Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-,- ..~-.~-:-.~. - -~ <br />, ""'.... <br /> <br />- 12 - <br /> <br />Purpose of the Meeting <br />Introductions <br />Background <br />Comments from States, Tribes, Sponsors, Others <br />Process for Action <br />Methods of Input <br />Schedules <br /> <br />Following the introductions of those persons present, Rick <br />Gold gave a brief background of the meeting by reviewing some of <br />the details of the USBR letter to F&WS describing a process for <br />development of a "reasonable and prudent" alternative to the jeopardy <br />no-alternative biological opinion issued by the F&WS in May. Rick <br />stated that he believed that other options had been well discussed <br />at previous meetings, and that it is likely that an alternative will <br />be produced under the process in the Bureau's letter. Mr. Buterbaugh <br />of F&WS appeared to agree. <br /> <br />Al Utton of New Mexico asked if comments on the letter were wanted. <br />Rick dismissed that question, which surely would have exposed differences <br />between Colorado and Hew Mexico over details, by saying that the pri- <br />mary issue before the meeting was to discuss the concepts of the process. <br /> <br />Phil Mutz of New Mexico asked if the program is going to work. <br />Rick responded that it is likely that the program will work, but that <br />there was always the possibility that it would not. <br /> <br />Mr. Utton wanted to know if recovery of the squawfish is feasible. <br />The response was that the answer hopefully would come from the 5-years <br />of research. <br />