Identification of Policy Issues Affecting the Technical Committee

Home Browse Search

The advantage would be that Program participants would know Mfront what baseline conditions the Service would use when evaluating first increment progress. The disadvantage is that it would most likely cause the Service to default to the Management Joint Study to define existing baseline conditions in the absence of scientifically supported data and protocols. As a result, the Service would have no chioce but to base the Rl -1 document on their so- called "best available science" (Management Joint Study and opinion) and the stakeholders would have little or no opportunity for cooperative input. 2) Agree with the Service's concept to establish additional baseline conditions under the first increment of the Program. • This approach would allow the Service and the Program to move forward with a draft Rl -1 document as currently proposed. Supplemental information acquired during the first increment of the Program would be added to the Rl -1 document as scientific monitoring and research is conducted to fill information gaps that currently The primary question here is: can "current" baseline conditions be support the "sound science" concept and reduce the speculation and. 2. Issue — The Management Joint Study and subsequent select studies have useful information. However, in many cases these studies have been over interpreted, selectively interpreted, or overly relied upon in the absence of sufficient information. Discussion — The Management Joint Study in some cases may have taken on a life of its own. The Management Joint Study was more neutral on many issues (i.e., whopping crane non - riverine roosting, non - riverine nesting) than currently reflected in R 3 -1. In addition, there is often a paucity of data, yet positions are established and defended vehemently. Furthermore, the habitat parameter incorporated into R 3 -1 supporting documents appear to based on a simplistic "more is better" axiom. Securing defined benefits for the species and improving habitat conditions will have negative impacts. These impacts may be directly related to certain habitat parameters. The logical process seems to be identification of the best balance between the desired habitat parameter or goal, minimizing undesirable impacts, and the actual benefits anticipated for the species. A more is better approach does not allow a forum for constructive analysis.