-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*-
REGION IX
1OO CALIFORNIA STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111
WAV
ia/5
To the Interested Public:
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Las
Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement Project is hereby sub-
mitted for your information. It has been prepared in com-
pliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(P. L. 91-190) and the subsequent regulations prepared by
the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Upon the Council on Environmental Quality's receipt of
this Final Environmental Impact Statement, a 30-day period
for Council review will commence. After 30 days, EPA may
authorize the applicant to initiate preparation of construc-
tion plans and specifications for Step 2 grant consideration,
Sincerely,
Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
-------
environmental impact statement
<7
1OO California street
Paul De Falco, Jr
Regional Administrator
Region IX
san francisco 94111
-------
v/-/
v|,x.,;
V *•"(
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT STATEMENT
DRAFT ()
FINAL (x)
Prepared by the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Pacific South-
west, Region IX, San Francisco,
California 94111
1. Type of Action:
a. Administrative
Federal agencies, prior to proposing to
Congress legislation or prior to initiating
any major action, either of which will
significantly affect the quality of the
human environment, must prepare de-
tailed environmental statements. These
statements, required by the 91st Congress
in their National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) and
by Executive Order 11514 of March 5,
1970, have served many purposes,
primarily though as a forum from which
Federal programs, policies and decisions
are held accountable within and outside
of the Federal establishment. NEPA's
intent was clear, to provide the mechan-
ism to evaluate Federal actions of major
consequence to the environment which
in turn ultimately should impact man
beneficially and do so in such a way
as to not ultimately impact the environ-
ment adversely.
The Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ) Guidelines of August 1, 1973 spe-
cified the form and substance of impact
statements, as well as procedures for
invitation and accommodation of public
and private sector participation. Addi-
tionally, the guidelines identified Federal
Agencies within general categories of
expertise and concern to facilitate further
input into this decision-making process.
On January 17, 1973, the Environmental
Protection Agency, as required by NEPA
and as directed by Executive Order and
interim CEQ Guidelines, published interim
regulations outlining the Agency preparation
of environmental impact statements. With-
in these interim regulations can be found
policies and procedures for identification
and analysis of the environmental impact
of Agency (EPA) actions, and the prepar-
ation and processing of environmental
impact statements when significant impacts
on the environment are anticipated. These
January 17, 1973 interim regulations have
since been replaced by proposed regulations
dated July 17, 1974.
-------
On October 21, 1973 under the signature
of Regional Administrator, Paul de Falco,
Jr. , a published draft environmental im-
pact statement on a pollution abatement
program for the Las Vegas Bay/Wash
of Clark County, Nevada was circulated
to all interested persons and agencies.
This statement, edited and prepared by
the staff of the Region IX offices of the
Environmental Protection Agency, eva-
luated the environmental impact of pro-
viding Federal grant assistance for the
planning and eventual construction of
wastewater treatment facilities as pro-
vided for under Section 201 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972.
A public hearing on the draft impact
statement was held on December 5, 1974
at the National Environmental Research
Center in Las Vegas. Testimony was
taken in three sessions on that day, and
the record was left open for an additional
10 days in the event further project com-
ment was outstanding. Comments re-
ceived, either as testimony or by written
letter, are presented in Chapter 8.
Thirty days after the publication of this
final EIS, EPA will be able to authorize
the Applicant to begin design of the se-
lected project (Chapter 7), unless inter-
vention by the courts on behalf of an ap-
pellant or intervention at the discretion
of the President is exercised. *
*If either occurs, the selected project
may be delayed or terminated indefinite-
ly until the Agency can rectify the con-
cerns of the interveners.
2. Description of Problem and Alternative
The objective of this project is to abate
pollution contributions from municipal
and industrial sources in the Las Vegas
Bay/Wash drainage area. Currently the
outfalls of the City of Las Vegas, the
Clark County Sanitation Agency, and the
City 6f Henderson discharge secondary
treated effluent to Las Vegas Wash.
These effluent discharges serve as the
major contributor, along with ground -
water return flows, to the year-round
flow in the Wash. This flow enters
Lake Mead, a man-made lake impounded
by Hoover Dam, at Las Vegas Bay.
These flows support a vegetative habitat
which provides wildlife and recreational
benefits to the Las Vegas Valley
community.
Long about the mid-sixties, these muni-
cipal sources along with other more dif-
fused sources were recognized as the
source of increasing water quality degra-
dation in Las Vegas Bay. It was at this
time that concerned local, state, and
Federal interests undertook studies to
seek remedial actions.
Nutrients from the wastewater outfalls
and irrigation return flows were causing
nuisance algae blooms. Likewise salinity
concentrations in the Bay and Lower Colo-
rado River from upstream and \n-Valley
sources were increasing.
The Environmental Protection Agency in
December of 1971, issued a 180-day en-
forcement notice to clean up all discrete
discharges to the Wash in order to avoid
violation of established State-Federal
II
-------
water quality standards for the Colorado
River. Acceptance by the Nevada State
Legislature of a December 1972 plan
submittal prepared by the Las Vegas
Valley Water District, resulted in fur-
ther legislation designating Clark County
as the responsible entity to undertake
examination of an additional Alternative,
in lieu of the nine Alternatives presented
in the December 1972 findings.
One thing that has to be understood is that
the most economical and environmental
means of abating in-Valley pollution from
municipal sources is to establish a cent-
ralized facility for municipal waste treat-
ment and to expand the scope of the solution
to clean up the existing discrete sources
within the Valley. Any piecemeal abatement
of pollution would not be considered realistic
in light of the potential EPA enforcement
action of December 1971 and in light of
the regulations developed to execute
Section 201 of the FWPCA Amendments
of 1972 embrace among other concepts,
the concept of regionality.
Background information presented in
Chapter 1 provides the environmental
medium within which alternative solutions
would have to conform. Physical data
such as climate, geology, soils, water
resources, vegetation, wildlife and fish
provide the natural setting. Man's envi-
ronment. . .his activities, his lifestyle,
his heritage and future are reflected in
the Historical Background, Population,
Land Use, Housing, Transportation,
Employment, Historical Sites, Recrea-
tion, Utilities, Water Use, Wastewater
Flows, and Existing Sanitary Facilities
Sections. Man's institutions which quan-
tify the quality of his environmental heri-
tage in order to protect and preserve it
for future generations is the intent of the
sections on Water Quality, Water Rights,
Air Quality, and Rare and Endangered
Species.
3. Alternatives Considered
Chapter 2, after consideration of the data
presented in Chapter 1, presents the al-
ternatives suggested by the Applicant, the
County Board of Commissioners of Clark
County. Ten alternatives are up for con-
sideration, but only four are considered
capable of meeting the project objective
after all environmental, engineering and
economic analyses were completed. The
ten alternatives are briefly described
below. The alternatives are differentia-
ted primarily by their means of disposal,
since all will employ some form and
amount of Advanced Wastewater Treat-
ment. Again remember that all alterna-
tives are in terms of a regional scope,
therefore a centralized accumulation of
effluent, either to one pipe or to an AWT
facility exists within all alternatives,
except in Alternative 9, no-action.
Alternative 1 provides for physical,
chemical and biological treatment of
effluent necessary to not degrade ground-
water resources once the effluent is
injected into the existing groundwater
aquifer via injection wells. This in-
jected effluent thence becomes part
of the potable water supply.
This alternative was eliminated from
further consideration due to numerous
technical unknowns with regard to the
III
-------
degree of pretreatment necessary to not
degrade the groundwater aquifer along with
the inability to render a satisfactory cost
effectiveness (economic soundness) eva-
luation due to the lack of sufficient design
data.
Alternative 2 provides for AWT and de-
salination of effluent to meet Environmen-
tal Protection Agency Drinking Water
Standards. Effluent would be discharged
to Las Vegas Bay of Lake Mead if not di-
rectly reused after being blended with the
potable water supply or for agricultural
irrigation or for a pilot groundwater re-
charge program.
This alternative has a disadvantage in that
the unit treatment processes employed
have a very high cost due to the high
amount of energy consumed to operate
them. However this alternative is further
investigated in this summary since it is
still considered viable even with this
disadvantage.
Alternative 3 provides for AWT that will
meet State Water Quality Standards for
the Wash and State-Federal Water Qua-
lity Standards for the Colorado River
prior to discharge to Las Vegas Wash.
A portion of the effluent will be used for
in-valley irrigation system and potentially
could also be used in a 1 mgd (million gal-
lons per day) pilot desalination plant with
1 mgd groundwater recharge program.
Since the predominant volume of effluent
will be discharged to Las Vegas Wash,
the resultant benefits will be realized with-
in the vitality of the vegetative and wild-
life habitats in the Wash and in the in-
creased volumes of water returning back
to the Colorado River to the benefit of
downstream users.
This alternative is considered as viable
and is evaluated further in this summary.
Alternative 4 provides for export of
secondary effluent to the northeast of
Las Vegas after it is collected at a
central location and conveyed via pipe-
line to Dry Lake Valley for disposal by
evaporation. Sometime in the future,
quantities of secondary effluent could be
given AWT and desalination prior to use
as augmentation to the potable water sup-
ply if population and economic growth
dictate. At Dry Lake Valley, a portion
of quality water could be diverted to a
proposed power plant and may be used
for Dry Lake Valley irrigation.
This alternative is eliminated from fur-
ther consideration since it would not meet
local objectives established by the appli-
cant to maintain the Las Vegas Wash
habitat.
Alternative 5 provides for collection of
wastewater at a central point and convey-
ance southeast via pipeline to Eldorado
Valley. There it would be used for irri-
gation of agricultural land. Also at the
central location point some of the effluent
would be given AWT and used for pilot
desalination and pilot groundwater re-
charge plus some in-Valley irrigation.
Also effluent, either secondary or AWT,
•would be used for maintenance of Las
Vegas Wash.
This alternative is eliminated from further
consideration since the shallow geology
IV
-------
underlying surface soils in the Eldorado
Valley may not contain the percolating
effluent, in order to avoid pollution of the
regional groundwaters, without extensive
lining of the evaporation ponds. Potential
economic liabilities in the form of addi-
tional costs for pond lining without ade-
quate economic return and the overall
limited reuse programs further influence
this decision.
Alternative 6 provides for wastewater
collected at a central collection point
to be exported via pipeline for evapora-
tion disposal southwest of Las Vegas in
the Hidden Valley and Jean Lake area.
This alternative is not considered viable
for the same reasons as Alternative 5,
and has been eliminated from further
evaluation (excessive costs of pond lining
and marginal reuse return benefits).
Alternative 7 provides for secondary
effluent, collected at a central point to
be exported northeast of Las Vegas to
Dry Lake Valley for disposal by evapora-
tion. There it would be diverted for
reuse as power plant coolant and for
limited Dry Lake Valley irrigation. One
mgd would be given AWT for use in a
1 mgd pilot desalination and pilot ground-
water recharge program. Also effluent
would be available for Wash greenbelt
maintenance and in-valley irrigation.
This alternative is considered viable and
therefore is evaluated further since
it abates pollution, provides for benefi-
cial reuse of wastewater, and maintains
the Las Vegas Wash greenbelt.
Alternative 8 provides for AWT to the
extent of removing the suspended solids
and the biologically active components,
after which the effluent is injected into
confined aquifers via a deep well network.
Also effluent would be available for Las
Vegas Wash greenbelt maintenance after
treatment to meet water quality standards.
This alternative, like Alternative 1, is
eliminated from further consideration
because of insufficient data on the geolo-
gic and hydraulic characteristics of the
aquifers underlying the Las Vegas Valley.
The time and expense necessary to deter-
mine the impact on these aquifers from
deep well injection further reinforces
this alternative's inacceptability.
Alternative 9 provides for no improve-
ments or modifications to the existing
secondary effluent treatment and Wash
outfall disposal. This alternative is not
considered viable since it continues to
violate State and State-Federal water
quality standards and therefore is eli-
minated from further evaluation.
Alternative 10 provides for AWT of all
secondary effluent now being discharged
to Las Vegas Wash and utilizes it for
beneficial reuse. Beneficial reuses
would be for power plant cooling, for
in-valley irrigation, for 1 mgd pilot de-
salination and pilot groundwater recharge,
and for Las Vegas Wash greenbelt main-
tenance. This alternative is the same
as Alternative 3, with the exception of
the additional in-valley beneficial reuse
of AWT effluent for power plant cooling.
This alternative is considered viable and
is evaluated further.
-------
4. Environmental Impacts of the
Viable Alternatives
Four alternatives to abating pollution in
Lake Mead remain as viable solutions -
Alternatives 2, 3, 7 and 10. Here in
brief form are the impacts in common
followed by a comparative summation
of impact.
All viable alternatives will have similar
primary impacts of construction - habi-
tat disturbance, congestion, litter, noise,
dust, temporary access route development,
equipment storage, and spoil disposal.
Mitigation measures will reduce the se-
verity of these impacts.
The actual facility once it is constructed
will have impacts on the environment,
some noise, maybe some odor now and
then, traffic from operator's arriving
and leaving the plant, but nothing consi-
dered significant. Potential air pollution
from the lime feeding, transfer, and
flaking equipment of the calcining furnace
can be controlled by the equipment being
used and by careful operation procedures.
Where disposal or holding ponds may
cause a potential water quality impact,
they will be lined. Visual impacts will
be alleviated by good design and structures
blending with the surroundings.
In-valley irrigation which is common to
all viable alternatives, will create addi-
tional green areas of visual amenity.
Water, once applied, percolates into
groundwater aquifers where it will slow-
ly make its way to Las Vegas Wash.
Waters in the near-surf ace aquifer will
continue to degrade. A monitoring net-
work of wells will be implemented to
bettec understand how to avoid or miti-
gate this degradation.
Brine disposal, either from collection
of saline groundwaters through drains
or from treatment facility operation,
will be in such a manner as to not de-
grade higher quality water resources.
The impact of the two pilot programs, one
for 1 mgd desalination of effluent and the
other which would inject that same 1 mgd
of effluent for groundwater recharge is
predominantly unknown, other than the
primary, or more immediate, impacts
of the facilities. Usually the object of
a pilot program is to clear up what you
don't know, so several speculations are
rendered in Chapter 3.
Land used for ponds or other facilities
will undoubtedly change many things,
predominantly the types and densities
of vegetation and wildlife.
Those viable .alternatives employing Dry
Lake disposal would result in loss of land
evaporation ponds. Over a period of
time, the ponds will establish a habitat,
similar to a riparian habitat, which would
sustain some biological activity and support
some water fowl. Water percolating down
would not leave the lake area since it is
hydraulicly closed.
Water quality in the Wash and Lake Mead
is expected to improve, while somewhat
changing the existing character and lush-
ness of the now existant biota. Water
quantity returned to the Colorado River
system will vary between the viable al-
VI
-------
ternatives, with Alternative 3 returning
the greatest volume.
Secondary impacts of all viable alterna-
tives will accommodate planned economic,
industrial and urban growth. This growth
will have its attendant impact on services,
existing undeveloped land, and air quality.
All alternatives but Alternative 3 will
accommodate a proposed power facility
with effluent used as coolant within the
power plant.
Beneficial secondary impacts to water
quality and quantity will predominantly
be experienced downstream. Fish and
wildlife will subtly change due to the
improved quality of flows and in the
guaranteed quantity of flow that would
occur over a long period of time.
5. Selected Alternative
After careful analysis, the Environmental
Protection Agency has concluded that
Alternative 10 is the alternative which
best represents the desires of the local
populace in abating pollution in Lake Mead.
In the selection of this alternative, the
distinct differences and rationale for se-
lecting it over the other three viable
alternatives follow:
Alternative 2 -
o Would provide water quality benefits
at a net annual cost of twice to three
times that of the other three.
o Effluent export for disposal outside of
the Colorado River basin without bene-
ficial reuse is considered undesirable
by the Applicant.
o Highest electric power consumption
of any viable alternative.
Alternative 3 -
o Does not provide for reclamation/reuse
of.effluent conveyed to the proposed
Allen Power Station, which would pro-
vide additional revenues to the County.
o Would contribute a greater quantity
of dissolved salts back to the Colo-
rado River than the other viable alter-
natives.
o Does not maximize in-valley reuse of
wastewater.
Alternative 7 -
o Does not adequately treat all muni-
cipal wastes generated, but provides
for export and disposal of most of the
secondary effluents outside of the
basin, which does not maximize in-val-
ley beneficial reuse and therefore is
considered undesirable.
Alternative 10 provides for the construc-
tion of a first phase 90 million gallon
per day (mgd) advanced waste treatment
plant, a collection system from the four
existing secondary treatment plants to
the AWT plant, a 1 mgd pilot desalination
and pilot groundwater recharge, and dis-
charge through a single outfall to Las
Vegas Wash. This alternative also pro-
vides for the sale of effluent to the Nevada
Power Company for in-valley reclamation/
reuse of effluent. EPA has withheld en-
dorsement of this scheme pending further
environmental analysis by the power com-
VII
-------
pany and publication of a draft environ-
mental impact statement by the lead
Federal Agency on that project, the
Bureau of Land Management.
When Nevada realizes full utilization of
all in-valley water resources, return
flows may be credited for additional fresh
water withdrawals from the Southern
Nevada Water Project. An in-valley irri-
gation system will utiliize effluents for
irrigation of existing and future "green
areas".
6. Dates available to CEQ and the Public:
Draft - October 21, 1974
Final - M£V ;, 3 1975
7. Distribution List
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Office of Federal Activities
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Water Programs, Planning & Interagency
Program Division
Congressional Affairs Division
Office of Congressional & Intergovernmental
Relations, Region IX
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee
c/o Deputy Regional Engineer
Federal Power Commission
555 Battery Street, Room 415
San Francisco CA 94111
Soil Conservation Service
308 Post Office Building
Post Office Box 4850
Reno NV 89505
District Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
Post Office Box 16019
Las Vegas NV 89101
U.S. Forest Service
324 - 25th Street
Ogden UT 84401
District Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer District,
Los Angeles
300 North Los Angeles Street
Post Office Box 2711
Los Angeles CA 90053
International Boundary and
Water Commission
United States and Mexico
818 Southwest Center .
300 Main Drive
El Paso TX 79950
Federal Co-Chairman
Four Corners Regional Commission
Department of Commerce Building
14th St. between E and Constitution Ave., NW
Room 1898C
Washington DC 20230
Regional Director
Public Health Service
Federal Office Building
50 Fulton Street
San Francisco CA 94102
Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
One Embracadero Center, Suite 1600
San Francisco CA 94111
VIII
-------
Assistant Secretary, Program Policy
Attn: Office of Environmental
Project Review
Department of the Interior
Washington DC 20240
Federal Energy Administration
New Post Office Building
12th & Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington DC 20461
Attn: Ernest E. Slight
Director, Center for Water
Resources Research
Desert Research Institute
University of Nevada System
Reno NV 89507
U.S. Department of Transportation
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102
Federal Power Commission
U.S. Customs House
555 Battery Street
San Francisco CA 94111
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, NW
Washington DC 20006
Ms. Geneva Douglas
NERC
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
944 E. Harman Ave.
Las Vegas NV
Environmental Review Section
Nellis AFB
Salt Lake Highway
Las Vegas NV
STATE AGENCIES
Nevada State Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources
Nye Building
Carson City NV 89701
Nevada Environmental Commission
201 South Fall Street
Carson City NV 89701
State Engineer
Division of Water Resources
201 South Fall Street
Carson City NV 89701
Nevada Department of Fish & Game
Box 10678
Reno NV 89510
Mr. John Donaldson
Department of Fish & Game
Region 3 Supervisor
4747 West Vegas Drive
Las Vegas NV 89107
Mr. Wendell McCurry
Bureau of Environmental Health
201 South Fall Street
Carson City NV 89701
Mr. Bruce Arkell
State Planning Coordinator
Governor's Office
Carson City NV 89701
Administrator
Division of Colorado River Resources
Post Office Box 1748
Las Vegas NV 89101
IX
-------
C. C. Tabor, Chairman
Arizona Water Quality Control Council
Route 1, Box 19
Wellton AZ 85356
Arizona Stclte Department
of Health Services
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix AZ 85007
California State Water Resources
Control Board
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento CA 95814
Colorado River Board
217 West First Street
Los Angeles CA 90012
Colorado River Basin RWQCB
81-715 Highway 111 (P.O. Drawer 1)
Indio CA 92201
LEGISLATORS
Honorable Alan Bible
U.S. Senate
Room 145 OSOB
Washington DC 20510
Honorable Howard W. Cannon
U.S. Senate
Room 259 OSOB
Washington DC 20510
Honorable Mike O'Callaghan
Governor, State of Nevada
Executive Chambers, State Capitol
Carson City NV 89701
Honorable Jack Williams
Governor, State of Arizona
State House
Phoenix AZ 85007
Honorable Jerry Brown
Governor, State of California
State Capitol, First Floor
Sacramento CA 95814
Honorable David Towell
U.S. House of Representatives
Longworth House Office Building
Room 1206
Washington DC 20515
Senator B. Mahlon Brown
60 Country Club Lane
Las Vegas NV 89109
Senator Lee E. Walker
1729 Arrowhead
North Las Vegas NV 89030
Senator John P. Foley
801 Pyramid Drive
Las Vegas NV 89108
Senator Chic Hecht
47 Country Club Lane
Las Vegas NV ' 89109
Senator Joe Neal
304 Lance Avenue
North Las Vegas NV
89030
Senator Melvin D. Close, Jr.
3838 Delaware Lane
Las Vegas NV 89109
-------
Senator Eugene V. Echols
2908 Magnet Street
North Las Vegas NV 89030
Senator Helen Herr
4620 Meredith Avenue
Las Vegas NV 89121
Senator Richard H. Bryan
3680 Mountcrest Drive
Las Vegas NV 89121
Senator James
806 Park Lane
Henderson NV
I. Gibson
89015
Senator Floyd R. Lamb
360 East Desert Inn Road
Las Vegas NV 89109
Assemblyman Darrell H. Dreyer
5309 Masters Avenue
Las Vegas NV 89122
Assemblyman Marion D. Bennett
1911 Goldhill Avenue
Las Vegas NV 89106
Assemblyman Robert Craddock
6090 East Lake Mead Blvd.
Las Vegas NV 89110
Assemblyman Daniel Demers
231 Edelweiss Place
Mt. Charleston
Las Vegas NV 89100
Assemblyman Zelvin Lowman
1246 Cashman Drive
Las Vegas NV 89102
Assemblywoman Imogene E. Ford
3511 Pueblo Way
Las Vegas NV 89109
Assemblyman Douglas Bremner
821 Fairway Drive
Las Vegas NV 89107
Assemblyman Cranford Crawford
2215 Matheson Street
North Las Vegas NV 89030
Assemblyman John Vergiels
490 Calcaterra Circle
Las Vegas NV 89109
Assemblyman Paul May, Jr.
3309 Wright Avenue
North Las Vegas NV 89030
Assemblyman James J. Banner
2223 Poplar Avenue
Las Vegas NV 89101
Assemblywoman Eileen Brookman
1900 Cochran
Las Vegas NV 89105
Assemblyman Thomas Hickey
805 Glendale Avenue
North Las Vegas NV 89030
Assemblyman Darrell W. Huff
5708 Idle Avenue
Las Vegas NV 89107
Assemblyman James N. Ullom
4309 Greenhill Drive
Las Vegas NV 89121
Assemblyman Richard McNeel
1824 Renada Circle
North Las Vegas NV 89030
XI
-------
Assemblyman Jack Schofield
1308 South Sixth Street
Las Vegas NV 89101
Assemblyman Keith Ashworth
295 Ashworth Circle
Las Vegas NV 89107
Assemblyman James Smalley
63 Wyoming Avenue
Henderson NV 89015
Assemblyman Robert Robinson
3504 Pioneer Circle
Las Vegas NV 89107
Assemblyman Robert Smith
1245 North Boulder Highway
Henderson NV 89015
OTHERS
Clark County Wastewater
Management Agency
200 East Carson Avenue
Las Vegas NV 89101
Sewage and Waste Water Advisory Committee
c/o Clark County Waste Water Management
Agency
200 East Carson Avenue
Las Vegas NV 89101
The Honorable 0. K. Gragson, Mayor
City of Las Vegas
400 East Stewart
Las Vegas NV 89101
The Honorable C. R. Cleland, Mayor
City of North Las Vegas
Post Office Box 4086
North Las Vegas NV 89030
The Honorable Cruz Olague, Mayor
City of Henderson
243 Water Street
Henderson NV 89015
The Honorable Kenneth Andree, Mayor
City of Boulder City
Post Office Box 367
Boulder City NV 89005
Mr. Bob Jones
Jones & Stokes Assoc., Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 835
Sacramento CA 95814
Mr. Curt Spencer
VTN
555 Capitol Mall
Sacramento CA 95814
Mr. Al Schmidt
VTN
2209 Paradise Road
Las Vegas NV 89015
Mr. Dave Griffith
Nevada Environmental Consultants
1209 South Commerce
Las Vegas NV 89106
Mr. Bill Knoph
Walnut Creek Plaza, Suite 750
1990 N. California Blvd.
Walnut Creek CA 94956
Mr. James Saucerman
VTN Consolidated, Inc.
2301 Campus Drive
Irvine CA 92664
XII
-------
C. S. Lawson
Clark County Representative
Lahontan Audobon Society
509 Altamira Road
Las Vegas NV 89109
John McComb, Southwest Representative
Sierra Club
2014 E. Broadway, No. 212
Tucson AZ 85719
Ms. Glade Koch
237 Greenbriar Townhouse Way
Las Vegas NV 89121
Nevada Open Space Council
c/o Ms. Mary Kozlowski
709 Mallard Street
Las Vegas NV 89107
Mr. Jay Moore
1122 Pawnee
Henderson NV 89015
Mr. Harry Allen
Nevada Power Company
Post Office Box 230
Las Vegas NV 89101
Mr. Joe Monscuitz, Manager
Southern Nevada Water System
243 Lakeshore Road
Boulder City NV 89005
Dr. James E. Deacon
Biology Department
University of Nevada
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas NV 89154
Mr. Harvey O. Banks
#3 Kittie Lane
Belmont CA 94002
Mr. Ken O'Connell
Chamber of Commerce
2301 East Sahara Avenue
Las Vegas NV 89105
Dr. Jack E. McKee
CDM, Inc.
283 South Lake Avenue
Suite 215
Pasadena CA 91101
Mr. Nicholas G. Smith
Burraus, Smith & Co.
1003 Kearns Building
Salt Lake City UT 84101
Tudor Engineering Co.
110 West "C" Street
San Diego CA 92101
Mr. Walt Casey
Walt Casey Water Cond.
2661 Western
Las Vegas NV 89102
Ms. Liz Vlaming
3170 Westheld Road
Las Vegas NV 89102
Mr. Carl Blake
Titanium Metals, Inc.
Post Office Box 2128
Henderson NV 89015
Mr. Howard L. Levitt
c/o The Domestic Affairs Desk
in Exile
2 Linden End
Haddenham, Ely
Cambridge CB6-3UD
England
XIII
-------
Dr. Arden Gaufin
University of Utah
1400 E. 2nd South
Salt Lake City UT 84102
American Association of University
Women
c/o Mrs. Ernest Phillips
321 Pinecliff Drive
Las Vegas NV 89128
Southern California Edison Co.
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemeade CA 91770
Robert J. McNutt
Post Office Box 539
Las Vegas NV 89101
Vernoh Bostick
5805.Churchill Street
Las Vegas NV 89107
League of Women Voters
1730 M Street, NW
Washington DC 20036
Dr. Otto Ravenholt
Chief Health Officer
Clark County District Health Department
625 Shadow Lane
Las Vegas NV 89106
Mr. Dave Causey
Urban Action Committee
200 East Carson Avenue
Las Vegas NV 89101
Las Vegas Review Journal
c/o Holly Curtis
1111 W. Bonanza Rd.
Las Vegas NV
Las Vegas Sun
121 S. Highland Drive
Las Vegas NV
Las Vegas Voice
900 W. Bonanza Road
Las Vegas NV
Henderson Home News
22 Water
Henderson NV
North Las Vegas Valley Times
1007 E. Cheyenne Ave
North Las Vegas NV
Ms. Daisy Talvitie
1421 Dorothy Ave.
Apt #2
Las Vegas NV 89109
Ms. Ann Zorn
1591 Gabriel Ave.
Las Vegas NV 89109
The Quality Water Education Committee
2041 Business Center Drive
Irvine CA 92664
Attn: Paul F. Gundlach
Dr. Thorne Butler
Las Vegas Valley Water District
3700 West Charleston Boulevard
Las Vegas NV 89102
XIV
-------
-------
-------
In preparing an environmental impact
statement, Federal agencies provide a
mechanism. . . a process. . . by which pro-
gram decisions can be evaluated beyond
the immediate context of one agency's
budgeted, rule and regulation reinforced
rationale for doing something. Impact
statements lay bare these decision pro-
cesses by which self-serving Federal
programs may and do impact the environ-
ments within which they exist; not only
providing the means for other public
agencies to impact these programatic
decisions, but also accommodating the
private citizen seeking government
accountability.
Major efforts toward developing a pollu-
tion abatement program in the Las Vegas
Wash/Lake Mead area were initiated in
the mid 1960's, after recognizable pollu-
tion in Lake Mead and the downstream
Colorado River attributed to municipal
and industrial waters discharged to Las
Vegas Wash were befouling Las Vegas
Bay. These nutrient laden discharges,
along with highly saline subsurface flows
resulted in diminishing the potability
and useability of the receiving waters.
Through the efforts of citizens within
the Las Vegas Valley, and the concern
of Federal, state, and local agencies to
check any further pollution of water re-
sources, a commitment among them was
joined to remedy the situation, and to
define and determine the future environ-
mental goals and objectives of such an
undertaking. Ultimately, a plan would be
submitted to the State Legislature for
approval, and then to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration (the
FWPCA was one of EPA's previous
incarnations) for a Federal wastewater
treatment works construction grant.
Repeated investigations and reports failed
to produce a unified strategy for abatement
of pollution. In December of 1971, a con-
ference was called by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency to discuss with
all responsible agencies and in-valley
dischargers a pending 180-day enforcement
action against them by EPA for failing to
do so. In 1971, the Nevada Legislature
designated the Las Vegas Valley Water
District (LVWD) as the agency responsible
for developing a plan to abate the pollution
caused by municipal waste water flows in
Las Vegas Wash. Industry would provide
their own means of meeting discharge
requirements set by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
H
i
XVII
-------
The plan, which outlined a program of
exporting polluted waters to the Dry Lake
area for disposal, some reclamation/re -
use, and several pilot programs, was
completed in December of 1972. The
1973 Nevada State Legislature, through
it's passage of Senate Bill 288 (NRS 790)
accepted the final written report of the
Las Vegas Valley Water District. How-
ever, the Legislature, recognizing that
there may be further alternative solutions
to the pollution abatement problem, trans-
ferred the responsibility for developing a
solution of the problem in Senate Bill 288
to the Clark County Board of County
Commissioners.
In July of 1974, the Board of County Com-
missioners submitted to the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency 10 alternatives of
abatement action in their Facilities Plan
- Annex A and Addendum to the Environ-
mental Assessment - Annex B for the Las
Vegas Wash Bay Pollution Project.
Prior to these latest submittals, numerous
supporting documents were used in this
effort. The 1972 Environmental Assess-
ment prepared for the Las Vegas Valley
Water District, was part of the 1972 sub-
mittal to the State Legislature. The
assessment evaluated 9 possible actions
formulated to accomplish waste water
management in Las Vegas Valley. Six
of the possible actions were presented
in a "Phase III" Engineering Project
Report also prepared for the LVWD.
The seventh alternative, which was se-
lected by the LVWD, combined several of
the "Phase III" alternatives. The eighth
alternative was suggested at a public meet-
ing and the ninth, "no action" alternative
was included to comply with The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Alter-
native 10 was added in accordance with the
directive of Senate Bill 288.
The Environmental Protection Agency de-
cided to write this environmental impact
statement due to the significance of the
abatement action, not only in terms of
its environmental consequences but also
because of the major Federal investment
being made through the Title II Waste-
water Treatment Works construction
Grants Program. The environmental
implications of meeting the approved
Federal-State water quality standards
through the alternatives proposed and any
permit issued by EPA in compliance with
the National Pollution Discharge Elimina-
tion System to regulate municipal dis-
charges to Las Vegas Wash are also
evaluated.
The July 1974 submittal of the County
Commissioners incorporated guiding cri-
teria for use in the development of a pro-
gram scope. This criteria would be used
as the first cut in measuring the thorough-
ness of any alternative. The Environmen-
tal Quality Objectives, as they are called,
are:
1. Attain a clean desert environment.
2. Maintain Las Vegas Wash as a per-
manent riparian environment.
3. Develop additional greenbelts by in-
valley irrigation.
XVIII
-------
4. Optimize the use of water.
5. Protection of the environment
from the adverse impact of con-
struction.
The environmental quality objectives pro-
viding guidance to EPA in this environ-
mental impact statement for the selection
of the most environmentally viable al-
ternative are those specified in Section
101 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA) and
Section 101 of the Clean Air Act of 1970.
This statement shall conform to the pro-
visions of Section 102 (c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).of 1969;
the August 1, 1973 Guidelines for the
preparation of Environmental Impact State-
ments published in the Federal Register
by the Council on Environmental Quality
(36 FR 7724) and; the July 17, 1974
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as pub-
lished in the Federal Register concerning
the Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements (39 FR 138). The Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is attached as Appendix A.
This Environmental Impact Statement is
written to indicate a process by which a
decision has been made and the rational
behind making that decision. Chapter 7
of the Statement discusses the selected
alternative and summarizes the reasons
for its selection. Chapter 8 contains
comments that were received on the
October 21, 1974 draft EIS, either at the
public hearing held December 5, 1974 or
by mail during the 45-day comment/review
period as required by regulation. In the
process of analysis underundertaken by
the Environmental Protection Agency,
the selection of the plan deemed most
feasible was the final step, and occurred
only after careful and critical review of
all the alternatives including the alterna-
tive recommended to EPA by the Board
of County Commissioners.
The Environmental Protection Agency
wishes to gratefully acknowledge the
assistance provided by the many contri-
butors in this on-going process. The
numerous interested organizations, in-
dividuals, and public agencies whose
efforts through the public forum have pro-
vided direction in the preparation of this
final statement are greatly appreciated.
Of note are the efforts of the Board of
County Commissioners, the Clark County
Waste Water Management Agency, the
Sewage and Waste Water Advisory Com-
mittee (SWAC) of Clark County, and the
Las Vegas Valley Water District and
their engineering and environmental
consultants. Much of the information
assembled and presented in previous
engineering project reports and environ-
mental impact assessments by those
previously mentioned, was either edited
or transcribed verbatim. Communications
with the staffs of NECON, VTN, Jones
and Stokes Associated, Incorporated, and
the Clark County Waste Water Management
Agency has facilitated the expeditious reso-
lution of this significant environmental
action, the benefits of which will be felt
for many years to come.
Finally, we wish to acknowledge the efforts
XIX
-------
of the State of Nevada through it's State
Legislature and executive agencies in the
furtherance of statewide programs to
improve the quality of the nation's waters.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
As part of any ecological system, man has
to contend with limitations in his adapta-
bility as a biological organism. Place him
in a barren, extremely arid, hot water-
short desert environment . . . and the pic-
ture these "Environmental Constraints" pre
sent to planners is one of neverending at-
tempts at the resolution of some very fun-
damental necessities of life.
Simply stated, the availability of water,
shelter from the sun's heat, and fuel must
first be satisfied before man is capable of
carrying on any consideration of existing
in the desert for any sustained period of
time.
Las Vegas however, runs on a very unique
statement of the American phenomena. As
was described in the Las Vegas Report
1974 published by the Greater Las Vegas
Chamber of Commerce, "the city where
. . . .money flows freely was founded and
has prospered on the carefree individual,
millions of them, all seeking refuge from
doldrums of day-in and day-out living".
Therefore the human organism is provided
for so that it can pursue this unique refuge.
The ground rules for making the neces-
sary environmental decisions in this in-
stance have been spelled out by Congress.
The National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 was enacted at the end of a pheno-
menal decade of American Growth, aware-
ness, and social upheaval that expounded
a national ethic heralding the need to
evaluate what had been going on. The
national government responded with a
major reformation in the emphasis of se-
veral federal programs and agencies by
Executive Order coupled with congres-
sional enactment of the Clean Air Act
of 1970 and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, mandat-
ing the Environmental Protection Agency
to administer and regulate the cleaning
up of the nation's air and water and keep-
ing them clean.
Water, whether it be it's quality or abun-
dance, is by far the most limiting con-
straint in this analysis. Water sustains
the Las Vegas community in the life style
it is accustomed to. From this Agency's
perspective if economic viability and
population growth are to continue, water
quality degradation of existing and future
potable water supplies from salt, nutrients,
and toxins must be abated. The capability
of the emerging in-valley megalopolis to
continue to'assimilate its excesses, its
wastes, back into the environment is by
far the leading action of this Agency.
Air quality is an equally significant res-
ponsibility of this Agency and is as equally
well defined as a resource as is water
quality. Gases and particulates are
translated into clarity, tolerance, and
irritant standards by Federal and State
law. Human life-style and the kind of
urban residential, commercial, and in-
dustrial growth it spawns inversely im-
XX
-------
pact's concentrations of these gases and
particulates. In this instance, we again
must speak in terms of the assimilative
capability of man's environment to meet
this air quality constraint.
By providing this capability to assimilate
wastes, Las Vegas will be establishing
many new dependencies and interrelation-
ships with a much larger environment.
This larger environment must be capable
of assimilating Las Vegas.
It is anticipated that all of the viable al-
ternatives will have impacts of a similar
nature only varying in magnitude from
alternative to alternative. To prepare the
reader, the following discussion will not
be site-specific nor will the no-action al-
ternative be considered since no action
would be the perpetuation of an already
recognized adverse environmental dilem-
ma. The generic impact common to each
alternative along with the means to miti-
gate its impact will be considered.
XXI
-------
summary I
introduction XVII
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS XX
table of contents XXII
'^iMjpfeff II the environment 2
LOCATION 2
CLIMATE 11
GEOLOGY 14
SOILS 20
WATER RESOURCES 32
WATER QUALITY 40
WATER RIGHTS 68
AIR QUALITY 72
VEGETATION 81
WILDLIFE AND FISH 89
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 94
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 97
HISTORICAL SITES 103
POPULATION 105
LAND USE .107
HOUSING 115
TRANSPORTATION 116
EMPLOYMENT 118
RECREATION 119
UTILITIES 122
WATER USE 126
WASTEWATER FLOWS 130
EXISTING SANITARY FACILITIES 130
XXII
-------
selection of alternatives 142
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 42
ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF THE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
RELATED CONSTRUCTION
EVALUATION OF THE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
THE NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM
180
environmental impacts 182
PRIMARY IMPACTS
Impacts of Construction rj~
Impacts of the Project Features in Coi
Water Quality
Water Quantity
Vegetation and Wildl-ife
Impacts of No-Action
SECONDARY IMPACTS
Economic Implications
Growth Accomodations
The Environmental Impacts of the
Allen Power Generating Facility
Implications on Regional Air Quality
Water Quality Implications
Water Quantity Implications
Fish and Wildlife Impacts
^; adverse impacts which 32O
cannot be avoided
PRIMARY IMPACTS
SECONDARY IMPACTS ^20
&• £» _L
XXIII
-------
relationship between local 226
short-term uses versus
long-term productivity
(b irreversible & irretrievable 23O
commitment of resources
selected project 234
public review & comment 238
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Federal Power Commission 240
International Boundry and Water Commission 242
U.S. Forest Service 243
U.S. Soil Conservation Service 243
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 244
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 244
STATE AGENCIES
State of Nevada- Office of the 245
Assessment and Tax Equity Committee
State of Nevada- Office of the State Planning 247
Coordinator
State of Nevada- Division of Health, Department of 248
Human Resources
State of Nevada- Division of Colorado River Resources, 249
Department of Conservation and Natural &
Resources 263
State of California- Colorado River Board of Colorado 265
XXIV
-------
LOCAL AGENCIES & INTERESTS
Clark County Wastewater Management Agency 267
City of North Las Vegas 270
Nevada Power Company 274
Las Vegas Valley Water District- Dr. Thorne Butler 281
Quality Water Education Committee 283
Daisy J. Talvitie 288
bibliography
appendices
A Environmental Protection Agency, Preparation 1
of Environmental Impact Statements: Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register
July 17, 1974
B Flora and Fauna 11
C October 24, 1973 and April 9, 1974 revisions 42
to the Water Pollution Control Regulations
D Nevada Air Quality Regulations 50
E 1973 Particulate and S02 Emission Percentages 56
F 1973 CO and HC Emission Percentages 57
G 1973 NOX Emission Percentages 58
H Dr. Thorne Butler's Comments 59
I Summary of the Conference on Pollution of 64
Interstate Waters of the Colorado River
and Its Tributaries (Seventh Session)
J Title 40-Part 120- Water Quality Standards 67
Colorado River System; Salinity Control
Policy and Standards Procedures
XXV
-------
«*>
x^ v
S,V '.WHI
IV •/
"« I i
.WHITE FINE
.
j
'V
.« IRON
GREAT
BASIN
REGION
!
LINCOLN
.
WASHINGTON
«'•,-, X KANE
' "°"M ! UTAH \
ARIZONA")" . ~"
,t ClARK
LOWER /
UPPER
COLORADO
REGION
I ^ , f
r
MOHAVE
COCONINO
•
\
LITTLE
1
\
CALIFORNIA k MAIN
'.
REGION \ ^
, "*CHE \ f P_
I | MCKINIEY rT
COLORADO
\
| YAVAPAI
-^V,
I *
! '^"'•>4"^^..
HO1MOOK
u- / C
£ VALENCIA
I ^*
,
'
CATBON
( )
• '._ .* J' YUMA
'•-.'.'.'.If STEM ]'••
-•
MABICOPA 'pHOtNi
'
V,
j.
_ --- 1 *'
J*'^c
,i -—\ ,—I v OBEENUE!
A r^~ I
I \ L I
\ *
V • 'r" GRAH*M . \ G.ANT
PINAL /HTT A <-\
CrlLA ^. I—,
a
•— — «EOIOK BOUK01BY
— • • ^— SUBfiEGION B08HDABY
STATE I)OUIID»»Y
COUHTY BOUKOAIiY
COLO»»DO HIVED ORAHACE
I
I
<
LOBPSbUHC V
O ' V
•: .,.'
C^ TUCSON
~l
COCHISE
SCALE
MILES
If '
f • SANTA CRUZ < * T
O NOGAIES SONORA / CHIHUA
i §
HIDALOT A^^ I K
I I ~\—
S|i > i
IE ^
-------
The present environment will be the stan-
dard against which the future environments
accommodated by any of the proposed al-
ternative actions will be contrasted. This
reference point provides the foundation
from which the beneficial and detrimental
effects of construction and operation of
each project alternative are evaluated.
In the course of making environmental
evaluations, it has been advantageous to
divide the present environment into the
following descriptive categories:
(1) The regional environment, including
the Las Vegas Basin, Las Vegas Bay
and the Lower Colorado River System.
(2) Several area environments, encom-
passing Dry Lake, Eldorado, Jean Lake
and Hidden Valleys and the Las Vegas
Valley/Wash drainage.
(3) Specific site environments, consis-
ting of and relating to the site-specific
locations of the proposed project facili-
ties and areas of project impact.
LOCATION
Regional Locations
The regional environment, including the
Las Vegas Basin, Las Vegas Bay as it
relates to the Las Vegas Wash, and the
Lower Colorado River System, is located
at the junction of the States of Nevada,
Arizona and California. The combined
areas are either a part of Clark County
or a part of the border between the
above-mentioned States.
To the southwest of the Las Vegas Basin
are the lofty Spring Mountains which
reach an elevation of nearly 12, 000 feet.
The northeast has several somewhat
lower mountain ranges, chiefly, the
Sheep and Las Vegas Ranges. Indian
Spring Valley, that forms the northern
part of the project area, is bordered
by a series of spurs from the north-
trending Pintwater and Desert Ranges
and by the southern end of the Spotted
Range. The McCullough Range and
Eldorado Mountains are to the south of
the area of concern while the Muddy
Mountains and Frenchman Mountain
form a part of the eastern border.
H
-------
Las Vegas Bay is an arm of the Boulder
Basin area of Lake Mead. Las Vegas
Wash enters the Bay at its western
extremity. As the immediate recipient
of its flows, the chemical, physical and
biological conditions of the Bay are di-
rectly influenced by the outflow from
the Las Vegas Wash taking into account
the time of year, lake level, inflow and
pollution concentrations for upstream
sources.
The Colorado River begins at the Con-
tinental Divide near Mount Richthofen,
a peak with an elevation of 13, 000 feet.
It flows in a generally southwesterly
direction from its headwaters in north
central Colorado for about 1400 miles
to the Gulf of California. The Colorado
Basin is composed of rugged mountains,
high plateaus, deep canyons, deserts
and plains, covering an area of 244, 000
square miles (approximately 1/12 the
area of the entire continental United
States). The Colorado River Basin
includes parts of Arizona, California,
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah
and Wyoming.
Lj-ee Ferry, Arizona, located approxi-
mately 17 miles downstream of Glen
Canyon Dam near the confluence of
the Paria River, was established in the
Colorado River Compact of 1922 as the
point in which the Colorado River Basin
is divided into the "Upper Basin" and
"Lower Basin" for legal, political,
institutional and hydrologic purposes.
The Lower Basin encompasses about
55% of the drainage area of the Colo-
rado River Basin, and includes Las
Vegas Wash. After leaving Glen Can-
yon Dam, the Colorado River flows into
the Lower Basin and passes through the
Grand Canyon into Lake Mead. This
locates the Colorado River system east
of the study area. Hoover Dam restricts
Colorado River flow to form Lake Mead,
which at one time was the largest reser-
voir in the world.
From Hoover Dam to the Mexican Border,
the River travels 326 miles, nearly 40%
of which is contained within reservoirs.
The reach below Lake Mead and Hoover
Dam includes Davis Dam, Parker Dam
and Imperial Dam which impound Lake
Mojave, Lake Havasu and Imperial
Reservoir, and provide water for major
diversions such as the All-American
Canal, the Gila Canal and Colorado River
Aqueduct. Minor dams within the reach
include Headgate Diversion Dam, Palo
Verde Diversion Dam and Laguna Di-
version Dam.
Area Locations
Las Vegas Valley, the most important
of the area environments, trends south-
east about 50 miles from Indian Springs
to Las Vegas Wash. The northern part
of the Valley, which extends 30 miles
from Indian Springs to Tule Spring, is
irregularly shaped and relatively narrow;
it ranges from 4 to 10 miles in width.
South of Tule Spring {he Valley widens
into a rectangular-shaped basin that is
approximately 18 miles wide and 24 miles
long. The cities of Las Vegas and North
Las Vegas are in the center of this part
of the Valley, and are approximately 11
miles to the west of Lake Mead.
-------
Glendale
• Logandale
\
Davis Dam
Source: NECON
Prepared by VTN
LAS
VEGAS
VALLEY
Las Las
egas Vegas
ash
~~ake
Utah
- • * «••••_
vlesquite
Bunkerville
Arizona
CM
-------
The Las Vegas Wash is the chief drain-
age channel of the 1,590 square-mile
Las Vegas Valley drainage basin.
The only man-created perennial
stream in the area, it is located east
of the City of Las Vegas and flows
easterly to Lake Mead. For purposes
of this report the Wash begins at
the City of Las Vegas Waste-Water
Treatment Plant on Vegas Valley
Drive and ends 11 miles downstream
beyond North Shore Road where it
flows into Las Vegas Bay. The Las
Vegas Wash is the principal channel
for removal of the treated municipal
and industrial waste water for Alter-
natives 2, 3,7 and 10.
Considering Las Vegas Valley as the
center, Dry Lake Valley is directly
northeast, Jean Lake is directly south
with Hidden Valley and Eldorado Valley
respectively, directly east of Jean Lake.
Site Locations
The site locations considered to be occu-
pied by project facilities and areas of pro
ject impact include:
(1) Ground-water recharge well field
and Pilot desalination plant,
(2) Waste-water collection system,
Treatment plant, Deep disposal well
field areas, and Sludge disposal site,
(3) Las Vegas Valley lands to be
irrigated,
(4) Dry Lake Valley,
(5) Eldorado Valley,
(6) Jean Lake,
(7) Hidden Valley.
Ground-Water Recharge Well Field
and Pilot Desalination Plant
Alternatives Nos. 1 and 10 propose
the recharge of desalinized waste water
or a blend of advanced waste treatment
(AWT) and desalt water into the middle
aquifer of the ground-water basin. The
injection well field site is to be located
to the west side of the City of Las Vegas.
Also located in the same area will be a
Pilot Desalination Plant as part of Alter-
native 10. It will occupy a gross land
area of approximately two acres on a
site owned by the Las Vegas Valley
Water District.
Waste-water Collection System, Treat-
ment Plant. Deep Disposal Well Field
Areas, and Sludge Disposal Site
The collection system, treatment plant,
deep well disposal field and sludge dis-
-------
CRAIG ROAD
ALEXANDER ROAD
60WANROAD
CHEYENNE AVE.
1 MGD
, PILOT GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
SITE LOCATION
SCALE IN MILES
OPERATIONAL WELLS OF THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
PROPOSED I MGD PILOT DESALINATION PLANT
PROPOSED AREA FOR PILOT RECHARGE WELL
T — — — — PROPOSED IN-VALLEY IRRIGATION PIPELINE FROM AWT
•—•1-1 DESALINATION PLANT PRODUCT WATER LINE
AVE
WASHINGTON AVE
..
FREMONT ST.
DESERT INN RD.
-------
/
AWT PLANT
AND
COLLECTION PIPELINES
EXISTING SECONDARY WWTP i
UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY HENDERSON
-------
posal site are all located to the eastern
side of the City of Las Vegas.
The collection system begins south of
Vegas Valley Road, following the border
of agricultural lands to the Clark County
plant discharge ditch. For Alternatives
1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 effluent will be col-
lected from Henderson sewage treatment
facilities via a subsurface pipe. For
Alternatives 2, 3 and 5, effluent would
be conveyed from the Clark County plant
to the regulating reservoir via an open
channel. The collection system for
Alternative 10 will consist of three pipe-
lines - one from each of the existing
secondary waste-water treatment plants,
Clark County, the City of Las Vegas and
the City of Henderson. These secondary
effluent lines will join at the influent
surge pond located adjacent to the Clark
County plant.
The sites for the waste-water regulating
reservoir and treatment facilities for
Alternatives 1, 4, 6, 7, and 10 and
deep disposal well field for Alternative 8
are located southeast of the Clark County
Sanitation District plant. The site for
the waste-water regulating reservoir and
treatment facilities for Alternatives 2, 3,
and 5 is located west of the BMI waste
disposal ponds and directly between Las
Vegas Stadium and an existing gravel
works. The proposed location of the
Advanced Waste-water Treatment facili-
ties of Alternatives 2, 3, and 10 is an
80 acre pasture to the south and east of
the existing Clark County Sanitation Dis-
trict waste-water treatment plant. Both
the prototype AWT facility site identi-
fied for Alternative 7 and the AWT plant
site identified in Alternatives 1 and 8
are located some three miles north of
the aforementioned AWT facility for Al-
ternatives 2, 3 and 10.
Sludge from the proposed Clark County
Advanced Waste-water Treatment plant
will be transported by pipeline from the
plant facilities to a 48 acre evaporation
site approximately 1/4 mile to the east
of the Clark County Sanitation District
Plant.
Las Vegas Valley Lands to be Irrigated
Five of the proposed alternatives (1, 2,
3, 8 and 10 ) include a system of using
AWT water other than the secondary
treated sewage proposed for use in
Alternatives 4, 5, 6 and 7 for the irri-
gation of parks, golf courses and green-
belt areas in the Las Vegas "Valley.
This system consists of 18 miles of bur-
ied pipelines, four open, concrete one-
acre reservoirs, and three pump sta-
tions. The irrigation program will be
developed in four stages. Stage 1 will
consist of approximately 26. 4 miles of
4-30 inch pipeline, two lift stations and
two storage reservoirs. Stage 4 will
have 33.5 miles of 4-24 inch pipeline,
two lift stations and two reservoirs.
Dry Lake Valley
Dry Lake Valley is proposed as a site to
8
-------
REJECT SOLIDS PIPELINES
FROM AWT PLANT
TO DRYING BEDS
22 I \
AWT PLANT
REJECT SOLIDS DRYING BEDS
C SITE LOCATION AND PLAN
v ^
V
-------
IN-WLLEY IRRIGATION SYSTEM
STAGE 1
AREAS. TO at IHftlUTtD
2}- LVVWTJ GroundltChorlMtOfl Htifhti)
?)- UNLV CaMpui
CM
Municipal Golf CWM
>inw Soil Count
71 Sanara-Ntrada Golf Court*
hurt inn Golf Ctwrt*
Tropicoiw Bolt Cewu
0) • Lortnn Park
Palm Voli., V..w
3a« at Snail Parti and
Total Stoat 1
LEGEND
Stage I Mom
Stage I Lateral
Stojdl Main
— Staje III Mam
— Slaji III Lotiral
Stage IV Lateral
——— Export lira to Alltn Power Plant
*l~' Pumping Station
• Rwrvoir
12 County AWT Plant
* Small Land Area
* Pilot Dtialt Plant
STAGED
IN-VALLEY
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
-------
evaporate exported brine and/or secon-
dary effluent as part of Alternatives 1,
2, 4, and 7. The Valley is 27 miles
northeast of Las Vegas on the Salt Lake
City highway between the Arrow Canyon
and Dry Lake Ranges.
Eldorado Valley
Alternative No. 5 proposes export of
effluent to Eldorado Valley for agricul-
tural irrigation and/or evaporation.
This Valley is directly east of Jean
Lake, 28 miles' southeast of Las Vegas,
and to the south of Boulder City between
the McCullough Range and Eldorado
Mountains.
Jean Lake
The third and fourth sites under consider-
ation for export are Jean Lake and Hidden
Valley. These two Valleys are consi-
dered in Alternative 6 as a single site
and in Alternative 7 as two separate
sites.
Jean Lake is located 30 miles southwest
of Las Vegas between the Sheep Moun-
tains and McCullough Range.
Hidden Valley
Hidden Valley is directly east of Jean
Lake and directly west of Eldorado
Valley. It is bounded on the north and
west by a low range of unnamed hills,
and on the south and east by the Mc-
Cullough Range. A low rocky pass
exists between Jean Lake and Hidden
Valley.
Refer to the figures in Chapter 2 for
the specific geographic location of these
sites.
CLIMATE
Regional CKmate
The climate of the regional area ranges
from arid on the valley floor to semiarid
in the mountains. The arid climate of the
lowlands is characterized by low precipi-
tation, low humidity, and wide extremes
in daily temperature. The winters are
relatively short and mild, and the sum-
mers, long and very hot.- Rainfall aver-
ages about four inches per year, but
may be highly variable. Most of the
precipitation occurs during the winter
months and in July and August. Preci-
pitation in July and August commonly
is from highly localized thunderstorms
and cloudbursts which typically are of
high intensity and short duration and
cause flash flooding with rapid runoff
and severe erosion with minimal pene-
tration of moisture into the soil. Pre-
cipitation during the winter usually is
from regional storms of low intensity
and longer duration. Evaporation rates
at lower elevations are extremely high
and probably exceed 80 inches per year.
Relative humidity averages 28%. Strong
11
-------
winds are common throughout the year
but are prevalent during the spring.
The growing season (frost free) approx-
imates 241 days. Irrigation is required
for lawns and practically all crops.
The climate at Las Vegas Bay/Lake
Mead is arid. Mean annual tempera-
ture at Las Vegas is 66 F(19 C) and
annual precipitation is less than 5 inches,
according to Weather Bureau records.
Maximum temperatures of 110 F (43 C)
are not uncommon in July and August,
but the heat is not oppressive because
of low humidity. Average minimum
temperature in January is 30 F(-l C).
Winds are generally light. Water-
surface temperatures at Lake Mead lag
about one month behind air temperatures
at Lake Mead and Las Vegas. Nearly
all of the difference in air temperatures
is attributable to the fact that the altitude
of Las Vegas airport is about 1, 000 feet
higher than Lake Mead.
Rainfall on the lake surface, averages
less than one-half of one percent of the
inflow. Two tipping-bucket recording
rain gages are used to measure rain-
fall; they are located on Boulder Island
in Boulder Basin and on the barge in
Boulder Basin. The average of the rain-
fall recorded by the two rain gages at
Boulder Island and Boulder Basin Barge
is assumed to "be representative of the
entire lake.
Wind speeds at the eight-meter level on
the barge in Boulder Basin over the Lake
are, in general, higher than wind speed at
the Las Vegas airport. The anemometer
at the airport is almost exactly eight
meters above the ground so that the
records are comparable in this res-
pect. During much of the year the
circulation is thermally induced rather
than the result of large-scale cyclonic
activity, and the local terrain has a
great influence on both wind speed and
direction. If the vapor pressure at Las
Vegas can be considered representa-
tive of unmodified air in this region,
it is apparent that the air over Lake
Mead is substantially modified during
its passage over the Lake. It is also
apparent that the vapor blanket extends
above the eight-meter level at mid-lake.
In general, the vapor pressure difference
between the two- and eight-meter levels
is less than the difference between Las
Vegas and the eight-meter level.
One of the chief characteristics of the
climate of the Lower Colorado Region
is its variety. The wide range in cli-
matic conditions is the result of large
differences in altitude, a considerable
range in latitude, and the distribution
of mountain ranges and highlands. Be-
cause of the different topographical fea-
tures and elevation variations throughout
the Region, a number of different clima-
tic classifications are present. Most of
the Region falls into a Steppe climate,
which stretches from the southeastern
corner of the Gila Subregion northwest-
ward into northwestern Arizona and the
Nevada portion of the Region.
Along the Colorado River, average an-
nual precipitation varies from 25 inches
12
-------
or more along the North Rim of the
Grand Canyon to five inches or less
along the River below Lake Mead. The
western and southern portions of the
Subregion are characterized by mild
winters and hot summers. Summer
temperatures average ^in the mid-
seventies at the Grand Canyon and a
hundred plus degrees at Las Vegas.
Area Climate
quite severe, together with higher than
average humidity. Although maximum
temperatures are much lower during
this humid period, minimum tempera-
tures are higher than usual, and many
natives consider this the most unplea-
sant weather of the year. Soil erosion,
especially near the mountains and foot-
hills surrounding the Valley, is evidence
that these summer thunder showers have
in the past, on occasion, developed into
"cloudburst" proportions.
In Las Vegas Valley, weather observa-
tions are taken at McCarran Airport,
seven miles south of downtown Las
Vegas, and about five miles southwest
and 300 feet higher than the lower por-
tions of the Valley. Since mountains
encircle the Valley, drainage winds are
usually downslope toward the center,
or lowest part of the Valley. This con-
dition also affects minimum tempera-
tures, which in lower portions of the
Valley can be from 15 ° to 25 ° colder
than recorded at the airport on clear,
calm nights.
The four seasons are well defined.
Summers are typically "desert" with
maximum temperatures usually in the
100° plus bracket. The proximity of
the mountains contributes materially
to the relatively cool summer nights,
with the majority of the minimums
being between 70° and 75°. There
is a period of about two weeks almost
every summer when warm, moist,
tropical air predominates weather
conditions in this area, and causes
scattered thundershowers, occasionally
Aside from this short, humid period,
summers are not as uncomfortable as
indicated by the daytime maxima, be-
cause of the prevailing low humidity.
Winters, on the whole, are mild and
pleasant. Daytime temperatures
average near 60° with mostly clear
skies and warm sunshine. Winter min-
imum temperatures average 35°. The
spring and fall seasons are generally
considered most ideal, although rather
sharp temperature transients occur
during these months. The average
annual evaporation rate is about 72
inches.
The Sierra Nevada Mountains of Cali-
fornia and the Spring Mountains im-
mediately west of Las Vegas Valley,
the latter rising to elevations over
10, 000 feet above the valley floor,
act as effective barriers to moisture-
laden storms moving eastward from the
Pacific Ocean. It is mainly these bar-
riers that result in a minimum of dark,
overcast and rainy days. Rainy days
average from less than one in June to
three per month in the winter months.
13
-------
Snow rarely falls in this Valley, and it
usually melts as it falls, or shortly
thereafter. The one real exception
occurred during January 1949 when 16.7
inches of snowfall was recorded.
Strong winds, associated with major
storms, usually reach this Valley from
the southwest or through the pass from
the northwest. Winds over 50 m.p.h.
are infrequent, but when they do occur,
they are probably the most provoking of
the elements experienced in the Las
Vegas Valley, because of the blowing
dust and sand associated with these
stronger winds. (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1971).
Climate at Las Vegas Wash is the same
as that described for Las Vegas Valley.
A typical arid desert climate with low
rainfall, abundant sunshine, mild win-
ters and long, hot summers character-
izes the area. Due to the local thun-
derstorms and cloudbursts during the
summer months, the flow in the Wash
increases by more than 30% on an aver-
age of 11 days each year.
Climate at Dry Lake is typical of that
described for Las Vegas Valley. The
two significant climatic factors, for this
Valley are the high evaporation rate of
72 inches per year and the generally
north-easterly winds which blow across
the Valley, usually in August.
Hidden Valleys is also typical for that
described for Las Vegas Valley. The
two significant climatic factors for these
areas are the evaporation rate of 72
inches per year and the southwesterly
winds which occur most of the year.
GEOLOGY
Regional Geology
The regional area lies within the Basin
and Range Physiographic province. The
province is characterized by desert
basins having interior drainage flanked
by mountains that generally are sparsely
covered with vegetation. The high moun-
tains usually are dissected by deep ravines
that open onto broad alluvial fans. Com-
monly, fans from adjoining canyons have
coalesced and formed a continuous allu-
vial slope along the base of the mountain
ranges. These slopes extend outward
into the valleys, where they merge with
the valley floor or extend across the
valley toward the adjacent mountain
ranges to form alluvial divides. Beyond
the toes of the fans is the valley floor.
The valley floors are usually flat and
contain one or more playas, or dry lakes,
where periodic runoff from storms
accumulates and eventually evaporates.
The surface area of the Basin is about
3000 square miles. Elevation varies
from near 500 feet at the Colorado River
to over 11,900 feet at Charleston Peak.
Climate at Eldorado, Jean Lake and
The terrain surrounding Las Vegas Bay
14
-------
consists of rugged, faulted desert moun-
tains which slope steeply into rock strewn
alluvial slopes and washes. These gentler
slopes drop down to the shore of the Bay.
The shoreline of Las Vegas Bay is highly
irregular with many small coves and
inlets. There are a few beach areas but
significant erosion of the bulk of the
shoreline has not, as yet, occurred.
Las Vegas Wash is the only tributary
which enters Lake Mead in the vicinity
of the Bay.
The Lower Colorado Region lies within
tow of the major physiographic provinces
of the Southwest, the Basin and Range
Province, and the Colorado Plateau
Province. The Basin and Range Pro-
vince is of importance to this study as
it occupies the southern and western
portions of the Region and is within the
drainage area of the Colorado River.
The Province is characterized by isolated
mountain blocks separated by broad allu-
vial-floored basins. The elevations of the
mountain blocks are as much as 10, 000
feet above mean sea level and usually
are between 1, 000 and 4, 000 feet above
the floors of the subjacent basins. The
elevations of these basins range from
100 feet to as much as 5, 000 feet. Most
of the valleys in the Basin and Range
Province trend north to northwest. These
alternating mountains and valleys were
produced by large-scale faulting in which
the mountain blocks were uplifted and the
basins were depressed. Subsequent to
and during faulting, the valleys were
filled with alluvial material eroded from
the mountain masses which are composed
chiefly of granite, gneiss, schist, and
quartzite. Many mountains are capped
with volcanic rocks. Along some of the
mountain fronts, the hard rocks have been
planed by erosion to gentle slopes.
During Tertiary time, the large-scale
movement along predominantly north-
west-trending faults formed the general
outlines of the Basin and Range structural
pattern. It is probable that some move-
ment on a smaller scale continues to the
present time. In many valleys, the
basement rocks are overlain by a coarse
material of generally low permeability,
which has eroded from the nearby high-
lands. Concurrent with this sedimenta-
tion, faulting occurred and volcanic erup-
tions deposited lavas. In some areas the
basin drainages were dammed forming
lakes and playas in which fine-grained
sediments were deposited. Subsequent
erosion of the mountains caused thick
alluvial fill to be deposited in the valleys.
Volcanism continued intermittently and
lava flows, in^some places, are inter-
bedded with the alluvium.
The alluvium, which represents several
stages of deposition under different en-
vironments, is the major deposit in the
structural basins and consists of lenses
of gravel, sand, clay, and silt in varying
thicknesses. Locally it may be as much
as 3, 000 feet thick. Common to the fill
in the central part of many of the valleys
are areas of considerable thicknesses of
clay. Locally, these clay beds contain
lenses of gravel and sand. Sand and
gravel are deposited along the larger
15
-------
streams and along the mountain fronts.
Channel deposits along the present drain-
ages consist of mixtures of unconsolidated
gravel, sand, and silt. These deposits
include alluvial fill that underlies the
flood plains of the present streams in
the Basin and Range province. This
alluvial fill is the major ground-water
reservoir in the Basin and Range pro-
vince. Recharge to the fill occurs near
the mountain fronts and along the stream
channels as seepage from the few peren-
nial and many intermittent streams. Only
occasionally do the main drainages carry
water their full length for more than a
few days.
The Colorado River became a through-
flowing stream in late Cenozoic time.
Downcutting by the River and its tribu-
taries resulted in deep entrenchment of
the entire system resulting in the spec-
tacular canyons. Runoff from the pla-
teaus in the Lower Colorado Region is
to the Colorado, Little Colorado, and
Virgin Rivers. The Colorado, Virgin,
and Muddy Rivers are perennial and
all the other streams are intermittent,
except for some short reaches.
Area Geology
Las Vegas Valley is a basin with smooth
gentle alluvial slopes bounded by numer-
ous isolated, relatively high, steeply
sloping mountain ranges which trend
north-south. The Valley may be classi-
fied in three physiographic units: the
mountains, the alluvial aprons and the
basin lowlands.
The mountains have a relief of several
thousand feet and have areas of erosion
where streams have cut (and are con-
tinuing to cut) deep ravines and canyons.
The highest peaks are in the Spring
Mountains to the west where Charleston
Peak reaches an elevation of 11,910 feet.
The Sheep Mountains to the north are
less than 6, 000 feet above the floor of
Las Vegas Valley, which is at an ele-
vation of about 2, 000 feet. The "bed-
rock" of the area, which forms the moun-
tains and underlies the alluvial valley fill,
is composed of consolidated rocks of re-
latively low permeability. These rocks
have been extensively faulted and folded
into complex geologic structures. Las
Vegas Valley is a structural depression
in the bedrock which has been filled with
alluvium forming a huge reservoir that,
for all practical purposes, is watertight,
since this reservoir is underlain with
consolidated rocks of low permeability.
The alluvial aprons are made up of num-
erous coalescing fans. They have much
less relief and the slopes are more gentle
and regular than those in the mountains.
These areas of deposition are eroded and
dissected. The alluvial deposits in the
Las Vegas Valley are composed princi-
pally of boulders, gravel, sand, silt and
clay derived from the adjacent mountain
ranges. These deposits contain virtually
all the ground water of economic impor-
tance in the area. The maximum thick-
ness of this alluvial fill may be as much
as 5, 000 feet.
The basin lowlands, with low relief and
smooth surface, appear level in contrast
to the alluvial aprons and the mountains.
16
-------
TKi
Intrusive rocks
TKgr, holocryxlalline i-ni-k; nnnnlii monzonite, yrunuil>nritf. iiml'iliiirite,
I ri 'TKi. H-niliriilerl f>orphyri!i. flicks. Includrx gnniit
fa&^'^WW^
- ';' • i. r[ .r S-JilLb^isAsS
'/J/Tute Mead WNJ —'"
,CiL Fourmile Spring PPMQ
EXPLANATION
CLARK COUNTY
Alluvium
i
Las Vciras Formation
UNCONFORMITY
Volcanic rocks
TV, itndifferentiated vulcanic rocks.
Tb, Forttfimtiori Basalt Member of
Mudtlii Crrvk I'ni-iiintioii
TKci
. i porphyry, rkyolite, trachyduleritc, mid <>tlu-r inli-u-
• O sives ranging from basaltic to rhyolit
Q TKci. undifferentiated intrusive rofkn; inn inly quartz
montonite mid diorite contarrii.ru/ raof pendants of
it- rtirk, Pulr -uic linii.-xtntii' mid dtiltimi.tr. mid
Precambrian rocks
-------
Contact
where approximately located; short-dashed where sketched
or inferred
6s
Fault, showing dip or direction of dip
Long-dashed where approximately located; short-das.'ied where inferred;
dotted where concealed. D, downthrown side of reverse fault. No
arrow on vertical or nearly vertical faults
Thrust fault
Saw-teeth indicate thrust plate. Dashed where approximately located;
dotted where concealed
Syncline
Showing trace of axial plane and direction of plunge of axis. Dashed
where approximately located.
Strike and dip of beds
Strike and dip of overturned beds
Strike of vertical beds
e
Horizontal beds
Anticline
Showing trace of axial plane and direction of plunge of axis. Dashed
where approximately located
Overt'irr.ed anticline
Showing trace of axial plane, direction of dip of limbs, and plunge of axis
Strike and dip of beds overturned through more than 180°
«5
Strike and dip of foliation
Strike of vertical foliation
-------
By comparison, little erosion takes place
in the lowlands which are sites of deposi-
tion for the large quantities of material
eroded from the mountains during and fol-
lowing heavy storms. The alluvial fill is
frequently interfingered with lenses of
silt and clay or stratified with alternate
layers of pervious sand and gravel and
less pervious silt and clay. There are
also frequent zones of lime deposition
(caliche) which may be impermeable or
nearly so. It has been observed that
coarser materials are found in the west
and northwest portions of the Valley,
with finer materials occurring to the
south and southeast.
Playa deposits and sand dunes are pre-
sent in several locations in the basin low-
lands. Few dunes are active, being
mostly moUnds built up around Mesquite
trees and covered with a thick growth of
Mesquite. Many scarps, resulting from
faults in the Valley fill, are found in the
southern part of the Valley near Las
Vegas. They vary in height from a few
feet to nearly 150 feet and are conspic-
uous features. Upward leakage and
springs occur along these scarps.
Las Vegas Valley has experienced earth-
quakes in th.e past, and may reasonably
be expected to feel additional quakes in
the future. Earthquake activity apparently
increased following the filling of Lake
Mead, and is now decreasing again. The
regional and local seismic history and
fault structures of the Las Vegas area
have been taken into consideration within
the 1972 Design Appendix prepared by
NECON.
The Las Vegas Wash, an anomaly in the
desert, was made green as an unplanned
by-product of man's development of the
Valley. The Wash is considered to be that
area lying between desert riparian habi-
tats which border each side. The Wash
consists of two areas - - one is a wide,
dense marsh type area and the second is
dense vegetation passing through high,
steep canyon walls.
Dry Lake Valley, is a north-south tren-
ding valley, five miles wide and eleven
miles long. It is bounded by steeply rising
mountain ranges, the Arrow Canyon
Range on the west and the Dry Lake Range
on the east. The southwestern end of the
valley is bounded by steeply rising hills
and lower gently-sloped passes, with the
northeastern end bounded by a rising mesa.
The valley is relatively flat, with a barren
dry lake bottom at an elevation of 1, 968
feet, with gently rising moderately vege-
tated alluvial slopes rising to the foot of
the mountains. Dry Lake is dry except
after storms.
At Dry Lake two deep holes were drilled
in 1966 under the supervision of the
United States Geological Survey. One,
near the middle of the lake, penetrated
Holocene and Quarternary clays from the
ground surface to a depth of 310 feet,
then Pleistocene Muddy Creek formation
(mostly clays) from 3*10 feet to the total
depth of 1,500 feet. A second deep hole,
on the alluvial fan to the west of the lake,
shows 35 feet of gravels at the top, Pleis-
tocene clay deposits from 35 to 185 feet,
Muddy Creek formation from 185 to 958
feet and Paleozoic limestones (bedrock)
from 958 to the total depth of 970 feet.
19
-------
During June and July of 1972, Converse,
Davis and Associates, under contract with
the Las Vegas Valley Water District,
drilled some 21 holes in and around Dry
Lake. Except in the area well to the
south of the lake, clays were found at ele-
vations higher than those of the lake itself
(elevation 1,968). The south holes (No. 8
and 9) were not drilled deep enough to
reach the Muddy Creek formation. In
general, the clays show a cup-shaped con-
figuration, with gravels covering the per-
ipheral slopes.
Eldorado Valley is bounded on three sides
by steeply rising mountain ranges. The
McCullough Range bounds the western
side of the valley, the Highlands Range
to the south, Eldorado Mountains to the
east and a range of gently sloping hills
to the north, with Boulder City located at
their base. The Colorado River flows to
the south on the east side of the Eldorado
Mountains. The Valley encompasses 90
square miles with a barren flat, dry lake
located in the northeast section of the
valley floor. The dry lake bottom is at
1,708 feet elevation and has an area of
about three and one-third square miles.
Rising from the valley floor are dense to
isolated vegetated alluvial slopes. The
geologic indications are that the dry lake
clays may not extend horizontally much
beyond the existing dry lake.
The Jean Lake portion of the Ivanpah
Valley, is bounded by gently rolling desert
on the north and northwest, the Sheep
Mountains on the west and southwest,
rising desert on the south and a range
of unnamed hills on the east. The valley
has a flat, barren dry lake bottom (Jean
Lake) which covers about two square
miles and lies at an elevation of 2, 780
feet with gently rising desert and allu-
vial slopes. The geologic indications
are that lake clays do not extend hori-
zontally much beyond the present dry
lake. •
Hidden Valley contains an indistinct flat
dry lake bottom one-quarter square mile
in area at elevation 2,995 feet, and mod-
erately vegetated steep alluvial slopes.
The valley is relatively small, six miles
long and two miles wide. The geologic
indications are that the dry lake deposits
of Hidden Valley are very limited in
extent.
SOILS
The general soil map for a portion of
Clark County, Nevada has been prepared
at a scale of 1:500, 000 by generalization
of data from detailed and reconnaissance
soil surveys. It has been designed to dis
play soil landscapes.
Soil Formation
The pertinent area is located in the south-
ern portion of the Basin and Range Physio-
graphic Province and includes a number of
generally north-south oriented mountain ran-
ges and intervening valleys. Important land-
forms include high mountains, foothills,
flood plains, terraces and mesas, playas,
sand dunes, and broad alluvial fans and
aprons which flank mountain ranges and
encroach on valley lowlands.
20
-------
Soils in the general southwestern portion of
the area have formed in materials derived
dominantly from igneous granitic and vol-
canic rocks with admixtures of some mate-
rials from sedimentary and metamorphic
rock. In the remaining portion of the area
limestone, sandstone, quartzite, shale,
conglomerate and gypsiferous rocks are
the primary source of parent materials
for soils.
The soils in the area have formed under
a warm arid to semiarid climate. Ave-
rage annual precipitation in the valleys
varies between about 4 to 7 inches, and
in the mountains ranges upward to as
high as ZO inches. Average annual air
temperature in higher parts of mountains
is less than 47°F. , and in the valley
ranges upward to more than 60 °F.
Vegetation varies from a sparse stand of
desert shrubs and annuals in the arid
valleys to sagebrush and pinyon-juniper
woodland at higher elevations on mountain
ranges.
deposition of sediment at time periods be-
tween the older and recent surfaces. The
age of a surface reflects the time period
which soil parent material has been sub-
jected to weathering and soil development.
The older surfaces consequently have soils
with strongly developed profiles in which
original rock structure is not discernible.
Old soils within the area formed in parent
materials high in lime have large accumu-
lations of carbonates and some layers are
usually cemented. Those formed in mixed
materials usually have accumulations of
clay in their subsoils with underlying ce-
mented layers. In contrast to the older
soils, the soils of recent surfaces may
show very little modification except for
possibly organic matter gains and move-
ment of salts. Rock structure including
stratification of sediments is readily dis-
cernible in the young soils. Progressive
decrease in rock weathering, the accumu-
lation and development of layers .of calcium
carbonate, gypsum, clay and salts occur
as ages of surfaces transition from the old
to recent landscapes.
The ages of landscape surfaces vary con-
siderably within the area. Relatively
recent surfaces include those of steep
mountain slopes where erosion is active,
and those of flood plains and alluvial
fans which are undergoing present-day ag-
gradation. Old surfaces occur on alluvial
fans and terraces which have been stable
over a very long period of time. Some of
these older surfaces are believed to date
back into the early Pleistocene. Surfaces
of intermediate age occur on land surfaces
which have experienced either erosion or
Because of the aridity of the climate,
soils formed on valley landscapes are gene-
rally low in organic matter, and have ac-
cumulated soluble salts, lime and gypsum
in their subsoils. Lime-cemented hardpan
and high gypsum accumulations charac-
terize old soils formed in valley-fill mate-
rials derived from sedimentary rock.
Clay accumulations overlying layers of
lime accumulation are typical for older
soils formed in materials derived from
igneous rock.
21
-------
Transitions in kinds of soils of com-
parable age from the dry valleys to
those of semiarid mountainous land-
scapes is reflected in decreases in
accumulations of lime, gypsum, and
salts, and increases in organic
matter content.
Soil Map Units
Soil map units, delineated on the general
soil map, group a large number of dif-
ferent kinds of soil in accordance with
general characteristics. Major kinds of
soils and contrasting inclusions are de-
scribed.
General interpretations pertaining to suit-
ability for irrigated crops and pasture,
available water capacity (ability of soil
to store and yield water for plant use),
and susceptibility to water and wind ero-
sion are given for each of the major soils
comprising map units.
Use Of The General Soil Map
The general soil map has been designed to
display only broad soil patterns and asso-
ciated potential use limitations and ha-
zards. It can be used to compare different
parts of the area in order to ascertain po-
tential problems which may be associated
with specific uses. It is not suitable for
planning the use or management for a spe-
cific tract of land.
Soil Map Unit Descriptions
11. --This unit consists of deep, saline,
silty clays and silty clay loams which
occupy nearly level basins (playas)
where slopes are less than 2 percent.
The soils are grayish brown in
color; moderately well to somewhat
poorly drained; and subject to oc-
casional flooding. They are slow
to very slowly permeable, and for
the most part barren of vegetation.
The soils are not presently con-
sidered to be suitable for irrigated
crops or pasture. (Land capability
class VIII). The soils have a low
water erosion hazard, but will blow
if disturbed by construction, vehic-
ular traffic and similar disturbances.
Included in the unit are less than 5
percent soils with sandy textures
and small gravelly areas along the
outer boundaries.
1Z. --This unit occurs on alluvial fans and
terraces in the southeastern part of
Las Vegas Valley.
Major soils comprising the unit in-
c lud e:
(a) About 40 percent light yellowish
brown, deep, well drained very
gravelly loamy sands to very
gravelly loams on lower alluvial
fans with 2 to 8 percent slopes.
Some of these soils have slight
to moderate calcium carbonate
c'ementation in the subsoils and
underlying layers.
22
-------
. cuvrnr
..;..••»:•
D E S E l< T & ;, •.- f
,,...»». v,.
" V
-.-• *"!
L>TX
--^., .
ty',. *
01 Vegas Volley
I. *
.... rv r rs-
\ .^S- r ."
-Dry Lake Valley-..: -^b. i..f . f^-
rJ •• *
• ' /^ f • *.i
' : •&
j • ••• ;•
L :• '.R , r^:;:] i
«. - - r
J 1- r " ,
\Lttil u5t H«1t*t1cni >n1 *titr3i. It l< not
'•'Udlf for plinnlno, IM utl ind iMniqonrnt 'or tPtct'U
'"• '» Of llfKt.
A >• .~-~..- ~- -
^ . r-v<.l»ff«< » »<«.IA1
figure 8
-------
Available water capacity for plants
is low; the profile permeability
is slow to moderate; and the po-
tential for water and wind erosion
is moderate. They are not con-
sidered suitable for irrigated
crops or pasture. (Land cap-
ability unit VII).
(b) About 35 percent pink, deep, well
drained, gravelly loamy sands
and sandy loams which contain
subsoil and substrata layers con-
taining considerable gypsum and
calcium carbonate. They occur
on old alluvial fans and terraces
with 2 to 4 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low to moderate; the
profile permeability is mode-
rately slow; and the potential
erosion hazard from water
and wind is moderate to severe.
These soils are not suited for
irrigated crops or pasture.
(Land capability class VII).
Included with the major soils are
about 25 percent Badlands (eroded
scarps and breaks); deep, wet loams
and sandy soils along narrow flood
plains; and shallow loams and sandy
loams over indurated hardpan.
Small areas of the deep loams and
sandy soils are suited for irrigated
cropland.
The soils in the unit generally
have a low density cover for creo-
sotebush, white bursage, and some
grasses and annuals.
They are being used mostly for ur-
ban, commercial, industrial, and
related uses.
13. --This unit occurs on upper alluvial
fans and foothills mostly in the
southwestern part of Jean Lake
Valley.
Major soils comprising the unit
include:
(a) About 40 percent light yellowish
brown, deep, well drained,
very gravelly loams and very
gravelly sandy loams on upper
alluvial fans and foothills with
8 to 30 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability moderate to mode-
rately rapid, and the potential
water and wind erosion hazard
is moderate. These soils are
not suited for irrigated crops
or pasture. (Land capability
class VII).
(b) About 30 percent yellowish red
to reddish brown, deep, well
drained, very gravelly loamy
sands on upper alluvial fans
with 4 to 8 percent slopes.
These soils have low available
water capacity for plants; the
profile permeability is mode-
rately rapid to rapid; and the
potential water and wind ero-
sion hazard is moderate. They
are suited for irrigated pas-
ture with very severe limi-
24
-------
tations. (Land capability class
IV).
(c) About 20 percent reddish brown,
well drained, very gravelly clay
loams which are underlain by
lime-cemented hardpan at 20
to 40 inches. They occur on
upper alluvial fans with 4 to
8 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile perme-
ability above the hardpan is mo-
derately slow; and the potential
water and wind erosion hazard
is moderate. The soils are
suited for irrigated hay and
pasture with very severe limi-
tations. (Land capability class
IV).
Included with the major soils are
about 10 percent shallow to very
shallow soils overlying hardpan,
and stony soils similar to the major
components.
The soils in the unit have low den-
sity cover of creosotebush, white
bur sage, yucca, and some grasses
and annuals.
Present land use includes grazing,
wildlife and some recreation.
14. --This unit occurs on lower mountain
slopes at elevations of about 4, 500
to 7, 000 feet.
Major soils comprising the unit
include:
(a) About 40 percent light to dark
brown, deep, well drained,
very gravelly loams and very
gravelly sandy loam on 8 to
30 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability is moderate to mo-
derately rapid; and the poten-
tial erosion hazard for water
and wind is moderate to slight.
These soils are not suited for
irrigated crops or pasture.
(Land capability class VII).
(b) About 25 percent light brown,
well drained, very gravelly
sandy loams and very gravelly
loamy sands overlying lime-
cemented hardpan at less than
20 inches. They occur on 8 to
30 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability above the hardpan
is moderately rapid; and po-
tential erosion hazard for water
and wind is severe to moderate.
These soils are not suited for
irrigated crop or pasture.
(Land capability class VII).
(c) About 25 percent rock outcrop
(limestone,> quartzite, dolomite,
sandstone) on 15 to 50 percent
slopes. (Land capability class
VIII).
Included with the major soils are
about 10 percent shallow to very
25
-------
shallow soils on bedrock, and very
stony soils similar to the major
components.
The soils in the unit have a cover
of shrubs mostly yucca, white
bursage and creosotebush at lower
elevations which grade through black-
brush to sagebrush, juniper, pinyon,
and other shrubs at higher elevations.
Present land use includes grazing,
wildlife and some woodland, and
recreation.
15. --This unit occurs on mountain
slopes at elevations of about
5, 000 to 7, 000 feet.
Major soils comprising the unit
include:
(a) About 40 percent rock outcrop
(intrusive and extrusive vol-
canics) on 15 to 50 percent
slopes. (Land capability
class VIII).
(b) About 35 percent reddish brown,
well drained, gravelly loams
to very gravelly sandy loams
which are underlain by hard
bedrock at 10 to 20 inches.
They occur on 15 to 50 percent
slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability above bedrock is
moderate; and the potential
erosion hazard by water
is severe. Not suited for
irrigated crops or pasture.
(Land capability class VII).
(c) About 15 percent light reddish
brown, gravelly sandy clay
loams overlying hard bedrock
at 10 to 20 inches. They occur
on 8 to 15 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability above bedrock is
moderately slow; and the ero-
sion hazard by water is severe.
Not suited for irrigated crops
or pasture. (Land capability
clas-s VII).
Included with the major soils are about
10 percent deep gravelly loams and sandy
loams, and very stony and extremely
stony soils similar to the major compo-
nents.
The soils in this unit have a highly varied
plant cover which includes numerous
shrubs and grass species, and pinyon and
juniper at higher elevations.
Present land use includes grazing, wild
life, and some watershed and recreation.
21. --This unit occurs on flood plains,
and low adjacent alluvial fans and
terraces. The component major
soils are subject to occasional
flooding.
Major soils comprising the unit
include:
(a) About 40 percent grayish brown,
26
-------
LEGEND
SEDIMENT YIELD CLASSES
> - 3.0 Acre Feet Per Square Mile Per Year *
2 1.0-3.0 Acre Feet Per Square Mile Per Year
0.5 - 1.0 Acre Feet Per Square Mile Per Year
4 | 0.2-0.5 Acre Feet Per Square Mile Per Year
< -0.2 Acre Feet Per Square Mile Per Year
Region Boundary
Subregion Boundary
State Boundary
* NOTE Areas of this class were too
small to be mapped.
County Boundary
J'CATRON/ REGION
ESERVE
-------
deep, moderately well to some-
what poorly drained silty clays
and silty clay loams on flood-
plains with 0 to 2 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is high; the profile per-
meability is slow; and the po-
tential wind and water erosion
hazard is moderate. These
soils are suited for irrigated
crops and pasture with severe
limitations. (Land capability
class III).
(b) About 30 percent pale brown,
deep, well drained gravelly
loamy sands and gravelly loams
on flood plains and low adjacent
alluvial fans and terraces with
0 to 2 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is moderate; the profile
permeability is moderately slow
to moderate; and the potential
wind erosion hazard severe.
These soils are suited for irri-
gated crops and pasture with
severe limitations. (Land
capability class III).
(c) About 20 percent light brown,
deep, well drained loamy sands
on flood plains and adjacent low
terraces, alluvial fans, and
dune areas with 0 to 8 percent
slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability is moderately rapid;
the potential wind erosion haz-
ard is high. These soils are
suited for irrigated crops and
pasture with severe limitations.
(Land capability class III).
Included among the major soils in the unit
are about 10 percent stony soils and deep
very gravelly sandy soils.
The soils in the unit have a low density
plant cover consisting of saltbush, creo-
sotebush and white bursage.
Present land use includes grazing, wild-
life, and some recreation.
41. --This unit occurs on alluvial fan
toeslopes and on inset alluvial fans
where slopes are less than 8 per-
cent.
Major soils comprising the unit
include:
(a) About 35 percent reddish brown,
deep, well drained sandy loams
on alluvial fan toeslopes with 2
to 8 percent slopes. Some of
these soils contain slight to
moderate lime cementation in
their subsoils.
Available water capacity for
plants is moderate; the profile
permeability is moderate to
moderately rapid; the potential
water and wind erosion hazard
is severe and moderate. These
soils are suited for irrigated
crops and pasture with severe
28
-------
limitations.
class III).
(Land capability
(b) About 30 percent pinkish brown
to brown, deep, well drained
gravelly sandy loams and gra-
velly loams on inset alluvial
fans with 0 to 4 percent slopes.
Some of these soils contain
gypsum accumulations in their
subsoils.
Available water capacity for
plants is low to moderate; the
profile permeability is mod-
erately slow to moderate;
and the potential wind and water
erosion hazard is moderate.
These soils are suited for irri-
gated hay and pasture with
very severe limitations.
(Land capability class IV).
(c) About 15 percent pink, well
drained, gravelly fine sandy
loams underlain by lime-
cemented hardpan at 10 to 20
inches. They occur on allu-
vial fan toe slopes with 2 to 8
percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability to the hardpan is -
moderate to moderately rapid;
and potential water and wind
erosion hazard is moderate
to severe. These soils are
suited for irrigated crops or
pasture. (Land capability
class VII).
29
Included with the major soils in the unit
are about 20 percent deep, wet, saline
silt loams, and deep, well drained sand;
badlands; stony soils; and deep clays
adjacent to playas. Small areas of in-
cluded deep soils are suited for irrigated
cropland and pasture.
The soils in the unit have a shrub-plant
cover consisting mainly of creosotebush,
white bursage, and some grasses, an-
nuals, saltbush and yucca.
Present land use includes grazing, wild-
life, urban, industrial, and some recrea-
tion.
42. --This unit occurs on alluvial fans
and foothills where slopes are 4 to
30 percent.
Major soils comprising the unit
include:
(a) About 35 percent reddish yellow
to reddish brown, deep, well
drained gravelly and very gra-
velly sandy loams on smooth
and dissected alluvial fans with
4 to 15 percent slopes. Most
of these soils have slight to
moderate lime cementation in
their subsoils.
Available water capacity for
plants is low to moderate; the
profile permeability is moderate
to moderately rapid; the poten-
tial water and wind erosion haz-
ard is moderate. The soils are
not suited for irrigated crops
or pasture. (Land capability
class VII).
-------
(b) About 35 percent light brown,
well drained, very gravelly
loamy sands and very gravelly
sandy loams which are under-
lain by lime-cemented hardpan
at less than 20 inches. They
occur on smooth and dissected
alluvial fans with 4 to 15 per-
cent slopes.
Available water -capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability to the hardpan is
moderately rapid; and the
potential for water and wind
erosion is moderate. These
soils are not suited for irri-
gated crops or pasture. (Land
capability class VII).
(c) About 20 percent pale brown,
deep to moderately deep, well
drained, stony and cobbly very
gravelly sandy loams and very
gravelly sands on foothills and
inset alluvial fans with 4 to 30
percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability is moderate to rapid.
These soils are not suited for
irrigated crops or pasture.
(Land capability class VII).
Included with the major soils are about
10 percent deep, gravelly sandy loam,
soils which are underlain by bedrock,
and some gypsiferous very gravelly
soils.
The soils in the unit have a sparse plant
cover of creosote bush, white bursage
and some yucca, annuals, and saltbush.
Present land use includes grazing and
wildlife and some urban, industrial, and
recreation.
43. --This unit occurs on high moun-
tain slopes at elevations of about
5, 000 to 10, 000 feet.
Major soils comprising the unit
include: '
(a) About 35 percent yellowish
brown, moderately deep to deep,
well drained, stony very gra-
velly loams overlying bedrock
with 8 to 30 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low to moderate; the
profile permeability is mod-
erately slow to moderate, and
the potential erosion hazard
by water is severe. These
soils are not suited for irri-
gated crops or pasture.
