Letter April 11 2008 Concerning Comments of the SOuthwester Water Conservation District in response to Notice of Availability of Draft San Juan Public Lands Land Management Plan and Draft Envrionmental Impact Statement

Home Browse Search

April 11, 2008 Page 7 under Sec. 219.19 is maintained and improved to the decree consistent with multiple use objectives established in the plan. (Emphasis added). For species not classified as management indicator species (MIS), Section 219.19 of the 1982 Rule limits the authority of the USFS to improve habitat, providing: Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and non - native species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. Therefore, the habitat standard in the Draft Plan is applied improperly to all populations of vertebrate, aquatic species irrespective of whether they are "existing native" species and without any assessment of the number and distribution of individuals necessary to constitute a "viable population." Managing the SJPL on the basis of blanket habitat standards based on the HRV concept does not substitute for the SJPLC meeting its affirmative obligations imposed by the 1982 Rule, to provide for viable populations. By way of illustration, the National Marine Fisheries Service ( "NMFS ") provides a detailed methodology for determining viable populations. See NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS -f /nws -198, attached hereto as Exhibit "B ". This NMFS methodology suggests that an effective short term population size of 50 individuals (to prevent inbreeding) and a long term population size of 500 individuals (to maintain overall genetic diversity) is a "rule of thumb" for establishing viable population sizes. The Draft Plan fails to make any findings regarding the number and distribution of individuals necessary to maintain a viable aquatic population. Instead, it appears to rely upon habitat standards informed by HRV which grossly expand the habitat necessary to maintain viable populations. See, e.g., David E. Crowley, 'Estimating Required Habitat for Fish Conservation in Streams in Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems (2007) (finding a minimum populations size of 2750 individuals requiring 2.2 hectares of habitat necessary to maintain a viable population of Rio Grande cutthroat trout.) D. The Draft Plan, While Acknowledging the Need for a Collaborative Approach to Habitat Protection in Some Parts of the Draft Plan, Contradicts a Cooperative Agenda through Inflexible Habitat Standards in Other Draft Plan Sections. The Draft Plan, at pp. 106 and 252, does provide "a carrot" for cooperative approaches to habitat protection, stating: The USFS and the BLM agree to explore creative management strategies in order to assure continued operation of water -use facilities within the planning area while, at the same time, protecting aquatic resources. SJPL managers will seek opportunities that can be implemented in the near future in order to demonstrate a constructive, trusting relationship upon which all interested parties and partners can build.