Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />identified. <br /> <br />Expansion could be justified based on the fact that these three <br />entities are legally constituted governmental agencies representing <br />the basin with agreements with Reclamation that could potentially <br />be impacted by the proposed action. <br /> <br />It appears desirable to have~ore balanced voice with the federal <br />agencies in terms of agencies with party status and at the same time <br />allow local interests more input into an action that potentially has <br />significant impacts on their community. <br /> <br />The drawbacks are that it makes the manageme~ Pl2.cess <br />potentially more difficult and expensive. The process R1pen to <br />potential criticism in how formal party status is determined. <br />Finally, should only the Board sign either the 'Task Directive" or <br />contract it becomes the broker or middle man. <br /> <br />4. It is the desire of the Federal Agencies at this time to limit contract <br />signatories to those in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above and they have <br />discouraged additional participation in the negotiations. <br /> <br />B. NEP A compliance <br /> <br />1. Task Directive <br /> <br />a. A 'Task Directive" defines an agencies manner and level of <br />commitment to the NEPA process. The NEPA process is <br />intended, in part, to emphasize cooperative consultation and <br />hopefully develop consensus rather than adversarial positions. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />000989 <br />