Alternatives Overview

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) consider a range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.  All EISs must include analysis of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative.  The No Action Alternative is an analysis of what would happen if the proposed action did not occur.  This can be the same as "baseline" but often times can be very different.  Baseline is a description of the setting at a specific point in time.  Because the human, physical, and natural environments are always changing, with or without the proposed project, the "no action" alternative does not necessarily mean that things will stay status quo.  In areas experiencing a high level of change, analyzing the no action alternative can be complex.  For more information on changes that are expected to occur in Lincoln County, please click here.

Beyond the proposed action and no action alternative, the EIS also considers a range of other alternatives.  This often starts by looking at a broad range of alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the proposed action.  The agency then determines which of those alternatives are reasonable.  Reasonable alternatives must be consistent with management guidance and BLM policy, meet the purpose and need, be feasible from technical and economic standpoints, be environmentally responsible, and capable of implementation in a timely manner.  Alternatives that are not reasonable are listed in the EIS as "alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis". 

Kane Springs Valley Groundwater Development Project EIS Alternatives

Proposed Action: The proposed action is explained in detail within the Kane Springs Groundwater Development Project EIS Overview.  The proposed action includes 3 phases, phase 1 being the biggest component of the project.  Phase 1 proposes to construct 3.8 miles of main water pipeline, up to 4 production wells with approximately 9 miles of collection lines running to the main line, two storage tanks, overhead power lines, one large electrical substation and up to 4 smaller substations associated with the wells, a fiber optics line, monitoring wells, access roads, temporary workspace, and a storage yard.  Phases 2 and 3 include the construction of additional wells, collection lines joining to the main line, and electrical substations for the additional wells.  Phases 2 and 3 would be constructed as demand and water rights allow.

No Action Alternative: BLM would not approve the right-of-way and the groundwater development project would not be constructed on BLM lands.  Impacts associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Action on public land would not occur.  However, nothing in this alternative would prevent the Lincoln County Water District (LCWD) from making beneficial use(s) of their Kane Springs Valley water right in accordance with any water rights permitted by the Nevada State Engineer.

Alternative 1: The groundwater facilities under this alternative would be the same as those described under the proposed action.  The power lines in both alternatives follow Kane Springs Road from the northeast toward Highway 93.  In the Proposed Action, the power lines continue through private land until they intersect with Highway 93.  Under Alternative 1, the power lines turn and parallel the private land, keeping the project within the utility corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (LCCRDA).

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis: The following alternatives were eliminated from detailed analysis because they were not reasonable or feasible from a technical or economical standpoint:

• Locating the proposed terminal storage tank on public lands instead of private
• Burying the electrical lines
• Installing above-ground pipelines instead of burying the pipelines