Final environmental impact statement : Clark County Regional Flood Control District : flood control master plan PDF
Preview Final environmental impact statement : Clark County Regional Flood Control District : flood control master plan
umb iy^E^\y ®f \mm\m :MT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Flood Control Master Plan Clark County Regional Flood Control District U N REGDN^. FLOOD COr^ROL DI^RICT ite April 1991 preparedfor UnitedStates BureauofLandManagement ClarkCountyRegionalFloodControlDistrict Las Vegas, Nevada incooperationwith DepartmentoftheArmy Sacramento DistrictCorpsofEngineers preparedby DAMES & MOORE iff ^ ^S38uo.\ j^.&&^55 BLMLVPT910091792 2A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT CLARKCOUNTYREGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT F5G><W FLOOD CONTROL MASTERPLAN Prepared For: Lead Agency Cooperating Agency UnitedStatesBureauofLandManagement DepartmentoftheArmy Stateline ResourceArea, Las VegasDistrict SacramentoDistrictCorps ofEngineers 4765 VegasDrive 650 CapitalMall Las Vegas, Nevada 89126 Sacramento, California 95814-4794 Clark CountyRegionalFloodControlDistrict 301EastClark, Suite300 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Prepared By: Dames& Moore, AProfessionalLimitedPartnership 4220So. MarylandParkway Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (illyR. Tempfeton State Director, Nevada ThisAbbreviated Final Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS),alongwiththeDraftEIS,fulfillsthe Bureauof LandManagement'srequirementsundertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA). ThisEISevaluatespotential environmental impactsthatmayoccurasaresultofconstructionandoperationofflood controlfacilitiesintheLas Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada. Potential impactsto sensitive resourceswereanalyzed forthe three major project alternatives. Two alternatives, the Detention/Conveyance and All Conveyance, were proposed in "Clark County Regional Flood Control District Flood Control Master Plan," prepared in 1986. Both alternatives were designedtoprovideacomprehensive, integrated,valley-wideplantocontrol 100-yearfloodflows, and bothwould meet project objectives. Athird alternative, No Project, assumesthatfacilitieswill not be installed according toa comprehensiveregional plan, butmaycontinuetobebuiltonapiecemeal basisbylocal entitiesand development interests. Thisalternativemaynotmeet projectobjectives. TheEIS presentsaprogrammaticanalysis ofregional flood control plan alternatives including: 1) a summary of baseline data resources, 2) a procedure to identify sensitive resources, 3) potential impacts, and 4) appropriate mitigation-of-impact procedures. In addition to the region-wide analysis, this EIS includesthedevelopmentofananalytical procedureto beapplied to specificflood control projectstodeterminepotential impact, needforadditional environmental study, andappropriatemitigation measures. This procedure is intended to provide policydirection that can helpfacilitate the implementation ofa regional flood control program in a manner consistent with NEPA. The project-specific analysis procedure was appliedtotheDistrict's10-yearconstructionprogram,andsitespecificimpactsandmitigationmeasuresassociated with each proposed facilityare identified inthis EIS. Forfurther information contact: Donn Siebert, Bureau ofLand Management, Las Vegas District Office, P.O. Box 26569, LasVegas, NV89126ortelephone (702) 647-5000. TableofContents INTRODUCTION 1-1 SECTION 1 -COMMENTS RECEIVED ONTHE DRAFTEIS . 1-1 SECTION 2-RESPONSESTO COMMENTS 2-1 2.1 SUMMARYOF COMMENTSANDSPECIFIC RESPONSES 2-2 2.2TEXTREVISIONS 2-3 2.3FIGURE REVISIONS 2-4 . SECTION 3- BIOLOGICALOPINION 3-1 INTRODUCTION This Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement is intended to be reviewed with the Draft EnvironmentalImpactStatement(DEIS)fortheFloodControlMasterPlan, ClarkCountyRegionalFlood Control District, publishedinOctober1990. TheDEIStogetherwiththisaddendumconstitutetheFinal EISfortheproposed project. Section 1 ofthis document contains complete copies ofall comment letters received duringthe DEIS review. Assignedcommentnumbersareshown intheleftmarginofeach letter. Responsesto comments are presented in Section 2. First, atable is providedwhich summarizes (by assignednumber)thecommentsreceivedandprovidesspecificresponsestothosecomments. Following the table, text and figure revisions made in response to comments are provided. Text revisions are highlighted byshading. TheBiologicalOpinionissuedonthisprojectbytheUSFishandWildlifeServiceiscontainedinSection3. 1-1 1 SECTION 1 •COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFTEIS Comments received ontheDraftEIS are provided inthissection, asfollows: LetterNo. Commentator 1 National ParkService, Lake Mead National RecreationArea 2 USDI FishandWildlifeService, Reno 3 National ParkService, Western Region 4 U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region IX 5 NevadaStateClearinghouse, DepartmentofAdministration 5A NevadaDepartmentofWildlife 5B NevadaDivision ofStateLands 5C NevadaDivisionofHistoricPreservationandArcheology 5D NevadaDivisionofConservation Districts 5E NevadaDivisionofWaterPlanning 5F NevadaDivision ofEnvironmental Protection 6 ColoradoRiverCommission ofNevada 7 LasVegasValleyWaterDistrict 8 DepartmentoftheArmy, South Pacific Division, CorpsofEngineers 9 LeagueofWomenVotersofNevada 10 USDI BureauofMines 1 USDI BureauofReclamation, LowerColorado Regional Office 12 ClarkCountyA-95ClearinghouseCouncil 1-1
The list of books you might like
