Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Including a Programmatic Agreement, for the Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project, Nevada, 46516-46518 [2012-19148]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
46516
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Notices
dugongs (Dugong dugon) for the
purpose of scientific research on the
hearing physiology of marine mammals.
This notification covers activities to be
conducted by the applicant over a 5year period.
Concurrent with publishing this
notice in the Federal Register, we are
forwarding copies of the above
applications to the Marine Mammal
Commission and the Committee of
Scientific Advisors for their review.
Brenda Tapia,
Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch
of Permits, Division of Management
Authority.
[FR Doc. 2012–19007 Filed 8–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNVL00000.L51010000.ER0000.
LVRWF12F3450 241A; N–78803; 12–08807;
MO# 4500034975; TAS: 14X5017]
Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement,
Including a Programmatic Agreement,
for the Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine
Counties Groundwater Development
Project, Nevada
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the
National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (NHPA), as amended, the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) has
prepared a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and a Programmatic
Agreement (PA), which is included as
an Appendix to the EIS, for the
Southern Nevada Water Authority’s
(SNWA) Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine
Counties Groundwater Development
Project (SNWA Project), and by this
notice is announcing the availability of
the Final EIS.
DATES: The Department of the Interior
will not issue a final decision on the
proposal for a minimum of 60 days after
the date that the Environmental
Protection Agency publishes its Notice
of Availability of the Final EIS in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS will be
mailed to those parties who participated
in the process. Written requests for a
copy of the Final EIS or the PA for the
SNWA Project may be submitted to the
BLM at the address below or by any of
the following methods:
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 Aug 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
• Email: nvgwprojects@blm.gov.
• Download the document from the
BLM’s Web site at www.blm.gov/5w5c.
• Fax: 775–861–6689.
• Mail: SNWA Project, Bureau of
Land Management, Attn: Penny Woods,
1340 Financial Blvd., Reno NV 89502.
Review copies are available in the
following locations:
BLM Offices in Nevada:
Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial
Blvd., Reno
Ely District Office, 702 N. Industrial
Way, Ely
Caliente Field Office, U.S. Hwy. 93,
Building #1, Caliente
Southern Nevada District Office, 4701
N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas
Libraries in Nevada:
Nevada State Library, 100 N. Stewart
St., Carson City
White Pine County Library, 950
Campton St., Ely
Lincoln County Library, 100 Depot Ave.,
Caliente
Lincoln County Library, 100 N. First St.
E., Alamo
Mesquite Library, 121 W. First N. St.,
Mesquite
Clark County Library, 1401 E. Flamingo
Road, Las Vegas
BLM Offices in Utah:
Utah State Office, 440 W. 200 S., Salt
Lake City
West Desert District Office, 2370 S. 2300
W., Salt Lake City
Color Country District Office, 1760 East
DL Sargent Drive, Cedar City
Fillmore Field Office, 35 E. 500 N.,
Fillmore
St George Field Office, 345 E. Riverside
Drive, St. George
Libraries in Utah:
Utah State Library, 250 N. 1950 W., Salt
Lake City
Delta City Library, 76 N. 200 W., Delta
Cedar City Library, 303 N. 100 E., Cedar
City
Washington County Library, 88 W. 100
S., St. George
Tooele City Library, 128 W. Vine St.,
Tooele
Nephi Library, 21 E. 100 N., Nephi
Beaver Library, 55 W. Center St., Beaver
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Penny Woods, Project Manager,
telephone: 775–861–6466; address: 1340
Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502; email;
pwoods@blm.gov. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
to contact the above individual during
normal business hours. The FIRS is
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
to leave a message or question with the
above individual. You will receive a
reply during normal business hours.
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The BLM
served as the lead agency for the
preparation of this EIS. The BLM
worked with 16 cooperating agencies
including: Federal—Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, National Park Service,
Forest Service, Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Air Force-Nellis Air
Force Base; State—Nevada Department
of Wildlife, State of Utah; Counties and
County Organizations—Central Nevada
Regional Water Authority, White Pine,
Lincoln, and Clark counties (NV); and
Juab, Millard, and Tooele counties (UT).