(Land capability class VII).
(b) About 30 percent pale brown to
dark brown, deep to moderately
deep, stony and very stony very
gravelly sandy loams and very
gravelly loamy sands overlying
bedrock with 4 to 50 percent
slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability is moderately rapid;
30
-------
potential erosion hazard by
water is severe. These soils
are not suited for irrigated
crops or pasture. (Land capa-
bility, class VII).
(c) About 25 percent brown, well
drained, stony and very stony
gravelly loams which are under-
lain by bedrock at 10 to 20
inches. They occur on 8 to
50 percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability above bedrock is
moderate; potential erosion
hazard by water is severe.
These soils are not suited for
irrigated crops or pasture.
(Land capability class VII).
About 10 percent of the unit includes with
the major soils: rock outcrops, rock rub-
ble, and more steeply sloping soils simi-
lar to the major components.
The soils in the unit have a plant cover
which includes sagebrush, grasses, forbs,
pinyon pine, juniper, and various species
Of mountain shrubs.
Present land use includes grazing, wild-
life, watershed, and recreation.
51. --
This unit occurs on valley ter-
races and alluvial fans.
Major soils comprising the unit
include:
(a) About 60 percent pale brown,
well drained, gravelly sandy
loams and loamy sands which
are underlain by lime-cemented
hardpan at 10 and 20 inches.
They occur on 0 to 8 percent
slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability above the hardpan is
moderate to moderately rapid;
and potential water and wind
erosion hazard is moderate.
These soils are not suited for
irrigated crops or pasture.
(Land capability class VII).
(b) About 30 percent reddish yellow
to pale brown, deep, well
drained, gravelly and very gra-
velly sandy loams with 2 to 8
percent slopes.
Available water capacity for
plants is low; the profile per-
meability is moderate to
moderately rapid; potential
water and wind erosion hazard
is moderate. These soils are
suited for irrigated hay and
pasture with very severe limi-
tations. (Land capability
class IV).
About 10 percent of the unit includes soils
overlying bedrock at very shallow depth,
stony soils, and soils overlying hardpan
at less than 10 inches.
The soils in the unit have a sparse plant
cover consisting of creosotebush, white
31
-------
bursage, yucca, and some annuals.
Present land use includes grazing, wild-
life, urban, industrial, and some recrea-
tion.
Glossary
Soil map unit - A specific area of major
kind(s) of soil and minor included soils
which are delineated on soil maps.
Soil depth - (To hardpan or bedrock)
Very shallow: less than 10 inches.
Shallow: 10 - 20 inches.
Moderately deep: 20 - 40 inches.
Deep: more than 40 inches.
Profile permeability - (Excluding permea
bility of hardpan or bedrock)
Very slow: less than 0. 06 in. /hr.
Slow: 0.06 - 0.2 in. /hr.
Moderately slow: 0.2 - 0.6 in. /hr.
Moderate: 0.6 - 2. 0 in. /hr.
Moderately rapid: 2.0-6.0 in. /hr.
Rapid: 6. 0 - 20 in. /hr.
Very rapid: more than 20 in. /hr.
Available water capacity - The inherent
capacity of soil to store and yield water
for use by plants. As used herein it
indicates the estimated total within the
soil to a depth of 5 feet or to hardpan
or bedrock if at a depth shallower than
5 feet.
Low: less than 4.0 inches.
Moderate: 4.0 - 7.0 inches.
High: more than 7.0 inches.
Land capability classification - Groupings
of soils which show in a general way, the
suitability of soils for common field crops.
The soils are grouped according to their
limitations when used for crops, the risk
of damage when they are used, and the
way they respond to treatment.
Class I - soils have few limitations that
restrict their use.
Class II - soils have moderate limita-
tions that reduce the choice
of plants or that require
moderate conservation
practices.
Class III - soils have severe limitations
that reduce the choice of
plants, require special
conservation practices, or
both.
Class IV - soils have very severe limi-
tations that reduce the choice
of plants, require very care-
ful management, or both.
Class V - soils are subject to little or
no erosion but have other
limitations, impractical to
remove, that limit their use
largely to pasture, range,
woodland, or wildlife habitat.
Class VI - soils have severe limitations
that make them generally un-
suited to cultivation and limit
their use largely to pasture
or range, woodland, or wild-
life habitat.
32
-------
Class VII- soils have very severe limi-
tations that make them un-
suited to cultivation and that
restrict their use largely to
pasture or range, woodland
or wildlife habitat.
Class VIII- soils and landforms that have
limitations that preclude their
use for commercial plants and
restrict their use to recrea-
tion, wildlife habitat, or water
supply or to esthetic purposes.
WATER RESOURCES
Regional Hydrology
The Las Vegas Ground Water Basin is
comprised of the alluvial fill of Three
Lakes Valley, the southern part of Indian
Spring Valley, the northern part of Ivanpah
Valley, and Las Vegas Valley. The en-
tire Basin is surrounded by a series of
high mountain ranges which act as bar-
riers to ground water movement and form
the general limits of the ground water
basin. From a hydrologic standpoint,
the Spring Mountains that make up the
western topographic divide, are the domi-
nant features of the watershed. These
mountains are the highest in the region,
and large alluvial fans from these moun-
tains extend far out into the Valley below.
In contrast, the alluvial fans from the
eastern side of the Valley are small in
a real extent.
Based upon their hydrologic properties,
th,e geologic formations of the area can
be divided into two general groups; (1)
consolidated rocks of low permeability
that underlie the alluvium in the Valley
and form the mountains that encircle the
ground water basin, and (2) the relatively
permeable sedimentary deposits of the
valley fill that form the Las Vegas ground
water basin. These alluvial deposits con-
tain virtually all of the ground water of
economic importance in the basin, occur-
ring in a large, leaky artesian system
under both confined and unconfined
conditions.
Major drainage within the watershed is
towards the southeast through Las Vegas
Wash to the Colorado River. Storm run-
off is usually limited to the higher eleva-
tions above 6, 000 feet where it ultimately
infiltrates into the porous alluvial fans.
After intense summer storms, however,
runoff may be sufficient to flow onto the
floor of the Valley, and discharge into
Las Vegas Wash.
Las Vegas Bay is a part of the Boulder
Basin area of Lake Mead which covers
a surface area of 157, 736 acres at 1150 ft.
to 1200 ft. lake elevation, and drains
an area of 167, 800 square miles. The
largest reservoir in the United States,
its usable capacity is 27, 207, 000 acre
feet. As a multipurpose reservoir it
is used for flood control, irrigation,
municipal uses, navigation, and power
generation.
The Colorado River is the main source
of surface inflow into Lake Mead. The
nearest stream-gaging station, which is
near Grand Canyon, Arizona is 190 river
miles above the convergence (at usual
reservoir levels), which is defined as
33
-------
the boundary between the muddy Colo-
rado River water and the clear Lake
Mead water. The only Colorado River
tributary below the Grand Canyon gaging
station whose flow is measured is Bright
Angel Creek, which enters the main stream
a quarter of a mile below the Grand Canyon
gaging station. All other tributaries
between Bright Angel Creek and the con-
vergence are unmeasured. Time of
travel for measured flows between Grand
Canyon and the head of the reservoir, is
from two to three days depending on the
flow. Virgin River is the only other
major tributary to Lake Mead whose
flow is measured.
Unmeasured inflow includes the runoff
entering Colorado River between the
mouth of Bright Angel Creek and the
head of the reservoir, and flow of all
streams except those of the Virgin River
that discharge directly into Lake Mead.
The area from which this runoff is de-
rived has topographic and climatic
characteristics not greatly different
from those of the Virgin River basin.
Unmeasured runoff is therefore, con-
sidered to be proportional to Virgin
River flow.
Reservoir releases are the major sur-
face outflow from Lake Mead. Outflow
is measured at a stream-gaging station
located one mile below Hoover Dam and
the records thus obtained are checked
agatnst figures obtained from power
plant records. Pumping from Lake Mead
for domestic and industrial uses, is less
than one-tenth of one percent of the out-
flow and is disregarded. Total evapor-
ation from Lake Mead in 1973 was reported
by the Bureau of Reclamation as 771, 000
acre-feet.
The capacity of the reservoir is slightly
reduced because of the addition of sedi-
ment to the Lake. The slight change in
capacity is of little consequence because
the sediment is deposited at the bottom
of the Lake, where the temperature of
the water remains almost constant
throughout the year. Thus, the small
capacity change has no effect on com-
puted figures of change in energy
storage. Changes in Lake stage are
recorded on a Stevens remote-register-
ing gage with the actuating element
mounted over a stilling well built into
Hoover Dam. The gage-indicator dial
and a Stevens water-stage recorder are
located in the powerhouse.
The Lower Main Stem Subregion of the
Lower Colorado Region includes the
Colorado River drainage basin from. Lee
Ferry (one mile downstream from the
Paria River) to the southerly interna-
tional boundary with Mexico, with the
exception of the Little Colorado River Ba-
sin, the Gila River Basin above Painted
Rock D-am, and the California portion of
the Colorado River Basin. In addition,
the Subregion includes Mexican drainage
west of Lukeville, Arizona and closed
basins in Southeastern Nevada covering
3, 200 square miles. The total area is
56, 554 square miles, of which 17, 310
square miles are in Nevada. About
52, 100 square miles of the area contri-
bute to the Colorado River. The River
follows a generally westerly course from
Lee Ferry through the Grand Canyon and
into Lake Mead. Below Lake Mead, it
34
-------
flows southward forming the border be-
tween the States of Arizona and Nevada
and further south, Arizona and California.
Elevations range from near 12, 000 feet
at Charleston Peak near Las Vegas to
about 75 feet at the southerly interna-
tional boundary. Between Lee Ferry and
Hoover Dam (353 river miles) the prin-
cipal tributaries are the Little Colorado
River, the Virgin River, Bright Angel,
Tapeats, Kanab; and Havasu Creeks,
and Las Vegas Wash. Springs contri-
bute about 300, 000 acre-feet annually
in this reach. (Refer to Figure 1)
The total long-term average annual unde-
pleted tributary runoff to the Colorado
River is estimated at nearly 2.4 maf,
including over 1 maf from the Gila River
and 0.4 maf from the Little Colorado
River. The undepleted net gain of the
Colorado River from Lee Ferry (15. 09
maf) to the international boundary (15. 94
maf) is about 0. 85 maf annually. Since
the undepleted inflow to the main stem is
estimated as about 2.4 maf, an apparent
river loss of 1. 5 maf under the natural
environment is indicated. Present water
requirements in the Subregion, are esti-
mated as 1.3 maf annually. Additional
demands on the supply of the river below
Lee Ferry are for main stem reservoir
evaporation and spills, channel losses,
exports to the California Region, and
Mexican Treaty obligations. These
demands presently total about 9 maf
annually.
The water supply available for use in the
Lower Main Stem Subregion consists of
(a) natural runoff originating in the Sub-
region, (b) a portion of the Main Stem
Colorado River water released from the
Upper Colorado Region at Glen Canyon
Dam under the provisions of the Colo-
rado River Compact, and (c) ground
water. Most of the presently available
runoff originating in the Subregion occurs
between Lee Ferry and Hoover Dam.
Releases from Glen Canyon Dam consti-
tute the Subregion1 s major water source.
Completed in 1963, Glen Canyon Dam
provides the storage required to meet
downstream water requirements under
the Colorado River Compact of 1922,
storage requirements for Upper Colo-
rado, Region water development, and
for power production.
In 1965, gross ground-water pumpage
provided over one-half million acre-feet
to satisfy uses in the Subregion. Ground-
water overdraft occurs in some areas,
notably in Southern Nevada. The South-
ern Nevada Water System, completed
in 1971, consisting of the State-owned
treatment facility and the Fede rally -
constituted transmission system, has
assisted the State to reduce groundwater
overdrafting of the Las Vegas Valley by
developing the capability of supplying
132, 200 acre-feet per year of Nevada's
Colorado River water for municipal
and industrial purposes. The surface-
water supply of the Lower Main Stem
Subregion depends almost entirely on
releases from Glen Canyon Dam, and
on the operational criteria governing
releases of water from Lake Mead.
Between Lee Ferry and tHe head of
Lake Mead, many of the tributaries flow
only during periods of heavy rainfall;
however, several are fed by springs and
35
-------
u
0
tr
o
i-
ui
w
u.
u
a
u
4
Z
a
J
- 1 E —
u
j
1HOO
DJ
lisa
Z
0
iiao-
1_ 1QBO
YEAH'B IVIAXIIVIUIV1
VEAH'B MIMKVIUM
YEAR'S MAXIMUM
YEAR'S MINIMUM
19 84
18BB
1SBB
1SB7 1BBB "'- 19BS " 187C3 1S71
YEAR
UAKE IVIEAD STORAGE AND SURFACE ELEVATIONS
36
-------
are perennial. Tributary runoff varies
widely from 0. 3 inches for the Little
Colorado River to about 5 inches for
Bright Angel Creek on the north side of
the Colorado River.
Nevada's portion of the Colorado River
basin'is almost entirely tributary di-
rectly to Lake Mead. The Muddy River
flows into the Overton arm of the Lake
and has a drainage basin of 8,200 square
miles; however, the actual inflow to
Lake Mead from this large area is
restricted in most years to the water
discharged from the Moapa Springs after
it has been used extensively for irrigation
in Moapa Valley. Las Vegas Valley also
is tributary to Lake Mead, but its contri-
bution is chiefly in flood runoff from the
lower part of the Valley plus a small
amount of effluent seepage from the
ground-water reservoir. Like the inter-
montane valleys in the White River basin,
Las Vegas Valley is analogous to valleys
in the Great Basin in that the precipitation
upon its drainage area is practically all
returned to the atmosphere within that
area; but, Las Vegas Valley is closely
related to the Colorado River because
it imports water from Lake Mead.
The Subregion has a total water supply
in excess of its own present requirements.
Supplies exceed depletion requirements by
1.3 to 2. 5 million acre-feet annually, de-
pendent upon the runoff period inspected.
Seasonal water shortages do occur, how-
ever, principally on the developed tribu-
taries of the Colorado River. These
shortages are due to the erratic nature
of the water supply and to lack of adequate
storage and conveyance facilities. This
development should be adequate to meet
Nevada's rapidly growing water require-
ments into the immediate future. Con-
tinuation of the present rapid growth,
however, could exceed the capability of
the present systems to meet demands
much beyond 1980. Additional facilities
are necessary to allow full development
of existing Federal projects and to pro-
vide the necessary land and water deve-
lopments to meet the increasing recrea-
tion pressures along the Lower Colorado
River.
Future water supplies available to the
Subregion will decline from 11. 42 maf ifa
1980 to 9. 65 maf in 2020. Water require-
ments exceed the available water supply
in year 2020, even under a favorable run-
off period. Nevada is grossly short of
water to meet demands, and the problem
needs to be solved through development
of sources other than the Colorado River,
be it augmentation or by further use of
Nevada ground water resources.
Area Hydrology
Geologists have divided the aquifers un-
derlying Las Vegas Valley into four prin-
cipal hydrologic zones on the basis of their
stratigraphic positions. These are the
near-surface aquifer from ground surface
down to about 200 feet, the shallow zone of
aquifers from 200 to 500 feet, the middle
zone of aquifers from approximately 500 to
700 feet, and the dee'p zone aquifers below
700 feet. Water in the near-surface aqui-
fer occurs under both water table (uncon-
fined) and artesian conditions, while water
in the last three hydrologic units occurs
under artesian (confined) conditions.
37
-------
Shallow ground water is found in Las
Vegas Valley at depths from 1 to 50 feet
below ground surface. This shallow water
body is referred to as the near-surface
aquifer. Water within this aquifer is
generally unconfined in the Las Vegas
Valley. The maximum thickness of the
near-surface aquifer system is about 200
feet thick. Beds and lenses of caliche,
sand, silt and clay make up the near-
surface aquifer system. In the Valley
these beds are commonly saturated with
ground water within a few feet of the sur-
face. Recharge of the near-surface aqui-
fer occurs from upward leakage from the
deeper aquifers and from surface recharge
from cooling water, sewage effluent, lawn
and parkway irrigation and possibly from
surface ponding of storm runoff. While
the chemical character of the near-sur-
face ground water varies considerably
across the Valley, most samples have
been high in total dissolved solids (TDS)*.
From the city limits of Las Vegas south-
east to the Las Vegas Wash, shallow
ground water is unsuitable for either
domestic or irrigation uses because of
high mineralization.
In the Las Vegas Valley there are three
major aquifer zones which are under pres-
sure. Each of these aquifers has its
own pressure (piezometric) surface or
"'Typically TDS levels range from 2000
to 8,000 mg/1. Measurements assembled
by the Desert Research Institute, Univer-
sity of Nevada, indicate that the average
concentration may approach 5, 000mg/1,
yet no final analysis has been made.
level; the deeper zones are generally un-
der greater confining pressure. Within
the Valley, pressures within the various
aquifers have tended to become equalized
by vertical movement of water within in-
dividual water wells and between forma-
tions.. Vertical interchange between aqui-
fers has resulted because of irregular de-
position and erosion of sediments, faulting
in the valley fill and leakage due to im-
proper well construction. Geologic inves-
tigations of the southeast part of Las
Vegas Valley have indicated that only in-
significant amounts of this confined water
escapes from the Valley via subsurface
flow. Studies of the Valley margins in-
dicate that escape of the underground water
is unlikely in any part of the Valley.
Total discharge of waters from the upper,
middle and lower aquifer zones is repre-
sented by well extractions, upward leakage
into the near-surface aquifer and dis-
charge into springs. The shallow zone of
aquifers lies between 200 and 500 feet
below ground surface. Four principal
sand and gravel lenses within this hori-
zon provided most of the potable water
from the Valley prior to 1940. A marker
bed of blue clay separates the shallow
zone from the middle zone. The middle
zone of aquifers lies from 500 to 700
feet deep. This is the most productive
aquifer in Las Vegas Valley and pre-
sently supplies most of the water pumped
in from the Basin. All of the aquifers
lying below 700 feet have been included
in the deep zone of aquifers. Only small
quantities of water are presently being
withdrawn from this depth. The sediments
consist of siltstones interbedded with thin,
sandy strata of fine sand and silt. All or
most of the deep zone aquifers occur in
the Muddy Creek formation.
38
-------
Almost all of the natural recharge that
occurs to the confined aquifer system is
by infiltration of rainfall and runoff oc-
curring principally in the Spring Moun-
tains and in the Sheep Range. At alti-
tudes above 6, 000 feet, rainfall commonly
accumulates in quantities sufficient to per-
mit some water to percolate through the
alluvial material into the saturated ground
water zone. Runoff from heavy mountain
rainfall infiltrates into the fractured
mountain rock and into the porous allu-
vial aprons where it can percolate down-
slope into the Valley fill. The main
recharge (intake) area for the Las Vegas
ground-water basin is probably along the
base of the mountains, particularly to the
west in the areas of the large alluvial
fans radiating out from the Spring Moun-
tains. From these principal recharge
areas, the ground water moves down-
slope and laterally in the direction of the
hydraulic gradient toward the discharge
areas to the southwest portions of the
Valley. In the lower parts of the Basin
below elevation 6, 000 feet, the annual
rainfall averages less than five inches
per year. There is probably no direct
natural recharge to the near-surface
or the confined aquifers, because of the
high soil moisture demand. All of this
rainfall is undoubtedly lost to the pro-
cesses of evaporation and transpiration.
Ground-water recharge via septic tank
effluents in the Valley contributed another
1,254 acre-feet during 1973. Seepage
from the BMI waste-water discharge
ponds may have been responsible for
adding another 5, 000 acre-feet of highly
mineralized water during 1973. Thus,
the potential total recharge to the near-
surface ground-water system from man's
activity in the Valley was in excess of
40, 000 acre-feet during 1973. The
quantity of new salt which was carried
into the ground-water system by man's
actions is not quantifiable at this stage
of investigation, but the amount must
be significant as evidenced by the very
high TDS levels of the upper horizon
of the near-surface ground-water
system.
Of the total of 47, 996 acre-feet of water
which was applied to lawns and crops
throughout the Valley, about 9,427 acre-
feet was supplied from secondary treated
effluent. Odor and soil plugging problems
have been experienced in using secondary
treated effluent for golf course irrigation
in Las Vegas Valley. In 1973, the odor
problem became so acute at the Winter
wood Golf Course that they are converting
to use of ground water to alleviate the
problem. It appears that the use of se-
condary effluent where land is not culti-
vated will be seriously restricted in light
of the problems encountered. However
communities which experience lower
TDS or have more advanced secondary
treatment processes employed such as
activated sludge or micro screening may
very well produce a secondary effluent
suitable for irrigation.
The complexity of the Las Vegas ground
water basin due to the nature of sedi-
ment deposition and subsequent faulting
within the alluvium, has created many
obstacles to understanding hydrodynamics
of subsurface flow. While there have
been many ground water wells drilled
-------
within the Valley, there were virtually
none that were constructed for monitor-
ing both water levels and water quality
of specific aquifers.
Low in the Valley and closer to the Las
Vegas Wash, where the sands and gravels
become thin, the artesian water slowly
leaks upward through silts and clays and
contributes to high water tables. Before
the advent of man, all the water recharged
to the Las Vegas ground-water basin was
discharged by evaporation and evapo-
transpiration - a combination of evaporation
and transpiration by specialized plants
(phreatophytes) which thrive in places
where the water table is close to the
ground surface. In those early days,
all the water was consumed in the
upper reaches of Las Vegas Wash and
there was no perennial flow in the lower
reaches. Presently, all water delivered
to the developed portions of Las Vegas
Valley returns to the near-surface aqui-
fers or ends up in Lake Mead. Thus,
all cesspool and septic tank contributions
must be considered as recharge to the
near-surface aquifers. Irrigation of
any type, such as for agriculture or
golf courses, has limited efficiency.
This means that more water must be
delivered than the plants use. The conse-
quence of this is that there is always
some water which moves down through
the irrigated soils and joins the near-sur-
face aquifers. Such water is always
higher in dissolved minerals than the
water which is delivered. Under present
conditions, this irrigation return water,
now in the near-surf ace aquifers, will
move downslope, rise to the ground sur-
face, and augment the present surface
flow of Las Vegas Wash. In addition to
these ground-water flows, the Wash has
become the principal channel for removal
of much of the treated municipal and in-
dustrial waste water produced in the
Las Vegas Valley. The present waste
water.flow of more than 40 million gal-
lons per day (mgd) supports a perennial,
densely vegetated marsh of about 2, 000
acres, with a diverse and abundant wild-
life population.
Dry Lake, Eldorado, Jean Lake, and
Hidden Valleys are characterized by
deep water tables, indicating that natural
recharge, however small, must be es-
caping via underground exits. Concern
has been expressed that sewage effluent,
if spread on these dry lake and flanking
alluvial fan areas, would percolate to
great depths, to join and pollute the deep
regional ground waters.
At Dry Lake, results of laboratory tests
indicate that percolation to the deep water
table would be extremely slight, and for
all practical purposes, insignificant.
From Eldorado Valley there is believed to
be underground leakage easterly through
the volcanic rocks of the Eldorado Moun-
tains to the Colorado River below Hoover
Dam. A deep well near the south end of
the dry lake encountered bedrock at a
depth of 1, 040 feet. This well was drilled
through low permeability materials to a
depth of 475 feet, where an artesian aqui-
fier was reached. The water rose 200
feet to a depth of 275 feet. This well
was pumped for 14 hours at 920 gallons
per minute with a drawdown of 95 feet.
The water had a total dissolved solids
40
-------
content of 1, 275 ppm. In Eldorado Valley
Converse, Davis & Associates drilled
three bucket auger test borings to depths
between 37 and 48 feet, and one rotary
wash boring to a depth of 80 feet. The
Muddy Creek formation, as a thick, low
permeability zone, does not appear to
be present at depth. Thus, water spread
on the peripheral alluvial fan surfaces
may have an opportunity of reaching the
regional ground water. There is believed
to be deep drainage from beneath Jean
Lake easterly into Eldorado Valley and
northerly into Hidden Valley.
The deepest well near Jean Lake was
drilled to a depth of 470 feet; depth-to-
water is about 343 feet. The water has an
electric conductivity of 1, 300 micromhos.
The indications are that the yield of the
well was very low. Converse, Davis
& Associates drilled two bucket auger
borings to depths of 22 and 41 feet,
and two rotary wash borings to depths
of 60 and 105 feet. Spreading of water
on the peripheral alluvial fan might re-
sult in substantial downward leakage to
the regional ground water.
In Hidden Valley, one well was drilled
to a depth of 1,490 feet; depth-to-water
is about 950 feet. No more than one-
fourth mile to the northwest, across the
McClanahan Fault, depth-to-water is
only about 600 feet. Converse, Davis &
Associates drilled one 33-foot bucket
auger boring near the middle of the dry
lake in Hidden Valley. The dry lake
deposits are very limited in extent and if
water is spread on the peripheral alluvial
fans, there are no thick lake clays to
prevent percolation to the regional
ground water.
WATER QUALITY
Historically, the initial negotiations of
water allocation among the states of the
Colorado River Basin was primarily a
matter of who was going to get how much
rather than whether it was of a quality
they c.ould use once they got it. The
Colorado River Compact, in 1922, was
set up to provide for the diversion of
waters in the Colorado River System.
It also established a preference for
agriculture and domestic uses over all
other uses. However, no explicit pro-
visions regarding water quality was
contained.
The United States and Mexico in 1944 ad-
opted' a Treaty for the Utilization of the
Colorado and Tijuana and of the Rio Grande.
The Treaty, allotted to Mexico 1,500,000
acre-feet annually ... of the waters of
the Colorado River, from any and all
sources ..." The delivery of treaty
waters to Mexico began in 1950 with the
completion of Morelos Dam, Mexico's
major diversion structure on the Colo-
rado River.
A major plan for the development of the
Upper Colorado River Basin was approved
by Congress in 1956 in a bill called the
"Colorado River Storage Project and Par-
ticipating Projects Act. " The Plan called
for the construction qf several large dams,
reservoirs, and hydroelectric generating
plants on the Colorado River and its princi-
pal tributaries above Lee Ferry, Arizona,
and for an undefined number of "participat-
ing" reclamation projects within the Upper
Basin. In addition, language in the Act
41
-------
directed the Secretary of the Interior to
investigate and report periodically to Con-
gress and to the Colorado River Basin
states on water quality conditions in the
Colorado River.
Amendments concerning the study of the
River's water quality and the specifica-
tion of a schedule for reporting thereon,
were also inserted in authorizing legisla-
tion for the Navajo Indian Irrigation Pro-
ject, the initial stage of the San Juan-
Chama Project, and the Fryingpan-
Arkansas Project. These projects pro-
vided both for in basin irrigation develop-
ment and diversions out of the Colorado
River Basin. It was hoped that, with the
accumulation of basic information on
water quality and analyses of effects on
future projects, studies could be made of
ways to eliminate salinity problems. As
of 1970 the Secretary had submitted four
reports on water quality in the Colorado
River Basin.
In the fall of 1961, the salinity of the Colo-
rado River rose sharply in the water
arriving at the International Boundary
prior to its entry into Mexico. This
resulted when pumped drainage of highly
mineralized ground water had begun back
into the Colorado earlier in the year on
the Wellton-Mohawk Project in Arizona.
These highly saline waters from the Pro-
ject were discharged into the River down-
stream of all United States diversions, but
upstream of all Mexican diversions. The
Mexican Government immediately lodged
strong protests with the United States
Government over the River's salinity.
The United States and Mexico met to dis-
cuss the problem, and in 1965 entered
into a five-year agreement that was em-
bodied in Minute No. 218 of the Inter-
national Boundary and Water Commission.
The agreement provided for construction
and operation of a channel that would by-
pass saline drainage water from the Well-
ton-Mohawk Project around the Mexican
point of diversion at Morelos Dam. It
also gave Mexico the right to decide when
drainage water was to be bypassed, and
further provided that during the periods
of October 1 and February 28, when
Mexico was taking water at the minimum
winter rate, the United States was to
control water reaching the limitrophe
section of the river so that, without
including Wellton-Mohawk drainage
water, the flows would average the
minimum winter rate of 900 cubic feet
per second. These bypass waters were
replaced by other waters largely from
above Imperial Dam. By the end of 1971,
these operations, coupled with a gradual
improvement in the quality of Wellton-
Mohawk drainage waters, had reduced
the average annual salinity of waters
made available to Mexico to about 1, 245
parts per million TDS, with monthly ave-
rages varying from 1, 105 to nearly 1, 500
ppm TDS.
Meanwhile, Mexico concluded that it could
not use waters with salinity greater than
about 1, 240 parts per million TDS (1, 300
parts per million, if the Mexican method
of analysis is used in the Mexicali Valley.
The United States under terms of Minute
No. 218 agreed to bypass an additional
42
-------
40, 000 to 75, 000 acre feet of Wellton-
Mohawk drainage flows annually. The
effect was to further reduce the average
salinity of water diverted by Mexico at
Morelos Dam to about 1, 160 parts per
million TDS.
Before Minute No. 218 was to have ex-
pired on November 15, 1970, the United
States proposed a new five year agree-
ment to further reduce salinity. The
United States offered to bypass addition-
al volumes of Wellton-Mohawk drainage
and to substitute equal volumes of better
waters to reduce the average annual
salinity of waters delivered to Mexico
at the Northerly International Boundary
to about 1, 140 parts per million, TDS,
subject to increases in salinity at Im-
perial Dam. This salinity would ap-
proximate that of waters delivered to
Mexico above Morelos Dam if all United
States projects below Imperial Dam were
operating in a salt balance. Salt balance
in this context means that the same per-
centage of salt is returned to a river
from an irrigation project in drainage
as is diverted to it in irrigation waters.
The Administration of President Diaz
Ordaz of Mexico considered the pro-
posal constructive, but decided to leave
the matter to the Administration of
President Echeverria, who took office
in December 1970. Minute No. 218
was therefore extended one year.
In 1971 and early 1972, the Government
exchanged several proposals in an attempt
to reach an agreement, extending Minute
No. 218 in November 1971 for another
year so that the discussion might continue.
After further conversations in early 1972,
Mexico requested a prompt, permanent
settlement. The Presidents of the United
States and Mexico met and issued a joint
communique on June 17, 1972. With this
communique the search for a solution
entered another phase. The then Pres-
ident bf the United States assured Pre-
sident Echeverria of his desire for a
definitive, equitable, and just solution
to the problem, announced that he was
prepared to undertake certain actions
immediately to improve the salinity of
waters delivered to Mexico, and indicated
he would designate a special represen-
tative to develop a solution and to submit
a report to him.
To immediately further improve the quality
of water delivered to Mexico above More-
los Dam, the two governments approved
a new Minute No. 241, signed July 14,
1972. It provided for the bypass of 18, 000
acre feet of Wellton-Mohawk drainage
waters annually without charge against
the Treaty, more than twice the rate
of the United States bypass under Minute
No. 218, and a replacement by other
waters from above Imperial Dam and
from wells on the Yuma Mesa. The
operations under Minute No. 241 resulted
in reducing the average annual salinity
of waters made available to Mexico
from 1,245 parts per million TDS in 1971
to 1, 140 parts per million TDS for the year
ending June 30, 1973N. Operations under
this Minute continued until August 30,
1973, when they were terminated by pro-
visions of Minute No. 242.
In addition to the United States operations
43
-------
under Minute Number 241, Mexico re-
quested the United States to bypass, with-
out replacement, the remaining drainage
waters in the Wellton-Mohawk districts
to the Colorado River below Morelos
Dam. This additional bypass amounted
to about 100, 000 acre feet annually. .
This further reduced the average salinity
of water diverted by Mexico at Morelos
Dam from 1, L60 parts per million TDS in
1971 to less than 1, 000 parts per million
TDS for the year ending June 30, 1973.
Protection of Quality under the
Water Quality Act of 1965
dary treatment must be achieved prior to
discharge into any interstate water re-
gardless of the water quality criteria
or uses adopted. The establishment of
standards, along with the development of
water quality criteria, and a plan for
implementation and enforcement were to
be submitted to the Secretary of the In-
terior for his approval by June 30, 1967.
Standards submitted by the State of Ne-
vada were approved without exception by
the Secretary of Interior in a letter of
June 27, 1968 to Governor Laxalt.
Development of Colorado River
Policies and Standards
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1965 set forth the responsibility of the
states and the Federal Government with
respect to water quality of interstate
waters. The 1965 Act required that each
state establish water quality standards for
interstate and coastal waters within each
state.
In 1966, representatives of all seven Co-
lorado River Basin states met to consider
a common framework of guidelines so that
the Water Quality Standards for the Colo-
rado River System (to be set separately
by each of the seven states of the Basin)
would be mutually compatible.
In May 1966, the Secretary of the Interior
issued "Guidelines for Establishing Water
Quality Standards for Interstate Waters"
as directed by the 1965 Act. These Guide-
lines advised the states on the contents
these standards should include necessary
for acceptance by the Secretary.
The Guidelines stated that the purpose of
establishing water quality standards was to
"enhance the quality of water" and in no
case would standards be acceptable that
provided for less than existing water
quality. Further, a minimum of secon-
The conferees did not attempt to settle
the very difficult problems of establish-
ment of numerical criteria for salinity.
Instead, it was agreed that the proposed
water quality standards should state the
criteria for salinity in qualitative terms
only, pending the acquisition of more data
and knowledge. The conferees finally
agreed on January 13, 1967, to a docu-
ment entitled "Guidelines for Formula-
ting Water Quality Standards for the Inter-
state Waters of the Colorado River Sys-
tem".
Based upon the Guidelines, all basin
44
-------
states adopted policies and standards for
the Colorado River and submitted them to
the Secretary of Interior.
On August 26, 1969, the Nevada State Board
of Health adopted water quality standards
applicable to Las Vegas Wash. Since the
Wash is an intrastate stream, these stan-
dards are not subject to Federal approval.
The standards establish two sets of water
quality criteria, an interim set to take
effect in 1973 and more stringent require-
ments to take effect in 1980.
In December 1971, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency insti-
tuted a 180-day enforcement action against
the major polluting municipalities and in-
dustries who were discharging waste water
into Las Vegas Wash. At the same time
the Nevada Legislature enacted a law which
would have the practical effect of preven-
ting the construction of these subdivisions
after July 1973 unless the pollution was
abated. The local Interim-Agency Water
Pollution Control Task Force and the
Colorado River Commission of Nevada
previously studied the problem, but were
not empowered to implement a solution;
however in October of 1972, Governor
Laxalt did direct the Commission to pro-
ceed with some invitation for a solution.
In 1971, the Nevada legislature designated
the Las Vegas Valley Water District as
the agency responsible for developing and
implementing a plan for abating the pol-
lution caused by waste water flow in Las
Vegas Wash. In accordance with the
district directives of that legislation, the
district prepared a plan and submitted it
to the Nevada legislature in December
1972.
The Nevada State Legislature accepted
the 1972 final written report of the Las
Vegas Valley Water District, which out-
lined a comprehensive program of pol-
lution abatement similar to that of
Alternative No. 7 (see Chapter 2).
The legislators' response came in the
form of Senate Bill 288 which directed:
a) the Board of County Commissioners
to make a review of the program pro-
posed in December 1972; b) complete
the review by September 1, 1973 and
recommend a course of action to the
Legislative Committee and the Governor
of Nevada; c) after approval by the ap-
propriate authorities, the Board of County
Commissioners were authorized to pro-
ceed further with the project through
the issuance of state supported bonds
provided that the Federal Government
provide at least 50% of the financing
required.
Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Con-
trol Act, introduced into the U.S. Con-
gress as HR 12165 on January 21, 1974,
was developed in response to the need
for a definitive solution to the interna-
tional salinity problem in the Colorado
River. This Bill, adopted as PL 93-320
authorizes the construction, operation,
and maintenance of certain works in
the Colorado River B^asin to control
the salinity of water delivered to users
in the United States and Mexico. Sec-
tion 202, Part IV of the legislation
identifies the Las Vegas Wash unit,
Nevada, as consisting of "Facilities for
collection and disposition of the falling
ground water of Las Vegas Wash. . ."
45
-------
A gross reduction of the salinity con-
tribution to Lake Mead from saline
ground waters on the order of 130, 000
to 150, 000 tons is hoped for per year
and reductions in the salinity concen-
tration at Imperial Dam on the order
of 10 ppm to 12 ppm is projected.
The significance of this project is that
it is estimated to reduce the current
gross salinity contribution of Las
Vegas Wash flows by about 70%.
The potential for facilities identified in
this proposed legislation emphasizes the
relationship of the proposed Las Vegas
Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement Project
to areawide planning at Federal, State,
and local levels.
Present Water Quality Standards
Water Pollution Control Regulations
(WPCR), for the waters of the State
of Nevada were adopted by the State
Environmental Commission on Octo-
ber 24, 1973. Existing standards for
the state include the revisions adopted
April 10, 1973, June 26, 1973, and
those of October 24, 1973. The Octo-
ber 24, 1973 standards were approved
with one exception by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency on November
30, 1973.
The one exception to EPA's approval
of the October 24, 1973 Water Pollution
Control Regulation was the temperature
criterion for Las Vegas Wash. A stan-
dard for temperature was included as
one of the ten proposed amendments which
accompanied EPA's approval of the Octo-
ber regulations. On April 9, 1974, after
continuing discussion of an acceptable
temperature standard, the State Environ-
mental Commission adopted a temperature
standard that will be included in the State
regulations as approved by EPA. The
October 24, 1973 WPCR and the April 9,
1974 revisions to the regulations are
shown in Appendix C .
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency along with its approval of the
Nevada Water Pollution Control Regula-
tions' proposed amendments to 40 CFR
120, "Interstate and Intrastate Waters
of the State of Nevada. " Two of the ten
proposed amendments are particularly
relevant to the evaluation of any pre-
sently proposed project alternative.
As noted above, discussions on the
proposed amendments continued, and on
April 9, 1974, the State Environmental
Commission adopted revisions to the
State regulations. These State-adopted
revisions were essentially the same as
those proposed by EPA.
Among the original amendments proposed
by EPA was the salinity standard for Las
Vegas Wash. On March 28, 1974, in a
letter to the Governor of Nevada, the
EPA Regional Administrator elected to
hold the salinity standard in abeyance
pending the conclusions of negotiations
with the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum. Thus, there is not
presently a numerical salinity standard
for Las Vegas Wash.
Quality of Las Vegas Water Supplies
The present quality of the Valley's three
46
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
LAS VEGAS WASH
CONTROL POINT
North Shore Road (No sampling will be roqmred upstream of th« control point if the regulations an satisf iid at th« control pent.
TEMPERATURE °C
Monthly Mean June I to September 30 Hot mon thai 27*
" ' Octobtr I to May 31 Not mora thai 23°
SingU Value in 90% of samples- • • June I to Sept»btr 30 ...... -Not more than 31°
•••'•'.. • Oetobir I to Mai 31 Not more than 27*
pH UNITS
Monthly Median Within rang* 6.5 - 8.5
Single Valu« in 90% of sample* Within rang* 6.5 - 8.5
DISSOLVED OXYGEN - mg/l
Monthly Mtan Not less thai 5.0
Single Value in 90% of samples • • • Not less thai 4.0
BOD5 - mg/l
Monthly Mean - Not mon thai 10.0
Single Value in 90% of samples Not more than 15.0
COD - no/1
Monthly Mean Not more than 40.0
Single Value in 90% of sample* Not more than 50.0
SS-mg/l
Monthly Mean Not more thai 2.0
Single Value in 90% of simples Not more than 5.0
MBAS-mg/l
Monthly Mean • Not more than 0.8
Single Value in 90% of samples Not mon than 1.0
PHOSPHORUS AS P - mg/l
Monthly Mean Not more than 0.5*
Single Value in 90% of samples Not more than 1.0*
*But not to exceed 400 pounds/day during April through October
TURBIDITY - JTU
Monthly Mean Not more than 5.0
Single Value in 90% of samples Not more than 10.0
FECAL COLIFORM - The fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of 5 samples during any
30-day period, shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 per 100 milliliters.nor
shall more than 10% of total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400
per lOOmillilitars.
The beneficial uses to be protected in the Las Vegas Wash are as follows Fish and wildlife, esthetics,
irrigation and stock watering and recreation.
SOURCE- State of Nevada, Water Pollution Control Regulations, adopted by the State Environmental
Commission on October 24, 1973.
table 1
-------
major water resources is shown in
Tables 2 through 5. All three resources
are characterized by water hardness and
by moderate to high salinity concentra-
tions. With little doubt, the ground water
resource affords the highest quality
water, followed by Colorado River Water
and last by waste water.
The future quality of the Valley's ground-
water resources might be expected to re-
main fairly constant. However, lawn and
landscaping irrigation in the Valley using
water of higher salinity than the ground
water, could result in some degradation
of the deeper, better quality ground water
resources by downward migration through
the low permeability aquitards. Ground -
water recharge programs using reclaimed
waste water could have either beneficial
or detrimental effects upon the quality of
the ground-water resources, depending
upon the character of the recharged water.
These effects would depend for the most
part upon the level of treatment provided
prior to recharge.
which has as its objective, maintenance
of TDS levels in the lower main stream
of the Colorado River at or below 1972
levels. . . while the Basin States continue
to develop their compact-apportioned
waters. If this is accomplished, the
future quality should be essentially
the same as that shown for 1973 on
Table 2.
Reclaimed Waste Water
For the most part, the waste water re-
sources of Las Vegas Valley may be
characterized as high quality secondary
waste water plant effluents.
The City of Las Vegas1 and the County's
trickling filter treatment plants presently
treat 96% of the waste water flow being
considered for reclamation. The City of
Henderson's waste water plants contribute
the remaining 4% of Las Vegas Valley's
present waste water resource.
Colorado River Water
The quality of Colorado River water is
acceptable but not as good as that of the
ground water. It is harder and has a
higher concentration of TDS. Water
quality records for the Colorado River
show that annual average TDS at Hoover.
Dam has increased from 671 mg/1 in
I960 to 745 mg/1 in 1973. Efforts are
currently underway by the seven Colo-
rado River Basin States and the Bureau
of Reclamation to institute a program
The results of recent analyses of treat-
ment plant effluents from the City of
Las Vegas, the Clark County Sanitation
District and the City of Henderson are
presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5, res-
pectively.
The information on the City of Las Vegas
plant and the Clark County plant repre-
sents the range of qualities experienced
and yearly averages based on plant re-
cords of tests conducted. The informa-
48
-------
tion presented for the City of Henderson
is incomplete. The parameters listed
are based on limited grab samples.
Henderson's waste water flow has, and
probably will continue to have, only a
negligible effect on the overall charac-
teristics of the combined flow.
The Tables demonstrate that two trickling
filter plants operated by the City of Las
Vegas and the Sanitation District are
accomplishing a high degree of treatment
,and are producing good quality effluents.
Table 5 indicates that the City of Hen-
derson is experiencing difficulty in pro-
ducing an adequately treated secondary
effluent. Henderson is presently refur-
bishing and remodeling its facilities in
order to improve the quality of effluent to
a level comparable to that now produced
by the other waste water treatment
plants.
It is believed that such secondary effluent
parameters as; biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), suspended solids (SS), chemical
oxygen demand (COD), phosphorous and
nitrogen (PO^. as P and NH3 as N) will
not significantly change between now and
the year 2000. However, as the water
supply in the Valley becomes more depen-
dent upon the Colorado River, it is
expected that there will be increases in
the concentrations of calcium, chloride,
sulfate, sodium and potassium.
Many homeowners, hotels, casinos and
commercial establishments in the Valley
have softening units or purchase partially
demineralized bottled drinking water.
It is believed that the improper disposal
of waste brines from softener regene-
rations frequently find their way into
the waste water collection and treatment
facilities, thus, accounting in part for
the high concentrations of total dissolved
solids noted in Valley waste water treat-
ment plant discharges. The Clark
County Sanitation District and the City
of Las Vegas will soon undertake studies
to locate and quantify sources of high
TDS inflow to their respective waste
water systems. Concentration pro-
jections of individual chemical con-
stituents have not been made. In-
dications are that if no corrective
actions are taken, the salinity (TDS)
of the combined City of Las Vegas and
County Sanitation District plant effluents
may reach about 1600 mg/1 by 1980,
1800 mg/1 by 1990, and 1990 mg/1 by
the year 2000.
Colorado River Basin
We were requested to update much of the
following information with the January
1975 Bureau of Reclamation Status Report
on the Colorado River Water Quality Im-
provement Program. This report was
not available as of this writing.
Establishment of numerical salinity
standards for the Colorado River system
has long been a controversial subject
among the seven basin States. In 1966
the seven States met and agreed that the
water quality standards should state the
criteria for salinity in qualitative terms
only, pending the acquisition of more
data and knowledge. On January 30,
1968, Secretary Udall stated that salinity
49
-------
WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS
LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER SUPPLIES
PARAMETER
CALCIUM as Ca
CHLORIDE as Cl
FLUORIDE as F
IRON as Fe
MAGNESIUM as Mg
NITRATE as NO 3
SODIUM and POTASSIUM as Na and K
SULFATE as S04
ALKALINITY as CaCOs
BICARBONATE as HC03
CARBONATE as CO 3
HARDNESS as CaCOj
COLOR
ODOR
PH
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TURBIDITY
UNITS
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
TON
value
mg/l
JTU
LAKE MEAD©
RANGE
86-94
86-96
.33 -.68
0-.05
23-32
.2-2.1
102-122
290-345
100-111
122-135
316-365
NA
2-4
7.7-8.2
722-781
.I8-.35
AVERAGE
90
92
0.5
.02
27
I.I
109
320
106
129
335
5.0
3
7.9
745
.24
SNWP©
RANGE
86-90
88-96
.35-J5
0-.03
23-32
.2-1.7
105-133
290-365
105-108
128-132
i r \ n i F
311-349
0-<5
NA
7.8-8.2
737-755
.02-.08
AVERAGE
87
92
0.5
.02
27
I.I
113
326
107
130
330
<5
1.4
8.0
746
.05
GROUNDWATER©
RANGE
30-60
0-10
.2-1
O-.l
20-40
5-15
10-50
30-100
150-240
180-280
0-12
190-290
0-5
NA
7.5-7.8
200-400
.03-1.6
AVERAGE
55
< 5
.4
.02
30
6
30
65
170
210
-------
HISTORIC WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
WWTP EFFLUENT
CITY OF LAS VEGAS
EFFLUENT PARAMETER
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
BOD5
COD®*
P04 as P
NH3 as N
IDS
ALKALINITY as CaC03
HARDNESS as CaC03
CALCIUM as Ca
TEMPERATURE (INFLUENT)
PH
CHLORINE RESIDUAL
LAS
_ *
UNITS
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
"C
mg/l
mg/l
1971
RANGE
15-29
7-26
. MC
Nl
7.0-9.9
14-21
820-1000
220-290
312-372
61-78
17.8-25.6
7.6-7.8
1.0-1.0
NO
AVERAGE
18
20
) DAT
9
17
898
246
338
71
22.7
7.7
1.0
DAT/
L
1972
RANGE
14-28
12-29
A AVAIL AB
7.0-9.3
12-22
977-1080
220-269
340-400
62-83
17.2-27.2
7.6-7.7
1.0- 1.0
k AVAILABj.
AVERAGE
21
18
LE
9
18
1006
241
377
74
21.1
7.6
1.0
E
1973
RANGE
13-29
10-21
6.4-9.3
15-23
1027-1073
210-266
340-535
62-96
17.2-27.2
7.5-7.7
1.0- 1.0
AVERAGE
18.4
••" i •••••.•»
14.7
9
18
1058
247
413
80
22.7
•• • 11 •.
7.6
•— — ^— — •M^H
1.0
J
)*COD= Range 100-120 mg/l, Average 110 mg/l December 1968 Tests by Boyle-CH2M.
SOIIRRF* Bas*d on w°stewater Wont Rscords for CLV WWTP and
uuuuvk- Nevflda Power compgny', SunrjS8 Power station.
in
table 3
-------
HISTORIC WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTICS
WWTP EFFLUENT
CLARK COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
^••••••••^^^••••^•^^^•^^•^^^^•••^•I^HHBMIH
EFFLUENT PARAMETER
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
BOD5
COD
P04 as P O
NHj as N
TDS
ALKALINITY as CaCOj
HARDNESS as CaC03
CALCIUM as Ca©
TEMPERATURE(INFLUENT)
PH
CHLORINE RESIDUAL
LAS
MMM^MMMMMMM
UNITS
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
m^/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
°C
mg/l
mg/l
1971
RANGE
15-30
18-43
83-130
7.3-9.1
II.7-I7.7
1244-1680
213-258
528-658
89-145
24-30.1
7.0-7.5
1.0-1.9
0.6-1.5
AVERAGE
25
26
99
8.2
14.7
1496
234
602
119
27.4
7.2
1.4
I.I
1972
RANGE
18-48
13-58
71-186
7.3-9.5
1 1.5-18.7
1545-1853
214-240
501-706
96-136
22.5-29.1
7.4-7.6
1.6-4.2
0.7-1.9
AVERAGE
30
26
108
8.2
15
1666
223
622
121
26
7.5
2.9
1.2
1973
RANGE
18-80
19-40
88-242
9.5-13.4
14.7-18.9
1706-1934
220-252
501-589
78-153
21.5-28.8
7.5-7.6
1.5-3.3
1.0-2.9
AVERAGE
38
30.5
128
10.7
16
1831
236
546
124
25,2
7.5
2.4
2.3
(T) Represents ortho-phosphates only for 1971 and 1972; 1973 measurements are for fotal phosphates as
determined after April 1973.
(?) From Desert Research Institute records of station LW027.
SOURCE: Based on Wastewatar Plant Records for CCSO WWTP.
table 4
-------
HISTORIC WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
WWTP EFFLUENT
CITY OF HENDERSON
WWTP NO. 1 AND WWTP NO. 2
EFFLUENT PARAMETER
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
BOD 5
COD
P04 as P
NH3as N
TDS
ALKALINITY as CaCOs
HARDNESS as CaCOs
CALCIUM as Ca
TEMPERATURE (INFLUENT)
PH
CHLORINE RESIDUAL
LAS
UNITS
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
°C
mg/l
mg/l
WWTP NO. 1
1968 O
RANGE
35-137
NA
104-169
4.5-5.0
NA
4148-4920
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AVERAGE
86
30
137
4.8
10.9
4534
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1971©
AVERAGE
59
85
NA
NA
10.9
NA
NA
850
NA
NA
7.4
NA
NA
1973©
AVERAGE
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2293
319
825
305
NA
7 2
NA
NA
WWTP N0.2
1971©
AVERAGE"
283
133
NA
NA
10.4
NA
NA
340
NA
NA
8.0
NA
NA
1973©
AVERAGE
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1000
240
270
100
NA
7.4
NA
NA
NA No Data Available
SOURCES:© A Comprehensive Water Quality Control Program for the Lot Vegas Drainage Basin-Phase I, February 1969 by Boyle Engineering and CH M
© Analysis by Clark County Sanitation District Laboratory in August 1971.
©Analysis by Atlas Chemical Testing Laboratories, Inc. letter of May 1,1973.
table 5
-------
standards would not be established for
the Colorado River until such time when
there would be sufficient information to
assure that standards would be equitable,
workable and enforceable.
On February 15, 1972, the seventh
session of the Enforcement Conference
on the Colorado River was convened.
A five volume report of the findings
of a seven-year effort by FWPCA-
EPA to evaluate causes, effects and
controls was presented to the con-
ferees. The report recommended
the establishment of numerical sal-
inity standards. However, at the
April 27, 1972, reconvening of the
Enforcement Conference, the States
and Federal conferees agreed to set
aside the requirement for numerical
standards and instead recommended
the adoption of a policy that would
have as its objective, the maintenance
of salinity concentrations at or below
levels presently found in the lower
main stem of the Colorado River. In
a June 9, 1972 letter to the Chairman
of the Nevada Commission of Environ-
mental Protection, the EPA Admini-
strator conveyed a summary of the
conference conclusions and recom-
mendations along with his approval
of them. To implement this objective
he Conferees endorsed a comprehen-
sive water quality management program
of the Bureau of Reclamation.
After enactment of the FWPCA Amend-
ments of 1972 action was again initiated
to encourage the States to develop stan-
dards and a plan of implementation to
ensure compliance with the standards.
Accordingly, on January 18, 1973 the
Colorado River Basin States were notified
that establishment of water quality stan-
dards for salinity including numerical
criteria was necessary to comply with
the Act. A number of meetings were
held with representatives of the water
resource and water pollution agencies
in the seven basin States to arrive
at the proposed regulation.
In November of 1973, a Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Forum was es-
tablished by the basin states as a mec-
hanism for interstate cooperation. The
Forum prepares semi-annual reports
on the development of numeric criteria
with the intent of adopting such criteria
by October 18, 1975.
Both the EPA and the States involved re-
cognize the need for some type of salinity
water quality standard for the Colorado
River to provide protection for the uses
of the water. Through the cooperative
efforts of the States and EPA regional
offices, agreement has been reached on
a proposed salinity control policy. It has
three major points:
1. The salinity levels in the lower
main stem will be maintained at
or below those values found during
1972. 5
2. Numerical criteria for certain
points in the Colorado River will
be set by October 18, 1975, for
the States involved in order to
meet the conditions of (1) above.
3. The States will develop a plan to
implement the standards.
54
-------
The proposed regulation was issued on
June 10, 1974 and Public Hearings were
held in Las Vegas, Nevada on August
19, 1974 and in Denver, Colorado,
August 21, 1974. EPA response to the
hearing's testimony and letters received
appear as Appendix J.
The water quality in the Colorado River
declines markedly between its origins
in the Rocky Mountains and the Inter-
national Border to Mexico. The rea-
sons for poor quality water arise from
both natural and man-made sources.
The most important sources of salt loads
in the Colorado River Basin are from
natural sources which account for about
2/3 of the average annual salt load
passing Hoover Dam. Surface runoff,
including ground water inflow comes in
contact with the soil and picks up min-
eral salts from the surrounding drainage
area and then flows into the Colorado
River System. These are called dif-
fused sources and come primarily from
several relatively small areas, such as
Paradox Valley in the Upper Basin.
They account for about half of the salt
burden in the entire Colorado River
Basin. Discrete or point sources also
add saline water to the system from
interal springs that occur throughout
the Basin. Mineral springs add more
salt to the Colorado River in the Lower
Basin than any other type of salinity
source. Blue Springs, the largest
point source of salinity in the entire
river basin, is located near the mouth
of the Little Colorado River and contri-
butes salt loads of about 547, 000 tons
each year, or about 5% of the annual
salt load at Hoover Dam.
There are also major contributions by
Dotsero and Glenwood Springs which
produces a total of 518, 000 tons of salt
each year. (Las Vegas Wash contributes
150, 000 tons of salt each year.)
The major man-made source of salinity
to the river is from irrigation. Muni-
cipal'and industrial sources of salinity
that are found in flows such as the Las
Vegas Wash only contribute about 1%
of the average salt load at Hoover Dam
each year. A summary of salt load
distribution can be found in Table 6.
The increasing salinity levels in the
Colorado River are adversely affecting
the uses of the water, particularly for
irrigation purposes in Arizona and
California and for public water supply
use in the Los Angeles and San Diego
area. The current economic cost esti-
mates for damages to these uses are
substantial. The current salinity levels
in the lower basin account for costs that
are estimated at about $50, 000, 000 an-
nually due to increased crop yields and
increased treatment of public water sup-
plies. They further estimate that with
full development of the area and no sali-
nity controls these costs would double.
The estimates do not include damages
incurred by Mexico.
In the Environmental Protection Agency's
report, "The Minera^. Quality Problem in
the Colorado River Basin" a projection is
made of future average salinity concen-
trations in mg/1 based on initial base
concentrations in I960. The table shown
below is divided into two categories:
unlimited vs. limited development condi-
55
-------
tions. The first category details salinity
projections on the basis that no limits
would be placed on future water resources
development other than those applicable
under existing water laws. The second
category was based on the possible limi-
tations of future water resource develop-
ment in the Basin.
The discharge of waste water into Las
Vegas Wash has produced flows of excep-
tionally high TDS, and, according to a
tons per day. This report also indicated
that these contributions increased from
10 mg/1 and 12 mg/1 in the TDS concen-
trations at Hoover and Imperial Dams,
respectively.
If all flow from Las Vegas Wash were
terminated and did not enter the Colorado
River System at another location, then the
salt load could be expected to decrease
by approximately 409 tons per day below
Hoover Dam and approximately 363 tons
Comparison of Salinity Projections
Unlimited Development
Conditions
Limited Development
Conditions
Location
Hoover Dam
Parker Dam
Palo Verde Dam
Imperial Dam
1960
Base
697
684
713
759
1980
876
866
940
1056
2010
990
985
1082
1223
1970
760
760
800
865
1980 & 2010
800
800
850
920
report by Hoffman, Tramutt and Holler,
an average of 4.48 tons per acre-foot
entered Lake Mead during their sampling
period in 1968. This figure can be com-
pared with the 1968 average TDS of
Colorado River water measured in the
Grand Canyon equal to . 91 tons per acre-
foot. In another report by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, "Report on
Pollution Affecting Las Vegas Wash,
Lake Mead & The Lower Colorado River,
Nevada-Arizona-California11, the average
discharge of dissolved solids (TDS) by
the Las Vegas Wash into Lake Mead
was 150, 000 tons per year or about 411
per day at Imperial Dam. The present
increase in TDS concentrations that
result from flow out of Las Vegas Wash
caused an economic loss, according to
the applicant, of $670, 000 per year to
the regional economy in Arizona and
Southern California. Inclusive in this
impact is the savings that would result
from agricultural concerns who would
use water from the Colorado River of a
lower salinity and thus incur a beneficial
impact on crop yields and the correspond-
ing cost of operation.
In addition to dissolved solids concentra-
56
-------
0>
Summary of
Salt Load (1,
Source
Natural Diffuse
Sources
Natural Point
Sources
Irrigation
Municipal and
Industrial
Total
Upper
Basin
4,400
510
3,460
50
6,420
Lower
Basin
1,400
770
420
100
2,690
Salt Load Distributions
000) T/Yr.
Above
Hoover Dam
5,760
1,280
3,540
150
"10", 730-
Percent of Total Load
Upper
Basin
52.2
6.1
41.1
0.6
100.0
Lower
Basin
52.1
28.6
15.6
3.7
100.0
Above
Hoover Dam
53.7
11.9
33.0
1.4
100.0
57
-------
tion, the Colorado River is also subject
to increased concentrations of nitrogen
and phosphorus which act as nutrients
that support algae blooms.
Within Lake Mead, substantially larger
concentrations of algae can be found in
the area near the mouth of the Las Vegas
Wash in addition to correspondingly larger
concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus.
In tests by the Federal Water Quality
Administration (EPA) during 1970, Colo-
rado River waters in Lake Mead, upstream
from Las Vegas Bay, were slightly lower
in algae growth potential than they were
after release from Hoover Dam.
Another important parameter to consider
when discussing water quality in the Colo-
rado River Basin is temperature. Tem-
perature fluctuations within the River can
vary from freezing to above 90° F. These
changes are primarily due to natural clim-
atic conditions; however, other influences
include upstream releases from reservoirs
affecting downstream temperatures, ther-
mal springs, waste water discharges and
irrigation return flows. Warmer tempera-
tures can reduce the amount of dissolved
oxygen in the water and as a result will
have an adverse affect on fish life. High
temperatures can also increase the rate
of chemical reactions in addition to the
rate of growth and decomposition of orga-
nic matter resulting in bad odors and
tastes.
Water temperatures leaving Hoover Dam
fluctuate very little. Data for 1941 to
1968 indicates average monthly tempera-
tures ranging between 54° and 58° F.
Salinity Control
Four salinity control projects are author-
ized for construction under the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act (P.L.
93-320) that will benefit water users in the
United States and Mexico. These pro-
jects would achieve the near-term objec-
tive of EPA and the seven Colorado River
Basin States by removing 514, 000 to
594, 000 tons of salt annually. The four
projects are:
1. Paradox Valley, Colorado: A 14,000
foot thick, pure salt dome is within six
feet to 100 feet of the ground surface.
Rising ground water picks up over 200, 000
tons of salt per year. The project plans
to lower ground water by well pumping and
transporting brines to an evaporation
reservoir for disposal. Estimated salt
removal is 108, 000 tons per year which
will reduce salinity at Imperial Dam by
20 ppm in the year 2000.
2. Grand Valley, Colorado: About 80, 000
acres of land are irrigated in the valley.
The soils are derived from Munco Shale
which have a high salt content. Return
flows from agricultural lands are esti-
mated to contain 500, 000 tons per year
of salt. The Grand Valley salinity con-
trol project would include: a) improved
irrigation management methods such as
scheduling times and amounts of water
to apply, b) lining drainage canals and
laterals to reduce seepage, and c) on-
farm improvements such as measuring
and control devices and installation of
proper drains. Estimated salt load
reductions are expected to be 2, 000 to
58
-------
280, 000 tons per year with a subsequent
reduction of TDS at Imperial Dam of 23
to 32 ppm by the year 2000.
3. Crystal Geyser, Utah: The Crystal
Geyser is an abandoned oil test well
which erupts periodically. The water
has a TDS of 11, 000 to 14, 000 ppm and
contributes 3, 000 tons of salt per year
to the River. The project plan would
construct a dike around the geyser and
drain in the water to an evaporation pond.
Estimated salt removal is 3, 000 tons per
year and would reduce salinity at Im-
perial Dam by 0. 3 ppm in the year 2000.
4. Las Vegas Wash, Nevada: The Wash
adds about 150, 000 tons of TDS per year
to the Colorado River System. Sources
are both point and diffused and contribute
approximately 20% and 80% of the total,
respectively. Rising ground water
(discussed further under the next heading)
over long established ground water mounds
beneath the industrial waste ponds and
other discharges constitute the diffused
source. The proposed project plan would
collect ground water flow by subsurface
drains and pump the water to evaporation
ponds. Estimated salt load reduction
would reduce TDS at Imperial Dam between
10-12 ppm.
Other potential salinity control projects
are shown in Figure 11.
Water Quality in Las Vegas Bay
Water quality conditions in the Las Vegas
Bay portion of Lake Mead have been de-
clining noticeably during the past 20 years.
A study conducted in the late 1940's and
1950's by Nevada's Department of Fish
and Game indicated no evidence of pollu-
tion except for one unexplained fish kill
in 1953 and an unusual reduction in the
water's transparency caused by a large
algae bloom in 1952 (Nevada Fish and
Game, 1953).
Through the years, as more and more
nutrients and dissolved solids were
discharged into Las Vegas Bay, the
more severe the pollution problems
became. Within the last few years
algal growth and blooms have risen to
levels resulting in a substantial reduc-
tion of water quality and have at times
reduced the recreational attractiveness
of the area.
Many studies have been conducted to de-
termine the cause and extent of this
problem. Conclusions drawn from these
studies indicate that the primary problem
is the effluent from Las Vegas Wash,
which is high in nutrients and dissolved
solids. Algal growth resulting from the
increased availability of these nutrients,
especially phosphorous, will degrade
aesthetic values. If these conditions are
allowed to persist, they could eventually
affect the quality of the area's recreation
and pose a public health hazard. Studies
conducted in 1972 and 1973 by Dr. James
Deacon, indicate that plankton populations
increase in Las Vegas Bay during the
warm summer months. During this period,
the upper water layers of the Bay are
59
-------
LEGEND
A SALT LOAD REDUCTION PROJECT
^IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS
HENRY'S FORK
ASHLEY CREEK
DUCHESNE AREA
BIG SANDY CREEK
GUNNISON
PAHGRE
AREA
figure 11
-------
ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TONNAGE OF
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (SALTS) DISCHARGED
TO LAS VEGAS WASH AND TO LAS VEGAS BAY OF LAKE MEAD
600
500
o
5
.-
OT
a
400
:<2 300
UJCO
OQ
200
UjO
a
UJ
u
100
IS69 1970 IVI
CALENDAR YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31st
LEGEND:
O
COMBINED DISCHARGES TO LAS VEGAS WASH FROM THE CITY AND
COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.
DISCHARGES FROM LAS VEGAS WASH TO LAS VEGAS BAY OF LAKE
MEAD AS ESTIMATED FROM DATA COLLECTED AT THE NORTH SHORE
ROAD GAGING STATION
DATA SOURCE:
I.) RECORDS OF THE DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.
2.) RECORDS OF THE U S DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CAR3ON CITY, NEVADA.
3.) RECORDS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA ( Dr JAMES DEACON)
4.) RECORDS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.
(0
figure 12
-------
UNIKOWOIUTID
MU
LEGEND
Dlf FUSt SOUUCE DISCtUME
PHHEATOPHfTES
i. H1DBOPHYTTS
• VTP WSTFWATCI) TOATHHT PLANT
BHl BASIC MANAGE WENT INC
IDS TOTAL OISSOLVCO SOLIDS
•«/1 MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
• qd MILLION SALLOWS PER DAY
COMPUTED FKM •CASURfHENTS *T
NORTh SHORE ROAD
NET AFTER EVAPOTMNSPidATIOH FOR
MREATOPMtTES BCLO« «»E«SO«
UUBF1U
YEAR 1973
POINT AND DIFFUSE
DISCHARGES
TO
LAS VEGAS WASH
fc
a
-------
o
i
•fl
n
.
".
LFGEND
POINT SOURCE OISCHAME
DIFFUSE SOURCE DISCHARGE
EVAPORATION AND/OH TRANSPIRATION
PHREATOPHYTE3
HYWOPm IES
WASTEWATER TRtATMEMT PLANT
ADVANCED iASTEWATEfl TREATMENT
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
MILLION GALLONS Ptfi DAY
NET UTEB EVAPOrRANSPtRATKW FOR
PMREAIDPHTTES BELO* HENDERSON
LANDFILL
M LAS VF6AS VALLEY
Q * I« H0
TDS '- 6,000 mg/l
TOS: 470,500 It/itar
© umiscanip POIKI AND pirrust souncis
TDS - (.000 mg/l
TDS - S6S.400 ib/dg|
Q IHIOEBFLOU F«0> ME»P[»SOH >R» -
Qi1<•*
(2) 6«OUND*ATER INFLOW Bf KJW HEHDER50N L*MOf >.L
Q = 0 S nqd *
IDS ii,800»g/l
TOS-M.JOO l«/«l|
YEAR 2000
POINT AND DIFFUSE
DISCHARGES
TO
LAS VEGAS WASH
-------
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY PHOSPHOROUS DISCHARGES
TO LAS VEGAS WASH AND TO LAS VEGAS BAY OF LAKE MEAD
3,000
_j
<
5
M
o
DL
O
ir
C
y
O
2,000
o UJ
Q Q
1,000
|
?
_-
1969 1970 \9f\ 1972
CALENDAR YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 3tsr
0)
LEGEND:
O COMBINED DISCHARGES TO LAS VEGAS WASH FROM THE CITY AND
COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.
A DISCHARGES FROM LAS VEGAS WASH TO LAS VEGAS BAY OF LAKE
MEAD AS ESTIMATED FflOM DATA COLLECTED AT THE NORTH SHORE
ROAD GAGING STATION.
DATA SOURCE:
I.) RECORDS OF THE DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.
2.) RECORDS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
CARSON CITY, NEVADA.
3.) RECORDS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA ( Dr. JAMES DEACON ).
4.) RECORDS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.
figure 15
-------
ALGAL COUNT vs. TOIAL HHObPHUKUUb
IN LAS VEGAS BAY OF LAKE MEAD
100,000
10,000
't.
-
-
J
1,000
100
-f-
U—S-
001
0.01 0.1 C
TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS as P- mg / I
LEGEND:
O INNER BAY
A MIDDLE BAY
D OUTER BAY
f COMPOSITE OF ENTIRE L.V. BAY
DATAl|SF°INALEREPORT ON LA? VEGAS BAY OF LAKE MEAD TO LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT"
BY UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, Dr. JAMES DEACON AND Dr. RICHARD TEW AUTHORS;
NOTE: CURVES BASED ON 204 LAKE SAMPLES TAKEN 5-1-72 THRU 10-16-72.
figure 16
-------
considered mildly eutrophic or nutrient -
rich. This is in contrast to the oligotro-
phic (characteristic of a deep lake having
low nutrient concentration) conditions
which occurred during most of the year
(Las Vegas Valley Water District, 1972).
In order to better understand the inter-
relationship between Las Vegas Wash
discharges and water quality and algal
populations in Las Vegas Bay, a county-
funded monitoring study will be conducted
on a continuing basis by Dr. Deacon
and his staff. This program will involve
the establishment of eight sampling sta-
tions including one at North Shore Road,
one in the channel at the head of Las
Vegas Bay, the mouth of Las Vegas Bay
(3 stations), one above Hoover Dam, one
below Boulder Canyon and one at the
Boulder Basin. At these stations the
following parameters will be analyzed:
number and kinds of phytoplankton per
mililiter, chlorophyll content in mili-
grams per cubic meter, dissolved and
total phosphorus, nitrate, nitrogen, and
turbidity in Jackson turbidity units. Ad-
ditional measurements will include tem-
perature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen,
pH, COD, coliform count, total free chlo-
rine, BOD, and methylene blue active
substance (a means of determining pre-
sence of detergents) (UNLV/Clark County
Contract, 1974).
In the Las Vegas Valley excess lawn irri-
gation water percolating to the shallow
water table is probably the greatest
source of salinity in the entire ground-
water basin. The water passing the root
zone of the grass and ornamental plants
contains saline concentrations signifi-
cantly higher than the applied irrigation
water due to the processes of evapotrans-
piration which tends to concentrate salts
in the drainage waters. For example,
in 1973 over 33, 000 acre-feet of irri-
gation water was applied to lawns and
shrubs in the Valley. Of that amount, it
was estimated that almost 22, 000 acre-
feet was percolated to the shallow ground-
water table. From the evapotranspiration
processes, the salt concentration of the
LAS VEGAS APPLIED IRRIGATION WATER AND
RETURN FLOW TO THE NEAR-SURF ACE AQUIFER - 1973
Type of Irrigation
Golf Courses
Crop Irrigation
Residential, Public and
Commercial
TOTAL
Applied Water
(Ac-Ft)
7,468
7, 156
33.372
47, 996
Return Flow
(Ac-Ft)
3,357
3,693
21.624
28,674
66
-------
) •«—• US VE«AI MSN
LAKE HEAD
80ULOER
BEACH
„• iow.au
« BUNDS
WATER LEVEL
INNER IAY
MIDDLE B4Y
OUTER IAT
TOTAL
SURFACE IPEACFEW
(SQUARE FEEH
mo1
29.0 X 10'
49.4X10*
I40.S X 10*
2I4.TXIO*
1200'
91.0 X 10'
€B 2X 10*
171 ((10*
2908X10*
VOLUME OF 1AT
(CUBIC FEET)
1 ISO'
0.9x10*
2.3X10*
IJ2XI01
UOXIO*
1200'
2.JXIO*
5.1X10*
210X10*
2B.IIIO*
NOTES
I. INNER BAY IS DEFINED AS THAT PORTION OF THE BAY
WEST OF SECTION <£> '.
I MIDDLE BAY IS DEFINED AS THAT PORTION OF THE BAY
BETWEEN SECTION .
3 OUTER BAY IS DEFINED AS THAT PORTION OF THE BAt
BETWEEN SECTION <£> AND SECTION
STATION SHCtN it *2 AftE AS DEFINED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, IAS VEGAS STUDY,
"INTEMELATWNSNIP1 SETWEEN CHEWICAL, PHYSICAL <»0 BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF THE
•ATCNS OF LAS VECAS BAT OF LAKE MEAD* BY OR JANES E DEACON *NO DR. RICNARD V.
TEW, MAT 1171.
CHOSS-SECTIONAL ARU
ISOUARE FECT)
SECTION
A
1
e
D
E
F
1
M '
»ATEft LEVEL
1190'
II,MO
111,900
442,580
SI7.IOO
4JI.IT5
I,54«,ITS
J,07T,7!0
2,097,690
1200'
151,919
IU,M9
71 1,710
• II,I2S
7J»,I7!
I,lfO,lt9
2,719,290
2,121,990
LAS VEGAS BAY ARM OF LAKE MEAD
VOLUMES, SURFACE AREAS AND CROSS-SECTIONAL AREAS
figure 17
-------
return flow would be estimated to be
about 40% greater than applied water
salinity. In addition, significant quan-
tities of soluble fertilizers were probably
carried with the downward percolating
return flow. An even greater source of
salinity is the native salt which is pre-
sent in the alkali soils that cover much
of the Valley. Due to the low yearly
rainfall in the Basin, natural leaching
of these salts has not taken place in
recent geologic time. With the develop-
ment of subdivisions, and the subsequent
"over-irrigation" practices of the typical
homeowner, these saline soils are now
increasingly flushed out by the ensuing
return irrigation flows. The total im-
pact of agricultural and lawn watering
practices in the Valley cannot be quanti-
fied, but the cumulative effect of evapo-
transpiration, fertilizers and saline soils
must be significant. In addition to the
residential lawn watering practices in
the Valley, the irrigation of golf courses,
agricultural crops, park and school
lawns, and miscellaneous commercial
lawns contributes to the degradation
of the near-surface aquifer system. The
above table describes the volumes of
water that were estimated to be applied
as for irrigation in 1973, and the es-
timated excess irrigation water that
probably percolated past the root zone
in that year.
River and the Las Vegas Valley area,
using surface water, during the 1850's.
The history of water development in this
region is largely one of deficient surface
water supplies, being supplemented by
the ground water resources.
Some of the major documents concerning
the Colorado River are briefly summar-
ized below.
The Colorado River Compact, in 1922,
was set up to provide for the diversion of
waters from the Colorado River System.
It also established a preference for agri-
cultural and domestic uses over uses
for power generation. The water supply
of the Colorado River system is less than
that expected by the Commissioners who
negotiated the Compact.
The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928
authorized the construction of Hoover Dam
and Powerplant and the All-American
Canal. The Act also authorized the
States of Arizona, California and Nevada
to enter into an agreement whereby the
7. 5 million acre-feet of water that was
apportioned annually to the Lower Basin
States of the Colorado River Compact
would be as follows: to California, 4.4
million acre-feet; to Arizona, 2.8 million
acre-feet; and to Nevada, 0.3 million
acre-feet.
WATER RIGHTS
Surface Water Rights
White settlers began irrigation lands on
the upstream tributaries of the Colorado
The Upper Colorado Basin Compact of
1948 apportioned the Upper Basin share
of the Colorado River waters among the
States within that Basin.
68
-------
1
ft
Actual Anc Pro joct --d Colorado river ivat/jr Deliveries
Through Southern Nevada Viator System, 1972-1990
YEA'\
1972 I/
1973
1374
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
19H1
'1932
19S3
1984
19G5
193C
LVVl.'D I.'/
46,426
4 fl , / Projection made by hell is Air Force Base
6/ Projection wade by Boulder Cit.y
If °rojection made by Division of Colorado River Resources
8/ Includes Losses
-------
The Mexican Treaty of 1944 allocated
to Mexico 1. 5 million acre-feet of Colo-
rado River system water annually, to be
increased in years of surplus to 1.7
million acre-feet, and also provided for
a proportionate reduction during extra-
ordinary drought.
The Colorado River Basin Project Act
of 1968 authorized the Central Arizona
Project, the Dixie Project in Utah, and
five projects in the Upper Basin. The
Central Arizona Project will provide the
conveyance and storage facilities to im-
port Arizona's remaining share of Colo-
rado River water into the Gila River
Basin. The Act also directs the Secre-
tary of the Interior to prepare long-
range water resource studies directed
toward the augmentation of the Colorado
River, to prepare criteria for the coor-
dinated long-range operation of the
Colorado River reservoirs, and to under
take programs for water salvage and
ground water recovery along and adjacent
to the main stream of the Colorado River.
The State of Arizona filed suit in the
Supreme Court of the United States in
October 1952 against the State of Cali-
fornia and others for the determination
of the rights to use the waters of the
Lower Colorado River system. The
Supreme Court gave its decision on
June 3, 1963, and issued a decree on
March 9, 1964, providing for the appor-
tionment of the use of the waters of the
main stream of the Colorado River below
Lee Ferry among the States of Arizona,
California, and Nevada. The States 6f
Arizona and New Mexico were granted
the exclusive use of the waters of the Gila
River system in the United States. The
decree did not affect the rights or priori-
ties to the use of water in any of the other
Lcjwer Basin tributaries of the Colorado
River.
The decree permitted the States of the
Lower Basin to proceed with developments
to use their apportionments of Colorado
River water. Major developments include
the Southern Nevada Water Project in
Nevada, the Dixie Project in Utah, and
the Central Arizona Project in Arizona.
Development of the Indian lands is expected
to use all of the water allocated to them
by the decree. These lands include the
Colorado River Indian Reservation, Ari-
zona-California; the Fort Mohave Indian
Reservation, Arizona-California-Nevada;
and the Chemehuevi Indian Reservation,
California.
Existing contracts for Nevada's allocation
of Colorado River water include both Las
Vegas Valley use and use below Hoover
Dam. Use of water in Nevada in the
Moapa Valley and along the Virgin River
is not charged against Nevada's allocation
of Colorado River water. Table 7 sum-
marizes water delivery contracts for the
Southern Nevada Water Project. Table 8
is a tabulation of the existing contract
quantities for Colorado River water diver-
sions to Nevada.
Existing contracts do not exceed the
300, 000 acre-foot allocation, but with
the addition of potential future contracts,
there is approximately 100,000 acre-feet
70
-------
Actual and Projected Colorado River Water
Diversions to Nevada 1970-1990
(Acre-feet per year)
1
Year
1970
71
72
73
74
1975
76
77
78
79
1980
81
82
83
84
1985
86
87
88
89
1990
Colorado River Diversions
Historical V Projected j/
38,308
50,586
81,051
94,637
136,500
150,000
167,000
184,500
202,500
219,000
232,000
241,500
253,000
269,000
285,500
299,500
319,000 3/
336,000 3/
353,000 3/
371,800 3/
388,000 3/
Notes :
•« •
§
A
00
V
Compilation of Records in Accordance with Article V(A) ,
(B) , (C) , and (D) of the Decree of the Supreme Court
of the United States in Arizona v. California Dated
March 9, 1964, Bureau of Reclamation, Region 3
Projections made by Division of Colorado River Resources
Assumes return flows to Colorado River credited to
Nevada's allocation
71
-------
annually of excess demand from about
1990 on. Two possibilities exist for meet-
ing this demand for Colorado River water
that exceeds the present allocation. One
would be to obtain credit for return flows to
Lake Mead resulting from the diversions,
and the other would be to divert Las Vegas
Wash flows to the Alfred Merritt Smith
Treatment Plant for recycling.
Ground Water Rights
Nevada has a specific ground water statute.
Legislation in 1913 provided a law for the
conservation of underground waters, and
declared all sources of water supply within
the boundaries of the State, whether above
or beneath the surface of the ground, to
belong to the public. To appropriate
water, which is the property of the State,
an application must be made to the State
Engineer. If there is no interference with
existing water rights on the source, a
permit may be issued to develop the waters
to a beneficial use. A certificate will
be granted within a limited time for the
actual quantity of water placed to a bene-
ficial use which is then the limit and
extent of the water right. The Ground
Water Act of 1939 provided the first
specific legislation for the regulation
of underground waters.
Much of the present economic development
of the area has been made possible through
the use of ground-water reserves. Even
though these ground-water reserves are
still large, many problems attendant to
extraction and use may preclude the fur-
ther economical development within this
region of much of this resource. Con-
tinuing dependency on ground-water over-
draft to sustain or expand the region's
economy must be analyzed carefully.
The area of greatest demand in this
planning region is the Las Vegas Valley,
which has relied substantially on the
ground-water resource. Since the days
of flowing artesian wells in the 1940's,
depths-to-water for important wells have
increased markedly. In some areas
ground-water levels have declined as much
as 20 feet annually. In some cases, this
overdraft has been accompanied by ground
subsidence and decreased water quality.
The mineral quality of ground water
ranges from excellent to unsuitable for
any purpose. Ground water in the allu-
vial deposits of the Basin-and Range low-
lands, for example, contains from less
than 100 to more than 100, 000 milligrams
per liter of dissolved solids. In most of
these deposits, however, dissolved solids
concentrations are less than 1,000 milli-
grams per liter. Concentrations vary
not only with location, but also with depth.
As a result, the concentrations of dis-
solved solids for a given well will change
abruptly and so will the ionic makeup.
With the introduction of Southern Nevada
Water Project deliveries, ground-water
overdraft is being curtailed by the State
Engineer, and ground water pumpage
hopefully reduced to a goal of 50, 000
acre-feet per year.
AIR QUALITY
The air quality of the area is unknown
except in the areas of urban development,
and in a few rural areas. All urban areas
have high levels of particulate matter
72
-------
1973 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY
FOR CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
(Tons Per Year)
Source Total
(tons per year)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Emission Source
Mobile
Industrial Processes
Power Generation
Domestic, Industrial,
Commercial Space
Heating
Solid Waste
Disposal
Other Fugutive
Dust
P articulates
1,951
(2.63)
41,986
(56.7)
16,127
(21.8)
458
(.61)
19
(.02)
13,478
(18.2)
S02
2,661
(6.72)
519
(1.31)
35,257
(89.14)
1,107
(2.8)
8
(.02)
-0-
CO
162,442
(97..0)
3,001
(1.79)
1,810
(1.08)
169
(0.10)
32
(.02)
-0-
HC
42, 527
(81.43)
8,480
(16.24)
861
(1.65)
345
(.66)
14
(.02)
-0-
NOX
35,057
(51.92)
1,489
(2.2)
28,929
(42.84)
2,047
(3.03)
9
(.01)
-0-
244, 638
55, 47-5
82, 984
4,126
82
3,478
A
(0
TOTAL EMISSIONS
74,019 39,552 167,454 52,227 67,531 400,783
Note: Number in parenthesis is percent of total emissions
Source: Air Pollution Control Division of the District Board of Health
of Clark County
-------
caused by disturbed desert topsoil and
other emission sources. In the desert, a
fine crust is formed on the top layer of
soil after each rain. Breaking this crust
allows the fine, dry soil to be entrained
into the atmosphere. In all areas of the
region, construction and dirt road driving
combined with high winds creates a dust
problem.
Nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
hydrocarbon concentrations are steadily
increasing in the Las Vegas area causing
growing concern. Air quality in the Las
Vegas metropolitan area is considered
unacceptable relative to the standards
adopted by EPA. The topographic features
of the Las Vegas bowl aggravate atmos-
pheric pollution problems. Atmospheric
inversion conditions prevail November
through January; periods of stagnation
often last for several days. In December
of 1974, EPA held hearings in Las Vegas
on designating Clark County as an Air Qua-
lity Maintenance Area (AQMA) for particu-
late matter and photochemical oxidants,
as required by the June 18, 1973 Amend-
ments to 42 CFR Part 51. In essence,
these AQMA's are areas of the country
where it is believed standards violations
will occur for designated pollutants within
the 10 year period 1975-1985.
The most complete measurement of air
pollutants in the Las Vegas Valley are
taken at the Clark County District Health
Department measuring station. The most
recent emission inventory available for use
was done in 1973, identifying motor vehicles
as the major contributors to air pollution
in the County. From this source alone,
about 97% of the carbon monoxide (CO)
(162,442 tons) 81% of the hydrocarbons
(HC) (42,527 tons), and 52% of the nitrogen
oxide (NOx) (35,057 tons) were accounted
for. In addition, 2, 661 tons of sulfur di-
oxide and 1, 951 tons of particulates were
contributed.
Industrial process and power generation
are also responsible for air quality degra-
dation in the County. The power plants
presently discharge about 89% of the sulfur
dioxide and 22% of the total particulates.
This translates into total tonnages of
pollutants from power plants as 82, 984
tons/ year and from industrial sources as
55,475 tons/year.
This data identifies the importance of
controlling motor vehicle emissions to
provide for the attainment and mainte-
nance of clean air standards. In addition,
the evaluation of the potential air quality
impact associated with the proposed pro-
ject must consider not only the various
project elements, but the motor vehicle
activity associated with those elements.
This consideration is further emphasized
by the "complex source" amendments to
Nevada Air Quality Regulations.
Nevada has been among the earliest State
governments to adopt "complex source"
amendments to their Air Quality Regula-
tions. These Air Quality Regulations,
as shown in Appendix D, define a complex
source as a facility which involves secon-
dary activities that may emit any air con-
taminant for which there is an ambient
air quality standard. Thus, shopping
centers, parking lots, residential or
institutional developments, and water,
74
-------
High and Low Extremes
For Each Month
CD
CO
g1
r O
< m > o
m ^ aj jr
££*§
O S
ag
s m
§ 3
§30
5
O
CO
I High Hourly Average
T
I
Daily Average
State of Nevada Ambient
Air Quality Standard*
I I
*Annual Arithmetic Mean
MONTH
-------
High and Low Extremes
For Each Month
CO
^>
CC
HI
H
ai
O
m
D
O
CC
111
0.
{/>
CC
o
o
CC
o
Z
o
500 -r
400 • •
300 . .
200 -.
I
High Hourly Average
Daily Average
T
T
State of Nevada
Ambient Air
Quality Standard*
100 -.
cc
h-
LJJ
O
Z
o
o
h-
<
I •
o
1973 PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT
CONCENTRATIONS - CLARK COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT STATION
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
T
I
T
T
xL_L_l._L
I T I I 1
±
a
Monthly
Average
M
M
J A S O N D
MONTH
'Maximum one-hour concentration.
-------
'
A A A A A A A A A i A A
///.
aooonowrn TO am MOTHEM IMM
KWM POWER COMPANY 7-
•£*-vX-
-------
sewer, power, and gas lines are exam-
ples of facilities which will involve in-
creased air pollutant emissions from
motor vehicles. In the assessment of the
impact of these emissions on the ambient
air quality, the need for background air
quality data becomes important. Thus,
the final air quality is determined by the
impact of the emissions from a complex
source and the existing or background
concentrations of the various pollutants.
The Air Pollution Control Division of the
District Health Department of Clark
County has developed some background
data for oxidants photochemically pro-
duced from the reaction of nitrogen oxides
and hydrocarbons. These are shown in
Figures 18 and 19 for each month of
the year 1973 as monitored in the vicinity
of downtown Las Vegas. The values of
each pollutant are plotted against a ref-
erence value representing the State of
Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards;
160 ug/m3 for the oxidants, 100 ug/m3
for nitrogen oxides and 150 ug/m3 for
particulates. Both the the photochemical
oxidants and particulates ambient air
concentrations lie above the standard
values. Parallel data for CO and HC are
unavailable at the present time. It is
believed that the CO standards are being
exceeded in Las Vegas at the present
time.
The Environmental Protection Agency, in
an affort to develop approyable methods of
achieving CO and oxidant air quality stan-
dards, awarded a contract to TRW, Inc. in
mid-February 1974. These methods would
become, once approved by EPA, part of
the State Implementation Plan, which was
required of all states to submit to EPA by
the 1970 Clean Air Act. The study would
involve an examination and upgrading of the
previous 1973 emission inventory for both
mobile and stationary sources followed by
the conversion of these values to air qual-
ity concentrations for CO and oxidants.
In order to assist in the implementation
of the complex source regulations, the
State of Nevada has contracted Aeroviron-
ment, Inc. to monitor ambient air -quality
and develop data on wind patterns, vertical
temperature structure, and inversion inci-
dence in Nevada. This data will permit
the development of diffusion models to
facilitate the conversion of motor vehicle
emissions to ambient air concentration
for the major pollutants. This study will
also address itself to the meteorological
and topographical conditions peculiar to
the State of Nevada. Also this study
would serve as a general assessment of
motor vehicle impact for specific projects
which might be used on subsequent impact
statements.
As a means of comparison to the 1973 data
is the following 1971 data which originally
appeared in the 1972 Environmental Impact
Assessment of the Las Vegas Valley Water
District.
The annual arithmetic mean of nitrogen
dioxide measured at the Health Depart-
ment in 1971 was 36 micrograms per
cubic meter (ug/m3). This compares
with the maximum annual arithmetic
mean allowed under the National Primary
Ambient Standard for nitrogen oxides
of 100 ug/m3.
78
-------
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
1. The following concentrations of air contaminants
shall not be exceeded at any single point in the
ambient air:
a. Sulfur oxides as sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic moan 60 ug/M^ (0.02 ppm)
Maximum 24 hr. concentration 260 ug/M3 (0.1 ppm)
Maximum 3 hr. concentration 1300 ug/M3 (0.5 ppm)
b. Suspended particulatc matter:
Annual geometric mean 60 ug/M3
Maximum 24 hr. concentration 150 ug/M3
c. Carbon monoxide:
Maximum 3 hr. concentration 10 mg/M3 (9.0 ppm)
Maximum 1 hr. concentration 40 mg/M3 (35.0 ppm)
d. Photochemical oxidant:"
Maximum 1 hr. concentration 160 ug/M3 (0.08 ppm)
c. Non-methane hydrocarbons:
Maximum 1 hr. concentration 160 ug/M3 (0.24 ppm)
f. Nitrogen dioxide:
Annual arithmetic moan 100 ug/M3 (0.05 ppm)
2. ug/M3 means micrograms of air contaminant per cubic
meter of air.
mg/M3 means milligrams of air contaminant per cubic.
meter of air.
ppm means parts of air contaminant by volume per
million parts of air by volume.
3. The methods of measurement shall be those precribed
in Appendices A through F, inclusive, of § 410 of
Chapter IV, Title 42, Code of Federal Regulation,
published in the Federal Register on April 30 1971
These may change from time to time. '
4. Adoption of these Ambient Air Quality Standards
shall not be considered in any manner to allow
significant deterioration of existing air quality
in any portion of Clark County.
table 10
-------
The annual 1971 arithmetic mean of sus-
pended particulates measured at the Health
Deparment was 70 ug/m3, compared
with the National Primary Ambient Stan-
dard of 75 ug/m3. This mean value of
suspended particulates at the Health
Department tends to increase near more
congested metropolitan areas and tends
to decrease away from the central city
area.
The State Air Quality Implementation
Plan records a 1970 estimate for Clark
County of man-made particulate emis-
sions to be 88, 996 tons. By 1973 these
emissions of particulate matter decreased
through enforcement of stringent emission
control regulations to 74, 019 tons per
year.
The recorded level of particulate matter
in 1970 was more than double the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard with the
maximum 24-hour concentration of 371
ug/m3 and an annual geometric mean of
137 ug/m3. The 1971 24-hour concentra-
tion of particulates as presented in the
Environmental Assessment for the Las
Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement
Project showed that the maximum 24-hour
concentration had increased to approxi-
mately 480 ug/m .
Air Quality Contributions from the
Proposed Allen Power Station
In the draft EIS, projected tonnages for
pollutants emitted as the result of coal
combustion were based upon what infor-
mation was available to EPA in the
Applicant's environmental reports. Since
the public hearing, the Nevada Power
Company has rejected a lot of the num-
bers that appeared in this same section
previously. The impacts related to the
proposed Allen Power Station were based
upon assumptions, estimates orwhatever,
of presently accepted theory.of chemical
transformations in the atmosphere. The
basis forthe statements can be documented
but, as theory, cannot be supported fully.
Consistent with our Chapter 7 statements
to reserve judgment regarding the pro-
posed power station until further envir-
onmental studies are available, those
analyses previously presented as gospel
are deleted.
