Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />doubts as to the value of the proposed <br />conservation measure. Instead of channel- <br />ling mitigation towards the critical <br />habitat of the species, the FWS effort is <br />directed to a fifteen mile stretch where <br />the number of fish captured is very low and <br />where spawning (if any) is insignificant to <br />the ,dabi1ity of the species. <br /> <br />c. FWS continues to burden the ESA ~ 7 Consul- <br />tation process with significant changes in <br />both administrative policy and frequently <br />altered decision. For example, an apparent <br />re-examination has taken place concerning <br />the feasibility and operating liabilities <br />of the "basin-wide" direct recovery facili- <br />ty suggested as part of the Draft Biologi- <br />cal Opinions. As a result, FWS has <br />reportedly eliminated consideration of its <br />earlier identified proposals for screening <br />an existing river diversion and for <br />imp1acement of habitat enhancing backwa- <br />ters. This re-eva1uation has been accom- <br />plished within the very short period of <br />time since the original Draft Biological <br />Opinions were issued. But even this <br />re-eva1uation, and subsequent changes are <br /> <br />-24- <br />