The Final EIS describes and analyzes
the SNWA’s rights-of-way (ROWs) on
public land for the SNWA Project.
Project components include a system of
groundwater conveyance and treatment
facilities in southeastern Nevada which
would transport groundwater from
Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake, and Cave
valleys pursuant to water rights permits
issued by the Nevada State Engineer
(NSE) and from Snake Valley pursuant
to water right applications that are
currently pending before the NSE. The
Final EIS addresses the ROW request as
submitted by the SNWA; alternative
alignments of pipelines, power lines,
and other ancillary facilities; alternative
pumping locations/scenarios; and a no
action alternative. The Final EIS also
analyzes, conceptually, future facilities
such as placement of water wells,
collector pipelines and groundwater
pumping.
A PA has been prepared pursuant to
the regulations of the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to
comply with section 106 of the NHPA
and the implementing regulations at 36
CFR part 800. The executed PA was
signed by the BLM, the Nevada State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),
the ACHP and the SNWA, and
negotiated with other consulting parties
through consultation. The terms of the
executed PA set forth the conditions for
satisfying the SNWA’s obligations for
the proposed project under section 106
of the NHPA.
The exact amount of groundwater
available to the proposed project is
dependent upon future action by the
NSE. The EIS and ROW application are
not for the purpose of supporting the
permitting of water rights or authorizing
of such rights. The NSE is solely
responsible for granting water rights.
Between the Draft EIS and the Final
EIS one alternative—Alternative F—was
developed in response to public
comments, input from the applicant,
and the agency’s need to analyze a
broader range of alternatives.
Alternatives considered in the Final EIS
include:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Notices
Proposed Action—Distributed
Pumping at 1989 Application
Quantities: This alternative requires
ROWs for a main pipeline of up to 96
inches in diameter, lateral pipelines,
and associated ancillary facilities. This
alternative considers conveyance of the
full quantity of SNWA’s water rights
applications in Spring, Snake, Cave, Dry
Lake, and Delamar valleys. Under this
alternative, groundwater wells would be
distributed across five hydrologic
basins. Under the proposed action, the
SNWA could be granted a ROW that
would permit the development and
operation of a system of regional water
facilities that could be used to convey
up to 217,655 acre-feet per year (afy) of
groundwater, including 184,655 afy of
the SNWA groundwater rights (if
permitted by the NSE) with the
remaining capacity reserved for future
use by Lincoln County.
The proposed ROW project would
include approximately 306 miles of a
buried water pipeline between 16 and
84 inches in diameter; approximately
323 miles of 230 kilovolt (kV), 69 kV
and 25 kV overhead power lines; two
primary electrical substations, five
secondary substations, three pressurereducing facilities; five pumping
stations; six regulating tanks; a 40million-gallon buried storage reservoir;
a 165 million-gallon-per-day water
treatment facility; and associated access
roads.
Alternative A—Distributed Pumping
at Reduced Quantities. This alternative
requires ROWs for a main pipeline of up
to 96 inches in diameter, lateral
pipelines, and associated ancillary
facilities. This alternative considers
conveyance of less than the full quantity
of SNWA’s applications in Spring, Cave,
Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys and an
assumed quantity of 36,000 afy of new
groundwater rights in Snake Valley.
Alternative B—Points of Diversion
Pumping at Application Quantities.
This alternative requires ROWs for a
main pipeline of up to 96 inches in
diameter, lateral pipelines, and
associated ancillary facilities.
Alternative B would develop and
convey the same groundwater volume as
the Proposed Action. However,
groundwater would be developed
within a 1-mile radius of the 34
application Points of Diversion
locations.
Alternative C—Intermittent Pumping
at Reduced Quantities. This alternative
requires ROWs for a main pipeline of up
to 96 inches in diameter, lateral
pipelines, and associated ancillary
facilities. The development pattern for
this alternative would be the same as
Alternative A. However, a lower overall
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 Aug 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
volume of groundwater would be
pumped over time as compared to any
of the other alternatives.
Alternative D—Distributed Pumping
at Reduced Quantities in Lincoln
County Only. The pipeline and
groundwater development for this
alternative is limited to Clark and
Lincoln counties; no facilities would be
constructed in White Pine County. This
alternative requires ROWs for a main
pipeline of up to 78 inches in diameter,
lateral pipelines, and associated
ancillary facilities. Groundwater
development considerations would be
the same as that analyzed under
Alternative A without the Snake Valley
and the White-Pine-County portion of
Spring Valley groundwater amounts.
Alternative E—Distributed Pumping
at Reduced Quantities—Spring, Cave,
Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys. The
pipeline and groundwater development
for this alternative is limited to four
groundwater development basins
(Spring, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar
valleys), with no facilities extending
into Snake Valley, and no groundwater
development occurring there. This
alternative requires ROWs for a main
pipeline of up to 78 inches in diameter,
lateral pipelines, and associated
ancillary facilities.
Alternative F—Distributed Pumping
at Perennial Yield Quantities—Spring,
Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys.
Alternative F would not include
groundwater development in Snake
Valley. This alternative includes
development of the unappropriated
groundwater resources in Spring, Cave,
Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys. This
alternative considers the perennial yield
amount for each of these basins, less
existing committed groundwater rights,
and up to the maximum of the SNWA
groundwater application quantity.
No-Action Alternative—Pursuant to
the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act of 1998 and the
Lincoln County Conservation,
Recreation, and Development Act of
2004, the BLM must grant the SNWA’s
ROW requests in Clark County and
Lincoln County. However, the NoAction Alternative in this Final EIS
describes baseline conditions without
construction of the SNWA Project, as a
benchmark for the comparison of the
Proposed Action and alternatives.
Route Alternatives. Alignment
Options 1 through 4 were also analyzed
in the Final EIS. They include localscale option locations for certain
facilities (pipelines, power lines):
Alignment Option 1—HumboldtToiyabe Power Line Alignment—In this
option, the Humboldt-Toiyabe 230-kV
power line would parallel an existing
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46517
transmission line over the Schell Creek
Range between the Gonder Substation
and Spring Valley.
Alignment Option 2—North Lake
Valley Pipeline and Power Line
Alignments—This option would change
the location of the mainline pipeline
and associated power line in North Lake
Valley.
Alignment Option 3—Muleshoe
Substation and Power Line Alignment—
This option depends on the
implementation of at least one major
regional power line project in the
SNWA Project area.
Alignment Option 4—North Delamar
Valley Pipeline Alignment—This option
would be the same as the Proposed
Action, except that the pipeline and
power line in northern Delamar Valley
would follow the same alignment along
Poleline Road.
Agency Preferred Alternative. In
selecting the preferred alternative, the
BLM considered all information that has
been received consistent with its
environmental review, ROW permitting
responsibilities, and the NSE’s
jurisdiction over the SNWA’s
groundwater applications. The preferred
alternative is the main conveyance
pipeline alignment contained in
Alternative F as described in the Final
EIS which does not include
development in Snake Valley and
would be limited to water volumes
approved by the NSE. In addition,
Alignment Option 1—HumboldtToiyabe Power Line Alignment would
be selected in combination with the
main conveyance pipeline alignment
described in Alternative F. Mitigation
and monitoring identified in Chapter 3
and other sections of the Final EIS may
be included as part of future decisions.
Alternative F was not included in the
Draft EIS but was developed in response
to public and applicant comments and
the agency’s desire to provide a more
comprehensive analysis of the range of
alternatives. Alternative E (no
development in Snake Valley) was in
the Draft EIS and received numerous
public and agency comments noting the
probable reduction in impacts in close
proximity to Great Basin National Park.
