy beaches, mudflats, and salt

- pond dikes (Stiles and Skutch

, 19 89). They nest usually in2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 91 shallow depression on level ground on sandy or gravelly beaches and banks of rivers or lakes, typically in areas with sparse or no vegetation; also on dredge spoils, on mainland or on barrier island beaches, and on flat gravel

- cov ered rooftops of buildings (especially in the southeastern U.S.) or other similarly barren artificial sites (AOU

, 1983).

Adults do not require cover during the breeding season, but chicks may use sparse vegetation and debris for shade and protection (Hardy

, 1957 ; Blodgett

, 1978). Parents may lead chicks toward the periphery of the colony into more heavily vegetated areas (Akers

, 1975), where the young utilize debris and vegetation for cover (Hardy

, 1957). In coastal areas, beach grass is the commonly associated vegetation. Along river systems, willow is the common vegetation adjacent to sites.

Since least terns always nest near water, they are vulnerable to flood inundation and seem to seek high ground. In coastal Texas, Thompson and Slack (1982) doc umented that the densest nesting area in 67% of the colonies was above the midpoint of available elevations. Gochfeld (1983)

found that least terns on Long Island avoid beaches that have less than 32.8 feet (10 m) of width beyond the hightide mark. Interio r least tern nests on salt plains in Oklahoma were located an average of 110.5 m away from the nearest water (Grover and Knopf

, 1982). However, nests on the Platte River in Nebraska, were located at an average of 18.9 m away from the nearest river

channel on sand bars that averaged 58.9 m wide (Faanes

, 1983).

Life History: Courtship behavior includes chases, vocalizations, and sometimes presentation of a fish to the female by the male. Least terns lay eggs mostly in May

- June (July

- August nests probably are renests). Renesting may occur after egg loss associated with heavy rains and/or flooding (Jernigan et al.

, 1978 ; Blus and Prouty

, 1979). Clutch size usually is 2

- 3, rarely up to 4

- 5 (Hardy

, 1957, Swickard

, 1974, Houde

, 1977, Hays

, 1980, Faanes

, 1983). Inc ubation usually lasts 20

- 25 days, by both sexes but mostly by female.

Hatching success varies greatly and is affected by factors such as weather, tides, predation, and human disturbance; although it may be high under optimal conditions. Young are tended by both parents. Reproductive success rarely exceeds one chick per pair (Kress et al.

, 1983). Its maximum known natural longevity is 21 years (Massey and Atwood

, 1978 ; Clapp et al.

, 1982). In recent years, colonies generally have included no more than 20 p airs, sometimes up to about 75 pairs (Ehrlich et al.

, 1992), rarely up to several hundred pairs. Their colony may be divided into subcolonies (Massey

, 1974).

In California, usually nests in same area in successive years; tends to return to natal site to n est (Atwood and Massey

, 1988). On Long Island, New York, tends to nest in same area in successive years if physical conditions are conducive to nesting (MacLean et al.

, 1991).

They eat mainly small fish, sometimes crustaceans or insects, obtained by divin g from air into shallow water usually less than 4 m deep (Moseley 1976). Interior populations depend almost entirely on cyprinids. Feeding in newly plowed fields has been observed in Texas; apparently beetle larvae were being captured (McDaniel and McDanie l, 1963

, Auk 80:544).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 92 Historical Information: Interior populations of the least tern, formerly well distributed in the Mississippi Basin, now survive only in scattered remnants. The least tern (interior population) was listed as an endangered species in 1985.

Conservation Status: Interior population declined through at least the early 1980s. Its decline has taken place over many decades. Many populations are not fledging enough young to successfully increase local populations, but there appears to be imm igration from Gulf populations and a good deal of movement among interior populations. Local populations fluctuate substantially (Kirsch and

Sidle

, 1994). USFWS (1990) categorized the status of the interior population as "improving." California population has responded well to management, and populations are continuing to increase; population increased from 600 pairs in 1970 to 1,700 pairs in 1992 (Massey, pers. comm.).

Summary of Major Threats: Populations were decreased greatly by formerly extensive plum e hunting. Current major problems are human use/disturbance and development of nesting habitat. Habitat loss and degradation has been caused by dams, reservoirs, and other changes to river systems that have

eliminated most historic least tern habitat. The wide channels dotted with sandbars that are preferred by the terns have been replaced by narrow forested river corridors. In addition, recreational activities on rivers and sandbars disturb the nesting terns, causing them to abandon

their nests.

Other fac tors include predation on adults, eggs, and young by birds and mammals (see Burger and Gochfeld 1990). Some habitat is lost due to encroachment of vegetation, but this may be offset by habitat created when storm overwash removes vegetation from portions of barrier beaches or creates overwash fans of sandy/gravelly substrate. Storms during spring tides sometimes wash out nests. Increasing human use of beaches, may seriously limit the availability of productive nesting sites in the southeast U.S.



## F.5. DULUTH, MINNESOTA

F.5.1.

Charadrius melodus PIPING PLOVER

(See New York, New York for information on this species)



## F.6. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

F.6.1. NORTH AMERICAN GREEN STURGEON Acipenser medirostris Family: Acipenseridae Endangered: Threatened (CA Southern Distinct Popula tion Segment)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 93 Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b
(http://ecos.fws.gov /speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E09K

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012
(http://www.natureserve.org /explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Acipenser+medi

rostris

Description: Green sturgeons are among the largest and longest living species found in freshwater, living up to 70 years and weighing up to 350 pounds. They resemble a prehistoric creature, possessing a skeleton that is more cartilage than bone and rows of bony plates for protection rather than scales. Green sturgeon are olive green in color and have a vacuum cleaner

- like mouth that is used to siphon food.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: States in which green sturgeons are known or believed to occur are Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington. Based on genetic data, NMFS (2003) identified two distinct population segments (DPSs). The geographic range of the northern DPS occurs largely within the Coastal Range ecoregion which extends from the Olympic Pen insula southward through the Coast Range and Klamath Mountains to and including the Eel River. The southern DPS occurs south of the Eel River, largely within the Central California Valley ecoregion which includes the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. NMFS stated that further research may revise these ranges and that additional DPSs could be recognized in the future.

The largest spawning population is thought to occur in the Klamath River on the north coast of California (NMFS

, 2003). Juveniles are capture d each year in the Klamath River and have also been found in the lower portion of the Salmon River (a tributary to the Klamath River). Adults occur in the Trinity River, a major tributary to the Klamath River, to Gray's Falls, but spawning

can be confirmed only up to the Willow Creek trap. In the Sacramento River system, spawning occurs predominantly in the upper Sacramento River, above Hamilton City and perhaps as far upstream as Keswick Dam (NMFS

, 2003). Juveniles are found throughout the Delta and San

Fr ancisco Bay. Adults and juveniles occur throughout the upper Sacramento River (NMFS

, 2003).

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Green sturgeons spend most of their lives in coastal marine waters, estuaries, and the lower reaches of large rivers. They ascend ri vers to spawn, but specific spawning and rearing habitats are poorly known.

Life History: Spawning appears to occur in the spring. Individuals become sexually mature at about 17 years (males) or approximately 21 years (females) (NMFS

, 2001). Females spawn at intervals of 3

- 7 years (NMFS

, 2001). Individuals live up to several decades.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 94 Historical Information: They have a large marine range along North Pacific Ocean of North America, but only a few known spawning rivers.

Conservation Status:

Some historical California spawning streams are no longer used (Moyle et al.

, 1995). Existing spawning stream channels and flows have been modified so it is likely that suitable conditions for spawning and rearing occur less frequently than in the past (Moyle et al.

, 199 5). Apparently reduced in numbers throughout the range, although evidence is limited (Moyle et al.

, 1995). Musick et al. (2000) cited evidence that populations have declined by 88% throughout much of the range, and there appears to have been recent decline s in the Umpqua River in Oregon and the Fraser River in Canada. NMFS (2003) concluded that available information is inadequate for assessing trend.

Summary of Major Threats: There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the effects of potential risk fact ors on green sturgeon in the southern DPS (NMFS

, 2003). While there is some information on harvest bycatch impacts, it appears most of the identified risk factors are not well documented or are only suspected to be risk factors. Examples of the latter incl ude entrainment at the Delta water export facilities, impacts from exotic species introductions, impacts from contaminants, and lethal water temperatures. In the case of harvest bycatch, for which there is the most information and perhaps the greatest conc ern, it is not possible to directly assess the impact of harvest on green sturgeon in this DPS. Nevertheless, direct harvest appears to be limited in California and harvest from fisheries in Oregon and Washington has declined substantially since the mid

- 19 80s

and even more so since the mid

- 1990s due to increasingly restrictive harvest management measures. These harvest reductions and associated restrictive management measures suggest that risk to green sturgeon from harvest bycatch has been reduced. Althoug h the risk to green sturgeon from bycatch harvest may be declining, NMFS (2003) believed that it may be prudent to consider additional harvest protections until population monitoring information can be obtained to assess the status of this DPS with greater certainty. Based on a review of the best available information, NMFS (2003) concluded that the southern green sturgeon DPS is not presently in danger of extinction nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

Other threats include modificatio n of spawning habitats (e.g., as a result of logging, agriculture, mining, road construction, and urban development in coastal watersheds), entrainment in water project diversions, and pollution (see Moyle et al.

, 1995 for further details). All known spawn ing rivers, have flow regimes that are affected by water projects (Moyle et al.

, 1995).

F.6.2. Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis SONOMA ALOPECURUS

Family: Poaceae Endangered: wherever found2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 95 Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q01F )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTem plate=tabular_repor
t.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehen
sive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=148177&paging=home&save=tru
e&startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=152667&offPag

eSelectedEl Type=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutt

on&selectedIndexes=152667&selectedIndexes=134370&selectedIndexes=148177&selec

tedIndexes=156116&selectedIndexes=146786&selectedIndexes=151682&selectedIndexe

s=143240&selectedIndexes=130762&s electedIndexes=144157&selectedIndexes=128750

&selectedIndexes=156995&selectedIndexes=156475&selectedIndexes=132489 )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3898.pdf )

Des cription: Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis (or Sonoma Shortawn Foxtail) is a tufted perennial grass that grows from 30 to 75 centimeters (12 to 30 inches) tall. The stems are mostly erect and either straight or weakly bent near the base. The leaf blades are up to 7.5 millimeters (0.3 inch) wide. The panicle is 2.5 to 9.0 centimeters (1.0 to 3.5 inches) long and 4 to 8 millimeters (0.1 to 0.3 inch) wide. The spikelets are usually tinged violet

- gray near the tip. The awn is straight, and

exceeds the lemma body by 1.0 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inch). This variety is distinguished

from A. aequalis var. aequalis by a more robust, upright appearance, generally wider panicle,

violet

- gray tinged spikelets, and longer awn (Rubtzoff 1961; W. Crins, Ontario Mi nistry of Natural Resources, in litt. 1993).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Sonoma alopecurus/Sonoma shortawn foxtail is known to or is believed to occur in California. The plant occurs in freshwater marshes and swamps and riparian scrub within Marin and Sonoma Counties, California (California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2011). Five of six known populations are clustered within a 12

- square kilometer (4.6

- square mile) area on the Point Reyes Peninsula in Marin County. The only known extant population in Sonoma County is

located at Annadel State Park.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Sonoma alopecurus is found in riparian stream communities both in the stream channel and along the wet banks between 3 and 360 meters (10 and 1,180feet) in elevation. Most of the wetlands where Sonoma alopecurus now grow are located within coastal grasslands. In the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS), Sonoma alopecurus occurs in the pastoral zone, where cattle grazing have occurred since the 1830s (PRNS

, 2 010). On PRNS the plants are found in running water flowing from freshwater marsh through dunes and in a marshy area along the edge of a lagoon. Soil types in these locations are Sirdak sand, Sirdak variant sand, and dunes (U.S. Soil

Conservation Service

, 1985).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 96 Life History: While the reproductive mechanisms of this species have not been studied, Sonoma alopecurus appears to reproduce both sexually (assumed via wind pollination) and vegetatively (via rhizomes) (Gennet

, 2004). Flowering begins in mid

- Ma y and lasts through August (Gennet

, 2004). Gennet (2004) observed germination rates in the greenhouse at 62.2 percent. All seed germination occurred within 16 days of planting. There appeared to be a linear relationship between seed weight and germination rate (Gennet

, 2004).

Historical Information: The historical range of Sonoma alopecurus was approximately 48 kilometers (30 miles), reaching north from Point Reyes Peninsula to Guerneville and east to Cunningham Marsh. At the time of listing, we noted that although fewer sites were present, the range of the species had changed little from the historical range. Currently, PRNS has five out of six known extant populations of Sonoma alopecurus. These five populations are clustered in a small (12

- square kilomet er) area on the Point Reyes Peninsula (PRNS

, 2010). A small population at Ledson Marsh is the only known extant population in Sonoma County, and the population distribution of this grass species has shifted to Marin, rather than Sonoma, County (Gennet

, 200 4). In addition, as of summer 2010, the population at Ledson Marsh was present, but reduced in size, and appropriate habitat appeared to be shrinking (A. Howald, Garcia and Associates, in litt. 2009 in A. Ryan, PRNS, in litt. 2011; J. Herrick, California N ative Plant Society (CNPS) in litt. 2010).

Conservation Status: The number of individuals in populations of Sonoma alopecurus may fluctuate markedly within and between years. The exact number of individuals is difficult to determine due to the species’

gr owth habitat (PRNS

, 2006) and different methods of assessing population size that have been used. At the time of final listing in 1997, 8 populations of Sonoma alopecurus were known to exist in Marin and Sonoma Counties. Three of the populations, in Sonoma County, were priva tely owned, four populations were on Federal land within PRNS in Marin County, California, and one population was on a private inholding within the PRNS (CNDDB

, 1993;

Service

, 1997).

Summary of Major Threats: At the time of listing, the primary threats to Sonoma alopecurus were habitat destruction and modification due to urbanization, land use changes, or alterations in hydrology. We noted that a portion of the historical range of Sonoma alopecurus was within the project boundaries of a

wastewater treatmen t facility (Service

, 1997). The majority of the historical populations of Sonoma alopecurus experienced dramatic human

- influenced land use changes prior to their decline or extirpation. Some wetland areas had been drained or altered in preparation for the construction of structures or buildings; others were fenced and intensively grazed (CNDDB

, 2002; Gennet

, 2004). Currently, competition from invasive plants, extirpation from random events and small population size, occasional trampling by cattle; and lack of reproductive success in the field still threaten Sonoma alopecurus. Additionally, Sonoma alopecurus is likely threatened by global climate change throughout its range.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 97 F.6.3. Ambystoma californiense CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER

Family: Ambystomatidae Endanger ed: CA: Santa Barbara and Sonoma Counties Threatened: Central CA Distinct Population Segment

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D01T )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/N atureServe?searchName=Ambystoma+cal

iforniense )

• Goals Project, 2000. ( http://www.sfestuary.org/pdfs/species

community/Species_and_Community_Profiles %5BPart1%5D.pdf )

• 76 FR 54346 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2011

- 08

- 31/pdf/2011

- 21945.pdf )

• 70 FR 49380
( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/citation.result.FR.action?federalRegister.volume=2005
&federalRegister.page=49380&pub lication=FR )

Description: The California tiger salamander is a large, stocky, terrestrial salamander with a broad, rounded snout. Adult males are about 8 inches long, females a little less than 7 inches long. Coloration consists of white or pale yellow sp ots or bars on a black background on the back and sides. The belly varies from almost uniform white or pale yellow to a variegated pattern of white or pale yellow and black. The salamander's small eyes protrude from their heads with black irises.

Geograph ic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The species has a discontinuous distribution in west

- central California: coast ranges between Sonoma and Santa Barbara counties, Central Valley and surrounding foothills from southern Colusa County to northwestern Ke rn County on the west side of the valley and southern Butte County to northern Tulare County on the east side.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) The best habitats for California tiger salamanders are vernal pool complexes with colonies of California ground squirrels or Botta’s pocket gophers within the complex or nearby (Shaffer et

al.

, 1993). Such habitats are normally associated with grasslands or oak woodlands (Barry and

Shaffer

, 1994). Additionally, there needs to be abundant invertebrate resources and o ther native amphibian larvae in the vernal pools used by breeding salamanders.

Juvenile and adult salamanders have also been found in a number of human

- created habitats such as septic tank lines, pipes, wells, wet basements, and permanent irrigation ponds (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994). Such habitats may not be suitable for the long

- term survival or successful reproduction of local salamander populations.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 98 Critical habitat for the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander was amended to
47,383 acres of land on Sept. 30, 2011

. 199,109 acres of critical habitat was designated for the central CA population of the California tiger salamander on Sept. 22, 2005.

The Central and Sonoma County populations of the CTS require the following primary

constituent elements: (1) standing bodies of fresh water (including natural and manmade (e.g., stock)) ponds, vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies which typically support inundation during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks i n a year of average rainfall; (2) upland habitats adjacent and accessible to and from breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows or other underground habitat that CTS depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predation; (3) accessible upland dispersal habitat between occupied locations that allow for movement between such sites.

Life History: Most adults probably reach sexual maturity in two years, but some individuals may take longer during periods of unfavorable conditions such as annual droughts (Shaffer et al. 1993). Adults migrate during the night from subterranean refuge sites (small mammal burrows) to breeding ponds after the onset of relatively warm winter rains (late November

- early March) where courtship and egg depo sition occurs (Twitty

, 1941 ; Barry and Shaffer

, 1994 ; Loredo and Van

Vuren

, 1996). Females lay single or small groups of 2

- 4 eggs (8.5

- 12 mm in diameter) on detritus, submerged vegetation, or on the benthos of relatively shallow rain pools (Storer

, 1925).

Eggs hatch after 2

- 4 weeks (Storer 1925, Twitty 1941), and gilled aquatic larvae take a minimum of at least 10 weeks to successfully reach metamorphosis (Anderson

, 1968, Feaver

, 1971). Larvae lack legs upon hatching at 10.5 mm total length, but quickly g row four legs within 1

- 2 weeks. Larvae generally are about 75 mm in total length and weigh about 10 grams at metamorphosis into juveniles, although they may remain in water (for up to six months) and grow to much larger sizes with a better chance of surviv al after metamorphosis (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994).

California tiger salamanders are relatively long

- lived animals, reaching ages of 20 years or more in captivity (Jennings, unpubl. data). The average life span of adults in the wild is unknown.

Larval Cali fornia tiger salamanders subsist on aquatic invertebrates (Oligochaetes, Cladocera, Conchostraca, Ostracoda, Anostraca, Notostraca, Chironomids, etc.), as well as the larvae of western spadefoots ( Scaphiopus hammondii ), California toads ( Bufo boreas haloph ilus ), and Pacific treefrogs ( Hyla regilla ) (Anderson 1968; Feaver 1971; Jennings, unpubl. data). Larval salamanders are also highly cannibalistic (Jennings, unpubl. data). Good numbers of food organisms in breeding ponds appear to be important for the sur vival and rapid growth of salamander larvae to metamorphosis (Jennings, unpubl. data). Juvenile and adult salamanders subsist on terrestrial invertebrates (Oligochaetes, Isopoda, Orthoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, Araneida, Gastropoda) (Stebbins

, 1972; Morey and Guinn

, 1992; Jennings, unpubl. data). There is no evidence of adult salamanders feeding in aquatic environments (Jennings, unpubl. data).

Historical Information: The historical distribution of the California tiger salamander ranged from the vicinity of Petaluma, Sonoma County and Dunnigan, Colusa

- Yolo County line (Storer

, 1925) with an2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 99 isolated outpost north of the Sutter Buttes at Gray Lodge, Butte County (Hayes and Cliff

, 1982) in Central Valley, south to vernal pools in northwest Tulare County, and in the South Coast Range south to ponds and vernal pools between Bulleton and Lompoc in the Santa Ynez drainage, Santa Barbara County (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994). The known elev ational range

extends from 3 m

- 1054 m (Shaffer et al.

, 1993). The species has disappeared from about 55% of its historic range (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994).

In the Bay Area, California tiger salamanders have disappeared from almost all of the lower

elevatio n areas (<50 m), save one small site on the San Francisco Wildlife Refuge near Fremont, Alameda County (Jennings, unpubl. data). There are scattered populations currently inhabiting vernal pool and stockpond habitats in hills surrounding the South Bay (Jen nings, unpubl. data), to the nort of Coyote Hills in Suisun, and in northern Contra Costa. A group of relict populations is also present in the North Bay region in vernal pool habitats near Petaluma (Shaffer et al.

, 1993)

Conservation Status:

Based on the data presented in Shaffer et al. (1993) and Jennings and Hayes (1994), California tiger salamanders appear to have disappeared from approximately 58% and 55% (respectively), of their historic range in the state (Sorensen

, 1994). Although the species still occurs throughout most of the historical range and remains locally common in some areas, the recent and projected future rate of decline remains high. Consequently, the species was federally listed as Threatened rangewide in 2004.

Summary of Major Threat s: This salamander is most affected by land use patterns and other anthropogenic events which fragment habitat and create barriers between breeding and refuge sites (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994). Some of the more important factors negatively influencing salam ander populations include: conversion and isolation of vernal pool habitats (and surrounding oak woodland and grasslands) to agriculture and urbanization (Barry and Shaffer

, 1994); lowering of the groundwater table by overdraft (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994); mortality of juvenile and adult salamanders by vehicles on roads (Twitty

, 1941); the introduction of non

- native predators such as mosquitofish ( Gambusia affinis ), bullfrogs ( Rana catesbeiana ) and crayfish into breeding habitats (Shaffer et al. 1993); the w idespread poisoning of California ground squirrels and other burrowing rodents (Loredo et al.

, 1996); and interbreeding with introduced salamanders originally brought in as live fish bait (Shaffer et al.

, 1993).

F.6.4. Arctocephalus townsendi GUADALUPE FUR SEAL

Family: Otariidae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0A8 )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 100 • NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Arctocephalus+t

ownsendi )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/guadalupefurseal.htm )

Description: Guadalupe fur seals are members of the "eared seal" family, Otariidae. Guadalup e fur seals are sexually dimorphic with males reaching average lengths of about 7 ft. (2 m) and weighing about 400 lbs. (180 kg) while females average lengths and weights are much smaller at about 5 ft. (1.5 m) and 110 lbs. (50 kg), respectively. They have a narrow, flat head with a pointed, narrow, and long snout. Their fore

- flippers are broad, with some hair, reaching slightly past their wrist. Their coloration is dark brown to black with adult males having tan or yellow hairs on the back of the

mane.

Ge ographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Guadalupe fur seals are non

- migratory and their breeding grounds are almost entirely on Guadalupe Island, Mexico. There are small populations off of Baja California on San Benito

Island and off of Southern Cali fornia at San Miguel Island. It is the only species of the Arctocephalus genus that occurs north of the equator. The species is known or is believed to

occur in California.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Guadalupe fur seals reside in the tropical waters o f the Southern California/Mexico region. During breeding season, they are found in coastal rocky habitats and caves. Little is known about their whereabouts during the non

- breeding season (May to September).

Life History: Guadalupe fur seals are solitary, non

- social animals. Males are polygamous and may mate with 4 to 12 females during a single breeding season. Males form small territories that they defend by roaring or coughing. Breeding season is June through August, with females arriving in early June

a nd pups are born a few days after their arrival. A female will mate about a week after giving birth to her pup and weaning occurs around 9 months. Guadalupe fur seals feed mainly at night on squid, mackerel, and lantern fish by diving up to depths of 65 ft . (20 m).

Historical Information: Historical population was at least 30,000

. They were reduced to near extinction by the fur seal trade. Population increased in the early 1900s to at least 1,073 in 1978 and 1,600 in 1984; total count in 1987 was 3,259 at Guadalupe Island, including 468 adult males, 78 subadult males, 1,134 females, 472 juveniles, and 998 pups (Reeves et al. 1992).

Conservation Status: The Guadalupe fur seal population is slowly recovering from the brink of extinction. The current population abundance is approximately 10,000 animals. Of all the fur seal species, this one is the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 101 least studied due to their limited geographic locations. The Guadalupe fur seal population is increasing about 13.7% annually.

The Guadalupe fur seal was listed as threatened throughout its range on December 16, 1985 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and is also protected under the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972, as amended. In 1975, the government of Mexico declared Guadalupe Island a pinniped sanctuary. NMFS has classified the U.S. Guadalupe fur seal stock as a strategic

stock.

Summary of Major Threats: In the 1700s and 1800s, commercial sealers hea vily hunted Guadalupe fur seals to the point where the species was thought to be extinct by the early 1900s. Insufficient data exist on the incidental bycatch of Guadalupe fur seals in fishing gear, although some juvenile seals have been

documented with en tanglement injuries. Currently, the species is vulnerable to mortality from oil spills, and offshore oil and gas exploration may affect potential habitat off California coast (Matthews and Moseley

, 1990). USAF space shuttle program's sonic booms could caus e disturbance. Three of nine stranded individuals found recently in central and northern California had experienced entanglement in fishing gear or marine debris (Hanni et al.

, 1997).

F.6.5. Blennosperma bakeri SONOMA SUNSHINE

Family: Asteraceae Endangered: whe rever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1TO )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Blennosperma+b

akeri )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1992.pdf )

Description: Blennosperma bakeri is a small (up to 30.5 centimeters (12.0 inches) in height), annual herb in the aster family (Asteraceae). The plant has alternate, narrow, hairless leave s 5.1 centimeters (2.0 inches) to 15.2 centimeters (6.0 inches) long. The upper ones have 1 to 3 lobes, the lower ones none. From March through April, the species produces yellow daisy

- like flowers. The yellow disk flowers have white pollen and stigmas. St erile ray flowers, which are yellow or sometimes white, have red stigmas. The lobe pattern of the leaves and the color of ray stigmas separate this species from others in the genus.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Blennosperma bakeri occurs only in Sonoma County, California, and ranges in the Santa Rosa Plain from near the community of Fulton in the north to Scenic Avenue between Santa Rosa and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 102 Cotati in the south. Additionally, the species extends from near Glen Ellen to near the jun ction of State Routes 116 and 121 in the Sonoma Valley. In addition, B. bakeri has been introduced to at least one site on Alton Lane during mitigation activities.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Blennosperma bakeri grows in vernal pools and wet grasslands below 100 meters (330 feet) (Ornduff 1993a). Blennosperma bakeri occurs in vernal pools on nearly level to slightly sloping loams, clay loams, and clays.

Life History:

The flowers of B. bakeri are self

- incompatible, meaning that they can set seed only wh en fertilized by pollen from a different plant.

Historical Information: Patterson et al. (1994) estimated less than 12 biologically separate populations remain. Of the sites they examined, 17 percent had been extirpated, and 17 percent had not been confir med recently. An additional 17 percent were believed to be extant but threatened by development as of 1994 (Patterson et al.

, 1994). At one occurrence, 12 B. bakeri colonies were observed in 1989, by 1993, only six remained (CNDDB

, 1998).

Conservation Status: The Service used data from 1994 (Patterson et al. 1994) to examine how numbers of B. bakeri plants at particular sites changed between the time of listing and the most current surveys that had been performed after listing. After listing, the number of sites with many individuals decreased, and the number with less than 10 individuals increased. The percentage of sites with fewer than 10 individuals has increased by 15 percent between the time of listing and 1994.

Summary of Major Threats:

The reduc tion and fragmentation of habitat due to urban development, agriculture

- land conversion, and habitat degradation from overgrazing, agriculture, and other human

- related changes to vernal pool hydrology are listed as the primary threats to the species in the 1991 listing rule (56 FR 61173). Additional threats identified in the 1991 rule include off

- road vehicles and erosion. Consistent with the 1991 rule, the largest continuing threat to this species are urban development and land conversion to viticulture or other intense agriculture activities.

F.6.6. Brachyramphus marmoratus or Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus MARBLED MURRELET

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

F.6.7.

Branchinecta conservatio CONSERVANCY FAIRY SHRIMP

Family: Branchinectidae Endangered: wherever found2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 103 Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=K03D )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Branchinecta+co

nservatio )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1148.pdf )

• 71 FR 7118 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2006

- 0 2

- 10/pdf/06

- 1080.pdf#page=1 )

• 70 FR 46924 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2005

- 08

- 11/pdf/05

- 15569.pdf#page=1 )

Description: Conservancy fairy shrimp are tiny freshwater c rustaceans with delicate elongate bodies, large stalked compound eyes, and 11 pairs of phyllopods (swimming legs that also function as gills). Fairy shrimp do not have a hard shell, a characteristic of the order Anostraca to which they belong, this species differs from other branchinectids in the flattened portions of its antennae.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Conservancy fairy shrimp are endemic to vernal pools in California and this species is restricted to the Central Valley except fo r one population in the Central Coast in Ventura County.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) : The majority of sites inhabited by this animal are relatively large and turbid vernal pools called playa pools (Helm

, 1998, Eriksen and Belk

, 1999, Vollmar

, 2002). P laya pools typically remain inundated much longer than most vernal pools, often well into the summer, even though they often have maximum depths comparable to vernal pools. Playa pools are distinguished from vernal pools because they are larger in size and they are much rarer on the landscape than vernal pools (Vollmar

, 2002).

Critical habitat for the Conservancy fairy shrimp and several other vernal pool species was designated on August 11, 2005

. The final designation of critical habitat for Conservancy fairy shrimp is 161,786 ac (65,473 ha).

The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Conservancy fairy shrimp are the habitat components that provide: (1) topographic features characterized by mounds and swales and depressions within a matrix of surrounding uplands that result in complexes of continuously, or intermittently, flowing surface water in the swales connecting pools, providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length in the pools; (2) depressional features includin g isolated vernal pools with underlying restrictive soil layers that become inundated during winter rains and that continuously hold water for a minimum of 19 days, in all but the driest years, thereby providing adequate water for incubation, maturation, a nd reproduction. As these features are inundated on a seasonal basis, they do not promote the development of obligate wetland vegetation habitats typical of permanently flooded emergent wetlands; (3) sources of food, expected to be detritus occurring in th e pools, contributed by overland flow from the pools’ watershed, or the results of biological processes within the pools themselves, such as single

celled bacteria, algae, and dead organic matter, to provide for feeding; and (4) structure within2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 104 the pools, consisting of organic and inorganic materials, such as living and dead plants from plant species adapted to seasonally inundated environments, rocks, and other inorganic debris that may be washed, blown, or otherwise transported into the pools, that provi de shelter.

Life History: The eggs are dropped from the brooding female to the benthos. The eggs hatch when the vernal pools and swales fill with rainwater and the immature stages rapidly develop into adults. Other life history characteristics include mea n days to mature (36.5), mean days to reproduce (46.2), mean population longevity in days (113.9) (Helm, 1998).

Historical Information: The historical range of Conservancy fairy shrimp is not known (Service

, 2005). The species’ range has not increased sin ce the species was listed in 1994. Two populations of Conservancy fairy shrimp were detected on State lands since the time of listing, and include the Great Valley Grasslands State Park and the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area; however, these detections did not

i ncrease the known range of this species.

Conservation Status: Conservancy fairy shrimp are rare, and at the time of listing, six widely separated populations (i.e., clusters of localities) of this species were known (59 FR 48136). Extensive surveys for fa iry shrimp species throughout the range of Conservancy fairy shrimp have located only two additional populations since the species was listed in 1994. Currently, the Service is aware of eight populations of Conservancy fairy shrimp, which include (from nor th to south): (1) Vina Plains, Butte and Tehama counties; (2) Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Glenn County; (3) Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area, Yolo County; (4) Jepson Prairie, Solano County; (5) Mapes Ranch, Stanislaus County; (6) University of Cali fornia (U.C.) Merced area, Merced County; (7) Grasslands Ecological Area, Merced County; and, (8) Los Padres National Forest, Ventura County (Figure 1).

Summary of Major Threats: When the Conservancy fairy shrimp was listed as endangered in 1994, the primary threats to its survival and recovery were stochastic (random) extinction by virtue of the small isolated nature of many of the populations, and loss of habitat due to urban development and conversion to agriculture (59 FR 48136). This species is hi ghly susceptible to extirpation due to chance events or additional environmental disturbance as described above. If an isolated population is extirpated, the opportunities for recolonization will be greatly reduced due to physical isolation

from other sour ce populations. Other potential threats include habitat degradation due to inappropriate grazing regimes, pesticide use, and invasive weedy species.

F.6.8. Branchinecta longiantenna LONGHORN FAIRY SHRIMP

Family: Branchinectidae Endangered: wherever found2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 105 Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=K03E )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Branchinecta+lo
ngiantenna )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ec os.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1149.pdf )

• 71 FR 7118 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2006

- 02

- 10/pdf/06

- 1080.pdf#page=1 )

• 70 FR 46924 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2005

- 08

- 11/pdf/05

- 15569.pdf#page=1 )

Description: Longhorn fairy shrimp are tiny freshwater crustaceans with delicate elongate bodies, large stalked compound eyes, and 11 pairs of phyllopods (swimming legs that also function as gills). Fairy shrimp do not have a hard shell, a characteristic of the order Anostraca to which they belong. Longhorn fairy shrimp are easily distinguished from other fairy shrimp by the male’s

extre mely long second antennae.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Longhorn fairy shrimp are restricted to the Central Valley. The four known populations of longhorn fairy shrimp include: (1) areas within and adjacent to the Carrizo Plain National Monument, San Luis Obispo County; (2) areas within the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex, Merced County; (3) areas within the Brushy Peak Preserve, Alameda County; and, (4) areas within the Vasco Caves Preserve, near the town of Byron in Con tra Costa County (Service

, 2005). The Brushy Peak and Vasco Caves Preserves are within three miles of each other. This species was also detected in a roadside ditch two miles north of Los Banos, in Merced County.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Longhorn f airy shrimp are dependent on seasonally inundated wetlands, such as vernal pools, and are endemic to California vernal pool habitat. It has been found in grass

- bottomed pools in unplowed grasslands as well as rock outcrop, clear

- water pools (Eng et al.

, 19 90). Known to occur in clear, small (4.6

- 74.4 square meter) to medium size (2788 square meter) pool depressions in bedrock outcrops in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties; moderately deep (15

- 40 cm), medium to large sized (2788

- 8364 square meter) turbid alka li pools in the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in western Merced County and similar habitats surrounding Soda Lake in San Luis Obispo County (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). It is currently found in pools located

within a matrix of alkali sink and alkali scru b plant communities north and northwest of Soda

Lake and at the southern end of the Carrizo Plain National Monument in the Carrizo Vernal Pool Region, in a series of sandstone outcrop pools in the Livermore Vernal Pool Region, and from alkaline grassland v ernal pools in the San Luis NWR (USFWS, 2005).

Critical habitat for the longhorn fairy shrimp and several other vernal pool species was designated on August 11, 2005

. The final designation of critical habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp is 13,557 ac (5,486 ha).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 106 The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp are the habitat components that provide: (1) topographic features characterized by mounds and swales and depressions within a matrix of surrounding uplands that result in complexes of continuously, or intermittently, flowing surface water in the swales connecting pools, providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length in the pools; (2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools with underlyin g restrictive soil layers that become inundated during winter rains and that continuously hold water for a minimum of 23 days, in all but the driest years; thereby providing adequate water for incubation, maturation, and reproduction. As these features

are inundated on a seasonal basis, they do not promote the development of obligate wetland vegetation habitats typical of permanently flooded emergent wetlands; (3) sources of food, expected to be detritus occurring in the pools, contributed by overland flow from the pools’ watershed, or the results of biological processes within the pools themselves, such as single

celled bacteria, algae, and dead organic matter, to provide for feeding; and (4) Structure within the pools, consisting of organic and inorganic m aterials, such as living and dead plants from plant species adapted to seasonally inundated environments, rocks, and other inorganic debris that may be washed, blown, or otherwise transported into the pools, that provide shelter.

Life History: Longhorn fa iry shrimp require a minimum of 23 days, but averaged 43 days, to reach maturity in artificial pools (Helm

, 1998). The mean population longevity is 114 days (Helm, 1998). The eggs are dropped from the brooding female to the benthos. The eggs hatch when the vernal pools and swales fill with rainwater and the immature stages rapidly develop into adults.

Historical Information: The distribution of the longhorn fairy shrimp may never have extended into the northern portion of the Central Valley or into southern California. Extensive surveying of vernal pool habitats in southern California has never revealed populations of longhorn fairy shrimp. There is some evidence that temperatures may not be warm enough for the species to mature in the northern porti ons of the Central Valley. However, it is likely the longhorn fairy shrimp was once more widespread in the regions where it is currently known to occur, and in adjacent areas such as the San Joaquin and Southern Sierra Foothill Vernal Pool Regions, where h abitat loss has been extensive. Despite lack of knowledge on the tolerance of longhorn fairy shrimp to cooler temperatures, its presence in northern Central Valley vernal pool regions cannot be ruled out until further surveys have been conducted (Service

, 2005).

Conservation Status: Longhorn fairy shrimp are rare, and at the time of listing four widely separated populations of this species were known (59 FR 48136). Since the time of listing in 1994, extensive surveys for fairy shrimp species throughout the range of longhorn fairy shrimp have not located additional populations of this species, although longhorn fairy shrimp have been detected in additional localities within the four populations. Currently, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) re ports 11 occurrences of this species (CNDDB

, 2007).

There is a lack of monitoring data to indicate numbers of longhorn fairy shrimp at any locality, or whether the species is present in only a small percentage of the pools at a site. In most cases,

there is no information to indicate that observed localities represent demographically2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 107 independent units that contribute to species viability, and the long

- term viability of the species at

most sites is unknown.

Summary of Major Threats: The primary threat to t his species described in the 1994 final listing rule is habitat loss due to agriculture conversion and urbanization. While this continues to be a threat to vernal pool species in general, the majority of known populations of longhorn fairy shrimp are prote cted

from land

- use conversion on public lands. Therefore, this threat has been removed from protected populations. Other threats exist, such as the increased risk of local extirpations from stochastic events because of the small number of isolated populati ons for this species, and risks from environmental disturbances, including severe drought, degradation of habitat from invasive weedy plant species, inappropriate grazing regimes, and other unforeseen events.

F.6.9.

Caretta caretta LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE

(See N ew York, New York for information on this species)

F.6.10.

Carex albida WHITE SEDGE

Family: Cyperaceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q0BL )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe? searchName=Carex+albida )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2555.pdf )

Description: White sedge, Carex albida is a perennial herb in the sedge family with short fib er

- covered rhizomes. The culms (stems) are triangular, 1.3

- 2.0 ft. tall, erect, and longer than the leaves. White sedge has inflorescence with staminate (male) flowers above the pistillate (female) flowers, especially on the terminal inflorescence, lateral spikelets, and leaves that are shorter

than the stems and 0.1

- 0.2 inches (3

- 5 mm) wide.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The species is known only from a 10 square km area in Sonoma County, California. A single population, consisting of < 1000 plants, is known extant.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 108 Habitat: (no critical habitat) White sedge is found in wet hillside meadows and freshwater wetlands 150

- 200 ft. in elevation. These wetlands are acidic, sandy/peaty fens, which support mixed native willow riparian, oak

woodl and, and grasslands.

Life History:

No information.

Historical Information: Three historically known occurrences were extirpated by wetland drainage, channelization of a stream, and by the disposal of cannery waste (CNPS

, 2001). Only 1 site is confirmed e xtant (CNPS 2001). Botanists have been denied access to other historically known sites, but it is feared that altered hydrology may have extirpated these populations.

Conservation Status: Currently, white sedge continues to be known from one occurrence in the lower northe r n marsh. The surveys conducted in 2005 revealed the occurrence was distributed in six somewhat separate

colonies on the 27

- acre property and totaled approximately 200 plants (Patterson

, 2005). The lowermost colony, which was estimated to have about 100 plants in the late 1980s, had apparently declined to 130 p l ants in 2005.

Summary of Major Threats: The acquisition of the property that has the only known occurrence has eliminated the th reat of development and agricultural uses, however several dense strand of invasive blackberry and perennial grasses on the property pose a significant threat of habitat encroachment

. Additionally surrounding residential and agricultural uses in the upper slopes of the watershed pose a threat on the hydrology of the marsh.

F.6.11. Chamaesyce hooveri HOOVER’S SPURGE

Family: Euphorbiaceae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q0E9 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer /servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Chamaesyce+ho

overi )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2387.pdf )

• 71 FR 7118 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2006

- 02

- 10/pdf/06

- 1080.pdf#page=1 )

• 70 FR 46924 ( http:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2005

- 08

- 11/pdf/05

- 15569.pdf#page=1 )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 109 Description: Hoover’s spurge, Chamaesyce hooveri is a summer annual member of the Euphorbiaceae (spurge family) that is a vernal pool endemic. It forms gray

- green mats from a few inches to a

few feet across. The flowering structure is a small, highly simplified cup

- like "cyathium," as in all other spurges (Chamaesyce and Euphorbia). The flowering structure in Hoover’s spurge has petallike glands that are red to olive in color. Flowers bloom in Ju ly. This species is readily distinguished from other species of Chamaesyce by characteristics of growth habit, plant color and leaf shape. It is distinguished from plants in the genus Euphorbia on the basis of growth habit, vascular anatomy, and photosynth etic pathway.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The plant is restricted to vernal pools on the eastern margin of the Central Valley of California with 25 extant populations. Hoover’s spurge has been reported in Tehama, Butte, Glenn, Stanislaus, Merced, and Tulare Counties.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Hoover’s spurge generally grows in relatively large, deep vernal pools among the rolling hills, remnant alluvial fans and depositional stream terraces at the base of the Sierra Nevad a foothills. It tends to occur where competition from other species has been reduced by prolonged seasonal inundation or other factors. This species is currently found in three types of vernal pools: Northern Basalt Flow, Northern Claypan, and Northern Har dpan on both low and high terraces (Stone, et al. 1988).

Critical habitat for Hoover’s spurge and several other vernal pool species was designated on August 11, 2005

. The final designation of critical habitat for Hoover’s spurge is 114,713 ac (46,423 ha).

The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Hoover’s spurge are the habitat components that provide: (1) topographic features characterized by isolated mound and intermound complex within a matrix of surrounding uplands that result in contin uously, or intermittently, flowing surface water in the depressional features including swales connecting pools, providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length in the pools; and (ii) depressional features including isolated vernal po ols with underlying restrictive soil layers that become inundated during winter rains and that continuously hold water or whose soils are saturated for a period long enough to promote germination, flowering, and seed production of predominantly annual nati ve wetland species and typically exclude both native and nonnative upland plant species in all but the driest years. As these features are inundated on a seasonal basis, they do not promote the development of obligate wetland vegetation habitats typical of permanently flooded emergent wetlands.

Life History: It grows on the dried mudflats in the deepest portions (often middle) of vernal pools. Plant emerges from large cracks which spread as the clay of the pool bottom dries. There is usually very little he rbaceous cover growing with Hoover’s spurge, though the plant has been observed to grow in the shade of other low

- growing species. Distribution and abundance of Hoover’s spurge may be limited by competition from native and introduced plants.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 110 Historical I nformation: The species was original listed on March 26, 1997 (62 FR 14338). Critical habitat for this species was proposed on September 24, 2002 (67 FR 60033). The final rule to designate critical habitat for Chamaesyce hooveri was published on August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46684). A re

- evaluation of

non

- economic exclusions from the August 2003 final designation was published on March 8, 2005 (70 FR 11140). An evaluation of economic exclusions from the August 2003 final designation was published on August 11, 2005 (70 FR 46924). Administrative revisions were published on February 10, 2006 (71 FR 7117). Clarifications on the economic and non

- economic exclusions for the final designation of critical habitat were published on May 31, 2007 (72 FR 30279).

Conservation Status: Of the 31 known occurrences and sites, 27 are presumed to be extant (LSA

, 2003; CNDDB

, 2007). The majority of the presumed extant occurrences and sites are located in the Vina Plains area, in Tehama and Butte Counties, where 14 occurrences and one site are presumed extant (LSA

, 2003; CNDDB

, 2007). The next largest concentration of occurrences is in Tulare County, where seven occurrences are presumed extant. The CNDDB indicates that of the 26 occurrences that are listed as “presumed extant,” 6 occurr ences have not been surveyed in over 20 years and another 8 have not been surveyed since the late 1980s (CNDDB

, 2007). Because surveys have not been performed at many of these occurrences in nearly twenty years, the actual status of

these occurrences is no t known at this time. The majority of occurrences of C. hooveri are not protected.

Summary of Major Threats: When Hoover’s spurge was listed as threatened in 1997, the primary threats to its survival and recovery were loss of habitat by agricultural conv ersion, habitat degradation by numerous activities associated with agricultural development, past extirpation and continued threat by urban development projects, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and competition with nonnative

weeds. There is no new inform ation to suggest that these threats to the species have substantially changed since the time of listing in 1997. In addition, other factors, such as drought, climate change, and small population size, may also threaten this species. The majority of the loc alities of Hoover’s spurge do not have management plans, monitoring programs, or adequate funding to ensure that these localities are sustainable in perpetuity. Lack of management especially for nonnative species and hydrology; monitoring; and funding are not, in themselves, threats to Hoover’s spurge; however, without these components, the potential threats may not be identified

and eliminated.

F.6.12.

Charadrius alexandrines nivosus WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER

Family: Charadriidae

Threatened: Pacific Coastal Population (CA, OR and WA)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 111 Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07C )

• Goals Project, 2000 ( http://www.sfestuary.org/pdfs/species

community/Species_and_Community_Profiles%5BPart1%5D.pdf )

• 76 FR 16046 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2011

- 03

- 22/pdf/2011

- 4906.pdf )

• 70 FR 56970 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2005

- 09

- 29/pdf/05

- 19096.pdf#pa ge=1 )

Description: The snowy plover is a small (15

- 17 cm long) shorebird, with a light brown back and cap; white underparts; brown to black forehead bar; brown to black lateral breast patches and cheek patches; short black bill; and black legs. Snowy plov ers weigh between 1.2 and 2 ounces.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Breeding distribution of the snowy plover is along the Pacific coast north to Washington (most numerous from San Francisco Bay south), south to Oaxaca, and locally (but in larger numbers) inland from Oregon and California (especially the San Joaquin Valley, Mojave Desert, and Salton Sea regions) east to Kansas and Texas and south to southeastern California, southern Arizona, southern New Mexico, and north

- central Texas. The largest inland concentration is around the Great Salt Lake, Utah. Non

- breeding distribution includes islands and on coast from Oregon south to Guatemala; and the Gulf of Mexico from southern Texas to Mississippi (Page et al. 1995).

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Habitats important to snowy plover include mudflats and sandflats (used for feeding); salt pan (used for nesting and feeding); and unvegetated levees, islets, and beaches (used for nesting, feeding, and roosting). In the San Francisco Bay RAA, im portant geographic regions are South Bay, Central Bay, and North Bay.

A total of 12,145 ac of land was designated as critical habitat for the snowy plover, in California, Oregon, and Washington on October 31, 2005

. In March 2011, it was proposed to increase the critical habitat to 28,261 ac, with 16,777 ac in California.

The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the pacific coast population of western snowy plover are the habitat components that provide: (1) sparsely vegetated areas a bove daily high tides (such as sandy beaches, dune systems immediately inland of an active beach face, salt flats, seasonally exposed gravel bars, dredge spoil sites, artificial salt ponds and adjoining levees) that are relatively undisturbed by the presen ce of humans, pets, vehicles or human

- attracted predators (essential for reproduction, food, shelter from predators, protection from disturbance, and space for growth and normal behavior); (2) sparsely vegetated sandy beach, mud flats, gravel

bars or artif icial salt ponds subject to daily tidal inundation, but not currently under water, that support small invertebrates (essential for food); and (3) surf or tide

- cast organic debris such as seaweed or driftwood (essential to support small invertebrates for fo od, and to provide shelter from predators and weather for reproduction).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 112 Life History: Snowy plovers are foraging birds usually pausing, looking, and then running to seize invertebrate prey from the surface of a beach, tidal flat or salt pan. Plovers also probe shallowly into the sand or mud for prey, or lower their heads and charge openmouthed at aggregations of flies, snapping

the bill at those that are flushed.

Feeney and Maffei (1991) monitored snowy plover nests in the Oliver Brothers/Baumberg regio n salt ponds during the 1989 breeding season. They located 66 nests, and 14 broods from nests which they did not find. Assuming the broods were from nests in locations they were studying, they located a seasonal nest total ranging from one nest per 1.1 hec tare (ha) to one nest per 5.8 ha in four subregions of their salt pond study area. From all day watches of parent(s) with broods, they found the daily area covered by a brood ranged from 0.1

- 5.5 ha and averaged 1.6 ha. They noted that vegetation was used by chicks for hiding and for foraging. Northern harriers were observed hunting in areas where young snowy plovers were the only likely prey; an American kestrel was observed taking a snowy plover chick; and a peregrine falcon was seen taking an adult snowy plover. Ravens, ground squirrels, and California gulls also prey on the species.

Snowy plovers are known to move between salt pond breeding, foraging, and roosting sites, and mudflat foraging sites during all seasons.

Historical Information: The populat ion of snowy plovers that breeds along the Pacific Coast of the United States and Baja California, Mexico was designated as Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in March 1993. There are no records of snowy plover breeding in San Francisco Bay p rior to the construction of salt ponds. This species may have bred on natural playas on the inner fringes of salt marsh which existed prior to conversion of South Bay marshes to salt ponds. Snowy plovers have been documented in San Francisco Bay during win ter as early as the late 1800s (Page et al. 1986).

Conservation Status: The breeding population along the western coast of the United States has declined and the breeding range has become increasingly fragmented during the past century. Surveys from the

l ate 1970s, the species was absent from 33 of 53 California coastal locations with breeding records prior to 1970 and was missing from parts of San Diego, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, most of Orange County, and all of Los Angeles County (Page and Ste nzel

, 1981). Along the coast of Washington, Oregon and California combined, there was an approximate 20% decline in the size of the breeding population on surveys between the late 1970s and late 1980s (Page et al.

