Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />Agenda Item 32 <br />March 22 - 23, 2005 Board Meeting <br />Page 6 of 13 <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT A <br />USBR Draft Description of No Action Alternative 2/17/2005 <br /> <br />. <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 most reasonable <br />future conditions that could occur dnring the life of the project without any action alternatives being <br />implemented. The No Action Alternative should not automatically be considered to be the same as the <br />existing conditions, since reasonably foreseeable future actions may be taken whether or not any of the <br />project action alternatives are chosen. The No Action alternative is the basis to which all other <br />alternatives are compared in the NEPA document. <br /> <br />Under the No Action alternative, elements of the Recovery Program would continue-for example, . <br />stocking of endangered fish, non-native fish control, operation of the Redlands Fish Ladder and <br />Screen, management of backwaters, etc. However, special operations to assist in meeting the flow <br />recommendations for endangered fish would not be made. <br /> <br />In the EIS there will be a narrative explanation of how operations evolved to their present conditions <br />(this narrative could be in the description of alternatives EIS section, in the description of existing <br />conditions section, or in appendices). For example the history of increasing minimum flows in the <br />Black Canyon from 100 to 200 cfs and then to 300 cfs and the flow changes over the years related to <br />hydropower operations could be discussed. <br /> <br />Reclamation is responsible for decision making associated with the interpretation of hydrology, <br />operation planning, and dam safety. There have been discussions on Reclamation's discretion in <br />operating the Aspinall Unit. While there is broad discretion in operations, some operating criteria can <br />be considered non-discretionary--- for example following flood control rules, following landslide <br />criteria at Morrow Point and Crystal Reservoirs, operating Blue Mesa and Morrow Point to the <br />maximum extent possible for peaking and Crystal for reregulating, certain power system requirements, <br />and operating per the Law of the River, Colorado State Water Law and water rights. Non- <br />discretionary operations would be common to all alternatives. <br /> <br />The following is a list of items to be included in the hydrological evaluation of the No Action <br />alternative: <br /> <br />. Existing capacities of Unit structures (use new Crystal powerplant capacity-probably around <br />2,250 cfs) as shown in the following table. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />