RAINBOW CANYON DEBRIS FLOW DIVERSION STRUCTURE Mt

RAINBOW CANYON DEBRIS FLOW DIVERSION STRUCTURE

Mt. Charleston, Clark County, Nevada

Final Environmental Assessment

Prepared by

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District

U.S. Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

October 2014

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 LOCATION ...... 2 1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 2 1.3 FEDERAL ACTIONS ...... 2 1.4 PUBLIC SPONSOR ...... 3 1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 3 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ...... 4 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 6 3.1 LAND USE...... 7 3.2 SOILS AND SUBSTRATE ...... 8 3.3 WATER QUALITY ...... 10 3.4 AIR QUALITY ...... 12 3.5 NOISE ...... 16 3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 18 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 23 3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 26 3.9 RECREATION ...... 28 3.10 VISUAL RESOURCES ...... 30 3.11 TRAFFIC ...... 32 3.12 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ...... 34 3.13 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTES ...... 36 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 38 4.1 PAST, PRESENT, AND FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS ...... 38 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS ...... 42 5.0 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS ...... 45 6.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...... 46 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 49

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the construction of the Rainbow Canyon Debris Flow Diversion Structure Project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations published at 40 CFR Part 1500 et seq., and the Corps’ NEPA regulations published at 33 CFR Part 230. This EA is anticipated to be incorporated by reference into the U.S. Forest Service’s Decision Memo for the Corps’ proposal and the Forest Service’s issuance of a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada.

1.1 Location The project area is located within Rainbow Canyon, near the town of Mt. Charleston, Clark County, Nevada. The town of Mt. Charleston is comprised of private inholdings within the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area which is administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

1.2 Background The July 2013 Carpenter 1 Fire burned approximately 27,881 acres. Approximately 26,939 acres was located in the Springs Mountains National Recreation Area, including portions of Rainbow Canyon. Fire damage to vegetation weakens soil stability, making it susceptible to debris flows during rain events. Monsoon rains in 2013 and 2014 caused substantial debris flows and erosion that damaged dozens of residences and public infrastructure including Rainbow Canyon Road. The potential for a debris flow during the 2014 winter storm season affecting Rainbow Subdivision is high. As a result, the State of Nevada requested assistance from the Corps to protect life and property from debris flows from fire-damaged areas during the period of fire recovery.

1.3 Federal Actions The State of Nevada requested direct and technical Advance Measures from the Corps on February 27, 2014, pursuant to Public Law 84-99 (PL 84-99), as amended, and codified in 33 United States Code 701n. Pursuant to PL 84-99, Advance Measures consists of those activities performed prior to flooding or flood fighting to protect against loss of life and damages to urban areas and/or public facilities. Advance Measures are considered when requested by the Governor of a state confronted with an immediate threat of unusual flooding. Projects are designed for a specific threat and, unless specifically exempted, are temporary in nature.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The Corps would provide Advance Measures to the State of Nevada pursuant to PL 84-99. Advance Measures include technical services as well as construction. The Corps would enter into a cooperation agreement (CA) with the Forest Service and the State of Nevada under P.L. 84-99, and would enter into a Support Agreement with the Forest Service pursuant to the Economy Act. Under the agreement the Corps would fund the Forest Service to construct a debris flow diversion structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service construction crews. The Corps would prescribe interim maintenance requirements for the life of the temporary structure.

U.S. Forest Service The Forest Service would enter into an agreement with the Corps pursuant to the Economy Act to construct a debris flow diversion structure as part of Corps Advance Measures authority under PL 84-99. The construction would occur on Forest Service lands using Forest Service construction crews. The Forest Service would also issue a Special Use Permit (SUP) to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251. The Forest Service is anticipated to prepare a separate Decision Memo, incorporating this EA by reference, in support of its issuance of the SUP.

Lead and Cooperating Agency As the agency responsible for planning, engineering, and funding construction of the project, the Corps is the lead NEPA agency pursuant to criteria at 40 CFR 1501.5(c). The Forest Service, the primary permitting federal agency for the project, is the cooperating NEPA agency providing technical assistance in evaluating impacts to cultural, tribal, visual, and biological resources.

1.4 Public Sponsor PL 84-99 provides authorization for federal assistance to the construction of temporary flood fighting measures. Furthermore, all flood fight efforts require a Cooperation Agreement (CA) signed by the Public Sponsor, typically a state or local jurisdiction. The terms and conditions of the CA require the Public Sponsor to operate and maintain the flood fighting structure at no cost to the Corps during its operational life and remove all flood fight material after threats from floods have subsided, or upgrade the work to standards acceptable to the Corps. The state of Nevada is the Public Sponsor assuming all terms and conditions of the CA for the Rainbow Canyon Debris Flow Diversion Project through the following state agencies: Nevada Division of Emergency Management, Nevada Department of Transportation, and Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

1.5 Purpose and Need

Statement of Need The July, 2013 Carpenter 1 Fire burned approximately 27,881 acres. Approximately 26,939 acres was located in the Springs Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA) including portions of Rainbow Canyon. During the 2013 and 2014 monsoon seasons, debris flows damaged dozens of residences and public infrastructure. Storm flows washed out roads, leaving rocks and sediment on the roadways. Roadways including Rainbow Canyon Road, the primary access road into Rainbow Canyon, were rendered unusable. Water, mud, and debris entered a number of residential structures. The potential for additional debris flow during the winter storm season affecting Rainbow Subdivision remains high. During the period of recovery from fire damage, debris flows from weather events will continue to pose an imminent threat to homes and critical infrastructure with unusual flooding unless action is taken.

Statement of Purpose The purpose of the project is to protect the residential subdivision within Rainbow Canyon downstream of Forest Service land prior to the onset of winter storm season, from debris flows during the period of recovery from the Carpenter Fire.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward Debris Basin A debris basin would be excavated within Rainbow Canyon up gradient of all residences. However, there is not sufficient available land to construct a debris basin large enough to adequately capture the volume of debris emanating from the hillsides. Therefore, construction is not logistically feasible. This alternative was dismissed from further consideration.

Berm in Parking Lot A berm at the end of a gravel parking lot southwest of the Rainbow Subdivision was considered as an alternative to capture the western watershed flow. The Forest Service had a temporary berm in the same location and this was believed to have reduced the damages experienced from the western flow in the July 2014 event. However, the berm was close to being breached during that event. The berm is intended to direct the western flows into Rainbow Canyon Boulevard, but it was determined that there is no cost effective way to ensure that the flows stay on Rainbow Canyon Boulevard. This alternative therefore would not meet the purpose and need of the project and is not carried forward for evaluation.

Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Consideration No Federal Action Alternative Under the No Federal Action alternative, the Corps would not undertake any construction under PL 84-99 to protect residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The Corps and the Forest Service would not enter into an agreement to construct the structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed, which is estimated to occur within five years. Until such time, residents within the canyon may implement small scale flood fighting measures localized to their homes. However, homes could still be susceptible to damage and could be rendered uninhabitable. Large storm flows could require periodic evacuation of the area. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as-needed basis.

Alternative 1 Construction: Under Alternative 1, the Corps and Forest Service would enter into an agreement to construct a berm and diversion channel with grouted riprap side slopes and invert, along with drainage and road improvements (Figure 1). The berm and diversion channel (or “structure”) would be approximately 2150 foot-long and would range in width from approximately 60 feet to

120 feet. The structure would be located within Rainbow Canyon on land owned by the Forest Service. The flow-diverting face of the structure would be armored with riprap. The down gradient would be located northeast of the subdivision and connect to an existing ridge. The alignment would extend up gradient in a southwesterly direction. The structure would redirect flows away from the subdivision and Rainbow Canyon Road to an existing natural channel that drains into Kyle Wash. At approximately 1,100 feet downstream, the diversion structure would cross an existing dirt road. A grade control structure would be needed to maintain the road elevations. About 270 feet downstream of the road, the existing bank may need to be bolstered with additional fill and armoring of the bank fill. This would be needed to direct the flows around the bend and away from the property immediately downstream. All construction elements would be located on Forest Service lands. Construction would require removal of mixed trees throughout the 4.6 acre project area and 30 foot construction buffer, a total of roughly 7.5 acres. Trees in the project area are predominantly Ponderosa Pines with interspersed White Fir. Construction of the diversion structure would block access to Rainbow Canyon Road from the Rainbow Recreation Tract located on Forest Service lands, so project construction also includes a ramp to be built across the structure to connect Rainbow Canyon Road to the alternate access route for the Rainbow Recreation Tract. The ramp would be a low-flow crossing and inaccessible during flows.

Approximately 11,000 cubic yards of compacted fill would be needed. The fill would come from the excavated material from creating the channel. Riprap (36 and 60 inch) would be obtained from qualified commercial sources in the vicinity of the project area. Disposal of approximately 5,500 cubic yards of excess material would be accomplished by increasing the height and widening the berm in the upstream areas, where possible. Unsuitable material, as determined in the field, would be disposed at a disposal site located 4 miles away from the project site.

Upon completion of construction, the Corps would revegetate all disturbed areas with native grasses in accordance with Forest Service requirements.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 1, the State of Nevada would perform the maintenance and eventual removal of the structure, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the CA, and pursuant to the SUP issued by the Forest Service. Maintenance activities would likely entail periodic removal of sediment from the engineered channel as needed to restore channel capacity to design specifications. The volume of residual sediment is not expected to be substantial. Maintenance would likely require use of a backhoe and an off-road truck for no longer than a week. Sediment would likely be removed prior to the onset of winter and monsoon rains. Sediment would be disposed at existing Forest Service operation and maintenance areas. The frequency of sediment removal operations and the amount of residual sediment to be removed is expected to decrease as the watershed recovers. The State of Nevada would also be required to maintain the vegetation planted by the Corps within the vicinity of the project area by planting all disturbed areas with native grasses pursuant to Forest Service requirements.

Approximately five years after construction of the structure when erosion rates are expected to return to background levels, the State of Nevada would reevaluate watershed conditions in comparison to a 2014 watershed baseline characterization report produced by the Corps in conjunction with the Forest Service. If the watershed has sufficiently recovered, the State of

Nevada would remove the structure and restore the project footprint to preproject conditions; otherwise, the structure would remain in place until subsequent reviews conclude that the watershed has sufficiently recovered. As part of removal and restoration operations, borrow fill from the berm would be discharged back into the excavated channel. Riprap would be hauled off site. Restoration measures also include planting all disturbed areas with native grasses pursuant to Forest Service requirements.

Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative After initial development of Alternative 1, following the July 2014 monsoon, in which flows from the western watershed produced significant damages to homes and infrastructure, the design outlined as Alternative 1 was reevaluated. Alternative 2 was developed, and consists of the structure being extended further south to capture the flows from the western end of the watershed. Once extended, the diversion would be able to direct a greater percentage of runoff from the Rainbow Canyon catchment area into a drainage east of the subdivision.

Construction: Alternative 2 has the same construction as Alternative 1 except that it would be approximately 500 feet longer and could have a slightly different alignment on the upstream end (Figure 2). Alternative 2 would include more ground disturbance and construction commensurate with the additional structure length. Construction and equipment would be the same as Alternative 1, except for proportionally greater materials and timing of work based on the extended length.

Maintenance and removal: Maintenance, reevaluation, and removal activities would be the same as Alternative 1.

Environmental Commitments identified throughout the document are avoidance and minimization measures that would attenuate anticipated impacts. The measures would be implemented as terms and conditions of the agreement between the Corps and Forest Service or the Forest Service SUP that would be issued to the State of Nevada as appropriate. In early design, Alternative 1 was anticipated to be only approximately 1900 feet in length. The Corps and Forest Service coordinated with other Federal and state agencies based on that early description. Since that time, Alternative 1 was expanded to 2150 feet and Alternative 2 was developed to further address the identified need. Additional coordination and commitments to address Alternatives 1 and 2 are identified in this EA.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

In general, the NEPA scope of analysis encompasses Rainbow Canyon.

3.1 LAND USE

Affected Environment The project area is on Federal land within the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area located near the Rainbow subdivision of Mt. Charleston. A portion of Rainbow Canyon encompasses Rainbow Subdivision, an in-holding of private property within Federal lands. As a result, the project area encompasses both public and private lands. Since Mt. Charleston is located within the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, public lands are designated for recreational uses. The footprint of the structure would be located within an area vegetated with grasses, shrubs and trees.

There are no trails or other developed recreation amenities within Rainbow Canyon. However, within Rainbow Canyon is a Recreation Residence Tract comprised of approximately 15 private cabins on lots permitted to the owners by the Forest Service. This tract is up gradient to the proposed structure.

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative results in:

 Permanent changes to the existing land uses.

Environmental Consequences

No Federal Action Alternative Under the No Federal Action alternative, the federal government would not undertake any construction under PL 84-99 to protect residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The Corps and the Forest Service would not enter into an agreement to construct the structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. If irreparable damages occur, residents may need to relocate and existing uses within Rainbow may be restricted until sufficient recovery of the watershed. There could be impacts to land use until sufficient recovery of the watershed.

The State of Nevada would be required to remove the structure upon sufficient recovery of the burned area above Rainbow Canyon and restore the project footprint in accordance with Forest Service restoration measures. Therefore, the project would temporarily impact lands designated for recreational use. Upon removal of the structure and restoration of the project footprint, the land would be available for recreational uses. Direct access through Rainbow Canyon Road would be restored. Thus, impacts to land use would be less than significant.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, construction impacts would be the same except a larger area would be impacted. The extension could increase the footprint ranging from approximately 0.8 to 1.15 acres. The total footprint would range from 5.35 to 5.73 acres. Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to access to the Recreation Residence Tract.

Maintenance and Removal: Maintenance and removal impacts would be the same as under Alternative 1, except that a larger area of approximately 5.35 to 5.73 acres would be subject to maintenance and removal/restoration activities.

3.2 SOILS AND SUBSTRATE

Affected Environment Soil and substrate within Rainbow Canyon are composed of coarse grained limestone and dolomite alluvium with high amounts of gravel, sand, and silt. Soils are well-drained with moderate to good infiltration. Soils throughout the area have not been in place long enough to capture enough fine sediment to develop a structure capable of retaining water for extended periods. As a result, project area soils are well-drained with moderate to high infiltration rates.

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative results in:

 Long term loss of native substrate

Environmental Consequences

Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. There would be a periodic loss of native soils from the area during storm events. Debris flowing past Rainbow Canyon would ultimately discharge into Kyle Canyon. The amount of debris flow is expected to gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers. Debris loss would return to pre-fire conditions upon sufficient recovery of the watershed.

The structure would not result in loss of additional substrate from Rainbow Canyon compared to the baseline conditions. Its purpose is to divert debris flows around residences within Rainbow Canyon. Thus, there would be a periodic loss of native soils from the area during storm events after construction of the structure, but this loss would not be increased by Alternative 1 since the disturbed soils would be stabilized with native vegetation upon completion of construction. Debris flowing past Rainbow Canyon would ultimately discharge into Kyle Canyon. The amount of debris flow and loss of substrate is expected to gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers. Debris loss would return to pre-fire conditions upon sufficient recovery of the watershed.

3.3 WATER QUALITY

Affected Environment Rainbow Canyon is an ephemeral wash draining to the north from Griffith Peak. Rainbow Canyon flows into Kyle Canyon, a large ephemeral tributary to the Las Vegas Wash, which eventually becomes a perennial stream before joining with the Colorado River approximately 42 air miles from the project location. Since the drainages within Rainbow Canyon are headwaters, water emanating from Rainbow Canyon is expected to contain minimal pollutants associated with urban development.

Under normal circumstances, waters likely flow past Rainbow Canyon probably only during large storm events since vegetation in the upper watershed would attenuate the amount of water flowing into Rainbow Canyon. However, following the Carpenter 1 Fire of July 1, 2013, the loss of vegetation and holding capacity of the soil was reduced. Thus, storm flows emanating from the burned watershed above the canyon would be turbid and is expected to remain impaired until sufficient recovery of the watershed.

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative:

 Creates long-term impacts to water quality.

Environmental Consequences

gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers. Water quality would return to pre-fire conditions upon sufficient recovery of the watershed.

Alternative 1 Construction: Under Alternative 1, the Corps and Forest Service would enter into an agreement to construct an approximately 2150 foot-long debris flow diversion structure within Rainbow Canyon on land managed by the Forest Service. The proposed work will be done prior to the onset of winter rains. Best management practices such as placement of silt curtains downstream of the construction footprint would further minimize water quality impacts during construction. Terms and conditions of a Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be implemented (Appendix A). Prior Certification coordination (Appendix A) was based on a 1900-foot structure. The Corps would seek an updated certificated based on the increased length, and the conditions of the Certification would likely be the same. All materials, other than native soils, removed during construction repairs would be properly disposed of at an appropriate off- site location.

During the first winter rain after project construction, unconsolidated substrate within the project area would be flushed downstream into Kyle Canyon. However, since flows emanating from the burned watershed above the canyon would be laden with debris and sediment, addition of unconsolidated substrate from the construction site would not further erode water quality.

The structure would be armored with grouted riprap. Furthermore, all disturbed areas would be revegetated upon completion of construction. As a result, long-term impacts to water quality associated with erosion of the structure or the adjacent areas would be minimal. Construction would discharge fill within an ephemeral wash, temporarily impacting approximately 0.028 acre and less than 300 linear feet of a water of the United States. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the discharge qualifies for authorization under Nationwide Permit 43 (Appendix B). The Section 404 permit coordination (Appendix B) was based on a 1900-foot structure. The Corps would re-coordinate, as necessary, based on the increased length. It is anticipated that Nationwide Permit 43 would still apply.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 1, the Forest Service would issue a SUP to the State of Nevada for maintenance and eventual removal of the structure. Maintenance activities would likely entail periodic removal of sediment from the engineered channel as needed to restore channel capacity to design specifications. The volume of residual sediment is not expected to be substantial. Maintenance would likely require use of a backhoe and an off-road truck for no longer than a week. Sediment removal activities would not result in additional discharges of fill into waters of the U.S. Sediment would likely be removed prior to the onset of winter and monsoon rains. Sediment would be disposed at existing Forest Service operation and maintenance areas. If sediment needs to be removed during storms, the State of Nevada would need to coordinate with the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection to implement measures to reduce water quality impacts. However, since flows emanating from the burned watershed above the canyon would be laden with debris and sediment, addition of unconsolidated substrate from wet-weather maintenance work would not further erode water quality. Furthermore, since the maintenance would be periodic, there would be no long-term impacts to water quality. The frequency of sediment removal operations and the amount of

residual sediment to be removed is expected to decrease as the watershed recovers. The State of Nevada would also be required to maintain the vegetation planted by the Corps resulting in stabilized soil within the vicinity of the project area.

The State of Nevada would be required to remove the structure upon sufficient recovery of the burned area above Rainbow Canyon and restore the project footprint in accordance with Forest Service restoration measures. Restoration measures include planting all disturbed areas with native grasses. There would be no long-term impacts to water quality since disturbed soils be would stabilized. Thus, impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, construction impacts would be the same except a larger area would be impacted. The extension could increase the footprint ranging from approximately 0.8 to 1.15 acres. The total footprint would range from 5.35 to 5.73 acres. Impacts to waters of the U.S. would remain unchanged since the ephemeral wash is located down gradient of the proposed extension.

Environmental Commitments (All Action Alternatives)

WQ-1: Implement all terms and condition of Section 401 Water Quality Certification (NV401- 14-012) during construction:  Submit photographs of project site near waters of the U.S. before, during, and after construction 30 days following project completion documenting implementation of best management practices to prevent erosion, control sediment, and protect water quality.  Certify as weed free straw bales used for best management practices.

WQ-2: The State of Nevada shall coordinate with the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection for any wet-weather maintenance work to implement measures to minimize water quality impacts.

3.4 AIR QUALITY

Affected Environment To protect the public health and welfare, the Federal and state governments have identified five criteria air pollutants and a list of air toxics and have established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) through the Federal Clean Air Act: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), suspended particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and lead (Pb). PM emissions are regulated in two size classes: Particulates up to 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and particulates up to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5).

An area is given the status of “attainment” if ambient air quality standards have not been exceeded. Areas where insufficient data are available to make an “attainment” status designation are listed as unclassifiable and are treated as being in attainment for regulatory purposes. A status of "nonattainment" for particular criteria pollutants is assigned if the ambient air quality standard for that pollutant has been exceeded. Once designated as nonattainment, attainment status may be achieved after three years of data showing non-exceedance of the standard. When an area is reclassified from nonattainment to attainment, it is designated as a “maintenance area,” indicating the requirement to establish and enforce a plan to maintain attainment of the standard.

The project area is within the Clark County Department of Air Quality’s (DAQ) geographic jurisdiction. In particular, the project is located within Hydrographic Area 212. NAAQS attainment status for Hydrographic Area 212 is shown below:

Table 1: Clark County NAAQS Attainment Status Criteria Pollutant NAAQS Status Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Ozone (O3) (2008 NAAQS standards) Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment (Unclassified) Particulate Matter (PM10) Serious Nonattainment Particulate (PM2.5) Attainment Lead (Pb) Attainment (Unclassified) Source:http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/AirQuality/Documents/Planning/CriteriaPolutants/all_areas.pdf

DAQ has no construction emissions thresholds for mobile sources. However, DAQ requires a dust control permit for construction activities involving soil disturbance.

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative:

 Exceeds General Conformity Rule de minimis thresholds (i.e., annual emissions thresholds beyond which preparation of a report detailing how emissions will comply with state air quality plans would be achieved is required) .

Environmental Consequences

the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. Periodic sediment removal activities would result in minor emissions of pollutants associated with diesel or gasoline powered equipment. The frequency of removal activities and associated emissions would gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers. Therefore, General Conformity Rule de minimis thresholds would not be exceeded.

Table 2: Equipment List Equipment Use Duration (Hours) John Deere Loader - 80 HP 72 CAT 966 Loader - 283 HP 288 CAT D6 Bulldozer - 200 HP 156 CAT 321 Excavator - 148 HP 144 CAT 328 Excavator - 204 HP 216 CAT 740 Articulated Truck - 489 HP 216 CAT CP 323 Vibratory Soil Compactor - 77 HP 72 20-ton dump trucks (six) 516 Water Truck 4000 gallons - 350 HP 288

Furthermore, up to 8 construction workers would be required to commute approximately 40 mile round trip for each day of construction. Construction would entail emissions of CAA Criteria Pollutants during construction. Air quality would return to pre-project levels upon completion of construction.

Emissions were estimated using emissions factors for use in California. However, the fleet mix and fuel formulation in Nevada is expected to be similar to those used in California due to geographic adjacency. As a result, use of California specific emissions factors was deemed to be reasonable. Emission calculations are found in Appendix C. Pursuant to the CAA General Conformity Rules, annual emissions associated with construction are shown below:

Table 3: Comparison of Annual Emissions to General Conformity de minimis Thresholds Criteria Pollutant CAA de minimis Thresholds Alternative 1 (tons/year) (tons/year) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 0.55 Volatile Organic Compounds 100 0.16 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 100 1.3 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 100 0.002 Lead 25 0 Particulate Matter (PM10) 50 0.05 Particulate (PM2.5) 100 0.04

Construction emissions would not exceed General Conformity de minimis thresholds. Anticipated greenhouse gasses would not exceed thresholds under Corps guidance for detailed evaluation. Therefore, impacts to air quality would be less than significant, and a General Conformity analysis is not required.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, the same equipment will be required as described under Alternative 1, but with an increased duration of use proportional to the work required to complete the 500 foot channel extension. Additional commute days for construction workers will also be required. The channel extension in Alternative 2 increases the length of the debris flow diversion structure by roughly 25%. Estimated emissions would likely increase from Alternative 1 by a similar magnitude. A 25% increase of emissions from Alternative 1 would not exceed General Conformity de minimis thresholds or greenhouse gas thresholds. Therefore, impacts to air quality would be less than significant, and a General Conformity analysis is not required.

Maintenance and Removal: Maintenance and removal impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 1, but with additional duration of equipment use proportional to the work required for the 500 foot channel extension. The increase in emissions relative to Alternative 1 would likely be similar to those characterized for construction, and therefore impacts to air quality would be less than significant.

Environmental Commitments (All Action Alternatives)

WQ-1: Implement all terms and conditions of the Clark County Department of Air Quality Dust Control Permit.

3.5 NOISE In general, noise is defined as unwanted sound. The effects of noise on people range from annoyance to inconvenience to temporary or permanent hearing loss. Level of annoyance or impact produced by a sound depends on its loudness, duration, time of day, and land use. Sound measurements are usually expressed as decibels (dBA) which equally weights all frequencies. However, the human ear is not equally sensitive to sounds at all frequencies. Therefore, the dBA scale which primarily weighs frequencies within the human range of hearing is used to assess the impact of noise on human hearing (USEPA, 1972). A range of noise levels in dBA are shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Range of Noises Noise level (dBA) Examples Human Response 0 recording studio hearing threshold 20 rustling leaves 40 conversational speech quiet 60 freeway at 50 feet 70 freight train at 100 feet moderately loud 90 heavy truck at 50 feet 110 ambulance siren at 100 feet very loud 120 jet engine at 200 feet threshold of pain Reference: USEPA, 1972.

Affected Environment Ambient noise level data for the Mt. Charleston area is unavailable. Mt. Charleston is a mountain community located within the Springs Mountains National Recreation Area. It is likely that ambient noise levels within the project area within the vicinity of the 45-50 dBA range.

Clark County noise ordinance limits the maximum operational noise within residential areas at 56 dBA. However, the noise ordinance exempts construction related noise when conducted during daytime hours.1

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative:

 Permanently elevates noise levels above 50 dBA within the vicinity of the project.

Environmental Consequences

No Federal Action Alternative Under the No Federal Action alternative, the federal government would not undertake any construction under PL 84-99 to protect residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The Corps and the Forest Service would not enter into an agreement to construct the structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. Periodic sediment removal activities would result in minor noise impacts associated with diesel or gasoline powered equipment. The frequency of removal activities and associated noise impacts would gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers. Therefore, there would not be any significant noise impacts.

Table 5: Potential Noise Levels At Various Distances Distance from Construction Activities (ft) Noise Levels (dBA) 50 80 - 90 100 74 – 84 200 68 – 78 400 66 – 72 800 60 – 66

1 Clark County (2013), General Plan-Noise Element, p. 30.68-1. 17

Nearby residents located approximately 20 to 100 feet away will be subject to elevated noise levels during construction. Noise levels would return to pre-project levels upon completion of construction.

The State of Nevada would be required to remove the structure upon sufficient recovery of the burned area above Rainbow Canyon and restore the project footprint in accordance with Forest Service restoration measures. As part of removal and restoration operations, borrow fill from the berm would be discharged back into the excavated channel. Riprap would be hauled off site. The number and types of equipment required to remove the structure would be similar to those required for construction. Nearby residents and recreational uses will be subject to elevated noise levels during construction. Noise levels would return to pre-project levels upon completion of construction. Based on above, impacts to noise levels would be less than significant.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, construction impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative 1, but would increase in duration proportional to the time required to construct the 500 foot channel extension. Noise levels would return to pre-project levels upon completion of construction.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 2, maintenance and removal impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative 1, but would increase in duration proportional to the time required to maintain and remove the 500 foot channel extension. Noise levels would return to the pre-project levels upon completion of construction. Based on above, impacts to noise levels would be less than significant.

3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment

Vegetation The proposed project is located on National Forest land just above the Rainbow Subdivision in Kyle Canyon. The Carpenter 1 Fire burned hilltops and hillsides adjacent to Rainbow Canyon, leaving the valley floor unaffected. The project is located down gradient of the burn area. The project area is dominated by Ponderosa Pine forest (Pinus ponderosa) interspersed with White fir (Abies concolor). Herbaceous vegetation is typically sparse with some grasses and shrubs such as Mahonia and Ribes species. Elevation in the general vicinity of the proposed

project is between 7200 to 7400 feet and the area typically experiences four seasons with cool summers and winter temperatures regularly below freezing. The project area does not include rivers, lakes or perennial streams.

Rough Angelica (Angelica scabrida), currently a Forest Service R4 Sensitive species, was found on the proposed project site prior to the debris flow last August that buried much of the vegetation within the area. A plant survey was done on April 16, 2014, and although it appeared to be within the growing season, vegetation was very sparse and there was little evidence of herbaceous growth. However, there were several dried stalks from last year that appeared to be from the Apiaceae family in the southern portion of the project area. An additional site visit was conducted on April 29, 2014, by Jennifer Brickey, Forest Service Botanist. Numerous individuals of Rough Angelica were identified within the project area. Several individuals of Charleston violet (Viola charlestonensis), a Forest Service R4 Sensitive species, were also found on the proposed project site during the April 29, 2014 site visit.

Threatened and Endangered Species There are no federally threatened and endangered species or critical habitat within the project area.

Migratory Birds The Rainbow Canyon Flood Diversions Project area contains potential habitat for a wide variety of migratory birds.

Forest Service R4 Sensitive Wildlife Species The project area is also potential habitat for the following Forest Service R4 Sensitive wildlife species:  Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens)  Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)  Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)  Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)  Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus)

Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Conservation Agreement Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Conservation Agreement is a voluntary cooperation between the Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, to provide long-term protection for the rare and sensitive flora and fauna of the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. The agreement requires consideration of conservation values through early project planning, in conjunction with an ongoing program of species, habitat, and ecosystem inventory, monitoring, protection, restoration, research, and education.

The project is located within the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, and is subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative results in:  Impacts to a sensitive species that would likely result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability where the impacts are expected to be detrimental and substantial to a population.  Permanent and substantial loss of existing vegetation.

Environmental Consequences

No Federal Action Alternative Under the No Federal Action alternative, the federal government would not undertake any construction under PL 84-99 to protect residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The Corps and the Forest Service would not enter into an agreement to construct the structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. Periodic sediment removal activities would result in minor emissions of pollutants associated with diesel or gasoline powered equipment. The frequency of removal activities and associated emissions would gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers. No significant impact to biological resources would occur.

Alternative 1 Construction: Under Alternative 1, the Corps and Forest Service would enter into an agreement to construct an approximately 2150 foot-long debris flow diversion structure within Rainbow Canyon on land managed by the Forest Service. Alternative 1 would require vegetation clearing of the project area and adjacent construction buffer, approximately 7.5 acres of predominantly Ponderosa Pine with interspersed White Fir that may provide habitat for a variety of species, including migratory birds, bats, small rodents, invertebrates and plant species. Construction would occur outside of the migratory bird breeding season. Use of heavy equipment, machinery, blasting, and presence of crews would temporarily result in higher than usual noise levels, and would temporarily disrupt foraging activities and remove nesting and roosting habitat within the project footprint.