The measurement of particulates at the
Health Department reached a maximum
of 240 ug/m3 for one 24-hour period in
1971, compared with the National Pri-
mary Ambient Standard of 260 ug/rrr .
Photochemical oxidants at that time were
the most severe form, of air pollution
in the Las Vegas area. The National
Primary Ambient Standard states that
photochemical oxidants should not exceed
160 ug/m3 for a one hour period more
than once during any one year. At the
Health Department station, the concen-
tration of photochemical oxidants ex-
ceeded the Standard far 1, 304 hours dur-
ing 1971, and on one occasion reached
a one-hour maximum of 478 ug/m3. The
above average amount of sunshine in the
Las Vegas area is an important factor
in the formation of these high levels of
photochemical oxidants (in addition to high
pollutant emission rates).
Carbon monoxide was only measured
80
-------
during a five-week period in November
and December of 1971. During this
period, the amount of carbon monoxide
measured at the Health Department ex-
ceeded the National Primary Ambient
Standard of 10 mg/m3 during an eight -
hour period more than twofold.
At that time there was no equipment in the
Las Vegas area that measured hydrocarbon
concentrations, even though hydrocarbon
levels were believed to be high. Sulphur
dioxide in the area was well below the
National Primary Ambient Standard and
in some cases it was below the level
of detection.
A more complete breakdown of measure-
ments taken at the Clark County District
Health Department for photochemical
oxidants and nitrogen oxides during 1973
is displayed in Appendices E, F and G.
Air Quality Contributions From
The Proposed Allen Power Plant
The proposed Allen Power Plant will
contribute substantial amounts of sulfur
oxides, oxides of nitrogen, and parti -
culate matter into the atmosphere close
to Las Vegas. Foreseeably through at-
mospheric reactions, the formation of
sulfates and nitrates will enhance the
formation of ozone, one of the com-
ponents of photochemical smog.
The State Air Quality Implementation
Plan records a 1970 estimate for Clark
County of man-made particulate emis-
sions to be 88, 996 tons. By 1973 these
emissions of particulate matter de-
creased through enforcement of stringent
emission control regulations to 74, 019
tons per year. The State Plan estimated
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for particulate matter as:
150 ug/m3 -maximum 24-hour average
not to be exceeded more than one time
per year
O
60 ug/m annual geometric means
of 24-hour average.
The recorded level of particulate matter
in 1970 was more than double the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard with the
maximum 24-hour concentration of 371
ug/m3 and an annual geometric mean of
137 ug/m3. The 1971 24-hour concen-
tration of particulates as presented in
the Environmental Assessment for the
Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abate-
ment Project showed that the maximum
24-hour concentration had increased
to approximately 480 ug/m3 . No annual
geometric mean was provided but from
the statement of the annual arithmetic
mean (70 ug/m3) it can be assumed that
the annual geometric mean concentration
was substantially lower than in 1970.
VEGETATION
Regional Vegetation
The Lower Colorado Region has a wide
variation in vegetative cover types and
related categories. The forest types
extend from the small alpine areas on top
of Mount Baldy in the White Mountains,
the tip of Humphrey Peak in the San
Francisco Peaks, and the crest of
Charleston Mountain, Nevada; through
81
-------
the coniferous forest zones of spruce-fir,
ponderosa pine, and the pinon-juniper and
oak woodlands and the chaparral types.
The rangeland type extends from the
forest type through the northern and
southern desert shrubs, the northern
and desert grasslands down through a
small area of true desert near the mouth
of the Colorado River on the boundary
between Mexico and Arizona. Scattered
through the Region are areas of culti-
vated land, including irrigated pasture,
with the largest blocks in the Lower Gila
and the southern half of the Lower Main
Stem Subregions. More than 500, 000
acres of the Region are developed as
urban and industrial areas. More than
300, 000 acres of the Region are occupied
by water in the form of streams, lakes,
impoundments, and reservoirs. The
vegetative cover type is dependent upon
the precipitation, topography, soil, and
climate. In addition, each type is limited
to rather specific ranges in elevation.
Vegetal cover in the area of concern is
Southern Desert Shrub.
The perennial southern desert shrub types
occur in the southern and western portion
of the Region between 3, 000 and 4, 500
feet in elevation. The type is charac-
terized by cacti, woody plants, forbs
and grasses.
The ephemeral southern desert shrub
types occur along the western part of
the Region, usually at elevations below
3, 000 feet and less than 8 inches of
annual rainfall. The type is composed
largely of creosote bush with some
bur sage growing in open stand with
little to no perennial ground cover.
Numerous annual forbs and annual
grasses may occur during favorable
periods of moisture.
Outside of the developed areas of the
regional environment, there is very little
vegetation. The area appears brownish-
grey, treeless, consisting of woody
shrubs rarely over one meter in height
with small annuals dispersed across the
desert floor. Grass is scarce in the
KEY TO RELATIVE VEGETATION DENSITIES
Barren
Isolated
Sparse
Moderate
Dense
No growth.
Plant set alone In large area.
Distance between vegetative units greater
than the canopy size of these units.
Distance between vegetative units same
as the canopy size of those units.
Distance between plants or vegetative
units so small as to be difficult to
walk between.
82
-------
area, appearing quite often only after
rains along with green, succulent an-
nuals which remain for only a few
weeks. The ground is easily discerni-
ble due to little or no natural ground
litter and distance between vegetation.
Three vegetation types and eight biotic
communities occur in the Las Vegas region.
These are as follows:
a. Desert Shrub vegetation type
(1) creosote bush community
b. Shrub and Woodland vegetation type
(1) desert riparian community
(2) saltbush community
(3) mesquite community
(4) salt cedar community
(5) pickleweed community
c. Marsh vegetation type
(1) cattail community
(2) bulrush community
Of these the mesquite, salt cedar, pickle
weed, cattail and bulrush communities
are recognized as occurring only in the
Las Vegas Wash and therefore are des-
cribed in the appropriate section.
Predominant biotic communities of the
Las Vegas region, are the creosote bush,
desert riparian and saltbush communi-
ties. They are characteristic of the
common arid desert conditions. The
creosote bush community is most domi-
nant in the Las Vegas Valley area and
will be described in that section.
The desert riparian community is
common along the desert washes and
is characterized by such floral species
as cheese weed (Hymenclea salsola).
snake weeds (Gutierrizia sp.), bladder
sage (Salazoria mexicana), golden weeds
(Haplopappus sp.), and mesquite (Prospis
juliflora).
The saltbush community is characteristic
of the playas between the creosote bush
and sagebrush deserts. Shrubs are small
to large, spacing is variable with arid to
seasonal surface moisture. Characteris-
tic plant species include shadscale (Atri -
plex confertifolia), hop sage (Grayia
spinosa), red molly (Kochia americana),
mesquite and other species of Atriplex.
Las Vegas Bay/Lake Mead has two types
of vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic.
Terrestrial
Lake Mead lies within the Lower Sonoran
Life Zone. The dominant forms of vege-
tation are creosote and mesquite. Other
species present include saltbush, arrow
weed, greasewood, prickly pear cactus,
and barrel cactus. The hardy, alkali-
tolerant salt cedar, an introduced shrub,
has extensively colonized the wetland
immediately surrounding the Lake.
Aquatic
The relative abundance of the green and
blue-green algae, diatoms, dinoflagellates
83
-------
City of Las Vegas
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Sanitation Out
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
'-•••: —Creosote bush-Saltbuth
DISTRIBUTION OF PL ANT
COMMUNITIES ALONG LAS VEGAS WASH
AS DETERMINED BY
BRADLEY AND NILES (1973)
-------
and other phytoplankton of Las Vegas Bay
appears to fluctuate widely and with sur-
prising regularity. This phenomenon is
not yet completely understood. However,
it is believed that the variations are due
to changes in the distribution of nutrients
contributed by the Las Vegas Wash out-
flow, within Las Vegas Bay. The regu-
larity of fluctuation may be due in part
to human factors, and in part, to natural
succession. In any case, a controlling
factor in the phytoplankton population
size at any one time, appears to be the
presence or lack of stratification within
the Bay waters.
During June large populations of colonial
green algae occurred throughout Las
Vegas Bay, but not near the Wash en-
trance to the Bay. At this time, a par-
ticular motile green algae (Carteria) had
high populations at the Wa-sh entrance.
In July, the colonial green algae declined
and disappeared and were replaced by
Cyclotella diatoms. The location of
these organisms as the bloom began and
progressed indicates that "the origin of
this particular population maximum was
associated with the Wash". (Dr. J. Dea-
con, June and July 1972, Progress
Reports).
Area Vegetation
Vegetation in the valleys is typical of
that found in hot desert areas of the
Southwest. Generally it consists of
sparse growth of stunted desert shrubs
and grasses. There are no forests.
The dominant vegetation type in Las
Vegas Valley is the creosote bush com-
munity. This area has arid, low,
widely-spaced shrubs.
Las Vegas Wash consists of two areas -
a wide, dense marsh type environment
and a dense vegetation area. Data shows
that vegetative species diversity is great-
est in the desert plant communities rather
than in the marsh and stream riparian
habitats. This is basically due to the lack
of annual (herb) species within the marsh
vegetation type. Distribution of the plant
communities along the Las Vegas Wash
is shown on Figure 20. Generally speak-
ing, the classification of these biotic
communities is based on moisture gra-
dients as shown in Table II. As stated
previously, the mesquite, salt cedar,
pickleweed, cattail and bulrush com-
munities are recognized as occurring
only in the Las Vegas Wash. The mes-
quite community is of the woodland vege-
tation type with roots reaching the water
table. The pickleweed community is
seasonal. It is found where there is
surface moisture with a salt crust. Both
the cattail and bulrush communities are
aquatic and have their roots in standing
water. The Wash is primarily made up
of areas of very dense cattails, reeds
and phragmites, often over six feet tall.
Along most portions of the Wash, a dense
growth of salt cedar borders the cattail
marsh. Beyond the salt cedar, habitat
ranges from salt-grass communities to
desert riparian. Located adjacent to
the Wash on the south side are the BMI
waste disposal ponds. These ponds sup-
port a moderate growth of salt cedar
on their borders and when filled with
85
-------
VEGETATION TYPES AND BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
OF THE LAS VEGAS WASH
Vegetation types & biotic
Community
Desert shrub vegetation type
Creosote bush community
Shrub & woodland vegetation type
Saltbush community
Mesquite community
Salt cedar community
Pickleweed community
Marsh vegetation type
Cattail community
Bulrush community
Soil Salinity Soil Moisture
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4 - 2%
1.8 -
0.8%
0.5%
1.6%
2 - 5%
4.1%
8.5%
15 - 30%
standing water
standing water
Source: Bradley & Niles (1973)
-------
water,' provide an excellent habitat
for waterfowl. Vegetation in the Las
Vegas Wash as recorded by Bradley and
Niles (1972) appear in Appendix B.
The present extent of the marsh environ-
ment found in Las Vegas today is not
natural. Artesian springs fed Las Vegas
Wash until man began pumping water in
Las Vegas Valley. The artesian springs
stopped flowing and Las Vegas Wash be-
came an ephemeral stream; the upper
region exhibiting the same type of vegeta-
tion as now exists, but not as dense.
The lower region of the Wash was like
any other dry wash in the Las Vegas
area. Today, except during periods of
precipitation, the main flow of water
in the Wash is from sewage effluent and
ground water seepage, resulting in a •
densely vegetated, vividly green marsh
in the middle of a very dry, sparsely
vegetated desert.
Site Vegetation
A list of basic biota of the selected site
environments, excluding the valley sites
is given in Appendix B.
Ground Water Recharge Well Field and
Pilot Desalination Plant
This site is moderately vegetated, dis-
playing the creosote bush and the desert
riparian biotic communities. The creo-
sote bush community occurs in isolated
patches on the flat mesas. The desert
riparian community type is dominant.
Because of the rocky soil and washes,
this site appears as a somewhat barren
and desolate area. Vegetation observed
in the area includes creosote bush, mor-.
mon tea, ratney, niggerheads, challa
caeltis, prickly pear cactus and mojave
yucca of the Creosote Bush Community.
Also observed was the desert wash willow,
snake weed, and indigo bush of the Desert
Riparian Community. At the pilot desali-
nation plant, the area is sparsely vege-
tated with remnants of desert riparian
flora, particularly adjacent to the ephe-
meral Wash.
Waste Water Collection System, Treat-
ment Plant, Deep Disposal Well Field
Areas, and Sludge Disposal Site
The route of the collection system for
Alternatives 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 is densely
vegetated with salt cedar along most of
its distance. For Alternatives 2, 3 and
5 the route is scarred, having a sparse
growth of creosote and salt cedar cros-
sing through scattered marsh type vege-
tation. Vegetative species common at
the waste-water collection system for
Alternative 10, include salt .cedar, bas-
sica, bermuda grass, and other grass
species.
The site for the waste-water regulation
reservoir and treatment facilities for
Alternatives 1, 4, 6,^7 and 8, located
southeast of the Clark County Sanitation
District plant has sparse vegetation of
creosote with dense areas of salt cedar
and a small area of marsh vegetation.
For Alternatives 2, 3 and 5, the site is
sparsely vegetated. Portions of the
87
-------
eastern boundary of the advanced waste -
water treatment plant site for Alterna-
tive 10, are vegetated with dense areas
of salt cedar and some marsh vegetation
within the Las Vegas Wash itself. A
preponderance of the site is irrigated
pasturage of bermuda grass.
The area of the sludge disposal site is
sparsely vegetated, displaying the creo-
sote bush community. The vegetated
areas are primarily restricted to wash
areas while the more exposed areas are
generally barren. Because of the rocky
soil and washes, this site appears as a
somewhat barren and desolate area.
Las Vegas Lands to be Irrigated
Much of the land to be irrigated or used
for pipeline routing, has been disturbed
considerably by man's activities. As a
result, the areas support few floral spe
cies characteristic of the more natural
areas. Vegetation found at this site
includes creosote bush, cat's claw, big
galleta grass and shadscale.
Dry Lake Valley
The dominant biotic community of Dry
Lake Valley is the creosote bush com-
munity. Yucca and cacti are found on
the higher alluvial slopes. The lake
bottom is barren except for fingers of
creosote, burro bush or mixed stands
reaching towartf its qenter. Plant spe-
cies observed at this site during field
reconnaissance are creosote bush, burro
bush, mormon tea, mojave yucca, cholla
cactus, ratney, prickly pear cactus and
barrel cactus of the Creosote Bush
Community. Also found were snake
weed, cat's claw, desert holly, and salt
cedar of the Desert Riparian Community.
Eldorado Valley
Vegetation varies greatly in Eldorado
Valley, ranging from barren to dense.
There is a wide strip running east to
west in the middle of the Valley with
little or no vegetation on it. To the
west of Highway 95, this barren patch
is a dry lake bed, to the east of the
highway it is a very loose, rocky
drainage area, southward is a green
patch of dense growth consisting of salt
cedar and creosote bush caused by the
drainage of effluent from the Boulder
City sewage treatment plant. Looking
north and south, vegetation ranges from
sparse to dense. The southern end of the
Valley next to the dry lake, is sparsely
vegetated with creosote bush and small
annuals. The northern end of the Valley
adjacent to the dry lake, is densely
vegetated with creosote bush, burro bush,
big galleta grass and various annuals.
Higher up, towards the mountains, in all
directions, there is moderate vegetation,
creosote bush being the dominant species.
Plant species found at this site include,
creosote bush, burro bush, russian thistle,
pig weed, beaver tail cactus, and cholla
cactus of the Creosote Bush Community.
Species of the Desert Riparian Community
include desert marigold, big galleta grass,
and salt cedar. Species of the Salt Bush
Community include shadscale and mesquite.
88
-------
Jean Lake
Vegetation at Jean Lake varies from mod-
erate to barren. The northern end and
peripheries of the study area have moder-
ate vegetation, creosote bush being the
dominant species with burro bush, ratney
and various annuals. Much of the study
area, from the dry lake southward, except
for the peripheries, is overgrazed. This
area is sandy, the only vegetation being
big galleta grass, grazed to the ground,
leaving vegetation clumps holding the earth
in place, or upright naked woody plants and
creosote bush. Flora observed at this site
is creosote bush, burro bush, ratney, mo-
jave yucca, cholla cactus, barrel cactus,
and beavertail cactus of the Creosote Bush
Community. Representative of the Desert
Riparian Community, is big galleta grass,
desert marigold, wild tobacco, and desert
mallow.
Hidden Valley
The major portion of Hidden Valley is
almost barren. Only the outermost
peripheries of the alluvial slopes on the
east and west sides exhibit vegetation,
with greater portions of the northern
and southern ends having moderate vege-
tation. The north, east and southern
alluvial slopes are dominated by creosote
bush with ratney, burro bush and various
annuals. Areas of the northern portion of
the Valley are gravel, almost barren
drainage areas. Here there are isolated
creosote bushes, with many small annuals
growing in washes. The barren, appar-
ently overgrazed area is sandy, with big
galleta grass clumps holding the soil in
place, giving the area the appearance of
a stormy sea. Plant species observed
at this site are, creosote bush, burro
bush, russian thistle, mojave yucca,
cholla cactus, ratney, and mormon tea
of the Creosote Bush Community. Of the
Desert Riparian Community, vegetative
types were big galleta grass, greenbottle
bush, desert marigold, snake weed,
four-wing salt bush, and chinca weed.
WILDLIFE AND FISH
Regional Wildlife
Wildlife species in the Lower Colorado
Region are as many and varied as the
climate, terrain and vegetative types.
More than 750 species and subspecies of
birds and animals occur in the Region.
Over 40 of these species of wildlife pro-
vide hunting ranging from highly-prized
big-game hunting to sport hunting of non-
game species. Many other species, mos-
tly small mammals and birds, provide en-
joyment for the non-hunting outdoorsman
for nature study and photography. For
the purpose of this study, the wild game
species have been classified as big game,
small game, and waterfowl.
Big-game species in the Region are dist-
ributed throughout approximately 72
million acres of widely diverse habitat
types. Deer are the most abundant and
widespread of the big-game species, and
include the desert mule deer and the
89
-------
white-tailed deer. Approximately 69. 5
million acres within the Region are occu-
pied by the two species of deer. The
pronghorn antelope occupy nearly 10 mil-
lion acres of the rolling grassland, occur-
ring in Arizona, and in similar areas of
Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. Desert
bighorn sheep occur in several of the low
desert mountain ranges in southern Ne-
vada. Bighorns travel in small bands
through this arid country and, although its
numbers are low, it is one of the most
prized big-game trophies of the Region.
The javelina, or collared peccary, is
found at a low elevation. Javelina range
from the lower pinyon-juniper into the
southern desert shrub and chapparral
areas. Although population densities are
usually relatively low, the javelina range
is about 36 million acres.
Small-game species vary widely in the
extent of their range, some extending
nearly throughout the Region while others
are quite localized in distribution. Ex-
amples of species with a regionwide dis-
tribution are the mourning dove, cotton-
tail rabbit, the white-winged dove, and
the bandtailed pigeon. Limited in dis-
tribution are the blue grouse and sage
grouse. The Gambel's quail occurs pri-
marily in the desert and lower mountain
elevations of the Region. Several species
of fur animals including beaver, musk-
rat, grey fox, and kit fox occur in the
Region. While some species, such as the
kit fox are relatively limited, primarily
to the desert areas of the Lower Main
Stem and Gila Subregions, other species,
including the beaver, are widely distri-
buted throughout the Region. The fur ani-
mals normally do not reach prime fur
condition which is attained in the cooler
climates, and the interest in trapping
for furs solely for profit is very low.
Fur animal species, such as foxes, are
also considered varmints, and as such,
are relatively heavily hunted. A small
number of furs are collected by varmint
hunters as a secondary benefit from hun-
ting. Several species of predatory ani-
mals and non-game animals, as well as
the previously mentioned fur animals,
are hunted in this Region. Most of these
species are well distributed throughout
the three subregions and include coyotes,
bobcats, mountain lions, jackrabbits, pra-
irie dogs, various ground squirrels, and
ravens.
Waterfowl are present in greatest concen-
trations in the Region during fall and win-
ter migration periods. A number of water
fowl winter in the desert wetlands of the
Lower Main Stem. Suitable habitat for
waterfowl consists of 42, 000 acres of wet-
lands and marsh associated with perma-
nent streams and man-made lakes.
The distribution of some types of wildlife
in relation to human populations has a
great influence on their use. Certain big-
game species are not greatly affected by
these factors, since hunters will travel
great distances for such an attraction. A
large share of the demands from the Las
Vegas area is satisfied outside the Region
in California and parts of Nevada. De-
mands on one species, therefore, do not
reflect the total demands on all species of
the Region. The rugged terrain of the Re-
gion, while creating a natural refuge for
90
-------
wildlife in many areas, is a limiting factor
in the hunting of game. A lack of access
limits utilization of a sizable portion of
the total wildlife resource. Although lack
of easy access to rough country is more
typical of remote areas, it is not limited
to these areas.
Designated wildlife developments and
facilities managed intensively for wild-
life production, include 49 multiple-and -
primary-use management areas, 568 ha-
bitat improvement facilities and access
roads, comprising a total of over 4 mil-
lion acres. Nine of the wildlife manage-
ment areas totaling over 3 million acres,
are administered by the Federal Govern-
ment; 32, of approximately 72, 000 acres,
are administered by State governments;
and 8, totaling over 930, 000 acres, are
administered jointly by State and Federal
interests.
Nineteen of the wildlife areas in the Region,
are developed primarily for big-game pop-
ulations, seven areas are developed for
small game, seventeen set aside for the
protection of waterfowl, and three for
wildlife in general. In addition, one rec-
reation area and one public shooting range
are administered by fish and wildlife
interests and, are considered management
areas. Areas at higher elevations are
managed for the production of mule deer.
elk, antelope, turkey, and other wildlife
utilizing the area.
The Regional Aquatic Environment
There are about 85 species of fish in the
Lower Colorado River Region. Approx-
imately 25 species provide sport fishing.
The others are of value as forage fishes,
as pollution indicators, for scientific in-
vestigations, and as a source for a possi-
ble commercial fishery. Some fifty-six
species of fish have been introduced into
the Region. The notable introductions of
game fish include all the common warm-
water'sport and commercial fishes and
all trout, except the endangered Gila and
Apache trouts. Other game fishes intro-
duced are the coldwater species of walleye,
grayling, and northern pike. The intro-
duced warmwater species include striped
bass, white bass, channel catfish, flathead
catfish, yellow perch, and tilapia. The
threadfin shad has been introduced into
reservoirs below 4, 500 feet elevation
as forage for game fish. Fishes intro-
duced into the lakes on the Colorado River
include kokanee and silver salmon in Lake
Mohave and Lake Mead. These fishes are
expected to add to the variety of fish spe-
cies available to the fisherman in the
Lower Colorado Region. Native species
have not provided any important sport or
commercial fishing in the Region for many
decades. In the cold waters impounded on
the Colorado River and the cool reaches of
the river below the dams, stocked rainbow
trout provide year-round fishing. On Lake
Mead, they provide a supplemental fishery.
For the most part, introduced spinyrayed
warmwater fishes predominate in the waters
of the Lower Colorado Region.
Largemouth bass is one of the major
game fishes in the Region and is found
in most lakes in the drainages of the Co-
lorado. ' Sunfishes are abundant in many
of the warmwater lakes and streams; blue-
gill and green sunfish are widespread
91
-------
throughout the Region. The warmouth
and redear sunfish are found in the lakes
of the Lower Colorado River. Crappie
are most common in the larger reservoirs
throughout the Region. Some crappies are
in smaller lakes up to 7, 000 feet eleva-
tion. Striped bass are found in the Colo-
rado River from near Blythe, California,
north to Lake Mojave and just recently
planted in Lake Mead. Catfishes are
found throughout the Region. Channel cat-
fish are the most prized catfish and are
found in most of the large reservoirs and
the Colorado River. Irrigation canals and
many stock ponds throughout the Region,
notably those on the Indian reservations,
have been stocked with channel catfish.
Black bullhead are found in small muddy
streams, lakes, and canals at lower ele-
vations. Yellow bullhead are found in
some of the small, relatively clear,
rocky streams.
The Region contains a variety of introdu-
ced fishes of potential commercial value.
Populations of food-fishes from wild re-
sources such as carp, buffalo-fishes, and
various suckers are found in the larger
reservoirs. Important species of bait
fishes such as the redshiner, fathead min-
now, speckled dace, red side shiner, and
threadfin shad are found regionwide in
most streams and lakes.
Fishing waters in the Lower Colorado Re-
gion include streams and man-made im-
poundments. There are no natural lakes
of importance to fishing. The fishery is
classified into two major categories: the
coldwater trout fishery of headwaters and
impoundments generally above 5, 500 feet
elevation; and the warmwater "spiny-
rayed" fishery in the streams and im-
poundments of elevations below 6, 000 feet
elevation. The waters of the Colorado
River and other streams in the Region that
are stocked and provide trout fishing only
during the cooler months of the year are
classed as warmwater fisheries. There
are approximately 2, 500 miles of stream
habitat for fishes in the Region comprising
approximately 10,200 surface acres of
which about 2,000 acres and 8,200 acres
are col'd and warmwater, respectively.
Impoundments provide nearly 241, 000 sur-
face acres of fishing habitat of which 7, 000
acres are coldwater and 234, 000 acres are
warmwater.
Over 52% of the total fishing in the Region
occurs in the Lower Main Stem Subregion.
About 30% of the Region's coldwater fish-
ing occurs in the reservoirs and the cool
tailwaters found in the Subregion. About
60% ^of the Region's warmwater fishing is
realized in this Subregion, mainly in the
Colorado River and Lakes Mead, Mojave,
and Havasu. Sixty-seven percent of the
fishing in the Region is in impoundments.
Impoundments are generally easier to fish,
provide more open water, and are more
accessible than most streams. Warm-
water impoundments, being more numerous
and located nearer to population centers,
support 49% of the total fishing as com-
pared to 18% from coldwater impound-
ments. Streams accounted for the re-
maining 33% of the total fishing. Again,
easier access accounts for warmwater
streams providing 23% of the total fish-
ing as compared to only 10% from cold-
92
-------
water streams. Although the overall
supply of sport fishing in the Region
presently appears adequate, many factors
tend to discourage or limit realization of
the available capacity. Poor distribution
of the supply relative to demand, is the
most important factor limiting full use
of the capacity. Sheer magnitude of the
demands generated by the population cen-
ters causes severe localized demand-
supply problems. Demand varies directly
with human population, and good quality
fishing opportunities vary inversely with
the population. A large share of Las
Vegas area demand is satisfied in south-
ern Utah and parts of California and Ne-
vada outside the Lower Colorado Region.
Fishery installations existing in the Region
consist of approximately 97 fishing lakes
and 8 fish hatcheries. The fishing lakes
provide more than 6, 000 acres of water
for fishing. These lakes are constructed
and managed primarily for fishing and use
of the water surface is restricted. Nine-
teen of the lakes, totaling more than
1, 000 acres, are administered by State
fish and game agencies. Four lakes, pro-
viding about 900 acres, are administered
jointly by State-Federal agencies. Five
State hatcheries and three Federal hatche-
ries produce approximately seven million
fish, most of which are trout. Therefore,
over 90% of the trout caught in the Region
are stocked fish. The Region's production
is about 80% of the total fish stocked. The
remaining fish stocked are imported from
outside the Region.
Area Wildlife and Fish
Due to lack of data, excluding Las Vegas
Wash and Las Vegas Bay, fauna, like the
flora, is described according to biotic
communities. There are 10 species of
amphibians, 35 species of reptiles, 64
species of mammals and over 364 species
of birds expected to be found in the re-
gional area. Eleven of these species of
fauna are rare, endangered or of uncer-
tain status. Two hundred fifty-one of the
bird species are found in Las Vegas Wash.
Due to the geography of the area and it
being in the Lower Sonoran Life Zone, the
regional environment displays a wide diver-
sity of species and many subspecies unique
to the area. Biologically this environment
is very rich. A variety of wildlife, includ-
ing coyote, badger, kangaroo rats, cotton-
tails, reptiles and bats, is native to the
area.
Las Vegas Valley is predominantly Creo-
sote Bush Community. Mammals charac-
teristic of this Community are th'e desert
jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), desert
cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), white -
tailed antelope ground squirrel (Citellus
leucurus), several species of bats, and
the Meriam's and desert kangaroo rats
(Dipodomys merriami and D_. deserti).
Common reptiles include the side-blotched
lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whip-
tail (Cnemidophorus tigris), zebratailed
lizard (Caliisaura draconoides), and the
desert iguana (Byisaurus dorsalis) to
name a few. Thirty-three species of birds
occur in this community, among them, the
cactus wren, horned-lark, Gambel's quail,
common raven and Leconte's thrasher.
Las Vegas Wash has a variety of wildlife.
Diversity of vegetative species is greatest
93
-------
in the desert plant communities rather than
in the marsh and stream riparian habitats.
Conversely, the avifauna (birds) are found
to be more diverse and abundant in the
riparian communities as compared to the
adjoining desert communities. This is due
in part, to the availability of open water for
waterfowl and shorebird species which con-
stitute approximately 40% of all bird spe-
cies in the shrub-woodland-marsh vege-
tation type. There are 251 species of birds
found in the Las Vegas Wash, many of
which would not otherwise be found in the
area. Other fauna determined to occur in
the Las Vegas Wash include 6 amphibians,
29 reptiles (1 tortoise, 13 lizards and 15
snakes), 39 mammals (1 shrew, 10 bats,
16 rodents, 2 rabbits, 9 carnivores and 1
ungulate (bighorn sheep). Many of the spe-
cies are observed to occupy the ecotone
between the xeric desert habitat and the
hydric conditions of the marsh. Except for
birds and the few species of mammals and
reptiles, wildlife found in the Wash is
essentially the same as that of the surroun-
ding desert environment. Birds and spe-
cies unique to the Wash, such as beaver,
are listed in Appendix B. The Wash also
supports two introduced species of fish,
mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), and gold-
fish.
The species composition of Las Vegas Bay
and Lake Mead fish population is contin-
ually changing as new stocking programs
and experiments are initiated. The var-
ious game fish comprised the following
percentages of the total 1971 catch: Large-
mouth Bass - 40%, Channel Catfish - 24%,
Black Crappie - 11%, Rainbow Trout -
14%. The Largemouth Bass is still con-
sidered to be the most important game
fish although it has comprised a steadily
diminishing proportion of the total catch.
The Rainbow Trout has recently increased
in importance due to heavy, stocking. The
new stocking programs have been initiated
in an effort to improve the steadily de-
creasing rate of angling success which has
accomplished increased angling pressure
on the lake. (See Table 8 - "Species of
Fish Presently Found in Las Vegas Bay").
A new fish hatchery has recently been lo-
cated on the Nevada side of Lake Mead on
National Park Service land. It is admini-
stered by the Nevada Department of Fish
and Game and is known as the Lake Mead
Fish Hatchery. It has been in operation
for the past year and is raising both spe-
cies and hybrids of trout, (rainbow and
cutthroat) and salmon (coho and chinook).
Plans are to stock Las Vegas Bay/Lake
Mead with 200, 000 pounds of catchable
fish a year.
Site Fish and Wildlife
A list of Basic Biota of the site environ-
ments, excluding the valley sites, is given
in Appendix B.
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Rare species are those whose numbers are
few throughout their range of habitat. So
long as conditions remain stable and favor-
able, such species may continue to survive
in limited numbers. Endangered species
are those so few in numbers or so threa-
-------
*Largemouth black bass
*Channel catfish
*Black crappie
Carp
*Bluegill sunfish
*Rainbow trout
Green sunfish
+Humpback sucker
Western golden shiner
German brown trout
Black bullhead
+Bonytail chub
Mosquito fish
+Colorado River Squaw fish
*Cutthroat trout
*Silver salmon
*Striped bass
Threadfirr shad
Walleye
*Important game fish
+Nevada protected list
(Micropterus salmoides) Abundant
(Ictalurus punctatus) Abundant
(Pomoxis nigromaculatus) Abundant
(Cyprimus carpio) Abundant
(Lepomis macrochirus) Common
(Salmo gairdneri) Common
'Lepomis cyanellus) Common
Xyrauchen texanus) Common
Notemigonus crypolencas) Common
(Salmo trutto) Rare
(Ictalurus melas) Rare
(Gila robusta) Rare
(Gambrusia affinis) Rare
(Ptychocheilus lucius) Rare
(Salmo clarkii) Common
Oncorhynchus kisutheh) Common
Morone saxatilis) Common
.Dorosoma petenense) Abundant
(Stizostedion vitreum) Rare
-------
THREATENED SPECIES LIST
Common Name
Vegas valley
leopard frog
Gila monster
Spotted bat
Prairie falcon
California brown
pelican
Wood ibis
American peregrine
falcon
Ferruginous hawk
Osprey
Mountain plover
Long-billed curlew
Prairie pigeon
hawk
Bald eagle
Scientific Name
Rana fisheri
Heloderma suspectum
Euderma maculata
Falco mexicanus
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Mycteria americana
Falco peregrinus
Buteo lagopus
Pandion haliaetus
Eupoda montana
Numenius americanus
Falco columbianus
richardsonii
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
F.R.
E
E
B.S.F.&W.
T
U
T
T
U
U
T
U
U
U
U
U
1 F.R.
2 B.S.F.&.W.
E
T
U
Federal Register, vol. 38, no. 106. June 4, 1973.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Threatened
Wildlife of the United States, 1973
Endangered
Threatened
Status uncertain
CO
4
-------
tened by present circumstances as to be in
danger of extinction.
Regional Rare and Endangered Species
There is no known rare or endangered
plant species list compiled for the Las
Vegas region. However, future research
in the region may identify some species as
needing this classification.
The U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife has updated the Federal publi-
cation of rare and endangered wildlife.
The 1973 publication is entitled "Threa-
tened Wildlife of the United States" and
no longer categorizes wildlife as rare
or endangered. As a result of changes
in the status of several wildlife species
inhabiting the Las Vegas region, 1-3 spe-
cies are now considered threatened or of
undetermined status. The revised list
in Appendix A reflects these changes.
(See Table A. 1 "Threatened Species List").
In its previous publication, Number 34,
"Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife
of the United States" (Red Book), the
Bureau lists the Merriam elk as the only
species to become extinct in the Lower
Colorado Region. Classified in the "Red
Book" as "rare" forms of mammals found
in the Region are the spotted bat and Kaibab
squirrel. Rare fishes include the Virgin
River spinedace and wound fin. The Vegas
Valley leopard frog is listed as rare in the
amphibian class.
The "Red Book" lists eight "endangered"
species in the Lower Main Stem Subregion.
The one endangered mammal is the Sonoran
pronghorn. Three birds are listed; the
American peregrine falcon, the Yuma clap-
per rail, and the southern bald eagle.
There are four fishes classified as endan-
gered; the Arizona (Apache) trout, the
humpback chub, the Moapa dace, and the
Colorado River squawfish.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Before the first European came to Las
Vegas Wash in the winter of 1829-30,
only the nomadic Southern Paiutes (Root
Diggers or Pah Utah Indians) disturbed
the Wash. These nomadic Indians from
the nearby mountains and the Colorado
River passed through on occasion and there
were apparently no permanent settlements
in the region. The chief attractions were
the cool waters of Las Vegas Spring and
the long stringed beans of the native
Mesquite trees that grew in Las Vegas
Valley at the upper end of the Wash.
The apparent first intrusion by Europeans
into Las Vegas Wash was by a caravan
entering the Wash on January 7, 1830.
Rivera, a scout who rode alone and ahead
of the caravan, very likely entered Las
Vegas Wash about a week before when he
was looking for a possible short cut for
the party.
John Charles Fremont, the noted explorer
and pathfinder, came to Las Vegas Wash
on May 3, 1844. He commented on the
springs of Las Vegas, situated in the mid-
dle of Las Vegas Valley, "With a tempera-
97
-------
on tfie W. b$ the
\n-iui.tt . ,nui tfn (/if £. by thr. Bear R and
Wahsntrh Mf*h,,x bten < ;iilt -J the (JHEAT
»f CAJJFOll\Ll
, same r>virif>n#\vf its surface,
-------
ture of about 72 the springs gushed forth
suddenly with a quick current producing two
clear springs four or five feet deep. "
Fremont, in his report to Congress, also
commented on the vegetation at the upper
end of Las Vegas Wash, "There were mes-
quite trees with their yellow flowers and
a colored assortment of spring wildflowers
in bloom. " He also recorded a number of
other species of shrub in his report.
The U.S. acquired all of its present south-
western lands (excepting southern Ari-
zona) in the war with Mexico through
provisions set forth in the Treaty of
Guadelupe Hidalgo in 1848.
The Old Spanish Trail had its eastern ter-
minus at Santa Fe, New Mexico and its
western terminus was Los Angeles. It
functioned from 1830 to 1848. The Salt
Lake - Los Angeles Trail, which from
southern Utah to Los Angeles essentially
was the same as the retired Spanish Trail
served as an artery to the California Gold-
fields in 1849. Mormons travelled this
trail from Salt Lake City to their colony
in San Bernardino beginning in 1851. Cali-
fornia-bound gold seekers used the same
trail. All partook of the cool waters of
the Vegas and crossed the upper end of
Las Vegas Wash.
In June 1855, the Mormons decided to es-
tablish a mission and fort, the first white
settlement in the very heart of Las Vegas
Valley on the route of the Salt Lake Trail.
99
By that date this spot had become well
known as a good place to rest and recu-
perate on the trek between centers of ci-
vilization.
To the east of the fort were farm and gar-
den plots. Beyond them, was a vast mes-
quite forest extending from the fort
down Las Vegas Wash to the base of Sun-
rise (Frenchman) Mountain. The forest
passed by that mountain and spread out to-
ward the Colorado River. On either side
of this forest of rnesquite was desert --
mostly low forms of plant life and sage-
brush. There were no trees in those areas
except occasionally mesquite. The mes-
quite trees closer to the fort were cut and
used for fencing and for fuel. Mesquite
wood burns readily, even when it is green.
It creates a very hot fire, and as a fuel,
some say it is equal to hickory. It is also
an exceptional building material. The
trees blossom late in spring; the fruit ap-
pears in long slender beans from which
Mexicans and Indians made a cool beve-
rage. The beans ripen in early fall; the
mature fruit, which falls to the ground,
affords sustenance to small birds and
wild animals. The highly nutritious pods
afforded food for the Indians, who crushed
and pressed the beans into delectable
cakes.
The Mormons abandoned their Las Vegas
mission in 1857 after only two years of
effort. They had cultivated nearly 150
acres and gathered some fair crops of
vegetables, grains, and even some cot-
ton and tobacco. Clearing away tracts
of land proved to be an immense job
because of the presence of saleratus --
alkali in the soil. This saleratus, or
sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), ap-
-------
.AS VEGAS WASH - 1866
IFORNIA,
-------
pears on the top of the ground in many
areas of Las Vegas Wash after a rain-
storm. It bubbles up like fizz water,
and leaves a coating on top of the ground
which is known as alkali. After the Mor-
mons left in 1857 (some stayed until
1858), the trail between Salt Lake and
Los Angeles was busier than ever. Mor-
mon missionaries, emigrants, mail
riders, freighters and others all passed
through the upper end of Las Vegas Wash
and stopped at the welcome springs of Las
Vegas. This was an all-year travel route,
as opposed to the one through northern Ne-
vada and northern California, which was
snowbound in winter.
During 1859-1865, several settlers took
up land in Las Vegas Valley for ranching
and farming. They sold their surplus
to travelers on the Salt Lake Trail and to
miners who began working at the nearby
Potosi and Eldorado Canyon mining dis-
tricts. Early in 1865, Octavius Gass
and two partners began to rebuild the old
Mormon farms at the upper end of Las
Vegas Wash but, within a few years,
Gass bought them out, and by owning
all of the local water, he became a vir-
tual king of the valley. Early in 1868,
as owner of the ranch, Octavius Gass
tried to sell his holdings. In an ad-
vertisement in the Rio Virgen Times
in Saint George, he described the soil
in the upper Las Vegas Wash as a black
rich loam that would produce vegetables
or grains in abundance. In 1969-1970,
Stanley H. Paher conducted oral inter-
views with the son of Octavius Gass, who
recalled living at Las Vegas Ranch/ He
said that the dark soil was indeed good,
especially for the growing of pink Mexi-
can beans, as well as truck produce.
This son, Fenton Gass, also noted the
lush green belt that extended in the
direction of Henderson, and further de-
scribed Las Vegas Wash as a wet area
with moisture.
Nevada's State Mineralogist visited Las
Vegas Valley in 1871, and filed this re-
port:
"The most productive and valuable tract
of land in Las Vegas Valley is near its
center, where is situated the Las Vegas
Ranch. . .There are several hundred acres
of very rich land here, though only about
150 acres are tilled. This portion of it
is well fenced, and improved with shade
and fruit trees. The orange, lemon,
peach, apple, pear, apricot, fig and
pomegranate are some of the varieties
of fruit trees. Grapes also grow.. .
the mesquite bushes, of which there are
many in the valley, furnish a very nutri-
tious bean, which all animals feed upon
as soon as the grasses die in the fall.
Stock keeps as fat upon this feed during
the winter months, as though fed upon
the best of hay and grain. "
Gass sold out Las Vegas Ranch to Archi-
bald Stewart in 1881; in 1902 the widowed
Mrs. Stewart sold most of the ranch
and water rights to the San Pedro Los
Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad, which
built a railroad across the Valley and
upper end of Las Vegas Wash during the
winter of 1904-05. Connected with the
sale, a local surveyor named J. T. Mc-
Williams, surveyed the Ranch in 1904.
101
-------
LAS VEGAS VALLEY - 1871
il'KDITtON OF IflOO 1«72 « IR73 U«d
-------
This was in preparation for the surveying
of Las Vegas Townsite, which was auc-
tioned on May 15, 1905. In 1905, when
designated as a major division point of
the Union Pacific Railroad, the City of
Las Vegas was founded.
Las Vegas attained a population of about
800 by 1910. By that date homesteads
of ranches and small farms flourished
throughout the Valley, including in Las
Vegas Wash. Development was naturally
slow because it took several months to
uproot mesquite and sagebrush and pre-
pare the ground for cultivation. Explo-
ration began for underground sources of
water once the Las Vegas Springs could
not meet the demands of homesteaders.
Several hundred artesian wells were sunk
between 1907 and 1914. (Artesian wells
flow spontaneously from the surface and
require no pumping). Probably the larg-
est ranch in Las Vegas Wash was the
Winterwood Ranch. It acquired its name
because people in Las Vegas would go
there to cut mesquite trees for their
winter wood for cooking and heating pur-
poses. Over the years until the present,
hundreds of people settled in the upper
end of Las Vegas Wash. The Winterwood
Ranch became a huge subdivision.
Success in growing things in Las Vegas
Wash depended on a knowledge of the
Wash's soil and water make-up. The
Mormons had encountered the alkali
(saleratus), as did the builders of Las
Vegas Stadium, which is situated in the
heart of the Wash. Las Vegas remained
a railroad and agricultural service center
until 1931 when gambling was legalized.
Growth began with the construction of
the Hoover Dam and the formation of
Lake Mead. There is probably nothing
of historical (tangible) significance in
Las Vegas Wash, except for the ruins
of the so- called Mormon fort in the City
of Las Vegas, at the extreme upper end
of the Wash. The building of subdivisions
and roads have greatly defaced the upper
end of the Wash, and it may well be im-
possible to find additional ruins of former
structures of the Mormon Mission and
Las Vegas Ranch.
HISTORICAL SITES
Las Vegas was a part of the Arizona
Territory when Nevada was admitted to
the Union. While it had been a watering
place for south-bound emigrants who tra-
veled the Old Spanish Trail, it never
distinguished itself except as an outpost
of the Mormon colonization movement in
1885. Within the Las Vegas city limits
may be found the Mormon Mission on
Washington Avenue and the original
Springs on Fremont Street. The site of
the Old Spanish Trail follows Las Vegas
Wash. Much of the area's history is
stored in its "ghost towns. " They were
creations and victims of the mining and
railroad industries. NA number of old
mine shafts are located in Eldorado
Valley, among them, the "Goodsprings
Mine" of 1899 and the "Nelson Mine" of
1857. The ghost town of Aliunite is
between Henderson and Boulder City,
while the site of the Potosi is in the Blue
103
-------
Diamond area southwest of Las Vegas.
Other ghost towns are in Eldorado Valley
but their remains have virtually vanished.
Other historical sites in the Las Vegas
region consist, for the most part, of old
mines and ranches. An example of the
latter is the Kyle Ranch, established in
the 1880's and located in North Las Vegas
on Losie and Carey Streets, (communi-
cation with Dr. Roske of the Southern
Nevada Historical Society). Throughout
the Region, artifacts are found of the
area's past Indian culture.
The archaeology of the Las Vegas Valley
and surrounding areas is little known.
No major archaeological investigation has
been undertaken within this area for more
than five decades. (The one exception
to this is the Tule Springs expedition,
which was uniquely unsuccessful in finding
archaeological remains, probably due to
the locality of the major excavations.)
Archaeological investigations in neighbor-
ing areas, and unpublished investigations
undertaken in the general area of Las
Vegas Valley indicate that archaeological
resources may be plentiful and important
in the areas to be affected by any one of
the alternate plans. There were at least
five periods of occupation in the Mojave
Desert, all with distinct cultural expres-
sion and all are probably represented in
archaeological remains in Las Vegas
Valley and adjacent areas. These periods
are briefly discussed below:
Period 1. Early Man
These cultural remains are represented
by finds at Tule Springs, where a few
artifacts were recovered by excavators
from deposits dated between 10, 000 and
12, 000 years ago. Elsewhere in the Mo-
jave Desert cultural remains from this
period are found on the margins of dry
lake beds similar to Jean, Hidden, El-
dorado, and Dry Lake beds. Occupa-
tion also believed to date from this period
is often found on higher level surfaces
and is'known from Whitney Mesa and
margins of Las Vegas Wash.
Period 2. Pinto Culture
This culture apparently dates between
9, 000 and 4, 000 years ago, and is repre-
sented by surface finds at Tule Springs
and at Corn Creek Dunes. Remains of
the Pinto Culture are found along extinct
water courses and less often around dry
lakes, springs, and occasionally else-
where in what now appear to be places
that are unlikely to be occupied by man
lacking highly developed technology.
Period 3. Gypsum Culture
Gypsum culture dates from 4, 000 to 1, 500
years ago. This culture is known from
Gypsum Cave and a number of sites else-
where in the Mojave. These are mostly
rock shelters or middens near springs
and streams that were flowing during
historic times. Some materials resem-
bling those of this period have been re-
ported by amateurs and recently by col-
lege students from Eldorado Dry Lake
and Paradise Valley.
Period 4. Pueblo Occupation
This occupation dates from 1, 500 to 800
years ago and it characterized by Pueblo
104
-------
remains in the Las Vegas Valley. Sites
dating from this period are known to be
located near historically flowing springs
such as Big Springs. They are found in
Paradise Valley and in rock shelters at
higher elevations around the valley.
Period 5. Paiute Culture
Paiute culture dates from about 800 years
ago to the time of European settlement.
The Paiute utilized both the valleys and
mountains of this area, and their remains
are known from Duck Creek and Para-
dise Valley, near Tule Springs, Bird
Springs, and numerous small sites at
higher elevations.
It is likely that most, if not all, of these
cultural periods known for the Mojave
Desert and Las Vegas Valley would be
represented by sites on the alternate
routes proposed by the Las Vegas Valley
Water District. The archaeological re-
mains are nonrenewable resources.
POPULATION
Over the past fifty years the population
of Clark County has increased from less
than 5, 000 people in 1920 to over 270, 000
people in 1971. The high growth rate
has been particularly pronounced during
the last two decades. Rapid growth and
varying opinions as to when growth may
level out have produced a wide range of
estimates for future population.
During the past two decades, planners,
consultants and governmental agencies
have made projections of the growth in
population for Clark County. For the
year 2,000, these estimates vary from
a low of 500,000 people in the Valley
to a high of 1, 500, 000 people. Of these
projections, only the report entitled
"Population Projections, Clark County,
Nevada 1980-2000" prepared by the Clark
County Regional Planning Council (CCRPC)
was approved and adopted December 14,
1972 for utilization among the local govern-
ments within the regional planning juris-
diction.
These projections have a good general
correlation with 1990 employment and
economic projections, and fit within the
spread of most previous studies. In view
of this correlation and the general accep-
tance of these projections by the members
of CCRPC, representing local govern-
ments, it was concluded that the December
1972 CCRPC populations projections would
be used.
The distribution of population within the
County by the year 2000 is still open
to question. The CCRPC has calcu-
lated that if the median projection of
750, 000 people were to inhabit Clark
County in 2000, 93% (700, 000) of the
population would be in the Las Vegas
Valley. Extrapolating these population
components for the Las Vegas Valley
out, 295, 000 people would be in the City
of Las Vegas, 284, 000 would be in the
unincorporated areas, 91, 000 would be
in North Las Vegas and 30, 000 would
be in Henderson.
The distribution of permanent population
within Las Vegas Valley is based on
CCRPC staff estimates with some modi-
105
-------
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS
OF THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY AND CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
YEAR
HISTORY *
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
PROJEC-
TIONS**
CLARK LAS VEGAS
COUNTY VALLEY
4,859
8,532
16,414
48,289
127,016 122,957
273,288 268,065
POPULATION COMPONENT
TJNINCORP-
LAS VEGAS ORATED
AREA
64,405 27,605
125,787 89,667
OF LAS VEGAS VALLEY
NORTH
LAS VEGAS
18,422
35,216
HENDERSON
12,525
16,395
1973 331,700
1980
Minimum 420,000
Medium 435,000
Maximum 460,000
1990
Minimum 560,000
Medium 600,000
Maximum 650,000
2000
Minimum 700,000
Medium 750,000
Maximum 850,000
316,725
135,355
122,320
41,400
17,650
* Bureau of the uensus, uvpan. miem. v« >^wi.imiv-.i.%,^
** Clark County Regional Planning Council projection with modification to North Las Vegas
and unincorporated areas made by NECON,
403,000
421.000
446, 000
530, 000
565,000
621,000
661,000
700,000
805,000
Departmer
185,000
190,000
202,000
244, 000
262,000
284,000
275,000
295,000
335, 000
t of Commerce
144,000
152,000
159,000
187,000
196,000
214,000
274, 000
284,000
309,000
55,000
58,000
61,000
76,000
82,000
91,000
86,000
91,000
111,000
19.000
21,000
24,000
23,000
25,000
32,000
•
•
1
1
•
•
26, 000 F"l
30, 000 -i
50, 000
-------
fications by the engineering consultants,
Nevada Environmental Consultants
(NECON), to reflect changes in population
distribution between the City of North
Las Vegas and the unincorporated area.
This modification is made to adjust for
a recent annexation annulment.
Annexations, governmental consolidations
or the development of totally planned
communities, similar to that currently
being considered in Henderson, could
materially affect the distribution of popu-
lation among the various governmental
jurisdictions. Recent demographic pro-
jections for the City of Henderson suggest
that the city population could approach
44, 000 people by the year 2000, and that
the new planned communities of Green
Valley and Lake Adair could increase
the population of the Henderson area to
159, 280 by 2000. Henderson presently
represents approximately 5.4% of the total
Las Vegas Valley population, and is pro-
jected to maintain 4. 3% of the Valley
population in the year 2000 based on
CCRPC figures. If future populations
shifted to the Henderson area, this
distribution percent could change
significantly.
In addition to the permanent population,
there is present in the Las Vegas Valley a
large transient population. A substantial
portion of demand placed on public ser-
vices comes from this tourist and transient
segment. Transient population for 1973
showed a winter low of about 29, 000
people, a summer high of about 57, 000
people and a daily average transient
population of about 45, 400 people.
Limited data on transient population
suggests that the total population in
Las Vegas Valley at any one time will be
about 109% of the permanent population
during winter months, about 118% during
summer months and, on the average,
about 114% of the permanent population.
Generally speaking, each unit of govern-
ment believes it will attract a somewhat
larger portion of the total growth than
has been shown by the distribution on
Table 14.
Throughout the formulation of the 1974
Waste water Management Project sub-
mittal, the applicant has utilized for
planning purposes the Clark County
Regional Planning Council's year 2000
medium population projection of 700, 000
for Las Vegas Valley. Since the ultimate
sizing of facilities may not necessarily
reflect this figure due to other environ-
mental quality considerations (i. e., air
quality assimilative capacity to meet
standards within the Clark-Mojave-Yuma
Interstate Air Quality Control Region),
EPA will be continually reevaluating this
projection through its other planning and
regulatory programs for environmental
compatibility.
LAND USE
Since the 1950's Nevada has been one of
the Nation's fastest growing states, mov-
ing from a population of 160, 000 in 1950
to 489, 000 in 1970. The tendency has
been for settlement in the State's two
largest cities, Las Vegas and Reno. Las
Vegas became Nevada's largest city in
1960 and by 1970 its population had al-
most doubled to approximately 126, 000.
107
-------
2,000.000
1,500,000
10,000
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
SOURCES: 1. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce
2. Clark County Regional Planning Council
3. NECON
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED
POPULATION CURVE FOR
LAS VEGAS VALLEY, NEVADA
108
-------
This growth has been partly the result of
the tremendous movement of people into
the western states. Ever since Nevada
legalized gambling, the prime element
in the economic development of the State
was established. Americans, with money
and free time, have made the Las Vegas
area of Clark County principally a recrea-
tion center and use of the land has been to
satisfy the needs of recreational pursuits.
With tourism as the main industry, min-
ing and agriculture have become secon-
dary.
Regional Land Use
The land area of the Lower Colorado
Region is classified as cropland, range-
land, forest and woodland, urban, and
a small acreage is for miscellaneous use.
Land ownership within the Region is
unique in that more than half is in pub-
lic ownership and only a small percentage
is private. About half the private land
is in Indian trust. The bulk of the land
in this Region is in pasture and range
with a small percentage in urban, trans-
portation, utilities, etc.
Recreation and tourism have grown into
a multimillion dollar industry in the
Region. The outdoor recreation oppor-
tunities provided by the forest, moun-
tain, desert and water areas have been
an important factor in this expanding
industry.
The location and amount of the Region's
irrigated cropland area is determined by
the availability of suitable irrigation
water, in terms of both quantity and
quality. This is especially true in the
desert area where the nearly year-long
growing season makes this area ideal
for irrigated crop production. With the
exception of the desert areas, irriga-
ted farming has developed primarily
along major streams where soils are
productive, have uniform slopes, and
where suitable water is available.
j
The range resource contributes substan-
tially to livestock production, long one of
the major industries, within this Region.
Two broad types of rangeland are used
for grazing: ephemeral and perennial.
The ephemeral rangeland is in the de-
sert below the elevation of 3, 000 feet.
The average annual precipitation is less
than 8 inches; however, precipitation
varies widely from year to year. Large
volumes of annual grasses and forbs,
which provide good livestock forage,
are produced during above-normal
spring and summer rains. The peren-
nial-type rangeland provides a more
dependable, perennial-type forage. More
precipitation at higher elevations increases
forage quantity and quality in these areas
above 3, 000 feet elevation.
Timberlands can be found on national
forests, on Indian reservations, on land
owned by states and counties, by farmers
and ranchers, or owned by timber com-
panies and other private operators.
Growing stock suitable for saw timber,
paper pulp, poles, fuel, and other forest
products are the main timber products.
The commercial forest lands provide
some of the better livestock ranges.
They provide important habitat for wild-
life and cold water fisheries. The com-
109
-------
mercial forest areas are popular for
recreation, and their natural beauty has
important scenic value.
Lands within the Region that are used
for military and related purposes, con-
sist of 0.5 million acres in Nevada.
A small percentage of these lands is
in areas suitable for urban expansion
and/or surrounded by intensively used
agricultural land. The majority of these
lands are barren desert or semi-arid
mountainous terrain.
Urban and industrial developments occupy
a small percentage of land in the Region.
Individual developments range in size from
the acreage of Las Vegas to small unin-
corporated towns of less than a square
mile. In general, these lands are not
compatible with other uses; with the ex-
ception of recreation use. The larger
urban developments have recreation
areas reserved within their boundaries.
Although low-grade mineral deposits occur
over large areas, a very small percentage
of the Region's lands are actually used
for mineral production. While small in
size, these lands are intensively used.
Their economic importance is great;
their compatibility with other uses is
small; and they are, almost entirely,
in private ownership.
Transportation and utilities have kept
pace with the rapid regional growth.
Land used for roads, railroads, and
airports is generally excluded from
other land uses, but telephone, canal,
electric power, and pipeline rights-of -
way often modify existing uses and may
produce benefits not previously present.
Watershed Management Problems
More intensive use of the land resources
has created a multitude of watershed
management problems including:
increased soil erosion, accelerated
sediment production, reduced produc-
tivity, increased flood damage, and
degraded water quality. High yielding
mountain watershed lands more and
more are regulated for water yield
in order to help fulfill the ever-increas-
ing water requirements of the Region.
LAND USE IN THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY
Use
Single family
Multiple family
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Quasi-public
Parks
Total
Acres
16,310
2,820
3,570
2,080
15,170
2,650
2,390
44, 990 acres
Source: NECON - Water Quality Management Plan,
Draft (March 197-3).
110
-------
Sixty percent of the land needs lan.d
treatment and management for erosion
control and sediment yield reduction.
Danger from wildfire on the forest and
rangelands usually is present some place
in the Region during every month of the
year. Problems and responsibilities for
wildfire protection and control are mul-
tiplying due to the development of small
communities, expanding urban, and public
use developments scattered throughout
the forest and rangelands.
Area Land Use
Within the Las Vegas Valley the three
major urbanized areas consist of the
Cities of Las Vegas , North Las Vegas
and Henderson. These cities encompass
approximately 162. 2 square miles of the
1, 800 square miles in the Las Vegas
Valley.
The existing land uses in the Las Vegas
Valley, as of 1972, are indicated below.
In 1968 the Clark County Regional Plan-
ning Council adopted the "Coordinated
General Plan for the Las Vegas Valley",
and a "Land-Use Element - Coordinated
General Plan" in 1971. In the Coordi-
nated Plan, future land uses in the Las
Vegas' Valley were projected from 1975
to 2000 at five year intervals, with the
2000 figures based on an estimated popu-
lation of 700, 000 people.
The City of North Las Vegas is essen-
tially a "bedroom" community to Las
Vegas, and also satisfies the urban
needs of personnel at Nellis Air Force
Base. Nellis Air Force Base is pri-
marily a pilot training facility whose
population and growth depend upon the
United States Air Force.
PROJECTED LAND USES IN THE LAS VEGAS VALLEY - 2000
Use
Low density residential
High density residential
Commercial/industrial
Parks and recreation
Agricultural
Total
Acreage
56,700
13,045
30, 275
9,430
2,000
111,450 acres
Source: Clark County Regional Planning Council, 1973
111
-------
Boulder City began as a housing facility
for construction workers building Hoover
Dam. Incorporated in I960, Boulder City
is unique to this area in that it does not
allow gambling. The main "industry" is
recreation, Boulder City being five miles
from Lake Mead.
Henderson began as a housing facility for
Basic Magnesium, Inc. during World War
II, and is still an industry-based city
also providing some tourism and recrea-
tional facilities. The Basic Management,
Inc. complex, adjacent to Henderson,
now houses Stauffer Chemical Company,
the Flintkote Company, Titanium Metals
Corporation of America, Kerr-McGee
Chemical Corporation, Montrose Chemi-
cal Corporation of California, State
Stove Company and Jones Chemicals.
Use of Las Vegas Wash is high and diver-
sified. According to the U.S. Bureau of
Fish and Wildlife, there were an estima-
ted 50, 000 visits last year, the Wash
be_ing used for: motor vehicle recreation,
educational field trips, bird watching,
hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and
dumping. When flying into Las Vegas,
the Wash is an immediate focus point
for the whole area. From the ground
the dense vegetation and vivid green are
offset somewhat by the piles of trash and
abandoned cars along the periphery of
the Wash.
Site Land Use
Ground-water Recharge Well Field and
Pilot Desalination Plant
Since the development of the Las Vegas
Valley and minor portions of the Eldorado
Valley, man has ranged into the other
valleys of the study area. There has
been an attitude of "no value" toward
areas of-the region not yet developed.
Dry Lake, Hidden Valley and Jean Lake
and those portions of Las Vegas and
Eldorado Valleys not yet developed,
have numerous trails cut by car or
motorcycle for convenience or sport
with no regard for the desert environ-
ment. Trash is found piled along many
dirt roads. Dry Lake Valley has been
used for cattle grazing and contains one
small railroad maintenance settlement.
Hidden Valley and Jean Lake are also
used for cattle grazing, but have very
low carrying capacity.
At the present time, there is consider-
able open space around the Injection Well
Field, but it is rapidly disappearing on
the eastern boundary. Between Sahara
Avenue and Flamingo Road, west of Rain-
bow Road, is a newly-built housing deve-
lopment. North of Charleston Boulevard,
extending to the eastern boundary of the
site, is a residential area completely
built and occupied. The site is presently
bordered by a gravel company to the south
and west, the northern border showing no
signs of development. Also located on
the eastern boundary is a Nevada Power
Company substation. Present land use
appears to be primarily for scenic, tra-
vel and dumping purposes. Charleston
Boulevard passes through the study area,
leading to the Toiyabe National Forest
112
-------
Area. Large piles of trash are observed
in this area along many dirt roads. Much
of Section 1 (640 acres) at the experimen-
tal recharge well site, has low density
housing. There is some limited com-
mercial development on Sahara Ave-
nue and Decatur Boulevard and an elemen-
tary school on West Oakey Boulevard.
The alternative sections (2,560 acres)
are extensively developed with single and
multiple family dwellings, commercial
enterprises, schools, and recreation
areas. The population approximates
22,000 people.
Much of the land bordering the proposed
desalination plant site is presently owned
and maintained by the Las Vegas Valley
Water District. Numerous ground-
water wells are scattered throughout the
area. Two 10, 000, 000 gallon storage tanks
plus a 30 million gallon tank are located
at the north end of the site while an
electrical substation borders the area
on the west. The area has been sub-
stantially disturbed in the past and has
numerous roads criss-crossing the site.
A disjunct wash crosses the site from
west to east. Due to an extensive deve-
lopment of the area in the past, storm
flows are now diverted to a concrete
channel at the west of the site and there-
fore no longer enter the site.
Waste-water Collection System, Treat-
ment Plant, Deep Disposal Well Field
Areas and Sludge Disposal Site
Along much of the route for the collection
system the land has been disturbed by
man's activities in varying degrees. The
proposed route will follow existing high-
ways, dirt roads or rights-of-way along
most of the distance. It will also follow
a border of agricultural lands.
The site of the reservoir and treatment
facilities for Alternatives 1, 4, 6, 1 and
8 is scarred by dirt roads, litter and
motor-vehicle tracks. For Alternatives
2, 3 and 5 the site is approximate to a
major highway, the Las Vegas Stadium,
and a gravel pit operation. Much of the
area for the treatment plant in Alterna-
tive 10 has been extensively disturbed
or altered by construction activities and
cattle and horse grazing. Portions of the
area are disturbed by a heavy equipment
yarding and other activities.
At the present time there is considerable
open space around the site of the sludge
disposal ponds. To the east the land
rises toward the rugged and colorful
Rainbow Garden and Lava Butte area.
In areas adjacent to the site, numerous
jeep trails and a recent pipeline excava-
tion crisscross and mar the area. The
site is bordered to the west and south
by Hollywood Boulevard and Telephone
Line Road. The Las Vegas Wash is
located immediately to the south and
west of these roadways.
Lands to be Irrigated>
Major lands to be irrigated are existing
irrigation lands in the Valley, i.e.,
parks, golf courses, and greenbelt areas.
113
-------
The irrigation pipeline parallels existing
boulevards and avenues and roads. The
reservoir and pumping station have four
alternate sites with the land being used
in a variety of ways. The first location
is adjacent to two busy streets. A gas
station is across the street with a res-
taurant located on the diagonal corner.
The second is in the parking lot of the
Cashman Field and Elks Stadium. Deve-
lopment surrounding this site is residen-
tial on the south, the temporary City
Hall on the west, the Field and Stadium
on the east, and a commercial area on
the north. The third site is bounded on
two sides by a golf course, and on the
third by the Department of the Interior's
National Bighorn Sheep Headquarters.
A residential area is located across
Decatur Boulevard. Across from Mc-
Carran International Airport is the site
for the fourth reservoir. McCarran is
the only development near this site,
and it is very scarred and littered.
Refer to Figure 6 and Figures 28
through 36 in Chapter 2.
Dry Lake Valley
Located at Dry Lake, in the northeastern
portion of the Valley, directly west of
the Union Pacific Railroad, is a small
occupied settlement, with between 10 and
16 residents. Also located on the eastern
side of the Valley is a power line trending
northeast to southwest. A major portion
of this Valley is publicly owned land,
with small scattered areas of privately
owned land on the east side of the Valley.
The present use of this Valley is for
dumping, off-road motor vehicle recrea-
tion, enjoyment of scenery and travel.
Numerous car and motorcycle tracks are
seen crisscrossing the Valley. The
immediate environment of dirt roads off
the frontage road paralleling the Valley
is littered with abandoned cars, washing
machines and other assorted trash.
Cutting through the easternmost portion
of the Valley, running north-south, is
Interstate 15, the freeway from Salt
Lake City., Utah, Las Vegas and Bar-
stow, California. Travel along this
route is moderate. Paralleling this free-
way is the main line of the Union Pacific
Railroad. Crossing the south end of the
Valley is Highway 93, a sparsely traveled
road, leading to Ely. Also located in
this Valley are powerlines leading to
Las Vegas and to Los Angeles.
There is an existing Desert National Wild-
life Range located just west, of Highway
93. This area is primarily a refuge for
Desert Bighorn Sheep. It is presently
proposed to include this area in the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
The area comes within several miles of
the Dry Lake evaporation ponds and the
proposed Allen Power Plant.
Eldorado Valley
Located in the northern portion of this
Valley, adjacent to Highway 95, is a
single ranch and mining operation. The
northeastern portion of the Valley which
could be affected by an alternative is
owned by the City of Boulder City. The
remaining lands in the Valley are under
114
-------
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management. Approximately 105,000
acres are under option to the State of
Nevada for purchase through Public
Law 85-339, The Eldorado Valley Act,
and the Division of Colorado River Re-
sources under NRS 321.390 to 321.470,
inclusive, (The Eldorado Valley Develop-
ment Law) is responsible for this activity.
There is little evidence of motor vehicle
recreation or dumping in this Valley.
The Valley's main use is for power ^line
maintenance, scenic and travel. High-
way 95 to Searchlight, Nevada crosses
through the middle of this Valley. Located
to the northeast side of this Highway
is a large pet cemetary which evidences
a great amount of use and which is un-
authorized by the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment. There are three sets of power
lines crossing the Valley, trending east-
west, and a power relay station located
in the southeastern portion of the Valley.
Jean Lake
All the lands that could be affected in this
Valley are under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Bureau of Land Management.
There are two cattle impoundments with
wells located in the study area. The pre-
sent use of'this Valley is for grazing
cattle, limited dumping and motor vehi-
cle recreation. Little regard for the
desert environment has been demonstrated
in this Valley, evidenced by the large
amount of overgrazed land, the motor-
cycle tracks crisscrossing the whole
Valley and numerous car tracks. Aban-
doned cars and some trash are found along
the dirt roads at the northern end of the
Valley. Highway 91 passes by the ex-
treme northern portion of the Jean Lake
area with Interstate 15 directly west of
Hi ghway 91.
Hidden Valley
This whole Valley is publicly owned land.
Motor vehicle trails crosscross the whole
Valley, and it has been heavily over-
grazed. There are two cattle impound-
ments with wells. The Valley is not
visible from any road.
HOUSING
According to the U.S. Census figures
of 1970, housing in the Standard Metro-
politan Statistical Area (SMSA) of Las
Vegas, consists of 92,815 year-round
units. The construction boom during
the last few years has begun to slow
although the rise in vacancy factors
indicates that residential units already
available, are enough to fulfill the area's
short-term needs. Apartments in the
Las Vegas area have climbed to more
than 7% vacancy factor. Residential
permits for new construction have de-
clined 42.9% in the first quarter of 1974.
Dollar volume for construction county-
wide has shown an increase primarily
due to the expansion of tourist-oriented
facilities. According to statistics for
1974, the Las Vegas ^expansion continues
with 3, 330 hotel and motel rooms cur-
rently under construction.
115
-------
TRANSPORTATION
Excellent transportation facilities service
the Las Vegas Valley. Passenger trans-
portation in all forms has been empha-
sized in recognition of the many available
tourist and recreational attractions.
Most of the major airlines serving the
West have flights to Las Vegas, including
nonstop flights from the east coast and
the mid-west. McCarran Field is an
"international" airport which permits
foreign flights to fly directly to Las
Vegas without prior stops in the United
States for customs and immigration con
trol. More than 30% of Las Vegas1
eight-and-a-half million annual visitors
arrive at the airport, which is served
by seven major airlines and various
supplemental carriers. McCarran1 s
constant growth relates directly to the
rapid population increase and the ever-
increasing number of visitors. A
thirty million dollar uplift program is
due for completion in the immediate
future. General aviation airports are
located in Boulder City, Henderson,
and North Las Vegas.
116
-------
POPULATION: (Thousands)
PARTICIPATION RATIO**
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT: (Thousands)
MINING
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION
MANUFACTURING
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
TOTAL TRADE
FINANCE, INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE
SERVICE INDUSTRIES
GOVERNMENT
OTHER NON-AGRICULTURAL
AGRICULTURAL
HISTORY © **
I960
123.0
.44
53.7
0.4
3.r
2.6
3.8
8:4
1.4
20.9
6.2
5.8
0.5
1970
268.1
45
121. 1
0,1
7.4
4.3
7.3
20.7
4.2
51.0
•16.2
9.6
0.3
PROJECTIONS ©**
1980
421.0
.41
173.5
O.I
I4;l
II. 1
9.9
30.4
7.3
81.2
.19.2
• •
0.2
1990
565.0
42
239.0
O.I
17.9
14.7
13.7
43.8
10,8
112. 1
25.7
*
0.2
2000
700.0
.41
287.6
O.I
21.5
17.8
14.2
*
51.4
14.9
137.9
29.6
•
0.2
* included in other numbers on this.table.
* * All numbers except Participation Ratio are given in thousands; Participation Ratio is the ratio of total employment to total permanent population.
SOURCES' CD Nevado EmP'°yment Security Deportment.
(D NECON adjustments-to U. S. Department of Commerce projections.
-------
Las Vegas is on the main line of the Union
Pacific Railroad between Los Angeles and
Salt Lake City and offers excellent trans-
continental freight service. Community
leaders and AMTRAK officials are at-
tempting to revitalize railroad service to
Las Vegas. A Union Pacific railroad spur
which serves Henderson and Boulder City
and has the capability of being extended
into the Eldorado Valley. The biggest
problem at the present time is the scarcity
of operable equipment. This mode of
transportation could be a great asset
in servicing the Southern California in-
flux as each trip could handle between
600 and 800 passengers.
Bisecting Las Vegas from the north by
northeast, is Interstate 15, an exten-
sively controlled network (freeway) that
connects Southern Nevada to the rest of
the United States. This freeway system
extends in the southerly direction through
San Bernardino, California where its
number changes to 1-10 and connects to
all points in Southern California. This
freeway system accounts for the majority
of truck lines and auto traffic into the
City. Bisecting Las Vegas from north
to south, is the twin system of U.S. 95
and U.S. 93.
The Clark County Regional Planning
Council undertook a short range urban
mass transit study to examine bus tran-
sit in the Las Vegas Valley. This study
is scheduled for completion in early 1975.
EMPLOYMENT
The U.S. Department of Commerce has
prepared employment projections, by in-
dustry, for the Las Vegas Valley for the
period 1970 to 2020. These projections
indicate an anticipated population of
588,200 by the year 2000. The regionally
adopted medium population planning pro-
jection for Las Vegas Valley is 700, 000
by year 2000. Accordingly, the Depart-
ment of Commerce employment projec-
tions have been adjusted to coincide
with regionally adopted population pro-
jections for the years 1980, 1990 and
2000. Adjusted employment projections
are shown on Table 15.
The importance of tourism is underscored
by the 1970 employment statistics which
show the service industry, consisting prin-
cipally of hotels, gaming and recreation,
to be the top area employer, accounting
for 42% of total employment. The next
largest employers in 1970 were whole-
sale and retail trade at 17% and govern-
ment at 13% of total employment.
Gross gaming receipts provide a growth
index for the service industry and for the
entire metropolitan area. Historic and
projected gross gaming receipts for the
year 2000 are expected to be 2. 68 times
that received in 1970. It is anticipated
that population during the same period of
time is expected to increase by a factor of
2.61. Thus, it is concluded that the ser-
vices industry will maintain its dominant
role through the year 2000. (See Table 16).
In addition to growth precipitated by the
service industry, very favorable tax laws
are in effect in Nevada which benefit com-
merce and industry. The "Free Port"
law encourages the-warehousing and manu-
118
-------
facturing of goods "in transit" by granting
a tax-exempt status to such goods. This
and other favorable tax laws are an induce-
ment to many potential employers and
manufacturers.
The Federal government has a number of
programs which are quite significant to the
economy of Southern Nevada. Most impor-
tant of these are:
(1) Nellis Air Force Base, a training and
development center for military aircraft.
(2) The Atomic Energy Commission's
Nevada Test Site, which operates with
a large budget. The Atomic Energy
Commission operations in Southern
Nevada include research and develop-
ment on nuclear explosives, both war
and peace oriented. Among other faci-
lities, the AEC operates the evaporation
station near Lake Mead. The Radiologi-
cal Health Laboratory studies the physio-
logical effects of radiological exposure.
(3) The Lake Mead National Recreational
Area.
(4) The U.S. Department of Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation maintains a Lower
Colorado Regional Office and an Office of
the Boulder Canyon Project in Boulder
City, Nevada.
As of September 1973 total employment
was 145, 600, only 200 fewer than the all-
time record high set the previous month.
In September 1972, total employment
stood at 132, 500. Unemployment totaled
about 8, 000 persons or a rate just under
6% during September 1973. The rate is
down 1% from 1972 figures.
RECREATION
All within 100 miles of Las Vegas, are
more than 48 public and private camp-
grounds, totaling 3, 588 individual camp-
sites. These are operated by the U.S.
Forest Service, National Park Service
or the Nevada Park System.
Lake Mead National Recreation Area,
fourth largest in the National Park System
with the biggest accommodation of camp-
site, is just a half-hour drive from the
casinos. Formed by monolithic Hoover
Dam and fed by the Colorado River, the
lake's 550 miles of shoreline enjoys a
twelve-month season. The area encom-
passes over 3, 000 square miles of lake
area and surrounding desert environment,
and provides both local and out-of-state
visitors with fishing, boating, swimming,
and other forms of recreation. Nearly
3-1/2 million persons spent one or more
days in the Lake Mead area in 1973.
As of June 1974, visitors to Lake Mead
totaled 326, 412 for the month and
1, 612, 096 for the year to date.
Toward the north end of the lake is the
Valley of'Fire State Park, a 55, 000-acre
ecological "museum"^ and recreation area.
Nature began work on the valley sometime
around the "Ice Age", when the terrain
was still lush green and well-watered.
Rock carvings found in the vicinity date
Indian civilization as far back as 1, 500
B.C. Camping and picnicking sites, like
119
-------
GROSS GAMING RECEIPTS
HISTORY AND PROJECTIONS
CLARK COUNTY
SOURCES:
FISCAL YEAR
HISTORY 0
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Averag« Annual Compound Interest Growth
PROJECTIONS (D
I960
1990
2000
CURRENT DOLLARS
91,033,938
106,503,378
108,478,255
122,633,158
137,291,416
152,350,481
163,209,101
179,018,338
199,056,250
227,437,087
287,642,376
352,552,000
373,242,526
417,662,387
502,500,000
12.5%
CONSTANT 1959 DOLLARS
91,033,938
104,795,216
105,421,045
117,803,226
130,257,510
142,250,068
150,008,365
159,695,217
172,045,160
189,058,260
228,287,602
267,085,000
272,439,800
292,071,595
339,756,590
9.5%
365,000,000
545,000,000
715,000,000
Nevada earning Commission.
Current Population and Economic Statistics, 1973 by Clark County Regional Planning Council.
table 16
-------
I ^^j Four Corners
'/ '
V r.Son^uon
/
PRINCIPAL TRANSMISSION LINES
YEAR 1980
M or June v, >
?O 0 ?O 4O _ 60 00
SCM.E Of MLES
figure 25
-------
the roads, are designed, located, and
oriented to offer both intimacy and a
panoramic view of the valley.
Away from the desert terrain, and jutting
skyward from the floor of the arid Amar-
gosa Desert, stands 12, 000-foot Mt.
Charleston, only an hour's drive from
downtown Las Vegas. In the winter time
the verdant slopes become a playground
for skiers. New facilities in the area
have made it the fastest growing recrea-
tion outlet in Southern Nevada.
Nearly every major hotel boasts cham-
pionship'tennis courts and/or golf
courses. Spectators are treated to
major golf and tennis tournaments,
most having celebrity rounds. With
the almost constant sunshine, swimming
and sunning around the hotel pools are
an intricate part of Las Vegas by day.
Visitor and Visitor Use - 1973
Lake Mead Recreation Area - 5, 534, 515
Hoover Dam Guided Tours - 638, 315
Mount Charleston - 459,600
Valley of Fire - Z32, 000
Valley of Fire Visitor Center - 60, 000
Lost City Museum - 181, 000
In addition, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM) administers over 3 million
acres of public lands (greater than 51%
of the land in the County) within Clark
County. Approximately 183,250 acres
of this BLM land has been classified as
having recreational, protective or scenic
qualities.
UTILITIES
The Southwest Gas Corporation, a Las
Vegas-based natural gas utility which
serves Nevada, California, and Arizona,
increased its revenues during 1973 by 11%
over the previous year. The 1974 custo-
mer growth pattern is expected to con-
tinue with the addition of nearly 8, 000
residential and commercial customers
with most of the increases in the utility's
Southern Nevada Division. Natural gas
usage during the year 1973 for gas sales
(l.OOOcu. ft.) was 40, 681, 508, and
customer accounts totaled 48, 328.
The Nevada Power Company is an inves-
tor owned utility development. In 1929
the Consolidated Power and Telephone
Company became known as the Southern
Nevada Power Company. The name was
subsequently changed to Nevada Power
Company in 1961.
The directors of the old company in con-
cert with the State were instrumental in
adding the "Nevada Amendments" to the
Swing-Johnson Act which gave Nevada the
the right to share in the water, power and
revenue from Hoover (Boulder) dam.
This source of 263 million kilowatt -
hours and 87, 375 kilowatts served the
electric needs of Las Vegas for the
next 16 years.
It is well to point out that the energy
received from Hoover Dam, which re-
presented 100 percent of the requirement
in 1953, represented in 1970 only about
11 percent of the company's total needs.
122
-------
»* OF juug v, '
s of dc'eiio"s o'
? Trontm,
-------
In 1955 the company added its first gas-
fired steam electric generating unit and
plant of 50, 000 kw. At the end of 1965
the company was operating a total of three
steam generating stations and a diesel
peaking plant to serve customers within
the Las Vegas area.
The Las Vegas Division of the Company
shows an 11% electric energy use increase
in 1973 over the previous year and its
growth plans go well into the 1980's to
keep up with the demand of electrical
energy usage. The electric utility has
already added to its producing capabilities
once in '74, as a participant in the Navajo
Power Project in Northeastern Arizona,
as it will also do in 1975. Electric energy
during the year 1973 for sales (1,000 Kilo-
watt-Hours) for residential was 1, 792, 688,
commercial and industrial 1,983,701 and
other 290,422. Customer accounts totaled
108,088.
Electrical service to the City of Henderson
is provided by the California-Pacific
Utilities Company. The Parker-Davis
and Colorado River Storage Hydroelectric
Projects supply electrical power to the
industrial complex near Henderson. This
power and energy, supplemented by power
and energy from the Nevada Power Com-
pany is administered by the State through
the Division of Colorado River Resources.
The Southern Nevada Division of Central
Telephone Company is kept in a constant
state of growth as its telephone in ser-
vice increased nearly 12% over 1972 (this
figure includes four smaller companies
in outlying areas). In 1974 Central Tele-
phone is anticipating main station gains
of 23, 000 additional units; in conjunc-
tion with this, the company has budgeted
$28 million in new construction to keep
up with the increased demand. The
five-year forecast indicates that con-
struction expenditures will remain on
the same yearly level. In 1974 the
downtown office cut in a 10, 000-line
electronic switching system to provide
for anticipated growth in the downtown
area. Telephones in service during the
year 1973 for the Southern Nevada
Division of the Central Telephone Com-
pany was 254, 978, and for the Continental
Telephone Company of Nevada (Hender-
son) the total was 7, 818.
The Las Vegas Valley Water District
expects to spend $29 million in the next
four years in order to keep pace with
the anticipated growth of the community.
Land acquisitions will cost about $1.3
million, and reservoir, additions are
estimated around $8.8 million. Well
field expansion will cost approximately
$1.9 million and pump station installa-
tion costs are estimated to be $2.7
million. A projected $14. 3 million will
be required over the next four years to
install pipelines necessary to adequately
serve population increases. If projected
population increases materialize, the
second phase of the Southern Nevada
Water Project will be constructed by
early 1980. This phase will double the
capacity and will ultimately enable the
Las Vegas Valley to recieve full allo-
cation of Lake Mead water. Water dur-
ing the year 1973 for consumption
(thousands of gallons) totaled 26, 911, 366
and customer accounts totaled 54, 013.
124
-------
WATER RESOURCE UTILIZATION
1969-1973
LAS VEGAS VALLEY
YEAR
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
GROUNDWATER©*
BILLION
GALLONS
28.26
27.88
27.84
22.84
22.73
ACRE
FEET
86,717
85,555
85,436
70,086
70,063
COLORADO RIVER ©
BILLION
GALLONS
10.99
11.16
13.39
21.25
24.43
ACRE
FEET
33,731
34,250
41,089
65,208
74,988
WASTEWATER©
BILLION
GALLONS
2.84
3.07
3.41
3.15
3.07
ACRE
FEET
8,717
9,431
10,454
9,663
9,427
TOTALS
BILLION
GALLONS
42.09
42.11
44.64
47.24
50.23
ACRE
FEET
129,165
129,236
136,979
144,957
154,47?
SOURCES- © State Engineer'* Office, Division of Water Resources - Los Vegas Valley Water Inventory (Annual Reports, 1969-1973).
(2) Bureau cf Reclamation-Compilation of .Records in Accordance with Article V of the Decree of the
Supreme Court of me United States in Arizona v. California Dated March 9, 1964(Annual Report
thru 1972 and provisional records of the Colorado River Commission for 1973).
* Total tomoant of water pumped from the Las Vegas artesian basin.
125
-------
WATER USE
The Southern Nevada Water System pro-
vides the means to deliver 132,200 acre-
feet per year of Nevada's allocation
of Colorado River water into the areas
of Las Vegas, Eldorado Valley, Boulder
City.
Completion of the second stage construction
should occur before year 2000 and would
utilize most of the remainder of Nevada's
300, 000 acre-feet per year share of
Colorado River water.
Present depletion requirements for the
Subregion total nearly 1.29 million
acre-feet annually. Water withdrawal
requirements total about 2.98 million
acre-feet of which some 90% is for
irrigated agriculture. About 19% of these
requirements occur in Nevada. Future
water requirements in the Subregion show
depletion requirements increasing by
about a million acre-feet between 1965
and 2020, the largest increases occurring
in agriculture and municipal and indus-
trial demands. Significant increases
also occur in electric power and fish
and wildlife needs. By 2020, Nevada's
requirements are projected to rise from
251, 000 acre-feet per year to over
715, 000 acre-feet, a threefold increase,
due primarily to a rapidly growing
population.
Present demands on the supply of the
Colorado River below Lee Ferry, in
addition to the 1.3 million acre-feet of
present water requirements within the
Subregion, are for main stem reser-
voir evaporation, channel losses, system
spills, exports to the California Region,
and Mexican Treaty obligations. The
future water supply available to the sub-
region, without augmentation, is almost
entirely dependent on the depletions
caused by water resource development
in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
Water withdrawals in the lower main
stem Subregion show, for the 1965 level
of development, gross diversions of about
2.42 million acre-feet annually, including
more than a half-million acre-feet from
ground water pumpage. Seventy percent
of these diversions were made below Im-
perial Dam. About 6% of the total with-
drawals were identified with uses other
than irrigation. The average annual ir-
rigation diversion in Nevada is estimated
at about four acre-feet per irrigated acre.
Much of the diversion is returned to the
River for reuse downstream. Nearly all
of the present diversions of surface water
from the mainstream of the Colorado
River are measured. Off-stream diver-
sions, principally from the Virgin, Muddy,
and White Rivers, and Kanab Creek, are
minimal. Surface water diversions to
the Las Vegas-North Las Vegas-Henderson-
Boulder City area and to the City of Yuma,
Arizona represent the bulk of uses for
municipal and industrial purposes. Cur-
rent ground water pumpage in the Sub-
region is estimated at about 525, 000
acre-feet annually of which about 80, 000
acre-feet are. pumped for municipal
and industrial use. 72, 000 acre-feet is
pumped in the Las Vegas Valley in Nevada,
where pumpage exceeds the probable re-
charge of 25, 000 to 35, 000 acre-feet
annually. Other areas of localized over-
draft also exist.
126
-------
YEAR 1973
WATER USES
AND
SUPPLY DISTRIBUTIONS
LAS VEGAS VALLEY
PARAMETERS
WATER USED:
POTABLE WATER USED:
RESIDENTIAL AND TRANSIENT
PARKS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
GOLF COURSES
AGRICULTURE
HEAVY INDUSTRY
COMMERCIAL AND LI6HT INDUSTRY
MILITARY
TOTAL POTABLE WATER USED-
RECLAIMED WASTEWATER USED:
PARKS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
60LF COURSES
AGRICULTURE
POWER
TOTAL RECLAIMED WASTEWATER USED:
TOTAL WATER USED:
WATER SUPPLIED:
6ROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS
COLORADO RIVER DIVERSIONS
RECLAIMED WASTEWATER
TOTAL WATER SUPPLIED'
COLORADO RIVER DEPLETIONS: (LmVtgnvwltjoilr)
NET DIVERSIONS
WASTEWATER RETURNED
NET DEPLETION =
HISTORY FOR YEAR 1973
WITH ESTIMATED JULY 1, 1973
POPULATION OF 316,725 PEOPLE©
ACRE FEET C2)*
90,000
9,200
6,100
3,000
13,600
20,000
3,200
145,100
-0-
1,200
4,500
3,700
9,400
154,500
70,100
75,000
9,400
154,500
75,000
-43,000
32,000
BILLION GALLONS
29.32
3.00
1.99
0.9*
4.4S
6.52
1.04
47.26
-0-
0.39
1.47
1.20
3.06
50.34
22.64
24.44
3.06
50.34
24.44
• 14.01
10.43
SOURCES-CD Current Population and Economic Statistics 1973, by Clark County Regional Planning Council. » Rounded to ntartst 100 acrt tat.
(7) Provisional 1973 records of tht Colorado River Commission; Lai Vtgai Volley Wo.hr Inventory, 1973 by the Slate Engineer'i Office,
1973 records of the L«» Vegas Volliif Wotir Dutrict.
table 18
-------
YEAR 2000
WATER NEEDS
AND
SUPPLY DISTRIBUTIONS
LAS VEGAS VALLEY
PARAMETERS
WATER NEEDS'
POTABLE WATER NEEDS:
RESIDENTIAL AND TRANSIENT
PARKS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
GOLF COURSES
A6RICULTURE
HEAVY INDUSTRY
COMMERCIAL AND U6HT INDUSTRY
MILITARY
TOTAL POTABLE WATER NEEDS>
RECLAIMED WASTEWATER NEEDS-
PARK AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
60LF COURSES
AGRICULTURE
POWER
HEAVY INDUSTRY
TOTAL RECLAIMED WASTEWATER NEEDS:
TOTAL WATER NEEDED'
WATER SUPPLIES'
6ROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS
COLORADO RIVER DIVERSIONS
RECLAIMED WASTEWATER
TOTAL WATER TO BE SUPPLIED
COLORADO RIVER DEPLETIONS:(L«*g»viil»»fl«i»)
NET DIVERSIONS
WASTEWATER RETURNED
NET DEPLETION
PROJECTIONS FOR YEAR 2000 Q
FOR MEDIUM POPULATION
OF 700,000 (2)
ACRE FEET*
212,800
10,000
6,000
3,000
32,200
46,900
7,700
318,600
11,000
9, BOO
8,500
39,500
-0-
68,800
387,400
50,000
268,600
68,800
387,400
268,600
-J4.400
TT4.200
BILLION
GALLONS
69.34
3.26
1.96
0.98
10.49
15.28
2.50
103.81
3.56
3.20
2.77
12.87
-0-
22.42
126.23
16.29
87.52
22.42
126.23
87.52
-I7.7Z
69.80
FOR MAXIMUM POPULATION
OF 805,000(2)
ACRE FEET*
244,700
1 3 ,200
6,100
4,000
32,600
53,900
8,900
363,400
1 1,000
1 1,800
8,500
39,500
4.40Q.
75,200
438,600
50,000
313,400
75,200
438,600
313,400
-65,700
247,700
BILLION
GALLONS
79.74
4.30
1.98
1.91
10.62
17.56
2.90
1 1 8 .4 1
3.58
3.85
2.77
12.87
1.43
24.50
142.91
16.29
102.12
24.50
142.91
102.12
-21.42
80.70
SOURCES' (D Projection by NECON Staff.
* Rounded to nearest 100 acre feet
Population estimates by Clork County Regional Plowing Council Staff.
table 19
-------
DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL
AVERAGE DAY WASTEWATER FLOWS
PRESENT AND PROJECTIONS
YEAR
PRESENT©
1973
Per Capita Flow(gpcd)
Actual Flow(mgd)
PROJECTIONS©
1980
Per Capita Flow(gpcd)
Minimum Flow(mgd)
Medium Flow(mgd)
Maximum Flow(mgd)
1990
Per Capita Flow(gpcd)
Minimum Flow(mgd)
Medium Flow (mgd)
Maximum Flow (mgd)
2000
Per Capita Flow(gpcd)
Minimum Flow (mgd)
Medium Flow (mgd)
Maximum Flow (mgd)
LAS VEGAS
VALLEY
144
46.8
150
60.6
63.1
66.9
154
81.7
87.2
95.6
157
103.9
iio.o
125.8
WASTEWATER FLOW COMPONENTS OF LAS VEGAS VALLEY
LAS VEGAS
171
23.1
175
32.4
33.2
35.4
178
43.4
46.6
50.6
180
49.5
53.1
60.3
UNINCORP-
ORATED
AREA
133
17.5
140
20.2
21.3
22.3
145
27.1
28.4
31.0
150
41.1
42.6
46.4
NORTH
LAS VEGAS
106
4.4
no
6.0
6.4
6.7
115
8.7
9.4
10.5
120
10.3
10.9
13.3
HENDERSON
100
1.8
105
2.0
2.2
2.5
110
2.5
2.8
3.5
115
3.0
3.4
5.8
SOURCES'©60**1 on Wa$t»water plant records for 1973 and CCRPC Staff estimates of
Population for 1973.
