Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />i. Magnitude of agency's involvement. Both BaR and <br />NPS arguably have equal stakes. Large contract <br />releases could significantly impact BaR's operations of <br />Aspinall and CRSP and thereby inhibit BaR's ability to <br />meet authorized project purposes. Conversely, the <br />Monument may be impacted by certain release patterns <br />or a failure to meet minimum release requirements at <br />..::;r'"n a..11)/ Ccc..se,; <br />critical times. Ilo""t'l'et, the impacts analyzed will be <br />significantly more than just those related to the <br />Monument and Aspinall. <br /> <br />ii. Project approval/disapproval authority. Since this is a <br />contract, both parties may either approve or disapprove. <br />However, Reclamation operates the reservoirs and holds <br />the water rights from which the contract would be <br />fulfilled, therefore, we feel that Reclamation should <br />have the final say. <br /> <br />iii. Expertise concerning the contracts environmental <br />effects. Both agencies have environmental expertise. <br />However, emphasis is in different areas and from <br />differently perspectives. For purposes of this contract, <br />the agencies are felt to be equal. <br /> <br />iv. Duration of the agencies involvement is equal as in any <br />contract. <br /> <br />v. Sequence of agencies involvement should be the same. <br /> <br />Based on the analysis above BaR's edge is in the second criteria. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />000991 <br />