Removal of mixed trees from the project area would result in short term loss of the species from the project footprint. Based on aerial imagery, tree density in the project area appears to average roughly 40 trees per acre. Clearing of the project area would therefore result in removal of up to 300 trees. However, the area would eventually be repopulated with the species via natural recruitment upon removal of the structure. Furthermore, the loss would account for less than 1% of the suitable nesting and foraging area within the Springs Mountain National Recreation Area for migratory birds, Forest Service R4 Sensitive Wildlife Species, and species protected by the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Conservation Agreement. Construction activities may temporarily disrupt foraging behavior. Once construction is completed and the diversion

structure is in place, foraging behavior would return to normal. Removal of the structure upon sufficient recovery of the watershed would result in similar impacts.

The Corps and the Forest Service jointly prepared a Biological Evaluation (BE, see Appendix D) pursuant to the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area Conservation Agreement. The BE concluded that the project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the Townsend’s big-eared bat, Spotted bat, Northern goshawk, Peregrine falcon, Flammulated owl, Rough angelica, Charleston violet, Long-eared myotis, Fringed myotis, Long-legged myotis, Palmer’s Chipmunk, Carole's silverspot butterfly, Charleston ant, Clokey mountain sage, Silver-haired bat, Clokey’s paintbrush, and Charleston lousewort. The Corps initiated coordination via e-mail on May 7, 2014. In a letter dated May 20, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) concurred with the above determination with one exception (see Appendix E). Since that coordination, Alternative 1 has been subject to design changes and additional coordination would be undertaken prior to alternative selection.

The BE concluded that there was no suitable habitat present for the Spring Mountains comma skipper (Hesperia colorado mojavensis) within the project area. The Service disagreed citing presence of gramminoid (potential larval host) and nectar plants within the project area. In addition, the Service reported the presence of the subspecies in close proximity to the proposed project area. However, the Service concluded that while individuals may be impacted by the project initially, within a short time, habitat for this subspecies may improve with the seeding of grasses as well as appropriate nectar plants. Upon completion of construction, the Corps shall revegetate all disturbed areas with native grasses in accordance with Forest Service requirements.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 1, the Forest Service would issue a SUP to the State of Nevada for maintenance and eventual removal of the structure. Maintenance activities would likely entail periodic removal of sediment from the engineered channel as needed to restore channel capacity to design specifications. The volume of residual sediment is not expected to be substantial. Maintenance would likely require use of a backhoe and an off-road truck for no longer than a week. Sediment would be disposed at existing Forest Service operation and maintenance areas. Maintenance activities would not require additional disturbances of areas outside the project footprint. Noise associated with construction equipment could temporarily affect disrupt birds within the vicinity of the project. However, the immediate project footprint would be devoid of trees. Furthermore, work would likely require one backhoe and one off-road truck and would be used on a short term and periodic basis. Based on the above, noise impacts would be attenuated. Noise levels would return to ambient levels upon completion of work. The State of Nevada would also be required to maintain the vegetation planted by the Corps resulting in continued establishment of native plants within previously disturbed areas.

disrupt birds within the vicinity of the project. Noise levels would return to ambient levels upon completion of work. Removal activities would not require additional disturbances of areas outside the project footprint. Restoration measures include planting all disturbed areas with native grasses. Impacts to biological resources would be less than those characterized for construction. Based on the above and with the implementation of Environmental Commitments, Alternative 1 would result in less than significant impacts.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, the impacts to biological resources due to construction would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, but with an increase proportional to the 0.8-1.1 acre expanded footprint of Alternative 2. The additional acreage impacted is similar in habitat to the remainder of the project area. However, the majority of additional project area covered by Alternative 2 was burned by 2013 Carpenter fire. Therefore, species-specific considerations are the same as those described for Alternative 1.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 2, the impacts to biological resources due to maintenance and removal activities would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, but with an increase proportional to the 0.8-1.1 acre expanded footprint of Alternative 2. Impacts to biological resources would be less than those characterized for construction. Based on the above and with the implementation of Environmental Commitments, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts

Environmental Commitments (all Action Alternatives)

Wildlife Bio-1: Conduct nesting surveys for any construction, maintenance, or removal activities undertaken during bird nesting season (May 20-July 20) using a qualified biologist familiar with the birds of southern Nevada who can accurately identify nesting and breeding behaviors. Designate appropriate buffers for any nests located based on the species habitat requirements. For tree removal during bird breeding season, a qualified biologist shall be on-site to survey and recover any chicks or eggs that are displaced during tree falling and vegetation removal. This measure would prevent nest abandonment and loss of young for migratory birds. Bio-2: Construction activities shall occur in daylight hours only, i.e. one hour after dawn until one hour before dusk. This measure would minimize disturbance to foraging bats. Bio-3: Retain snags that do not pose a threat to public safety or extreme fire danger. This measure would minimize degradation of habitat for sensitive raptors, migratory birds, small mammals, and reptiles. Bio-4: Locate temporary equipment staging areas within the project boundary and in previously disturbed (e.g., roads, parking) areas. This measure would minimize loss of individuals and degradation of habitat for sensitive species.

Noxious and Invasive Species Bio-5: Implement Forest Service and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Best Management Practices (Humboldt-Toiyabe Supplemental FSM 2080) during project construction. This measure would minimize the introduction and spread of noxious and invasive species onto and throughout the project area and adjacent federal land. Bio-6: Conduct surveys to detect infestations of noxious and invasive weeds subsequent to construction, including expansion of cheatgrass. Treat new infestations. This measure would minimize spread of noxious and invasive species.

Native Plant Materials Bio-7: Upon completion of construction, the Corps shall revegetate all disturbed areas with native grasses in accordance with Forest Service requirements. Upon removal of the structure the State of Nevada shall revegetate all disturbed areas with native grasses in accordance with Forest Service requirements. This measure would restore native habitat and minimize spread of noxious and invasive species. Bio-8: Implement Forest Service Policy (FSM 2070) and use genetically appropriate native materials for rehabilitation and restoration when possible using a qualified Forest Service Botanist or Ecologist to develop, review, and/or approve plant materials selected for use in this project. Seed will be certified free of noxious weeds. This measure would reduce long-term loss of individuals, habitat, and plant diversity.

3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment:

Cultural Resources The project is located in the lower section of the Rainbow Canyon subdivision which was subject to impacts from the flooding that occurred in 2013. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) encompasses the project footprint and an additional 30 foot-wide construction zone circumscribing the project footprint (Figure 2). In addition, a 250 foot-long by 75 foot-wide construction staging area would be established on an existing dirt lot located adjacent to Rainbow Canyon Road, approximately 235 feet south of Shady Circle Street.

Four historic stone and earthen check dams (CK-4367, CK-4368, and CK-4369) are located approximately 800 feet up gradient of the proposed footprint, south of the APE in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 31, T. 19S, R. 57 E. These dams were found to be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 1998 when they were originally recorded. No other archaeological sites or features are located in the APE.

Tribal Coordination The Forest Service in cooperation with the Corps, conducted government-to-government consultation with the Native American Tribes culturally affiliated with the SMNRA. Based on the procedures outlined in the Collaborative Resource Stewardship Plan, the Forest Service

mailed a one page project description to each member of a tribally-approved body called the Nuwuvi Working Group, and each Tribal Chair. Later the Forest Service SMNRA Tribal Liaison followed up with a phone call to each tribal representative to answer questions and receive comments. No significant concerns were stated during these calls. Following is a record of the telephone conversations conducted:

Table 6: Tribal Coordination Tribal Member Date of Comments Tribe Contacted Conversation Ron Escobar The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Apr 29, 2014 No concerns Betty Cornelius Colorado River Indian Tribes Apr 29, 2014 No concerns Kenny Anderson Las Vegas Paiute Tribe May 1, 2014 No concerns Deanna Domingo The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians May 6, 2014 No concerns Richard Arnold Pahrump Paiute Tribe Apr 29, 2014 No concerns Charley Bulletts The Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians May 13, 2014 No concerns Dorena Martineau Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah May 9, 2014 No concerns

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative results in:

 Permanent modification of characteristics and qualities of a resource listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.  Permanent modification of known cultural resources.

Environmental Consequences

No Federal Action Alternative Under the No Federal Action alternative, the federal government would not undertake any construction under PL 84-99 to protect residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The Corps and the Forest Service would not enter into an agreement to construct the structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. Periodic sediment removal activities would likely be limited to developed residential areas such as streets, highways, and yards. Thus, impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated.

footprint and an additional 30 foot-wide construction zone circumscribing the project footprint for a total area of 7.6 acres. Four historic stone and earthen check dams (CK-4367, CK-4368, and CK-4369) are located approximately 800 feet upstream of the proposed footprint, south of the APE in the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 31, T. 19S, R. 57 E. There are no known cultural resources present within the APE. Tribal representatives have been contacted concerning the proposed structure, and have no specific concerns. With the incorporation of CR-1 below, the undertaking would not affect cultural and tribal resources.

On May 14, 2014, the Corps initiated consultation with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) seeking concurrence with the APE and determination that the undertaking would have no affect to historic properties (see Appendix F). In the letter dated September 9, 2014, the Nevada SHPO indicated concurrence with both determinations (see Appendix G). Further coordination related to Alternative 2, as well as maintenance and removal, occurred and a final SHPO concurrence on the full scope of the project received on 1 Oct 201 (Appendix H).

The State of Nevada would be required to remove the structure upon sufficient recovery of the burned area above Rainbow Canyon and restore the project footprint in accordance with Forest Service restoration measures. As part of removal and restoration operations, borrow fill from the berm would be discharged back into the excavated channel. Riprap would be hauled off site. Removal activities would not require additional disturbances of areas outside the APE. Impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those characterized for construction. However, the September 9, 2014, SHPO concurrence letter is limited to construction of the structure. Thus, the Forest Service and State of Nevada would need to coordinate with the SHPO to seek concurrence on the APE and effects determination for the maintenance and removal elements of the Alternative 1. Based on the above and with the implementation of Environmental Commitments, the Alternative 1 would result in less than significant impacts.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, cultural resource considerations are similar to those described for Alternative 1, except Alternative 2 will have a slightly larger APE encompassing the 5.35 to 5.73 acre footprint. No structures listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places are found within the increased footprint of Alternative 2. The upstream end of Alternative 2 would be approximately 800 feet from the nearest check dam. Additional coordination with SHPO was undertaken subsequent to SHPO concurrence, based on design changes to Alternative

1 and the inclusion of Alternative 2 for consideration. With the incorporation of CR-1 below, the undertaking would not affect cultural and tribal resources.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 2, maintenance and removal activities would not require additional disturbances outside of the APE. Cultural resource considerations are similar to those described under Alternative 1, but encompassing a slightly larger APE. The Forest Service and State of Nevada would need to coordinate with the SHPO to seek concurrence on the APE and effects of determination for the maintenance and removal of elements for Alternative 2. Based on the above and with the implementation of Environmental Commitments, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts.

