Laserfiche WebLink
<br />^ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Peter H. Evans and Wendy C. Weiss <br />July 2, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Other participants in the Recovery Program process have suggested that the CWCB <br />forego any immediate action until suitable Recovery Program alternatives to the instream flow <br />filings can be formulated through dialog between the water users and the Fish and Wildlife <br />Service. These suggestions are undoubtedly motivated in part by concerns regarding the <br />Service's response to withdrawal of one or both of the pending filings. Although OMID <br />supports further efforts to formulate scientifically sound alternatives to the current instream flow <br />filings,2 it doubts that any such discussions will reverse the water users' strong opposition to the <br />current fIlings. Given that, OMID sees no basis to maintain the filings at this time and urges that <br />both be immediately withdrawn. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~/ <br /> <br />FLINT B. OGLE <br /> <br />pc: James Rooks <br />Dale Tooker <br />Fred Aldrich <br />Frank Cooley <br />David Hallford <br />Patti Wells <br />Mark Pipher <br />Tom Pitts <br /> <br />Mark Hermundstad <br />Jeff Houpt <br />Stan Cazier <br />Brian Nazarenus <br />Greg Walcher <br />Bennett Raley <br />Glenn Porzak <br /> <br />F;\WP\JJ7J\07J\COlUt\L.EVAN$J.FBO <br /> <br />2 In particular, OMID endorses the suggestion' in Lori Satterfield's May 7, 1998, letter that <br />an instream flow could be developed for the limited purpose of protecting releases to the 15 Mile Reach <br />from upstream storage facilities. <br /> <br />E'd <br /> <br />~J3al~M ~ a~Ojjna Wd0Z:E0 86. Z0 lnf <br /> <br />.... <br />