Date: February 27, 2006

To: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Attn: Kirk Patten

P.O. Box 25112

Santa Fe, NM 87504

\(505\) 476-8055

\(505\) 476-8131 fax

<kirk.patten@state.nm.us>

From: Ann McCampbell, MD

11 Esquila Rd

Santa Fe, NM 87508

\(505\) 466-3622

<DrAnnMcC@aol.com>

Re: Proposal to Restore Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout

> in the Rio Costilla Watershed

SCOPING COMMENTS

A joint environmental impact statement (EIS) should be prepared by the
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF), Carson National Forest,
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

An EIS is required because, among other things:

1)  Federally threatened or endangered species (e.g., bald eagle &
    Mexican spotted owl) are present in the project area;

2)  The project area contains water bodies eligible for designation
    under the

> Wild & Scenic Rivers Act;

3)  The Valle Vidal contains ecologically critical wetlands;

4)  Migratory waterfowl use critical wetlands and marshes;

5)  The environmental impacts of deploying piscicides is uncertain,
    especially impacts to macroinvertebrates and amphibians;

6)  There is controversy among experts whether there are long-term
    impacts to macroinvertebrates and amphibians;

7)  The proposed use of piscicide is in conflict with state water
    standards that permit "no degradation" of water quality in waters,
    such as those of the Valle Vidal, designated as Outstanding Natural
    Resource Waters (ONRWs).

The Carson National Forest is obligated to cooperate in the preparation
of an EIS with NMDGF and FWS or prepare its own EIS because part of the
project will occur on forest service property. In addition, Carson
National Forest has taken, or will be taking, a connected action of
creating a fish barrier on its property and possibly will supply staff
to aid in the implementation of the project.

Issues that need to be documented and/or analyzed in the EIS:

1)  The impact of stocking non-native fish, both in the past, currently,
    and proposed as part of this project, on the Rio Grande Cutthroat
    Trout (RGCT), other native fish, amphibians, and other species;

2)  Establishing a need to restore Rio Grande chub, Rio Grande sucker,
    and longnose dace along with RGCT in the project area;

3)  Documenting and quantifying adverse impact to RGCT of the presence
    of white suckers;

4)  Benefit to RGCT's survival of being listed as threatened or
    endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act;

5)  A description of the project area, including the exact number of
    stream miles and lakes proposed for restoration activities, that
    clarifies whether fishless lakes and ephemeral streams will be
    poisoned;

6)  Analysis of short- and long-term impacts of piscicide use (analyzed
    separately for Fintrol, CFT Legumine, and Prentox Rotenone Fish
    Toxicant Powder) on fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds,
    macroinvertebrates, micro-organisms, and plants in, near, and
    downstream of the project area. Particular attention should be paid
    to possible impacts to rare or unique macroinvertebrate species.

> Impacts should be analyzed for morbidity, such potential for impaired
> reproduction and/or development, altered behavior, and increases in
> mutations and cancer, as well as mortality.
>
> Indirect effects of piscicide use should also be analyzed, such as
> loss of insects and fish from the food chain for an indefinite period,
> including impacts to migratory waterfowl that rely on invertebrate
> food resources for their survival and reproductive condition;

7)  Analysis of short- and long-term impacts of electrofishing on all
    species listed above, as well as the predicted number of times
    electrofishing will occur in each stream segment and lakes in the
    project area;

8)  A complete list state or federally threatened, endangered, and
    sensitive species, as well as rare and unique species (such as the
    knobbedlip fairy shrimp), present in the project area should be
    compiled, along with detailed maps showing where they are located.
    Macroinvertebrates need to be identified at the species level.

> The presence and location of brewers black birds, cliff swallows,
> house wren, solitary sandpiper, and the common snipe should also be
> documented. When data is missing, the gaps should be clearly
> identified and plans proposed for obtaining the missing data;

9)  An assessment of whether beavers were or are present in the project
    area and if so analyze the impacts of restoring beavers as a member
    of the native aquatic community;

10) Analysis of the predicted effects of global warming on all existing
    RGCT populations, and its anticipated effects on the habitat and
    survival of RGCT in the project area;

11) Analysis of potential impacts of piscicide use on certification of
    downstream organic growers and ranchers;

12) Identity of all private wells and uses of surface water for drinking
    from the headwaters in the project area to the town of Costilla;

