Laserfiche WebLink
CDOW Rebuttal Statement — Regulation 37 <br />December 2010 Reg. 37 Rule - Making Hearing <br />capacity of East Salt Creek to support reproducing populations of fish. <br />The CDOW's survey results for East Salt Creek do not have a direct effect on either the <br />CAM proposal or the WQCD proposal because both entities have proposed that the <br />maiunstem of East Salt Creek remain in existing Segment 13a. However, the CDOW <br />believes that the results of these surveys are indicative of general patterns of variability <br />expected in ephemeral and intermittent streams. In particular, it is unlikely that a single <br />reconnaissance site on an and ephemeral or intermittent stream will provide an adequate <br />characterization of the stream's potential to support flowing or standing water and aquatic <br />life, especially if no biological data are collected. For these reasons, the CDOW believes <br />it is appropriate that the WQCD focused its alternative proposal to include only those <br />streams covered by more rigorous biological sampling (Le., no reconnaissance sites). <br />While the streams in the WQCD's proposed Segment De where characterized by single <br />sampling sites, the exclusion of streams with no biological sampling is an improvement <br />over CAM's original proposal. <br />Table 1. CDOW personnel observed hundreds of juvenile and larval fish in East Salt <br />Creek in June 2010. A subsarnple of these fish (n = 87) was sent to the Colorado State <br />University Larval Fish Labor atory for identification, and the results are presented below. <br />--- <br />ON ME <br />i t r- <br />postflexion mesolarvae (n = 1) <br />7.5 <br />metalarvae (n = 1) <br />15 <br />juvenile (n = 2) <br />16.5 <br />adult (n = 2 ) <br />67 -68 <br />postflexion mesolarvae (n -10) <br />20 -23 <br />metalarvae (n = 46) <br />24 -28 <br />juven (n = 25) <br />30 -34 <br />The CDOW also wishes to emphasize that, like the bluehead sucker collected in East Salt <br />Creek by GEI (CAM Exhibit 4, page 27), flannelmouth sucker are a declining native <br />species (Rees et al. 2005). Along with five other states and federal agencies, the CDOW <br />is a signatory to the Range -Wide Agreement -and Conservation -Strategy aimed at the^ - <br />cooperative conservation of roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth sucker <br />(Karpowitz 2006). Given the limited mobility of larval fish, it is likely that East Salt <br />Creek supports spawning and rearing for sensitive life stages of native suckers. The <br />CDOW expects similar conditions in West Salt Creek and Big Salt Wash (CDOW RPHS, <br />page 3), and the WQCD's proposed resegmentation addresses the CDOW's <br />recommendation that West Salt Creek and Big Salt Wash be retained along with East Salt <br />Creek in existing Segment 13a. However, the CDOW notes that additional water - quality <br />data and data confirming the presence of these fishes may support adoption of the full <br />suite of aquatic life standards in these streams in the future. <br />In addition to differences in geographic coverage, the alternative proposed by the WQCD <br />differs from CAM's original proposal in terms of the applicable water - quality standards. <br />While CAM originally proposed no standards for pH and a dissolved oxygen standard of <br />December 1, 2010 4 <br />