Environmental Commitments (all alternatives) CR-1: Upon discovery of potential cultural or tribal resources, Corps and Forest Service archaeologist and/or tribal liaison shall be immediately notified. Construction in the immediate area shall be temporarily suspended until issuance of a Notice to Proceed from the Corps archaeologist in coordination with Forest Service archaeologist and/or tribal liaison.

3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Affected Environment The project is located in Mount Charleston, Clark County, Nevada. The demographic for Clark County and Mount Charleston are shown below. The town's median household income is higher and the percentage of persons below poverty is substantially lower than those for Clark County. The town's minority population is substantially lower than that for Clark County.

Table 7: Socioeconomic Demographics for Clark County and Mt. Charleston Parameters Clark County Mt. Charleston Total population 1,951,269 357 White 60.8% 91.6% Black 10.4% 0.56% Hispanic/Latino 29.1% 5.6% Asian 8.6% 1.12% Median Household Income $54,218 $73,409 Persons below poverty 14.25% 1.32%

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative results in:

 A substantial shift in population, housing, and employment.  Disproportionate adverse environmental impacts to minority or low-income populations.

Environmental Consequences

No Federal Action Alternative Under the No Federal Action alternative, the federal government would not undertake any construction under PL 84-99 to protect residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The Corps and the Forest Service would not enter into an agreement to construct the structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. Periodic sediment removal activities could result in temporary employment for local contractors and service providers. The frequency of removal activities would gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers. If irreparable damages occur, residents may need to relocate and existing uses within Rainbow may be restricted until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Long term restrictions on occupying structures or rebuilding structures that could cause a significant shift in socioeconomic trends is unlikely. Impacts to socioeconomic or environmental justice would be less than significant.

Alternative 1 Construction: Under Alternative 1, the Corps and Forest Service would enter into an agreement to construct an approximately 2150 foot-long debris flow diversion structure within Rainbow Canyon on land managed by the Forest Service. Construction would require approximately 8 construction laborers for a 30-45 day period. The Corps would utilize Forest Service crews to construct the structure. The work would not require additional housing for construction laborers since the project is readily within commuting distance from Clark County. Furthermore, the work would not entail the construction of infrastructure or utilities that would result in growth of the surrounding area, nor would the work increase capacity of existing infrastructure that would induce growth. Furthermore, Mt. Charleston has substantially less low income or minority populations than Clark County. Therefore, environmental impacts associated with this alternative would not be disproportionately borne by low income or minority populations. As a result, there would be less than significant impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice.

The number of workers required would be similar to those required for construction. Impacts to socioeconomics and environmental justice would be similar to those characterized for construction.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, construction impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 but be of longer duration to allow for completion of the 500 foot channel extension. Environmental impacts associated with Alternative 2 would not be disproportionately borne by low income or minority populations. As a result, there would be less than significant impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 2, maintenance and removal impacts are similar to those described for Alternative 1, but would encompass the larger footprint associated with Alternative 2. Impacts to socioeconomics and environmental justice would be similar to those characterized for construction, and would be less than significant.

3.9 RECREATION

Affected Environment Recreational facilities within the vicinity of Rainbow Canyon are located along State Route 157: Kyle Canyon Picnic Area, Fletcher View Campground and Spring Mountains NRA Visitor Center. Recreational activities within Kyle Canyon include camping, picnicking, and hiking.

Rainbow Canyon Road is the primary access road into the canyon. The road leads to the Rainbow Canyon Recreation Residence Tract on National Forest Lands populated with recreational cabins. Use of the road past the Recreation Residence Tract is primarily by cabin permittees and their guests. Furthermore, there are no established recreational facilities up gradient of the Rainbow Canyon Recreational Residence Tract such as camp grounds or picnic areas.

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative:

 Permanently limits the use of and access to a recreational area or facility.

Environmental Consequences

not be built. Residents and structures within Rainbow Canyon, including the Rainbow Canyon Recreation Residence Tract, would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. The frequency of removal activities would gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers.

Sediment flows beyond Rainbow Canyon would enter Kyle Canyon Wash and could temporarily affect use of and access to established recreational facilities.

Alternative 1 Construction: Under Alternative 1, the Corps and Forest Service would enter into an agreement to construct an approximately 2150 foot-long debris flow diversion structure within Rainbow Canyon on land managed by the Forest Service. The proposed structure would block direct access to the Recreation Residence Tract via Rainbow Canyon Road. However, Recreation Residence Tract can still be accessed via an alternate route. Furthermore, a ramp would be built across the structure to connect Rainbow Canyon Road to the alternate access route. However, this ramp would be built in a low-flow crossing, and would therefore be inaccessible during flow events. Based on the alternative route and use of the ramp outside of flow events, access to the Recreation Residence Tract would be maintained.

Flows conveyed by the proposed structure past residential areas within Rainbow Canyon into Kyle Canyon Wash may limit the use and access of recreational facilities. However, the potential for damage would not be different from those characterized under the No Federal Action Alternative since flows from Rainbow Canyon currently flow into Kyle Canyon. Furthermore, it is likely the Forest Service would restore damaged federal recreational facilities. In general, construction of the structure would help maintain the recreational opportunities within Rainbow Canyon. Based on the above, there would be less than significant impacts to recreation.

The State of Nevada would be required to remove the structure upon sufficient recovery of the burned area above Rainbow Canyon and restore the project footprint in accordance with Forest Service restoration measures. As part of removal and restoration operations, borrow fill from the berm would be discharged back into the excavated channel. Riprap would be hauled off site. Removal activities would not require additional disturbances of areas outside the project area. Upon removal of the structure and restoration of the project footprint, direct access through Rainbow Canyon Road to the Recreational Residential Tract would be restored. There would be less than significant impacts to recreation.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, construction impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 but construction activities would be of longer duration to allow for completion of the 500 foot channel extension. Alternative 2 would not impact recreation differently than Alternative 1. In general, construction of the structure would help maintain the recreational opportunities within Rainbow Canyon. Based on the above, there would be less than significant impacts to recreation.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 2, maintenance and removal impacts are generally the same as those described for Alternative 1 but will encompass 0.8 to 1.1 additional acres of project footprint. Upon removal of the structure and restoration of the project footprint, direct access through Rainbow Canyon Road to the Recreational Residential Tract would be restored. There would be less than significant impacts to recreation.

3.10 VISUAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment The town of Mt. Charleston is a mountaintop community within the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area. As a result, elements that contribute to the vista include:

 Ponderosa pine, mountain mahogany, and quaking aspen in the canyon bottoms.  Limber pine and bristlecone pine on mountainsides toward the summits  Differing geologic strata exhibiting different textures and colors

Within Rainbow Canyon are many homes, large and small, tucked into a crowded neighborhood bordering National Forest lands. As is typical of the interface between the built human environment and the natural environment, these elements form distinct protrusions from the natural vista.

Impact evaluations consider changes to a landscape as viewed from particular sensitive viewpoints and the level of acceptable change for the project area. Sensitive viewpoints for this project include: Rainbow Canyon Recreation Residences, Rainbow Canyon Boulevard, and possibly from State Highway 157.

Per visual quality objectives of the Forest Plan, the level of acceptable change encompasses management practices are not evident to the casual observer. Under Retention, activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape (USDA FS 1974).

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative results in:

 A permanent incompatibility with Retention elements of the Forest Plan.

Environmental Consequences

No Federal Action Alternative Under the No Federal Action alternative, the federal government would not undertake any construction under PL 84-99 to protect residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The Corps and the Forest Service would not enter into an agreement to construct the structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents and structures within Rainbow Canyon, including the Rainbow Canyon Recreation Residence Tract, would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. Restoration activities would typically be small and localized. The frequency of restoration activities would gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers. There would not be any permanent incompatibility with Retention elements of the Forest Plan.

Removal of trees from the 7.5 acre project area and construction buffer, predominantly Ponderosa Pine with interspersed White Fir, would affect the general vista. Furthermore, the structure would introduce a substantial visual element that is distinct in form, line, color, and texture characterizing an inhabited forest. The structure would not meet the Forest Plan direction of Retention in the short term.

The visual impact would be most notable from the Recreation Residence Tract cabins which generally look down the canyon and associated access roads, and to some extent from the back side of homes in the Rainbow Subdivision which are adjacent to the structure. The structure will not visible from highway or other major viewing points. However, the visual impact would be attenuated as native grasses planted subsequent to the completion of construction grow back. Thus, there would be less than significant impacts on visual resources.

The State of Nevada would be required to remove the structure upon sufficient recovery of the burned area above Rainbow Canyon and restore the project footprint in accordance with Forest Service restoration measures. As part of removal and restoration operations, borrow fill from the berm would be discharged back into the excavated channel. Riprap would be hauled off site. Removal activities would not require additional disturbances of areas outside the project footprint. Restoration measures include planting all disturbed areas with native grasses resulting in a natural looking area and habitat would eventually be restored to pre-project conditions due to natural succession. Thus, there would be less than significant impacts on visual resources.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, construction impacts are generally similar to those described for Alternative 1. The channel extension associated with Alternative 2 will result in 500 additional feet of the visual elements described in Alternative 1. Impacts to the general vista will be slightly higher than those of Alternative 1 due to removal of a limited number of additional trees. Most of the additional project footprint encompassed by Alternative 2, however, falls within the area burned by the 2013 Carpenter Fire, limiting the need for removal of additional trees relative to Alternative 1. Overall, the structure would not meet the Forest Plan direction of Retention in the short term. However the structure will not be visible from the highway or other major viewpoints, and the visual impact will be attenuated as native grasses grow back and primary succession occurs. Thus, there would be less than significant impacts on visual resources.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 2, maintenance and removal activities will generally be the same as those described under Alternative 1 but will encompass the additional 0.8 to 1.1 acres of project footprint. Maintenance and removal activities for Alternative 2 would not require additional disturbances of areas outside the project footprint. Thus, there would be less than significant impacts on visual resources.

3.11 TRAFFIC

Affected Environment The project area would likely be accessed using three primary roads: State Route 39, State Route 157, and State Route 158. The average annual daily trips (AADTs) for the primary arteries are below.

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative results in:

 A substantial increase in AADTs of primary arteries used to access the site. Environmental Consequences

Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. Periodic sediment removal activities could temporarily increase traffic. Impacts would be de minimis since restoration activities would typically be limited in scope. The frequency of restoration activities would gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers.

Furthermore, construction would require an additional 300 trucks trips during the latter half of the construction to import rocks required to armor the debris flow diversion structure. At peak construction there could be approximately 40 additional trips per day. Increases in AADTs associated with peak traffic estimates are shown below.

Table 8: Average Annual Daily Trips Increase for Primary Arteries Artery Average Annual Additional Trips at Percent Increase in Daily Trips Peak Construction Average Annual Daily Trips State Route 39 1,800 40 2.22% State Route 157 1,488 40 2.69% State Route 158 399 40 10.03%

Transport of construction equipment and import of riprap and other construction materials would temporarily back up traffic since all roadways leading the project area are two-lane state highways. The increase in construction related traffic represents an approximately 2% to 10% increase over the existing AADTs. The increase would be temporary. AADTs would return to pre-project levels upon completion of construction. Furthermore, the work would not entail the construction of infrastructure or utilities that would result in growth of the surrounding area, nor would the work increase capacity of existing infrastructure that would induce growth. Long-term increases in AADTs are not expected. Therefore, traffic impacts would be less than significant.

truck for no longer than a week. Transport of construction equipment and import of riprap and other construction materials would temporarily back up traffic since all roadways leading the project area are two-lane state highways. Impacts would be short term and periodic. Long-term increases in AADTs are not expected.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, construction traffic would be similar to the description for Alternative 1. Increased construction associated with the Alternative 2 channel extension will not result in an increase of AADTs over Alternative 1, but will result in an a longer duration of increased traffic from pre-project conditions. The duration of traffic associated with construction will increase by roughly 25% relative to Alternative 1, corresponding to the 25% increase in channel length. Traffic increases would be temporary, AADTs would return to pre-project conditions upon completion of construction, and long-term increases to AADTs are not expected. Therefore, traffic impacts would be less than significant.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 2, traffic associated with maintenance and removal will be similar to the descriptions for Alternative 1. Increased maintenance needs and removal duration will be proportional to the increased channel length of Alternative 2. The number and types of equipment required to remove the structure would be similar to those required for construction. As a result, traffic impacts would likely be similar to those characterized for construction. Impacts would be less than significant.

3.12 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Affected Environment The primary threat to public health and safety are debris flows. The July 1, 2013, Carpenter 1 Fire burned approximately 27,881 acres. The fire affected approximately 26,939 acres within the Springs Mountains National Recreation Area including Rainbow Canyon. On September of 2013 and July of 2014, monsoon storms resulted in debris flows that damaged dozens of residences and public infrastructure including Rainbow Canyon Road. Residents in Rainbow Canyon continue to be subject to debris flows and damages.

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative:

 Increases the threat to life and property.

Environmental Consequences

No Federal Action Alternative Under the No Federal Action alternative, the federal government would not undertake any construction under PL 84-99 to protect residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The Corps and the Forest Service would not enter into an agreement to construct the structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. There would be periodic threats to public health and safety as debris flows could erode infrastructure and fill homes with mud. Erosion and debris would periodically disrupt use of Rainbow Canyon Road. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. The frequency of debris flows and threats to public health and safety would gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers.

Alternative 1 Construction: Under Alternative 1, the Corps and Forest Service would enter into an agreement to construct an approximately 2150 foot-long debris flow diversion structure within Rainbow Canyon on land managed by the Forest Service. The structure would be designed to protect structures down gradient in Rainbow Canyon up to a 25 year storm event including Rainbow Canyon Road. Emergency response would remain a local responsibility. Residents will need to shelter in place or evacuate in the event of a storm event exceeding the capacity of the structure. Clark County installed an automated precipitation gage in Rainbow Canyon upstream of the project site on 16 September 2014. (Gage ID 3834) The design event would be 2.55 inches of rainfall within a one hour period. However, approximately 15 cabins within the Recreation Residence Tract up gradient of the proposed structure would not be protected. The structure would not change the amount, rate, and intensity of flow affecting the unprotected structures. Changes to public health and safety as a result of the structure would be less than significant.

The State of Nevada would be required to remove the structure upon sufficient recovery of the burned area above Rainbow Canyon, after the threat of flooding and debris flows have subsided to acceptable pre-fire levels. Removal of the structure would not result in increased debris flows. Impacts would be less than significant.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, public health and safety considerations related to construction are generally the same as those described for Alternative 1. The additional 500 feet of channel will not impact any additional residences or structures. However, the increased

channel will provide a higher level of protection to the homes already protected under Alternative 1. Alternative 1 is designed to divert flow from the main valley of Rainbow Canyon, while the channel extension of Alternative 2 will provide further flow diversion from a smaller, adjacent conveyance to the west of the main Rainbow Canyon valley. The structure would not change the amount, rate, or intensity of flow affecting any unprotected structures. Changes to public health and safety as a result of the structure would be less than significant.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 2, maintenance and removal are generally the same as described under Alternative 1, with an additional 0.8 to 1.15 acres of project footprint. Maintenance and removal of the structure will not result in increased debris flows and the impacts would be less than significant.

3.13 HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTES

Affected Environment Per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database, there are no hazardous and toxic waste remediation sites within the vicinity of Mt. Charleston.

Significance Threshold Impacts would be considered significant if the alternative results in:

 Long-term exposure of humans, wildlife, or environment to hazardous materials.

Environmental Consequences

No Federal Action Alternative Under the No Federal Action alternative, the federal government would not undertake any construction under PL 84-99 to protect residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The Corps and the Forest Service would not enter into an agreement to construct the structure on Forest Service lands using Forest Service crews. The Forest Service would not issue a Special Use Permit to the State of Nevada for operations, maintenance, and removal of the structure. The Forest Service would not issue a Special-Use Permit to the Corps. In the absence of federal assistance and authorization, a debris flow diversion structure would likely not be built. Residents within Rainbow Canyon would continue to be subject to debris flows until sufficient recovery of the watershed. Local jurisdictions and residents would restore affected areas on an as needed basis. There are currently no significant impacts regarding hazardous and toxic wastes, and the described restoration activities would not increase use of hazardous and toxic wastes. The frequency of restoration activities would gradually decrease as the burned watershed recovers.

would be imported to armor the structure. Concrete would be used to grout rocks in place. The components are chemically inert and would not result in long-term exposure of humans and wildlife to hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Alternative 2 Construction: Under Alternative 2, construction would have the same impacts as those described for Alternative 1. A greater volume of materials would be required commensurate with the increased channel length of Alternative 2. However, the use of on-site soils and chemically inert components would not result in the long-term exposure of humans, wildlife, or the environment to hazardous materials. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Maintenance and Removal: Under Alternative 2, maintenance and removal would have the same impacts as those described for Alternative 1, but with a slight increase in maintenance activities and a larger removal effort proportional to the increased project footprint. Maintenance, removal, and restoration activities would not result in long-term exposure of humans, wildlife, or the environment to hazardous materials. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Commitments HTRW-1: Adhere to all herbicide application instructions per associated Material Safety Data Sheets for all herbicides. HTRW-2: Herbicides will not be applied during rainfall or when rainfall is expected within several hours after treatment has been applied in order to maximize absorbance and minimize the potential for chemical runoff. HTRW-3: Herbicides will not be applied if wind conditions are greater than 5 mph to avoid drift. HTRW-4: Avoid herbicide application within 50 feet of trees to avoid incidental tree die- offs from secondary affects.

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This section presents the requirements for cumulative impact analysis, and also analyzes the potential for impacts from each alternative to combine with impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, to result in significant cumulative effects. CEQ regulations implementing NEPA define a “cumulative impact” as follows:

Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 40 C.F.R. 1508.7.

For purposes of this analysis, significant cumulative impacts would occur in circumstances where impacts related to implementation of alternative results in a significant effect when added to the environmental impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. For an impact to be considered cumulative, these incremental impacts and potential incremental impacts must be related to the types of (resource) impacts caused by the alternative. Therefore, the cumulative impacts discussion focuses on whether the impacts of each alternative are cumulatively considerable within the context of similar impacts caused by past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions.

The geographic area used for the cumulative impacts analysis encompasses the Mt. Charleston community.

4.1 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Future Actions The town of Mt. Charleston is comprised of private inholdings within the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area which is administered by the Forest Service. Activities on privately held lands include development and maintenance of residential structures. Other activities would also include development and maintenance of infrastructure such as roads and utilities. Fixed geographic area of private inholdings and topography limits foreseeably future development within the Mt. Charleston area. As a result, foreseeable future actions entail limited new development, redevelopment of previously built areas and maintenance of existing structures and infrastructure. Activities on Forest Service land consists of development of recreational infrastructure as well as enhancement and maintenance of existing recreational infrastructure. Other actions may include forest and land management activities as well as environmental restoration and protection projects. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Forest Service activities are listed in Table 9.

Table 9: Forest Service Past, Present, and Foreseeable Future Actions Past Projects Location Project Description Decision Implementation Date Date Bristlecone Habitat Protection Adjacent to Fence up to 1000 meters of the 11/20/2006 5/24/2007 Project (Categorical Highway 156 Bristlecone Trail (from the Exclusion) (CE) in Lee, Deer Highway 156 trailhead south) to and Mack's protect sensitive plant species and Canyons of their habitat. Install signing to the Spring educate public about the resource Mountains and the reason for the fence. NRA Lovell Canyon Trails and Lovell Construct approximately 12 miles 02/26/07 09/2007 Trailhead (CE) Canyon of new trail and one low development trailhead for hikers and equestrians Spring Mountain Hazardous Kyle, Lee, USFS proposal to mechanically 12/20/2007 03/2008; Fuel Reduction Deer, Lovell reduce fuels (vegetation) on 2,900 completed fall (Environmental Assessment) and Trout acres of NFS lands, to reduce 2010 (EA) Canyons, wildland fire danger to Mountain communities rated by the Nevada Springs, Fire Safe Council as at "high and Cold Creek extreme" risk of wildfire Sign and Low Frequency Throughout Implement signage No date 02/28/08 Radio NRA program/information radio station. Echo View Reservoir Approx. 300,000 gallon water storage 2005 2005 1,000 feet reservoir with 1,900 foot pipeline north of Tr. running along Echo Road to Clark Canyon County Echo Well 3 Trailhead Motorized Trails Designation Throughout Restricts motorized travel to 6/2/2004 2004 Project NRA designated FS system roads Fletcher View/Kyle RV On SR 157, Replace vault toilet at Fletcher 12/12/03 2004 Improvements approx. one View with 2 flush with showers, mile west of update plumbing system; construct intersection new trail between campground and with 158 in visitor center; restore user defined Kyle Canyon trails; install interpretive signs Sawmill Trailhead Project State Route Construct trailhead parking area 2004 2005-2006 156 for equestrian use Sawmill Loop Trail Project State Route Construct 1.5 miles of new trail 03/27/2007 2007 156 named the Sawmill Loop Trail Mitigation of safety hazards at Throughout Develop and implement safety 10/26/09 2009 abandoned mines sites (CE) NRA requirements for visitors Interp. Signs and Displays Throughout Install informational/interpretive 07/30/08 11/30/09 (CE) NRA signage Resource Protection Devices Throughout Design devices (fences) to guide 05/01/09 10/01/09 (CE) NRA people in developed areas Fencing and Interpretive Kyle Canyon Install winter fencing to prevent 09/30/08 11/30/08 Signage (Law Enforcement) winter play at Cathedral Rock (CE)

Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Lee Canyon Resort proposal to expand snow- 07/24/2009 2009 Resort Snowmaking System & making pond to 1.5 million Parking Improvements (EA) gallons; expand and pave lower parking lot; and control parking lot water discharge. Nellis AFB Fiber Optic Line Hwy 158, Grant a linear ROW SUP for a 11/04/2009 12/2009 SUP Project (CE) Angel Peak fiber optic line to increase Commun- bandwidth for FAA and Nellis ications Site communications Mt. Potosi Guzzlers SUP West side of Develop gallinaceous guzzler 01/31/2011 2011 Project (CE) Mt. Potosi water sources for small game Mt. Springs Radio Tower Site SW of Replace an existing 12/03/2010 2011 SUP Project (CE) summit at Mt. radio/microwave tower with a 70- Springs pass foot tower and equipment shelter Lee Canyon Meadow Lee Canyon USFS proposal to improve blue 08/25/2009 2009-2011 Restoration (CE) butterfly habitat by addressing meadow and water quality degradation: repair gullies; dissipate water energy at culverts; install footbridges & interpretive signing; control access by wild horses; improve parking. Archery Range (CE) Deer Creek Rehabilitate and close dispersed 09/16/11 2011-2012 camping areas Upper Kyle Trailhead Kyle Canyon USFS proposal to development 08/22/2011 2011-2012 Improvement Project (EA) trailhead access in the vicinity of Mary Jane Falls, Old Ski Tow, and Trail Canyon Trailheads. Lovell Road - Round 7 (CE) Lovell Reconstruction of paved section of 12/06/2011 2011-2012 Canyon road for safety Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Lee Canyon Replace Chair Lift 3 09/11/2012 2012 Resort Ski Lift Replacement (CE, not subject to appeal) Desert View Rehabilitation State Rd. 158 USFS proposal to improve the 05/09/2008 2011-2013 Project (EA) Desert View Overlook (State Road 158) to provide for traffic safety at the turnout and improved interpretive abilities and viewscapes. Includes construction of off-highway parking lot and ADA accessible trail Cathedral Rock Trails Project Section 36, USFS proposal to construct two 09/15/2011 2011-2013 (CE) T19S, R56E, connector trails from the new MDB&M. At trailhead in Cathedral Rock Picnic the upper Area to access the Cathedral Rock terminus of and the South Loop Trails, and State Route make trail improvements. 157 in the community of Mount Charleston. Present Projects Location Project Description Decision Implementation Date Date Cathedral Rock Picnic Area Section 36, USFS proposal to remove the 3/7/2011 2011-2014 Rehabilitation Project (EA) T19S, R56E, existing Cathedral Rock

MDB&M. At infrastructure and replace it with the upper new facilities and infrastructure, terminus of and convert a portion of the State Route existing picnic area into trailhead 157 in the parking for adjacent trails. community of Mount Charleston. Middle Kyle Complex (EIS) Sections 14- USFS proposal to construct a 12/31/2009 2010-2015 17, 21-29, 32, recreation complex to provide a 34-36, T19S, variety of recreation and education R56E & opportunities in an Sections 18, environmentally sensitive manner. 19, 30, 31, Opportunities could include a T19S, R57E visitor center, campgrounds, picnic MDB&M. area, and multiple trail systems; Middle Kyle includes reconstruction of Kyle Complex Canyon Campground in lower Kyle Canyon Blue Tree Trails (CE) Lee Canyon USFS proposal to designate 44 5/17/2010 2010-2014 miles of trail for hiking, equestrian & mountain bike use from the recently constructed Sawmill Trailhead; close & rehabilitate 9 miles of existing user trails/roads & 7 campsites; and convert 1 mile of road to trail. Telephone Canyon Trails Deer Creek Construct, realign, close, and 10/03/2012 03/2014 Project (EA) Highway rehabilitate non-motorized, non- wilderness multiple use trails and provide trailhead parking Dolomite/McWilliams/Old Lee Canyon Total renovation of the 01/28/2013 03/2015 Mill Campgrounds (EA) campgrounds Mahogany Grove (EA) Deer Creek Reconstruct group picnic area 12/07/2012 03/2013- 2014 Foxtail Group Picnic Area Lee Canyon Develop winter play/renovate 12/13/2012 03/2013- 2014 (EA) picnic area Federal Highways Kyle Canyon, Construct bicycle lane along State 07/2013 09/2013 – 2014 Administration R.O.W. SR 157 Highway 157 Bicycle Lane Clark Canyon Rehabilitation Clark Canyon Project to improve timber and 09/2013 07/2014 - Project (CE) wildlife habitat 12/2014

Rainbow Mountain and Rainbow USFS proposal to complete 12/19/2013 12/20/2013 LaMadre Mountain Mountain and Wilderness Planning for Rainbow Wilderness Plan (EA) LaMadre Mountain and LaMadre Mountain Mountain Wildernesses, which are partially Wilderness located on the Spring Mountains Areas, NRA, in cooperation with the SMNRA and BLM Red Rock National Conservation Area LVSSR Ski Lift Replacement Lee Canyon Authorize LVSSR to replace 01/2014 04/2014 (CE) existing Chair 2 ski lift

Unauthorized Motorized Throughout Closure and rehabilitation of 07/2014 07/2014 – Routes (CE) SMNRA unauthorized motorized routes 12/2014 (Clark County only) Reasonably Foreseeable Location Project Description Decision Implementation Future Project Date Date Mt. Charleston Wilderness Mt. USFS proposal to complete 9/2014 2015 Plan (EA) Charleston wilderness planning for Mt. Wilderness Charleston, in cooperation with the Area BLM Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Lee Canyon Authorize LVSSR to upgrade 05/2008 On Hold Resort Avalanche Hazard existing avalanche hazard Reduction (EA) reduction equipment with a 105 mm howitzer; construct facilities to house the weapon and munitions McFarland Fence (CE) McFarland Construction fence in Wilderness 3/2015 07/2015 Canyon to preclude wild horse and burro entry Wild Horse and Burro Throughout Cooperating agency proposal to 2015 2015 Territory Management Plan SMNRA write a new herd management plan and Gather (EA) (Clark and conduct gathers (FS lead County only) agency, BLM cooperating agency) Foxtail Girl Scout Camp Lee Canyon Replace old septic system with 08/2014 2014 Septic System Replacement new Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Lee Canyon Replace old septic system with 08/2014 2014 Resort Septic System new Reconstruction Kyle Canyon Communications Kyle Canyon Construction communications 2015 2015 Tower tower in lower Kyle Canyon on north side of SR 158 in vicinity of METRO station LVSSR Master Development Lee Canyon Authorize activities proposed in 2015 2016 Plan (EIS) the Master Development Plan Mud Springs Restoration Lee Canyon Construct fence to exclude 2015 2015 Project (CE) ungulates around springs and provide alternative water source

4.2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Noise Mount Charleston is a mountain community located within the Springs Mountains National Recreation Area. Though ambient noise level data are not available, peak noise levels would likely be within the vicinity of 45-50 dBA range. Past and present activities within the community most likely entailed periodic small-scale construction associated with the buildout of inholding areas. Periodic construction likely resulted in temporary noise impacts. Likewise, work under the Preferred Alternative would entail temporary impacts to noise. Noise levels would return to pre-project levels upon completion of construction. Foreseeable future actions are also expected to be periodic small-scale construction, limited in scope and duration. Thus, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in significant cumulative noise impacts.

Water Quality Water quality within Rainbow Canyon has largely remained unaffected by human activities since most of the canyon is upstream of residential developments. Water quality is expected to be turbid for the immediate future since flows emanating from the burned watershed above the canyon would be laden with debris and sediment. Water quality would improve upon sufficient recovery of the burned watershed. Furthermore, quality of surface waters within the Mt. Charleston area is likely better than water quality associated with the Las Vegas area due to its location at the top of the watershed. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would entail repair or replacement of the existing housing stock within Mount Charleston or short-term construction related to the improvement of recreational amenities within the Mount Charleston area. As a result, construction activities could result in short-term impact water quality. However, impact water quality would be limited in scope since most construction is expected to be small-scale. Since the town of Mt. Charleston is not expected to substantially expand beyond its current footprint in the foreseeable future, long-term impacts to impacts to water quality from continued spread of development is unlikely.

Air Quality The project area is within the Clark County. In general, most of Clark County is in attainment for all CAA Criteria Pollutants except for Hydrographic Area 212 where PM10 is in serious nonattainment. Emission of CAA Criteria Pollutants is most influenced by urban growth in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Mobile source contributors include vehicle exhaust, dust from construction activities, and dust from road traffic. Stationary source contributors include industrial and commercial operations. Emission associated with construction activities in Mt. Charleston are expected to be periodic and transient. Thus, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality.

Traffic Past and present traffic on main arteries leading to Mt. Charleston such as State Route 39, 157, and 158 likely consist of visitors to Springs Mountains National Recreation Area as well as residents in Mount Charleston. Traffic patterns associated with visitors likely fluctuates seasonally whereas traffic patterns associated with residents likely remains constant. Reasonably foreseeable future traffic patterns would likely be seasonal fluctuations associated with recreational uses available in the Mount Charleston area. Typical construction activities would entail repair or replacement of the existing housing stock within Mount Charleston or short-term construction related to the improvement of recreational amenities within the Mount Charleston area. Since the town of Mt. Charleston not expected to substantially expand beyond its current footprint in the foreseeable future, baseline traffic patterns associated with year-round residents is not likely to change. Thus, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in significant cumulative impacts to traffic.

