Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0015~i <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Public Scoping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, conI. <br /> <br />..)~:~~~\: <br /> <br />converted, through a water court proceeding, to instream flow use. This process faces legal challenges <br />and an uncertain future. Further, even if the CWCB right is adjudicated, will the CWCB honor its past <br />pledge not to 'stack' its right on top of any federal reserved right? What role does the CWCB have in <br />this process unless the amount of the federal reserved right is determined to be less than the CWCB <br />right? Is the CWCB indicating a contrary intention on the stacking issue? <br /> <br />lb. COLO _ SPR; p2.#7. The Contract identifies approximately 300,000 acre feet as available for <br />beneficial consumptive use (paragraph S.c.). Wouldn't this water be available for use "above" the <br />Aspinall Unit, including use for transmountain diversion purposes? If not, please explain. <br /> <br />17. COLO_SPR; p2.#8. As part of the EIS process, will there be an examination of potential, <br />environmental impacts associated with a need for additional coal- or gas-fired electric generation <br />capacity if there is a decrease in CRSP power availability? Will there be a socio-economic analysis of <br />any impacts associated with potential increases in power rates as a result of the Contract provisions? <br /> <br />10. COLO_SPR; p2.#9. Will there be an examination of the impact of the Contract on, interstate <br />compact provisions, including not only downstream delivery obligations. but the ability of Colorado to <br />fully utilize its compact entitlements within the state? <br /> <br />1ge. COLO_SPR; p2.#9. Will there be an examination of the impact of the Contract on interstate <br />'compact provisions, including not only downstream delivery obligations, but the ability of Colorado to <br />fully utilize its compact entitlements within the state? <br /> <br />;. :;.::~.:~:. ,.;:, :.. <br />.;:<L~.;"-~ <br /> <br />22. <br /> <br />COLO_SPR; p3.#15. 'With specific reference to paragraph 5.b.; is it the intent of the Contract that <br />Reclamation and the NPS may alter flow regimes 'for other mutually agreed purposes' without virtue <br />of consultation with other affected entities or contrary to established operating principles? What notice, <br />if any, will be give regarding release changes? Will this be considered a major federal. action? <br /> <br />7h. COLO_SPR; p3.#16.' Is paragraph 9.a. in the nature of a 'selective subordination,' and if so; how <br />will it be received by the State Engineer's office? Can this 'selective subordination' be accomplished <br />without adjudication in State water court? <br /> <br />13b. COLO_SPR; p3.#16. Is paragraph 9.a. in the nature ofa 'selective subordination,' and ifso, how <br />will it be received by the State Engineer's office? Can this 'selective subordination' be accomplished <br />without adjudication in State water court? <br /> <br />6. COLO_SPR; p3.#17. ,With specific reference to paragraph 14, how can the agencies agree in <br />advance of any determination that the Endangered Species Act analysis will not impact the amounts to <br />be released under the Contract? <br /> <br />14b. COLO_SPR; p3.#18. How will any future Wild and Scenic or Wilderness designation affect or <br />correlate with the Contract provisions? Is this going to be examined as part of the E1S process? <br /> <br />19. COLO_SPR; p3.#18. How will any future Wild and Scenic or Wilderness designation affect or <br />correlate with tbe Contract provisions? Is this going to be examined as part of the E1S process? <br /> <br />39 <br />