Laserfiche WebLink
September 30, 2004 <br />State Concerns With the Draft Biological Opinion <br />The states have three general areas of concern with the draft biological opinion. <br />A. Hardwired Assumptions. <br />B. Program Adaptive Management. <br />C. Incidental Take Statement. <br />A. Hardwired Assumptions. <br />The draft biological opinion hardwires certain assumptions that the parties agreed to <br />test in the Adaptive ManagementlIMRP process before incorporating those theories <br />into the Program. The States believe that hardwiring these assumptions takes <br />decision making away from the GC and gives it to a locked-in process based on FWS <br />assumptions, representing a major departure from our agreements to date. The states <br />reject the argument that this hardwiring was necessary for the Service to be able to <br />evaluate the effect of the program on the species. The States are also concerned at the <br />inclusion of FWS' May 17 document as part of the draft BO and assumptions related <br />to closing out the issues in that document. FWS agreed to accept the measures in the <br />June 14-15 GC document as closing out all issues in the May 17 document - the BO <br />should not assume any other solution, or include the May 17 document in any way. <br />The hardwired assumptions of concern to the state are as follows: <br />Issues Related to Sediment Augmentation/Pulse Flows <br />Each of the assumptions discussed below relies on the outcome of analyses and <br />modeling that the States consider unreliable, untried, and inconsistent with much of <br />the body of scientific thought. The fundamental disagreement between the States and <br />Interior regarding sediment and flow issues was addressed in the Governance <br />Committee by agreeing to examine the suggested sediment and pulse flow <br />augmentation measures step by step to see if they yielded the expected results. It is <br />unnecessary to rely on the results of a suspect model in the BO because, as discussed <br />below, the Governance Committee planned around the model, and can provide <br />benefits regardless of the validity of the FWS assumptions.. <br />a. Substantial clearinjz and leveling of river islands. <br />The draft biological opinion assumes the Program includes "substantial <br />clearing and leveling of river islands." [dB0 p. 317] Specifically, the GC-2 <br />Alternative assumes the conversion of wooded islands to wetted channel <br />through leveling of islands and moving sand back into the river channel at a <br />rate of 50 acres per year throughout the term of the ls` Increment. This