, 1991). Within San Francisco Bay, the popu lation also appears to have declined as evidenced by the drop from 351 adults on the 1978 survey to 226 (216 in South Bay) on a 1989 survey (Page et al.

, 1991).

Summary of Major Threats: Poor reproductive success due to human disturbance (including mechan ical raking of beaches) is a major problem; much habitat has been lost to development, and spread of introduced beach grass limits the amount of suitable nesting habitat. The species is increasingly vulnerable to native and introduced predators (1992, End. Sp. Tech. Bull. 17(12):18; Page et al. 1995).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 113 F.6.13. Chelonia mydas GREEN SEA TURTLE

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

F.6.14. Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale FOUNTAIN THISTLE

Family: Asteraceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1UH )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3564.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ser vlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_repor
t.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehen
sive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=147464&paging=home&save=tru
e&startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKe y=144460&offPag
eSelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutt

on&selectedIndexes=144460&selectedIndexes=147464&selectedIndexes=130070 )

Description: Fountain thistle, Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale, is a perennial herb in the aster family (Asteraceae) and is 30 to 60 cm (1 to 2 feet) tall and is restricted to perpetually moist serpentine seeps or streams in chaparral, valley, or foothill grasslands (Keil and Turner

, 1993; CNPS

, 2001). Generally, the flower heads are grouped into clusters and are nodding when in bloom. Flowers are white to pink or lavender and appear from June to October (Keil and Turner

, 1993).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Fountain thistle is currently found only in San Mateo County, Cal ifornia.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Fountain thistle is found in serpentine seeps in grasslands or chaparral. The largest occurrence of the species, which is a group of approximately 10 subpopulations, is located on the east side of Crystal Springs Re servoir and is approximately 400 feet in elevation. The Stulsaft Park occurrence is found in a serpentine seep in an opening in a coast live oak

- bay ( Quercus agrifolia

– Umbellularia Californica ) woodland. The elevation of this site is 150 feet. The occurr ence east of Woodside Glens is located on a serpentine seep in an open area associated with sedges. The

elevation of this site is not known.

Life History: Flowering period is June

- October.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 114 Historical Information: At the time of listing in 1995, the fountain thistle was known from three locations in San Mateo County. One occurrence consisting of several subpopulations was located east of Crystal Springs Reservoir, a second occurrence was found 10 km (6 mi) to the south in the Triangle area,

southwest of the intersection of Edgewood Road and the I

- 280 overpass and west of Redwood City (CNDDB

, 2009) and the third occurrence consisted of a single plant in Edgewood Park

. During surveys conducted by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) in

D ecember 2009, plants continued to be found at Element Occurrence 1 (in the CNDDB), east of Crystal Springs Reservoir. In recent years some small subpopulations of Element Occurrence 1 could not be relocated; however, during the December 2009 surveys a new large subpopulation was discovered which is also part of Element Occurrence 1. Element Occurrence 1 comprises 97 percent of all known plants of this species. The Triangle and Edgewood Park occurrences have been extirpated (S. Foree, San Francisco Water Dis trict, pers. comm., August 5, 2009). Two additional small occurrences have been found since the time of listing. One occurrence (Element Occurrence 7) was discovered at Stulsaft Park, in Redwood City, in 2007. Another occurrence (Element Occurrence 8) was found east of Woodside Glens in 2003.

Conservation Status: At the time of listing in 1995, three fountain thistle occurrences were known to exist: 1) the occurrence located east of Crystal Springs Reservoir which contained between 1,000 and 2,800 plants, 2) the occurrence located 10 km (6 mi) to the south in the Triangle area which contained between 100 and 200 plants, and 3) the third occurrence in Edgewood Park which consisted of a single plant in 1987. The most recent data show that a newly discovered portion (Boat Ramp) of the Crystal Springs Reservoir occurrence, Element Occurrence 1, had 19,342 plants in December 2009 (S. Foree, in. litt., January 12, 2010). Survey data collected from 2007 to 2009 estimate that the entire Crystal Springs occurrence c onsists of approximately 25,000 plants (Environmental Science Associates 2010). The Triangle area occurrence declined to 7 plants by 2000 (CNDDB

, 2010) and is no longer considered extant as of 2009 (S. Foree, San Francisco Water District, pers. comm., Augu st 5, 2009). The single plant in Edgewood Park disappeared in 1996 (CNDDB

, 2010).

Summary of Major Threats: The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing to implement a project which would modify the Lower Crystal Springs Dam result ing in restoration of the historical storage capacity of the reservoir. The March 2010 Draft Environmental Impact Statement states, that the increased water level would impact at least 0.30 acre of occupied fountain thistle habitat, supporting an undetermi ned number of plants. Because the subpopulations at the Reservoir represent at least 97 percent of all known fountain thistle plants, any loss of habitat at this site would be a significant loss to the species. Recent research on fountain thistle shows tha t two pollinators, Bombus vosnesenskii , a native bumblebee, and the honey bee, are extremely important to successful seed production. Other threats include nonnative plant species including pampas grass, seed predation by beetle larvae, road widening, fire , and dumping of household garden debris on the plants (USFWS

, 2010).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 115 F.6.15. Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum SUISUN THISTLE

Family: Ateraceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q0FC )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_repor
t.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptCompreh ensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehen
sive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=161085&paging=home&save=tru
e&startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=161085&offPag
eSelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutt on=radiobutt

on&selectedIndexes=161085&selectedIndexes=153947 )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2400.pdf )

• 72 FR 18518 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2007

- 04

- 12/pdf/07

- 1777.pdf#page=1 )

Description: Suisun thistle, Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum, is a perennial herb in the Asteraceae (aster) family. It has slender, erect stems that are 3.0 to 4.5 feet tall and well branched. The upper leaves are deeply lobed and reduced to narrow strips with strongly spine

- toothed margins. Pale

lavender

- rose flower heads appear between July and Septem ber.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Suisun thistle is only known from locations in Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California. Its distribution has been reduced to only four locations therein and its total range covers only

7 square miles.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Suisun thistle grows in the upper reaches of tidal marshes, with most known occurrences found in regularly flooded and permanently saturated habitats, along the banks of canals or ditches, within 50 to 100 feet of the high water mark of natural tidal channels; and on tidal floodplains within tidal marshes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

, 2007).

Approximately 2,052 ac of land was designated as critical habitat for the Suisun thistle in Solano County on May 14, 2007.

The PCE s for the Suisun thistle are: (1) persistent emergent, intertidal, estuarine wetland at or above the mean high

- water line (as extended directly across any intersecting channels); (2) open channels that periodically contain moving water with ocean

- derived s alts in excess of 0.5 percent; and (3) gaps in surrounding vegetation to allow for seed germination and growth.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 116 Life History: Specific flower pollinators of Suisun thistle have not been directly studied; however field

observations indicate that several be e species may be important in pollinating the species (LCLA

, 2003). The most common insect species observed gathering pollen at Rush Ranch was the yellow

- faced bumble bee ( Bombus vosnesenskii ) (LCLA

, 2003). Flowering plants may produce hundreds of seed hea ds. Seed heads observed in July 2000 had three to five ripe seeds per head, but many of them contained aborted seeds or were found with insect larvae in active seed predation (Baye

, 2000).

Information on short and long distance seed dispersal in Suisun th istle lacking. All new colonies detected in the last decade have been clustered around known populations in Suisun Marsh (B. Grewell pers. comm. 2000). The presence of numerous small, discrete colonies of Suisun thistle (LCLA

, 2003) at Rush Ranch suggests that the subspecies may have relatively local breeding microhabitats resulting in limited seed dispersal. However, the height of the point of seed release has a large effect on dispersal distances of plumed seeds (Harper

, 1977). The relatively tall

stature of this subspecies, as compared to other associated tidal marsh plants, and flat topography of the surrounding marsh could potentially allow for long distance seed dispersal.

Historical Information: At the time of listing, only two sites were known to have been occupied by Suisun thistle: Peytonia Slough Ecological Reserve and Rush Ranch, both in Suisun Marsh. Collectively, the occurrences of the subspecies totaled a few thousand individuals, occupying a total area of less than one acre (U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service

, 1997). At the time of listing, no active management was occurring at either location.

Conservation Status: Once fairly common in appropriate habitat throughout Suisun Marsh (Solano County), the subspecies' current distribution is restrict ed within Suisun Marsh to scattered colonies within relict undiked high tidal marshes (fully tidal, emergent estuarine marshes) at Peytonia Slough Ecological Reserve, Rush Ranch, upper Hill Slough, and the Joice Island portion of Grizzly

Island Wildlife Ar ea. Since the time of listing and in the absence of recent surveys, the species is thought to be present at the above two sites, plus upper Hill Slough and the Joice Island portion of Grizzly Island Wildlife Area, both in Suisun Marsh (CNDDB

, 2006). The Jo ice Island location is near the eastern end of the Rush Ranch colonies and may be part of that same population. Potential habitat exists on private land directly adjacent to the four known locations on public land. The status of the species on private land is unknown.

Summary of Major Threats: Much of its historic tidal wetland habitat has been converted to diked, managed, or muted (damped tide) tidal marshes. Extant populations are threatened by changes to natural tidal regimes, feral pigs (rooting and tr ampling), mosquito abatement activities, invasion by Lepidium latifolium (perennial pepperweed), plant

- eating insects, and extirpation of small populations due to random events. The muting of tidal cycles and invasion of non

- native Lepidium latifolium in

S uisun thistle habitat are immediate, ongoing, widespread and significant threats which show no sign of being ameliorated in the near future. The significant ramifications of sea level rise due to global climate change could result in loss of populations an d habitat in the future.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 117 F.6.16. Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis SOFT BIRD’S

- BEAK

Family: Scrophulariaceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws .gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q0GT )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?source Template=tabular_repor
t.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehen
sive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=153973&paging=home&save=tru
e&startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=152551&offPag

eSelecte dElType=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutt

on&selectedIndexes=152551&selectedIndexes=153973 )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2397.pdf )

• 72 FR 18518 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2007

- 04

- 12/pdf/07

- 1777.pdf#page=1 )

Description:

Soft bird’s

- beak, Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis, is a hemiparasitic annual herb in the Orobanchaceae (broomrape) family. It is 2.5

- 4 decimeter tall, with foliage that is grayish

- green, often tinged red or purple. The inconspicuous white or pale yellow flowers, each subtended by bracts, are borne in a sp ike, usually 5

- 15 cm long. The herb blooms from July

- September.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: It grows in the coastal salt marshes and brackish marshes of San Pablo and Suisun Bays, in Solano, Contra Costa, Napa, Sonoma, Sacramento, Del Norte Sonoma, and Marin Counties, California. The species is currently restricted to widely scattered populations from Point Pinole and Fagan Slough marsh through the Carquinez Strait to Suisun Bay.

Habitat: (has critical habitat)

Soft bird’s

- beak is foun d predominantly in the high marsh (upper reaches) of salt grass

pickleweed marshes at or near the limits of tidal action (Stromberg and Villasenor

, 1986). Most

known soft bird’s

- beak occurrences are found in regularly flooded and permanently saturated

habi tats within mixed halophytic plant communities, that is, communities where plants are adapted to live and reproduce in salt or brackish water (NWI

, 2005). Tidal events are important for regulating tidal marsh plant communities and may be a critical factor in decreasing granivory and regulating the life cycle phases of the subspecies.

Approximately 2,276 ac of land was designated as critical habitat for the soft bird’s

- beak in Solano, Contra Costa, and Napa Counties on May 14, 2007.

The PCEs for the soft b ird’s

- beak are: (1) persistent emergent, intertidal, estuarine wetland at or above the mean high

- water line (as extended directly across any intersecting channels); (2) rarity2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 118 or absence of plants that naturally die in late spring (winter annuals); and (3) partially open spring canopy cover (approximately 790 nMol/m2/s) at ground level, with many small openings to facilitate seedling germination.

Life History: As a hemiparasitic plant, seedling survival in soft bird’s

- beak is critically dependent on establishing an early connection with a suitable host plant. Hemiparasites are parasitic plants that are capable of some photosynthesis, but receive crucial host subsidies of water, nitrogen, fixed carbon, and mineral compounds through underground organ co nnections to vascular tissues in host plant roots for water and soil nutrients (Ruygt

, 1994; Grewell et al.

, 2003).

Soft bird’s

- beak maintains at least a short

- term persistent seed bank that can greatly influence population dynamics and persistence (Grewe ll

, 2005). Seeds may disperse short distances from parent plants by tidal inundations or animals (Grewell et al.

, 2003), but successful long

- distance dispersal by these or other means has not been documented. Grewell et al . (2003) observed bees

determined to represent five genera and one bee

- fly acting as potential pollinators on the flowers

of s oft bird’s

- beak at the reintroduced population at Rush Ranch and a natural population at Hill Slough marsh.

Historical Information: Historically, soft bird’s

- beak ranged from the Petaluma River near the City of Novato in Marin County, in the west, to the mouth of the Sacramento River in Sacramento County, in the east. At the time of listing, there were nine known occurrences of soft bird’s

- beak, including Point

Pin ole, Rush Ranch, Joice Island, Fagan Slough, Hill Slough, CNWS, and McAvoy Boat Harbor, scattered throughout coastal salt or brackish tidal marshes fringing San Pablo and Suisun Bays, in Napa, Contra Costa, and Solano Counties (CNDDB

, 1994).

Conservation Status: In the final listing rule, it was reported that the number of individuals within the populations varied from 1 to 150,000 plants and that most sites varied between 1,000 and 6,000 plants (CNDDB

, 1996). Individual populations fluctuate in size from year to year, as is typical of annual plants (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

, 1997). While populations appear generally stable at the major population centers where status surveys have been recently conducted, at other populations centers no recent surveys have been conducted, making current population estimates

difficult.

Although no recent comprehensive status surveys have been conducted, the latest information indicates that 11 extant populations of soft bird’s

- beak are currently distributed within 50 p ercent of the historical range and that a large percentage of the remaining plants are in Solano County (Grewell et. al.

, 2003). Some areas within the remaining 50 percent of the historic habitat could presumably still support the species; however, many ar eas have been altered so that they are no longer suitable.

Summary of Major Threats: Much of its original habitat has been lost or fragmented due to marsh alteration and development. Extant populations are threatened by muting (damping) of tides and salinity,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 119 invasive non

- native plants, seed predation, sea level rise predicted to result fr om global climate change, mosquito abatement, oil spills, and (for these small populations) random events. Muting of tidal cycles, seed predation, and invasion of non

- native competitor plants continue to threaten all the species occurrences to some degree. Inappropriate host plants in soft bird’s

- beak habitat is likely the most significant threat to all occurrences of the species.

F.6.17. Cordylanthus palmatus or Chloropyron palmatum PALMATE

- BRACTED BIRD’S BEAK

Family: Scrophulariaceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1UT )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Cordylanthus+p

almatus )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2628.pdf )

Description:

Palmate

- bracted bird’s beak is an annual herb in the broomrape family (Orobanchaceae) (Olmstead et al.

, 2001). The plants are 4

- 12 inches tall and highly branched. The st ems and leaves are grayish green and sometimes are covered with salt crystals excreted by glandular hairs. Small pale whitish flowers, up to 1

- inch long, are arranged in dense clusters (spikes) and are densely surrounded by herbaceous leaf

- like bracts. The petals are divided into two lips. The upper one is shaped like a bird's beak, leading to the common name of the genus. Seedlings grow in late March or April, while flowers bloom from late spring through summer.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribut ion: The current range of the palmate

- bracted bird’s beak is disjunct and occurs in the lowland areas of the Sacramento Valley, California. The species ranges from the northern Sacramento Valley south to the San Joaquin Valley with a large population in Alameda County at Springtown Alkali

Sink.

Habitat: (no critical habitat)

Palmate

- bracted bird’s beak grows on seasonally

- flooded, saline

- alkali soils in lowland plains and basins at elevations of less than 500 feet (Coats et al.

, 1993). More precisely, th e species is restricted to seasonally

- flooded, saline

- alkali soils in lowland plains and basins at elevations of less than 155 meters (about 500 feet) (Showers

, 1988; ESRP

, 2006). Within these areas, the species grows primarily along the edges of channels and drainages, alkali scalds, and grassy areas. The suitability of microhabitats for the palmate

- bracted bird’s beak depends primarily on soil pH and to a lesser extent on soil layering, salinity, and moisture (Service 1998).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 120 Life History:

Like other memb ers of this family, palmate

- bracted bird’s beak is partially parasitic on the roots of other plants (Chuang and Heckard

, 1971). The palmate

- bracted bird’s beak is a hemi

- parasite (it manufactures its own food but obtains water and nutrients from the roots of other [host] plants (Endangered Species Recovery Program

, 2007).

Historical Information: At the time of listing, only two natural colonies and one transplanted population of the species were extant. In the final listing rule, there were 100 to 200 plan ts from Woodland, Yolo County; 2,000 to 5,000 plants from lands near Livermore, Alameda County; and, 20 to 30 plants from the transplant site in the Mendota State Wildlife Area, Fresno County.

Conservation Status: Population fluctuations are common in the palmate

- bracted bird’s beak and may be a result of changes in pollination success, rainfall patterns, freshwater influence (e.g., hydrology patterns), and marsh pollution (e.g., herbicides for vegetation control and pesticides for mosquito control;

Skinne r and Pavlik

, 1994; Endangered ESRP

, 2007; Service

, 2007c). In general, the populations of palmate

- bracted bird’s beak are decreasing throughout the Central and Livermore Valleys in California. While translocations at Sacramento NWR may increase the popula tion locally, the long

- term status of those individuals is uncertain. Likewise, the discovery of additional locations reflects better survey techniques and likely not an increase in the spatial distribution of the species. As a result of intensive survey e fforts and additional introductions, the species was determined to be present in 1998 at seven localities comprising about 1500 acres: Sacramento NWR in Glenn County, Delevan NWR in Colusa County, Colusa NWR in Colusa County, an area near the City of Woodl and in Yolo County (Alkali Grasslands Preserve Management), Springtown Alkali Sink near the City of Livermore in Alameda County, Western Madera County, and Combined Alkali Sink Ecological Reserve

- Mendota Wildlife Area in Fresno County (Service

, 1998)

Summ ary of Major Threats:

When Cordylanthus palmatus was originally listed as endangered in 1986 (Service

, 1986), the primary threat to its survival and recovery was habitat loss. Eight additional threats that further define or subdivide “habitat loss” have been identified since listing, including: urban expansion, changes in the hydrologic regime, random or c atastrophic events (e.g., uncontrolled burns or unseasonable floods), road maintenance, unauthorized fill of wetlands, encroachment by exotic plants, off

- road vehicle use, and livestock wallowing in seasonal ponds (Service

, 1998). This species and its seas onally

- flooded saline

- alkaline soils are still threatened by at least four current or potential new threats: invasive nonnative plants, climate change, ozone, and excessive dust.

F.6.18. Dermochelys coriacea LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

(See Seattle, Washington for i nformation on this species)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 121 F.6.19. Desmocerus californicus dimorphus VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN BEETLE

Family: Cerambycidae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=I01L )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Desmocerus+cal
ifornicus+dimorphus )

• Univeristy of California, Berkeley, 2012 ( http://essig.berkeley.edu/endins/desmocer.htm )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc779.pdf )

• Yolo Natural Heritage Program, 2012

( http://www.yoloconservationplan.org/yolo_pdfs/speciesaccounts/invertebrates/valley

elderberry

- longhorn

- beetle.pdf )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr449.pdf )

Description: The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is a medium

- sized (about 2 cm long) beetle. The “dimorphus” in its name refers to differences in appearance between the males and females. The forewings of the male are primarily red with dark green spots, whereas those of the female are dark metallic green with red margins.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution:

The VELB is completely dependent on its host plant, the elderberry (Linsley and Chemsak

, 1972, 1997; Eng

, 1984; Barr

, 1991; Collinge et al.

, 2001). In the Central Valley, California the elderberry tree is associated with riparian forests, which occur along rivers and streams. Recent surveys have revealed the beetle to persist only in scattered localities along the Sacramento, American, San Joaquin, Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers and their tributaries. The USFWS (1999) prepared a map of the presumed range of VELB, w hich encompasses the entire California Central Valley and the Sacramento River Delta below 900 m (2,953 ft) elevation.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) The elderberry shrub is a component of riparian forests throughout the Central Valley. Although

this sh rub occasionally occurs outside riparian areas, shrubs supporting the greatest beetle densities are located in areas where the shrubs are abundant and interspersed among dense riparian forest (Barr

, 1991, USFWS

, 1999, Collinge et al.

, 2001). Isolated elder berry shrubs separated from contiguous habitat by extensive development are not typically considered to provide viable habitat for VELB (USFWS

, 1998, Collinge et al.

, 2001). VELB habitat is defined as stands of elderberry shrubs that are adjacent to, or co ntiguous with, riparian forest, floodplains, or relict elderberry savannah.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 122 Critical habitat was designated for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle on September 15, 1980 for Sacramento County in the Sacramento Zone and the American River Parkway Zone.

Life History: This beetle is associated with elderberry trees ( Sambucus spp .) during its entire life cycle. The adults emerge in the spring from pupation inside the wood of these trees as they begin to bloom. The exit holes made by the emerging adults are distinctive, small oval openings. Often these holes are the only clue that the beetles occur in an area. The adults eat the elderberry foliage until about June when they mate. The females lay their eggs in crevices in the bark. Upon hatching,

the larvae th en begin to tunnel into the tree where they will spend 1

- 2 years eating the interior wood, their sole source of food.

Historical Information: Historically the beetle ranged throughout the Central Valley, California. At the time of its listing in 1980, the beetle was known from less than 10 locations on the American River, Putah Creek, and the Merceed River (USFWS

, 1980). The beetle currently inhabits the Central Valley from the southern Shasta County to Fresno County in the San Joaquin Valley (Barr

, 1991).

Conservation Status: Since the time of listing, surveys have identified approximately 190 locations of the beetle ranging from Shasta County to Fresno County. Significant programs specific to beetle protection have resulted in the protection of 50,000 acres of riparian habitat and the restoration of over 5,100 acres of beetle habitat. Based upon the number of sightings throughout the Central Valley and the reduction of the primary threats to the species, it was recommended that the valley elderberry lon ghorn beetle be delisted in the 5

- Year Review by the USFWS (Sept. 2006).

Summary of Major Threats: The greatest current threat to VELB is from the invasive non

- native Argentine ant ( Linepithema

humile ) and European earwig ( Forficula auricularia ) (Talley et al.

, 2006). The non

- native invasive Argentine ant has been observed attacking and killing VELB larvae. The ants enter the exit hole that the beetle makes prior to pupation and remove the larva (Huxel

, 2000; Huxel et al.

, 2003). Given that the invasion o f riparian systems by Argentine ant in the Central Valley is continuing to spread, it is unclear how the invasion will impact VELB, but it appears that the Argentine ant may have caused the disappearance of some populations (Talley et al.

, 2006). The

non

- n ative invasive European earwig is also considered to be a threat to VELB through direct predation or by supporting higher populations of predators of insects (Talley et al.

, 2006), and earwig populations are also significantly larger in mitigation planting s and irrigated areas (Klasson et al.

, 2005).

Non

- native invasive plant species such as black locust

, giant reed

, red sesbania

, Himalaya blackberry

, tree of heaven

, Spanish broom

, Russian olive

, edible fig

, and Chinese tallowtree

, may have significant in direct impacts on VELB by impacting elderberry shrub vigor and recruitment (Talley et al.

, 2006). It is also predicted that ripgut brome

, foxtail barley and yellow starthistle may increase seedling mortality through competition for light and water or through increased fire return intervals (Talley et al.

, 2006).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 123 F.6.20. Elaphrus viridis DELTA GREEN GROUND BEETLE

Family: Carabidae

Threatened: wher ever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=I01G )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Elaphrus+viridis

)

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws .gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2384.pdf )

Description: The delta green ground beetle ( Elaphrus viridis ) is a member of the ground beetle family (Carabidae) in the order Coleoptera. The beetle is about 0.25 inch long and colored in brilliant metallic green and bronze with moderately large eyes. Elytra are oval and are broadest behind

the middle. There are two color forms, one with solid green elytra, and the other spotted with three series of elevated highly polished spots, a sutural series of three, four median spots, and an outer series with two spots.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Only k nown from the greater Jepsen Prairie area in south

- central Solano County, California. The historical distribution is unknown, but data suggests that it may have inhabited a much larger range than it does presently (USFWS, 2005). It presently occupies less than 2,800 hectares (7,000 acres) (USFWS, 2007; USFWS, 2005).

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Found along the margins of vernal pools within 1.5 meters of the water. Specifically the microhabitat seems to consist of areas where the sandy mud substrate slop es gently into the water, and where there is very low

- growing vegetation providing 25

- 100% cover. Beetles have however been found hundreds of meters from vernal pools (Arnold, 1983).

Life History: Males actively search through the vegetation for females w ho hide in the plant cover or run away from the males. Males chase the females when they see one moving nearby, and mounting occurs almost immediately upon contact. In all cases in which copulation was observed, the beetle on the top (male) was spotted and the one on the bottom (female) was solid green.

These predators consume soft

- bodied prey, with springtails forming the bulk of their diet. Pacific treefrogs could be the most serious predator. Although no predation events have been actually observed, th ese highly camouflaged frogs are found along the pool margins and are known to be ambush predators.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 124 Historical Information: Proposed for federal listing on August 10, 1978, as a threatened species with critical habitat (USFWS, 1978) and listed as a threat ened species with designated critical habitat on August 8, 1980 (USFWS, 1980) and a recovery plan was approved in 1985 (USFWS, 1985). The beetle was known only from a single museum specimen until the species was rediscovered in the wild in 1974, at the Jep son Prairie in Solano County, California (USFWS

, 2005).

Conservation Status: The 2005 Recovery Plan identified six known occurrences at that time. Unfortunately, the population sizes and trends of the beetle populations are not currently known, owing to the difficulty in visually locating these beetles during surveys and the lack of continuous and consistent monitoring. Currently about 11,047 acres of beetle habitat are protected, or about 54 percent of the suitable habitat known to be available. Not only has a substantial portion of the Wilcox Ranch, which is inhabited by populations of the beetle, been secured, but also several conservation banks for mitigation involving vernal pool species were opened.

Summary of Major Threats: The primary threat is t he conversion of the grassland vernal pool matrix to agriculture and the subsequent plowing that accompanies this conversion. This represents a permanent loss of habitat. Much of the original habitat has already been destroyed in this manner. Expansion of housing subdivisions existing near actual and/or potential sites would mean permanent loss of habitat. Cattle, sheep and horse grazing are less destructive than conversion to agriculture or subdivisions because it is reversible. Of these, cattle present th e greatest threat because they are so heavy that their feet sink into the soft wet mud, creating a pock

- marked topography that is difficult for the beetles to negotiate. This damage is compounded because cattle spend a lot of time near or even in vernal po ols. Another threat to beetle survival are Coleoptera collectors who pose a potentially serious threat. It was no accident that the locality for the species was unknown from 1878 until 1974, as the original collector probably did not want other beetle

col lectors to know where to find the species. It is suggested that the precise locations in which this species is found should not be revealed to the general public or even educational institutions.

F.6.21. Enhydra lutris nereis SOUTHERN SEA OTTER

Family: Mustelidae Threatened: wherever found, except where experimental population Experimental Population, Non

- Essentail: all areas subject to U.S. jurisdiction south of Point Conception, CA (34029.9’ N. Lat.)

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0A7 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Enhydra+lutris+

nereis )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/030403.pdf )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 125 Description: The sea otter is the largest member of the family Mustelidae and the smallest species of marine mammal in North America. Body size varies among populations. Adult sea otters average about 30 kilograms (65 pounds) for males and 20 kilograms (45 pounds) for females; average lengths are about 135 centimeters (4.5 feet) and 125 centimeters (4 feet) for males and females, respectively. Forepaws are padded, have claws, and are used in feeding and grooming. Hind limbs are posteriorly oriented and flipper

- like for swimming. The tail is less than one

- third the body length and of uniform thickness from base to tip.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution:

The southern sea otter’s distribution is about 100

- 8,000 sure miles off the California coast, mainly from Santa Cruz to Pismo Beach. It was recently reintroduced to San Nicolas Island.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Sea otters occupy hard

- and soft

- sediment marine habitats from the littoral zone to depths of less than 100 meters (330 feet), including protec ted bays and exposed outer coasts. Most individuals

occur between shore and the 20

- meter (65

- foot) depth contour

. As one of the few marine representatives of the order Carnivora, the sea otter evolved to inhabit a narrow ecological zone, adapting to the ne arshore ecosystem and preferring rocky shoreline with kelp beds.

Life History: Sea otters eat numerous species of invertebrates and, in some areas, fish. By comparing neighboring long

- established and recently

- established populations from several locations in the North Pacific Ocean, Estes et al. (1981) concluded that dietary diversity increased with increased population density and the presumed increase in competition for food.

Long

- term records from marked individuals have established that most adult female sea otters give birth to a single pup each year (Siniff and Ralls

, 1991, Jameson and Johnson

, 1993). The collective data, which are not necessarily representative for the entire population, indicate that the average birth rate of adult females is ab out 0.90 per year, or perhaps somewhat higher (Riedman et al.

, 1994 ; Monson et al.

, 2000). In contrast with most carnivores and all other lutrine (otter) species, but consistent with other marine mammals, except the polar bear, litter size is typically one (Estes

, 1989). Twin births occur rarely, and seldom, if ever, do both young survive to weaning (Jameson and Bodkin

, 1986). Records from tagged animals also have suggested that females typically attain sexual maturity after 3 years, but that weaning succes s by primiparous females (females with their first litters) is relatively low (Riedman et al.

, 1994, Monson et al.

, 2000). The age of sexual maturity in males is less well known but appears to be about 5 years. However, the age at which males actually firs t successfully breed may be somewhat less than or considerably longer than 5 years, depending on population status and social context. In California, most births occur from late February to early April. The seasonality is not highly synchronous, in that b irths may occur throughout the year, and the birth peak may extend over several months (Siniff and Ralls

, 1991). The birth peak is seasonally asynchronous in some parts of central California (Riedman et al.

, 1994).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 126 Historical Information:

The southern se a otter population was exploited to near extinction from an estimated historical population (in California) of approximately 16,000 animals (Laidre et al.

, 2001). Since the early 1970s, population counts have ranged between 1,250 and 2,300 animals. Populat ion counts

declined from the mid

- 1970s to the early 1980s, then increased from the mid

- 1980s to the mid

1990s

. The historical range of the species southeastward from Prince William Sound to central Baja California remains uninhabited except for translocate d colonies in southeast Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington, the remnant population in central California, and the translocated colony at San Nicolas Island.

Conservation Status: The southern sea otter population presently contains about 2,150 animal s and ranges between Half Moon Bay and Point Conception along the coast of central and southern California. Range

wide population counts declined at a rate of approximately 5 percent per year between 1995 and 1999, although this declining trend has been le ss certain in recent years. The translocated colony at San Nicolas Island contains about 27 individuals, including pups. Although more than 70 births are known to have occurred at San Nicolas Island from 1987 to 2002, the population size

has remained small and its future prospects are uncertain.

Summary of Major Threats: The main threats to the southern sea otter are habitat degradation (including oil spills and other environmental contaminants) and human take (including shooting, entanglement in fishing gear, and harassment). Oil spills, which could occur at any time, could decimate the sea otter population. The reasons for the recent decline in abundance are unknown, but it may be in part related to one or more of the following factors, infectious diseas e resulting from increased immune deficiencies or elevated parasite and pathogen exposure, incidental mortality caused by commercial fishing activities and food resource limitation.

F.6.22. Eucyclogobius newberryi TIDEWATER GOBY

Family: Gobiidae Endangered: whe rever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E071 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Eucyclogobius+
newberryi )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1144.pdf )

Description: The tidewater goby is a two

- inch long nearly translucent benthic fish with large fins, a ventral sucker, and a large mouth. It is a has 6

- 7 slender spines in the firs t dorsal fin, 9

- 13 rays in the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 127 second, 9

- 12 rays in the anal fin, and 8

- 10 gill rakers. It is dorsum dark olive with dark mottling and its dorsal fins are mottled, pelvic fins yellow or dusky, and anal fin dusky (Moyle

, 1976 ; Eschmeyer et al.

, 1983).

Geog raphic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: It has a discontinuous distribution along the coast of California that is characterized by small isolated populations with about 85 extant populations. Recent surveys indicate that the species is

not as scarce or threatened as previously believed, except in Orange and San Diego counties, where the species continues to be regarded as endangered.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) The lagoons, estuaries, backwater marshes, and freshwater tributaries that tidewater gobi es occupy are dynamic environments that are subject to considerable fluctuations on a seasonal and annual basis. A lagoon cycle that creates the fluctuating environment for lagoon

- inhabiting species can be generalized as follows. Late spring and summer bea ch development builds a full or partial sandbar across a stream mouth, thereby producing a summer lagoon. In wetter years, the extensive loss of beach sand through high stream discharge (lagoon inflows) results in later development of the bar; in some wet years, high summer discharge results in periodic over

topping and breaching of the sandbars of some lagoons. In drier years, sandbar formation is usually earlier, but may be delayed at some stream mouths due to a scarcity of tidal sand. After

sandbar forma tion, freshwater inflows raise lagoon levels and greatly increase lagoon size and habitat variety (especially by flooding vegetation adjacent to lagoons). Inflows also convert the lagoon towards fresh water, with the surface freshwater layer thickening and the heavier, bottom saltwater layer percolating through the bar. Larger lagoons, or lagoons with substantial amounts of salt water present at the time of sandbar formation, require more inflow and/or a longer time to convert to fresh water. Lagoons that a re fully converted to fresh water are generally relatively

cool and well

- mixed. Brackish lagoons, with insufficient inflows after sandbar formation, remain stratified unless mixed by strong winds; water temperatures are generally high and dissolved

oxygen levels often low in the bottom saltwater layer.

Its habitat includes small coastal lagoons, lower reaches of streams and the uppermost portions of large bays. It is most abundant in the upper ends of lagoons created by small coastal streams (Swift, in Mo yle 1976). In lower sections of coastal streams, it occurs in fresh to brackish water (preferably less than 10 ppt salinity). It also inhabits vegetated pools of slow (but not stagnant)

areas of streams

. There is documentation of its occurrence in ponded f reshwater habitats as far as 8 km upstream from San Antonio lagoon in Santa Barbara County. Generally occurs in water 25

- 100 cm deep. The tidewater goby is able to complete life cycle in fresh or brackish water. Prefers mud substrates and areas of high dis solved oxygen. It spawns on substrate of coarse sand, in burrows dug by male usually in water 25

- 50 cm deep (Swift et al.

, 1989). Larvae are found midwater around vegetation until they become benthic (Swift et al.

, 1989).

Life History:

In southern California, it spawns throughout much of the year, with an April

- June peak at water temperatures (Lee et al.

, 1980; 18

- 22 C according to Moyle et al.

, 1989). In San Francisco Bay area streams, spawning peaks from late August through November. In Santa Barb ara County, spawning peaks in fall, with most recruitment in winter. Low temperatures and disruptions of2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 128 lagoons during storms generally restrict spawning to non

- winter months, though spawning as early as early January has been recorded. Apparently an annu al species, though some in the north may live up to three years (Moyle et al.

, 1989). Male guards the eggs with larvae emerging in 9

- 10 days. Tidewater goby are benthic feeders on small crustaceans (mysids, ostracods, amphipods), insects (chironomid larvae , diptera larvae), and molluscs.

Historical Information: The species is historically widespread in brackish coastal lagoons and coastal creeks in California from the mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte County, south to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego Coun ty (Lee et al.

, 1980, USFWS

, 1999)

. It is naturally absent (due to lack of suitable habitat) between Humboldt Bay and Ten Mile River, between Point Arena and Salmon Creek, and between Monterey Bay and Arroyo del Oso

. Historically there were about 110 popul ations; current number of extant populations is believed to be about 85 (USFWS

, 1999). In Orange and San Diego counties, California, known from six localities (USFWS

, 1999).

Conservation Status: Recent surveys indicate that the species has disappeared fro m less than 25% of the historical range (USFWS

, 1999). Of the 25 population considered to be permanently extirpated, 19 were extirpated prior to 1970, before regulations protecting the environment were promulgated (USFWS

, 1999). It is difficult to determin e the status of the species throughout its range however, based on the more than doubling of the number of occupied localities since it was listed (from 48 localities to 106), the species appears to be more resilient to perturbations and climatic factors ( particularly, drought) than previously believed. Under natural conditions, tidewater goby populations are highly dynamic. Tidewater gobies will periodically be extirpated or reach such low numbers that they cannot be detected at some localities. This is a natural occurrence within many species exhibiting a metapopulation dynamic including the tidewater goby. The rate of loss is expected to be higher during drought conditions. During wetter periods, these localities will again be occupied assuming that suita ble habitat still exists.

Summary of Major Threats: Coastal lagoons have been degraded by and are highly susceptible to degradation through diversion of water (dewaters stream habitat, affects marsh habitats, and alters temperature and salinity), dredging, pollution from agricultural and sewage effluents, siltation (e.g., resulting from cattle overgrazing and feral pig activity), urban development of surrounding lands, and coastal road construction (interfers with marsh

- ocean water flow, results in altered temperatures and salinity). Tidewater gobies are sensitive to this degradation and so are good indicators of ecosystem health. These impacts are exacerbated by drought. Introduced predatory fishes, especially centrarchids and channel catfish, have reduced or eliminated goby populations in some areas. Crayfish and mosquitofish may threaten populations through direct predation on eggs, larvae, and adults. Introduced gobies (e.g., yellowfin) are a potential threat (through competition and predation). Introduced clawed frogs prey on gobies in the Santa Clara River, California (Lafferty and Page

, 1997). Populations in large habitats that are close to other occupied habitats are most likely to persist, but habitat alteration and introduced species may

eli minate the species from even large habitats (Lafferty et al.

, 1999). People walking through mudflats at low tide can also easily trample them.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 129 F.6.23. Eumetopias jubatus STELLER SEA

- LION

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

F.6.24.

H

aliotis sorenseni WHITE ABALONE

Family: Haliotididae Endangered: West Coast from Point Conception, CA to Punta Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://eco s.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=G0C8 )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/whiteabalone.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Haliotis+sorense

ni )

Description: Abalone are prosobranch marine gastropods, in the phylum Mollusca, that first appeared in the fossil record about 100 million years ago. White abalone are deep

- sea mollusk that reaches a length of 150 to 200 mm (25 cm) with a shell that is thin and light, oval and highly arched. There are three to five open resp iratory pores that are highly elevated above the shell’s surface. Typically, the shell’s interior is a pearly white and contains a poorly differentiated or absent muscle scar (Cox

, 1962). The epipodium is a mottled yellowish green and beige color, with

fol iose epipodial papillae edged in orange, and brown cephalic tentacles (Cox 1962, Leighton

, 1972).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution:

Since the mid

- 1990s, extremely low numbers of isolated survivors have been identified along the mainland coast in Santa Barbara County and at some of the offshore islands and banks in the middle portion of the range, indicating the current range of white a balone in California may be similar to what it was historically (see below). No recent information on current range is available for Baja California.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Adult white abalones occur in open, low relief rocky reefs or boulder hab itat surrounded by sand (Hobday and Tegner

, 2000). Suitable habitat is patchy, thus, the distribution of white abalone is also patchy

. Adult white abalone may be found between 5

- 60 m depths, (Cox

, 1960), but current remnant populations are most common betw een 30

- 60 m depth. A recent survey by Butler et al. (2006), found the highest densities of white abalone at 40

- 50 m depth. Factors controlling the depth distribution of white abalone are poorly known. Tutschulte (1976) speculated that white abalone may hav e been restricted to deeper waters (> 25 m) as a result of sea otter predation or competition from pink abalone. Human fishing activities may have also contributed to this deeper depth distribution.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 130 Whether the same habitat is used, or preferred, by both adult and juvenile white abalone, is unknown. There is some evidence that abalone may shift their depth distribution as they age. For example, studies in Australia suggest that H. roei juveniles (3

- 4 m depth) and adults (deeper depths) occupy physically different, and distant, habitat (Wells and Keesing 1990). In California, H. fulgens may move into deeper water with increasing age (Leighton pers. comm.).

Life History:

White abalone ar e dioecious, with separate sexes occurring in approximately a 1:1 ratio, and exhibit broadcast spawning (i.e. directly releasing gametes into the water column for external fertilization). Factors known to affect fecundity in abalone include organism size a nd food availability. For those species that have been examined, fecundity has been shown to increase linearly with increasing body size (Tutschulte 1976, Clavier 1992). Adult abalones of intermediate sizes are capable of spawning over two million viable e ggs, indicating high reproductive potential (Leighton

, 2000). Fecundity has been shown to decrease in several species of abalone (H. laevigata and in H. fulgens) when food is limited (Tegner and Dayton

, 1987, Shepherd and Breen 1992), and nutrition is esse ntial for the production of fully viable gametes.

Historical Information: The historic range of white abalone extended from Point Conception, California, U.S.A. to Punta Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico (Bartsch 1940, Cox 1960, 1962). In the northern pa rt of the California range, white abalone were reported as being more common along the mainland coast. In the middle portion of the California range, they were noted to occur more frequently at the offshore islands (especially San Clemente and Santa Catali na Islands)(Cox 1962, Leighton 1972). At the southern end of the range in Baja California, Mexico, white abalone were reported to occur more commonly along the mainland coast, but were also found at a number of islands including Isla Cedros and Isla Nativi dad (Guzman del Proo

, 1992, Shepherd et al.

, 1998). It remains unknown whether this distribution pattern resulted because of lack of suitable habitat along the mainland coast in the middle portion of the range, or to overfishing in these more

accessible ma inland regions (Hobday and Tegner

, 2000).

Conservation Status: Estimates of the total population size of white abalone past and present have been difficult to calculate because most data are based on emergent (adult) individuals only. Cryptic (juvenile) white abalone has seldom been observed in nature, even prior to exploitation by the fishery. In addition to body size limitations, there is evidence from other abalone species that factors such as presence of predators and abundance of food may mediate cry ptic behavior. The paucity of abundance data for cryptic animals prevents establishing links between the numbers of early and later life stages and thus, the reconstruction of recruitment histories for white abalone populations has not been possible. As a result, a poor understanding of population dynamics exists for white abalone. Given the limitations of fishery

- independent and dependent data, only adult population abundance and density can be evaluated for changes through time and space.

Summary of Maj or Threats: Subjected to intense commercial and recreational exploitation from 1969

- 1977. Its continued survival is threatened by poor reproductive success due to size and fragmentation of existing2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 131 populations. This species is also highly susceptible to wi thering syndrome, a rickettsial disease of abalone (Friedman et al., 2007).

F.6.25. Hypomesus transpacificus DELTA SMELT

Family: Laridae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E070 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Hypomesus+tran
spacificus )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3570.pdf )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr2751.pdf )

Description:

Delta smelt are slender

- bodied fish, generally about 60 to 70 mm (2 to 3 in.) long, although they may reach lengths of up to 120 mm (4.7 in) (Moyle

, 2002). Delta smelt are in the Osmeridae family (smelts) (Stanley et al.

, 1995). Live fish are nearly translucent and have a steely blue sheen to their sides (M oyle

, 2002). Delta smelt usually aggregate into loose schools, but their

discontinuous stroke

- and

- glide swimming behavior likely makes schooling difficult (Moyle

, 2002).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Delta smelt are endemic to the upper San Francisco Estuary in California, principally the upper

Sacramento

- San Joaquin Delta (primarily below Isleton in the Sacramento River, and below Mossdale in the San Joaquin River) and Suisun Bay (California Department of Fish and Game 1990; Moyle

, 2002) . The species congregates in upper Suisun Bay and occurs in small numbers in larger sloughs of Suisun Marsh when river outflows are high (mainly March to mid

- June). In

1994

- 1998, delta smelt were found mainly in Suisun Bay (Moyle et al.

, 1989; Moyle

, 2002)

. During periods of drought, the center of abundance has been in the northwestern Delta in the channel of the Sacramento River, and the species is then rare in Suisun Bay (Moyle et al.

, 1989; Moyle

, 2002). During years with average or high outflow, smelt m ay concentrate prior to spawning movements anywhere from the Sacramento River near Decker Island to Suisun Bay (Moyle 2002). Spawning occurs in the sloughs and channels of the upper Delta (e.g., Barker, Lindsey, Cache, Georgiana, Prospect, Beaver, Hog, and Sycamore sloughs) and in the Sacramento River above Rio Vista (Moyle

, 2002). In some years spawning also occurs north of Suisun Bay in Montezuma and Suisun sloughs and their tributaries or in the Napa River estuary (Federal Register, 6 January 1994; Moyle

, 2002).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 132 Habitat: (has critical habitat) Studies indicate that delta smelt require specific environmental conditions (freshwater flow, water quality) and habitat types (shallow open waters) within the estuary for migration, spawning, egg incubation, rear ing, and larval and juvenile transport from spawning to rearing habitats (Moyle

, 2002). Delta smelt are a euryhaline (tolerate a wide range of salinities) species; however, they rarely occur in water with more than 10

- 12 parts per thousand salinity (about one third seawater). Delta smelt tolerate temperatures ranging from 7.5

- 25.4  ̊ C in the laboratory (Swanson et al.

, 2000), but may be found in warmer waters in the Delta. Feyrer at al. (2007)

found that relative abundance of delta smelt was related to fall s alinity and turbidity (water clarity). Delta smelt probably evolved within the naturally turbid (silt and particulate

- laden) environment of the Delta and likely rely on certain levels of background turbidity at different life stages and for certain behavio rs. Laboratory studies found that delta smelt larval feeding increased with increased turbidity (Baskerville

- Bridges et al. 2004). Although spawning has not been observed in the wild, spawning location and timing has been inferred from the collection of

la rvae in sloughs and shallow edge

- waters of channels in the upper Delta and in Montezuma Slough near Suisin Bay (Wang

, 1991).

Critical habitat for this species was published on January 6, 1994, following information by the California Department of Fish and Game and UC Davis that delta smelt spawned in the Sacramento River, as far as the City of Sacramento and tidally influenced shallow freshwater sloughs

. The critical habitat also included the Suisun Slough, as far

upstream as Suisun City (Lesa Meng, pers. comm., 1993).

The primary constituent elements for the delta smelt are: (1) shallow, fresh or slightly brackish backwater sloughs and edgewaters and substrates for egg attachment for spawning; (2) rivers and

channels free from physical disturbance and flow disruption; (3) 2 ppt isohaline, shallow, protective, food

- rich waters for larvae and juveniles to mature; (4) adequate flow and water quality to attract migrating adults to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and trib utaries.

Life History: Spawning is believed to occur from late January through late June or early July at water temperatures ranging from 7

- 15  ̊ C (Moyle

, 2002). In the laboratory, spawning has been observed

to occur between 12

- 22  ̊ C (Bennett

, 2005, p. 13). In laboratory conditions, eggs typically hatch after 9 to 14 days and larvae begin feeding 5 to 6 days later (Mager et al.

, 2004). Larvae are generally most abundant in the Delta from mid

- April through May (Bennett

, 2005, p. 13). After

several weeks of dev elopment, larval surveys indicate that larvae move downstream until they reach nursery habitat in the low salinity zone (LSZ) where the salinity ranges from approximately 2 to 7 ppt (Moyle

, 2002). Juvenile smelt rear and grow in the LSZ for several months, preferring relatively shallow open water (Dege and Brown

, 2004). In September or October, delta smelt reach adulthood and begin a gradual migration back into freshwater areas where spawning is thought to occur. Most delta smelt die after spawning, but a s mall contingent of adults survives and can spawn in their second year (Moyle

, 2002).

Delta smelt feed primarily on small planktonic (free

- floating) crustaceans, and occasionally on insect larvae (Moyle 2002). Historically, the main prey of delta smelt was the copepod ( Eurytemora affinis ) and the mysid shrimp ( Neomysis mercedis ). The slightly larger copepod2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 133 ( Pseudodiaptomus forbesi ) has replaced E. affinis as a major prey source of delta smelt since its introduction into the San Francisco Bay

– Delta. Two oth er copepod species ( Limnoithona tetraspina and Acartiella sinenisi ) have become abundant since their introduction to the San Francisco Bay

- Delta in the mid

- 1990s. Delta smelt eat these introduced copepods, but P. forbesi remains a dominant prey item (Baxte r et al.

, 2008). The diets of larval delta smelt are limited to larval copepods (Nobriga

, 2002). As mentioned previously, delta smelt are thought to require a turbid environment for efficient, successful foraging.

Historical Information: Historically, thi s was the most abundant pelagic fish in the upper Sacramento

- San Joaquin estuary (Erikkila et al.

, 1950), and it remained abundant in California Department of Fish and Game trawl surveys in the Delta during the early 1970s (Stevens and Miller

, 1983; Moyle et al.

, 1989; Stevens et al.

, 1990). Their historical range is thought to have extended from San Pablo Bay upstream to at least the city of Sacramento on the Sacramento River and the city of Mossdale on the San Joaquin River.

Conservation Status: Populat ion estimates are not possible to obtain for this species (Herbold

, 1996). A relative abundance index has been developed using various net surveys as well as counts of individuals entrained by (drawn into) Federal and State water export facilities (Bennett

, 2005), and population assessments have been based on abundance index trends. Based on those indices, significant changes in delta smelt abundance occurred in 1975

- 76, 1980

- 81, and 1998

- 99 (Manly

and Chotkowski

, 2006). The 1980

- 1981 abundance index declin e was one of the factors that resulted in listing delta smelt as a threatened species in 1993 (58 FR 12854; Moyle

, 2002;

CDFG

, 2008). From 1991 to 2001, abundance index trends fluctuated wildly. In 2002, delta smelt and three other pelagic Delta fishes see med to decline significantly, with delta smelt abundance indices trending to record lows from 2002 through 2008 (Armor et al.

, 2005; CDFG

, 2008). In March of 2004, we completed a 5 year review of the species that recommended against changing the listing st atus of the delta smelt. At that time there was no indication that the decreasing trend of 2002 was outside of the range of expected variability, similar to those in 1992, 1994, and 1996. However, the delta smelt index continues a decreasing trend and is n ow estimated at the lowest level ever measured

- roughly one and a half percent of the 1980 index level (CDFG

, 2008). USFWS (2004) concluded that although there has been a general increase in numbers since the low point during a long period of drought in the 1980s and early 1990s, delta smelt abundance has not recovered to its pre

- decline (prior to 1982) levels and that the overall trend is negative.

Summary of Major Threats: The decline may be attributable to the delta smelt's low fecundity and one

- year lif espan, in combination with changes and fluctuations in the estuarine ecosystem. These changes and fluctuations are mostly human induced threats which include: reduction in outflows (water projects have allowed the intrusion of higher salinity water into th e Delta, restricting the smelt's spawning and nursery areas to less favorable river channel habitat and making them more vulnerable to diversion in massive water project pumping plants); entrainment losses of larvae and adults to water diversion, high outf lows during years with unusually high rainfall (flush smelt and their food resources out of the system; may make it easier for exotic species of2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 134 copepods, clams and fishes to colonize); and changes in food resources (e.g., increased abundance of various sp ecies of exotic copepods, which could deplete smelt food resources and/or be more difficult for smelt to capture; the introduced Asiatic clam now abundant in Suisun Bay, may reduce availability of zooplankton to smelt larvae; the diatom ( Melosira ),

which is difficult for zooplankton to consume, sometimes becomes very abundant in the Delta (Moyle et al.

, 1989; Moyle

, 2002; USFWS

, 1993, 1996). Another threat is the hybridization of the species (e.g., introduced H. nipponensis represents a potential threat th rough hybridization and/or competition; hybrids may be sterile but interbreeding may result in loss of delta smelt gametes).

F.6.26. Lepidochelys olivacea OLIVE RIDLEY SEA TURTLE

Family: Cheloniidae Endangered: Breeding colony populations on Pacific coast of Mex ico Threatened: wherever found, except where listed as endangered

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C00V )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/Nat ureServe?searchName=Lepidochelys+ol

ivacea )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012 ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/oliveridley.htm )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1077.pdf )

Description: The olive ridley gets its name from the olive coloration of its heart

- shaped top shell (carapace). Adult turtles are relatively small (22

- 31 in). The size and morphology of the olive ridley varies from region to region, with the largest animals being observed on the Pacific coast of Mexico. There are often only five pairs of costal "scutes" on the carapace, but that number varies. Some

individuals have been docu mented having as many as nine pairs of costal scutes. Each of the four flippers has one or two visible claws. The carapace of eastern Pacific olive ridleys is greater in height than other populations. Western Atlantic olive ridleys usually have a darker co loration than eastern Pacific olive ridleys.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Olive ridleys are globally distributed in the tropical regions of the South Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. In the South Atlantic Ocean, they are found alon g the Atlantic coasts of West Africa and South America. In the Eastern Pacific, they occur from Southern California to

Northern Chile. Olive ridleys often migrate great distances between feeding and breeding grounds. In two separate satellite telemetry stu dies, both male and female olive ridleys leaving the breeding and nesting grounds off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica migrated out to the deep waters of the Pacific Ocean. Both sexes migrated to waters deeper than 9800 ft (3000 m). The results did not indi cate2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 135 a directed migration to a specific foraging area, instead it appears the olive ridley forages opportunistically in deep ocean waters (Plotkin et al.

, 1994).

Arribadas occur on a few beaches worldwide in the eastern Pacific and northern Indian oceans. In the eastern Pacific, arribadas occur from June through December on certain beaches on the coasts of Mexico, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica and on a single beach in Panama. In the northern Indian Ocean, arribadas occur on three different beaches along the co ast of India. Solitary nesting occurs extensively throughout this species' range; nesting has been documented in approximately 40 countries worldwide.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Habitat includes tropical and subtropical waters, ranging from protected, shallow, marine and estuarine waters, including bays and lagoons, to offshore areas well beyond the continental shelf (NMFS and USFWS

, 2007). Nesting occurs on upper beaches. Individuals sometimes change to a different nesting beach within a single nestin g season (see Eckert et al.

, 1989).

The olive ridley is mainly a pelagic sea turtle. Olive ridleys mostly breed annually and have an annual migration from pelagic foraging, to coastal breeding and nesting grounds, back to pelagic foraging. Trans

- Pacific s hips have observed olive ridleys over 2,400 miles (4,000 km) from

shore.

Life History: The olive ridley has one of the most extraordinary nesting habits in the natural world. Large groups of turtles gather off shore of nesting beaches. Then, all at once, vast numbers of turtles come ashore and nest in what is known as an "arribada". During these arribadas, hundreds to thousands of females come ashore to lay their eggs. At many nesting beaches, the nesting density is so high that previously laid egg clutche s are dug up by other females excavating the nest to lay their own eggs.

There are many theories on what triggers an arribada, including offshore winds, lunar cycles, and the release of pheromones by females. Despite these theories, scientists have yet to determine the actual cues for ridley arribadas. Not all females nest during an arribada, instead some are solitary nesters. Some olive ridleys employ a mixed nesting strategy. For example, a single female might nest during an arribada, as well as nest alo ne during the same nesting season. Arribada nesting is a behavior found only in the genus Lepidochelys . Although other turtles have been documented nesting in groups, no other turtles (marine or otherwise) have been observed nesting in such mass

numbers an d synchrony.

Olive ridleys reach sexual maturity around 15 years, a young age compared to some other sea turtle species. Females nest every year, once or twice a season, laying clutches of approximately 100 eggs. Incubation takes 50

- 60 days. The olive rid ley is omnivorous, meaning it feeds on a wide variety of food items, including algae, lobster, crabs, tunicates, mollusks, shrimp, and fish. Olive ridleys dive to depths of about 500 feet (150 m), to forage on benthic invertebrates.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 136 Historical Information : The olive ridley turtle was listed under the ESA on July 28, 1978. The breeding populations in the Pacific coast of Mexico are listed as endangered; elsewhere the species is listed as threatened. Since 1967, there has been an 80% reduction in certain nes ting populations in the western Atlantic Ocean (Surinam, French Guiana, and Guyana) (USFWS

, 2005). In the Eastern Atlantic Ocean, lack of data and trends on specific nesting beaches make it difficult to estimate nesting populations. Along the entire west c oast of Africa, nesting females and eggs are regularly taken for consumption, except where research stations have been established. This impact is likely extremely devastating to the entire Eastern Atlantic population (Plotkin ed.

, 2007).

Prior to 1950, a n estimated ten million olive ridleys nested on the Pacific coast of Mexico. In the

mid

- 1960s, an olive ridley fishery developed in Mexico and Ecuador, and the taking of eggs and females also increased, which devastated the population. Over 20 nesting popu lations have been severely depleted since the 1960s and only a single arribada nesting beach remains in La Escobilla, Mexico. The other nesting populations from 40 years ago have yet to recover despite increased protection. Further, in Guatemala, solitary nesting turtles have decreased 34% between 1981 and 1997 (Muccio

, 1999).

Gahirmatha, Orissa, India used to be one of the largest arribada nesting sites in the world. Over the past five years at Gahirmatha, there has been an arribada nesting event in only two of those five years. Additionally, between 1996 and 2002, the average size of nesting females declined at that site, indicative of a declining population (Plotkin ed.

, 2007). Declines in solitary nesting of olive ridleys have been recorded in Banglades h, Myanmar, Malaysia, and Pakistan. In particular, the number of nests in Terengganu, Malaysia has declined from thousands of nests to just a few dozen per year (Limpus

, 1995).

Conservation Status: The olive ridley is listed as endangered by the IUCN (Int ernational Union for Conservation of Nature). Degradation of nesting beaches, ongoing directed harvest, and bycatch in fisheries have all contributed to the decline of the species. The olive ridley may be the most abundant sea turtle on the planet, but som e argue that it is also the most exploited.

According to the Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG) of the IUCN, there has been a 50% reduction in population size since the 1960s. Although some nesting populations have increased in the past few years, the overall reduction is greater than the overall increase. However, not all populations are depleted. Some nesting populations are currently stable and/or increasing. In Sergipe, Brazil, strict nest protection has led to increases of the nesting population ov er the past 20 years. In La Escobilla, Mexico, conservation measures, such as increased nesting beach protection and closure of the turtle fishery in 1990, have led to a dramatic increase in the once largest nesting population in the world. The number of o live ridley nests has increased from 50,000 in 1988 to over 700,000 in 1994 to more than a million nests in 2000 (Márquez et al. 2002). This dramatic improvement gives hope that with strict protections the once depleted populations can begin recovering.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 137 S ummary of Major Threats: The principal cause of the historical, worldwide decline of the olive ridley sea turtle is long

- term collection of eggs and killing of adults on nesting beaches. Because arribadas concentrate females and nests in time and space, th ey allow for mass killing of adult females as well as the taking of an extraordinary number of eggs. These threats continue in some areas of the world today, compromising efforts to recover this species.

In the western south Atlantic Ocean, killing adults and collecting eggs of all nesting sea turtle species is historically widespread in the Guianas and northeastern Brazil. Despite a current prohibition on olive ridley egg harvest in Suriname, an estimated 40% of the olive ri dley nests were harvested in 1995 (Hoekert et al.

, 1996). In the eastern North Atlantic Ocean, nesting olive ridleys are captured along the entire west coast of Africa and sold in local and regional markets. A survey of 27 west African nations indicated th at nesting females were killed in 14 of those

countries.

In the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing sea turtles and collecting their eggs has occurred for hundreds of years. Little data on historical egg taking in Mexico currently exist, but egg

collection has previously reached nearly 100% at solitary nesting sites. In many places, egg collecting currently continues at this level (Plotkin ed.

, 2007).

Throughout the Indian Ocean, nesting populations of olive ridleys have declined due to both killing of nesting females at solitary nesting beaches and a directed fishery for the species concentrated at the major arribada nesting beach in Orissa, India during the 1970s.

Expansion of the shrimp trawling fishery in the eastern Indian Ocean in the mid

- 1970s has

resul ted in numerous olive ridley deaths. During the 1982

- 1983 nesting season, over 7,000 carcasses washed ashore over a 9 mile (15 km) stretch of beach. Between 1993 and 1999, more than 46,200 carcasses were recorded by beach surveyors, with a peak during the 1997

- 1998 seasons of 13,575 dead olive ridleys. Over 10,000 olive ridley carcasses a year have been counted on the Orissa coast since 1999 (Wright and Mohanty

, 2006). These carcasses have largely been attributed to the shrimp trawl fishery, but trawling is not the only source of olive ridley mortality in the Eastern Indian Ocean. On February 17, 2002, 205 dead olive ridleys entangled in a section of gillnet were washed ashore at Gundalba Beach, Orissa (Wright and Mohanty

, 2002).

Additionally, incidental ca ptures in fishing gear, primarily in longlines, but also in trawls, gill nets, purse seines, and hook and line, is a serious ongoing source of mortality that adversely affects the species' recovery. Specifically, incidental capture of sea turtles in shrimp trawls along the coast of Central America is estimated as exceeding 60,000 sea turtles annually, most of which are olive ridleys (Arauz

, 1996).

F.6.27. Lepidurus packardi VERNAL POOL TADPOLE SHRIMP

Family: Triopsidae Endangered: wherever found2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 138 Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=K048 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Lepidurus+pack

ardi )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1160.pdf )

• 70 FR 46924 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2005

- 08

- 11/pdf/05

- 15569.pdf#page=1 )

• 71 FR 7118 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2006

- 02

- 10/pdf/06

- 1080.pdf#page=1 )

Description: Lepidurus packardi is a large tadpole shrimp with dorsal compound eyes; a large (up to 3.5 c m long) dorsal shield

- like carapace, which is attached to the head region, covering most of the 35 to 48 pairs of swimming appendages (phyllopods) and two long cercopods at the end of the last body segment (telson) (Pennak, 1978; Longhurst, 1955).

Geograp hic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The vernal pool tadpole shrimp has a patchy distribution across the Central Valley of California, from Shasta County southward to northwestern Tulare County, with isolated occurrences in

Alameda and Contra Costa Cou nties (CNDDB

, 2007). Although vernal pool tadpole shrimp are spread over a wide geographic range, their habitat is highly fragmented and they are uncommon where they are found (Helm 1998; Service 2005a). The California Natural Diversity Database currently reports 226 occurrences of vernal pool tadpole shrimp in the following 19 counties: Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Kings, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba. Sac ramento County contains 28 percent, the greatest amount, of the known occurrences (CNDDB

, 2007).

Habitat: (has critical habitat) The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is found only in ephemeral freshwater habitats, including alkaline pools, clay flats, vernal lakes, vernal pools, vernal swales, and other seasonal wetlands in California (Helm

, 1998). Vernal pools are an ephemeral type of wetland that is found in California and southern Oregon. Vernal pools are generally small, shallow wetlands, located on clay o r hardpan layer, which fill with water during the winter and spring, then dry up until the next rainy season. Vernal pools form where a soil layer (hardpan, duripan, or claypan) exists below or at the surface that is impermeable or nearly impermeable to wa ter (Smith and Verrill

, 1998). Hardpan layers are formed on alluvial terraces by leaching, redeposition, and cementing of silica minerals from high in the soil profile to a lower (“B”) horizon (Smith and Verrill

, 1998). Duripan is a horizon in a mineral so il that is characterized by cementation by silica. Claypan layers are formed by a similar redeposition process of fine clay particles sometimes augmented by saline or alkaline compounds, being transported to the B horizon where they accumulate and

eventual ly hold water. Crustaceans, such as the vernal pool tadpole shrimp, produce cysts or eggs that lie buried in the soil until the next winter rains trigger the eggs to hatch. The cysts may hatch in as little as 4 days (Ahl 1991, Rogers in litt. 2001). This s pecies inhabits freshwater2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 139 habitats containing clear to highly turbid water, with water temperatures ranging from 50 to 84  ̊ F and pH ranging from 6.2 to 8.5 (King 1996; Syrdahl 1993).

Critical habitat for the Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp and several other ve rnal pool species was designated on August 11, 2005

. The final designation of critical habitat for vernal pool tadpole shrimp is 228,785 ac (92,586 ha).

The primary constituent elements for the vernal pool tadpole shrimp are: (1) mounds and swales and dep ressions within a matrix of surrounding uplands that result in complexes of continuously, or intermittently, flowing surface water in the swales connecting pools, providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length in the pools; (2) depre ssional features including isolated vernal pools with underlying restrictive soil layers that become inundated during winter rains and that continuously hold water for a minimum of 41 days (Helm 1998), in all but the driest years, for incubation, maturatio n, and reproduction; (3) sources of food, expected to be detritus occurring in the pools, contributed by overland flow from the pools’ watershed, or the results of biological processes within the pools themselves, such as single

- celled bacteria, algae,

and dead organic matter, to provide for feeding; (4) structure within the pools, consisting of organic and inorganic materials that provide shelter.

Life History: Vernal pool tadpole shrimp generally take between 3 and 4 weeks to mature (Ahl

, 1991; King et

a l.

, 1996). Reproduction begins after individuals reach 0.4 inch or more in carapace length and fecundity increases with body size Ahl (1991). Large females, greater than 0.8 inch carapace length, can deposit as many as 6 clutches, ranging from 32 to 61 egg s per clutch, in a single wet season Ahl (1991). Vernal pool tadpole shrimp may be hermaphroditic (individuals have both male and female reproductive organs) (Longhurst

, 1955; Lynch

, 1966; C. Rogers

, 2001). Multiple hatching within the same wet season allo ws vernal pool tadpole shrimp to persist within pools as long as these habitats remain inundated, sometimes for 6 months or more (Ahl

, 1991; Gallagher

, 1996; Helm

, 1998). Hatching of vernal pool tadpole shrimp eggs is temperature

dependent. Optimal hatchin g occurs between 50 to 59  ̊ F, with hatching rates becoming significantly lower at temperatures above 68  ̊ F (Ahl

, 1991). Vernal pool tadpole shrimp eggs and adults are carried from one wetland to another by a variety of methods, the most important likely

bein g overland flooding from rainstorms, and by waterfowl and other migratory birds (on the bird’s feet or in its gut). Vernal pool tadpole shrimp feed on both living organisms such as fairy shrimp and on detritus (Service

, 2005a), and can be identified by the large, shield

- like carapace that covers the anterior half of their bodies and the paddle

- like supra

- anal plate located between the paired cercopods (jointed antenna

- like appendages). Vernal pool tadpole shrimp have from 30 to 35 pairs of phyllopods (swimm ing legs that also function as gills), a segmented abdomen, and fused eyes. Mature vernal pool tadpole shrimp range from 0.6 to 3.3 inches in length (Service

, 2005a).

Historical Information: There are currently 226 known occurrences of this species (CNDDB

, 2007), of which at least two are thought to be extirpated (CNDDB

, 2007; P. Balfour, ECORP, pers. comm., 2007). Many occurrences on private property were last surveyed 10 to 15 years ago and their current status is unknown. Since the time of listing, the species has been discovered in four additional counties2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 140 (Contra Costa, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties), extending the range by approximately

100 miles to the south into Tulare County. The greatest number of vernal pool tadpole shrimp

occurrences are lo cated in Sacramento County (CNDDB

, 2007), and the Mather core area, within in the Southeastern Sacramento Valley Vernal Pool Region, likely contains the highest density of vernal pool tadpole shrimp occurrences within the range of the species (CNDDB

, 2007; Service 2007). This area, well known for its vernal pools of exceptional quality and representing important, high quality habitat for the vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Rogers

, 2006), has a limited amount of remaining habitat that is able to be preserved (Sa cramento County 2006; R. Radmacher, Sacramento County, pers. comm., 2007).

Conservation Status: The vernal pool tadpole shrimp continues to be found in each of the vernal pool regions from which it was known historically. At the time of listing in 1994, v ernal pool tadpole shrimp were known from 18 populations, extending from east of Redding, Shasta County, southward to the San Luis NWR, Merced County, in the Central Valley, with a disjunct population at the San Francisco NWR, Alameda County (59 FR 48136).

The extant occurrences of the vernal pool tadpole shrimp are distributed among seven vernal pool regions: Central Coast, Northeastern Sacramento Valley, Northwestern Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Solano

- Colusa, Southeastern Sacramento Valley, and Southern Sierra Foothills. The Southeastern Sacramento Valley Vernal Pool Region, which includes Sacramento County, contains almost 15 percent of the remaining vernal pool grasslands in California (Keeler

- Wolf et al.

, 1998) and supports the largest con centration, or approximately 35 percent, of the known occurrences of the vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Service

, 2005a). Sacramento County, which is part of the Southeastern Sacramento Valley Vernal Pool Region, contains the greatest number of vernal pool tad pole shrimp occurrences, or approximately 28 percent, of any single county (CNDDB

, 2007). Sugnet and Associates’ (1993) found that of the pools that they surveyed in California, the majority of the pools (about 63 percent) occupied by vernal pool tadpole s hrimp were located in Sacramento County. These occurrences are concentrated in Sacramento County southeast of the City of Sacramento, in and around the Mather core area (CNDDB

, 2007; Service

, 2005a). The Service has estimated that approximately 74 percent of all the vernal pool tadpole shrimp occurrences in the Southeastern Sacramento Valley occur in the Mather core area (Service

, 2007).

Summary of Major Threats: The elimination and degradation of vernal pool habitat from agricultural (grapes) and urban

d evelopment seem to be the greatest threat; however, grazing, off

- road vehicle use and hydrologic modification may also contribute (USFWS, 1992). The primary threats are elimination and degradation of vernal pool habitat by urban development and conversion of grasslands to agricultural fields (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). In addition, it is known to have been parasitized by flukes (Trematoda) of an undetermined species at the Vina Plains, Tehama County (Ahl, 1991) (gonads of both sexes greatly redu ced in size and body cavities filled with many young flukes). Ahl (1991) thus concluded that parasitic castration was the major limiting factor affecting reproduction of the vernal pool tadpole shrimp at the Vina Plains.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 141 F.6.28. Masticophis la teralis euryxanthus ALAMEDA WHIPSNAKE

Family: Colubridae

Threated: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C04A )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Masticophis+lat
eralis+euryxanthus )

• USFWS, 201 2 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3886.pdf )

• 71 FR 58176 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2006

- 10

- 02/pdf/06

- 8367.pdf#page=1 )

Description: The Alameda whipsnake is a slender, fast

- moving, semi

- arboreal, diurnal snake with a broad head, large eyes, and slender neck. These characteristics are typical of snake species that predate

on lizards. Its dorsum is dark brown with a broad orange stripe on each side, ventral surface is plain cream colored, pink, and/or orange and adults generally are 90

- 124 cm in total length. This subspecies differs by having comparatively wide lateral stripes that tend to be orange rather than yellow.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Its Inner Coast range in western and central Contra Costa and Alameda counties, California has five major populations: (1) Sobrante Ridge, Tilden/Wildcat regional parks area to the Briones Hills, in Contra Costa County, (2) Oakland Hills, Anthony Chabot area to Las Trampas Ridge, in Costra Costa County, (3) Hayward Hills, Palomares area to Pleasanton Ridge, in Alameda County, (4) Mount Diablo vicinity and the Black Hills, in Cos tra Costa County, and (5) Wauhab Ridge, Del Valle area to the Cedar Mountain Ridge, in Alameda County (Federal Register, 1 November 1996; USFWS 1997, 2000). This species is commonly associated with small to large patches of chaparral or coastal scrub veget ation, interspersed with other native vegetation types and rock lands throughout Contra Costa County, most of Alameda County, and portions of northern Santa Clara and western San Joaquin counties.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Alameda whipsnakes are typically associated with small to large patches of chaparral or coastal scrub vegetation, interspersed with other native vegetation types and rock lands (areas containing large percentage of rocks, rocky features, and/or rock

- bearing soil types). Chaparra l and coastal scrub vegetation serve as the center of home ranges and provide for concealment from predators, and foraging opportunities. Core areas have been found to center around patches of coastal scrub or chaparral as small 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) embe dded within a mosaic of other dominant vegetation types. Small rodent burrows are important retreats, and brush piles and deep soil crevices can also serve as important habitat features (Swaim

, 1994). These habitat features are

essential for normal behavio rs such as breeding, reproduction, and foraging, because they2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 142 provide refuge from predators, egg

- laying sites, thermal cover, shelter, winter hibernacula, and increased numbers of foraging opportunities (Swaim

, 1994).

Six units were established as critica l habitat for the Alameda whipsnake on October 2, 2006

. Unit 1 is Tilden

- Briones in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (34,119 ac), unit 2 is Oakland

Las Trampas in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties (24,436 ac), unit 3 is Hayward

- Pleasanton Ridge in Alameda County (25,966 ac), unit 4 is Mount Diablo

- Black Hills in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties (23,225 ac), unit 5A is Cedar Mountain in Alameda and San Joaquin Counties (24,723 ac), unit 5B is Alameda Creek in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties (18,214 ac), a nd unit 6 is Caldecott Tunnel in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties (4,151 ac).

Primary constituent elements for the Alameda whipsnake include: (1) Scrub/shrub communities with a mosaic of open and closed canopy as characterized by the chamise,

chamise

- eas twood manzanita, chaparral whitethorn, and interior live oak shrub vegetation series, occurring at elevations from sea level to approximately 3,850 ft (1,170 m); (2) woodland or annual grassland plant communities contiguous to the above, comprised of one o r more of the following: Blue oak, coast live oak, California bay, California buckeye, and California annual grassland vegetation series; (3) Lands containing rock outcrops, talus, and small mammal burrows within or adjacent to the above, essential for ret reats (shelter), hibernacula, foraging, and dispersal, and provide additional prey population support functions.

Life History: Adult Alameda whipsnakes have a bimodal seasonal activity pattern, with peaks during the spring mating season and a smaller peak during late summer and early fall (Swaim

, 1994). They generally retreat into winter hibernacula (the location chosen for hibernation) in November and emerge in March. However, short, above

- ground activity such as basking in the immediate vicinity of the h ibernaculum may occur during this time (Swaim

, 1994). Courtship and mating occur from late March through mid

- June. During this time, males have been found to move throughout their home range and females have been found to remain at or near their hibernacul a until mating completes. Average clutch size was found to be 7.21 with a significant correlation between body size and clutch size (Goldberg

, 1975). Incubation lasts about 3 months and young appear in late summer and fall. Hatchlings have been observed or captured above ground from August through November (Hammerson

, 1978, Swaim

, 1994). Prey items have been detected in the stomachs of captured hatchlings during this period, indicating feeding may occur prior to winter hibernation (Swaim

, 1994).

When hunt ing, it commonly moves with its head held high and occasionally moves it from side to side. Prey is seized with great speed, pinioned under loops of the body, and engulfed without constriction. The Alameda whipsnake is semi

- arboreal and can escape into or hunt within shrubs

or trees

. Lizards, especially the western fence lizard ( Sceloporus occidentalis ), appear to be important prey items (Stebbins

, 1985, Swaim

, 1994, H. Greene personnel communication 1998), although other prey items including frogs, snakes, small birds, small mammals, and insects have been reported to be eaten by California whipsnakes (Stebbins

, 1985).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 143 Historical Information: The loss and fragmentation of habitat, as a result of urban development and transportation corridors, were consider ed to be substantial threats to the Alameda whipsnake when it was listed and remain threats today.

Conservation Status: Little population abundance data exists for the Alameda whipsnake. However, Alameda whipsnakes have been found to be locally abundant and the dominant snake species when habitat quality is high (Swaim

, 2002). Almost all trapping studies targeting this species have been designed to determine presence or absence for regulatory purposes and assessing impacts to potential habitat. As such, m onitoring is most often habitat based; assuming snake abundance is positively correlated with the amount of coastal scrub or chaparral vegetation and rock lands

present.

Summary of Major Threats: The species has declined due to residential and commercial development of habitat, which continues to be the major problem. The removal of shrub and grass cover by overgrazing has eliminated or degraded habitat in some areas (California Department of Fish and Game 1990; McGinnis 1992; Federal Register, 4 February 1994). Its habitat is also threatened also by fire suppression and related wildfire problems associated with lack of fuel reduction (USFWS

, 1997).

F.6.29. Neostapfia colusana COLUSA GRASS

Family: Poaceae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q19I )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1930.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Neost apfia+colu

sana )

• 70 FR 46924 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2005

- 08

- 11/pdf/05

- 15569.pdf#page=1 )

• 71 FR 7118 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2006

- 02

- 10/pdf/06

- 1080.pdf#page=1 )

Description: Colusa grass is an annual plant in the grass family (Poaceae) and is in the Orcuttieae taxonomic tribe, which also includes species of the Orcuttia and Tuctoria genera. It is an annual grass, up to 30 cm tall, with a robust inflorescence that resembles a small ear of corn. Its aquatic seedlings have only one or two juvenile leaves. In the terrestrial stage, multiple stems arise in clumps from

a common ro ot system. Plants are pale green when young, but become brownish as the exudate darkens. Each stem produces a dense, cylindrical inflorescence 2

- 8 cm long by 8

- 12 mm broad.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 144 The spikelets are densely packed in a spiral arrangement and the tip of the rachis projects beyond the spikelets (USFWS

, 2005).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Grasses of the Orcuttieae tribe are endemic to California vernal pool habitat in the Central Valley. The majority of extant Colusa grass occurrences are in the So uthern Sierra Foothills Vernal Pool Region, where they are concentrated northeast of the City of Merced in Merced County and east of Hickman in Stanislaus County. The majority of these known extant occurrences (42 percent) are at the Flying M Ranch, the Ic hord Ranches, and the Virginia Smith Trust site (Vollmar

, 2002). The current range is estimated to be about 6,500 square km.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) The grass occurs in Northern Claypan and Northern Hardpan vernal pools (Sawyer and Keeler

Wolf 1995) within rolling grasslands. Sites are located on the rim of alkaline basins in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, as well as on acidic soils of alluvial fans and stream terraces along the eastern margin of the San Joaquin Valley and adjacent foot hills. Soils include clay, silty clay, silty clay loam, and gravelly loam. Impermeable layers underlying occupied pools range from claypan to lime

- silica or iron

- silica cemented hardpan and tuffaceous alluvium. Occupied pools range in size from 0.01 to 250 hectares (median size 0.2 hectares); the species also occurs in the beds of intermittent streams and in artificial ponds. Typically grows in the deepest portion of the pool or stream bed, although it may also occur on the margins.

Critical habitat for Co lusa grass and several other vernal pool species was designated on August 11, 2005

. The final designation of critical habitat for Colusa grass is 152,093 acres.

The PCEs of critical habitat for Colusa grass are the habitat components that provide: (1)

top ographic features characterized by isolated mound and intermound complex within a matrix of surrounding uplands that result in continuously, or intermittently, flowing surface water in the depressional features including swales connecting pools, providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length in the pools; (2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools with underlying restrictive soil layers that become inundated during winter rains and that continuously hold water or whose soils are saturated for a period long enough to promote germination, flowering, and seed production of predominantly annual native wetland species and typically exclude both native and nonnative upland plant species in all but the driest years. As

these fe atures are inundated on a seasonal basis, they do not promote the development of obligate wetland vegetation habitats typical of permanently flooded emergent wetlands.

Life History: Long

- term inundation of approximately three months is required for seed g ermination, and it appears that deeper pools and stock ponds are most likely to provide the long inundation period required (Service

, 2005). Unlike terrestrial grasses, grasses in the Orcuttieae tribe have pith

- filled stems, lack distinct leaf sheaths and ligules, and produce exudate.

Historical Information: When Colusa grass was listed as threatened in 1997, there were 40 known extant occurrences. Approximately 39 occurrences are currently considered extant, most of them located within a2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 145 200 km

- long area. At least 8 populations have been extirpated. Vernal pool habitats in California's Central Valley have been greatly reduced from pre

- European times; the remaining habitats are limited in extent, fragmented, and are facing on

- going degradation and eliminati on due to numerous housing development projects and other types of urban development, agricultural activities and development, grazing, the invasion of non

- native plant species, and

other threats.

Conservation Status: Population sizes of Colusa grass can vary widely from year to year. Colusa grass has the broadest ecological range among the Orcuttieae tribe, as it occurs on the rim of alkaline basins in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, on acidic soils of alluvial fans and stream terraces along the e astern margin of the San Joaquin Valley and into the adjacent foothills, as well as in Northern Claypan and Northern Hardpan vernal pool types.

Currently, there are 43 presumed extant occurrences in Yolo, Solano, Merced, and Stanislaus Counties (Hogle

, 2002 ; CNDDB

, 2008). The vast majority of these occurrences are in Stanislaus County (15 occurrences) and Merced County (22 occurrences). During the 1980s, many new occurrences of Colusa grass were located during extensive surveys. As of 1989, 40 occurrenc es were extant and 11 had been extirpated (Stone et al.

, 1988). In 2002, there were 48 occurrences believed to be extant (Vollmar

, 2002, Service

, 2002). The overall trend of this species is unclear due to lack of systematic surveys.

Summary of Major Thre ats: The remaining occurrences remain threatened by land conversion to urban development and to irrigated cropland, impacts from surrounding land use, competition with non

- native plant species, potential changes to hydrology, and other human activities. Ma ny occurrences occupy a small area, indicating that extirpation is still a threat even on protected sites.

F.6.30. Neotoma fuscipes riparia RIPARIAN WOODRAT

Family: Muridae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0FC )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Neotoma+fuscip
es+riparia )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980930a.pdf )

Description: The riparian woodrat is a medium

- sized (200 to 400 grams; 7.05 to 14.11 ounces) rodent with a stockier build and a tail that is well furred (Hooper

, 1938 ; Williams et al. 1992) and not scale d.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 146 N. fuscipes riparia differs from other, adjacent subspecies of woodrats by being larger, lighter, and more grayish in color, with hind feet white instead of dusky on their upper surfaces, and a tail more distinctly bicolored (lighter below contrasting m ore with the darker dorsal color) (Hooper 1938).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The woodrat distribution it limited to Lower San Joaquin Valley, California (Williams and Kilburn 1984) with a range of about 100

- 8,000 square miles. It is pr esently known to be extant only at Caswell Memorial State Park (Williams

, 1993). Williams (1993) estimated the size of this population at 437 individuals.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Woodrats inhabit evergreen or live oaks and other thick

- leaved trees and shrubs (Kelly

, 1990 ; Williams et al.

, 1992). Riparian woodrats are common, however, where there are deciduous valley oaks, but few live oaks. They are most numerous where shrub cover is dense and least abundant in open areas. In riparian areas, highest densities of woodrats and their houses are often encountered in willow thickets with an oak overstory (Linsdale and Tevis

, 1951).

Dusky

- footed woodrats are well known for their large terrestrial stick houses, some of which can last for 20 or more years a fter being abandoned (Linsdale and Tevis

, 1951; Carraway and Verts

, 1991). At Caswell Memorial State Park, riparian woodrats also make houses of sticks and other litter (Williams

, 1993). At the Hastings Reserve, Monterey County, dusky

- footed woodrat

houses range from 60 centimeters (2 feet) to 150 centimeters (5 feet) in height, and can be

120 centimeters (4 feet) to 240 centimeters (8 feet) in basal diameter. Houses typically are placed on the ground against or straddling a log or exposed roots of a standi ng tree and are often located in dense brush. Nests also are placed in the crotches and cavities of trees and in hollow logs.

Sometimes tree nests are constructed but this behavior seems to be more common in habitat with evergreen trees such as live oak (W illiams et al.

, 1992).

Life History: Although some species have more specialized diets than others, woodrats are, for the most part, generalist herbivores. They consume a wide variety of nuts and fruits, fungi, foliage and some forbs (Linsdale and Tevis

, 1951). Dusky

- footed woodrats live in loosely

- cooperative societies and have a matrilineal (mother

- offspring associations; through the maternal line) social structure (Kelly

, 1990). Unlike males, adjacent females are usually closely related and, unlike fema les, males disperse away from their birth den and are highly territorial and aggressive, especially during the breeding season. Consequently, populations are typically female

- biased and, because of pronounced polygyny (mating pattern in which a male mates with more than one female in a single breeding season), the effective population size (i.e., successful breeders) is generally much smaller than the actual population size (Kelly

, 1990).

Historical Information:

The known historical distribution included areas along the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers, and Corral Hollow, in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Merced Counties. The range of the riparian woodrat is far more restricted today than it was in 1938 (Williams

, 1986).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 147 Conservation Status:

The riparian woodrat occurs in one location in riparian habitat in the San Joaquin Valley, California with a total population in the early 1990s estimated at about 450. Its habitat has shrunk greatly and is now very limited.

Summary of Major Threats:

The onl y known extant population of riparian woodrat is small, with its size limited by the available habitat. It is thus at an increased risk of extinction because of genetic, demographic, and random catastrophic events (e.g., drought, flooding, fire) that threa tens small, isolated populations. Because of its breeding behavior, the effective size of woodrat populations is generally much smaller than the actual population size. This increases the risk of inbreeding depression.

The woodrat population at Caswell M emorial State Park is vulnerable to flooding of the

Stanislaus River. Because of its well

- developed arboreality (ability to climb in trees), the woodrat itself is not as sensitive to flooding as some other brush

- dwelling species (e.g., the riparian brush r abbit). However, woodrat houses are essential for survival and these can be severely impacted by flooding, thus affecting population viability.

F.6.31. STEELHEAD SALMON (Central CA Coast, South Central CA Coast, and Southern CA Coast) Oncorhynchus mykiss (See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

Sources:

• 70 FR 52488 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2005

- 09

- 02/pdf/05

- 16389.pdf#page=1 )

Habitat: (has critical ha bitat)

- for these DPS Final critical habitat was designated for the above ESUs of steelhead on September 2, 2005

.

There are 46 occupied HAS watersheds within the freshwater and estuarine range of the central

CA coast steelhead ESU

. HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately 1,832 mi (2,931 km) of stream habitat and approximately 442 mi2 (1,140 km2) of estuarine habitat (principally San Francisco Bay

- San Pablo Bay). Of these, approximately 0.6 stream miles (1.0 km) are being excluded be cause they overlap with Indian lands (Coyote Valley and Redwood Valley Rancherias)

. Counties with critical habitat are Lake, Mendocino, Sonoma, Napa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin.

There a re 30 occupied HAS watersheds within the freshwater and estuarine range of the south

central CA coast steelhead ESU

. HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately 1,251 mi (2,000 km) of stream habitat and approximately 3 mi2 (8 km2) of

est uarine habitat (e.g., Morro Bay). Approximately 22 stream miles (35 km) are not eligible for designation because they are within lands controlled by the DOD (Camp San Luis Obispo and Camp Roberts) that have qualifying INRMPs. Counties with critical habitat are Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 148 There are 32 occupied HAS watersheds within the freshwater and estuarine range of the southern

CA steelhead ESU

. HSA watershed habitat areas for this ESU include approximately 741 mi (1,1 86 km) of stream habitat. Of these, approximately 22 mi (35 km) of occupied stream miles are excluded because they are within lands controlled by the DOD (Vandenberg AFB and Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base ) that have qualifying INRMPs and for which the b enefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation. Counties with critical habitat are San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego.

Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches, a nd includes a lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high

- water line

. Within these areas, the primary

constituent elements essential for the conservation of these ESUs are those sites and habitat components that support one or more life stages, includin g: (1) freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development; (2) freshwater rearing sites with: (i) water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physica l habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii) water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large r ocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks; (3) freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetati on, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. (4) estuarine areas free of obstruction and excessive predation with: (i) water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions

between fresh

- and saltwater; (ii) natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels; and (iii) juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.

F.6.32.

Orcinus orca KILLER WHALE

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

F.6.33. Orcuttia pilosa HAIRY ORCUTT GRASS

Family: Poaceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1AY )

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/2006/060307_docs/doc533.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Orcuttia+pilosa )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 149 • 70 FR 46924 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2005

- 08

- 11/pdf/05

- 15569.pdf#page=1 )

• 71 FR 7118 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2006

- 02

- 10/pdf/06

- 1080.pdf#page=1 )

D escription: Hairy orcutt grass, Orcuttia pilosa, grows in tufts consisting of numerous stems. The stems are decumbent or erect and branch from only the lower nodes. Stems are 5 to 20 cm (2.0 to 7.9 in.) long and 1 to 2 mm (0.04 to 0.08 in.) in diameter (St one et al.

, 1988). Almost the entire plant is pilose (bearing long, soft, straight hairs), giving it a grayish appearance. The terrestrial leaves are 3 to 6 mm (0.12 to 0.24 in.) wide. The inflorescence is 5 to 10 cm (2.0 to 3.9 in.) long and

contains betw een 8 and 18 flattened spikelets. The spikelets near the tip of the inflorescence are crowded together, whereas those near the base are more widely spaced. Each spikelet consists of 10 to 40 florets and two tiny (3 mm) glumes. The lemmas are 4 to 5 mm (0.1 6 to 0.20 in.) long, with five teeth of equal size. Each caryopsis is 1.75 to 2 mm (0.07 to 0.08 in.) long (Hoover

, 1941; Reeder

, 1982, 1993) and weighs 0.46 to 0.95 mg (Griggs

, 1980).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Hairy orcutt grass occ urs over a 490 km stretch on the eastern margin of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys from Tehema County south through Merced and Mariposa Counties, California. It is endemic to vernal pool habitats along the eastern edge of the Central Valley of

Calif ornia. It is known from 24 extant native populations, only about half of which are thought to be stable and extirpated at least 11 sites.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) This species is found on high or low stream terraces and alluvial fans (Stone et al. 1988). Hairy orcutt grass occurs in Northern Basalt Flow, Northern Claypan, and Northern Hardpan vernal pools (Sawyer and Keeler

- Wolf

, 1995) within annual grasslands (California Natural Diversity

Data Base

, 2003). The median size of occupied pools measured in the late 1980s was 1.7 hectares (4.2 acres), with a range of 0.34 to 250 hectares (0.8 to 617.5 acres) (Stone et al.

, 1988). At the Vina Plains, hairy orcutt grass was found growing only in pools that h eld water until May, June, or July in 1995, and not in those that had dried by April (Alexander and Schlising

, 1997). This species is known from elevations of 26 meters (85 feet) in Glenn County to 123 m (405 ft.) in Madera County (California Natural Diver sity Data Base

, 2003). Hairy orcutt grass is found on

both acidic and saline

- alkaline soils, in pools with an iron

- silica cemented hardpan or claypan. In the Northeastern Sacramento Valley Vernal Pool Region, pools supporting hairy orcutt grass

occur on th e Anita and Tuscan soil series (Stone et al. 1988, California Natural Diversity Data Base 2003).

Critical habitat for hairy orcutt grass and several other vernal pool species was designated on August 11, 2005

. The final designation of critical habitat for hairy orcutt grass is 79,608 acres.

The PCEs of critical habitat for hairy orcutt grass are the habitat components that provide: (1) topographic features characterized by isolated mound and intermound complex within a matrix of surrounding uplands that r esult in continuously, or intermittently, flowing surface water in the depressional features including swales connecting pools, providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length in the pools; (2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools with underlying restrictive soil layers that become inundated during winter rains and that2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 150 continuously hold water or whose soils are saturated for a period long enough to promote germination, flowering, and seed production of predominantly a nnual native wetland species and typically exclude both native and nonnative upland plant species in all but the driest years. As these features are inundated on a seasonal basis, they do not promote the development of obligate wetland vegetation habitats typical of permanently flooded emergent wetlands

Life History: Life history characteristics shared among all Orcutt grasses ( Orcuttia species), but not other genera in the Orcuttieae. In particular, seeds of Orcuttia species germinate underwater in Januar y and February (Griggs

, 1980 ; Griggs and Jain

, 1983 ; Keeley

, 1998), after being colonized by aquatic fungi (Griggs

, 1980, 1981). This observation was supported by Keeley’s (1988) research, which indicated that fungicide inhibited germination of O. californ ica seeds, but did not affect Tuctoria greenei seeds. Detailed germination studies have not been conducted on all species, but cold treatment and other forms of stratification promoted germination in O. californica (Keeley

, 1988), O. pilosa , and O. tenuis (Griggs 1974, as cited in Stone et al. 1988) and most likely benefit other Orcuttia species as well.

Orcuttia plants grow underwater for 3 months or more and have evolved specific adaptations for aquatic growth (Keeley

, 1998). Among these adaptations is the formation of the three different leaf types. The well

- developed rosette of juvenile leaves is more specialized than those in Neostapfia or Tuctoria species, however (Keeley

, 1998). The floating

- leaf stage is unique to Orcuttia species; these leaves for m as water in the pool warms and remain as long as the standing water lasts (Hoover

, 1941; Griggs

, 1980, 1981; Reeder

, 1982; Keeley

, 1998). Aquatic leaves of Orcuttia species also lack stomates, even though they are present on the juvenile leaves of both

N eostapfia and Tuctoria (Keeley

, 1998).

As soon as the pools dry, normally in June or July, Orcutt grasses begin producing their typical terrestrial leaves (Hoover

, 1941; Griggs

, 1980, 1981; Reeder

, 1982; Keeley

, 1998). Inflorescences appear within a few d ays after the water evaporates. June and July are the peak months of flower production for most species, although flowering may continue into August and September in years of above

- normal precipitation (Griggs

, 1980; 1981). Late

- spring rains may prolong th e flowering season (Griggs

, 1981; Griggs and Jain

, 1983), but inundation is more likely to kill flowering individuals (J. Silveira

, 1997). Spikelets break apart and scatter their seeds when autumn rains arrive (Reeder

, 1965; Crampton

, 1976; Griggs

, 1980; 1981).

Historical Information: Prior to the surveys by Stone et al. (1988), hairy orcutt grass had been reported from 25 sites, primarily in the Northeastern Sacramento Valley and Southern Sierra Foothills Vernal Pool Regions (Keeler

- Wolf et al.

, 1998). These included eight occurrences each in Tehama and Stanislaus Counties, six in Madera County, and two in Merced County (Hoover

, 1941; Crampton

, 1959; Reeder

, 1982; Stone et al.

, 1988; California Natural Diversity Data Base

, 2003). Hairy orcutt gra ss also was collected in the Solano

- Colusa Vernal Pool Region, Glenn County, in 1937 (California Natural Diversity Data Base

, 2003); the specimen has since been lost, but may have originally been misidentified as California Orcutt grass (Oswald and Silveir a
, 1995; J. Silveira pers. comm.

, 1997; J. Silveira

, 2000).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 151 Conservation Status: Within about the last decade, 10 new natural occurrences of hairy orcutt grass have been discovered: 5 in Madera County, 4 in Tehama County, and 1 in Stanislaus County (Calif ornia Natural Diversity Data Base

, 2005). Hairy orcutt grass also has been discovered in another pool at the Vina Plains Preserve in Tehama County (Alexander and Schlising

, 1997); this pool may represent a separate occurrence or it may be an extension of C alifornia Natural Diversity Data Base Element Occurrence 25. In addition, this species has been introduced into a re

- created pool in Madera County (Durgarian

, 1995, Stebbins et al.

, 1995, California Natural Diversity Data

Base

, 2005).

Of the 39 Element Oc currences listed by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (2003), not counting the misidentified population of Orcuttia inaequalis previously mentioned, 27 natural occurrences and the introduced population are presumed to be extant (California Natural Diversity Data Base

, 2005). Currently, the main area of concentration for Orcuttia pilosa (9 extant occurrences and 1 that is possibly extirpated) is the Vina Plains in Tehama County, which is in the Northeastern Sacramento Valley Vernal Pool Region. An i solated occurrence in central Butte County is in the same region. Eleven occurrences are in the Southern Sierra Foothills Vernal Pool Region, including nine in Madera County between the City of Madera and Millerton Lake, and two in eastern Stanislaus Count y. All six extant occurrences in the Solano

- Colusa Vernal Pool Region are on the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge in Glenn County (Stone et

al.

, 1988 ; Keeler

- Wolf et al.

, 1998 ; California Natural Diversity Data Base

, 2005).

Summary of Major Threats:

It s dependence on vernal pools for survival, the changes to natural hydrology and habitat loss are this species' biggest threats (USFWS

, 2005). The species is also threatened due to agriculture, urbanization, overgrazing, non

- native plants and trampling.

F.6.34. Plagiobothrys strictus C ALISTOGA ALLOCARYA

Family: Boraginaceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1HV )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3218.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Plagiobothrys+st

rictus )

Description: Calistoga allocarya, Plagiobothrys strictus, is an annual herb in the Boraginaceae (borage family). It can grow 10 to 40 cm (4 to 16 in.) tall from a single stem at the base. It has small, usually paired white flowers that appear in March

- April in a slender, curved inflorescence.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 152 Geographic Boundar ies and Spatial Distribution: Calistoga allocarya occurs in alkaline sites near thermal springs at two extant sites on private land within a radius of 6 km (4 miles) of Calistoga in Napa County, California. The range extent covers a small area in Napa Coun ty, near Calistoga. The total range is only about 14 square

miles.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) The species inhabits pools and swales adjacent to and fed by hot springs and small geysers in grasslands between 90 and 160 m (300 to 500 ft.) in elevation. Calistoga allocarya grows in clay soils that are characterized by high boron, acidity, arsenic and sulfate concentrations. It is found in foothill grasslands, in mesic areas including vernal pools, next to and fed by hot springs and

small

Life History:

T he fruit is an egg

- shaped nutlet about 0.15 cm (0.06 in.) long, keeled on the back and covered with smooth, wart

- like projections (California Department of Fish and Game

, 2005a; Service

, 2008a). Hot springs are part of the hydrologic requirements for its g rowth.

Historical Information: Historically, three populations of Calistoga allocarya were documented within a 3 km (2 mile) radius of Calistoga, Napa County, California. Prior to listing one population had been extirpated due to urbanization and agricul tural land conversion (California Native Plant Society

, 2008a). No plants were observed south of the former runway on the airport property during the 2005, 2008, and 2009 surveys even though it is assumed suitable habitat does exist there (Ecosystems West Consulting Group

, 2009). In 2009, Calistoga allocarya was found in areas with sparse vegetation (cover less than 60 percent, occasionally 80 percent or more) and low surrounding vegetation (less than 1 foot high) (Ecosystems West Consulting Group

, 2009).

Conservation Status: Currently, there are two extant occurrences, both in Napa County, California. The most recent surveys for the species on the former Calistoga glider airport property (airport property) were conducted during spring 2009 by EcoSystems We st Consulting Group and by WRA Environmental Consultants. The most recent visit to the second locality, Myrtledale Hot Springs, which is also near the City of Calistoga in Napa County was in 2007 (CNDDB

, 2009b). The

estimated number of Calistoga allocarya plants on the airport property for 2008 was 6,250. The 2009 plant surveys estimate the 26 colonies have 3,310 to 5,000 Calistoga allocarya plants occupying this property (EcoSystems West Consulting Group

, 2009). The other population of Calistoga allocarya is scattered over 4 hectares (10 acres) bisected by an asphalt road on the private property with the barn. The number of individuals in this population has fluctuated between 100 and 10,000 plants. During one observation in 2009, Mr. Rugyt estimated

approx imately several hundred plants were present on this property (Rugyt, pers. comm. 2009). In recent years, access to the site has been unavailable, and so the current size of this population

is unknown.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 153 Summary of Major Threats: When Calistoga allocarya was listed as endangered in 1997, the threats to its survival and recovery included airport activities, development, potential alteration of hot springs hydrology, restricted range and number and size of populations, and inadequate existing regulatory

mechani sms. Currently, the species is still threatened by potential habitat loss due to development, potential alteration of hot springs hydrology, restricted range and number and size of populations, and inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms. In addition, ot her factors, such as climate change and competition from weedy invasive plants may be adversely affecting the species and are considered threats to their survival.