© Based on Projected Per Capita Flows by NECON and Permanent Population
Projections shown on TABLE
table 20
-------
Existing Water Uses and Distribution
Records of 1973 water delivered and
waste-water generation were compared
with the CCRPC 1973 population estimates
to obtain current water use factors. The
results of this comparison indicated that
the assumptions made for per capita water
and waste-water generation used in the
1969 Boyle CH2M Phase II report were suf-
ficiently accurate for the comparisons
in which they were used. For the pur-
poses of this study, a more current set
of per capita factors were developed for
various categories of water usage based
upon 1973 flow data and the CCRPC popu-
lation estimates. Specific categories de-
scribed are as follows:
Residential and Transient
Parks and Public Facilities
Golf Courses
Agriculture
Heavy Industry
Commercial and Light Industry
Military
Power
WASTE -WATER FLOWS
Treatment plant waste-water flows for
1973 are shown on Table 20 for each
of the more highly developed areas of
Las Vegas Valley. The 1973 flows are
based upon the measured flows into the
City of Las Vegas and the Sanitation
District waste-water treatment plants.
Flows for the City of Henderson are
as estimated by the Henderson Public
Works Department and represent the
sum of the flows entering Henderson
Plants Nos. 1 and 2.
.*
During 1973, the City of Las Vegas waste-
water plant treated an average of 31.8
mgd (35,600 acre-ft/yr). This average
flow included the 23. 1 mgd (25, 900 acre-
ft/yr) shown for the City of Las Vegas,
4. 4 mgd (4, 900 acre-ft/yr) from north
Las Vegas and 4. 3 mgd (4, 800 acre-ft/
yr) diverted from the unincorporated
area. The Clark County Sanitation Dis-
trict treated an average of 13.2 mgd
(14, 800 acre-ft/yr) which is the balance
of the flow from the unincorporated area.
A long term contract between the City
of Las Vegas and the City of North Las
Vegas calls for the continued treatment
by Las Vegas of waste water from North
Las Vegas. Diversion of waste-water
flows from the unincorporated area to the
City of Las Vegas plant is a temporary
condition which will be discontinued upon
completion of expansions now (1974) under-
way at the Sanitation District's waste -
water treatment plant.
EXISTING SANITARY FACILITIES
Service Areas
Waste-water collection systems and asso-
ciated treatment plants serve the majority
of the urbanized area of the Las Vegas
130
-------
LEGEND
I Eiisting Service Area
I Is! Phose Expansions
| 2nd Phost Expansions
I 3rd Phase Expansions
4th Phase Expansions
HIRTHLASVEG
^^» Existing Interceptors *
•••" Proposed Interceptors *
ORPORATEOX3
AREA
CITY OF HENDERSON
figure 27
-------
Valley. Major waste-water systems are
operated by the Cities of Las Vegas,
North Las Vegas, Clark County Sanitation
District, and Henderson.
City of Las Vegas (Including North
Las Vegas)
The present waste-water systems of the
Cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas
are considered a combined system be-
cause they utilize some common major
interceptors and treatment facilities be-
longing to the City of Las Vegas. The
combined systems, now treating the
largest amount of sewage in the valley,
presently serve nearly all the population
of both cities. The treatment facility
receives municipal wastes from the
sewered portions of the incorporated
areas of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas.
The undeveloped areas lying within both
cities are subject to future development.
The extension of waste-water collection
facilities to serve this development will
be necessary. The areas of present
service and proposed future service are
shown on Figure "27.
Collection System
undoubtedly continue to infiltrate these
older lines.
Population estimates suggest a population
approaching or exceeding 400, 000 persons
by the year 2000. This would require a
little over two times the present number
of service connections. The system will
probabjy require some future paralleling
of major interceptors or the construction
of relief sewers.
There are several existing problem areas
in the collection system within the city
limits. Some of these have been corrected
and a number are in process of being
resolved by relief connections, a sewer
relayment to appropriate depth, etc. At
present, additional sewerage facilities
are needed in the downtown area due
to the construction of high-rise hotels
in the past ten years. All of the new
high-rise office buildings also have been
built since 1964 and current planning
includes a downtown convention center.
This construction and its related de-
velopments require additional, and larger
capacity, trunk sewers to handle the ex-
panded uses of the downtown area.
The major portion of the sewer system
has been installed within the last 20 years.
The older sections of the collection system
may be experiencing some ground-water
infiltration. Most of this can be attributed
to poor joint connections on clay pipe.
With receding water tables, the effect
of infiltration may not be extensive, al-
though perched water from irrigation will
While infiltration is not a problem, inflow
illustrates the result of a problem peculiar
to desert construction. Flash floods
damage or wash out portions of the local
sewer system. However, this type of in
flow is extremely intermittent in nature
and is not significant to the overall con-
dition of the collection system.; Also, the
treatment facility is of sufficient capacity
132
-------
to accommodate the increase in flows
occurring because of unusual and/or ex-
traneous conditions. Undesirable in flows
can be readily eliminated by the replace-
ment of curb inlets with properly designed
dry wells. This would mean an annual
decrease of flow into the treatment plant
of approximately S.Oonillion gallons per
inlet and would result in a savings in plant
operations.
Treatment Facilities
The City of Las Vegas1 waste-water treat-
ment plant consists of two, essentially
similar, high-rate trickling filter plants,
operating at a nominal design capacity
of 30 million gallons per day, (mgd).
In 1973, the daily flow rates averaged
31. 8 mgd. This included 4. 3 mgd which
was diverted from the Clark County Sani-
tation District's waste-water collection
system. The County's waste-water plant
expansion should discontinue this flow
diversion. Even so, it is anticipated
that the City's plant will reach its design
capacity before the end of year 1975.
A study on recommended expansion of
the City's plant and a collection system
infiltration-inflow analysis is underway.
Waste-water discharges from this plant
may be described as high-quality secon-
dary effluent. Removal of biochemical
oxygen demand (BODs) for 1973 ranged
from 90% to 96%, with an annual average
removal of 93%. Removal of suspended
solids (SS) for 1973 ranged from 87% to
94%, with an annual average removal of
91%. A detailed description of the ef-
fluent characteristics was presented in
Table 2 in the section entitled Water
Quality. A small portion of the treated
effluent is used for cooling water for the
Nevada Power Company's Sunrise Gene-
rating Station and for irrigation. The
remaining effluent is discharged directly
into the Las Vegas Wash.
System Administration
The Sanitation Division of the City of Las
Vegas' Department of Public Works is
responsible for the administration, main-
tenance and operation of the City's waste-
water collection and treatment facilities.
The Department of Public Works' budget
is subject to the approval of the City
Commissioners. The Sanitation Division
includes the Waste-water Treatment Sec-
tion responsible for maintenance and oper-
ation of the City's Waste-water Plant,
which is manned round-the-clock, and the
Sewer Maintenance Section, responsible
for the waste-water collection facilities
City of North Las Vegas
The City of North Las Vegas operates
and maintains the waste -water collection
facilities within its corporate boundaries
and discharges its collected waste water
to the City of Las Vegas' waste-water
system. North Las Vegas is giving
serious consideration to the construction
of a 3 to 4 mgd waste-water reclamation
plant. The plant as presently conceived,
would be an extended aeration activated
133
-------
sludge plant. The area to be served by
this plant lies generally west of Inter-
state 15 and north of Carey Avenue.
Chlorinated effluent from the reclamation
plant would be used for irrigation of up-
wards to 1, 600 acres of parks and golf
courses, some planned unit developments
and Craig Ranch Country Club. One of
the larger areas proposed for irrigation
is the North Las Vegas Regional Park
where reclaimed waste water will also
be used to maintain a 40 acre lake.
Solids processing facilities would not
be included with the reclamation plant.
The City of North Las Vegas proposes to
discharge solids back to the interceptor
system for subsequent treatment at the
City of Las Vegas1 waste-water treatment
plant. This approach to solids handling
may be accomplished by mutual agreement
with the City of Las Vegas with appropriate
amendments to the existing sewer service
contract. Irrigation with reclaimed waste
water from this plant would require some
modifications to the in-valley irrigation
system described in Chapter 2.
Clark County Sanitation District
The Clark County Sanitation District pro-
vides waste-water and collection and
treatment facilities which serve the de-
veloped but unincorporated areas within
the Las Ve"gas metropolitan area, plus
the recent addition of Nellis Air Force
Base.
Collection System
The Sanitation District's existing and
projected waste-water collection system
is shown on Figure 27. The collection
lines generally extend from Nellis
Air Force Base on the north to Sunset
Road on the south and from Decatur
Boulevard on the west to the waste-
water treatment plant on the east.
The major trunk and interceptors
shown on Figure ?.,7 are the backbone
of the Sanitation District's System.
Pipe sizes range from 4-inch single
residential laterals to 5 1-inch inter-
ceptors.
The District treats the second largest
amount of sewage in the valley. Popu-
lation projections indicate that by the
year 2000, the area served by the District
may grow to over 300, 000 persons and
may generate average daily waste-water
flows in excess of 40 mgd. This will re-
quire enlargement or paralleling of some
existing interceptor lines. Assuming de-
velopment proceeds in an orderly manner
and large areas of developable land are
not bypassed, it should be possible to
expand the collection system as required
to meet future demands at reasonable cost.
There are still many septic tanks in the
Las Vegas Valley.
134
-------
VARIATIONS
WASTEWATER FLOW
LAS VEGAS VALLEY
TYPICAL MONTHLY VARIATIONS IN WASTEWATER FLOW ©
MONTH JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
w£mm 93'4 93'6 95'° 96'5 99-° l02'8
JUL
107.2
AUG
108.0
SEP OCT
104.1 100.9
NOV DEC
99.9 99.6
TYPICAL HOURLY WASTEWATER FLOWS ©
HOUR(A.M.) 1 23456
AVERA* HOUR I0°-9 *>* ™ ™ 63'7 60-2
HOUR(RIL) 123456
*E*£ HOUR I3°-3 l292 l23'4 ll8'6 "4"9 ll3'9
7
61.4
7
114.4
8
67.9
8
115.8
9 10
76.9 89.1
9 10
116.9 116.1
II 12
104.2 121.2
II 12
113.4 108.7
DAILY AND PEAK HOUR FLOW FACTORS ©
•
l
y
w
w
r
i
i
r
w
r
i
YEAR
1969
1970
1971
196*
1970
1971
AVERAGE DAILY
FLOW-mgd
22.5
24.5
25.4
10.1
10.6
12.5
MAXIMUM DAY
FLOW-Mf
29.5
32.0
29.1
13.0
13.6
14.9
Ratio to Amrog* Day
1.31
1.31
1.15
1.29
1.29
1.19
PEAK HOUR
RATE-wgd
37.0
38.0
37.5
16.0
17.0
19.5
Rotw to Awroft Doy
1.64
1.55
1.50
1.58
1.60
1.56
Ralwto Maxim Dai
1.25
1.19
1.29
1.23
1.25
1.31
RECOMMENDED FACTORS FOR DESIGN
1980 Z%1%%2%\
1990
£000
S/SS/SS/S/S,
tmmim
1.35
1.30
1.25
ssssss s s ss s
S/////////S
1.75
1.65
1.55
1.35
1.30
:25
SOURCES:
* Conpnhtntm Wattr OtaNtj Control Prcgran for Id* Lot V*«m DraiMgi
Bain-PhoH II , Dtc«nb«r 1969 by Boyli Engintirinf and
) Design Appindii to thi Nomrotur Prajtct Rtport • La* Vign Wnk Poltatwi
AbattBMt Projtct, Novimbtr I, 1972 bj NECON.
in
table 21
-------
DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL
MAXIMUM DAY WASTEWATER FLOWS
PRESENT AND PROJECTIONS
YEAR
PRESENT©
1973
PROJECTIONS©
1980
Population Level
Minimum
Median
Maximum
1990
Population Level
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
2000
Population Level
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
LAS VESAS
VALLEY
(mgd)
51.3
81.9
85.2
90.4
106.2
113.4
124.3
129-7
137.5
157.2
WASTEWATER FLOW COMPONENTS OF LAS VEGAS VALLEY
LAS VEGAS
(mgd)
24.4
43.8
44.8
47.8
56.4
60.6
65.8
618
66.3
75.4
^INCORPORATED
AREA
(mgd}
20.2
27.3
28.7
30.1
35.2
36.9
40.3
51.3
53.3
58.0
NORTH
LAS VEGAS
(mgd)
4.7
8.1
8.7
9-1
11.3
12.2
13.7
12.9
13.7
16.6
HENDERSON
(mgd)
2.0
2.7
3.0
3.4
3.3
3.7
4.5
3.7
4.2
7.2
SOURCES^CD Bond on 1973 Wutmttr Plant Records for CCSD and CLV oird Estimate for Htndtrton Planti.
CIV WWTP Ftovi kav* k*M jrorottd b*tMin tto Cititt of Las Vigat and North Lai
(?) Baud on Avtrao* Wottivattr Flowi them on TABLE Zl multiplied by Riconm«ndMl
Factor* for Duign ikown on TABLE 10
table 22
-------
Treatment Facilities
System Administration
The Clark County Sanitation District's
waste-water treatment plant is of the
high-rate trickling filter type with a no-
minal capacity of 12 mgd.
A 20 mgd expansion of this plant has
been undertaken by the applicant.
The waste-water treatment processes
employed in the plant expansion are the
same as those of the original plant.
The solids handling facilities are,
however, different. When the plant ex-
pansion is completed, all solids will
receive thickening, heat treatment,
vacuum filtration, and incineration. The
waste-water stream from the solids hand-
ling process will be treated in an activated
sludge basin and returned to the plant in-
let structure.
This plant is operating under overloaded
conditions. The 1973 average daily flow
from the collection system was 17.5 mgd
of which 4.3 mgd was diverted to the
City's plant for treatment, leaving 13.2
mgd to be treated. Removal of BODs for
1973 averaged 83%. Removal of SS for
1973 averaged 84%. With the expansion
now under construction, effluent quality
should improve and the facilities should
have adequate capacity to meet projected
needs through the early 1990's. A detailed
description of the effluent characteristics
is contained in Table 4 . Portions of the
effluent are used for cooling water for
the Nevada Power Company's Clark Gene-
rating Station and for irrigation. The re-
maining effluent is discharged directly
into Las Vegas Wash.
The Board of Trustees for the Sanitation
District establishes policy. The Board
of Trustees consists of the seven members
of the Board of County Commissioners for
Clark County, Nevada. The Sanitation
District staff is divided into four depart-
ments (1) administration, (2) general
offices, (3) waste-water collection system
operations and (4) waste-water treatment
plant operations. The plant is manned
round-the-clock.
City of Henderson
The City of Henderson operates a waste-
water collection system and two waste-
water treatment plants. These facilities
provide service to virtually all of the
people residing in Henderson.
Collection System
The City of Henderson's waste-water col-
lection system is intermingled with small
portions of the BMI system from which
it originated. All the waste water collected
south of the BMI plant and northeast of
the Boulder Highway, plus that carried
in the Center Street trunk, is diverted to
the Henderson waste-water plant No. 2
purchased in 1973 from BMI. The re-
maining waste-water flows are treated
at the Henderson No. 1 city-built treat-
ment plant. Records on the portion of
total flows treated at each plant and the
137
-------
basis for proportioning are not available.
The waste-water system also collects the
waste water of the East Las Vegas area
and portions of the City located northerly
of BMI. Prior to anticipated future de-
velopment, interceptor trunk and main
collection lines will need to be extended
into presently undeveloped areas. The
existing service area and the interceptor
system together with proposed system
expansions are shown on Figure 27.
Treatment Facilities
Henderson treatment plant No. 1 is of the
Imhoff tank-oxidation pond type. Plant
No. 1 was designed for an average daily
flow of 1.5 mgd. Present daily flow rates
are estimated to be about 0.7 mgd to 0.9
mgd. Effluent from the plant is piped to
unlined holding ponds, from which the
effluent is disposed of by evaporation and
seepage to the near-surface ground-water
zone. The treatment effectiveness is
difficult to evaluate because of the diffuse
nature of the seepage portion of the dis-
posal system. Influent and effluent are
not routinely sampled, and no definitive
past records are available. The limited
available data is shown in Table 5.
to plant No. 2. Plant No. 2 is a two-
stage trickling filter plant designed to
provide treatment of domestic waste
water from the BMI complex. Certain
industrial wastes, characterized by a
very low pH, occasionally are received
at the plant and have pronounced detri-
mental effects on plant operation. Flow
measurement equipment at Plant No. 2
is reported to be inoperative. Estimates
of flow reaching the filter are 0. 9 to 1.1
mgd, which is about the original design
capacity of this plant.
Both plants No. 1 and No. 2 discharge
their sanitary and industrial effluents
into unlined ponds constructed of native
material. The native soil is at least
semi-permeable, and infiltration into the
ground from these ponds is known to
occur. Such treatment as occurs may be
classified as similar in nature to that
from a combination waste stabilization
pond and infiltration gallery. The in-
filtration of large quantities of basically
untreated industrial waste and lesser
amounts of domestic waste water into the
near surface ground-water zone has
had a detrimental effect upon quality of
ground water entering the Las Vegas
Wash.
The remaining portion of the City is served
by Henderson's treatment plant No. 2.
The BMI industrial complex sanitary
sewerage system, that portion of Hender-
son lying east of the Boulder Highway,
a portion of central Henderson and the
small residential area west of the
Henderson High School are all tributary
Since accurate measurements of surface
and subsurface flow from the BMI and
Henderson pond systems are not avail-
able, it is not possible to accurately
characterize these discharges to Las
Vegas Wash. It seems probable that
waste waters which percolate through
the pond bottoms are the worse for their
138
-------
passage through the surrounding soil,
at least from a TDS standpoint. A pre-
vious study indicates the probability
that, while high TDS water may enter
the Wash from the BMI ponds, these
ponds do not contribute any significant
pollution in terms of phosphorus or
uncombined nitrogen.
The limited data available indicates that
Henderson's waste-water plants are
probably not producing a good quality
secondary effluent. If Henderson is
to grow and prosper in a healthy climate,
waste-water'treatment facilities must be
upgraded and expanded. Currently, the
city of Henderson is considering a pro-
posal to modify its existing means of
treatment. The proposal is for develo-
ping four separate secondary treatment
facilities which provide a trickling filter
plant with evaporation ponds for the
Henderson Core, area, two trickling
filter plants with irrigation for the Green
Valley area and a trickling filter plant with
lime addition for phosphorus removal for
the Lake Adair area.
Systems Administration
The city of Henderson Department of
Public Works is responsible for the ad-
139
-------
ministration, maintenance and operation
of the City's waste-water collection and
treatment facilities. The plants are nor-
mally staffed seven days a week during
an eight hour work day and as needed in
case of emergency.
Variation in Waste Flows
Variations in waste-water flow rates
have been studied utilizing the records
of the City of Las Vegas and Clark
County waste-water treatment plants.
These variations are shown on Table 21
together with recommended factors for
design. The recommended design factors
have been applied to the average day flows
shown on Table 20 to derive the projected
maximum day waste-water flows shown on
Table 22.
It should be noted that the maximum day
flow occurs during the summer months
and is,a result of the influx of tourists
into the Las Vegas Valley. Furthermore,
flows equal to or approaching the maximum
day flow occur for several weeks at a time
during the summer months. This is also
the period of time when Las Vegas Bay is
most susceptible to algal growth, thus,
the maximum day flow becomes the con-
trolling flow for the design of waste-
water treatment facilities.
140
-------
-------
Ten possible alternatives have been con-
sidered for implementation to meet the
water resource management goals and
water quality objectives.
Of the alternatives to be discussed 4';
of the alternatives have discharges into
the receiving water as their method of
disposal. These alternatives are: Al-
ternatives 2-Complete Treatment; 3-
Advance Waste Water Treatment and
Return to Lake Mead; 7-Combination
Alternative Export to Dry Lake and
10-Amended Combination Alternative.
The advantages of discharging into the
Las Vegas Wash are that the greenbelt
will be maintained and effluent returned
to Lake Mead and to the Colorado River
could be credited up to the amount of
Colorado River water allocated to Ne-
vada.
Another m'ethod of discharge investigated
in the alternatives is export with land dis-
posal. Alternatives 4-Dry Lake Export;
5-Export to Eldorado Valley; 6-Export
to Hidden Bailey-Jean Lake Area and
7-Combination Alternative-Export to
Dry Lake all use this method. Other
methods of discharges were Alternative
1 -Groundwater Recharge and Alternative
8-Deep Well Disposal.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 - Ground Water Recharge
(subsurface disposal)
Waste water at the central collection
point will be given complete waste water
treatment for the purpose of improving
the physical, biological, chemical and
biochemical characteristics sufficiently
to preclude degradation of the existing
ground water supply. The majority of
the effluent from the complete treatment
plant would be injected into the valley1 s
water-bearing aquifers through a net-
work of injection wells. The water could
be retrieved through a system of wells
for delivery to the portable water system.
Effluent from the advanced waste-water
treatment plant phase of the process would
be used for in-valley irrigation and main-
tenance of a greenbelt in Las Vegas Wash.
Brine waste resulting from the desalina-'-
tion process would be exported out of
the Las Vegas Valley for disposal by
H
I
1
8
142
-------
evaporation.
To meet the existing ground water quality
condition, a reduction in concentration of
total dissolved solids (TDS), phosphorus,
nitrogen, biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD)
and suspended solids would be required
and bacteria and viruses should be eli-
minated. If these constituents are re-
duced in concentration sufficient to pre-
clude degradation of ground water quality,
the effluent from the plant would exceed
water quality standards that have been
established for the Las Vegas Wash.
Unfortunately, present knowledge of the
physical hydraulic, or water quality
characteristics of the ground water basin
beneath Las Vegas Valley is insufficient
to assure the viability of this alternative.
Before major financial commitments are
made for a recharge program, it will be
necessary to first define the physical
characteristics of the basin through a
program of exploration, data collection,
and data analysis. It would then be ne-
cessary to demonstrate the feasibility
of ground water recharge utilizing a
pilot operation through the physical
chemical and biological practicability
as well as financial feasibility of such
a program.
Due to the large number of technical
unknowns which exist for this alternative
with regard to the degree of pretreatment
and with regard to the ground water basin,
this alternative does not provide a readily
implementable solution to the existing pol-
lution problems. Further, lack of sufficient
design data precludes the possibility of a
meaningful cost-effective analysis. This
alternative is not presently considered
viable and is eliminated from further eva-
luation.
Alternative 2 - Complete Treatment
(receiving water discharge and direct
reuse)
Waste water, at a central collection point,
will be given AWT and desalination for the
purpose of improving physical, biological,
chemical and biochemical characteristics
sufficiently to meet U.S. Department of
Public Health drinking water standards.
Effluent from the plant could be used for
(1) agricultural irrigation, (2) a pilot
ground water recharge program, (3) dis-
charge to Las Vegas Bay or Lake Mead
for return flow credit and (4) blending
with the domestic water supply for direct
reuses.
Complete treatment, including the reduc-
tion in concentration of nitrogen, phos-
phorus, TDS, BOD*, COD and SS, with
disinfection, will produce an effluent which
will meet and exceed the water quality
standard for Las Vegas Wash. The ef-
fluent from this process should be usable
for any water demand in the Las Vegas
Valley. This alternative has the dis-
advantage of high-unit processing cost
due to the high energy consumption of
the desalination facility and has some
143
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
technical problems in as much as faci-
lities of the size required have not yet
been constructed. Furthermore, the con-
trol of bacteria and viruses in a direct
reuse application is not known to have
been demonstrated to the satisfaction of
the nation's health authorities. Future
technical advances to make complete
treatment more feasible. Complete
treatment is considered to be one of the
more viable and desirable alternatives.
Alternative 3 - Advance Waste Water
Treatment and Return to Lake Mead
(receiving water disposal)
Alternative 3 provides for waste water
collection at a central point, provision
of AWT to improve physical, biological,
chemical and biochemical characteristics
to a level that will meet the existing water
quality standards for discharge to the
wash.
The AWT plant would be designed to re-
duce the concentration of phosphorus SS,
BODg and COD. The water will be disin-
fected prior to discharge. The effluent
from this plant would meet the water
quality standards now set for Las Vegas
Wash.
The advantage of returning adequately
treated waste water to Lake Mead is that
effluent returns to the Colorado River
which may subsequently be beneficially
reused downstream.
The technical feasibility of the proposed
AWT plant and the beneficial usage of the
effluent for In-Valley irrigation; mainte-
nance of a green belt in the Las Vegas Wash
and as credit for allocated Colorado River
withdrawals makes this alternative viable.
Alternative 4 - Dry Lake Export (land
disposal)
Secondary treated waste water, collected
at a central point, would be exported by
pipeline to Dry Lake Valley for disposal
by evaporation. In the time period of
1990 to 2000, depending upon population
growth and water usage, AWT and desali-
nation of required waste water quantities
to meet potable usage would be initiated.
Brine wastes from the desalination pro-
cess would be exported to Dry Lake Val-
ley for disposal by evaporation. In the
same pipeline originally constructed for
the export of waste, waste water of good
quality exported to Dry Lake Valley would
be segregated through the use of a flood
control principle of waste water of poorer
quality. At Dry Lake Valley, a portion of
the good quality waste water could be
diverted for use by the proposed Allen
Power Project, and, if proven feasible,
portions of the waste water could be used
for irrigation in the Dry Lake Valley.
This alternative does not provide for main-
tenance of a green belt area in Las Vegas
Wash. This alternative has been elimina-
ted as a viable alternative because it does
not meet the basic project objective of pre-
serving the Las Vegas Wash environment.
148
-------
Alternative 5 - Export to Eldorado Valley
(land disposal)
Waste water, collected at a central collec-
tion point, would be pumped and trans-
ported by pipelines to Eldorado Valley
for disposal by evaporation. A portion
of the waste water exported to Eldorado
Valley would be used for irrigation of
agricultural land. A small portion of
the waste water at the central collection
point would be given AWT. The effluent
of the AWT plant would be used for a pilot
desalination plant, pilot ground water re-
charge program and for In-Valley irriga-
tion.
Waste water treatment plant effluent, be
it secondary or AWT effluent or a blend,
would be available for the maintenance
of a green belt in the Las Vegas Wash.
The waste water to be exported to El-
dorado Valley would not receive AWT.
The pilot scale AWT near the Las Vegas
Wash would be designed to reduce the
concentration of phophorus, BODg , SS,
and COD. Effluent would be disinfected
to produce a water that would preclude
degradation of the existing ground water
supply beneath the valley.
Investigation into the surface soils and
shallow geology of the Eldorado Valley
indicates that it may not be possible to
avoid pollution of the regional ground
waters without extensive evaporation
pond lining. Also, there would not be
any provision in the Eldorado export
alternative for diverting water to the
Allen Power Project for beneficial
reuse. Due to the similarity of the
Eldorado export alternative and the
Dry Lake export alternative except for
additional costs of the evaporation pond
lining and a loss of a possible beneficial
reuse of the waste water as power plant
cooling water, the Eldorado export al-
ternative has been eliminated as a viable
alternative.
Alternative 6 - Export to Hidden Valley -
Jean Lake Area (land disposal)
Waste water collected at a central collec-
tion point would be pumped and transported
by pipeline to the Hidden Valley-Jean Lake
Area for disposal by evaporation. All
elements of this program are similar to
those outlined by the Eldorado Valley al-
ternative including the loss of a possible
beneficial waste water reuse and a neces-
sity of lining the evaporation pond. For
these reasons the export to Hidden Valley-
Jean Lake area has been eliminated as a
viable alternative.
Alternative 7 - Combination Alternative
Dry Lake Export (receiving water
charge, reuse, land and subsurface
disposal)
Waste water, collected at a central col-
lection point, would be pumped and trans-
ported by pipeline to Dry Lake Valley
for disposal by evaporation. At Dry Lake
Valley, portions of the waste water would
be diverted for use by the proposed Allen
Power Project. If proven feasible, por-
tions of the waste water could be used for
149
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
limited agricultural irrigation at the Dry
Lake disposal site. About one (1) mgd
of the waste water at the essential col-
lection point would be given AWT. The
effluent of the AWT plant would be used
for a pilot desalination plant and pilot
ground water recharge program. Effluent
would be avilable for the maintenance of
the green belt in the Las Vegas Wash.
The waste water could be exported to
Dry Lake Valley and would not receive
AWT. The pilot scale AWT plant would
be designed to produce the concentration
of phosphorus, BODs , SS, and COD.
Effluent would then be disinfected to pro-
duce a water that would preclude degrada-
tion of the existing ground water supply.
The possible beneficial uses of the waste
water in the vicinity of the Dry Lake
Valley, abatement of pollution, and
maintenance of a green belt in the Las
Vegas Wash make this alternative viable.
Alternative No. 8 - Deep Well Disposal
(subsurface disposal)
Waste water, from a central collection
point, would receive AWT to remove SS
and biologically active components to
preclude the possibility of plugging the
injection well and surrounding aquifers.
The majority of the effluent from this
plant would be injected into confined
aquifers through a network of deep wells
for ultimate disposal. The remainder
of the effluent from the AWT plant will
be available for the maintenance of a
green belt in the Las Vegas Wash. The
effluent to be discharged to the Las
Vegas Wash would receive additional
treatment as necessary to meet the
water quality standards set for the
Las Vegas Wash. The AWT plant
would be designed for removal of SS
and biologically active compound in
the waste water that would foster the
growth of biological slimes. The
removal of these constituents is essen-
tial to prevent flooding of the receiving
aquifers serving as the ultimate disposal
sites of the waste water. AWT effluent
used to maintain a green belt in Las
Vegas Wash would be treated to the
level necessary to meet water quality
standards for the .Wash.
There is insufficient data available at
the present time about the geological and
hydraulic characteristics of the aquifers
underlying the Las Vegas Valley. With-
out this information it is not practical
to evaluate the feasibility of deep well
disposal of large quantities of waste
water. Before a program of disposal
by deep well injection could be imple-
mented, a program of exploration, data
collection and analysis would have to be
undertaken to determine if a confined
aquifer exists that could be used for the
ultimate disposal of the waste water.
Another geological consideration that
would have to be analyzed would be the
effect of seismic activity caused by deep
well injection.
Due to the time and expense that would
be required to determine these geological
characteristics of the basin underlying the
Las Vegas Valley and the potential for pol-
luting the potable water aquifers through
158
-------
possible aquifer inter-connection, this
alternative is not considered to be viable
for implementation.
Alternative 9 - No Action
The no action alternative will permit exis-
ting methods of waste water treatment and
disposal to continue. No improvements
or upgrading of treatment processes would
be made to improve the water quality of
the Las Vegas Wash.
This alternative is not being considered
as being viable. It violates EPA's and
Nevada's water quality standards for Las
Vegas Wash and results in the continued
pollution of Las Vegas Bay and Lake
Mead.
Alternative 10 - Amended Combination
Alternative (receiving water discharge',
reuse, land and sub surface disposal)
Waste water, at a central collection
point, would be given AWT for the pur-
pose of removing physical, biological,
chemical and biochemical constituents
to meet water quality standards. Efflu-
ent from this plant would be available
for such beneficial reuses as: (1) cool-
ing water for the proposed Allen Power
Project, (2) an In-Valley irrigation pro-
gram, (3) as a water source for a pilot
desalination plant, (4) as a water source
for a pilot ground water recharge pro-
gram, (5) maintenance of a green belt
in Las Vegas Wash and (6) as a water
supply for return flow credit from the
Colorado River when returned to Lake
Mead. This alternative is the same as
Alternative No. 3, AWT and return to
Lake Mead, with the addition of the
above-mentioned reuse programs, and
reduced volumes of water being dis-
charged to Las Vegas Wash.
The plant would be designed to reduce
the concentration of phosphorus SS,
BODc, and COD. Effluent would then
be disinfected. Plant dischargers would
meet water quality standards and effluent
limitations set for Las Vegas Wash. The
advantages of having effluent available
for use by the Allen Power Project faci-
lity is that the water used by the facility
would be purchased by the Nevada Power
Company, thus becoming a source of
revenue for the community. Also, the
technological feasibility of the proposed
AWT plant and the beneficial uses of the
effluent for In-Valley irrigation, main-
tenance of a green belt in Las Vegas
Wash, the potential for an additional
potable water supply and a possible
credit against withdrawals from the
Colorado River make this alternative
viable.
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
All the treatment alternatives were eval-
uated using eight qualitative parameters.
They were presented in the facilities plan
Annex A, and we concur with their deter-
mination. The evaluations of the alterna-
tives are listed in Table 23 in matrix
form with the relative variance of each
alternative listed. The numerical values
of 1, 2 and 3, representing, yes, question-
able, and no, respectively, are assigned
159
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
to determine the relative adequacy or
inadequacy of each individual alternative
to each parameter. The overall relative
merit of each alternative is then deter-
mined by totaling each vertical column.
The lowest total is representative of the
alternative with the highest overall merit
and the highest total is representative of
the alternative with the lowest overall
merit.
Reviewing the individual qualitative des-
cription of each alternative and determina
tion of the overall relative merits of each
alternative using the matrix indicates that
the following four (4) alternatives are
most viable.
Alternative No. 2 - Complete Treatment
Alternative No. 3 - Advanced Waste
Water Treatment and Return to Lake
Mead
Alternative No. 7 - Combination
Alternative
Alternative No. 10 - Amended
Combination Alternative.
These four alternatives will be analyzed
in more detail.
Alternative No. 2 - Complete Treatment
The Complete Treatment Alternative is
designed to collect and treat secondary
effluent from the existing Clark County
waste-water treatment plant, the exist-
ing City of Las Vegas waste-water treat-
ment plant and the existing City of Hen-
derson waste-water treatment plants.
The treatment process would produce
a water which should exceed discharge
requirements for Las Vegas Wash. Be-
cause of the high quality of the effluent
produced by this alternative, it is planned
that it would be blended with Lake Mead
water just ahead of the water treatment
plant of the Southern Nevada Water Project
(SNWP). Thus, the primary objective of
the Complete Treatment Alternative is
direct reuse of reclaimed waste water
for potable purposes.
This alternative involves construction of
a complete waste-water reclamation plant
utilizing phosphorus removal by chemical
coagulation, ammonia stripping and fil-
tration. Carbon absorption and desalina-
tion would be applied to a portion of the
total flow. The desalinated water would
be blended with the remainder of the
flow from the AWT plant. The blended
effluent would be disinfected with chlorine
and aerated. An export pipe would be
required with this alternative for disposal
of brine generated in the desalination
process. The high quality of this effluent
would economically preclude discharge
into Las Vegas Wash where it could
be contaminated by high salinity ground-
water discharges. The benefits of desali-
nation could be lost by adding the treated
166
-------
PRELIMINARY
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE NO.
Meets Federal and State Standards
Provides Immediate Pollution Abatement
Technically Feasible Today
Protects Water Resource
Augments Water Resource
Enhances Water Quality
Potential for Agriculture
Environmental Enhancement
TOTAL
ORDER OF PREFERENCE
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
16
6
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
9
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
12
4
5
1
1
1
2
3
3
i
1
13
5
6
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
1
13
5
7
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
II
3
8
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
18
7
9
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
22
8
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
LEGEND
l = Yes) (2= Questionable) (3=No)
167
-------
water to the water in Las Vegas Wash
which has a high level of TDS. Therefore,
conveyance of the plant effluent to the
SNWP would be via lined canal and pipe-
lines.
Special provisions for maintaining the
Wash will be required with this alter-
native. This will basically consist of
diverting a small flow of water to sus-
tain vegetation and wildlife. This water
will be diverted prior to desalination
and may be blended with secondary treat-
ment plant effluent in order to provide
nutrients necessary to sustain vege-
tation along the Wash.
This alternative provides an immediate
solution to the problem of the discharge
of pollutants (including TDS) to L/as Vegas
Bay. In addition to water reclamation
for potable reuse, this alternative also
includes an in-valley irrigation system.
The Complete Treatment Alternative will
meet the recommended water quality ob-
jectives developed for potable water sup-
ply, that is, U.S. Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards.
This alternative would not degrade water
quality in Las Vegas Wash. While most
of the reclaimed water from this treat-
ment plant would be diverted to the existing
SNWP for reuse, some of the water would
be diverted, prior to the desalination pro-
cess, for reuse in the in-valley irrigation
system and for a Las Vegas Wash main-
tenance program. Brine wastes would be
exported out of the Valley.
There is no Federal effluent requirement
and no National Pollution Discharge Eli-
mination System (NPDES) permit at the
present time for this proposed system.
Preliminary discussions have indicated
that an effluent quality equal to or better
than the water quality standards for Las
Vegas Wash would be acceptable.
This alternative meets the criteria for
a Best Practicable Waste Treatment
Technology (BPWTT) treatment and
reuse alternative.
Alternative No. 3 (Modified) -
Advanced Waste-water Treatment
and Return to Lake Mead
The AWT and Return to Lake Mead
Alternative is designed to collect and
treat secondary effluent from the ex-
isting Clark County waste-water treat-
ment plant, the existing City of Las
Vegas waste-water treatment plant and
the existing City of Henderson waste-
water treatment plants. The treatment
process employed is designed to produce
an effluent which will meet anticipated
effluent discharge limitations. The
primary objective of this alternative
is to treat the waste water and discharge
it to the receiving water. As in all plans,
a portion of effluent from this system
would be utilized for future in-valley ir-
rigation. In addition, this alternative
would maintain vegetation in Las Vegas
Wash.
This plan includes initial construction of
168
-------
an AWT plant to provide reduction in
BODe , SS and COD levels by post aeration
prior to discharge to Las Vegas Wash.
This alternative does not presently include
any experimental pilot programs to deter-
mine feasibility of more sophisticated
processes that might^be required to meet
future water quality standards.
A comparison of the effluent characte-
ristic for AWT and Return to Lake Mead
with the water quality standards for Las
Vegas Wash indicates that the water quality
standards for the Wash would be met ex-
cepting the proposed salt load criterion.
There are no Federal effluent require-
ments and no NPDES permit at the present
time for this proposed plan. Preliminary
discussions have indicated that an effluent
quality equal to the water quality standards
for Las Vegas Wash would not be possible,
if a salt load criterion is enforced.
This alternative meets the BPWTT re-
quirements for a waste treatment and
discharge alternative.
Alternative Number 7 - Combination
Alternative
The Combination Alternative provides an
immediate solution to the problem of the
discharge of pollutants (including TDS)
to Las Vegas Bay and also provides a
facility which would make secondary ef
fluent available to the Allen Power Pro-
ject station for power cooling water. It
provides a pipeline for conveying future
brines from desalination installations
when such installations are required.
A future in-valley irrigation system would
be structured to deliver secondary effluent
for beneficial reuse within the Valley.
This irrigation system can be expanded
and extended as the demands develop.
The pilot programs involving AWT and de-
salination are included to provide the
information necessary to determine the
economics and quality of water required
for proposed programs of desalination,
ground-water recharge, and potable water
use. The program of ground-water basin
definition and pilot recharge operation
will offer the opportunity to define and
hopefully make use of the ground-water
basin for the storing of reclaimed waste
water. The ground-water basin will be
evaluated as a vehicle for water distri-
bution within the valley and for water
"banking" against future needs. The
element of the system provides for the
maintenance of Las Vegas Wash and
the export of saline ground waters now
entering the Colorado River system via
Las Vegas Wash. Thus, the program
will meet the objectives desired of the
pollution abatement program.
The export system includes: (1) col-
lection facilities to carry waste waters
from secondary treatment plants, (2)
collection and conveyance of industrial
waste discharges and intercepted flows
from the Las Vegas Wash to flow re-
gulating reservoirs, (3) compartmen-
169
-------
talized reservoirs for high and low
quality waste waters and (4) an ex-
port pipeline with pumping stations in-
cluding surge protection and forebays.
Flows will be conveyed to a disposal
area in Dry Lake Valley which includes
irrigation and the utilization of the main
playa of Dry Lake to evaporate the waste
water not used for other purposes.
In addition to the main export system,
this alternative also proposes several
subsystems; (1) future in-valley ir-
rigation system, (2) pilot plant develop-
ment, (3) pilot desalination and recharge
facilities and (4) Las Vegas Wash main-
tenance. These subsystems, except
the Wash maintenance subsystem, are
identical to the subsystems proposed in
Alternative Number 10.
to Dry Lake Valley. This program would
permit retention of the majority of the
Wash in its present vegetative state,
collect and dispose of undesirable poor
quality ground waters and result in the
substantial elimination of TDS and nut-
rient pollution in Las Vegas Bay.
Export to Dry Lake Valley will meet the
proposed water quality standards by diver-
ting the combined waste-water flow to
Dry Lake Valley, thus, eliminating all
discharges of pollutants to Lake Mead.
The diversion system, as previously de-
scribed, would export waste water out
of the Las Vegas Valley for ultimate
disposal by evaporation. The effluents
from the existing secondary plants would
not require any further treatment prior
to exportation.
The Las Vegas Wash maintenance program
proposes the release of secondary treated
waste water in controlled amounts so as
to maintain a permanent greenbelt in
the Wash. This is desired because of
the great concern and high value placed
on the Wash by a substantial segment of
the local community.
Recent investigations have indicated that
for Wash maintenance, nutrient bearing
waste-water flows to the Wash should
vary from 3 mgd in the winter to 19 mgd
in the summer. This water would flow
down the Wash and then would be collec-
ted at a natural barrier in the Wash and
pumped back to the collection system to
be exported with the other waste water
There are no Federal effluent require-
ments and no NPDES permit requirements
if there is no discharge to the surface
waters of the State. Since this alternative
proposes to export the flow, there will be
no discharge to the surface waters other
than that for the Wash maintenance pro-
gram. The water which is discharged
to the Wash will be pumped out of the Wash
before reaching the North Shore Road sam-
pling point. Thus, this alternative will
meet proposed water quality for Las Vegas
Wash and probably would not meet "effluent
limitations. "
Effluent limitations have not been es-
tablished as of this writing. However,
preliminary discussions have indicated
170
-------
that an effluent quality equal to the water
quality standards for Las Vegas Wash (as
measured at North Shore Road) should be
assumed. This alternative meets the
BPWTT requirements for a land application
alternative. Effluent exported to the Dry
Lake Valley will not degrade either sur-
face or ground-waterv resources. The
ground water below Dry Lake is protected
from the waste water by the impervious
geologic formations within the Dry Lake
Basin.
Alternative Number 10 - Amended
Combination Alternative
The Amended Combination Alternative is
designed to collect, treat, and reclaim
waste water from the existing Clark Count,
City of Las Vegas, and Henderson waste-
water treatment plants. The objectives
of this alternative include a high degree
of treatment and several reuse systems.
Reuse systems include: (1) industrial
reuse, primarily as power plant cooling
water, (2) in-valley irrigation, (3) pilot
scale desalination plant, (4) pilot scale
ground-water recharge program and (5)
receiving water discharge for return flow
credit.
AWT processes would include lime coagu-
lation, single stage recarbonation, fil-
tration, chlorination of effluent for dis-
infection, and post aeration. The plan
includes lime reclamation facilities to
minimize chemical requirements for lime
coagulation, minimize the amount of re-
ject solids to be disposed of and to supply
needed carbon dioxide for recarbonation.
The Nevada Power Company presently uses
lime coagulated secondary effluent water
for cooling purposes. Present reuse of
treated effluent by the Power Company
occurs at its Clark Station and Sunrise
Station. This alternative anticipates
that AWT effluent will be purchased by
Nevada.Power Company for use at the
proposed Allen Power Project near Dry
Lake.
The utilization of AWT effluent for ir-
rigation of agricultural lands, landscaping
of parks and public facilities, golf courses
and greenbelt areas within Las Vegas
Valley offers an opportunity for the bene-
ficial reuse of these highly treated waste
waters.
Operation of an in-valley irrigation system
utilizing AWT effluent would have all the
benefits of the irrigation system proposed
in the export alternative. It would also
provide additional benefits due to the
higher quality of the water. The health
hazards associated with irrigation using
secondary effluent would be substantially
reduced; in fact, use of AWT effluent
should not impose any undue risks to health
because of the high level of treatment and
reliabilitiy that exists with this process.
Secondary effluent is presently used at
two Las Vegas golf courses for irrigation.
This practice has resulted in both odor
problems and soil plugging. It is anti-
cipated that effluent from the AWT plant
would significantly reduce these problems.
Further, because of the high quality of
171
-------
this effluent, it is anticipated that it can
also be used for additional park and green-
belt areas.
A pilot desalination program is proposed
in conjunction with this alternative to
accomplish the following objectives:
Determine the feasibility of
desalting AWT effluent
Evaluate specific desalination pre-
treatment requirements
Evaluate operation techniques
Investigate health hazards
Investigate environmental impacts
of a desalination operation
This plant would produce about 1.0 mgd
of high quality reclaimed waste water.
This will provide sufficient capacity for the
proposed ground-water pilot recharge pro-
gram.
A pilot ground-water recharge program
is also proposed as an integral part of
this alternative. This program is pro-
posed to accomplish the following objec-
tives:
Determine the feasibility of
recharging high quality reclaimed
waste water into the Valley's ground-
water formations.
Formulate recharge methods of
injecting effluent water for future
use as a supplemental water supply
Determine water quality require-
ments for recharging water.
The b'alance of the water will be discharged
to Las Vegas Wash. This flow would main-
tain a permanent greenbelt along the Wash;
however, there is some question as to the
ability of the AWT effluent to supply suf-
ficient nutrients to support present vege-
tation.
There is no NPDES permit at the present
time for the proposed discharge and there
are no official effluent limitations; how-
ever, an effluent quality equal to the water
quality standards for Las Vegas Wash
would be acceptable.
This alternative meets the BPWTT re-
quirements for treatment and reuse of
waste water. In this alternative,
heavy emphasis has been placed on re-
clamation and multiple beneficial re-
use of the waste-water resource.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF THE VIABLE
ALTERNATIVES
The four most viable alternatives each
consume significant amounts of energy.
Electric power would be purchased from
Nevada Power Company. The estimated
energy required for each alternative is
shown in Table 24. Electrical power
would be purchased monthly at an April
172
-------
1974 cost of 1. 03 3 £ per kwh, plus a
monthly demand charge of $1.75 per
kw. It is probable that the price of elec-
trical power will increase significantly
during the life of this project. Alter-
natives 2 and 7 will be subject to larger
changes in total yearly costs as the power
rate increases when compared with Al-
ternatives 3 and 10.
The analysis uses maximum day running
horsepower as a basis of comparison.
This is the amount of power that would
be used when process flow is equal to
the maximum day flow.
Existing and projected power generation
capacity available to Las Vegas Valley
is summarized in Table 25.
When the total power required by the
different alternatives is compared to
the total power available in the Las
Vegas Valley, it may be seen that the
highest maximum day demand is only
about 1% or less of available genera-
ting capacity. Thus, the impact of any
one of the four most viable alternatives
on the Las Vegas Valley power supply
is small.
Fuel sources that would be used in the
alternatives are natural gas and fuel oil.
Despite the anticipated shortage of these
two items, local suppliers have indicated
that adequate supplies should be available
in the future.
RELATED CONSTRUCTION
Allen Power Project
As presently conceived, the Allen Station
will have four 500 megawatt coal-fueled
steam-electric generating units. The
Coal fuel for the plant will be delivered
via slurry pipeline from coal reserves
near Alton, Utah.
The initial ownership of the Station will
include the Nevada Power Company and
City of Los Angeles acting through its
Department of Water and Power. Thir-
teen years after the first unit is placed
in service Nevada Power Company will
begin to recapture portions of the owner-
ship held by Los Angeles. The recapture
will be based upon the electrical load
growth experienced in the Las Vegas
area. Ultimately Nevada Power Company
will have full ownership and use of the
Station.
Nevada Power Company is at this time
conducting extensive in-depth and precise
environmental and ecological background
studies in the proposed site area.
Cooling water would be required to re-
move waste heat energy by condensing
steam used in the boilers and turbines.
This cooling water would be used over
and over again by having its waste heat
removed to the atmosphere through eva-
poration. Large cooling towers are
usually constructed for this purpose,
173
-------
with the water cascading down a series
of short drops to allow maximum ex-
posure to the air. Fresh water is added
as evaporation occurs, but eventually
the salts become so concentrated in this
water that they begin to precipitate (come
out of solution), coating the cooling tower
surfaces, a problem called "scaling".
To prevent this from occurring, water
(called "blowdown", and comprising only
about 20% of the volume flowing into
the towers) must be removed and re-
placed with fresh water. Nevada Power
Company representatives state that they
would use part of the blowdown water to
"scrub" the gases from the combustion
of the coal, removing particulate matter,
and then either evaporate the water in
sealed ponds or reclaim it by a de-
salinization process. High quality pro-
duct water would then be used as boiler
water, with the brine being evaporated
at the site. Estimates of make-up
cooling water requirements are as
follows:
RECLAIMED WASTEWATER DELIVERIES
ALLEN POWER PROJECT
Peak
Demand
(MOD)
12
24
36
48
Average
Demand To Be Delivered
(MGD) After
8
16
24
32
June 1, 1979
June 1. 1980
June 1, 1981
June 1, 1982
A four-party contract has been executed
which would provide waste water to meet
the cooling water requirements of the
Allen Power Project. The draft con-
tract calls for the sale of effluent from
the proposed County AWT plant. If, how-
ever, for some reason, the recommended
AWT plant were not constructed, then
Nevada Power Company would purchase
secondary waste water for the Allen
Power Project and provide their own
AWT facilities.
It is estimated that Nevada Power Company
will purchase AWT plant effluent from
the County for about 3l£ per thousand
gallons ($308 per million gallons). Thus,
the estimated annual revenue to be realized
by the community (after 1982) would be
about $3,500,000 per year. This revenue
is to be applied to the costs of providing
the AWT required to meet the water quality
standards for Las Vegas Wash. The anti-
cipated revenues from the sale of reclaimed
waste water to the Allen Power Project
should reduce the costs to the community
of the recommended project by about 25-
30%.
Coal for the plant would reportedly be
low sulfur coal to be mined in Utah. It
would be transported to the site either
by railroad of by pipeline, or a com-
bination. Additional transmission lines
would have to be built to convey electrical
power to substations for distribution. They
would follow the existing lines from the
Reid Gardner Plant to Las Vegas.
A separate environmental impact state-
174
-------
ESTIMATED ELECTRIC POWER CONSUMPTION (2)
1978
1985
1990
2000
Alt.
No.
Description
Max, Day Max. Energy Max. Day Max. Energy Max. Day Max. Energy Max. Day Max. Energy
Running Use Running Use Running Use Running Use
HP kwh/day(l) HP kwh/day(l) HP kwh/day(l) HP kwh/day(l)
2 Complete Treatment
3 AWT and Return to
Lake Mead
7 Combination Alternative
10 Amended Combination
Alternative
26,000 468,000 32,700 589,000 38,000 684,000 48,100 866,000
4,800 86,000 6,000 108,000 7,000 126,000 8,800 158,000
10,000 180,000 13,500 243,000 16,700 3pl,000 22,300 401,000
6,000 108,000 7,500 135,000 8,700 157,000 11,000 198,000
(1) kwh/day = HP x .75x24
(2) Power consumption is assumed to be proportional to flow
-------
POWER GENERATING PLANTS
FOR LAS VEGAS VALLEY
Name of Plant
and Location
Megawatts Presently
Available
Megawatts Available
to Nevada
by year 2000
Type of Plant
and Purpose
1 . Clark Station
Las Vegas Valley
2. Sunrise Station
Las Vegas Valley
3. Mohave Start on
near Davis Dam
4. Westside
Las Vegas Valley
5. Gas Turbines
Las Vegas Valley
6. Hoover Dam
at the Dam
7. Navafo Station
near Page, Arizona
8. Reid Gardner
Moapa Valley
9. Allen Power Project
(Proposed)
Total Nominal
Generating Capacity
in Megawatts
195
85
211
30
58
r 67 (May 1974)
100
261 (June 1974)
234
+ 112 (June 1975)
1,241 mid 1974
1,353 mid 1975
195
85
211
30
125
100
261
448 (1977)
2,000*
3,455
Steam Electric
Main Load (nat.
gas &fuel oil)
Steam Electric
Main Load (nat.
gas & fuel oil)
Steam Electric
Main Load (coal)
Diesel Electric
Peak, Emerg.
Gas Turbines
Peak, Emerg.
Hydroelectric
Main Load
Steam Electric
Main Load (coal)
Steam Electric
Main Load (coal)
Steam Electric
Main Load (coal)
Source: Nevada Division of Water Resources
* 500 Megawatts proposed to be available in 1979 with proposed expansion
to 2,000 Megawatts by 1983
table 25
-------
ment for this plant and power transmission
facilities would have to be prepared prior
to construction.
EVALUATION OF THE
VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
Each of the four viable alternatives meets or
exceeds the October 1973 water quality
standards for Las Vegas Wash set by
the State of Nevada and approved by the
EPA. In addition, each alternative meets
the project objectives and, in varying
degrees, the water management goals
and water quality objectives. The de-
gree to which each alternative meets the
project objective, water management
goals and water quality objectives is
discussed in the paragraphs which follow.
Engineering
Alternative 2, Complete Treatment,
would treat the waste water to a degree
which will allow direct reuse of the ef-
fluent. It would provide a flow of effluent
to Las Vegas Wash which would be of a
quality that would meet and exceed the
effluent limitations. This high degree
of treatment, however, would not be
without certain liabilities. This alter-
native would use large quantities of
electric power when compared to the
other viable alternatives. In addition,
it would use large quantities of chemicals
which are expensive, and in some cases,
in short supply. Finally, with the direct
reuse of reclaimed waste water for do-
mestic water supply purposes, there ex-
ists a potential health hazard. To date,
the nation's health authorities have not
approved any technique of direct reuse
of reclaimed waste water for domestic
water supply.
Alternative 3 (Modified), AWT and
Return to Lake Mead, will remove suffi-
cient pollutants to meet the effluent re-
quirements for discharge to Las Vegas
Wash and, thus, will meet the water
quality standards, for Las Vegas Wash.
"This alternative will have the lowest
first cost of the four viable alternatives
as well as the next to lowest operation
and maintenance cost. It also has the
lowest energy consumption. Reuse in
this alternative discharge is limited to
golf course irrigation which is presently
practiced with secondary effluent and
agricultural reuses. Industrial reuse
is limited to the two power plants which
are presently using secondary effluent.
No new industrial reuses are scheduled
with this alternative.
Alternative 7, the Combination Alterna-
tive, provides for exportation of secon-
dary effluent. This alternative has a first
cost about equal to Alternatives 3 and 10
and a low maintenance and operation cost.
Power consumption is higher than with
Alternatives 3 and 10. This alternative
provides for some beneficial reuse, both
for industrial and agricultural uses. The
quality of this water would limit its use
for irrigation purposes. The secondary
effluent would be available for delivery
to the Allen Power Project located near
the final disposal site at Dry Lake.
177
-------
MONETARY COST EFFECTIVENESS
OF FOUR MOST VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
2
3*
7**
10**
Present!/
Worth of
Description Capital Costs
Complete Treatment $155,216,000
AWT & Return to Lake Mead $ 87,288,000
Combination Alternative
(Export to Dry Lake Valley) 87,293,000
Amended Combination
Alternative $ 89,373,000
Costs Per Million Gallons Treated
Capital?/
Cost
$446
$248
$248
$254
M&O?/
Cost
$446
$128
$ 91
$130
Total
Annual
Cost
$912
$376
$467**
$339
$438**
$384
Direct^
Annual
Revenues
unknown
unknown
($ 30)
($116)
Net
Annual
Costs
$912
$376
$437**
$309
$322**
$268
I/ Includes the present worth value of all elements to be constructed between now and the year 2000. The in-valley irrigation
system is common to all four alternatives shown in this table. In-valley irrigation represents a present worth capital cost of
$13,377,000 and is included in the cost shown above.
2/ Derived by computing the annual capital cost using the "capital recovery factor" for 22 years at 7% and dividing the annual
cost by the average annual flow for the period 1978 to 2000 which is estimated to be 31,025 mgy. In-valley irrigation is
equal to $33 per million gallons for all four alternatives.
3/ Includes $13 per million gallons for in-valley irrigation for all four alternatives.
4/ Based on average annual flow delivered to the proposed Allen Power Project of 11,680 mgy and rates as described in the
"draft" 4-party contract. (Calculation: 11,680 mgy x ±30§. 7 31,025 mgy = $116)
mg
* Modified from Phase III Report; see discussion page VI-4.
**
See Dr. Thorne Butler's comments in Appendix H.
178!
-------
During the public hearings held in Au-
gust of 1972, there were objections to
the concept of exporting and evaporating
water from a desert community. This
alternative does include a maintenance
program for Las Vegas Wash; however,
the water used for this purpose will not
meet the effluent limitations for dis-
charge into the Wash. The water quality
standards for Las Vegas Wash could be
met by the removal of water from the
Wash by the proposed Wash ground-water
collection system and pumping station.
The Wash pumping station is located up-
stream of the sampling station at North
Shore Road, thus, water discharged to
the Wash for greenbelt maintenance is
withdrawn and returned to export sys-
tem for exportation to Dry Lake Valley.
This alternative includes pilot scale
AWT and desalination plants as well as
a pilot ground-water recharge program.
Information obtained from these pilot
facilities would be used to design future
facilities for expanded waste-water re-
clamation.
first cost and the third lowest annual ope
ration and maintenance cost. This al-
ternative has the lowest net cost after
deducting revenues from the sale of re-
claimed waste water to the Allen Power
Project. Energy consumption is com-
paratively low and this alternative offers
great flexibility for future waste-water
management programs.
In table 26, the reference made to
Dr. Thorne Butler's comments which
appear as Appendix H relates to his
point concerning the additional costs
incurred on Alternative 10 for piping and
pumping the AWT effluent to the Allen
Station. To balance the total costs,
to Alternative 7 must be added the
cost of treating the secondary effluent
to make it acceptable as an industrial
cooling water. Alternative 7 may be
higher in total costs because included is
the pickup and disposal of the ground-
water discharges.
Economic
Alternative 10, the Amended Combina-
tion Alternative, provides AWT prior
to discharge to Las Vegas Wash. The
treatment process proposed would pro-
duce an effluent which would meet or
exceed effluent limitations, thus,
meeting water quality standards for Las
Vegas Wash. This alternative emphasizes
beneficial reuse including continuation and
expansion of irrigation in the Valley and
the providing of industrial cooling water.
Also included is a pilot desalination and
pilot ground-water recharge program.
This alternative has the second lowest
Cost estimates and economic analysis
were prepared for each of the viable
alternatives in accordance with estab-
lished criteria. Cost estimates were
prepared for initial construction costs
and planned future expansions. The
Combination Alternative (No. 7) and the
Amended Combination Alternative (No.
10 both have direct income benefits from
the sale of waste water for use as power
plant cooling water. These revenues are
included in the monetary portion of the
cost-effective analysis.
179
-------
A summary of the monetary costs of the
viable alternatives is shown in Table 26.
This Table lists present worth of pro-
ject costs as well as costs per million
gallons (mil gal) of waste water treated.
The capital cost per mil gal is developed
by calculating the equivalent annual costs
of initial construction and future project
expansion then deducting salvage value.
The equivalent annual cost is then divided
by the average annual waste water flow
over the planning period to derive cost
per mil gal. The same approach is used
to obtain maintenance and operation costs
per mil gal of waste water. The total equi-
valent annual costs per mil gal is the sum
of the annual capital cost and the annual
maintenance and operation cost. The
direct annual benefits or revenus are
developed from the terms of the April
1974 draft of the proposed contract for
the sale of AWT effluent to Nevada
Power Company. The net annual costs
are the difference between the total an-
nual costs less the direct annual revenues.
THE NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 established the Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), a national permit
program. Section 402 of the Act re-
quires that municipal, industrial and
other point source discharges obtain
permits from EPA or its designated
State agency for the discharge of any
pollutant into the waters of the United
States. The Act also requires that
standards be established for discharges
from most pipe sources, including pub-
licly-owned treatment works. In the event
that the effluent standards are not suf-
ficiently stringent to provide for attain-
ment of established water quality stan-
dards in the receiving waters, effluent
limitations necessary to achieve comp-
liance with water quality standards must
be met. The date specified for achieve-
ment of secondary treatment, as defined
in regulations published pursuant to the
Act, or the treatment necessary to pro-
vide compliance with water quality stan-
dards, is July 1, 1977.
Since the flow in Las Vegas Wash will
be almost exclusively effluent from the
Clark County AWT Plant, and since
water quality standards for Las Vegas
Wash are more stringent than secondary
treatment effluent standards, the plant
effluent characteristics will be limited
by the NPDES permit to the level spe-
cified by the water quality standards.
Other conditions of the permit will re-
quire: monitoring of the discharge on
a daily basis, with reporting of results
to EPA and the State Bureau of Environ-
mental Health; provision of safeguards
against electric power failure; and action
to assure compliance with industrial pre-
treatment regulations published by EPA
pursuant to the Act.
This impact statement serves as the im-
pact statement that would be required
as necessary on the NPDES permit for
this new point discharge that would
normally accompany the grant award.
180
-------
' >•'• !'#^yW
*. timm$&
i\'y.'Mffi'tJ.i*M&iB&t
-------
Central to the evaluation of the viable
alternatives proposed in the previous
chapter is the varying environmental im-
pacts that will result. Within this eva-
luation, both beneficial and adverse im-
pacts will be identified. Adverse impacts
which cannot be avoided will be highlighted
in Chapter 4.
For organizational purposes, the primary
impacts of the alternatives will be dis-
cussed first. Primary impacts are those
impacts which have a more immediate af-
fect on the environment as the result of
an activity and are of a comparatively
shorter duration than, let's say, sub-
sequent ramifications of that primary
impact. For example, noise of const-
ruction is a primary impact where the
resultant disturbance to wildlife may be
of a temporary nature. Both the primary
impact and immediately identifiable im-
pact subsequent to that primary impact
will be discussed in this section.
Secondary impacts will be discussed
next. A working definition of secondary
impacts, as opposed to primary impacts,
would be those impacts that are directly
related to primary impacts but may not
be readily apparent as impacts. To ex-
pand on the previous example of const-
ruction noises disturbing wildlife, a
secondary impact may be a change in
the balance of wildlife. In a long-term
analysis, more adaptive species would
possibly return to the impacted area
and less adaptive species would seek
new habitats. In such instances, the
need for human intervention to mitigate
and maintain balances within whatever
wildlife habitat remains would have to
be considered.
In addition to the adverse impact miti-
gation measures discussed in this chapter,
measures designed to mitigate the adverse
impacts will be considered in the next
chapter as well. This will facilitate iso-
lation of those impacts remaining even
after all available mitigation measures
have been undertaken.
PRIMARY IMPACTS
Impacts of Construction
Construction of'waste water management
182
-------
facilities in developed areas causes noise,
dust, and inconvenience. These three im-
pacts can be minimized by careful sche-
duling of work so designed to affect
a minimum of people, watering to con-
trol dust, and requiring mufflers on con-
struction equipment. Other construction
practices which can acvoid adverse impacts
are: Providing adequate safety protection
for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians;
disposal of spoil in a beneficial manner;
and an enlightening education program to
acquaint residents with the necessity and
value of the project.
prohibitive. Where water tables must
be lowered to bury pipelines, the time
should be minimized so as to cause as
little damage as possible to vegetation
surrounding the area of construction.
The following impacts of construction
could result from any construction as-
sociated with any of the proposed viable
alternatives. The applicant's consul-
tants have recommended that the miti-
gation measures that are discussed below
be implemented.
Construction in deserts and-marsh areas
causes noise, dust, erosion, spoil, loss
of vegetation and disturbance of wildlife.
These impacts can be minimized by re-
stricting the area of facilities under con-
struction at any one time, watering to
control dust, requiring mufflers on con-
struction equipment, restricting construc-
tion areas to minimize loss of vegetation,
and restricting disturbance of areas sub-
ject to erosion. Other practices which can
avoid these impacts include' scarifying and
watering compacted soil to encourage new
plant growth; restricting equipment clean-
ing and maintenance to construction yards
equipped to dispose of oils, fuels, and
other substances harmful to vegetation,
and wildlife; and locating construction
stockpile areas to avoid areas of
valuable vegetation. The impacts of-soil
disposal can be eliminated or reduced
by carefully locating such areas for
beneficial uses or locating these dis-
posal sites where minimal impact would
occur. Soil could be used to construct
pond dikes if the haul distance is not
Temporary roads, equipment storage sites,
corporation yards, and construction sites
cause the loss of vegetation. Temporary
construction of this nature will destroy
the native vegetation, compact the soil,
and remove the top layer of soil, Re-
growth and revegetation is retarded and
can be further retarded by the dumping
of equipment fuels, cleaning fluids and
excess construction materials.
To minimize the impacts, all temporary
construction of access roads, equipment
storage sites, corporation yards, and
construction sites should be restricted
to the smallest compatible area. They
should be located in areas where the
least destruction of native vegetation
occurs. Disposal of all construction
wastes, equipment fuels, cleaning
fluids, and broken machinery parts
should be made at proper off-site dis-
posal areas. After these temporary
construction areas have served their
purpose, they should be restored to
183
-------
their original condition, or at least
blended into the adjacent land form.
Vegetation to be preserved adjacent
to temporary construction areas should
be identified and marked with measures
taken to protect it.
The impacts from temporary access
routes, equipment storage sites, cor-
poration yards, and construction sites
could cause the loss of wildlife. Vege-
tation provides food and cover for ani-
mals. The clearing of vegetation from
construction work areas removes habi-
tats, therefore removing both food and
cover.
In order to minimize the impact upon
wildlife from temporary access routes,
equipment storage sites, corporation
yards, and construction sites, all tem-
porary construction should be restricted
to the smallest compatible area. These
temporary areas should be located where
there will be the least destruction to
wildlife habitat. The disposal of all con-
struction spoils, equipment fuels, fluids,
and scrap machinery parts should be done
at proper off-site disposal areas. After
temporary access routes, equipment
storage sites, corporation yards, and
construction sites have served their
purpose, they should be restored to
their original condition or at least blen-
ded into the adjacent land form. All
wildlife habitats adjacent to temporary
access routes, equipment storage sites,
corporation yards, and construction
sites should be identified and marked
with measures taken to protect them.
The deposition of construction spoils
on vegetation in undoubtedly destruc-
tive. The spoils "pile" in itself can
be aesthetically undesirable, espe-
cially when spoils are a poor quality
soil and natural vegetation regrowth
is virtually not occurring.
The location of spoil areas is critical.
A site should be chosen that covers the
least amount of vegetation, particularly
the vegetation used by animals for food
and cover. The location of the spoil
should not increase local land erosion
or contribute to erosion in itself. Spoil
areas should be molded to blend with
local topography and be seeded or
planted with localized native plants to
blend with existing native plant material.
Plant species chosen for revegetation
should be from those native species
which will flourish in the area and
provide food and cover for wildlife.
Fertilization and treatment of spoils
may be needed to ensure adequate
revegetation.
Dust created by construction activity
can blanket adjacent vegetation and
kill or injure the plants, thereby re-
ducing habitat (food, cover) for wild-
life.
Layers of dust on leaves reduce gas
exchange and photosynthesis in plants.
Plant survival potential is reduced, as
well as food and palatability to wild-
life. All construction sites, roads, and
corporation yards where dust is created
184
-------
should be watered down as often as ne-
cessary to keep fugitive dust to a mini-
mum.
Increased traffic on present roads and
on roads under construction could re-
sult in the destruction or displacement
of wildlife.
Increased traffic could increase the num-
ber of road kills of animals. A traffic
accident involving a large animal such
as a Desert Bighorn Sheep can also re-
sult in human injury. The activities of
construction. . . human activity,
heavy construction movement (sub-
surface vibration), noise, etc. . . .
will disturb resident animals causing
them to move out of the construction
area. If the adjacent area into which
the animals move is already at its
carrying capacity for that species the
population of the species will be re-
duced. For each species displaced,
the adjacent population of that species
will be affected. To minimize the
impact of increased traffic upon wild-
life, construction crews and other pro-
ject-related personnel should be made
aware of road-kill hazards. Roads in
construction areas should be posted with
warning signs for animal crossings.
Noise and construction activities should
be kept to a minimum needed to perform
the work. Temporary access routes,
equipment storage sites, and corporation
yards should be located in areas of low
wildlife density. Temporary fencing or
barriers should be placed at heavily used
wildlife crossings.
Construction activities such as movement
of diesel-powered trucks, earth movers
and associated equipment would create
short-term noise impacts on the area.
These noise impacts would last from the
time of construction commencement to
its completion. Wildlife would be af-
fected by noise from these trucks ad-
jacent to the areas of construction.
Feeding bird species and mammals
close to construction roads would likely
be displaced and may feed elsewhere
or return to the area after the noise
ceases. Sustained high noise levels
may affect animals that rely on the
use of auditory signals to detect and
locate prey, evade predators or stake
out territories.
Proper use of muffling equipment and
noise baffles on construction equipment
would aid in reducing some noise emis-
sion. In addition, the timing of con-
struction activities in relation to the
seasonal abundance and critical use
of the area by wildlife would also re-
duce the impact. In general, the time
of greatest impact would occur during
the spring breeding season.
Construction equipment used on a project
would be operated with the standard^ ex-
pressed in the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA) which stipulates per-
missible levels of sound and duration of
exposure to construction workers. Ad-
ditionally, construction activities should
only proceed during a 12-hour work period
185
-------
day during the normal week, thus eli-
minating the noise exposure to week-
end recreation and to local residents
after the daylight hours.
Air quality changes related to construction
activities are not expected to be signi-
ficant on the study area. In areas where
motorized equipment would be used, a
modification in particulate and oxidant
levels may occur. Any burning of brush
and waste material would create localized,
periodic area quality changes.
In order to minimize effects of construction
efforts on local air quality, burning acti-
vities should be limited to times when
atmospheric conditions are suitable and
when the practice is absolutely necessary
and material cannot be disposed of by alter-
native means such as shredding. The ope-
ration of diesel-fueled heavy equipment will
not result in any significant air quality de-
gradation.
The increase in human activity could cause
an increase of litter in the project and ad-
jacent areas. Construction personnel,
if careless, can significantly add to the
accumulation of refuse on the project site.
Bizzare occurrences such as birds caught
in plastic six-pack holders, small rodents
and reptiles with aluminum pull tabs ador
ning their bodies, along with the refuse
littered road sides are indicators of care-
lessness. If trash is allowed to collect,
an increase in flies, rats, and mice can
be expected.
To minimize the impact from increased
human activity in the project area and
adjacent areas, refuse containers should
be readily available at all project con-
struction sites. Refuse containers should
be placed at all temporary observation
areas. Frequent collection and disposal
of refuse should be practices. All con-
struction crews should use trash disposal
facilities and encourage visitors to use
the facilities provided.
Associated with the increased human ac-
tivities is the degradation of the environ-
ment by human wastes. All of the re-
medial, protective, and mitigation
measures discussed for increased human
activities should be applied, along with
the provision for adequately and conve-
niently located sanitation facilities for
use by construction crews and visitors
at construction sites and temporary vi-
sitor facilities. Human traffic may re-
sult in some destruction of the existing
vegetative cover. All vegetative spoil
which is removed will be chipped and
spread in a manner which will not pre-
sent a future fire hazard. No spoil will
be burned.
Impacts Of Project Features in Common
As was discussed in the previous chapter,
of the ten alternatives, four alternatives --
No. 2 - Complete Treatment; No. 3 - Ad-
vanced Waste Water Treatment and Return
to Lake Mead; No. 7 - Combination Alter-
native and; No. 10 - Amended Combination
Alternative -- were considered viable.
The criteria for selection and screening of
the alternatives that was done by the Appli-
186
-------
cant and presented in Table VI-I of the
Facilities Plan Annex A submitted to EPA
in July of 1974 is reproduced in Table 23
and is concurred in by EPA. In addition,
EPA's evaluation of the alternatives ap-
pears in Chapter 2.
Therefore, the impacts of the viable al-
ternatives will only be discussed, as well
as the alternative of "no action" in keeping
with the letter and intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Due
to the need of the community to comply
with the overriding immediacy of the EPA
Pollution Abatement Notice to clean up
the discrete pollutant contributions to
Las Vegas Bay, as well as maximize the
reuse and beneficial return of waste water
within the hydrologic system, it would be
extraneous to discuss the entire range
of alternatives when certain alternatives
would not be capable of satisfying these
basic requirements.
Common to all of the viable alternatives
that have been selected in the previous
chapter are the impacts relating to the
(1) collection system conveying wastes
from the existing sanitary systems to the
AWT Plant, (2) the advanced waste treat-
ment plant it.self and (3) the in-valley
irrigation system. These impacts on the
environment are discussed below, with
modifications peculiar to each alternative
presented in the discussion of each alter-
native. In addition, the impacts asso-
ciated with pilot desalination and ground
water recharge (Alternatives 7 and 10)
and export to Dry Lake (Alternatives 2
and 7) are discussed herein.
Waste Water Collection System Impacts
Since the waste water collection pipelines
will all be buried underground, the long-
term surface and visual impacts will be
minor. The pipeline alignment will be in
such a manner to minimize disturbance
to native plant communities.
The Henderson Pump Station and the AWT
Surge Pond will create some visual impacts.
These visual effects can be reduced by
providing attractive design in landscaping.
The surge pond will permanently remove
approximate 8 acres of vegetation and
wildlife habitat.
The ponds, pump stations and treatment
facilities will increase the ambient noise
level in the area. The pump stations
should generate noise only noticeable up
to 300 feet from each station. The AWT
and desalination plant would create a
smaller amount of noise.
The pump stations to be constructed at
the Henderson Treatment Plant and the
Las Vegas Wash subsurface drain will
increase the ambient noise levels of
these two areas to a small degree.
These facilities would create some
amount of odor. Odor created is
dependent on many factors, mainly the
degree of treatment, the quality water
received before entering the reservoir.
187
-------
A noticeable odor immediately around
the surge pond is expected. If the re-
servoir becomes odorous, aeration may
solve the problem. Aeration may also
create some odors if there is a great
amount of organic material in the waste
water. Chlorination and reduced aera-
tion would reduce odors to the greatest
extent.
Periodic pond cleaning should be practiced
to remove accumulated solids and algae.
These solids should then be transported
to a designated sanitary landfill or to the
sludge disposal pond. Furthermore,
design of the surge pond should specify
that the pond be deep enough to prevent
substantial algal growth on the bottom
Algae growth can be effectively controlled
by using short retention time in the pond.
The asphalt lined ponds will prevent
waste water high in salts and nutrients
from percolating into the ground-water
system at this site.
If a power shortage longer than 24 hours
were to occur, spillage into the Wash
and then into Lake Mead would occur.
a long-term beneficial impact. In addition,
by providing a centralized AWT facility,
the effluent quality can be more carefully
controlled as compared to the higher vari-
able quality of effluent produced from the
three existing systems. Instead of having
three separate points of discharge as with
the existing system, the proposed system
will have only one.
The AWT system will provide for a sub-
stantial flexibility in the treatment and
management of waste water in the Las
Vegas area. The modular design of the
plant will ensure that proper sewage dis-
posal is maintained as the population of
the Las Vegas area increases by allowing
for both expansion of capacity and the
addition of new treatment devices as
required.
Construction of the AWT Plant will necessi
tate the conversion of 80 acres of irrigated
pasture and adjoining salt bush, seep-weed
and bassia close to the Wash. This land
use change will result in a displacement of
grazing practices and the wildlife species
associated with the agricultural practices
and the adjacent natural vegetation.
Impacts From the Advanced Waste
Water Treatment Plant
The addition of an advanced waste water
treatment facility to the existing secondary
systems of the City of Las Vegas, Clark
County and Henderson, will aid greatly in
reducing water pollution to the Las Vegas
Wash and Bay. This is considered to be
The AWT Plant processes may create
some unpleasant odors which will have
impact upon the surrounding area. The
generation of odoriferous gases is likely
to be minor and difficult to assess due to
the close proximity of the existing secon-
dary treatment facility (trickling filters)
which at the present time create offensive
odors to adjacent residents. Any odors
188
-------
that are created can be alleviated by the
use of sanitary operational techniques,
chlorination and injection of deodorizing
chemicals into the air, and foul air collec-
tion and treatment.
The expected impact from noise created
by AWT operations is expected to be
slight. The only noise sources will be
from pumps, fans and motorized vehicles.
All equipment concerned with the operation
and treatment that would generate noise
will be located within buildings insulated
or baffled to reduce noise.
In the advanced waste water treatment
plant, the calcining furnace for Alterna-
tives 3 and 10 is the greatest source of
uncontrolled particulate emissions. A
multiple-hearth furnace is to be used and
the emissions from it are characterized
as moderate to heavy. The calcining
temperature is sufficiently high to cause
the discharge of a high proportion of sub-
micron particulates which makes the
control problem difficult. In the process
it is intended to recycle the CO -content
gas stream from the calciner. However,
there will be periods, during initial
startup, shut-down, for equipment
malfunctions, etc. when the gases will
be discharged to the atmosphere. There-
fore, the particulate emissions control
equipment must be designed for such
periods.
The processing rates, discharged loading
and gas flow rates of the calcining furnace
are not yet finalized. However, with the
addition of a refractary lined cyclone
followed by a high energy wet scrubber,
the most stringent emission regulations
of Clark County (Ringlemann No. 0)
should be satisfied.
A properly designed wet scrubber would
ensure collection of the submicron parti-
culate. The liquid effluent from the
scrubber can be recycled to the process.
The lime feeding, transfer, and flaking
operations could be particulate emission
sources if conventional control equipment
were not provided. Through the use of
fabric filters for the feeder and pneumatic
and/or mechanical transfer equipment
practically "zero" emissions can be
achieved.
Truck delivery and make-up lime to the
calcining systems can pose a serious par-
ticulate emission problem, depending on
the truck type. If a fully-enclosed back
vented pneumatic delivery type of vehicle
is used, then the emissions will be neg-
ligible. However, a dump-truck will
require an effective shrouding and ven-
tilation system to minimize the escape
of the very fine calcium oxide (CaO) par-
ticulates during the unloading operation.
This material poses a health hazard and
an air pollution potential so that its con-
trol will probably fall under OSHA juris-
diction. With an effective hood and ven-
tilation system, the material can be easily
collected in a fabric filter.
The presence of the AWT plant will create
189
-------
a visual impact on the area; however,
since the facility will be adjacent to an
existing treatment plant, the visual effect
will be reduced substantially by using
proper architectural design and landscap-
ing. Where possible, the structures should
conform to the surrounding desert envi-
ronment. An attempt should be made to
use local native vegetation in landscaping.
There is no NPDES permit at the present
time for the proposed discharge and there
are no official effluent limitations; however,
an effluent quality equal to the water quality
standards of the Las Vegas Wash would-be
acceptable for meeting any permit require-
ments.
All alternatives meet the Best Practical
Waste Water Treatment Technology
(BPWWT) requirements for treatment and
reuse of waste water. In this alternative,
heavy emphasis has been placed on recla-
mation and multiple beneficial reuse of the
waste water resource.
Post aeration with chlorination will be
used after advanced waste treatment to
destroy pathogenic organisms and to
remove nitrogen in its ammonia form.
Residual chlorine can cause toxic ef-
fects on fish in Las Vegas Bay, how-
ever this can be minimized by ensuring
that the chlorine addition is carefully
controlled and that maximum mixing
occurs with the Bay. EPA has recom-
mended that post dechlorination prior
to discharge of the AWT effluent to the
Wash, be instituted, for all of the
viable alternatives.
Impact on Las Vegas Lands to be
Irrigated
Operation of an in-valley irrigation system
utilizing AWT effluent would have all the
benefits of the irrigation system proposed
in the other alternatives. It would pro-
vide the same benefits as 2 and 3, and
additional benefits to those of Alternative
7 due to the higher quality of the water.
The health hazards associated with irri-
gation using secondary effluent would be
substantially reduced; in fact, use of
AWT effluent should not impose any
undue risks to health because of the high
level of treatment and reliability that
exists with this process.
Increased irrigation of lands in the
Las Vegas Valley will create new
surface impacts. Those that do occur
will be either beneficial or subtle.
Perhaps the most prominent impact
will be the increase in green areas
throughout the City. To many people,
the presence of green belts are an
amenity and a definite asset to the
populace since they provide areas for
recreation and a visual relief from
the surrounding city or the starkness
of the desert.
The application of additional water in
a normally dry, hot climate may produce
subtle, microclimatic changes, parti-
cularly in terms of the humidity and tem-
perature in the area •where water is
applied. This will constitute a minor
impact; howeyer, in an area of exten-
190
-------
sive irrigation the effects could be
monitoried.
much as 9,000 acres of grass and green-
belt to the existing system.
Ground water flowing toward the Las
Vegas Wash as a result of irrigation
could result in some changes in vege-
tation wherever more, water becomes
available to plants. This could likely
occur in areas downslope and adjacent
to lands to be irrigated. These changes
may occur subtly or where there is
substantial irrigation runoff, the vege-
tation changes may be substantial.
Some areas presently irrigated with
secondary treated waste water may be
converted to AWT water as it becomes
available. This conversion will create
some beneficial impacts, one of which
will be a significant reduction in the
presence of odor now created by appli-
cation of secondary water. Also, the
elimination of soil clogging by nutrients
and suspended solids may be realized.
Of principal importance is the reduced
health hazard in irrigating with a highly
treated waste water.
Irrespective of what alternative is se-
lected as the proposed project, pipelines
will be constructed to deliver reclaimed
waters.
By the year 2000 the theoretical require-
ments of the In-Valley irrigation system
could surpass 70, 000 acre-feet per year.
Expansion of neighborhood and regional
parks within the Valley could add as
More realistic projections of the anti-
cipated new irrigable acreage which
could easily be served by AWT plant
effluent, indicates that a maximum of
25, 000 acre-feet per year of reclaimed
waste water could be disposed of within
the Valley by 2000. On completion of
all stages of In-Valley irrigation an
annual supply of about 20, 000 acre feet
is anticipated. The main factors dis-
couraging a more extensive irrigation
system include:
Sites which are too remote from the
effluent sources
Small size of many of the new sites
will make the service costs pro-
hibitively high.
The most beneficial aspects of In-Valley
irrigation are from water conservation
benefits. Every acre-foot of reclaimed
waste water which is used for irriga-
tion purposes is one less acre-foot which
will have to be taken from the potable
water supply. In-Valley irrigation is
beneficial because it is a recycling
process of a scarce resource.
From the adverse side, any increase
in the irrigated acreages within the
Valley will be ultimately reflected in
poorer water quality of the waters
within Las Vegas Wash. In previous
sections it has been shown that the
191
-------
soil column within the basin is vul-
nerable to salt leaching to the environ-
ment from surface irrigation.
Due to the geology of the Valley, it is
believed that some of the near surface
groundwater will ultimately migrate down
gradient and discharge into Las Vegas
Wash. The increased salts which are
added to the system due to the initiation
of irrigation practices will contribute
greater TDS concentrations to the near
surface groundwater.
Much of the groundwater within the near-
surface aquifer system is 1'ocated in areas
physically remote to the Las Vegas Wash,
and the fact that these shallow aquifers
are often made up of sediment with low
permeability will tend to offset the near-
future salinity impact. There are sec-
tors of the Valley where it might take
hundreds of years for the salt (within
the near-surface aquifer) to migrate
to the Wash.
Therefore, any effort to increase the
irrigated acreage within the Valley can
only move in the direction of greater
degradation of the waters in the near
surface aquifer system. This is the
case whether the irrigation water
supply is potable water or reclaimed
waste water. If the piezometric levels
of the potable aquifers continue to drop,
there is also the possibility of the near-
surface aquifer recharging the deeper
zones due to the shift in potentials.
Construction of a minimum network of
wells will provide the County with the
necessary baseline data (both water table
elevation and water quality measurements)
prior to initiation of the In-Valley ir-
rigation element.
A tentative water quality sampling pro-
cedure should be adopted to ensure that
the representative data is collected from
each observation well. These procedures
along with the location of sampling stations,
frequency of sampling, and constituents to
be monitored should be delineated in the
plans and specifications submitted to
EPA.
Impacts of the Pilot Desalination
Program
A pilot desalination program is proposed
in conjunction with this alternative to
accomplish the following objectives:
1) Determine the feasibility of desalting
AWT effluent; 2) Evaluate the specific
desalination pretreatment requirements;
4) Investigate health hazards and; 5) In-
vestigate environmental impacts of a
desalination operation.
The plant would produce about 1. 0 mgd
of high quality reclaimed waste water.
This would provide sufficient capacity
for the proposed pilot ground-water
recharge program.
The pilot desalination plant would cover
approximately two acres of land. This
would represent a permanent commit-
192
-------
ment of land resources and the elimina-
tion of existing vegetation and wildlife
species.
The operation and maintenance of the pilot
plant facility would produce increased
noise levels in the arxea. The source of
this noise will include feed pumps, degasi-
fier blowers and numerous other equip-
ment such as the pumps necessary for the
flushing, cleaning, chlorine booster and
waste-brine processes. The estimated
noise emissions of the desalination equip-
ment should be determined and plans
developed to reduce the noise levels by
use of housing and baffles.
Operation of the pilot desalination faci-
lity would require additional electrical
power. Estimates of electrical needs
are 13 KWH per 1,000 gallons of desali-
nized water produced. Expected produc-
tion of desalted water would be 1 mgd
which will require approximately 13, 000
kilowatts per hour of electricity per day.
The desalination facility would produce a
highly concentrated waste brine which could
be disposed of in one of three ways:
1) Lined evaporation ponds near the desalt
plant, 2) Removal to AWT sludge disposal
ponds and; 3) Discharge to the City waste
water collection system. The brine'
waste would include concentrated salts,
heavy metals and possibly small amounts
of chemicals and resins. If a brine
evaporation pond facility is used, the
water would be evaporated with the brine
residues left behind. These deposits
would have to be periodically removed
and disposed of at a selected land fill.
Since the specific characteristics of the
waste brine are not yet known, a contin-
uous monitoring program would have to be
conducted to measure heavy metals, total
dissolved solids and other water quality
parameters during the pilot plant operation.
If heavy metal concentrations are found to
be excessively high, removal by precipita-
tion or other processes may be necessary.
The pilot desalination plant would likely
emit small amounts of water vapor from
the degasifier unit and blowers. This
constitutes a minor impact.
As a result of construction of the pilot
plant, some long-term visual changes
in the area would occur. The area is pre-
sently a well field with a power substation
and water tank. Landscaping and archi-
tectural design of the structure would
minimize any undesirable appearance fea-
tures of the plant.
Impacts of the Pilot Ground-water
Recharge Program
A pilot ground-water recharge program
is also proposed as an integral part of
this alternative. This alternative is pro-
posed to accomplish the following objec-
tives: 1) Determine the feasibility of
recharging high quality reclaimed waste
water into the Valley's ground water
formation; 2) Formulate recharge
methods of injecting effluent water for
193
-------
future use as a supplemental water supply
and; 3) Determine water quality require-
ments for recharging water.
The experimental recharge well site and
related facilities would permanently elimi-
nate approximately two acres of wildlife
habitat in vegetation. Since much of
the area has been significantly disturbed,
this impact would not be significant.
The recharge well and facilities would
cause a permanent change in the visual
environment of the area. In order to
minimize the impact of the well housing
structure on the surrounding environment,
the facilities should be designed to conform
with the desert environment and to be as
unobtrusive as possible. The area should
be landscaped to include shrubs and trees
that would aid in shielding the structure
from adjacent residential areas.
Pumps and related equipment may create
noise levels that would adversely affect
adjacent residents. In order to properly
determine the expected noise levels of the
equipment, noise sources should be iden-
tified and the estimate noise output deter-
mined. It would then be possible to deter-
mine methods such as enclosing pumps
or providing baffles to reduce noise levels
that are above ambient and considered
to have an adverse effect.
Subsurface impacts due to operation of
the injection wells for Alternatives 7 and
10 are largely problematical. Injected
water may cause some changes. The
two waters may be chemically incom-
patible and may dissolve additional min-
erals from the aquifer; or they could
react to form a precipitate that would
cause clogging of the injection wells.
Testing of the two waters and additional
treatment of the waste water, if neces-
sary, would eliminate this impact. Con-
tamination of subsurface waters can be
avoided by injecting water of at least
equal quality to that of the selected
aquifer.
Injected water will be warmer than that
of the middle aquifer. The impact of this
is not known. Recharge of the middle
aquifer utilizes short-term storage of
water to be withdrawn and beneficially
used by man; it provides some biological
treatment, reducing bacteria, viruses,
and remaining organic material; slows
the rate of subsidence in the ground caused
by continual depressurization from pumping
out of the middle aquifer, if injected near
production wells; and moves towards off-
setting the trend of depleting ground-water
resources.
A comprehensive monitoring program,
if implemented, will identify any impact
which may occur. However, it may take
a number of years before a detrimental
impact on the ground water aquifer is
detected. Therefore the duration of the
pilot program of groundwater injection
should not hastily conclude its operation
until an adequate passage of time and
data collection removes doubts as to the
accumulative impact of groundwater
injection.
194
-------
The experimental recharge well would
be drilled into the middle aquifer (500 to
700 feet below ground surface), and sized
to recharge 1.0 mgd of desalted effluent.
It is estimated that the product water from
the desalination plant would have a TDS
concentration in the range of 300 mg/1.
This is close to the background level of
potable ground water of the middle zone
in this sector of the Valley. A series
of ground water observation wells would
be installed in the vicinity of the recharge
wells to monitor the effects of the injec-
tion operation on the ground-water system.
This monitoring would permit identification
of any potential degradation of the potable
water supply.
Implacement of renovated waste waters
by well injection into the middle zone of
aquifers could enhance the environment
by conserving reusable waters that nor-
mally would have been discharged out
of the Basin. A continuous discharge
of 1 mgd would add 1, 120 acre-feet per
year of potable water into the basin
water supply. Since the product water
utilized for injection is close to the
background TDS level of the middle zone,
there would be no adverse salt balance
effects due to this operation.
During the initial stages of the experimen-
tal recharge operation, the recharge well
would be supplied with ground water.
A system of observation wells should be
provided to evaluate the response of the
ground-water systems to the recharge
operation. This system of monitoring
wells could permit termination of opera-
tion in the event that undesirable effects
or problems develop.
Impacts of Dry Lake Disposal
The following discussion concerns the
impacts of Alternatives 2 and 7 in using
the Dry Lake area, a closed basin sink
to the northwest of Las Vegas, for waste
water and/or brine disposal.
Ponds located on the alluvium above the
lake beds will have pervious dikes and
pervious bottoms. Evaporation will
increase salt concentration somewhat,
but continual percolation will prevent
significant salinity buildup. Water which
percolates in Dry Lake, will reach a clay
lens and flow underground towards the
center of the lake bed (or if there is no
clay layer, as in Jean, Hidden, and El-
dorado, will percolate downwards to join
the deep ground-water system). Where
good clays exist in the lake bed (Dry Lake
and Eldorado Lake), water logs will occur
by evaporation, allowing salts to contin-
uously build up in the lake waters. The
salinity in the evaporation ponds will
gradually change from relatively low in
the higher pond, to relatively high in the
lower pond. Storm flows may occasionally
dilute concentrations in the lake beds, but
presumably storm runoff will be kept out
of the ponds.
