Laserfiche WebLink
land and habitat management objectives and schedules. There simply does not <br />appear to be enough time to allow an "in series" /sequential progression. <br />The Technical Committee and CA signatories would benefit from a discussion and <br />policy decision on adaptive management and direction on how the Service will <br />evaluate as yet "unproven" management methods. <br />10. Issue — Peer review for several documents needs to take place. Given the current <br />schedule it is unclear how this might happen prior to the proposed program. In <br />addition, many Technical Committee members are concerned that peer review <br />activities conducted to date have not resulted in incorporation of concepts if those <br />concepts did not support past positions and opinions. Furthermore, in some cases the <br />peer reviewers have or continue to have vested positions in the Platte. <br />Discussion — It is difficult to expect a neutral and unbiased outcome from peer <br />reviewers that have a vested stake in the outcome Platte River decisions, and this type <br />of peer review should not occur. The Technical Committee frequently becomes <br />divided along expert lines. In many cases these experts had or have affiliations with <br />entities vested in the outcome of Platte River decisions. It appears that there may be <br />biases based on these affiliations and these biases may affect past and current <br />decisions. A means of addressing this issue is needed. Should these data sources and <br />opinions be treated with caution and not included for policy level decisions? <br />11. Issue — The Technical Committee does not function in a collaborative and cooperative <br />manner. The Regulator - Regulatee relationship and mentality persist. This is an <br />impediment to compromise and progress. <br />Discussion -The long history of conflict in the Platte River often affects Technical <br />Committee meetings. Many of the participants have been in various roles as <br />regulator, permittee, adversary etc. The CA was intended to provide a forum for <br />activities to be completed under a spirit of cooperation, which in typical situations <br />requires greater flexibility and compromise. There seems to be concern over <br />abrogation of responsibility and a difficulty shifting away from a regulator and <br />adversarial mentality. <br />Input and policy direction for the Governance Committee will help the Technical <br />Committee members have a better understanding regarding the reasonable <br />expectations for working under the CA versus the past processess. <br />