In addition, the environmental
benefits include the construction of
conveyance facilities within a
designated BLM utility corridor and/or
adjacent to existing BLM-granted ROWs
to limit the fragmentation of habitat and
natural features and the transportation
of future-developed water from Spring,
Delamar, Cave and Dry Lake valleys in
the most direct route that is
technologically advantageous for the
transport, delivery, and operation of the
system. Alignment Option 1—the
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46518
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Notices
Humboldt-Toiyabe Powerline
Alignment—would lessen impacts to
the sagebrush habitat and the related
species dependent upon that habitat (i.e.
sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, migratory
birds, etc.) and maintain the proposed
power line within an existing utility
corridor.
To understand the impacts of the
Preferred Alternative, one should
consider the impacts of Alternatives E
and F and understand that the preferred
Alternative’s impacts would be between
the two. The amount of groundwater
development analyzed in Alternative F
is greater than that allocated by the NSE.
The amount of groundwater
development analyzed in Alternative E
is closer to that allocated by the NSE.
Both alternatives analyze the same main
conveyance pipeline alignment and
differ only in the assessment of the
possible groundwater to be developed.
This is the initial EIS in a tiered
NEPA evaluation process. As described
in Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations, a tiered NEPA process can
be used for Proposed Actions such as
the SNWA Project when specific
locations have not been defined for all
phases. Under NEPA, tiering involves a
two-fold approach wherein general
analyses are first covered in a broad EIS
and more detailed issues are tiered
(referenced) to that broader EIS. Once
the broader EIS is completed,
subsequent narrower statements or
environmental assessments incorporate
the general discussions from the broader
EIS by reference, allowing the
subsequent document to concentrate on
the issues specific to the project or
project phase. The NEPA regulations
encourage Federal agencies to tier
environmental documents for multistage projects to eliminate repetitive
discussions of the same issues and to
focus on the issues that are ready for
decision at each level of environmental
review.
The BLM conducted scoping in two
periods: April 8 to August 1, 2005 and
July 19 to October 18, 2006. The BLM
received a total of 1,210 substantive
letters during scoping. Key issues
identified by individuals, groups and
governmental entities include water
supply and use, competing or
conflicting land uses, and cumulative
impacts and connected actions.
On June 10, 2011 the BLM published
a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS
in the Federal Register (76 FR 34097) as
did the EPA (76 FR 34072), which
started a 90-day comment period. The
Draft EIS 90-day public review and
initial comment period ran from June 10
through September 9, 2011. The
comment period was extended by 30
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:33 Aug 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
days and terminated on October 11,
2011. During the Draft EIS public
comment period, the Nevada State
Office received approximately 20,500
comment letters and emails from
Federal agencies, State and local
governments, Indian tribes, interested
groups, and the public.
The majority of the concerns that
were raised by Federal and state
agencies, local and tribal governments,
interested groups, and the public on the
Draft EIS were focused on impacts to
cultural resources, air quality, water
resources, water dependent biological
resources, human resources both within
the area of development and in Las
Vegas, wildlife, monitoring/mitigation
of the project and cumulative impacts
from the long-term development of the
resources.
Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.
Amy Lueders,
Nevada State Director.
[FR Doc. 2012–19148 Filed 8–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Draft Resource Management Plan/
General Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the
San Luis Reservoir State Recreation
Area, Merced County, California
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Reclamation,
as the National Environmental Policy
Act Federal lead agency, and the
California Department of Parks and
Recreation (CDPR), as the California
Environmental Quality Act State lead
agency, have made available for public
review and comment the San Luis
Reservoir State Recreation Area
Resource Management Plan/General
Plan (RMP/GP) Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR).
The Draft RMP/GP EIS/EIR describes
and presents the environmental effects
of the No Action/No Project Alternative
and three Action Alternatives. A public
meeting will be held to receive
comments from individuals and
organizations on the Draft RMP/GP EIS/
EIR.
