Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\\ <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />50f18 <br /> <br />USBR Draft Description of No Action Alternative 2/17/2005 <br />With CWCB's suggested changes highlighted in red <br /> <br />Draft <br /> <br />February 17,2005 <br />No Action Alternative and Existing Conditions Description for NEP A document <br /> <br />The No Action Alternative represents a projection of current operating practices to the <br />most reasonable future conditions that could occur during the life of the project without <br />any action alternatives being implemented, The No Action Alternalive should not <br />automatically be considered to be the same as the existing conditions, since reasonably <br />foreseeable future actions may be taken whelher or not any of the project action <br />alternatives are chosen. The No Action alternative is the basis to which all other <br />alternatives are compared in the NEP A document. <br /> <br />Under the No Action alternative, e1emenls of the Recovery Program would continue-for <br />example, slocking of endangered fish, non-native fish control, operation of the Redlands <br />Fish Ladder and Screen, management of backwaters, etc. However, special operations to <br />assist in meeting the flow recommendations for endangered fish would not be made. <br /> <br />In the EIS there will be a narralive explanation of how operations evolved to their presenl <br />conditions (this narrative could be in the description of altematives EIS section, in the <br />descriplion of existing conditions section, or in appendices). For example the history of <br />increasing minimum flows in the Black Canyon from 100 to 200 cfs and then to 300 <br />cfs and the flow changes over lhe years related to hydropower operations could be <br />discussed. <br /> <br />Reclamation is responsible for decision making associated with lhe interpretation of <br />hydrology, operation planning, and dam safety. There have been discussions on <br />Reclamalion's discretion in operating the Aspinall Unit. While there is broad discretion <br />in operations, some operating criteria can be considered non-discretionary--- for example <br />following flood control rules, following landslide criteria at Morrow Point and Crystal <br />Reservoirs, operating Blue Mesa and Morrow Point to the maximum extent possible for <br />peaking and Crystal for reregulating, certain power system requirements, and operating <br />per the Law of the River, Colorado State Water Law and water rights. Non- <br />discretionary operalions would be common to all alternatives. <br /> <br />The following is a list of items to be included in the hydrological evaluation ofthe No <br />Action altemative: <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />