ArkansasComments32

• Basin: Arkansas
• Title: Comments 32
• Date: 9/10/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Comments

. "b- . ~. ~

Gilbert, Hanna

From: [e-mail]

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 3:48 PM

To: SWSI (Statewide Water Supply Initiative)

Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; John.T [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]

Subject: Input for Arkansas basin - environmental alternatives

Rick Brown and CDM staff,

I appreciated the thought that has gone into consideration for "environmental" alternatives during between the 3rd
and 4th round meetings. I was disappointed that there was insufficient time to go over the DOW options at the
Arkansas basin meeting - we would have benefited from hearing the discussion.

For the greater portion of the SWSI process there was a noticeable lack of focus on potential environmental
alternatives and projects. From my perspective, I felt that the DOW was always in a position of playing catch-up,
first due to uncertainty on our role in the process, and secondly trying to construct some alternatives after the
architecture of the early project catalog was clearly centered on hard/construction projects. Defining the
environmental (and to a lesser degree, the recreational) "gap" did not occur early on in the process. Although the
majority of the members on the teams were able to reach agreement on the demand gap, there was little
understanding or information presented that would help them to envision the concept of the environmental gap.

The "big dog" on the environmental side ot the equation is the Endangered Species Act (ESA). I am sure that
ESA does not escape attention on the west slope, yet the issues there appear to be far removed from
consideration or conscience in the Arkansas or RG basins. I hope that events continue so that those issues are
indeed not a necessary forethought for every water management decision on this side of the hill. I would guess
that one thing that nearly all representatives at the Ark and RG tables could likely agree on is that we do not want
additional federal listings. Although ESA could be actively and loudly debated among roundtable members _ as a
DOW biologist my stand on the issue is a moot point - the Governor and Legislature have made clear what they
intend the DOW to do - prevent federal listing.

However, in spite of a general consensus for no new listings (and even agreement from the USFWS) there are
watchdog groups (i.e., Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, Biodiversity Legal Foundation) that aggressively
and frequently pursue listing petitions. For instance, in the RG basin the SCBD filed in 1998 for listing of the RG
Cutthroat as an endangered species and in spite ot two USFWS findings to the contrary and a full species status _
review we are still in litigation within federal district court in NM. In the Arkansas basin the greenback cutthroat is
our only federally-listed species, but it is a headwater species whose habitat is not infringed by water
development and depletions. However, the Arkansas darter has been a federal candidate species for several
years in the Ark basin. The USFWS was likely correct in that assessment in that the species is listed as rare,
scarce, or threatened in Colorado and the other downstream states in its range (KS, OK, MO, AR). So far this
species has not made it to the top of any watchdog groups petitioning list - but we can never be sure that it will
not. Take home message..no one is immune to a federal listing and the immense legal/social/biological
difficulties that come with it, as much as we like to think it can only happen on the other side of the hill.

A species is seldom listed due to a cataclysmic event, rather the slow but deliberate loss of habitat. There might
be a localized habitat impairment that provides the "straw that broke the camel's back" but once a species is listed
the entire basin becomes affected (or even out-ot-basin as the SEWCD and their impacts with Ruedi T&E fishery
releases). Therefore, what becomes the real "gap" on the environmental side for the Arkansas basin is...what
would be the amount of instream flow needed to maintain habitat for Arkansas darters (in Big Sandy, Rush,
Horse, Black Squirrel, Fountain, Jimmy Camp and Williams creeks) in the event that the species was federally
listed, versus what are the flows in those habitats right now. J remember that one of the Ark roundtable members
voiced how absurd it was to consider an environmental gap on the plains as much of it was dry for as long as he
could remember. No offense was taken, but it indicated a lack of understanding of what might enfold with a

9/16/2004