Laserfiche WebLink
<br />al ternati ves is proceeding. <br /> <br />The possibility of <br />f <br /> <br />reaching an overall agreement for Juniper-Cross <br /> <br />Mountain water rights, subj ect to a reasonable <br />future development allowance is good. <br />3. Progress on other segments is more problematic. <br /> <br />Fish and Wildlife service is reluctant to use <br /> <br />progress on the Yampa as reason to relax <br />requirements on other segments, such as lS-mile <br /> <br />reach of the Gunnison. Protection of Yampa is only <br /> <br />the protection of a status quo, not restoration of <br />any habitat, and it may not be sufficient or <br />reliable for recovery. Flow recommendations have <br />been submitted to the CWCB for the lS-mile reach, <br />but the CWCB is reluctant to agree on the <br />biological basis underlying the recommendation <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />without knowing consequences of the recommended <br />flow regime on Colorado's potential to develop its <br />compact entitlement. And even if a junior instream <br />flow is appropriated, a physical, wet water <br />solution probably is still needed for lS-mile <br />reach. <br /> <br />4. There is a possibili ty of restoration of Lower <br />Gunnison habitat by modification of Redlands Canal <br />diversion in connection with 57 consultation on <br /> <br />Aspinall Unit operations. <br /> <br />There is also a <br /> <br />possibility of restoration of Green River nursery <br /> <br />2 <br />