BOARD02433

• Board Meeting Date: 3/22/2005
• Description: WSP Section - Aspinall EIS Update
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Agenda Item 32
March 22 - 23, 2005 Board Meeting
Page 4 of 13

.

Attachment B is a 1994 letter from the CWCB to the USBR regarding operation of the Aspinall
Unit. In that letter, the CWCB suggests a balance in the amount of water provided to downstream
users and requests the USBR to provide downstream senior users what has been historically
available to avoid impacts to upstream juniors, and requests the USBR attempt in drought years to
provide additional water if possible, particularly if the USBR is releasing water for the Redlands
fish ladder.

3. Releases to the Redlands fish ladder
The contract between the CWCB, USBR and USFWS to provide water from the Aspinall Unit to
the Redlandsfish ladder expires in August 2005 and will not be renewed by USBR. The USBR
plans to incorporate these fish ladder releases and potentially increased releases for the newly
constructed fish screen on the Redlands canal into the EIS process. The USBR has taken the
position that they can release water directly to the fish ladder without a contract because that is a
USBR owned structure, but that they cannot release the extra water for "migration flows"
downstream of the fish ladder since that additional water cannot be used by the structure. This
interpretation is has been deemed in compliance with state water law and administration practices
by the Division 4 Water Engineer.

4. Description of current and most reasonable future operations
The No Action Alternative is the basis for comparing the impacts of various altematives in the EIS
and therefore what is included in the No Action Alternative will expand or narrow the range of
impacts identified.

.

In the past decade, the USBR has changed Aspinall operations to be more environmentally
friendly. Changes such as shaping potentially excess water into a spring peak and summer releases
for the fish ladder were initiated for the benefit of the endangered fish but provide other
environmental benefits as well. The USBR therefore plans to include these recent operational
changes in the No Action Alternative. This will lessen the impacts of the Action Alternatives as
compared to the No Action Alternative and will not describe or analyze the beneficial and
detrimental impacts of these recent operational changes. Some have suggested the USBR use
typical pre-1990 operation as the No Action Alternative and include the recent operational changes
as part of every Action Alternative so that the full it!,1pacts are considered. CWCB staff suggests
that as a minimum, the impacts of these recent operational changes should be analyzed and
included as a narrative so readers can understand the full impacts of both the recent and proposed
future operational changes.

The current draft of the No Action Alternative considers future depletions in the Gunnison Basin
and suggests using SWSI figures for expected in-basin depletions through 2030. Future depletions
in the Gunnison Basin remain a very contentious issue. In recent discussions about a possible
Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) for the Gunnison Basin, consensus could not be reached
on future depletions. Representatives from the upper Gunnison Basin requested extremely low.
future depletion numbers, the remainder of the Gunnison Basin requested larger depletion
numbers, and consideration of statewide issues and compact entitlement suggests the full 300 KAF
marketable pool should be protected. It was agreed that the PBO should seek ESA protection for

.

Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. St:ream and Lake Protection
. Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning