# TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 

# SECTION I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1

Introduction 1

Environmental Assessment 1

Purpose and Need 1

Background 5

Related Laws, Policies, And Other Planning Documents 5

Issues and Impact Topics 7

Issues and Impact Topics Identified for Further Analyses 7

Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration 8

**SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 10**

Introduction 10

Alternative A- No Action 10

Alternative B- Construct Government Boating Repair Facility and Aids to

Navigation Complex at the Old Boulder Beach Horse Corral Site 12

Alternative C- Construct Government Boating Repair Facility and Aids to

Navigation Complex at the Water Treatment Plant Site 14

Mitigation and Monitoring 16

Mitigation and Monitoring Common to Alternatives B and C 17

Soils and Vegetation 17

Desert Tortoise 17

Air Quality 17

Water Resources 17

Cultural Resources 17

Visual Resources 18

Safety and Visitor Use and Experience 18

Park Operations/ Energy Use 18

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Evaluation 18

Consultation, Coordination, and Permit Requirements 18

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 19

Comparison of Impacts 21

**SECTION III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 22**

Introduction 22

Location and General Description of Lake Mead NRA and the Project Area
22

Soils and Vegetation 22

Wildlife 22

Special Status Species 23

Air Quality 23

Water Resources 24

Soundscapes 24

Cultural Resources 24

Visitor Use and Experience, Socioeconomic Resources, and Park

Operations 25

**SECTION IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 26**

Introduction 26

Methodology 26

Criteria and Thresholds for Impact Analyses 26

Soils and Vegetation 26

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 27

Threatened and Endangered Species 28

Air Quality 30

Water Resources and Water Quality 31

Cultural Resources 32

Criteria and Thresholds for Impact Analyses of All Other Issues 34

Impairment Analysis 35

Unacceptable Impacts 35

Cumulative Effects 36

ALTERNATIVE A- No Action 37

> Soils and Vegetation 37
>
> Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 38
>
> Special Status Species 38
>
> Air Quality 38
>
> Water Resources 38
>
> Soundscapes 39
>
> Cultural Resources 39
>
> Visual Resources 39
>
> Safety and Visitor Use and Experience 39
>
> Park Operations 40
>
> ALTERNATIVE B- Construct Boating Repair Facility and Aids to
>
> Navigation Complex at the Old Boulder Beach Horse Corral Site 41
>
> Soils and Vegetation 41
>
> Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 42
>
> Special Status Species 42
>
> Air Quality 43
>
> Water Resources 43
>
> Soundscapes 44
>
> Cultural Resources 44
>
> Visual Resources 45
>
> Safety and Visitor Use and Experience 45
>
> Park Operations 46
>
> ALTERNATIVE C- Construct Aids to Navigation Complex 47
>
> Soils and Vegetation 47
>
> Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 48
>
> Special Status Species 48
>
> Air Quality 49
>
> Water Resources 49
>
> Soundscapes 50
>
> Cultural Resources 50
>
> Visual Resources 51
>
> Safety and Visitor Use and Experience 51
>
> Park Operations 52

**SECTION V: COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 55**

**SECTION VI: LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 56**

**SECTION VII: REFERENCES 57**

**LIST OF FIGURES**

Figure 1. Regional Map 2

Figure 2. Area Map 3

Figure 3. Project Area Map 4

Figure 4. Photo of Existing Facility at Boulder Beach Maintenance Yard
11

Figure 5. Photo of Boulder Beach Maintenance Yard 11

Figure 6. Photo of Boulder Beach Horse Corral Site 12

Figure 7. Diagram of Maximum Build-out 13

Figure 8. Photo of Water Treatment Plant Site 15

**LIST OF TABLES**

Table 1. Comparison of Long Term Impacts 21

**APPENDICES**

Appendix A. Press Release. 58

Appendix B. USFWS Listing of Threatened and Endangered Species 59

*Page left intentionally blank.*

# SECTION I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

# INTRODUCTION

#### The National Park Service (NPS) is considering constructing a government boating repair facility and aids to navigation complex within the Boulder Beach development area of Lake Mead, at Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NRA). Lake Mead NRA is situated in southeastern Nevada and northwestern Arizona and encompasses lands around Lake Mead and Lake Mohave (Figure 1). The proposed facility would be located in the highly visited and developed Boulder Beach area of Lake Mead NRA (Figures 2 and 3).

**ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT**

This environmental assessment (EA) analyzes two action alternatives and
the no-action alternative, and their impacts on the natural and human
environment. It outlines project alternatives, describes existing
conditions in the project area, and analyzes the effects of each project
alternative on the environment. This document also includes discussions
of alternatives that have been ruled out and justifications for their
elimination. This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations \[CFR\]
1508.9) and NPS DO-12.

For the purposes of this EA, an analysis evaluating the overall impacts
associated with the maximum build-out of the proposed facility is
presented in each action alternative. It is realized that construction
of the maximum desired facility is not possible at this time due to
funding limitations. Consequently, the project could occur in phases but
would be dependent on acquiring additional funding. Therefore, this EA
evaluates the environmental impacts associated with construction of a
7,200 sq. ft. facility (with 7,200 sq. ft. awning), recognizing that the
initial phase may be limited to construction of a 3,200 sq. ft. facility
(with 1,600 sq. ft. awning).

[]{.mark}

**PURPOSE AND NEED**

The primary purpose of this project is to enhance the safety of visitors
and park personnel by providing a safe work environment for park staff
to accomplish daily maintenance on navigational aids to ensure safe
navigation for all boaters on lakes Mead and Mohave. At maximum
build-out, the facility would include an extensive storage facility for
vessels and aids to navigation equipment; Dive shop; area for conducting
routine boat maintenance and minor repairs; covered boat storage area;
boat wash-down area; storage space for the Motor Boat Operators Training
Course materials and equipment; and, limited office space. Consideration
of these areas would ultimately make for a more efficient operation. The
facility would also provide a centralized location, in close proximity
to Lake Mead, where search and rescue efforts could be planned and
implemented.

**Figure 1. Regional Map**

**Lake Mead National Recreation Area**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.586111111111111in"
height="8.503472222222221in"}

**Figure 2. Area Map**

**Lake Mead National Recreation Area**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.6375in" height="8.555555555555555in"}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="7.8590277777777775in"}

The existing facility at the Boulder Beach maintenance yard is shared by
both the Maintenance Division and the Aids to Navigation (ATON) team.
The facility is a small open-bay shop with a small office/storage area
attached. There is no controlled environment for working on the
multitude of projects related to boat repair and aids to navigation
maintenance. Job activities performed by the ATON team, including
welding, fiberglass repair, fabricating anchor systems, boat repair
work, and general boat maintenance must all be accomplished outdoors in
sometimes adverse weather conditions. Extreme summer heat can make this
task unbearable. The existing facility does not provide adequate space
to perform minor boat repairs or maintenance of navigational aids.
Navigational devices, buoys, light systems, and reef markers are
currently stored in old trailer house structures scattered around the
compound.

[]{.mark}

**BACKGROUND**

[]{.mark}

Lake Mead NRA was formally established by Congress in 1964. From that
time to the 1970s, visitation jumped to 6 million and there was a
corresponding increase in boating activity. Lake Mead was being
discovered as one of the premier inland water recreation areas. Today,
almost 10 million visitors and residents of Southern Nevada visit Lake
Mead NRA each year. Many of these visitors and residents are users of
the waterway system and rely on functional aids to navigation devices to
guide them away from water hazards and safely to their destination. Due
to drought conditions in the southwest, the water level of Lake Mead
continues to decline, and exposure of previously submerged features has
become more prevalent. These previously submerged features become
hazards to the boating public and require prompt identification with
navigational aids.

[]{.mark}

A cooperative navigational aids agreement between Lake Mead NRA and the
United States Coast Guard was originally signed in September 1986 and
was reaffirmed in August 2001. Under this agreement, the NPS is
responsible for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of all
navigational aids on lakes Mead and Mohave. The NPS is also responsible
for providing the necessary personnel services, vessels, and associated
operating costs, and appropriate shop and storage facilities as required
for the installation, operation, and maintenance of the navigational
system.

**RELATED LAWS, POLICIES, AND OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS**

[]{.mark}

**Servicewide and Park Specific Legislation and Planning Documents**

The NPS Organic Act directs the NPS to manage units "to conserve the
scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein
and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." (16
U.S.C. § 1). Congress reiterated this mandate in the Redwood National
Park Expansion Act of 1978 by stating that the NPS must conduct its
actions in a manner that will ensure no "derogation of the values and
purposes for which these various areas have been established, except as
may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by
Congress." (16 U.S.C. § 1 a-1). The Organic Act prohibits actions that
permanently impair park resources unless a law directly and specifically
allows for the acts. An action constitutes an impairment when its
impacts "harm the integrity of park resources or values, including the
opportunities that otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those
resources and values" (Management Policies 1.4.3).

NPS Management Policies 2006 requires the analysis of potential effects
of each alternative to determine if actions would impair or create
unacceptable impacts to park resources. To determine impairment, the NPS
must evaluate "the particular resources and values that would be
affected; the severity, duration, and timing of the impact; the direct
and indirect effects of the impact; and the cumulative effects of the
impact in question and other impacts" (NPS Management Policies 1.4.5).
Since the impact threshold at which impairment occurs is not always
readily apparent, the Service will apply a standard that offers greater
assurance that impairment will not occur by avoiding impacts it
determines to be unacceptable. These are impacts that fall short of
impairment, but are still not acceptable within a particular park's
environment (NPS Management Policies 1.4.7.1). The NPS must always seek
ways to avoid or minimize, to the greatest degree practicable, adverse
impacts on park resources and values. However, the laws do give the NPS
management discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when
necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as long as
the impact does not constitute impairment to the affected resources and
values (Management Policies 1.4.3).

Lake Mead NRA was established in 1964 (PL 88-639), "for the general
purposes of public recreation, benefit, and use, and in a manner that
will preserve, develop and enhance, so far as practicable, the
recreation potential, and in a manner that will preserve the scenic,
historic, scientific, and other important features of the area,
consistent with applicable reservations and limitations relating to such
area and with other authorized uses of the lands and properties within
such area."

The 1986 Lake Mead NRA *General Management Plan (GMP)* provided for the
overall management direction for Lake Mead NRA. It established
management zones to accommodate increasing visitor use while protecting
park resources. The GMP addressed development in the Boulder Basin
management zone and included Boulder Beach maintenance issues. It
identified areas within this management zone which could be developed to
support maintenance operations.

NPS Management Policies 2006 states that necessary water navigation aids
will be planned in collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard, and will be
installed, maintained, and used in conformance with the standards
established by these agencies only if there are no appropriate
alternatives outside park boundaries" (Management Policies 9.2.6). The
*Cooperative Navigational Aids Agreement* between Lake Mead NRA and
United States Coast Guard (2001) was developed to "minimize duplication
of effort in establishing, operating, and maintaining navigational aids,
and to utilize to the fullest extent practicable the available personnel
and facilities of both agencies". The agreement charges Lake Mead NRA
with the responsibility for establishing, operating, and maintaining
navigational aids on lakes Mead and Mohave. Lake Mead NRA is also
responsible for providing the necessary personnel services, vessels, and
associated operating costs, and appropriate shop and storage facilities
as required for the installation, operation, and maintenance of the
navigational system.

**ISSUES AND IMPACT TOPICS**

Issues are related to the potential environmental effects of project
alternatives. A 30-day public scoping period occurred between January
23, 2004 and February 23, 2004 through a press release (Appendix A) to
solicit potential concerns or issues relative to the project proposal.
No comments were received from the public and no issues were brought up
during the external scoping process. The topics and issues listed below
were generated by park staff and the park's interdisciplinary team
during the internal park scoping process. Once issues were identified,
they were used to help formulate the alternatives and mitigation
measures. Impact topics based on substantive issues, environmental
statutes, regulations, and executive orders (EOs) were selected for
detailed analysis. A summary of the impact topics and rationale for
their inclusion or dismissal is given below.

[]{.mark}

# Issues and Impact Topics Identified for Further Analyses

The following relevant impact topics are analyzed in the EA. Whether
each issue is related to taking action or no action is specified.

[]{.mark}

[Soils and Vegetation]{.underline}. Since the two action alternatives
involve ground-disturbing activities, soils and vegetation are addressed
as an impact topic in the environmental assessment. Construction
activities could introduce non-native species into the project area.
Paving would permanently alter the ground surface.

[]{.mark}

## [Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat]{.underline}. Wildlife could be disturbed by the noise and activity levels around the construction site, but would most likely avoid these areas during construction. The project area does not provide high quality wildlife habitat. However, the small mammals, birds, and reptiles that utilize the area would be permanently displaced by construction of the facility and paving of the compound and access roads. 

[Special Status Species]{.underline}. The project site does not provide
suitable desert tortoise habitat, and no tortoises occur within the
fenced enclosure at either location where the facility would be built.
Tortoises are rarely encountered in the surrounding developed area,
although they do occur in suitable habitat outside the area or
development.

##### Air Quality. Air quality could potentially be affected by selection of any of the alternatives. Increased dust from construction activities associated with the two action alternatives could create temporary, localized impacts on air quality. Paving the compound and access roads would reduce impacts to air quality. Under the no action alternative, the area would remain unpaved and particulate matter would continue to be generated from road use.

#### [Water Resources]{.underline}. Run-off from construction sites could affect water quality. Applying asphalt to an existing gravel surface and the roofs of facilities could increase the potential for run-off and sedimentation of washes. 

### [Soundscapes]{.underline}. Park soundscapes include both natural and human components. The natural soundscape is considered a park resource and includes all the naturally occurring sounds in the park, not including any sounds of human origin. Natural soundscapes may be disturbed temporarily during construction activities. 

### [Cultural Resources]{.underline}. Unknown cultural resources could exist in areas proposed for development and could be disturbed by construction activities. 

# [Visual Resources]{.underline}. Visual resources could potentially be affected by selection of any of the alternatives. Under both action alternatives, a new facility would be established and gravel surfaces would be paved which can create a visual disturbance and detract from the natural appearance of the recreation area. 

## [Safety and Visitor Use and Experience]{.underline}. Safety of visitors, park employees, and contractors is considered an important issue and is addressed as an impact topic in this environmental assessment. 

[Park Operations]{.underline}. The action alternatives would provide a
separate facility dedicated primarily for aids to navigation equipment
and operations and minor boating repairs. Extra space would enable work
activities to occur in a non-crowded, safe work environment potentially
catalyzing more efficient use of work space and storage space.

[]{.mark}

**Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed from Further Consideration**

Several issues were considered during the planning process but were
dismissed from further consideration because they were either determined
insignificant or because there were no potential effects to these
resources.