Of special interest to the ecology of the
treatment ponds are toxicity, nutrients,
dissolved solids, and temperature.
195
-------
Acute toxicity from waste water is not
expected to occur in the ponds if they
are operated to make use of the volume
of dilution made available through long
detention and detoxification with time.
Several physical factors peculiar to this
situation will affect the functioning of
the pond. Among the most significant
are solar radiation, wind speed and dura-
tion, soil type, and the actual configura-
tion of the pond. The sun shines 86% of
the time during the year with average
air temperatures ranging from below
45° to over 100° Fahrenheit. Insofar
as sunlight and temperature are con-
cerned, biological systems may function
at high rates throughout the year. Water
temperature in the pond is expected to
vary seasonally from 50° to 90° Fahren-
heit. However, pond temperature will
be influenced by wind behavior and water
depth. Conceivably, water temperatures
in shallow portions of the pond may at
times exceed 90°. Prevailing winds in
the 7-10 miles per hour range are ex-
pected to cause daily mixing of pond
waters. Winds in the Las Vegas area
may rise to 40-50 miles per hour, and on
these occasions bottom sediment may be
resuspended and cause increased levels
of turbidity.
In cross-section, the ponds on the allu-
vium will be shaped like a wedge. The
shallow water portion of the pond will
influence its physical and biological na-
ture. Heat adsorption and the stirring
of bottom sediments will be greater in
the shallow end of the ponds.
Depending on the degree of light pene-
tration, mats of blue-green algae and
colonies of sulfur bacteria may grow in
the bottom. Plants which grow up and
out of the water, such as cattail, tule,
and cane, may also occupy shallow por-
tions of the pond. Both the growths of
bottom dwelling blue-green algae in marsh
plants'will have adverse impacts on the
evaporative purposes of the ponds, and
the dissolving of oxygen in the pond water.
Mats of blue-green algae may break loose
from the bottom and float on the surface
where they give off a foul odor. They
also die and become resuspended in the
water where they decay, consuming oxy-
gen in the process. This decay, when
combined with other factors, may cause
the pond to go anerobic (stagnant).
Upright growing plants contribute to the
filling of the pond with sediment, by pro-
ducing and holding suspended material.
During the winter, these plants die and
contribute decomposable organic matter
to the system. However, such plants
provide food, cover, and nesting habi-
tats to aquatic wildlife. Biological pro-
ductivity of higher plants and animals
in the lower level ponds and lake bed is
likely to be restricted by the level of
total dissolved solids (TDS) which is
expected to be 5, 000 mg/1 when opera-
tion begins.
Over the next five-years, it may build
up to 45, 000 mg/1 in the lake bed. A
TDS of 5, 000 mg/1 is expected to sus-
tain plant growth and to provide drinking
196
-------
water for birds and terrestrial animals.
It is not expected to provide habitat for
common species of game fish. Certain
fish which are able to tolerate wide ran-
ges of salinities may be introduced in
the Lake to control insects and other
aquatic vertebrates, but they will not
provide recreational use. Research
would be needed to find game fish spe-
cies such as the Corvina of the Salton
Sea that could survive in the pond.
A rise in salinity from 5, 000 to 45, 000
mg/1 is expected to reduce and eventually
eliminate vascular plants from the lake
bed and lower pond. As was predicted
for the Salton Sea in California, a TDS
of 45, 000 mg/1 is the upper limit for
marine fish that may live in such highly
enriched waters. Consequently, at a
TDS of 45, 000 mg/1, biological com-
munities in the Lake would be reduced
to simple communities of salt-tolerant
algae and invertebrate animals.
During the biologically productive life
of the ponds (long-term for higher ponds,
five years for lower ponds), water fowl
and native wildlife are expected to use
the ponds as a habitat. A potential for
water fowl botulism (a disease caused by
bacterial toxins) exists in warm shallow
enriched ponds of this type. However,
this type of botulism may be prevented
by the proper design and operation of
the pond.
A riparian type of habitat (typical of
stream banks) consisting of salt cedar
and cat claw mesquite is expected to
develop near the ponds. This vegetation
will provide habitat for native animals
and increase their density in the vicinity
of the project. Irrigation streams would
have to be implemented to provide con-
trolled plant growth.
Recreational uses of the pond area are
expected to be limited to viewing the
scenery, birds, and terrestrial wild-
life that will be associated with the pond.
A study should be implemented at the time
of construction and initial operation to
determine the design and operating condi-
tions that will provide optimum recrea-
tional benefits.
Because of the shallow depth and the
prevailing winds, the lake beds would
be turbid and the level of biological
productivity is uncertain. With salt
concentratiaons reaching high levels,
greater than 45, 000 mg/1, the Lake
would become biologically of little
value after about five years.
After desalination is added to the treat-
ment process, slug flows of brine and
some waste water will be pumped to the
playa lake. This water is not expected
to support life. Because of mixing by
wind, it is likely to appear as a lake
of muddy water surrounded by a white
band of salt crystals. Some water fowl
may use the lake surface for a resting
area.
107
-------
Water Quality
The abatement of pollution from municipal
and industrial sources will have a number
of beneficial impacts on Las Vegas Bay,
all of them related primarily to the quality
of the advanced treated effluent.
The higher quality characteristics of waste
water entering the Las Vegas Wash are
expected to change significantly the cha-
racter of the Wash. Initial changes will
likely be minor since the water quality in
the Wash is determined, in part, by
ground-water inflows from a number of
sources. The residual effect of the poor
quality water will be slowly eliminated
over time as the AWT water has a diluting
effect and institution of salinity controls
on groundwater inflows under P. L. 93-230.
Perhaps the most significant change will be
the reduction in amounts of phosphorus en-
tering the Bay. According to Deacon and
Tews (1973), approximately 814 pounds of
phosphorus enters Las Vegas Bay daily
from the Wash. This amount would be
significantly greater if it were not for the
the vegetation in the Wash which assimi-
lates a large portion of the phosphorus.
Existing phosphorus discharges from the
City of Las Vegas and Clark county treat-
ment plant are from 9 to 11 mg/1. Future
discharges will be 0. 5 mg/1 or less.
Other water quality parameters will
include suspended solids, biochemical
oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand
and total dissolved solids; however, the
reduction of TDS is likely to be minor in
comparison to the total quantity reaching
Las Vegas Bay daily. The amount of
nitrogen entering the Bay has been esti-
mated at 3,234 Ibs. per day according
to Deacon and Tews. Some reduction
will likely occur as a result of AWT dis-
charge; however, a significant portion
of that amount is known to come from a
non-point source near the BMI evapora-
tion ponds. The effects of changes in
water quality will, therefore, constitute
beneficial impacts on Las Vegas Bay.
In addition to the expected changes in
discharges to the Wash, the quality
of the effluent will differ significantly
from existing effluent characteristics.
Table 27 lists the quality of the effluent
from the treatment plants to be centra-
lized and the effluent quality expected
from advanced waste water treatment.
As previously mentioned, one important
characteristic will be the reduction in
the amount of phosphorus in the effluent
from the existing 9-10 milligrams per
liter (mg/1) to approximately 0.5 mg/1.
This is evident by the low phosphorus
levels at North Shore Road. The most
likely affect of phosphorus reduction
would be the loss of vigorous vegetative
growth and possibly some die-off and
composition changes. Because the
definite effect of reduction of phosphorus
levels to 0. 5 mg/1 cannot be determined
without monitoring of vegetative trends,
this will constitute a problematical
impact.
When possible means of mitigating the
effects of phosphorus reduction* if it
was found to be a problem, would be
198
-------
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
EXISTING AND FUTURE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
OF CITY OF LAS VEGAS, CLARK COUNTY SANITATION DISTRIC
HENDERSON, AND ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAI
Effluent Parameter
Suspended Solids
Biochemical
BOD oxygen demand
Chemical
COD oxygen demand
PO as P
NH as N
Total
TDS dissolved solids
Alkalinity as CaCO
Hardness as CaCO
Calcium as Ca
ff Temperature (influent)
2 pH
(D Chlorine residual
M LAS
M Coliform
1
Dissolved oxygen
Unit
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
°C
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Clark Co.
38
30.5
128
10. 7
16
1831
236
546
124 -
25.2
7.5
2.4,
2.3
-
-
City of
Las Vegas
18.4
14.7
NA
9
18
1058
247
413
80
22.7
7.6
1.0
NA
-
-
Henderson
#1 #2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2293
319
825
305
NA
7.2
NA
NA
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1000
240
270
100
NA
7.4
NA
NA
Future AWT
(average monthly mean)
2.0
10.0
40
0. 5
1425-1725
27.0
6. 5-8.5
200/100
5.0
199
-------
the periodic discharge of controlled
quantities of secondary waste water
from the City of Las Vegas Treatment
Plant. These releases would have to
be made to provide the necessary
nutrients to maintain vigorous vege-
tative growth without exceeding the
water quality standards for Las Vegas
Wash.
The discharge of AWT water in place of
the secondary treated water will improve
the desirability of the Wash in terms
of aesthetic quality. This will constitute
a beneficial impact. The presence of
odoriferous and unpleasant looking waste
water reduces the desirability of the
area at the present time. Advanced
waste water treatment will greatly re-
duce both of these unpleasant features.
The availability of good quality water will
enhance the recreational and educational
opportunities in the Wash. This is con-
sidered a beneficial impact. The Wash
Development Committee, in a recent
report outlined the educational and rec-
reational development goals for the Wash
based on the identified qualities of the
area and the desires of the population.
The improvement of water quality in the
Wash will reduce the health hazards po-
tential. Advanced waste water treatment
will significantly reduce biochemical
oxygen demand and bacteria that was
present in the secondary effluent. By
decreasing the nutrient discharges, the
likelihood of bacterial growth will be
diminished. This will constitute a long-
term beneficial impact.
Total dissolved solids or salinity rea-
lized through the advanced treatment of
waste water discharge to Las Vegas Wash
will result in a TDS reduction of 150 mg/1
and have a beneficial impact on the Colo-
rado River of reducing TDS at Hoover
Dam by 1 ppm. The importance of control-
ling salinity throughout the Colorado River
Basin'goes without saying as borne out
by the discussion in Chapter 1. The Bureau
of Reclamation estimates that the present
economic impact of salinity for each milli-
gram per liter increase in salinity at Im-
perial Dam may be as much as $240, 000.
Las Vegas Wash presently .contributes
an increase in salinity at Imperial Dam
of 10-12 milligrams per liter.
In addition to the reduced salinity of ad-
vanced treated waste water discharge to
Las Vegas Wash, export and beneficial
reuse of waste water as envisioned in
proposed alternatives 7 and 10 will divert
additional salts from the Colorado River.
The reuse of waste water for cooling in
the Allen Power Generating Facility will
divert over 60, 000 tons per year of salt
from the river. In-Valley irrigation
will divert over 235, 000 pounds of salt
per day; however, some portion of this
diversion may return to Las Vegas Wash
as diffuse subsurface flows.
Water Quantity
Any substantial increase in water vol-
ume entering the Wash would change
the width of the stream and velocity of
the flow. This increase in water will
also create changes in the vegetative
composition of the Wash. Areas now
supporting the more arid plant species
200
-------
will likely shift to more moisture de-
pendent species. The provision of a
greater quantity of water in the Wash
would allow for a greater variety of
usage for wildlife and recreational en-
hancement in the Wash. There would
be considerable beneficial impacts.
The substantial reduction or elimination
of the flows into Las Vegas Bay from
Las Vegas Wash will change the present
characteristics of the Bay. Acute die-
off of algae in Las Vegas Bay could occur,
but will depend on the time of year that
the flow is eliminated. A die-off would
be most likely to occur if the flow is
eliminated during the summer months.
Such a die-off would be of a temporary
duration lasting from two weeks to a
month. Odorous die-off could be avoided
by eliminating the flow in the Wash during
the winter months.
Under modified Alternative No. 3, signi-
ficantly more AWT water than provided
for in the other alternatives would flow
down Las Vegas Wash to Lake Mead.
This is because there would be less pro-
visions for beneficial reuse of water
in modified Alternative 3 than in Alter-
native 2, 7 or 10, and no export out of
the basin.
During the initial phase of operation,
the amount of AWT water to be dis-
charged to the Wash and ultimately to
the Bay, will be greater than existing
releases of secondary treated water.
This waste water return to Lake Mead
may be credited to the amount of
water diverted to the Las Vegas Valley
from the Colorado River. This water
will also contribute a slight amount to
the generation of power at Hoover Dam.
These will both be beneficial impacts.
Due to alternations in the points of waste
water effluent discharge and quality and
quantities of discharge, changes in the
Las Vegas Wash are likely.
It has been well established that monthly
and annual fluctuations in waste water
flows to the Wash have occurred in the
past and will continue to change with the
increase in water demand, reduction of
non-point discharges to the Wash and
greater demand for waste water reuse
in the Las Vegas Valley. Table 29 shows
the changes in flows to Las Vegas Wash
for the years in 1971 through 1973. These
flows are expected to continue to increase
as the population in the Valley grows.
One of the most important aspects of the
Las Vegas Wash is the relationship be-
tween average monthly waste water flows
in Las Vegas and the amount of water
measured at the U.S.G.S. Gauging Station
at North Shore Road at the lower end of
of the Wash. Figure 36 shows that
although the peak discharges to the Wash
(in terms of waste water flows) occur
during the summer months, the lowest
flows in the Wash also occur during that
time period. This is undoubtedly due to
the high rate of evapotranspiration in
the upper Wash. In terms of continued
maintenance of vegetation and water
conditions in the Wash, this means that
201
-------
mm
Year
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1985
2000
ffftv^jj^
*W$&-WB&
Projected
Wastewater
Flow
(AF/yr)
68, 000
70, 700
73, 400
76, 100
78, 800
84, 200
123,200
ilR^^^iM^mm.
Projected Discharge to
(AF/yr)
Modified
Las Vegas Wash
Alternative No. 3 Alternative No. 10
68,000
70, 700
64, 120
65,230
63,810
64, 530
103,530
63,520
57,260
40, 264
32, 404
26,506
27,226
67,117
1202
-------
any future discharge programs related
to the project will require determination
of water requirements in the Wash on a
month-to-month basis and water releases
according to that schedule.
The reuse of waste water in Las Vegas
Valley will reduce the demands for with-
drawal on the Colorado River. Return
of acceptable quality water to the river
would go as a credit to Nevada's allot-
ment of 300, 000 acre-feet per year, thus
adding to the amount of this valuable
resource.
Water is not the only factor necessary
for the maintenance of Las Vegas Wash.
The majority of the Wash is on privately
owned land. The long-term maintenance
of the Wash is also dependent on some
kind of public ownership of the Wash, be
it buying the land the Wash is located on
or acquiring a flow easement.
Flexibility in the system is one of the
features that should be a major considera-
tion in any proposed project. Waste water
demand will fluctuate considerably from
one month to the next and one season to
the next. Any excess water will be re-
leased to Las Vegas Wash. The pro-
jected in-valley irrigation for 1982 will
amount to 9.4 mgd; however, this amount
may never be used for that purpose.,
Any amount not used will be discharged
to Las Vegas Wash. With additional
In-Valley irrigation, more water is
expected to return to the Wash as
underflow from the alluvial fan.
Vegetation and Wildlife
One of the features of all the proposed
alternatives is the change in the point of
waste water discharge to the Wash. Cen-
tralization of the City of Las Vegas, Clark
County Sanitation District and Henderson
Secondary Waste Water flows for advanced
waste water treatment will eliminate exist-
ing discharges to the Wash from the City
of Las Vegas and the Henderson Treatment
Plant.
The effects of the elimination of discharge
from the City of Las Vegas Plant will
have the greatest impact on (1) vegetation
composition, (2) the amount and location
of vegetative communities and (3) the
wildlife use and species composition as
a result of the floristic changes. Existing
discharges above the Clark County dis-
charge point, amount to approximately
27.8 mgd (City of Las Vegas Treatment
Plant and Sunrise Power Plant).
According to Bradley and Niles (1973),
the primary plant community above the
Clark County Sanitation Plant is the salt
cedar biotic community. With the re-
duced flows, the salt cedar community
is likely to change into more arid and
drought tolerant community. Tolerant
plants such as those characteristic of
the mesquite or salt bush communities
may be the replacement community. The
total area to be impacted would amount
to approximately 400 acres. Historically,
this upper Wash area contained dense
203
-------
ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL FLOWS TO LAS VEGAS WASH
AND LAKE MEAD FOR THE YEARS 1971 TO 1973
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Source of Discharge
to Las Vegas Wash
City L.V. WWTP
Clark Co. San. Dist. WWTP
NPC - Sunrise Power Plant
NPC - Clark Power Plant
Nevada Rock & Sand near Sunrise
BMI Pond Seepage
Undescribed Sources
From Las Vegas Valley
TOTAL OF IDENTIFIABLE SOURCES
Less evaporation & transpiration
Computed discharge to Lake
1971
mgd
20.99
7.90
0.20
0.94
0.50
3.87
7.11
2.95
44.46
-13.10*
31.36
1972
mgd
22.00
10.00
0.20
0.70
0.50
3.87
7.11
2.95
47.33
-13.10*
34.23
1973
mgd
27.60
9.00
0.20
0.70
-0-
6.50
3.6
4.20
51.8
-9.80
42.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
s
0*
*Includes 3. 3 MGD evapotranspiration below the geologic barrier.
Sources: NECON, 1971 and 1973; 1972 Environmental Assessment
204
-------
60
.:.
:
,,•
•
,
0
'
to
RELATIONSHIP OF AVERAGE DISCHARGES
TO LAS VEGAS WASH PER MONTH
(IDENTIFIABLE FLOWS) AND AVERAGE FLOWS
AT THE U.S.G.S. GAUGING STATION
AT NORTH SHORE ROAD FOR 1971
205
-------
areas of mesquite which were maintained,
in part, by the Las Vegas Springs which
flow to Las Vegas Creek, so it seems
likely that the mesquite community would
again become dominant unless management
measures are taken.
In the recent "Report to the Board of
County Commissioners" by the Las
Vegas Wash Development Community,
recommendations for educational and
recreational use of the area included
maintenance of the salt cedar forest in
the area of the Wash above the Clark
County Treatment Plant. In order to
accomplish this recommendation,
changes in the proposed discharge
regime will be necessary.
Any of the proposed methods would
reduce the impact on upper Wash
vegetation and wildlife.
to approximately 0.27 mgd of brine which
will add approximately 15, 500 Ibs. of salt
per day to the Wash. The result in change
in TDS will affect those plant species of
the Wash which are intolerant to higher
salt levels. Consequently, there will be
a transformation of some vegetative types
with more salt tolerant species such as
pickleweed, salt cedar, desert salt bush
or four-winged salt bush. After the initial
two years of the pilot program, brine
will likely be disposed of by evaporation
either at Dry Lake or at permanent
evaporation ponds near the plant.
The more water released to the Wash,
the area and the vegetative species
composition are expected to change to
more shrub and woodland and marsh
vegetation types. In addition, the amount
of surface water will likely increase.
This, in turn, will provide additional
habitat for water-dependent wildlife
species.
In addition to vegetative changes above
the Clark County Treatment Plant as a
result of effluent discharge relocation,
vegetation downstream is also expected
to be altered. From the present until
1978 when the first phase of project
operations begin, the amount of water
to be discharged to the Wash can be
expected to follow the general upward
trend as experienced in the past.
During the first two years of project
operation, brine from the desalination
plant proposed in Alternatives 7 and 10
may be discharged into the Las Vegas
City sewerage system. This will amount
Beneficial reuse of AWT water, as in
Alternatives 7 and 10, will require a
reduction of discharges to the Wash as
these reuse programs are initiated.
This action would cause changes in
downstream biotic communities and a
reversion from moist to more arid
condition.
In order to minimize the effect of flow
reduction on Wash, vegetation and wild-
life, recommendations have been made
by Bradley and Niles (1973) and the
Las Vegas Development Committee
(1974) to: 1) Establish a management
206
-------
plan for the Wash to include such things
as a levee system, check dam, etc. ;
2) Release of at least 19 mgd of water
during the critical summer months,
3 mgd during the winter and an annual
10 mgd; 3) A monitoring system in the
Wash to determine changes in biotic
communities as a result of changes in
discharge regime and to determine if
the above recommended releases are
adequate or if additional flows are
needed to maintain the Wash in a viable
state. In order to ensure the perpetua-
tion of Las Vegas Wash, these recom-
mendations should be implemented.
Eliminating all direct discharges but
allowing groundwater to continue flow-
ing, will have an unknown impact on
vegetation and wildlife. The quality of
the groundwater will be worse than that
of the present flows. Some areas may
slowly die and, unless they burn, will
remain as dead standing areas for many
years. A slow succession of salt cedar
will take place. If these areas are
cleared off or burned, during times of
heavy precipitation there will be no vege-
tation to hold the soil or catch water,
resulting in erosion of nutrient-rich
soil which then flows to Lake Mead.
The extent of the loss of vegetation and
wildlife is directly related to the reduction
of recreational use. Las Vegas Wash,
in its present environment, is not as
productive as it could be. With less
water than is now flowing in the Wash
and the management program, the rec-
reational value of the Wash can be
enhanced.
The loss of marsh vegetation and habitat
would be a long term adverse impact.
Smaller wildlife such as amphibians
would probably be lost. Birds and
mammals of the lower Wash would be
displaced. It is doubtful that this por-
tion of the Wash is a major habitat area.
Dr. Bradley and Dr. Niles give insight
into the diversity and amount of use this
area supports. The major impact of
wildlife displacement will occur if sur-
rounding areas are at their carrying
capacity. If these areas, such as the
upper marsh are at carrying capacity,
then some wildlife will die, proportional
to the amount of habitat loss, or repro-
ductive rates could be reduced. The ef-
fect on terrestrial birds will be of small
magnitude if salt cedar or mesquite are
growing in the Wash. The displacement
of wildlife is an adverse impact. If salt
cedar continues to grow and replace the
marsh vegetation, a beneficial impact
could result.
Another potential impact that could re-
sult from the elimination of direct dis-
charges to the lower marsh, is the im-
pact on Las Vegas Bay caused by storm
runoff. If the marsh vegetation dies,
and the ridge no longer holds the soil,
a large storm could cause silt to be
carried into Las Vegas Bay. This
addition of silt to the Bay would re-
sult in increased turbidity and nutrient
concentrations.
Impacts of No-Action
The alternative of no-action would per-
207
-------
petuate the deteriorating water quality
conditions now apparent in Las Vegas
Bay. Municipal and industrial waste wa-
ters from the Las Vegas Valley along with
highly saline subsurface flows which are
discharged into Las Vegas Wash are the
main sources contributing to this degra-
dation. The principal effects of pollution
have been algal blooms in the Las Vegas
Bay of Lake Mead, and increases to the
salt load of the Colorado River. Fore-
seeably, no action would allow gradually
increasing, but uncontrolled amounts of
water to flow down Las Vegas Wash,
maintaining the riparian habitat.
It is a matter of conjecture whether or not
the quality of water entering Lake Mead
might increase or decrease. However,
the total nutrients and salt loading would
probably increase.
Algae blooms would continue producing
odors, and eventually harming fish in
the Bay. The increase flow would add
some small values to the power gene-
rated at Hoover Dam, but would con-
tinue losses to downstream water users
due to increased salt loading decreasing
the quality of water in the Lower Colo-
rado River System.
Ignoring the EPA enforcement action may
precipitate court action by the U.S. At-
torney General. A court order to cease
polluting Lake Mead might be issued.
The violators, including the City of Las
Vegas and the Clark County Sanitation
District, could be found guilty of con-
tempt of court if present discharges con-
tinue. Fines and prison sentences could
result. An injunction to prevent further
connections to sewage systems in Las
Vegas Valley could also be sought by the
Attorney General.
Failure to meet July 1973, Nevada Water
Quality Standards may result in the in-
ability to obtain approval for subdivisions
unless their sewage is treated to meet
the standards. This is a result of a Ne-
vada State law effective July 1972, re-
quiring certification that sewage effluent
meets discharge standards. A development
could probably obtain approval if it were to
treat its own wastes.
A No-Action alternative will not interfere
with the construction of the proposed Allen
Power Plant. Intentions of the Nevada
Power Company to continue negotiations
for the purchase of secondary effluent for
plant cooling will not be impeded. Pur-r
chase of secondary effluents from exist-
ing municipal discharges in the Valley
would be capable of meeting cooling
water demands. Therefore construc-
tion of the proposed power plant could
proceed according to plan.
SECONDARY IMPACTS
Sewerage facilities, as do most public
works projects, initiate and accommodate
community growth by subsidizing resource
development. This investment in waste
water treatment provides for population
208
-------
growth by sizing the capacity of a treat-
ment facility so that a community infra-
structure, or interdependency of service
and support subsystems will ultimately
develop to an equal population equiva-
lent. For example, services such as
police, schools, fire, electricity, water,
and roads will have to provide for the
population capacity accommodated within
the sewage treatment facility.
Therefore, the sizing of facilities can
create or hinder an urban capacity, which
in itself can be environmentally beneficial
or adverse. In the previous section on
Primary Impacts, many specific causes
and effects were identified. In Chapter 1,
a population base for the year 2000 was
established at 700,000 in the Las Vegas
Valley. The accommodation of this pop-
ulation given the environmental constraints
identified in the INTRODUCTION, is more
dependent on planning and regulation of
development to delineate an adaptable
urban form but there is an ever growing
dependency on modern technology to
achieve and maintain the quality of life
for those future populations.
To the extent that the capital cost of
sewerage facilities is very high and
public grant assistance is used in con-
struction, the subsidizing of facilities
provides the community with the cap*-
ability it would not necessarily have
within its own financial resources.
Hopefully the following discussion of
secondary impacts provides the reader
with a better understanding of such
implications.
Economic Implications
The project costs of the waste water
treatment system are expected to be
based on a cost sharing formula consist-
ing of a 75% contribution by the Federal
Government and a 25% contribution from
local governments. This is based on the
stipulation that the treatment system pro-
tects the natural environmental and the
overall long-term productivity of the
area.
Local funds will be raised by the sale of
revenue bonds. The bonds would be paid
back by increasing the cost of sewer
service. When the project reclaims
waste water to provide a quality equal
to that of domestic water, it is proper
to increase the cost to reflect the
added cost of providing water.
This project will require the acquisition
of private land for a number of facilities.
These include lands for the waste water
collection system, In-Valley irrigation
pipelines and reservoirs, the sludge dis-
posal ponds, and whatever other facilities
depending upon what the selected alternative
projects will be. Cost of this land will
vary according to the site, however, since
many of the facilities are located in or
adjacent to residential and commercial
areas, the cost of acquisition of land,
right-of-ways and severance fees will
be substantial. These costs are contained
in the main body and appendices of the
applicant's facilities plan.
209
-------
Construction and operation of the pollution
abatement facilities will provide part-
time and permanent jobs for contractors,
laborers, engineers and personnel to man
the new facilities. A significant portion
of their earnings would be spent in the Las
Vegas Valley.
Growth Accommodations
Nine of the 10 project alternatives (see
'no action1) and all four of the viable
alternatives enable growth by providing
waste water management facilities. Some
growth is going to take place in the Las
Vegas Valley, but how much growth and
the rate at which it occurs depend on what
the people of the Las Vegas Valley desire.
Through planning, regulation of develop-
ment activities, and the continued ap-
plication of modern technology, any ev-
entual urban form will have to be within
the environmental constraints of the Val-
ley. The responsibility for growth rests
with the County and local government
bodies. Utilities will continue to pro-
vide power, water, proper waste dis-
posal, and treatment if growth is to con-
tinue with a minimum of adverse impacts
and as long as means are available. This
requires planning by the utility agencies
so that pollution of the environment does
not take place.
Growth results in increased construction,
increased power demands, increased
transportation demands, increased sup-
port services demands, and increased
water demands. All of these increased
needs result in a greater commitment
of resources, a reduction of air quality,
and increased noise levels to perpetuate
the lifestyle as it is known to exist.
Alternative 9 (the no-action alternative)
would have the practical effect of pre-
venting growth. However, no action does
not resolve the continuing water quality
degradation of Las Vegas Bay and there-
fore is not a viable strategy for regula-
ting or stopping growth. Due to the nature
of the study area, tourist visitations are
expected to increase, limited by hotel
capacities and available service emp-
loyees. The result would be a slowed
rate of increase in power, transportation,
and water demands. Construction and
growth would be limited to those develop-
ments providing their own waste water
disposal to be able to meet water quality
standards. Unless planned, the regu-
lation of growth can be economically de-
trimental, yet environmentally beneficial.
The consolidation of those existing ef-
fluent discharges to Las Vegas Wash,
expansion and upgrading of waste
water treatment can be viewed as ac-
commodating further population and
economic growth in the Las Vegas Valley
rather than inducing development. The
first modular phase of the AWT plant would
begin operation in 1978 and would have a
capacity of 90 mgd. With the projected
maximum day waste water production of
85. 2 mgd by 1980, the initial AWT plant
will have a reserve capacity of 4. 8 mgd.
The second stage of AWT would be on line
by 1982 and would provide for a maximum
AWT capacity of 112. 5 mgd (90 mgd +
22.5 mgd). This capacity will be sufficient
210
-------
until 1990. The construction of the third
AWT stage will provide an additional
22.5 mgd capacity which would be suf-
ficient to treat the waste water flows
until year 2000.
A majpr question to consider when eval-
uating the role of the waste water treat-
ment system as a growth inducing factor,
is whether or not the projected population
figures for the area appear reasonable
and particularly if the area can adequately
support that population environmentally.
For the Las Vegas region, the environ-
mental constraints that might well dictate
future population growth may be the main-
tenance of air quality, the maintenance of
water quality, and the availability of future
potable water in the Las Vegas Valley.
The latter questions are considered in suc-
ceeding portions of this impact section.
The question of the relationship between
the Allen Power facility and the availa-
bility of AWT is considered next.
Flow reduction methods were consi-
dered in the formulation of the project
and adaptable to any alternative selected.
The infiltration inflow analysis submitted
indicated areas in which connections and
rehabilitation could be performed. These
indicated disconnection of known unauthor-
ized connections into the sewer system,
plugging of unauthorized connections'into
the manholes, and planning for future
storm drainage systems. Ordinances and
regulations will prohibit future unauthor-
ized connections into the sewer system.
The Environmental Impacts of the
Allen Power Generating Facility
Nevada Power Company is at this time
conducting extensive in-depth and pre-
cise environmental and ecological back-
ground studies in the proposed site
area. These studies are, for the most
part, being conducted by the Desert Re-
search Institute of the University of
Nevada. The Desert Research Institute
started the studies on July 1, 1974.
At the completion of these studies, all
information will be submitted to the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the
federal lead agency for the Allen Pro-
ject. BLM will then prepare the re-
quired Environmental Impact Statement.
Simultaneously with the submittal of in-
formation to BLM, environmental re-
ports will be submitted to State and local
agencies as required by law.
Regardless of the alternative selected,
the Allen Power Plant may or may not
be constructed. This plant would be
dependent upon a water supply of 0 to
48 mgd. According to the Nevada Power
Company, the only source of cooling
water for the plant is effluent from Las
Vegas Valley.
The Allen Power Plant will provide power
for use by man for light, heat, and energy
for a variety of uses. Air conditioning
currently consumes over half of the power
used in Las Vegas, and enables life in
the desert on a comfortable basis. Power
is also required for pumping and treating
211
-------
C-t>iRh
J Ud«
3 Sc- -\J'. Ci.'::rao
Coal deposits in. the Upper Colcrs'Jc Pegion.
figure 38
-------
waste water, especially in desalination
processes. The various electric con-
sumptive rates for the viable alternatives
are indicated in Table 24. Nevada Power
Company's projections show that 70% of
the power will be used by the customers
of the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power and 30% will go to the cus-
tomers of Nevada Power Company from
1977 to 1983.
From 1984 to 1990, there will be a 50-50
benefit split, and between 1990 and 1994,
Nevada customers will regain 100% of the
power. The plant will enable growth in
electrical consumption by providing power
for increased populations.
Through sale of power to LADWP, it
can be expected that demand will justify
development of replacement generation
facilities to the LADWP service area once
the Allen plant output is no longer avail-
able. Therefore, the Allen Power Plant
will accommodate continued growth
and consumptive use of power in the
Southern California service area.
Meteorological studies and preliminary
design analyses to date indicate that
the proposed station will have little im-
pact on Las Vegas air quality because
of plume height, emission release height,
predominant wind direction and distance
from the city, but impact will surely
be felt somewhere - probably some of
the time emissions will impact the Valley
of Five State Park and the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area.
The Allen Power Plant will require a
long-term commitment of water for
cooling. When water is used in the
generation of power, it is by definition
a beneficial use. If that water could be
put to a more beneficial use, and the
commitment of its use for power gene-
ration prevents that, then an adverse im-
pact results.
The Reclaimed Wastewater Agreement
provides that in the event AWT effluent
is not available by 1979, the Nevada
Power Company may elect to purchase
secondary effluent from the City and
District.
The Nevada Power Company will
purchase coal mined for the specific
purpose of supplying the Allen Power
Facility. Strip-mined coal will be trans-
ported by a slurry pipeline some 175 miles
south to Las Vegas. Coal field locations
in Utah are identified in Figure 38. At
the time of the writing of the Impact State-
ment for the Allen Power Facility, EPA
requests the priviledge of commenting on
the potential impact to water quality re-
sources that may result from the mining
operation. Of further interest is the fact
that an additional coal-fired power facility
located in St. George, Utah will supply
Las Vegas with an additional 500 megawatts
and is scheduled for first unit completion
in 1978.
Implications on Regional Air Quality
The major air pollution sources con-
213
-------
PROJECTED AWT PLANT
RESERVE CAPACITY
Year
1980
1990
2000
AWT Cap.
(MGD)
90
112.5
135
Range of Excess or
Deficit Capacity
+ 9% to - 0.4%
+ 5.6% to - 10.5%
+ 3.9% to - 16.4%
+ indicates excess capacity
- indicates deficit capacity
sidered for the proposed project are
construction activities, motor vehicles,
and the advanced waste treatment plant.
A discussion of the impact on air quality
from construction activities and emissions
from the advanced waste treatment plant
were presented in the preceding section
of this chapter. The following discussion
considers the impact of the proposed pro-
ject on a broader frame of regional air
quality.
Motor vehicle emissions immediately re-
lated to the AWT Plant are induced by
the vehicle volumes generated by operat-
ing and maintenance personnel. It is
assumed that neither facility will con-
stitute a significant tourist attraction.
It is estimated that the AWT Plant will
require from 25 to 30 men per shift.
Thus, a maximum of about 40 spaces
for parking will have to be provided.
The emissions associated with this
number of parking spaces would be
negligible. In addition, the existing
State of Nevada Air Pollution Control Re-
gulations and the proposed amendments
to Clark County's Regulations specify
a cut-off of 500 parking spaces before a
review is required
Provisions of AWT for waste water from
Las Vegas Valley will permit: 1) com-
pliance with water quality standards,
2) reduction of salt loads to the Colo-
rado River and, 3) beneficial reuse of
waste water to enhance the overall water
resources of the area. As a corollary
to these benefits, an adverse long-term
impact on the air quality of the region
will occur from the growth accom-
modated by the proposed project.
However, projections of future air
quality as affected by any growth
accommodated by the proposed project
would be of questionable accuracy since
the basic analytic data has yet to be de-
veloped.
Additional meterological data for the
Region is specifically patterned for the
conversion of source emissions to air
quality concentrations. Knowledge on
214
-------
wind patterns, vertical temperature
structure, and inversion incidence will
be monitored. As noted in Chapter 1,
these data are being developed. Another
variable in the long-term projection
of regional air quality, is the actual
population growth versus the projected
growth used in sizing^the project faci-
lities. Based on the projected maximum
day waste water flows for Las Vegas
Valley, the following Table has been
developed to show the range of reserve
or deficit capacity of the AWT Plant
as presently planned. In addition, any
air quality degradation as a result of
the proposed Allen Power Plant would
be a direct result of the provisions of
waste water facilities.
From the above Table, it can be seen
that, depending on actual population
growth, there may be no excess plant
capacity at some time in the future.
However, the time spans considered
over the life of the Project will permit
interim actions to be responsive to:
1) actual needs, 2) changing regulations,
and, 3) advances in technology. The
potential impact on regional air quality
in quantified terms is problematic.
Water Quality Implications
Since all of the viable alternatives,
in part, provide for the AWT of waste
water and return in part to Las Vegas
Wash, varying solutions will have vary-
ing consequences on water quality. All
of these alternatives will meet the Ne-
vada State and Federal Water Quality
Standards and the salinity reduction ob-
jectives of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control. Act, as adopted. No
action would result in the further de-
gradation of Las Vegas Bay.
Any decrease in algal populations re-
sulting from phosphorus decreases may
have a beneficial impact on the quality
of recreation in the Las Vegas area.
Maintenance on boats moored in the area
should decrease as a result of decreases
in algal growth. In addition, the noxious
odors produced from algal blooms and
die-off in the Bay should be reduced.
The benefits of reduced algal blooms may
also be realized by consumers of water
supplied through the Southern Nevada
Water Project.
Some shifting in the distribution of biota
may occur as result of any changes in
algal populations. According to Deacon
and Tews, thread fin shad, characteris-
tically concentrate at the thermocline
of Las Vegas Bay, probably due to the
presence of large amounts of organic
debris from which they feed. Much of
this organic debris is provided by flows
from the Wash and from algal production.
Reduction and dispersion of organic mat-
ter and algae may cause these fish to
eventually redistribute, however, this
appears problematic. This may conse-
quently result in a shift in the carniver-
ous game fish which depend on thread
fin shad populations as a source of food.
All alternatives will provide for an
In-Valley irrigation system which will
increase the amount of constitutents from
diffuse sources reaching Las Vegas Wash
and ultimately Las Vegas Bay.
215
-------
Due to the fact that salt contributions to
the Colorado River Systems are an en-
vironmental constraint, any removal of
salt from any proposed discharge is
considered beneficial. The concentra-
tion and loading of salt in the Wash,
discharges vary with each alternative.
Alternative No. 2 would desalinate ef-
fluent prior to discharge, while Alter-
native Nos. 7 and 10 provide for a pilot
desalination plant program. Alternatives
No 2 and 7 would export the majority of
effluent out of the Basin (to Dry Lake)
and only have a greenbelt maintenance
discharge to the Wash. Alternatives
7 and 10 provide for the sale of effluent
for beneficial reuse by a proposed
power plant, prior to its disposal out-
side of the Basin (Dry Lake). Alter-
native No. 3 has no program of ex-
port, therefore would contribute
increased loadings of salt due to in-
creased AWT flows over and above
those of the other alternatives.
If increased population growth and sub-
sequent urbanization continue, increased
surface flows and flood flows can be ex-
pected to eventually reach Las Vegas
Wash and ultimately Las Vegas Bay.
As land is converted from its natural
condition to housing subdivisions, com-
mercial centers, roads and recreational
areas, soil systems are disturbed and
impervious surfaces are imposed on the
natural terrain. Accelerated surface
run-off from impervious surfaces in-
creases the erosion potential down-
stream. The process of erosion normally
results in increased sedimentation and
siltation of the surface water streams.
(See Figure 9). The Environmental
Protection Agency, in a study entitled
Control of Sediments Resulting from
Highway Construction and Land De-
velopment, estimated that sediments
from urbanizing areas varies from
1, 000 to 100, 000 tons per square mile
per year, while sediments from ur-
banized areas varies from 200 to 500
tons per square mile per year. Sedi-
ments deposited in lakes and streams
may decrease water clarity and inter-
fere with biological life cycles which
depend on clear bottom conditions.
Soil sediments also contain various
nutrients which may accelerate the pro-
cess of eutropication in lakes, and in-
crease the biological productivity of
streams.
The impact of road construction, one
of the first manifestations of urbaniz-
ation, can hardly be over-emphasized.
Roadway run-off often contains chemi-
cal constituents and solid waste mate-
rials that may seriously degrade water
quality and surface water regimes.
Such constituents include asbestos from
automobile brake linings, oils and
greases, rubber, ferrocyanide, sodium
ferrocyanide, chromate and phosphate.
These roadway pollutants may also cause
serious damage to vegetative communities
adjacent to the roadways.
Water Quantity Impacts
Each viable alternative and the No-Action
alternative will provide for different
volumes of water being released down
Las Vegas Wash, as well as for other
216
-------
uses. Alternative 3 will result in all
water receiving advanced waste treat-
ment prior to its discharge to Las Vegas
Wash and diversion downstream for in-
valley irrigation. Alternatives Nos. 7
and 10 provide for other beneficial uses
after advanced waste^treatment either
inside the Valley and export for disposal
(with a pipeline to tap secondary effluent)
for beneficial reuse (7) or export for bene-
ficial reuse as well as recharge to Las
Vegas Wash (10). No action would still
result in the continuation of nutrient rich
discharges to the Wash from the existing
secondary treated municipal discharges.
With the different volumes of AWT water
being released down the Wash, it can be
expected that Wash vegetation will be im-
pacted in terms of its distribution, den-
sity, and quality; and concurrently the
distribution and density of wildlife de-
pendent on that cover. "As was mentioned
in PRIMARY IMPACTS, flows down Las
Vegas Wash would be diverted prior to
entering Lake Mead for beneficial reuse,
thereby eliminating this augmentation flow.
Certain vegetative habitat's may be im-
pacted by the loss of nutrients more than
by the change in available flow. Flow
variances that would be experienced
with the various alternatives would not
appreciably impact flow in the Lower
Colorado River, since quality is a more
significant constraint; however, the impact
of particular constituent loadings is dir-
ectly related to the volume and quality of
the waters receiving the discharge.
Another consideration is the additional
volumes of AWT that would be available
for augmentation of existing municipal
supplies. Benefits from such supplies,
outside of direct reclamation/reuse or
ground water banking, would not be
fully realized until all surfact and sub-
surface waters are utilized, sometime
after the year 2000. At that time ad-
ditional withdrawals of Colorado main
stem sources would be dependent on
return flow credits of wastewater to
Lake Mead, unless the Applicant is
successful in banking AWT water in the
ground water aquifer. Either would allow
for additional consumption and/or popu-
lation growth.
Fish and Wildlife Impacts
As has already been discussed, the
accommodation of continued urbanization
will have a beneficial and adverse im-
pact on fish and wildlife.
Increased power generation by the Allen
Power Facilities may result in carrying
air borne pollutants into the Desert Big
Horn Sheep Refuge, thereby resulting in
impacts of unknown consequence and mag-
nitude.
Reduction in the nutrient concentration of
flows reaching Las Vegas Bay may result
in impacting the treadfin shad which de-
217
-------
pend on algae populations for food, and con-
sequently on any predators of the treadfin
shad.
With the change in density, distribution,
and quality of vegetative habitats in and ad-
jacent to the Wash, various wildlife species
will be affected. Birds, water fowl,
mammals, reptiles and invertebrates that
are impacted will not be irreperably im-
pacted due to the abundant replacement
habitat, whether Wash related or desert,
to mitigate such impact. However,
brackish water habitats may decline.
218
-------
-------
It is anticipated that all of the viable al-
ternatives will have impacts of a similar
nature only varying in magnitude from
alternative to alternative. To prepare the
reader, the following discussion will not be
site-specific nor will the no-action al-
ternative be considered since no action
would be the perpetuation of an already
recognized adverse environmental dilem-
ma. The generic impact common to each
alternative along with the means to miti-
gate its impact will be considered.
PRIMARY IMPACTS
Since the proposed alternatives are a
long-term community investment to im-
prove an existing adverse condition, the
removal of property from the tax rolls
to accomodate facilities and the increased
cost of sewer service are a given con-
sequence of such an investment. How-
ever, since 75% of the initial cost for
planning, design and construction is re-
imbursable by the Federal Government,
the severity of that initial capital in-
vestment is mitigated.
The normal construction-related impacts
of increased noise, dust, soil disturbance,
disruption of traffic flow are generally un-
avoidable. They can be mitigated by con-
struction specifications delineating dust
suppression measures, construction
during daylight hours, minimizing the
movement of earth to accommodate struc-
tures, and keeping construction-related
equipment and vehicles off or from cross-
ing traffic-bearing surface roads.
The removal of vegetation and the ex-
cavation, removal, and compaction of
soil are generic to construction of the
collection system, AWT plant, and ex-
port lines. Again these can be mini-
mized through construction specifications
directing the contractor to limit the con-
struction area to the smallest possible
area. Restoration of areas where re-
moval of vegetation was necessary or
where soil disturbance occurred will be
the responsibility of the contractor.
In addition, conveyance line alignments
that do not disturb natural habitats which
support abundant vegetative cover and
wildlife should be encouraged. Some
erosion will occur with a potential for
increased nutrient-bearing silts reach-
ing Las Vegas Wash and eventually Las
Vegas Bay.
The actual operation of facilities after
220
-------
construction -will result in additional
noise from pumps and the treatment plant.
This can be mitigated by housing of these
facilities and baffling or insulating them
for sound.
Deposition of waste sjudges and brines
will result in some loss of land com-
mitted to these purposes. Sludges will be
disposed of at a land fill site classified
to accept these wastes.
Salt accumulation in the Colorado River
system is an adverse impact whose con-
trol is dependent on engineering means
to initially control the magnitude which
would vary from alternative to alternative.
Alternative 3 would result in greater salt
loadings through increased discharge
volumes of effluent reaching Las Vegas
Bay while Alternatives 2, 7 and 10 would
export and/or beneficially reuse waste
water, but would return smaller flows
to Las Vegas Wash. Salt accumulation
within a waste water management system
has recognized environmental and eco-
nomic costs.
Beneficial reuse of waste water for in-
valley irrigation will create new diffuse
sources of water pollution reaching Las
Vegas Wash. However, the benefits de-
rived would greatly outweigh the mini-
mal water quality detriments anticipated
and subsurface drains as part of the-
Bureau of Reclamation Salinity Control
Program to intercept saline ground water
flows for evaporation should help control
any new diffuse contributions. The dis-
posal of any effluent will be governed by
where the costs are incurred. Alternative
2's complete treatment with maintenance
disposal to the Wash potentially provides
the highest water quality benefit to the
receiving water. Alternative 3's AWT
with no export and return to Lake Mead,
has the highest receiving water quality
impact, providing a greater volume of
effluent resulting in greater salt loadings
than that of Alternatives 2, 7, or 10.
Alternative 10 meets the water quality
standards of Lake Mead and provides
for beneficial reuse and a reduced salt
contribution to that of 3. Since Alternative
7 provides only AWT of flows necessary
to maintain the existing riparian recrea-
tional environment of Las Vegas Wash
and not violate Federal-State standards
in Las Vegas Bay, the return flow benefits
from this alternative would be minimal.
Changes in the environment at Dry Lake,
such as increased salinity concentrations
at Dry Lake and surrounding wells near
the site; increased temperature and
humidity near Dry Lake; and loss to the
present use of Dry Lake all characterize
the nature of export called for in Alter-
native 7.
All alternatives will require electrical
power in varying magnitude. Refer to
Table 24.
SECONDARY IMPACTS
The secondary impacts as discussed in
the previous chapter cannot be avoided
altogether. To a great extent those im-
pacts that would specifically pertain to
the accommodation of a potential future
221
-------
population (changes in land use, expan-
sion in public services, air quality de-
gradation, increased resource exploi-
tation, etc.) are unavoidable. However,
the magnitude of those impacts are sub-
ject to some control, either through
technological, statutory, or regulatory
means. Nonetheless, growth is anti-
cipated to create these impacts which
are unavoidable.
The various viable alternatives allow
for varying volumes of water return-
ing to Las Vegas Bay via Las Vegas
Wash. Dependent on these releases,
the increase in water volume will
change the width of the stream and
velocity of flow. These changes could
result in changes to the vegetative com-
position of the Wash. Another conside-
ration would be the loss or displacement
of wildlife depending on that vegetative
cover for food or shelter. Since each
alternative will result in this type of
impact, it is unavoidable yet within miti-
gation capabilities of the applicant to re-
duce the magnitude of any extreme impact.
In addition, any waste of water-in this
water short environment is an adverse
impact on the human environment which
is not in the best interest of sound water
management. All viable alternatives
to some degree provide for beneficial
reuse of the AWT water, with Alternative
10 identifying several reuse programs
for AWT water beyond any identified
in the other viable alternatives.
Any increase in the amount of high quality
effluent discharges to Las Vegas Wash
will offset any existing adverse water
quality problem in Las Vegas Bay. How-
ever, as was mentioned in the section on
secondary impacts in Chapter 3 with the
improvement in water quality, loss in
algae populations may result in a re-
duction or displacement of threadfin shad
and their attendant predators, but to what
extent is unknown. Also vegetation which
is dependent on a certain concentration
of nutrients being present in Las Vegas
Wash flows to maintain certain vegetative
habitat is a concern. Due to the impend-
ing enforcement action if nutrients are
not largely eliminated from the waste
water discharged, this loss is the trade-
off for attainment of clean water objec-
tives. Worthy of consideration would
be a scheduled release of secondary ef-
fluent that could be discharged to the
Wash to mitigate this loss. This re-
lease arrangement would require a new
permit for the existing secondary dis-
chargers delineating a schedule of
allowable quality ranges within which
such discharges could be made.
With the construction of Alternative 7 or
10 the supply of cooling water to the pro-
posed Allen Power Plant raises some
long-term environmental questions.
Any salinity contributions, that continue to
increase TDS levels in the receiving
water require a greater attention to con-
trolling source contributions. Another
consideration is the relationship of TDS
concentration within a certain volume of
flow. In other words, dilution capability
in any case would be a water quality plus;
Alternatives 3 and 10 provide the largest
amount of dilution capability. Alternative
2 has the highest degree of desalination
222
-------
but only a maintenance discharge to the
Wash of minimal proportion. Alternative
3 would result in the greatest volume of
AWT discharge to the Wash and hence the
highest dilution capability. Alternative
10 provides for pilot desalination and
pilot ground-water augmentation with a
more generous Wash maintenance pro-
gram than 2 or 7. Eventually the aug-
mentation of ground water may increase
as feasibility dictates and as consumption
increases. Alternative 7 would return
the least volume of water, but would re-
sult in export that would remove volumes
of salt from the Colorado River system
along with the exported effluent. It is
expected that with the removal of in-
dustrial contributions to the Wash, salts
(TDS) would be stabilized in their con-
centration, and over a period of time
would eventually be reduced in Las
Vegas Bay.
The means by which salt loading is con-
trolled is technologically moot, with
economic and environmental balance
suggesting 2, 3, 7 and 10 to be a toss
up, other economic and environmental
concerns would leave Alternative 2 as too
expensive, Alternative 7 as being less
beneficial to other downstream uses, and
3 and 10 worthy of further consideration.
223
-------
224
-------
H r--^»f*'!
-------
In this chapter of the environmental
impact statement, the short-term ob-
jective of improving the community
capability to meet Federal-State
standards in order to abate pollution
contributions to Lake Mead, versus
the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term community productivity is
explored.
Through the supplementing of County
financial resources by Federal grant
assistance, this combined investment
provides the Valley Community with a new
lease to expand urban growth and to
continue and maintain the quality of life.
The short-term technological mastery
of the very environmental constraints
that limit man's long-term adaptability
to the desert environment is made possi-
ble but with some acknowledged environ-
mental detriments. These detriments
are explored further in Chapter 6. The
facilities' consumption of electrical power,
use of materials in its construction, and
the loss of undeveloped lands are recog-
nized expenditures worth the investment
when weighed against the benefits re-
turned. The increased capacity to treat
and dispose of waste waters within
Federal-State water quality standards
prior to their return to the Colorado
River; the crediting of return flows to
compensate for withdrawals beyond sur-
face water allocations and; the beneficial
reuse of other flows for in-valley irriga-
tion, or as identified in Alternatives 7
and 10 for cooling water in the proposed
Allen Power Plant of the Nevada Power
Company, add up to short-term actions
of long-term magnitude. Guaranteed
water quality maintenance, the means
to augmenting potable water withdrawals
from the Colorado River, and the accom-
modation of additional electrical power
generation, sets into motion for the
communities of Las Vegas Valley the
necessary measures to solidify a mul-
tiplicity of future planning scenarios.
No doubt the allowance for continued de-
gradation of downstream water supplies
by waste water flows would be severely
damaging to the long-term productivity
and maintenance of man's presence in
the Lower Colorado River Basin. How-
ever, sustaining man's productivity in an
extreme desert clime is a long-term
commitment of resource exploitation
that goes far beyond the Valley community
into areas yet untouched by man's heavy
hand. The conversion of raw resources
Ift
226
-------
into fuels and hardware grant technologi-
cal reprieves to sustaining a lifestyle
where the balance between resources
availability and resource consumption
is finite. Therefore, any decision re-
garding a major short-term monetary
investment is an investment in the con-
tinued maintenance of a consumptive trend
which will have to escalate to sustain the
long-term community productivity.
It goes without saying that the present
means of discharging waste water to the
environment can be considered an unac-
ceptable short-term use that, with proper
waste water treatment, can become a
long-term benefit to the environment.
In terms previously set forth in Chap-
ter 3, the maintenance and enhancement
of wildlife in Las Vegas Wash and the
provision of waste water for beneficial
reuse can definitely be a long-term de-
posit which will appreciate for genera-
tions to come.
As of this writing, Las Vegas Valley
governmental authorities have entered an
agreement with the Nevada Power Company
for the sale of AWT water for use in the
proposed Allen Power Plant. Waste
water is the only source of cooling water
available to the plant. The plant is ex-
pected to be in operation within the next
six years, but will not be generating,
power initially for the exclusive use of
In-Valley communities, and will be trans-
mitting major portions of its output at a
declining rate to the Los Angeles Depart-
ment of Water and Power service area of
Los Angeles through 1994.
EPA has yet to assess how demand for
power in the LADWP service area would
be affected with this diminishing supply
arrangement. Nor what pressures would
be brought to supply new power generation
sources and at what environmental cost.
Since growth is so intricately linked
with any waste water management scheme
within the Valley, considerations of its
contribution to air quality made by in-
creased populations were identified in
Chapter 1. A 1973 emissions inventory
found that State Ambient Air Quality
Standards were exceeded for photochemi-
cal oxidants and particulates when moni-
tored in downtown Las Vegas. Similar
data for CO and HC were unavailable.
It is hoped that the current emissions'
inventory update will provide additional
air quality information on concentrations
of CO ai>d oxidants to facilitate their
translation into remedial actions.
Therefore, the information relating
to the long-term air quality dynamics
resulting from increased population is
still under development and any popula-
tion increases may complicate the clean-
up effort.
The long-term impacts of strip mining of
coal in Utah and its proposed conveyance
to the Allen Power Plant site by a pipeline
as a slurry, go unaccessed even though
waste water resources development
directly accommodates such activities.
However, these questions no doubt will
be addressed in any environmental im-
pact reports prepared prior to that
project initiation by the Power Company.
227
-------
It is the opinion of the Environmental
Protection Agency that the short-term
uses of the environment resulting from
the decision to construct waste water
facilities will have a profound effect on
the growth capability of the Las Vegas
Valley communities, while improving
and maintaining the water quality of
Lake Mead. However, of the alternatives
considered as viable, only Alternative 3
does not provide for AWT export to the
Allen Power facility and its yet unknown
attendant long-term secondary impacts.
The unknown extent to which the configura-
tion of urbanization will play on the main-
tenance of air quality is dependent upon
strategies implemented and maintenance
measures instituted by this Agency and
its state and local counterparts. These
strategies hopefully will bring about a
long-term resolution of any potential
air quality problems.
228
-------
-------
The commitment of any resources to the
implementation of a long-term waste
water resource management and develop-
ment program obligates the immediate
community to an upwardly spiraling course
of expenditure and consumption. This
commitment implicates a network of
communities from which raw resources
will be drawn, investments of capital
and manpower made, to convert these
raw resources into products for con-
sumption. Foreseeably, all of this
activity will result in an escalation in
the expenditure of energy.
Since it is anticipated that no matter what
viable alternative is selected, the same
projected base population will occur, this
discussion will focus on the irreversible
and irretrievable events that will occur
as a result of this waste water resource
development project.
The conversion of raw sewage effluent to
a marginally useable resource (secon-
dary treatment) and then into a high
quality, highly usable resource (AWT)
is the establishment of that AWT resource
as an integral component in the mainte-
nance of the Wash. The establishment
of such a dependency is not only an econo-
mic asset to the community, but with a
guaranteed volume of flow and quality
returning to the Colorado River System,
water quality in the receiving waters
will improve. Wildlife and vegetative
habitats will proliferate providing greater
recreational opportunities. As long as
the quality requirements for each habitat
are met and maintained, the irreversibility
and irretrievability of these flows is esta-
blished. Community water consumption
may emphasize a heavy dependence on
the insurance provided by the return flow
credit arrangement as a guarantee against
overdraft of In-Valley resources. The
successful banking of AWT waters in
the groundwater aquifer may be of equal
importance. Both arrangements may es-
tablish an irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources to future con-
sumptive patterns. And as noted in public
testimony, water quality in the ground -
water aquifer may be irreversibly im-
pacted even if well monitoring detects
such an impact.
The commitment of money to construct
facilities, and the materials and man-
power committed to that end are irrever-
sible and irretrievable. The commitment
of land for facilities is irreversible and
230
-------
irretrievable, unless in the future the
location and means of waste water man-
agement are changed, then the return
of the land to its former appearance and
use would be possible.
As identified in Table. 25, revenues re-
turned from the sale of AWT to the Allen
Power Plant per million gallons treated
are shown. Of interest is the fact that
Alternative 7, when examined over the
long-term repayment period, results in
annual revenues of $30 per million gallons
treated. However, it costs the service
area consumer from $339 to $467 to
treat that same million gallons. With
Alternative 10, returns from direct
annual revenues from sale of cooling
water would only be $116 per million
gallons treated against it, costing the
service area consumer from $384 to
$434 to treat. With Alternative 3, no
AWT reclamation for the power plant
is involved and would result in greater
volumes of water being discharged
beyond the volume flows needed to
maintain water quality standards in
Las Vegas Bay and the Wash habitat.
However, the volume of TDS in the
Alternative 3 discharge may jeopardize
the attainment of the TDS loads-sug-
gested by EPA. Alternative 2 would
produce an effluent of a quality higher
than the quality of the receiving water
and comparable to that of U.S. drinking
water standards, but at an enormous
expense, too prohibitive for any feasi-
ble consideration.
231
-------
232
-------
^•^-••^"-^-•^
-------
In consideration of all documents sub-
mitted by the Board of County Commis-
sioners, the Environmental Protection
Agency agrees that Alternative 10 is the
alternative achieving the project objec-
tives and the alternative which is consis-
tent with the determination of the local
populace. Throughout this impact state-
ment, several questions have been raised
with regard to attainment and maintenance
of water quality and air quality standards.
Since this statement was written to eva-
luate a planning document, information is
still being developed to perfect decisions
as this "facilities plan" evolves.
Therefore, the following discussion will
serve to highlight certain outstanding con-
cerns that are within EPA's regulatory
authority. Recognizably, many of these
decisions may impact the proposed pro-
gram of reclamation/reuse, AWT effluent
export for power plant cooling. However,
until further information concerning this
proposal becomes available, EPA is unable
to evaluate the full environmental bearing
of this proposed power facility. There-
fore, the Agency will reserve judgement
until such opportunities are afforded
us. Some of these opportunities are
identified below.
This Agency recognizes that there is a
water quality advantage in reducing the
introduction of dissolved solids (salts)
along with the other pollutants discharged
to the Colorado River system; however,
this does not preclude controlling in-
creased solids contributions at their
source. It is for this very reason that
a salinity investigation specified by
EPA in a letter of May 3, 1974 to the
Waste-water Management Agency
be initiated by the applicant to:
A. Identify and quantify all addition
of dissolved salts into the sewer-
age systems.
B. Recommend methods for reducing
and where practicable eliminating
the salts.
C. Recommend a control program includ-
ing ordinances where practicable.
D. Determine the salinity values of the
incoming secondary effluent from
Clark County Sanitation District
and the City of Las Vegas' treat-
ment plant to the advanced waste-
water treatment plant if all the
recommended corrections are
instituted.
tf
u
H
234
-------
Conceivably export, as would be achieved
by the applicant's proposed method of
reclamation/reuse would contribute to
the attainment of an acceptable dissolved
solids, loading limitation. However,
removing water from the Colorado River
system will impact downstream water
quality. Therefore, the results of the
salinity source investigation may provide
Clark County with a better understanding
of how to control salts prior to their entry
into the waste-water system. With this
knowledge, and with this Agency's co-
operation with the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum, better strategies
for benefiting downstream water quality
in the Colorado and the Las Vegas Valley's
contribution to that end, can be realized.
In the draft statement, the Agency re-
quested of the Applicant to further ex-
amine sale of secondary effluent to the
Nevada Power Company for use at the
Allen Power Station, since with a con-
tinuous flow of 36 to 38 mgd of effluent,
it was believed such an export of effluent
prior to its reaching the AWT facility
would eliminate the need for further AWT
plant expansion (expansions at the AWT
facility of 22.5 mgd for the years 1980
and 1990 were anticipated). However,
this assumption was based on outdated
information.
As EPA understands the current pro-
posed Allen Station, effluent flow would
not be continuous, and would vary from
0 to 48 mgd on any given day. This
day to day fluctuation would not make
consideration of a smaller AWT facility
realistic, since the County could po-
tentially violate existing water quality
standards if the AWT facility cannot
treat all of the existing municipal ef-
fluents.
However if the power company has
changed its Allen Station project in the
last two years, it is just as well to
wait and reserve judgment on the 1980
and 1990 expansions to the AWT facility
to evaluate any such effluent export
arrangements with the power company.
Throughout this impact statement, the
growth inducing impact of the various
alternatives has been addressed. The
combination of the abilities to reimburse
additional potable water withdrawals from
the Colorado River when Nevada utilizes
all of its ajudicated main stem allocations
through return flow credits; to supply
waste water for power plant cooling,
accommodating increased electric power
generation and; to increase the capability
of the community to treat and dispose
of waste water to comply with Federal-
State water quality standards, add
up to providing the Las Vegas Valley
communities with the tools necessary
for continued residential, commercial,
and industrial growth in a relatively
short period of time.
In an air quality sense this kind of com-
munity growth in itself is not necessarily
adverse, but the rate, distribution, and
density of that growth may be. The
Environmental Protection Agency is cur-
rently providing contract assistance to
Nevada to prepare emission control strate-
235
-------
gies to reduce the contributions from mo-
bile and stationary sources in the Clark
County Metropolitan area, and it would
be inopportune to initiate a program
which may pre-empt or overwhelm
effective implementation and mainte-
nance of those planning and enforcement
strategies. Therefore we acknowledge
this relationship and foresee further
air quality input.
The State of Nevada in conjunction with
EPA through provisions specified in
the Clean Air Act of 1970, require the
submittal of information sufficient
to enable determination whether such
a facility will not violate "applicable
portions of the control strategy or
will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of a national standard
either directly because of emissions
from it, or indirectly because of emis-
sions resulting from mobile source
activities associated with it." Since
the decision to proceed with Alternative
10 has been made, EPA does not want
to obviate the objective analysis of this
proposed power facility by the State.
Therefore our reservations with res-
pect to the power plant as the major
form of reclamation/reuse extend into
these regulatory and planning respon-
sibilities.
Above all, the abatement of pollution
from municipal and industrial sources
is the main objective of this proposed
project. Alternative 10 will more than
adequately facilitate this objective. The
recommended project is designed to
collect and treat secondary effluent from
the existing Clark County waste-water
treatment plant, the existing Las Vegas
waste-water treatment plant, and the
existing City of Henderson waste -water
treatment plants to a 90 mgd AWT plant.
The treatment processes employed are
designed to produce an effluent which
will meet anticipated effluent discharge
limitations. The primary objective of
this alternative is to treat waste water
and discharge it to Las Vegas Wash
for maintenance of existing beneficial
uses or make AWT effluent available
for beneficial reuse. As in all alter-
natives, a portion of the effluent would
be available for in-valley irrigation in
the future. The increased quality of
flows provides for increased pollutant
reduction capability in the receiving
water, and the effluent characteristics
of Alternative 10 compared to the water
quality standards for Las Vegas Wash
and Lake Mead indicate that these stan-
dards would be more than met by dis-
charges from this process.
236
-------
-------
This statement is not only a reflection
of data and analysis gathered to assess
a project with potentially significant
impacts. It is also, in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), a forum to allow public input
and to make agency decisions responsive
to public desires. Upon publication of
the October 21, 1974 draft EIS for the
Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abate-
ment Project, a 45-day review period
began. This was required under the
August 1, 1973 Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) Guidelines and July 17,
1974 EPA Interim Regulations on Prepar-
ation of Environmental Impact Statements.
On December 5, 1974, as called for in the
CEQ Guidelines and as required by EPA's
impact statement regulations, a public
hearing was held to elicit the broadest
public comment on the draft impact
statement. In addition to providing a
public hearing to accommodate public
input, written comments were received
from public agencies and groups during
this period. It is the purpose of this
chapter to present the comments received
along with our response to each comment.
The format for presenting the comments
is as follows:
1. Reproduction of each set of written
comments as received.
3.
Summaries of written comments re-
ceived, and all pertinent comments
presented at the public hearing then
follow. As a general rule, only the
broader technical or value questions
are summarized. The comments re-
lating to specific passages or dis-
cussions, as in the Attachment II
comments of the Nevada State Divi-
sion of Colorado River Resources or
in those specific comments of the
Nevada Power Company, are either
incorporated in the text, or are
not discussed because they are not
relevant.
EPA's response immediately follows
each summarized comment, identi-
fied by double asterisks.
The itemized summaries were prepared
to reiterate the comment, as it •was under-
stood, whether written or spoken. We
have attempted, to the extent possible,
to preserve the context and flavor of each
comment as submitted to this agency.
Of the five individuals giving testimony
at the December 5, 1974 public hearing,
only Dr. Thorne Butler did not provide
us with a transcript of his remarks,
therefore his remarks were summarized
from the hearing transcript. Those desiring
238
-------
to review the public hearing transcript cision to reserve judgment on the pro-
may do so by arrangement with the Director, posed program of wastewater export
Water Programs Division, EPA, 100 to the proposed Allen Power Station
California Street, San Francisco, of the Nevada Power Company. This
California 94111. position is unchanged since no com-
pelling reason was given to change or
Of the comments received, a sizeable modify this Agency decision.
percentage commented on EPA1 s de-
239
-------
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSIO^
MEaioNAb orncc
939 BATTERY STREET, ROOM 41S
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIF. 04111
'.-. , 7 * ft
..;•.:.«•.' ''JENTER
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
- 2 -
November 19, 1971;
82C-Lahontan Basin
November 19, 1971*
Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Adclnistrator
U.S. 2nvironaental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California jAlll
Dear Mr, De Falco:
We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement for the
Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement Project, Nevada, dated October 21,
1971*.
As discussed in your statement, the objective of this project is to
elinlnate existing secondary discharges from municipal sources in the Las
Vegas Wash/Bay Drainage area. Our review indicates that, after considering
several possible alternatives, your agency has concluded that Alternative 10
best represents the desires of the local populace in abating pollution in
Lake Mead. Ilovever, you have reserved Judgment on the portion of this
alternative which proposes to export reclanation/reuse effluent to the pro-
posed Allen power plant.
We note that all alternatives vould accommodate aproposed power plant
with either advanced waste treatment water or secondary effluent for cooling
purposes. We endorse the use of advanced waste treatment water for the
cooling of a thernoelectric povrcr plant as a desirable and efficient,
beneficial use of a scarce natural resource in the desert area. The attaln-
nent of the national goal of energy conservation will be enhanced with the
location of the power plant near the Las Vegas load center with a resultant
reduction in transnission losses.
We have reviewed the •Iraft to determine the effect on matters affecting
the Co:^d.ssion's responsibilities. Such responsibilities relate to the
devtlopnent of hydroelectric power and assurance of the reliability and
adequacy of electric services under the Federal Power Act, and the construction
anl operation of natural gas pipelines under the Natural Gas Act. Our review
indicates that your proposals would -not affect any existing electric power
or natural gas facilities under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power
Conmlssion, and vould not appear to have any effect on the future development
of supplies and transmission of electric power or natural gas.
These are consents of the Sao Francisco Regional Office of the Federal
Power CoOTiisoion's Bureau of Power, and are made in accordance with the
Rational Environmental Policy Act of 1969-, and the August 1, 1973 Guidelines
of the Council of Environmental Quality.
Sincerely
(Acting for)
H. Frank Thomas
Regional Engineer
240
-------
Summary Response - Federal Power
Commission
1. The FPC endorses the use of ad-
vanced waste treatment water for the
cooling of a thermoelectric power
plant as a desirable and efficient
beneficial use of a scarce natural
resource in the desert area. The
attainment of the national goal of
energy conservation will be enhanced
with the location of the power plant
near the Las Vegas load center
with a resultant reduction in trans-
mission losses.
## No response necessary.
2. The alternative proposed would not
affect any existing electric power
or natural gas facilities under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Power
Commission, and would not appear
to have any effect on the future
development of supplies and trans-
mission of electric power or natural
** No response necessary.
241
-------
Summary Response - International Boun-
dary and Water Commission United
States and Mexico
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION
UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
omcswrac
UMTID CTAIOULIMJN
CL p»«o Tutu 7o»»a
REC'O 8v E.P.A.
RE3ION IX
COMM. CENTER
Nov25
A III NO ADONCM:
P. O. BOX 1OOO»
NOV221974
Mr. Paul De raJco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San rranclsco, California 94111
Dear Mr. De raloot
He have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Las Vegaa Hash
prepared by your agency. We wish to call your attention to the following
statements that we believe need to lie considered for the final Impact
statement.
Page 45 - The figure In the second paragraph describing the bypass
of Ifellton-Honawk drainage waters should be 118,000 acre-feet instead
of 18,000 acre-feet,
Page 56 - The. statement on this page Indicates that the addition
of 150,000 tons per year of dissolved solids through Las Vegas Nash
Increases the concentrations at Hoover and Imperial Dams by 10 milligrams
per liter and 12 milligrams per liter, respectively, while on page 59
the statement under Item 4 Indicates the Salinity Control Project could
reduce the salt load by 94,500 tons per year which would reduce the TDS
at Imperial Dam by 13 pfm. These statements appear Inconsistent.
Page 201 - In the sixth paragraph on this page, the reader Is led
to believe that the advanced waste treatment proposed for Las Vegas trash,
by reducing dissolved solids In the Hash by 150 milligrams per liter,
will have a significant effect on the Colorado River. He tint the effect,
however, la only about 1 ppm at Hoover Dam, and the statement therefore
would be Incorrect. On this page a statement Is also made that Las Vega*
Hash presently contributes an Increase in salinity at Imperial Daa of
17 to 18 milligrams per liter, which is also Inconsistent with the
•tatenent an page 56.
Sincerely,
Principal Engineer/
Supervising
1. Page 56 states that the addition of
150, 000 tons per year of dissolved
solids through Las Vegas Wash in-
creases the concentrations at Hoover
arid Imperial Darns by 10 milligrams
per liter and 12 mg/1. On page 59,
item 4, it is stated that the salinity
control project could reduce the salt
load by 94, 500 tons per year which
would reduce the TDS at Imperial
Dam by 13 ppm. Which statement
is correct ?
** 150, 000 tons per year will result in a
TDS reduction of 10-12 ppm concen-
tration at Imperial Dam.
2. By reducing dissolved solids in the
Wash 150 mg/1, according to page 202,
the reader is led to believe that this
would be a significant impact, when by
the Commission's estimate it would
only result in 1 ppm reduction at
Hoover Dam.
** The text has been modified to reflect
your comment.
3. Also on page 202, the statement is
made that Las Vegas Wash presently
contributes an increase of salinity
at Imperial Dam pf 17 to 18 mg/1,
which doesn't agree with comment #1
referring to TDS concentrations.
** 17-18 ppm has been changed to 10-
12 ppm. Varying sources of infor-
mation as well as the date of their
publication have resulted in these
inconsistencie s.
242
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
32l«-25th Street
Ogden, Utah 6W»01
Kr. Paul I>eFalco, Jr.
Re<:ion«l -Unlnistrator
•Eaviror.-e.ital Protection Agency
Region I/.
•ICO California Street
'- San Fran-'.sco, California 9U111
IX
COMM.CENTER
HaoBTW
8U20
November 22, 197>t
E?«r Mr. DeFalco:
We l.ave reviewed the draft environmental statement for the
La-; Y»r».r. v.'ssh/Eay Pollution Abatement Project. It is one
of the r.rst complete statements we have reviewed.
Al*.: '.•**. we have no significant comments for you to consider
in tl-.e preparation of the final environmental statement, it
will jr-'-.ide valuable reference information as It relates
to the nearby Tolyabe National Forest lands.
Sincerely,
P, M. RS?S
Regional Planner
243
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P. 0. Box 4850, Reno, Nevada 89505
December 3, 1974
Mr. Paul Oe Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
3
5
o *
O "'
f :n •'.
PI £
'•e. _
Dear Mr. De Falco: 2 '
The draft environmental Impact statement for the Las Vegas Wash/
Bay Pollution Abatement Project In Clark County, that was addressed to
the Interested Public on October 21, 1974, was referred to the.Soil
Conservation Service for review and comment.
We do not have any further comments to make on the Impact state-
ment at this time.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this
proposed project.
Sincerely,
C. A. Krai1
State Conservationist
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
REGIONAL OFFICE
M FULTON limtT
In'!'
OFrtcc or
THI *«a>ON«L OrHICTO
Office of Environmental Affairs
DEPARTMENT. OF THE ARMY
LOS ANacun DISTRICT. CORP* OF INOINCIH*
f. O. BOX <7I I
LOS ANOCLU. CALIFORNIA WOW
•ft'
SPLED-E
17 December
December 4, 1974
Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Sir:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution
Abatement Project has been reviewed in accordance with the interim procedures
of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as required by Section 102
(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190).
The material provided appears to describe adequately the impacts of the
proposed action as well as the alternatives that were presented. The major
concerns of this department are related to possible impacts upon-the health
of the population, services to that population and changes' In the character-
istics of the population which would require a different level or extent of
services.
The opportunity to review this statement Is appreciated. Our review does
not identify problems related to these specific concerns.
Sincerely,
t*£*'>
''James D\ Knochenhauer
Regional Environmental Officer
cc: P. Hayes
W. Muir
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Adnlnistrator
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Mr. De Falco:
This is in response to your letter of 21 October 1974 in which you
requested Corps of Engineers comments on the draft environmental Impact
report for the Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement Project.
The proposed plan does not conflict with existing or authorized plans
of the Corps of Engineers. We have no comments concerning the environ-
mental report for this proposed action.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report.
Sincerely yours,
H A. FUQUA7
Chief, Engineering Division
244
-------
STATE OF NEVADA
ASSESSMENT AND TAX EQUITY COMMITTEE
MIUtTCALLAOHAM
a. W. ATKINAOM.
•. M. BROWN. ••NATO*
C. P. DOO«K. ••NATO*
O. J. DBMBM, A.MMM.VMAM
P. W. HAT. AMMM.THAH
II. H. •Mrm. AMCMKTMAM
J. L. BLOT
H. D.
October 24. 1974
>'r. "aul He Falcc, Jr.
Adr.lr.istrator
Enviror.-ental Protection Agencv
*egi^ ir •
100 raiiforr.ia Street
San Frar.oisco, California 94111
Dear Mr. De Falco:
I ha--e rflvieved the. draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the las Vepas V=ish/Bay "ollutinn Abatement "reject and
desire to sut:ait the following co^nents:
I ccr.cur. with *he selection of Alternative 10 as the
nosp effective and practicable solution to the water
pollution problem in Lake Head. However, as you know,
the County of Clark has developed a contract with the
Citv of Las Ve-;3s, the Clark Countv Sanitation District.
and the 'Tevaca Fever Company for the sale of reclaimed
water to the "cvada Fower CoTioany for industrial use.
Revenues derived fror this sale will substantially offset
the operation and maintenance costs of the advanced
wastevacer treatnent nlar.t, thereby reducir.o the economic
burden on loc-i! taxpavers and sewer users. Additionally,
the industrial use of. reclaimed wator meets the ''fulleet
.-.-.v.'•.•';• ;,.',• criteria established hy the 1°73 Nevada
Stace Leeisls:yre in Senate Bill M?.
In vie" of the foregoing, I think that it is inappropriate
for E?A Region IX to reserve judgment on this portion of
the selected project.
•
It is also ir.portant that EPA Region IX recognize the
unique situation related to the Lal-e Mead Pollution
Abatement Trcject. Because Lake Mead is a reservoir of
frlsrar'o River water behind a Federal dam, it seems to me
thnt ^'A should reouest special Congressional funding
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
October 24, 1974
Page Two
authority for this project. This reouest is further
Justified by the fact that N'evada's allocation of Federal
water pollution control funds is based upon Nevada's
small population and does not take into consideration
the annual impact of millions of tourists on "he Las Ve-as
Clark County area.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these consents.
Sincerely,
DANIEL J/TTEMF.RS
Assemblyman
DJD:1J
O J DDIira • CLARK COUNTY COUHTMOUM • 1OO I. CAMON AVI.. IA« VtCAS. HIVADA MIDI
245
-------
Summary Response - State of Nevada
Assessment and Tax Equity. Committee
1. It is inappropriate for EPA Region IX
to reserve judgment on the sale of
reclaimed water to the Nevada Power
Company for industrial use since reve-
nues derived from the sale will sub-
stantially offset the operation and
maintenance costs of the advanced
waste treatment plant, thereby bene-
fiting the local taxpayers. Additionally,
the industrial use of reclaimed water
meets the "fullest beneficial use"
criteria established by the 1973 Nevada
State Legislature in Senate Bill 288.
** Until we get from the NPC and the
lead Federal Agency all pertinent
environmental information concern-
ing the proposed power facility, re-
servation of judgement is the most
reasonable position to follow. But
we wish it to be known that EPA does
encourage industrial reuse of waste-
water whenever it is environmentally
safe and cost effective.
2. EPA Region IX should request special
Congressional funding since Lake Mead
is a reservoir of Colorado River water
behind a Federal Dam and because the
allocation of Federal funds available to
Nevada is based upon Nevada's small
resident population and does not take
into consideration the annual impact
of millions of tourists on the Las
Vegas-Clark County area.
** EPA, under its program authority,
attempts to improve the quality of
water resources throughout the
country. All parts of the nation ex-
perience tourist impact, as -well as
numerous other special conditions.
The allocation of funds for each state
is determined by Congress. The use
of those funds within each state is in
accordance with the priority list deve-
loped by the state and approved by
EPA.
246
-------
247
- y t.
-
(TATt Or NIVADA
OFFICE Of THE STATE PLANNING COORDINATOR
CAPITOL COMPLEX
CAMOM CITT. NIVABA tt7OI
(701) M(-4MI
December 12, I974
Mr. Richard Coddington
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California.Street
San Francisco, California 94111
. RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - US VEGAS WASH/BAY POLLUTION
ABATEMENT PROJECT
Dear Mr. Coddington:
Attached are comments of State agencies concerning the above referenced
Environmental Inpact Statement. These comments constitute the Clearinghouse
review of this statement pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmen-
tal Policies Act.
Please note that numerous concerns of both major and minor consequence
are exorcised In the attachments for your consideration and/or correction,
Including the fact that discussion of water quantity Issues Is not appro-
priate to this Environmental Statement. The State of Nevada on previous
occasion, and at this tine, has questioned the authority of the Environmental
Prc-ectlon Agency to enter Into Issues that Involve matters other than quality.
Further It Is not appropriate to discuss water quantity In this statement nor
would It be appropriate to delay a decision on this Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollu-
tion Abatement Project based on related projects which are or may be subject
to separate environmental statements.
Sincerely yours.
'Jut
Bruce 0. Arkell
State Planning Coordinator
BDAtbw
ec: Mr. D. Paff w/attachments
Mr. W. HcCurry w/attachments
Mr. D. Flnne
-------
STATE OP NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OP HUMAN RESOURCES
DIVISION OF HEALTH
•UMAU 0» ENvmONHCMTlL HEALTH
CARSON CITY. NEVADA SS7O1
December 10, 1974
Summary Responses - State of Nevada,
Department of Human Resources, Division
of Health
1. Since an EIS on the power plant will
be required, and since EPA has re-
served judgment on this aspect, any
statements relating to adverse aspects
of this re-use concept are not relevant
and should be deleted.
MEMORANDUM
^Ot Bruce Arkell
ntOMi Wendell D. McCurry '/
.SUBJECT: Las Vegas Wash Environmental Impact Statement
We agree In general with EPA'a conclusions presented in the Draft EIS
and support the selection of Alternative 10.
We reserve judgment on the use of effluent in the proposed power plant
since an EIS will be required for the power plant and all environmental factors
relating to the power plant can be addressed at that tine. EPA has reserved
judgment on this aspect also, then goes ahead with making statements relating
to adverse aspects of this re-use concept. Such comments are not relevant and
should be deleted.
The County should pursue all avenues of economical re-use and EPA
is out of line in alluding that EPA will make evaluations on re-use,as the
proposed re-use Involves water rights (see page 235).
To BJT knowledge the statement* regarding return of ACT effluent t«
the Colorado River for credit are not accurate.
HDM/gB
** The Applicant has singled out the
sale of effluent to the Allen Power
Station as a reclamation/ reuse pro-
gram within the scope of Alternative
. 10, and has indicated that this is
the significant difference between
it and Alternative 3. We, however,
have concluded that it is premature
to speculate on impacts of the Allen
Power station until all pertinent en-
vironmental studies are completed.
Therefore we have deleted incorrect
or outdated information and assumptions
related to the power plant.
2.
3.
EPA is acting improperly in making
evaluations on re-use, as the proposed
re-use involves water rights.
We disagree with this statement* EPA
is acting in accordance with Section
102 (c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969.
Statements regarding return of AWT
effluent to the Colorado River for
credit are not accurate.
** These statements have been omitted.
248
-------
IKC O C»LL»SH»N
CCVUMOII
STATE OF NEVADA
DIVISION OF
COLORADO RIVER RESOURCES
P.O. Box 1748
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA B9IOI
TELEPHONE <7O2> 7>t->4BO
December 3, 1974
State Planning Coordinator
Carson City, Nevada
December 3, 1974
Page 2
Mr. Bruce D. Arkell
State Planning Coordinator
State Capitol Building
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Reference: Las Vegas Hash, Clark County, Nevada, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement dated October 21,
1974 - Prepared by U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Arkell:
Our letter dated Ilovember 5, 1974 addressed to Mr. Paul DeFalco,
Jr. relating to the above referenced Environmental Impact State-
ment indicated that we planned to coordinate our review with
other State-agencies. Your memorandum dated October 25, 1974
requested review comments from us to be forwarded to you for
overall State agency coordination and your transmittal to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
This will transmit our. review comments to you which have been
separated and identified in the following manner:
Attachment I General Comments
Attachment II Detailed Report Comments, Corrections
and Observations
Attachment III Detailed Comments Regarding Mechanical,
Constructional, Grammatical, and
Spelling Revisions and Suggestions
Attachment IV Supplemental Data and Information
Attachment V 'Supplemental Reference and Biographical
Information
We have referenced our detailed reviow comments to specific
pages and paragraphs of the draft statement and have attempted
to reference other comments to applicable portions of.the draft
statement. V.'hgn reviewing all of our comments submitted it
should be noted that in numerous instances both specific and
general com-nents relate to more than one portion or chapter of
the statement because of the interrelationships of those
portions or chapters.
We have read and attempted to review the draft statement in the
context of the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, P. L. 91-190. Through our review we sought
not to either object to or endorse any single alternative or
portions thereof. Although a single alternative appears to be
preferred, the implementation of any alternative or alternative
project component is, in our opinion, yet to be finally sub-
jected to the decisions relating to the additional factors of
legal, technical, economic or social impacts. However, we wish
to indicate our support of advanced treatment of effluent water
to address water quality standards 'adopted by the State of Nevada
and the concept of beneficial use of effluent water as a part of
the water resource base available to meet the needs of the people
of the State. We believe this support is consistent with the
Resolution of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada dated
August 9, 1973 which was forwarded to the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region IX, on August 9, 1973.
He generally wish to commend the Environmental Protection Agency
for the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement
which derived its beginning over six years ago and both in de-
tail and in its general implication addresses a most complex
problem. We would further wish to commend the various individ-
uals and the local, State and Federal agencies who have contri-
buted to and cooperated in the preparation of the information}
data and analyses contained in the statement.
Should there be any questions or required clarification of our
observations, comments or supplemental information we would be
pleased to furnish it.
Very truly yours,
Enclosures
Donald L. Paff
Administrator
cc w/enclosures:
Mr. Elmo J. DeRicco, Director
Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources
Nye Building
201 S. Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
MAL HE«OUKCM
ELMO i. DCHICCO. DIHICTO*
249
-------
ATTACHMENT I
Las Vegas Wash, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Throughout the draft statement is the identification
and reliance on a specific set of population projec-
tions prepared by the Clark County Regional Planning
Council (CCSI'C). Since almost all of the factors
addressed in the Statement relate to, in one way or
another, population projections it would appear very
important that these projections be carefully analyzed
ar.d that othsr projections be reviewed and considered.
It is noted that the Regional and Subrcgional infor-
ntion was taken fro* the 1971 Upper Colorado and
Lo-;er Colorado 3iver Comprehensive Framework Studies
which usad modified Office of Business Economics-
Econoraic Research Service population projections in
their preparation, yet the statement neither identi-
fies nor recognizes these Federally prepared popula-
tion projections. Additionally, tha forecasts of
Nevada's population has been prepared by the State
Engir.a'ar and has been used for the Nevada State Water
Plan v:hich will ha completed January 1975. A detail-
ed report including country and regional population
projections v.-is prepared in February 1973 which is
believed to b2 th.3 r.ost objective and comprehensive
projections aviiirsble. Specifically the CCRPC's
projections ir.-ijate a year 2000 median population
cf 730,^:3 ps;.;.'le in Clark County. The State
Er.3ir.se:'1 s projections indicate a year 2000 median
pspulati-n of 354,000 people. The impact and impli-
cations cf the variation is self-evident and indicates
t'-.at any adopted .regulation projections should be
carefully considered and included in the statement.
V.'e' strongly support and concur with tha population
projections preparad by the State Engineer which
should Ls identified in the Statement and tha resulting
ir-^acts analyzed. Soo ATTACHMENT IV Items 3 and 3a
and ^77ACci::^::r V Ite;.i 2.
2. Ona of the nost recent significent actions relating
to Color-ido Siver voter quality was ths passage of
th-2 Colcrauo Siver Basin Salinity Control Act,
P. L. 93-320. This Act which addresses the salinity
of the Colorado River water delivered to the basin
states ar.-J .'toxico is not included in general or
specifics in the draft statenant. Within Title II
-2-
of the Act, the Las Vegas Wash Unit i's authorized
for'construction which provides for a gross reduction
of the salinity contribution to Lake Mead from saline
ground waters on the order of 130,000 to 150,000 tons
per year and reduces the salinity concentration at
Imperial Dam on the order of 13 to 15 ppm. The sig-
nificance of this project is that it is estimated to
reduce the current gross salinity contribution of
Las Vegas Hash flows by about 70%. The influence of
this Act in all aspects should be integrated into
and be clearly identified throughout the Statement.
See ATTACHMENT V Items 4 and 5.
3. The quantity and quality of Las Vegas Wash effluent
water considered in the statement is almost directly
proportional to water delivered to the Las Vegas
Valley from the existing ground and Colorado River
sources. It is implied in the statement that there
is sufficient water resources available for all uses
beyond the year 2000. Our projections indicate a
total use of water resources in Southern Nevada
including all reclaimed effluent water by approxi-
mately the year 1995. This is based on Nevada's
full allocation of Colorado River water of up to
300,000 acre-feet per year of main stem depletions
and 50,000 acre-feet per year of Las Vegas Valley
groundwater. The relationship of water availability-
and effluent quantity should be clearly analyzed and
identified with the full understanding that Nevada's
Colorado River water is and can be made available
to divertors outside the Las Vegas Valley. See
ATTACHMENT IV Items 2, 4 and 4a and ATTACHMENT V
Items 3 and 6.
4. Except for minor references, the flood flows already
experienced and those potentially in the future are
ignored in the Statement. The impact of runoff
induced low volume high intensity flows traversing
the wash area and the anticipated contributions of
pollutants should be discussed and displayed.
Although such flood flows are natural occurrences,
the impact could be dramatic and cause severe short-
term modifications of the quality characteristics
of the Las Vegas Bay Arm of Lake Mead. Flood and
runoff flows should also be assessed in their rela-
tionship to proposed alternatives both as to water
quality implications and requirements or impacts
on any constructed project features. See
ATTACHMENT V Item 7.
250
-------
ATTACHMENT II
12/3/74
Las Vegas Wash, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DETAILED REPORT COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
1. Page I, Summary, 2nd para.;
The objective of the project is not to eliminate discharges
but to abate or reduce the pollution contribution from
municipal sources. It is suggested the first sentence of
this paragraph be rewritten to read; "The objective of this
project is to abate pollution contribution front municipal
sources in the Las Vegas Wash/Bay drainage area." This
wording is consistent with that of the first full paragraph
on paga 236.
2. Page I, Summary, 3rd para., line 5;
We suggest the word "increasing" in place of the word ac-
celerating. It must be noted that the primary cause of
salt concentration of Lake Mead, thus Las Vegas Bay, re-
sults from upstream salt contributions and concentration
effects of water use and evaporation.
3. Page XI, Introduction, 2nd para., line 8;
We suggest the use of the word "natural" rather than
pristine. We believe the Grand Canyon is geologic evidence
that the river and its tributaries have been a transport
agent for solids and salts for eons of time. Further, ap-
proxinately 67» of the salt loading in the Colorado River
is from natural sources.
4. Page 3, 1st para.;
It should be pointed out in this paragraph that lake level,
inflow, upstream contribution of pollutants are also in-
fluences on the conditions of Las Vegas Bay. We suggest
these considerations be added or the last sentence be
deleted as being out of context under the heading.of
"Regional Locations."
5. Page 5, 1st para., line 4;
We suggest that "man created" be inserted before the word
perennial. This would explain the use of the word
perennial as opposed to that use in the 2nd full paragraph,
"line 10 on page 16. It would also conform the sentence to
the discussion in the partial paragraph on page 87.
251
-2-
6. Page 16, 2nd para., line 9j
It should be pointed out that the Virgin River is not
always perennial due to agricultural diversion. If the
Virgin is considered perennial then the Muddy should
also be included.
7. Page 16, 4th para., last sentence}
An added explanation is required to define the words
"is watertight" in view of description of the groundwater
basin in the 2nd paragraph, right-hand column on page 33.
8. Page 34, 1st para., line 3;
The surface area of Lake Mead of 157,736 should be de-
fined at a certain lake level.
9. Page 34, 4th para.j
We suggest that the outflow component due to lake evapo-
ration is an import feature to be included. In 1973 the
total evaporation from Lake Mead as reported by the U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation was 771,000 acre-feet.
