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

Home Browse Search

Program should look at what habitat is there and how much, what can be done to the habitat, what are the impacts to the habitat, and what are the species response during the First Increment. Mark also asked for the TC opinion regarding what the document should evaluate. Rick Brown responded that the document should evaluate what habitat types can be constructed, how they can be constructed, and allow for a wide range of alternatives and an adequate time frame for response. Rick noted that the Program should not be used to validate something like the whooping crane model but should benefit whooping cranes. Rick also noted that the document currently does not allow review and evaluation of things such as off - channel whooping crane roosting habitat and he felt this was a narrow interpretation of the Cooperative Agreement. The example was given that if the Program works on off - channel roosting habitat and it is found to be greatly beneficial to cranes, the Program could still be graded as a failure under the R3 -1 Document because it did not affect things such as channel width, flow, etc. Mark Butler pointed out that the Program can conduct projects elsewhere if desired, but right now the FWS believes the R3 -1 document should focus on mitigation measures agreed to in the CA, such as in- channel roosting for whooping cranes. Concern was also raised that the document does not refer to "valley floor" or similar wording when describing areas for possible evaluation. The point was again made that the FWS focused on the current mitigation measures only, but that the FWS did not object to the Program evaluating other factors potentially influencing target species. Mark Czaplewski noted that milestone R4 -1 calls for peer review of items developed in Rl -1, R2 -1, and R3 -1. Mark expressed concern that the current R3 -1 Document does not provide a list of literature used and asked if the FWS had any suggestions on how the TC could peer review the document in meeting their obligation in R4 -1. Concern was also raised regarding how peer review would play into the TC /GC review process given the tight schedule. Dale noted that the TC Peer Review Work Plan outlines what should be peer reviewed but has not been updated within the last year. A decision will need to be made whether or not the TC believe peer review of the R3 -1 Document and /or supporting materials is necessary and this decision will be forwarded to the FC /GC for approval and funding. Sharon Whitmore noted that if reviewers were asked to review just R3 -1 they would be missing large portions of the monitoring and research component (i.e., RI-1, R2 -1). It was noted that peer review is a very important aspect of the Program /Cooperative Agreement to the states and their constituents and was supposed to avoid some past arguments by having an independent scientific review of CA and Program products. Martha explained the review process used by FWS already on the document. Lyman McDonald cautioned that serious consideration be given to data needs before the document is elevated to the GC for review. Concerns were raised related to the rational used for determining data needs. Jim Jenniges noted that significant works have been written disputing the rational and now some parties feel the FWS is asking them to buy into a Program based on the disputed information. Dale asked for clarification on how the Joint Study information (as an example) was to be used. FWS responded that Program evaluation will not be based entirely on old information (e.g., Joint Study, sed /veg model, whooping crane model) and that as new data are gathered it will also be used in evaluating the Program. The whooping crane model, as an example, can be one tool used to evaluate the Program. The intent of the R34 Document is to define a way information is collected such that the FWS can determine a biological response of the target species to mitigation measures during the First Increment. 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 3 of 7