The following topics are not further addressed in this document because
there are no potential effects to these resources, which are not in the
project area or would be imperceptibly impacted. The project is not
located in designated, proposed, or potential wilderness. There is no
grazing occurring in the project area, nor are there prime and unique
agricultural lands within the project area. None of these alternatives
would have adverse impacts on wild and scenic rivers as there are none
in the area. The project area is not located in a sole or principal
drinking water aquifer, riparian area, wetland, floodplain, or
designated coastal zone, therefore no adverse impacts would occur to any
of these areas. Since the project area is not in a designated
ecologically significant or critical area and is not listed on the
Department of the Interior's National Registry of Natural Landmarks, no
impacts would occur to these resources.

In addition, there are no potential conflicts between the project and
land use plans, policies, or controls (including state, local, or Native
American) for the project area. This project would not affect Indian
Trust Resources.

Regarding energy requirements and conservation potential, construction
activities would require the increased use of energy for the
construction itself and for transporting materials. Energy use for
operating the new facility would slightly increase, but would decrease
at the existing facility since the Aids to Navigation team would not be
occupying this space. In addition, the facility would include
installation of photovoltaic solar power, and the NPS would design and
construct the ATON facility to meet the Silver Level of the LEED Green
Building Rating System. Overall, the energy from petroleum products
required to implement action alternatives would be insubstantial when
viewed in light of production costs and the effect of the national and
worldwide petroleum reserves.

There are no potential effects to local or regional employment,
occupation, income changes, or tax base as a result of this project. The
project area of effect is not populated and, per EO 12898 on
Environmental Justice, there are no potential effects on minorities,
Native Americans, women, or the civil liberties (associated with age,
race, creed, color, national origin, or sex) of any American citizen. No
disproportionate high or adverse effects to minority populations or
low-income populations are expected to occur as a result of implementing
any alternative.

[]{.mark}

**SECTION II: DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES**

# INTRODUCTION

This section describes the alternatives considered, including the No
Action Alternative. The alternatives include mitigation measures and
monitoring activities proposed to minimize or avoid environmental
impacts. This section also includes a description of alternatives
considered early in the process but later eliminated from further study;
reasons for their dismissal are provided. The section concludes with a
comparison of the alternatives considered.

The action alternatives present the project components associated with
the desired maximum build-out of the proposed facility. It is realized
that construction of the maximum build-out is not possible at this time
due to funding limitations. Consequently, the project could occur in
phases and would be dependent on acquiring additional funding.

**Alternative A- No Action**

Under the no action alternative, a separate building for boating repairs
and aids to navigation operations would not be established. All aids to
navigation activities, boating repairs, and storage would remain at the
existing Boulder Beach maintenance facility and yard (Figure 4). The
Boulder Beach maintenance yard is 4.1 acres, consists of four levels,
and is enclosed by a chain-link fence (Figure 5). The dual-purpose
maintenance/aids to navigation building is located on the first level of
the compound. This level is paved and provides some parking and a
limited amount of storage space. The existing building is 7,500 sq. feet
and consists of a small open-bay shop with a small office/storage area
attached where activities performed by maintenance and aids to
navigation take place. There is no controlled environment available for
personnel performing these tasks. The second level of the Boulder Beach
maintenance yard is currently being used for storage of maintenance
equipment and materials; the third level is used for storage of aids to
navigation equipment and materials; and, the fourth level is used for
storage of miscellaneous materials and equipment belonging to the Ranger
Division, Volunteers in Parks, Maintenance Division, and the Aids to
Navigation team. An obsolete water treatment plant is adjacent to the
Boulder Beach maintenance yard and is scheduled for demolition in 2007.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.925694444444445in"
height="3.9694444444444446in"}

Figure 4. Existing facility at the Boulder Beach maintenance yard
utilized by both the Maintenance Division and Aids to Navigation.

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.990972222222222in"
height="3.9944444444444445in"}

Figure 5. Boulder Beach maintenance yard. Photo shows the four levels
currently being used to store materials and equipment.

**Alternative B- Construct Government Boating Repair Facility and Aids
to Navigation Complex at the Old Boulder Beach Horse Corral Site**

The desired overall build-out for the proposed structure would be a
7,200 sq. ft. boating repair facility and aids to navigation complex
with 7,200 sq. ft. of awning on both sides of the building. The complex
would be constructed at the old Boulder Beach horse corral site (Figure
6). When this project was first conceived, there was adequate funding to
support the overall project. However, due to the delay in the project
and the escalation of costs associated with the construction materials,
the original funding is no longer sufficient. Consequently, this project
would be completed in phases and the overall build-out would be
dependent on funding.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="5.990972222222222in"
height="3.9944444444444445in"}

Figure 6. Boulder Beach horse corral site.

[Boating Repair Complex and Aids to Navigation Facility]{.underline}

*Phase One*

Phase One of the project would include site preparation, installation of
utilities, and construction of a 3,400 sq. ft. building with 1,600 sq.
ft. awning at the old Boulder Beach horse corral site. The NPS will
design and construct the facility to meet the Silver Level of the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building
Rating System. The metal structure would be 85 feet long, 40 feet wide,
and 20-25 feet tall. A 20 by 40 foot awning would be installed on both
sides of the building to provide covered but unsecured work space. The
awning would also help to provide climate control protection by reducing
the amount of direct sunlight penetrating the sides of the building. The
facility would include one drive-thru service bay (with another bay
prepped for future overhead doors), accessed by two 14 by 14 feet
motorized overhead doors, and one work/loading bay. A mezzanine level
could be constructed to include office space and a possible visual
observation of the lake's condition. The building would provide work
space primarily for the ATON team and potentially the NPS Dive Team.
Adequate space for boat repair and protected storage for new and
rehabilitated buoys would be available.

*Phase Two- Maximum Build-out*

The maximum build-out of the facility would add an additional 4,000 sq.
ft. to the building and 5,200 sq. ft. awning, resulting in a 7,200 sq.
ft. building with 7,200 sq. ft. awning (Figure 7). The metal structure
would be 180 feet long and 40 feet wide, with 3,200 sq. ft. awning on
both sides. The building would have a total of five pull through work
bays and a double traversing 3-ton crane that could travel over three
work bays. A mezzanine level could be constructed to include office
space and a visual observation of the lake's condition. In addition to
providing adequate space for aids to navigation and NPS dive operations,
the additional space would be sufficient to incorporate the needs of
park staff and other agencies.

![](media/image7.wmf)

Figure 7. Maximum build-out of Aids to Navigation/ Government boat
repair facility.

The complex would be comprised of the following elements: an Aids to
Navigation shop, NPS Dive Team shop, covered boat storage area, boat
wash-down area, storage facility for the Motor Boat Operators Training
Course training materials and equipment; area for boat maintenance and
minor repairs, storage facility for vessels and equipment, and limited
office space.

[Grounds Layout and Utilities]{.underline}

The old Boulder Beach horse corral site is an unpaved area,
approximately 2.8 acres, and is enclosed by a chain-link wire fence. A
horse corral was built at the site in the 1970s and sheltered horses
used for ranger patrols. Today this area functions as a storage area for
maintenance and navigational aids equipment, and also as a repository
for deteriorated and outdated maintenance equipment.

The 2.8 acres within the fenced enclosure would be graded and paved to
provide a level surface. One side of the fence could be extended up to
30 feet beyond the current location onto a previously disturbed area to
ensure no project component is sited beneath the overhead utility line.
Depending upon the design of the building, the following components may
be needed: a retaining wall to provide stability and to reduce erosion
factors; a catch basin to capture debris and sediment and to remove oil
and grease from run-off. In addition, a flammable storage locker,
covered boat storage, and a boat wash-down area may be sited within the
enclosed area of the compound.

[]{.mark}

Utilities are not available on-site. Water would be made available
following the water/wastewater treatment project that is currently
underway in the park. Access to power, sewer, and phone are in the
vicinity but could require a great deal of trenching along disturbed
corridors. Upgrades to the utilities may be needed. Low level lighting
facing inward to the compound, could be installed to aid in securing the
compound.

The park will include installation of photovoltaic solar power for the
ATON facility. In addition, the NPS will design and construct the
facility to meet the Silver Level of the LEED Green Building Rating
System.

[Parking and Road Access to Complex]{.underline}

There are currently two unpaved access roads leading to the Boulder
Beach horse corral site. These access roads would be graded and paved,
resulting in an additional 1.4 acres of permanently altered soils. Fire
hydrants would be located at each access point and would provide water
for fire and medical needs. A small paved parking area would be located
outside of the secured compound for park employees and other agency
personnel.

**Alternative C- Construct Government Boating Repair Facility and Aids
to Navigation Complex within the Existing Boulder Beach Maintenance
Area**

The desired overall build-out for the proposed structure would be a
7,200 sq. ft. boating repair facility and aids to navigation complex
with 7,200 sq. ft. of awning on both sides of the building. The complex
would be constructed at the site of the obsolete water treatment plant
within the existing maintenance area at Boulder Beach (Figure 8). When
this project was first conceived, there was adequate funding to support
the overall project. However, due to the delay in the project and the
escalation of costs associated with the construction materials, the
original funding is no longer sufficient. Consequently, this project
would be completed in phases and the overall build-out would be
dependent on funding.

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="5.990972222222222in"
height="3.9944444444444445in"}

Figure 8. Water treatment plant site near the Boulder Beach maintenance
area.

[Boating Repair Complex and Aids to Navigation Facility]{.underline}

*Phase One*

Phase of the project would include site preparation, installation of
utilities, and construction of a 3,400 sq. ft. building with 1,600 sq.
ft. awning at the water treatment plant site near the Boulder Beach
maintenance area. The NPS will design and construct the facility to meet
the Silver Level of the LEED Green Building Rating System. The metal
structure would be 85 feet long, 40 feet wide, and 20-25 feet tall. A 20
by 40 foot awning would be installed on both sides of the building to
provide covered but unsecured work space. The awning would also help to
provide climate control protection by reducing the amount of direct
sunlight penetrating the sides of the building. The facility would
include one drive-thru service bay (with another bay prepped for future
overhead doors), accessed by two 14 by 14 foot motorized overhead doors,
and one work/loading bay. A mezzanine level could be constructed to
include office space and a possible visual observation of the lake's
condition. The building would provide work space primarily for the ATON
team and potentially the NPS Dive Team. Adequate space for boat repair
and protected storage for new and rehabilitated buoys would be provided.

*Phase Two- Maximum Build-out*

The maximum build-out of the facility would add an additional 4,000 sq.
ft. to the building and 5,200 sq. ft. awning, resulting in a 7,200 sq.
ft. building with 7,200 sq. ft. awning (Figure 7). The metal structure
would be 180 feet long, 40 feet wide, with 3,200 sq. ft. awning on both
sides. The building would have a total of five pull through work bays
and a double traversing 3-ton crane that could travel over three work
bays. A mezzanine level could be constructed to include office space and
a visual observation of the lake's condition. In addition to providing
adequate space for aids to navigation and NPS dive operations, the
additional space would be sufficient to incorporate the needs of park
staff and other agencies.

The complex would be comprised of the following elements: an Aids to
Navigation shop, NPS Dive Team shop, covered boat storage area, boat
wash-down area, storage facility for the Motor Boat Operators Training
Course training materials and equipment; area for boat maintenance and
minor repairs, extensive storage facility for vessels and equipment, and
limited office space.

[]{.mark}

[Grounds Layout and Utilities]{.underline}

The existing water treatment plant that currently occupies this location
is scheduled for demolition and removal in 2007. The water treatment
plant was constructed in the mid-1960s and was shut down in the
mid-1990s due to plant failure, and Lake Mead NRA connected to the
Boulder City waterline. This location has sufficient utilities available
on-site, including electrical, water, and phone. A short segment would
be trenched to access the sewage line at the adjacent Boulder Beach Fire
house. Low level lighting facing inward to the compound, may be
installed to aid in securing the compound.

The park will include installation of photovoltaic solar power for the
ATON facility. . In addition, the NPS will design and construct the
facility to meet the Silver Level of the LEED Green Building Rating
System.

[Parking and Road Access to Project Area]{.underline}

The project area is approximately two acres, including the one-acre site
of the abandoned water treatment plant, and is accessed from the Boulder
Beach maintenance yard. A short gravel road parallels the tiered area of
the maintenance yard and leads to the project site. Site preparation
would include grading and paving the access road and project site. The
site would encompass the abandoned water treatment facility area and the
third tier of the maintenance yard. This area would provide the needed
space for vehicle flow and storage. Fire hydrants may be installed at
the access point and would provide water for fire and medical needs.
Depending upon the design of the building, the following components may
be needed: a retaining wall to provide stability and to reduce erosion
factors; a catch basin to capture debris and sediment and to remove oil
and grease from run-off. In addition, a flammable storage locker,
covered boat storage, and a boat wash-down area may be sited within the
enclosed area of the compound.

# MITIGATION AND MONITORING

Mitigation measures are specific actions designed to minimize, reduce,
or eliminate impacts of alternatives and to protect Lake Mead NRA
resources and visitors. Monitoring activities are actions to be
implemented during or following construction. The following mitigation
related to building the facility would be implemented under each action
alternative, and are assumed in the analysis of effects for each
alternative.

**MITIGATION AND MONITORING COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES B AND C**

**Soils and Vegetation**

The project, as designed, does not enter into any undisturbed areas. To
the extent practical, disturbed sites would be revegetated with native
plant materials (e.g., native seeds, transplanted native vegetation)
salvaged from areas impacted by construction. Native vegetation may be
planted around the perimeter of the compound. To guide restoration
efforts, the NPS would follow procedures outlined in the vegetation
management plan including procedures for collecting and propagating
native species, salvaging topsoil, site grading and soil preparation,
erosion control, vegetation reestablishment, and post-construction
monitoring. All equipment and materials entering the park would be
cleaned and/or sterilized before entering into the park to reduce the
potential for the spread of non-native species.

[]{.mark}

**Desert Tortoise**

All personnel working on the project will be informed about tortoise
issues and will receive desert tortoise training from a qualified
biologist. A litter control program will be strictly enforced to avoid
attracting ravens and other opportunistic predators to the project area.
On the project site, vehicles will not exceed speeds of 15 miles per
hour. A qualified biologist will survey the area for tortoises and
tortoise sign prior to the commencement of work. If any tortoises are
found during this survey, or during the construction process, the NPS
will immediately cease operations and initiate formal consultation with
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[]{.mark}

**Air Quality**

Dust control measures would be implemented to minimize the impacts to
air quality associated with ground disturbance and construction
activities. All necessary and reasonable measures would be taken to
reduce air pollution, including wetting down dry materials during
earth-disturbing activities, utilizing or removing excavated materials
as soon as possible, and keeping the project area neat, orderly, and in
a safe condition at all times. Low-sulfur fuel would be used when
available.