10. Page 37, 1st partial para., line 4j
The sentence should be corrected to read as follows:
"The Southern Nevada Water System, completed
in 1971, consisting of the State-owned treat-
ment facility and the Federally-constituted
transmission system, has assisted the State to
reduce groundwater overdrafting of the Las Vegas
Valley by developing the capability of supplying
132,200 acre-feet per year of Nevada's Colorado
River water for municipal and industrial purposes.*
11. Page 37, 2nd para., line 11;
The sentence should be corrected to read as followsi
"The Southern Nevada Water System provides
the means to deliver 132,200 acre-feet per
year of Nevada's allocation of Colorado River
water into the areas of Las Vegas, Eldorado
Valley, Boulder City."
12. Page 37, last para.;
The decline of reservoir evaporation is not explained or
verified in any manner. What is the basis of such a
statement? Also, further reduction of main stem channel
losses through phreatophyte control programs has not been
-------
-3-
-4-
realized nor is the program proceeding with any vigor
at this tine because of conflicts with wildlife habitat
disturbance.
13. Page 38, 2nd para.;
The depths to different aquifers are variable and the
aerial extent of any of the zones mentioned is poorly
defined. All of the aquifers, vhere they can be recog-
nized as such, are essentially hydraulically connected
in r.ost areas of the valley. It is an error to imply
that the zones are totally independent units.
14. Page 33, footnote;
The indication of an average TDS concentration of the
near-surface groundwater at 5,000 mg/1 is misleading
and statistically unsound. No final analysis has been
yet nade, to our knowledge, of the chemical quality of
the shallow groundwater system.
15. Page 40, last para., lines 8 and 16;
Add the Words"evaporation and" before the word evapo-
transpiration.
The sentence should be clarified to explain that other
effluent flows are .generated from water delivered to
the Valley and not all returns to the shallow ground-
water system. The word consumed is not appropriate.
16. Page 45, 2nd para., line 5;
The figure 18,000 should be 118,000. Because of the
further implications to the Colorado River resulting
from Minute Mo. 242, it should be discussed further,
particularly as to the quality requirements and existing
and proposed methods of achieving that quality.
17. Page 46;
Under the heading oi "Development of Colorado River
Policies and Standards" the conclusions of the Con-
ference "In the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate
Haters of the Colorado River and its Tributaries -
Colorado, lie:-: Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada,
Kyoning, Utah, Seventh Session,-February 15-17, 1972
and April 26-27, 1972" should be included and, also,
the statercr.t of approval of those conclusions by the
E.P.A. Administrator, In addition, the existence and
fur.rtior.s of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Fcruj.i should be set forth including a brief identifica-
tion of the E.P.A. published rules and regulations re-
lating to salinity standards and the plan of implementation.
18. Page 48;
Under the heading "Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Act" the entire section should be revised to identify and .
conform to P.L. 93-320 with an identification of the
authorized Las Vegas Wash Unit.
19. Page 54, 1st partial para., line 9;
The following should be added to the end of the sentence:
"while the Basin States continue to develop their compact-
apportioned waters." This is consistent with the conclu-
sions of the Conference (see Item 17) and the E.P.A. pub-
lished rules and regulations (see Item 18).
20. Page 55;
Under the heading of "Colorado River Basin" this section
should be updated based on the U. S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation's Status Report, Colorado
River Water Quality Improvement Program, January 1974 and
P.L. 93-320.
21. Page 58;
Under the heading of "Salinity Control" this section should
be updated (see Item 20).
22. Page 59; 4th para.;
Water quality in Las Vegas Bay is also highly dependent
on volume .and lake levels (reservoir inflow-outflow) and
the upstream quality (inflow). This paragraph and the
succeeding one should identify these factors.
23. Page 65; Figure 16;
The Figure should identify the lake level of the sampling
period and also the depth of samples in order to appro-
priately identify the phosphorous-algal count relationship.
24. Page 66, Table;
Add "Estimated" to the heading Return Flow (Ac-Ft). The
Estimated Return Flow total on this chart contradicts the
value of 40,000 acre-feet indicated on Page 40, 1st partial
paragraph, line 6. This should be resolved.
252
-------
-5-
-6-
25. Page 68, partial para., right column, line 11;
We suggest that the words 'estimated to be applied as"
replace the words used as. The word "use" connotes
complete evaporation and evapotranspiration consumption
and does not correlate with percolated water from irrigation.
26. Page 69, Table 7;
This table is outdated and erroneous. Annual contract
allocations from the existing First Stage of the Southern
Nevada Water System are as followsi
Las Vegas Valley Water District
City of North Las Vegas
City of Henderson
City of Boulder City
Nellis Air Force Base
Total
99,200 acre-feet
20,000 " "
7,000 " "
2,000 "
4,000 " "
132,200 acre-feet
For actual and projected demands of Colorado River water
from the existing First Stage and future Second Stage of
the Southern Nevada Water System see ATTACHMENT IV, Item 1.
27. Page 68;
Under heading of "Water Rights" the Supreme Court Decree,
Arizona v California, and P.L. 89-292 (79 Stat. 1068),
Southern Nevada Water Project should be added.
28. Page 70, 6th and 7th paras.;
Table 8 is not a summary of existing contracts for
Nevada's Colorado River water. Table 8 is a tabulation
of contracts for Colorado River water delivered through
the Southern Nevada Water Project. The following are
existing and projected contract quantities of Colorado
River water diversions to Nevada<
1970 1980 1990 2006
Existing Contracts (A-F) 237,120 232,415 208,318 178,318
Potential Future Contracts (A-P)
2nd Stage, Southern Nevada
Water System - 166,800 166,800 166,800
Miscellaneous - 16,000 16,000 30,000
Haxiwua Indian Rights (A-F) 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
TOTAL* 249,120 427.21'S 403,118 387,118
•Mot including conveyance or treatment losses.
Also see ATTACHMENT IV, Items 2, 4 and 4a.
29. Pages 103, 104 and 106;
See ATTACHMENT I, Item 1, and ATTACHMENT IV, Items 3 and 3a.
30. Page 107;
Under the heading "Regional Land Use" a breakdown of land
ownership with a map is an essential ingredient to the
understanding of regional and local land use, constraints
and management problems. He suggest such a breakdown by
acreage and area be added.
31. Page 112, 1st para.i line 25;
Correct figure of 60,000. Certainly a density of 60.000
people on 640 acres is not low density.
32. Page 114, 2nd para., lines 9 and 15;
Add the following sentence for clarification and information!
"Approximately 105,000 acres are under option to
the State of Nevada for purchase through Public
Law 85-339, The Eldorado Valley Act, and the
Division of Colorado River Resources under
NRS 321.390 to 321.470, inclusive, (The Eldorado
Valley Development Law) is responsible for this
activity."
Also change the sentence to correctly reads
"Located to the northeast side of this Highway
is a large pet cemetery established without
authorization of the Bureau of Land Management."
33. Page 115;
Under the heading "Transportation", we find no mention of
the Union Pacific railroad spur which serves Henderson and
Boulder City and has the capability of being extended into
the Eldorado Valley.
The discussion also fails to identify subsidiary general
aviation airports in Boulder City, Henderson and North
Las Vegas.
This information should be added.
253
-------
-7-
-8-
34. Page 119, 3rd para.;
Other Federal agencies which make up a significant economic
impact in Boulder City, such as the Regional Office, Lower
Colorado ftegion, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Office
of the Boulder Canyon Project, USSR, are not identified.
This information should be added.
35. Page 122;
Under the general heading of "Utilities" the service to
Hor.derson by California-Pacific Utilities Company should
be described. Also, the electrical supply to the Industrial
Complex in Clark County near Henderson from the Parker-Davis
and Colorado River Storage Hydroelectric Projects should be
included. This power and energy, supplemented by power and
energy from the Nevada Power Company is administered by the
State through the Division of Colorado River Resources. The
City of Boulder City which has its own utility system has
Hoover and Colorado River Storage Project power and energy
as its source.
36. Page 122, 7th para.;
The first portion of the first sentence should be rewritten
to read:
ft
"The directors of the old company, in concert
with the State through the Colorado River Cora-
' mission of Nevada, were instrumental in adding
the ..."
37. Page 124, 2nd para.)
An identification of Nevada Power Company's ownership of 14%
of the 1500-mcgawatt Mohave Generation Station should be added.
38. Page 124, 5th para.;
The projected capital expenditures and potable water system
expansions of Henderson, North Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force
Base should be included. In a regional view the City of
Boulder City should also be included.
39. Page 126, 1st para.;
Correct paragraph to conform to Items 10 and 11. Also see
ATTACHMrilT IV, Item 2.
40. Page 126, 2nd para., lines 17 and 18;
See ATTACHMENT IV, Items 2, 4 and 4a.
41. Page 126, 3rd para., last sentence;
Water supply to Nevada and other Lower Basin States is set
forth in the 1922 Colorado River Compact. The' statement of
future water supply dependence on depletions in the Upper
Basin States Is erroneous and misleading. This sentence
should be considerably expanded in view of the "Laws of the
River" or be deleted.
42. Page 127, Table 17;
The table heading should be corrected' to read "Water Source
Distribution" rather than Water Resource Utilization. Addi-
tionally, the table subheadings should be "Groundwater
Withdrawals", "Colorado River Diversions" and Wastewater
Deliveries." These revised headings more accurately describe
the numerical values presented.
43. Page 128, 1st para., line 1;
Change word consumption to "delivered."
44. Page 128, 2nd para., 1st sentence;
Add words "to Las Vegas Wash" after the words Hastewater
flows. This will clarify the difference between direct
and indirect flows caused by man-induced actions.
45. Page 129, Table 18;
Change word Used to "Supplied" throughout the table. Return
Flow Credit should be identified in the context of the
Supreme Court Decree, Arizona v California.
46. Page 130, Table 19;
See ATTACHMENT I, Item 1, ATTACHMENT IV, Items 2, 3, 3a, 4
and 4a.
47. Page 138, Table 22;
See ATTACHMENT I, Item 1, for alternative population
projections.
48. Page 148, 2nd para., last sentence;
We suggest the deletion of the portion of the sentence after
the comma. Pending action subsequent to the proposal and
withdrawal of the E.P.A. salt loading makes that portion of
the sentence inappropriate.
-------
-9-
-10-
49. Page 168, 3rd para., last sentence}
We suggest this last sentence be rewritten in view of the
authorized "world's largest" desalination project authorized
in P.L. 93-320..
SO. Page 169, 4th para., last sentence;
See Page 49, 2nd paragraph and Item 47. The sentence
should be modified to conform with current events not
outdated criterion and the effect of the Las Vegas Hash
Unit in Title II of P.L. 93-320.
51. Page 173;
• Under the heading "RELATED CONSTRUCTION - Allen Power
Project" all references to Southern California Edison
Company should'be deleted and replace) with the Department
of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles. A study
agreement between the Nevada Power Company and the De-
partment of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles
on January 1974 establishes the scope of the study and
principles of participation in the proposed 2000-megawatt
Allen Power Project.
52. Page 184;
He would suggest that a discussion of the related environ-
mental impacts of the future water resources available for
beneficial use in the future not only to irrigation,
electric power generation but also to the municipal supply.
This should be included in Chapter 3.
S3. Page 192, 7th para.;
The proposed increase in green areas throughout the Valley
should be considered in light of the expressed and promoted
water conservation programs now in effect. Substantial in-
creases in green areas except where the effluent water would
replace the use of existing potable water sources is con-
trary to any conservation ethic.
54. Page 194, 4th para., line 2;
We would suggest that all recommendations be deleted in the
report or recast as desirable activities to assist in future
evaluations.
55. Page 194;
Under the heading of "Impacts of the Pilot Desalination
Program" we suggest that a discussion be included in the
studies of the.Las Vegas Hash Unit authorized in Title II
of P.L. 93-320 relating to the potential desalting of the
saline groundwater flows.
56. Page 200, 2nd para.;
He suggest a restructuring of the paragraph to conform to
statements on page 236. See Iten 1.
57. Page 200, 3rd para.;
He suggest the effect of the authorized Las Vegas Hash Unit
in P.L. 93-320 be considered in discussions of salinity con-
tributions from groundwater inflows.
58. Page 202, 6th para., line 13;
The value of $160,000 should read $240,000. This value is
from the analyses by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and
was set forth in the testimony by the.Committee of Fourteen .
on behalf of the Governors of the seven Colorado River Basin
States before the House Subcommittee on Hater and Power
Resources, March 4, 5 and 8, 1974.
59. Page 211, 6th para.;
This paragraph assumes an extension of the authorisation
period set forth in Section 207 of P.L. 92-500. If true,
then it should be included in the paragraph. •
60. Page 213;
Under the heading "The Environmental Impacts of the Allen
Power Generating Facility" see Item 50. He would also
suggest that the implications of "dry cooling" be discussed.
Estimates of evaporative cooling steam-electric-coal-flred
generating plants indicate a water consunptive use on the
order of 15,000 acre-feet per year per 1,000 megawatts
while dry radiator cooling has a water consumptive use
on the order of 2,000 acre-feet per year per 1,000 mega-
watts.
61. Page 226, 1st para., line 5;
He suggest adding "contributions to" following the word
pollution and striking the word in. This is to clarify
that Las Vegas Hash pollution is not the only source, in
fact is small, to that contributed~from upstream sources
to Lake Head.
62. Page 227, 2nd para., second sentence;
He suggest this be revised to indicate that Nevada Power
Company has made the statement.
255
-------
ATTACHMENT III
Las Vegas .Hash, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DETAILED COMMENTS REGARDING MECHANICAL, CONSTRUCTIONAL,
GRAMMATICAL, AND SPELLING REVISIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
1. Summary - Page V: left column, 6th agency'. Correct as followst
Administrator
Division of Colorado River Resources
Post Office Box 1748
Las Vegas, NV 89101
2. Introduction - Page XIV: Paragraph 2, line 4: ... "extremely
arid, hot^ water-short ..." (add
comma after hot)
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Page 27:
Page 34:
Figure 9 is poorly reproduced and the reader cannot
identify Sediment Yield Classes areas because of the
poor reproduction or lack of legend clarity.
first full paragraph, last line:
generation." (add generation.)
"and power
Page 37: first partial paragraph, 4th line: -correct to read
"... notably in Southern Nevada." (add Southern)
Page 41: fifth full paragraph, 4th line: add units of measure-
ment: "... conductivity of 1,300 micromhos.*
Page 42: third full paragraph, 1st line, right-hand column:
correct name of bill to "Colorado River Storage
Project and Participating Projects^ Act"
Page 48: second full paragraph, last line of left column: omit
"if adopted, would" and add "s_" to authorizes^
Page 49: 6th line, left column: change "if" to "as"
Page 54: firs't partial paragraph, last sentence, refers to
Table 3-7, but no such table is identified elsewhere.
Page 55: first full paragraph, tenth line: change 2-1/3 to
read 2/3
Page 58: 6th full paragraph, first line: delete "would be".
and "arc"
Page 66: left column, lines 8 & 9: What are "objectionable
aesthetic conditions"? Change clause to read "will
degrade aesthetic values".
14. Page 72: correct last two lines in first full paragraph to read
"... and ground water pumpage will be reduced to . '. ."
15. Page 97: third line under HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, since this is
not a direct quotation, change "Pahutes" (to be
consistent with page 121) to Paiute.
16. Page 110: first full paragraph, second line - change to read
"Valley and minor portions of the Eldorado ..."
17. Page 119: last line typographical error, should read "1899"
18. Page 121: fourth line should read . . . "Eldorado Dry Lake ..."
19. Page 131: second footnote1 under Sources; Complete the last line
on the page to show permanent population projection
table number referred to.
20. Page 132: third full paragraph, sixth line: should read ". . .
to .poor joint connections . . .", change poured to
poor.
21. Page 142: second paragraph, third line from end of paragraph,
delete "up"
22. Page 158: second full paragraph, seventh line from top on
right-hand column make compound plural-- "compounds"
23. Page 166: first paragraph, right-hand column, third'lino fron
bottom of paragraph: change "indirect" to "direct".
See also second full paragraph on page 168, 5thITne.
We question use of word indirect and we suggest use
of "blended" or "supplemental supply".
24. Page 180: first line, right-hand column could read "revenues"
25. Page 186: second line, right-hand column, change "in" to "is"
26. Page 190: first full paragraph in right-hand column, seventh
line of paragraph, replace "Wash" with "area".
27. Page 190: second full paragraph in right-hand column, next to
last line of paragraph, "associates" should be
"associated"
28. Page 191: first partial paragraph, next to last line, change
"fuel" to "foul"?
29. Page 194: first full paragraph, right-hand column, change to
read "Construction of a minimum network of wells
will provide necessary baseline data ..."
30. Page 202: second full paragraph, right-hand column, fourth line
from bottom, correct to read "$160,000 per year".
-2-
256
-------
31. Pane 209: first full paragraph in right-hand column, second
sentence should read "Las Vegas Mash; ..."
32. Page 210: fourth line.in right-hand column, change "in" to
"and".
33. Page 215: second full paragraph, line 9 should read "Figure 38"
34. Page 215: third line in right-hand column,-delete Southern.
35. Page 228: eighth line, change last word "undeterminable" to
"is not yet determined".
12/3/74
ATTACHMENT IV
Las Vegas Wash, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA AND INFORMATION
1. Tabulation of Actual and Projected Colorado River
Hater Deliveries through Southern Nevada Hater
System, 1972-1990
2. Tabulation of Actual and Projected Colorado River
Hater Diversions to Nevada, 1970-1990
3. Tabulation of Population Projections - Clark
County, Lower Colorado River Region - Nevada,
Las Vegas Valley, 1970-2020
3a. Plot of Population Projections - Clark County and'
Las Vegas Valley, 1970-2020
4. Tabulation of Total Hater Requirements, Lower
Colorado River Region - Nevada, 1975-1995
4a. Plot of Total Water Requirements, Lower Colorado
River Region - Nevada, 1975-1995
2. Actual and Projected Colorado River Hater
Diversions to Nevada 1970-1990
(Acre-feet per year)
Colorado River Diversions
Year Historical j/ Projected I/
1970 38,308
71 50,586
72 81,051
73 94,637
74 136,500
1975 150,000
76 167,000
77 184,500
78 202,500
79 219,000
1980 232,000
81 241,500
82 253,000
83 269,000
84 285,500
1985 299,500
86 319,000 y
87 336,000 y
88 353,000 y
89 371,800 I/
1990 388,000 3/
Notesi
I/ Compilation of Records in Accordance with Article VIA),
(3), (C), and (D) of the Decree of the Supreme Court
of the United States in Arizona v. California Dated
March 9, 1964, Bureau of Reclamation, Region 3
2/ Projections made by Division of Colorado River Resources
y Assume* return flows to Colorado River credited to
Nevada's allocation
257
-------
3.
Population Projections - Clark County,
Lower Colorado River Region - Nevada,
Las Vegas Valley, 1970-2020
12-3-74
Clark County I/
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
NOTES :
Low
473,000
662,000
816,000
930,000
986,000
Median
483,000
715,000
894,000
1,016,000
1,087,000
High
500,000
776,000
1,000,000
1,175,000
1,300,000
Lower Colorado
River Region
- Nevada 2/
473,000
697,000
870,000
986,000
1,053,000
Las Vegas
Valley V
467,300
689,900
861,000
976,000
1,042,000
I/ State of Nevada Water Planning Report, 15, Forecast for the Future -
Population, Nevada State Engineer's Office, Feb. 1973, P. 24.
2/ Colorado River Basin, Area V, Alternate Plans for Water Resource Use,
State of Nevada,' Division of Water Resources, April, 1974, pp. C-3, C-8
3/ Las Vegas Valley consists of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and
unincorporated areas and is comparable to Las Vegas Valley referred to
by Nevada Environmental Consultants
258
-------
3a.
_ ,
i ....
, / JWLJ
i ^
' of 4' ••
— too
i9
Clark Coi
"
,j>
f
T~
PpPULATION PROJECTION
.nty. Las Vegas Valley - 1970 t
'
;..-
A
V
' r
. i
i
•
:....:
/
f
i
!
i
1
?O /PS0 /99O 2O(
• ! Year
f~0r nocva
e<.'v it cm 3*
X
/ _^
•
- '
C/t
- £a
.
")0 20i
i
S
.0 2020 (_U
. - .....
1 :
X '
***. ... .._ -
It- A . Ceun^
r Vegas If
0 2C.
I
— -
,<3, .
i
.. .1. .
- -• • --
. . -
'
T" _ ~'~'
alley
10
•
4. Water Requirements, Lower Colorado River Region-Nevada
1975-1995 (Acre-feet per year)
Total Available
»r Water I/ Requirements 2/ Surplus Shortages
75 464,500 200,000 264,500 -0-
30 464,500 282,000 182,500 -0-
35 464,500 349,000 115,500 -fl-
90 464,500 438,000 26,500 -0-
95 464,500 520,000 -0- 55", 500
Total Available
ar Water I/ Requirements 3/ Surplus Shortages
•75 464,500 220,000 244,500 -0-
80 464,500 301,500 163,000 -0-
>85 464,500 380,000 84,500 -0-
190 464,500 453,000 11,500 -0-
195 464,500 560,000 -0- 95,500
atea:
/ Available water composed of 50,000 AF groundwater, 300,000 AF
Colorado River Water, and 114,500 AF return flows. Includes
all Colorado lUvor Water, nnd «jro\mdwatr>r and return flows
in Las Vegas Valley.
/ Requirements estimated by Division of Colorado River Resources-
Includes demands on the resource but no demands for individual
projects.
I/ Requirements estimated by Division of Water Resources Alternative
Plans for Water Use, Colorado River Basin Area V. Does not include
demands for individual projects.
259
-------
4a.
.Water Requirements, Lower Colorado River Region-Nevada
1975-
1975-1995 <2> ' '?'
.egi
r
-§j-^'
k
Si
— O— Projection i>)f Division bfCaloraJo
.-.jtfesources _ II
Riv
— A— Projection Ly /)/visiott of
Tota/\ Water Avat/ai/e p
I 464.500 Ac-fi"J
" :T
S985~
Year
aee item
ATTACHMENT V
Las Vegas Wash, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SUPPLEMENTAL REFERENCE AND BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Supreme Court Decree - Arizona v. California 1964, (376 U.S. 340)
2. Report No. 5, February 1973, "Forecasts for the Future - Popula-
tion" Prepared by the State Engineer's Office - Division of
Water Resources
3. Special Report, January 1971, "Water for the Future in Southern
Nevada" Prepared by the State Engineer's Office - Division of
Water Resources
i
4. Public Law 93-320, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
5. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
of the Corunittee on Interior and Insular Affairs - House of
Representatives - 93rd Congress, Second Session on H R 12165
and Related Bills, March 4, 5 & 8, 1974 - Serial No. 9'3-45;
VSGPO 1974
6. Detail Report, "Alternative Plans for Water Resource Use -
Colorado River Basin, Area V", April 1974 Prepared by the
State Engineer's Office, Division of Water Resources
7. Report on Survey for Flood Control - "Las Vegas Wash and
Tributaries" - Las Vegas and Vicinity, Nevada, September 30,
1959, Corp of Engineers, U. S. Army Engineering District,
Los Angeles
8. Status Report - "Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program", January 1974, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation
260
-------
Summary Responses - State of Nevada,
Division of Colorado River Resources J^/
1. Since almost all of the factors ad-
dresssed in the statement relate,
in one way or another, to population
projections; other projections should
be compared to those of the Clark
County Regional Planning Council
(CCRPC), e.g., the Federally pre-
pared Office of Business Economics -
Economic Research Services or the
Office of the State Engineer's pro-
jections.
** The CCRPC projections are used
because they are generally accepted
by local entities in Clark County.
They are more moderate than the
others su'ggested and provide a
conservative estimate of growth
that would not conflict with local
planning.
No mention was made of passage
of the Colorado River Basin Salinity
ActP.L. 93-320, which addresses
the salinity of the Colorado River
water delivered to the basin states
and Mexico. The influence of this
Act in all aspects should be inte-
grated into and be clearly identi-
fied throughout the statement.
** This Act was addressed in the Chapter
1 section, WATER QUALITY, and
did make reference to the other pro-
gram underway in the Las Vegas
Wash drainage to abate pollution
contributions to Lake Mead.
3. It is implied in the statement that
there are sufficient water resources
available for all uses beyond the
year 2000. Our projections (Divi-
sion of Colorado River Resources)
indicate that a total use of water
resources in southern Nevada includ-
ing all reclaimed effluent water will
occur by approximately the year 1995
(300, 000 acre-feet per year main
stem depletions and 50, 000 acre-feet
of Valley groundwater).
The relationship of water availability
and effluent quantity should be clearly
analyzed and identified with the full
understanding that Nevada's Colorado
River water is and can be made avail-
able to diverters outside the Las
Vegas Valley.
** The discrepancy seems to be between
the population curves utilized by the Ap-
plicant and those developed by the Divi-
sion of Colorado River Resources.
In this quantity short, quality limited
environment, every attempt has been
made to integrate the pollution abate-
ment project (see WATER RESOURCES,
WATER QUALITY, WATER RIGHTS)
with ajudicated decisions and legislated
planning and regulatory programs re-
lating to water resource supply, water
quality, and water rights allocation.
4. The flood flows already experienced
and those potentially in the future
should be analyzed for the impact of
runoff induced, low volume, high
intensity flows traversing the wash
area as well as the anticipated con-
261
Attachment II and III comments were responded to directly in
the text. See page 238.
-------
tributions of pollutants. Such flood
flows could cause severe short-term
modifications of the quality charac -
teristics of the Las Vegas Bay Arm
of Lake Mead. Flood and runoff
flows should be assessed in their
relationship to proposed alternatives
both as to water quality implications
and requirements or impacts on any
constructed project features.
** In the siting of facilities, adequate
protection from the 100 year flood
level is required. In a January 9,
1975 publication entitled Special
Design Studies for Clark County
AWT Plant, the Applicant has pro-
vided specific alternative treatment
facilities' sites which take into account
the 100 year flood levels determined
by'the Army Corps of Engineers.
Measures to actually control floods
and their impacts are implemented
by the Corps, rather than EPA.
262
-------
STATE OF NEVADA
DIVISION OF
/
RE3IOK |
COLORADO RIVER RESOURCESOMM. CENTE
P.O. Box 174*
Mitt* O'CAIXA*MAN
c
0
p
Y
LAS VEGAS. NCVAOA 80IO1
TtltrXONt (701) >»->4>0
December 13, 1974
Dec IS
State Planning Coordinator
Carson City, Nevada
December 13, 1>74
Page 2
Mr. Bruce D. Arkell
State Planning Coordinator
State Capitol Building
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Referencei Las Vegas Hash, Clark County, Nevada, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement dated October 21,
1974 - Prepared by 0. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, California
Dear Mr. Arfcell:
Since we forwarded our comments to you regarding the draft
statement we believa two further comments are appropriate
and because of time limitations are, by copy of this letter,
forwarding them direct to Region IX of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
In the matter of return flows to the Colorado River it must
be clearly understood that the primary document governing
the application of return flow credit is the Supreme-Court
Decree, Arizona v. California dated March 9, 1964. Wie re-
porting of return flows on an annual basis for the Sfbtes
of Nevada. Arizona and California is mandated by the D.-crea'.
It should be recognized that leqal allocations of Colorado
River water pro cede actual diversions atvd in order to assure
compliance to the Decree return flow credit Identification
is necessary and beneficial to the State of Nevada well
before Nevada withdraws its full allotment from the River.
Also, it should be noted that Nevada's allocation is .based
on its depletion of main-stem water, thus total diversions
or withdrawals are based on the formula diversions minus
return flows must not exceed 300,000 acrc-feot per year.
In the matter of economics, the alternatives have been con-
pared on a basis of cost of facilities and operation and
maintenance. Throughout the draft statement direct facility
costs are used and considered. We believe that a section
should be included to address and consider tho value of
water. The implications of value of water in a broad '
economic sense would reveal many issues that are absent
when considering only the direct costs of facilities. This
type of evaluation and discussion would ba of great assistance
in the consideration of beneficial uses of reclaimed water.
Me would be pleased to furnish additional information or
clarification if there are any questions as to these ad-
ditional comments.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Paff
Administrator
oc>
Paul De Palco
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Mr. Elmo J. DoRicco, Director
Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources
Nye Building
201 S. Fall Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
« mvinoN or mi MFAIHMMT or CMIMIVATWM AMI KATUHM. iraovncn
263
-------
Summary Response - Division of Colorado
River Resources
1. Legal allocations of Colorado River
water will precede actual diversions
and Nevada has yet to draw its full al-
location from the Colorado, therefore
it cannot receive return flow credit
until such time as it does draw its
full allocation.
** The text has been revised to reflect
your comments.
2. A section should be included on the
value of water. The implications of
water value in the broad economic
sense would reverse many issues
that are absent when considering only
the direct costs of facilities, and such
evaluation would illustrate beneficial
uses of reclaimed water.
** The value of water was considered
in'the draft EIS. We are aware that
wastewater reuse has many good
points, both economically and en-
vironmentally. As a consequence,
the desirability of reusing effluent
was a consideration in evaluating dif-
ferent alternatives.
264
-------
VIRGIL L. JONES
ROBERT V. PHILLIP*
foal*, cirv «r i
CARL C. BCV1N*
IMMMAL IMMA1
MVHON •. HOLBURT
CMIIf «W
MAHOLD f- PKLLCORIN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Colorado River Board of California
IOT COUTH BROAOWAr.^lOOM *1OS
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA BOO12
December 2, 1974
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr., Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
100 California Street,
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Mr. De Falco:
. We have reviewed the report, "Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement Project,11 dated
October 21, 1974, and have the following comments thereon:
Coordination with Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control.Program
A bill to establish a Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program Is mentioned on page 48, and is further discussed on pages
58*59. However, the Draft Statement should state that it became
Public Law 93-320, enacted June 24, 1974, and that It authorized
construction of the Las Vegas Wash unit of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program. As briefly stated In the Draft Statement
this salinity control project is to collect and dispose of the saline
groundwater inflow to Las Vegas Wash.
The Draft Statement should explore ways that the Las Vegas
Wash salinity control project could be coordinated with the recommended
alternative for handling sewage effluent so as to accomplish the
objectives of each at minimum overall cost. For instance, consid-
eration siKiuld be given to using the pipeline conveying effluent
water frcr, the AWT facility to the Allen Power Project, one of the
components of the recommended alternative in the Draft Statement,
to convey saline ground water to Dry Lake near the Allen Power
- Project for evaporation.
Allen Pov.-er Generating Facility
The Allen Power Plant, described on pages 213-214, la stated
to be for the benefit of the customers of Nevada Power Company and
Southern California Edison Company. This should be corrected to
show the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to be
the planned partner of Nevada Power Company.
Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.
December 2, 1974
Page Two
Reduction of Saline Inflows
to Sewerage Systems
It was noted that the report Indicates that EPA requested
Clark County to Initiate a study that would enable point sources
of dissolved salts to be controlled prior to their entry into the
sewerage systems. It is recommended that the EPA pursue its
request for the study and take the necessary actions to assure
that the salt source will be controlled. Unless the highly
saline point sources that discharge Into the sewerage system are
controlled, we doubt that the pollution abatement project will
effect any significant reduction in the addition of dissolved
salts to the Colorado River.
These comments have coordinated with the State Water Resources
Control Board. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
Draft Statement.
Sincerely yours,
Myron B. Holburt
Chief Engineer
cc: Don Maughan
265
-------
Summary Response - Colorado River Board
of California
1. The draft statement should explore ways
in which the Las Vegas Wash Salinity
Control Program could be coordinated
with th'e recommended alternative for
handling sewage effluent so as to ac-
complish the objectives of each at
minimum overall cost, i.e. using the
AWT plant/Allen Power Facility ef-
fluent export line to convey saline
ground water to Dry Lake near the
Allen Power Project for evaporation.
** We are receptive to any mutual coop-
erative effort in alleviating or reducing
salinity contributions reaching Las
Vegas Wash. Your recommendation
to reduce overall costs of both efforts
by combined use of conveyance systems
is a good one. When the NEPA review
is undertaken on the Allen Power Plant,
EPA will recommend that this alterna-
tive be considered.
2. Unless highly saline point sources that
discharge into the sewerage system are
controlled, it is doubtful that the pol-
lution abatement project will effect
any significant reduction in the addition
of dissolved salts to the Colorado River.
** We concur.
266
-------
COMMENTS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX PUBLIC HEARING OF DECEMBER 5, 1974. ON THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE LAS VEGAS WASH/BAY
POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROJECT
by
Clark County Wastewater Management Agency
CLARK COUNTY AGREES IN GENERAL WITH THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) AND THE SELECTION OF
ALTERNATIVE 10. HOWEVER, SOME OF THE AREAS WITH WHICH WE HAVE
CONCERNS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
THROUGHOUT THE DRAFT EIS, IT is CLAIMED THAT THE ALLEN POWER
PROJECT is NOT A PART OF THE POLLUTION ABATEMENT FACILITIES. EACH
TIME AFTER THIS CLAIM, HOWEVER, THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE POWER
PLANT ARE DISCUSSED. As YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSED ALLEN PROJECT WILL
REQUIRE ITS OWN EIS, AND BOTH BENEFICIAL AND DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS WILL
BE DISCUSSED AND EVALUATED IN THAT DOCUMENT, THEREFORE, FAR TOO
MUCH DISCUSSION IS DEVOTED TO THE ALLEN PROJECT IN THE DRAFT EIS FOR
THE LAS VEGAS WASH/BAY POLLUTION ABATEMENT FACILITIES, HE BELIEVE
THAT THE IMPACT OF THE ALLEN POWER PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT SHOULD
BE ASSESSED IN THE EIS RELATING TO THAT PROJECT AND NOT IN THE EIS
RELATING TO THE LAS VEGAS WASH/BAY POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROJECT,
AN ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT (AWT) PLANT IS REQUIRED TO
ACHIEVE THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE OF
NEVADA. CLARK COUNTY WILL ACTIVELY SEEK TO DEVELOP MARKETS FOR THIS
AVfT PLANT'S PRODUCT, RECLAIMED WATER, IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE COST
OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE PLANT,
WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN EXCELLENT INDUSTRIAL AND IN-VALLEY
I
IRRIGATION MARKET POTENTIAL FOR RECLAIMED WATER IN CLARK COUNTY,
REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF RECLAIMED WATER WILL SUBSTANTIALLY
- 2 -
REDUCE THE OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE AVTT PLANT,
THEREBY REDUCING THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE COMMUNITY. THE RECYCLING
OF WASTEWATER AND PUTTING IT TO BENEFICIAL USE IS THE KEYSTONE OF
THE LAS VEGAS WASH/BAY POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROJECT.
ALTERNATIVE 19 EMPHASIZES THE MAXIMUM BENEFICIAL USE OF RECLAIMED
WATER. WE BELIEVE THAT THE DRAFT EIS SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND APPLAUD THE
BASIC RECYCLING ASPECT OF CLARK COUNTY'S PROPOSED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM. WE FURTHER BELIEVE THAT THE RECYCLING OF WASTEWATER IN
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, WILL ULTIMATELY RECEIVE NATIONAL AND, PERHAPS,
EVEN INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BENEFICIAL
REUSE OF RECLAIMED HATER AND THE GENERATION OF REVENUE FROM THE SALE
OF RECLAIMED WATER IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE
RECYCLING NOT ONLY REDUCES THE DEMANDS ON THE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY
AND SOLVES A VERY COMPLEX WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PROBLEM, BUT THE
REVENUES GENERATED GREATLY ASSIST IN REDUCING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF
POLLUTION ABATEMENT ON THE LOCAL SEWER USER, THE LOCAL WATER USER,
AND THE LOCAL TAXPAYER.
A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF RECLAIMED WATER WAS EXECUTED IN
JUNE 1974 AND SHOULD NOT BE REFERRED TO IN THE EIS AS A DRAFT.
PARTIES TO THIS CONTRACT ARE THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, THE CLARK COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT No. 1, THE NEVADA POWER COMPANY, AND CLARK COUNTY,
SEVERAL TIMES IN THE EIS, THE WORDING "CLARK COUNTY" is USED WHERE,
IN FACT, "CLARK COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT" is MEANT. THESE ARE
TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES AND PROPER RECOGNITION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO
THEIR LEGAL STATUS,
SEVERAL TIMES IN THE DRAFT EIS, IT is CLAIMED THAT RECLAIMED WATER
FROM THE AWT PLANT CAN BE RETURNED TO THE COLORADO RlVER FOR CREDIT,
267
-------
- 3 -
IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT NEVADA DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM THESE RETURN
FLOWS TO THE COLORADO RlVER UNTIL THE TIME THAT NEVADA IS WITHDRAWING
ITS FULL ALLOTMENT FROM THE COLORADO RlVER. THEREFORE, IT IS MORE
ADVANTAGEOUS TO NEVADA FOR USES TO BE FOUND FOR THE RECLAIMED WATER
WHICH WILL DECREASE THE DEMAND FOR COLORADO RlVER WATER AND, BECAUSE
THE RECLAIMED WATER IS PRODUCED HERE IN THE VALLEY, PUMPING COSTS
AS WELL AS ENERGY WILL BE SAVED, THIS IS AN ECONOMY THAT IS OVERLOOKED
IN THE DRAFT EIS.
HE WOULD PREFER TO SEE THE DRAFT EIS TAKE A MORE POSITIVE POSITION,
THE DOCUMENT BEFORE US LEAVES ONE WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT, ALTHOUGH
WATER POLLUTION IS BAD, FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED TO ABATE THAT
POLLUTION WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND/
THEREFORE/ ARE ALSO BAD.
THIS IS AN INCONGRUOUS POSITION FOR EPA TO TAKE IF EPA SERIOUSLY
DESIRES TO SEE THE POLLUTION OF LAKE HEAD ABATED.
Summary Response - Clark County
1. The impact of the Allen Power
Project on the environment should
be assessed in the EIS relating to
that project and not in the EIS
relating to the Las Vegas Wash/
Bay Pollution Abatement Project.
** We have removed most of the
impact analysis relating to the pro-
posed power plant for reasons
clarified in the Nevada Power Com-
pany comment/responses.
2. Clark County will actively seek to
develop markets for this AWT plant's
product, reclaimed water, in an effort
to reduce the cost of operating and
maintaining the plant. The recycling
of wastewater and putting it to bene-
ficial use is the keystone of the Las
Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement
Project. Recycling reduces the demands
on the potable water supply and solves
a very complex wastewater disposal
problem, but the revenues generated
greatly assist in reducing the economic
burden of pollution abatement on the
local sewer user, the local water user,
and the local taxpayer.
** No comment necessary.
268
-------
3. "Clark County" is used where "Clark
County Sanitation District" is in actu-
ality the proper entity. These are
two separate entities and proper re-
cognition should be given to their
legal status.
** These corrections have been made
where identified by the County.
4. Nevada will not benefit from flows
returned to the Colorado River until
Nevada is withdrawing its full allot-
ment of water from the Colorado
River. Therefore it is more ad-
vantageous to Nevada for uses to be
found for the reclaimed water which
will decrease the demand for Colo-
rado River water and because the re-
claimed water is produced here in the
Valley the savings in pumping costs as
well as energy was an economy over-
looked in the EIS.
** EPA is not adverse to the reclamation/
reuse of in-valley wastewater resources,
and is well aware of the economic bene-
fits of doing so. This economy was
implied in most cases in the draft but
not overlooked.
5. The EIS is written in such a way as to give
the impression that facilities constructed
to abate pollution will have an adverse
impact on the environment.
** This is not true. The impact state-
ment not only identified the bene-
fits and detriments of all alternatives,
but did so in an objective manner.
-------
• C. R.CLELAND
CLAY LYNCH
Cily Danger
Cmucilmra
DAN GRAY
WENDELL O. WAITS
IAMBS K.SEASTRAND
DAN MAHONY
City of North Las Vegas
2100 Civic Center Driv« • P.O. Box 4086
NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 190)0
Tefepbon. 649-3111 '
December 4, 1974
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Hearings Office, HE 116
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement Project
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental impact Statement
for the Las Vegas Hash/Bay Pollution Abatement Project and
have the following comments:
I::TRODUCTIOJI
Page XI Paragraph 1 - Beginning on line 6,
seens confusing.
this sentence
Page XII Paragraph 3 - The statement is made that the
Las Vegas Valley V7ater District plan for exporting the
waters out of the valley was unacceptable to the En-
vironmental Protection Agency and, therefore, the State
Legislature transferred responsibilities to the Clark
County Board of County Commissioners as a result.
Me view thir. statement as being completely erroneous.
We do not recall that EPA ever made such a statement
stating that, in their opinion, the export plan wag un-
acceptable. Even when representatives from EPA appeared
before the Legislature in 1973 they were noncommltal
relative to the acceptability of the plan proposed by
the Las Vegas Valley Water District. The first real
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2
opposition to the exportation plan was expressed many
months prior to the legislative action by professional
representatives of certain municipalities and state
commissions who were members of the Professional and
Technical Advisory Board set up by the 1971 State
Legislature. Further, it was the action of the Clark
County Regional Planning Council through its A-95
Clearing House Review procedures, various citizen groups
and entities in Clark County that advised the Legislature
that the export plan was unacceptable to our communities.
The Las Vegas Valley Water District assured the 1973 Legis-
lature that they had verbal concurrence from EPA relative
to 'the acceptability of the export plan. Nowhere do we
remember EPA ever expressing the idea to the Legislature
that high quality return flows were considered more bene-
ficial than disposal by export. Thus, it is our opinion
that this paragraph must be rewritten to express the chron-
ology that brought about the development of an amended
combination alternative plan.
CHAPTER 1
Page 37 Paragraph 3 - This paragraph addresses the Southern
Nevada Water Project as if construction had not yet
commenced on any portion thereof. This should-be changed
to indicate that Phase 1 construction has been completed
and planning for Phase 2 construction is underway.
Page 40 Paragraph 2 - This report sites- odor and soil
plugging problems encountered in irrigation where secondary
effluents have been utili2ed and suggests that no further
consideration to this matter be given. It does not consider
areas with lower TDS water and more advanced types of
secondary treatment such as activated sludge, micro screening
and other related processes which may very well produce an
effluent very suitable for in-valley irrigation. We
question this conclusion since it may well be the quality
of the secondary effluent which has been the mitigating
detrimental factor.
Page 4B Paragraph 2 - This paragraph outlines the legis-
lative action as if to appear that the export plan was
approved and the County authorized to construct it. The
Legislature never approved the export plan but rather
accepted the report proposing it and gave the charge to
the Board of County Commissioners to pursue possible
alternative courses.
270
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 3
Page 54 Paragraph 3 - States that as we use more Colorado
River water there will be expected increases in concen-
trations of calcium, sodium, etc. Without a doubt certain
increases will occur since the Colorado River water we
receive is high in many concentrates. By adopting the
amended combination alternative we are placing ourselves
in the unique position of treating waste water with a
high TDS when we are not treating the incoming water
which is very high already in TDS, approximately 750 to
800 parts per million. We feel that the possibility of
treating the incoming water should at least be addressed
in the context of this report.
Page 116 Paragraph 3 - Since factors have changed signi-
ficantly relating to monorail, this paragraoh should be
deleted and instead substituted with a statement concern-
ing an on-going Mass Transit study which is to address
public and private transit needs, issues, etc., for the
valley.
Page 124 - This utility section sets forth telephone,
power and the Las Vegas Valley Hater District; however,
absolutely no mention is made of the North Las Vegas or
Henderson water systems, customers, capital improvements,
etc. We view this as a gross over-sight and feel that
these items must .be included since they definitely have
a large inpact on tho total utility picture in this valley.
Page 126 Paragraph 4 - In listing surface water diversion
receivers North Las Vegas was left out.
CHAPTER 3
Pages 211 and 212 - Under economic implications it is stated
that local bonds would be paid by increasing cost of sewer
service, water, or both.
V.'e are not aware of any discussion whatsoever to the effect
that water rates would be increased to repay the bonds for
wastewater treatment. To date, all proposals have'suggested
increasing sewer service fees only. We cannot accept this
suagestion that water service fees be increased to pay for
bonds to.construct wastewater treatment facilities. We
feel the consumer has a right to know exactly what he is
paying for.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 4
Page 213 Paragraph 1 - We see no reason whatsoever for the
word "consolidation" in this paragraph since there are no
facts presented whatsoever in substantiation. This very
statement may later be used in connotation to mean EPA
backs one treatment plant for the valley.
CHAPTER 7
Page 235 Paragraph 2 - We believe EPA has valid point in
•requesting further examination of whether or not secondary
effluent instead of AWT effluent could be used by the
proposed power facility.
Yours very truly,
DRSiep
Ouane R. Sudweeks, P.E.
City Engineer
271
-------
Summary Response - City of North Las
Vegas
1. EPA's role in the acceptability of the
1973 Las Vegas Valley Water District
plan for the abatement of pollution
in Lake Mead was misrepresented
** This error in stating EPA's posture
during the period when the Las Vegas
Valley Water District's report was
being reviewed by the 1973 Nevada
State Legislature has been corrected.
2. Areas with lower TDS water, or a
more advanced secondary treatment
(i.e. activated sludge, micro screen-
ing, etc.) may produce an effluent
very suitable for in-valley irri-
gation and alleviate site odor and
soil plugging problems mentioned.
No further consideration to this matter
was given.
** Reference to your concern has been
added to the impact analysis in
Chapter 3.
3. Paragraph two of page 48 outlines the
legislative action as if to appear that
the export plan was approved and the
County authorized to construct it. The
Legislature never approved the export
plan but rather accepted the report
proposing it and gave the charge to
the Board of County Commissioners to
pursue possible alternative causes.
** The text has been modified to reflect
your concern.
4. Adopting the amended combination
alternative puts the Las Vegas Valley
community in the unique position of
treating the wastewater to reduce
the TDS concentration before it has
even taken measures to reduce the TDS
levels in the water before it is used.
We feel that the possibility of treating
the incoming water should be addressed
as well.
** We acknowledge that TDS reduction of
water prior to its use does have its
benefits, and EPA has directed the
applicant to investigate and make re-
commendations as to TDS reduction
and control. However, remedial
actions involving drinking water
would be outside the authority of
the P.L. 92-500 Title II Section 201
grant program.
5. Mention in the TRANSPORTATION
section should be made of the on-
going Mass Transit study, since the
factors relating to monorail have
changed significantly.
272
-------
** Information in this section has
been revised and updated, as re-
quested.
6. Mention should be made of the No.rth
Las Vegas and City of Henderson
water systems, customers, capital
improvements, etc. under UTILITIES.
** These discussions have been added.
7. We were not aware of any proposals to
increase water rates to repay the bonds
for wastewater treatment.
** The reference to altering water rates
has been deleted.
8. We believe EPA has a valid point in re-
questing further examination of whether
or not secondary effluent instead of
AWT effluent could be used by the pro-
posed power facility.
** Refer to the Nevada Power Company
responses.
273
-------
M a V A B A POWCn COMPANY
FOURTH STREET A N D ' STEWART AVENUE
P.O. BOX 230- LAS VEGAS, NEVADA- 89151
U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency
- Pago Z -
December 9, 1974
December 9, 1974
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency J-
Attn: Hearings Office, HE 116 .. \
Region IX '-"
100 California Street -?
San Francisco, California 94111 '
Gentlemen:
The summary of the environmental impact statement for the
l»s Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement Project by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the EPA
will reserve judgment on the portion of the selected pollution
abatement project dealing with the export of Advance Waste-
v.ater Treatment Plant (A'VT) effluent to the proposed Harry
Allen Station. Nevada Power Company agrees with such a
position.
Some of the statements in iho Las Vegas Wash Statement
demonstrate that there is not a complete understanding of the
proposed Allen Station. Therefore, we will begin our statement
v/ith a short description of the power project and the work now in
progress on the project.
AF presently conceived, tho Alien Station will have four 500
megawatt coal-fueled steam-electric generating units. The
proposed site area is Northeast of Las Vegas near Apex Siding.
Coal fuel for the plant will he delivered via slurry pipeline from
coal reserves near Alton, Utah.
The initial ownership of the Station will include the Nevada Power
Company and City of Los Angeles acting through its Department
of V.'ater and Power. Thirteen years after the first unit is
placed in service Nevada Power Company will begin to recapture
portions of the ownership held by Los Angeles. The recapture
will be based upon the eleclfical load growth experienced in the
Las Veuas area. Ultimately Nevada Power Company will have
f .ill ownership and use of t'... Station.
Ntivada Power Company is at this time conducting extensive
in-dcpth and precise environmental and ecological background
studies in the proposed site area. Those studies are, for the
most part, being conducted by the Desert Research Institute of
the University of Nevada. The Desert Research Institute started
the studies on July 1, 1974. At the completion of these studios,
all information will be submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), the federal lead agency for the Allen Project.
BLM will then prepare the required Environmental Impact Statement.
Simultaneously with the submittal of information to BLM, environ-
mental reports will be submitted to State and local agencies a: re-
quired by law.
Many of the comments made by EPA in the Las Vegas Wash State-
ment regarding the Allen Station and its affects on air quality are
incorrect and cannot be supported. Meteorological studies and
preliminary design and analyses to date indicate that the Allen
'Station will have little impact on the air quality in the Southern
Nevada area.
The impact of the Harry Allen Station can only be evaluated after
the environmental studies and preliminary design have been concluded.
At that time accurate data will be available for all to analyze. Nevada
Power Company is committed to plan, design, construct, operate and
maintain the Allen Station to comply fully with all applicable laws,
orders, regulations, rules and standards. The Allon Station should
not be evaluated prematurely as it has been in this EPA Las \'ep,a.s
Wash Statement. All evaluations should be based on the environmental
assessments now being compiled.
The EPA Las Vegas Wash Statement implies that the Company will
not pay the full cost of water delivered to the plant. The contract
"for the purchase of reclaimed wastewater requires that the Company
pay for the value of the effluent water and capital-cost of the export
pipeline and AWT plant associated with the unit of svater purchased
regardless of the amount of federal or other funding used. The sale
of effluent water to the Allen Station will greatly benefit the abatement
project.
In conclusion, we ask:
1) that EPA adhere to its statement that it will reserve
judgment on that portion of the selected pollution
abatement project dealing with the proposed sale of
AWT effluent to the Harry Allen Station;
2) that it remove premature and unsupported statements
on the effects of the Allen Station on the air quality of
the area since the actual effects cannot be assessed
until the conclusion of the now on-going environmental
and preliminary engineering studies; and
274
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Page 3 -
December 9, 1974
LAS VEGAS WASH/BAY POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COMMENTS BY NEVADA POWER COMPANY
3) that EPA consult with the parties to the Reclaimed
Wastewater Purchase Agreement for a clarification
of the arrangements for purchase and the pricing of
the wastewater to the Company.
Detailed comments on the present draft of statement are attached.
We will also be available to discuss with EPA the use of reclaimed
wastewater by Nevada Power Company and the present program for
the Allen Station.
Very truly yours,
NEVADA POWER COMPANY
A. E. Pearson
President
/ef
attachment
Page i. This Company supports the position of EPA that the Agency
reserve judgment on the proposed Allen Station.
Page ii, second column. "Air quality will be degraded ,
statement is too broad to be meaningful.
This
Second column. The discussion of secondary impacts is
completely negative. The discussion should recognize that Las Vegas i«
growing at a high rate and this project is a part of the necessary planning
ar.d preparation for such growth. Also, the accommodation of the proposed
p i-.vur plant will reduce the requirement for import of low sulfur fuel oil in
keeping with the Federal Government's directive to reduce the need for im-
ported fuels.
Page xv, second column. "Human life-style and the kind of ... growth
it spawns ..." It is unclear as to the meaning of the discussion. Again the
report should recognize that this project will bo an important part of the
nci-essary future plannipg of the community.
Pages 14, 72, 78, 80 and 81. "Due to the inconclusive state of present
air q -.a'.ity data development, it is difficult to assess the meaning of existing
ci-a iince this planning process is still underway. " is In complete agreement
v ::ii cur position. Desert Research Institute (D1U) is currently engaged in a
meteorological and air quality data gathering program with respect to the
siting of the proposed Allen Station. This program is supported by the Nevada
Po-.vsr Company, who realizes the importance of data documentation prior to
ir.tsinj; definitive statements. Much of the following evaluation of the EIS is
bi.->ad on an Interim Report of the DR1 to Dechtel Power Corporation, 1 November
1-174. This report includes climatology and some field measurements with
partial analysis of air quality and meteorology in the Dry Lake area.
The climatic conditions which prevail near the ultimate site of the Allen
Station will have a particular set of values for that location. These values are
generally unique for a given location depending on the Influence of the terrain
o.. the local meteorology. Thereby, sets of localized data must be collected
a: and surrounding any prospective site. The measurements of climatological
rarurds at other historical stations in the Las Vegas area can only given general
ir:'.:malion 2nd cannot be transposed directly to the AUen Station site. The
o: :* most easily transferable from historical records would relate to precipl-
tav01! amounts and temperature ranges. The most difficult values would be
th;s« related to airflow and coincident stability of the air. The factors changfi
rr.irkedly within each sub-basin in the irregular terrain of Clark County,
275
-------
£25-
6 10 15 20 30
FREQUENCY OF SPEED
NW
W
svr 6.6
SE
Some inaccurate statements in the EIS arc discussed below.
'M Papo 14, last paragraph in the first column. "Climate at Dry
La'";: ... and the strong northeasterly windr. which blow across the valley,
usually in August. "
Figure lisa frequency diagram of wind speed and direction taken at the
Dry Lake during the period 23 August to 30 September 1974. The figure shows
tint about 70% of the time the wind was from west, southwest or south and only
11" frum northeast. Also, mean wind speeds were low, ranging from 4.8 to
.7.0 mpii from all directions. The wind speed frequency graph indicates that
or.'.y 2. 7?o of the winds were in the 15 to 20 mph range and at no time winds
exceeded 20 mph.
/ (b) Page 80, first paragraph, Air Quality Contributions.
Several assumptions seem to be made to support statements in this paragraph.
One is that the power plant will be in or close to the center of Las Vegas since
the implication is that the contribution from the Allen Power Plant will be added
to the Las Vegas plume. In fact, one possible site lies 25 miles north of Las
Vegas, and emmissions will be released more than 1000' above the ground
level of the city. The impact of this particulate matter emitted to the back-
ground, especially to Las Vegas, has not been documented and this cannot be
done until plant location, stack height, stability factors and airflow frequencies
at effective stack height are determined on the basis of data such as that now
bc'ing collected by the DRI.
The second sentence stating that the formation of sulfate and nitrates will
lead to increases of ozones (sic) seems to be confusing. Although photochemical
reactions in the atmosphere are very complex, the gaseous oxides of nitrogen
and hydrocarbons are fundamental for the formation of ozone and not the sulfates
and nitiatas. *
-I" 10% FREQUENCY OF DIRECTION
^C'adle, R. P., Aerosols and Atmospheric Chemistry (Ed. G.M. Hidy)
Academic Press, NY, 1972, p. 141-147.
FREQUENCY OF DIRECTION AND MEAN WIND SPEED, MPH.
PUMP HOUSE 23 AUG 74,1700 P DTto 30 SEP 74,2400? OT
FIGURE 1
276
-------
- 3 -
- 4 -
The last sentence of subject paragraph bi^iniiing: "Tilt- volume of
partkulate matter ... ", should be e!ijninatce
'stations exceeded the National Standard of 60ug/m3 annual geometric mean.-1
The particulate matter in this whole region is high, even outside urban settings.
/(H) Page 80, second paragraph, Air Quality Contributions.
The degree of degradation of air quality and its relation to standards in
Clark County or the Interstate Air Quality Control Region should be a part of
the air quality section of any environment assessment report and should not
be concluded by one subjective word "substantially".
'• e) Pape 80, last paragraph, second column. The stated burn ami
*:v.i»*ion rat-«s are not correct. Correct data will not be available until
the middle of 1975.
•ill Page 81, first paragraph of first column. The 10% conversion of
Ciicjus materials into nitrates and sulfatcs lacks supportability especially
ir. t'-e very low humidity regimes which prevail In the La-s Vegas area.
Therefore, the claim that 6, 740 per year tons of sulfates and nitrates from
:h-- Allen Station would be added directly to the Las Vegas area is doubtful.
The trajectory of long range transport of the Allen plume as well as it*
rr.vxiri; and diffusion are not known at this time, but it is probable that its
cispersion into the remote atmosphere will be much more rapid than will
that of the 74, 000 tons per year said to be produced in Clark County in 1973,
since present data indicates that the effluent from the Allen Station will be
dispersed above any radiation inversions.
* (g) Page 81, last paragraph of the first column. This paragraph has
the same burden of lacking proof at mentioned above in (b).
^Arizona State Department of Health, Air Quality Monitoring Network, 1973.
2Desert Research Institute, Atmospheric Survey - Mohave Generating
Station, Fifth Annual Report to So. Calif. Edison Co., 1973.
277
-------
- 5-
Page 173, second column. "Allen Power Project".
The description of the Allen Station is in error. As presently conceived,
the Allen Station will have four 500 megawatt coal-fueled steam-cltctr.ir
generating units. The proposed site area is Northeast of I-as Ve^ar. no*r
Apex Siding. Coal fuel for the plant will be delivered via slurry pipeline
from coal reserves near Alton, Utah. The units will be placed in-service
at one year Intervals with the first unit scheduled for in-service June 1, 19SO.
The Station is estimated to cost $1,100,000,000.
The initial ownership of the Station will include the Nevada Power Company
and City of Los Angeles acting through its Department of Water and Power.
Thirteen years after the first unit is placed in service Nevada Power Company
will begin to recapture portions of the ownership held by Los Angeles. The
recapture will be based upon the electrical load growth experienced in the
Las Vegas area. Ultimately Nevada Power Company will have full ownership
and use of the Station.
Many of llu- comments made by EPA regarding tho'Allen Station ?.ml
i:s Kffccts on air quality are incorrect and cannot be supported. MctBurological
st.iriics and preliminary design and analyses to date indicate that the Allen
Si..i.ion will lu\c littlo impact on the air quality in the Southern Nevada »roa.
The impact of the Allen Station can only be evaluated after the environ-
r.u-.-.tal studies and preliminary design have been concluded. At that time
at.c'arate data will bo available for all to analyze. Nevada Power Company
is committed to plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain the Allen
Pi.ilion to comply fully with all applicable laws, orders, regulations, rules
and standards. The Allen Station should not be evaluated prematurely as it
has been in this EPA statement.
Again EPA refers to Southern California Edison Company as a participant
in the Allen Station. Edison has never been a participant In Allen Station
planning.
/Page 174, second paragraph, first column. Again fuel use and emission
levels are Incorrect and should be deleted.
Also, bottom second column, the Reclaimed Wastcwater Purchase
Agreement has been executed.
Page 177, first column, second paragraph. Revenue from the AJlen
Station is estimated to be in excess of $4,000,000 per year and would decrease
the AWT project costs for the average family by 657o. (See Table IX - 4
Las Vegas Wash/ Bay Pollution Abatement Project July 1974 Facilities Plan
Annex A.)
Page 211, first cblumn, first paragraph. The Reclaimed Wastewater
Purchase Agreement provides for the purchase of secondary effluent.
Page Z13, "The Environmental Impacts of the Allen Power Generating
Facility".
Nevada Power Company is at this time conducting extensive in-depth
and precise environmental and ecological background studies in the proposed
site area. These studies are, for the most part, being conducted by the
Desert Research Institute of the University of Nevada. The Desert Research
Institute started the studies on July 1, 1974. At the completion of these studies,
all Information will be submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), the federal lead agency for the Allen Project. BLM will then prepare
the required Environmental Impact Statement. Simultaneously with the sub-
iiillt*! of information to BLM, environmental reports will bu 3ubmiUcU to
State and local agencies as required by law.
278
-------
- 7 -
Pages 227 and 228. Please refer to above comments regarding Allen
Station impacts and participation. Tile statement in top of second column,
page 227, ". . . when marginal power supplied at a.reduced cost ..." is
unclear. Alien Station will not produce "marginal" power nor will it produce
power at a "reduced" cost.
Page 231, first column, third paragraph. EPA implies that the Company
will not pay the full cost of water delivered to the plant. The contract for the
purchase of reclaimed wastcwater requires that the Company pay for the value
of the effluent water and the capital cost of the export pipeline and AWT plant
associated with the unit of water purchased regardless of the amount of federal
or other funding used. The sale of effluent water to the Allen Station will
greatly benefit the abatement project. EPA has taken Table 26 from the Las
Vegas yrash/Qay Pollution Abatement Project July 1974 Facilities Pl.nn
Annex A without the supporting discussion and has misinterpreted the meaning
of the present worth effectiveness comparisons.
Page 231-232, second column, second paragraph. The paragraph
states ". . . it would seem more economic to sell the power plant secondary
effluent, with the necessary treatment being done at the power facility.", and
later ". . . the ultimate size of the AWT plants ... could bo smaller...",
and still later "Another consideration the cost of treatment hardware would be
passed on by the Power Company ... cost would be mitigated by consumers in
Los Angeles. " This shows a complete misunderstanding of the project, the
power project and the concepts of costs to the consumer. First, the Allca
Station has not guaranteed to take any minimum amounts of water. Therefore,
not only would Allen Station need to treat the secondary effluent but t'r . AV.'T
would have to be si/,ccl to handle the same•«mount of secondary rtflucnt as now.
Instead of being "more economic" it would be more costly to the citizens of
the Las Vegas area. However, since the resulting cost of water to the Allen
Station will vary little under either proposal the consumer's cost in Los Ar.gclcs
will not change,
At the request of Hearing Board members both during the hearing anJ
discussions afterward this Company will submit to EPA a more detailed dis-
cussion on the results of purchase of secondary effluent as opposed to AWT
effluent.
Summary Response -NevadaPower
Company I/
1. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) states that they will reserve
judgment on the portion of the selected
pollution abatement project dealing
with the export of Advanced Waste-
water Treatment Plant (AWT) effluent
to the proposed Harry Allen Station.
Nevada Power Company agrees with
such a position.
** No response necessary.
2. Some of the statements in the Las
Vegas Wash Statement regarding
the current proposed Allen Sta-
tion indicate that there is a need
to supplement and update the in-
formation that appeared.
** We have taken into account the fact
that much of the information that
appears on the proposed power sta-
tion is dated, having appeared ori-
ginally in the 1972 Environmental
Assessment prepared by the Las
Vegas Valley Water District. This
fact alone reinforces the need to
withhold judgment on the proposed
Allen Station until NPC has settled
on a specific project and prepared
its environmental reports. But it
should be pointed out that Nevada
Power Company provided the ori-
ginal information on which most
of the analyses and projections
were based.
At the time of the 1972 Assessment
and. 1974 Addendum to the Assess-
ment, the Allen Power Project was
279
_iy Specific comments attached were responded to in the text.
See page 238
-------
expected to require 36 to 38 mgd of
effluent for plant cooling, which im-
plies a continuous flow. NPC now
indicates that the Allen Power Pro-
ject will require from 0 to 48 mgd
on any given day. If such is the case,
AWT facilities must be sized to treat
all of the secondary effluent. There-
fore, statements which appeared in
the draft relating to Federal grant
participation on future AWT plant
expansions have been modified.
The discussions of air quality impacts
related to the proposed Allen Station
are incorrect and cannot be supported.
Meteorological studies and preliminary
design analyses to date indicate that
the proposed station will have little
impact on air quality in Southern
Nevada.
These statements have been omitted
or modified.
4. The Allen Station should not be eva-
luated prematurely as it has been in
the impact statement. All evalua-
tions should be based on the environ-
mental assessments compiled by the
Desert Research Institute of the Uni-
versity of Nevada for submission to
the Bureau of Land Management for
use in their EIS on the Allen Station
Project.
** We concur.
5. EPA should consult with the parties
to the Reclaimed Wastewater Purchase
Agreement for a clarification of the
arrangements for purchase and pricing
of the wastewater.
** EPA does not have any objections to
the arrangements for purchase. The
price arrived at is the concern of the
NPC and the public agencies involved.
280
-------
Summary Response - Las Vegas Valley
Water District - Dr. Thorne Butler
1. The plan originally recommended by
the L/as Vegas Valley Water District,
was never formally submitted to the
Environmental Pxotection Agency for
its approval or disapproval. How-
ever, letters of communication bet-
ween myself and Region IX would in-
dicate that they were favorably con-
sidering what this plan was trying
to do, which •was to stop all dis-
charges from the Las Vegas Valley
into Lake Mead.
** This reference to a statement in the
introduction has been omitted.
2. We have several water samples taken
at the Campbell Reservoir site which
show shallow ground water to be con-
siderably less than as stated on the
footnote of page 38. (".... typically
TDS levels range from 2000 to 8000
"
** This footnote statement originally ap-
peared in the Applicant's July 1974
Addendum to the Environment Assess-
ment, and has been amended.
3. In some ways Alternative 10, refer-
ring to table 24 on page 175 of the
draft, does not take into account the
amount of energy necessary to pump
the water to the Allen Power Plant.
Therefore, it tends not to make the
alternatives totally comparable. This
concern should also be reflected in
table 26 on page 178 "Monetary Cost
Effectiveness of Four Most Viable
Alternatives". Alternative 7, at the
same time did not take into account
the cost it would require to treat
the water to get it to an adequate
level so it can be used for industrial
water cooling at the site of the power
plant.
** The comparison you made between
the two alternatives was based on
total cost and total energy, which
includes both public and private
(NPC) investments. We have shown
these figures in table 26 as a means
of comparison, and feel that both
approaches warrant recognition.
Since the project only portrays the
actions needed by the public and
their resulting cost to the public,
we don't feel the cost relationship
between the two alternatives would
change much.
4. On pages 196 and 197, it is suggested
that if groundwater recharge is im-
plemented and a monitoring program
with monitoring wells all around de-
tected any deleterious effects, then
the ground water recharge could be
stopped. Many years would go by,
probably decades, before you could
really find out whether the ground
water recharge using various kinds
of wastewater would have deleterious
effects on the ground water. Why run
the risk of injuring the valuable ground
water resource of the Valley when it
would be of great economic disadvantage
to the community. It might be much
simpler just to take the wastewater,
treat it to whatever stage you want it,
and use it in place of ground water which
would be a simpler way out.
281
-------
** There is merit in what you say. How-
ever since the 1 mgd pilot programs
for desalinization and ground water
recharge are not grant eligible and are
therefore a local concern, we suggest
you work through the County. But the
operation of the pilot programs, and
related developments must still meet
State-Federal Water Quality standards.
5. On page 211 and 212 there is a comment
to the effect that "bonds would be paid
back by increasing the cost of sewer
service, water, or both. " I think
it would be very difficult under the
various legal restrictions that exist
to increase water rates to pay for a
wastewater reclamation program.
** This has been deleted.
6. I think it would be helpful to the person
who is unfamiliar with the project to
get a clearcut picture of what is
being presented. If you could have
a better, clearer summary that would
take each one of the alternatives and
say "this is what it will do and this
is what it won't do," it would help
immensely.
** The SUMMARY has been expanded to
provide a more complete rendering
of the environmental scope of the
Abatement Project.
282
-------
1 fUSlHfSS CENTCH OHIVg. l*vmi. CALIFORNIA «Mf4
SUITOH IHilt3Hl3l
office of THe cxecurive DIRKTOH
December 11, 1974
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Attn.: Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr., Regional Administrator
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement, Las Vegas Wash/
Bay Pollution Abatement Project
The Quality Water Education Committee (QWEC) respectfully submits
the following comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution project. The QWEC represents dealers
and manufacturers of water conditioning equipment.
We believe that the water conditioning industry has received ex-
cessive attention for our minimal contribution to salinity in the Las
Vegas Wash and Colorado River, compared to other sources. We take ex-
ception to the statement (page 55) that without control of brine ef-
fluent, the TDS of Las Vegas/Clark County combined effluent will be
1930 mg/1 by .the year 2000. Such an extrapolation requires good docu-
mentation before It is used as a rationale for the Imposition of con-
trols.
The purpose of this letter is to place 1n proper perspective the
impact of water conditioning regeneration brines on the Project, the
Las Vegas Wash, Lake Meade and the Colorado River. It is our experience
that for a developed community, the market penetration of water soft-
eners remains constant, even though the community may be growing rapidly.
That 1s, the percentage of homes 1n an established community which uses
water conditioning, remains approximately constant. Therefore, the
concentration of salt In a sewage plant effluent attributable to water
conditioning brines remains roughly constant as the community grows.
The use of water conditioners reflects the quality of water de-
livered to a community. If measures planned to maintain the Upper
Colorado River at 1972 salt levels are fruitful, the percentage of
homes 1n Clark County using water conditioning equipment will almost
certainly remain constant.
o s?
o rn
Sf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Francisco, CA.
December 11, 1974
Page Two
The EIS falls to consider the quantity of phosphate, borate, caus-
tic and TDS consequent to the elimination of water conditioning equipment.
It is well-known that softened water enables the use of pure biodegradable
soaps and/or a significantly less quantity of detergent for cleansing pur-
poses. Hard water necessitates the use of considerably larger quantities
of detergent. It Is rarely recognized that present-day detergents are
composed of at least BOX (and often 100%) inorganic, non-biodegradable
salts, such as phosphates, berates, carbonates, caustics and chelatlng
agents, which are a higher order of pollutant than Is sodium chloride,
the component of regeneration brines. The EIS must consider the effect
of such alternatives, including the added nutrient burden on the Wash,
Lake Meade and the Colorado River and the cost of phosphate removal
unit processes Including chemicals, energy and sludge disposal.
Automatic on-site regenerating water conditioners 1n Clark County
are responsible for only an Infinitesimal portioft of the salinity 1n
the Colorado River. We have carried out a series of calculations,
detailed 1n Appendix A, to demonstrate how small the entire Impact
really is. Section A details the salt input to Las Vegas and Clark
County waste systems from regeneration brines. We estimate total in-
dustry discharge 1s 26.6 tons/day. This represents about 13", of total
salt loading of the combined effluents (Section B) and only 4.5X of
the total salt loading of the Las Vegas Wash (Section C).
The Impact of regeneration brines on the Colorado River is propor-
tionately less. At Hoover Dam or at Imperial Dam, Las Vegas regeneration
brines add approximately 1 ppm. to the total salt load of the River, well
within seasonal variation. He must conclude that the entire Las Vegas
Wash discharge Impacts relatively little on the River and elimination
of all regeneration brine discharge 1n the Las Vegas area, Including on-
site regenerating units would make negligible Improvement on the River.
(Elimination of all domestic regenerating units would reduce the River
salinity by 0.5 ppm).
Las Vegas Wash salinity control should not be considered out of the
context of total Colorado River salinity control. The Wash effluent con-
tributes relatively so little of the total salt load that any control
program appears unwarranted, unless the larger contributors are simul-
tanoutly controlled.
Since elimination of on-site regenerating water softeners would
have so minimal an Impact, there is likely to be little effect on any
of the alternatives presented, including Recommended Alternative No.10,
since only a small portion of the waste effluent would be utilized
for reclamation purposes while the rest Is returned to the River via
the Hash. He find Alternative No. 3 more desirable than No. 10; how-
even each fits the needs of the area and the water conditioning 1n-
dlittry can be compatible with either.
ASSOCIATION. IHC.
283
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Francisco, CA.
December 11, 1974
Pige Three
Since estimates given In this letter are subject to flnallzatlon
as a result of data derived from a comprehensive salt study, we request
that those parts of the EIS relating to the effects of salt discharge,
be left open for conment at a later date. We question the validity of
the EIS only In those portions which depend on salt discharge data.
The QWEC pledges Its support 1n attempts to elucidate salt dis-
charge sources and supports all reasonable programs Intended to Im-
prove water quality for all users.
Respectfully submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the Quality Water Education
Committee by
Paul F. Gundlach, Director
Environmental
PFG/eJ
December 11, 1974
APPENDIX A
A. Estimated salt Input to waste systems from regeneration brines:
'Source
Central Basin Regeneration Plants
Automatic Residential Units
Commercial Conditioning
Total
Input (tons/month)
110
450
250
810
Percent of Input
13
56
31
TRT
Th1s amounts to 26.6 tons/day or 53,260 pounds per day.
•B. Impact of regeneration brines on waste effluent (figure 13 source of
numerical values):
Las Vegas WWTP
Clark County WWTP
Total
TDS (H6/L) Q (HGD)
917 27.5
1.366 17.5
HR Obs/day)
210,300
199.400
409.700
Percent of total loading from regeneration brines, 1f both effluents
were combined:
53.260 Ibs/day
409,700 Ibs/day
x 100 • 131
C. Impact of regeneration brines on the Las Vegas Hash as a function of
all other sources:
Total salt loading of Las Vegas Wash from figure 13 Is 1.176.900 Ibs/day
53.260 Ibs/day
1.176.900 Ibs/day
x 100 • 4.51
D. Impact of Las Vegas regeneration brines on the Colorado River at Hoover
Dam and Imperial Dam:
Page 55 of the Report estimates that M and I add It of salt load
at Hoover Dam. therefore, regeneration brines effect TOS concen-
tration at Hoover Dam by about 1 ppm.
This value Is further supported by Information contained (n Table 25.
Appendix B of reference 1.
0.045 x 26 ppm TDS • 1.17 ppm.
-1-
284
-------
Appendix A - cont'd.
December 11. 1974
The Impact of Las Vegas regeneration brines at Imperial Dai
are estimated as:
53.260 Ibs/day Las Vegas regeneration brines x 100 - 0.097S
54,882,124 Ibs/day of salt passing Imperial Dam**
Round off to O.U or 0.862 ppm. or 1 ppn.
Calculations for denominator are:
(1) Q- Imperial Dam - 8,550,000 AF/yr.
(2) IDS at Imperial Dam • 862 mg/L
(3) 8.550 x 1Q3 AF/yr x 325.9 x IP3 gal/AF . 7634 106 -.
S55 day/yr. ' " 9»
(4) 7634 MGD x 8.34 x 862 • 54,882.124 Ibs/day
REFERENCES
1. "Alternative Plans For Mater Resource Use, Colorado River Basin, Area V".
Division of Water Resources, State of Nevada. 1974, page 3-13.
2. "Hater Quality Control Plan: East Colorado River Basin 7-B! California
State Hater Resources Control Board. 1971. Page 9-11.
PFG/eJ
Summary Response - Quality Water Educa-
tion Committee
1. Excessive attention is given to the
salinity contributions from use of
water conditioning equipment on TDS
levels in the Las Vegas Wash and
Colorado River. It is our experience
that for a developed community, the
market penetration of water softeners
remains constant, even though the
community may be growing rapidly.
That is, the percentage of homes in
an established community which uses
water conditioning, remains approxi-
mately constant. Therefore, the
concentration of salt in a sewage plant
effluent attributable to water condition-
ing brines remains roughly constant
as the comrnunity grows.
The use of water conditioners reflects
the quality of water delivered to a com-
munity. If measures planned to main-
tain Upper Colorado River at 1972 levels
are fruitful, the percentage of homes
using water conditioning equipment
will almost certainly be constant.
** We do not agree that excessive
attention has been paid to this
source of salinity. It appears
that your concern is focused around
the first incomplete paragraph of
page 55. The context of the para-
graph refers to the improper dis-
posal or use of water softening
equipment, and not its proper use
nor the proper disposal of waste
brine regenerations. We have
amended the paragraph to clearly
state that.
285
-------
2. Exception is taken to the statement
(page 55) that without control of brine
effluent, the TDS of Las Vegas/Clark
County combined effluent will be 1990
mg/1 by the year 2000. Such an extra-
polation requires good documentation
before it is used as a rationale for
the imposition of controls.
** Refer to the first response, since the
paragraph has been more clearly
worded to reflect the point intended.
3. The EIS fails to consider the quantity
of phosphate, borate, caustic and TDS
consequent to the elimination of water
conditioning equipment. Hard water
necessitates the use of considerably
larger quantities of detergent which
are composed of at least 80% (and often
100%) inorganic, non-biodegradable
salts, such as phosphates, borates,
carbonates, caustics and chelating
agents, which are a higher order of
pollutant than is sodium chloride, the
component of regeneration brines.
The EIS must consider such conse-
quences to the nutrient burden in the
Wash, Lake Mead and the Colorado
River as well as the cost of phosphate
removal unit processes including chemi-
cals, energy, and sludge disposal.
** Referring to our prior responses,
we again state that the problem re-
lating to water conditioning equipment
is the improper use of it or the im-
proper disposal of regeneration brines
into the sanitary sewer system. Ir-
respective of the consequences to the
nutrient burden and the reduction in
inorganic, non-biodegradable salts
alluded to through the use of water
conditioning equipment, an AWT facility
of similar design to the selected pro-
ject would be necessary to meet the
receiving water requirements and
pollution abatement project objectives
of the Applicant.
4. Automatic on-site regenerating water
conditioners in Clark County are
responsible for only an infinitesimal
portion of the salinity (13% of the
total salt loading from the Las Vegas
WWTP and Clark County WWTP and
only 4.5% of the total salt loading in
Las Vegas Wash) in the Colorado
River, and regeneration brine contri-
butions result in a proportionately
lesser percentage of salt ( 1 ppm at
Hoover Dam or at Imperial Dam) in
the Colorado River. Elimination of
all regeneration brine discharge in
the Las Vegas area, including on-site
regenerating units would reduce the
River salinity by 0. 5 ppm.
** According to other sources (see Inter-
national Boundary and Water Commis-
sion comments) if a TDS reduction
of 150 mg/1 was achieved in the Wash,
a 1 ppm reduction would result at
Hoover or Imperial Dam. By your
own statement on page two o*f your
letter "At Hoover Dam or at Imperial
Dam, Las Vegas regeneration brines
add approximately 1 ppm. " This is
the total dissolved solids reduction
capability anticipated with advanced
waste treatment alone. Therefore
AWT is offsetting 100% of the contri-
bution of salt from water conditioning
equipment.
286
-------
5. Any salinity control program appears
unwarranted unless the larger contri-
butors are simultaneously controlled
as well.
** We concur.
6. Alternative No. 3 is more desirable
than Alternative No. 10, yet the water
conditioning industry can be compatible
with either.
** No comment necessary.
Since estimates of salinity contributions
from water conditioning equipment
will be finalized by the applicant's
comprehensive salt study, the QWEC
requests that those parts of the EIS
relating to the effects of salt discharge
be left open for comment at a later
date.
We welcome any assistance you may
provide in alleviating salt contributions
to the Colorado River.
287
-------
Statement ef Daisy J. Telvltle
Re i Environmental Impact Statement en Las Vegas U*«h Pollution Abatement Prejeet
net going te reeleve *t »ny HIM the full 2000 ••{•watts usually idacrlbed ••
plant capacity.
I notice en page 236 »f th» Environmental Impact Statement en the Las Vegas
Pellutlen Abatement Prejeet a reference te the fact that • decision ha*
already been ns.de te preoeed with alternative 10. I ceramet)*1 the EPA fer
its honesty in making this statement —f»r the prior deoiaien eften Bade
befere the writing ef an Impact statement la colden admitted even though
the li-paet statement la eft*n used largely te justify a decision already made,
In light ef the fact that we have then admitted that the deeliien has already
been nade regardless ef what la shewn by the impact atateraent, there is little
reed this morning te Hobata the alternative* and hipplly, I am in a pete*
position ef supporting alternative 10 with seme very real reservations in
terms ef the eenstruetien ef the Allen Fewer Plant. Unfertunately, there
Is r»t at thia tine, sufficient data available te adequately Judge that
proposal. There are aene comments, hewever, that I wish te make at thie
tine regarding esrtaln statements in the Impact Statement.
Cn page 21U, beginning with the laat paragraph ef the first eelum and
t*irc threugh te the last paragraph ef the aeeend celumnt 'Iguree are given
•n the aneunts af SC,, KCX, and partlculate natter that aheuld be expected
as emission fren the preposod power plant. I suggest that reoegnltien aheuld
be given here ef the faot that these figures are baaed open the Clark Ceunty
I'aaa Eirlsslen Rate Standard and de net take inte aoeeunt the effeet ef
Clark Ceunty'e visible eolasien standard ef Rlnglenan 0. This Tlalble amlaslen
standard, in nest eases, will require mere reatrletlve oentrel se that the
figures given may preve te be samewhat high when the Ringleman 0 eentrel la
added. I think it la important far the impact statement te reoegnlEe the
rest stringent ef applicable standards that must be met, Skipping en dewn
te the pesslblllty that omissions may be conveyed te Las Vegaa Valley, I
suggost that it shauld alse be reeegnltad that the emlssiens oeuld alse lujtMt
•JT national park area with the emlssiens pessibly blending with these freiai
•ther pewer plants in the multi-state reglen fer a cumulative effeet an
visibility. This, ef eeurs*, like the Las Vegas Impact, has net been
decv-er.ted and eannet be stated as a peiitlve Impact but is a distinoet
pesslblllty, and ef oeurse, frem an envirennental vlewpeint, the natlanal
park areas are areas ef critical eeneern particularly In light ef the number
•f planta either being built tediy er planned fer the future. Hevlng en
4«vn t* the paragraph which begins with th. sentence, "Plant •nlaslena May
be reduced threugh sephlstlcated eentrel devices. I believe the balance
•f tbat paragraph Is cut ef data since it implies that efficiency ef oentrel
devices is questienable and oakes particular reference te Kehave. E.P.A.
itself haa nsv raeefnlzed the availability ef efficient remeval equipment
and In actuality the Kehave experience relnferces that E.F.A, Judgnent
since tests at Kehave have ahewn high eeneval efflcieney and high reliability.
Ceir.g back te page 33$- 231 and the discusslen ef the pewer plant and ita
relatlen te the oeat ef the s*IT system. I think there is ene pelnt that auat
be considered—that la the possibility that the pewer plant will never be
built and the pessible necessity te sire an AWT plant te handle the entire
aneunt ef waste water. And semewhere In this analysis, I hepe seemene wll add
the real picture in tens ef hew much eleetriaity will aetvalljr be made
available te Xevada. We knew that at a certain date, the eleetirieity will
ne lenger be gelng te the California consumer. What Is net elearly undertteed
and never feund in print Is the) fact that by the time,eleetriaity Is being
..«•«• in Its entirety in Tevada, the pewer plant will be a number ef years
eld and ne lenger epentlng at highest efficiency se that Heradans are)
I lhave ene ether eerrectlen I believe mat be made In the impact statement.
On page 191, there is a diseusslen ef the necessary air pellutlen eentrel
fer the calcining furnace at the advanced waste water treatment plant.
Beginning at the batten ef the first column I ,=ij»o*e "the reprocessing rates,
discharged leading and gas flew rates ef the calcining fumice are not yet
finalized. Hewever, with the additlen ef refractory lined cyelene followed
by a wet scrubber, the most stringent regulatlena ef Clark County (Rlnglenan 1)
SJbeuld be satisfied." The statement is erroneous since the standard that
must be met Is Rlnglenm 0 and it is doubtful that fer a calcining furnace
a cyclsno and vet srubber will de the job. I recommend changing the sentence
te indicate the necessity If er a high energy wet scrubber er bagheuse.
In conclusion, I wish te state that I endorse alternative II without the pewer
plant and withheld Judgement on that part of !*>>- proposal until all the
facts are in. I believe Clark Ceunty dees have every intention ef moving
ahead with the AWT plant even If thekpewer plant la never built. I hepe
the Impact statement can conclude with that recognition by Inclusion ef
• discussion ef alternative ten mfctm minus the pewer plant without ellmlnatlen
ef any ef the discusslen ef power plant Impacts presently included in the
Statement.
288
-------
Summary Response - Daisy J. Talvitie
1. On page 236 of the EIS, a reference
to the fact that a decision has already
been made to proceed with Alternative
10, is commendable since a prior
decision is often made before the
writing of the impact statement and is
seldom admitted. An impact statement
is often used largely to justify a de-
cision already made, rather than to
bring out alternatives in their true
form.
** The decision to select Alternative 10
was not made until page 234. Though
the past history of proposed alterna-
tives appearing in the many supporting
engineering reports had, through a
process of elimination, largely elimi-
nated the other nine for one reason
or another. The implications of Nevada
State Senate Bill 288 were that the State
Senate was not ready to endorse any
of the alternatives presented in the
1972 project report. Alternative
10 is what was recommended by the
Applicant, and we felt the impact state-
ment should be objective and examine
all of the alternatives before making
our recommendation or concurrence.
2. I am in a position of supporting Alter-
native 10 with some very real reser-
vations in terms of the construction
of the Allen Power Plant.
** No response necessary.
3. On page 214, figures are given on the
amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxide and particulates expected to be
emitted from the proposed power plant.
Recognition of the fact that these fig-
ures are based on Clark County's
mass emission rate standard should
be given, since these figures do not
reflect Clark County's visible emis-
sion standard of Ringleman O. The
visible emission standard, inmost
cases will require more restrictive
controls. Therefore the figures used
(the mass emission rate standards)
may prove somewhat high in terms
of the more restrictive Ringleman O
standard.
** We have eliminated this air quality
analysis since we have already ack-
nowledged the necessity for the NPC
to complete its facility and environ-
mental studies. The power plant
must comply with state air pollution
control regulations.
4. It should be recognized that emissions
from the Las Vegas Valley can also
possibly impact our national park
area, blending with emissions from
other power plants in the multi-state
region for a cumulative impact. This,
of course, is not documented but is
a distinct possibility. The national
park areas are areas of critical con-
cern, particularly in light of the
number of power plants either being
built today or being planned for the
future.
** We agree.
5. On page 231, in reference to the
discussion of the power plant and
its relation to the cost of the AWT
289
-------
system, one point must be consi-
dered; that is, the possibility that
the power plant will never be built
and the possible necessity to size
an AWT plant to handle the entire
amount of waste water.
The AWT plant will not be undersized,
and the referenced discussion dealt with
a future decision on capacity increases
beyond the now proposed 90 mgd AWT
plant, when the power plant question
would have been resolved.
Somewhere someone should add a real
picture of how much electricity will
actually be made available to Nevada.
By the time electricity is being used
in its entirety in Nevada, the power
plant will be a number of years old
and no longer operating at its highest
efficiency so that Nevadans are not
going to receive at any time the full
2,000 megawatts which is usually
described as the plant capacity.
The Nevada Power Company should
be asked to provide that information.
7. It is doubtful that for a calcining fur-
nace a cyclone and wet scrubber will
adequately meet the most stringent
standards of Clark County, Ringle-
man O, as stated on page 191. I
recommend changing the sentence
to indicate the necessity for high
energy wet scrubber or baghouse.
** The text has been changed to reflect
your concern.
8. It is hoped the impact statement can
include a discussion of Alternative 10
without the power plant while not eli-
minating the discussion of the power
plant impact presently included in
the statement.
** In effect Alternative 3 is Alternative
10 but does not provide for a program
of reclamation/reuse. AWT water
would be disposed of via discharge
to Las Vegas Wash. Refer to the dis-
cussions in Chapter 2 for more
specific analysis of these two alter-
natives.
290
-------
-------
Board of County Commissioners, Clark County, Nevada,
Facilities Plan Annex A, Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution
Abatement Project. Las Vegas, Nevada, July 1974
Board of County Commissioners, Clark County, Nevada,
Addendum To The Environmental Assessment Annex B,
Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution Abatement Project, Las
Vegas, Nevada, July 1974
Board of County Commissioners, Clark County, Nevada,
Report to the Governor and the Legislative Commission,
Final Alternate Plan Las Vegas Wash/Bay Pollution
Abatement Project, Las Vegas, Nevada, July 1974
Las Vegas Valley Water District, Environmental Assessment
Pollution Abatement Project Las Vegas Wash and Bay,
Annex B, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 1972
Environmental Protection Agency, Conference in the Matter
of Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Colorado
River and its Tributaries - Colorado, New Mexico,
Arizona, California, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah, Denver,
Colorado, April 26-27, 1972
Environmental Protection Agency, Summary Report - The
Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River Basin,
Denver and San Francisco, 1971
Environmental Protection Agency, Report on Pollution Affecting
Las Vegas Wash, Lake Mead and the Lower Colorado
River, Nevada-Arizona-California, Denver and San
Francisco, December 1971
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Upper Colorado
Region Comprehensive Framework Study, Appendix VII
Mineral Resources, June 1971
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Lower Colorado
Region Comprehensive Framework Study, Appendix II
The Region, June 1971
292
-------
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Lower Colorado
Region Comprehensive Framework Study, Appendix V
Water Resources, June 1971
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Lower Colorado
Region Comprehensive Framework Study, Appendix VI
Dand Resources and Use, November 1970
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Lower Colorado
Region Comprehensive Framework Study, Appendix XIII
Fish and Wildlife, June 1971
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Lower Colorado
Region Comprehensive Framework Study, Appendix XIV
Electric Power, June 1971
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee, Lower Colorado
Region Comprehensive Framework Study, Appendix XV
Water Quality. Pollution Control, and Health Factors,
June 1971
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
General Soils for a Portion of Clark County, Nevada
(Advanced Data for Interim Use), Reno, Nevada,
August 12, 1974
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Alternative Multiobjective Plans Emphasizing Water
Resource Use in Area V Colorado Planning Region,
Summary Report, Nevada State Study Team, April 1974
Martin, ^R.O.R. and Hanson, Ronald L., Reservoirs in the
United States, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
1838, Washington, D.C., 1966
Harbeck, G. Earl, Jr. and others, Water-Loss Investigations;
Lake Mead Studies, U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 298, Washington, D.C. 1958
Office of Saline Water, Bureau of Reclamation, Colorado River
International Salinity Control Report - Special Report,
Boulder City, Nevada, September 1973
293
-------
Loeltz, Omar J., Ground- Water Conditions in the Vicinity of
Lake Mead Base, Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, U.S.
Geological Survey Water-supply Paper 1669-0, Wash-
ington, D.C. , 1963
Malmberg, Glenn T. , Available Water Supply of the Las Vegas
Ground-water Basin, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 1780, Washington, D.C., 1965
Thomas, H. E. and others, Effects of Drought in the Colorado
River Basin, Dought in the Southwest, 1942-56, U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 372-F, Washington,
B.C., 1963
Colorado River Board of California, Need for Controlling
Salinity of the Colorado River, Los Angeles, California,
August 1970
Puke, Raoul, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas; A Savage
Journey to the Heart of the American Dream, Rolling
Stone, No. 95 and 96, November 1971
Bradley, W. G. and Niles, Wesley E., Study of the Impact on
the Ecology of Las Vegas Wash under Alternative Actions
in Water Quality Management, Final Report to the Las
Vegas Valley Water District, University of Nevada,
Las Vegas, December 1972
Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc. of Arizona, Sewer
Line Master Plan Update Report 1974, City of Las Vegas,
Nevada, August 5, 1974
Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas Report
1974, Las Vegas, 1974
294
-------
tt
•d
•d
»
I
•*•
Bo. 193—Ft. n— 1
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1974
WASHINGTON. D.C.
/
Volume 39 • Number 138
PART III
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
PREPARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
-------
26254
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 6]
PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), Implemented by
Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970.
and, the Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ's) Guidelines of August 1,
1973. requires that all agencies of the
Federal Government prepare detailed
environmental statements on proposals
for legislation and other major Federal
actions significantly affecting the qual-
ity of the human environment. The ob-
jective of the Act is build into the agency
decision-making process an appropriate
and careful consideration of all environ-
mental aspects of proposed actions.
On January 17, 1973, the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) published
a new Part 6 In interim form, establish-
ing Agency (EPA) policy and procedures
for the Identification and analysis of the
environmental Impact of Agency (EPA)
actions, and the preparation and proc-
essing of environmental impact state-
ments when significant impacts on the
environment are anticipated.
