WSP12616 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002578 in sheets, meeting notes, draft/final work products, etc. which indicate that adequate representation, dialog, and decision-making existed to meet the requirements of NEP A. We therefore concluded that it was important that the operating procedures for both the AMWG and the TWG required the production of some minimal level of meeting documentation (agendas, sign-in sheets, notes, work products. etc.), The minimum should be sufficient for the decision- makers to ensure compliance with NEPA. We then discussed what actions are already covered by existing NEPA documentation. , Reclamation's view is that that which was identified in the FEIS and ROD -- Modified Low Fluctuating Flow alternative and some of the "common elements" of adaptive management -- is covered (certain of the "common elements" will still need separate NEPA compliance and documentation). We asked ourselves whether that "box" which Reclamation had defined could be broadened, We explored the idea of supplementing the existing NEP A documents, or putting together a process which facilitates NEP A review and compliance on a specific case-by-case basis. We ended up gravitating more toward the notion of trying to assist Reclamation (as the action agency) and the other agencies involved in compliance issues with expediting the preparation of the compliance documentation, This might take two forms: (1) ensuring that the details of a proposed action and all the additional information necessary to complete compliance were made available to the agencies in a complete and timely fashion, and (2) assisting with the preparation of some type of "baseline", or progranunatic, eilYironment compliance which would facilitate and expedite compliance for future actions that would require review on an individual basis. Reclamation needed some time to evaluate whether a progranunatic approach for NEPA (and, potentially, ESA) compliance would be desirable; we asked them to provide an answer at the December 10-11 TWG meeting. ESA Issues Next we turned our attention to ESA issues. Debra Bills, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, attended our meeting, and with Tony Morton clarified for us several aspects of ESA consultations. Reconsultation on the original Biological Opinion is required under conditions which are spelled out in federal regulations as follows: if (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the opinion, (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in the opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. The action agency makes the call on whether reconsultation is necessary. Much of the discussion on NEP A compliance was then applied to ESA and other 2 12/10/97