Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />hindering such efforts. Implementation of interim surplus guidelines would take into account <br />progress, or lack thereof, in California's effOrts to achieve these objectives. The surplus <br />guidelines would be used to identify the specific amount of surplus water which may be made <br />available in a given year, based upon factors sueh as the elevation of Lake Mead, during a period <br />within which demand fOr surplus Colorado River water will be reduced. The increased level of <br />predictabil~y with respect to the prospective existence and quantity of surplus water would assist <br />in planning and operations by all entities that receive surplus Colorado River water pursuant to <br />contracts with the Secretary. <br /> <br />IV. Alternatives Considered <br /> <br />The FEIS analyzed five action ahernatives for interim surplus guidelines as well as a No Action <br />AlternativelBaseline Condition that was developed for comparison ofpotential effects of the <br />action alternatives. A common element of all alternatives is that in years in which the Field <br />Working Agreement bet>t€en the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers for <br />Flood Control Operation (if Hoover Dam and Lake Mead (Field Working Agreement) requires <br />releases greater than the downstream beneficial consumptive use demands, the Secretary shall <br />detennine that a "flood control surplus" will be declared in that year. In such years, releases will <br />be made to satisfy all beneficial uses within the United States and up to an additional 200,000 acre <br />feet (at) will be made available to Mexico tmder the Treaty. The No Action AlternativelBaseline <br />Condition and the five action alternatives are described below. <br /> <br />l. No Action AlternativelBaselinc Condition: Under the No Action Ahernative, <br />determinations of surplus would continue to be made on an annual basis, in the AOP process, <br />pursuant to the LROC and the Decree. Thc No Action Ahernative represents the future AOP <br />process without specific interim surplus guidelines. Surplus determ~13tiorn consiler such factors <br />as end-of-year system storage, potentia I runoff conditions, projected water demands of the Basin <br />States and the Secretary's discretion in addressing year-to-year issues. The No Action Alternative <br />is identified as the "environmentally preferable ahernative" as it affords the Secretary the greatest <br />degree of annual flexibility in managing the mainstream waters and resources of the lower <br />Colorado River pursuant to applicable federal law. However, the year-to-year variation in the <br />conditions considered by the Secretary in making surplus water deternlinations makes projections <br />of surplus water availability highly uncertain, and trny hinder efforts byCalifurnia to reduce its <br />over-reliance on Colorado River water supplies. <br /> <br />The approach used in the FEIS for analyzing the hydrologic mpects of the interim surplus <br />guidelines ahernatives was to use a computer model that simulates specitic operating parameters <br />and constraints. In order to follow CEQ guidelines calling for a No Action alternative for use as a <br />"baseline" against which to compare project alternatives, Reclamation selected a specific <br />operating strategy for use as a baseline condition, which could be described mathematically in the <br />model. <br /> <br />4 <br />