**Water Resources**

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are means of preventing or reducing
nonpoint source pollution in the wash and of minimizing soil loss and
sedimentation. Erosion control measures would be implemented to minimize
minor and short-term impacts to water quality.

**Cultural Resources**

The NPS would comply with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The act requires the NPS to identify any cultural
resources that could be affected by construction of the boating repair
facility and aids to navigation complex. If cultural resources are
identified, the NPS would consult with the State Historic Preservation
Officer as required by 36 CFR 800.

**Visual Resources**

The facility would be constructed in accordance with NPS standards to
blend into the surrounding environment. Native vegetation, potentially
cottonwood trees, may be planted around the perimeter of the compound to
provide a protective buffer and visual screen from those traveling on
Lakeshore Road.

[]{.mark}

**Safety and Visitor Use and Experience**

All proper OSHA codes would be met to ensure compliance, to promote
worker safety, and for operational efficiency.

[]{.mark}

**Park Operations/ Energy Use**

The awning would help provide climate control protection by reducing the
amount of direct sunlight penetrating the sides of the building.
Vegetation planted along the perimeter of the compound would also reduce
the amount of sun penetrating the compound, thus reducing cooling needs.
Natural lighting into the building will be included in the design.

[Green Architecture and Sustainability]{.underline}

Installation of photovoltaic solar power for the ATON facility will be
included in the design. In addition, the NPS will design and construct
the facility to meet the Silver Level of the LEED Green Building Rating
System.

[]{.mark}

**ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION**

Management policy recommends evaluating options occurring outside of
parklands to reduce development of park property. An alternative to
construct a facility outside the park on adjacent land was considered
but dismissed. There is limited property available adjacent to the
recreation area, and the high cost of the available property makes this
option economically unfeasible. One of the goals of the boating repair
facility and aids to navigation complex is to provide a centralized
location where park and other agency personnel can repair and maintain
vessels in close proximity to Government Dock, which harbors these
boats. This alternative does not coincide with the goals of this project
and was therefore dismissed.

[]{.mark}

**CONSULATION, COORDINATION, AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS**

A press release was provided to area newspapers on January 23, 2003 to
announce the scoping period (Appendix A). No comments were received
during the 30-day scoping period.

In addition, the following consultation and coordination will occur:

-   Nevada State Historic Preservation Office

-   Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

-   Clark County Dust Control Permit- contractor will obtain this prior
    to work

-   Public distribution and review of EA (30 days)

**ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE**

The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will
promote NEPA, as expressed in Section 101 of NEPA. This alternative will
satisfy the following requirements:

-   Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
    environment for succeeding generations;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and
    esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
    without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable
    or unintended consequences;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
    national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment
    that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will
    permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
    amenities; and,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
    attainable recycling of depletable resources.

The Council on Environmental Quality states that the environmentally
preferable alternative is "the alternative that causes the least damage
to the biological and physical environment; it also means the
alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic,
cultural, and natural resources (46 FR 18026 -- 46 FR 18038)." According
to NPS NEPA Handbook (DO-12), through identification of the
environmentally preferred alternative, the NPS decision-makers and the
public are clearly faced with the relative merits of choices and must
clearly state through the decision-making process the values and
policies used in reaching final decisions.

Alternative C is the environmentally preferable alternative because
overall it would best meet the requirements in Section 101 of NEPA.
Alternative C more fully realizes NEPA criteria two, three, and five.
The purpose and design of the facility described in alternatives B and C
is the same; the only difference is its location. Both alternatives B
and C include construction of a facility that would provide adequate
space for the proper storage of navigational aids, and space for boating
repairs that would assure for all generations a safe and healthful
environment. Both action alternatives would achieve a balance between
population and resource use, and permit high standards of living and a
wide sharing of life's amenities. Alternative C would best attain the
widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation,
risk of health or safety, or other undesirable or unintended
consequences because it would utilize a previously disturbed area with
utilities existing on-site that are needed for operating the facility.
Alternative B would entail more extensive trenching to access utilities,
and would therefore create more disturbance and be more costly.

Under the No Action Alternative, a facility dedicated to maintaining
navigational aids on lakes Mead and Mohave would not be established to
ensure the timely maintenance of navigational aids and prompt repairs to
vessels performing these operations. This alternative does not fully
realize NEPA criteria two, three, and five because it does not assure
for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and
culturally pleasing surroundings; it does not attain the widest range of
beneficial uses of the environment; and, it does not achieve a balance
between population and resource use that will permit high standards of
living and a wide sharing of life's amenities.

# COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

Table 1 summarizes the potential long-term impacts of the alternatives.
Short-term impacts are not included in this table, but are analyzed in
the Environmental Consequences section. Impact intensity, context, and
duration are also defined in the Environmental Consequences section.

**Table 1.**

**Comparison of Long-Term Impacts from the Alternatives Considered**

+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **IMPACT TOPIC** | **ALTERNATIVE  | **ALTERNATIVE  | **ALTERNATIVE  |
|                  | A**            | B**            | C**            |
|                  |                |                |                |
|                  | **(NO          |                | *              |
|                  | ACTION)**      |                | *(PREFERRED)** |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Soils and      | No impacts     | Minor,         | Minor,         |
| Vegetation**     |                | adverse,       | adverse,       |
|                  |                | long-term      | long-term      |
|                  |                | impacts        | impacts        |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Wildlife and   | No impacts     | Minor,         | Minor,         |
| Wildlife         |                | adverse,       | adverse,       |
| Habitat**        |                | long-term      | long-term      |
|                  |                | impacts        | impacts        |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Special Status | No impacts     | Not likely to  | Not likely to  |
| Species**        |                | adversely      | adversely      |
|                  |                | affect         | affect         |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Air Quality**  | No impacts     | No long-term   | No long-term   |
|                  |                | impacts        | impacts        |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Water          | No impacts     | Potential      | Potential      |
| Resources**      |                | minor,         | minor adverse, |
|                  |                | adverse,       | long-term      |
|                  |                | long-term      | impacts        |
|                  |                | impacts        |                |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Soundscapes**  | No impacts     | No long-term   | No long-term   |
|                  |                | impacts        | impacts        |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Cultural       | No impacts     | Minor,         | Minor,         |
| Resources**      |                | adverse,       | adverse,       |
|                  |                | long-term      | long-term,     |
|                  |                | impact         | impact         |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Visual         | Minor, adverse | Minor to       | Minor,         |
| Resources**      | long-term      | moderate,      | adverse,       |
|                  | impacts        | adverse,       | long-term      |
|                  |                | long-term      | impacts;       |
|                  |                | impacts;       | Long-term,     |
|                  |                | Long-term,     | minor,         |
|                  |                | minor,         | beneficial     |
|                  |                | beneficial     | effects        |
|                  |                | effects        |                |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Safety and     | Potential      | Major,         | Major,         |
| Visitor Use and  | moderate to    | beneficial,    | beneficial,    |
| Experience**     | major adverse  | long-term      | long-term      |
|                  | impacts        | effects        | effects        |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **Park           | Potential      | Moderate to    | Major,         |
| Operations**     | moderate to    | major          | beneficial,    |
|                  | major adverse  | beneficial,    | long-term      |
|                  | impacts        | long-term      | effects        |
|                  |                | effects        |                |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

**SECTION III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

**INTRODUCTION**

This section provides a description of the existing environment in the
project area and the resources that may be affected by the proposals and
alternatives under consideration. Complete and detailed descriptions of
the environment and existing use at Lake Mead NRA is found in the *Lake
Mead NRA Resource Management Plan* (NPS 1986) and the *Lake Mead NRA
General Management Plan* (NPS 1986).

[]{.mark}

**LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LAKE MEAD NRA AND THE PROJECT
AREA**

Lake Mead was designated as the first National Recreation Area in 1964.
Lake Mead is located in southern Nevada and northwestern Arizona, about
20 miles southeast of Las Vegas, Nevada, and about 5 miles north of
Bullhead City, Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada (Figures 1 and 2). It
consists of two large reservoirs (Lakes Mead and Mohave) formed by the
impoundment of the Colorado River. The recreation area is approximately
1.5 million acres in size, with about 87% of that acreage being
terrestrial resources. Approximately 60% of the total acreage is within
the state of Arizona, in Mohave County, and 40% of the total acreage is
in the state of Nevada, in Clark County.

[]{.mark}

Lake Mead NRA users include boaters, swimmers, fishermen, canoeists,
kayakers, hikers, photographers, roadside sightseers, backpackers,
campers, and bicyclists. Recreation visits in 2003 totaled just over 8
million. The majority of park visitation occurs during the summer months
and involves water-based recreation. However, visitation is increasing
in the spring and fall as visitors discover the backcountry regions of
the recreation area through hiking and travel on the approved road
system.

The project area is located in the western portion of the recreation
area, near Lake Mead, in the vicinity of the Boulder Beach developed
area (Figure 2). Boulder Beach is one of the closest developed
recreation areas to the cities of Boulder City and Henderson. It serves
as a primary recreational access point to the recreation area for
residents and visitors to the Las Vegas Valley area.

[]{.mark}

**Soils and Vegetation**

The soils within the developed zone of Boulder Beach are generally
previously disturbed rocky soils consisting of a mix of sand and gravel
in a broad alluvial fan. The Boulder Beach developed area occurs in the
creosote bush community. The vegetation in the project area consists
primarily of native creosote (*Larrea tridentata*), brittle bush
(*Encelia faranosa*), sweetbush (*Bebbia juncea* var. *aspera*), and
catclaw (*Acacia greggii*).

[]{.mark}

**Wildlife**

Birds, small mammals, reptiles, and coyotes are found within the
developed zone at Boulder Beach. Desert bighorn sheep (*Ovis
Canadensis*) are relatively common in the rugged terrain of the
neighboring River Mountains, but are not commonly seen in the lower
elevations near Lakeshore Road. The River Mountain herd is very
productive and often used by the Nevada Department of Wildlife to
enhance other herds in Nevada by transplanting individuals.

[]{.mark}

**Special Status Species**

The NPS consulted the most recent listing of Endangered, Threatened, and
Candidate Species prepared by the USFWS (Appendix B). Desert tortoises
occur in suitable habitat outside the area of development. However, the
project site does not provide suitable desert tortoise habitat, and no
tortoises occur within the fenced enclosure in which the facility is to
be built.

[]{.mark}

[Desert Tortoise]{.underline}. The desert tortoise, Mojave population,
is a federally listed threatened species. The state of Nevada classifies
the desert tortoise as protected and rare outside the urban areas of
Clark County (Las Vegas). The Mojave population is found to the west and
north of the Colorado River and is subdivided into two subpopulations,
western and eastern. The project area is within the area occupied by the
eastern Mojave subpopulation, which includes tortoises in eastern
California, southern Nevada, and the Beaver Dam slope and Virgin River
Basin of southwestern Utah and extreme northwestern Arizona (north of
the Colorado River). Eastern Mojave tortoises are found in creosotebush,
burrobush (*Ambrosia dumosa*), and creosotebush/ Joshua tree (*Yucca
brevifolia*) vegetation types. The Mojave population of the desert
tortoise is threatened by loss and degradation of habitat due to
construction activities (roads, pipelines, powerline, housing
developments, energy developments, etc.), mining, grazing, and off-road
vehicle use. An upper respiratory disease, predation of juveniles by
common ravens, illegal collection, and vandalism also are threats to the
population. Tortoise populations are probably dependent on relatively
rare years of sufficient forage for reproduction and survival. Tortoises
are generally active in the spring and fall when annual plants are most
abundant, and they must consume their forage requirement during this
active period. Tortoises usually spend the remainder of the year in
burrows or dens, out of the extreme weather conditions of the desert.
Burrows may be under or between bushes, in the banks or beds of washes,
in rock outcrops, or in caliche caves.

[]{.mark}

**Air Quality**

Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for six "criteria pollutants": lead, ozone, sulfur
dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate
matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). Based on air quality
monitoring data, a portion of Clark County (Las Vegas planning area's
Hydrographic Basin 212) has been designated as being in serious
non-attainment with the NAAQS for MP10 and CO (EPA 2001). The project
area is not located within the non-attainment boundary.

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality
has air quality jurisdiction over all counties in Nevada, except for
Washoe and Clark counties, which have their own distinct jurisdictions.
The Air Quality Division of the Clark County Health District is the
regulatory and enforcement agency for air quality matters in Clark
County.

The NPS, Air Resources Division and USFWS, Air Quality Branch together
have responsibility for approximately 378 park units and 503 refuges,
for which the Clean Air Act designates Class I and Class II air quality
area. Class I includes the following areas that were in existence as of
August 7, 1977; national parks over 2,428 hectares (6,000 acres),
national wilderness areas and national memorial parks over 2,024
hectares (5,000 acres), and international parks. Class II areas are
parts of the country protected under the Clean Air Act but identified
for somewhat less stringent protection from air pollution damage than a
Class I area, except in specified cases (NPS 2001). Lake Mead NRA is
designated as a Class II air quality area, and air quality in the region
is generally good. Most reductions in air quality are due to air flows
from the Las Vegas Valley west of Lake Mead NRA (NPS 2001).

[Clean Air Act Conformity Requirements]{.underline}: The EPA has
promulgated rules that establish conformity analysis procedures for
transportation-related actions and for other (general) federal agency
actions. The EPA general conformity rule requires a formal conformity
determination document for federally sponsored or funded actions in
non-attainment areas or in certain designated maintenance areas when the
total direct and indirect net emissions of non-attainment pollutants (or
their precursors) exceed specified *de minimis* levels. Since the
project area is not within a non-attainment area, Clean Air Act
conformity does not apply.

[]{.mark}

**Water Resources**

The project area roughly parallels Lake Mead, the primary water resource
in the region. Boulder Beach is on a broad alluvial fan with flood
protection provided by dikes. Flooding in this area can concentrate
unpredictably in localized flows, but more often takes the form of
shallow sheet flows up to 2 feet deep. The flood hazard is low compared
to all other areas in the recreation area with flood hazards.

[]{.mark}

# Soundscapes

# Noise-sensitive receptors are those locations where activities that could be affected by increased noise levels occur and include locations such as residences, motels, churches, schools, parks, and libraries. Existing noise levels are determined for the outdoor living area at sensitive receptors. This project is in close proximity to the NPS employee housing area. Dominant noise sources in the project area include automobile and truck traffic on Lakeshore Road, helicopters and airplanes, and marina and park operations.