F.6.35. Poa napensis NAPA BLUEGRASS

Family: Poaceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3218.pdf )

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1ID )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe? searchName=Poa+napensis )

Description: Napa bluegrass, Poa napensis, grows 30 to 100 centimeters (12 to 39.4 inches) tall and is an erect, tufted perennial bunch grass. Longer basal leaves grow to about 20.3 cm (8 in.) long, with upper leaves that are abou t 15.2 cm (6 in.).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Napa bluegrass occur in alkaline sites near thermal springs at two extant sites on private land within a radius of 6 km (4 miles) of Calistoga in Napa County, California. It is known only from a small area in Napa County, near Calistoga. The entire range encompasses no more than 3 square miles.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Its habitat includes Geyser and hot spring fed moist meadows at 100

- 120 m elevation. Soils are clay or gravelly

- cla y loams with high concentrations of boron and sulfates. It is found in foothill grasslands, in mesic areas including vernal pools, next to and fed by hot springs and small geysers (California Department of Fish and Game

, 2005b; Service

, 2008b).

Life Histo ry: A few erect flowering stems appear in May and grow as much as 69 cm (27 in.) in height. Pale green to purple flowers bloom in condensed, round

- shaped clusters at the end of the few flowering stems.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 154 Historical Information: At the time of listing, Napa bluegrass was only known from two populations in the vicinity of Calistoga (California Native Plant Society 2008b). A 2008 survey conducted by Glenn Lukos Associates identified approximately 520 Napa bluegrass plants at 26 locations on the airport

property . A March 9, 2009 EcoSystems West Consulting Group survey identified 244 individual Napa bluegrass plants at 31 locations on the airport property (WRA

, 2009). The second population of Napa bluegrass is scattered over a 4 hectare (10 acre) area bisected by an asphalt road on private land in Calistoga. In recent years, the landowner has denied access to the site, and no current information on the size of this population is available (Symonds, pers. comm. 2008).

Conservation Status: The species is known only from hot springs

- influenced habitats in a tiny area near Calistoga, California. The species' habitat has been reduced by health spa and resort development. Two small populations remain; one is located on airport property, where it is threatened by grass

mo wing and vehicle parking. Both populations are limited to private land (California Native Plant Society

, 2008b; Service

, 2008b). The airport property was most recently surveyed for Napa bluegrass during the blooming period in March 2009 (WRA

, 2009). Histor ically, the range of this plant has been diminished by the development of recreational hot springs and the growth of the town of Calistoga (Service

, 1997). Currently neither property is being developed. The airport property remains vacant and the second pr operty contains an abandoned house and barn structure which seem vacant as well (Kasparian, pers. obs. 2008).

Summary of Major Threats: When Napa bluegrass was listed as endangered in 1997, the threats to its survival and recovery included airport activit ies, development, potential alteration of hot springs hydrology, restricted range and number and size of populations, and inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms. Currently, the species is still threatened by potential habitat loss due to development, po tential alteration of hot springs hydrology, restricted range and number and size of populations, and inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms. In addition, other factors, such as climate change and competition from weedy invasive plants may be adversely affecting the species and are

considered threats to their survival.

F.6.36. Rana draytonii CALIFORNIA RED

- LEGGED FROG

Family: Ranidae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D02D )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Rana+draytonii )

• Goals Project, 2000. ( http:// www.sfestuary.org/pdfs/species

community/Species_and_Community_Profiles%5BPart1%5D.pdf )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 155 • 75 FR 12816 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2010

- 03

- 17/pdf/2010

- 4656.pdf#page=1 )

Description:

The California red

- legged frog (Family: Ranidae) is a large (85

- 138 mm) brown to reddish brown frog with prominent dorsolateral folds and diffuse moderate sized dark brown to black spots that sometimes have light centers (Storer

, 1925, Jennings and Hayes

, 1994a).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Native historical range extended from southern Mendocino County in northwestern California south (primarily west of the Cascade

- Sierra crest) to northwestern Baja California (Shaffer et al. 2004) (8,000

- 1,000,000 square miles). Historical populations on th e floor of the Central Valley may not have persisted due to extensive natural flooding (Fellers, in Lannoo 2005). The current range is now much reduced in the Sierra Nevada and in southern California, but the species is still present throughout much of its former range in the central California coast range (Fellers, in Lannoo 2005). This species has been introduced in a few places in Nevada, but the current status of those populations is uncertain (A. Cook, cited by Fellers, in Lannoo 2005). Rana draytonii is still present in Baja California, Mexico (USFWS

, 2000, Grismer

, 2002, Shaffer et al.

, 2004). The elevational range extended from sea level to about 1,500 meters (5,000 feet); usually below 1,200 meters (3,935 feet).

Habitat: (has critical habitat)

Alt hough California red

- legged frogs can occur in ephemeral or artificially

- created ponds devoid of vegetation, the habitats that have been observed to have the largest frog populations are perennial, deep (>0.7 m) water pools bordered by dense, shrubby ripar ian vegetation (Jennings

, 1988, Hayes and Jennings

, 1986). This dense riparian vegetation is characterized by arroyo willows ( Salix lasiolepis ) intermixed with an understory of cattails ( Typha sp. ), tules ( Scirpus

sp. ), or bulrushes ( Scirpus sp. ) (Jennings

, 1988).

On April 16, 2010, approximately 1,636,609 acres of critical habitat in 27 California counties were designated for California red

- legged frog.

The California red

- legged frog’s PCEs are: (1) standing bodies of fresh water (with salinities less

th an 4.5 ppt) for aquatic breeding habitat, including natural and manmade (e.g., stock) ponds,

slow

- moving streams or pools within streams, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 20 weeks in all but the driest of years; (2) freshwater pond and stream habitats, as described above, for

non

- breeding habitat, that provide for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal of juvenile and adult California red

- l egged frogs, including, but are not limited to plunge pools within intermittent creeks, seeps, quiet water refugia within streams during high water flows, and springs of sufficient flow to withstand short

- term dry periods; (3) upland areas adjacent to or

s urrounding breeding and non

- breeding aquatic and riparian habitat up to a distance of 1 mi (1.6 km) in most cases (i.e., depending on surrounding landscape and dispersal barriers) including various vegetational types such as grassland, woodland, forest, we tland, or riparian areas that provide shelter, forage, and predator avoidance for the California red

- legged frog, maintaining the hydrologic, geographic, topographic, ecological, and edaphic features that support and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 156 surround the aquatic, wetland, or ripar ian habitat; (4) accessible upland or riparian habitat within and between occupied or previously occupied sites that are located within 1 mi (1.6 km) of each other, and that support movement between such sites as dispersal habitat, including various

natura l habitats, and altered habitats such as agricultural fields, that do not contain barriers (e.g., heavily traveled roads without bridges or culverts) to dispersal.

Life History: Adults generally reach sexual maturity in their second year for males and thi rd year for females (Jennings and Hayes

, 1985), although sexual maturity may be reached earlier during years of abundant food resources (Jennings, unpubl. data). During extended periods of drought, frogs may

take 3

- 4 years to reach maturity (Jennings and H ayes
, 1994a). Reproduction generally occurs at night in permanent ponds or the slack water pools of streams during the winter and early spring (late November

- through April) after the onset of warm rains (Storer

, 1925; Hayes and Jennings 1988; Jennings and Hayes

, 1994a).

Egg masses are normally laid at the surface of the water (Livezey and Wright

, 1947). California

red

- legged frogs are explosive breeders, usually depositing their egg masses within 3

- 4 week period after large rainfall events (Hayes and Miya moto

, 1984). After reproduction, males usually remain at the breeding sites for several weeks before removing to foraging habitats, while females immediately remove to these foraging habitats (Jennings, unpubl. data). There is no

evidence of double clutchi ng with this species (Jennings, unpubl. data). Eggs hatch after 6

- 14 days (depending on the prevailing water temperature), and the resulting larvae (8.8

- 10.3 mm total length) require 3.5

- 7 months to attain metamorphosis at 65

- 85 mm total length (Storer 192 5; Jennings, unpubl. data). Larvae, which are solitary and almost never overwinter, typically metamorphose between July and September (Storer 1925, Jennings and Hayes 1994a). Juvenile frogs are 25

- 30 mm total length at metamorphosis and commonly sun

themse lves during the day at the edge of the riparian zone next to the breeding site. As they grow, they gradually shift from diurnal and nocturnal periods of activity, to largely nocturnal activity (Hayes and Tennant

, 1986). During periods of rainfall, both juv eniles and a few adults may disperse away from breeding sites and may be found some distance (up to 0.8 km) away from the nearest water (Jennings, unpubl. data). Along the lower reaches of streams on the

Central Coast of California which tend to almost com pletely dry up during the late summer, subadult and adult frogs have been found to occupy small mammal burrows under leaf litter or dense vegetation in the riparian zone (Rathbun et al.

, 1993). These frogs make overland trips every few days or so to isolat ed stream pools to rehydrate themselves although one frog remained in riparian habitat for 77 days (Rathbun in litt. 1994 as cited in Miller et al.

, 1996). Based on these observations, frogs found in coastal drainages appear to be rarely inactive,

whereas those found in interior sites probably hibernate (Storer

, 1925). Based on limited field data, California red

- legged frogs appear to live about 8

- 10 years in the wild (Jennings, unpubl. data).

Larvae are thought to be algal grazers (Storer

, 1925), but the feeding ecology of larval California

red

- legged frogs is unknown. Juvenile and adult frogs have a highly variable animal food diet that includes: Amphipods, Isopods, Orthoptera, Isoptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Neuroptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera, Arachnids, Gastropoda, small fishes, amphibians, and small mammals (Stebbins

, 1972; Hayes and Tennant

, 1985; Baldwin and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 157 Stanford

, 1987). Most prey that can be swallowed that is not distasteful are eaten, with larger frogs capable of taking la rger prey (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994a). Small red

- legged frogs, Pacific treefrogs ( Hyla regilla ), and California mice ( Peromyscus californicus ) may contribute significantly to the diet of subadults and adults (Arnold and Halliday

, 1986, Hayes and Tennant

, 1 985).

Historical Information: Historically, California red

- legged frogs were found throughout the Pacific slope drainages from the vicinity of Redding, Shasta County (Storer

, 1925), inland and at least to Point Reyes, Marin County (Hayes and Kremples

, 198 6), California (coastally) southward to the Santo Domingo River drainage in Baja California, Mexico (Linsdale

, 1932). They also historically occurred in a few desert slope drainages in southern California (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994b). California red

legged frogs generally occurred below 1370 m in the Sierra Nevada foothills (Jennings

, 1996) and 1520 m in southern California, although some of the populations toward the upper limit of the range of this frog may represent translocations (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994a).

In the Bay Area, this frog was historically abundant enough to support an important commercial fishery just before the turn of the century (Jennings and Hayes

, 1985) and up to the 1950s it was still considered to be present in much of the San Fr ancisco Bay region (Stebbins

, 1959). However, earlier overexploitation, subsequent habitat loss from agriculture and urbanization, and the introduction of exotic aquatic predators have presently reduced red

- legged frog distribution

to scattered locations i n the foothills and mountains of the San Francisco Bay region (Jennings, unpubl. data).

In 1993, the California red

- legged frog was petitioned for listing as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Sorensen

, 1993) based on a significant range reduction and continued threats to surviving populations (Miller

, 1994). The frog was subsequently listed as Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Miller et al.

, 1996).

Conservation Status:

Based on the data presented in Jennings and Hayes (1994a; 1994b), California red

- legged frogs appear to have disappeared from approximately 70

- 75%, of their historic range in the state (Miller et al.

, 1996). This frog is most affected by land use patterns and other anthrop ogenic events which fragment high quality habitat and create environments unsuitable for the continued survival of the species (Jennings and Hayes

, 1994a; 1994b).

Summary of Major Threats: Factors contributing to local declines include wetland destructio n and degradation/fragmentation, urbanization, residential development, reservoir construction, stream channelization, livestock grazing of riparian vegetation, off

- road vehicle activity, drought, overharvesting, and exotic fishes (bass, mosquitofish) and possibly bullfrogs (Kiesecker and Blaustein

, 1988, 1998;

USFWS

, 1994, 1996, 2000; Adams

, 1999, 2000; Lawler et al.

, 1999; Cook and Jennings

, 2001; Kiesecker, Blaustein and Miller

, 2001a; Cook 2002). Conversion of habitat to more permanent ponds is an impor tant threat (as this allows breeding waters to be invaded by non

- native predators). Habitat characteristics and good leaping ability may render the frog less vulnerable to2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 158 bullfrog predation (Pearl et al.

, 2004). McAllister and Leonard (in Jones et al.

, 20 05) noted that in many areas red

- legged frogs coexist with bullfrogs.

Declines in the red

- legged frog complex (including Rana draytonii) also have been attributed to global warming, UV

- B radiation (Belden and Blaustein

, 2002), airborne contaminants (pesti cide drift), and disease (see Davidson et al.

, 2001). Davidson et al. (2002) found support for the negative impact of wind

- borne agrochemicals and weaker evidence for the widespread impact of

habitat destruction and UV

- B radiation; evidence did not support the hypothesis that declines have been caused by climate change.

F.6.37. Reithrodontomys raviventris SALT MARSH HARVEST MOUSE

Family: Muridae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A03Y )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Reithrodontomy

s+raviventris )

• Goals Project, 2000 ( http://www.sfestuary.org/pdfs/s pecies

community/Species_and_Community_Profiles%5BPart1%5D.pdf )
Description: Salt marsh harvest mice are small rodents with dark ears and a long, indistinctly bicolored tail;

most individuals have tufts of ochraceous hairs at the anterior bases of the ears. They range in total length from 118 to 175 mm and in weight from 8 to 14 g.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Salt marsh harvest mice are endemic to the salt marshes of the San Francisco Bay system (San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun bays) in central California (Shellhammer

, 1982). The salt marsh harvest mouse is composed of two subspecies. The northern subspecies, Reithrodontomys

raviventris haliocoetes , is found on the upper portions of the Marin Peninsula; in the Petaluma, Napa and Suisun marshes; as well as a disjunct series of populations on the northern Contra Costa County coast. The southern subspecies, Reithrodontomys raviventris raviventris , is found in the more highly developed portions of the Bay from the Richmond area, down around the South San Francisco Bay (primarily south of a line between Redwood City and Hayward), and a disjunct series of small populations on the Marin Peninsula.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) The species is dependent on the thick, perennial cover of salt marshes and move in the adjacent grasslands only in the spring and summer when the grasslands provide maximum cover (Fisler 1965). Their preferred habitats are the middle and upper portions of those marshes (i.e. the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 159 pickleweed ( Salicornia virginica ) and peripheral halophyte zones) and similar vegetation in diked wetlands adjacent to the Bay (Shellhammer et al.

, 1982; 1988).

Life History: Salt marsh harvest mice are vegetarians that can drink water ranging from moderately saline to sea water. They sw im calmly and well. They do not burrow, but will build ball

- like nests of dry grasses and other vegetation on the ground or up in the pickleweed (Fisler

, 1965). The average

litter size is 3.7

- 4.0 young and there may be only a single litter per year in Reit hrodontomys

raviventris haliocoetes (breeds May

- November) but multiple litters Reithrodontomys raviventris

raviventris (breeds March

- November). They are primarily nocturnal but sometimes active during the day.

Historical Information: The former, probably more or less continuous historical distribution has been fragmented, leaving harvest mouse populations restricted to discontinuous patches of suitable habitat. About 84% of historical tidal marshes of the San Francisco Bay area have been destroyed. Over 3, 600 acres of habitat have been filled or degraded since the 1970s. Since 1982, hundreds of acres of nontidal salt marsh in the South Bay have been diced and the damage continued into at least 1989 (California DF&G

, 1990).

Conservation Status:

Salt marsh harvest mice have disappeared from many marshes and are present in very low numbers in most others. The highest consistent populations are found in relatively large marshes along the eastern edge of San Pablo Bay and in old dredge spoil disposal ponds on f ormer Mare Island Shipyard property; most of these marshes are in or will be included in the San Pablo Bay unit of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Bias and Morrison

, 1993, Duke et al. 1995). Other areas supporting large populations include some parts of the Contra Costa County coastline (Duke et al.

, 1990, 1991), some parts of the Petaluma Marshes, and the Calaveras Point Marsh in the South San Francisco Bay (Duke et al.

, 1990), although the latter area is deteriorating because of the declin ing salinity and correlated changes in vegetation. USFWS (1990) categorized the status of this species as "declining."

Summary of Major Threats: The major threats to their habitat include filling, diking, subsidence, and changes in water salinity (Shellha mmer
, 1982, 1989). Various estimates have been made that at least 75% of all the tidal marshes around the Bay have been filled in or otherwise destroyed over the last 150 years. Most of the remaining marshes have been back

- filled or diked

- off, and hence mo st of the remaining tidal marshes are narrow strips along the bay side of the levees. Those strip marshes and most of the remaining larger marshes have lost their upper and part of their middle zones, such that there is little escape cover from high tides available. In the southern end of the South San Francisco Bay, the combination of subsidence caused by water drawdown and the freshening of that part of the Bay by massive amounts of non

- saline, treated sewage effluent has changed the saline vegetation of that area to brackish and freshwater species such as bulrushes, cattails, and peppergrass, plants not used by the species (Duke et al. 1990; Shellhammer 1982, 1989).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 160 F.6.38. Syncaris pacifica CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER SHRIMP

Family: Atyidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=K01W )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Syncaris+pacific

a )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.go v/docs/five_year_review/doc3890.pdf )

Description: The California freshwater shrimp is a decapod crustacean of the family Atyidae and is believed to be the only extant species of the genus. They are generally less than 50 millimeters (2.17 inches) (Eng

, 19 81) in postorbital length (from eye orbit to tip of tail). Females are generally larger than males by the time they reach sexual maturity, at the end of the second summer. Juveniles and males typically appear translucent to nearly transparent while mature females are often brown with a tan dorsal stripe. The California freshwater shrimp is readily distinguished from other shrimp species that occur in California by the family characteristics of terminal tufts of setae (hair

- like structures) on the chelae (cl aws) of the first and second pereiopods (walking legs) (Hedgpeth

, 1975). In addition, they have a supraorbital spine (small spine on the carapace (backshield) above the eye), a long

- slender rostrum, and exopods (oar like outer branches of the thoracid legs) on all pereiopods except the last pair.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The species is restricted to a few coastal streams in Marin, Sonoma, and Napa Counties in California. They are found in low elevation, low gradient, freshwater, perennial streams. Habitat: (no critical habitat) During the winter, habitat includes shallow margins of stream pools containing undercut banks and exposed living fine

- root material that provide shelter and refuge from high water velocities associated with winter storm events. During the summer months, California freshwate r shrimp are often associated with submerged leafy branches. It is believed both winter and summer habitat components need to be found in close proximity in order for this species to persist for prolonged periods. California freshwater shrimp have not been found in salt or brackish water and are not known to inhabit intertidal or estuarine areas (Born

, 1968).

Life History: The reproductive ecology of the California freshwater shrimp has not been formally described. Reproduction seems to occur once a year. Based on the reproductive physiology and behavior of other marine and freshwater shrimps, the male probably transfers and fixes a sperm sac to the female immediately after her last molt, before autumn. Courtship and mating behavior have not

been described. The timing of mating has been deduced from the presence of egg bearing females starting in September (Born

, 1968; En g, 1981). By November, Serpa (1991) noticed that2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 161 most adult females in Huichica Creek bear eggs. Adult females produce relatively few eggs, generally, 50 to 120 (Hedgpeth

, 1968; Eng

, 1981). The eggs adhere to the pleopods (swimming legs on the abdomen) where they are protected and cared for during the winter incubation. Young are released in May or early June and are approximately 6 millimete rs (0.24 inch) in length (Eng

, 1981). No information is available on the percentage of larvae that reach reproductive maturity.

Newly hatched young (post larvae) grow rapidly and reach 19 millimeters (0.75 inch) in length by early autumn of their first ye ar (Eng

, 1981). Growth slows through the fall, winter, and early spring, and then increases through the second summer (Messer and Brumbaugh

, 1989). A size difference between males and females is apparent at the end of the second summer (Messer and Brumbaug h

, 1989). Larger female size is consistent with characteristics of other freshwater shrimp (Neilsen and Reynolds

, 1977). California freshwater shrimp reach sexual maturity by the end of their second summer of growth (Eng

, 1981).and may live longer than 3 y ears (Eng

, 1981).

Historical Information: At the time the California freshwater shrimp was listed (Service

, 1988), 12 streams were known to support populations and four streams once known to support the populations were believed to have been extirpated. A population was rediscovered in Stemple Creek by the time the recovery plan was issued (Service

, 1998). According to Hedgpeth (1968), Atascadero Creek and Laguna de Santa Rosa, two streams cited as being extirpated at the time of listing, supported small a nd sporadic populations that may not occur there every year, but may be a result of infrequent migrations from connecting streams. Extant populations are now known from tributaries to these two streams, Jonive Creek and Blucher Creek, respectively. Despite surveys over the past 35 years, California freshwater shrimp have not been rediscovered in Santa Rosa Creek since the 1960s and are now believed to be extirpated (B. Cox, personnel communication 2011).

Conservation Status: The majority of recent survey information on the California freshwater shrimp is the result of independent surveys for various projects. These surveys have resulted in an increase in the number of streams known to support populations of the species, but do not represent a uniform

effor t to examine the current spatial distribution throughout its range. In addition to the 17 streams noted in the recovery plan (Service 1998), the species is now known from Bud Creek (Serpa

, 2004), Fallon Creek, Franz Creek , Ebabias Creek, an unnamed tribut ary of Huichica Creek (CNDDB

, 2011), and Cheda Creek (Fong

, 2004). Of these new streams, Ebabias and Franz creeks are most significant because they are within watersheds that are relatively disconnected from other streams known to support the species.

Lon g term population trends are only available for the Lagunitas and Olema creek populations. The number of individual California freshwater shrimp collected at six sites in Lagunitas creek increased from approximately 1,878 in 1991 to approximately 4,407 in 2000 (Serpa

, 2002). The increased numbers followed an increase in the amount of available habitat in 1997. Continuing changes in the stream’s morphology resulted in increased water flows that have improved and/or increased habitat conditions in some areas, but worsened and/or decreased habitat in other areas. Although the species has been found in 11 additional streams since it was listed in 1988, they may be rare in some of these newly discovered streams or the additional stream is tributary to an2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 162 already known population and represents only a slight increase in the distribution of the species within the watershed. For example, fewer than 10 individuals were captured in Olema Creek, all within 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) of its confluence with Lagunitas Creek, during surveys conducted in six of eight years from 1996 to 2004 (Martin et al.

, 2009), and only one shrimp was collected from Cheda Creek in 2002, and none were detected during subsequent survey efforts (Fong 2004).

Summary of Major Threats: Although th e known distribution of the California freshwater shrimp has expanded from

12 streams to 23 streams since the species was listed, eight of the eleven newly discovered streams do not represent new populations, but rather the discovery California freshwater shrimp in tributaries to already known populations. In addition, the stability of the species in a few occupied streams is questionable. Primary threats to the species continue to be degradation and loss of habitat as a result of increased urbanization (i. e., water diversion, urban runoff, loss of riparian vegetation, and bank stabilization), agricultural development and inappropriate grazing practices (i.e., loss of riparian vegetation, reduced water quality from manure runoff, water diversion, and increas ed sedimentation), pollutants and contaminants, and water development (i.e., barriers to migration, conversion of glide to pool habitat, introduced predators, altered hydrology, and reduced stream flows).

F.6.39. Thamnophis gigas GIANT GARTER SNAKE

Family: Colub ridae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C057 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Thamnophis+gig

as )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc778.pdf )

Description: Thamnophis gigas is one of the largest garter snakes, reaching a total length of at least 162 cm (see USFWS

, 1993). Its dorsal background coloration varies from brownish to olive, with a checkered pattern of black spots separated by a yellow dorsal stripe and two pale lateral stripes. The prominence of checkered pattern and stripes varies geographically and indi vidually; stripes tend to be most pronounced in individuals from the northern Sacramento Valley; venter is cream to olive or brown, sometimes infused with orange, especially in northern populations;

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution:

Extant populations are distributed in portions of the rice production zones of Sacramento, Sutter, Butte, Colusa, and Glenn Counties in California Its range is about 2,000

- 8,000 square miles.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 163 Habitat: (no critical habitat) Habitat of this highly aquatic species includes primarily marshes and sloughs, sometimes low

gradient streams, ponds, and small lakes, with cattails, bulrushes, willows, or other emergent or

water

- edge vegetation usually present and used for basking and cover (California Department of

Fish and Game

, 1990, USFWS

, 1993, Rossman et al.

, 1996, Stebbins

, 2003). Because of the direct loss of natural habitat, this snake now relies heavily on rice fields in the Sacramento Valley, but it also uses managed marsh areas in various national wildlife refuges and state wildlife areas (USFWS

, 1999). Essential habitat components consist of: (1) adequate water during the snake's active season (early spring through mid

- fall) to provide adequate permanent water to maintain dense populations of food organisms; (2) em ergent, herbaceous wetland vegetation, such as cattails and bulrushes, for escape cover and foraging habitat during the active season; (3) upland habitat with grassy banks and openings in waterside vegetation for basking; and (4) higher elevation upland ha bitats for cover and refuge from flood waters during the snake's inactive season in the winter (from USFWS

, 1999).

The giant gartersnake is absent from large rivers and other waters with populations of large, introduced, predatory fishes, and from wetland s with sand, gravel, or rock substrates (see

USFWS

, 1993). Riparian woodlands do not provide suitable habitat because of excessive shade and inadequate prey resources (Hansen).

Life History: The species is most active during daylight (Biosystems Analysis, Inc.

, 1989). They are dormant

from about November to mid

- March (Hansen, cited by USFWS

, 1993). The garter snake is viviparous with mating occurring in March

- April. The litter size is 10

- 46 (average 23) (Herp.

Rev. 21:93

- 94). Males are sexually mature in a verage of 3 years and females in average of 5 years (Hansen, cited by USFWS

, 1993).

Historical Information: Historically the range included much of the floor of the Central Valley (Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys) of California, from Butte County in the north to Kern County in the south, at elevations from near sea level to 122 m (Rossman et al.

, 1996; Ernst and Ernst

, 2003; Stebbins

, 2003). The species apparently is now extirpated from most of the range in the San Joaquin Valley (Rossman et al.

, 1996 ; USFWS

, 1993; Stebbins

, 2003).

Conservation Status: As of 1992, there were 13 known populations as follows (population = cluster of locality records in a contiguous habitat): (1) Butte Basin, (2) Colusa Basin, (3) Sutter Basin, (4) American Basin, (5) Yo lo Basin

- Willow Slough, (6) Yolo Basin

- Liberty Farms, (7) Sacramento Basin, (8) Badger

Creek

- Willow Creek, (9) Caldoni Marsh, (10) East Stockton

- Diverting Canal and Duck Creek, (11) North and South Grasslands (possibly extirpated), (12) Mendota (possibly e xtirpated), and (13) Burrell

- Lanare (probably extirpated) (USFWS

, 1993). These population largely coincide with historical riverine flood basins and tributary streams. Populations 1

- 4 are associated with rice production zones; populations 5

- 13 mainly are i n small, isolated patches of valley floor

habitat.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 164 Summary of Major Threats: Loss and fragmentation of wetland habitats have extirpated the giant garter snake from the majority of its historical range (USFWS

, 1999). Loss and degradation of habitat remain the greatest threat to the survival of the species (USFWS

, 1999). Activities that may degrade habitat include maintenance of flood control and agricultural waterways, weed abatement, rodent control, discharge of contaminants into wetlands and waterways, an d overgrazing in wetland or streamside habitats. Factors that may be significant in some areas include predation by and competition with introduced species, parasitism, and road kills (USFWS

, 1999, Carpenter et al.

, 2002).

USFWS (1993) listed threats as h abitat loss (e.g., through large

- scale urbanization in the American Basin, dewatering of habitat through water diversions and impoundments), flooding (in rice production areas), contaminants (e.g., selenium and salinity in North and South Grassland areas), agricultural and vegetation maintenance activities (e.g., on levees and canal borders), vehicular traffic (on levees and roads along canals), livestock grazing, and introduced predators (e.g., house cats, bullfrogs, perhaps bass).

F.6.40.

Tuctoria mucronata SOLANO GRASS

Family: Poaceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q23L )

• NatureSer ve Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Tuctoria+mucro

nata )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2398.pdf )

• 70 FR 46924 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2005

- 08

- 11/pdf/05

- 15569.pdf#page=1 )

• 71 FR 7118 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2006

- 02

- 10/pdf/06

- 1080.pdf#page=1 )

Description: Solano grass, also known as Crampton’s tuctori a, is a member of a small tribe (three genera and nine species) of semi

- aquatic annual grasses that are unique among grasses in exhibiting single

cell C4 photosynthesis, which occurs in only 0.003 percent of known species of C4 flowering plants (Boykin et al.

, 2008). Plants with C4 photosynthesis utilize a more complex biochemical process than most plants (with C3 photosynthesis) in converting CO 2 to energy, which increases photosynthetic efficiency at low CO 2 concentrations (Boykin et al.

, 2008).

Solano grass is a small (1 to 8 in. tall) grass. It produces stems and leaves covered with small droplets of a sticky, acrid secretion. This is characteristic of the genus Tuctoria . Solano grass is grayish

- green, pilose (hairy), and viscid. It has several solid s tems (up to 4.7 inches long) that do not branch and grow somewhat decumbently (lying on the ground), turning up only at the tips.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 165 The leaves lack ligules, which are the small, scalelike leaf outgrowths found on some grasses. Solano grass blooms from June t o July. Seven to 19 spikelets overlap one another along the full length of the spike

- like inflorescence. Unlike other closely related species, the inflorescence of Solano grass remains partially enclosed by the upper leaf sheath and is never fully exerted from the uppermost leaf. The lemma (bract) ends in a single tooth with a short, narrow point (Service 2005).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The species is endemic to California, known only from Olcott Lake and vicinity. It is known

from o nly 3 vernal pools in Solano and Yolo counties, California. The number of plants varies greatly at each pool from year

- to

- year.

No plants have been seen since 1993 at the type locale. At a second site the number of observed

individuals has varied from a single plant to about 150. The third site, discovered in 1993 on what was then Department of Defense land, was observed to have several thousand plants in 2000 (Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Program

, 2003). This is the only large populati on known. The site is being transferred to the Yolo County Parks Department.

Nation: United States

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Solano grass is known only from the Northern Claypan type of vernal pool (Sawyer and Keeler

Wolf 1995) within annual grassland habitat within Solano and Yolo Counties (CNDDB

, 2009). The pools where the species occurs are characterized by turbid water quality caused by suspended clay sediments from the “lake” bed (Holland 1987). In Solano County, the pools are essentially alkaline playa pools or intermittent lakes (Crampton

, 1959), while the pools at the Yolo County site are smaller, although they have the characteristic saline

- alkali soil chemistry that is diagnostic of alkali vernal pools (ESA

, 2008). However, location o f the species at the Davis Communications Annex may suggest that the species is not restricted solely to large playatype pools, as the features there include a disturbed swale on pescadero clay loam (J. Gerlach, in litt.

, 2007).

Critical habitat for Solan o grass and several other vernal pool species was designated on August 11, 2005

. The final designation of critical habitat for Solano grass is 440 acres.

The PCEs of critical habitat for Solano grass are the habitat components that provide: (1) topographi c features characterized by isolated mound and intermound complex within a matrix of surrounding uplands that result in continuously, or intermittently, flowing surface water in the depressional features including swales connecting pools, providing for dis persal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length in the pools; (2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools with underlying restrictive soil layers that become inundated during winter rains and that continuously hold water or whose soils are saturated for a period long enough to promote germination, flowering, and seed production of predominantly annual native wetland species and typically exclude both native and nonnative upland plant species in all but the driest years. As

these features are inundated on a seasonal basis, they do not promote the development of obligate wetland vegetation habitats typical of permanently flooded emergent wetlands.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 166 Life History: Many life history characteristics are common to all members of the Orcuttieae. In particular, they are all annuals and are all endemic to vernal pools (Griggs

, 1981). All are wind

- pollinated, but pollen probably is not carried long distances between populations (Griggs

, 1980; Griggs and

Jain

, 1983) and pollination may be limiting for small populations (Stephens et al.

, 1999; Davis et

al.

, 2004; Taylor et al.

, 2004). Local seed dispersal is by water, which breaks up the inflorescences (Reeder

, 1965; Crampton

, 1976; Griggs

, 1980, 1981). Long

- distance dispersal is unlikely (Service

, 1985 ), but seed may be carried occasionally by waterfowl, or by tule elk, or pronghorn in historical times (Griggs

, 1980).

The seeds can remain dormant for an undetermined length of time (but at least 3 to 4 years) and germinate underwater after they have be en immersed for prolonged periods (Crampton

, 1976; Griggs

, 1980; Keeley

, 1998). Unlike typical terrestrial grasses that grow in the uplands surrounding vernal pools, members of the Orcuttieae flower during the summer months (Keeley

, 1998).

Historical Info rmation: At the time of listing (1978), the Solano grass was only known from Olcott Lake, a large (approximately one square mile) alkaline vernal lakebed 12 miles south of Dixon in Solano County (43 FR 44810). The species was not observed at Olcott Lake fr om 1976 to 1981, when it reappeared, suggesting that seeds may remain viable for at least 5 years in situ (Holland

, 1987). The occurrence was last seen at Olcott Lake in 1993, when four individual plants were documented. The site has been surveyed since th en to census rare vernal pools plants, most recently in 2007, when no individuals of Solano grass were found (C. Witham, pers. comm. 2007). This species occurrence is considered to be extirpated (CNDDB

, 2009).

Conservation Status: Population sizes for thi s species, as with other species in the Orcuttieae tribe, fluctuate highly between years, depending on annual precipitation (Holland 1987). However, population trends for the species are thought to be generally downward and the species may be near extincti on (C. Witham, pers. comm. 2007).

The latest rare grass surveys at the Yolo Regional Grasslands/Davis Communications Site were conducted in 2008, when approximately 5600 individual plants were counted within six relatively discrete basins onsite (J. Gerl ach, Environmental Science Associates, in litt . 2008). In 2007, a year with little precipitation, monitors documented only 45 individual Solano grass plants that germinated but were not expected to produce seed (J. Gerlach, Environmental Science

Associates

, in litt . 2007). Several thousand individual plants were seen at this site in 2000, and transect counts in 2003 provided a population count of at least 1,400 plants. The distribution of the plants within pools has been found to change annually (ESA

, 2008; J. Gerlach, in litt . 2007). Because the number of germinated plants varies substantially each year depending on inter

annual climatic conditions, to date monitors have not been able to determine a trend for the occurrence (J. Gerlach in litt . 2008). In 20 05, a census of the occurrence on private property near Jepson Prairie provided a count of five plants. The number of plants documented at the site has been up to 200, but is generally around 25 plants (C. Witham, pers. comm. 2007).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 167 Summary of Major Threa ts: The primary threats to the species continue to be the modification, destruction, and degradation of suitable habitat, and the resulting habitat fragmentation. Modification of habitat is currently caused by altered site hydrology, inappropriate grazing levels (cessation of grazing or overgrazing), nonnative invasive plants, and related issues such as thatch build

- up. Contaminant runoff into vernal pools, and drought and climate change are also major threats. Even on protected sites, new and emerging thre ats have been identified in the form of hydrologic alteration resulting from invasive nonnative plants and land use activities.

In addition, Solano grass occurrences are threatened by their small size and isolation. Small population size may be a factor in pollination success for this species. Currently populations fluctuate greatly, are thought to be declining, and one protected population is thought to be extirpated. The Service is working with the State of California, Yolo County, conservation organiza tions, and private landowners to protect the remaining suitable habitat and to restore the species to unoccupied suitable habitat.



## F.7. MIAMI, FLORIDA

F.7.1. Acipenser brevirostrum SHORTNOSE STURGEON

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.7.2. Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi GULF STURGEON

Family: Acipenseridae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E04W )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/serv let/NatureServe?searchName=Acipenser+oxyri

nchus+desotoi )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2620.pdf )

• 68 FR 13370
( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/citation.result.FR.action?federalRegister.volume=2003
&federalRegister.page=13370&publication=FR )

Description: Gulf sturgeons are a nadromous fish with a sub

- cylindrical body imbedded with bony plates or scutes. The snout is greatly extended and bladelike with four fleshy barbels in front of the mouth, which is protractile on the lower surface of the head. The upper lobe of the tail is longer than the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 168 lower lobe. The subspecies is light brown to dark brown in color and pale underneath (Vladykov

, 1955; Vladykov and Greeley

, 1963).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: According to Wooley and Crateau (1985) Gulf sturgeon occurred in most major river systems from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, Florida and in marine waters of the Central and Eastern Gulf of Mexico south to Florida Bay. Comparison of historic information and

current data indicates that Gulf stur geon populations are reduced from historic levels (Barkuboo

, 1988). The present range extends from Lake Pontchartrain and the Pearl River system in Louisiana and Mississippi east to the Suwannee River in Florida (USFWS

, 2003).

At present, Gulf sturgeon population estimates are unknown throughout its range; however, estimates have been completed for the Apalachicola and Suwannee rivers. It was once widely distributed throughout the coastal rivers of the northeastern Gulf of Mexic o, primarily from the Mississippi River east to Tampa Bay, including the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Sporatic occurrences are known as far west as Texas (Rio Grande) and in marine waters in Florida south to Florida Bay.

Habita t: (has critical habitat) The Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous fish which migrates from salt water into large coastal rivers to spawn and spend the warm months. The majority of its life is spent in fresh water. The species

feeds in the winter months in the m arine waters of the Gulf of Mexico including bays and estuaries, migrating in the spring up freshwater rivers to spawn on hard substrates, and then spending summers in the lower rivers before emigrating back out into estuarine/marine waters in

the fall.

O n March 19, 2003, 14 geographic areas among the Gulf of Mexico rivers and tributaries were designated as critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. These 14 geographic areas (units) encompass approximately 2,783 river kilometers (1,730 river miles ) and 6,042 square kilometers (2,333 square miles) of estuarine and marine habitat

. Critical habitat in Florida is in Escambia River System in Santa Rosa and Escambia Counties; Yellow River System in Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties; Choctawhatchee River System in Ho lmes, Washington, and Walton Counties; Apalachicola River System in Franklin, Gulf, Liberty, Calhoun, Jackson, and Gadsen Counties; Suwannee River System in Hamilton, Suwannee, Madison, Lafayette, Gilchrist, Levy, Dixie, and Columbia Counties; Pensacola Ba y System in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties; Santa Rosa Sound in Escambia,Santa Rosa, and Okaloosa Counties; Florida Nearshore Gulf of Mexico Unit in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, and Gulf Counties; Choctawhatchee Bay in

Okaloosa and Walton Counties; Apalachicola Bay in Gulf and Franklin County; and Suwannee Sound in Dixie and Levy Counties.

Based on the best available information, primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the Gulf sturgeon include the following: (1) a bundant food items, such as detritus, aquatic insects, worms, and/or molluscs, within riverine habitats for larval and juvenile life stages and abundant prey items, such as amphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, gastropods, ghost shrimp, isopods, molluscs and/ or crustaceans, within estuarine and marine habitats and substrates for subadult and adult life stages; (2) tiverine spawning sites with substrates suitable for egg2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 169 deposition and development, such as limestone outcrops and cut limestone banks, bedrock, la rge gravel or cobble beds, marl, soapstone, or hard clay; (3) riverine aggregation areas, also referred to as resting, holding, and staging areas, used by adult, subadult, and/or juveniles, generally, but not always, located in holes below normal riverbed depths, believed necessary for minimizing energy expenditures during fresh water residency and possibly for osmoregulatory functions; (4) a flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonality, and rate

- of

- change of fresh water discharge over time) necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages in the riverine environment, including migration, breeding site selection, courtship, egg fertilization, resting, and staging, and for maintaining spawning sites in suitable cond ition for egg attachment, egg sheltering, resting, and larval staging; (5) water quality, including temperature, salinity, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages; (6) sediment quality, including texture and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages; and (7) safe and unobstructed migratory pathways necessary for passage within

and between riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats (e.g., an unobstructed river or a dammed river that still allows for passage).

Life History: Feeds primarily on benthic invertebrates and small fishes as available (e.g., worms, crustaceans, aquatic insects, snails , sand lances). Feeding evidently occurs only during the winter and spring in offshore or estuarine waters (Cross

, 1992). The species takes at least 7

- 8 years to mature with females spawning at intervals of more than one year (USFWS

, 2003).

Adults migrate between fresh water spawning areas and salt water nonspawning areas. The sturgeon moves into the Suwanne River in February

- May (mainly late March

- early April) and may migrate as far as 140 miles upstream. Subadults and adults return to the Gulf of Mexico in late fall, while young generally stay in the river mouth in winter and spring (Cross

, 1992).

Historical Information: Historically, Gulf sturgeon occurred from the Mississippi River east to Tampa Bay. Sporadic

occurrences were recorded as far west as t he Rio Grande River in Texas and Mexico, and as far east and south as Florida Bay (Wooley and Creteau

, 1985 ; Reynolds

, 1993).

Conservation Status: Using the mark

- recapture data, general estimates of population size can be calculated. Although variable, mo st populations appear relatively stable with a few exceptions. The number of Gulf sturgeon in the Escambia River system may have recently declined due to hurricane impacts, and the Suwannee River population appears to be slowly increasing. Due to lack of r esearch since Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina, no data are available to determine the current size of the Gulf sturgeon populations within the Pearl and Pascagoula Rivers.

Research on Gulf sturgeon population characteristics in the past 5 years has been limit ed to the eastern five populations. The FWS Panama City Field Office has annually monitored one or more of the four Florida Panhandle rivers (Escambia, Yellow, Choctawhatchee, and Apalachicola) since 2003 (fiscal year annual reports USFWS 2003

- 2008). USGS researchers completed the first assessment of the Yellow River population (Berg

, 2004 ; Berg et al.

, 2007).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 170 Advances in modeling population dynamics have been made, especially for the Apalachicola and Suwannee River populations (Flowers

, 2008, Pine and Mart ell

, 2009). The species is currently reproducing in seven river systems (USFWS

, 2003).

Summary of Major Threats: Gulf sturgeon numbers declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20 th century. The decline was exacerbated by habitat loss associated with the construction of water control structures, such as dams and sills (submerged ridge or vertical wall of relatively shallow depth separating two bodies of water), mostly after 1950. In several rivers throughout the range, dams have severely restricted sturgeon access to historic migration routes and spawning areas (USFWS

, 2003).

Other threats and potential threats identified in the listing rule included modifications to habitat

associat ed with dredged material disposal, de

- snagging (removal of trees and their roots), and other navigation maintenance activities; incidental take by commercial fishermen; poor water quality associated with contamination by pesticides, heavy metals, and indus trial contaminants; aquaculture and incidental or accidental introductions; and the Gulf sturgeon's slow growth and late maturation (USFWS

, 2003).

F.7.3. Acropora cervicornis STAGHORN CORAL

Family: Acroporidae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=P000 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Acropora+cervic

ornis )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/staghorncoral.htm )

• 73 FR 72210 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2008

- 11

- 26/pdf/E8

- 27748.pdf#page=1 )

Description: Staghorn coral is a branching coral with cylindrical branches ranging from a few centimeters to over 6.5 feet (2 m) in length. This coral exhibits the fastest growth of all known western Atlantic corals, with branches incre asing in length by 4

- 8 inches (10

- 20 cm) per year. Staghorn coral has been one of the three most important Caribbean corals in terms of its contribution to reef growth

and fish habitat.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Staghorn coral is found in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and western Gulf of Mexico (non

U.S. waters). Specifically, staghorn coral is found throughout the Florida Keys, the Bahamas, the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 171 Caribbean islands, and Venezuela. The northern limit of staghorn coral is around Boca Raton,

Florida.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Staghorn coral occur in back reef and fore reef environments from 0

- 100 ft. (0 to 30 m) deep. The upper limit is defined by wave forces, and the lower limit is controlled by suspended

s ediments and light availability. Fore reef zones at intermediate depths of 15

- 80 ft. (5

- 25 m) were formerly dominated by extensive single species stands of staghorn coral until the mid

1980s.

In Florida, approximately 1,329 square miles (3,442 sq km) of m arine habitat is designated as critical habitat for staghorn coral

. The specific areas contain the substrate physical feature determined to be essential to the conservation of these species and that may require special management considerations or protecti on

. Critical habitat includes one specific area of the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami

- Dade, and Monroe counties, Florida, Except as specified below, the seaward boundary is the 98

- ft (30

– m) depth contour and the shoreward boundary i s the line of mean low water (MLW; 33 CFR 2.20). Within these boundaries, discrete areas of water deeper than 98 ft (30 m) are not included

. The Florida area

contains three sub

- areas. (i) The shoreward boundary for Florida sub

- area A begins at the 6

– ft (1. 8 m) contour at the south side of Boynton Inlet, Palm Beach County then runs due east to the point of intersection with the 98

– ft (30 m) contour; then follows the 98

– ft (30 m) contour to the point of intersection with Government Cut, Miami

- Dade County; the n runs due west to the point

of intersection with the 6

- ft (1.8 m) contour, then follows the 6

- ft (1.8 m) contour to the beginning point. (ii) The shoreward boundary of Florida sub

- area B begins at the MLW line Government Cut, Miami

- Dade County; then runs due east to the point of intersection with the

98

– ft (30 m) contour; then follows the 98

– ft (30 m) contour to the point of intersection with longitude 82° W; then runs due north to the point of intersection with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Counci l (SAFMC) boundary at 24° 31 ′ 35.75′′ N; then follows the SAFMC boundary to a point of intersection with the MLW line at Key West, Monroe County; then follows the MLW line, the SAFMC boundary (see 50 CFR 600.105(c)), and the COLREGS line (see 33 CFR 80.727. 730, 735, and 740) to the beginning point. (iii) The seaward boundary of

Florida sub

- area C (the Dry Tortugas) begins at the northern intersection of the 98

– ft (30 m) contour and longitude 82° 45’ W; then follows the 98

– ft (30 m) contour west around the D ry Tortugas, to the southern point of intersection with longitude 82° 45’ W; then runs due north to the beginning point.

The only primary constituent element essential for the staghorn coral is substrate of suitable quality and availability to support suc cessful larval settlement and recruitment, and reattachment and recruitment of fragments. For purposes of this definition, ‘‘substrate of suitable quality and availability’’ means natural consolidated hard substrate or dead coral skeleton that is free from fleshy or turf macroalgae cover and sediment cover. This feature is essential to the conservation of this species due to the extremely limited recruitment currently being observed.

Life History: The dominant mode of reproduction for staghorn coral is ase xual fragmentation, with new colonies forming when branches break off a colony and reattach to the substrate. Sexual2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 172 reproduction occurs via broadcast spawning of gametes into the water column once each year in August or September. Individual colonies are both male and female (simultaneous hermaphrodites) and will release millions of "gametes". Some massive coral species reach sexual maturity when their polyps grow to about 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter, which occurs when they are about 8 years old. Acropora , which are faster

- growing, likely reach sexual maturity at a

younger age.

The coral larvae (planula) live in the plankton for several days until finding a suitable area to settle, but very few larvae survive to settle and metamorphose into new colonies. The preponderance of asexual reproduction in this species raises the possibility that genetic diversity is very low in the remnant populations.

This coral exhibits the fastest growth of all known western Atlantic corals, with branches increasing in length by 4

- 8 inches (10

- 20 cm) per year. Tropical corals, like staghorn coral, get as much as 90 percent of their energy from the organic byproducts of photosynthesis thanks to a symbiotic relationship with algae. They may also capture and consume live prey, su ch as small fish and zooplankton, using their tentacles.

Historical Information: NMFS finalized the ESA listing of staghorn coral on May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26852). NMFS designated critical habitat for staghorn corals in November 2008.

Conservation Status:

Si nce 1980, populations have collapsed throughout their range from various threats, as detailed below. Populations have declined by up to 98% throughout their range, and localized extirpations have occurred.

Summary of Major Threats: The declining populations in south Florida and the Caribbean due to thermal events, anchor damage, and diseases of unknown etiology (Dustan, 1977; Tunnicliffe, 1983; Peters, 1984). The greatest source of region

- wide mortality for staghorn coral has been disease outbreak s, mainly of white band disease. Other, more localized losses have been caused by hurricanes, increased predation, bleaching, algae overgrowth, human impacts, and other factors. This species is also particularly susceptible to damage from sedimentation and is sensitive to temperature and salinity variation.