As a result of public comment on the
Interim regulation and the new require-
ments in the Council on Environmental
Quality's Guidelines of August 1. 1973.
the Agency has revised Its procedures
and is now publishing them again for
public review and comment. They are
being published as proposed rulemaklng
because of the substantial changes that
have been made in the regulation. A final
regulation will be published after receipt
and consideration of the comments.
The proposed regulation provides de-
tailed procedures for applying NEPA to
EPA's nonregulatory programs only. The
new source permit program has not been
Included in this revision because the pro-
cedures for applying NEPA to this pro-
gram have not yet been completed. Pro-
cedures for preparing impact statements
on environmentally protective regulatory
actions will be described in a notice of
administrative procedure to be published
In the FEDERAL REGISTER.
The Environmental Protection Agency
Invites all Interested persons who desire
to submit written comments or sugges-
tions concerning the preparation of final
regulations to do so in triplicate to the
Office of Federal Activities. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20460. Such submissions should be re-
ceived by August 31, 1974. to allow time
for appropriate consideration and pos-
sible inclusion in the final regulations.
Copies of the submissions will be avail-
able for examination by Interested
persons In the Public Information Office,
Room W329, Waterside Mall. Fourth and
M Streets, SW.. Washington, D.C.
Dated: July 3,1974.
JOHN QUARLCS,
Acting Administrator.
PROPOSED RULES
Subpart
Sec.
6.100 Purpose and policy.
6.102 Definitions.
6.104 Summary of procedures for Imple-
menting the NEPA.
6.106 Applicability,
6.108 Completion of NEPA procedure* be-
fore commencement of administra-
tive action.
6.110 General responsibilities.
Subpart B—Procedures
6.200 Guidelines for determining when to
prepare an Impact statement.
6.202 Environmental assessment.
6.2O4 Environmental revle-w.
6.306 Notice of intent.
6 JOB Draft impact statements.
6.210 Final Impact statements.
6.313 Negative declarations end environ-
mental Impact appraisals.
6.214 Additional procedures.
6.300 Cover sheet.
6.302 Summary sheet.
6.304 Body of statement.
Subpart D—Public Participation
6.400 General.
6.402 Public hearings.
6.404 Comments oar draft and final state-
ments.
6.406 Availability of documents.
Subpart E—Guideline* for Compliant* With
NEPA In th« Title H Waste water Treatment
Works Construction Grants Program
6.500 Purpose.
6.503 Definitions.
6.SO4 Applicability.
6.506 Completion of NEPA procedures be-
fore commencement of administra-
tive actions.
6508 Responsibilities.
6.510 Criteria for preparation of environ-
mental impact statements.
6 512 Procedures for Implementing th«
NEPA.
6.514 Content and format of environmental
Impact statement*.
Subpart F—Guidelines for Compliance With NEPA
In Research end Development Programs and
Activities
6.600 Purpose.
6.G02 Definitions.
6.604 Applicability.
6.606 Responsibilities.
6.608 Criteria for tbe preparation of en-
vironmental Impact statements.
6.610 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
Subpart O—Guidelines for Compliant* With
NEPA hi Solid Waste Management Activities
6.700 Purpose.
6.702 Definitions.
6.7O4 Applicability.
6.7OO Responsibilities.
6.708 Criteria for tbe preparation of en-
pact statements.
6.710 Procedures for compliance with NEPA.
Subpart H—Guidelines for Compliance With
NEPA In Construction of Special Purpose Fa-
cilities and Facility Renovations
6.5OO Purpose.
0.802 Definitions.
6.804 Applicability.
6.805 BesponadbllUlee.
6.608 Criteria for the preparation of en-
pact statements.
6.810 Procedures for compliance) with NEPA.
1. Flowchart.
a. (page 1.) Notice of Intent Transmlttal
Memorandum—Suggested Format.
' (page 3.) Notice of Intent—Suggested For-
mat.
8. News Release—Suggested Format.
4. Negative Declaration—-Suggested Format.
6. Environmental Impact Appraisal—Sug-
gested Format.
6. Cover Sheet Format for Environmental
Impact Statements.
7. Summary Sn«et Format for Environmental
Impact Statements.
8. Flowchart for ORD.
9. Flowchart for OSWMP.
AorHOBnr: Sees. 102,103,83 Stat. 854.
Subpart A—General
% 6.100 Purpose and policy.
(a) The National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, implemented by
Executive Order 11514 and the Council
on Environmental Quality's Guidelines
of August 1,1973 (38 PR 20550), requires
that all agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment prepare detailed environmental
statements on proposals for legislation
and other major Federal actions signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. The objective of the Act Is
to build Into the agency decision-making
process an appropriate and careful con-
sideration of all environmental aspects
of proposed actions.
Cb) This part establishes Environmen-
tal Protection Agency policy and proce-
dures for the Identification and analysis
of the environmental impact of Agency
actions, and the preparation and proc-
essing of environmental Impact state-
ments when significant impacts on the
environment are anticipated.
§ 6.102 Definitions.
fa) "Environmental assessment" Is a
written analysis submitted to the Agency
by its grantees or contractors describing
the environmental impacts of proposed
actions undertaken with the financial
support of the Agency. For plans, the
assessment must be an integral part of
the plan submitted to the Agency for re-
view. In other cases, the assessment will
be a separate document.
.Cb) "Environmental review" Is a for-
mal evaluation undertaken by the
Agency to determine whether a proposed
Agency action may have a significant
impact on the environment. The assess-
ment Is one of the major sources of In-
formation used in this review.
(c> "Notice of intent" is a memoran-
dum announcing to Federal, State, and
local agencies, and to Interested persons.
that a draft environmental impact state-
ment will be prepared and processed.
Cd) "Environmental Impact state-
ment" Is a report, prepared by the
Agency, which Identifies and analyzes In
detail the environmental Impacts of a
proposed Agency action.
(e) "Negative declaration" is a written
announcement, prepared subsequent to
the environmental review, which states
that the Agency has decided not to pre-
pare an environmental Impact state-
ment.
(f) "Environmental Impact appraisal"
Is an abbreviated document, based on an
environmental review, which supports a
negative declaration. It describes a pro-
posed Agency action, its expected envi-
ronmental impact, and the basis for tbe
conclusion that no significant Impact Is
anticipated.
(g) "Responsible official" will usually
be either a Regional Administrator or a
Deputy Assistant Administrator. He Is
responsible, for assuring that environ-
mental Impact statements and other as-
sociated documents are prepared. Re-
sponsible officials are Identified for the
various Agency program offices In the
subparts following Subpart D.
(h) "Interested persons" are Individ-
uals, groups, organizations, corporations,
or other nongovernmental units, Includ-
ing an applicant for an Agency contract
or grant and conservation groups, who
may be Interested In, affected by, or tech-
nically competent to comment on the
environmental impact of the proposed
Agency action.
§ 6.104 Summary of procedures for
implementing the NEPA.
(a) Environmental assessment. Envi-
ronmental assessments must be sub-
mitted to the Agency by its grantees and
contractors, as specified In the subparts
following Subpart D of this part. The
assessment is used by the Agency in de-
ciding if an Impact statement Is required
and In preparing a statement if it de-
cides to prepare one.
(b) Environmental review. Environ-
mental reviews shall be made of pro-
posed and certain ongoing actions (as
required in S6.l06(c)> of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. This process
shall consist of a study of the program
or project, including a review of any en-
vironmental .assessment received, to
identify and evaluate the expected and
potential environmental Impacts of the
action. The purpose of this review is to
determine whether any significant im-
pacts are anticipated, whether any
changes can be made in the project to
eliminate or mitigate these impacts, and
whether an-environmental impact state-
ment is required. The Agency has over-
all responsibility for this review, al-
though its grantees and contractors will
contribute to the review through en-
vironmental assessments they have sub-
mitted. (Types of grants, contracts, and
other actions requiring: such assessments
are specified In the subparts following
Subpart D.)
(c) Notice of intent and impact state-
ments. When an environmental review
indicates that a significant environment-
al impact may occur and the impact
cannot be eliminated by making appro-
priate changes in the project, a notice of
intent shall be published, and a draft en-
vironmental impact statement shall be
prepared and distributed. After external
coordination and evaluation of the com-
ments received, a final environmental
impact statement shall be prepared and
distributed.
(d) Negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. When the en-
PROPOSED RULES
vlronmental review does not Indicate any
significant Impacts, or when the project
la changed to eliminate the significant
Impacts, a negative declaration to this
effect shall be issued. For the cases speci-
fied In the subparts following Subpart D
of this part, an environmental impact ap-
praisal shall be prepared, which sum-
marizes the Impacts, alternatives, and
the reasons an impact statement was not
prepared. It shall remain on file and shall
be available for public Inspection.
(e) The general procedures for com-
plying with NEPA are shown graphically
in Exhibit 1.
g 6.106 Applicability.
(a) Administrative actions covered.
This part applies to the administrative
actions listed below. The subpart refer-
enced with each action specifies the
detailed NEPA procedures associated
with the action.
(1) Development of Agency legislative
proposals (see paragraph (d) of this sec-
tion);
(2) Development of favorable reports
on legislation (see paragraph (d) of this
section) Initiated elsewhere and not ac-
companied by an Impact statement, pro-
vided It relates to or affects matters with-
in EPA's primary areas of responsibility;
(3) For the construction grants pro-
gram under Title n of the FWPCA
Amendments of 1972, those administra-
tive actions specified In 9 6.504;
(4) For the Office of Research and
Development, those administrative
actions specified in 5 6.604;
(5) For other programs, the award of
a grant or contract (see Subparts G and
H) except for those cases listed in para-
graph (b) of this section;
(6) For other programs, actual phy-
sical commencement of a project or ac-
tivity undertaken with inhouse funds
(intramural project). See Subparts G
andH.
(b) The requirements of this part do
not apply to environmentally protective
regulatory activities undertaken by the
Agency.
(c) Application to ongoing actions.
This regulation shall apply to uncom-
pleted and continuing Agency actions
initiated prior to the promulgation of
these procedures when substantial funds
have not been released and modifications
of or alternatives to the Agency action
are still available. An environmental im-
pact statement shall be prepared for each,
project found to have significant envi-
ronmental consequences, as determined
in accordance with § 6.200.
(d) Application to legislative propos-
als. (1) As noted In paragraphs (a) (1)
and (2) of this section, environmental
impact statements shall be prepared for
legis^Uw; proposals or favorable reports
relating to legislation. Because of the
nature of the legislative process, impact
statements for legislation must be pre-
pared and reviewed in accordance with
the procedures followed in the develop-
ment and review of the legislative matter.
These procedures are described in Office
of Management and Budget Circular No.
26255
(2) A working draft Impact statement
shall be prepared by the Agency office
responsible for preparing the legislative
proposal or report on legislation. It shall
be prepared concurrently with the de-
velopment of the legislative proposal or
report and shall contain, where appro-
priate, the information required in
9 6.304. The statement shall be circulated
for internal Agency review with the legis-
lative proposal or report and other sup-
porting documentation. The working
draft statement shall be modified in ac-
cordance with changes made in the pro-
posal or report during the internal re-
view. All major alternatives developed
during the formulation and review of the
proposal or report should be retained in
the working draft statement.
(1) The working draft Impact state-
ment shall accompany the legislative
proposal or report to OMB. The Agency
shall revise the working draft statement,
as necessary, to respond to comments
made by OMB and Federal agencies.
(11) Upon transmittal of the legislative
proposal or report to Congress, the work-
ing draft impact statement will be for-
warded to CEQ and the Congress as a
formal legislative impact statement.
Copies will be distributed in accordance
with §6.208(b)(2) (i), (ii), (iv)(d),and
(iv) (e). At the same time copies are sent
to the Council on Environmental Quality,
two (2) copies shall be sent to the Office
of Federal Activities and the originating
office.
(ill) Comments received on the legis-
lative impact statement by the Agency
shall be forwarded to the appropriate
Congressional Committees. If appropri-
ate, the Agency may wish to respond to
specific comments and forward those
with the comments. Because legislation
undergoes continuous changes in Con-
gress, no final Impact statement need be
prepared by the Agency.
g 6.108 Completion of NEPA proce-
dures before commencement of ad-
ministrative action.
(a) When an Impact statement will be
prepared. Except when requested by the
responsible official In writing and ap-
proved by the Council on Environmental
Quality, no administrative action shall
be taken sooner than ninety (90) cal-
endar days after a draft statement has
been distributed or sooner than thirty
(30) calendar days after the final state-
ment has been circulated and made pub-
lic, the thirty (30) day period and ninety
(90) day period may run concurrently
to the extent that they overlap. In addi-
tion, the proposed action should be modi-
fled to conform with any changes the
Agency deems necessary.
(b) When an impact statement will
not be prepared. If the Agency decides
not to prepare a statement on any action
on which a negative declaration with en-
vironmental appraisal is required (as
specified In the subparts fuilov.-ing Sub-
part D), no administrative action shall
be taken sooner than fifteen (15) days
after Issuance of the negative declara-
tion.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 138—WEDNESDAY, JULY 17. 1974
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 138—WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RUIIS
26256
86.110 General Kip
(a) Responsible official. (1) Requires
contractors and grantees to submit en-
vironmental assessments and related
documents needed to comply with NEPA,
and assures environmental reviews are
conducted on proposed Agency projects
at the earliest practicable point In the
Agency's project formulation process.
(2) When required, assures that draft
statements are prepared and distributed
at the earliest practicable point in the
Agency's project formulation process,
their internal and external review Is co-
ordinated, and final statements are pre-
pared and distributed.
(3) When an Impact statement Is not
prepared, assures that negative declara-
tions and environmental appraisals are
prepared and distributed for those ac-
tion* requiring them.
(4> Consult* with the Office of Fed-
eral Activities on actions Involving unre-
solved conflicts with other Federal
agencies.
(b) Office ot Federal Activities. (1)
Provide* Agency wide policy guidance
and assures that Agency components es-
tablish and maintain adequate adminis-
trative procedures to comply with this
part.
(2) Monitors the overall timeliness
and quality of the Agency effort to
comply with this part.
(3) Provide* assistance to responsible
officials as required.
(4) Coordinates the training of per-
sonnel Involved In the review and prep-
aration of environmental Impact state-
ments and other associated documents.
(SI Acts as Agency liaison with the
Council on Environmental Quality and
other Federal and State entitles on
matters of Agency poucy and adminis-
trative mechanisms to facilitate external
review of Agency environmental Impact
statements, to determine lead Agency,
and to Improve the uniformity of the
NEPA procedures of Federal agencies.
(» Advise* the Administrator and
Deputy Administrator on projects which
involve more than one Agency compo-
nent, are highly controversial, are na-
tionally significant or "pioneer" Agency
policy, when these projects have had or
should have an environmental Impact
statement prepared on them.
(c) Office ol Public Affairs. (1) Assists
the Office of Federal Activities and re-
sponsible officials by answering the pub-
lic's queries on the Impact statement
process and on specific Impact state-
ments, and by directing requests for
copies of specific documents to the ap-
propriate regional office or program.
(2) Analyzes the present procedures
for public participation, and develop*
and recommends to the Office of Federal
Activities a program to Improve those
procedures and Increase public partici-
pation.
(d) Regional Office Division ol Public
A/Jain. (1) Assists the responsible offi-
cial or his detlgnee on matters pertain-
ing to negative declare
Intent, press releases, >
notification procedures.
PROPOSED RULES
queries on the Impact statement process
and on specific Impact statements, and
by filling requests for copies of specific
documents.
(e) Office of the Assistant Adminis-
trators antt Regional Administrators. (1)
Provides specific policy guidance to their
respective offices and assures that those
omces establish and maintain adequate
administrative procedures to comply
with this part.
(2) Monitor the overall timeliness and
quality of their respective component's
efforts to comply with this part. '
(3) Act as liaison between their com-
ponents and the Office of Federal Activ-
ities and between their components and
other Assistant Administrators or Re-
gional Administrators on matters of
agencywlde policy and procedures.
(4) Advise the Administrator and
Deputy Administrator through the Office
of Federal Activities, on projects or ac-
tivities within their respective areas of
responsibilities which involve more than
one Agency component, are highly con-
troversial, are nationally significant or
"pioneer" Agency policy, when these
projects have had or should have an en-
vironmental Impact statement prepared
on them.
(f) The Office ol Legislation. The
Office of Legislation provides the neces-
sary liaison with Congress and coordi-
nates the preparation of Impact state-
ments required on reports on legislation
originating outside the Agency (see
(g) The Office of Planning and £t>a!u-
atton. The Office of Planning and Evalu-
ation coordinates the preparation of Im-
pact statements required on Agency
legislative proposals (see I6.106(dl).
Subpert B—Procedure*
(6.200 Guidelines for determining
when to prepare an impact •lalement.
The following general guidelines shall
be used when reviewing an Agency ac-
tion to determine if It will have a sig-
nificant Impact on the environment and
therefore require an Impact statement:
(a) Significant environmental effects.
(1) Actions having both beneficial and
detrimental effect* may be classified a*
having significant effects on the environ-
ment even If. on balance, the Agency be-
lieves that the net effect will be bene-
ficial. Impact statements should be
prepared first on those proposed actions
with the most adverse effects, and in ac-
cordance with the Agency's schedule to
Implement the action.
(2) Significant effects should Include
both primary and secondary conse-
quences of short term and long term
duration. Secondary consequences result
from activities encouraged or induced
by the Agency action. Long term effects
should be given particular attention in
the determination of significant effects.
(3) The total expected environmental
actions shall be identified and considered
fully. If the Agency is taking a number
of minor, environmentally insignificant
actions that are similar In execution and
purpose, especially when they are taken
during a limited time span and In the
same general geographic area, the cumu-
lative environmental Impact of all ol
these actions may be significant.
(4) In making a determination of sig-
nificant Impact, the unique characteris-
tics of the area should be carefully con-
sidered. For example, proximity to wet-
lands may make the Impact significant.
(b) Controversial actions. An environ-
mental Impact statement shall be pre-
pared and processed when the environ-
mental Impact of an Agency action Is
likely to be highly controversial.
(c) Historic sites. An environmental
statement shall be prepared and proc-
essed when the Agency action will ad-
versely affect a property listed In or eli-
gible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places, and a joint memoran-
dum of agreement has not been agreed
to by the appropriate parties acknowl-
edging removal of mitigation of the ad-
verse Impact. See ! 8.214(a) for the
detailed procedures.
% 6.202 Environmental assessment.
Environmental assessments must be
submitted to the Agency by Its grantees
and contractors, as specified In the sub-
parts following Subpart D of this part.
The purpose of the assessment is to en-
sure that the applicant builds into his
project formulation process at the
earliest possible point, an appropriate
and careful consideration of the environ-
mental Impacts of the proposed action.
The assessment, along with other rele-
vant Information, is used by the Agency
In deciding If an impact statement is
required and In preparing a statement If
one Is prepared. While the Agency must
be responsible for the Impact statements
it prepares, It expects grantees and con-
tractors to ensure that the assessments
and any other data they submit to the
Agency are accurate. The responsible
onclal may request additional data and
analyses at any time If he determines
that it is needed to adequately comply
with NEPA.
8 6.204 Environmental review.
(a) Proposed and certain ongoing
Atency actions as specified In I ».106(c>
shall be subjected to an environmental
review. This review shall be a continuing
one and should commence at the ear-
liest possible point in the development of
the project. It shall consist of a study of
me proposed program or project, Includ-
ing a review of any environmental as-
sessments received, to identify and
evaluate the expected and potential en-
vironmental impacts of the action and
alternatives to it It will determine
whether a significant impact Is antici-
pated from the proposed action, whether
any changes can be made In the project
to eliminate or mitigate these Impacts,
and whether an environmental Impact
statement is required.
<1» The responsible official shaa de-
termine the proper scope of the environ-
mental review. If a plan coverta* pro-
posed actions Is available. R should be
reviewed before making Bus determina-
tion (seel «.20«(a><2».
86J06 Nodceoflntenl.
(a) General. (1) When an environ-
mental review indicates a significant im-
pact may occur and that Impact cannot
be ellmtaated by making appropriate
changes In the project, a notice of Intent
announcing the preparation of a draft
Impact statement, shall be Issued by the
responsible official. The notice shall
briefly describe the Agency action, its
location and the Issues Involved (see
Exhibit 2).
(1) The purpose of a notice of Intent is
to Involve other Government agencies
and in tec eased persons as early as possi-
ble to tb* planning and evaluation of
Agency actions which embody significant
environmental Impacts. This device
should facilitate coordination during the
preparation of a draft Impact statement
and assure that environmental values
will be Identified and weighed from the
outset, rather that accommodated by ad-
justments at toe end of the decision-
making process.
(» If the project Involves a grant ap-
plicant or potential contractor, he moat
submit any data which the Agency re-
quests (or preparation of the statement
(b) Speet/lc actions. The specific ac-
tions that should be taken with respect
to notices ol intent an as follows:
(I) when the review process Indicates
there will be a significant Impact, prepare
a notice of Intent Immediately after the
(>) Forward copies of the notice ot In-
tent to:
(1) The appropriate State and local
agencies and to the appropriate State,
regional, and metropolitan clearing-
houses.
(ll> Potentially Interested persons.
(Ill) The Office of Federal Activities
and the Office of Public Affairs.
(Iv) The Headquarters impact state-
ment coordinator for the program office
originating the statement When the
originating office Is a reglocal office and
the action Is related to water quality
management, the copies should to for-
warded to the Oil and Special Materials
Central Division. Office of Water Pro-
gram Operations.
The Office of Legislation so they
will be able to answer any queries from
Congress on the matter.
(]) Submit to a local newspaper,
which ha* adequate circulation to cover
the area that will be affected by the
project a brief news release (see Ex-
hibit I) Informing the public that an Im-
pact statement will be prepared on a par-
ticular project. New* releases 10*7 be
submitted to other media as appropriate.
(c) Regional office assistance to jjco-
tna* olftes*. Regional offices will provide
AMtswUBtt to program offices in *afc*i*y
these spectfo actions when the state-
ment originates to a program office.
I6.1M Dr.fl u»|H it »*«<****.
(a) General. (1) The responsible offi-
cial shan assure that a draft environ-
mental Impact statement is prepared as
soon as practicable after the release of
the notice of Intent Prior to release to
the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ). a preliminary version of the
draft statement may be circulated for
review to other offices within the Agency
with collateral Interest in or technical
expertise related to the action. There-
after, the draft statement shan be sent
to CEQ and circulated to Federal. State,
and local agencies with special expertise
or Jurisdiction by law, and to Interested
persons. If the responsible official deter-
mines that a public hearing on the proj-
ect Is warranted, the hearing will be held
after preparation of the draft statement
and In accordance with the requirements
of I (.402.
(2) Draft impact statement* should
be prepared at the earliest practicable
point in the project development. Where
a plan or program has been developed by
the Agency or submitted to the Agency
for approval, the relationship between
the plan and the subsequent projects en-
compassed by it shall be evaluated to
determine the preferable and most mean-
ingful point In time for preparing an Im-
pact statement Where practicable, an
environmental impact statement will be
drafted for the total program at the
overall planning stage. Subsequently,
component projects included In the plan
will not require Individual statements un-
ion they deviate substantially from prior
plans, or unless the plane do not provide
sufficient detail to f uDy assess significant
impacts of Individual projects. Plan*
shall be Devaluated by the responsible
official to monitor the cumulative impact
of the component projects and to pre-
clude the plans' obsolescence.
(bl Specific actions. The specific ac-
tions that should be taken with respect
to draft Impact statements are as follow*:
(It Before transmitting the draft
statement to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality, the responsible official
shall:
(1) Notify by phone the Office ot Fed-
eral Activities and the headquarters
Impact statement coordinator for the
program office originating the statement
that a draft impact statement ha* been
prepared. When the originating office I*
a regional office and the project is re-
lated to water quality management the
Regional Administrator will notify by
phone the Office of Federal Activities and
the Oil and Special Materials Control
Division. Office of Water Program Op-
eration*, that the draft Impact statement
ha* been prepared.
(11) Send two <2> coplee of the draft
statement to each of the appropriate
offices In paragraph (bXtXI) of thl*
section.
(1) If neither of the above offices
requests any changes within a ten (10)
working day period after notification the
responsible official ah*U:
(1» Bend five (S) copies of the draft
environmental Impact statement to the
Council on Environment*] Quality.
26257
(II) Inform the Office of Public Affairs
of the transmlttal to the Council OB En-
vironmental Quality and the plan* for
local ores* release.
(Ill) Notify the Office of Legislation of
the transmlttal so they will be able to
answer any querle* from Congreci on the
(Iv) Provide coplee ol Jthe draft state-
ment to:
(«> The Office of Legislation If they
request copies.
The appropriate offices of review-
ing Federal agencies that have special
expertise or Jurisdiction by law with
respect to any Impact* Involved. The
Council on Environmental Quality's
Guideline* (40 CFH 1500 » and Appen-
dixes n-m thereof) specify those agen-
cies to which draft statement* wUl be
sent for official review and comment. Tw»
(2) copies of the impact stitnnmil
should be provided each agency inline '
they have made a specific request for
more copies. The agencies an expected
to reply directly to the originating EPA
office. Commenting agencies (ban have
at least forty-five (45) calendar dan
to reply (the reply period shall com-
mence from the date of pubttcatlon Ja
the FDIUL Rtoum of list* of state-
ments received by the OoODcQ on Bavt-
ronmental Quality); thereafter. It ahaH,
be presumed that, nnle** a tune ex-
tension ha* been requested, the Mencr
has no comment to make. EPA may crmat
extensions where practical ot nft*eu (l»)
or more calendar day*.
(il> The appropriate State end local
swenete* and to the appropriate Bttet
and metropolitan flfarlnihriusee The
time limit* for review and extenaton*
shan be the same a* than available to
Federal agencies.
(» Interested persons. The Umt
limit* f or review and extension* ahaB be
the tame a* those avallabl* to Federal
agenda*.
(v) Submit to the local newspaper*
and other appropriate media a newa re-
lease (see Exhibit 3 of this part) thai the
draft statement I* available for conn
and when copies may be obtained.
(vl> Send two (2> copies of the sum-
mary sheet (see I BM02) to the Onto
of Management and Budget, Organ!**!
tlon and Management Bntem* DtvlatOB.
(o) Regional oflct assistance to fro-
from office. If requested, regional office*
will provide assistance to protram ofleeee
In taking these specific action* when the
impact statement originate* In a pro.
gram office.
I 6.210 Fhul lopaet sutnaents.
(a) Final statement* Shan respond to
all substantive comment* nMthrottrh
the review of the draft Impact *tateaieatT
Special can should b* taken toreenoad
fully to comment* that en at ._
with the Agency's position dee
Dlstrnwtlon and other -rrrlfti
action* will be a* specified for draft
statements ml (.20* O» and (el.Inthsi
CMS of Federal and State acende* and
KDEtAL KOISTEI, VOL Iv, NO. Ill—WEDNESDAY, JUtV 17, l»74
IfOUAl rJOIfTH, VOL It, NO. lit—WIOHKOAT, JUIT 17, 1»74
-------
86258
PROPOSED RULES
interested persons, only those who made
substantive comments on the draft state-
ment or request a copy of the final state-
ment shall be sent a copy. If there Is an
applicant, he shall be sent a copy. Where
the number of comments on the draft
statement Is such that distribution of
the final statement to all commenting
entitles appears impracticable, the pro-
tram or regional office preparing the
statement shall consult with the OFA,
who will discuss with the Council on
Environmental Quality alternative ar-
rangement* for distribution of the
statement.
16.111 Negative declaration and en-
vironmental Impact appraisal*.
(a) General. When an environmental
review Indicates* no significant Impact,
a negative declaration shall be prepared
prior to taking action (see Exhibit 4).
The negative declaration and news re-
lease must contain a statement that per-
sons disagreeing with the decision may
submit comments for consideration by
the Agency. In most cases the Agency
should not take an administrative action
on the project for at least fifteen (15)
days after release of the negative decla-
ration. An environmental Impact ap-
praisal supporting the negative declara-
tion shall be prepared at the same time
for those cases specified In the subparts
following Subpart D ol this part, as de-
termined by the responsible official. The
appraisal (see Exhibit 5) describes the
proposed activity and Its effects, and
documents the reasons for concluding
that there will be no significant Impact.
This appraisal snail remain with Inter-
nal records for the activity or action, and
shall be available for public Inspection.
Specific octioiu. The following
specific actions should be taken on those
projects on which both a negative
declaration and appraisal were prepared.
Circulation of a negative declaration on
a project for which no appraisal Is re-
quired Is unnecessary.
(1) Negative declaration. (1) When
the review process Indicated that there
will not be a significant Impact, or when
the project la changed to eliminate the
significant Impacts, prepare a negative
declaration Immediately after the re-
view.
(11) The negative declaration shall be
distributed In the same fashion as the
notice of Intent, except that copies shall
be sent only when practicable to Inter-
ested persons.
(Ill) If It Is not practicable to send cop-
ies to all interested persons, attempt to
make the negative declaration available
through local libraries or post ooces. m
addition, when practicable submit to
local newspapers and other appropriate
media a brief newt release (see Exhibit
3) Informing the public that an Impact
statement will not be prepared on a
particular project.
(9) Ourironnuntal Impact appraisal.
(1) Have the appraisal available when
the negative declaration Is distributed.
(II) Forward a copy to the Headquar-
ters Impact statement coordinator for the
program office originating the statement.
(Not applicable to regional offices.)
(Ill) Rave copies on file to, th« origi-
nating office for nubuc Inspection upon
request.
16.214 Additional procedures.
(a) Historic lUti. The Agency Is sub-
ject to the requirements of section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of
196«. II U.8.C. 470 etseq. The following
procedures shall be applied to all admin-
istrative actions described In I «.10«(a),:
(1) If an Agency action may affect a
property listed In or eligible for listing
In the National Register of Historic
Places (published hi the PKDBIUL Rxon-
TXB each year In February with supple-
ments on the first Tuesday of each
month), the responsible official, during
the environmental review, will consult
with the State Historic Preservation Of-
ficer to determine If the effect will be
adverse. If the effect will be advene, the
responsible official shall consult with the
Executive Director of the Advisory Coun-
cil as well as toe State Officer, and at-
tempt to develop alternatives to remove
the advene Impact so a Joint memo-
randum of agreement can be Issued
acknowledging removal of the Impact. If
a Joint memorandum cannot be agreed
to, the responsible official shall prepare
an Impact statement as required by
I e^OO(c) that Includes a complete dls-
cusslon of the Impacts of the action on
the property In question. Copies of the
draft and final statement should be sent
to the above officials for their comment
In accordance with the procedures of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preserva-
tion. See also 16.613(0(3) of this part
for additional procedures for the con-
struction grant program under Title n
of the FWPCA Amentlments of 1973.
(b) Wetlands. The following procedure
shall be applied to all Agency «*•*!«!•-
tratlve actions covered by this part that
may Impact wetlands:
(1) If an action may affect wetlands,
the responsible official •^•11 consult, dur-
ing the environmental review of the
action, with the appropriate offices of
both the Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce to aid In the
determination of the probable Impact of
the action on the pertinent fish and wild-
life resources of the wetlands. Requests
for consultation and the results of such
consultation shall be documented In writ-
Ing. The agencies should be given thirty
(30) days to comment as measured from
the date of the written request. In all
cues when consultation has occurred,
the agencies consulted should receive
copies of either the notice of intent and
Impact statement or negative declara-
tion and appraisal prepared on the
action.
(]) If an Impact statement Is to be
prepared on a project and wetlands may
be affected, the required consultation
may be deferred until the preparation of
the draft statement.
(c) fish and vilaW*. The Agency Is
subject to the requirements of the Pish
and Wildlife Coordination Act. 18 U.S.C.
Ml et sea. The following procedures shall
be applied to all administrative actions
covered by this part:
(1) Whenever an Agency action will
result In the control or modification of
any stream or other body of water, for
any purpose whatever. Including navi-
gation and drainage, the Agency shan
consult with the United States Pish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the In-
terior, and the head ol the agency exer-
cising administration over the wildlife
resources of the particular State m which
the action will take place with a view to
the conservation of wildlife resources.
Such consultation shall take place during
the environmental review of an action.
Requests for consultation and the re-
sults of such consultation shall be doc-
umented In writing. The agencies should
be given thirty (30) days to comment as
measured from the date of the written
request. The Agency should employ the
results of such consultation In deter-
mining If an Impact statement Is needed.
In all cases where consultation has oc-
curred, the agencies consulted should re-
ceive copies of either the notice of Intent
and Impact statement or negative dec-
laration and appraisal prepared on the
action.
(3) If an Impact statement Is to be
prepared on a project which may result
m the control or modification of a stream
or body of water, the required consulta-
tion may be deferred until the prepara-
tion of the draft statement
Subpsrt C—Content of Environmental
Impact Statements
86.300 CoversheM.
The cover sheet shall Indicate the type
of statement (draft or final). the official
project name, the responsible Agency
office, the date, and the signature of the
responsible official. The format Is shown
In Exhibit!.
86.301
The summary sheet shall conform to
the format prescribed In Appendix I of
the August 1,1(73, Council on Environ-
mental Quality's Guidelines. The format
Is shown to Exhibit 7.
I6.J04 Bodyofstalemenl.
The body of the Impact statement shall
Identify, develop, and analyse the perti-
nent Issues Included In the seven sections
below. Each section need not be a sep-
arate chapter In the statement. Impact
statements shall not be justification doc-
uments for. proposed Agency funding or
actions. Rather, they shan be objective
evaluations of actions and their alterna-
tives In light of all environmental con-
siderations. Environmental Impact state-
ments shall be prepared using a
systematic. Interdisciplinary approach.
Statements shall Incorporate all relevant
analytical disciplines and shan provide
meaningful and factual data, mf orma-
tlon. and analyses. The presentation
should be simple and concise, yet Include
an facts necessary to permit Independent
IIOSIAL MOISTIH. VOL J», NO. III—WIDNI1OAY, JUIY 17: It74
PROPOSED RULES
26259
evaluation and appraisal of the benefi-
cial and adverse environmental effects of
alternative actions. The amount of de-
tail provided should be commensurate
with the extent and expected Impact of
the actions, and the amount of Informa-
tion required at the particular level of
decision making. To the extent possible,
statements shall not be drafted In a style
which requires extensive scientific or
technical expertise to comprehend and
evaluate the environmental Impact of an
Agency action.
(a) Background ant description of
the proposed action. Describe the recom-
mended or proposed action. Its purpose,
where It Is located and Its time setting.
To prevent piecemeal decision making,
the project shall be described In as broad
a context as necessary. The relationship
to other projects and proposals directly
affected by or stemming from the pro-
posed project shall be discussed, includ-
ing not only other Agency activities, but
also those of other Governmental and
private organizations. Development and
population trends In the project area and
the assumptions on which they are based
shall also be Included. Maps, photos, and
artist sketches should be Incorporated If
available when they help depict the envi-
ronmental setting. If not enclosed, sup-
porting documents should be referenced.
(b) Alternative* to the proposed ac-
tion. Develop, describe, and objectively
weigh alternatives to any proposed ac-
tion. The analysis should be sufficiently
detailed to reveal the Agency's compara-
tive evaluation of the environmental ef-
fects, costs, and risks of the proposed
action and each reasonable alternative.
The analysis of alternatives should In-
clude the alternative of taking no action
or of postponing action, as well as al-
ternatives having different environ-
mental Impacts. On projects Involving
construction, alternative sites must be
considered. This analysis shall evaluate
alternatives In such a manner that re-
viewers Independently can Judge their
relative desirability. If a cost-benefit
analysis Is prepared. It should be ap-
pended to the statement. In addition, the
reasons why the proposed action Is be-
lieved by the Agency to be the best course
of action shall be explained.
(c) £npironmental impact of the pro-
posed action. (1) Describe the primary
and secondary environmental Impacts,
both beneficial and adverse, anticipated
from the action. The scope of the de-
scription shan Include both short- and
long-term Impacts. Attention should be
given to discussing those factors most
directly Impacted by the proposed action.
(2) Primary Impacts are those that
can be attributed directly to the action
or project. Por example, if the action Is a
field experiment, materials Introduced
Into the environment may damage cer-
tain flora or fauna. If the action Involves
construction of a faculty, construction
activities may damage certain aspects of
the environment. In addition, operation
of the faculty may have continuing en-
vironmental effects, both beneficial and
advene.
(3) Secondary impacts are indirect or
induced Impacts. If the action involves
construction of a facility, such as a
wastewater treatment system or an of-
fice building or laboratory, it may stim-
ulate or Induce secondary effects In the
form of associated Investments and
changed patterns of social and economic
activities. Particular attention should be
paid to changes In population patterns or
growth. When such changes are signifi-
cant, their effect on the resource base.
Including land use, water quality and
quantity, air quality, and public services.
should be determined. A dloeusslon of
how these Impacts conform or conflict
with the objectives and specific terms of
approved or proposed Federal, State, and
local land use plans, policies, and con-
trols for the area should be Included. If a
conflict exists, the Agency should give the
reasons why it has decided to proceed
notwithstanding the absence of full
reconciliation.
(4) The following sections discuss In
more detail some of the Items that shall
be considered in describing the impact of
the proposed action.
(d> Advene impacts which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be imple-
mented. Describe the kinds and magni-
tudes of adverse Impacts which cannot
be reduced in severity or which can be
reduced to an acceptable level but not
eliminated. These may Include water or
air pollution, undesirable land use pat-
terns, damage to ecological systems,
urban congestion, threats to health or
other consequences adverse to the en-
vironmental goals set out In section
10Kb) of the National Environmental
Policy Act. Remedial, protective, and
mltlgatlve measures which will be taken
as pan of the proposed action shall be
Identified. These measures to prevent.
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for any
environmentally detrimental aspect of
the proposed action shall Include those of
the Agency and others; e.g.. Its contrac-
tors and grantees.
(e) Relationship between local short
term uses at man's environment and the
maintenance ana enhancement ol long
term productivity. Describe the extent to
which the proposed action Involves
tradeoffs between short term environ-
mental gains at the expense of long term
losses or vice-versa and the extent to
which the proposed action forecloses
future options. Special attention shall
be given to effects which narrow the
range of beneficial uses of the environ-
ment or pose long term risks to health or
safety. Those who may reap windfall
gains or suffer significant decrease In
current property value from the pre-
pared project shall be identified. In ad-
dition, the reason the proposed action Is
believed by the Agency to be Justified
now, rather than reserving a long term
option for other alternatives. Including
no use, shall be explained.
(f) Irreversible and Irretrievable
comments of resources which would be
involved in the proposed action should It
be implemented. Describe the extent to
which the proposed action curtails the
diversity and range of beneficial uses of
the environment. Por example, a deci-
sion to dispose of the treated effluent
from a wastewater treatment system
rather than reclaim it will result In the
Irretrievable loss of that water, Including
nutrient constituents. Secondary Im-
pacts, such as induced growth In unde-
veloped areas, may make alternative
uses of that land impossible. Also, Ir-
reversible damage can result from en-
vironmental accidents associated with
the action. Any Irretrievable and signifi-
cant commitments of resources shall be
evaluated to assure that such current
consumption Is Justified.
(g) A discussion of problems and ob-
Sectton* raited by other Federal, State,
and local agencies and by interested per-
sons in this review process. Final state-
ments (and draft statements If ap-
propriate) shall summarize the com-
ments and suggestions made by review-
Ing organizations and shall describe the
disposition of Issues surfaced (e.g., revi-
sions to the proposed action to mitigate
anticipated Impacts or objections). In
particular, they shall address the major
Issues raised when the Agency position
is at variance with recommendations
and objections (e.g., reasons why specific
comments and suggestions could not be
adopted, and factors of overriding Im-
portance prohibiting the Incorporation
of suggestions). Reviewer's statements
should be set forth in a "comment" and
discussed hi a "response." In -addition.
the source of all comments should be
clearly identified and copies of the com-
ments (or summaries where a response
has been exceptionally voluminous)
should be attached to the final state-
ment.
Subpsrt D—Public ParMdpstlan
(6.400 General.
Public participation Is an Integral part
of the Agency planning process. It con-
sists of continuous, two-way communica-
tion keeping the public fully Informed
about the status and progress of studies
and findings, and actively soliciting com-
ments from all concerned and affected
groups and Individuals.
8 6.402 Publk hearings.
(a) Public hearings on draft Impact
statements shall be held when the re-
sponsible official determines that a pub-
lic hearing would facilitate the resolu-
tion of conflict or significant public
controversy.
(b) When public hearinn are to be
held, the Agency must notify the public
of the hearing In the draft statement or
Immediately after distribution of the
draft statement. If a notice Is Included In
the statement. It must follow the sum-
mary sheet at the beginning of the state-
ment. This public notification must In-
clude at least fifteen (IS) days prior to
the date of such hearing:
(1) Notification to the public by ade-
quate advertisement Identifying the proj-
ect, announcing the date, time, and place
of such hearing, and announcing the
availability of detailed Information on
KDUAl HlOISrii, VOL 3V, NO. 131—WIONtSOAY. JULY 17, l«74
-------
26260
the proposed project lor public Inspec-
tion at one or more locations In the area
In which the project will be located. "De-
tailed Information" ihall Include a copy
of the project application and the draft
envlrotvnental Impact statement.
(2) Notification to the appropriate
State and local agencies and to the ap-
propriate State and metropolitan clear-
inghouses.
(3) Notification to Interested persons.
(c) A written record of the hearing
shall be made. As a minimum, the record
shall contain a list of witnesses together
with the text of each presentation. Qen-
erally, a stenographer should be used. A
summary of the record. Including the Is-
sues raised, conflicts resolved and unre-
solved, and any other significant portions
of the record, shall be appended to the
final Impact statement.
(d) When a public hearing has been
held by another Federal, State, or local
agency on an Agency action, additional
hearings need not necessarily ensure. The
responsible official shall decide If addi-
tional hearings are required.
(e) When a program office Is the
originating office, the appropriate re-
gional office will provide assistance to
the originating office In holding any pub-
lic hearing If assistance Is requested.
< 4.404 Comment, on the dr.fl .nd
final Uuemenu.
(a) Draft Impact statements and neg-
ative declarations shall be madTaviu-
aole to the public to assure the fullest
practical provision of timely public In-
formation and understanding of Federal
plans and programs. In addition, public
hearings, notices of Intent, and press re-
leases will be employed by the Agency to
ensure adequate public Involvement.
(b> Final environmental Impact state-
ments shall be furnished to all Interested
persons who submitted written com-
ments on the draft Impact statement.
This Is to enable public organizations to
comment on the final statement to the
Agency or the Council on Envtron-
. mental Quality. If they so desire, within
the thirty (30) calendar day period prior
to Agency administrative action on the
proposal.
§ 6.406 Av.ll.bHil, of document..
(a) Draft and final environmental Im-
pact statements, negative declarations,
and environmental Impact appraisals
shall be made available for public review
at the following locations:
(1) The originating once.
(2) The Office of Public Affairs for
draft and final Impact statements only.
Ib) The Agency will endeavor to print
sufficient copies of draft and final en-
vironmental Impact statements to meet
anticipated demand. A nominal fee may
be charged for copies requested by the
public.
(c) Lists of Impact statements pre-
pared or under preparation and lists of
negative declarations prepared will be
available at both the regional and head-
quarten Offices of Public Affairs.
PROPOSED RULES
Subpart E—Guidelines for Compliance
With NEPA In the Title II Wastiwitar
Treatm«f]t Works Construction Grants
Program
(6.500 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general EPA
polices and procedures described In Sub-
part A through D by providing detailed
procedures for compliance with NEPA to
the wastewater treatment works con-
struction grant program. v
§ 6.502 Definitions.
(a) "Responsible official." The respon-
sible official for Agency actions covered
by this subpart Is the Regional Admin-
istrator.
"NEPA-assoclated documents."
Notices of Intent, negative declarations,
environmental appraisals, news releases.
Impact statements, and assessments.
"Section 101 plan." An areawlde
waste treatment management plan pre-
pared pursuant to section 308 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA). A sec-
tion 208 plan normally Includes most of
the material required In a facilities plan
(see paragraph (d) of this section) as
well as material on land use planning and
controls, control of non-point sources.
and a comprehensive regulatory process
adopted by the Jurisdictions In the plan-
ning area. Section 208 plans will gen-
erally be developed In metropolitan areas
with critical water quality conditions.
(d) ••Facilities plan." A preliminary
plan other than a section 108 plan, pre-
pared as the basis for construction of
publicly owned waste treatment works
pursuant to Title n of the FWPCA. The
purpose of a facilities plan is to determine
the cost effectiveness of alternative waste
treatment works, provide for a defined
planning area, and present the prelimi-
nary design for the selected treatment
works.
(e) "Step 1 grant." A grant for prep-
aration of a faculties plan.
(f > "Step 2 grant." A grant for prep-
aration of construction drawings and
specifications. An approved facilities
plan Is required before a step 2 grant can
be awarded.
(g) "Step 3 grant." A grant for fabri-
cation and building of a treatment works.
Both an approved facilities plan and con-
struction drawings and specifications are
required before a step 3 grant can be
awarded.
(h) "Step 2 and 3 grant." A combina-
tion of design (step 2) and construction
(step 3) grants. Requirements are the
same as those for step 3 and step 3
grants.
(1) "Step 2/3 grants." A combination
of design (step 2) and construction (step
3) grants, except that proposed perform-
ance specifications and other relevant
design/construct criteria for the project
must be submitted In lieu of construction
drawings and specifications. A single firm
would do both design and construction
for a step 2/3 grant.
E 6.504 Applicability.
(a) Administrative action* covered.
This subpart applies to the administra-
tive actions listed below:
(1) Approval of all I 208 plans;
(2) Approval of all facilities plans ex-
cept as provided la paragraph (a) (9). of
this section:
(3) Award of a step 2. S, 2 and 3, and
2/3 grant. If an approved facilities plan
was not required (during the transition
from the present planning requirements
to the new ones [see ! 6.512(f)]>: how-
ever, when a step 2 grant Is to be
awarded, the NEPA procedures must be
completed prior to the award of the step
2 grant except as provided In paragraph
(a) (5) of this section, and once the
NEPA procedures have been completed
at step 2 they need not be applied again
at step 3 except as specified In paragraph
(a) (4) of this section;
(4) Award of a step 2. 3. 2 and 3, and
2/3 grant when either the project or Its
Impact has changed significantly from
that specified In the approved facilities
clan, except as provided to paragraph
(a) (5) of this section;
(5) A facilities plan may be approved
and a step 2 grant awarded prior to com-
pletion of an Impact statement when the
Regional Administrator determines that
excessive costs would be Incurred If
award of a step 2 grant wen delayed
pending completion of the Impact state-
ment, provided the Regional Administra-
tor also determines that there Is no sub-
stantial risk that preparation of plans
and specifications under step 2 will fore-
close options that must be considered In
the Impact statement. The Regional Ad-
ministrator shall document each such
decision In writing.
(b) Administrative actions excluded.
The Agency actions Uslted below are not
subject to the requirements of this part.
(1> Approval of State priority lists;
(2) Award of a step 1 grant;
(3) Award of a section 208 planning
grant;
(4) Approval of engineering plans and
specifications;
(5) Issuance of an Invitation for bid:
(6) Actual physical commencement of
building or fabrication;
(7) Award of a section 206 grant for
reimbursement;
(8) Award of grant Increases pro-
vided, however. That I t.5u4(a) U> does
not apply;
(9> Program grant awards to State
and Interstate agencies:
(10) Training grants and contracts.
Retroactive application. (1) This
subpart shall be applied to ongoing
wastewater treatment works for which
grant awards were made prior to the
promulgation of these guidelines when
substantial funds have not been released
and modifications or alternatives to the
project are ettli available. The Regional
Administrator shall ensure that an envi-
ronmental Impact statement shall be
prepared for each such works found to
have a significant Impact la accordance
with S 6.510. The grantee must be
promptly notified in writing of the deci-
sion to prepare an Impact statement.
(2) On such works, either all or a por-
tion of the project work may be stopped
by the Regional Administrator pending
completion of the statement, if he deter-
mines that a work stoppage Is warranted,
to reduce the risk of Incurring substan-
tial additional costs for work which the
Impact statement may Indicate will have
to be abandoned or substantially
changed. The Regional Administrator
may request a written statement from
the grantee to assist him in making this
decision. The statement should Include:
A list of what work should and should
not continue: a discussion of potential
changes the Impact statement might rec-
ommend in the work discussed in the
above list; and the reasons why the work
In question should or should not con-
tinue. Upon a determination of partial
or complete work stoppage by the Re-
gional Administrator, the appropriate
grant action would be the Issuance of
a stop-work order to suspend work or a
bilateral agreement to suspend project
work, effected through a grant amend-
ment, or In some cases, the Issuance of
a termination notice.
(6.506 Completion of NEPA proof.
durea before commencement of ad-
ministrative actioiu*
No administrative action can be taken
until an Impact statement or negative
declaration with appraisal has been pre-
pared In accordance with 11.108.
9 6.S08 Reiponslbillliei.
(a) RelponstUe official. The responsi-
ble official for Agency actions covered by
this subpart Is the Regional Adminis-
trator. The responsibilities of the Region-
al Administrator In addition to those In
|6.110(a) areto:
(1) Assist the Office of Federal Activi-
ties in coordinating the training of per-
sonnel Involved in the review and prepa-
ration of NEPA-assoclated documents.
(2) Require of grant applicants and
those who have submitted plans for ap-
proval, the Information the regional
office requires to comply with these
guidelines.
(3) Consult with the Office of Federal
Activities concerning works or plans
which significantly affect more than one
regional office, an highly controversial,
are of national significant or "pioneer"
Agency policy when these works have
had or should have had an environmental
Impact statement prepared on them.
(b) Assistant Administrator. The re-
sponsibilities of the Office of the Assistant
Administrator, as described In 16.110(e),
shall be assumed by the Assistant Admin-
istrator for Water and Bazardous Mate-
rials for Agency actions covered by this
subpart.
(c) oa and Hazardous Vaterfali DM-
lion, Offlci a/ Water Procram Opera-
tion*. Coordinates all activities and
responsibilities of the Office of Water
Program Operations concerned with
preparation and review of environmental
Impact statements. This Includes provtd-
PROPOSED RULES
ing technical assistance to the Regional
Administrators on Impact statements and
assisting the Office of Federal Activities
In coordinating the training of person-
nel Involved In the review and prepara-
tion of NEPA-assoclated documents.
Public Affairs Division. Regional
omcet. The responsibilities of the re-
gions' Public Affairs Divisions in addi-
tion to those In I 6110(d> areto:
(1) Assist the Regional Administrator
in the preparation and dissemination of
NEPA-assoclated documents.
(2) Collaborate with the Headquarters
office of Public Affairs to analyse proce-
dures In the regions for public participa-
tion and to develop and recommend to
the Office of Federal Activities a pro-
gram to improve those procedures.
S 6.510 Criteria for preparation of en-
vironmental impact .lalemenu.
The Regional Administrator shall as-
sure that an Impact statement will be
prepared on a treatment works facilities
plan. 208 plan or other appropriate water
quality management plan when any of
the criteria In I«.200 apply or when:
(a) The treatment works or plan wilt
Induce or encourage significant changes
In Industrial, commercial, or residential
concentrations or distributions, the ef-
fects of which have not been adequately
reflected In a previous Impact statement
on either the facility, the section 208
plan, or other water quality management
plans encompassing the works. Factors
that must be considered In determining If
Induced changes are significant Include
but are not limited to: the land area
subject to Increased development as a
result of the treatment works; the In-
creases in absolute population which
may be Induced; the Increase In the rate
of change of population; changes In den-
sity; the potential for overloading sew-
age faculties: the extent to which land-
owners may benefit from the areas sub-
ject to Increased development: and the
nature of land use regulations In the af-
fected area and their potential effects
on the development.
(b) Any major part of the treatment
system will be located on wetlands or
parklands, or in some other way will
significantly affect wetlands or park-
lands.
(c) The proposed treatment plant
site, eOuent disposal site, or sludge dis-
posal site is located on or adjacent to a
habitat of species listed on the Depart-
ment of Interior's list of endangered
species.
(d) The works or plan will result In a
significant displacement of population.
(e) The works or plan will have sig-
nificant advene Impacts on sreai of rec-
ognized scenic, recreational, or srcheo-
loglcal value.
(f) The works will affect properties
listed In or eligible for listing In the Na-
tional Register of Historical Places, only
when a memorandum of agreement
showing removal of advene effect* can.
not be agreed to by the Agency, the Suste
Historic Preservation Officer, and th*
Executive Director of the Advisory Coun-
cil on Historic PreaervaUon.
26261
(g> The works or plan will signif-
icantly deface an existing residential
ana.
The works or plan may directly
or through Induced development have a
significant adverse effect upon local am-
bient air quality, local ambient noise
levels, surface or groundwater quality
fish, wildlife, their natural habitats, or
other natural elements.
(It The works or plan may signif-
icantly and adversely affect the quality
or quantity ol either surface or ground-
water in a basin.
<1> The treated effluent la being dis-
charged Into a body of water when the
present classification Is being challenged
as too low to protect present uses, and
the eOuent will not be of sufficient qual-
ity to meet the requirements of such
uses.
(k) The environmental Impact of the
works or plan Is highly controversial
based on environmental Issues raised by
a concerned party or parties.
(a) rnrh-onmenlal auesiment. An
adequate environmental assessment moat
be an Integral part of any facilities lir
section 108 plan submitted to the Aeenev
The analyses that constitute an ade-
quate environmental assessment «h.n
Include: •"*"
(1) -Description ol the environment
IO.WIOIK the project. ThU shall Inelud.
for the delineated planning areaa rt«-
scrtptlon of the present envlrotunenUl
conditions when they an nlevalittouJt
analysis of alternatives or determlna-
turns of the environmental Imnaeta nr
the proposed action. In addition. the
lutun environmental condlUoosTaaium-
ing no project, shall be de*cribed7-n£
description shall Include but not ba llS!
Ited to a discussion of water quaJS
water supply and needs, air qualitolaM
use trends, population projections. M?
r
13) Analysis ol auenuttvet. Thta ahan
Include a comparative analysis of «!!
tlons and a systematic developmental
wastewater treatment alteTnaUvea7Tfe.
reasons for rejecting an option alulrh!
presented In addition to any slgn-fleaSt
environmental benefit forcow br~ntll«.
tlon of the option. The pnUm-nS 2&
natives shall be screened with reapec?::
goal attainment, approximate monetan
costs, significant environmental estate.
and physical, legal or Institution*! con.
stralnte. The neeona f or rejeetm* a nnL
nmlnary alternative aha". bTnmaaZ
rlMd. The alternatives remaining u!L
screening shaa be compered on the hu.
of detailed capital and operating «.?
contributions to water quality loalT^J
tabHttr and flexibility, and env
Jinpe^ slYmt epeclal
KMIAl KOHTfl, VOL. 1», NO. Ill—WEDNfiDAY, JU.Y 17. 1*74
HOIIAl KOISTII. VOL It, NO. lit—WUNUDAV, JULY 17, 1*74
-------
26282
and Induced Impact) such as develop-
ment. Tlie options that shall be consid-
ered In the development of alternatives
ahall Include:
(1) Flow and waste reduction meas-
ures, Including Infiltration/Inflow reduc-
tion, land use and development regula-
tions, and Industrial reuse and recycling;
(U) Severs Including alternative loca-
tion!, sizes, and construction phasing;
(111) Treatment and discharge, Includ-
ing wastewater reuse (Industrial, ground-
water recharge, or surface, water supply
enhancement), land application (Irriga-
tion, overland flow, or percolation), and
treatment processes compatible with
such discharge techniques:
(iv) Disposal of sludge and other resid-
ual waste. Including process options
and final disposal options such as land
application, Incineration, and landfill
disposal:
(v) 81 ting of (acuities:
In an
attempt to come to an agreement. If this
consultation is unsuccessful, the Re-
gional Administrator shall prepare an
Impact statement as required by
|6.510(g).
(3) Wetlands. If the facilities or sec-
tion 208 plan may affect wetlands, the
Regional Administrator shall follow the
procedures described In I 6.214(b>.
(4) riih taut wUdlt/e. If the faculties
or section 208 plan may result In the con-
trol or modification of any stream or
other body of water, the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall follow the procedures
described In 18.114(c).
(9) Scope of reOea. It Is the Regional
Administrator's responsibility to deter-
mine the proper scope of the environ-
mental review. If a number of nlatei
faculties plans are submitted to the
Agency In conjunction with applications
for grants, the Regional Administrator
may delay approval of these plans and
award of a grant until the plans can be
renewed together to allow the Agency
to properly evaluate their cumulative
Impact.
Id) Notice of intent and Impact slafe-
mtnr^-U) General. If the environ-
mental review of the facilities or section
208 plan Indicates a significant Impact
on the environment, and that Impact
cannot be eliminated by making appro-
priate changes in the project, the Re-
gional Administrator shall Issue a notice
of Intent and prepare an Impact state-
ment on the plan In accordance with the
procedures In Subpart B of this part.
12) Score ol Impact statement. It Is
the Regional Administrator's responsi-
bility to determine the most appropriate
scope of the Impact statement. He should
determine If the statement should be
prepared on a faculties plan(s) or sec-
tion 208 plan. Once an Impact statement
has been prepared for a given area, an-
other need not be prepared unless the
significant Impacts of Individual facili-
ties were not adequately treated m the
statement.
le) Ntoativt declaration. If the Re-
gional Administrator, after completion
of the environmental review of the facili-
ties or section 208 plan, determines that
the plan will not have any of the sig-
nificant Impacts listed m I «ilO, or de-
termines that the project has been
changed to eliminate the significant Im-
pacts, a negative declaration shall be
prepared In accordance with the proce-
dures In Subpart B of this part Once a
negative declaration and appraisal have
been prepared for the facilities plan for
a certain area, grant awards may pro-
ceed without preparation of additional
negative declarations, provided the proj-
ect has not ^ti««y^ significantly from
that specified In the facilities plan.
Interim procedure!.—(I) General.
DntU facilities plans are required, an
environmental assessment meeting the
requirements of I IJ12(a> shall be sub-
mitted with the application for each
step 2, 3. 2 and 3, and 2/3 grant. How-
ever, when a step 2 grant application
is received the NEPA procedures must
always be completed before awarding the
step 2 grant except as provided In
I 6.SD4(a> (5). In such cases, an assess-
ment Is not required with the step 3
grant application and the NEPA decision
need not be made again. The assesment
should be reviewed In accordance with
I «.515(c) to determine If It Is adequate
and whether an Impact statement should
be prepared. If the assessment Is not
adequate, the deficiencies shall be Identi-
fied in writing by the Regional Admin-
istrator and must be corrected by the
grant applicant before the Regional Ad-
ministrator can act on his application.
The Regional Administrator is respon-
sible for determining the proper scope
of the review to ensure that the cumula-
tive Impact of Individual works Is prop-
erly evaluated. If any water quality
management plans are available for the
ana, they should be considered In de-
termining the proper scope of the review.
If an Impact statement Is to be pre-
pared, a notice of Intent will be prepared
as described to 1«.51J(d>. If appropriate,
the Regional Administrator may prepare
an Impact statement on a number of
related granu or an available water
quality management plan. If no Impact
statement need be prepared, a negative
declaration should be prepared in ac-
cordance with |«.»12(e>. Commence-
ment of administration action must be
In accordance with I tfM.
(2) Pubac HearltQ.—(1) General, un-
tn facilities plans and their associated
public hearings are required, the appli-
cant must submit a record of a public
hearing with his grant application, unless
the requirement for such a hearing u
waived by the Regional Administrator.
The record must be received before the
Regional Administrator can act on the
application. The record shall contain as
a T^inim^iTH a list of witnesses toffetner
with the text of each presentation and
a statement that the participants at the
hearing were informed that one of the
purposes of the hearing Is to discuss the
environmental effects of the proposed
treatment works and alternatives to It
as required by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
(U) male notice, (a) The potential
grantee must provide adequate notice to
the public of the hearing. Adequate no-
tice shall generally be considered to in-
clude, at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date of such hearing:
(2) Notice given to the public by ade-
quate advertisement identifying the
works, announcing the date. time, and
place of such hearing, and announcing
the availability of detailed Information
on the proposed works for public Inspec-
tion at one or more locations In the area
lu which the works will be located. De-
called Information shall generally In-
clude, as a minimum, a complete de-
scription of the works, cost and financ-
ing information, alternatives to the pro- •
posed works, a. detailed description of
the effects of the works on land use, and
a statement that one of the purposes
of the hearing Is to discuss the potential
environmental Impacts of the worts and
alternatives to It.
(2) Notification to the appropriate
State and local agencies, to the appro-
priate State and metropolitan clearing-
houses, and the appropriate regional
office of EPA.
(3) Notification to Interested environ-
mental and conservation action groups.
«) The Regional Administrator may
permit a shorter notice period if he
determines the notification Is adequate.
(b) The potential grantee sliall sub-
mit With the record of the public hear-
ing: (1) A copy of any advertisement
published, broadcast, or otherwise Issued
pursuant to this section; (2) a list of
those notified: and (3) a certification
that the hearing was held In accordance
with the notification requirements of this
section.
(ill) Waiver of hearing on grant ap-
plications. A request to waive the hearing
on a grant application for a wastewater
treatment works must be submitted m
writing prior to submission of the grant
application. Such requests win be acted
upon promptly by the Regional Admlnls-
PKOPOSED UHES
trator. Requests must Include a descrip-
tion of the works, the estimated cost of
Ibe works, the ana that win be serviced.
and toe reasons the grantee feels a pub-
lic hearing would not serve the public
Interest. Waivers will, in general, only be
granted for minor works such as small
•^Hifi*m«_ minor »*wirtifl^^i*>p« to exist-
ing works, or eases where a previous
hearing was sufficiently comprehensive
to cover the environmental Issues In
detail
(3) Additional procedure!. During the
interim period, the Regional Administra-
tor shall also apply the procedures de-
tailed In I «.214.
i 6.514 Contenl and format of entiron.
nenta] impact itelemeBtt.
Environmental impact statements for
treatment works or plans Shan be pre-
pared in accordance with I 6.304.
Subpart F—Guidelines for Compliance
With NEPA In Ftssaaieh and Develop-
meflt ftuijiams and Activities
S 6.600 Purpose.
This subpart amplifies the general
Agency policies and procedures described
In Subparts A through D by providing
detailed procedures for the preparation
of impact statements on programs and
projects of the office of Research and
Development (ORD).
16.601 Definitions.
(a) "Prooram." A significant, mission
oriented Agency endeavor which fulfills
executive or statutory requirements and
which Includes the principal actions to
achieve a desired objective.
"Protect or tut.' A planned unit
of effort fulfilling a portion of a Research
Objective Achievement Plan (see I 6.602
(d)). having a denned output and deliv-
ery date: consisting of a single Intra-
mural, extramural or demonstration
project. This term will be used collec-
tively for the three project types below.
(1) "Intramural (tn-house) project."
A project or task undertaken by EPA
personnel.
(2) "Extramural project." A project
undertaken wltn a grant, contract, or
Interagency agreement.
(3) "Demonstration project." A proj-
ect which shows the applicability of a
piece of developed technology. It Is a
project which is carried out at or near
full-scale and has a high probability of
success. A demonstration project Is usu-
ally an extramural project.
. (c) "Proorom Area Plan" (PAP). An
ORD planning document which details
objectives, outputs, scheduling, and re-
sources necessary to the achievement of
objectives within a major area of ORD
responsibility.
(d) "Research Objective Achievement
Plan" (ROAP). A planning document de-
fining all tasks (projects) and resources
required to attain an objective as defined
In a PAP.
(e) -Appropriate program official."
The official within the ORD to whom the
responsible official delegates most of the
work related to compliance with NEPA.
26263
(f) "Decision official." The Individual
raapnnalhle for determining if a proposal
for conducting a specific project fJU be
funded. The assignment of this role will
vary according to ccet and •object
-NIPA-taiociatet dacumenti-
Notice of intent, negative declarations,
environmental appraisals, new* releases.
Impact statements, and assesamenta,
16.604 AppUutulhy.
(a) Atminitrative action covered.
This subpart applies to the admuustra-
tlve actions listed below:
(1) Approval of PAP'S, except for those
PAP'S excluded In paragraph (3) of this
section;
(b) Administrative actions excluded.
The Agency actions listed below an not
subject to the requirements of this port.
However, none of these actions are ex-
cluded from the procedures on historic
sites, wetlands, or fish and wildlife de-
tailed In I e J14.
(1) Approval of PAP'S developed pur-
suant to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA) Amendments of
1972;
(2) Approval of ROAP's developed
pursuant to the FWPCA Amendments of
1972:
(3) Award of a contract or grant on
tasks undertaken pursuant • to the
FWPCA Amendments of 1972.
These exclusions are consistent with
section 511(0 (1) of the FWPCA Amend-
ments of 1972.
16.606 Retponsibilties.
(a) Responsible official The respon-
sible official for Agency actions covered
by this subpart b the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Research and Development*
The Assistant Administrator will dele-
gate most of the work to the appropriate
program official. The responsibilities of
the responsible official, in addition to
thoseinl6.110(a>,are:
(1) Ensures that environmental as-
sessments are submitted and the appro-
priate program officials conduct environ-
mental reviews, prepare Impact state-
ments and other NEPA-assoclated
documents, and take such subsequent
actions as are delegated to them by the
responsible official.
(2) When projects significantly affect
more than one regional office, are highly
controversial, are of national signifi-
cance, or "pioneer" Agency policy, the
appropriate program official shall co-
ordinate the project with the Office of
Program Integration, Assistant Admin-
istrator for Research and Development.
(b) 4»istant Administrator. The re-
sponsibilities of the Office of the Assist-
ant Administrator as described In 16.110
(e) shall be assumed by the Assistant
FIDMM HOISTH. VOL I*. NO. lit—WIDNI10AV. JUT 17, H74
FEDEIAl HOISTH, VOL 39, NO. 131—WEDNISDAV, JUIV 17, It74
6
-------
26264
Administrator for Research and Develop-
ment (or Agency actions covered by this
subpart.
O»Ice of Program Intetntton.
Altittant Administrator tor Jteseanft
awl Development. Advlset the Assistant
Administrator for Research and De-
velopment, concerning projects which
significantly aflect more than one
regional office, are highly controversial.
are of national significance, or "pioneer"
Agency policy, when these projects have
had or should have had an environment-
al Impact statement prepared on them.
(d> Regional Administrator*. The re-
sponsibilities of the Regional Adminis-
trator with regard to projects of the
Office of Research and Development
which affect his region will be to:
(1) Provide technical and administra-
tive assistance In environmental reviews
and In the preparation of Impact state-
ments.
(2) Advbe the appropriate program
officials and the Office of Program Inte-
gration of any projects which will signifi-
cantly affect more than one regional
office, are highly controversial, are of na-
tional significance, or "pioneer" Agency
policy, when these projects have had or
should have had an environmental Im-
pact statement prepared on them.
t 6.608 Criicris for the prepinlion of
•ul Input
(a) An Impact statement shall be pre-
pared and processed by the Office of Re-
search and Development when:
(1) The action will have significant
adverse Impact* on public parks, wet-
lands, wildlife habitats, or areas of rec-
ognized scenic or recreational value.
(2) The action will have significant
adverse impact* on areas of recognized
archeolqgical value.
<3> The action will adversely affect
properties listed in or eligible for listing
In the National Register of Historical
Places, only when a memorandum of
agreement showing removal of such ef-
fect* cannot be agreed to by the Agency,
the State Historic Preservation Officer.
and the Executive Director of the Advi-
sory Council on Historic Preservation.
14) The action will significantly de-
face an existing residential area.
(5) The action may directly or through
Induced development have a significant
adverse effect upon local ambient air
quality, local ambient noise levels, sur-
face or groundwater quality, fish, wild-
life, their natural habitats, or other nat-
ural elements.
(6) When the treated effluent Is being
discharged Into a body of water where
the present classification Is being chal-
lenged as too low to protect present uses,
and the effluent will not be of sufficient
quality to meet the requirements of such
uses.
- (7> The project consists of field tests
.involving the introduction of agricul-
tural chemicals, animal wastes, pesti-
cides, radioactive materials, or other haz-
ardous Bubstancea Into the environment
by the Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Its grantee, or Its contractor.
PROPOSED RULES
(B) There la a high probability of an
action ultimately being Implemented on
a large scale and the broad scale applica-
tion may result In significant impact* on
the Immediate area in which it will be
located.
(B) The commitment to a new tech-
nology is relatively significant and may
restrict future viable alternatives.
(10) The environmental impact of a
project Is highly controversial based on
environmental issues raised by a con-
cerned party or parties.
tb) An impact statement will normal-
ly not be necessary when:
(1) The project is conducted com-
pletely within a laboratory or other fa-
cility, and external environmental effects
have been minimized by providing effec-
tive: methods for disposal of laboratory
wastes and effective safeguards to pre-
vent accidental Introductions of hazard-
ous materials into the environment; or
<2> The project is a relatively small
experiment or Investigation that is part
of the private sector, and the project
makes no significant new or additional
contribution U> the existing pollution.
§ 6.610 Procedure* for compliant:*? with
NEPA.
EI8 related activities shall be Inte-
grated into ORD's formal reeearch plan-
ning system. The planning system en-
sures management control of all research
and development actions assigned to the
ORD. ID this planning system, all incre-
ment* of work are Interrelated by means
of a hierarchical system of planning doc-
umentation (tasks, ROAP's, and PAP's).
The PAP is the highest level plan whose
output synthesizes a subordinate set of
ROAP's. A ROAP includes and amalga-
mates a group of tasks and represents
a multiple-year effort. The task or proj-
ect Is a manageable unit of research
activity directly supervised by a single
project Individual. The ROAP's and
PAP's are available to all management
levels and can only be modified by formal
change procedures. These plans are re-
viewed by ORD management on an an-
nual basis as a minimum. At this time
all subordinate plans are reevaluated,
new RAD initiatives considered and
priorities and resources recommended to
the Agency.
(a> Environmental assessment, (l)
Environmental assessments shall be sub-
mitted to the Agency on certain extra-
mural projects (tasks). Including all
grant applications and proposals for sole-
source contracts. In the case of com-
petitive proposals, assessments need not
be submitted by potential contractors be-
cause the NEPA procedures will be com-
pleted before a request for proposal
(RPP) Is issued. If there Is a question
concerning the need for an assessment,
the potential contractor or grantee
should consult with the appropriate offi-
cial responsible for the grant or con-
tract.
(2) The assessment shall contain the
same sections specified for impact state-
ment! In I 0.304. Copies of 16.304 (or
more detailed guidance when available)
and a notice alerting potential grantees
and contractors of the assessment re-
quirement* shall be Included in all grant
application kits, attached to letters con-
cerning the submission of unsolicited
proposals, and Included with all requests
for sole-source proposals.
(b) Environmental review—(1) PAP1*.
An environmental review shall be con-
ducted for all PAP's that are not listed
in 9 6.6041 b), prior to their Incorporation
into the ORD annual program plan. This
review will consist of an evaluation of the
potential environmental effects of the
efforts proposed within the PAP's, The
criteria in 9 6.608 shall be used to deter-
mine if these effects may be significant.
(i) The environmental reviews for
continuing programs will be reevaluated
annually to coincide with the ORD plan-
ning cycle and at any other time when
a major change in objectives Is officially
incorporated.
(li) Current PAP's, less budgetary
data, will be filed with the Office of Pub-
lic Affairs (OPA). Negative declarations.
associated appraisals and certificates
stating the action is exempt from NEPA
will also be filed with OPA.
(2) ROAP's. As part of the environ-
mental review of PAP's. all ROAP's Iden-
tified in the PAP's will be briefly reviewed
by the appropriate program official for
future potential adverse Impacts. The
criteria of I 6.608 shall be used In con-
ducting this review. A formal environ-
mental review will be conducted for those
ROAP's that are deemed to have signif-
icant adverse Impacts. The remainder of
the ROAP's will be covered by a simple
blanket negative declaration.
(i) The environmental reviews for con-
tinuing ROAP's will be reevaluated an-
nually to coincide with the ORD plan-
ning cycle and at any other time when
a major change in mission objectives is
officially Incorporated.
til) Current ROAP's less budgetary
data, will be filed with OPA. Negative
declarations and associated appraisals
will also be filed with OPA.
i3) Projects. As part of the environ-
mental review of ROAP's, all projects
identified In the ROAP's will be briefly
reviewed by the appropriate program
official for future potential adverse im-
pact. The criteria in I 6.608 shall be used
in conducting this review. If an indi-
vidual project may have a significant
adverse Impact when It Is actually Imple-
mented, it will be identified in the docu-
mentation associated with the ROAP and
will be filed with the OPA. Lists of such
research projects will be available at the
OPA. The remainder of the projects,
which will not have any adverse Impact
when implemented, will be covered by a
single blanket negative declaration.
(I) The projects (tasks) Identified in
a ROAP will be reevaluated annually to
coincide with ORD's planning cycle and
at any other time that a major redirec-
tion of the parent ROAP 'or PAP IB
undertaken. All associated documenta-
tion will be updated aa appropriate.
(ii> As those projects Identified aa
having potentially significant Impact*
near Implementation, detailed environ-
mental nwtews alull be peifurnMd «n
eadb. Tb* review afaall b* procramnMd
Just prior to the planned mltlatiee df
th» project, leaving sufficient lead time
to ensure the review will affect tb*
project.
(Ill) A project level environmental re-
vlew shall also be conducted tor any
projects which could net be predicted
and scheduled within a ROAP, and whose
environmental assessment indicates
there may be adverse Impacts.
(c> Notion of intent and environ-
mental impact statement. (!) It any
of the actions discussed In para-
graph , (2),orl3> of this section
wiR bare m significant effect on the envi-
ronment, the appropriate program offl-
clal will prepare a notice to the appro-
priate dffJg*"^ official for a determina-
tion on whether the project will be
funded. If the action Is to be approved
and funded, the appropriate program
official win commence preparation of
the draft impact statement. The appro-
priate program official, through his Na-
tional Environmental Research Center
Director or Headquarters Division Direc-
tor, shaH request the Regional Admin-
istrator to assist him in the preparation
and distribution of the statement as
specified In Subpart B of this part.
(2) Before release to the Council on
Environmental Quality, all draft snd
final Impact statements must be for-
warded through the appropriate Na-
tional Environmental Research Center
Director or Headquarters Division Direc-
tor to the Office of Program Manage-
ment, Aflgigtant Administrator for Re-
search and Development, for approval.
Negative declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. If the environ-
mental review Indicates that an action
discussed In paragrapahs (b) U>, (2), or
(8) at this section will not have any sig-
nificant environmental Impacts, the ap-
propriate program official shall prepare
a negative declaration And environmen-
tal Impact appraisal and forward ihera
to thg appropriate rt»vj«inn i\ffliMnJ if
the project Is to be funded, the appro-
priate program official win distribute tha
negative declaration where practical as
described In I « 212. In addition to making
copies of the negative tfrr'pnrt*"!? and
appraisal available In the OPA.
(a) Protect commencement. A« re-
quired by 18.108, ft contract or gzant win
not be awarded for an extramural proj-
ect, nor an intramural project begun,
until flfteen (16) days after a negative
declaration has been issuad or the thirty
(30) day waiting period after forwarding
the final Impact statemtnt to the Council
on Saovlraoniental Quality ha* expired.
tf) Thrft environmental Impart state-
ment process for the Office of Research
and. Development Is shown graphically in
Exhibit B.
Subpart O—OukMtMS for Conutfancs)
16.700
This nfbpart amnim*s the general
Agency policies and procedures described
reorosED HUES
m «abparti A through D by providing
ailillllmal tauouiuies (or compliance
Office rt fioUd Waste Management Pro-
grams.
86.702 Definition*.
"Project officer." The Individual
reapensttfle lor the technical direction
and evaluation of a grantee's or contrac-
tor's perfonnamv.
"ffEPA-amsociated documents."
Notice* of Intent, negative declarations,
environmental appraisals, news releases.
Impact stfttementa, and assessments.
! 6.704 Applied.!!!!;.
This subpart applies to those actions
specified In I 6.106(a) (5) and (6) that
are undertaken by the Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs. The spe-
cific procedures to be followed for various
project types matt forth to I «. 710.
16.706 RaponsOuUlle*.
(a) Rtrparulble offlelal. The responsi-
ble official for Ajency actions covered by
tbU subpart te the Deputy Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Solid Waste Management
Programs. The nsponslbUltles of this re-
sponsible official. In addition to those In
I e.HO(a) are:
(1) Insure that environmental aaaess-
ments are submitted by appropriate
grant and contract applicants, and that
project offlcen conduct environmental
reviews on all projects and lake such
subsequent «**Vwis aa are delegated to
them by UM "responsible official."
Assist the Office of Federal Ac-
tivities In coordinating the training of
personnel Involved In the review and
preparation of all NEPA-associated
documents.
<» Advise the Assistant Administra-
tor for Air and Waste Management con-
eernlng projeota which significantly af-
fect more than ona regional office, are
hlchly controveralal. are --"•—•"]• sig-
nificant, or "pioneer" Agency policy.
(b) Assistant AiminittTdtor. The re-
sponsibilities of the Office of the Assist-
ant Administrator as described In 14.110
(«> shall be assumed by the Assistant
Administrator far Air and Waste Man-
agement for Agency actions covered by
this subpart.
(c) Regional Administrator. The re-
jponsibllltleB of the RitglimM Adminis-
trator with ragaid to projects of the Of-
fice of Solid Waste M^^~~nt Pro-
grams which attecthli region will be to:
<1> Assist the leaponslble official In
the project review by commenting on the
project, the project application and the
applloanfi environmental assessment
Among other **»fc*g« the ' comments
shouU Identify those projects which wfll
significantly affect more than one re-
gloiud office, an highly controvenlal, na-
tionally significant, or "pioneer- Agency
Volley.
(2) Assist the responsible offlclal m
the preparation and distribution of
NEPA-assoclated documents.
1 6.708 CrllerU for tke prepuulon «f
cnrironmenul asscsunenu snd Im-
pact •talentenU.
(a) Anesiment preparation criteria.
Environmental assessment need not be
submitted with all grant applications and
contract proposals, studies and Investi-
gations do not require assessments The
tallowing sections describe for other ac-
tions when an assessment Is or Is not re-
quired:
(1) Oraati.— ll) Demonstration proj-
ects. Environmental assessments must be
submitted with all application! for dem-
onstration grants that will Involve con-
struction, land use (temporary or per-
manent), transport, sea disposal, any
discharges Into the air or water, or too
other actlvltr having any direct or In-
direct effects on the environment ex-
ternal to the facility Li which the work
will be conducted Preappllcatlon pro-
posals for cuch grants will not require
environmental assessments.
Ill) TVainiw. Orant applications for
training of personnel will not require as-
sessments.
(Ill) Plans. Grant applications for the
development of comprehensive State. In-
terstate, or local solid waste management
plans will not require environmental aj
sesscnents. A detailed analysis of environ-
mental problems and effects should he
part of the planning process, however.
(2) Contracts.— (1) sae-mmt con-
tract proposals. Before a sole-source con-
tract can be awarded; an environmental
assessment must be nihmiued with a hid
proposal for a contract which will In-
volve construction, land use (temponn
or permanent), u» disposal, any dis-
charges Into the air or water, or am>
other actlvltr that will directly or In-
directly affect the environment external
to theiacUltr In which the work will be
performed.
(11) Competitive contract proposal*
Assessments will not generaUr here-
quired on competlUve contract proposals.
(b) Impact statement preparation
review shall
statement
criteria. An environment
be performed on those projects of the
Office of Solid Waste Management Pro!
grams on which an assessment la n*
qtdred or which may nan effects on the
environmental external to the f adllty m
which the work win be performed. The
criteria In I (.100 shall be lltnisaq m
determining whether an Impact state-
ment need be prepared.
rlErA*
(a) Cnrtronmental anesrawnt. (I)
Environmental aaMaaBsenta shall bsi — n>
nutted to the Agency as specified In
I «.70«. If there Is a question ooneemta.
the need for an assessment, the potential
contractor or grantee should consult
with the appropriate project omoertar
the grant or contract
fEDHAt KOISTEft, VOL 39, NO. 131—WEDNESDAY. JULY IT, If74
nontn, VOL i», NO. 111—wnNooAT, JUT 17. 1*74
-------
2«26«
(2) The assessment aboil contain the
same sections specified for Impact state-
ments In 11.304. Copies of 11.304 (or
mote detailed guidance when available)
and a notice alerting potential grantees
and contractor! of the assessment re-
quirement! In 18.708 dull be Included
In all grant application kite, attached to
letters concerning me submission of un-
solicited proposals, and Included with all
requests for proposal! (RFP's),
(b) Environmental rniao. An envi-
ronmental review win be conducted on
all project! which require aueumenta or
which will affect ttie environment ex-
ternal to the facility in which the work
wul be performed. Into review must be
conducted before a (rant or contract
award Is made on extramural projects or
before project commencement on Intra-
mural projects. The guidelines In 18.200
wffl be united In determining If the proj-
ect win have any rigntflcant environ-
mental effects. This review win Include
an evaluation of the assessment by both
U» responsible official and the appro-
priate Regional Administrator. The Re-
gional Administrator's comments win In-
clude hli recommendation] on the need
for an environmental impact statement.
No detailed review or documentation to
rewired on projects for which assess-
ments are not required and which will
not affect the environment external to a
fatuity.
(c) Notice of Intent and environ-
mental tnpaet statement. If any of the
criteria In 11.200 apply, the responsible
oOdal will assure that a notice of Intent
and a draft Impact statement an pre-
pared. The responsible official shall re-
quest the appropriate Regional Adminis-
trator to assist him In the distribution of
the NEPA-associated document! as may
be required. Distribution will be as spec-
ified In Subpart B.
(d) ffeffatlee declaration and environ-
mental impact appraisal. If the environ-
mental review Indicated that there wffl
not be any significant environmental
Impacts, the responsible official wul as-
sure that a negative declaration and en-
vironmental appraisal are prepared.
These documents need not be prepared
for projects not requiring an environ-
mental review.
(«> Protect commencement. As re-
quired by I «.108, a contract or (rant
shall not be awarded on an extramural
project, nor an Intramural project be-
gun, until fifteen (15) days after release
of a negative declaration (If one to re-
quired), or until thirty (30) days after
forwarding the final Impact statement
to the Council on Environmental Quality
hat expired.
(f) The environmental Impact state-
ment process for ttie Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs Is shown
graphically In Exhibit ».
rt H—Oc'dellnes for Compliance
NEPA hi Construction of Specie!
Purpose Paellas* sod Facility Renova-
tions
§6.800 Purpose.
This lubpart amplifies the general
Agency policies and procedures described
PROPOSED RULES
In Subparts A through D by providing
detailed procedures for the preparation
of Impact statements on construction sad
renovation of special purpose faculties,
16.802 Definitions.
(a) "Apeelal purpose/acUity." A build-
ing or space, fawiiirf^j jggd «mHISTH, VOL J», NO. HI—WIDNHDAV, JWV 17, 1V74
will be significant environ mental Im-
pacts, a notice of intent and an environ-
mental impact statement shall be pre-
pared in accordance with the procedures
outlined In I CJOf. If there win not be
any significant environmental Impacts,
PROPOSED RULES
a negative declaration and environmen-
tal Impact appraisal shan be prepared in
accordance with the procedures out-
lined m I 6.212.
(o> Protect commeneemenc. As rs-
qulred by I 8.108, a contract shan not be
26267
awarded or construction-related activi-
ties begun until fifteen (15) days after
release of a negative declaration, or un-
til thirty (30) days after forwarding the
fintij impact statement to the Council on
Environmental Quality.
• «_ (*•*.» tfw revtar putt
KMRAl ftfOISTIR, VOL 1*, NO. Ml—WIDNISOAY, JULY 17, 1974
8
-------
26268
1 Applicant submit* environmental a§-
ftMcment and other available data,
3. Agency performs environmental renew
at the earliest possible point In the devel-
opment of the proposed action, decides If an
BIS is required, prepane ea IBS If the proj-
ect will have a significant impact or If the
project's Impact is likely to be highly con-
troversial.
3. Where required, prepare environmental
impact appraisal.
4 Prepare and circulate negative declara-
tion to Federal, State, and local agencies,
and where practicable to interested persons,
local newspapers, and other media. This may
be supplemented by making It available
through local libraries or post offices.
6. File Impact appraisal, negative declara-
tion, and other supportive doeumenta in-
house. (Available lor public Inspection.)
0, Receive and evaluate comment*,
7. Change decision, if necessary.
8. Administrative action.
9. Prepare nottoe of Intent.
10. Circulate notices of Intent.
a. Regional staff.
b. Office of Federal Activities,
e. Appropriate headquarters program office
EXS Coordinator.
d. Office of Public Affairs,
e, Office of Legislation.
f. Federal agencies.
g. State and tocal agencies, appropriate
State, regional and metropolitan clearing-
bouses.
h. Interested persons.
1. Newspapers and other nudla as appro-
priate.
11. Prepare preliminary draft environmen-
tal impact statement and aummary sheet.
a. Description of the proposed action.
b. Environmental Impact of the proposed
action.
c. Advene effects which cannot be avoided
should the proposal be Implemented.
A. AlternatlTM to tit* propoe»d action.
e. Relationship between local short-term
uses of man's environment and the mainte-
nance and enhancement of long-term pro-
ductivity.
f. Irreversible and IrretrteTable commit-
ment* of resources which would be Involved
ID the proposed action should It be Imple-
mented.
g. A discussion of problems and objections
raised by other Federal. State, and local
agencies, and by private organizations and
Individual* to date.
13. Coordinate internally for review and
comment with appropriate regional and
headquarters (optional) elements.
13. Evaluate comment* and revise prelimi-
nary draft accordingly.
14. Notify OFA and appropriate headquar-
ters program office EXS coordinator of Intent
to release draft.
IB. Submit draft for review.
a.OFA (3 copies).
b. Appropriate headquarters program office
EIS coordinator (3 copies).
16. Consider comments and revise draft
accordingly.
17. Prepare transmittal Utter with re-
sponsible official's signature.
18. Submit news release to local newspapers
and other media (one copy).
tt. Distribute draft and transmitted letter
externally for review and comments.
a. Council on Environmental Quality (6
copies).
' b. Notify Office of Legislation of release
(copies a* needed).
c. Notify Office of Public Affairs of release
(two copies).
d. Offices of appropriate Federal agencies
(two eoples unless more are requested).
e. Appropriate State and toeal ajsnrtaa;
appropriate State and metropolitan ctoartDg*
bouses (two copies),
PROPOSED BULK
f. Interested persons (one copy).
g. Forward summary *•* to OUB-OasBO
(two copies).
•a. Regional aton*.
bb. Public Affairs Division tt prepared to,
region (eoples as needed),
cc. OFA (twocopies).
dd. Appropriate headquarters program of-
fice EIS coordinator (two copies).
20. Determine need for public hearing?.
31. Circulate public notice.
33. Conduct public hearing.
23. .Review and evaluate suggestions,
criticisms and comment* received and re-
examine the proposed course of. action, and
alternatives. Include evaluation of comments
generated at public hearings (If held),
34. Prepare final environmental Impact
statement.
36. Submit news release to local newspapers
and other media (one copy).
36. Distribute final to interests submitting
comments on draft (one copy).
a. Council on environmental Quality (9
copies).
b. Notify Office of Legislation of release
(copies as needed).
e. Notify Office of Public Affairs of reUaae
(two copies).
d. Forward summary to OUB-OMBO (two
copies).
a*. Regional staff.
bb. Public Affairs Division U prepare* ID
region (copies as needed),
cc. OFA (twoeoples).
dd. Appropriate headquarters program of-
fice KB coordinator (two copies).
37. Administrative action.
EXHIBIT 4
ft. Estimated project costs:
JMaral Share, (total)
Contract •_„, Grant«.__
Aps>ttoant share (tf any):
(Name)
("original date, if"project *
covers more than on* year)
Dates of different project phases Jir......
Approximate ending date .
4. Estimated application filing date _
1
STOnCKTOT
B ruBuo noM tarn nmaoM-
ThU announcement Is to Inform the pub-
He that the Environmental Protection
Agency (originating office, address) (will pre-
pare, will not prepare, has prepared) a (draft,
teal) environmental Impact statement on
tte following project:
(Official Project Nam*)
(Project iicVtlon^ city. Oountj'eUU)
(Where statement can be obtained If one Is
prepared)
This notice la to implement the Agency's
policy to Inform the publio to the ma»1m»m
possible extent of environment*! actions tt Is
taking,
EXHIBIT 4
JVBGATIVV DXCLABATXON •
DFOUUT
(Appropriate office)
(Address, City, State,
Zip Code)
To All Interested Government Agencies and
Public Groups,
Gentlemen: In accordance with Uu guide-
lines for the preparation of environmental
impact statements, attached is a notice of
Intent to prepare) such a statement for the
proposed Agency action specified below;
(Date)
L PBOnCTtOH AOKirCT,
To All Interested Government Agencies and
Public Groups,
Gentlemen: In accord with the procedures
for the preparation of environmental impact
statements, an environmental review has
been performs* m the proposed Agency ac-
tton below:
(Official Project Name)
(Official Project Name)
{Purpose ofProJect)
"""(Project Originator)
If your organization need* additional In-
formation or wishes to partMpase In the
preparation of the draft environmental Im-
pact statement, please advlsa the (appropri-
ate office, city. State) . .
Very truly yours,
(Appropriate EPA Office)
(List Federal, State, and local agencies to be
solicited for comment)
(Uat public action groups to be solicited for
comment.)
NOTKM or Iwrnra—STFOOWWD POUUT
(General Project Location,
City. Oountr. State)
(BpeouVprojeot
Location—provide either
a map or description)
Vpotentiial Agency Finan-
cial Stare)
I. project location:
Ctty
After making « environmental review of
the project, thla Agency ha. decided not to
prepare an eawMsmental impact statement.
An envtronmetrtal unpaet appraisal, which
•ummarlses the xwrtaw and the reasons why
a statement Is as* required, to on file at the
above office and win b* available for public
Mnttnr upon reqpest
rum* ilssstnsliil with this decleton may
nbult oommentt for consideration by the
FfOMAl MOUTH, VOL *f, NO. 13*-
OATf. JUW TT, IfM
Agency. The Agency will not take any ad-
ministrative action on the project for at Uast
fifteen (16) days after release of this negative
declaration.
Sincerely,
(Appropriate'EPA Official)
KMVnOHMKKTAL IMPACT
A. Identify Project
Name of Applicant:
Address:
Project Number (If assigned):
B. Summarize Assessment.
1. Brief description of project: —
PROPOSED RULES
B. Agencies consulted about the project:
State representative's name:.
Local representative's name:
OTHER: ,
C. Reasons for concluding there will be no
significant Impacts.
(Discuss topics 2. 8, 6, 0, and 7 above, and
how the alternative (topic 4) selected will
avoid any major public objections or signifi-
cant impacts, thereby making an Impact
statement unnecessary.)
26269
(Signature of appropriate
3. Any probable adverse environmental ef-
fect* which cannot be avoided:
4. Alternatives considered with evaluation
of each:
(Draft, Final)
Environments! Impact Statement
5. Relationship between local short-term
uses of environment and mslntenance and
enhancement of long-tern productivity:
a. Any irreversible and Irretrievable com-
mitment of resources:
Prepared
7. Public objections to project, if any, and
their resolution:
(Describe title of
project or plan)
(Responsible Agency
Offlo.)
