[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46516-46518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: [email protected].
     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; [email protected]. 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