The dominant mode of reproduction for staghorn coral is asexual fragmentation; this life history trait allows rapid population recovery from physical disturbances such as storms. However, this

mode of r eproduction makes recovery from disease or bleaching episodes (in which entire colonies or even entire stands are killed) very difficult. The large role of asexual reproduction for this species also increases the likelihood that genetic diversity in the re mnant populations is very

low.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 173 F.7.4. Acropora palmata ELKHORN CORAL

Family: Acroporidae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=P001 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureSe rve?searchName=Acropora+palma

ta )

• NOAA Fisheries, 2012

( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/elkhorncoral.htm )

• 73 FR 72210 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2008

- 11

- 26/pdf/E8

- 27748.pdf#page=1 )

Description: Elkhorn coral is a large, branching coral with thick and sturdy antler

- like branches. Colonies are fast growing with branches that increase in length by 2

- 4 in. (5

- 10 cm) per year. Colonies reach their maximum size in approximately 10

- 12 years. Over the last 10,000 years, elkhorn coral has been one of the three most important Caribbean corals contributing to reef growth and

deve lopment and providing essential fish habitat.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Elkhorn coral is found on coral reefs in southern Florida, the Bahamas, and throughout the Caribbean. Its northern limit is Biscayne National Park, Florida, and it extends south to Venezuela. It is not found in Bermuda. Once found in continuous stands that extended along the front side of most coral reefs, the characteristic " Acropora palmata zone" supported a diverse assemblage of other invertebrates and fish. Th ese zones have been largely transformed into rubble fields with few, isolated living colonies.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Elkhorn coral was formerly the dominant species in shallow water 3 ft

- 16 ft. (1

- 5 m) deep throughout the Caribbean and on the Fl orida Reef Tract, forming extensive, densely aggregated thickets (stands) in areas of heavy surf. Coral colonies prefer exposed reef crest and fore reef environments in depths of less than 20 ft. (6 m), although isolated corals may occur to 65 ft. (20 m).

In Florida, approximately 1,329 square miles (3,442 sq km) of marine habitat is designated as

critical habitat for elkhorn coral

. The specific areas contain the substrate physical feature determined to be essential to the conservation of these species and that may require special management considerations or protection

. Critical habitat includes one specific area of the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami

- Dade, and Monroe counties, Florida, Except as specified below, the seaward boundary is the 98

- ft (30

– m) depth contour and the shoreward boundary is the line of mean low water (MLW; 33 CFR 2.20). Within these boundaries, discrete areas of water deeper than 98 ft (30 m) are not included

. The Florida area2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 174 contains three sub

- areas. (i) The s horeward boundary for Florida sub

- area A begins at the 6

– ft (1.8 m) contour at the south side of Boynton Inlet, Palm Beach County then runs due east to the point of intersection with the 98

– ft (30 m) contour; then follows the 98

– ft (30 m) contour to the

po int of intersection with Government Cut, Miami

- Dade County; then runs due west to the point

of intersection with the 6

- ft (1.8 m) contour, then follows the 6

- ft (1.8 m) contour to the beginning point. (ii) The shoreward boundary of Florida sub

- area B begin s at the MLW line Government Cut, Miami

- Dade County; then runs due east to the point of intersection with the

98

– ft (30 m) contour; then follows the 98

– ft (30 m) contour to the point of intersection with longitude 82° W; then runs due north to the point of intersection with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) boundary at 24° 31 ′ 35.75′′ N; then follows the SAFMC boundary to a point of intersection with the MLW line at Key West, Monroe County; then follows the MLW line, the SAFMC boundary (s ee 50 CFR 600.105(c)), and the COLREGS line (see 33 CFR 80.727. 730, 735, and 740) to the beginning point. (iii) The seaward boundary of

Florida sub

- area C (the Dry Tortugas) begins at the northern intersection of the 98

– ft (30 m) contour and longitude 82° 45’ W; then follows the 98

– ft (30 m) contour west around the Dry Tortugas, to the southern point of intersection with longitude 82° 45’ W; then runs due north to the beginning point.

The only primary constituent element essential for the elkhorn coral is substrate of suitable quality and availability to support successful larval settlement and recruitment, and reattachment and recruitment of fragments. For purposes of this definition, ‘‘substrate of suitable quality and availability’’ means natural consol idated hard substrate or dead coral skeleton that is free from fleshy or turf macroalgae cover and sediment cover. This feature is essential to the conservation of this species due to the extremely limited recruitment currently being observed.

Life Histor y: The dominant mode of reproduction for elkhorn coral is asexual, with new colonies forming when branches break off of a colony and reattach to the substrate. Sexual reproduction occurs via broadcast spawning of gametes into the water column once each yea r in August or September. Individual colonies are both male and female (simultaneous hermaphrodites) and will typically release millions of "gametes".

The coral larvae (planula) live in the plankton for several days until finding a suitable area to

settle , but very few larvae survive to settle and metamorphose into new colonies. The preponderance of asexual reproduction in this species raises the possibility that genetic diversity may be very low in the remnant populations.

Historical Information:

NMFS fi nalized the ESA listing of elkhorn coral on May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26852). NMFS designated critical habitat for elkhorn corals in November 2008.

Conservation Status: In areas where loss has been quantified, estimates are in the range of 90

- 95% reduction in

ab undance since 1980. Additional drastic reductions (e.g., 75

- 90%) were recently observed in some areas such as the Florida Keys in 1998 due to bleaching and hurricane damage.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 175 Summary of Major Threats: Since 1980, populations have collapsed throughout their range from disease outbreaks with losses compounded locally by hurricanes, increased predation, bleaching, and elevated temperatures. This species is also particularly susceptible to damage from sedimentation. Other threats include algae overgrowth and sal inity variation.

The dominant mode of reproduction for elkhorn coral is asexual fragmentation; this life history trait allows rapid population recovery from physical disturbances such as storms. However, this mode of reproduction makes recovery from disea se or bleaching episodes (in which entire colonies or even entire stands are killed) very difficult. The large role of asexual reproduction for this species increases the likelihood that genetic diversity in the remnant populations may be very low. Scienti sts are becoming increasingly concerned for this species based on its demographic paramaters; specifically, how species recruitment and genetic diversity affect recovery potential.

F.7.5.

Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis CAPE SABLE SEASIDE SPARROW

Family: Fringil lidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B00Q )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3272.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Ammodramus+

maritimus+mirabilis )

• 72 FR 62736 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2007

- 11

- 06/pdf/07

- 5460.pdf#page=1 )

Description: Cape Sable seaside sparrows are small birds about 13 cm (5 in.) long. Dorsally, they are dark

olive

- gray with olive

- brown on the tail and wings. The greenish cast on the nape is generally difficult to detect. Ventrally, adults are light gray to almost white with dark olive

- gray streaks on the breast and sides. Occasionally, the breast streaks converge forming a diffuse central spot.

There is a dark whisker on either side of the white throat. These sparrows have yellow lores, brown eyes, and a gray ear patch behind the eye which is fringed by a dark line. There is a small patch of yellow on the edge of the wing. No sexual differences in the plumages are obvious.

Geographic Bound aries and Spatial Distribution: The species is found in extreme southern and southwestern Florida. It had scattered populations that formerly occurred from Ochopee south to Taylor Slough, in Dade, Collier, and Monroe Counties. Two remaining disjunct popula tions occur in marshes of Big Cypress Swamp and Taylor Slough.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 176 Habitat: (has critical habitat) Its habitat includes seasonally flooded, brushless, subtropical interior marshes, fresh to slightly brackish; cordgrass, rushes, and sawgras. They have adapted to habitat subject to periodic fires, but fires late in dry season may be detrimental to eggs and young. Also, too

- frequent burning may prevent establishment of a vigorous sparrow population (Matthews and Moseley

, 1990). They nest in wetter areas in tufts of herbaceous growth.

The critical habitat was designated for the cape sable seaside sparrow in December 6, 2007, and is located in Miami Dade County, Florida, and approximately 84,865 acres fall within the boundaries of the designation

. Five units were d esignated as critical habitat: (1) Marl prairie habitats that support sparrow subpopulation B and lie exclusively within ENP in the vicinity of the Main Park Road, between Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough; (2) marl prairie habitat that supports sparrow subpopulation C within ENP along its eastern boundary in the vicinity of Taylor Slough; (3) marl prairie habitats that support sparrow subpopulation D within ENP and

the State

- owned Southern Glades Wildlife and Environmental Area to the east of Taylor Slo ugh; (4) marl prairie habitats that support sparrow subpopulation E within ENP, along the eastern edge of Shark River Slough; and (5) marl prairies that support sparrow subpopulation F within the northern portion of ENP along its eastern boundary and lying to the east of Shark River Slough.

The PCEs for the Cape Sable seaside sparrows are: (1) calcitic marl soils characteristic of the

short

- hydroperiod freshwater marl prairies of the southern Everglades with soils that support the unique vegetation communi ty and probably many of the food items upon which sparrows depend; (2) herbaceous vegetation that includes greater than 15 percent combined cover of live and standing dead vegetation of one or more of the following species (when measured across an

area of greater than 100 ft2 (9.3 m2)): Muhly grass (Muhlenbergia filipes), Florida little bluestem (Schizachyrium rhizomatum), blacktopped sedge (Schoenus nigricans), and cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), which act as cover and substrate for foraging, nesting, and nor mal behavior for sparrows during a variety of environmental conditions; (3) large, expansive, contiguous habitat patches with few or sparse woody shrubs or trees with space for population and individual growth; (4) hydrologic regime such that the water dep th, as measured from the water surface down to the soil surface, does not exceed 7.9 inches (20 cm) for more than 30 days during the period from March 15 to June 30 at a frequency of more than 2 out of every 10 years.

Life History:

Its clutch size is 3

- 4 with incubation lasting 12

- 13 days. Nesting period is about 11 days, after which young are active but flightless on ground. After leaving the nest, young are tended by both parents for up to 20 days after which young can fly (Matthews and Moseley 1990). Ne sts generally are in loosely defined, often isolated colonies (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Males defend nest

centered territories year

- round (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Occasional flooding can be a major cause of nest loss (Matthews and Moseley 1990). They eat mainly insects and other small invertebrates; also some seeds (Terres 1980). Generally picks food items off substrate or gleans them from low foliage (Ehrlich et al. 1992).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 177 Historical Information: The species was listed on March 11, 1967 with critical habitat d esignations made on September 22, 1977 and November 6, 2007.

Conservation Status: Wildfires and declines in five of the six subpopulations suggest an overall declining status within the last 5 years. The overall status of the sparrow declined in 2009. No sparrows were detected in one subpopulation, and two and three males were detected in two others, indicating limited production for these subpopulations. Summer fires in 2008 burned significant portions of three subpopulations, and the burned habitat is no t expected to recover fully for at least 2 years (Lockwood et al.

, 2005; La Puma et al.

, 2007). Recovery of burned habitat within subpopulation A is particularly tenuous due to water management issues. High water levels can flood nests or preclude birds fr om nesting, and, particularly after fire, high water levels can alter the vegetative community, making it unsuitable. The overall population is less secure because of the decline or lack of production in two subpopulations, and degradation of habitat due t o fire in three subpopulations.

Summary of Major Threats: Threats include agriculture (rock plowing), wild fires, hurricanes, hydroperiod alteration, invasion of habitat by brush and exotic trees, and soil salinity increases.

F.7.6. Balaenoptera physalus FINBACK WHALE

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.7.7. Campanula robinsiae BROOKSVILLE BELLFLOWER

Family: Campanulaceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q1TV )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3206.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Campa nula+robi

nsiae )

• USFWS, 2012 c ( http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species

- Accounts/Bellflower

Waterwillow

- 2005.htm )

Description: Brooksville bellflower, an annual h erb, has a slender taproot and slender, four

- angled stems 0.4 to 6 in. (1 to 15 cm) tall. Its largest leaves, ovate to elliptic, are at the base of the plant. Leaves2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 178 are narrower and shorter closer to the top. Flowers are solitary, bell

- shaped, deep purple in color,

and 3

- 10 mm long.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The plant is native to the Brooksville Ridge, in north central Hernando County, Florida. Although Brooksville bellflower was first collected near Mascotte in Lake County, all

sub sequent collections have been from the Ridge

. There are now only two known populations of

Brooksville bellflower.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Brooksville bellflower is found in a wet prairie and along the edges of ponds near pastureland

. The number of plants seems to vary yearly, perhaps depending on water levels. Brooksville Ridge, the area to which the plants is endemic, has the most irregular surface of any comparably

sized area in peninsular Florida. Its limestone rock outcrops are unique in the pe ninsula, and its sinkholes have especially rich fern floras. The Ridge has few surface streams, and most drainage goes to ponds, prairies, and sinkholes.

Life History: Many of this plant's flowers are closed, self

- pollinating, and inconspicuous. Those tha t are open
and cross

- pollinating are solitary, with 0.04

- to

- 0.10

- inch long sepals and a deep purple, bell

shaped corolla. Flowering occurs in the spring during March and April. The seeds produced by this species are the smallest of any North American bellf lower (Shetler and Morin

, 1986).

Historical Information: Campanula robinsiae was originally found in 1924 at Chinsegut Hill in Hernando County. It was not until 1983 that this species was found at Burns Prairie and on privately owned land (Young site) in Hernando County. The 1983 surveys documented plants at all three sites, altho ugh habitat conditions at Chinsegut Hill were poor and extreme trampling by cattle resulted in a low number of plants. Additional surveys of the Young and Burns Prairie sites has occurred over the years (1995

- 1998 and again from 2007

- 2010). In 2006, a biol ogist with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) at Hillsborough River State Park in Hillsborough County

found two sites with C. robinsiae (Gandy, FDEP, personal communication, 2009). A third site was found at Hillsborough River State P ark in 2009.

Conservation Status:

Since 1924 when C. robinsiae was originally found, the abundance of this species has fluctuated greatly due to many factors including an increase in water levels and drought (Wunderlin et al. 1980). Germination appears to be affected by the changes in water levels. At Burns Prairie, Williams (1998) found that after a period of high rainfall that caused water levels to rise in the ponds, a large number of flowering plants were present the following growing season when

waters had receded. It was determined that water levels from rainfal l rather than time of year may be a critical factor controlling germination (Williams

, 1998). Seeds may remain dormant for long periods until high levels of cumulative rainfall could affect germination and the annual life cycle (Landry

, 1996). From 2001

- 20 09, a decrease in the number of plants was documented by BTG at the Burns Prairie site, which is likely the result of drought conditions that have caused water levels to drop and habitat conditions to change (Peterson

, 2007). In 2010, surveys found an2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 1 79 incr ease in the number of seedlings at the Burns Prairie site, likely the result of heavy winter

rainfall.

Summary of Major Threats: The plant is primarily threatened by residential and agricultural development. Hernando County, where these plants occur, cont inues to grow at a rapid rate and in the recent past it was one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. Brooksville bellflower is being indirectly threatened by the resulting changes in land use within prairie watersheds. As development increases, s o does the potential for runoff. Runoff increases pond water levels and higher water levels mean decreased bellflower populations. Also, runoff from developed areas may be contaminated by petroleum, fertilizers, and herbicides. Brooksville bellflower is al so subject to collecting and

vandalism.

F.7.8. Canis rufus RED WOLF

Family: Canidae Endangered: wherever found, except where listed as experimental population Experimental Population, Non

- Essential: portions of NC and TN

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00F )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Canis+rufus )

Description: The red wolf is one of two species of wolves in the world, the other being the gray wolf, Canis lupus . As their name suggests, red wolves are kn own for the characteristic reddish color of their fur most apparent behind the ears and along the neck and legs, but are mostly brown and buff colored with some black along their backs. Intermediate in size to gray wolves and coyotes, the average adult red wolf weighs 45

- 80 pounds, stands about 26 inches at the shoulder and is about 4 feet long from the tip of the nose to the end of the tail.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Delineation of the range of this wolf is hampered by a paucity of specimens and debate over the taxonomic status of the species (Nowak

, 2002). Data presented by Nowak (2002) indicate a range extending from Maine to Florida and eastward (south of the Great Lakes) to Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas, based on pre

- 1918 complet e skulls (fragmentary archaeological and paleontological material dating back 10,000 years do not change this much). If the red wolf is regarded as a valid species, its range historically was essentially confined to the southeastern

United States.

A reint roduced population now occurs in an area of roughly 6,900 square km in northeastern North Carolina (reintroduction in Great Smoky Mountains National Park failed and has been terminated; Federal Register, 8 October 1998). Propagation populations currently e xist on two2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 180 islands: Bulls Island, Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, South Carolina; and St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. Other red wolves exist in many captive

- breeding facilities.

Habitat: (no critical habitat)

Suitable habitat for thi s habitat generalist includes upland and lowland forests, shrublands, and coastal prairies and marshes; areas with heavy vegetative cover. Young are born in a den in a hollow log, in a burrow, or in similar secluded sites.

Life History: The species mates in January

- February with gestation lasting 60

- 63 days. The litter size is 3

- 12 (average 6

- 7) and born in March

- May. There is typically one litter per year. Red wolves are sexually mature in 3 years.

Red wolves are more social than coyotes but less than gr ay wolves. They typically travel and forages in small family groups or alone. There former density was probably not more than 1 per 2 square miles. They are opportunistic feeders whose diet consists of a variety of invertebrates and vertebrates (rabbits, r odents, deer, birds, etc.). They particularly favor marsh rabbits, nutria, and carrion. Red wolves are not considered a threat to livestock (does not hunt in packs), but may prey on unattended young calves, pigs, and barnyard fowl (Matthews and Moseley

, 19 90).

Historical Information: Assuming the traditional view that the red wolf is a valid species and that it still exists in the unhybridized form, the species was, until recent reintroductions, extinct in the wild since early 1980s (or mid

- 1970s) (Rennie

, 1991). Formerly it was believed to have occurred from central Texas eastward to the coasts of Florida and Georgia and north to North Carolina, and along the Mississippi River Valley north to southern Illinois, and occasionally in Mexico. The last remnant population along Texas/Louisiana coast was rendered functionally extinct due to hybridization with coyote.

Conservation Status: Exterminated from formerly large range in the southeastern U.S.; now exists in one major population in northeastern North Caro lina, plus a couple islands used for propagation. They are intensively monitored and managed. The attempted reintroduction in Great Smoky Mountains

National Park was unsuccessful.

Summary of Major Threats:

Historical decline was due to human interactions (trapping, poisoning), habitat loss, and hybridization with coyote. Attempted reintroduction in Great Smoky Mountians National Park failed, probably due to parovirus and other common canine diseases, internal and external parasites, poor nutrition caused b y low food availability, and predation (Federal Register, 8 October 1998). Hybridization with coyotes is still an ongoing threat in northeastern North

Carolina.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 181 F.7.9.

Caretta caretta LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.7.10. Chelonia mydas GREEN SEA TURTLE

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)

F.7.11. Crocodylus acutus AMERICAN CROCODILE

Family: Crocodylidae Endangered: wherever found, except FL Threatened: FL population

Sources:

• Crocodilian Species L ist, 2012 ( http://crocodilian.com/cnhc/csp_cacu.htm )

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/ speciesProfile.action?spcode=C02J )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Crocodylus+acut

us )

• USFWS, 2 012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr115.pdf )

Description: A large lizard

- shaped reptile, the crocodile closely resembles the alligator. Hatchlings are about 23 cm in length; adults may grow to 4.5 m or larger. Florida crocodiles may be distinguished from alligators by their more slender build and their difference in snout shape. The crocodile's snout tapers forward from the eyes while the alligator's snout is untapered and rou nded at the end. When the mouth is closed, the fourth tooth in the lower jaw is exposed in the crocodile but concealed in the alligator. Juveniles are lighter colored (light tan) than more mature animals, with banding on the body and tail. Adults take on a n olive brown color and the iris is silvery.

The adult crocodile's diet includes fish, crabs, birds, turtles, snakes, and small mammals. The young feed chiefly on aquatic invertebrates and small fish. As a general rule crocodilians feed on any prey items which can be caught and overpowered.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The distribution of the American crocodile includes the Southern United States, Central and South America. Specifically it includes Belize, Cayman Islands (possibly extin ct), Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Hispaniola, Honduras, Jamaica, Margarita (possibly extinct), Martinique (possibly extinct), Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Trinidad (possibly extinct), United St ates (extreme south Florida), and

Venezuela2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 182 Habitat: (has critical habitat) Habitat includes coastal mangrove swamps, brackish and salt water bays, lagoons, marshes, tidal rivers, brackish creeks; also abandoned coastal canals and borrow pits. Individuals may wander widely in coastal waters and may range inland into lakes and lower reaches of large rivers. American crocodiles occupy mostly nonsaline waters in the nonbreeding season, move to saline waters when breeding. In Florida, primary habitat is inland mangrove swamps protected from wave action; females use open waters of Florida Bay only for access to nesting sites (Kushlan

and Mazzotti

, 1989).

Eggs are laid in a mounded nest of soil, sand, or peat, or in a hole in the ground (Kushlan and

Mazzoti

, 19 89). Florida Bay nest sites usually are at edge of hardwood thickets on small sand beaches, or on high marl banks of coastal creeks, or in mangrove swamps along old canal banks; also on berms of power plant cooling canal systems (Gaby et al.

, 1985). In Flo rida, shortly after hatching, hatchlings disperse from nest sites to nursery habitats that are generally more sheltered, have lower salinity (1

- 20 ppt), shallower water (generally), and more vegetation cover (USFWS

, 2007). Lazell (1989) reported that young generally occupy brackish water but seem to do well in full salt water on North Key Largo (Florida), perhaps due to the effect of abundant rainfall.

On September 24, 1976, critical habitat was designated for the American crocodile beginning at

the easter nmost tip of Turkey Point, Dade County on the coast of Biscayne Bay, southeastward towards Christmas Point at the southern point of Elliot Key, southwestward along the Old Rhodes Key, Palo Alto Key, Anglefish Key, Key Largo, Plantation Key, Windley Key, Up per Mantecumbe Key, Lower Mantecumbe Key, and Long Key to the western tip of Long Key, northwestward to the western tip of Middle Cape, northward along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline to the north side of Little Sable Creek, eastward to the north part of Nine

- Mile Pond, then back to Turkey Point.

Life History: They feed primarily on fish and other aquatic species including turtles and crabs and sometimes even take birds. American crocodiles feed primarily at night. Juveniles take small fish and

invertebrates. They are often blamed for the disappearance of domestic animals in more populated areas. Occasional reports of attacks on humans, but authenticated records are very

rare.

Females reach sexual maturity when they grow to 2.5 m in length. Populations adapt their breeding strategy to suit the environment. This species is mainly a hole nester, but populations without access to suitable nest sites which can be excavated (relatively well drained) will build mound nests using whatever nesting materials are avail able. Flooding creates high mortality. Nesting occurs during the dry season (to minimise flooding, especially in hole nests which are in danger of falling below the water table after heavy rains), following an extended courtship period which can last up to two months. The minimum number of eggs laid in the nest can be around 20 in some populations, but is usually between 30 and 60, the mean being around 38. Nests are often found which contain eggs from two separate females. Hatching, after around 90 days,

c oincides with the beginning of the annual rains. At hatching, juveniles are around 25 cm in length. The degree of parental care seems to be variable, with some sources noting minimal2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 183 protection of the nest and the newly hatched juveniles, while others repo rt a higher degree of parental attention, from guarding the nest (a burrow is constructed nearby), to assisting the hatching juveniles and subsequently protecting them (predators include birds, wild cats, raccoons and even large fish). However, it appears that the juveniles move away from the nesting area within a few days of hatching. They have been noted to vocalise less than other species during

the first few weeks of life.

Historical Information: The Florida historical range centered on the southern t ip of mainland Florida but extended at least as far north as Sanibel Island and Sarasota County on the west coast and Indian River County on the Atlantic coast, and southward into the Florida Keys (USFWS

, 2007). The primary historical nesting area in Flori da was on the mainland shore of Florida and Biscayne bays, including many of the small islands near shore, in what is today Everglades National Park, and it also included the upper Florida Keys from Key Largo south to Lower Matecumbe Key (see

USFWS

, 2007). Today most nesting occurs on the mainland shore of Florida Bay between Cape Sable and Key Largo, but the nesting range also includes Biscayne Bay and the upper Florida Keys, with unsuccessful nesting north to Marco Island (USFWS

, 2007).

Conservation Stat us: The decline in numbers was primarily due to demand for the high

- quality skin of this species, mainly from 1930 to 1960, and it is perhaps ironic that this high

- value skin now makes sustainable use management programs feasible. Presently, continuing hun ting (on a lesser scale) combined with habitat destruction (e.g. destruction of coastal mangrove habitat in Ecuador for aquaculture) are the most immediate threats. In Nicaragua, for example, illegal hunting occurs during the legal harvesting of caimans.

Range

- wide trends are poorly documented, but in most of the range this species undoubtedly has declined in population size over the past three generations (three generations is at least 45 years and may be as high as 60

- 75 years). In Florida, extent of occ urrence, area of occupancy, population size, nesting range, and number of known nests have been increasing in recent decades (Mazzoti et al.

, 2007, USFWS

, 2007). The maximum number of nesting females in Florida increased from 20 in 1975 to 85 in 2004 (Mazz oti et al.

, 2007).

Summary of Major Threats: Major threat in most parts of the range is poaching for skins. In some areas, populations have declined as a result of killing for meat or fat, killing for "fun," collection of eggs, and entanglement in fishing gear (Schubert

, 1994). Habitat loss is also a threat, especially in Florida. Nesting sites and non

- nesting habitat have been lost to development at Miami Beach and in the upper Florida Keys, but this loss has been partially offset by creation of artificia l nesting sites on spoil banks along southern Biscayne Bay and a westward addition to nesting range in Florida Bay (Kushlan and Mazzotti

, 1989). Future threats in Florida include stochastic natural disasters such as hurricanes and cold weather, road mortal ity, continued habitat degradation, and poaching (USFWS

, 1998). Crocodiles are sensitive to human presence (especially at nest sites). In Florida, disturbance at nest sites caused females to abandon the site (Kushlan and Mazzotti

, 1989).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 184 In Florida, croco diles remain threatened by modification of habitat because of development adjacent to crocodile habitat; they will benefit from restored freshwater flow into estuaries (Mazzoti et al.

, 2007). As crocodiles increase in abundance and expand into new areas,

i nteractions with humans will occur more frequently; integration of a recovering crocodile population with ever

- increasing human use of coastal areas is a major challenge (Mazzoti et al.

, 2007).

F.7.12. Dermochelys coriacea LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE

(See Seattle, Wa shington for information on this species)

F.7.13. Drymarchon corais couperi EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE

Family: Colubridae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C026 )

• Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 2001

( http://www.fnai.org/fieldguide/pdf/drymarchon_couperi.pdf )

• Hallam

, 1998 ( http://www.dtic.mil/cgi

- bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA342329 )

Description: Drymarchon corais couperi is a very large, stout

- bodied, shiny black snake reaching lengths as great as 8 ft. (244 cm). T he body is glossy black and in sunlight has iridescent blue highlights. The chin and throat is reddish or white, and the color may extend down the body. The belly is cloudy orange and blue

- gray. The scales on its back are smooth, but some individuals may

p ossess some scales that are partially keeled. There are 17 dorsal scale rows at mid

- body. The pupil is round. Juveniles are black

- bodied with narrow whitish blue bands.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Its range

- wide distribution is from Fl orida to southern Georgia. It formerly extended from southern South Carolina to southeastern Mississippi. In Florida, they are found statewide including Upper and Lower Keys, but rare in panhandle.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) The snake has a broad rang e of habitats, from scrub and sandhill to wet prairies and mangrove swamps. In the northern part of range, the eastern indigo snake often winters in gopher tortoise burrows in sandy uplands but forages in more hydric habitats. They also were found along ca nal banks, using crab holes instead of gopher tortoise burrows. They require very large tracts to

survive.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 185 In Georgia, indigo snakes may use creek bottom thickets, upland pine

- hardwood forest, mixed hardwood forest, and agricultural fields during spring a nd fall (Speake et al.

, 1978). Maintaining corridors that link seasonal habitats may be important to allow snakes to safely travel among habitats. Habitat preferences appear to be less restricted in the southern portions of its current range, as indigo sna kes occupy a wider range of habitats possibly due to climate and winter behavior (USFWS

, 1982). For example, in southern Florida, indigo snakes can be found in riparian habitat, tropical hammocks, and dry glades (Carr and Goin

, 1955; Lawler

, 1977;

Kochman

, 1978).

Life History: Temperature and season of year affect activity and seasonal home range sizes. Little is known about reproductive behavior in natural indigo snake populations. However, they have bred successfully in captivity at Auburn University, A labama. Indigo snakes appear to reach sexual maturity at 3 to 4 years of age. Copulation in captivity has occurred primarily between October and March, with a peak in mid

- November through late December (Speake et al.

, 1978, Ernst and Barbour 1989), althoug h Moulis (1976) reported mating during April in Georgia. Clutches of 5 to 12 eggs are laid from April through May with hatchlings emerging approximately 3 months later (from late July through October) (Behler and King

, 1979; Ernst and Barbour

, 1989).

Femal es can lay fertile eggs after several years of isolation (Behler and King

, 1979; Moler

, 1992). Nest sites have not been described, although eggs may be laid in inactive gopher tortoise burrows (USFWS

, 1992).

The indigo snake is an active, diurnal predato r. Prey are captured and killed with strong jaws; it does not kill by constriction or poisoning. Snakes often feed along the edge of wetlands (Moler

, 1992) on a variety of vertebrates including fish, frogs, toads, lizards, small turtles including

young gop her tortoises, snakes (e.g., black racers and diamondback rattlesnakes (Conant

, 1975;

Mount

, 1975)), birds, and small mammals (e.g., cotton rats).

Historical Information: Historically, the range of the eastern indigo snake extended from South Carolina th rough Georgia and Florida to the Keys, and west to southern Alabama and Mississippi (Moler

, 1985). In 1982, the snake was known from 50 counties in Georgia, where it appeared to be maintaining viable populations in protected areas of good habitat (USFWS

, 1 982).

Conservation Status: In recent years, there has been much concern over the decline of the eastern indigo snake across most of its original range. Indigo snakes currently occur almost exclusively in Florida and the Coastal Plain of Southern Georgia; they are now extremely rare or extirpated in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. However, recent reintroductions have been made; as of 1990, the Alabama Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit had released captive

- reared individuals in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Populations are common to locally abundant in parts of peninsular Florida, but few known populations occur in the panhandle. Overall, indigo snake populations are declining in abundance and distribution.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 186 Summary of Major Threats: Habitat loss, conversion, and degradation (e.g., farming, urbanization/construction, forestry practices, pasture) are the major factors contributing to the decline of the eastern indigo snake (Lawler

, 1977, Moler

, 1992). Remaining habitat continues to be degraded. Because of its dependence on gopher tortoise burrows for shelter, factors that degrade tortoise habitat, such as fire suppression, also negatively impact indigo snake populations. Fire suppression has allowed suitable habitat to undergo successio n from longleaf pine/scrub

- oak to communities dominated by larger oak species, such as laurel oak. Many even

- aged pine plantations potentially suitable for snakes are often either not burned at a frequency suitable for snakes, are stocked too densely,

or l ack adequate prey.

In contrast to other secretive species that can persist on small woodlots, indigo snakes require relatively large tracts of suitable habitat. Habitat fragmentation exacerbates this problem since the indigo snake is a wide

- ranging speci es (Moler

, 1992). Land development, even at low densities (e.g., 8

- ha (20

- acres) lot size), can negatively impact indigo snake populations since the home range of a single snake may overlap numerous individual properties (Moler

, 1992). Other

threats includ e collection for pets, and deliberate persecution, all of which are illegal.

F.7.14. Eretmochelys imbricate HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.7.15. Eubalaena glacialis NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.7.16. Halophila johnsonii JOHNSON’S SEAGRASS

Family: Hydrocharitaceae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q3AL )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Halophila+johns

onii )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/johnsonsseagrass.pdf )

• 65 FR 17786 ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2000

- 04

- 05/pdf/00

- 8394.pdf#page=2 )2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 187 Description: Johnson's seagrass is a rare plant that may have the most limited distribution of any seagrass o n earth. It frequently occurs in small (cm to a few m diameter) isolated patches. All species of Halophila are morphologically distinguished from the other seagrass genera by having either a pair of leaves or a pseudowhorl of leaves at each rhizome node. M ost Halophilas are small, shallow rooted, and have 2

- 3 orders of magnitude less biomass per unit area compared to other seagrass genera. Although small, biomass turnover rate is relatively high, and the plants decompose quickly (Kenworthy et al.

, 1989).

Morphologically, Johnson’s seagrass is recognized by the presence of pairs of linearly shaped foliage leaves, each with a petiole formed on the node of a horizontally creeping rhizome. The rhizome is located at or just below the sediment surface and is anc hored to unconsolidated substrate by unbranched roots. The leaves are generally 2

- 5 cm long (including the petioles), and the rhizome internodes rarely exceed 3

- 5 cm in length, making this species appear diminutive relative to the larger seagrasses.

Geog raphic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Halophila johnsonii has been found growing only along approximately 200 km of coastline in southeastern Florida between Sebastian Inlet and north Biscayne Bay. This narrow range and apparent endemism indicate tha t H. johnsonii has the most limited known geographic distribution of any seagrass in the world. It is restricted to coastal lagoons and extends from Brevard, St. Lucie, Martin, Dade, and Palm Beach counties.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) Where present i n its limited geographic range, H. johnsonii often grows in a patchy, non

contiguous distribution at water depths extending from the intertidal down to 3 m

. Species of Halophila are documented to occur from intertidal to 85 m depths (may be the deepest growing seagrasses); shallow occurrence is frequently associated with high turbidity. Halophila regularly

occur in 30

- 40 m depths, thus are important contributors to primary produc tion of coastal shelf environments (e.g., extensive beds on the West Florida Shelf). Some species are the primary colonizers of disturbed environments, apparently due to their tolerance to low light, their high sexual fecundity, and their rapid horizontal growth rates.

Within Johnson’s seagrasses range, 10 areas were designated as critical habitat on May 5, 2000: a portion of the Indian River Lagoon, north of the Sebastian Inlet Channel; a portion of the Indian River Lagoon, south of the Sebastian Inlet C hannel; a portion of the Indian River Lagoon near the Fort Pierce Inlet; a portion of the Indian River Lagoon, north of the St. Lucie Inlet; a portion of Hobe Sound; a site on the south side of Jupiter Inlet; a site in central Lake Worth Lagoon; a site in Lake Worth Lagoon, Boynton Beach; a site in Lake Wyman, Boca Raton; and a portion of Biscayne Bay.

Based on the best available information, general physical and biological features of the critical habitat areas include adequate water quality, salinity lev els, water transparency, and stable, unconsolidated sediments that are free from physical disturbance. The specific areas occupied by Johnson’s seagrass are those with one or more of the following criteria: (1) locations with populations that have persiste d for 10 years; (2) locations with persistent flowering populations;2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 188 (3) locations at the northern and southern range limits of the species; (4) locations with unique genetic diversity; and (5) locations with a documented high abundance of Johnson’s seagra ss compared to other areas in the species’ range.

Life History: Johnson’s seagrass grows vegetatively by the division of meristems located on the apex of the horizontal rhizome and in the axial point (node) where the petioles intersect the rhizome. As in all clonal plants, vegetative growth and areal coverage is achieved by meristem division, the iteration of modules (leaf pairs and apical meristems), and branching of the horizontal stem (rhizome). Since seagrasses are angiosperms, many species also reprod uce sexually; however, no male flowers have ever been described nor is there any evidence of successful recruitment by seed for Johnson's seagrass, even with extensive, decade

- long observations. Female flowers of H. johnsonii arising from the base of the p etioles are enclosed in a two

- leaved spathe. The fruits are long

- necked with 3 stigmas, each 2

- 4 cm in length. There is no evidence of sexual reproduction in this species; therefore, H. johnsonii must rely on asexual branching and clonal reproduction for m aintenance and dispersal.

Historical Information: Johnson's Seagrass was listed as threatened on September 14, 1998 (63 FR 49035): the first marine plant species to be listed under the ESA. Critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass was designated on April 5, 2000 (65 FR 17786). Halophila johnsonii has only relatively recently been identified as a distinct species (Eiseman and McMillan 1980) and no historical information on the species’ distribution is available.

Conservation Status: No monitoring program exists specifically for H. johnsonii . The most compr ehensive and quantitative distribution and abundance data comes from the State of Florida Surface Water Improvement and Management Act of 1987 (SWIM) Project. Since 1994, all seagrass species have been monitored twice a year within 1 m 2 quadrats placed eve ry 10 m along 75 fixed transects in the IRL between Sebastian Inlet and Jupiter Inlet. In the IRL, H. johnsonii is discontinuous. It occurs over a range of depths (intertidal to 1.8 m), salinities, and water quality. Halophila johnsonii was found at 20 of 33 transects within the IRL during 1994

- 1997, but at not more than 12 transects at any one sampling time. Eight of the transects were specifically located

to include H. johnsonii ; the species is therefore over

- represented in this monitoring program

compare d to random sampling. Where it does occur, its distribution is patchy, both spatially and temporally. It occurred in 4.6% (106 of 2,280) of the 1 m 2 quadrats sampled within the IRL.

Summary of Major Threats: Principal threats to the species' survival inc lude habitat degradation and destruction from dredging and filling, construction and shading from in

- and overwater structures, prop scarring, altered water quality, and siltation Other threats include stochastic storm events.

F.7.17. Megaptera n ovaeangliae HUMPBACK WHALE

(See Seattle, Washington for information on this species)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 189 F.7.18. Mycteria americana WOOD STORK

Family: Ciconiidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06O )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1115.pdf )

Description: Wood storks are large, long

- legged wading birds, about 50 in. tall, with a wingspan of 60 to 65 inches. The plumage is white except for black primaries and secondaries and a short black t ail. The head and neck are largely unfeathered and dark gray in color. The bill is black, thick at the base, and slightly decurved. Immature birds are dingy gray and have a yellowish bill.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution:

The wood stork is a large wading bird that occurs from northern Argentina, eastern Peru and western Ecuador, north to Central America, Mexico, Cuba, Hispaniola, and the southeastern United States. The breeding range of the species extends from the southeastern U.S. south

th rough Mexico and Central America, to Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay (Bent

, 1926). The Service listed the U.S. breeding population of wood storks in their known range of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama in 1984.

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Wood storks are a wetland dependent species and loss of foraging wetlands continues to be the primary threat to this population. To ensure long

- term survival and recovery of this population, wood storks require a mosaic of wetlands with varying climatologi cal and seasonal conditions around colonies and within the wintering habitat in the coastal plain of the Southeast U.S.

Wood storks have a unique feeding technique and require higher prey concentrations than other wading birds. Optimal water regimes for the wood stork involve periods of flooding, during which prey (fish) populations increase, alternating with dryer periods, during which receding water levels concentrate fish at higher densities coinciding with the stork's nesting season.

Life History:

S mall fish from 1 to 6 inches long, especially topminnows and sunfish, provide this bird's primary diet. Wood storks capture their prey by a specialized technique known as grope

- feeding

or tacto

- location. Feeding often occurs in water 6 to 10 inches deep, w here a stork probes with the bill partly open. When a fish touches the bill it quickly snaps shut. The average response time of this reflex is 25 milliseconds, making it one of the fastest reflexes known in vertebrates. Wood

storks use thermals to soar as far as 80 miles from nesting to feeding areas. Since thermals do not form in early morning, wood storks may arrive at feeding areas later than other wading bird species such as herons. Energy requirements for a pair of nesting wood storks and their young i s2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 190 estimated at 443 pounds of fish for the breeding season (based on an average production of 2.25 fledglings per nest).

The wood stork is a highly colonial species usually nesting in large rookeries and feeding in flocks. Age at first breeding is 3 years but typically do so at 4. Nesting periods vary geographically. In South Florida, wood storks lay eggs as early as October and fledge in February or March. However, in north and central Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, storks lay eggs from March to lat e May, with fledging occurring in July and August. Nests are frequently located in the upper branches of large cypress trees or in mangroves on islands. Several nests are usually located in each tree. Wood storks have also nested in man

- made

structures. St orks lay two to five eggs, and average two young fledged per successful nest under good conditions.

Historical Information: The United States breeding population of wood storks declined from an estimated 20,000 nesting pairs in the 1930s, to about 10,000 pairs by 1960 (49 FR 7332), and then to a low of around 5,000 nesting pairs in the late 1970s (Ogden et al.

, 1987). The lowest recorded annual total was 2,500 pairs in 1978, a result of poor nesting conditions in conjunction with the low population.

From the 1960s to the mid

- 1980s, the wood stork nesting population declined in southern Florida and increased in northern Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina (Ogden et al.

, 1987). Prior to 1970, a majority (70 percent) of the population nested south of Lake O keechobee and declined from 8,500 pairs in 1961 to fewer than 500 pairs in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During the same period, nesting in Georgia increased from 4 to 1,501 pairs and nesting in South Carolina increased from 11 to 829 pairs (Service

, 199 7). This extended the breeding range north along the coastal plain of Georgia and South Carolina. Overall, surveys between 1983 and 1995 documented a population in the Southeast U.S. ranging between 4,073 and 7,853 pairs (Service 1997).

Conservation Stat us: Three

- year averages calculated from nesting data from 2001 through 2006 indicate that the total nesting population has been consistently above the 6,000 reclassification threshold for nesting pairs, and the averages have ranged from 7,400 to over 8,700 . The 2006 nesting totals indicate that the stork population has reached its highest level since it was listed as endangered in 1984 and since the early 1960s with over 11,000 nesting pairs documented in Florida, Georgia, South

Carolina and North Carolina during the 2006 breeding season. Since listing, the number of nesting pairs is increasing, the number of nesting colonies is increasing, and the nesting range is growing. Even though threats that affect wood storks appear to be continuing at the same level s, the conclusion is that the overall population status is improving.

Summary of Major Threats: Habitat loss, fragmentation, and modification, is known to impact the species but the significance of the threat cannot be quantified. Other threats such as u tilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease and predation; and other natural or man

made factors (i.e., contaminants, electrocution, road kill, invasion of exotic plants and animals, disturbance, and stochastic events) are known to occur but are not significant.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 191 F.7.19. Myotis grisescens GRAY BAT

(See St. Louis, Missouri for information on this species)

F.7.20. Myotis sodalis INDIANA BAT

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.7.21. Polyborus plancus audubonii

-- Renamed: Northern Crested Caracara ( Caracara cheriway ) AUDUBON’S CRESTED CARACARA

Family: Falconidae

Threatened: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06Q )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2507.pdf )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_repor

t.wmt&loadTe mplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehen
sive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=101875&paging=home&save=tru
e&startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=101875&offPag
eSelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true& post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutt

on&selectedIndexes=101875 )

Description: While listed as Audubon’s crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audubonii), taxonomic research has revealed that the Florida population should be recognized as the northern crested caracara ( Caracara cheriway ) (Dove and Banks

, 1999; Integrated Taxonomic Information System

, 2008). Minor variations between populations do not warrant recognition of subspecies within C. cheriway (Dove and Banks

, 1999). This taxonomic change has been acc epted by the scientific community.

The long neck, long yellow legs, and massive gray

- blue bill of the caracara make its appearance unique among the raptors. About 58 cm in length, the crested caracara has a white head and throat, white wing tips, and whi te tail contrasting with a dark body, red face, and signature black

crest.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: Caracara cheriway (CRCA) ranges from northern Brazil, through Central America and Mexico, north to the United States (except Guadalu pe Island) (Dove and Banks

, 1999). The range in Florida has shrunk; it formerly ranged commonly from northern Brevard County south to Fort Pierce, Lake Okeechobee, and Rocky Lake (Hendry County), but it is now only rarely found as2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 192 far north as Orlando or e ast of the St. Johns River. It is most abundant in five

- county area (Glades, De Soto, Highlands, Okeechobee, and Osceola counties) north and west of Lake Okeechobee (Matthews and Moseley 1990). Small numbers occur in Arizona, where the range is probably as large now as formerly (Ellis et al.

, 1988). In Texas, has declined in recent decades, but now increasing over much of its range there (Ellis et al.

, 1988). Records from Washington, Oregon, and California, and north to Wyoming, Ontario, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey are of individuals of "questionable origin" (AOU

, 1998, 2000).

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Habitat heterogeneity is necessary in maintaining suitable CRCA habitat (Root and Barnes

, 2007). Primary CRCA habitat in Florida consists of prairies interspersed with marshes and cabbage palm hammocks (Morrison and Humphrey

, 2001). Current habitat use of CRCA, based

on habitat evaluations conducted proximal to nest sites, includes (ranked highest to lowest proportion): improved pasture, dry prairie, freshwater marsh, mixed upland hardwoods, shrub swamp, shrub and brushland, grassland, pinelands, bare soil, urban, other agriculture, citrus, and scrub (Morrison

, 2006). Core CRCA habitat (i.e., a 95 percent kernel of high density area) lies within the Kissimmee Prairie, located northwest of Lake Okeechobee, and includes less than 1000 km2 of suitable habitat (Root and Barnes

, 2007). Only 15 pe rcent of the habitat in this core area is managed (Root and Barnes

, 2007).

Nesting habitat may be limiting CRCA population growth (Root and Barnes

, 2007). CRCA most frequently nest in cabbage palms within pasture or grassland habitat, but a few nests hav e been observed in cypress, live oak, pine, and other trees (Bent

, 1938; Sprunt

, 1954; Service

, 1989;

Morrison et al.

, 1997; Morrison

, 2007).

Life History: CRCAs have a relatively long lifespan. Annual survival estimates suggest a lifespan of 8 to 10

yea rs (Morrison

, 2003), and banding records indicate wild individuals living over 20 years (Morrison

, 2009). The age at first breeding is approximately 3 years (Morrison

, 2009); many birds over 3 years of age, if unable to find breeding sites, remain as non

- breeders (Dwyer

, 2009). Clutch size averages two eggs (Dickinson and Arnold

, 1996; Layne

, 1996; Morrison

, 1999) and young fledge after 8 weeks (Layne

, 1978). Double

- brooding has been documented, but second clutches are generally not as successful as first attempts (Morrison

, 1996; 1998).

Historical Information: Its historic range in Florida generally consisted of St. Johns River marshes in Brevard County and the major prairie ecosystem originally present within Highland, Glades, Polk, Osceola, Okeechobee, Hardee, Desoto, Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin Counties (Davis

, 1967;

Morrison

, 2006). The Florida population has undergone a long

- term decline through the 1900s;

in the mid

- 1970s, it was estimated at a minimum of 350

- 400 (Evans

, 1982, USFWS

, 1987); in 1987, at 300 adults and about 200 immatures (less than 1/3 of population in 1900); and in 1990 at a minimum of 500 individuals (USFWS

, 1990).

Conservation Status: Abundance estimates have been dubious and continue to be problematic due to the bird’s low detectability and surveyors’ limited access to suitable habitat on private lands (Humphrey and2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 193 Morrison

, 1997). Population trends are also difficult to interpret bec ause of the bird’s long lifespan, site

- fidelity, and the lack of data on recruitment rates of young (Morrison

, 1996). Based on current knowledge of over 150 nest sites within a limited portion of the bird’s range in Florida, over 500 individuals inhabit Fl orida (Morrison

, 2009).

Summary of Major Threats: In the U.S., declines have been associated with conversion of habitat to agriculture, residential development, and illegal shooting and trapping; increase in roads and traffic has resulted in

increased mo rtality as the birds feed on road kills. Range has expanded in tropical America concurrent with deforestation; invasion of woody species with overgrazing tends to degrade habitat and result in declines (Ellis et al.

, 1988). In Texas, Dickinson (1995, Wilso n Bull.

107:761

- 762) observed two instances of red imported fire ant predation on caracara hatchlings.

F.7.22. Pristis pectinata SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH

(See Houston, Texas for information on this species)

F.7.23. Puma concolor coryi FLORIDA PANTHER

Family: Felidae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A008 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Puma+concolor
+coryi )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/081218.pdf )

Description: The Florida panther is a large, long

- tailed cat with a great deal of color variation: pale brown or rusty upper parts, dull white or buff under parts; tail tip, back of ears, and sides of nose are dark brown or blackish. Mature male panthers examined in the wild in Florida since 1978 have weighed from 102 to 154 pounds (Roelke 1990, Roelke and Glass

, 1992) and measured nearly 7

feet from nose to tip of tail. Females were considerably smaller, with a weight range of 50 to 108 pounds (Roelke

, 1990) and measuring about 6 feet (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

, 1987). The skull of the Florida panther is unique in that it has a broad, flat, frontal region, and broad, high

arched or upward

- expanded nasal bones (Young and Goldman

, 1946).

Florida panther kittens are gray with dark brown or blackish spots and five bands around the tail. The spots gradually fade as the kittens grow older and are almost unnoticeable by the time they are six months old. At this age, their bright blue eyes slowly turn to the light

- brown straw color of the adult (Belden

, 1988).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 194 Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The species occurs primarily in swampland in southern Florida; apparently ranged formerly throughout the southeastern U.S., but now probably extirpated in states other than Florida. They occupy less than 15,000 square km primarily in southern Florida: Fakahatchee Strand, Big Cypress National Pres erve/Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, southern portion of Everglades Conservation Area, Everglades National Park (from Hole

- in

- the

- Donut area northward), Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation, and private ranches and preserves in parts

of Collie r, Hendry, Lee, and Glades Counties (Maehr

, 1992, Matthews and Moseley

, 1990). It has also recently known from Highlands, Palm Beach, Broward, Martin, Osceola, Volusia, and St. Johns Counties, though reproduction has not been recorded in these areas (Maehr

, 1992).

Habitat: (no critical habitat)

Panthers are wide

- ranging, secretive, and occur at low densities. They require large contiguous areas to meet their social, reproductive, and energetic needs. Panther habitat selection is related to prey availabilit y (i.e., habitats that make prey vulnerable to stalking and capturing are selected). Dense understory vegetation provides some of the most important feeding, resting, and denning cover for panthers. Telemetry monitoring and ground tracking indicate that pa nthers select forested habitat types interspersed with other habitat types that are used in proportion to their availability.

