Laserfiche WebLink
<br />".... "" <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />.' ,,;.j; ~ <br /> <br />- 13 - <br /> <br />Phil Mutz wanted to know what are the requirements for the <br />trout fishing, and Rick said he hoped the answer will come from the <br />research. <br /> <br />Mr. Buterbaugh of F&WS interjected that we should remember that <br />consultation is only on the Animas-LaPlata Project and its impacts <br />on the Colorado squawfish, and that the trout problem can be solved. <br /> <br />Mr. Utton attempted to bring up the question of 400 cfs releases <br />in lieu of 300 cfs releases from Navajo Reservoir for trout (power plant). <br /> <br />Dan Israel mentioned that the Colorado Ute Indians Water Rights <br />Settlement must be taken into consideration. <br /> <br />At approximately this stage of the proceedings it was apparent <br />that differences between Colorado and New Mexico were about to be <br />exposed to the Federals before we had a chance to settle them. It <br />did not seem sensible to allow such exposure to be utilized by project <br />opponents. Consequently, I asked the F&WS and USBR to describe con- <br />templated methods of developing a "reasonable and prudent" alternative, <br />and to describe the steps in such a process. <br /> <br />Rick Gold listed the fOllowing process steps: <br /> <br />1. Availability of water <br />2. Biological basis of a new biological opinion <br />3. Development of components <br />4. Consultation process involving F&WS and USBR by Dec. 1. 1990. <br />5. Final draft biological opinion by Dec. 31, 1990. <br />6. Discussions <br />7. Final A-LP Biological Opinions - with implementation of <br />recovery plan in place by April 1,1991. <br />