Comments on the Draft Final R3-1 Document and the Draft Target Species Suitable Habitat Document

Home Browse Search

Concern was raised that a process needs to be in place that clearly identifies all existing baseline information the FWS will use to judge biological response before Program implementation. The final baseline document will need to clearly reference any and all pertinent quantitative information. Mark Butler noted that the Rl -1 document is not for compliance, rather it represents a collection of base information. Lyman McDonald urged review of the meta data. He also cautioned that without proper documentation existing data is relatively useless. Habitat Protection Planning Task Force Mark Czaplewski noted that several Land Committee members have asked when the Task Force should start fleshing out the GC approved outline. The TC agreed that work should begin shortly after completion of the Habitat Management Methods document in mid -May. Mark will address the topic at the May 8 Habitat Criteria Subcommittee meeting. R3 -1 Document Paul Tebbel introduced the topic and suggested that if the TC meets the schedule outlined by the FWS in Mark Butler's e -mail then the minutes could be used to provide consolidated TC comments by identifying issues and concern. However, he pointed out that individual entities will also likely comment. Mark Butler described the proposed schedule in which the TC provides consolidated comments to the FWS by May 5; the FWS will review the comments and provide the document to the GC by May 19; and the GC will be asked for a decision on acceptance of the document at their May 25 meeting. Concern was raised over the very tight schedule and only recent distribution of the "Draft Target Species Suitable Habitat" document. Many felt more time was needed at the TC level for review. Dale noted that GC representatives may have problems reviewing and accepting a document with out acceptance from their technical people. The FWS views completion of R3 -1 as their mandated responsibility and that they would accept comments but the final document was their determination. In the end, participating parties will need to determine if they can live with the document or if it a deal breaker. Martha Tacha briefly described the R3 -1 Document and how it relates to R2 -1 and Rl -1. Martha noted that the R3 -1 Document discusses what issues need addressing for FWS purposes and could be used to insure development of necessary protocols through the IMRC process. The document also discusses the rational of determining data needs. Martha discussed the process that will be used by FWS to evaluate Program benefits in complying with ESA at the end of first increment. Martha also addressed the review conducted by the FWS of the R3 -1 Document and associated "Draft Target Species Suitable Habitat" and distributed a list of experts that received the document for review. Kevin Urie asked if the TC could see the comments. FWS representatives agreed TC could review comments. Requests for copies of the comments should be submitted to Clayton Derby. Concern was raised regarding the interpretation of milestone R34 and how slightly different interpretations can lead to large differences in what R3 -1 says and does not say. FWS described their interpretation and noted that they are focusing on the current Program's mitigation measure of offsetting target flows by 130 -150 KAF and providing 10,000 acres of habitat. Concern was also raised regarding the perception that the adaptive management concept was not included in the document and that this made the document too ridged in what it evaluated. Mark Butler explained that the Program will not recover the species but will impact the species habitat. The This document is a draft based on one person's notes of the meeting. The official meeting minutes may be different if corrections are made by the committee before approval. Page 2 of 7