(Responsible Agency
Official)
SUMMARY SHOT roiMAT POM ENTttONMEK
IMBftCT BTATBUXHTS
(Check One)
( ) Draft
( ) Final Environmental Statement.
TAi. PROTBCTION ACEMOT
(Responsible Agency
Office)
1, Name of action. (Check one)
( ) Administrative action.
( ) Legislative action.
a. Brief description of action Indicating
what States (and counties) are nu^
tlcularly affected.
3, Summary of environmental impact and
adverse environmental effect*.
4. List alternatives considered.
B s. (For draft statements) List all Federal
State, and local agencies from which
comments have been requested.
b. (For final statements) List all Federal.
State, and local agencies and other
sources from which written comment.
have been received.
0. Dates draft statement and final statement
made available to Council on Environing.
tal Quality and public.
KEY
f""l«nvmf
Mo.na-rt.nj—•
KDfftAL ttOISTU, VOL 3t, NO. 11*—WIOH1SDAY, JUUf 17, 1*74
-------
26270
PROPOSED RULES
niwcun ru imp
[m Doc.74-16128 ni«a 7-19-74; a :*5 am]
HBHAl MOHnt. VOL 1*. NO. Ml—WKJNHOAY, JUT IT, 1*74
10
-------
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE OF THE REGIONAL AREA
Fauna
The discussion that follows is based on the checklists of amphibians,
reptiles and mammals given by W. G. Bradley and J. E. Deacon (1967).
Species' discussed by Bradley and Deacon were crosschecked with R. C.
Stebbins (1966) and Burt and Grossenheider (1964) to verify that their
range includes the study area. All scientific names are based on
Stebbins (1566) and Burt and Grossenheider (1964).
11
-------
Common Name
Scientific Name
Creosote
Sal thrush
Biotic Community
Desert Riparian
Las Vegas Mash
Other
Amphibians
Great plains toad
Red-spotted toad
Southwestern toad
Woodhouses's toad
Canyon tree frog
Pacific tree frog
Bullfrog
* Vegas Valley
leopard frog
Leopard frog
Grear basin
spadefoot
Reptiles
* Desert tortoise
Soft-shell
turtle
Banded gecko
Zebra-tailed
lizard
Collared lizard
Leopard lizard
Desert iguana
Desert horned
lizard
Chuchawalla
Bufo cognatus
Bufo punctatus
Bufo micrpscaphus
Bufo woodhousei
By!a arenicolor
Fa" regi 11 a
:ana catesbeiana
ana fisneri
Rana pipi ens
Scaphiopus
intermontanus
Gopherus
agassizi
Trionyx ferox
Coleonyx
yarlegatus
Callisaurus
dracpnoides
Crotaphytus
collaris
Crotaphytus
wisiizenf
Dipsosaurus
dorsal is'
Phrynosoma
ry
PI
platyrhinos
Sauromalus
obesus
Uncommon
Uncommon
Abundant
Common
Common
Common
Abundant
Common
Record
Record
Record
Record
Abundant
Abundant
Record
Common
Record
Record
Tom Harper
Tom Harper
Tom Harper
B & N, 1972
Tom Harper
B & N, 1972
Record
Undocumented
record
B & N, 1972
Record
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
12
-------
Common Name
Scientific Name
Creosote
Bio tic Community
Sa1tbrush Desert Riparian
Las Vegas Wash
Othei
Sagebrush lizard
Desert spiny
lizard
Western fence
lizard
Western brush
lizard
Tree lizard
Side-bloched
lizard
Desert night
lizard
Western whip tail
Gil a monster
Western blind
snake
Glossy snake
Night snake
Common king snake
Western shovel -
nosed snake
Coachwhip
Stripped whip-
snake
Spotted leaf-
nosed snake
Pacific gopher
snake
Western patched-
nosed snake
Western ground
snake
Sceloporus
graciosus
Sceloporus
magister
Sceloporus
occidental is
Urosaurus _£.
flraciosus
Urosaurus ornatus
Uta stansburiana
Xantusia vigil is
Cnemidophorus
tigris
Heloaerma suspectum
Leptotyphiops
humilis
Arizona elegans
Hypsiglena torquata
Lampropeltis
getulus
Chionoctis
occipital is
Masticophis
fTayell urn
Masticophis
taeniatus
Phyllorhynchus
decuratus
Pituophis m.
eaten ifer
Salvadora
hexalepis
Sonara
semi annul ata
Common Record
Common Record Recoru
Uncommon Record
Abundant Record Common
Common Record
Abundant Record Common
Uncommon
Uncommon
Rare
Rare
Record Rare
Record Rare
Record Recoil
Rare Record
Record Record
X
X
Common
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
X
X
X
13
-------
Common Name
Scientific Name
Creosote
Bictic Community
Saltbrush Desert Riparian
Las Vegas Wash
Other
Sonora lyre snake
Western diamond-
back snake
Sidewinder
Speckled rattle-
snake
Mojave rattle-
snake
Mammals
Desert shrew
California leaf-
nosed bat
Pillid bat
Townsend's big-
eared bat
Big brown bat
* Spotted bat
Silver-haired bat
Red bat
Hoary bat
California myotis
bat
Long-eared
myotis bat
Small-footed
myotis bat
Fringe-tailed
myotis bat
Cave myotis bat
Long-legged
myotis bat
Yuma myotis bat
Trimorphodon 1ambda
Crotalus jrtrox
Crotalus cerastes
Crotal us" initchel j 1
Crotalus scutulatus
Notiosorex
crawfordi
Macrotus
call form'cus
An trozous gal 11dus
torynqrhThus tpwn-
sendi1
Eptesicus fuscus
Eu derma "maijciilata
Uaslonycferls'
noctivagans
Lasiurus boreal is
Lasiurus cinercus
Njyoti s czliforn 1 cus
Myotis evotis
Myotis subulatus
Myoti s thysanodes
'Otis yellfer
otis Volans
Myotis
yumanensis
Record
Record
Common
Common
Common
Record
Common
Rare
Abundant
Common
Common
Uncommon
Rare
Rare
Rare
Rare
Abundant
Rare
Rare
Rare
Uncommon
Rare
Rare
Record
Record
Record
Record
Common
Record
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
Record
Rare
Rare
Record
Rare
Rare
B & N, 1972
Rare
Rare
14
-------
Biotic Community
Common Name
Western pipistrell
Western big-
eared bat
Mexican freetail
bat
Big freetail bat
Gold-mantled
ground squirrel
White-tailed
antelope
squirrel
Round-tailed
ground squirrel
Rock squirrel
Cliff chipmunk
Charleston
mountain
chipmunk
Uinta chipmunk
Val ley pocket
gopher
Desert kangaroo rat
Merriam's kangaroo
rat
Great Basin
kangaroo bat
Long-tail pocket
mouse
Great Basin pocket
mouse
Bushy-tailed wood
rat
Desert wood rat
Muskrat
Southern grasshoper
mouse
Little pocket mouse
Scientific Name
Pipistrellus
hesperus
Plecotus
townsendil
Tadarida
brasiliensis
Tadarida
molossa
Ci tell us
late ralis
Ci tell us
leucurus
Ci tell us
tereticaudus
Ci tell us variegatus
Eutamias dorsal is
Eutamias palmeri
Eutamias umbrinus
Thomomys bottae
Dipodomys deserti
Dipodomys merriami
Dipodomys mi crops
Perognathus formosus
Perognathus p^arvus
Neotoma cine re a
Neotoma lepida
Ondatra zibethicus
Onychomys torrid us
Perognathus
Creosote
Abundant
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Abundant
Rare
Abundant
Common
Uncommon
Abundant
Saltbrush
Record
Record
Record
Record
Common
Common
Record
Record
Record
Uncommon
Record
Desert Riparian Las Vegas Wash
Record B & N, 1972
Record
Record
Common B & N, 1972
Uncommon
Record
Record
Common B & N, 1972
Rare
Common
Abundant B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
Uncommon
Common B & N, 1972
Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
longi'memoris
15
-------
Biotic Community
Common Name
Brush mouse
Canyon mouse
Cactus mouse
Deer mouse
Pinyon mouse
Western Harvest
mouse
House mouse
Porcupine
Beaver
Black-tailed
Jack Rabbit
Desert cotton-tail
Nuttall 's cotton-
tail
Coyote
Gray Fox
Kit Fox
Racoon
Ring-tailed cat
Stripped skunk
Spotted skunk
Long-tailed Weasel
Badger
Mountain Lion
Bobcat
Pronghorn antelope
Mule deer
Big-horn sheep
Scientific Name
Peromyscus boylei
Feromyscus crinitus
Feromyscus eremicus
Peromyscus
maniculatus
Peromyscus truei
TCeithrodontomys
megalotis
Mus musculus
Eretfrizon dorsatum
Castor canadensis
Lepus californicus
Sylvilagus
auduboni
Sylvilagus
nuttafli
Conis latrans
Urocyoh
cinereoargenteus
VuTpes macrotis
Procyon lotor
Bassariscus astutus
Mephitis mepfntis
Spilogale jNitonus
Mustela frenata
Taxidea TTaxus
Pel is concolor
lynx- ratus
Antilocapra
americana
Odocoileus hemionus
Ovis canadesis
Creosote
Common
Common
Rare
Rare
Common
Common
Common
Uncommon
Common
Uncommon
Uncommon
Uncommon
Uncommon
Common
Uncommon
Rare
Saltbrush
Desert Riparian
Record Abundant
Record Common
Record Common
Common
Uncommon
Record Common
Record Common
Record
Common Common
Uncommon Common
Common Common
Uncommon
Uncommon
Record Common
Rare in Study area
Uncommon Uncommon
Recorded throughout Study area
Common Abundant
Las Vegas Wash
B & N, 1972
B'& N, 1972
B & N, 1972
Tom Harper 1972
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
B & N, 1972
Other
X
X
X
X
X
B & N = Bradley and Niles - 1972
* = See Rare or Endangered Species list.
16
-------
Fauna Expected at Specific Sites
Fauna
Great Plains toad
Red-spotted toad
Southwestern toad
Woodhouse's toad
Canyon tree frog
Pacific tree frog
Bull frog
Vegas Valley leopard frog
Leopard frog
Great Basin spadefoot
Desert tortoise
Soft-shell turtle
Banded gecko
Zebra-tailed lizard
Collared lizard
Leopard lizard
Desert iguana
Desert horned lizard
Chunchawalla
Sagebrush lizard
Desert spiny lizard
Western fence lizard
Western brush lizarc1
Tree lizard
Slide-blotched lizard
Desert night lizard
Western whiptai"1
Gil a monster
Western blind snake
Glossy snake
o>
^
to
«3
o
to
to
a*
•-3
OJ
•o
•a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
in
to
O)
to
to
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Undocumented
x sighting
17
-------
.— >, 1/1
i— 0)10
<0 . .— 3:
O)
O) O -i* > <3
.ai -o io en
(O (O _J C V
_| t. 0) >
o c -o
>, T3 (O "O W)
$_ ,— QJ -r- 10
o uj --3 :c —i
Night snake R -R R R
Common king snake R R R R R
Western shovel-nosed
Coachwhip
Stripped whipsnake R R R R
Spotted leaf-nosed R R R R
Pacific gopher snake R R R R
Western patched-nosed R R R R
Western ground snake R R R R
Sonora Lyre snake R R R R
Western diamond back R R R R
Sidwinder x x x x
Speckled rattle snake x x x x
Mojave rattlesnake x x x x
Desert shrew *
California leaf-nosed x x x x x
Pallid bat x x x x x
Townsend's big-eared x x x x
Big brown bat x x x x x
Spotted bat R R R R x
Silver-haired bat R R R R
Red bat R R R R
Hoary bat R R R R
California myotis x x x x x
Long-eared myotis R R R R x
Small footed myotis R R R R
Fringe-legged myotis R R R R
Cave myotis bat x x x x
Long-legged myotis R R R R
Yuma myotis x x x x
Western pipistrell x x x x x
Western big-eared x x x x x
Mexican freetail x x x x
Big freetail bat x x x x x
IS
-------
0?
rtJ r- 36
QJ (T3 I/)
O) O -V > •
O C T3
>> -o to ~o
i. i— Q) -r- (O
Goldmantled ground squirrel
White-tailed antelope sq. x x x x x
Round-tailed ground sq. x x x x
Rock squirrel R R R R
Cliff chipmunk
Charleston mountain chipmunk
Unita chipmunk
Valley pocket gopher R R R R
Desert kangaroo rat x x x x
Merriam's kangaroo rat x x x x x
Great Basin kangaroo rat x x x x
Long-tail pocket mouse x x x x
Little pocket mouse x x x x x
Great Basin pocket mouse
Bushy tailed wood rat
Desert wood rat x x x x x
Muskrat x
Southern grasshoper mouse R R R R
Brush mouse
Canyon mouse x x x x
Cactus mouse x x x x x
Deer mouse x x x x
Pinyon mouse
Western harvest mouse x x x x x
House mouse R R R R x
Porcupine R R R R
Beaver x x x x x
Black-tailed jack rabbit x x x x
Desert cottontail x x x x
•Nuttall's cottontail R R R R
Coyote x x x x
Gray fox x x x x
19
-------
,
i—
O C T3
>i T3
-------
BIRDS OF THE REGIONAL AREA
NOT FOUND IN LAS VEGAS WASH OR BAY
The following list of birds for the regional area was compiled by use of the
State of Nevada check list, and "The Biotic Communities of Southern Nevada",
W. G. Bradley and J. E. Deacon, and a list provided by Mr. Charles Lawson.
21
Artie Loon
(Gavia artica)
Brown Booby
(Sula leucogaster)'
Magnificent Frigatebird
(Fregata magnificens)
Louisiana Heron
*Hydranassa tricolor)
Least Bittern
(Ixobrychus exilis)
Black Brant
(Branta nigricans)
White-fronted Goose
(Anser albifrons)
Ross1 Goose
(Chen rossi i)
Fulvous Tree Duck
(Dendrocygna bicolor)
Surf Scoter
(Melanitta perspicillata)
Harris' Hawk
(Parabuteo unicinctus)
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Purple Gallinule
(Porphyrula martinica)
Ruddy Turnstone
(Arenaria interpres)
Sanderling
(Crocethia alba)
Band-tailed Pigeon
(Columba fasciata)
Rock Dove
(Columba livia)
Inca Dove
(Scardafella inca)
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus)
Groove-billed Am'
(Crotophaga sulcirostris)
Screech Owl
(Otus asio)
Snowy Owl
(Nyctea scandiaca)
Flammulated Owl
(Otus flammeolus)
Pygmy Owl
(Glaucidium gnoma)
-------
Pigeon Hawk
(Falco columbarius)
Ring-necked Pheasant
(Phasianus colchicus)
Chukar
(Alectoris graeca)
Turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo)
Sandhill Crane
(Grus canadensis)
Gilded Flicker
(Colaptes chrysoides)
Gil a Woodpecker
(Centurus uropygialis)
Acorn Woodpecker
(Melanerpes formicivorus)
Williamson's Sapsucker
(Sphyrapicus throideus)
Hairy Woodpecker
(Dendrocopos villosus)
Downy Woodpecker
(Dendrocopos pubsr.ens)
Wied's Crested Flycatcher
(Myiarchus tyrannulus)
Olivaceous Flycatcher
(Myiarchus tuberculifer)
Least Flycatcher
(Empidonax minimus)
Saw-whet Owl
(Aegolius acadicus)
Whip-poor-will
(Caprimulgus vociferus)
Anna's Hummingbird
(Calypte anna)
ATIen's Hummingbird
(Selasphorus sasin)
Calliope Hummingbird
(Stellula calliope)
Yellow-shafted Flicker
(Colaptes auratus)
Dipper
(Cinclus mexicanus)
Canon Wren
(Catherpes mexicanus)
Catbird
(Dumetella carolinensis)
Brown Thrasher
(Toxostoma rufun)
Bendire's Thrasher
(Toxostoma bendirei)
Curve-billed Thrasher
(Toxostoma curvirostre)
Varied Thrush
(Ixoreus naevius)
Wood Thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina)
Gray-cheeked Thrush
(Hylocichla minima)
22
-------
Hammond's Flycatcher
(Empidonax hammondii)
Veery
(Hylocichla fuscescens)
Gray Jay
(Perisoreus canadensis)
Stellar's Jay
(Cyanocitta stelleri)
Black-billed Magpie
(Pica pica)
Clark's Nutcracker
(Nucifraga columbiana)
Mountain Chickadee
(Parus gambeli)
Plain Titmouse
(Parus inornatus)
Pygmy Nuthatch
(Sitta pygmaea)
Hermit Warbler
(Dendroica occidental is)
Cerulean Warbler
(Dendroica cerulea)
Grace's Warbler
(Dendroica graciae)
Blackpoll Warbler
(Dendroica striata)
Ovenbird
(Seiurus aurocapillus)
Northern Waterthrush
(Seriurus noveboracensis)
Gray Viero
(Vireo vicinior)
Yellow-throated Vireo
(Vireo flavifrcns)
Black-and-white Warbler
(Mniotilta varia)
Worm-eating Warbler
(Helmitheros vermivorus)
Tennessee Warbler
(Vermivora peregrina)
Parula Warbler
(Parula americana)
Black-throated Blue Warbler
(Dendroica caerulescens)
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
(Pheucticus ludovicianus)
Dickeissel
(Spiza americana)
Evening Grosbeak
(Hesperiphona vespertina)
Purple Finch
(Carpodacus purpureus)
Cassin's Finch
(Carpodacus cassinii)
Lawrence's Goldfinch
(Spinus lawrencei)
23
-------
Hooded Warbler Red Crossbill
(Wllsonia citrina) (Loxia curvirostra)
Painted Redstart Rufous-crowned Sparrow
(Setophaga picta) (Aimophila ruficeps)
Orchard Oriole Cassin's Sparrow
(Icterus spurius) (Aimophila cassinii)
Rusty Blackbird Clay-colored Sparrow
(Euphagus carolinus) (Spizella pallida)
Hepatic Tanager Black-chinned Sparrow
(Piranga flava) (Spizella atrogularis)
Cardinal Chestnut-collared longspur
(Richmondena cardinal is) (Calcarius ornatus)
BIRDS OF LAS VEGAS WASH
The following list of birds for the Las Vegas Wash and Las Vegas Bay was complied
by Mr. Charles S. Lawson. Mr. Lawson has been identifying birds for 27 years
and is currently submitting manuscripts of birds, new or unusual, to Nevada, to
Condor and collaborating with Fred Ryser, Ph.D., Department of Biology, University
of Nevada, Reno in the preparation of a manuscript for a book on the birds of
Nevada. Mr. Lawson's full report is unpublished at this time and can be found
in the Las Vegas Valley Water District Library and the Clark County Library.
This list words 251 species that can be found using Las Vegas Wash and Las Vegas
Bay. This represents 65% of the species known to have c-ccured in Nevada. To
date, 346 species of birds have been seen in the regional area. 72% of the birds
found in Southern Nevada are found in the Las Vegas Wash-Bay area. There are five
birds on this list which appear on the rare and endangered species list; Golden
Eagle, Prairie Falcon, and Peregrine Falcon. Many of the birds found on Mr. Lawson's
list are also found in other areas of the regional environment.
24
-------
BIRDS OF LAS VEGAS WASH AND LAS VEGAS BAY
Definitions of Symbols Used in Table
Species - Nomenclature, both common and scientific, follow the American
Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds (1957). indicates
a rare or endangered species. See the Rare and Endangered Species 11st.
Column A - Relative Abundance - The symbols used to indicate abundance
follow Alden (1969). Those symbols are:
A Abundantly encountered Seen on 75-100% of the trips there
C Commonly encountered Seen on 50-75% of the trips there
0 Occasionally encountered Seen on 25-50% of the trips there
R Rarely encountered Seen on 1-25% of the trips there
X Accidental A unique sighting, needs further explanation
These symbols of abundance refer only to the normal seasonal occurrence.
Column B - Seasonal Distribution - These symbols refer to the normal season
of occurrence for each species. Symbols used are:
PR - Permanent Resident
SR - Summer Resident
WR - Winter Resident
TV - Transient Visitor - is migrant through the area both spring and fall
Ace - Of accidental occurrence 1n this area
Column C - Breeding species - indicated by an x
Column D - Found in Las Vegas Wash - indicated by an x
Column E - Found in Las Vegas Bay, Lake Mead - Indicated by an x
Column F - Species most affected by loss of water - Indicated by an x
Column G - Species least affected by loss of water - indicated by an x
(Columns F and G Indicate a personal opinion of the author, based on
twenty-seven years field experience)
Column H - Rare and/or endangered species - indicated by an x
25
-------
Species List with Data for Each
Species
Common Loon
(Gavia inmer)
Red-throated Loon
(Gavia stellata)
Horned Grebe
(Podiceps auritus)
Eared Grebe
(Podiceps caspicus)
Western Grebe
(Aechmophorus occidental is)
Pied-billed Grebe
(Podilymbus podiceps)
White Pelican
(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos)
Brown Pelican *
(Pelecanus occidentalis)
Blue-booted Bobby
(Sula nebouxii)
Double-crested Cormorant
(Phalacrocorax auritus)
Great Blue Heron
(Ardea herodias)
Green Heron
(Butorides virescens)
Little Blue Heron
(Florida caerulea)
Common Egret
(Casmerodius albus)
Snowy Egret
(Leucophoyx thula)
Black-crowned Night Heron
(Nycticorax nycticorax)
American Bittern
(Botaurus lentiginosus)
Wood Ibis
(Mycteria americana.)
White-faced Ibis
(Plegadis chihi)
A B CDEFGH
"5 TV, WR x~~x
R WR x x
0 TV..WR xx x
A TV, WR xx x
A TV, WR xx x
C PR x x x x
R TV xx x
X Ace x xx
X Ace x xx
A PR xx x
C PR xx x
0 TV, SR xxx
X Ace x x
0 TV xx
0 TV xx
0 PR xx
0 TV xx
X Ace x x
C TV xxx
26
-------
Whistling Swan
(Olor columbianus)
Canada Goose
(Branta canadensis)
Snow Goose
(Chen hyperborea)
Mallard
(Anas platyrhynchos)
Gadwall
(Anas strepera)
Pintail
(Anas acuta)
Green-winged Teal
(Anas carolinensis)
Blue-winged Teal
(Anas discors)
Cinnamon Teal
(Anas cyanoptera)
American Widgeon
(Mareca amen'can a)
Shoveler
(Spatula clypeata)
Wood Duck
(Aix sponsa)
Redhead
(Aythya americana)
Ring-necked Duck
(Aythya collaris)
Canvasback
(Aythya valisineria)
Greater Scaup
(Aythya man'la)
Lesser Scaup
(Aythya affinis)
Common Goldeneye
(Bucephala clangula)
Bufflehead
(Bucephala albeola)
White-winged Scoter
(Melanitta deglandi)
Ruddy Duck
(Oxyura jamaicensis)
R TV, WR
0 TV, WR
R TV, WR
C TV, WR
0 TV, WR
A TV, WR
A TV, WR
0 TV, SR
xxx
xx x
x x
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
XX
A PR x x x x
0 TV, WR xxx
C TV, WR xxx
R WR xx
C TV, WR x x x
R TV, WR xxx
0 TV, WR xx x
R WR XX
C TV, WR xxx
0 TV, WR xx x
C TV, WR xx x
X Ace xx x
A PR x x x x
27
-------
Hooded Merganser R TV x x x
(Lophodytes cucullatus)
Common Merganser C WR x x x
(Mergus merganser)
Red-breasted Merganser A WR x x x
(Mergus serrator)
Turkey Vulture 0 TV x $
(Cathartes aura)
Goshawk R TV x x
(Accipiter gentilis)
Sharp-shinned Hawk 0 TV, WR x x x
(Accipiter striatus)
Cooper's Hawk ' 0 TV, WR x x" x
(Accipiter cooperii)
Red-tailed Hawk C PR x x x
(Buteo jamaicensis)
Red-shouldered Hawk X Ace x x
(Buteo lineatus)
Swainson's Hawk C TV x x
(Buteo swainsoni)
Rough-legged Hawk R WR x x
(Buteo lagopus)
herruginous Hawk* K WK x x
(Buteo regalis)
Golden Eagle R WR x x. x
(Aquila chrysaetos)
Marsh Hawk C • WR x x
(Circus cyaneus)
Osprey * 0 TV x x x x
(Pandion haliaetus)
Prairie Falcon* 0 WR x x x
(Falco mexicanus)
Peregrine Falcon* R WR x x x x
(Falco peregrinus)
Sparrow Hawk A PR x x x
(Falco sparverius)
Gambel's Quail A PR x x x x
(Lophortyx gambelii)
Virginia Rail A WR x x
(Rail us limi col a)
Sora A WR x x
(Porzana Carolina)
28
-------
Common Gallinule
(Gallinula choropus)
American Coot
(Fulica amen'can a)
Semi-pal ma ted Plover
(Charadrius semipalmatus)
Snowy Plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus)
Kill deer
(Charadrius vociferus)
Mountain Plover*
(Eupoda montana)
American Golden Plover
(Pluvialis dominica)
Black-bellied Plover
(Squatarola squatarola)
Common Snipe
(Cape!la gal linage)
Long-billed Curlew
(Numenius americanus)
Whimbrel
(Numenius phaeopus)
Upland Plover
.(Bartramia longicauda)
Spotted Sandpiper
(Actitis macularia)
Solitary Sandpiper
(Tringa solitaria)
Millet
(Catoptrophorus semipalmatus)
Greater Yellowlegs
(Totanus melanoleucus)
Lesser Yellowlegs
(Totanus flavipes)
Knot
(Calidris canutus)
Pectoral Sandpiper
(Erolia bairdil)
Least Sandpiper
(Erolia minutilla)
Dunlin
(Erolia alpina)
A PR x x x
A PR x x x x
0 TV xx
0 TV xx
A PR x x x x
X Ace xx
X Ace xx
0 TV xxx
C TV, WR xxx
0 TV xxx
X Ace x x
X Ace x x
C TV, SR xxx
R TV
C TV, WR
C TV
X Ace
0 TV, WR
C TV, WR
0 TV
xxx
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
29
-------
Short-billed Dowitcher 0 TV x x
(Limnodromus griseus)
Long-billed Dowitcher A TV x x
(Limnodromus scolopaceus)
Stilt Sandpiper X Ace x x,
(Micropalama himantopus)
Semi-palmated Sandpiper X Ace x x
(Ereunetes pusillus)
Western Sandpiper C TV x x
(Ereunetes mauri)
Marbled Godwit 0 TV x x x
(Limosa fedoa)
American Avocet A TV x x x
(Recurvirostra americana)
Black-necked Stilt C TV, SR x x x
(Himantopus mexicanus)
Red Phalarope X Ace x *
(Phalaropus fulicarius)
Wilson's Phalarope C TV x x x
(Steganopus tricolor)
Northern Phalarope 0 TV x x x
(Lobipes lobatus)
Glaucous-winged Gull X Ace x x
(Larus glaucescens)
Herring Gull C WR x x x
(Larus argentatus)
California Gull A WR x x x
(Larus californicus)
Ring-billed Gull A WR x x x
(Larus delawarensis)
Mew Gull X Ace x . x
(Larus canus)
Franklin's Gull 0 TV x x
(Larus pipixcan)
Bonaparte's Gull R TV x x x
(Larus Philadelphia)
Forster's Tern 0 TV x x. x
(Sterna forsteri)
Common Tern R TV x x x
(Sterna hirundo)
Least Tern X Ace x x
(Sterna albifrons)
30
-------
Caspian Tern 0 TV x x x
(Hydroprogne caspia)
Black Tern 0 TV x x x
(Chlidonias niger)
White-winged Dove R SR x x
(Zenaida asiatica)
Mourning Dove A TV, SR x x x x
(Zenaidura macroura)
Ground Dove X Ace x x
(Columbigallina passerina)
Roadrunner A PR x x x x
(Geococcyx californianus)
Barn Owl R TV x x
(Tyto alba)
Great Horned Owl R PR x x
(Bubo virginianus)
Burrowing Owl 0 PR x x x
(Speotyto cunicularia)
Long-eared Owl X Ace x
(Asio otus)
Short-eared Owl X Ace x x
(Asio flammeus)
Poor-will X Ace x x
(Phalaenoptilus nuttallii)
Common Nighthawk C TV x x
(Chordeiles minor)
Lesser Nighthawk C TV, SR x x x
(Chordeiles acutipenm's)
Vaux's Swift 0 TV x x
(Chaetura vauxii)
White-throated Swift C TV, SR x x x
(Aeronautes sexatalis)
Black-chinned Hummingbird R TV x x
(Archilochus alexandri)
Costa's Hummingbird R TV x x
(Calypte costae)
Broad-tailed Hummingbird R TV x x
(Selasphorus platycercus)
Rufous Hummingbird R TV x x
(Selasphorus rufus)
Belted Kingfisher 0 TV, WR x x x
(Megaceryle alcyon)
31
-------
Red-shafter Flicker A WR x x
(Colaptes cafer)
Lewis Woodpecker R TV x x
(Asyndesmus lewis)
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 0 WR x x
(Sphyrapicus varius)
Ladder-backed Woodpecker 0 TV, WR x x
(Dendrocopos scalaris)
Eastern Kingbird X Adc x x
(Tyrannus tyrannus)
Western Kingbird A i>K x x x
(Tyrannus vertical is)
Cassin's Kingbird 0 TV x x
(Tyrannus vociferans)
Scissor-tailed Flycatcher X Ace x x
(Muscivora forficata)
Ash-throated Flycatcher C SR x x x
(Myiarchus cinerascens)
Black Phoebe C PR x x
(Sayornis nigricans)
Say's Phoebe C PR x x x x
(Sayornis saya)
Traill's Flycatcher A TV x x x
(Empidonaz traillii)
Dusky Flycatcher 0 TV x x
(Empidonax oberholseri)
Gray Flycatcher A TV x x
(Empiodnax wrightii)
Western Flycatcher C TV x x
(Empidonax difficilis)
Western Wood Pewee 0 TV x x
(Contopus sordidulus)
Olive-sided Flycatcher 0 TV x x
(Nuttallarnis boreal is)
Vermilion Flycatcher 0 SR x x
(Pyrocephalus rubinus)
Horned Lark A PR x x x
(Eremophila alpestris)
Violet-green Swallow A TV x x x
(Tachycineta thalassina)
Tree Swallow A TV x x x
(Iridoprocne bicolor)
32
-------
Bank Swallow A TV
(Riparia riparia) « ™
Rough-winged Swallow A IV
(Stelgidopteryx ruficollis)
Barn Swallow A TV
(Hirundo rustica)
Cliff Swallow A SR
(Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
Purple Martin X Ace
(Progne subis)
Scrub Jay x Acc
(Aphelocoma coerulescens)
Common Raven A PK
(Corvus corax)
Common Crow 0 TV, WR
(Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Pinon Jay R TV
(Gymnorhinus cyanocephala)
Verdin A PR
(Auriparus flaviceps)
Common Bushtit c WR
(Psaltriparus minimus)
White-breasted Nuthatch R TV
(Sitta carolinensis)
Red-breasted Nuthatch R TV
(Sitta canadensis)
Brown Creeper R TV
(Certhia familaris)
House Wren C WR
(Troglodytes aedon)
Winter Wren R WR
(Troglodytes Troglodytes)
Bewick's Wren C PR
(Thryomanes bewickii)
Cactus Wren c PR
(Campylorhynchus brunneicapillum)
Long-billed Marsh Wren A PR
(Telematodytes palustris)
Rock Wren C PR
(Salpinctes obsoletus)
Mockingbird c KK
(Mimus polyglottos)
33
-------
LeConte's Thrasher 0 PR x x
(Toxostoma.lecontei)
Crissal Thrasher A PR x x x
(Toxostoma dorsale)
Sage Thrasher 0 TV x x
(Oreoscoptes montanus)
Robin A TV, WR x x x
(Turdue migratorius)
Hermit Thrush 0 TV x x
(Hylocichla guttata)
Swainson's Thrush 0 TV x x
(Hylocichla ustulata)
Western Bluebird C WR x x
(Sialia mexicana)
Mountain Bluebird C WR x x
(Sialia currucoides)
Townsend's Solitaire 0 WR x x
(Myadestes townsendi)
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher C PR x x
(Polioptila caerulea)
Black-tailed Gnatchatcher o PR x x
(Polioptila melanura)
Golden-crowned Kinglet X Ace x x
(Regulus satrapa)
Ruby-crowned Kinglet A TV, WR x x x
(Regulus calendula)
Water Pipit A TV, WR x x x
(Anthus spinoletta)
Bohemian Waxwing X Ace x x
(Bombycilla garrula)
Cedar Waxwing 0 WR x x
(Bombycilla cedrorum)
Phainopepla 0 PR x x
(Phainopepla nitens)
Northern Shrike X Ace x x
(Lanius excubitor)
Loggerhead Shrike C PR x * x
(Lanius ludovicianus)
Starling A PR x x x
(Sturnus vulgaris)
Mutton's Vireo 0 TV x x
(Vireo huttoni)
34
-------
Bell's Vireo
(Vireo bellii)
Solitary Vireo
(Vireo solitarius)
Red-eyed Vireo
(Vireo oliyaceus)
Warbling Vireo
(Vireo gilvus)
Orange-growned Warbler
(Vermivora celata)
Nashville Warbler
(Vermivora ruficapilla)
Virignia's Warbler
(Vermivora virginiae)
Lucy's Warbler
(Vermivora luciae)
Yellow Warbler
(Dendroica petechia)
Myrtle Warbler
(Dendroica coronata)
Audubon's Warbler
(Dendroica auduboni)
Black-throated Gray Warbler
(Dendroica nigrescens)
Townsend's Warbler
(Dendroica townsendi)
MacGi11ivray's Warbler
(Oporornis tolmiei)
Yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas)
Yellow-breasted Chat
(Icteria virens)
Wilson's Warbler
(Wilsonia pusilla)
American Redstart
(Setophaga ruticilla)
House Sparrow
(Passer domesticus)
Bobolink
(Dolichonyx oryzicorus)
Western Meadow!ark
(Sturnella neglecta)
0 SR xx x
0 TV xx x
R SR x x
C TV xx x
C TV, WR xx x
0 TV x X
o TV x x
0 TV, SR x x
C TV xx x
0 TV x x
A TV, WR xx x
0 TV x x
0 TV x x
0 TV x x
A SR x x x x
C SR xxx
A TV xx x
0 TV x x
A PR x x x
X Ace x x
A PR x x x
35
-------
Yellow-headed Blackbird C SR
(Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus)
Red-winged Blackbird A PR
(Agelaius phoeniceus)
Hooded Oriole 0 SR
(Icterus cucullatus)
Scott's Oriole 0 IV
(Icterus parisorum)
Bullock's Oriole C $R
(Icterus bullockii)
Brewer's Blackbird A TV, WR
(Euphagus cyanocephalus)
Boat-tailed Crackle R SR
(Cassidix mexicanus)
Brown-headed Cowbird A PR
(Molothrus ater)
Western Tanager C TV
(Piranga ludoviciana)
Summer Tanager R SR
(Piranga rubra)
Black-headed Grosbeak 0 TV
(Pheucticus melanocephalus)
Blue Grosbeak A SR
(Guiraca caerulea)
Lazuli Bunting 0 TV
(Passerina amoena)
Indigo Bunting R SR
(Passerina cyanea)
House Finch C PR
(Carpodacus mexicanus)
Pine Siskin 0 WR
(Spinus pinus)
American Goldfinch 0 TV, WR
(Spinus tristis)
Lesser Goldfinch C PR
(Spinus psaltria)
Green-tailed Towhee C TV
(Chlorura chlorura)
Rufous-sided Towhee 0 TV, WR
(Pipilo erythrophthalmus)
Abert's Towhee A PR
(Pipilo aberti)
36
-------
Lark Bunting X Ace x x
(Calamospiza melanocorys)
Savannah Sparrow A TV, WR
(Passerculus sandwichensis)
Grasshopper Sparrow X Ace x
(Arnmodramus savannarum)
Vesper Sparrow 0 WR x x
(Pooecetes gramineus)
Lark Sparrow C TV x
(Chondestes grammacus)
Black-throated Sparrow C TV x
(Amphispiza bilineata)
Sage Sparrow A WR x
(Amphispiza belli)
Slate-colored Junco 0 WR x x
(Junco hyemalis)
Oregon Junco 0 WR x
(Junco oreganus)
Gray-headed Junco 0 WR x x
(Junco caniceps)
Tree Sparrow R WK x
(Spizella arborea)
Chipping Sparrow C TV, WR x x
(Spizella passerina)
Brewer's Sparrow civ x *
(Spizella breweri)
Harris1 Sparrow R WR x x
(Zonotrichia querula)
White-crowned Sparrow A TV, WR x x x
(Zonotrichia leucophrys)
Golden-crowned Sparrow R WR x x x
(Zontrichia atricapilla)
White-throated Sparrow x WK x A
(Zonotrichia albicollis)
Fox Sparrow 0 WR x
(Passerella iliaca) x x x
Lincoln's Sparrow c WK x x
(Melospiza lincolnii)
Swamp Sparrow A ftcc
(Melospiza georgiana)
Song Sparrow A ER x x
Lapland Longspur x WK
(Calcarius lapponicus)
37
-------
The following species of fish are presently found in Las Vegas Bay:
*Largemouth black bass
*Channel catfish
*Black crappie
Carp
*Bluegill sunfish
*Rainbow trout
Green sunfish
+Humpback sucker
Western golden shiner
German brown trout
Black bullhead
+Bonytail chub
Mosquito fish
+Colorado River Squaw fish
*Cutthroat trout
*Silyer salmon
*Striped bass
Threadfin shad
Waileye
(Micropterus salmoides) Abundant
(Ictalurus punctatus) Abundant
Pomoxis nigromaculatus) Abundant
Cyprimus carpio) Abundant
Lepomis macrochirus) Common
Salmo gairdneri) Common
Lepomis cyanellus) Common
Xyrauchen texanus) Common
Notemigonus crypolencas) Common
Salmo trutto) Rare
Ictalurus melas) Rare
Gil a robusta) Rare
(Gambrusia affinis) Rare
(Ptychocheilus lucius) Rare
(Salmo clarkii) Common
(Oncorhynchus kisutheh) Common
Morone saxatilis) Common
Dorosoma petenense) Abundant
Stizostedion vitreum) Rare
38
-------
*
0)
c
Q
te
P
Basic Biota of the !
Biota
Flora
Creosote Bush Community
Creosote bush
Mormon tea
Ratney
Niggerheads
Cholla
Prickley pear cactus
Mojave yucca
Burro bush
.t3 to C
w 3 ^ .2 * w
3 u S « * -g
^ o S ffl S
ti ^ ^ & 3 5 <3
••* a) -g ra o) »• >-1
0) ** S "* OB *** T-J
Site Environments ?o g ,2 Q oj g 5
JS J* 7] S) !^ a> '&,
0 CO CH TJ 0 C .™
« ^ £ 5 £ t fc
«r^ ^j ^^ j« «^\ M
tS ^P rn Q-» flj .*7
acieniiiic iName
»-< C>3 CO Tl* irt CO t~
Larrea divaricata X XX
Ephedra torreyanna X X
Krameria parvifolia
Echinocactus poTycephalus
Opuntia begelovii
O. erinacea
Yucca schl'digera
Ffarise'ria duhiosa X
Desert Riparian Community
Desert wash willow
Indigo bush
Cat claw
Snakeweed
Salt cedar
Cheese weed
Bassia
Quail brush
Saltbush Community
Shadscale
Hop sage
Agricultural Crops
Chilopis linearis
Dalea fremonti""
Acacia greggii
Gutierreziasarothrae
Tamarix gallica
Hymehoclea salspla
Bassia hyssppiiolla'
Atriplex lentiformTs
Atriplex confertifolia
Grayia spinosa
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
-------
Common Name
•X-
co
o
W)
a
0)
Scientific Name
I
o
(1)
I—I
r-l
O
O
TO
ri
i
(1)
-l->
•rH
CO
^ M
CQ JO
o 5
to 13
•^ CD
Q o>
a) Q
H ^
^ 3
-------
c
c
ri
Common Name
Abert's townee
House finch
Red-tailed hawk
Verdin
Mourning dove
Starling
Song sparrow
Brown-headed cowbird
Mockingbird
Bewick's wren
Scientific Name
Pipilo aberti
Carpodacus mexicanus
Buteo jamaicensis
Auriparus flaviceps
Zenaidura macroura
Sturnus vulgaris
Melospiza melodia
Molothrus ater
Mimus polyglottos
Thryomanes bewickii
1 1
CO £
i— i O
^n
•3 u
0) -H
C)0 ™
o to
1
CO
•*
X
X
OH
C
O
^3
rt
.3
i-H
ri
to
0)
Q
•g
d
P.
in
X
„
l-H
rt
CO
0
CO
S
.§
•rt
m
CO
CO
•a
3
C
•2
&>
'(H
t— i
^
X
X
X
X
X
Reptiles
Side-blotched lizard
Western whip tail
Zebra-tailed lizard
Desert Iguana
Leopard lizard
Pacific gopher snake
CoachwMp
Sidewinder
Uta stansburiana
Cnemidophorus I'igris
Callisaura draconoides
Dipsosaurus dor sails
Cnotaphytus wisiizeni
Pituophis catenifer
Masticophis Hagellum
Crotalus c eraste s
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X X X
X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
^Information as to the exact location of this element is insufficient to determine
existing biota.
41
-------
STATE OF NEVADA
WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL REGULATIONS
ADOPTED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
OCTOBER 2U, 1973
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89701
-------
VATI.R QUALITY STANDARDS
Us Vegas Wash
Control Point
North Shore Road (No sampling will be required upstream of the control
point If the regulation* are satisfied at the control point.)
Tenperature *C
Monthly Mean Ust than J2
Single Value in 901 of *a»ple Loss than 35
pH Units
Monthly Median v,,Mn r.ng, 6 5 . g j
Single Value in 901 of aaaple* WUhln range 6.5 - §.5
DlnKolvcd Oxygen - *g/l
*"nM* M"n Not less than 5.0
Single Value In 901 of sa.ple* Hot leti than 4.0
BOD) - »g/l
"°nt!lllr""n ; ' Not .or. than 10.0
Single Value in 90t of s.ople. Not ,or. thjn ls.0
COO - «g/l
$
...p.
MBAS - t.g/1
Sr'
Singl
Phoaphorui a* t - »g/l
.................... Not .or, than 0.8
!„ ,OX of sal.pl ............. ** „„ than 1.0
not to exceed 400 pound. /day during April through October
Turbidity - JTU
Monthly Mean ..
Single Value In 901 of sanples .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.I No
Fecal ColIfor. - The fetal collforn concentration, based on a .Inlay, of 5 samples
during any JO-day period, shall not exceed a geooetrlc >ean of
200 per 100 mllllllter*. nor shall .ore than 10X of total samples
during any 30-day period exceed 400 per 100 •llllilters.
The beneficial uses to be protected In the La* Vegas Wash are a* follow*: Fish
and wildlife, esthetic., irrigation and stock watering and recreation.
••\m QUALITY STAM1ARK
Colorado River
Control Po'.r.t
One Bile bolaw Willow Beach Resort and various pMnls I" '.i'»* "< -i
Teeperature "C
Average (J'jie through Septcnber). Not rrre twj:i 1*
Sunoer Single Value Sot e?re t f-jn IS
Winter Single Value Not more t'-jn li
Allowable teaperature Increase above natural
receiving water tenperature* None when water ie-;era*-ji
Is greater than c-r t-;al •
U'C.
. 1* when water texp«ra:<:re
lets than or equal to !)*•
pH Unit*
Annual Median Within range 7.5 - 8.2
Single Value Within range 7.0 • 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen - «g/l
Average (June through September) Not less than 6.0
Single Value Not less than 5.0
BOD • .g/1
Single Value Not tore than 2
rhospha-tes (P0t)
(Pending further analysis)
Nitrates (N0}) - .g/1
Single Value Sot .ore than 7
Annual Average Not store tr.an 4
MF Collfcrns/100 "1 (Averice- of the last five samples)
Minlsu. value of 1000 If MF Fecal Streptococci are lets than lOj.
Haxlmun value of 500 If MF Fetal Streptococci are less than 20.
To apply to all swlralng areas of the Colorado River within Nevada.
The "Guideline* for ForsuiUtlng Water Quality Standards for the Interstate Vjter*
of the Colorado River Systcn" as adopted January 13. 1967. are incorporated as a
•upple.ent to the standards for thlr strean (Appendix A).
43
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Colorado River
Control Point
Cage Station located half • mile downstream fro* Davl* Daa
Temperature *C
Avenge (June through September) Hoc more thin 20
Suamer Single Value . . Not more than 25
Winter Single Value Not more than 16
Allowable teuperature Increase above
natural receiving water temperature* Not mar* than 1
pa Oolta
Annual Median Within range 7.3 - 8.0
Single Value Within rang* 6.3 -8.5
Dissolved Oxygen - mg/1
Average (June through September) Not leu than 6.0
Single Value Not leva than 5.0
•00 - mg/1
Single Value Not more than 3
Fboaphates (PO^) - mg/1
(Pending further analyeia)
nitrates (HOj) - mg/1 (tentative)
Single Value Not more than 7.0
Annual Average Not more than S.O
The "Guideline* for Formulating Water Quality Standard* for the Interatat* Water*
of the Colorado River Syitem" a* adopted January U, 1967, arc Incorporated aa •
•upplement to the *t*ndard* for this atreaa (Appendix A).
44
-------
AMENDMENTS TO NEVADA'S
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
APR 9 1974
I. Amend Article 3.2.2 to read:
The duration of permits may be variable, but shall not exceed
5 years. The expiration date shall be recorded on each permit
issued. A new application must be filed with the Department to
obtain renewal or modification of a permit. Applications for renewal
shall be filed at least 180 days prior to expiration of permit.
II. Amend Article 3.3.2 to read:
Authorized representatives of the Bureau of Environmental
Health shall be permitted access to the premises of all facilities
owned or operated by the permittee at all reasonable times for the
purpose of making inspections, surveys, collecting samples,
obtaining data, and carrying out other necessary functions related
to the permit.
III. Amend Article 3.4.1 by adding the following sentence after the fifth sentence
of Article 3.4.1: "In the case of a municipal, State, or other public
facility the application must be signed by either a principal executive
officer, ranking elected official, or other duly authorized employee."
IV. Add the following section to Article 3:
3.9 Emergency Powers
In accordance with the powers granted in subsections 1, 9 and 12 of
NRS 445.214 and NRS 445.317, 445.321, 445.324, 445.327, 445.331, 445.334
and 33.010, the Director may take any appropriate action authorized under
the Nevada Water Pollution Control Law against a pollution source or
any combination of sources which the Director has evidence is presenting
an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health or welfare of
persons, where such endangerment is to the livelihood of such persons.
V. Amend 4.1.2(d) by adding the following paragraph:
The presence of toxic materials in a water shall be evaluated
by use of a 96-hour bioassay. Survival of test organisms shall not
be less than that in control tests which utilize appropriate experi-
mental water. Experimental water shall be obtained from the most
upstream control point in the stream system, or laboratory water with
quality closely approximating that of the most upstream control point,
or other appropriate experimental water defined by the State and
concurred in by EPA. Failure to determine presence of toxic substances
by this method shall not preclude determination of excessive levels of
toxic substances on the basis of other criteria or methods.
-------
VI. Amend Table 22 (Virgijn River) and Table 23 (Beaver Dam Wash) in Article
A.2.5 by adding:
Color
Color shall not exceed that characteristic of natural conditions by more
than 10 units Platinum Cobalt Scale.
Turbidity
Turbidity shall not exceed that characteristic of natural conditions
by more than 10 Jackson Units.
VII. Amend Table 44 (Lake Tahoe) in Article 4.2.5 by adding:
Turbidity
In order to minimize turbidity levels in the Lake and tributary streams
and control erosion:
1. The discharge of solid or liquid waste materials including soil,
silt, clay, sand, and other organic and earthen materials to Lake
Tahoe or any tributary thereto, i& prohibited.
2. The discharge of solid or liquid waste materials including soil,
silt, clay, sand, and other organic and earthen materials to lands
below the high water rim of Lake Tahoe or along any tributary to
Lake Tahoe in a manner which will cause the discharge of such waste
materials to Lake Tahoe or any tributary thereto, is prohibited.
3. The placement of material below the high water rim of Lake Tahoe
or along any tributaries to Lake Tahoe, in a manner which will
cause the discharge of solid or liquid waste materials including
soil, silt, clay, sand and other organic and earthen materials to
Lake Tahoe or any tributary thereto, is prohibited.
VIII. Amend Table 45 (Willow'Beach Colorado River) in Article 4.2.5 by replacing
the coliform standard and adding color, turbidity and phosphate standards
by adding:
Phosphates (PO.) - mg/1
Annual Average not more than 0.040
Maximum value in 90% of samples not more than 0.060
Color
Color shall not exceed that characteristic of natural conditions by more
than 10 units Platinum Cobalt Scale.
-------
Turbidity
Turbidity shall not exceed that characteristic of natural conditions by
more than 10 Jackson Units.
Fecal Coliform
The fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of 5 samples during
any 30-day period shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 per 100 milli-
liters, nor shall more than 10% of total samples during any 30-day period
exceed 400 per 100 milliliters.
IX. Amend Table 46 (Colorado River below Davis Dam) in Article 4.2.5 by replacing
the coliform standard and adding color, turbidity and phosphate standards by
adding :
Phosphates (PO) - mg/1
Annual Average ............................... not more than 0. 060
Maximum value in 90% of samples .............. not more than 0.100
Color
Color shall not exceed that characteristic of natural conditions by more
than 10 units Platinum Cobalt Scale.
Turbidity
Turbidity shall not exceed that characteristic of natural conditions by
more than 10 Jackson Units.
Fecal Coliform
The fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of 5 samples
during any 30-day period shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 per
100 milliliters, nor shall more than 10% of total samples during any
30-day period exceed 400 per 100 milliliters.
X. Amend the temperature standard in Table 47 (Las Vegas Wash) in Article 4.2.5
to read:
Temperature - °C
Monthly mean - June 1 to September 30 not more than 27°
October 1 to May 31 not more than 23°
Single value in 90 percent of samples:
June 1 to September 30 not more than 31°
October 1 to May 31 not more than 27°
-------
XI. Amend Article 4.2.5 by adding the following table:
TABLE 48
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Pyramid Lake
Control Point - Various Points
Temperature - °C
Permissible temperature increase above
natural receiving water temperature ....not more than 2
pH Units
Single value 6.5 - 9.0
Dissolved Oxygen - mg/1
Single value not less than 6
Fecal Coliform
The fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of 5 samples
during any 30-day period, shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200
per 100 milliliters, nor shall more than 10% of total samples during
any 30-day period exceed 400 per 100 milliliters.
XII. Amend Article 4.2.5 by adding the following table:
TABLE 49
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Walker Lake
Control Point - Various points
Temperature - °C
Permissible temperature increase above
natural water temperature not more than 2
Dissolved Oxygen - mg/1
Single value ...not less than 6.0
Fecal Coliform
The fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of five samples
during any 30-day period, shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 per
100 milliliters, nor shall more than 10% of total samples during any
30-day period exceed 400 per 100 milliliters.
-------
XIII. Add the following as a footnote to the phosphate standard in Tables 45
and 46:
Interpretation of this standard shall not be construed to restrict
the phosphorus passing the North Shore Road control point as defined
In Table 47, i.e., monthly mean of not more than 0.5 mg/1 as P and
single value in 90% of samples of not more than 1.0 mg/1 as P but
not to exceed 400•pounds/day during April through October.
ADOPTION: NOW, THEREFORE, by affirmative vote of the Nevada State Environmental
Commission, these Water Pollution Control Regulations are hereby revised and
compliance therewith ordered.
To become effective , 1974.
Norman Glaser, Chairman
Environmental Commission
49
-------
AMENDMENTS
TO THE
STATE OF NEVADA AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS
1.59 Complex source. Any property or facility that has or solicits secondary
Of •djuoctive activity which emits or may emit any air contaminant for
lihiolr there is an ambient air quality standard, notwithstanding that
•uch property or facility may not itself possess the capability of emit-
ting, such air contaminants. Complex sources include, but are not limited
tor
a. Shopping centers;
b. Sports complexes;
c. Drive-in theaters;
d. Parking lots and garages;
e. Residential, commercial, industrial or institutional developments;
£. Amusement parks and recreational areas;
g. Highways; .
h. Sewer, water, power and gas lines;
and other such property or facilities which will result in increased
air contaminant emissions from mptor vehicles.
1.44 Registration certificate. A document Issued and signed by the Director
certifying adequate empirical data for the single or complex source has
been, received and shall constitute approval of location.
1.60 Vehicle trip. A single movement by a motor vehicle which originates or
terminates at the single or. complex-source.
1.6i Contiguous Property. Any property which is in physical contact,
touching, near or adjoining. Public property or public right-of-way
shall not be deemed as a break in any contiguous property.
3.1-9 Registration certificates for single and complex sources and operatin|
permits for single sources may be issued through an approved local air
pollution control program.
3-2.4 Within 5 days after receiving an application for registration, the
Director shall determine what, if any, additional information is needed.
Within 15 days after receiving adequate information the Director shall
make a preliminary determination to issue or deny issuance of a regis-
tration certificate. Within 75 days after receiving adequate information,
pursuant to Article 13, the Director shall issue or deny issuance of a
registration certificate.
3.2.5 A registration certificate shall only expire if construction of a new
or modified source, including a complex source, is not commenced within
one year from the date of issuance thereof or construction of the
facility is delayed for one year after, initiated.
H.3.2 A stop order can be issued at any time before the operating permit is
granted, except that a stop order for a source shall not be issued after
construction or modification has commenced if the construction is In
accordance with the provisions of the registration certificate as sub-
mitted and approved by the Director under Article 13 hereof.
appendix
-------
13.1 General provisions for the review of new sources.
13.1.1 Prior to the issuance of any registration certificates In accor
vlth this Article the applicant shall submit to the Director an i'uvii on -
mental evaluation and any other information the Director may deem
to make an independent air quality impact assessment.
13.1.2 The preliminary intent to issue or deny issuance of a registration
certificate for a complex source shall be made within 15 days after
receiving adequate information for reviewing the registration applica-
tion. The application, the Director's review and preliminary intent
to Issue or deny shall be made public and maintained on file with the
Director during normal business hours at 201 South Fall Street, Carson
City, Nevada and in the Air Quality Region where the source is located,
at a. alEg specified in a public announcement by the Director for thirty
(30) days to enable public participation and comment. All comments
on the Director's review and preliminary intent for issuance or denial
shall be submitted in writing to the Director within 30 days after the
public announcement. Within the time period prescribed by Article 3.2.4,
the Director shall make his decision, taking into account written public
comments on the Director's review and preliminary intent for issuing or
denial, project proponent submittal and the effect of such a facility on
the maintenance of the ambient air quality standards as contained In
Article 12 and the control strategy contained in the Air Quality Implem-
entation Plan.
13.1.3 The Director shall not issue a registration certificate for any source
if the environmental evaluation submitted by the applicant, or if the
Director determines, in accordance with the provisions of this Article,
that the source will prevent the attainment and maintenance of the State
Ambient Air Quality Standards or will cause a violation of the applicable
control strategy contained in the approved Air Quality Implementation
Flan.
13.1.4 The Director may impose any reasonable conditions on his approval,
Including conditions requiring the source owner or operator to conduct
ambient air quality monitoring at the facility site for a reasonable
period prior to commencement of construction or modification, and for
any specified period after the source has commenced operation.
13.1.5 Where a proposed source located on contiguous property
is constructed or modified in increments which individually are not
subject to review as provided in this Article, all such increments
occurring since the effective date of this Article shall be added
together for determining the applicability of this Article.
13.1. 6 Approval and issuance of a registration certificate to any
source construction or modification shall not affect the responsibili-
ties of the owner or owners to comply with any other portion of the
control strategy.
U.I. 7 Any source or proposed facility shall, upon written application
to the Director, receive within thirty (30) days a written notice of
his determination, either requiring the submittal of an environmental |/)
evaluation or exempting the source from such requirement.
-------
<>r
13.4 Environmental Evaluation .
13.4.1 The environmental evaluation required for new or modified slnr.l
complex sources, as determined by this Article or as required by Lhn
Director, shall include the following:
13«4»1«1 An «nvironmental evaluation shall be a careful and detailed
MlMCMnt of the environmental aspects of a proposed action.
13.4.1.2 An environmental evaluation shall contain adequate environmental
safeguard^ to be implemented by the applicant to provide for the main-
tenance of acceptable air quality and shall consider:
a. Ambient air concentrations before, during and after construction,
empirically calculated with recognized methods as approved by the
Director; or, in the case of existing ambient air concentrations, they
may be measured with approved methods at approved site locations for
not less than one year. Estimates shall be empirically determined for
ambient air concentration immediately contiguous to the facility and
at the point of predicted maximum concentration within the surrounding
region.
b. Diffusion models used to determine the location and estimated
value of highest air contaminant concentration shall contain:
1. Assumptions and premises.
2. Evaluation at the recorded most adverse meteorological
conditions in the (fast JLUU years
3. Evaluation at the recorded most adverse meteorological
conditions in the last year.
4. Geographic area considered in the evaluation.
5. Dispersion equations.
6.- Predicted contaminant buildup.
7. Location, type .and amount of emissions.
8. Meteorological information
c. Alternate proposals which could be implemented as conditions
of approval.
d. Other probable environmental effects, before, during and after
construction shall be considered in the narrative portion of the
evaluation.
13.5 The following are exempt from Article 13.2:
1. Complex source or single sources existing prior to February 25, 1974
and remaining unmodified thereafter or those facilities which have
received local approval and necessary building or construction permits
by April 1, 1974, and commence a continuous program of construction
before July 1, 1974
2. Those complex sources or single sources obtaining an exemption
jg granted by the President under section 118 of the Clean Air Act of 1970.
-------
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS-STATE OF NEVADA-SELECTED SECTIONS
SECTION 26. FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT
2. h. Maximum allowable emission rates of particu-
late matter for heat input greater than 10
million but less than 4000 million BTU per
hour shall be determined by using the equation
Y = 1.02 x -°«231% Maximum allowable emis-
sion rates of particulate matter for heat
inputs equal to or greater than 4000 million
BTU per hour shall be determined by using
the equation
Y = 17.0 x -0.568 where Y » allowable rate
of emission in pounds per million BTU and"
X = maximum hoat input in millions of BTU
per hour.
c. • No person shall cause or permit the emission
of sulfur dioxide from any fuel-burning equip-
ment in exc.e*ss of the quantity set forth in
the following table:
Heat input, millions Maximum allowable rate of
of British thermal emission of sulfur dioxide,
units per hour pounds per hour
1,000 150
5,000 750
10,000 1,500
15,000 2,250
20,000 3,000
25,000 3,750
30,000 4,500
35,000 5,250
40,000 6,000
45,000 6,750
50,000 7,500
d. Maximum allowable emission rate of sulfur
dioxide shall be determined by using the
equation Z = 0.15 X whore Z = allowable
rate of sulfur dioxide emission in pounds
per hour and X «= maximum heat input in
millions of BTU per hour.
SECTION 27. PROVISIONS OF REGULATIONS SEVERABLF.
If any provision of these Regulations or the application
thereof to any person or circumstances is hold invalid or
unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality ^
s
-------
SECTION 35. COMPLIANCE SCIIlilHJI.ES
4. Compliance schedules shall corttain as a minimum:
a. Appropriate increments of progress.
b. Final date of compliance with the appropriate
emission limitations,
SECTION 36. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
1. The following concentrations of air contaminants
shall not be exceeded at any single point in the
ambient air:
a. Sulfur oxides as sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic moan 60 ug/M3 (0.02 ppm)
Maximum 24 hr. concentration 260 ug/M3 (0.1 ppm)
Maximum 3 hr. concentration 1300 ug/M3 (0.5 ppm)
b. Suspended particulatc matter:
Annual geometric mean 60 ug/M3
Maximum 21 hr. concentration 150 ug/M3
c. Carbon monoxide:
Maximum 3 hr. concentration 10 mg/M3 (9.0 ppm)
Maximum 1 hv. concentration 40 mg/M3 (35.0 ppm)
54
-------
d. Photochemical oxidnnt:
Maximum 1 hr. concentration 160 ug/M3 (0.08 ppm)
c. Non-methane hydrocarbons:
Maximum 1 hr. concentration 160 ug/M3 (0.24 ppra)
f. Nitrogen dioxide:
Annual arithmetic moan 100 ug/M3 (0.05 ppm)
2. ug/M3 means microgratns of air contaminant per cubic
meter o f air.
mj>/M3 means milligrams of air contaminant per cubic
meter of air.
ppm means parts of air contaminant by volume per
million parts of air by volume.
3. The methods of measurement shall be those precribed
in Appendices A through F, inclusive, of § 410 of
Chapter IV, Title 42, Code of Federal Regulation,
published in the Federal Register on April 30, 1971.
These may change from time to time.
4. Adoption of these Ambient Air Quality Standards
shall not be considered in any manner to allow
significant deterioration of existing air quality
in any portion of Clark County.
55
-------
MOBILE SOURCES 2.63%
OTHER SOURCES 0.66%
OTHER
FUGUTIVE
DUST 18.2%
INDUSTRIAL
PROCESSES
66.7%
POWER
GENERATION
89.14%
MOBILE SOURCES 6.72%
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
1.31%
OTHER SOURCES 2.82%
SO2 EmiMtom
1973 PARTICULATE AND SO2
EMISSION PERCENTAGES
FOR CLARK COUNTY
AQCR 013
-------
i
ft
i
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
1.79%
POWER GENERATION 1.08%
OTHER SOURCES 0.12%
1973 CO AND HC
EMISSION PERCENTAGES
FOR CLARK COUNTY
AQCR 013
HC Emiiiioni
57
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
16.24%
POWER GENERATION 1.66%
OTHER SOURCES 0.68%
-------
MOBILE
SOURCES
51.97%
POWER
GENERATION
42.84%
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
2.2%
OTHER SOURCES 3.04%
NOX Emissions
1973 NOX EMISSION
PERCENTAGES FOR
CLARK COUNTY
AQCR 013
-------
01
<0
H xipuadde
A.M,
JUN
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
June 12, 1974
Mr. Tom Wiesner
Chairman, Board of Clark County Commissioners
Clark County Courthouse
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Daar Mr. Wiesner:
Enclosed is my statement on the Facilities Report and Environmental
Assessment being submitted for review and/or approval by the
CoTiraission.
the
Because-1 have been closely associated for_several:years «^
introductory cover letter to avoid any
position in this matter.
Naturally, the District has actively participated in the Sewage and
Waste Water Advisory Committee (SWAC) and supplied technical data
to the consultants preparing the reports now under consideration.
I want to clearly state that the ideas, recommendations, and
'
are derived from my analysis of the reports,
YourSo sincerely,
Thome J. /Butler, M. D.
PresidentJL/Las Vegas Valley Water District
TJB:gcs
-------
§
STATEMENT FROM THORNE J. BUTLER
on
FACILITIES REPORT'AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
to
THE CLARK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Both the amended facilities plan and its attached environmental
assessment are directed to accomplishing two goals.
1. The elimination of pollution of Lake Mead by flows from the Las
Vegas Wash. This objective was established by the 1971 Nevada State
Legislature and has been endorsed as being still valid by both of the
consultants who prepared these reports. The bulk of the facilities
report is devoted to accomplishing this end.
2. The conservation of the potable water supplies available to the
Las Vegas community. This goal is to be met by the substitution of
properly treated waste waters for potable water.
My comments to the first of these objectives are very limited and brief.
I would like to concentrate my comments on the in-valley irrigation,
desalinisation and ground water recharge programs. As a member of the
Board of Directors of the Las Vegas Valley Water District I believe
that this program is of paramount importance to the District's goal of
continuing to supply adequate potable water to this area.
With respect to the pollution abatement phase of the project. Table
VII-3, entitled "Monetary Cost Effectiveness", needs to be corrected.
In the column "Total Annual Cost", the Alternatives 7 and 10 are not
evenly stated. The reason being that, in Alternative 10 one of the
factors for the determination of net annual cost is based upon the
development of the Allen Power Project which will utilize approximately
37% of the annual average flows through the year 2000. Therefore, to
Alternative 10 should be added the cost of piping and pumping the
AWT water to the power project. To balance the total costs, to
Alternative 7 must be added the cost of treating the secondary effluent
to make it acceptable as an industrial cooling water. Computing the.<;e
additional costs, I calculate for Alternative 7, $467.00 per million
gallons treated and for Alternative 10, $438.00 per million gallons
treated. Alternative 7 may be higher in total costs because included
is the pickup and disposal of the .ground water discharges. Naturally,
the net annual cost to the Las Vegas community depends on variable
factors such as the amount of federal participation, revenues derived
from the Allen Power Project and possible other minor revenues from
the sale of AWT water.
In the same sense, Table VIII-4 should be corrected to include power
requirements for pumping water to the Allen Power Project in Alternative
10 and for the AWT process in Alternative 7. When these two
alternatives are balanced in the terms of cost and energy consumption,
both programs are equal.
-------
I would like to make recommendations on the proposed in-valley
irrigation, desalinization and ground water recharge programs n«:
outlined in Sections 8.4 through 8.6. There is little doubt that the
accomplishing of an in-valley irrigation system to utilize reclaimed
waters for irrigation as a substitute for pumping large amounts of
high grade ground water is a goal that has both short-term and long-
term benefits to this community. For that reason, I feel strongly that
the in-valley irrigation program, as part of the overall Pollution
Abatement Program, should go ahead with all due speed. With respect
to these programs, I would like to recommend that the in-valley
irrigation phase and desalinization aspects be coupled together, and
furthermore, the ground water recharge program be conducted independ-
ently. The reason for these recommended changes in the program are
outlined below.
One of the major problems involving the use of reclaimed waste water
for agricultural irrigation use is the build-up of salt concentrations
in the superficial soil layers. As indicated in this facilities
report and in the Phase III report, the application of large quantities
of AWT water to the soil for agricultural uses will require periodic
leaching with better grade water to assure continuation of plant growth.
The actual percentage of better grade water necessary to accomplish
this leaching varies from 10% to almost 30% of the total volume of
reclaimed water applied. Therefore, periodically, all of the land area
receiving reclaimed waste water from the AWT process will have to be
permitted to apply high grade water, either from wells, Lake Mead water,
or the product of a desalinization operation.
The second element in this interrelated area is the program to develop
ground water recharge. The objective behind ground water recharge, of
course, is to bank in the groundwater aquifer, properly treated waste
water. Everyone who has been involved over any period of time with
tha pollution abatement problem in the Las Vegas area, has been
interested in the possibilities of recharging the ground vater. It is
an accepted fact that a requirement for the quality of recharged water
is that it be of quality equal to, if not better than, the water
existing in the underground aquifer. For that reason, AWT water would
necessarily have to be subject to a desalinization process to bring it
to such a quality. In this proposal, the pilot desalinization plant
product water would have a TDS of 150 mg/L. Since the ground water
currently being pumped from the western areas of the valley has an
average TDS of approximately 250 rog/L, at seems that desalinated water
would be perfectly adequate to accomplish ground water recharge.
Unfortunately, there are many other complicating problems associated
with ground water recharge. The report identifies them and rightfully
takes the position that a pilot recharge program using well water should
be undertaken to evaluate the feasibility of such a project. My comment,
with respect to the pilot recharge phase, is that a two-year time plan
may be too short to appropriately evaluate the success of a recharge
program. I believe that many consultants recommend that a time period
of from 5 to 8 years is required to appropriately evaluate the
possibilities of accomplishing ground water recharge.
-------
Ai; previously stated, the purpose for ground water rccheirge is to bank
v;atcr in the ground water ejquifer. Therefore, you have to not only
pump the water down into the aquifer, but later, when you decide to
recover it, you have to pump it back out. Both of these efforts
increase the cost of that recoverable ground water.
Because this plan more carefully coupled the in-valley irrigation program
to dasalinization and ground water recharge, I believe that a less
expensive approach would be to utilize the desalinated water within the
in-valley irrigation system. Since there is evidence that all in-valley
irrigated areas receiving AWT water will have to be periodically leached
with a higher grade water, then desalinated water would be ideal for
that purpose. Again, our objective of reducing withdrawals from the
ground water aquifer would be maintained. Whether we add to the ground
water volume by recharge, or we reduce withdrawal by substituting
desalinated water, the net effect is to increase the available ground
water. Furthermore, the desalinated water would be appropriately
utilized at a far less cost than pumping it into the aquifer and pumping
it out at a later date. As the desalinization program increased in
size, producing greater volumes of water per day, it could be mixed with
AWT water to, in a sense, sweeten it for various uses.
I would recommend that the location for a desalinization plant be
adjacent to the AWT plant. The report suggests that a desalinization
plant be located on the property of the Las Vegas Valley Water District.
I believe that the construction of a factory-like building in that area
would meet with substantial citizen objections. Might it not be simpler
to construct it near the AWT plant being proposed? The product water
could then be added into the in-valley irrigation pipeline system and
be delivered to appropriate sites to be used either for mixing with AWT
water or for the purposes of leaching. Assuming that the various health
arguments which currently prevent the use of desalinated .water for
potable purposes are finally solved to everyone's satisfaction, then
excess desalinated waters (when available) could be directly added into
the main transmission line running near the Clark County Sanitation
District from the Southern Nevada Water Project. Furthermore, the brine
produced by such a desalinization program could be pumped into the export
line which will be part of the Allen Power Project.
While I do not want to totally throw cold water on the concept of ground
water recharge, I think that this report permits one to put it into a
different perspective. Ground water recharge has a large number of
unknown factors associated with it and may require a very long time frame
to properly evaluate its success or failure. But, with a large-scale,
in-valley irrigation system on line, it would be possible to make direct
use of desalinated water without the additional cost of pumping it Jnto
the underground and then pumping it back later. For every gallon that
we can apply to the surface it means that we save and conserve another
gallon in our valuable underground aquifer.
-------
A final recommendation on saline control is less detailed, but does
apply to the overall project philosophy. Since the saline control
program for the Colorado River is receiving strong federal support, I
believe we will see an active program undertaken within the next five
years. For that portion of the salina program which applies to the
Las Vegas Wash discharges, I recommend the Commission adopt the
position that the saline control program planned by the Bureau of
Reclamation be integrated into the pollution project now being
considered.
I appreciate the opportunity of presenting these comments and
recommendations to the Commission. I would recommend that the
Conunission adopt both the facilities report and its environmental
assessment as a course of action to solve the pollution of Lake Mead.
Yours
incerely.
Thorne J. Bu
TJ3:gcs
-------
SUMMARY OF CO.NFESENCE
(SEVENTH SE3SIOH)
POLU/TION OF THF. INTEHSTATE WATERS
or THE
COLOP.ADO RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
(COUJRADO-'JTAH-ARIZOSA-NEVADA-CALIFOSNIA-NEW MEXICO-WYOMING)
February 15-17 and April 26-27, 1972
The Colorado Riv*r rises high in the snow-capped Rocky
Mountain* of north central Colorado near the Continental Divide.
It flow*, generally, southwesterly far about 1,400 miles before
er.otying into the Gulf of California in Mexico. The river flows
across Colorado into Utah and later forns parts of the boundaries
betwsen Arizona and Nevada, and Arizona and California. It has
approximately 60 tributaries, and drains not only parts of the five
States named, but also parts of New Mexico and Wyoming.
The first session- of the conference in the matter of pollution
of the Colorado River and its tributaries (Colorado-Utah-Arisona-
N«vada-California-New Kexico-Wyoaing) was held on January 13, I960,
and was initiated at written requests from the Star* water pollu-
tion control agencies of Kew Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, California,
Nevada, and Utah. Wyoming concurred.
The conferees have net. in six sessions from 1960 to 1967 and
have studied and node recommendations with respect to various forme
of pollution in. the Colorado River, *icularly radiation
resulting from uranium mine tailings piles.
The seventh session of the conference was held on February 15-17,
19J2, in Las Vegas, Nevada, and on April Z6-2/, 1972, in Denver,
Colorado, under the provisions of section 10 ol the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1160), and was addressed
spscifically to pollution problems associated with the control and
r
disposition of uranium mill tailings piles and the increasing salinity
content pf the Colorado River and its tributaries.
The following conferees representing the State water pollution
control agencies of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, California,
New Mexico, and Wyoming, and the Environmental Protection Agency,
participated in the seventh session of the conference;
ARIZONA
C. C. Tabor
CALIFORNIA
E. F. Dibble
Norman B. Hume
Frank Rozich
NEVADA
Roland D. Westergard
Chairman, Arizona Water Quality
Control Council
Wellton, Arizona
Vice Chairman, California Water Resources
Con t to 1 Board
Sacramento, California
Member, California Water Resources
Control Board
Sacramento, California
Director, Water Pollution Control Division
Colored. irtment of Health
Denver, Colorado
State Engineer
Division of Water Resources
Carson City, Nevada
-------
:.r.: MEXICO
John R. Wright
Carl Slingerland
S. t. Reynolds
UTAH
Lynn M. Thatcher
WYOMING
Arthur E. WilHanson
Secretary, New Mexico Water Quality
Control CtiTJr.ioaion
Santa Fe, Now Maxico
Stnff Knginear, New Mexico Interstate
Strenra Comission
Santa Fe, Haw Mexico
Secretary, Mew Mexico Interstate
Streatr. Commission
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Deputy Director of Health
Utah State Division of Health
Salt Lc'*e City, Utah
Director, Sanitary Engineering Services
Utah Department of Health and
Social Services
Cheyenne, Wyoming
E::viE.orn-s::TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Richard L. O'Connell
Irwin L. Dickstein
Hurray Stein, Chairman
Director, Enforcement Division, Region IX
Er.viron.T.sntal Protection Agency
San Fra.-.cisco, California
Director, Enforcenent Division, Region VIII
Environmental Protection Agency
Denver, Colorado
Chief Enforcenent Officer - Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
The Chairman of the conference pointed out:
1. Under the Federal Water ?oj ' -'-in Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1151 et seq.), pollution of interstate or navigable waters which
endanger* the health or welfare of any persona shall be subject to
abatement. This applies whether the 'matter causing or contributing
to tho pollution is discharged directly into such waters or reaches
such waters after discharge into a tributary.
2, The purpose of the conference is .to bring together the
States and the Environmental Protection Agency to review the existing
situation, lay a basis for action by all parties concerned towar'd
pollution abatement, and to give the States, localities, and indus-
tries an opportunity to take any indicated remedial action under
State and local law.
•
Based on the information and testimony presented, the State and
Federal conferees unanimously reached the following conclusions and
recommendations:
1. The problem of discharges from uranium mills into the waters
of the basin has largely been corrected, but there is still a residual
—tailings pile problem. The conferees are in unanimous agreement that
a tailings pile regulation* comparable to that submitted to the con-
ferees shall be adopted and implemented by the Colorado River States
at the earliest practical date, but not later than July 1, 1973.
2. It is recommended that a salinity policy be adopted by the
Colorado River system that would have as its objective the main-
tenance of salinity concentrations at or balow levels presently four.4
»
in the lower main stem. In implementing the salinity policy
objective for the Colorado River system, the salinity problem oust
be treated as a basinwide problem that needs to be solved to maintain
Lower Basin water salinity at or below present levels while the
Upper Basin continues to develop its compact-apportioned waters.
* Appendix A
65
-------
3. The salinity control program as described by the Department
of the Interior in its report* entitled "Colorado River Water Quality
Improvement Program," dated February 1972, offera the best prospect
for implementing the salinity control objective adopted herein.
Therefore, it is recommended that:
0} to minimize salinity increases in the river, a salinity
control program, generally as described in the Interior
Department report, be implemented on an accelerated basis;
b) the Bureau of Reclamation have the primary responsibility
for investigation, planning and implementing the basinwide
salinity control program in the Colorado River system;
c) to accelerate the salinity control program, the Bureau
of Reclamation assign a high priority to LaVerkin Springs,
Paradox Valley, and Grand Valley water quality improvement
projects with the objective of achieving stabilization of .
salinity levels on the Lower Colorado River at the earliest
possible date. The contemplated impact would be to initiate
immediate action so as to achieve, by 1977, the removal of
80,000 tons of salt per year from LaVerkin Springs, 160,000
tons per year from Paradox Valley, and 140,000 tons per
year from Grand Valley. This would provide a total
reduction of 400,000 tons per year and would result in an
estimated subsequent reduction of 33 mg/1 at Imperial Dam.
d) the Office of Saline Water contribute to the program by
assisting the Bureau of Reclamation as required to appraise
the practicability of applying desalting techniques; and
* Appendix B
e) the Environmental Protection Agency continue its support
of the program by consulting with and advising the Bureau
of Reclamation and accelerating its ongoing data collection
and research efforts.
4, ,To achieve the salinity policy described herein, the long-
range program of the Bureau of Reclamation shall be. directed toward
achieving reduction of salinity concentrations that would otherwise
exist at Imperial Dam to the extent of at least 120 mg/1 in 1980,
355 mg/1 in 1990 and 405 mg/1 in the year 2000.
*****
The conferees agree that the Bureau of Reclamation's program as
submitted in its report "Colorado River Water Quality Improvement
Program,", dated February 1972, should be considered as an open-ended
and flexible program. If alternatives not yet identified prove to be
. <
•ore feasible, they should be included as part of the program, and if
elements now included prove not to be feasible, they should be
/
'dropped. In addition, it should be recognized that there may be other
programs which could reduce the river's salinity. Since present
levels are greater than desirable, an effort should be made to develop
additional programs that will obtain lower salinity levels.
The February 1972 report states that the Bureau of Reclamation
Mathematical Simulation Model for the Colorado River system will be
used to evaluate the Water Quality Improvenent Program. This will be
an important tool to evaluate the program's progress. The results of
this evaluation along with the general program progress should be
^
reported annually to the eonferets and other interested State
agencies.
66
-------
TOe 40—Protect
CHAPTE* t—tMVITONUtNTW.
PROTECTION ACENCT
i
(D
i
»•»
M
C*
mm 120—WOTER guAun
STANDARDS ;
Colorado River System; Sllinity ConL-ol
Policy and Sundardt Procedure!
The purpose of this ncliee la to amend
40 CPU Part 120 to fet lortli a salimtf
control policy «nd procedures and re-
quirements (or ehUbli&ntnfi wawr quality
standards lor salinity and a [.Un ol Im-
plementation 'or ealiiuty coi.u-oi m the
Colorado River £>.-Um mhurt Uta within
the BtatM ol Arizona. Calilorma. Ci-lo-
rado. Nevada. New Mexico. DtiB »nd
Wyoming pursuant to sfc< Don 302 u! Uie
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. M
amended >33 TJ.B.C 1313). A nolii* pro-
posing such policy and ita&darda proce-
dura was Isuied on June 10, 1814 III
PR li0703.3»FR 24517).
Higb salinity it/>lil dissolved scLdsl
U recognized ai a significant water qual-
Ity problem casing adverse impacts on
water UMS. Salinity ooncenvau.-31 are
oG«ioJ by two bstic processes: ia> fiolt
loading—the addition ot mineral salt*
Jiora tar.ous natural and man-made
sourct*, &>r.d itai salt coucer/.rauxs—the
lc*s tl mater (rum Uu £yst«n laxaugh
atreitn dejilttlon.
Studies to date have demonstrated that
the hlsh salinity ol strc&a fysUcu can
be alUvlited. Although further sUdy
. may be rewind to determine tie eco-
nomic and technical feasibility of con-
trolling specific sources, luSclent for-
mation Is available to develop a salinity
control program.
Salinity standard* for the Colorado
River System would be useful In the for-
mulation ol an effective sallclty control
program, in developing these stmidkrda.
the seven Slates must cooperate with
one another and the Federal Government
to support and Implement the cof-clu-
itons and recommendations adopted
April 27. 1972, b; the reconvened 7th
Session ol the Conference la the Hatter
of Pollution of the Interstate Waters ot
the Colorado River and lu Tribuuu-te*.
PubUc hearings on the proposed reg-
ulation were held In Lu Vecas. Hevada,
on August It, 1974. and In Denver. Colo-
rado, on August 21, 1974. Public com-
ments wen provided at the hearings and
also by letter diving the review period.
A summary of major comments ana En-
vironmental Protection Agency response
follows:
<1» The Colorado Rlfer Basin Salinity
Control Forum stated that It did not
object to the proposed regulation, and
believed that It satisfied the requirement*
of section 303(bi ill of PJ. 92-400 until
October U. 1911. The Forum reported
that the terra Colorado Rim Damn
Slates were actively working on the de-
velopment of water Quality standards
and a plan ol Implementation for salinity
control.
(2) The Colorado Rlrer Water Coo-
(etvaUoa District Inquired M to »aether
the dennlllon of the Colorado River
Basin contained In Article INfl of the
Colorado River Compoet of 1923 would
. be followed in the development of salinity
llandard.i and the salinity control plan.
The rcquitenient for establishing water
qunli'.y standard and i\n Implementation
phli apply to the Colorado Rii'er System
•s dinned In Part 120 5.al of this regu-
lation. THli definition Is consistent with
the dcflr.ltlon of tlie Colorado River Sys-
tem contained In Article Hial of the
Compact. The regulation states that the
salinity problem chilli tic trcnUfd as a
butinuide problem Articles Htf) and
ni«> drilne the Basin to Include the Sys-
tem plus areas ouu.de the drainage urea
which are served by the Colorado River
Si&titn. The Environments! protectlan
Agency lEPA) will require that the
standards and Implementation plan con-
sider the Impacts of baslivAide uses. e.g..
Irai-MiMunLiln diversions, on salinity
effev'ls m the Sjhteni, but the establish-
nit'lit til stan^irdi and Implementation
plan* pur&uant uj U;u regulation wilt not
be risaired tor stream;, located ouulde
the Sj.'sWin.
Tie District alMj questioned the
feasibility of relytn* on iin.alLon Im-
provement pr»«raoi.* A*, a mean* uf al-
levUur.i thi- i..I::iity rroUem
EPA beeves that .Urinate Informa-
tion Ls available to lr.ri.ttc controls for
UTi.3t.-d at-riLiiliurt. yrt at the'same
time a-kr.ctledA'es tint additional work
!• needed to dcmofutute the efficacy of
cerM'ii cor.lrol measures. Projects pres-
ently being supported by EPA and
others should demonstrate the adequacy
of various'control measures including
manaeement and non-tlructural tech-
niques. Tlie>e measures will be consid-
ered during the development of the Im-
plementation ulan.
<3> The Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF) ustmed that it believed that EPA
waa not complying with the requirements
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, chiefly because of
EPA's late response to the timetable de-
lineated In the Act for establishing
standards, and also because numerical
standards still have not been set for the
Colorado River System. EDP called upon
EPA to withdraw the propoted regula-
tion and promptly promulgate numeri-
cal lunlu for salinity.
EPA believes that a move to promul-
gate numerical standards at this time
could cause ever further delays ui con-
trolkr.c sallni'.y due to ttie problems In-
volved with cbtaimng Interstate coopera-
tion and public acceptance of auch *
promulgation.
<4> The Sierra Club raised * number
ol objections to the proposed regulation.
principally because, in Its opinion, it
permits further development of the
waters of the Colorado River without re-
quiring that adequate aallnlty control!
be 6n line prior to development. Spe-
cific suggestions are:
la) Section 120.5(e)(2). Shorten the
deadline for tubmlsalon of the standard!
and Implementation plan to May M.
11»7J
HUES AND HOUUTIOMS
EPA believes that this would not allow
adequate time due to the complexities of
the problem, the Interstate coordination
needed and the time requirements for
public hearings. The October II, 1976,
date Is consistent with the requirement!
of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. a» amended, for the three year re-
view and revision of standards. The
schedule set forth by the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Forum calls for
development of uraU standards and an
Implementation plan by February 1B75 In
oi-der to allow time for public participa-
tion prioi to promulgation.
till).
Xt is the purpose °'tnu language to ac-
celerate piui;ro.sH by the States toward
this Konl where possible.
(ci S«lion llo.iicHlHH). Delete
"while the baton Slates continue to de-
velop their compact apportioned
»slen."
In rero«mltu>n of the provisions ot the
Colorado Rivvr Compact of 1923 and un-
til such tame thut the relationship be-
tftct-n the Compact and the Federal
Water Hullutlon Control Art. ax amend-
ed. U claill itl. EPA tcllrvca Ihut devel-
opment may procred provided that
m«usure» are taken to offset the salinity
increases resiling from further devel-
opment.
id) Section I20.sic><2"tv>. Add lan-
guage to describe conditions under
which temporary Increases abate the
1972 level! will be allowed.
EPA believes that this matter should
be addressed In timber detail In the for-
mulation, review and acceptance of the
Implementation plan, not In Uie regula-
tion.
le) Add a new subsection on financing
el control measures.
EPA believes that Out. too. Is an Is-
sue that should be handled aa part of
the implementation plan.
Add a new subsection delineating
requirements for evaluating control
Plans and restricting consideration of
controls for the Blue Spring on the Lit-
tle Colorado River.
EPA believes these taaues should alao
be addressed as part of the Implementa-
tion plan. Jt truiuld be noted that noth-
ing In tills regulation temovei the re-
quirement for a6**slng environmental
impacts and prepaiuig environmental
impact statements lor control measure!.
ig) Add a new section requiring pub-
lic hearings.
EPA'S public participation regulation!
appear at 40 CFR 105 and apply to all
actions to be taken by the Stales and
Federal Government pursuant to the Act.
Stales have provided for public partlc-
ipatlou throughout the Initial water
quality standards review process. We ex-
pect the SUtei lo do so In this situa-
tion and tee no need to set forth addi-
tional requirement*.
fh) Add a MO section slating that the
Implementation plan will be published
In the nacaai, Rgunu.
•PA espeeta then will be stibsUntlal
public participation at the state and lo-
cal level prior la adoption ot Uu plan.
The salinity standards an expected to bo
published In the Fcuau Ruingi, but
Ihe size and complexity of the plan may
militate against Itl publication. At Uu
very least, Uie plan will be available for
review at appropriate EPA and Stale of-
fices. Notice of iti availability will be
published In the FcKau. Ricisna, and
60 days will be allowed for public re-
view and comment.
HI Add a new subsection staling that
EPA will promulgate standard! If the
States fail lo do so as prescribed In tills
regulation.
Section 303 of Uie Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act provides for promul-
gation by EPA where the States fall to
adopt standards requested by the Ad-
ministrator, or where the Admlnbftrator
determines Federal promulgation I*
necessary to carry out the purposes of
the Act. EPA'i responsibility to promul-
gate standards it the States fall to do
so Is thus upressed In the statute Itself;
the Agency don not believe that recita-
tion of the statutory duty In tills par-
ticular rulemakuig Is necessary.
(6> The American Farm Bureau
Federation, California Farm Bureau
Federation. Nevada Farm Bureau Fed-
eration, and the New Mexico Farm and
Livestock Bureau believe that standard*
should not be set until further evalua-
tion of the problems and opportuniuen
for control are completed.
EPA believes that adequate Informa-
tion Is available for aeltlng standards
and formulating controls, and while It
recognises that additional work Is needed
on specific aspect! of solutions. It be-
lieves that further delay without any
action Is not appropriate.
Record! of the hearings and comment!
received by letter during the review
period are available for public inspec-
tion at the regional offices of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency at 1IN
Lincoln Street In Denver, Colorado, at
100 California Street In San Francisco,
California, at 1600 Patterson Street In
Dallas, Texas, and at the Environmental
Protection Agency Freedom of Informa-
tion Center at 401U Street SW In Wash-
Ington. DC.
This regulallun sets forth a policy of
maintaining salinity concentrations In
the lower main item of the Colorado
River at or below 1972 average levels and
requires the Colorado Rlvei System
States to promulgate water quality
standards and a plan for meeting the
standards. The tint step will be the
establishment of procedure! within SO
oays of the effective date of these regula-
tion! which win lead to adoption on or
before October 11.197S, of water quality
standards for otllulty Including numeric
criteria and an Implementation plan for
salinity control.
Except as provided tat this regulation,
Uu Interstate and Intraitate standards
previously adopted by the State* of
Arizona. California, Colorado, Nevada,
Mew alexlco. Utah and Wyoming and ap-
proved by the Environmental Protection
Agency are the effecUn water quality
standard! under section 103 of the Act
tor Interstate and Intraitate waters
within those States. When Uu regula-
tion! att forth below an inconsistent
with the referenced state standards,
these regulations will lupenwde such
lUndardi to the extent of Uie Incon-
alstency.
In consideration of the foregoing. 49
CFR Part :JC U amended as follows:
1. Section 1204 la added to read si set
forth below:
• I 170.S Culonul* Klvrr S..lt.« Stilnlir
Slsnilsrds rail Imiilei»eiiuli71. To
, carry out this policy, waterquallty jtni.d-
srds for salinity and a plan of implemen-
tation for salinity cintrol shall brdcvel-
' oped and Implemented In accordance
with the principles of paragraph 1C)
below.
' A plan to achieve compliance with
these standards as expedltlously ?i prac-
ticable providing that:
(I) The plan stall Identity B'att and
Federal regulatory authorities and pro-
grams necessary to achieve compliance
with the plan.
(II) The salinity problem shsfl be
treated as a baalnwlde problem that
need! to be wired In order to maintain
rawer main item aallnlty at or below 1979
level! while the basin States continue to
develop their compact apportioned
. walera.
' (111) The goal of the plan Shan be to
achieve compliance with the adopted
standard! by July 1, 1999. The date of
compliance with the adopted standards
shall take Into account the necessity for
Federal aallnlty control actions art forth
In the plan. Abatement raeasum within
Uu control ot the State! «hatt be imple-
mented as soon as practicable.
• fir) Salinity level! In Uu lower mala
item may temporarily Increase above the
1971 level! If control measures to offset
the increase! an Included In the control
plan. However, compliance with 1971
levela shall be a primary consideration.
(v> The feasibility of ntaMUblng an
Interstate Institution for aallnlty man.
i agement ahaD, bo evaluated.
• (d) The Slalei an required to subml
to the napecUvo Environmental Protect
tlon Agency Regional Administrator es4
tabUahed procedure! tor achieving (eA
(1) and (c) (D abon within It days of
the effective date of these regulations and
to submit progress report! quarterly
thereof ler. EPA will on a quarterly basis
determine the progress being made m the
development of salinity standards and
Uie Implementation nlan.
| 110 10 lAmriiJnll
1120.10 Is amended by adding to the
parasraphs entitled "ArlJuma", "Califor-
nia", "Colorado", "Nvvada", "New Mex-
ico", "Utah", and "Wyoming" a salinity
control poliry t>nd procedures end re-
quirements f(,r eftlal>li-.hlti| water quality
standards for salinity control In the Colo-
rado River System.
IMC. 301. t>ut>. L M-S». W Out etl (U
USC. 131911
ECTrcUvc date: December II. 1911.
Dated: December 11.1974.
JOHN QOASLXI.
ActlM Atmlnltlrator.
IF> UK.14-MSII m«t 11-17-74.1:4! aas]
nM9At UOrfnX VOt, 1*. NO. 144—MMHMV, BKUMI II, 1*74
------- |