Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001361 <br /> <br />of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Draft documents, <br />nonetheless, expressed unsubstantiated biological opinions <br /> <br /> <br />on the consequences of upstream development on habitat <br /> <br /> <br />requirements of allegedly endangered fishes. Since the Fish <br /> <br /> <br />and Wildlife Service acknowledges the habitat requirements <br /> <br /> <br />of such fishes to be largely unknown, and, since, legitimate <br /> <br /> <br />scientific differences exist as to the best ways and means <br /> <br /> <br />of accomodating the requirements of the fishes. public <br /> <br /> <br />comment and input should be material to any discussion of <br /> <br /> <br />the subject in any Final documents. The official prohibition <br /> <br /> <br />on such dialog effectively stultified the objective of <br /> <br /> <br />public input. and results, as before, in a total loss of <br /> <br /> <br />reliability in the Draft reports. <br /> <br /> <br />(3) The Board of the River District further presumes <br /> <br /> <br />the Congressional directive to the Secretary of the Interior <br /> <br /> <br />(the Secretary's duties as to the instant studies were <br /> <br /> <br />apparently delegated first to BOR, and. later, to NPS) <br /> <br /> <br />requires an objective study and report on the merits and the <br /> <br /> <br />demerits of the proposals. Even a cursory examination of <br /> <br /> <br />the Draft documents results in the conviction the study was <br /> <br /> <br />wholly subjective, rather than objective. and has. as its <br /> <br /> <br />principal objective, the foreclosure of upstream development <br /> <br /> <br />on the Yampa River wi.thou.t regard to the consequences to the <br /> <br />-4- <br />