[]{.mark}

# Cultural Resources

Cultural resource inventories in the Boulder Beach developed zone have
identified a number of historic and prehistoric resources. The
prehistoric resources include artifact scatters, cleared areas, and rock
shelters. The historic resources include structures related to early
mining activities, the construction of Hoover Dam, and early park
development.

[Results of Cultural Resource Inventory]{.underline}:

The project area has been previously inventoried for cultural resources
(Ervin 1986) and no cultural resources were located in the project area.
In May 2004, a reconnaissance survey of Alternative B was conducted and
no cultural resources were located. Alternative B is located adjacent to
the Six Companies, Inc. Railroad (SCIRR) grade which is associated with
the construction of Hoover Dam. In 2000, the SCIRR grade was reevaluated
in association with two Southern Nevada Water Authority projects
(Associated Cultural Resource Experts \[ACRE\] 2003). The section of the
railroad grade adjacent to the project area was recommended eligible to
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A and C.
In February 2007, a reconnaissance survey of Alternative C was conducted
and no cultural resources were located. Alternative C is within the
viewshed of the Boulder Beach Maintenance Building which is a Mission 66
structure and potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP).

[]{.mark}

**Visitor Use and Experience, Socioeconomic Resources, and Park
Operations**

Tourism is an important component of the region surrounding Lake Mead
NRA, and much of the tourism revolves around the gaming industry. The
recreation area provides a valuable resource to the area and contributes
to the local economy, with millions of dollars spent on the sale and
rental of boats and other water-related equipment, and other
recreational equipment and services.

The proposed project location is within the Boulder Beach development
zone. The Boulder Beach zone is one of the most heavily visited portions
of the recreation area. The area provides numerous recreational
opportunities. There is a concession-operated lodge and marina,
maintenance facility, recreational trailer village and campground; and
government-maintained launch ramps, campground, picnic areas, ranger
station, housing area, and native plant nursery.

[]{.mark}

**SECTION IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

**INTRODUCTION**

This section presents the likely beneficial and adverse effects to the
natural and human environment that would result from implementing the
alternatives under consideration. This section describes short-term and
long-term effects, direct and indirect effects, cumulative effects, and
the potential for each alternative to impair park resources.
Interpretation of impacts in terms of their duration, intensity (or
magnitude), and context (local, regional, or national effects) are
provided where possible.

# METHODOLOGY

This section contains the environmental impacts, including direct and
indirect effects and their significance to the alternatives. It also
assumes that the mitigation identified in the *Mitigation and
Monitoring* section of this EA would be implemented under any of the
applicable alternatives, as identified in each mitigation criteria.

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on NPS staff knowledge of
resources and the project area, review of existing literature, and
information provided by experts in the NPS or other agencies. Any
impacts described in this section are based on preliminary design of the
alternatives under consideration. Effects are quantified where possible;
in the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment
prevailed.

# CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS FOR IMPACT ANALYSES

The following are laws, regulations, and/ or guidance that relates to
the evaluation of each impact topic.

**Soils and Vegetation**

[Laws, Regulations, and Policies]{.underline}: Soil resources would be
protected by preventing or minimizing adverse potentially irreversible
impacts on soils, in accordance with *NPS Management Policies*. NPS-77
specifies objectives for each management zone for soil resources
management. These management objectives are defined as: (1) natural
zone- preserve natural soils and the processes of soil genesis in a
condition undisturbed by humans; (2) cultural zone-conserve soil
resources to the extent possible consistent with maintenance of the
historic and cultural scene and prevent soil erosion wherever possible;
(3) park development zone- ensure that developments and their management
are consistent with soil limitations and soil conservation practices;
and, (4) special use zone- minimize soil loss and disturbance caused by
special use activities, and ensure that soils retain their productivity
and potential for reclamation.

Zones within the recreation area have been designated in the Lake Mead
NRA General Management Plan, which provides the overall guidance and
management direction for Lake Mead NRA.

The NPS Organic Act directs the park to conserve the scenery and the
natural objects unimpaired for future generations. *NPS* *Management
Policies* defines the general principles for managing biological
resources as maintaining all native plants and animals as part of the
natural ecosystem. When NPS management actions cause native vegetation
to be removed, then the NPS will seek to ensure that such removals will
not cause unacceptable impacts to native resource, natural processes, or
other park resources.

Exotic species, also referred to as non-native or alien, are not a
natural component of the ecosystem. They are managed, up to and
including eradication, under the criteria specified in *NPS Management
Policies* and *NPS-77.*

[Impact Indicators, Criteria, and Methodology]{.underline}: The
following impact thresholds were established for impacts to soils and
vegetation.

-   *Negligible impacts*: Impacts have no measurable or perceptible
    changes in soil structure or plant community size, integrity, or
    continuity. Impacts occur in a relatively small area.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Minor impacts*: Impacts are measurable or perceptible, but
    localized in a relatively small area. The overall soil structure and
    viability of the plant community would not be affected.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Moderate impacts*: Impacts would be localized and small in size,
    but would cause a permanent change in the area's soil structure or
    plant community (e.g. plant diversity, abundance, or distribution).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Major impacts*: Impact to the soil structure or plant community
    would be substantial, highly noticeable, and permanent.

-   *Impairment*: For this analysis, impairment is considered a
    permanent change in soils and vegetation in a large portion of the
    park, affecting the resource over the long-term to the point that
    the park's purpose cannot be fulfilled, and resource degradation
    precludes the enjoyment of future generations.

**Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat**

[Laws, Regulations, and Policies]{.underline}: The NPS Organic Act,
which directs parks to conserve wildlife unimpaired for future
generations, is interpreted by the NPS to mean native animal life should
be protected and perpetuated as part of the recreation area's natural
ecosystem. Natural processes are relied on to control populations of
native species to the greatest extent possible. The restoration of
native species is a high priority. Management goals for wildlife include
maintaining components and processes of naturally evolving park
ecosystems, including natural abundance, diversity, and ecological
integrity of plants and animals.

The recreation area also manages and monitors wildlife cooperatively
with the Arizona Game and Fish department and the Nevada Division of
Wildlife.

[Impact Indicators, Criteria, and Methodology]{.underline}: The impacts
of wildlife were evaluated in terms of impacts to individual animals and
wildlife habitat. Specific localized impacts were estimated based on
knowledge garnered from similar past activities.

The following are standards used by the NPS in interpreting the level of
impact to wildlife:

-   *Negligible impacts*: No species of concern is present; no impacts
    or impacts with only temporary effects are expected.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Minor impacts*: Nonbreeding animals of concern are present, but
    only in low numbers. Habitat is not critical for survival; other
    habitat is available nearby. Occasional flight responses by wildlife
    are expected, but without interference with feeding, reproduction,
    or other activities necessary for survival.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Moderate impacts*: Breeding animals of concern are present; animals
    are present during particularly vulnerable life-stages, such as
    migration or winter; mortality or interference with activities
    necessary for survival expected on an occasional basis, but not
    expected to threaten the continued existence of the species in the
    park.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Major impacts*: Breeding animals are present in relatively high
    numbers, and/or wildlife is present during particularly vulnerable
    life stages. Habitat targeted by actions has a history of use by
    wildlife during critical periods, but there is suitable habitat for
    use nearby. Few incidents of mortality could occur, but the
    continued survival of the species is not at risk.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Impairment*: The impact would contribute substantially to the
    deterioration of natural resources to the extent that the park's
    wildlife and habitat would no longer function as a natural system.
    Wildlife and its habitat would be affected over the long-term to the
    point that the park's purpose (Enabling Legislation, *General
    Management Plan*, *Strategic Plan*) could not be fulfilled and the
    resource could not be experienced and enjoyed by future generations.

**Threatened and Endangered Species**

[Laws, Regulations, and Policies]{.underline}: Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act mandates all federal agencies determine how to
use their existing authorities to further the purposes of the Act to aid
in recovering listed species, and to address existing and potential
conservation issues. Section 7(a)(2) states that each federal agency
shall, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, insure that
any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

*Management Policies* directs the parks to survey for, protect, and
strive to recover all species native to National Park System units that
are listed under the Endangered Species Act (4.4.2.3). It sets the
direction to meet the obligations of the Act. *Management Policies* also
directs the NPS to inventory, monitor, and manage state and locally
listed species, and other native species that are of special management
concern to the parks, to maintain their natural distribution and
abundance.

The *General Management Plan* designated 1,050,030 acres, or 70 percent
of the NRA, as natural zones, and areas with known habitat or potential
habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species were further
protected by placement in the environmental protection or outstanding
natural feature subzone of the natural zone. Management of these zones
focuses on the maintenance of isolation and natural process, and
restoration of natural resources.

[]{.mark}

[Impact Indicators, Criteria, and Methodology:]{.underline} The
Endangered Species Act defines the terminology used to assess impacts to
listed species as follows:

-   *No effect*: The appropriate conclusion when the action agency
    determines that its proposed action would not affect a listed
    species or designated critical habitat.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Is not likely to adversely affect*: The appropriate conclusion when
    effects on listed species are expected to be discountable,
    insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are
    contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the
    species. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and
    should never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects
    are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on the best judgement,
    a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or
    evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects
    to occur.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Is likely to adversely affect:* The appropriate finding if any
    adverse effect to listed species may occur as a direct or indirect
    result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent
    actions, and the effect is not: discountable, insignificant, or
    beneficial. If the overall effect of the proposed action is
    beneficial to the listed species, but is also likely to cause some
    adverse effects, then the proposed action "is likely to adversely
    affect" the listed species. If incidental take is anticipated to
    occur as a result of the proposed action, an "is likely to adversely
    affect" determination should be made.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Is likely to jeopardize proposed species/adversely modify proposed
    critical habitat -- (Impairment):* The appropriate conclusion when
    the action agency or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identify
    situations in which the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the
    continued existence of a proposed species or adversely modify the
    proposed critical habitat.

####### Air Quality

[Laws, Regulations, and Policies]{.underline}: Air pollution sources
within parks must comply with all federal, state, and local regulations.
The regulations and policies that govern pollutants of concern are
discussed briefly below.

Lake Mead NRA is designated as a Class II Air Quality area under the
Clean Air Act. The main purpose of this act is to protect and enhance
the nation's air quality to promote the public health and welfare. The
act establishes specific programs to provide protection for air
resources and values, including the program to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in clean air regions of the country.
Although Lake Mead NRA is designated as a Class II Air Quality area, the
park strives to maintain the highest air quality standards, and project
work within the recreation area is completed in accordance with regional
standards. However, the recreation area does not possess sufficient
autonomous authority to address issues of air quality improvements when
air pollution originates outside the boundaries.

NPS *Management Policies* direct parks to seek to perpetuate the best
possible air quality to preserve natural and cultural resources, sustain
visitor enjoyment, human health, and preserve scenic vistas (4.7). Parks
are directed to comply with all federal, state, and local air quality
regulations and permitting requirements. In cases of doubt as to the
impacts of existing or potential air pollution on park resources, the
NPS \"will err on the side of protecting air quality and related values
for future generations.\"

[Impact Indicators, Criteria, and Methodology]{.underline}: Information
from the literature was used to assess probable impacts to air quality.
There are four impact categories relevant to air quality issues:
negligible, minor, moderate and major. Each category is discussed below
relative to potential airborne pollution impacts from the alternatives
on park resources and human health.

-   *Negligible impacts*: There is no smell of exhaust and no visible
    smoke. Dust from construction activities can be controlled by
    mitigation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Minor impacts*: There is a slight smell of exhaust and smoke is
    visible during brief periods of time. Dust from use of the dirt
    roads is visible during brief periods. Dust from construction
    activities is visible only during the work period, but most can be
    controlled by mitigation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Moderate impacts*: There is a smell of gasoline fumes and exhaust
    in high-use areas. Smoke is visible during periods of high use. Dust
    from the use of dirt roads is visible for an extended area. Dust
    from construction activities is visible for over a large area for an
    extended period, but is reduced by mitigation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Major impacts*: Smoke and gasoline fumes are easily detectable for
    extended periods of time in a large area. Dust particulates from the
    use of dirt roads and construction activities are visible for an
    extended period of time, and mitigation is unable to alleviate the
    conditions.

# Water Resources and Water Quality

[Laws, Regulations, and Policies:]{.underline} The Clean Water Act, and
supporting criteria and standards promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Nevada Department of Environmental
Protection (NDEP), and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) are used at Lake Mead NRA to protect the beneficial uses of water
quality, including human health, health of the aquatic ecosystem, and
recreational use.

Water quality in Lake Mead in Nevada is regulated by NDEP under water
quality standards and regulations that are promulgated in the Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC, Chapter 445A.119-445A.225). Consistent with
federal regulations, Nevada has established numerical and narrative
standards that protect existing and designated uses of the State's
waters, and implements the anti-degradation requirements by establishing
"requirements to maintain existing higher quality." Compliance with the
numerical standards for water quality is determined at control points
that are specified in the regulations.

The NDEP has divided the administration of water quality management in
Lake Mead into two discreet units divided by a control point near the
confluence of Las Vegas Wash with Lake Mead. Standards for the portion
of Lake Mead from the western boundary of Las Vegas Marina Campground to
the confluence of Las Vegas Wash are generally less strict than for the
rest of Lake Mead to accommodate pollution from wastewater discharges
and urban runoff from the City of Las Vegas. Requirements to Maintain
Existing Higher Water Quality in Lake Mead have been established by NDEP
east of the Las Vegas Wash Control Point for a few physical and chemical
water quality parameters that includes temperature, pH, chlorophyll,
total dissolved solids, nitrogen, turbidity, and color.

The Lake Mead NRA Resource Management Plan identifies internal threats
to water resources, including heavy recreation use in coves from
excrement and littering and water quality in harbors by illegal sewage
discharge and petrochemical spills. External threats are identified as
materials transported to the lakes by outside sources, air pollutants
dropping into the lakes, and adjacent land uses and increasing
development.

The following impact thresholds were established to describe the
relative changes in water quality (localized, short-term, long-term,
cumulative, adverse, and beneficial), under the various alternatives,
when compared to baseline conditions.

-   *Negligible impacts*: Impacts are effects that are not detectable,
    well below water quality standards and/or historical ambient or
    desired water quality conditions.

-   *Minor impacts*: Impacts are effects that are detectable but well
    within or below water quality standards and/or historical ambient or
    desired water quality conditions.

-   *Moderate impacts*: Impacts are effects that are detectable, within
    or below water quality standards, but historical baseline or desires
    water quality conditions are being altered on a short-term basis.

-   *Major impacts*: Impacts are effects that are detectable, and
    significantly and persistently alter historical baseline or desired
    water quality conditions. Water quality standards are locally
    approached, equaled, or slightly singularly exceeded on a short-term
    and temporary basis.

-   *Impairment:* Impacts are effects that alter baseline or desired
    water quality conditions on a long-term basis. Water quality
    standards are exceeded several times on a short-term and temporary
    basis.

**Cultural Resources**

[Laws, Regulations, and Policies]{.underline}: Numerous legislative
acts, regulations, and NPS policies provide direction for the
protection, preservation, and management of cultural resources on public
lands. Further, these laws and policies establish what must be
considered in general management planning and how cultural resources
must be managed in future undertakings resulting from the approved plan
regardless of the final alternative chosen. Applicable laws and
regulations include the NPS Organic Act (1916), the Antiquities Act of
1906, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (1992, as amended),
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978, the Archeological Resources Protection Act of
1979, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of
1990, and the Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological
Collections (1991).

Applicable agency policies relevant to cultural resources include
Chapter 5 of NPS *Management Policies*, and the *Cultural Resource
Management Guideline (DO-28)*, as well as other related policy
directives such as the NPS *Museum Handbook*, the NPS *Manual for
Museums*, and *Interpretation and Visitor Services Guidelines*
*(NPS-26).*

[Impact Indicators, Criteria, and Methodology:]{.underline} Impacts on
cultural resources were developed based on existing conditions, current
regulations, and likely development trends. The inventory of
archaeological resources in the park is largely incomplete. For purposes
of assessing impacts, all unrecorded resources are considered
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.

The park's inventory of standing structures and cultural landscapes is
relatively complete, however, many structures and landscapes still
require evaluation to determine their eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. For purposes of assessing
potential impacts to these properties, unevaluated structures and
landscapes are assumed to be potentially eligible.

Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), only
historic resources that are eligible or are listed on the National
Register of Historic Places are considered for impacts. An impact to a
property occurs if a proposed action would alter in any way the
characteristic that qualifies it for inclusion on the register.

Under the Advisory Council's regulations a determination of either
*adverse effect* or *no adverse effect* must also be made for affected,
National Register eligible cultural resources. An *adverse effect*
occurs whenever an impact alters, directly or indirectly, any
characteristic of a cultural resource that qualify it for inclusion in
the National Register, e.g. diminishing the integrity of the resource's
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or
association. Adverse effects also include reasonably foreseeable effects
caused by the preferred alternative that would occur later in time, be
farther removed in distance or be cumulative (36 CFR Part 800.5,
*Assessment of Adverse Effects*). A determination of *no adverse effect*
means there is an effect, but the effect would not diminish in any way
the characteristics of the cultural resource that qualify it for
inclusion in the National Register.

For the purposes of this document, the level of impacts to cultural
resources was accomplished using the following criteria:

-   *Negligible impacts*: No potentially eligible or listed properties
    are present; no direct or indirect impacts. For purposes of Section
    106, the determination would be *no effect*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Minor impacts*: Potentially eligible or listed properties are
    present; no direct impacts, i.e. no impacts that diminish the
    integrity of the property, or impacts with only temporary effects
    are expected. For purposes of Section 106, the determination would
    be *no adverse effect*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Moderate impacts*: Potentially eligible or listed properties are
    present; indirect impacts may occur or, in the case of structures,
    activity is limited to rehabilitation conducted in a manner that
    preserves the historical and architectural value of the property.
    For purposes of Section 106, the determination would be *no adverse
    effect*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Major impacts*: Potentially eligible or listed properties present;
    direct impacts including physical destruction, damage, or alteration
    of all or part of a property. Isolation of a property from or
    alteration of the character of a property's setting when that
    character contributes to its eligibility, including removal from its
    historic location. Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric
    elements that are out of character with the property or alter its
    setting. Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or
    destruction (36 CFR 800.5). For purposes of Section 106, the
    determination would be *adverse effect*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Impairment*: Loss, destruction, or degradation of a cultural
    property, resource, or value to the point that it negatively affects
    the park's purpose and visitor experience. For purposes of Section
    106, the determination would be *adverse effect*.

In the absence of quantitative data concerning the full extent of
actions under a proposed alternative, best professional judgment
prevailed.

# CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS FOR IMPACT ANALYSES OF ALL OTHER ISSUES

Impacts to soundscapes, visual resources, safety and visitor use and
experience, public safety, and park operations were analyzed using the
best available information and best professional judgment of park staff.

Environmental Impact= a change that will alter:

1.  the quality of the human environment;

2.  an object protected by law; or

3.  an object of high public concern.

Terms referring to impact intensity, context, and duration are used in
the effects analysis. Unless otherwise stated, the standard definitions
for these terms are as follows:

-   *Negligible impacts*: The impact is at the lower level of detection;
    there would be no measurable change.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Minor impacts*: The impact is slight but detectable; there would be
    a small change.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Moderate impacts*: The impact is readily apparent; there would be a
    measurable change that could result in a small but permanent change.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Major impacts*: The impact is severe; there would be a highly
    noticeable, permanent measurable change.

-   *Unacceptable impacts-* The impact falls short of impairment but is
    still not acceptable within a particular park's environment.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Localized Impact*: The impact occurs in a specific site or area.
    When comparing changes to existing conditions, the impacts are
    detectable only in the localized area.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Direct Effects*: caused by the action and are at the same time and
    place.

-   *Indirect Effects*: caused by the action and are later in time or
    farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Short-Term Effect*: The effect occurs only during or immediately
    after implementation of the alternative.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Long-Term Effect*: The effect could occur for an extended period
    after implementation of the alternative. The effect could last
    several years or more and could be beneficial or adverse.

# IMPAIRMENT ANALYSIS

In addition to determining the environmental consequences of the
alternatives, NPS Management Policies 2006, requires the analysis of
potential effects to determine if actions would impair park resources.
Under the NPS Organic Act and the General Authorities Act, as amended,
the NPS may not allow the impairment of park resources and values except
as authorized specifically by Congress. The NPS must always seek ways to
avoid or minimize, to the greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts
on park resources and values. However, the laws do give the NPS
management discretion to allow impacts to park resources and values when
necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a park, as long as
the impact does not constitute impairment to the affected resources and
values (Management Policies 1.4.3).

Impairment to park resources and values has been analyzed within this
document. Impairment is an impact that, in the professional judgement of
the responsible NPS manager, would harm the integrity of park resources
or values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present
for the enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact would be more
likely to constitute an impairment to the extent that it affects a
resource or value whose conservation is necessary to fulfill specific
purposes identified in the enabling legislation or proclamation of the
park; is the key to the cultural or natural integrity of the park or to
opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or is identified as a goal in
the park's general management plan or other relevant NPS planning
document. An impact would be less likely to constitute an impairment to
the extent that it is an unavoidable result, which cannot be reasonably
further mitigated, of an action necessary to preserve or restore the
integrity of park resources or values.

**UNACCEPTABLE IMPACTS**

The impact threshold at which impairment occurs is not always readily
apparent, therefore, the NPS will apply a standard that offers greater
assurance that impairment will not occur. NPS Management Policies 2006
(1.4.7.1) requires that park managers evaluate existing or proposed uses
and determine whether the associated impacts on park resources and
values are acceptable. Unacceptable impacts are impacts that fall short
of impairment, but are still not acceptable within a particular park's
environment.

Virtually every form of human activity that takes place within a park
has some degree of effect on park resources or values, but that does not
mean the impact is unacceptable or that a particular use must be
disallowed. For the purposes of this analysis, an unacceptable impact is
an impact that individually or cumulatively would:

-   be inconsistent with a park's purposes or values;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   impede the attainment of a park's desired future conditions for
    natural and cultural resources as identified through the park's
    planning process;

-   create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or
    employees;

-   diminish opportunities for current or future generations to enjoy,
    learn about, or be inspired by park resources or values; or,

-   unreasonably interfere with:

    -   park programs or activities;

    -   an appropriate use;

    -   the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural
        soundscape maintained in wilderness and natural, historic, or
        commemorative locations within the park; or,

    -   NPS concessioner or contractor operations or services.

Park managers have evaluated the potential for unacceptable impacts to
park resources resulting from the project alternatives. In the
professional judgment of the responsible NPS manager, there would be no
unacceptable impacts to park resources from any of the alternatives
described in the Environmental Consequences section.

**CUMULATIVE EFFECTS**

Cumulative effects are the direct and indirect effects of a proposed
project alternative's incremental impacts when they are added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of who
carries out the action (40 CFR Part 1508.7). Guidance for implementing
NEPA (Public Law 91-190, 1970) requires that federal agencies identify
the temporal and geographic boundaries within which they will evaluate
potential cumulative effects of an action and the specific past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that will be analyzed. This
includes potential actions within and outside the recreation area
boundary. The geographical boundaries of analysis vary depending on the
impact topic and potential effects. While this information may be
inexact at this time, major sources of impacts have been assessed as
accurately and completely as possible using available data.

Specific projects or ongoing activities with the potential to
cumulatively affect the resources (impact topics) evaluated for the
project are identified in this document and described in the following
narrative. Some impact topics would be affected by several or all of the
described activities, while others could be affected very little or not
at all. How each alternative would incrementally contribute to potential
impacts for a resource is included in the cumulative effects discussion
for each impact topic.

[]{.mark}

Population growth in the Las Vegas Valley area, and increases in area
visitation is considered when analyzing the cumulative impacts of the
proposed alternatives. With the predicted increases in population of the
local area, and continuing visitation from California and Arizona, park
visitation is predicted to increase above the current 8 million visitors
per year. The project area is located in the Boulder Basin area of the
park, the busiest portion of the recreation area. Visitation to the
Boulder Basin area of the park in 2006 was around 5 million (NPS 2006).

Due to the lowering water level of Lake Mead, marinas have been
reconfigured and relocated, launch ramps have been extended, and other
low-water actions have occurred and will continue, to maintain visitor
services on the lake.

Resources in the Boulder Basin area have been previously impacted from
park activities, as well as activities by concessioners, the Southern
Nevada Water Authority (SNWA), and NDOW. The western portion of Lake
Mead NRA is bordered by Boulder City, Henderson, and the community of
Lake Las Vegas. Development on these adjacent lands has increased, and
has subsequently encroached upon the Lake Mead NRA park boundary.

In the Boulder Basin area, there are numerous roads, utility corridors,
parking lots, fence corridors, recreational facilities, and buildings. A
water safety center was recently constructed, and expansion of Nevada
Department of Wildlife (NDOW) facilities is occurring in this area. The
River Mountains Loop Trail, a 35-mile trail intended to link the
communities of Boulder City, Henderson, and Las Vegas, will begin
construction in 2007. Sixteen miles of the 35-mile trail occurs within
Lake Mead NRA and is within the Boulder Basin.

In 2008, two large projects will commence in the Boulder Beach area. The
Southern Nevada Water Authority will construct a third water intake to
protect the community's water supply system capacity against the
potential loss of intake #1 from drought conditions affecting the lake
level. In addition, the Systems Conveyance Operations Program (SCOP)
will be implemented to provide an alternate pipeline for discharge of
effluent into the Lower Colorado River. Project activities are expected
to occur through 2011.

A Wireless Telecommunication Facilities plan is currently being prepared
by the NPS to identify potentially acceptable locations for cell tower
construction. One cell tower currently exists in the Boulder Beach area
at a location referred to as "Surge Tank". In addition, a wireless
telecommunications company has expressed interest in a site located near
the Boulder Beach maintenance yard for cell tower construction.

**ALTERNATIVE A- NO ACTION**

**Soils and Vegetation**

There would be no new impacts to soils and vegetation from the no action
alternative since construction would not occur.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} There would be no cumulative effects
under the no action alternative to soils and vegetation.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} There would be no unacceptable impacts and no
impairment to soils and vegetation from Alternative A.

**Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat**

There would be no new impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat as a
result of the no action alternative.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} There would be no cumulative effects
to wildlife or wildlife habitat.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} There would be no unacceptable impacts and no
impairment to wildlife or wildlife habitat from Alternative A.

**Special Status Species**

There would be no impacts to threatened, endangered, and other sensitive
species under this alternative since no construction or paving would
occur.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} No cumulative impacts would occur to
threatened and endangered species.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} There would be no unacceptable impacts and no
impairment to special status species under this alternative since no
construction would occur.

[]{.mark}

**Air Quality**

Alternative A would result in no change and no impacts to air quality in
the project area, since no facility would be built under this
alternative.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} The opportunity for the decrease in
impacts to air quality from paving the gravel access roads would not
occur because no construction or paving would occur under this
alternative.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} There would be no new impacts to air quality
from not constructing the facility or paving the access roads and
compound. Under this alternative, negligible, long-term impacts to air
quality would occur from vehicles driving on the gravel roads. There
would be no unacceptable impacts or impairment to air quality under the
no action alternative.

**Water Resources**

There would be no new impacts to water resources from the no action
alternative since construction would not occur.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} No cumulative impacts would occur to
water resources.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} There would be no unacceptable impacts and no
impairment to water resources from the no action alternative.

**Soundscapes**

There would be no change in existing conditions to the area soundscapes
under this alternative.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} No cumulative impacts would occur to
soundscapes.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} There would be no unacceptable impacts and no
impairment to soundscapes under the no action alternative since no
construction would occur.

**Cultural Resources**

Under the no action alternative, cultural resources would not be
impacted because no construction activities would occur.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} There would be no cumulative impacts
to cultural resources.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} There would be no unacceptable impacts and no
impairment to cultural resources from the no action alternative.

**Visual Resources**

There would be modification or alteration to the existing Boulder Beach
horse corral site or Boulder Beach maintenance yard. The defunct water
treatment plant would be removed regardless of the outcome of this
project proposal. The horse corral site would continue to be used for
storing maintenance equipment and other materials. Aids to navigation
materials and equipment would continue to be stored unprotected in the
upper tiered levels of the Boulder Beach maintenance yard and the small
open bay area. Organization of these materials is difficult due to
limited space.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Storage of aids to navigation
equipment and materials would continue to be stored on the three tiered
levels located behind the existing Boulder Beach maintenance yard. This
area is currently overcrowded and disorganized, making it difficult to
locate useable equipment and materials. Space would continue to be
challenged as more equipment and materials from the Maintenance
Division, Ranger Division, Aids to Navigation team, and Volunteers in
Parks are stored in the area.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Under the no action alternative, there would
be no reorganization or clean-up of equipment stored at the Boulder
Beach maintenance yard and Boulder Beach horse corral site due to the
limited storage space. As storage space continues to be challenged with
the need to store more equipment and materials, the impacts to the
visual resource would become increasingly worse, resulting in minor,
adverse, long-term impacts to visual resources. There would be no
unacceptable impacts to visual resources from this alternative.