DATES: Submit written comments on the
Draft RMP/GP EIS/EIR on or before
October 2, 2012.
A public meeting has been scheduled
to receive oral or written comments
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
regarding environmental effects. The
meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. on August 23, 2012, in
Gustine, California.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on
the Draft RMP/GP EIS/EIR to Mr. Dave
Woolley, Bureau of Reclamation, 1243 N
Street, Fresno, CA 93721, or by email to
dwoolley@usbr.gov. Written comments
also may be submitted during the public
meeting.
The public meeting will be held at the
San Luis Reservoir State Recreation
Area Headquarters, 31426 Gonzaga
Road, Gustine, CA 95322.
Copies of the Draft RMP/GP EIS/EIR
may be requested from Mr. Dave
Woolley, by writing to: Bureau of
Reclamation, 1243 N Street, Fresno, CA
93721; by calling 559–487–5049 (TDD
559–487–5933); or by emailing
dwoolley@usbr.gov. The Draft EIS/EIR is
also accessible from the following Web
site: https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/
nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=548.
See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below for locations where copies
of the Draft RMP/GP EIS/EIR are
available for public review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Dave Woolley, Bureau of Reclamation,
at 559–487–5049 (TTY 1–800–735–
2929) or dwoolley@usbr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft
RMP/GP EIS/EIR analyzes the direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects to the
physical, biological, and socioeconomic
environment that may result from
various resource management
alternatives contained in the subject
document.
The purposes of the RMP/GP EIS/EIR
include: (1) Identifying the current and
most appropriate future uses of land and
water resources within the RMP/GP
Area; (2) identifying the long-term
resource programs and implementation
guidelines to manage and develop
recreation, natural, and cultural
resources; and (3) developing strategies
and approaches to protect and preserve
the natural, recreational, aesthetic, and
cultural resources.
The RMP/GP was initially released
with a Draft EIR in 2005 for compliance
with California Environmental Quality
Act. The RMP/GP is being reissued with
a joint Draft EIS/Revised Draft EIR for
the purposes of both National
Environmental Policy Act and
California Environmental Quality Act
compliance.
The RMP/GP area consists of over
27,000 acres owned by the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) and includes
the water surfaces of San Luis Reservoir,
O’Neill Forebay, Los Banos Creek
Reservoir, and adjacent recreation lands
E:\FR\FM\03AUN1.SGM
03AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46516-46518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19148]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNVL00000.L51010000.ER0000.LVRWF12F3450 241A; N-78803; 12-08807;
MO 4500034975; TAS: 14X5017]
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Including a Programmatic Agreement, for the Clark, Lincoln,
and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project, Nevada
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a
Programmatic Agreement (PA), which is included as an Appendix to the
EIS, for the Southern Nevada Water Authority's (SNWA) Clark, Lincoln,
and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project (SNWA Project),
and by this notice is announcing the availability of the Final EIS.
DATES: The Department of the Interior will not issue a final decision
on the proposal for a minimum of 60 days after the date that the
Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability of
the Final EIS in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: The Final EIS will be mailed to those parties who
participated in the process. Written requests for a copy of the Final
EIS or the PA for the SNWA Project may be submitted to the BLM at the
address below or by any of the following methods:
Email: nvgwprojects@blm.gov.
Download the document from the BLM's Web site at
www.blm.gov/5w5c.
Fax: 775-861-6689.
Mail: SNWA Project, Bureau of Land Management, Attn: Penny
Woods, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno NV 89502.
