Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />Therefore it contains the most innovation and compromise in <br />' trying to handle some of the above described issues. It has <br />received some support from the business community, but has <br />been uniformity opposed by the environmental community. <br />' The Miller Bill, the House bill, has sponsors <br />approaching 100 in number, but has not yet been considered <br />by committee (see Appendix D). It would not seem likely <br />' that it could make the House floor this session. <br />Administration support has been "generic". It has been <br />supported by a number of environmental groups. <br />The two bills are difficult to compare directly because <br />they are so comprehensive and come from different directions <br />in their composition. It is certain that either bill would <br />increase greatly the cost of administration of the ESA by <br />making it more procedurally complex. <br />The Council agreed to let things develop in Congress, <br />the IAFGA has supported the Chaffey Bill with some <br />' reservations, and see whether the subject needs revisiting <br />in January. <br />' Issues surrounding the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan <br />Mr. Henry Maddux presented this report with the aid of <br />' Ms. Lynn Starnes. The Razorback was listed in 1981, but <br />there is still no recovery plan. The Recovery Team has been <br />established for some time but not fully utilized. However, <br />a contract was recently issued to Harold Tyus to write a <br />recovery plan. This has been accomplished and the plan has <br />been approved by the Recovery Team and has been sent <br />' (February 1997) for peer and agency review. The FWS has <br />been waiting to find the funds to get the plan completed, <br />but believe this has recently been resolved. <br />The plan includes all the sections and contents <br />normally associated with a species recovery plan; it deals <br />with an Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin approach, but <br />it does not separate recovery goals or recovery actions by <br />basin. See appendix E for the major components and actions <br />in the plan. The plan will be sent back to Harold Tyus with <br />the public and peer comments for final drafting and return <br />to FWS by July 1998. <br />1 <br /> <br />