Generally the Florida panther occurs in heavily forested areas in lowlands and swamps, also upland forests in some parts of range ; areas with adequate deer or wild hog population. Habitats include tropical hammocks, pine flatwoods, cabbage palm forests, mixed swamp, cypress swamp, live oak hammocks, sawgrass marshes, and Brazilian pepper thickets; depends on large contiguous blocks of wooded habitat, though interspersed fields and early successional habitats may be beneficial through their positive effect on prey populations; day

- use sites typically are dense patches of saw palmetto surrounded by swamp, pine flatwoods, or hammock (Ma ehr 1992). Dees et al. (2001) found a strong selection for pine stands burned within one year. Young are born in dense thickets or fallen timber, or in other sites providing adequate cover.

Life History: Male Florida panthers are polygynous, maintaining l arge, overlapping home ranges containing several adult females and their dependent offspring. The first sexual encounters for males normally occur at about three years based on 26 radio

- collared panthers of both sexes (Maehr et

al.

, 1991a). Based on geneti cs work, some males may become breeders as early as 17 months (W. Johnson, National Cancer Institute, pers. comm. 2005). Breeding activity peaks from December to March (Shindle et al.

, 2003). Litters are produced throughout the year, with 56

- 60%

of births occurring between March and June (Jansen et al.

, 2005; Lotz et al.

, 2005). The greatest number of births occurs in May and June (Jansen et al.

, 2005, Lotz et al.

, 2005). Female panthers have bred as young as 18 months (Maehr et al.

, 1989a) and successful r eproduction has occurred up to 11 years old. Average litter size is 2.4 kittens.

Panther dispersal begins after a juvenile becomes independent from its mother and continues until it establishes a home range. Male Florida panthers disperse an average dista nce of 25 miles (40 km); females typically remain in or disperse short distances from their natal ranges2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 195 (Comiskey et al.

, 2002). Panthers require large areas to meet their needs. Numerous factors influence panther home range size including habitat quality , prey density, and landscape configuration (Belden

, 1988; Comiskey et al.

, 2002). Home range sizes of 26 radio

- collared panthers monitored between 1985 and 1990 averaged 200 mi 2 (519 km2) for resident adult males

and 75 mi 2 (193 km2) for resident adult fe males

Activity levels for Florida panthers are greatest at night with peaks around sunrise and after sunset (Maehr et al.

, 1990a). The lowest activity levels occur during the middle of the day. Female panthers at natal dens follow a similar pattern with l ess difference between high and low activity periods.

Interactions between panthers occur indirectly through urine markers or directly through contact. Urine markers are made by piling ground litter using a backwards

- pushing motion with the hind

feet. Th is pile is then scent

- marked with urine and occasionally feces. Both sexes make urine markers, apparently males use them as a way to mark their territory and announce presence while females advertise their reproductive condition.

Primary panther prey is w hite

- tailed deer and feral hog (Maehr et al.

, 1990b; Dalrymple and

Bass

, 1996). Secondary prey includes raccoons, nine

- banded armadillos, marsh rabbits (Maehr et al. 1990b) and alligators (Dalrymple and Bass

, 1996). No seasonal variation in diet has been

d etected. A resident adult male puma generally consumes one deer

- sized prey every 8

- 11 days; this frequency is 14

- 17 days for a resident female; and 3.3 days for a female with three 13

- month old kittens (Ackerman et al.

, 1986). Maehr et al. (1990b) document ed domestic livestock infrequently in scats or kills, although cattle were readily available on their study area.

Historical Information: The Florida panther once ranged throughout the southeastern U.S. from Arkansas and Louisiana eastward across Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and parts of South Carolina and Tennessee (Young and Goldman 1946) (Figure 1). Historically, the panther in tergraded to the

north with Puma concolor cougar , to the west with Puma concolor stanleyana , and to the

northwest with Puma concolor hippolestes (Young and Goldman 1946). Although generally considered unreliable, sightings of panthers regularly occur throu ghout the Southeast. However, no reproducing populations of panthers have been found outside of south Florida for at least 30 years despite intensive searches to document them (Belden et al.

, 1991; McBride et al.

, 1993;

Clark et al.

, 2002). Survey reports and more than 70,000 locations of radio

- collared panthers recorded between 1981 and 2004 clearly define the panther’s current breeding range.

Conservation Status: The Florida panther is the last subspecies of Puma still surviving in the eastern United St ates. Historically occurring throughout the southeastern United States, today the panther is restricted to less than 5% of its historic range in one breeding population located in south Florida. The panther population has increased from an estimated 12

- 20 (excluding kittens) in the early 1970s

to an estimated 100

- 120 in 2007. While the species as a whole is not close to extinction, this formerly widespread subspecies has undergone a severe decline in numbers and range and is now

restricted to a small area

.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 196 Summary of Major Threats: A major limiting factor in southern Florida appears to be availability of suitable habitat (Belden

et al.

, 1988). Habitat loss and alteration have resulted from logging, drainage, oil field activity, housing development, citrus agriculture, and road construction. Though continuing urbanization and agricultural development of habitat has been regarded as the greatest threat, mercury contamination apparently is another major threat, especially where panthers feed most extensively on raccoons (Jordan

, 1990; Roelke et al.

, 1992). Collisions with vehicles (most common around the Fakahatchee Strand) are the greatest known mortality factor, but these are relatively easy to document (Maehr

, 1992). Threatened also by loss of genetic variability, which evidently is responsible for recently observed congenital heart defects, reproductive abnormalities (high incidence of unilateral cryptorchidism) (Barone et al.

, 1994), and possible

immune defic iencies. Hunting of deer (a primary food resource) may be an additional threat.

F.7.24. Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus EVERGLADE SNAIL KITE

Family: Accipitridae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B00F )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Rostrhamus+soc
iabilis+plumbeus )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr151.pdf )

Description: The Everglade snail kite is a medium

- sized hawk with a wingspan of about 45 inches, very similar to the marsh hawk but without wavering, tilting flight. The beak is slender and very hooked. The adult males are slate gray with black head and wing tips, a wh ite patch at the base of a square tail, and red legs. The female has a buffy body, heavily streaked with dark lines, a white line above the eye, a white tail patch, yellow legs, and red eyes. The immature kites resemble the females, only they are darker an d their eyes are brown.

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: The species is restricted to Florida, Cuba and the Isle of Pines. It formerly occurred in freshwater marshes throughout peninsular Florida. It is now restricted to St. Johns River he adwaters; southwestern Lake Okeechobee; small areas in Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties; parts of Everglades National Park, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, and Big Cypress National Preserve. The present distribution of the kite in Cuba is not w ell known.

Habitat: (has critical habitat) In Florida, its habitat is large, open freshwater marshes and lakes with shallow (< 4 ft.) open waters. Open water areas without emergent vegetation are required for foraging and nests are2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 197 usually 1

- 5 m above wat er in low tree or shrub (commonly willow, wax myrtle, pond apple, or cattails). It is also occasionally sawgrass, maidencane (especially during low water) used for support (Palmer

, 1988). Usually builds (mainly male) a new nest for each nesting attempt,

th ough may build over old nest or in same location as old nest (Johnsgard

, 1990).

Some observers report movements that they interpret as migration, but available evidence indicates birds are better characterized as nomadic, moving in response to changes in water level (Palmer

, 1988, Stiles and Skutch

, 1989). Some individuals banded in Florida have been found in

Cuba.

Critical habitat was designated for the Everglade snail kite in August and September of 1977 in St. John’s Reservoir, Indian River County; Clo ud Lake Reservoir, St. Lucie County; Strazzulla Reservoir, St. Lucie County; western parts of Lake Okeechobee, Glades and Hendry Counties; Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Palm Beach County; Central and Southern Flood Control

District Water Conservati on Area 2A, Palm Beach and Broward Counties; Central and Southern Flood Control District Water Conservation Area 2B, Broward County; Central and Southern Flood Control District Water Conservation Area 3A, Broward and Dade Counties; and a portion

of the Eve rglades National Park, Dade County.

Life History: The species eats small, slow

- moving, shelled animals. The snail kite is uniquely adapted for a diet almost exclusively of freshwater apple snails ( Pomacea paludosa ). As of 1987, there were only five docume nted occurrences of Everglade snail kites preying on non

- snail items. Exclusive utilization of the genus Pomacea is apparently because this is the only large Florida snail occurring near the surface. The kite extracts the snail from the shell by means of i ts greatly

curved beak.

The main nesting period is January

- August (eggs laid mainly February

- April). Clutch size is usually 2

- 3 in Florida. Incubation, by both sexes, lasts 26

- 30 days. Young are tended by both

sexes 3

- 6 weeks, then one adult deserts (and may renest) unless snails are scarce. Young fledge

at 23

- 28 days according to Matthews and Moseley (1990). Nestling period in Florida averaged 29 days (see Johnsgard

, 1990). First breeds at 1

- 2 years (reaches breeding age at 10 months according to Matthews and Moseley

, 1990).

Historical Information: Population and range have declined dramatically since river channelization and drainage of wetlands began in 19th and 20th centuries. It was a listed as an endangered species in 1967.

Conservation Status:

Occ urrences may change from year to year, dependent upon water levels. Bennetts et al. (1999) estimate about 650 in Florida in 1994 and comment on interpretations of censuses from 1969 through 1994. Other Florida population estimates: 25

- 60 in the mid

- 1960s, 250

- 650 in the early 1980s, 668 in 1984, as low as 326 in 1987; a 1989 survey recorded 464 kites (USFWS

, 1990).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 198 Summary of Major Threats: Habitat destruction, principally via wetland drainage and conversion for agriculture, is the major threat. Agricultur al runoff has caused pollution and eutrophication of much of habitat below Lake Okeechobee. Introduction of exotic plants (e.g., water hyacinth, water lettuce, torpedo grass, and hydrilla) prevents feeding. Other threats include illegal shooting by humans, particularly during waterfowl hunting season.

F.7.25.

Schwalbea americana AMERICAN CHAFFSEED

Family: Scrophulariaceae Endangered: wherever found

Sources:

• USFWS, 2012 b

( http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q2I4 )

• NatureServe Explorer, 2012

( http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/Natur eServe?searchName=Schwalbea+ame

ricana )

• USFWS, 2012 b ( http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/950929c.pdf )

Description: American chaffseed is a monotypic perennial member of the figwort family, Scrophulariaceae, in the tribe Euphrasieae. It is an erect herb with unbranched stems or stems branched only at the base, growing to a height of 3.0 to 6.0 cm (12 to 24 in.). The plant is densely albeit minutely hairy throughout, including the flow ers. The leaves are alternate, lance

- shaped to elliptic, stalkless, 2.5 to 5.0 cm (0.8 to 2 in.) long, and entire; the upper leaves are reduced to narrow bracts. The large, purplish

- yellow, tubular flowers, 3.0 to 3.5 cm long (1.2 to 1.4 in.) are borne

sin gly on short stalks in the axils of the uppermost, reduced leaves (bracts) and form a many

flowered, spike

- like raceme. The showy flowers have a high degree of bilateral symmetry elaborated for pollination by bees (Pennell

, 1935). The fruit is a narrow cap sule approximately

10 to 12 mm (0.4 to 0.5 in.) long, with a septicidal dehiscence. The numerous seeds are pale greenish brown or yellowish

- tan, narrowly linear, somewhat flattened or compressed, slightly curved, and enclosed in a loose

- fitting, sac

- like s tructure that provides the basis for the common name, chaffseed (Musselman and Mann

, 1978). Flowering occurs from April to June in the southern part of the species’ range, and from June to mid

- July in the northern part of its range.

Fruits mature from earl y summer in the South to October in the North (Johnson

, 1988).

Geographic Boundaries and Spatial Distribution: It is primarily a coastal plain species off the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Exceptions to its coastal distribution, all of which are historical re cords, include: an occurrence in the sand plains near Albany, New York, which Pennell (1935) considered a possible remnant population of glacial migration along the shores of the Hudson River; occurrences from Tennessee and Kentucky on

sandstone knobs and ridges of the Cumberland Plateau and Highland Rim; an inland site on the2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 199 Montague sand plain near the Connecticut River; and a sand plain in Hubbardston, Massachusetts (The Nature Conservancy

, 1993).

Habitat: (no critical habitat) Characteristically, the chafseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally moist to dry soils. The species is generally found in habitats described as pine flatwoods, fire

maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and oth er

open grass

- sedge systems (Kral

, 1983). It appears to be shade intolerant and, therefore, occurs in areas maintained in an open to partially open condition.

Historically, the species was reported to exist on savannas and pinelands throughout the coastal plain. It also occurred inland on sandstone knobs and plains where frequent, naturally occurring fires maintained open grass and herbaceous communities or partially open forest communities such as those dominated by longleaf pine. Under such conditions, h erbaceous plants avoided competition from trees and shrubs. Most of the surviving populations, including the most vigorous, are in areas that are still subject to frequent fire.

Life History: The root parasitic behavior has been known since 1856 (Musselman and Mann

, 1977). As with many Scrophulariaceae, it exhibits hemiparasitic behavior. Hemiparasites (also called semiparasites) contain chlorophyll and can produce all or part of their own food, as opposed to holoparasites, which lack chlorophyll and are entirely dependent on host plants for food and water. Haustoria developing from roots are unique among Scrophulariaceae parasites in that a

well

- developed neck, interrupted zone, a sclerotic layer, and a very broad endophyte are present.

It produ ces showy, insect

- pollinated flowers with a high degree of zygomorphy elaborated for pollination by bees (Pennell

, 1935). On Fort Bragg, bumblebees were observed visiting Schwalbea flowers exclusively (The Nature Conservancy

, 1993) and observations of inse ct visitation suggest that probable pollinators are worker bumblebees (Kirkman

, 1993).

Historical Information: American chaffseed ( Schwalbea americana ) was listed as an endangered species on September 29, 1992. The range of American chaffseed once include d all the coastal States from Massachusetts to Louisiana, and the inland States of Kentucky and Tennessee. Although the range was widespread, the historical record shows that the species was always relatively rare and

local in distribution.

Conservation S tatus: Currently, 72 occurrences of this species are known to be extant in New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. At the time of listing, 19 extant occurrences were known;

the increase in the number of known occurrences is the re sult of extensive searches for the species in North and South Carolina (Fort Bragg has about 6,000 plants; one occurrence in South Carolina has >2,000)2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 200 Summary of Major Threats: The plant has been, and continues to be, endangered by development and by suc cession of its habitat. Sandy pineland communities where the species exists have proven to be especially vulnerable to development because soils are level, deep, and suitable for building sites. In addition, many populations were or are very near the Atlan tic Coast where development pressures are high (Rawinski and Cassin

, 1986). While the demise of many populations can be attributed to direct loss of habitat to development (Rawinski and Cassin

, 1986; Johnson

, 1988; The Nature Conservancy

, 1993), developmen t also presents indirect threats to the species, as urbanization generally results in total fire suppression, which ultimately leads to the loss of the open ecosystems. Continuing concerns regarding the species survival on private lands include

discontinua tion of game management and subsequent cessation of burning resulting in vegetational succession and loss of suitable habitat; conversion of the fire

- maintained flatwoods and savannas to commercial pine plantations, which can create dense canopies unsuitab le for Schwalbea; and direct destruction of Schwalbea plants due to the placement of firebreaks or the planting of game food plots or other extensive soil disturbances.

Occurrences of American chaffseed along roadsides are especially vulnerable to distur bance and loss. Besides succession of habitat, actions such as direct trampling, herbicide application and road maintenance can adversely affect the plants. Another potential threat to the New Jersey population is herbivory. A single white

- tailed deer herb ivory episode in May 1994 severely affected flowering of the population. Most of the plants, which were severed at the base, grew back, often in multiple branches, but did not grow to full size and did not flower (T. Hampton in litt. 1995).

F.7.26. Sterna dougallii dougallii ROSEATE TERN

(See New York, New York for information on this species)

F.7.27.

Trichechus manatus WEST INDIAN MANATEE

(See Houston, Texas for information on this species)



## F.8. R EFERENCES

Crocodilian Species List. 2012. Crocodylus acutus (Cuvier, 1807). Retrieved from http://crocodilian.com/cnhc/csp_cacu.htm. Accessed March 2012.

“Designation of Critical Habitat: Critical Habitat for Johnson’s Seagrass.” Federal Register 65 (April 5, 2000): 17786

- 17804. Print.

“End angered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn

Corals.” Federal Register 73 (November 26, 2008): 72210

- 72240. Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Cirtical Habitat Revised Designation for the Cape Sab le Seaside Sparrow.” Federal Register 72 (November 6, 2007): 62736

- 62766.

Print.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 201 “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Cirsium hydrophilium var. hydrophilium (Suisan thistle) and Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Molli s (soft

bird’s

- beak).” Federal Register 72 (April 12, 2007): 18518

- 18553. Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Four

Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants.” Federal Register 71 (February 10, 2006): 7118

- 7316. Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover.” Federal Register 70 (September 29, 2005): 56970

- 57119. Print.

“Endangered and Threatene d Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in California.” Federal Register 70 (September 2, 2005): 52488

- 52627. Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population.” Federal Register 70 (August 23, 2005): 49380

- 49458. Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake.” Federal Register 71 (October 2, 2006): 58176

- 58231. Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeion.” Federal Register 68 (March 19, 2003): 13370

- 13495. Print.

“ Endangered and Threatened Wil dlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon; Evaluation of Economic Exclusions From August 2003 Final Designation .” Federal Register 70 (August 11, 2005): 46924

- 46999. Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the

California Red

- Legged Frog.” Federal Register 75 (March 17, 2010): 12816

- 12959.

Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover.” Federal Register 76 (March 22, 2011): 16046

- 16165. Print.

“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segm ent of California Tiger Salamander.” Federal Register 76 (August 31, 2011): 54346

- 54372. Print.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2001. Eastern Indigo Snake. Field Guide to the Rare Animals

of Florida. Retrieved from http://www.fnai.org/fieldguide/pdf/dryma rchon_couperi.pdf. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 202 GLEC. 2011. Biological Evaluation for the Region 2 ESA Consultation on New Jersey’s Revised Saltwater Cyanide Water Quality Standards. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. Grea t Lakes Environmental Center, Dated August 2, 2011.

Goals Project. 2000. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of key plants, fish and wildlife. Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Eco system Goals Project. P.R. Olofson, editor. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, Calif. Retrieved from http://www.sfestuary.org/pdfs/species

community/Species_and_Community_Profiles%5BPart1%5D.pdf.

Hallam, Charlotte O., Kimberl y Wheaton, Richard A. Fischer. 1998. Species Profile: Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) on Military Installations in the Southeastern

United States. USACE. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi

bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA342329. ( Accessed March 201 2 )

.

NatureServe Explorer. 2012. NatureServe Explore: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Retrieved

from http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.

NJDEP. 2012. New Jersey’s Endangered and Threatened Wildlife . New Jersey Division of Fish

and Wildlife. Retrieved from http://www.njfishandwildlife.com/tandespp.htm

. ( Accessed

March 2012 )

.

NYDEC. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Fishes of New York. New York Department of

Environmental Conservation. Retrieved from http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7008. html.

Accessed March 2012.

NOAA Fisheries. 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries:

Office of Protected Resources. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/. Accessed

March 2012.

UMMZ. 2012. Animal Diversity Web. Universit y of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Retrieved

from http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/index.html. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.

University of California, Berkeley, 2012. Essig Museum of Entomology. Retrieved from http://essig.berkeley.edu/. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.

USEPA. 2008. Biological Evaluation of Oregon’s Water Quality Criteria for Toxics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Dated January, 2008.

USEPA. 2009. Draft Biological Opinions Issued Under the Endangered Species Act, by the

National Marine Fisheries Services, Related to Pesticides and Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Species. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/draft

- biop

march09.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix F

F

- 203 USEPA. 2010. Biological Evaluation for the United States Environmental Protections Agency’s (EPA) Pesticides General Permit (PGP).

USFWS, 2003. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Retrieved from http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/bulltrt03.pdf. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.

USFWS, 2012 a . Endangered Species Midwest Region. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/index.html. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.

USFWS. 2012 b . Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do #. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.

USFWS, 2012 c . North Florida Ecological Services Office. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.

USFWS, 2012 d . Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.

USFWS, 2012 e . Virginia Ecological Services, Northeast Region. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.

Yolo Natural Heritage Program, 2012. Draft Species Accounts. Retrieved from http://www.yoloconserv ationplan.org/yolo_pdfs/speciesaccounts/invertebrates/valley

elderberry

- longhorn

- beetle.pdf. ( Accessed March 2012 )

.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix G



### Appendix G. Methodology for Hypothetical Harbor Modeling2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix G

G-1 The purpose of Appendix G is to provide additiona l details and descriptions of the methodology
for the hypothetical harbor modeli ng and exposure concentrations presen ted in Section 5.2.1. Appendix G
discusses the following topics:

 Model selection process for the BE;

 Selection of estuary and river model input values;

 Development of RAA lo ading scenarios;

 Presentation of the raw data for ve ssel-specific loading rates; and

 Presentation of the total loads for RAA loading scenarios.

G.1 M ODEL S ELECTION

VGP and sVGP vessels discharge into coasta l and inland waters throughout the United States. Estuarine models, which are commonly us ed to assess coastal harbor water quality, consist of two primary components: hydrodynamics (i.e., water transport processes) and water quality. Estuarine models are generally classified into the following four levels according to the temporal and spatial complexity of th e hydrodynamic component of the model:

 Level I - Desktop screening models th at calculate seasonal or annual mean concentrations based on steady-state c onditions and simplified flushing time

estimates.

 Level II - Computerized steady-state or tidally averaged qua si-dynamic simulation models, which generally use a box or compartment-type network.

 Level III - Computerized one-dimensional (i.e ., estuary is well-mixed vertically and laterally) and quasi-two-dimensional (i.e ., a link-node system describes estuary longitudinal and lateral mixing) dynamic simulation models.

 Level IV - Computerized two-dimensional (i.e., represents estuary longitudinal and lateral mixing) and three-dimensional (i.e., represents estuary longitudinal, lateral, and vertical mixing) dynamic simulation models (EPA, 2001).

The sheer number of different coastal harbor envi ronments potentially impact ed by these vessels means that EPA would need to consider wide ranging en vironmental conditions. Using a Level I screening model provides an opportunity for the Agency to eval uate “best case” and “worst scenarios” under a wide range of environmental conditions for this BE.

Similar to estuarine models, river models can range in complexity from simple steady state representations of a river to more dynamic fate a nd transport models that compartmentalize the river environment and capture spatial and temporal variat ions in river inputs. The wide range of river environments potentially impacted by vessels covere d under the VGP and sVGP also means that EPA would need to consider wide ranging environmental conditions to support the BE effects analysis. For these reasons, EPA selected a Level I screening-level model, the “fraction of freshwater model,” to calculate receiving water concentrations for coastal harbors, and a steady state dilution equation for the river systems to support the effects analys is further described in Section 5.2.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix G

G-2 G.1.1 Fraction of Freshwater Model Fo r Hypothetical Estuarine Harbor

The “fraction of freshwater model” is a seri es of equations that represent the harbor

environment in zero dimensions and at a stea dy state (USEPA, 2001). These calculations are zero-dimensional in that they estimate concentrat ions at a given point in a water body within a specified, spatially homogenous volume. For example, the calculations assume instantaneous and homogeneous mixing of vessel discharges within the defined volume of a given harbor. It does not account for gradients of concentrations that would occur within a certain distance from discharge source(s) such as plumes from ve ssels and other sources. Specifying plumes and accounting for locations of numerous discharg e sources would require a two- or threedimensional model, which is beyond this Level I screening- level analysis.

Steady state means that the calculations pr ovide an instantaneous estimate of the concentration under the assumption of chemical a nd physical equilibrium. Chemical equilibrium means that the water body salinity and the vessel discharge analyte concen trations do not change over time, while physical equilibrium means that the volume of water in the water body, tides, currents, and vessel discharge flow rates do not change over time. The assumption is that every process occurs instantaneously; therefore, tempor al variability is not a factor. Accounting for changes in tides, currents, rive r flow, vessel discharge flow rate s, and discharge concentrations over time would require a dynamic model, which is beyond this Level I sc reening-level model. This aspect of the model may cause it to underestimate localized environmental impacts, especially in areas with inadequate flushing. However, in estimating quantities of pollutants discharged from the various discharge types, EPA has tended to use conservative parameter estimates (i.e., estimates that may overstate the average value) for variables such as flow and pollutant concentration.

The “fraction of freshwater model” calculat es the analyte concentration in a harbor resulting from vessel discharges using the following four steps:

 Step 1: Calculate vessel discharge analyte loading rates (Equati ons G-1 and G-2)

 Step 2: Calculate the fracti on of freshwater in the hypothe tical harbor (Equation G-3)

 Step 3: Calculate the hypothetical harbor flushing time (Equation G-4)

 Step 4: Calculate the hypot hetical harbor analyte con centration (Equation G-5)

The following subsections describe th e input requirements, assumptions, and calculations for each step in

the “fraction of freshwater model.”

G.1.1.1 Step: Calculate Vessel Discha rge Analyte Loading Rates

Analyte-specific total discharge loading rates ( We ) are required as input values in the

“fraction of freshwater model” and the river dilution equation to calculate the instantaneous analyte concentrations in the harbor ( Cx ). In this analysis, EPA estimated analyte loading rates using the following four input parameters:2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix G

G-3  Estimated average analyte concentrations for each vessel type discharge type;

 Estimated flow rate for each disc harge type for ea ch vessel type;

 Estimated number of vessels per vessel type present in the harbor; and

 Percentage of vessels per ve ssel type discharging each disc harge type in the harbor (Equation 5-1).

We,z = ∑ ( Ce,y,z * Qy,z * N,z ) Equation G-1

Where:
We,z = Discharge loading rate for analyte e from vessel type z (mass/time) Ce,y,z = Average concentration of analyte e in discharge y from vessel type z (mass/volume) Qy,z = Flow rate for discharge y from vessel type z (volume/time)
N,z = Number of vessels equivalents of vessel type z present in the harbor

EPA calculated the analyte-specific tota l discharge loading rate by summing the discharge loading rates for that analyt e from each vessel type (Equation 5-2).

We = ∑ ( We,z ) Equation G-2

Where:

We = Total discharge loading rate for analyte e from study vessel
discharges (mass/time)

We,z = Discharge loading rate for analyte e from vessel type z (mass/time)

G.1.1.2 Step 2: Calculate the Fraction of Freshwater in the Hypothetical Harbor

The “fraction of freshwater model” estimates analyte concentrations in one dimension using information on freshwater inflow and by comp aring salinity in the harbor with salinity in

the seawater at the mouth of the harbor (USEPA, 2001). The fraction of freshwater ( fx ) at any location in the estuary is calculated as:

fx = ( Ss

– Sx )/ Ss Equation G-32013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix G

G-4 Where:

fx = Fraction of freshwater at location x in the model harbor (unit-less)

Ss = Seaward boundary salinity at the mouth of model harbor (PSU)

Sx = Salinity at location x in model harbor (PSU)

EPA states that this ratio ( fx ) “...can be viewed as the degree of dilution of the freshwater inflow (as well as po llutants) by seawater” from tidal influx in the harbor (USEPA, 2001).

G.1.1.3 Step 3: Calculate the Hypothet ical Harbor Flushing Time

Harbor flushing time is defined as the amount of time required to replace the freshwater volume of the harbor by the river fres hwater input. The flushing time ( t ) of the model harbor is calculated using Equation 5-4:

t = (V * fx )/Q fw Equation G-4

Where:

t = Model harbor flushing time

V = Volume of model harbor fx = Fraction of freshwater at location x in model harbor (unit-less) Q

fw = Inflow of freshwater to mode l harbor from the model river (volume/time)

G.1.1.4 Step 4: Calculate the Hypothetic al Harbor Analyte Concentration

The concentration of an analyte at location x ( Cx ) is the analyte-specific total loading rate ( We, mass/time) divided by the flow rate away from location x , described by the volume of the harbor ( V ) divided by the flushing time ( t ) (USEPA, 2001):

Cx ,estuary = We /( V / t ) Equation G-5

Where:

C x,estuary = Instantaneous analyte concentration at location x in hypothetical estuary harbor (mass/volume)

We = Analyte-specific loading rate (mass/time) as calculated under Step

1

V = Volume of the model harbor as defined in Step 3

t = Model harbor flushing time as calculated in Step 3

G.1.2 Hypothetical River Harbor Dilution Model

EPA selected a dilution equati on to model the recei ving water concentrations for the river environments potentially impacted by vessel di scharges covered under the VGP and sVGP. EPA2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix G

G-5 used Equations G-1 and G-2 to estimate the polluta nt-specific discharge load values for the river harbor environment. Equation G-6 calculate s the receiving water concentration for the hypothetical river harbor environment.

C x,river = W

e /Q river Equation G-6

Where:
Cx,river = Instantaneous analyte concentration at location x in hypothetical river harbor (mass/volume)

We = Analyte-specific loading rate (mass/time) as calculated in Equation 5-2 Q rive r = Average annual river flow rate (volume/time)

G.2 S ELECTION OF M ODEL I NPUT V ALUES

The “fraction of freshwater model” used to model the hypothetical estuary harbor requires the following four input parameters to define the water body characteristics:

 Seaward boundary salinity at the mouth of the harbor ( Ss )

 Salinity at location x in the harbor ( Sx )

 Volume of the harbor ( V )

 Inflow of freshwater to the harbor ( Qfw )

EPA collected data on the four input parame ters for the estuary harbors listed in Table G-1 to develop the water body characteristics for the te n hypothetical estuary harbor scenarios (see Table 5-7). Although EPA used the entire RAA to indentify the listed sp ecies evaluated in the BE, EPA selected a smaller subset of the estuar y for the model to more accurately represent the primary area where vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP reside within the larger RAA. EPA limited the modeling area to the immediate port area and surrounding waters within 2 to 7 miles from the port depending on the RAA. Table G- 1 presents the environmental data identified by EPA for each estuary harbor considered for the model input parameters. EPA selected the input parameters for the hypothe tical harbors’ salinity base d on the minimum and maximum salinity presented in Table G-1 . EPA selected the input paramete rs for the volume and river flow based on the minimum and average values collect ed for the estuary harbors in Table G-1. EPA chose to model the average rather than the ma ximum value for the river flow and volume to represent more typical flushing times the hypothetic al estuary and evaluate a more conservative harbor scenario in the BE. For example, sel ecting the maximum river flow would effectively result in a greater amount of dilution in the ha rbor environment than assuming the average flow. To calculate the average, EPA selected the follo wing harbors that most represented an estuary where the freshwater inflow is the primary driv er for mixing in the estuary as indicated by a higher river flow and lower sa linity value: Houston, New Yor k, San Francisco, and Norfolk. EPA excluded Mobile, AL in the river flow calcula tions in the model because it was significantly higher than the other harbors and skewed th e final average assumptions in the model

. EPA assumed an average ocean salinity of 35 PSU for the salinity at the seaward boundary of the hypothetical estuary harbor.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix G

G-6 Table G-1. Estuary Harbor Characteristics

Harbor

City Estuary Name Primary River Flowing into

Estuary Harbor Salinity (PSU) a Harbor Volume (m 3 ) b River Flow (m 3 /day) c Flushing

Time (days)
Boston,

MA Boston Inner

Harbor Charles River and Mystic River 31.1 d 551,000,000 1,560,000 39.4

Charleston,

SC Charleston

Harbor Cooper River and Ashley River 26.6 615,000,000 2,840,000 52

Coos Bay,

OR Coos Bay Coos River 30.50 1,120,000,000 3,230,000 44.6

Houston,

TX Galveston Bay San Jacinto River

and Buffalo Bayou 13.4 834,000,000 12,000,000 42.9

Juneau, AK Auke Bay Mendenhall River

and Indian River 26.1 d 10,100,000 2,900,000 e 0.886

Miami, FL Biscayne Bay Miami River and

Little River 31 f 390,000,000 1,160,000 38.4

Mobile, AL Mobile Bay Mobile River 16.7 d 619,000,000 166,000,000 1.95

New York,

NY Upper and

Lower New

York Harbor Hudson River 22.6 3,010,000,000 59,000,000 18

Norfolk,

VA Craford Bay Elizabeth River

and James River 19.8 3,140,000,000 26,200,000 52

San Francisco,

CA San Francisco Bay Sacramento River and San Joaquin

River 24.3 6,650,000,000 99,200,000 20.5

Seattle,

WA Puget Sound Duwamish Waterway and Dunguess River 28.2 25,500,000,000 9,790,000 506

a) All salinity data was collected from EMAP unless another source is identified. b) EPA estimated harbor volume based on average dept h near the port and surface areas estimated from NOAA booklet charts (http://www.nauticalcharts .noaa.gov/staff/BookletChart.html). c) All river flow data is from NHD Plus unless another source is identified. d) National Oceans Data Center (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov). e) Average monthly flow from USGS stream gauge (USGS 15052500 MENDENHALL R NR AUKE BAY AK) http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. f) Hunt, 2006.

As discussed in Section 5.2.1.1, the dilution equation for the hypothetical river harbor requires the average annual river flow rate (Q river ) to calculate a receiving water concentration. Table G-2 presents the river flow rates for the nine river harbors identified. EPA selected the

minimum and maximum flow ra tes to represent th e bounding conditions for the hypothetical river harbor (see Table 5-4).

Table G-2. River Harbor Characteristics

City Name River Name River Flow (m 3 /day)
St. Louis, MO Mississippi River 424,000,000
Duluth, MN St. Louis River 8,870,000
Memphis, TN Mississippi River 1,440,000,000
St. Paul, MN Mississippi River 27,200,0002013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix G

G-7 Table G-2. River Harbor Characteristics

City Name River Name River Flow (m 3 /day)
Cincinnati, OH Ohio River 248,000,000
Pittsburgh, PA Ohio River 73,200,000
Decatur, AL Tennessee River 131,000,000
Peoria, IL Illinois River 24,400,000

Lewiston, ID Snake River 147,000,000

Source: NHD Plus Data.

G.3 D EVELOPMENT OF RAA L OADING S CENARIOS

Based on the vessel types, disc harges, and corresponding polluta nts/constituents selected for detailed evaluation in the BE (see Section 3.2.4), EPA identified 32 pollutants to include in the quantitative effects analysis. Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.3 present EPA’s assumptions for flow rates and pollutant concentrations expected be fore implementation of the VGP and sVGP permit conditions. These flow rates and po llutant concentrations are used to calculat e the vessel-specific loading rates ( We,z) in Equation G-1. Based on the VGP and sVGP permit requirements, EPA estimated reductions in pollutant concentrations and flow rates anticipated to occur after implementation of the permit conditions for the speci fic pollutants, discharges and vessel types. Table G-3 presents EPA’s assumptions for polluta nt concentration and flow reductions for VGP vessel types following implementation of the perm it. Table G-4 presents EPA’s assumptions for pollutant concentration and flow reductions fo r sVGP vessel types following implementation of the permit. Table G-5 and Table G-6 presents the daily discharge loading under pre- and postpermit conditions per vessel equivalent for each discharge and pollutant considered under the

VGP and sVGP for detailed evaluation in the quantitative effects analysis.

EPA determined the vessel populations by c ontacting the port authority of each RAA or using available online data from the Departme nt of Transportation and other vessel related sources (e.g., online ferry schedules). In additi on to documenting the number of vessels present in each RAA at a given time, EPA estimated the duration that vessels actually operate in the

RAAs location to determine a ve ssel equivalent for the harbor . EPA chose to express vessel populations as vessel equivalents to capture the variability in numb er of vessels present and the length of time the vessels discharg e within the modeled area. In th e analysis a vessel equivalent represents a single vessel disc harging 24-hours per day in the harbor. For example, 1 vessel equivalent could represent 24 vesse ls that each operate (and discha rge) for 1 hour in the harbor environment each day. Table G-7 presents the vessel population equivalents for each of the seven RAAs and documents the assumptions used to develop the vessel equivalent for each vessel type.

EPA multiplied the pollutant loads presented in Table G-5 and Table G-6 by the vessel equivalents in Table G-7 and summed the results to calculate the total pollutant-specific load for each of the seven RAA loading scenarios. Table G-8 and Table G-9 present the total pollutant loads

from vessels covered under the VGP and sVGP unde r pre- and post-permit conditions, respectively.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix G

G-8 References

Hunt. 2006. Biscayne Bay Water Quality Mo nitoring Network. South Florida Water Management District. Fe bruary. Retrieved from http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/ portal/xrepository/sfwmd_r epository_pdf/se_coast_0. pdf

.

USEPA. 2001. Nutrient Criteria Technical Manual, Coastal and Marine Waters. October, 2001. Chapter 9. U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency. Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-01-003.

USEPA. 2011. Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Ho ld Cleaning WastewaterDischarge. EPA 800-R11-005. November 2011. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgp_fishfold.pdf

.

USEPA. 2011. Graywater Discharges from Vessels. EPA 800-R-11-001. November 2011.
http://www.epa.gov/npdes /pubs/vgp_graywater.pdf

.

USEPA. 2008. Cruise Ship Discharge Asse ssment Report. EPA 842-R-07-005. December 2008.
http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/upl oad/0812cruiseshipdischargeassess.pdf

.

USEPA. 2011. Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants. EPA 800-R-11-002. November 2011.
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgp_envi ronmentally_acceptable_lubricants.pdf