Review copies are available in the following locations:
BLM Offices in Nevada:
Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno
Ely District Office, 702 N. Industrial Way, Ely
Caliente Field Office, U.S. Hwy. 93, Building 1, Caliente
Southern Nevada District Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas
Libraries in Nevada:
Nevada State Library, 100 N. Stewart St., Carson City
White Pine County Library, 950 Campton St., Ely
Lincoln County Library, 100 Depot Ave., Caliente
Lincoln County Library, 100 N. First St. E., Alamo
Mesquite Library, 121 W. First N. St., Mesquite
Clark County Library, 1401 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas
BLM Offices in Utah:
Utah State Office, 440 W. 200 S., Salt Lake City
West Desert District Office, 2370 S. 2300 W., Salt Lake City
Color Country District Office, 1760 East DL Sargent Drive, Cedar City
Fillmore Field Office, 35 E. 500 N., Fillmore
St George Field Office, 345 E. Riverside Drive, St. George
Libraries in Utah:
Utah State Library, 250 N. 1950 W., Salt Lake City
Delta City Library, 76 N. 200 W., Delta
Cedar City Library, 303 N. 100 E., Cedar City
Washington County Library, 88 W. 100 S., St. George
Tooele City Library, 128 W. Vine St., Tooele
Nephi Library, 21 E. 100 N., Nephi
Beaver Library, 55 W. Center St., Beaver
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Penny Woods, Project Manager,
telephone: 775-861-6466; address: 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502;
email; pwoods@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business
hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM served as the lead agency for the
preparation of this EIS. The BLM worked with 16 cooperating agencies
including: Federal--Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, Forest Service, Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Air Force-Nellis Air Force Base; State--Nevada
Department of Wildlife, State of Utah; Counties and County
Organizations--Central Nevada Regional Water Authority, White Pine,
Lincoln, and Clark counties (NV); and Juab, Millard, and Tooele
counties (UT).
The Final EIS describes and analyzes the SNWA's rights-of-way
(ROWs) on public land for the SNWA Project. Project components include
a system of groundwater conveyance and treatment facilities in
southeastern Nevada which would transport groundwater from Spring,
Delamar, Dry Lake, and Cave valleys pursuant to water rights permits
issued by the Nevada State Engineer (NSE) and from Snake Valley
pursuant to water right applications that are currently pending before
the NSE. The Final EIS addresses the ROW request as submitted by the
SNWA; alternative alignments of pipelines, power lines, and other
ancillary facilities; alternative pumping locations/scenarios; and a no
action alternative. The Final EIS also analyzes, conceptually, future
facilities such as placement of water wells, collector pipelines and
groundwater pumping.
A PA has been prepared pursuant to the regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to comply with section 106 of
the NHPA and the implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800. The
executed PA was signed by the BLM, the Nevada State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), the ACHP and the SNWA, and negotiated with
other consulting parties through consultation. The terms of the
executed PA set forth the conditions for satisfying the SNWA's
obligations for the proposed project under section 106 of the NHPA.
The exact amount of groundwater available to the proposed project
is dependent upon future action by the NSE. The EIS and ROW application
are not for the purpose of supporting the permitting of water rights or
authorizing of such rights. The NSE is solely responsible for granting
water rights.
Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS one alternative--
Alternative F--was developed in response to public comments, input from
the applicant, and the agency's need to analyze a broader range of
alternatives. Alternatives considered in the Final EIS include:
[[Page 46517]]
Proposed Action--Distributed Pumping at 1989 Application
Quantities: This alternative requires ROWs for a main pipeline of up to
96 inches in diameter, lateral pipelines, and associated ancillary
facilities. This alternative considers conveyance of the full quantity
of SNWA's water rights applications in Spring, Snake, Cave, Dry Lake,
and Delamar valleys. Under this alternative, groundwater wells would be
distributed across five hydrologic basins. Under the proposed action,
the SNWA could be granted a ROW that would permit the development and
operation of a system of regional water facilities that could be used
to convey up to 217,655 acre-feet per year (afy) of groundwater,
including 184,655 afy of the SNWA groundwater rights (if permitted by
the NSE) with the remaining capacity reserved for future use by Lincoln
County.
The proposed ROW project would include approximately 306 miles of a
buried water pipeline between 16 and 84 inches in diameter;
approximately 323 miles of 230 kilovolt (kV), 69 kV and 25 kV overhead
power lines; two primary electrical substations, five secondary
substations, three pressure-reducing facilities; five pumping stations;
six regulating tanks; a 40-million-gallon buried storage reservoir; a
165 million-gallon-per-day water treatment facility; and associated
access roads.
