NEWSHOMEOPINIONLOCAL INTERESTRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKSWANT TO KNOW MORE and MORE ABOUT OUR METHOW VALLEY! |
Methow Valley News June 3, 1999 Endangered Species Coverage NMFS didn’t respond to Forest Service Agency pleaded for ditch decisions by Lee Hicks As the spring irrigation season approached, Forest Service officials expressed concern that lack of communication and missed deadlines related to endangered species listings in the Methow Valley could leave water users parched at a critical crop-growing time. The agency’s misgivings were outlined in a letter, obtained at the request of the Methow Valley News, from Okanogan Forest Service supervisor Sam Gehr to Steve Landino of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Gehr’s letter, dated April 22, said the Forest Service feared the "consultation process" required by the Endangered Species Act, "as it pertains to the irrigation ditches …has stalled and the Forest is unable to justify why the process is now floundering." The nearly four-page, single-spaced letter traces the history of communication beginning in March 1998 between NMFS and the Forest Service regarding "biological assessments" related to water diversions on agency land. Gehr wrote that the issues in the Methow Valley could set precedents nationwide, and asserted that "the Forest has been doing what it can to complete consultation. NMFS on the other hand seems to be non-responsive to the issue." NMFS failed to comply with a number of federal requirements Gehr wrote. Among these was a 30-day deadline for a written response to biological assessments submitted by the Forest Service more than a year before. "The Forest has yet to receive any written documentation from NMFS," Gehr wrote in a bold-faced sentence. Guidelines of the applicable combined federal regulation (CFR) would have allowed special use permit applicants, such as the ditch operators and the Forest Service to request a 60-day extension for the consultations on biological assessments. But Gehr noted, again in bold-faced type, that neither the applicants nor the agency requested extensions. The letter cited section 402.14 (f) of the 50 CFR as providing, "If no extension of formal consultation is agreed to, the Director (of the federal agency, in this case NMFS) will issue a biological opinion using the best scientific and commercial data available." "An extension has not been requested nor has a BO (biological opinion) been received," Gehr wrote. The letter also accused NMFS of failing to keep the Forest Service and ditch users informed of the BO discussions and asked for drafts of the BOs, "in order to analyze the reasonable and prudent alternatives," as allowed under the federal regulation. Gehr also noted that, "We are also aware," of NMFS’ interest in stream flow data but added that, "the Forest has no other data or analysis to address this question." Instead, Gehr asked, "why further delay consultation for minimum flow/cumulative effects information" when a state watershed planning process was underway in the county, "and has been endorsed by NMFS." The county watershed plan was set in motion through an August 1998 memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the state Department of Ecology and Okanogan County. Improving instream flows through a "water bank," in which to deposit unused water, and conservation measures is a central part of the agreement. DOE officials acknowledged during the MOA discussions that NMFS was pressing for the agreement. Closing the letter to Landino, Gehr said the Forest Service believed, the "timelines prescribed for consultation have been greatly exceeded. We have no additional information available." Gathering instream flow data would take from one to three years and cost up to $50,000 per stream, Gehr wrote, "funds we do not have or anticipate getting." In the absence of requests for extensions, Gehr said, "NMFS is bound to issue a BO based on the information at hand." Opinion |
Sports | Local Interest
|