.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-9Table G-3. Flow and Pollutant Reductions Based on 2013 VGP RequirementsVesselDischargeSelect Proposed 2013 VGP RequirementsAffecting Pollutant Discharge LoadsaEstimated Potential Flow Reductions fromVGP RequirementsEstimated Pollutant ConcentrationReductions in Discharge from VGPRequirementsAnti-FoulingLeachate fromAnti-FoulingHull CoatingsAt the time of initial application or scheduledreapplication of anti-fouling coatings,consideration must be given, as appropriate forvessel type and vessel operations, to the use ofhull coatings with the lowest effective biociderelease rates, rapidly biodegradable components(once separated from the hull surface), or nonbiocidal alternatives, such as silicon coatings.When vessels spend more than 30 days per year inwaters impaired by copper, or use these waters astheir home port, vessel owner/operators shallconsider using anti-fouling coatings that rely on arapidly biodegradable biocide or anotheralternative rather than copper-based coatings.None. VGP requirements are not expected toimpact discharge flow.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that copper discharges will bereduced by 25% based on the assumption thatsome vessels will be able to use an alternativeto copper-based coating, and that coatingmanufacturers will continue to improve bothcopper and non-copper based coatings.bBilgewater All vessels must minimize the discharge ofbilgewater into waters subject to this permit. Thiscan be done by minimizing the production ofbilgewater, disposing of bilgewater on shorewhere adequate facilities exist, or discharging intowaters not subject to this permit (i.e., more than 3nautical miles [nm] from shore) for vessels thatregularly travel into such waters.Assume, based on best professional judgment,that vessels that regularly sail outside theterritorial sea will reduce discharge flow towaters subject to this permit by 50% as a resultof prohibition of discharge within 1 nm ofshore.Assume, based on best professional judgment,that vessels that regularly sail outside theterritorial sea include all VGP vessel typesrequiring further analyses, except for bargesNone. VGP requirements are not expected tosignificantly impact pollutant dischargeconcentrations.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-10Table G-3. Flow and Pollutant Reductions Based on 2013 VGP RequirementsVesselDischargeSelect Proposed 2013 VGP RequirementsAffecting Pollutant Discharge LoadsaEstimated Potential Flow Reductions fromVGP RequirementsEstimated Pollutant ConcentrationReductions in Discharge from VGPRequirementsVessels greater than 400 gross tons shall notdischarge untreated oily bilgewater into waterssubject to this permit.Vessels greater than 400 gross tons that regularlysail outside the territorial sea (at least once permonth) shall not discharge treated bilgewaterwithin 1 nm of shore if technologically feasible.and ferries.Assume, based on best professional judgment,that VGP requirements are not expected toimpact discharge flow for barges and ferriesDeckWashdownVessel owners/operators must minimize theintroduction of on-deck debris, garbage, residue,and spill into deck washdown and runoffdischarges. Before deck washdowns occur,exposed decks must be broom cleaned or usecomparable management measures and remove allexisting debris.Where feasible, machinery on deck must havecoamings or drip pans where necessary to collectany oily discharge thatmay leak from machineryand prevent spills. The drip pans must be drainedto a waste container for proper disposal and/orperiodically wiped and cleaned.Assume, based on best professional judgment,that vessels that regularly sail outside theterritorial sea will reduce the number of deckwashdowns when operating in waters subject tothis permit by 50%. Assume, based on bestprofessional judgment, that vessels thatregularly sail outside the territorial sea includeall VGP vessel types requiring further analyses,except for barges and ferries.Assume, based on best professional judgment,that VGP requirements are not expected toimpact discharge flow for barges and ferries.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that the requirement to broomclean decks will reduce TSS dischargeconcentrations by 50%.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that the requirement for coamingsor drip pans (and treatment of certain deckwater on large ferries) will reduce oil andgrease (HEM/SGT-HEM) dischargeconcentrations by 50%.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that the requirements for coamings2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-11Table G-3. Flow and Pollutant Reductions Based on 2013 VGP RequirementsVesselDischargeSelect Proposed 2013 VGP RequirementsAffecting Pollutant Discharge LoadsaEstimated Potential Flow Reductions fromVGP RequirementsEstimated Pollutant ConcentrationReductions in Discharge from VGPRequirementsVessel owners/operators must minimize deckwashdowns while in port.If deck washdowns or above water line hullcleaning will result in a discharge, they must beconducted with “non-toxic” and “phosphate free”cleaners and detergents.Large Ferries: Large ferries may not dischargeuntreated below deck water from parking areas orother storage areas for motor vehicles or othermotorized equipment into waters subject to thispermit without first treating the effluent with anoily water separator or other appropriatewastewater treatment system. Large ferryoperators must use oil absorbent cloths or otherappropriate spill response resources to clean oilyspills or substancesfrom deck surfaces.or drip pans and for environmentally-nontoxic cleaners and detergents will reducetoxic organics discharge concentrations by50%.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that the requirement forenvironmentally-preferred cleaners anddetergents will reduce phosphorus dischargeconcentrations to <0.05 mg/L.Exhaust GasScrubberWashdownEffluentExhaust gas scrubber washwater discharge mustnot contain oil, including oily mixtures, inquantities that may be harmful as determined inaccordance with 40 CFR Part 110. Sludge orresidues generated in treating exhaust gas scrubberNone. VGP requirements are not expected toimpact discharge flow.cNone. Available exhaust gas scrubberwashdown effluent data indicate thatdischarges currently meet the required2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-12Table G-3. Flow and Pollutant Reductions Based on 2013 VGP RequirementsVesselDischargeSelect Proposed 2013 VGP RequirementsAffecting Pollutant Discharge LoadsaEstimated Potential Flow Reductions fromVGP RequirementsEstimated Pollutant ConcentrationReductions in Discharge from VGPRequirementswashwater discharge must not be discharged inwaters subject to the permit and must be deliveredashore to adequate reception facilities.In addition, owner/operators of vessels withexhaust gas cleaning systems that result inwashwater discharges must meet the numericeffluent limits found in Part 2.2.26.1.effluent limitations.dFish Hold andFish HoldCleaningFishing vessels must minimize the discharge offish hold water and/or ice while in port. Allreasonable steps must be taken to prevent thedischarge of excess fish hold water and ice whilethe vessel is stationary at the pier. If fish waste iscontained in the fish hold effluent, the fish holdeffluent may not be discharged while in port,unless a physical separation method is used (e.g.,filters or removal of residuals).The discharge of fish hold effluent (including dirtyice) is prohibited when unloading catch at a landbased seafood processing facility or pier. If ashore-based discharge facility is otherwiseavailable to receive effluent, then discharge of fishhold effluent (including dirty ice) is prohibited ifthe facility meets the following:-Its use is economically achievable, and-The facility has a valid NPDES permit, or-That facility discharges to an NPDESpermitted sewage treatment facility.Assume, based on best professional judgment,that fishing vessels will reduce discharge flowto waters subject to this permit by 25% as aresult of the discharge prohibition (expected tobe applicable for many fishing vessels) and/orminimization requirements (expected to beapplicable to all fishing vessels).eAssume, based on best professionaljudgment, that any discharge of fish hold/fishhold cleaning wastewaterwill include the useof a physical separation method, and that themethod will reduce TSS and BOD5dischargeconcentrations by 25%.eGraywater All vessels must minimize the discharge ofgraywater while in port. Examples of ways tominimize production of graywater includeLarge cruise ships.Large cruise ships arebelieved to have sufficient graywater storageLarge and medium cruise ships. As aconservative estimate for the purpose of this2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-13Table G-3. Flow and Pollutant Reductions Based on 2013 VGP RequirementsVesselDischargeSelect Proposed 2013 VGP RequirementsAffecting Pollutant Discharge LoadsaEstimated Potential Flow Reductions fromVGP RequirementsEstimated Pollutant ConcentrationReductions in Discharge from VGPRequirementsdelaying laundry, scullery activities, andrestricting length of showers while in port, andusing high efficiency faucets and showerheads.For vessels greater than 400 gross tons thatregularly travel more than 1 nm from shore thathave the capacity to store graywater for asufficient period, graywater must be dischargedgreater than 1 nm from shore while the vessel isunderway, unless the vessel meets the treatmentstandards and other requirements contained underParts 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 or 5.2.1 and 5.2.2.Vessels that do not travel more than 1 nm fromshore shall minimize the discharge of graywater,and provided the vessel has available graywaterstorage capacity, must dispose of graywateronshore if appropriate facilities are available andsuch disposal is economically practicable andachievable unless the vessel meets the treatmentstandards and other requirements contained underParts 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 or 5.2.1 and 5.2.2.Vessel owners/operators must use phosphate-freecapacity to hold all graywater generated whilepierside or operating within the waters subjectto this permit,fwhich would allow for zerodischarge of graywater. In addition, some largecruise ships are capable of treating graywater tothe permit treatment standards. As aconservative estimate for the purpose of thisBE, EPA assumes that the VGP requirementswill not impact discharge flow (rather thanassuming zero discharge).Medium cruise ships.Medium cruise ships arebelieved to have sufficient graywater storagecapacity to hold all graywater generated whilepierside or operating within the waters subjectto this permit.fEPA is aware of at least onemedium cruise ship capable of treatinggraywater to the permit treatment standards. Asa conservative estimate for the purpose of thisBE, EPA assumes that the VGP requirementswill not impact discharge flow (rather thanassuming zero discharge).Large ferries. VGP requirements are notexpected to impact discharge flow, based on theBE, EPA assumes that graywater dischargeconcentrations equivalent to achieve theaverage effluent concentrations discharged bycruise ships that operate advanced wastewatertreatment systemsg(rather than assuming zerodischarge). Assume, based on bestprofessional judgment, that the requirementfor environmentally-preferred cleaners anddetergents will reduce phosphorus dischargeconcentrations to <0.05 mg/L.All other VGP vessels selected for furtheranalysis: VGP requirements are not expectedto significantly impact pollutant dischargeconcentrations. Assume, based on bestprofessional judgment, that the requirementfor environmentally-preferred cleaners anddetergents will reduce phosphorus dischargeconcentrations to <0.05 mg/L and reduceHEM and SGT-HEM concentration by 50%.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-14Table G-3. Flow and Pollutant Reductions Based on 2013 VGP RequirementsVesselDischargeSelect Proposed 2013 VGP RequirementsAffecting Pollutant Discharge LoadsaEstimated Potential Flow Reductions fromVGP RequirementsEstimated Pollutant ConcentrationReductions in Discharge from VGPRequirementsand non-toxic soaps and detergents.Large cruise ships. While pierside, appropriateonshore reception facilities for graywater must beused, unless the vessel treats graywater with adevice to meet the standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2. Ifsuch facilities are not reasonably available andcapacity is insufficient to treat graywater to meetthe standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2, graywater must beheld until the vessel is underway and not in waterssubject to this permit.While operating within 3 nm from shore,discharges of graywater are prohibited unless theymeet the effluent standards in Part 5.1.1.1.2.Medium cruise ships, except those unable tovoyage 1 nm from shore and constructed beforeDecember 19, 2008. While pierside, appropriateonshore reception facilities for graywater must beused, unless the vessel treats graywater with adevice to meet the standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2. Ifsuch facilities are not reasonably available andcapacity is insufficient to treat graywater to meetthe standards in Part 5.2.1.1.2, graywater must beheld until the vessel is underway and not in waterssubject to this permit. While operating within 3nm from shore, discharges of graywater areprohibited unless they meet the effluent standardsin Part 5.2.1.1.2.assumption that these vessels have little or nograywater storage capacity and seldom operatein waters not subject to this permit.Cargo [Bulk] and other carriers, largecommercial fishing, and oil and gas tankers.Graywater storage capacities on these vesselsare believed to be limited; however, certaindischarges can be minimized while pierside oroperating in waters subject to this permit.6Assume, based on best professional judgment,that these vessels will reduce discharge flow towaters subject to this permit by 25% as a resultof minimizing discharges.Barges. VGP requirements are not expected toimpact discharge flow, based on the assumptionthat most of these vessels are unmanned havelittle or no graywater generation.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-15Table G-3. Flow and Pollutant Reductions Based on 2013 VGP RequirementsVesselDischargeSelect Proposed 2013 VGP RequirementsAffecting Pollutant Discharge LoadsaEstimated Potential Flow Reductions fromVGP RequirementsEstimated Pollutant ConcentrationReductions in Discharge from VGPRequirementsLarge Ferries. While pierside, appropriate onshorereception facilities for graywater must be used, ifavailable and their use is economically achievable,unless the vessel treats graywater to the limitsfound in Part 5.1.1.1.2 of the permit. If suchfacilities are not available, graywater must be heldif the vessel has the holding capacity and effluentdischarged while the vessel is underway. Whenoperating within 3 nm from shore, discharges ofgraywater may only be released while the ferry issailing at a speed of at least 6 knots if feasible.Stern TubePacking Glandand OtherOil/WaterInterfacesMinimize maintenance activities on stern tubeseals when a vessel is outside of dry dock. Ifmaintenance or emergency repair must occur onstern tubes or other oil-to-sea interfaces whichhave a potential to release oil in quantities thatmay be harmful as defined in 40 CFR Part 110,appropriate spill response equipment(e.g., oilbooms) must be used to contain any oil leakage.Operators of the vessel must have ready access tospill response resources to clean up any oil spills.All vessels constructed on or after December 19,2013 must use an environmentally acceptablelubricant in all oil-to-sea interfaces.Environmentally acceptable lubricants” meanslubricants that are “biodegradable” and “nontoxic” and are not “bioaccumulative” as defined inAppendix A of the permit.None. VGP requirements are not expected toimpact discharge flow.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that permit requirements willreduce all toxic organicshby 50%, in sterntube packing gland discharges.ia)For the purpose of this BE, EPA reviewed the VGP requirementsto classify them within the following categories: (1) requirements for which EPAquantified discharge flow and/or pollutant concentration reductions, (2) requirements for which EPA was unable to quantify discharge flow and/orpollutant concentration reductions due to lack of necessary information, and (3) requirements for which EPA estimates negligible discharge flow and/or2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-16pollutant concentration reductions becausethe requirement represents existing practice.This table lists VGP requirements classified as Category 1 andprovides EPA’s assessment of discharge flow and/or pollutant concentration reductions.b)Companies represented by the National Paint and Coatings Association Marine Antifouling Working Group have developed biocide free coatings, someof which are currently in the market. Notwithstanding this, these coatings do not work in every situation and are particularlyill-suited for vessels thatare at rest for any length of time. These companies will continue to work on improving biocide-free antifouling coatings. Source: National Paint andCoatings Association Marine Antifouling Working Group. 2008. Comments on EPA’s 2008 Proposed Issuance of a NPDES Vessel GeneralPermit forDischarges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Commercial and Large Recreational Vessels. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396.3.c)Note that exhaust gas scrubber washdown effluent treatment conducted onboard vessels typically includes neutralizing the pH ofthe washwater byblending with reaction water, typically seawater used for engine cooling (Source: EGCSA. 2010. Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association web site(http://www.egcsa.com/the-science.php), accessed September 3, 2010EGCSA, 2010). Reaction water and washwater can be mixed in nearly equalproportions (Source: HA & H-K. 2010. Holland America Line Sea Water Scrubber Technology Demonstration Project. Final Report byHollandAmerica and Hamworthy-Krystallon to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 31, 2010. (http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets//about-bestcruise-lines/Final_report.pdf)). EPA’s estimated exhaust gas scrubberwashwater discharge rates incorporate increased flow resulting from treatmentusing reaction water, based on the assumption that effluent treatment is standard practice onboard vessels. Therefore, the VGPrequirements are notexpected to further impact discharge flow.d)Based on available exhaust gas scrubber washdown effluent sampling data provided in USEPA. 2011. Exhaust Gas Scrubber Effluent.EPA 800-R-11-006. November 2011.http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgp_exhaust_gas_scrubber.pdf.e)Source: USEPA. 2011.Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge. EPA 800-R-11-005. November 2011.http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgp_fishfold.pdf.f)Source: USEPA. 2011. Graywater Discharges from Vessels. EPA 800-R-11-001. November 2011.http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgp_graywater.pdf.g)Source: USEPA. 2008. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report.EPA 842-R-07-005. December 2008.http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/upload/0812cruiseshipdischargeassess.pdf.h)Includes all volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds.i)Source: USEPA. 2011. Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants. EPA800-R-11-002. November 2011.http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgp_environmentally_acceptable_lubricants.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-17Table G-4. Flow and Pollutant ReductionsBased on 2013 sVGP Permit RequirementsVessel DischargeSelect Proposed 2013 sVGP Requirements Affecting PollutantDischarge LoadsaPotential FlowReductions fromsVGP RequirementsPollutant Concentration Reductionsin Discharge from sVGPRequirementsAnti-FoulingLeachate fromAnti-Fouling HullCoatingsConsider whether the use of non-copper based anti-foulant paintsadequately meet anti-foulant needs and use less toxic alternatives to theextent practicable and available.When drying or hull cleaning at haul-out is adequate for managingfouling (e.g., for vessels that are hauled frequently or for over-winterstorage), do not use anti-foulant coatings if not needed.Do not clean anti-foulant paint which releases biocides for the first 90days after application.If the anti-foulant paint requires cleaning, gently clean hulls on a regularbasis (this minimizes the need for stronger cleaners and more abrasivebrushes).When cleaning hulls coated with anti-foulant paint while the vessel is inthe water, use only soft brushes. Examine the water while cleaning toassure that a plume of paint is not formed. Stop immediately if anyvisible plume of paint appears in the water. Consider hiring a qualified,professional hull cleaner to do thework, and ensure that they followenvironmental guidelines.When cleaning hulls coated with anti-fouling paint while the vessel is outof the water, always work away from the water in a location where paintchips and dust will not be washed into the water. Place a tarp under thearea to catch loose particles, and properly dispose of paint chips, dust,and other particles.None. sVGPrequirements are notexpected to impactdischarge flow.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that copper discharges willbe reduced by 25% based on theassumption that some vessels will beable to use an alternative to copperbased coating, and that coatingmanufacturers will continue toimprove both copper and non-copperbased coatings.bBilgewater Regularly inspect the fueland hydraulic systems for any damage orleaks.Unless technically infeasible, useenvironmentally acceptable lubricants(as defined in Part 6 of the permit) in all machinery and equipment,including but not limited to stern tubes, wires, and two-stroke engines,where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely to occur.None. sVGPrequirements are notexpected to impactdischarge flow.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that the sVGP requirementswill reduce oil and grease(HEM/SGT-HEM) and toxicorganicscdischarge concentrations by50%.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-18Table G-4. Flow and Pollutant ReductionsBased on 2013 sVGP Permit RequirementsVessel DischargeSelect Proposed 2013 sVGP Requirements Affecting PollutantDischarge LoadsaPotential FlowReductions fromsVGP RequirementsPollutant Concentration Reductionsin Discharge from sVGPRequirementsPlace oil absorbent material or other spill response equipment under thevessel engine or use other preventative practices to minimize oil enteringbilgewater.Any spill or overflow of oil or other engine fluids must be cleaned upimmediately. A supply of absorbent pads, pillows, or other materialsshould be kept onboard as appropriate for use in addressing orremediating any such spills or overflows.If the vessel has a bilge oily water separator, periodically check for thepresence of a visible sheen in surrounding water while discharging. If avisible sheen is observed as a result of this discharge, suspend dischargeuntil the problem is corrected and clean up immediately.If the vessel does not use a US Coast Guard type-approved bilge oilywater separator, use an oil-absorbent material to remove any oil from thebilge before discharging.Unless infeasible, prior to pumping the bilge, inspect the bilgewater foran oily sheen. While pumping the bilge, examine the surrounding waterfor the presence of a visible sheen.If a visible sheen is observed as aresult of this bilge pumping, suspend the discharge until the problem iscorrected and clean up immediately.Deck Washdown Prevent trash orgarbage, including food waste, cigarette butts, bottles,and caps from entering any waste streamcovered by this permit. This canbe accomplished in part, by maintaining a tidy deck.Use all soaps and cleaners as directed by the label.Any soaps, detergents, or cleaners used on the vessel must be non-toxic,phosphate-free, and biodegradable.The use of soaps that are labeledtoxic or highly toxic is prohibited under this permit.Prevent the introduction of on-deckdebris, garbage, residue, and spillsinto deck washdown and runoff discharges.None. sVGPrequirements are notexpected to impactdischarge flow.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that deck goodhousekeeping requirements willreduce TSS, oil and grease(HEM/SGT-HEM), and toxic organicsconcentrations by 50%.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that the requirement forenvironmentally-preferred cleanersand detergents will reduce phosphorusdischarge concentrations to <0.052013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-19Table G-4. Flow and Pollutant ReductionsBased on 2013 sVGP Permit RequirementsVessel DischargeSelect Proposed 2013 sVGP Requirements Affecting PollutantDischarge LoadsaPotential FlowReductions fromsVGP RequirementsPollutant Concentration Reductionsin Discharge from sVGPRequirementsMinimize the discharge of paint chips and residue, especially duringcleaning, maintenance, paint application, and reapplication. Whenperforming these activities, collect andthen dispose of chips and residuesonshore in accordance with applicablerequirements for the facility whereoperations are performed.Use all soaps and cleaners as directed by the label. Any soaps,detergents, or cleaners used on the vessel must be non-toxic, phosphatefree, and biodegradable. The use of soaps that are labeled toxic or highlytoxic is prohibited. Prevent the introduction of on-deck debris, garbage,residue, and spills onto deck washdown and runoff discharges.Minimize the discharge of paint chips and residue, especially duringcleaning, maintenance, paint application and paint reapplication. Whenperforming these activities, collect andthen dispose of chips and residueon shore in accordance with applicable requirements for the facilitywhere operations are performed.mg/L.Engine WetExhaust EffluentNone of the sVGP requirements specifically regard engine wet exhausteffluent.None. sVGPrequirements are notexpected to impactdischarge flow.None. sVGP requirements are notexpected to impact discharge pollutantconcentrations.Fish Hold andFish HoldCleaningIn unloading catch at a shore-based seafood processor or other pier and ashore-based discharge facility is available and economically achievable,effluent (including dirty ice) must be discharged to that shore-basedfacility instead of discharging to surrounding waters.Do not discharge any unused bait overboard, unless that bait was caughtin the same water body or watershed. Unused bait purchased from a baitshop or dealer may not be discharged overboard.Minimize the discharge of fish hold water or ice while in port. Allreasonable steps must be taken toprevent the discharge of excess fishhold water and ice while the vessel is stationary at the pier. If fish wasteis contained in the fish hold effluent, the fish hold effluent may not bedischarged while in port, unless a physical separation method is used(e.g., filters or removal of residuals).Assume, based onbest professionaljudgment, that fishingvessels will reducedischarge flow towaters subject to thispermit by 25% as aresult of theminimizationrequirements(expected to beapplicable to allfishing vessels).dAssume, based on best professionaljudgment, that any discharge of fishhold/fish hold cleaning wastewaterwill include the use of a physicalseparation method, and that themethod will reduce TSS and BOD5discharge concentrations by 25%.dAssume, based on best professionaljudgment, that the requirement forenvironmentally-preferred cleanersand detergents will reduce phosphorusdischarge concentrations to <0.052013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-20Table G-4. Flow and Pollutant ReductionsBased on 2013 sVGP Permit RequirementsVessel DischargeSelect Proposed 2013 sVGP Requirements Affecting PollutantDischarge LoadsaPotential FlowReductions fromsVGP RequirementsPollutant Concentration Reductionsin Discharge from sVGPRequirementsWhen cleaning the fish hold, usenon-toxic, phosphate-free, andbiodegradable soaps and cleaners. Furthermore, while pierside andstationary, do not wash any residual solids into surrounding waters.mg/L.Graywater Minimize graywater discharges inareas that have heavy vessel traffic orheavy recreational use and in marine sanctuaries, national wildliferefuges, national wild and scenic rivers, and national wilderness areas. Ifthe vessel has the capacity to store graywater in these waters, it should bestored and later discharged in other waters or onshore.Minimize the production of graywater while the vessel is stationary inconfined waters (e.g., marinas, harbors). If the vessel has the capacity tostore graywater, it should be stored and discharged in an appropriatelyequipped onshore facility or discharged while the vessel is underway.Use soaps, detergents, and cleaners that are phosphate free, non-toxic,and biodegradable for any activities that my result in their introductioninto graywater. Excess oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils,used during cooking must not be added to the graywater system or intoany other discharge covered by this permit.sVGP requirementsare not expected toimpact dischargeflow, based on theassumption that thesevessels have little orno graywater storagecapacity and seldomoperate in waters notsubject to this permit,and due to the lack ofappropriatelyequipped onshorefacilities.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that any discharge ofgraywater oil management methodswill reduce HEM and SGT-HEMconcentrations by 50%.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that the requirement forenvironmentally-preferred cleanersand detergents will reduce phosphorusdischarge concentrations to <0.05mg/L.Stern TubePacking GlandAny discharge of packing gland or stuffing box effluent must not containoil, including oily materials, in quantities that may be harmful. Thesedischarges must not produce a visible sheen of oil or oily materials.If accessible, segregated water whichcontains drips from packing glandeffluent or stuffing box effluent must be checked daily for the presenceof a visible sheen, while the vessel is operational and manned. If notaccessible while the vessel is operational and manned, then thesurrounding water must be checkedfor the presence of visible sheen(while operating). If a visible sheen is observed, appropriate measuressuch as the use of oil absorbent materials must be used to remove thepresence of oil before the effluent may be discharged.If a visible sheen is observed in surrounding waters as a result of thisdischarge, suspend the discharge until the problem is corrected and cleanNone. sVGPrequirements are notexpected to impactdischarge flow.Assume, based on best professionaljudgment, that sVGP requirementswill reduce TSS, oil and grease(HEM/SGT-HEM), and toxic organicsconcentrations by 50%.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-21Table G-4. Flow and Pollutant ReductionsBased on 2013 sVGP Permit RequirementsVessel DischargeSelect Proposed 2013 sVGP Requirements Affecting PollutantDischarge LoadsaPotential FlowReductions fromsVGP RequirementsPollutant Concentration Reductionsin Discharge from sVGPRequirementsup immediately.Unless technically infeasible, useenvironmentally acceptable lubricants(as defined in Part 6 of the permit) in all machinery and equipment,including but not limited to stern tubes, wires, and two-stroke engines,where discharges of oil to surrounding waters are likely to occur.a)1For the purpose of this BE, EPA reviewed the sVGP requirements toclassify them within the following categories: (1) requirements for which EPAquantified discharge flow and/or pollutant concentration reductions, (2) requirements for which EPA was unable to quantify discharge flow and/or pollutantconcentration reductions due to lack of necessary information, and (3)requirements for which EPA estimates negligible discharge flow and/or pollutantconcentration reductions because the requirement represents existing practice. This table lists sVGP requirements classified asCategory 1 and providesEPA’s assessment of discharge flow and/or pollutant concentration reductions.b)Companies represented by the National Paint and Coatings Association Marine Antifouling Working Group have developed biocide free coatings, some ofwhich are currently in the market. Notwithstanding this, these coatings do not work in every situation and are particularly ill-suited for vessels that are at restfor any length of time. These companies will continue to workon improving biocide-free antifouling coatings. Source: NationalPaint and CoatingsAssociation Marine Antifouling Working Group. 2008. Comments on EPA’s 2008 Proposed Issuance of a NPDES Vessel General Permit for DischargesIncidental to the NormalOperation of Commercial and Large Recreational Vessels. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0055-0396.3.c)Includes all volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds.d)Source: USEPA. 2011. Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Wastewater Discharge. EPA 800-R-11-005. November 2011.http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vgp_fishfold.pdf.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-22Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Biochemical OxygenDemand (BOD) Bilgewater Barge0.07450.0745Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier1.690.843Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.5950.297Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship5.662.83Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Bilgewater Large Ferry0.1540.154Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.4840.242Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers2.631.32Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Deck Washdown Barge0.2130.213Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier4.832.41Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.09450.0473Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship37.118.5Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.9940.994Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship3.181.59Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers7.543.77Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Fish Hold Commercial Fishing112.072013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-23Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.6760.127Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Graywater Barge00Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier4.043.03Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Graywater Commercial Fishing4.683.51Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Graywater Large Cruise Ship558558Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Graywater Large Ferry90.390.3Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Graywater Medium Cruise Ship50.950.9Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers3.552.66Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Bilgewater Barge0.003650.00365Classicals Hexane Extractable Material(HEM) Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.08250.0412Classicals Hexane Extractable Material(HEM) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.02910.0146Classicals Hexane Extractable Material(HEM) Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.2770.139Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Bilgewater Large Ferry0.007530.00753Classicals Hexane Extractable Material(HEM) Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.02370.0118Classicals Hexane Extractable Material(HEM) Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.1290.06452013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-24Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Deck Washdown Barge0.02710.0136Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.6140.154Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.0120.00301Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship4.721.18Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.1270.0633Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.4040.101Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.960.24Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.0420.0105Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.007760.00194Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Graywater Barge00Classicals Hexane Extractable Material(HEM) Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.3660.137Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Graywater Commercial Fishing0.4250.159Classicals Hexane Extractable Material(HEM) Graywater Large Cruise Ship19396.7Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Graywater Large Ferry8.194.09Classicals Hexane Extractable Material(HEM) Graywater Medium Cruise Ship4.6102013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-25Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.3220.121Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)Stern Tube Packing Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.140.14Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0002340.000234Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Cruise Ship0.4690.469Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.01260.0126Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.04010.0401Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.2180.218Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Bilgewater Barge0.001730.00173Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0390.0195Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.01380.00688Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.1310.0655Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Bilgewater Large Ferry0.003560.00356Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.01120.0056Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.0610.0305Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Deck Washdown Barge0.01360.006782013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-26Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.3070.0768Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.006020.0015Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship2.360.59Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.06330.0316Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.2020.0505Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.480.12Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.04460.0111Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.007040.00176Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Graywater Barge00Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0760.0285Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Graywater Commercial Fishing0.08820.0331Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Graywater Large Cruise Ship47.523.7Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Graywater Large Ferry1.70.85Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Graywater Medium Cruise Ship0.9580Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.06690.02512013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-27Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.130.13Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0002170.000217Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Cruise Ship0.4350.435Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.01170.0117Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.03720.0372Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.2030.203Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Bilgewater Barge0.00003020.0000302Classicals Total Residual ChlorineBilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0006830.000342Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.0002410.00012Classicals Total Residual ChlorineBilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.002290.00115Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Bilgewater Large Ferry0.00006230.0000623Classicals Total Residual ChlorineBilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.0001960.000098Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.001070.000534Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Barge0.0002320.000232Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.005270.002632013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-28Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.0001030.0000516Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.04050.0202Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.001080.00108Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.003470.00173Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.008230.00411Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Fish Hold Commercial Fishing1.830.457Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.0004170.000104Classicals Total ResidualChlorine Graywater Barge00Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.001130.000845Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Graywater Commercial Fishing0.001310.00098Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Graywater Large Cruise Ship0.1560.156Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Graywater Large Ferry0.02520.0252Classicals Total Residual ChlorineGraywater Medium Cruise Ship0.01420.0142Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.0009910.000743Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Bilgewater Barge0.01530.01532013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-29Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.3460.173Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.1220.061Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship1.160.581Classicals Total Suspended Solids(TSS) Bilgewater Large Ferry0.03160.0316Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.09930.0496Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.5410.27Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Barge0.3290.165Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier7.461.87Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.1460.0365Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship57.314.3Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Large Ferry1.540.768Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship4.911.23Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers11.72.91Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Fish Hold Commercial Fishing2.750.516Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.2730.05122013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-30Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Graywater Barge00Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.4880.366Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Graywater Commercial Fishing0.5660.425Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Graywater Large Cruise Ship67.567.5Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Graywater Large Ferry10.910.9Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Graywater Medium Cruise Ship6.156.15Classicals Total Suspended Solids(TSS) Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.430.322Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Stern Tube Packing Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.5880.588Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0009850.000985Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Cruise Ship1.981.98Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.05320.0532Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.1690.169Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.920.92Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Barge0.0001450.000145Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.003280.001642013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-31Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.001160.000579Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.0110.00551Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Large Ferry0.0002990.000299Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.0009420.000471Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.005130.00256Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Barge0.006580.00658Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.1490.0746Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.002920.00146Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship1.150.573Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.03070.0307Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.09820.0491Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.2330.117Metals Aluminum, Total Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.01080.00271Metals Aluminum, Total Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.001580.000395Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Barge002013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-32Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.003570.00268Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Commercial Fishing0.004140.0031Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Large Cruise Ship0.4930.493Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Large Ferry0.07980.0798Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Medium Cruise Ship0.04490.0449Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.003140.00235Metals Arsenic, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Cargo/Bulk Carrier1.541.54Metals Arsenic, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Cruise Ship0.8680.868Metals Arsenic, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Ferry00Metals Arsenic, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Medium Cruise Ship00Metals Arsenic, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Oil/Gas Tankers1.541.54Metals Arsenic, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.0004070.000102Metals Arsenic, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.00003160.000007912013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-33Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Arsenic, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Cargo/Bulk Carrier1.541.54Metals Arsenic, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Cruise Ship0.8680.868Metals Arsenic, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Ferry00Metals Arsenic, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Medium Cruise Ship00Metals Arsenic, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Oil/Gas Tankers1.541.54Metals Arsenic, Total Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.0005250.000131Metals Arsenic, Total Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.00005030.0000126Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Barge00Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.00001880.0000141Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Commercial Fishing0.00002180.0000163Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Large Cruise Ship0.002590.00259Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Large Ferry0.000420.00042Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Medium Cruise Ship0.0002370.0002372013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-34Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.00001650.0000124Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Barge0.0000007450.000000745Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.00001690.00000843Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.000005950.00000297Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.00005660.0000283Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Ferry0.000001540.00000154Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.000004840.00000242Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.00002630.0000132Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Barge0.000002520.00000252Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0000570.0000285Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.000001120.000000559Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.0004380.000219Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.00001170.0000117Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.00003750.0000188Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.00008910.00004462013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-35Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.00001010.00000252Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Barge0.000004710.00000471Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0001060.0000532Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.00003760.0000188Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.0003570.000179Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Ferry0.000009710.00000971Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.00003050.0000153Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.0001660.0000832Metals Chromium, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0001890.000189Metals Chromium, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0000003170.000000317Metals Chromium, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Cruise Ship0.0006360.000636Metals Chromium, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.00001710.0000171Metals Chromium, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.00005440.0000544Metals Chromium, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.0002960.000296Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Barge0.00003920.00003922013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-36Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0008870.000444Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.0003130.000156Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.002980.00149Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Ferry0.00008090.0000809Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.0002550.000127Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.001390.000693Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Barge0.00008130.0000813Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.001840.000922Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.00003610.000018Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.01420.00708Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.000380.00038Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.001210.000606Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.002880.00144Metals Copper, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.2860.286Metals Copper, DissolvedExhaust Gas ScrubberLarge Cruise Ship0.1610.1612013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-37Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)(Saltwater)Metals Copper, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Ferry00Metals Copper, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Medium Cruise Ship00Metals Copper, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Oil/Gas Tankers0.2860.286Metals Copper, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.001260.000315Metals Copper, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.00004890.0000122Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Barge00Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0005160.000387Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Commercial Fishing0.0005990.000449Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Large Cruise Ship0.07140.0714Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Large Ferry0.01150.0115Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Medium Cruise Ship0.006510.00651Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.0004540.000341Metals Copper, Dissolved Stern TubePacking Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0002190.0002192013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-38Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Copper, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0000003670.000000367Metals Copper, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Cruise Ship0.0007370.000737Metals Copper, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.00001980.0000198Metals Copper, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.0000630.000063Metals Copper, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.0003430.000343Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Barge0.00001160.0000116Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0002630.000132Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.000005160.00000258Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.002020.00101Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.00005420.0000542Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.0001730.0000866Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.0004110.000206Metals Lead, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.000003880.00000097Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Barge00Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.00002350.00001762013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-39Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Commercial Fishing0.00002720.0000204Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Large Cruise Ship0.003240.00324Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Large Ferry0.0005250.000525Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Medium Cruise Ship0.0002960.000296Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.00002070.0000155Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Barge0.000003610.00000361Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.00008160.0000408Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.00002880.0000144Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.0002740.000137Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Ferry0.000007450.00000745Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.00002340.0000117Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.0001280.0000638Metals Nickel, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.2290.229Metals Nickel, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Cruise Ship0.1290.1292013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-40Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Nickel, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Ferry00Metals Nickel, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Medium Cruise Ship00Metals Nickel, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Oil/Gas Tankers0.2290.229Metals Nickel, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.002090.00209Metals Nickel, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.00000350.0000035Metals Nickel, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Cruise Ship0.007030.00703Metals Nickel, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.0001890.000189Metals Nickel, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.0006010.000601Metals Nickel, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.003270.00327Metals Nickel, Total Stern Tube Packing Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.006080.00608Metals Nickel, Total Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.00001020.0000102Metals Nickel, Total Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Cruise Ship0.02040.0204Metals Nickel, Total Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.000550.00055Metals Nickel, Total Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.001750.001752013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-41Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Nickel, Total Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.009510.00951Metals Selenium, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Cargo/Bulk Carrier1.791.79Metals Selenium, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Cruise Ship1.011.01Metals Selenium, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Ferry00Metals Selenium, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Medium Cruise Ship00Metals Selenium, DissolvedExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Oil/Gas Tankers1.791.79Metals Selenium, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.0001210.0000302Metals Selenium, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.000008620.00000216Metals Selenium, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Cargo/Bulk Carrier1.91.9Metals Selenium, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Cruise Ship1.071.07Metals Selenium, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Ferry002013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-42Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Selenium, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Medium Cruise Ship00Metals Selenium, TotalExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Oil/Gas Tankers1.91.9Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Barge0.0000510.000051Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.001150.000577Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.0004070.000203Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.003870.00194Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Large Ferry0.0001050.000105Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.0003310.000165Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.00180.000901Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Barge0.0005030.000503Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.01140.0057Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.0002230.000112Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.08760.0438Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.002350.002352013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-43Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.007510.00375Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.01780.00891Metals Zinc, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.002360.00059Metals Zinc, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.0002730.0000683Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Barge00Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.003760.00282Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Commercial Fishing0.004360.00327Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Large Cruise Ship0.5190.519Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Large Ferry0.0840.084Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Medium Cruise Ship0.04730.0473Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.00330.00248Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Barge0.0006670.000667Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.01510.00754Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.005320.00266Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.05060.02532013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-44Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Large Ferry0.001380.00138Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.004330.00216Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.02360.0118Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.1570.0393Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.0230.00575Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Barge00Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.01220.00915Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Commercial Fishing0.01420.0106Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Large Cruise Ship2.722.72Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Large Ferry0.2730.273Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Medium Cruise Ship0.1540.154Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.01070.00805Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Barge0.001180.00118Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.02660.0133Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.009390.004692013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-45Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.08940.0447Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Large Ferry0.002430.00243Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.007640.00382Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.04160.0208Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Barge0.003290.0000968Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.07460.0011Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.001460.0000215Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.5730.00843Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.01540.000452Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.04910.000722Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.1170.00171Nutrients Total Phosphorus Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.1710.0426Nutrients Total Phosphorus Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.01220.00305Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Barge00Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.01310.0003522013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-46Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Commercial Fishing0.01520.000408Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Large Cruise Ship130.0649Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Large Ferry0.2940.0105Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Medium Cruise Ship0.1660.00591Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Oil/Gas Tankers0.01160.00031Nutrients Total Phosphorus Stern Tube Packing Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.00130.0013Nutrients Total Phosphorus Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.000002170.00000217Nutrients Total Phosphorus Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Cruise Ship0.004350.00435Nutrients Total Phosphorus Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.0001170.000117Nutrients Total Phosphorus Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.0003720.000372Nutrients Total Phosphorus Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.002030.00203SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Barge0.000002750.00000275SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.00006210.000031SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.00002190.000011SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.0002090.0001042013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-47Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Large Ferry0.000005670.00000567SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.00001780.00000891SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.0000970.0000485SVOC Benzo(a)anthraceneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.004990.00499SVOC Benzo(a)anthraceneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Cruise Ship0.002810.00281SVOC Benzo(a)anthraceneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Ferry00SVOC Benzo(a)anthraceneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Medium Cruise Ship00SVOC Benzo(a)anthraceneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Oil/Gas Tankers0.004990.00499SVOC Benzo(a)pyreneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.002590.00259SVOC Benzo(a)pyreneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Cruise Ship0.001460.00146SVOC Benzo(a)pyreneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Ferry002013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-48Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)SVOC Benzo(a)pyreneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Medium Cruise Ship00SVOC Benzo(a)pyreneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Oil/Gas Tankers0.002590.00259SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Bilgewater Barge0.000005880.00000588SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateBilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0001330.0000665SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.00004690.0000235SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateBilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.0004470.000223SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Bilgewater Large Ferry0.00001210.0000121SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateBilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.00003820.0000191SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.0002080.000104SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Barge0.00000910.00000455SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0002060.0000516SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.000004040.00000101SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.001580.000396SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.00004250.00002122013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-49Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.0001360.0000339SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.0003220.0000806SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate SternTube Packing Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.00004690.0000234SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.00000007840.0000000392SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate SternTube Packing Gland Large Cruise Ship0.0001570.0000787SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.000004240.00000212SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.00001350.00000673SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.00007330.0000366SVOC ChryseneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.00710.0071SVOC ChryseneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Cruise Ship0.0040.004SVOC ChryseneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Large Ferry00SVOC ChryseneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Medium Cruise Ship00SVOC ChryseneExhaust Gas Scrubber(Saltwater) Oil/Gas Tankers0.00710.00712013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-50Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)VOC Benzene Bilgewater Barge0.00002390.0000239VOC Benzene BilgewaterCargo/Bulk Carrier0.0005410.000271VOC Benzene BilgewaterCommercial Fishing0.0001910.0000954VOC Benzene Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.001820.000909VOC Benzene Bilgewater Large Ferry0.00004940.0000494VOC Benzene Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.0001550.0000776VOC Benzene Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.0008450.000423VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Barge0.00002520.0000126VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.000570.000143VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.00001120.00000279VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.004380.0011VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.0001170.0000587VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.0003750.0000939VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.0008910.000223VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Barge0.00002520.00001262013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-51Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.000570.000143VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.00001120.00000279VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.004380.0011VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.0001170.0000587VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.0003750.0000939VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.0008910.000223VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Barge0.00002520.0000126VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.000570.000143VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.00001120.00000279VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Large Cruise Ship0.004380.0011VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Large Ferry0.0001170.0000587VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Medium Cruise Ship0.0003750.0000939VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Oil/Gas Tankers0.0008910.000223VOC Tetrachloroethene Stern TubePacking Gland Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.0000140.00000698VOC Tetrachloroethene Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.00000002340.00000001172013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-52Table G-5. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, and Vessel Type Before and After Implementation of VGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant LoadBeforeImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant LoadAfterImplementation ofVGP Conditions(lbs/day)VOC Tetrachloroethene Stern TubePacking Gland Large Cruise Ship0.00004690.0000234VOC Tetrachloroethene Stern Tube Packing Gland Large Ferry0.000001260.000000631VOC Tetrachloroethene Stern Tube Packing Gland Medium Cruise Ship0.000004010.000002VOC Tetrachloroethene Stern Tube Packing Gland Oil/Gas Tankers0.00002180.0000109VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Barge0.0770.00000102VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Cargo/Bulk Carrier0.00002310.0000115VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.000008140.00000407VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Large Cruise Ship0.00007750.0000387VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Large Ferry0.00000210.0000021VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Medium Cruise Ship0.000006620.00000331VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Oil/Gas Tankers0.0000360.0000182013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-53Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.5950.595ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.03490.0349ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Bilgewater Utility Boats0.05870.0587ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.09450.0945ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.02480.0248ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.01290.0129ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Fish Hold Commercial Fishing116.2ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.6760.38ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Graywater Commercial Fishing4.684.68ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) Graywater Passenger Vessel45.545.5ClassicalsBiochemical Oxygen DemandGraywater Utility Boats0.9690.9692013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-54Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)(BOD)ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.02910.0146ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.001710.000854ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Bilgewater Utility Boats0.002870.00144ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.0120.00602ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.003150.00158ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.001640.000818ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.0420.0315ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.007760.00582ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Graywater Commercial Fishing0.4250.212ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Graywater Passenger Vessel4.132.062013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-55Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Graywater Utility Boats0.08790.0439ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0002340.000117ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.0003040.000152ClassicalsHexane Extractable Material(HEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.0007010.00035ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.01380.00688ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.0008080.000404ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Bilgewater Utility Boats0.001360.000679ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.006020.00301ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.001580.000789ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.0008180.000409ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTFish Hold Commercial Fishing0.04460.03342013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-56Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)HEM)ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.007040.00528ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Graywater Commercial Fishing0.08820.0441ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Graywater Passenger Vessel0.8580.429ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Graywater Utility Boats0.01820.00912ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0002170.000108ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.0002820.000141ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM (SGTHEM) Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.0006510.000325Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.0002410.000241Classicals Total Residual ChlorineBilgewater Passenger Vessel0.00001410.0000141Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Bilgewater Utility Boats0.00002380.0000238Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.0001030.0001032013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-57Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.0000270.000027Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.0000140.000014Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.001260.000944Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.0004170.000313Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Graywater Commercial Fishing0.001310.00131Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Graywater Passenger Vessel0.01270.0127Classicals Total Residual Chlorine Graywater Utility Boats0.000270.00027Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.1220.122Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.007160.00716Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Bilgewater Utility Boats0.0120.012Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.1460.0731Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.03830.0192Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.01990.00993Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Fish Hold Commercial Fishing2.751.55Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.2730.154Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Graywater Commercial Fishing0.5660.5662013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-58Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Graywater Passenger Vessel5.515.51Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Graywater Utility Boats0.1170.117Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0009850.000492Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Stern Tube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.001280.00064Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.002950.00148Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.001160.00116Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.00006790.0000679Metals Aluminum, Total Bilgewater Utility Boats0.0001140.000114Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.002920.00292Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.0007660.000766Metals Aluminum, Total Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.0003970.000397Metals Aluminum, Total Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.01080.00814Metals Aluminum, Total Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.001580.00119Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Commercial Fishing0.004140.00414Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Passenger Vessel0.04020.0402Metals Aluminum, Total Graywater Utility Boats0.0008560.0008562013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-59Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Arsenic, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.0004070.000305Metals Arsenic, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.00003160.0000237Metals Arsenic, Total Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.0005250.000393Metals Arsenic, Total Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.00005030.0000377Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Commercial Fishing0.00002180.0000218Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Passenger Vessel0.0002120.000212Metals Arsenic, Total Graywater Utility Boats0.000004510.00000451Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.000005950.00000595Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.0000003490.000000349Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Bilgewater Utility Boats0.0000005870.000000587Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.000001120.00000112Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.0000002930.000000293Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.0000001520.000000152Metals Cadmium, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.00001010.00000757Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.00003760.0000376Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.00000220.00000222013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-60Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Chromium, Dissolved Bilgewater Utility Boats0.00000370.0000037Metals Chromium, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0000003170.000000317Metals Chromium, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.0000004120.000000412Metals Chromium, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.0000009510.000000951Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.0003130.000313Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.00001840.0000184Metals Copper, Dissolved Bilgewater Utility Boats0.00003090.0000309Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.00003610.0000361Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.000009460.00000946Metals Copper, Dissolved Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.000004910.00000491Metals Copper, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.001260.000944Metals Copper, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.00004890.0000367Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Commercial Fishing0.0005990.000599Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Passenger Vessel0.005820.00582Metals Copper, Dissolved Graywater Utility Boats0.0001240.000124Metals Copper, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.0000003670.0000003672013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-61Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Copper, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.0000004770.000000477Metals Copper, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.00000110.0000011Metals Copper, Dissolved Wet Exhaust (Generator) Commercial Fishing0.00004970.0000497Metals Copper, Dissolved Wet Exhaust (Generator) Passenger Vessel0.0002280.000228Metals Copper, Dissolved Wet Exhaust (Generator) Utility Boats0.00006340.0000634Metals Copper, Dissolved Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Commercial Fishing0.0005560.000556Metals Copper, Dissolved Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Passenger Vessel0.001450.00145Metals Copper, Dissolved Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Utility Boats0.001280.00128Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.000005160.00000516Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.000001350.00000135Metals Lead, Dissolved Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.0000007010.000000701Metals Lead, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.000003880.00000291Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Commercial Fishing0.00002720.0000272Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Passenger Vessel0.0002650.000265Metals Lead, Dissolved Graywater Utility Boats0.000005630.00000563Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.000028802013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-62Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.000001690.00000169Metals Nickel, Dissolved Bilgewater Utility Boats0.000002840.00000284Metals Nickel, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.00000350.0000035Metals Nickel, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.000004560.00000456Metals Nickel, Dissolved Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.00001050.0000105Metals Nickel, Total Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.00001020.0000102Metals Nickel, Total Stern Tube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.00001320.0000132Metals Nickel, Total Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.00003050.0000305Metals Selenium, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.0001210.0000905Metals Selenium, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.000008620.00000647Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.0004070.000407Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.00002390.0000239Metals Zinc, Dissolved Bilgewater Utility Boats0.00004010.0000401Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.0002230.000223Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.00005860.0000586Metals Zinc, Dissolved Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.00003040.00003042013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-63Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Metals Zinc, Dissolved Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.002360.00177Metals Zinc, Dissolved Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.0002730.000205Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Commercial Fishing0.004360.00436Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Passenger Vessel0.04240.0424Metals Zinc, Dissolved Graywater Utility Boats0.0009010.000901NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.005320.00532NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.0003120.000312NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Bilgewater Utility Boats0.0005250.000525NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.1570.118NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.0230.0172NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Commercial Fishing0.01420.0142NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Passenger Vessel0.1380.1382013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-64Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N) Graywater Utility Boats0.002930.00293Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.009390.00939Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.0005510.000551Nutrients Total Phosphorus Bilgewater Utility Boats0.0009260.000926Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.001460.000043Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.0003830.0000113Nutrients Total Phosphorus Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.0001990.00000584Nutrients Total Phosphorus Fish Hold Commercial Fishing0.1710.000492Nutrients Total Phosphorus Fish Hold Cleaning Commercial Fishing0.01220.0000539Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Commercial Fishing0.01520.000544Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Passenger Vessel0.1480.00529Nutrients Total Phosphorus Graywater Utility Boats0.003150.000113Nutrients Total Phosphorus Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.000002170.00000217Nutrients Total Phosphorus Stern Tube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.000002820.00000282Nutrients Total Phosphorus Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.000006510.00000651SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.00002190.0000112013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-65Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.000001290.000000643SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Bilgewater Utility Boats0.000002160.00000108SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Commercial Fishing0.00001020.0000102SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Passenger Vessel0.00004690.0000469SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Utility Boats0.00001310.0000131SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Commercial Fishing0.0001150.000115SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Passenger Vessel0.0002980.000298SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Utility Boats0.0002640.000264SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Commercial Fishing0.000009930.00000993SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Passenger Vessel0.00004550.0000455SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Utility Boats0.00001270.0000127SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Commercial Fishing0.0001110.000111SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Passenger Vessel0.0002890.000289SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Utility Boats0.0002560.000256SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Commercial Fishing0.000008690.00000869SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Passenger Vessel0.00003980.00003982013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-66Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Utility Boats0.00001110.0000111SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Commercial Fishing0.00009720.0000972SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Passenger Vessel0.0002530.000253SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Utility Boats0.0002240.000224SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Commercial Fishing0.000009620.00000962SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Passenger Vessel0.00004410.0000441SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Utility Boats0.00001230.0000123SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Commercial Fishing0.0001080.000108SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Passenger Vessel0.000280.00028SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Utility Boats0.0002480.000248SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.00004690.0000235SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.000002750.00000138SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Bilgewater Utility Boats0.000004630.00000232SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.000004040.00000202SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.000001060.000000529SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.0000005490.0000002752013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-67Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.00000007840.0000000392SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate SternTube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.0000001020.000000051SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.0000002350.000000118SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate WetExhaust (Generator) Commercial Fishing0.000005280.00000528SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate WetExhaust (Generator) Passenger Vessel0.00002420.0000242SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Wet Exhaust (Generator) Utility Boats0.000006740.00000674SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Commercial Fishing0.0000590.000059SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Passenger Vessel0.0001540.000154SVOC Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Utility Boats0.0001360.000136SVOC Chrysene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Commercial Fishing0.00001020.0000102SVOC Chrysene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Passenger Vessel0.00004690.0000469SVOC Chrysene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Utility Boats0.00001310.0000131SVOC Chrysene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Commercial Fishing0.0001150.000115SVOC Chrysene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Passenger Vessel0.0002980.000298SVOC Chrysene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Utility Boats0.0002640.000264SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Commercial Fishing0.000007760.000007762013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-68Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Passenger Vessel0.00003550.0000355SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene WetExhaust (Generator) Utility Boats0.000009910.00000991SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Commercial Fishing0.00008680.0000868SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Passenger Vessel0.0002260.000226SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Utility Boats0.00020.0002VOC Benzene BilgewaterCommercial Fishing0.0001910.0000954VOC Benzene Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.00001120.0000056VOC Benzene Bilgewater Utility Boats0.00001880.00000942VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.00001120.00000559VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.000002930.00000146VOC Benzene Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.000001520.000000759VOC Benzene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Commercial Fishing0.00003720.0000372VOC Benzene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Passenger Vessel0.0001710.000171VOC Benzene Wet Exhaust (Generator) Utility Boats0.00004760.0000476VOC Benzene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Commercial Fishing0.0004170.000417VOC Benzene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Passenger Vessel0.001080.001082013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-69Table G-6. Pollutant Loads by Analyte, Discharge, andVessel Type Before and After Implementation of sVGPClassAnalyteDischargeVessel TypePollutant Load BeforeImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)Pollutant Load AfterImplementation ofsVGP Conditions(lbs/day)VOC Benzene Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) Utility Boats0.000960.00096VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.00001120.00000559VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.000002930.00000146VOC Bromodichloromethane Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.000001520.000000759VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Commercial Fishing0.00001120.00000559VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Passenger Vessel0.000002930.00000146VOC Dibromochloromethane Deck Washdown Utility Boats0.000001520.000000759VOC Tetrachloroethene Stern Tube Packing Gland Commercial Fishing0.00000002340.0000000117VOC Tetrachloroethene Stern Tube Packing Gland Passenger Vessel0.00000003040.0000000152VOC Tetrachloroethene Stern Tube Packing Gland Utility Boats0.00000007010.000000035VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Commercial Fishing0.000008140.00000407VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Passenger Vessel0.0000004770.000000239VOC Trichloroethene Bilgewater Utility Boats0.0000008030.0000004012013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-70Table G-7. Vessel Population in Each RAAVessel TypeNumber of Vessel EquivalentsaSeattle, WAMarine/EstuarineSt. Louis, MOFreshwaterDuluth, MNFreshwaterHouston, TXMarine/EstuarineNew York, NYMarine/EstuarineSan Francisco, CAMarine/EstuarineMiami, FLMarine/EstuarineVGP Vessel TypesBarges 12.8b60.1c0.00d340e62.4f2.8g2.9hOil/Gas Tankers 0.09i0.00j0.00k18.3l5.39m2.92n0.00oLarge Cruise Ships 4.00p0.00q0.00r1.00s5.00t3.00u7.00vCommercial FishingVessels 24.5w0.00x0.00x0.00x1.00y0.00x0.00xMedium Cruise Ships 1.00z1.00aa0.54ab0.00ac1.00ad1.00ad1.00adCargo/Bulk Carriers 2.86ae0.00af2.08ag9.99ah17.1ai12.3aj9.11akLarge Ferries 4.00al0.00am0.00am0.00am50.0an4.11ao4.11apsVGP Vessel TypesCommercial FishingVessels 1,000aq0.00ar1.00as0.00ar33.3at53.8au0.00arPassenger Vessels 15.0av2.00aw1.64ax0.10ay10.0az4.43ba4.94bbUtility Boats 6bc16.3bd16.4be42.7bf28.9bg16.3bh7.67biTotal Number of VesselsAssumed in RAA Habor 1,070 79.4 21.7 412 214 101 36.1a)Vessel populations presented are expressed as vessel equivalentswhere a vessel equivalent represents a single vessel discharging 24-hours per day in theharbor. For example, 1 vessel equivalent could represent 24 vesselsthat each operate (and discharge) for 1 hour in the harborenvironment each day.b)Estimated 12.8 barge equivalents as the sum of 0.8 barge equivalents from vessel calls to the Port of Seattle and 12 barge equivalents working in the Seattleharbor area (0.8+12=12.8). Barge equivalents from vessels callscalculated by multiplying reported 141 annual port calls (Source:www.portseattle.org/About/Publications/Statistics/Seaport/Pages/Vessel-Calls.aspx, accessed February 2012) by 2 days per port call (best professionaljudgment) and dividing by 365 days/year (144×2÷365=0.77). Barge equivalents working in harbor calculated by dividing reported annual 6.5 million tons ofreported barge product (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineershttp://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/webpub09/Part4_Ports_tonsbycommCY2009.HTM) by estimated barge capacity of 1,500 tons/barge and byestimated 350 operating days per year (6.5 million÷1,500÷350=12).c)Estimated 60.1 barge equivalents as the sum of 15.8 barge equivalents from vessels calls to the Port of St. Louis, plus 37.8 barge equivalents working in theSt. Louis harbor area, plus 6.5 barge equivalents transiting through St. Louis harbor as traveling up or down river (15.8+37.8+6.5=60.1). Barge equivalentsfrom vessel calls calculated by multiplying reported 823 annual port calls (Source: Personal communication with representativeat the Port of St. Louis) by 7days per port call (best professional judgment) and dividing by 365 days per year (823×7÷365=15.8). Barge equivalents working in harbor calculated bydividing reported annual 19.9 million tons of reported barge product (Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineershttp://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/webpub09/Part4_Ports_tonsbycommCY2009.HTM) by estimated barge capacity of 1,500 tons/barge and byestimated 350 operating days per year (19.9 million÷1,500÷350=37.8). Barge equivalents transiting through St. Louis harbor calculated by multiplying 3,1182013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-71reported barges hailing from St. Louis (Source:http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/index.htm) by 10% (assumed 10% of all vessels that hail from St. Louiswould pass through the harbor on a given day) and by 0.5 hr/day (estimated transit time through harbor) (3,118×0.1×0.5÷24=6.5).d)No cargo barges visited the Port of Duluth in 2011 (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow, Facilities Manager at the Duluth Seaway PortAuthority, January 2012).e)The Houston Ship Channel hosts more than 340 barge movements eachday (Source: Houston-GalvestonNavigation Safety Advisory Committee,Navigating the Houston Ship Channel: a reference for commercialusers. May 2011.http://www.galvestonpilots.com/HOGANSACNavigatingtheHoustonShipChannel.pdf).f)Estimated 62.4 barge equivalents as the sum of 1.4 barge equivalents from vessel calls to the Port of New York and 61 barge equivalents working in the NewYork harbor area (1.4+61=62.4). Barge equivalents from vesselscalls calculated by multiplying reported 506 annual port calls (Source:www.worldportsource.com/ports/USA_NY_Port_of_New_York_68.php, Accessed February 2012) by 1 day per port call (best professional judgment) anddividing by 365 days per year (506×1÷365=1.4). Barge equivalents working in harbor determined using Google Earth to count 61 unmanned bargesoperating in the harbor.g)Estimated 2.8 barge equivalents as the sum of 0.8 barge equivalents from vessel calls to the Port of San Francisco and 2 bargeequivalents working in theSan Francisco harbor area (0.8+2=2.8). Barge equivalents from vessels calls estimated to equal barge equivalents from vessels calls to the Port of Seattle(Source: Personal communication with Anita Yao, Port of San Francisco and Julie Coombes, California Department of Fish and Game, February 2012).Barge equivalents working in harbor calculated by dividing reported annual 1.2 million tons of reported barge product (Source:U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/webpub09/Part4_Ports_tonsbycommCY2009.HTM) by estimated barge capacity of 1,500 tons/bargeand by estimated 350 operating days per year (1.2 million÷1,500÷350=2).h)Estimated 2.9 barge equivalents as the product of 1.9 barge equivalents from vessel calls to the Port of Miami multiplied by afactor of 1.5 (best professionaljudgment) to provide a conservative estimate of vessel activity on abusy day (1.9×1.5=2.9). On average, Port of Miami operates2 barges per day operating350 days/yr (2×350÷365=1.9) (Source: Personal communication with Jill Taft, Regulatory Compliance Manager at Enterprise MarineServices and CoastalTug and Barge of Miami, March 2012).i)Estimated 0.09 tanker equivalents as the sum of 0.07 tanker equivalents from vessel calls to Seattle and 0.02 tanker equivalents transiting through Seattleharbor as traveling to and from Port of Tacoma (0.07+0.02=0.09). Tanker equivalents from vessel calls calculated by multiplyingreported 18 tanker, gascarrier, and combination carriercalls in 2010 (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls) by 1.5 days inport (Source: Personal communication with Diane Falcione, Director of Governmental Relations and Legistative Affairs at the Port of Galveston, February2012) and dividing by 365 days/yr (18×1.5÷365=0.07). Tanker equivalents transiting through Seattle to and from Tacoma calculated by multiplying the 0.23tanker equivalents for vessel calls for Tacoma (calculated by multiplying reported 56 tanker, gas carrier, and combination carrier calls in 2010 [Source:MARAD] by 1.5 days in port and dividing by 365 days/yr, 56×1.5÷365=0.23) by estimated 2 hours/day transit time (0.23×2÷24=0.02).j)Tankers do not visit the Port of St. Louis (Source:www.boatinfoworld.com/boat/registrations/saint-louis-mo-63111.asp).k)Tankers do not visit the Port of Duluth (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow, Facilities Manager at the Duluth Seaway Port Authority,January 2012).l)Estimated 18.3 tanker equivalents from vessel calls to Houston. Tanker equivalents from vessel calls calculated by multiplyingreported 4,450 tanker, gascarrier, and combination carriercalls in 2010 (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls) by 1.5 days inport (Source: Personal communication with Diane Falcione, Director of Governmental Relations and Legistative Affairs at the Port of Galveston, February2012) and dividing by 365 days/yr (4,450×1.5÷365=18.3).m)Estimated 5.39 tanker equivalents from vessel calls to New York. Tanker equivalents from vessel calls calculated by multiplyingreported 1,311 tanker, gascarrier, and combination carriercalls in 2010 (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls) by 1.5 days inport (Source: Personal communication with Diane Falcione, Director of Governmental Relations and Legistative Affairs at the Port of Galveston, February2012) and dividing by 365 days/yr (1,311×1.5÷365=5.39).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-72n)Estimated 2.92 tanker equivalents from vessel calls to San Francisco. Tanker equivalents fromvessel calls calculated by multiplying reported 710 tanker, gascarrier, and combination carriercalls in 2010 (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls) by 1.5 days inport (Source: Personal communication with Diane Falcione, Director of Governmental Relations and Legistative Affairs at the Port of Galveston, February2012) and dividing by 365 days/yr (710×1.5÷365=2.92).o)Miami receives a negligible number of annual tanker, gas carrier, and combination carrierport calls (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls).p)Maximum of 4 large cruise ships visit Seattle simultaneously (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).q)Large cruise ships do not visit St. Louis (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).r)Negligible number of large cruise ships visit Duluth (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).s)Maximum of 1 large cruise ships visit Houston simultaneously (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).t)Maximum of 5 large cruise ships visit New York simultaneously (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).u)Maximum of 3 large cruise ships visit San Francisco simultaneously (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).v)Maximum of 7 large cruise ships visit Miami simultaneously (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).w)Estimated 24.5 large commercial fishing equivalents calculated by multiplying the 49 large commercial fishing vessels that hailfrom Seattle (Source: EPA’seNOI database) by a factor of 0.5 to account for the estimated maximum portion of these vessels operating or offloading fish inthe harbor at any given time(best professional judgment) (49×0.5=24.5).x)Zero or negligible numbers of large commercial fishing vessels operatein St. Louis, Duluth, Houston, San Francisco, and Miami(best professionaljudgment).y)Assumed a maximum of 1 large commercial fishing vessel operates in New York harbor at any given time (best professional judgment).z)Maximum of 1 medium cruise ships visit Seattle (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).aa)Queen of the Mississippi visits St. Louis 5 times per year (Source: Personal communication withrepresentative at American Cruise Lines); assumedmaximum of 1 medium cruise ship operating in St. Louis at any given time.ab)There were 11 arrivals of a medium cruise ship in Duluth during 2 of the last 5 seasons (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow, FacilitiesManager at the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, January 2012); assumed maximum of 1 medium cruise ship operating in Duluth at anygiven time.ac)Medium cruise ships do not visit Houston (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).ad)Maximum of 1 medium cruise ships visit New York, San Francisco, and Miami simultaneously (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/north_america_cruise_detail_data.xls).ae)Estimated 2.86 container ship equivalents as the sum of 2.41 container ship equivalents from vessel calls to the Port of Seattle and 0.45 container equivalentstransiting through Seattle harbor as traveling to and from Portof Tacoma (2.41+0.45=2.86). Container ship equivalents from vessels calls calculated bymultiplying the reported sum of 787 container calls and 93 grain vessel calls (Source:www.portseattle.org/About/Publications/Statistics/Seaport/Pages/Vessel-Calls.aspx, accessed February 2012) by 1 day per port call (Source: Personalcommunication with Diane Falcione, Director of Governmental Relations and Legislative Affairs at the Port of Galveston, February 2012) and dividing by365 days/year (880×1÷365=2.41). Container equivalents transiting through Seattle to and from Tacoma calculated by multiplying the 2.4 containerequivalents for vessel calls for Tacoma (calculated by multiplying reported 977 container, dry bulk, and Ro-Ro calls in 2010 [Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls] by 2 days in port (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow,2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-73Facilities Manager at the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, January 2012) and dividing by 365 days/yr, 977×2÷365=5.35) by estimated2 hours/day transit time(5.35×2÷24=0.45).af)Container vessels do not visit the Port of St. Louis (Source:www.boatinfoworld.com/boat/registrations/saint-louis-mo-63111.asp).ag)Estimated 2.08 container equivalents as the sum of 1.39 Lakerequivalents and 0.69 Saltie equivalents from vessel calls to thePort of Duluth(1.39+0.69=2.08). Laker equivalents from vessels calls calculated by multiplying the average of 902 port calls over the last 5years by 10 hours/port call anddividing by 270 days/year shipping season (902×10÷24÷270=1.39) (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow, Facilities Manager at the DuluthSeaway Port Authority, January 2012). Saltieequivalents from vessels calls calculated by multiplying the average of 93 port calls over the last 5 years by 2days/port call and dividing by 270 days/year shipping season (93×2÷270=0.69) (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow, Facilities Manager atthe Duluth Seaway Port Authority, January 2012).ah)Estimated 9.99 container ship equivalents calculated by multiplying the reported 1,824 container, dry bulk, and Ro-Ro calls in2010 (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls) by 2 days in port (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow,Facilities Manager at the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, January 2012) and dividing by 365 days/yr (1,824×2÷365=9.99).ai)Estimated 17.1 container ship equivalents calculated by multiplying the reported 3,128 container, dry bulk, and Ro-Ro calls in2010 (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls) by 2 days in port (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow,Facilities Manager at the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, January 2012) and dividing by 365 days/yr (3,128×2÷365=17.1).aj)Estimated 12.3 container ship equivalents calculated by multiplying the reported 2,249 container, dry bulk, and Ro-Ro calls in2010 (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls) by 2 days in port (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow,Facilities Manager at the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, January 2012) and dividing by 365 days/yr (2,249×2÷365=12.3).ak)Estimated 9.11 container ship equivalents calculated by multiplying the reported 1,663 container vessel port calls (Source: Personal communication withGeorge Arocha, Terminal Manager at the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, March 2012) by 2 days in port (Source: Personal communicationwith James Sharrow, Facilities Manager at the Duluth Seaway PortAuthority, January 2012) and dividing by 365 days/yr (1,663×2÷365=9.11).al)Four large ferries leave fromAlaskan Way, operating 7 days/week (Source: http://www.wsdot.com/ferries/schedule/).am)Large ferries do not operate in St. Louis, Duluth, and Houston.an)Fifty large ferries operate in New York harbor year round (Source: Personal communication with representative at the Port Authority of New York/NewJersey).ao)Estimated 4.11 large ferry equivalents calculated by multiplying5 large ferries operating in San Francisco (Source: Personal communication with Anita Yao,Port of San Francisco and Julie Coombes, California Department of Fish and Game, February 2012) by an estimated 300 day operating season(5×300÷365=4.11).ap)Estimated 4.11 large ferry equivalents calculated by multiplying5 large ferries operating in Miami (Source: Personal communication with Jill Taft,Regulatory Compliance Manager at Enterprise Marine Services and Coastal Tug and Barge of Miami, and George Arocha, Terminal Manager at the Port ofMiami Terminal Operating Company, March 2012) by an estimated 300 day operating season (5×300÷365=4.11).aq)Estimated 1,000small commercial fishing equivalents calculated by multiplying the 2,000 small commercial fishing vessels that hail from Seattle (Source:USEPA. 2010.Report to Congress: Study of Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and other Non-RecreationalVessels Less than 79 Feet, August, 2010.Figure 1.6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C; best professional judgment) by a factor of0.5 to account for the estimated maximum portion of these vessels operating or offloading fish in the harbor at any given time(best professional judgment)(2,000×0.5=1,000).ar)Zero or negligible numbers of small commercial fishing vesselsoperate in St. Louis, Houston, and Miami (best professional judgment).as)One small commercial fishing vessel is berthed in the harbor about 10 months/yr (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow, Facilities Managerat the Duluth Seaway PortAuthority, January 2012).2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-74at)Estimated the 100 small commercial fishing that hail from New York operated 8 hr/day in theharbor (Source: USEPA. 2010.Report to Congress: Study ofDischarges Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and other Non-Recreational Vessels Less than 79 Feet, August, 2010.Figure 1.6.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C; best professional judgment based on personal observation) (100×8÷24=33.3).au)Estimated 53.8small commercial fishing vessel equivalents by multiplying the annual 6,540 vessel calls (Source: Personal communication with Anita Yao,Port of San Francisco and Julie Coombes, California Department ofFish and Game, February 2012) bya factor of 3 to account foran estimated 4 monthfishing season (6,540÷365×3=53.8).av)Estimated 15.0 passenger vessel equivalents as the sum of 2.4 water taxi equivalents, 10.9 tour boat equivalents, and 1.6 charter boat equivalents(2.4+10.9+1.6=15.0). Water taxi equivalents calculated by multiplying 2 water taxis operating 5 days/week for 7 months/yr [2×(5×52)×(12÷7)÷365=2.4].Tour boat equivalents calculated by multiplying 17 tour boats operating 9 hr/day for 7 months/yr [17×(9÷24)×(12÷7)=10.9]. Charter boat equivalentscalculated by multiplying 3 charter boats each operating a maximum of five 90 minute charters per day (7.5 hours/day) for 7 months/yr[3×(7.5÷24)×(12÷7)=1.6]. (Source:http://www.frommers.com/destinations/seattle/0032010019.html,www.seattleducktours.net, and http://www.sailingseattle.com/index.html)aw)Two passenger vessels operate in St. Louis harbor 7 days/weekfor 9 months/yr (Source: http://www.boatinfoworld.com/boat/registrations/saint-louis-mo63111.asp, Accessed Feb 2012).ax)Estimated 1.64 passenger vessel equivalents calculated based ontwo passenger vessels operating in the Duluth harbor 300 days/yr conducting approximately600 tours (2×300÷365=1.64 (Source: Personal communication with James Sharrow, Facilities Manager at the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, January 2012).ay)Estimated 0.1 passenger vessel equivalents based on one passengervessel operating in the Houston harbor conducting ten 1.5 hours tours per week 11months/yr round [1×(1.5×10÷7÷24)×(12÷11)=0.1] (Source: http://boattours.poha.com/boattour/default.aspx).az)Estimated 10.0 passenger vessel equivalents calculated based on 20 charters, sightseeing, tour, and water taxi vessels operating in New York Harbor harboreach assumed to operated 9 hours/day for 9 months/yr [20×(9÷24)×(12÷9)=10.0] (Sources:http://www.newyorksightseeing.com/category.php?cat=NYCHC,http://www.citysightsny.com/category.php?id=-1,http://manhattan.about.com/od/gettingaround/tp/nycsightseeingboattrips.htm, andhttp://www.sailnyc.com/).ba)Estimated 4.43 passenger vessel equivalents calculated based on based on 13 tour and dinner cruise vessels (3 Red and White Fleet, 3 Blue and Gold Fleet,and 7 Hornblower Cruises) operating a combined equivalent of 1,616 24-hour operating days/yr, divided by 365 days/yr (1,616÷365=4.43) (Source: Red andBlue Fleet, Blue and Gold Fleet, and Hornblower websites).bb)Estimated 4.94 passenger vessel equivalents calculated based onbased on 6 charter, sightseeting, tour, and water taxi vesselsoperating in Miami harboroperating a combined equivalent of 1,802 24-hour operating days/yr, divided by 365 days/yr (1,802÷365=4.94) (Source: passengervessel websites).bc)Estimated 6 utility vessel equivalents based on 20 tug boats operating in Miami (Source: Personal communication with Jill Taft,Regulatory ComplianceManager at Enterprise Marine Services and Coastal Tug and Barge of Miami, and George Arocha, Terminal Manager at the Port of Miami TerminalOperating Company, March 2012) for an assumed 8 hours/day [20×(8÷24)=6] year round.bd)Estimated 16.3 utility vessel equivalents working in harbor determined using Google Earth to count 17 tug boats operating in the harbor for an assumed 350operating days per year (17×350÷365=16.3).be)Estimated 16.4 utility vessel equivalents working in harbor basedon 20 tug boats operating in the harbor for 300 operating days per year (Source: Personalcommunication with James Sharrow, Facilities Manager at the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, January 2012) (20×300÷365=16.4).bf)Estimated 42.7 utility vessel equivalents working in harbor calculated by multiplying the 20 tug boats operating in Seattle byan assumed 8 hours/day by ascaling factor of 6.4 (20×8÷24×6.4=42.7). Scaling factor calculated as the ratio between the annual total number of vessel portcalls in Houston divided bythe annual total number of port calls inSeattle (6,698÷1,046=6.4) (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls).bg)Estimated 28.9 utility vessel equivalents working in harbor calculated by multiplying the 20 tug boats operating in Seattle byan assumed 8 hours/day by ascaling factor of 4.33 (20×8÷24×4.33=28.9). Scaling factor calculated as the ratio between the annual total number of vessel port calls in New York divided2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-75by the annual total number of port calls in Seattle (4,534÷1,046=4.33) (Source: MARADhttp://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/US_Port_Calls_by_Vessel_Type.xls).bh)Estimated 16.3 utility vessel equivalents calculated based on 17tug boats operating in San Francisco (Crowley, 2 tugs; Bay Delta Maritime, 4 tugs; WestarMarine Services, 11 tugs) (Source: Personal communication with AEP River Operations) for an assumed 350 operating days/yr [17×(350÷365)=16.3] yearround.bi)Estimated 7.67 utility vessel equivalents calculated based on 8 tug boats operating in Miami (Source: Personal communication with Jill Taft, RegulatoryCompliance Manager at Enterprise Marine Services and Coastal Tug and Barge of Miami, March 2012) for an assumed 350 operating days/yr[8×(350÷365)=7.67].Table G-8. Total VGP and sVGP Pollutant Loads for RAA Harbors Under Pre-permit ConditionsClassAnalyteEstuary Harbor Loads (lb/day)River Harbor Loads(lb/day)SeattleHoustonNew YorkSan FranMiamiDuluthSt. LouisClassicalsBiochemical OxygenDemand (BOD)21,000 1,100 8,970 3,540 4,960 161 180ClassicalsHexane ExtractableMaterial (HEM)1,430 255 1,510 703 1,460 14.1 16.7ClassicalsSilica Gel Treated HEM(SGT-HEM)389 76.9 372 182 371 3.72 4.19Classicals Total Residual Chlorine 49.3 0.561 4.6 1.08 1.65 0.0537 0.0642ClassicalsTotal Suspended Solids(TSS)4,650 589 1,720 831 1,070 40.1 45.6Metals Aluminum, Total 29.5 9.97 19.5 9.51 13.8 0.513 0.653Metals Arsenic, Dissolved 8.47 44.5 39.1 26.1 20.1 3.21 0Metals Arsenic, Total 8.65 44.5 39.1 26.2 20.2 3.21 0.000734Metals Cadmium, Dissolved 0.0199 0.00449 0.00589 0.00378 0.00425 0.000207 0.000252Metals Chromium, Dissolved 0.044 0.0142 0.0157 0.0103 0.00991 0.00078 0.000449Metals Copper, Dissolved 4.95 8.56 8.61 5.43 4.49 0.646 0.0549Metals Lead, Dissolved 0.066 0.0203 0.0678 0.0267 0.0437 0.00143 0.0018Metals Nickel, Dissolved 1.26 6.69 5.9 3.93 3.06 0.481 0.00107Metals Nickel, Total 0.115 0.256 0.288 0.169 0.203 0.0141 0.00227Metals Selenium, Dissolved 9.44 51.6 45.4 30.3 23.4 3.73 0Metals Selenium, Total 9.91 54.9 48.3 32.2 24.9 3.96 0Metals Zinc, Dissolved 11.3 1.43 8.58 3.12 5.05 0.157 0.189NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen(NH3-N)219 4.06 36.8 21.5 21.7 0.626 0.53Nutrients Total Phosphorus 273 19.7 96 56.3 98.8 0.886 0.8592013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-76Table G-8. Total VGP and sVGP Pollutant Loads for RAA Harbors Under Pre-permit ConditionsClassAnalyteEstuary Harbor Loads (lb/day)River Harbor Loads(lb/day)SeattleHoustonNew YorkSan FranMiamiDuluthSt. LouisSVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.0236 0.00363 0.00393 0.00294 0.0021 0.000198 0.000221SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene 0.158 0.156 0.142 0.0972 0.069 0.0156 0.00521SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene 0.141 0.0862 0.0808 0.0562 0.0375 0.0105 0.00505SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.112 0.0101 0.0133 0.0108 0.00325 0.00445 0.00442SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.124 0.0111 0.0147 0.012 0.0036 0.00493 0.00489SVOCBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate0.131 0.0285 0.0349 0.023 0.0213 0.00376 0.00387SVOC Chrysene 0.169 0.217 0.196 0.133 0.0965 0.02 0.00521SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0997 0.00899 0.0118 0.00966 0.0029 0.00398 0.00395VOC Benzene 0.716 0.11 0.136 0.0964 0.069 0.0222 0.0228VOC Bromodichloromethane 0.0319 0.035 0.0448 0.0243 0.0368 0.00143 0.00192VOC Dibromochloromethane 0.0319 0.035 0.0448 0.0243 0.0368 0.00143 0.00192VOC Tetrachloroethene 0.000263 0.000588 0.000662 0.000388 0.000465 0.0000324 0.00000521VOC Trichloroethene 0.992 26.2 4.81 0.215 0.222 0.0000737 4.63Table G-9. Total VGP and sVGP Pollutant Loadsfor RAA Harbors Under Post-permit ConditionsClassAnalyteEstuary Harbor Loads (lb/day)River Harbor Loads(lb/day)SeattleHoustonNew YorkSan FranMiamiDuluthSt. LouisClassicalsBiochemical OxygenDemand (BOD)15,500 930 8,580 3,130 4,770 146 178ClassicalsHexane ExtractableMaterial (HEM)718 123 745 345 721 5.5 6.08ClassicalsSilica Gel TreatedHEM (SGT-HEM)205 37.7 184 89.6 182 1.55 1.64ClassicalsTotal ResidualChlorine15.2 0.417 3.02 0.937 1.46 0.0456 0.0623ClassicalsTotal Suspended Solids(TSS)2,980 263 1,250 519 703 24.2 31.8Metals Aluminum, Total 23.5 6.43 14.5 6.26 9 0.323 0.603Metals Arsenic, Dissolved 8.35 44.5 39.1 26.1 20.1 3.21 02013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix GG-77Table G-9. Total VGP and sVGP Pollutant Loadsfor RAA Harbors Under Post-permit ConditionsClassAnalyteEstuary Harbor Loads (lb/day)River Harbor Loads(lb/day)SeattleHoustonNew YorkSan FranMiamiDuluthSt. LouisMetals Arsenic, Total 8.5 44.5 39.1 26.2 20.2 3.21 0.000734Metals Cadmium, Dissolved 0.016 0.00281 0.00359 0.00225 0.00216 0.000116 0.000231Metals Chromium, Dissolved 0.0426 0.012 0.0134 0.00886 0.00816 0.000661 0.000434Metals Copper, Dissolved 4.55 8.5 8.51 5.36 4.42 0.642 0.0541Metals Lead, Dissolved 0.0602 0.014 0.0591 0.0212 0.0353 0.00109 0.00172Metals Nickel, Dissolved 1.23 6.68 5.89 3.93 3.05 0.481 0.00106Metals Nickel, Total 0.115 0.256 0.288 0.169 0.203 0.0141 0.00227Metals Selenium, Dissolved 9.41 51.6 45.4 30.3 23.4 3.73 0Metals Selenium, Total 9.91 54.9 48.3 32.2 24.9 3.96 0Metals Zinc, Dissolved 10.4 1.11 8.14 2.83 4.66 0.139 0.185NutrientsAmmonia As Nitrogen(NH3-N)171 3.67 34.7 18.8 21.4 0.558 0.528Nutrients Total Phosphorus 12.5 1.22 2.28 1.32 1.11 0.0767 0.116SVOC 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.0118 0.00228 0.00219 0.00149 0.00106 0.0000992 0.000193SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene 0.158 0.156 0.142 0.0972 0.069 0.0156 0.00521SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene 0.141 0.0862 0.0808 0.0562 0.0375 0.0105 0.00505SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.112 0.0101 0.0133 0.0108 0.00325 0.00445 0.00442SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.124 0.0111 0.0147 0.012 0.0036 0.00493 0.00489SVOCBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate0.0976 0.0159 0.0186 0.0127 0.00842 0.0031 0.00342SVOC Chrysene 0.169 0.217 0.196 0.133 0.0965 0.02 0.00521SVOC Ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0997 0.00899 0.0118 0.00966 0.0029 0.00398 0.00395VOC Benzene 0.593 0.0739 0.0891 0.0657 0.0326 0.0203 0.0215VOC Bromodichloromethane 0.011 0.0109 0.0132 0.00638 0.00935 0.000368 0.000865VOC Dibromochloromethane 0.011 0.0109 0.0132 0.00638 0.00935 0.000368 0.000865VOC Tetrachloroethene 0.000132 0.000294 0.000331 0.000194 0.000233 0.0000162 0.00000261VOC Trichloroethene 0.00439 0.000847 0.000814 0.000552 0.000395 0.0000368 0.00007162013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix H