**Safety and Visitor Use and Experience**

Users of the waterway system could experience delays of days, weeks, or
months in getting the proper aids to navigation device into its proper
location due to disrepair and no controlled environment to work on them
during extreme weather. When vessels used to access and maintain
navigational aids are in town for repair work, markers, buoys, and other
floating structures can not be repaired in a timely manner. Not having
the proper markers, buoys, and other warning devices in place would have
serious negative consequences for those navigating the waterway system.
Preventative maintenance to patrol boats would continue to occur only a
few times a year, which could have negative consequences for boat
performance, delaying rescues and incident responses.

NPS employees would work in crowded spaces in an uncontrolled
environment, and would continue to be exposed to harsh weather
conditions. The existing work space and storage area at the Boulder
Beach maintenance facility is crowded and requires staff to negotiate
trailers and vehicles around equipment and materials, increasing the
potential for accidents.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} As the water level of Lake Mead
decreases, there is more urgency to ensure that exposed reefs and other
underwater features are indicated with some form of navigational aid to
direct water recreationists away from these hazards. If personnel are
not provided with an adequate work space and protected storage area for
materials, maintenance of navigational aids could be compromised,
causing untimely maintenance to navigational devices and leading to
potential injuries and accidents on the lakes.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Identification of water hazards with
navigational aids and quick response to incidents on the lake could be
delayed, resulting in potentially moderate to major adverse, long-term
impacts to safety and visitor use and experience. Employees would be
expected to maintain navigational devices and boats, regardless of the
extreme weather conditions, including intense summer heat. This would
have potentially moderate to major impacts to the safety of employees
working to ensure safe travel for those recreating on the lakes. The no
action alternative would result in potentially moderate to major impacts
to safety and visitor use and experience. There would be no unacceptable
impacts to safety and visitor use and experience from the no action
alternative.

**Park Operations**

The Aids to Navigation team would continue to work on vessels in an
uncontrolled environment in the summer heat, when work on vessels and
devices is most needed. Work required to maintain navigational aid
devices, including welding, grinding, painting, fiberglass work,
fabrication of metals, and other repair work would continue to be done
in adverse conditions with little regard to the safety of the employees
performing the tasks. There would be no adequate space or shaded work
areas with cooling, proper tools or a controlled environment to store
needed equipment. Navigational aids, materials, equipment, and vessels
stored outdoors and exposed to intense sunlight and heat require
additional work and maintenance to ensure they are in good working
condition. This leads to an inefficient operation by increasing the
time, labor, and money spent to perform the task.

Due to scattered trailer houses, poor building design, and poor work
yard, the existing work area at the Boulder Beach maintenance facility
requires extensive upkeep on a regular basis to keep the area
operational. The area is used to store equipment belonging to numerous
park divisions, so locating materials can be challenging. The current
configuration of the Boulder Beach maintenance yard does not provide
adequate workspace for boats exceeding 22 feet in length. All work on
these boats would continue to be done outdoors. Employees must negotiate
trailers around tight spaces, equipment, and materials when attempting
to store vessels in the overcrowded maintenance yard.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Storage of aids to navigation
equipment and materials would continue to be restricted to this area.
Equipment would be stored outside where the potential for
sun-deterioration and equipment breakdown is possible, thus creating
higher costs and additional work for NPS employees to ensure materials
and equipment are functional.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Under the no action alternative, repairs and
maintenance to aids to navigation devices, boats, and other equipment
would occur under the same conditions. NPS employees would continue to
work in an uncontrolled environment and would be subjected to harsh
weather conditions in repairing and maintaining navigational devices,
thus potentially delaying the placement of the devices, resulting in an
inefficient operation and a potential increase in accidents on the lake.
Storage space would remain inadequate and would be further limited when
the lake level rises and more space is needed for storage of the devices
required during periods of low water. Alternative A would have
potentially moderate to major, adverse, long-term impacts to park
operations. There would be no unacceptable impacts to park operations
from the no action alternative.

**ALTERNATIVE B- Construct Boating Repair Facility and Aids to
Navigation Complex at the Old Boulder Beach Horse Corral Site**

**Soils and Vegetation**

Under this alternative, approximately 4.2 acres of previously disturbed
soils in the proposed project area would be graded and paved. Although
the majority of the acreage is bare ground and has been graded, there
may be a few shrubs removed, including creosote, brittlebush, and
sweetbush. Vegetation would be permanently removed from the project area
and would not be replanted, as the area would be paved. Native
vegetation, potentially cottonwood trees, could be planted around the
perimeter of the compound to provide a protective buffer and visual
screen from those traveling on Lakeshore Road. Introduction of
non-native species in the project area is a concern due to the potential
for construction equipment to transport seeds and other non-native weeds
into the park. Mitigation would reduce the potential for the
introduction of non-native species.

One of the amenities proposed to be built at the compound is a boat
wash-down area. The boat wash-down area would be utilized by park and
agency employees to eliminate suspect non-native species from vehicles,
boats, equipment, and materials used within the park. This would reduce
the potential for transporting non-native species within the park both
on land and water.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} The location being considered for
construction of the boating repair facility and aids to navigation
complex was identified in the GMP as a park development zone. The
purpose of the developed zones is to provide facilities for park
operations and visitor enjoyment. Developed zones throughout the
recreation area have impacted approximately 800 acres of the park's 1.3
million acres. The Boulder Beach development zone has been heavily
impacted by the development of facilities. This project would add an
additional 4.2 acres of permanently altered soils to the recreation
area. This project would not appreciably add to the cumulative effects
on soils and vegetation.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Alternative B would have minor, adverse,
long-term impacts to soils and vegetation because impacts are
measurable, but localized in a relatively small area. The overall soil
structure and viability of the plant community would not be affected.
Mitigation would prevent the introduction and spread of non-native
species during construction activities. No unacceptable impacts or
impairment to soils or vegetation would result from implementation of
this alternative.

[]{.mark}

**Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat**

Constructing the facility and paving the compound, access roads, and
small parking area would alter 4.2 acres of previously disturbed, low
quality habitat. The existing fence along the perimeter of the project
area has minimized the amount of wildlife inhabiting the project area.
However, small mammals, birds, and reptiles located within or nearby the
project area would be temporarily disturbed or displaced from the noise
and activity generated during construction activities. Larger mammals,
like coyotes and bighorn sheep, would avoid the project area during
construction activities.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Wildlife habitat in the Boulder Beach
development zone, and other development zones, has been permanently
altered by the construction of facilities, parking lots, overlooks, and
the planting and irrigation of non-native vegetation. The area continues
to support some wildlife, such as small mammals, reptiles, birds, and
coyotes. This alternative would displace additional wildlife, but would
not add to the loss of habitat since the area is inside the development
zone and is considered low quality habitat. Alternative B does not
appreciably add to the cumulative effects of wildlife and wildlife
habitat.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Minor, adverse, long-term impacts to wildlife
and wildlife habitat would occur from loss of a small portion of low
quality habitat within the development zone. Construction could
permanently displace or potentially injure or kill the few animals that
can not move away from the construction activities. No unacceptable
impacts or impairment to wildlife or wildlife habitat would occur from
implementation of this alternative.

**Special Status Species**

Constructing the facility and paving the compound, access roads, and
small parking area would alter 4.2 acres of previously disturbed, low
quality habitat. The project site does not provide suitable desert
tortoise habitat, and no tortoises are within the fenced enclosure in
which the facility would be built. The site is bordered on the north by
Lake Mead Marina's dry boat storage yard, to the east by Lakeshore Road,
to the south by park housing and a maintenance yard, and to the west by
a powerline right-of-way and the River Mountains. Tortoises are rarely
encountered in the surrounding developed area, although they do occur in
suitable habitat outside the area of development. Therefore, the NPS has
determined that this project is not likely to adversely affect the
desert tortoise.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} There would be no cumulative effects
to desert tortoise as a result of this alternative.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Under Alternative B, approximately 4.2 acres,
all of which have been previously disturbed, would be paved. The area is
low quality habitat, and no tortoises exist within the fenced enclosure
where the facility would be constructed. Implementation of Alternative B
is not likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise. No unacceptable
impacts or impairment of desert tortoise populations would occur from
this alternative.

**Air Quality**

Construction activities generate dust and pollution from the use of
heavy equipment. This would occur only during construction activities,
and would be localized in the construction zone. There would be minor,
adverse, localized impacts to air quality during construction
activities; however, mitigation measures would be utilized to alleviate
these impacts.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Air quality around Lake Mead NRA is
affected by a variety of internal and external sources, including
powerplants, motor vehicle and vessel emissions, and dust from the use
of backcountry roads. The project area is in close proximity to Las
Vegas and Henderson, and regional air quality has already been
compromised. This project would not add to the long-term impacts.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} There would be minor, adverse, localized
impacts to air quality during construction activities. No unacceptable
impacts or impairment to air quality would occur from implementation of
this alternative.

**Water Resources**

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for controlling nonpoint pollution
during construction activities would be implemented and would help
control sedimentation and erosion during small storm events. Depending
on the extent to which storm events occurred during construction,
short-term, adverse impacts on water quality from increased erosion,
sedimentation, and turbidity would range from negligible to minor.

A retaining wall may be constructed along the side of the compound that
follows a wash to provide stability and to reduce erosion. Mitigation
would be implemented to reduce or eliminate any impacts to water
resources that run-off from a paved surface could create. This would
result in the potential for minor, adverse, long-term impacts on water
resources.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Visitor use and facilities in the
recreation area contribute sediments and pollutants into Lake Mead.
Continuing and upcoming projects including the implementation of the
*Lake Management Plan*, boat ramp improvements, *Low Water Amendment* to
the *GMP*, *Replace Water Distribution Systems and Sewer Collection
Systems Parkwide*, and the *Systems Conveyance and Operations Program*,
are likely to have both beneficial and adverse impacts on water quality.
This project would not add to the cumulative effects of water resources.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Alternative B would result in potential minor,
adverse, long-term impacts on water resources. There would be no
unacceptable impacts or impairment to water resources from
implementation of this alternative.

**Soundscapes**

The proposed project is in the developed area of the park and is near
the VIP campground, Boulder Beach maintenance yard, concessions
maintenance yard, and NPS employee housing. Construction activities
related to establishing a new boating facility and aids to navigation
complex would create temporary, localized, minor impacts on the natural
sounds in the project area.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Human-generated noise occurs in the
project area in the form of motorized vessel use, vehicular traffic, and
air traffic. The Boulder Beach area of the park is highly developed and
construction-related noise resonates from internal and external sources.
This project would not add to the cumulative effects on soundscapes.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Under Alternative B, there would be minor,
localized, temporary increases in noise during the construction period.
No unacceptable impacts or impairment to soundscapes would occur from
implementation of this alternative.

**Cultural Resources**

No cultural resources were located within the project area. The project
area is located adjacent to and within the viewshed of the SCIRR grade
which was recommended eligible for the NRHP (ACRE 2003). Considerable
development already exists along this section of the SCIRR grade and
includes the Boulder Beach horse corral site and a dry boat storage
facility. The proposed Government Boating Repair Facility and Aids to
Navigation Complex would replace the Boulder Beach horse corral
facility. The NPS believes that this would have only a minor impact on
the SCIRR grade. For purposes of Section 106 of NHPA, there would be no
adverse effect.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} There would be no cumulative effect to
cultural resources.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Alternative B would have a minor, adverse,
long-term impact on cultural resources. For purposes of Section 106 of
NHPA, there would be no adverse effect. The NPS will consult with the
Nevada SHPO as required by 36 CFR 800. No unacceptable impacts or
impairment to cultural resources would occur from implementation of this
alternative.

**Visual Resources**

Under this alternative, the maximum build-out of the facility would
include a 7,200 sq. ft. building with 7,200 sq. ft. awning.
Approximately 4.2 acres would be paved including the enclosed, fenced
area, the existing gravel road, and a small parking area. Establishment
of a new facility and paving gravel surfaces can create a visual
disturbance and detract from the natural appearance. However, the scenic
quality of the area around the project site is considered low due to its
location in an existing developed area and its close proximity to other
facilities. The project area is mostly concealed by natural rock
formations, which would act as a visual screen of the facility. In
addition, native vegetation could be planted around the perimeter of the
compound to help mitigate any adverse impacts on visual resources.
Alternative B would have a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact
on visual resources.

Construction of the facility would result in the clean-up and
reorganization of both the Boulder Beach horse corral site and of the
Boulder Beach maintenance yard. Each site is currently overcrowded with
both useful materials and with outdated equipment. The unsightly
trailers and other materials at the Boulder Beach horse corral site
would be removed. The scenic quality of the area would be enhanced
because construction of a facility would provide a common place where
all navigational aids and boating supplies could be stored. Clean-up and
reorganization of both sites would result in minor, long-term,
beneficial effects to visual resources.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} The project area is in a highly
developed area. A marina, concessioner facilities, NPS employee housing
area, the Southern Nevada Water Authority facility, and the Nevada
Division of Wildlife Fish Hatchery, and NPS native plant nursery are all
located in close proximity.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Under Alternative B, minor to moderate,
adverse, long-term impacts to visual resources would occur from paving
and constructing a building in an area that currently does not have one.
However, the area is visually unappealing in its current state, and
mitigation would reduce the impacts of the building. Long-term, minor,
beneficial effects would result from reorganizing both the Boulder Beach
maintenance yard, and from eliminating outdated and deteriorated
equipment and materials at the Boulder Beach horse corral site. There
would be no unacceptable impacts to visual resources from implementation
of Alternative B.

[]{.mark}

**Safety and Visitor Use and Experience**

This project would provide a safe, climate controlled environment for
aids to navigation work. Construction of this facility would allow
employees to work in a controlled environment during adverse weather
conditions. Not being exposed to harsh weather elements while working
extended hours to repair navigational aids and vessels would improve
safety for all employees performing these duties. Pull-through doors
would reduce the potential for accidents from backing up and maneuvering
through crowded spaces. Timely repairs and maintenance to boating
equipment would benefit Lake Mead NRA visitors, because safe and
reliable boating equipment would be available to park staff, ensuring
quick medical and incident response. Timely placement of navigational
aids would have major beneficial effects to the safety of all users of
the waterway system.

