WSP11307

• File Number: 8200.300.10.A
• Description: Colorado River Basin Legislation/Law - Interstate Water Transfers
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 12/1/1997
• Author: USDOI/BOR
• Title: Draft: Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rule Making for Offstream Storage of Colorado River Water and Interstate Redemption of Storage Credits in the Lower Division States
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

. Southern Nevada Water System,

The Southern Nevada Water System (System), a water supply system for the Las Vegas area,
was authorized by the Acts of October 22,1965, and July 19, 1966 (public Laws 89-292 and 89-
510), These acts authorized staged development. The first stage, completed in 1971 consisted of
intake facilities at Lake Mead, eight pumping plants, a main aqueduct 2-1/2 miles long, a 4-mile
long tunnel, and 30 miles of pipelines and laterals. The State of Nevada constructed the Alfred
Merritt Smith Water Treatment Facility (AMSWfF) in conjunction with the first stage, The first
stage of the System has the capacity to deliver 132,200 acre-feet per year,

The Second stage of the System consists offive new pumping plants, modifications to existing
first stage pumping plants, a second barrel to the main aqueduct, 30 miles of new aqueduct and
pipeline with a capacity of 166,800 acre-feet per year, and a major expansion of the AMSWTF.
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Second Stage, Southern Nevada Water Project,
(!NT FES 77-18, 6/6/77) presents a brief description of the impacts of the first stage and a
detailed description of impacts of the second stage,

A Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) was completed with a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI LC-92-1, 2/27/92) for A Proposed Contract between the U.S, Department of
Interior and Colorado River Commission and the Southern Nevada Water Authority for the
Remaining Nevada Allocation of Colorado River Water, Reclamation informally consulted with
the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the proposed action. The desert tortoise (Gopherus
agassizii), a threatened species, was the only species identified that might be affected. The
Service required that conservation conditions be incorporated into the contracts; these conditions
are a part of the contract agreements. With the proposed conditions in place, the Service agreed,
in a memorandum dated February 21, 1992, with Reclamation's determination that the proposed
action "".is not likely to adversely affect the threatened desert tortoise," Provisions of
Clark County's Short Term Habitat Conservation Plan-1991 for desert tortoise were adopted as
part of the conditions incorporated into the contracts.

AFEA was completed with a FONSI (LC-95-1, 3/6/95) for the Colorado River Commission's
(CRC) Proposed Southern Nevada Water System Facilities Improvement Project. Reclamation
determined and the Service concurred that the desert tortoise, a threatened species, was the only
species identified that might be affected by the proposed action. Reclamation initiated formal
consultation with the Service with a BA which was received by the service on August 31, 1994.
With adoption and implementation ofRPA's and Terms and Conditions to reduce incidental take
of desert tortoise mitigation stipulations by Reclamation and the CRC, the Service issued a non-
jeopardy opinion for desert tortoise. No proposed critical habitat would be destroyed or
adversely modified, Provisions of Clark County's Short Term Habitat Conservation Plan-1991
for desert tortoise are incorporated into the BO and adopted as Project stipulations and detailed
in the List of Environmental Commitments.

LC Region DEAl I

2

12/97