BOARD01421

• Board Meeting Date: 9/13/2005
• Description: WSP Section - Aspinall EIS - No Action Alternative Discussion
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

fi

Agenda Item 16 ..
September 13-14, 2005 Board Meeting
Page 2 of 4

Al the CWCB March 2005 board meeting, staff presented Reclamation's proposed No Action .
Alternative wilh staff's suggested changes. Discussion centered on how the EIS should handle the
following issues:
I. Authorized purposes of the Aspinall Unit
2. Interpretation ofCA5782 and releases for downstream users
3. Releases to the Redlands fish ladder
4. Description of current and most reasonable future operations
5. Dallas Creek Project and Dolores Project Biological Opinions

As per the Board's recommendations, CWCB staff submitted a comment letter regarding the No
Action Alternative. That letter is included as Attachment A. Other agencies and interested parties
also submitted comment letters. Reclamation revised the No Action Al1ernative based on the
comments received and published an updaled No Action Alternative description in May. The May
2005 revised No Aclion Alternative description is included as Attachment B.

Discussion

Certain Gunnison Basin interests objected strenuously to the CWCB comment letter, particularly to the
CWCB position regarding protecling the yield of the Aspinall Unit for fulure beneficial consumptive
use in Colorado under our Compact entitlement and consistent with the authorized purposes ofthe
Aspinall Unit. Discussion of the revised No Action Allernalive at the following Cooperating Agency
meeting indicated no consensus could be reached at that time on the issue of future depletions. .
Reclamation extended the comment period for the No Action Al1ernative to allow for comments
specific to lhe most recent description and 10 allow for further discourse. CWCB staff met with
represenlalives from the CRWCD and UGRWCD to discuss issues including Colorado's Compact
entitlement, fulure use and authorized purposes of the Aspinall Unit. Regrettably no consensus could
be reached. Staff felt it was clear that Colorado's duties and concerns in these complex mul1i-state,
mulli-issue matters do not coincide with the perspectives of some basin interests whose duties and
concerns are limited to a single basin and, in some cases, to fewer issues. Even within the Gunnison
basin, the various parties may not reach consensus on all issues.

Therefore CWCB staff submitted another letter in August reflecting the state's opinion on those points
within the No Action Al1ernative lhal remain unresolved. Other involved parties did likewise. The
CWCB letter is included as Attachment C. The comment letters of other parties are included as
Attachment D. Reclamation will produce a final No Action Alternative description and proceed with
discussion and formulation of Action Alternatives and modeling ofthe No Aclion Al1emative.

The most contentious issue is the consideralion of fulure depletions in the EIS. The CWCB
recommended either limiting the EIS to existing depletions or reserving the entire 300,000 AF of
possible Aspinall yield for future use. That language was further refined in the second CWCB
comment letter (Attachment C) to suggesllhal existing uses be included in lhe No Aclion Alternative
and that the remaining Aspinall yield would continue to flow downstream until such time as it is
developed for beneficial consumptive use in Colorado, therefore reserving such for fulure beneficial
consumplive use but making it available to assist with endangered fish flows on an interim basis only.

.

Reclamalion suggested approximately 15,000 AF of reasonably foreseeable in-basin depletions, as

suggested by information from phase I of the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) but has not

Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning