Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />initiative would involve organizing a very small "executive committee" to oversee the <br />work of a contractor who would inquire into the operations of all the major facilities <br />which may be useful in influencing flows in the 15-Mile Reach. We have not agreed on a <br />target, although some have suggested that a goal in the neighborhood of 20,000 acre feet <br />would be necessary to assure the FWS of a specific level of future benefits. We have <br />agreed that the goal of this effort should be to enhance peak flows without diminishing <br />useable yield or causing project sponsors to incur significant new expenses. Agreement <br />on the implementation of this measure is targeted for March 2000. <br /> <br />Another major element of the "reasonable and prudent altemative" which we have <br />been discussing involves passage of the long-term funding legislation in Congress by <br />June 1999. Efforts to move this legislation forward during this session have been <br />inhibited by the uncertainty associated with this section 7 consultation. Once we have a <br />better indication of the degree to which the Recovery Program can provide protection for <br />existing and future depletions, we have indicated a willingness to join the rest of <br />Recovery Program participants in urging congressional hearings on the proposed <br />legislation. However, given that the recent White House distractions in Washington, DC <br />and the fact that there are still approximately 13 appropriations bills requiring action by <br />Congress in the remainder of this session, the proposed June 1999 target may be <br />unachievable. <br /> <br />We are also making limited progress in defining "incidental take" provisions and <br />the kinds of "new information" which may result in FWS or other federal agencies <br />reinitiating consultation on projects protected under this proposed biological opinion. <br /> <br />Conclusion. This process has dragged on for many years and at times new issues <br />seem to pop up more quickly than any are resolved. Nonetheless, I remain guardedly <br />optimistic that this is the most appropriate approach for resolving this conflict and that we <br />can reach agreement on reasonable terms among most of the participants. It is not clear, <br />however, that everyone will be in agreement when these discussions conclude because I) <br />not all participants in these discussions are dependent upon the success of the Recovery <br />Program for protection of their water supplies or other interests and 2) FWS is the <br />ultimate decision maker in this process. We have been careful not to assume that this is a <br />negotiating process because the ESA requires the FWS Regional Director to decide what <br />constitutes a "reasonable and prudent altemate." Despite many frustrations and setbacks, <br />most of the water users and other participants still seem to be committed to success of the <br />Recovery Program as an alternative that is preferable to ESA consultations on a project- <br />by-project basis. <br /> <br />Attachment <br /> <br />L:\BOARDMEMlSept98\20Ldoc <br />