Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />. <br /> 12. <br />e <br /> 13, <br /> 14. <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />NPS should research trdnscripts of the Aspinall water right case between 1956-1961. AIe there any <br />agreements or documents describing the relationship between Aspinall and Black Canyon water <br />use/rights' <br /> <br />Is the proposed 300 cfs minimum covered by the 1933 right or is this too subordinated? <br /> <br />NPS quantific:ltion propos:ll is premature. NPS qu:lDtific:ltion process should be timed to coincide <br />with and be consistent with FWS flow recommendations for endangered fish, subsequent decisions <br />regarding potential T & E critic:lI habitat on the Gunnison River upstream of Delta, and any re- <br />operations of the Aspinall Unit precipitated by the FWS flow recommendations, <br /> <br />15. NPS proposes to subordinate to the Aspinall Units 60,000 acre-feet depletion allowance for in-b-dSin. <br />junior uses upstream of Crystal Dam and Reservoir, yet that agreement has yet to be finalized and <br />executed. Moreover, the NPS is not party to that agreement. <br /> <br />16. Could there be some type of contractual arrangement for in-basin uses in excess of the proposed <br />60,000 acre-feet depletion allowance? <br /> <br />17. How does the NPS proposal affect recreation values at Curecanti National Recreation Area? <br /> <br />18. Any water right filing by the NPS must be consistent with Congressional purposes associated with the <br />JWle 22, 1938 Act (53 Stat. 941) which originally authorized construction of a ycar-roWld <br />hydropower facility associated with the Gunnison Tunnel. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />6 <br />