Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0- tl'i ., J-' <br />U,jLt... "- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Southern Nevada Water System. <br /> <br />The Southern Nevada Water System (System), a water supply system for the Las Vegas area, <br />was authorized by the Acts of October 22, 1965, and July 19, 1966 (Public Laws 89-292 and 89- <br />510). These acts authorized staged development. The first stage, completed in 1971 consisted of <br />intake facilities at Lake Mead, eight pumping plants, a main aqueduct 2-1/2 miles long, a 4-mile <br />long tunnel, and 30 miles of pipelines and laterals. The State of Nevada constructed the Alfred <br />Merritt Smith Water Treatment Facility (AMSWTF) in conjunction with the first stage, The first <br />stage of the System has the capacity to deliver 132,200 acre-feet per year. <br /> <br />The Second stage of the System consists offive new pumping plants, modifications to existing <br />first stage pumping plants, a second barrel to the main aqueduct, 30 miles of new aqueduct and <br />pipeline with a capacity of 166,800 acre-feet per year, and a major expansion of the AMSWTF. <br />A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Second Stage, Southern Nevada Water Project, <br />(INT FES 77-18, 6/6/77) presents a brief description of the impacts ofthe first stage and a <br />detailed description of impacts of the second stage. <br /> <br />LC Region DEAIl <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />12/97 <br /> <br /> <br />A Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) was completed with a Finding of No Significant <br />Impact (FONSI LC-92-1, 2/27/92) for A Proposed Contract between the U.S. Department of <br />Interior and Colorado River Commission and the Southern Nevada Water Authority for the <br />Remaining Nevada Allocation of Colorado River Water. Reclamation informally consulted with <br />the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the proposed action. The desert tortoise (Gopherus <br />agassizii), a threatened species, was the only species identified that might be affected. The <br />Service required that conservation conditions be incorporated into the contracts; these conditions <br />are a part of the contract agreements. With the proposed conditions in place, the Service agreed, <br />in a memorandum dated February 21, 1992, with Reclamation's determination that the proposed <br />action "...is not likely to adversely affect the threatened desert tortoise." Provisions of <br />Clark County's Short Term Habitat Conservation Plan-1991 for desert tortoise were adopted as <br />part of the conditions incorporated into the contracts. <br /> <br />A FEA was completed with a FONSI (LC-95-1, 3/6/95) for the Colorado River Commission's <br />(eRe) Proposed Southern Nevada Water System Facilities Improvement Project. Reclamation <br />determined and the Service concurred that the desert tortoise, a threatened species, was the only <br />species identified that might be affected by the proposed action. Reclamation initiated formal <br />consultation with the Service with a BA which was received by the service on August 31, 1994. <br />With adoption and implementation DfRPA's and Terms and Conditions to reduce incidental take <br />of desert tortoise mitigation stipulations by Reclamation and the CRC, the Service issued a non- <br />jeopardy opinion for desert tortoise. No proposed critical habitat would be destroyed or <br />adversely modified. Provisions of Clark County's Short Term Habitat Conservation Plan-1991 <br />for desert tortoise are incorporated into the BO and adopted as Project stipulations and detailed <br />in the List of Environmental Commitments. <br />