13) Analysis of potential impacts to humans of drinking or swimming in
    water containing piscicide chemicals or breathing piscicide fumes.
    Impacts should be considered for pisicicide applicators and other
    staff as well as vulnerable populations like children, pregnant
    women, the elderly, and those with heightened sensitivities or
    allergies to chemicals;

14) A chemical analysis listing and quantifying all ingredients present
    in the products proposed for application. These products include
    Fintrol, CFT Legumine, Prentox Rotenone Fish Toxicant Powder,
    potassium permanganate, and any dyes or other products proposed for
    use;

15) Impacts to humans, wildlife, and the environment should be made for
    all proposed methods of piscicide application including aerial,
    boat, backpack, and instream deployment stations;

16) A method should be identified that allows applicators to determine
    during deployment whether excessive doses of antimycin or rotenone
    are being applied;

17) The need for restoration of Rio Grande chub and Rio Grande suckers
    should be analyzed, and if restoration is deemed necessary, a
    long-range restoration plan should be created;

18) A detailed description of the project and its timeline should be
    provided. This should include the order of stream restoration
    activities, the methods and products to be employed, and the
    approximate dates for completion;

19) Details of the plan to remove pure RGCT trout from certain stream
    segments, hold them for a period of time, and reintroduce them into
    the stream should be provided. This plan should include the identity
    of the streams from which RGCT are to be removed, the manner they
    will be removed, the location, manner, and length of time they will
    be kept. The relative risks and benefits of the "no action"
    alternative and removing and returning fish in this manner should be
    analyzed. In particular, the risks of injecting fish with electronic
    tags should be analyzed, as well as risks for introducing whirling
    disease, potential harm from handling and anesthetizing fish, and
    the potential for and possible impacts from accidents and other
    unanticipated events.

Alternatives that should be analyzed in detail:

1)  Netting

2)  Angling

3)  Dewatering (especially Costilla Reservoir)

4)  Genetic swamping, i.e., stocking RGCT and other native species

5)  Decreasing genetic purity standard of RGCT, e.g., possibly 90%

6)  Interfering with spawning gravel in lakes and reservoirs

7)  Taking advantage of natural events that eliminate fish

8)  Angler education and other precautions to reduce illegal
    transplantations

9)  Reducing or eliminating stocking of non-native fish

10) Habitat improvement

11) Eliminating bag limits for RGCT, allowing catch-and-release only

Cumulative impacts that should be analyzed in detail:

1)  Identification of what, where, and when chemicals have been used to
    kill fish in the project area, including the possible use of an
    organochlorine pesticide in Costilla reservoir in the 1950's;

2)  Identification of what, where, and when other pesticides or toxic
    chemicals have been introduced, drifted, or run into project waters
    in the last 50 years, along with future plans for use of chemicals
    in or near the project area, such as the use of herbicides on salt
    cedar and other riparian plants;

3)  The predicted number of times piscicide will be applied to each
    stream segment in the project area and the cumulative impacts of
    doing so;

4)  The cumulative impact of exposure to the combined ingredients in
    piscicides, i.e., the analysis needs to be of the whole product
    formulation and not the individual ingredients. Impacts from
    combinations of piscicides and/or combination of piscicides with
    potassium permanganate and dyes should also be analyzed;

5)  The cumulative exposure of humans and wildlife to endocrine
    disruptors, including those in products proposed for use in this
    project, should be analyzed;

6)  Cumulative impacts on amphibians should be analyzed that includes
    impacts from global warming, ultraviolet light, introduced
    predators, and toxic exposures, including the proposed use of
    piscicides, as well as impacts of electrofishing.

> The analysis should take into account the growing evidence that
> combinations of chemicals can produce adverse effects in frogs even
> when individual chemicals have no noticeable impact, and that these
> adverse effects can occur at concentrations as low as .1 ppb (part per
> billion). See "Pesticide mixtures, endocrine disruption, and amphibian
> declines: Are we underestimating the impact?" by TB Hayes, et al.,
> Environmental Health Perspectives, in press,
> [www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8051/8051.pdf](http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8051/8051.pdf).

Thank you for allowing me to comment on this proposed project. Please
send me an electronic and paper copy of the NEPA document when it
becomes available.

Respectfully submitted,

Ann McCampbell, MD