Laserfiche WebLink
<br />------~~-----------"-~- <br /> <br />. . <br />. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />lil<elihood of both the survival and recovery of the fishes in the wild by <br />reducing reproduction. numbers. or the distribution of the fishes? Explain. <br /> <br />4. Based on your professional judgement and data collected to date. is <br />it your view there are alternative(s) or conservation measure(s) which, if <br />implemented, would allow construction of the Animas-La Plata Project, or <br />other depletions, while not jeopardizing the continued existence of the <br />fishes? Explain. (In responding to the question, the panel needs to ignore <br />existing legal constraints.) <br /> <br />Alternative Tasl< Force <br /> <br />r, <br /> <br />;' <br /> <br />Reclamation has also requested the formation of a task force representing <br />state. local, and Indian interests to further explore reasonable and prudent <br />actions that may be tal<en to insure full development of New Mexico's and <br />Colorado's legal entitlement in the San Juan River Basin while at the same <br />time being responsive to the Endangered Species Act. Through this tasl< <br />force, we will explore whether any further levels of depletion in the San <br />Juan River can be accommodated by a modified operating plan at Navajo Dam. <br />That is, can Navajo Dam be operated to support recovery of the endangered <br />fish species (emulate an acceptable natural hydrograph) and still support <br />existing levels of depletions, some additional depletions, or full depletion <br />under Colorado River Compact entitlements. If additional depletions can be <br />supported by Navajo Dam operations, then what project goes forth? Animas-La <br />Plata, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Jicarillo Indian Water Rights <br />settlements, etc. The discussions and information provided by the tasl< force <br />will assist Reclamation, the FWS, the Secretary of the Interior, and <br />congressional interests in identifying an alternative solution. <br /> <br />~': <br /> <br />I' <br />"5 <br /> <br />~ <br />i <br />~~ <br /> <br />Course of Action (Schedule) <br /> <br />1. Extension of the 45-day draft review period to allow for the <br />biological panel to meet and respond to proposed questions (June 2, 1990). <br /> <br />2. Convene biological panel and receive independent review (July 2. <br />1990) . <br /> <br />3. Comment on the Service's draft opinion (July 13, 1990). <br /> <br />4. Depending on the biological panel's responses"Reclamation would tal<e <br />the following actions. <br /> <br />a. If the responses of the panel indicate reasonable measures which <br />would allow the Animas-La Plata Project to proceed, Reclamation would pursue <br />implementing those measures with the Fish and Wildlife Service (July 13, <br />1990) . <br /> <br />"~ <br />~~ <br />f,,: <br />,,; <br />1~~ <br /> <br />~~ <br />,,~ <br />~ <br />" <br />,," <br />:) <br />~ <br /> <br />~'- <br />, <br /> <br />b. If the panel indicates that there are no measures which would <br />allow the construction of the Animas-La Plata project, Reclamation would <br />proceed to rescind request for Section 7 on all Reclamation projects in the <br />San Juan Basin, and develop a comprehensive biological assessment. This <br />