Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />7. \lILL FWS ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE MINIMUH STREAM FLOW <br />OBLIGATIONS PREFERENTIALLY, I.E., ON FEDERAL <br />PROJECTS FIRST? <br /> <br />While both parties may fully contemplate that the <br />settlement agreement would constitute full and <br />complete restitution for any anticipated jeopardy to <br />the endangered fish, if eventually FWS is found to <br />have a legal obligation to re-open the settlement at <br />some future date, a prior agreement on how to handle <br />such a situation might be helpful. For example, <br />would FVJS agree to exhaust other avenues available <br />before seeking additional mitigation from those going <br /> <br />through consultation now, e.g., imposition of minimum <br /> <br />------_._.~-..-----_.-_._._- - - --.- . <br /> <br />stream flow obligations on the Bureau of Reclama- <br /> <br />tion's reservoirpro-jects?- Accordingly, if the BOR <br />__..-_r. <br /> <br />was required to operate its existing projects (and <br />any future projects on the Colorado River) to maxi.- <br />mize the water available for minimum stream flows and <br /> <br />to take all other actions possible which would <br />maximize the likelihood of recovery of the endangered <br />fish species, then, and not until then, would further <br />mitigation measures be sought from private project <br /> <br />sponsors. <br /> <br />-~-- <br /> <br />-19- <br />