Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project

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 actions that are expected to occur in Lincoln County associated with the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2004 (LCCRDA), please click here.  For more information on actions that are expected to occur in association with the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA), please visit the BLM SNPLMA web page.

Beyond the proposed action and no action alternative, the EIS also considers a range of other alternatives (including those outside the agency's jurisdiction).  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".

The BLM decision-maker will review the analysis on each alternative and can grant a right-of-way by choosing an alternative or by incorporating portions of one or more alternatives.

For this project, BLM has identified the following alternatives:

Alternative A (No Action): Under this alternative, the right-of-way would not be granted and the facilities would not be built.

Alternative B (Permitted/Application Points of Diversion): Under this alternative, all facilities1 would be built and SNWA would pump the full quantity of water approved by the Nevada State Engineer.  Pumping would occur from the points of diversion2 approved by the Nevada State Engineer.

Alternative C (Distributed Pumping Locations): This is the Proposed Action.  Under this alternative, all facilities1 would be built and SNWA would pump the full quantity of water approved by the Nevada State Engineer.  Unlike Alternative B, pumping would occur from distributed well sites3.  This alternative would require SNWA to submit applications to the Nevada State Engineer to change the points of diversion.

Alternative D (Intermittent Pumping): Under this alternative, all facilities1 would be built and SNWA would pump intermittently4 from distributed well sites3 based on a conceptual drought scenario.  This alternative would require SNWA to submit applications to the Nevada State Engineer to change the points of diversion.

Alternative E (LCCRDA Corridor): Under this alternative, the right-of-way would be granted only within the LCCRDA Corridor5.  SNWA would pump the full quantity of water approved by the Nevada State Engineer in Spring, Dry lake, Delamar, and Cave valleys.  In Dry Lake, Delamar, and Cave valleys the wells would be placed at distributed sites3.  The wells in Spring Valley would be concentrated in the Lincoln County portion of the valley.  This alternative would require SNWA to submit applications to the Nevada State Engineer to change the points of diversion.

Alternative F (LCCRDA Corridor-Intermittent Pumping): Similar to Alternative E, the right-of-way would be granted only within the LCCRDA Corridor5 and wells in Dry Lake, Delamar, and Cave valleys would be placed at distributed sites3 while wells in Spring Valley would be concentrated in the Lincoln County portion of the valley.  However, under this alternative pumping would occur intermittently4. This alternative would require SNWA to submit applications to the Nevada State Engineer to change the points of diversion.

Alternative G (Humboldt-Toiyabe Power Line Alignment): Under this alternative the power line segment would follow an existing corridor from the Gondor substation through the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.  SNWA would pump the full quantity of water approved by the Nevada State Engineer from distributed well sites3.

Alternative H (North Lake Valley Pipeline Alignment): Under this alternative the pipeline and power line segments would follow Highway 93 through northern Lake Valley. SNWA would pump the full quantity of water approved by the Nevada State Engineer from distributed well sites3.

Alternative I (Muleshoe Substation): This alternative would tie the power lines into an alternate substation in northern Dry Lake Valley.  The alternate substation is currently proposed to be built by Nevada Energy and other entities interested in creating a regional power line system.  This alternative would only be chosen if the proposed alternate substation project occurs. It would eliminate the power line tie-in to the Gondor substation. SNWA would pump the full quantity of water approved by the Nevada State Engineer from distributed well sites3.

Alternative J (North Delamar Valley Pipeline and Power Line Alignment): Under this alternative the pipeline alignment in Northern Delamar Valley would stay within the LCCRDA corridor5.  This would require an additional pumping station. SNWA would pump the full quantity of water approved by the Nevada State Engineer from distributed well sites3.

Alternative K (Coyote Spring Valley Pipeline and Power Line Alignment): Under this alternative the pipeline and power line alignment would follow the LCCRDA corridor5 in northern Coyote Spring Valley. SNWA would pump the full quantity of water approved by the Nevada State Engineer from distributed well sites3.

1 All Facilities: right-of-way for main and lateral pipelines, associated facilities, and power facilities would be granted

2 Points of Diversion well sites: wells would be placed at or near the "points of diversion" approved by the Nevada State Engineer and identified in the water rights applications

3 Distributed well sites: wells would be sited to minimize potential reduction in flowing springs and drawdowns in nearby wells

4 Intermittent Pumping: groundwater pumping in any given year could range from a minimum operational amount to the full quantity permitted depending on SNWA's assessment of the availability and reliability of other water sources

5LCCRDA Corridor: only rights-of-way in the corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act would be granted. SNWA could develop a pipeline only in Clark and Lincoln counties. SNWA could not develop facilities and groundwater in White Pine County, but could develop their Spring Valley water rights by concentrating their wells in the Lincoln County portion of Spring Valley.