Laserfiche WebLink
The observations described above are eroding at the scientific integrity of the process. <br />Guidance and input from the Governance Committee on these issues is welcome. <br />3. Issue - There has been disagreement on the "scope" of the proposed programs habitat <br />and species management efforts. This issue appears to be linked to different <br />perspectives regarding of the goals of the CA. <br />Discussion — The CA establishes, in part, a "purpose" of securing defined benefits to <br />the target species and a "goal" of improving and maintaining migrational habitat for <br />whooping cranes and reproductive habitat for least terns and piping plovers. These <br />concepts appear to be applicable to the R 3 -1 Milestone. R 3 -1 is currently in draft <br />form and identifies data needs. The data needs identified in R 3 -1 focus on channel <br />roost habitat, channel morphology, riverine nesting habitat, and bottom land feeding <br />and loafing. It has been explained that this focus is based on the desire to evaluate <br />species and habitat responses to mitigation measure (water and land management). <br />The CA appears to provide a broad forum under which benefits to the species might <br />be provided. For example, research on a particular topic might yield significant <br />benefits to the species. However, the focus of R 3 -1 is very narrow and looks <br />primarily at potential riverine benefits. It appears that there are opportunities to <br />improve habitat and provide benefits to the species in areas outside the river channel. <br />Furthermore, within the channel and /or in bottom lands there are land and water <br />management options that could benefit the species which have little to no dependency <br />on river flow or morphology. R 3 -1 does not appear to provide for any of the <br />opportunities discussed above. <br />The Technical Committee could benefit from more precise direction regarding the <br />"scope" of habitat and species management options and opportunities. <br />4. Issue — Ambiguity exists regarding the expected outcome of the proposed program. <br />A clearer understanding of the concepts of compliance, species recovery, and <br />securing defined benefits for the species in regard to the proposed program would be <br />useful. <br />Discussion — There has been some clarification regarding how compliance during the <br />first increment will be determined. Compliance appears to be related to <br />implementation of water projects and acquisition of land but additional clarification <br />would be useful. Many of the CA signatories have been adamant that the proposed <br />program can not be responsible for recovery of the species because the program can <br />only affect a small portion of the species overall habitat. Yet there is considerable <br />emphasis on species response as detailed in R 3 -1. <br />The background information prepared by the Service indicates that the Service will <br />compare species conditions to the long -range species recovery objectives. This <br />