Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume I, Main Text and Appendices A-J

Home Browse Search

16, 1991 order amending the license for Project No. 1417, on the other hand, would be superseded by new license conditions and are not assumed in this EIS to be a permanent aspect of the project operations. 2.3 NO- ACTION ALTERNATIVE The no- action alternative means that the projects would continue to operate as required by the original project licenses. If the projects are allowed to operate as in the past, there would be continued energy production at present levels and no additional protection or enhancement of existing environmental resources. This alternative is identified as the B 2.4 THE DISTRICTS' PROPOSAL The Districts' Proposal is a combination of Central's Comprehensive Relicensing Plan for Project No. 1417 (Central, 1992b) and NPPD's proposal for Project No. 1835 as put forth in the May 5, 1990 Joint Response (Central and NPPD, 1990).' -' The combined proposal includes operational changes, a water conservation program, and wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources management and enhancement programs. We analyze this proposal to assure a full range of reasonable alternatives. Both districts currently support the FWS's reasonable and prudent alternative, represented in this FEIS as the Interior Plan. 2.4.1 Operating Scenario For the new licensing term, Central would operate its system according to seasonal operating regimes.-" The operating regimes include a minimum bypass reach flow downstream of the Tri- County Diversion Dam, storage releases for Central Supply Canal maintenance purposes, and target instream flows prescribed for the Platte River below the project at Overton. Overton is a gaging location on the central Platte River immediately downstream of the projects' most downstream facility, the Johnson Powerplant No. 2 Return (J -2 Return). The specific target flow would depend on the amount of water available in Lake McConaughy. When Lake McConaughy is relatively full, the proposal calls for higher target flows; when Lake McConaughy storage levels are lower, flow targets would be lower. The Districts' Proposal includes both "target flows" and "minimum flows." As used by Districts, the concepts are similar in nature, but distinct in practice. A target flow is similar to a minimum instream flow in that both refer to an established instream flow level for a specified river reach. Target flow and minimum instream flow differ from each other, however, with regard to the degree of assurance with which the desired flows are met. A minimum flow represents an absolute requirement that can be relaxed only on a temporary 1/ In December 1991, NPPD modified its proposal in an Offer of Settlement, but subsequently withdrew that offer. 2/ Reference Appendix B for details of the operating regime as assumed for modeling proposals. 2 -9