Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />6, Under the NPS proposal, to what extent can historic cal1 protection for water users upstream of the <br />Aspinal1 Unit be maintained? <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />7. Can NPS confirm the existence of 148,000 acre-feet of Aspinall Unit water for endangered fish? How <br />does the 148,000 acre-feet relate to the Aspinal1 Unit's 240,000 ac-ft yield? Is the 148,000 ac-ft part <br />of, or in addition to, the 240,000 or 300,000 marketable yield of Aspinal1? <br /> <br />ROLE OF WESTERN POWER ADMli'IISTRATION <br /> <br />L What is BR's obligation to meeting WAPA's needs and contract obligations? <br /> <br />2, Is hydroelectric power production an incidental purpose of the Aspinall Unit? At least "incidental" to <br />the Monument's water needs? <br /> <br />3, What power revenues are gained or lost under various flow patterns and what are the implications to <br />CRSP repayment accounts, power contracts or renewals, power revenues, power prices etc.? <br /> <br />4. Vlbat are the details ofWAPAcontracts with CREDA members? <br /> <br />OTHER QUESTIONS/COMMENTS/CONCERNS <br /> <br />L How do NPS' recommended wintertime baseflows affect the dilution of salt and the United States' <br />ability to comply with the Mexico salt dilution agreement? <br /> <br />2. NPS should strive not ouly to develop a claim that protects other Federal agency mandates but one <br />that preserves the mandates of the agencies of fue State of Colorado. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />3. All "federal family" water must go through Black Canyon, not around it via the tunnel. <br /> <br />4. NPS should re-visit the scoping report for the Gunnison River Contract (March, 1993) and address all <br />relevant questions, issues and concerns. <br /> <br />5. What wil1 be the effect ofloss or extinguishment ofUGRWCD's conditional water rights? Would it <br />mean a loss of water for the Monument? <br /> <br />6. What are the flow requirements associated with designated wilderness within the Monument? <br /> <br />7. AIe NPS flow recommendations consistent with flow requirements for the Gunnison Gorge? <br /> <br />8, All additional needs of the Upper Basin can be met by improving water use efficiency in the upper <br />basin ... all water currently being released is being beneficially used downstream of the Monument. <br /> <br />9. What will be the effect of the NPS proposal on the 1975 Taylor Park Reservoir Exchange Agreement <br />and Taylor Park second filI'I <br /> <br />10. How does the NPS proposal affect the potential for transbasin diversions? The AB Lateral project? <br />The 60,000 subordination? Colorado's compact entitlement? <br /> <br />1 L Wil1lDoes the State Engineer's Office support this concept? Will they be able to administer this type <br />of right? <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />5 <br />