### Appendix H. Summary of RQs for Aqua tic Multiple Routes of Exposure and Oral Ingestion by Aquatic and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Species2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-1Table H-1. Information Used to Calculate RQ based on Multiple Routesof Exposure forAquatic OrganismsPollutantSpecies TypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwCTETA,Tissuemg/kg wwSurrogateRQA,MFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarbor ModelCalcValue = BCF x(ECW/ 1,000)From ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseProvided asLatin NameValue =ECT/CTETA,TPre-permitAluminum, Total Estuary Vert50.00 1.28 0.0642 ---Aluminum, Total Estuary Invert50.00 1.28 0.0642 ---Aluminum, Total River Vert50.00 0.0334 0.00167 10.00S. trutta0.000167Aluminum, Total River Invert50.00 0.0334 0.00167 ---Post-permitAluminum, Total Estuary Vert50.00 1.02 0.0511 ---Aluminum, Total Estuary Invert50.00 1.02 0.0511 ---Aluminum, Total River Vert50.00 0.0309 0.00154 10.00S. trutta0.000154Aluminum, Total River Invert50.00 0.0309 0.00154 ---Post-permitArsenic, Dissolved Estuary Vert44.00 1.94 0.0852 ---Arsenic, Dissolved Estuary Invert44.00 1.94 0.0852 ---Arsenic, Dissolved River Vert36.80a0.164 0.00604 0.97L. macrochirus0.00623Arsenic, Dissolved River Invert39.40a0.164 0.00647 3.58M. macrocopa0.00181Pre-permitCadmium, Dissolved Estuary Vert38.00 0.000867 0.0000329 0.04P. flesus0.000824Cadmium, Dissolved Estuary Invert38.00 0.000867 0.0000329 0.14A. rubens0.000235Cadmium, Dissolved River Vert38.00 0.0000129 0.000000489 0.01S. salar0.0000978Cadmium, Dissolved River Invert38.00 0.0000129 0.000000489 0.12H. azteca0.000004152013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-2Table H-1. Information Used to Calculate RQ based on Multiple Routesof Exposure forAquatic OrganismsPollutantSpecies TypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwCTETA,Tissuemg/kg wwSurrogateRQA,MFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarbor ModelCalcValue = BCF x(ECW/ 1,000)From ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseProvided asLatin NameValue =ECT/CTETA,TPost-permitCadmium, Dissolved Estuary Vert38.00 0.000697 0.0000265 0.04P. flesus0.000662Cadmium, Dissolved Estuary Invert38.00 0.000697 0.0000265 0.14A. rubens0.000189Cadmium, Dissolved River Vert38.00 0.0000118 0.000000448 0.01S. salar0.0000896Cadmium, Dissolved River Invert38.00 0.0000118 0.000000448 0.12H. azteca0.0000038Pre-permitChromiumVI,Dissolved Estuary Vert40.00 0.00191 0.0000765 ---ChromiumVI,Dissolved Estuary Invert40.00 0.00191 0.0000765 3.20P. pelagicus0.0000239ChromiumVI,Dissolved River Vert40.00 0.0000399 0.0000016 1.28O. tshawytscha0.00000125ChromiumVI,Dissolved River Invert40.00 0.0000399 0.0000016 ---Post-permitChromiumVI,Dissolved Estuary Vert40.00 0.00185 0.0000742 ---ChromiumVI,Dissolved Estuary Invert40.00 0.00185 0.0000742 3.20P. pelagicus0.0000232ChromiumVI,Dissolved River Vert40.00 0.0000338 0.00000135 1.28O. tshawytscha0.00000106ChromiumVI,Dissolved River Invert40.00 0.0000338 0.00000135 ---Post-permitCopper, Dissolved Estuary Vert290.00 0.37 0.107 4.59C. lebrosus0.0234Copper, Dissolved Estuary Invert290.00 0.37 0.107 3.90A. clausi0.0275Copper, Dissolved River Vert290.00 0.0328 0.00953 3.00O. mykiss0.003182013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-3Table H-1. Information Used to Calculate RQ based on Multiple Routesof Exposure forAquatic OrganismsPollutantSpecies TypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwCTETA,Tissuemg/kg wwSurrogateRQA,MFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarbor ModelCalcValue = BCF x(ECW/ 1,000)From ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseProvided asLatin NameValue =ECT/CTETA,TCopper, Dissolved River Invert290.00 0.0328 0.00953 3.80C. dubia0.00251Pre-permitLead, Dissolved Estuary Vert49.00 0.00295 0.000144 ---Lead, Dissolved Estuary Invert49.00 0.00295 0.000144 260.00C. edule0.000000556Lead, Dissolved River Vert49.00 0.0000922 0.00000452 0.40S. fontinalis0.0000113Lead, Dissolved River Invert49.00 0.0000922 0.00000452 4.20H. azteca0.00000108Post-permitLead, Dissolved Estuary Vert49.00 0.00262 0.000128 ---Lead, Dissolved Estuary Invert49.00 0.00262 0.000128 260.00C. edule0.000000494Lead, Dissolved River Vert49.00 0.0000878 0.0000043 0.40S. fontinalis0.0000108Lead, Dissolved River Invert49.00 0.0000878 0.0000043 4.20H. azteca0.00000102Post-permitNickel, Dissolved Estuary Vert47.00 0.291 0.0137 ---Nickel, Dissolved Estuary Invert47.00 0.291 0.0137 26.40L. pictus0.000518Nickel, Dissolved River Vert47.00 0.0246 0.00116 ---Nickel, Dissolved River Invert47.00 0.0246 0.00116 1.15H. azteca0.001Post-permitNickel, Total Estuary Vert47.00 0.0125 0.000589 ---Nickel, Total Estuary Invert47.00 0.0125 0.000589 26.40L. pictus0.0000223Nickel, Total River Vert47.00 0.000723 0.000034 ---Nickel, Total River Invert47.00 0.000723 0.000034 1.15H. azteca0.00002962013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-4Table H-1. Information Used to Calculate RQ based on Multiple Routesof Exposure forAquatic OrganismsPollutantSpecies TypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwCTETA,Tissuemg/kg wwSurrogateRQA,MFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarbor ModelCalcValue = BCF x(ECW/ 1,000)From ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseProvided asLatin NameValue =ECT/CTETA,TPost-permitSelenium, Total Estuary Vert113.00 2.39 0.27 1.98Fish0.136Selenium, Total Estuary Invert113.00 2.39 0.27 -A. clausi-Selenium, Total River Vert250.00b0.203 0.0507 4.84O. mykiss0.0105Selenium, Total River Invert729.40b0.203 0.148 5.28C. trangulifer0.028Pre-permitZinc, Dissolved Estuary Vert47.00 0.493 0.0232 ---Zinc, Dissolved Estuary Invert47.00 0.493 0.0232 24.00A. compressa0.000966Zinc, Dissolved River Vert47.00 0.00968 0.000455 7.70O. mykiss0.0000591Zinc, Dissolved River Invert47.00 0.00968 0.000455 17.40D. magna0.0000261Post-permitZinc, Dissolved Estuary Vert47.00 0.452 0.0213 ---Zinc, Dissolved Estuary Invert47.00 0.452 0.0213 24.00A. compressa0.000886Zinc, Dissolved River Vert47.00 0.00948 0.000445 7.70O. mykiss0.0000578Zinc, Dissolved River Invert47.00 0.00948 0.000445 17.40D. magna0.0000256Post-permitBenzo(a)pyrene Estuary Vert13035c0.00614 0.08 71.74O. gorbuscha0.00112Benzo(a)pyrene Estuary Invert733d0.00614 0.0045 18.27R. abronius0.000246Benzo(a)pyrene River Vert13035c0.000536 0.00699 71.74O. gorbuscha0.0000974Benzo(a)pyrene River Invert733d0.000536 0.000393 18.27H. azteca0.0000215Pre-permitBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Estuary Vert12300e0.00569 0.0699 ---2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-5Table H-1. Information Used to Calculate RQ based on Multiple Routesof Exposure forAquatic OrganismsPollutantSpecies TypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwCTETA,Tissuemg/kg wwSurrogateRQA,MFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarbor ModelCalcValue = BCF x(ECW/ 1,000)From ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseProvided asLatin NameValue =ECT/CTETA,TBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Estuary Invert10000f0.00569 0.0569 ---Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate River Vert12300e0.000198 0.00243 ---Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate River Invert10000f0.000198 0.00198 ---Post-permitBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Estuary Vert12300e0.00424 0.0522 ---Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Estuary Invert10000f0.00424 0.0424 ---Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate River Vert12300e0.000175 0.00215 ---Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate River Invert10000f0.000175 0.00175 ---Pre-permitBenzene Estuary Vert87.7g0.0311 0.00273 38.86O. gorbuscha0.0000703Benzene Estuary Invert87.7g0.0311 0.00273 9.90R. abronius0.000276Benzene River Vert87.7g0.00117 0.000102 38.86O. gorbuscha0.00000263Benzene River Invert87.7g0.00117 0.000102 9.90H. azteca0.00001032013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-6Table H-1. Information Used to Calculate RQ based on Multiple Routesof Exposure forAquatic OrganismsPollutantSpecies TypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwCTETA,Tissuemg/kg wwSurrogateRQA,MFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarbor ModelCalcValue = BCF x(ECW/ 1,000)From ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseProvided asLatin NameValue =ECT/CTETA,TPost-permitBenzene Estuary Vert87.7g0.0258 0.00226 38.86O. gorbuscha0.0000582Benzene Estuary Invert87.7g0.0258 0.00226 9.90R. abronius0.000228Benzene River Vert87.7g0.0011 0.0000964 38.86O. gorbuscha0.00000248Benzene River Invert87.7g0.0011 0.0000964 9.90H. azteca0.00000974Source: USEPA 2008 unless otherwise noteda)EPRI, 2008.b)EPRI, 2006.c)Log Baseline BAF of 4.114d)Kolok et al., 1996.e)log Kow=4xFCM=1.23f)log Kow=4x FCM=1g)log Kow=1.9432013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-7Table H-2. Information Used toCalculate Oral Ingestion RQfor Aquatic-Dependent MammalsPollutantWaterTypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwEpreymg/kg/dEwatermg/kg/dECoralmg/kg/dCTETOralmg/kg/dSurrogateRQWildFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarborModel CalcValue = BCFx (ECW/1,000)Value =IRF (surr)x ECT-see TableInsetBelow forIRFsValue = DRF(surr) x (ECW/1,000) - seeTable InsetBelow forDRFsValue =Eprey+EwaterFrom Sampleet al. 1996 inOR ToxicsBEProvidedasCommonNameValue =Ecoral/CTETOPre-permitAluminum, Total Estuary 50.00 1.28 0.0642 0.00992 N/A 0.00992 1.93 Mouse 0.00514Aluminum, Total River 50.00 0.0334 0.00167 0.000258 0.00001 0.000268 1.93 Mouse 0.000139Post-permitAluminum, Total Estuary 50.00 1.02 0.0511 0.0079 N/A 0.0079 1.93 Mouse 0.00409Aluminum, Total River 50.00 0.0309 0.00154 0.000238 0.00000926 0.000248 1.93 Mouse 0.000128Post-permitArsenic, Dissolved Estuary 44.00 1.94 0.0852 0.0132 N/A 0.0132 0.126 Mouse 0.104Arsenic, Dissolved River36.80a0.164 0.00604 0.000934 0.0000493 0.000983 0.126 Mouse 0.0078Pre-permitCadmium, Dissolved Estuary 38.00 0.000867 0.0000329 0.00000264 N/A 0.00000264 1 Rat 0.00000264Cadmium, Dissolved River 38.00 0.0000129 0.000000489 0.0000000391 0.000000000243 0.0000000394 1 Rat 0.0000000394Post-permitCadmium, Dissolved Estuary 38.00 0.000697 0.0000265 0.00000212 N/A 0.00000212 1 Rat 0.00000212Cadmium, Dissolved River 38.00 0.0000118 0.000000448 0.0000000358 0.000000000222 0.0000000361 1 Rat 0.0000000361Pre-permitChromiumVI, Dissolved Estuary 40.00 0.00191 0.0000765 0.00000612 N/A 0.00000612 3.28 Rat 0.00000187ChromiumVI, Dissolved River 40.00 0.0000399 0.0000016 0.000000128 0.000000000753 0.000000128 3.28 Rat 0.0000000392Post-permitChromiumVI, Dissolved Estuary 40.00 0.00185 0.0000742 0.00000593 N/A 0.00000593 3.28 Rat 0.00000181ChromiumVI, Dissolved River 40.00 0.0000338 0.00000135 0.000000108 0.000000000638 0.000000109 3.28 Rat 0.00000003322013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-8Table H-2. Information Used toCalculate Oral Ingestion RQfor Aquatic-Dependent MammalsPollutantWaterTypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwEpreymg/kg/dEwatermg/kg/dECoralmg/kg/dCTETOralmg/kg/dSurrogateRQWildFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarborModel CalcValue = BCFx (ECW/1,000)Value =IRF (surr)x ECT-see TableInsetBelow forIRFsValue = DRF(surr) x (ECW/1,000) - seeTable InsetBelow forDRFsValue =Eprey+EwaterFrom Sampleet al. 1996 inOR ToxicsBEProvidedasCommonNameValue =Ecoral/CTETOPost-permit onlyCopper, Dissolved Estuary 290.00 0.37 0.107 0.0147 N/A 0.0147 11.7 Mink 0.00126Copper, Dissolved River 290.00 0.0328 0.00953 0.0013 0.00000325 0.00131 11.7 Mink 0.000112Pre-permitLead, Dissolved Estuary 49.00 0.00295 0.000144 0.0000116 N/A 0.0000116 8 Rat 0.00000144Lead, Dissolved River 49.00 0.0000922 0.00000452 0.000000361 0.00000000174 0.000000363 8 Rat 0.0000000454Post-permitLead, Dissolved Estuary 49.00 0.00262 0.000128 0.0000103 N/A 0.0000103 8 Rat 0.00000128Lead, Dissolved River 49.00 0.0000878 0.0000043 0.000000344 0.00000000165 0.000000346 8 Rat 0.0000000432Post-permitNickel, Dissolved Estuary 47.00 0.291 0.0137 0.00109 N/A 0.00109 40 Rat 0.0000273Nickel, Dissolved River 47.00 0.0246 0.00116 0.0000924 0.000000464 0.0000929 40 Rat 0.00000232Post-permitNickel, Total Estuary 47.00 0.0125 0.000589 0.0000471 N/A 0.0000471 40 Rat 0.00000118Nickel, Total River 47.00 0.000723 0.000034 0.00000272 0.0000000136 0.00000273 40 Rat 0.0000000683Post-permitSelenium, Total Estuary 113.00 2.39 0.27 0.0216 N/A 0.0216 0.2 Rat 0.108Selenium, Total River250.00b0.203 0.0507 0.00405 0.00000382 0.00406 0.2 Rat 0.0203Pre-permitZinc, Dissolved Estuary 47.00 0.493 0.0232 0.00186 N/A 0.00186 160 Rat 0.0000116Zinc, Dissolved River 47.00 0.00968 0.000455 0.0000364 0.000000182 0.0000366 160 Rat 0.0000002292013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-9Table H-2. Information Used toCalculate Oral Ingestion RQfor Aquatic-Dependent MammalsPollutantWaterTypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwEpreymg/kg/dEwatermg/kg/dECoralmg/kg/dCTETOralmg/kg/dSurrogateRQWildFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarborModel CalcValue = BCFx (ECW/1,000)Value =IRF (surr)x ECT-see TableInsetBelow forIRFsValue = DRF(surr) x (ECW/1,000) - seeTable InsetBelow forDRFsValue =Eprey+EwaterFrom Sampleet al. 1996 inOR ToxicsBEProvidedasCommonNameValue =Ecoral/CTETOPost-permitZinc, Dissolved Estuary 47.00 0.452 0.0213 0.0017 N/A 0.0017 160 Rat 0.0000106Zinc, Dissolved River 47.00 0.00948 0.000445 0.0000356 0.000000179 0.0000358 160 Rat 0.000000224Post-permitBenzo(a)pyrene Estuary13035c0.00614 0.08 0.0124 N/A 0.0124 1 Mouse 0.0124Benzo(a)pyrene River13035c0.000536 0.00699 0.00108 0.000000161 0.00108 1 Mouse 0.00108Pre-permitBis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Estuary12300d0.00569 0.0699 0.0108 N/A 0.0108 18.3 Mouse 0.000591Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate River12300d0.000198 0.00243 0.000376 0.0000000593 0.000376 18.3 Mouse 0.0000205Post-permitBis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Estuary12300d0.00424 0.0522 0.00806 N/A 0.00806 18.3 Mouse 0.000441Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate River12300d0.000175 0.00215 0.000332 0.0000000524 0.000332 18.3 Mouse 0.00001822013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-10Table H-2. Information Used toCalculate Oral Ingestion RQfor Aquatic-Dependent MammalsPollutantWaterTypeBCF or BAFL/kgECwaterug/LECTissuemg/kg wwEpreymg/kg/dEwatermg/kg/dECoralmg/kg/dCTETOralmg/kg/dSurrogateRQWildFrom ORToxics BE,Unless NotedOtherwiseFromHypotheticalHarborModel CalcValue = BCFx (ECW/1,000)Value =IRF (surr)x ECT-see TableInsetBelow forIRFsValue = DRF(surr) x (ECW/1,000) - seeTable InsetBelow forDRFsValue =Eprey+EwaterFrom Sampleet al. 1996 inOR ToxicsBEProvidedasCommonNameValue =Ecoral/CTETOPre-permitBenzene Estuary87.70e0.0311 0.00273 0.000422 N/A 0.000422 26.36 Mouse 0.000016Benzene River87.70e0.00117 0.000102 0.0000158 0.00000035 0.0000161 26.36 Mouse 0.000000612Post-permitBenzene Estuary87.70e0.0258 0.00226 0.000349 N/A 0.000349 26.36 Mouse 0.0000133Benzene River87.70e0.0011 0.0000964 0.0000149 0.00000033 0.0000152 26.36 Mouse 0.000000578Source: USEPA, 2008, unless otherwise noteda)EPRI, 2008.b)EPRI, 2006.c)Log Baseline BAF of 4.114d)log Kow=4xFCM=1.23e)log Kow=1.9432013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-11Table H-3. Information Used toCalculate Oral Ingestion RQ for Aquatic-Dependent BirdsPollutantSpeciesTypeBCF or BAF,L/kgECwater,ug/LECTissue,mg/kg wwEprey,mg/kg/dEwater,mg/kg/dECoral,mg/kg/dCTETOral,mg/kg/dSurrogateRQWildFrom ORToxics BE,unless notedotherwiseFromHypotheticalHarborModel CalcValue = BCFx (ECW/1,000)Value =IRF (surr)x ECT-see TableInsetBelow forIRFsValue = DRF(surr) x (ECW/1,000) - seeTable InsetBelow forDRFsValue =Eprey+EwaterFrom Sampleet al. 1996 inOR ToxicsBEProvidedascommonnameValue =Ecoral/CTETOPre-permitAluminum, TotalEstuary 50.00 1.28 0.0642 0.0775 N/A 0.0775 109.7 Dove 0.000707Aluminum, TotalRiver 50.00 0.0334 0.00167 0.00202 0.0000046 0.00202 109.7 Dove 0.0000184Post-permitAluminum, TotalEstuary 50.00 1.02 0.0511 0.0618 N/A 0.0618 109.7 Dove 0.000563Aluminum, TotalRiver 50.00 0.0309 0.00154 0.00186 0.00000425 0.00187 109.7 Dove 0.000017Post-permitArsenic, DissolvedEstuary 44.00 1.94 0.0852 0.00852 N/A 0.00852 5.14 Mallard 0.00166Arsenic, DissolvedRiver36.80a0.164 0.00604 0.000604 0.00000328 0.000608 5.14 Mallard 0.000118Pre-permitCadmium, DissolvedEstuary 38.00 0.000867 0.0000329 0.00000329 N/A 0.00000329 1.45 Mallard 0.00000227Cadmium, DissolvedRiver 38.00 0.0000129 0.000000489 0.0000000489 0.000000000257 0.0000000492 1.45 Mallard 0.0000000339Post-permitCadmium, DissolvedEstuary 38.00 0.000697 0.0000265 0.00000265 N/A 0.00000265 1.45 Mallard 0.00000183Cadmium, DissolvedRiver 38.00 0.0000118 0.000000448 0.0000000448 0.000000000236 0.000000045 1.45 Mallard 0.0000000311Pre-permitChromiumVI, DissolvedEstuary 40.00 0.00191 0.0000765 0.000058 N/A 0.000058 8.59 Chick 0.00000675ChromiumVI, DissolvedRiver 40.00 0.0000399 0.0000016 0.00000121 0.00000000403 0.00000121 8.59 Chick 0.000000141Post-permitChromiumVI, DissolvedEstuary 40.00 0.00185 0.0000742 0.0000562 N/A 0.0000562 8.59 Chick 0.00000654ChromiumVI, DissolvedRiver 40.00 0.0000338 0.00000135 0.00000103 0.00000000342 0.00000103 8.59 Chick 0.000000122013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-12Table H-3. Information Used toCalculate Oral Ingestion RQ for Aquatic-Dependent BirdsPollutantSpeciesTypeBCF or BAF,L/kgECwater,ug/LECTissue,mg/kg wwEprey,mg/kg/dEwater,mg/kg/dECoral,mg/kg/dCTETOral,mg/kg/dSurrogateRQWildFrom ORToxics BE,unless notedotherwiseFromHypotheticalHarborModel CalcValue = BCFx (ECW/1,000)Value =IRF (surr)x ECT-see TableInsetBelow forIRFsValue = DRF(surr) x (ECW/1,000) - seeTable InsetBelow forDRFsValue =Eprey+EwaterFrom Sampleet al. 1996 inOR ToxicsBEProvidedascommonnameValue =Ecoral/CTETOPost-permitCopper, DissolvedEstuary 290.00 0.37 0.107 0.0813 N/A 0.0813 47 Chick 0.00173Copper, DissolvedRiver 290.00 0.0328 0.00953 0.00722 0.00000332 0.00722 47 Chick 0.000154Pre-permitLead, DissolvedEstuary 49.00 0.00295 0.000144 0.000109 N/A 0.000109 1.13 Japanese quail 0.0000969Lead, DissolvedRiver 49.00 0.0000922 0.00000452 0.00000342 0.00000000931 0.00000343 1.13 Japanese quail 0.00000304Post-permitLead, DissolvedEstuary 49.00 0.00262 0.000128 0.0000972 N/A 0.0000972 1.13 Japanese quail 0.000086Lead, DissolvedRiver 49.00 0.0000878 0.0000043 0.00000326 0.00000000886 0.00000327 1.13 Japanese quail 0.00000289Post-permitNickel, DissolvedEstuary 47.00 0.291 0.0137 0.00137 N/A 0.00137 77.4 Mallard 0.0000177Nickel, DissolvedRiver 47.00 0.0246 0.00116 0.000116 0.000000492 0.000116 77.4 Mallard 0.0000015Post-permitNickel, TotalEstuary 47.00 0.0125 0.000589 0.0000589 N/A 0.0000589 77.4 Mallard 0.000000761Nickel, TotalRiver 47.00 0.000723 0.000034 0.0000034 0.0000000145 0.00000341 77.4 Mallard 0.0000000441Post-permitSelenium, TotalEstuary 113.00 2.39 0.27 0.027 N/A 0.027 0.5 Mallard 0.054Selenium, TotalRiver250.00b0.203 0.0507 0.00507 0.00000405 0.00507 0.5 Mallard 0.0101Pre-permitZinc, DissolvedEstuary 47.00 0.493 0.0232 0.0176 N/A 0.0176 14.5White leghornchickens0.001212013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-13Table H-3. Information Used toCalculate Oral Ingestion RQ for Aquatic-Dependent BirdsPollutantSpeciesTypeBCF or BAF,L/kgECwater,ug/LECTissue,mg/kg wwEprey,mg/kg/dEwater,mg/kg/dECoral,mg/kg/dCTETOral,mg/kg/dSurrogateRQWildFrom ORToxics BE,unless notedotherwiseFromHypotheticalHarborModel CalcValue = BCFx (ECW/1,000)Value =IRF (surr)x ECT-see TableInsetBelow forIRFsValue = DRF(surr) x (ECW/1,000) - seeTable InsetBelow forDRFsValue =Eprey+EwaterFrom Sampleet al. 1996 inOR ToxicsBEProvidedascommonnameValue =Ecoral/CTETOZinc, DissolvedRiver 47.00 0.00968 0.000455 0.000345 0.000000977 0.000346 14.5White leghornchickens0.0000238Post-permitZinc, DissolvedEstuary 47.00 0.452 0.0213 0.0161 N/A 0.0161 14.5White leghornchickens0.00111Zinc, DissolvedRiver 47.00 0.00948 0.000445 0.000337 0.000000957 0.000338 14.5White leghornchickens0.0000233Pre-permitBis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateEstuary12300c0.00569 0.0699 0.0845 N/A 0.0845 1.1 Ringed dove 0.0768Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateRiver12300c0.000198 0.00243 0.00294 0.0000000272 0.00294 1.1 Ringed dove 0.00267Post-permitBis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateEstuary12300c0.00424 0.0522 0.063 N/A 0.063 1.1 Ringed dove 0.0573Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateRiver12300c0.000175 0.00215 0.0026 0.0000000241 0.0026 1.1 Ringed dove 0.00236Source: USEPA, 2008, unless otherwise noteda)EPRI, 2008.b)EPRI, 2006.c)log Kow=4xFCM=1.232013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-14Table H-4. Ingestion Rate Assumptions for Mammals and BirdsReferencesElectric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2006.Fate and effects of selenium in lenticand lotic systems. Technical Report No.1005315. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).2008. Evaluation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's arsenic ambient water qualitycriteria: Speciation and bioaccumulation issues. Technical Update No. 1015570.EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Duke Energy.Corporation, Charlotte, NC, ProgressEnergy, Inc., Raleigh, NC, SCANA Corporation, Columbia, SC, Southern Company,Birmingham, AL, and Tennessee ValleyAuthority, Chattanooga, TN.Kolok, A.S., J.N. Huckins, J.D. Petty, and J.T. Oris. 1996. The role of water ventilation and sediment ingestion in the uptakeofBenzo[a]pyrene in gizzardshad (Dorosoma cepedianum).Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15(10):1752-1759.SurrogateBodyweight,kgFoodIntakeRate,kg/dWaterIntakeRate,kg/dIRF,kg/kg bw/dIRD,L/kg bw/dCommentMammalsMouse 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.30Rat0.35 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.02Using body weight from EPA 1988 as reported inSample et al. 1996 and water intake from mouseMink 1.00 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.10BirdsRobin/Dove 0.08 0.09 0.01 1.21 0.14Woodcock/Chick/Quail0.20 0.15 0.02 0.76 0.10Mallard 1.00 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.02 Using water intake from woodcockSource: USEPA, 2008, unless otherwise noted.IRF = Ingestion rate of food, calculated as Food Intake Rate ÷ Body WeightDRF = Ingestion rate of water, calculated as Water Intake Rate ÷ Body Weight2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix HH-15Sample, B. E., D. M. Opresko, G.W. Suter II. 1996.Toxicological Benchmarksfor Wildlife: 1996 Revision.Prepared for the U.S.Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management.EPA. 1988. Recommendations for and documentation of Biological Values for Usein Risk Assessment. EPA 600-6-87-008.Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH.USEPA. 2008. Biological Evaluation of Oregon’s Water Quality Criteria for Toxics. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Region10. Dated January, 2008.2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix I



### Appendix I. Basis of Critical Body Bu rden Calculations for Benzo(a)pyrene

and Benzene Used as CT ET to Calculate RQ A,M 

### in Quantitative Effects Analysis2013 VGP and sVGP BE Appendix II-1Table I-1. Basis of Critical Body Burden Calculations for Benzo(a)pyrene and Benzene Used as CTET to Calculate RQA,MinQuantitative EffectsLatin NameAs ReportedValue =log(C*L)-0.352 (PAH)Or0.109(MAH)Value =PAHCorrectedantilog(C*L)ACR forType 1NarcoticsAsReportedValue =C*L / ACRValue =(C*L chronic xMW) x fractionlipidBenzo(a)pyreneSpecieslog(C*L) -Acute BasisPAHcorrectionlog(C*L)C*L,μmol PAH (BaP)/g octanol -Acute Basis ACRC*L,μmol BaP/g octanol=lipid -Chronic BasisMW BaP,μg /μmolEstimatedfractionlipid, %Critical BurdenWhole Body,μg /g wet tissueO. gorbuscha1.39 1.04 10.9 3.83 2.84 252.31 0.1 71.7A. abronius1.49 1.14 13.9 3.83 3.62 252.31 0.02 18.3H. azteca1.51 1.16 14.5 3.83 3.77 252.31 0.02 19.0Benzenelog(C*L) –Acute BasisMAHcorrectionlog(C*L)C*L,μmol MAH (BZ)/g octanol –Acute BasisACRC*L,μmol BZ/g octanol=lipid –Chronic BasisMW BZ,μg/μmolEstimatedFractionlipid, %Critical BurdenWhole Body,μg /g wet tissueO. gorbuscha1.39 1.28 19.1 3.83 4.98 78.11 0.1 38.9A. abronius1.49 1.39 24.3 3.83 6.34 78.11 0.02 9.9H. azteca1.51 1.40 25.3 3.83 6.60 78.11 0.02 10.39Source: McGrath, J. A. and Di Toro, D. M. (2009), Validation of the target lipid model for toxicity assessment of residual petroleum constituents: Monocyclicand polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28: 1130–1148. (Appendices 1 and 2 unless specified otherwise.)