Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum <br />To: Clayton Derby, Executive Directors Office, Platte River Cooperative Agreement <br />From: Phil Ogle, Wyoming Water Development Commission <br />Date: May 22, 2000 <br />Subject: Comments on the Draft Final R3 -1 Document and the Draft Target Species <br />Suitable Habitat Document. <br />Clayton, <br />My comments are of a general nature and focus on coordinating the R3 -1 document with the <br />Technical Committee (TC). <br />1. After reviewing the R3 -1, I have questions concerning how the proposed work in the <br />Integrated Monitoring and Research Component (IMRC) addresses the proposed needs in the <br />R3 -1. 1 have tried to make comparisons but have as many questions as answers. It would be <br />appropriate for the authors of the R3 -1 to present their comparison of the two documents to the <br />TC. This would allow the TC to understand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service's) <br />interpretation of the two documents. In many ways, the language, in both documents, is so <br />general that there could be a large difference in interpretation. <br />Example: There appears to be considerable difference between the R3 -1 and the IMRC in <br />evaluation of program effects on the pallid sturgeon. The IMRC has a general approach to the <br />sturgeon, testing the assumption that it is possible to improve habitat for the pallid sturgeon. The <br />R3 -1 document seems to require more detail. Is this difference real or perceived? <br />2. It seems the R3 -1 document focuses on the river and associated habitats with little or no <br />consideration of off channel /river habitats. This appears to be a major difference in the IMRC <br />and the R3 -1. Given the information regarding benefits of off channel habitats for all three bird <br />species the Service should consider these habitats in the R3 -1 document. <br />3. It appears the Service is trying to submit the R3 -1 to the Governance Committee (GC) <br />without the concurrence of the TC. I realize it is important to complete milestones in a timely <br />manner and that the R3 -1 is a Service responsibility; however, this is a cooperative program and <br />there should be open debate and input to this document by the TC. It would be acceptable for the <br />Service to submit the document to the GC and indicate they are working with the TC to produce <br />a Final R3 -1. <br />4. Milestones R1 -1, R2 -1 and R3 -1 are interrelated and we cannot move forward with any <br />meaningful monitoring or research until these milestones are cooperatively met. It would be <br />good to complete R1 -1 before completing R3 -1. The reason RI -1 has never been satisfactorily <br />