Alternative A--Distributed Pumping at Reduced Quantities. This
alternative requires ROWs for a main pipeline of up to 96 inches in
diameter, lateral pipelines, and associated ancillary facilities. This
alternative considers conveyance of less than the full quantity of
SNWA's applications in Spring, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys and
an assumed quantity of 36,000 afy of new groundwater rights in Snake
Valley.
Alternative B--Points of Diversion Pumping at Application
Quantities. This alternative requires ROWs for a main pipeline of up to
96 inches in diameter, lateral pipelines, and associated ancillary
facilities. Alternative B would develop and convey the same groundwater
volume as the Proposed Action. However, groundwater would be developed
within a 1-mile radius of the 34 application Points of Diversion
locations.
Alternative C--Intermittent Pumping at Reduced Quantities. This
alternative requires ROWs for a main pipeline of up to 96 inches in
diameter, lateral pipelines, and associated ancillary facilities. The
development pattern for this alternative would be the same as
Alternative A. However, a lower overall volume of groundwater would be
pumped over time as compared to any of the other alternatives.
Alternative D--Distributed Pumping at Reduced Quantities in Lincoln
County Only. The pipeline and groundwater development for this
alternative is limited to Clark and Lincoln counties; no facilities
would be constructed in White Pine County. This alternative requires
ROWs for a main pipeline of up to 78 inches in diameter, lateral
pipelines, and associated ancillary facilities. Groundwater development
considerations would be the same as that analyzed under Alternative A
without the Snake Valley and the White-Pine-County portion of Spring
Valley groundwater amounts.
Alternative E--Distributed Pumping at Reduced Quantities--Spring,
Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys. The pipeline and groundwater
development for this alternative is limited to four groundwater
development basins (Spring, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys), with
no facilities extending into Snake Valley, and no groundwater
development occurring there. This alternative requires ROWs for a main
pipeline of up to 78 inches in diameter, lateral pipelines, and
associated ancillary facilities.
Alternative F--Distributed Pumping at Perennial Yield Quantities--
Spring, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys. Alternative F would not
include groundwater development in Snake Valley. This alternative
includes development of the unappropriated groundwater resources in
Spring, Cave, Dry Lake, and Delamar valleys. This alternative considers
the perennial yield amount for each of these basins, less existing
committed groundwater rights, and up to the maximum of the SNWA
groundwater application quantity.
No-Action Alternative--Pursuant to the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act of 1998 and the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation,
and Development Act of 2004, the BLM must grant the SNWA's ROW requests
in Clark County and Lincoln County. However, the No-Action Alternative
in this Final EIS describes baseline conditions without construction of
the SNWA Project, as a benchmark for the comparison of the Proposed
Action and alternatives.
Route Alternatives. Alignment Options 1 through 4 were also
analyzed in the Final EIS. They include local-scale option locations
for certain facilities (pipelines, power lines): Alignment Option 1--
Humboldt-Toiyabe Power Line Alignment--In this option, the Humboldt-
Toiyabe 230-kV power line would parallel an existing transmission line
over the Schell Creek Range between the Gonder Substation and Spring
Valley.
Alignment Option 2--North Lake Valley Pipeline and Power Line
Alignments--This option would change the location of the mainline
pipeline and associated power line in North Lake Valley.
Alignment Option 3--Muleshoe Substation and Power Line Alignment--
This option depends on the implementation of at least one major
regional power line project in the SNWA Project area.
Alignment Option 4--North Delamar Valley Pipeline Alignment--This
option would be the same as the Proposed Action, except that the
pipeline and power line in northern Delamar Valley would follow the
same alignment along Poleline Road.
