State Concerns with Draft Biological Opinion

Home Browse Search

There is no such goal or objective in the Program. The states understand that the Service believes that some operational aspects of the Program may have been too general for precise; evaluation in the DEIS and biological opinion process. It is not acceptable, however, to use the biolog2cal opinion process to redefine goals and objectives of the Program. The Program goals (section II) and objectives (section III A.3) are meant to be general statements of principle and are not operational seci:ions. The parties to the negotiations stressed the need for certainty on the wording of the objectives language in the Program document at III B by statin;g that changes of Program objectives may only be done with the approval of fhe Governors and the Secretary of Interior. Instead of "hardwiring" this assumption, the BO should recognize that a variety of outcomes are po;>sible and acceptable, including: 1) Measures to reduce incision are feasible and effective on some scale, and ane incorporated into Program and EA Manager decision-malking. 2) The IMRP investigations show that incision is not occurring at all or is a linuted, localized phenomena and is not a problem. No mitigation measures are needed or implemented. 3) The IMRP investigations show that there is evidence that incision occurs to some extent that should be addressed, but suggested measures to reduce incision are infeasible, ineffective, prohibitively expensive or damaging to landowners downstream. To satisfy the Land Plan, the GC then focuses on other means of maintaining Program lands. d. Delivery of 5000 cf's/800cfs flows. The draft BO assumes Program will increase North Platte channel conveyance capacity and use operational flexibility in NPPD/CNPPID systems to achieve short duration bank full flc?ws during irrigation season. [dB0 pp. 192, 319] Under the June 14 Agreement, concerns regarding delivery of pulse flows were addressed through a commitment to study by year 2 the feasibility of delivering 5000 cfs for 3 d.ays at Overton and 800 cfs at the habitat during the irrigation season (inserted in the Program document at paragraph III.E.2.d.ii on Page 16). The ultimate plan is to include measures expected to deliver those flows "unless the feasibilit:y study and the IMRP's evaluations suggest these deliveries are infeasible or, unnecessary." The IMRP addresses evaluations of options to be considered in the feasibility study at page 23. The draft BO inappropriately assumes tYiat measures will be identified and implemented to reach the desired delivery capacities. Measured identified in the agreed-upon feasibility study will be implemented only if they are needed and are capable ?,?,r„T,?,<,W,,,,,,,-,«, &_z 4