Establishing a facility for the Motorboat Operator Certification Course
would ensure that agency staff has the knowledge and skills necessary to
safely operate a boat and help with search and rescue operations. The
proposed facility would provide a location for the NPS Search and Rescue
Dive Team to meet and quickly deploy, and is in close proximity to the
government boat dock on Lake Mead where NPS vessels are harbored. This
would have major beneficial effects to visitor safety.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Providing a proper and adequate work
area for the emergency operations in aids to navigation, law
enforcement, and water search and rescue would provide better response
and a better overall program to ensure the safety of lake users.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Alternative B would result in major,
long-term, beneficial effects to safety and visitor use and experience.
All users of the waterway system would benefit from the timely
maintenance and prompt incident response resulting from safe and
reliable equipment, vessels, and aids to navigation. There would be no
unacceptable impacts to safety and visitor use and experience from
implementation of Alternative B.

[]{.mark}

**Park Operations**

Under Alternative B, a facility would be established in a centralized
location where NPS personnel could work on minor boating repairs. This
would reduce the amount of time spent hauling boats and equipment to
areas outside the park for maintenance needs. Adequate storage space
would allow for proper storage of navigational aids, and would result in
a higher quality product because they would not be exposed to the sun,
wind, and rain. Proper storage of navigational aids would reduce the
amount of time spent maintaining the devices, and would increase the
efficiency of the operation.

A controlled work environment would be available to employees working on
vessels and navigational aids. Work areas would be equipped with cooling
and heating, proper tools, a controlled environment to store necessary
equipment, and an adequate, clean workspace to accomplish tasks. The
work required to maintain navigational aids, includes welding, grinding,
painting, fiberglass work, and fabrication, would be accomplished inside
the facility. The facility would potentially provide an area for MOCC
training, and could be used as a staging area for SCUBA dive teams, dive
salvage operations, and other related activities.

Construction of the facility would free up much needed space at the
Boulder Beach maintenance facility and would provide the employees at
the existing facility with more work and storage space. Extra space
would enable work activities to occur in a non-crowded, safe work
environment potentially catalyzing more efficient use of work space and
storage space. Equipment and materials currently stored in random areas
would be organized and placed in specified areas, providing better
accessibility and more efficient operational procedures. The facility
would minimally impact staff and would not create any additional
hardship in maintaining the building or its functions.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} As the lake level of Lake Mead
continues to decline, additional aids to navigation are needed to
indicate previously submerged hazards. As the water level rises, space
will be needed to store unnecessary devices. Adequate storage space
would reduce exposure of navigational aids to the sun and the elements,
reducing deterioration and decreasing the time and money needed to
repair them.

Future park needs were considered in the design of the proposed
facility, and it has been determined that at maximum build-out, the
facility would adequately meet the needs of the park for the next 30
years. Due to attrition, the organization of the Aids to Navigation team
may change; however, maintenance and repairs to navigational aid devices
will always be needed. When additional hiring is possible, the facility
will be able to accommodate a Navigational Aids crew of five people, in
addition to providing space for agencies, search and rescue operations,
Motorboat Operators Certification Course demands, and other purposeful
requests. The area could be used for a staging area for all operations
(i.e. command post area).

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Alternative B would result in moderate to
major, long-term beneficial effects to park operations by providing a
centralized location near the lake to repair boats, maintain and store
navigational aid devices, and store dive equipment; resulting in quick
and efficient response by park staff concerning navigational and
watercraft needs. There would be no unacceptable impacts to park
operations from implementation of Alternative B.

**ALTERNATIVE C- Construct Boating Repair Facility and Aids to
Navigation Complex at the Water Treatment Plant**

**Soils and Vegetation**

Under this alternative, approximately two acres of previously disturbed
soils in the proposed project area would be graded and paved. Although
the majority of the acreage is bare ground and has been graded, there
may be a few shrubs removed, including creosote, brittlebush, and
sweetbush. Vegetation would be permanently removed from the project area
and would not be replanted, as the area would be paved. Native
vegetation, potentially cottonwood trees, could be planted around the
perimeter of the compound to provide a protective buffer and visual
screen from those traveling on Lakeshore Road. Introduction of
non-native species in the project area is a concern due to the potential
for construction equipment to transport seeds and other non-native weeds
into the park. Mitigation would reduce the potential for the
introduction of non-native species.

One of the amenities proposed to be built at the compound is a boat wash
station. The boat wash station would be utilized by park and agency
employees to eliminate suspect non-native species from vehicles, boats,
equipment, and materials used within the park. This would reduce the
potential for transporting non-native species within the park both on
land and water.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} The location being considered for
construction of the boating repair facility and aids to navigation
complex was identified in the GMP as a park development zone. The
purpose of the developed zones is to provide facilities for park
operations and visitor enjoyment. Developed zones throughout the
recreation area have impacted approximately 800 acres of the park's 1.3
million acres. The Boulder Beach development zone has been heavily
impacted by the development of facilities. This project would add an
additional 1.2 acres of permanently altered soils to the recreation
area. This project would not appreciably add to the cumulative effects
on soils and vegetation.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} This alternative would have minor, adverse,
long-term impacts to soils and vegetation because impacts are
measurable, but localized in a relatively small area. Mitigation would
prevent the introduction and spread of non-native species during
construction activities. No unacceptable impacts or impairment to soils
or vegetation would result from implementation of this alternative.

**Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat**

Construction of the facility and paving the area would alter
approximately two acres of previously disturbed, low quality habitat.
The existing fence along the perimeter of the project area has minimized
the amount of wildlife inhabiting the project area. However, small
mammals, birds, and reptiles located within or nearby the project area
would be temporarily disturbed or displaced from the noise and activity
generated during construction activities. Larger mammals, like coyotes
and bighorn sheep, would avoid the project area during construction
activities.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Wildlife habitat in the Boulder Beach
development zone, and other development zones, has been permanently
altered by the construction of facilities, parking lots, overlooks, and
the planting and irrigation of non-native vegetation. The area continues
to support some wildlife, such as small mammals, reptiles, birds, and
coyotes. This alternative would displace additional wildlife, but would
not add to the loss of habitat since the area is inside the development
zone and is considered low quality habitat. Alternative C will not
appreciably add to the cumulative effects on wildlife and wildlife
habitat.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Minor, adverse, long-term impacts to wildlife
and wildlife habitat would occur from loss of a small portion of low
quality habitat within the development zone. Construction could
permanently displace or potentially injure or kill the few animals that
can not move away from the construction activities. No unacceptable
impacts or impairment to wildlife or wildlife habitat would occur from
implementation of this alternative.

**Special Status Species**

Constructing the facility and paving the compound would alter
approximately two acres of previously disturbed, low quality habitat.
The project site does not provide suitable desert tortoise habitat, and
no tortoises occur within the fenced enclosure in which the facility is
to be built. The site is bordered on the north by the VIP campground, to
the east by NPS employee housing and Lakeshore Road, and to the west by
a powerline right-of-way and the River Mountains. Tortoises are rarely
encountered in the surrounding developed area, although they do occur in
suitable habitat outside the area of development. Therefore, the NPS has
determined that this project is not likely to adversely affect the
desert tortoise.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} There would be no cumulative effects
to desert tortoise as a result of this alternative.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Under Alternative C, approximately two acres,
all of which have been previously disturbed, would be paved. The area is
low quality habitat, and no tortoises exist within the fenced enclosure
where the facility would be constructed. Implementation of Alternative C
is not likely to adversely affect the desert tortoise. No unacceptable
impacts or impairment of desert tortoise populations would occur from
this alternative.

**Air Quality**

Construction activities generate dust and pollution from the use of
heavy equipment. This would occur only during construction activities,
and would be localized in the construction zone. There would be minor,
adverse, localized impacts to air quality during construction
activities; however, mitigation measures would be utilized to alleviate
these impacts.

[Cumulative Impacts:]{.underline} Air quality around Lake Mead NRA is
affected by a variety of internal and external sources, including
powerplants, motor vehicle and vessel emissions, and dust from the use
of backcountry roads. The project area is in close proximity to Las
Vegas and Henderson, and regional air quality has already been
compromised. This project would not add to the long-term impacts.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} There would be minor, adverse, localized
impacts to air quality during construction activities. No unacceptable
impacts or impairment to air quality would occur from implementation of
this alternative.

[]{.mark}

**Water Resources**

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for controlling nonpoint pollution
during construction activities would be implemented and would help
control sedimentation and erosion during small storm events. Depending
on the extent to which storm events occurred during construction,
short-term, adverse impacts on water quality from increased erosion,
sedimentation, and turbidity would range from negligible to minor.

If necessary, a retaining wall would be constructed to provide stability
and reduce erosion factors. Mitigation would be implemented to reduce or
eliminate any impacts to water resources that run-off from a paved
surface could create. This would result in the potential for minor
adverse, long-term impacts to water resources.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Visitor use and facilities in the
recreation area contribute sediments and pollutants into Lake Mead.
Continuing and upcoming projects including the implementation of the
*Lake Management Plan*, boat ramp improvements, *Low Water Amendment* to
the *GMP*, and the *Systems Conveyance and Operations Program*, are
likely to have both beneficial and adverse impacts on water quality.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Alternative C would result in potentially
minor adverse, long-term impacts on water resources. There would be no
unacceptable impacts or impairment to water resources as a result of the
impacts associated with this alternative.

**Soundscapes**

The proposed project is in the developed area of the park and is near
the VIP campground, Boulder Beach maintenance yard, concessions
maintenance yard, and NPS employee housing. Construction activities
related to establishing a new boating facility and aids to navigation
complex would create temporary, localized, minor impacts on the natural
sounds in the project area. []{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Human-generated noise occurs in the
project area in the form of motorized vessel use, vehicular traffic, and
air traffic. The Boulder Beach area of the park is highly developed and
construction-related noise resonates from internal and external sources.
This project would not add to the cumulative effects on soundscapes.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Under Alternative C, there would be minor,
localized, short-term increases in noise during the construction period.
No unacceptable impacts or impairment to soundscapes would occur from
implementation of this alternative.

**Cultural Resources**

No cultural resources were located within the project area. The project
area is located adjacent to and within the viewshed of the Boulder Beach
Maintenance Building which is a Mission 66 structure and is potentially
eligible for the NRHP. The NPS believes that the project would have only
a minor impact on the Boulder Beach Maintenance Building. For purposes
of Section 106 of the NHPA, there would be no adverse effect.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} There would be no cumulative effects
to cultural resources from implementation of Alternative C.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Alternative C would have a minor, adverse,
long-term impact on cultural resources. For purposes of Section 106 of
the NHPA, there would be no adverse effect. The park's Cultural Resource
Advisors will review the project as required by the 1995 Service-wide
Programmatic Agreement and the NPS will consult with the Nevada SHPO as
required by 36 CFR 800. No unacceptable impacts or impairment to
cultural resources would occur from implementation of this alternative.

[]{.mark}

**Visual Resources**

Under this alternative, the maximum build-out of the facility would
include a 7,200 sq. ft. building with 7,200 sq. ft. awning.
Approximately 1.2 acres would be paved including the enclosed, fenced
area and the existing, short gravel road. The facility would be located
at the site which is currently occupied by an obsolete water treatment
plant. The water treatment plant is scheduled for demolition in summer
2007. Establishment of a new facility and paving existing gravel
surfaces can create a visual disturbance and detract from the natural
appearance of the area. However, the scenic quality of the area around
the project site is considered low due to its location in an existing
developed area and its close proximity to other facilities. In addition,
the proposed facility would replace a defunct facility that currently
occupies the project site within the Boulder Beach maintenance area.
Native vegetation could be planted around the perimeter of the compound
to help mitigate any adverse impacts on visual resources. Alternative C
would result in a minor, adverse, long-term impact on visual resources.

Construction of the facility would result in the clean-up and
reorganization of the Boulder Beach maintenance building and yard and
the water treatment plant site. The scenic quality of the area would be
enhanced because there would be a common place where all navigational
aids and boating supplies could be stored. Clean-up and reorganization
would result in minor, long-term, beneficial effects on visual
resources.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} The project area is in a highly
developed area. A marina, concessioner facilities, NPS employee housing
area, the Southern Nevada Water Authority facility, and the Nevada
Division of Wildlife Fish Hatchery, and NPS native plant nursery are all
located in close proximity.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Under Alternative C, paving and construction
of a new facility in the place of an existing, defunct water treatment
plant would result in a minor, adverse, long-term impact to visual
resources. Long-term, minor, beneficial effects would result from
reorganizing both the Boulder Beach maintenance yard, and from
eliminating outdated and deteriorated equipment and materials at the
defunct water treatment plant site. There would be no unacceptable
impacts to visual resources from implementation of Alternative C.

[]{.mark}

**Safety and Visitor Use and Experience**

This project would provide a safe, climate controlled environment for
aids to navigation work. Construction of this facility would allow
employees to work in a controlled environment during adverse weather
conditions. Not being exposed to harsh weather elements while working
extended hours to repair navigational aids and vessels would improve
safety for all employees performing these duties. Pull-through doors
would reduce the potential for accidents from backing up and maneuvering
through crowded spaces. Timely repairs and maintenance to boating
equipment would benefit Lake Mead NRA visitors, because safe and
reliable boating equipment would be available to park staff, ensuring
quick medical and incident response. Timely placement of navigational
aids would have major beneficial effects to the safety of all users of
the waterway system.

Establishing a facility for the Motorboat Operator Certification Course
would ensure that agency staff has the knowledge and skills necessary to
safely operate a boat and help with search and rescue operations. The
proposed facility would provide a location for the NPS Search and Rescue
Dive Team to meet and quickly deploy, and is in close proximity to the
government boat dock on Lake Mead where NPS vessels are harbored. This
would have major beneficial effects to visitor safety.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} Providing a proper and adequate work
area for the emergency operations in aids to navigation, law
enforcement, and water search and rescue would provide better response
and a better overall program to ensure the safety of lake users.

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Alternative C would result in major,
long-term, beneficial effects to safety and visitor use and experience.
All users of the waterway system would benefit from the timely
maintenance and prompt incident response resulting from safe and
reliable equipment, vessels, and aids to navigation. There would be no
unacceptable impacts to safety and visitor use and experience from
implementation of Alternative C.

[]{.mark}

**Park Operations**

Under Alternative C, a facility would be established in a centralized
location where NPS personnel could work on minor boating repairs. This
would reduce the amount of time spent hauling boats and equipment to
areas outside the park for maintenance needs. Adequate storage space
would allow for proper storage of navigational aids, and would result in
a higher quality product because they would not be exposed to the sun,
wind, and rain. Proper storage of navigational aids would reduce the
amount of time spent maintaining the devices, and would increase the
efficiency of the operation.

