Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Species Act. <br /> <br />B. We are already involved in a section 7 consultation on Aspinall as part <br />of CRSP. <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />Given the scope of the EIS already identified, it is likely that litigation on l <br />the adequacy of the final EIS could occur. ~ <br /> <br />D. <br /> <br />Regardless of the outcome of the contract, NPS maintains that the <br />reserved right must still be taken through water court, ho~ever, NPS is <br />not firmly committed to the contract as being that quantification; <br />although that is the purpose of the effort from the States view. <br /> <br />II. <br /> <br />+1011 <br />Participa* <br /> <br />A. Contract Signatories <br /> <br />1. Certain are BOR, NPS, BLM and USFWS. <br /> <br />2. Uncommitted parties are State of Colorado, Western Area Power <br />Administration (Western). <br /> <br />3. The Colorado River Water Conservation District, Upper Gunnison <br />Water Conservancy District and Uncompahgre Valley Water Users <br />Association have requested that they be involved in formal contract <br />negotIatIons. Since it has been proposed to do the contract <br />negotiations and NEPA compliance simultaneously, formal party <br />status in the NEP A process would be desirable as well. This would <br />bring the number of potential agencies with formal party status to <br />nine and there still maybe others interested who have not yet been <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />000988 <br />