Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to <br /> <br />2. Besides failing to designate critical habitat, what <br />other problems have been iclc~tified with FWS's <br />approach to resolving the endangered fish questiotl7 <br /> <br />Numerous other questions have arisen -- procedural <br />and substantive -- technical, legal, and general <br />policy. The July 25 ewe letter to Frank Dunkle lists <br />five specific concerns, but this by no means is an <br />exhaustive list. Practically, the concerns are <br />probably too numerous to list because depending on <br />the answers to some, other questions may arise. <br /> <br />Suffice it to say that fundamental policy questions <br />remain unanswered, makinB the resolution of specifi.c <br />technical questions quite difficult. For example, <br />the technical question has been raised as to whether <br />the State of Colorado's program of stocking and <br />maintaining exotic fish is a problem, (potentially <br />even a "taking" in vioation of S9 of the ESA if the <br />exotic fish prey on or destroy the habitat of the <br />endangered fish). While banning fish stocking would <br />have some serious political and socio-economic <br />implications, it rem~ins a substantially <br />utI-researched technical question. The ewe, and even <br />some officials within FWS have expressed concern <br />about the fact that FWS is not examining the interre- <br /> <br />-34- <br />