A controlled work environment would be available to employees working on
vessels and navigational aids. Work areas would be equipped with cooling
and heating, proper tools, a controlled environment to store necessary
equipment, and an adequate, clean workspace to accomplish tasks. The
work required to maintain navigational aids, includes welding, grinding,
painting, fiberglass work, and fabrication, would be accomplished inside
the facility. The facility would potentially provide an area for MOCC
training, and could be used as a staging area for SCUBA dive teams, dive
salvage operations, and other related activities.

Construction of the facility would free up much needed space at the
Boulder Beach maintenance facility and would provide the employees at
the existing facility with more work and storage space. Extra space
would enable work activities to occur in a non-crowded, safe work
environment potentially catalyzing more efficient use of work space and
storage space. Equipment and materials currently stored in random areas
would be organized and placed in specified areas, providing better
accessibility and more efficient operational procedures. The facility
would minimally impact staff and would not create any additional
hardship in maintaining the building or its functions.

[Cumulative Effects:]{.underline} As the lake level of Lake Mead
continues to decline, additional aids to navigation are needed to
indicate previously submerged hazards. As the water level rises, space
will be needed to store unnecessary devices. Adequate storage space
would reduce exposure of navigational aids to the sun and the elements,
reducing deterioration and decreasing the time and money needed to
repair them.

Future park needs were considered in the design of the proposed
facility, and it has been determined that at maximum build-out, the
facility would adequately meet the needs of the park for the next 30
years. Due to attrition, the organization of the Aids to Navigation team
may change; however, maintenance and repairs to navigational aid devices
will always be needed. When additional hiring is possible, the facility
will be able to accommodate a Navigational Aids crew of five people, in
addition to providing space for agencies, search and rescue operations,
Motorboat Operators Certification Course demands, and other purposeful
requests. The area could be used for a staging area for all operations
(i.e. command post area).

[Conclusion:]{.underline} Alternative C would result in major, long-term
beneficial impacts to park operations by providing a centralized
location near the lake to repair boats, maintain and store navigational
aid devices, and store dive equipment; resulting in quick and efficient
response by park staff concerning navigational and watercraft needs.
There would be no unacceptable impacts to park operations from
implementation of Alternative C.

*Page intentionally left blank.*

[]{.mark}

# SECTION V: COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

A 30-day public scoping period occurred between January 23, 2004 and
February 23, 2004 through a press release (Appendix A). The scoping
press release was sent to television stations, newspapers, magazines,
and radio stations in Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, Pahrump,
Overton, Logandale, Laughlin, Nevada; Meadview, Kingman, Phoenix, and
Bullhead City, Arizona; and Needles, and Los Angeles, CA. The scoping
press release was also posted on the Lake Mead NRA internet website. No
comments were received.

A press release announcing the availability of this environmental
assessment is sent to the above entities and is posted at the Alan Bible
Visitor Center and the Boulder Beach Ranger Station. Individuals and
organizations may request the environmental assessment in writing, by
phone, or by e-mail. The environmental assessment is published on the
Lake Mead NRA internet website
(http://www.nps.gov/lame/parkmgmt/docs.htm) and on the NPS PEPC internet
website at <http://parkplanning.nps.gov/>. Electronic comments may be
submitted to either internet website address. Written comments may be
submitted to the address listed at the bottom of this page. Comments on
this environmental assessment must be submitted during the 30-day public
review and comment period.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware
that your entire comment -- including your personal identifying
information -- may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information
from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Lake Mead NRA's mailing list is comprised of 165 federal and state
agencies, individuals, businesses, and organizations. The environmental
assessment will be distributed to those individuals, agencies, and
organizations likely to have an interest in this project. Entities on
the park mailing list that do not receive a copy of the environmental
assessment will receive a letter notifying them of its availability and
methods of accessing the document. Copies of the environmental
assessment are available at area libraries, including: Boulder City
Library, Clark County Community College (North Las Vegas), Clark County
Library, Las Vegas Public Library, Mohave County Library (Kingman, AZ),
Sunrise Public Library (Las Vegas), University of Arizona Library
(Tucson, AZ), University of Nevada- Las Vegas James R. Dickinson
Library, Meadview Community Library, Moapa Valley Library (Overton, NV),
Mesquite Library, Mohave County Library (Lake Havasu City, AZ), Laughlin
Library, Searchlight Library, and Washington County Library (St. George,
UT).

[]{.mark}

A copy of the environmental assessment can be obtained by direct request
to:

National Park Service, Lake Mead NRA

Attention: Compliance Office

601 Nevada Way

Boulder City, Nevada 89005

Telephone: (702) 293-8956

Facsimile: (702) 293-8008

[]{.mark}

# SECTION VI: LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Chanteil Walter, Environmental Compliance Assistant

Michael Boyles, Environmental Compliance Specialist

Steve Daron, Archeologist

Bruce Nyhuis, Assistant Chief of Maintenance

Jim Koza, Navigational Aids Specialist (retired)

Jim Holland, Management Assistant/ Park Planner

Nancy Hendricks, Environmental Compliance Specialist (former)

Dale Melville, Park Engineer

Joe Hutcheson, GIS Technician

# SECTION VII: REFERENCES

Associated Cultural Resource Experts (ACRE). 2003. *Integrity Evaluation
and NRHP*

*Reevaluation of Railroads Associated with Construction of Hoover Dam*.
Bureau

of Reclamation Report LC-NV-97-02-01 D, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower

Colorado Region. Boulder City, Nevada.

Ervin, Richard G. 1986. *Lake Mead Developed Area Surveys*. Publications
in

Anthropology No. 41, Western Archeological and Conservation Center,
National

Park Service. Tucson, Arizona.

# NPS (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service). 1986. *Final Environmental* 

> *Impact Statement, Lake Mead National Recreation Area General
> Management Plan*. Boulder City, Nevada.

\-\-\--.1991. *Lake Mead National Recreation Area Draft Environmental
Impact Statement:*

*Lakeshore Road Reconstruction*. Boulder City, Nevada. November 1991.

\-\-\--.2000. *Lake Mead National Recreation Area Resource Management
Plan*. Boulder

City, Nevada.

[]{.mark}

\-\-\--.2001. *Lake Mead National Recreation Area Environmental
Assessment:*

*Construction of a Water Safety Center Boulder Beach.* Boulder City,
Nevada.

September 2001.

[]{.mark}

\-\-\--.2001. *Lake Mead National Recreation Area Strategic Plan,
2000-2005*. Boulder

City, Nevada.

\-\-\--.2002. *Lake Mead National Recreation Area Lake Management Plan
and*

*Environmental Impact Statement*. Boulder City, Nevada.

*\-\-\--*.2003. *Lake Mead National Recreation Area Environmental
Assessment: Construction of the River Mountains Loop Trail within Lake
Mead National Recreation Area.* Boulder City, Nevada.

\-\-\--.2006. *NPS Management Policies*. Washington, D.C.

\-\-\--.2006. *Visitor and Visitor Use Statistics for December, 2006,
Lake Mead National*

*Recreation Area.* Boulder City, Nevada.

[]{.mark}

# USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). Listings with a Current Range in Region 1. Accessed online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageRegionLists?lead_region=1#NV

+----------------------------+------------------+---+-------------------+
| National Park Service      | Lake Mead        |   | 601 Nevada Way    |
|                            | National         |   |                   |
| U.S. Department of the     | Recreation Area  |   | Boulder City, NV  |
| Interior                   |                  |   | 89005             |
|                            |                  |   |                   |
|                            |                  |   | Phone: (702)      |
|                            |                  |   | 293-8947          |
|                            |                  |   |                   |
|                            |                  |   | Fax: (702)        |
|                            |                  |   | 293-8936          |
+----------------------------+------------------+---+-------------------+

![](media/image9.png){width="0.5597222222222222in"
height="0.7201388888888889in"}

**Lake Mead National Recreation Area** News Release

**For Immediate Release: January 23, 2004 Release #: 4-04**

**Roxanne Dey, 702.293.8947**

Environmental Assessment Being Prepared for Consideration of a

Navigational Aids Complex at Lake Mead National Recreation Area

Officials at Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NRA) are soliciting
public comments related to the possible establishment of a navigational
aids complex, within the developed area of the Boulder Basin. A National
Park Service boating repair facility may be considered along with the
navigational aids complex.

Lake Mead NRA receives 8-10 million visitors each year. Many of these
visitors recreate on the water and rely on navigational aids, buoys,
lighting systems, and reef markers to safely direct them to their
destination, and away from hazards in the water. Navigational aids and
lighting systems require constant maintenance to ensure they are in
proper working condition. Also integral to ensuring a safe recreational
experience is providing functional boating vessels to NPS personnel and
other agencies.

Lake Mead NRA is responsible through a mutual aid agreement with the
U.S. Coast Guard to install, maintain and repair all navigational aids
on Lakes Mead and Mohave. The present facility where this work is
accomplished does not provide adequate space or a safe work environment
to perform the required functions. Storage space is also lacking, due to
the need for a large stock of navigational supplies on hand at all
times.

This project seeks to provide a facility where employees can work in a
controlled environment to accomplish the required functions necessary in
providing effective navigational markers on Lakes Mead and Mohave. The
facility would be designed to provide adequate space for navigational
aid operations, minor boat repairs, vessel cleaning, space for boat
training of agency personnel, and storage of impounded vessels (as is
required when they are involved in accidents or used in the commission
of a crime). The facility would also be made available for boat
maintenance and vessel storage to other federal, state, and local
entities.

The National Park Service is in the process of preparing an
environmental assessment to identify and evaluate feasible alternatives,
including no action, for this proposal. As a result, officials at Lake
Mead NRA are seeking public feedback on the issues and potential
alternatives. Written comments should be sent by February 23, 2004 to:
Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Attention:
Compliance Office, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, Nevada 89005.

**Appendix B**

**U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Listing of Threatened and Endangered
Species**

<http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListing.do?state=NV&status=listed>

Accessed on September 28, 2006

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **NEVADA Listed species (based on published population data) \-- 38     
  listings**                                                              

  **Animals \-- 29**                                                      

  [***Status***](javascript:launch('/tess_public/docs/db-status.html'))   ***Species/Listing Name***

  T                                                                       Bear, grizzly lower 48 States, except where listed as an experimental
                                                                          population or the Yellowstone population ([*Ursus arctos
                                                                          horribilis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=A001))

  E                                                                       Chub, bonytail entire ([*Gila
                                                                          elegans*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E020))

  E                                                                       Chub, Pahranagat roundtail ([*Gila robusta
                                                                          jordani*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E00R))

  E                                                                       Chub, Virgin River ([*Gila seminuda
                                                                          (=robusta)*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E02A))

  E                                                                       Cui-ui ([*Chasmistes
                                                                          cujus*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E001))

  E                                                                       Curlew, Eskimo ([*Numenius
                                                                          borealis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=B01A))

  E                                                                       Dace, Ash Meadows speckled ([*Rhinichthys osculus
                                                                          nevadensis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E03A))

  E                                                                       Dace, Clover Valley speckled ([*Rhinichthys osculus
                                                                          oligoporus*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E03B))

  T                                                                       Dace, desert ([*Eremichthys
                                                                          acros*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E03C))

  E                                                                       Dace, Independence Valley speckled ([*Rhinichthys osculus
                                                                          lethoporus*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E03E))

  E                                                                       Dace, Moapa ([*Moapa
                                                                          coriacea*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E002))

  T                                                                       Eagle, bald lower 48 States ([*Haliaeetus
                                                                          leucocephalus*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=B008))

  T                                                                       Naucorid, Ash Meadows ([*Ambrysus
                                                                          amargosus*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=I023))

  E                                                                       Pikeminnow (=squawfish), Colorado except Salt and Verde R. drainages,
                                                                          AZ ([*Ptychocheilus
                                                                          lucius*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E006))

  E                                                                       Poolfish, Pahrump ([*Empetrichthys
                                                                          latos*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E007))

  E                                                                       Pupfish, Ash Meadows Amargosa ([*Cyprinodon nevadensis
                                                                          mionectes*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E042))

  E                                                                       Pupfish, Devils Hole ([*Cyprinodon
                                                                          diabolis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E009))

  E                                                                       Pupfish, Warm Springs ([*Cyprinodon nevadensis
                                                                          pectoralis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E00W))

  E                                                                       Skipper, Carson wandering ([*Pseudocopaeodes eunus
                                                                          obscurus*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=I0RG))

  T                                                                       Spinedace, Big Spring ([*Lepidomeda mollispinis
                                                                          pratensis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E04L))

  E                                                                       Spinedace, White River ([*Lepidomeda
                                                                          albivallis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E04P))

  E                                                                       Springfish, Hiko White River ([*Crenichthys baileyi
                                                                          grandis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E04Q))

  T                                                                       Springfish, Railroad Valley ([*Crenichthys
                                                                          nevadae*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E04T))

  E                                                                       Springfish, White River ([*Crenichthys baileyi
                                                                          baileyi*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E04U))

  E                                                                       Sucker, razorback entire ([*Xyrauchen
                                                                          texanus*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E054))

  T                                                                       Tortoise, desert U.S.A., except in Sonoran Desert ([*Gopherus
                                                                          agassizii*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=C04L))

  T                                                                       Trout, bull U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states ([*Salvelinus
                                                                          confluentus*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E065))

  T                                                                       Trout, Lahontan cutthroat ([*Oncorhynchus clarki
                                                                          henshawi*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=E00Y))

  E                                                                       Wolf, gray lower 48 States, except MN and where XN; Mexico ([*Canis
                                                                          lupus*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=A00D))

                                                                          

  **Plants \-- 9**                                                        

  **[*Status*](javascript:launch('/tess_public/docs/db-status.html'))**   ***Species/Listing Name***

  T                                                                       Blazingstar, Ash Meadows ([*Mentzelia
                                                                          leucophylla*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1ZD))

  E                                                                       Buckwheat, steamboat ([*Eriogonum ovalifolium var.
                                                                          williamsiae*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2OR))

  T                                                                       Centaury, spring-loving ([*Centaurium
                                                                          namophilum*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1U5))

  T                                                                       Gumplant, Ash Meadows ([*Grindelia
                                                                          fraxino-pratensis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2AM))

  T                                                                       Ivesia, Ash Meadows ([*Ivesia kingii var.
                                                                          eremica*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1XM))

  T                                                                       Ladies\'-tresses, Ute ([*Spiranthes
                                                                          diluvialis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2WA))

  T                                                                       Milk-vetch, Ash meadows ([*Astragalus
                                                                          phoenix*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1TB))

  E                                                                       Niterwort, Amargosa ([*Nitrophila
                                                                          mohavensis*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2E8))

  T                                                                       Sunray, Ash Meadows ([*Enceliopsis nudicaulis var.
                                                                          corrugata*](http://ecos.fws.gov/SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q297))
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------