Draft Final R3-1 Document ‎(2)‎

• Description: related to the Platte River Endangered Species Partnership ‎(aka Platte River Recovery Implementation Program or PRRIP)‎
• State: CO
• State: NE
• State: WY
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 4/17/2000
• Author: PRRIP
• Title: Items related to the Draft Final R3-1 Document
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

f
Off -river roost sites for Whooping cranes are a reality and may be a part of the program lands. Sandpits
for tern and plover habitat are a part of the river and currently the only habitat used in the central Platte
and obviously a land component. Mitigation of these off -river habitats influence biological response
and should not be ignored in the evaluation procedure. The recovery plans look at many factors
affecting endangered species. FWS can not just select the Platte River and fairly evaluate only the
biological response of mitigation measures in the river. For example, the protection of sandpits by
NPPD more than tripled the number of chicks fledged per nest on managed sandpits compared to
unmanaged sandpits. This was a biological response to management. Disking islands, clearing trees,
changing the timing of flow and any manipulative action, may create a biological response. Mitigation
measures are not confined to only the river and therefore, the land component and management of off -
river habitat needs to be considered in the evaluation process developed in the R3 -1 to look at biological
response. Anything the program does may cause a biological response either positive or negative the
means of ascertaining this response should be rigorous enough to detect which it is.
Evaluation Process
The evaluation process needs to be based on peer reviewed "current knowledge" and agreed upon by the
TC. Any models used need to be peer reviewed and tested, calibrated, and agreed upon by the TC. It is
important that both the TC and the FWS work together in putting the process together for evaluating the
species response.
Baseline is borderline at best. Baseline data, if it exists, needs to be agreed upon prior to its use. It
should consist of data and method, not opinion.
Target Species Suitable Habitat (attached)
This document which is to be used as the justification ( "best science ") to define and measure habitat and
potential species response needs to be agreed to by the TC and needs peer review. The FWS /R3 -1
should not evaluate biological response under a separate set of rules. Current knowledge must be
agreed to by the TC and peer reviewed before a species response is evaluated. My recommendation is
that this Suitable Habitat attachment be revised. The TC and FWS need to develop and agree on the
suitable Habitat definition.
- 2-