Agency Preferred Alternative. In selecting the preferred
alternative, the BLM considered all information that has been received
consistent with its environmental review, ROW permitting
responsibilities, and the NSE's jurisdiction over the SNWA's
groundwater applications. The preferred alternative is the main
conveyance pipeline alignment contained in Alternative F as described
in the Final EIS which does not include development in Snake Valley and
would be limited to water volumes approved by the NSE. In addition,
Alignment Option 1--Humboldt-Toiyabe Power Line Alignment would be
selected in combination with the main conveyance pipeline alignment
described in Alternative F. Mitigation and monitoring identified in
Chapter 3 and other sections of the Final EIS may be included as part
of future decisions.
Alternative F was not included in the Draft EIS but was developed
in response to public and applicant comments and the agency's desire to
provide a more comprehensive analysis of the range of alternatives.
Alternative E (no development in Snake Valley) was in the Draft EIS and
received numerous public and agency comments noting the probable
reduction in impacts in close proximity to Great Basin National Park.
In addition, the environmental benefits include the construction of
conveyance facilities within a designated BLM utility corridor and/or
adjacent to existing BLM-granted ROWs to limit the fragmentation of
habitat and natural features and the transportation of future-developed
water from Spring, Delamar, Cave and Dry Lake valleys in the most
direct route that is technologically advantageous for the transport,
delivery, and operation of the system. Alignment Option 1--the
[[Page 46518]]
Humboldt-Toiyabe Powerline Alignment--would lessen impacts to the
sagebrush habitat and the related species dependent upon that habitat
(i.e. sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, migratory birds, etc.) and maintain
the proposed power line within an existing utility corridor.
To understand the impacts of the Preferred Alternative, one should
consider the impacts of Alternatives E and F and understand that the
preferred Alternative's impacts would be between the two. The amount of
groundwater development analyzed in Alternative F is greater than that
allocated by the NSE. The amount of groundwater development analyzed in
Alternative E is closer to that allocated by the NSE. Both alternatives
analyze the same main conveyance pipeline alignment and differ only in
the assessment of the possible groundwater to be developed.
This is the initial EIS in a tiered NEPA evaluation process. As
described in Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, a tiered
NEPA process can be used for Proposed Actions such as the SNWA Project
when specific locations have not been defined for all phases. Under
NEPA, tiering involves a two-fold approach wherein general analyses are
first covered in a broad EIS and more detailed issues are tiered
(referenced) to that broader EIS. Once the broader EIS is completed,
subsequent narrower statements or environmental assessments incorporate
the general discussions from the broader EIS by reference, allowing the
subsequent document to concentrate on the issues specific to the
project or project phase. The NEPA regulations encourage Federal
agencies to tier environmental documents for multi-stage projects to
eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the
issues that are ready for decision at each level of environmental
review.
The BLM conducted scoping in two periods: April 8 to August 1, 2005
and July 19 to October 18, 2006. The BLM received a total of 1,210
substantive letters during scoping. Key issues identified by
individuals, groups and governmental entities include water supply and
use, competing or conflicting land uses, and cumulative impacts and
connected actions.
On June 10, 2011 the BLM published a Notice of Availability of the
Draft EIS in the Federal Register (76 FR 34097) as did the EPA (76 FR
34072), which started a 90-day comment period. The Draft EIS 90-day
public review and initial comment period ran from June 10 through
September 9, 2011. The comment period was extended by 30 days and
terminated on October 11, 2011. During the Draft EIS public comment
period, the Nevada State Office received approximately 20,500 comment
letters and emails from Federal agencies, State and local governments,
Indian tribes, interested groups, and the public.
The majority of the concerns that were raised by Federal and state
agencies, local and tribal governments, interested groups, and the
public on the Draft EIS were focused on impacts to cultural resources,
air quality, water resources, water dependent biological resources,
human resources both within the area of development and in Las Vegas,
wildlife, monitoring/mitigation of the project and cumulative impacts
from the long-term development of the resources.
Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10.
Amy Lueders,
Nevada State Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-19148 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