Cultural Resources Cultural resources associated with Civilian Conservation Corps projects or tribal resources within are present within the Mt. Charleston area. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would entail repair or replacement of the existing housing stock within Mt. Charleston or short-term construction related to the improvement of recreational amenities within the Mt. Charleston area. Since the town of Mt. Charleston not expected to substantially

expand beyond its current footprint in the foreseeable future, impacts to cultural resources from continued spread of development is unlikely. Furthermore, short-term construction performed by the Forest Service for the improvement of recreational amenities within the Mt. Charleston area would require cultural resources impacts analysis pursuant to NEPA and NHPA as well as coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer. With the implementation of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, projects on Forest Service lands including implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in significant cumulative impacts.

Hazardous and Toxic Waste Per the USEPA CERCLIS database, there are no hazardous and toxic waste remediation sites within the vicinity of Mt. Charleston. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would entail repair or replacement of the existing housing stock within Mt. Charleston or short- term construction related to the improvement of recreational amenities within the Mt. Charleston area. These activities could generate a small amount of construction debris some of which may be hazardous. However, most construction debris would likely be disposed at licensed landfills serving the Mt. Charleston area. Construction of facilities that manufacture or utilize hazardous and toxic waste within the Mt. Charleston area is unlikely. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would utilize native substrates, imported rocks, and grout. Based on the above, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in significant cumulative impacts.

Visual Resources The town of Mt. Charleston is a mountaintop community within the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area. As a result, pine, mountain mahogany, and quaking Aspen contribute to the surrounding vista. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would entail repair or replacement of the existing housing stock within Mt. Charleston or short-term construction related to the Mt. of recreational amenities within the Mt. Charleston area. Since the town of Mount Charleston not expected to substantially expand beyond its current footprint in the foreseeable future, impacts to visual resources from continued spread of development is unlikely. Furthermore, short-term construction performed by the Forest Service for the improvement of recreational amenities within the Mt. Charleston area or other construction on Forest Service lands would require compliance with the visual elements outlined in the Forest Plan. The Preferred Alternative would not be compliance with the visual elements outlined in the Forest Plan. However, upon sufficient recovery of the watershed affecting Rainbow Canyon, and the threat of debris flows has subsided, the structure would be removed and the area reclaimed, resulting in a return to a natural-looking area in keeping with the visual quality objective of retention in the Forest Plan. As a result, there would be less than significant impacts on visual resources.

Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Mt. Charleston has a higher median household income and lower percentage of persons below poverty relative to Clark County. The town's minority population is substantially lower than that for Clark County. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would entail repair or replacement of the existing housing stock within Mt. Charleston or short-term construction related to the improvement of recreational amenities within the Mt. Charleston area. Since the town of Mt. Charleston not expected to substantially expand beyond its current footprint in the foreseeable future, changes in demographics is unlikely. Furthermore, short-term construction

performed by the Forest Service for the improvement of recreational amenities within the Mt. Charleston area or other construction on Forest Service lands would primarily affect existing recreational uses. The volume of seasonal visitors is unlikely to change substantially. Construction activities would create temporary employment in the construction sector. Environmental impacts would not thus proportionally affect low income and minority populations. The Proposed Alternative would not spur additional development within Mt. Charleston. Furthermore, upon sufficient recovery of the watershed affecting Rainbow Canyon, and the threat of debris flows has subsided, the structure would be removed and the area reclaimed, resulting in a return to a natural-looking area. As a result, there would be less than significant impacts to socioeconomics and environmental justice.

5.0 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Clean Air Act of 1972, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. The proposed activities would not violate any Federal air quality standards, exceed the U.S. EPA’s general conformity de minimis threshold, or hinder the attainment of air quality objectives in the local air basin.

Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. Discharges the fill into waters of the United States associated with construction qualify for authorization under Nationwide Permit 43. Appendix B documents compliance with the terms and conditions of Nationwide Permit 43. Furthermore, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection has issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (NV401-14-012) for the project (see Appendix A). The 401 Water Quality Certification was originally issued for Alternative 1. Analysis of Alternative 2 in coordination with the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection determined that the channel extension would not create addition impacts, and the original certification remained suitable. Based on the above, discharges of fill into waters of the United States would be in full compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. The project would not affect any federally listed species or designated critical habitat. A final BE, covering Alternative 2, was provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on 1 Oct 2014, and concurrence on the finding of no affect was provided on 2 Oct, 2014 (file 84320-2014-CPA- 0028). See Appendix D and I.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. This EA has evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives within the context of the purpose and need. Furthermore, this EA has evaluated and disclosed anticipated environmental impacts. Last, the public as well as resource agencies have been notified via the public notice. All comments have been documented and responses have been provided.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. There are four historic stone and earthen check dams (CK-4367, CK-4368, and CK-4369) are located approximately 800 feet up gradient of the proposed footprint. These dams were found to

be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 1998 when they were originally recorded. Furthermore, the dams located outside of the APE. No other archaeological sites or features are located in the APE. Based on the above, the Corps has determined that the undertaking would not affect historic properties.

On May 14, 2014, the Corps initiated consultation with the Nevada SHPO seeking concurrence with the APE and determination that the undertaking would have no affect to historic properties. Additional coordination with SHPO was undertaken subsequent to SHPO concurrence, based on design changes to Alternative 1 and the inclusion of Alternative 2 for consideration. In the letter dated September 9, 2014, the Nevada SHPO indicated concurrence with both determinations. Further coordination related to Alternative 2, as well as maintenance and removal, occurred and a final SHPO concurrence on the full scope of the project was received on 1 Oct 2014. See Appendixes E-H.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management. Executive Order 11988, signed by President Jimmy Carter on 24 May 1977, and published in 42 FR 26351. Its purpose is to “…avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.” The project located within a small canyon in the Spring Mountains, and not within a floodplain. The project entails protective measures for residents within the vicinity of Rainbow Canyon. As a result the need is site specific and no other sites were evaluated. The structure would be removed and the disturbed areas will be restored upon sufficient recovery of the watershed.

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 11, 1994. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low- Income Populations) was signed on February 11, 1994. This order directs Federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S. Based on the evaluation above, the project would not result in disproportionate environmental impacts on low income and minority populations.

6.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS An electronic public notice was made available on the Los Angeles District homepage on April 7, 2014. Approximately 250 printed copies (Appendix I) were mailed beginning on the same date using a mailing list (see Appendix J) developed in coordination with the Forest Service. The majority of printed copies were mailed to residents within the Rainbow Canyon Subdivision. Comments were accepted from April 7, 2014, to April 22, 2014. A total of seven public comments were received.

Jessica Axsom (Nevada SHPO) In an e-mail received on April 21, 2014, Ms. Axsom indicated the need to consult pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act. 46

Response: The Corps acknowledges the presence of four historic stone and earthen check dams (CK-4367, CK-4368, and CK-4369) are located approximately 800 feet upstream of the proposed footprint. These dams were found to be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 1998 when they were originally recorded. Furthermore, the dams located outside of the APE. No other archaeological sites or features are located in the APE. Based on the above, the Corps has determined that the undertaking would not affect historic properties. On May 14, 2014, the Corps initiated consultation with the Nevada SHPO seeking concurrence with the APE and determination that the undertaking would have no affect to historic properties. In the letter dated September 9, 2014, the Nevada SHPO indicated concurrence with both determinations.

Brian Dewhurst In an e-mail received on April 18, 2014, Mr. Dewhurst expressed concern about floods affecting his property and expressed hope that the Corps could help in the matter.

Response: The structure as described in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) is designed to protect most residences within Rainbow Canyon. The structure was designed to tie into an existing ridgeline down gradient of approximately 15 private cabins within the Recreation Residential Tract. As a result, cabins on the Recreational Residential Tract would not be protected. Placing a structure upstream of the cabins in the Recreation Residential Tract is not logistically feasible as the land available is too small to adequately capture the volume of debris emanating from the hillsides.

Becky Grismanauskas In an e-mail received on April 12, 2014, Ms. Grismanauskas expressed concern that preparation of an Environmental Assessment would unnecessarily delay construction of project jeopardizing residents downstream. Ms. Grismanauskas also sent an e-mail via the U.S. Forest Service to the Corps' Public Affairs Office on April 23, 2014, seeking information on the status of the project.

Response: Mr. Daniel Calderon of the Corps' Public Affairs Office responded by e-mail on April 30, 2014, stating that the Corps and its partner agencies are cognizant of the urgent nature of the protective measure needed at Rainbow Canyon and are expeditiously working in close coordination with each other to ensure all that agreements and permits including the NEPA documentation is ready in time to finish construction of the structure prior to the onset of monsoon season. In addition, Mr. Calderon also attended the Mt. Charleston town hall meeting on May 1, 2014, to update attendees including Ms. Grismanauskas.

Although the project was not constructed prior to the onset of monsoon season due to the difficulty in identifying a local government agency to assume responsibility for operation and maintenance activities per requirements of the Advanced Measures program, the Environmental Assessment had been sufficiently completed to support construction prior to the winter storm season.

Lynn Hahn In an e-mail received on April 21, 2014, Ms. Hahn expressed the urgent need to finish installing protective measures prior to the onset of monsoon season.

Response: The Corps and its partner agencies are cognizant of the urgent nature of the protective measure needed at Rainbow Canyon and are expeditiously working in close coordination with each other to ensure all that agreements and permits including the Environmental Assessment is ready in time to finish construction of the structure prior to the onset of monsoon season.

Although the project was not constructed prior to the onset of monsoon season due to the difficulty in identifying a local government agency to assume responsibility for operation and maintenance activities per requirements of the Advanced Measures program, the Environmental Assessment had ben sufficiently completed to support construction prior to the monsoon season.

David Rexing In an e-mail received on April 16, 2014, Mr. Rexing expressed support for the project. Furthermore, Mr. Rexing indicated the need to restore small check dams up gradient within Rainbow Canyon to mitigate future debris flows into Rainbow Subdivision and reduce the size of the planned diversion structure.

Response: In order to sufficiently protect residences down gradient within Rainbow Canyon until sufficient recovery of the affected watershed, the Corps designed and sized the debris flow diversion structure for a 25 year flood event. The check dams are currently buried beneath sediment from past debris flows. As a result, the capacity of the check dams to protect against a 25 year flood event was not evaluated. However, given that the check dams were buried by a 2 year flood event, it is likely that capacity for minimizing flood risk reduction through restoration of the check dams alone is limited. Furthermore, reconstruction of the check dams may require extensive coordination with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer which was not practical given the need to finish expeditious implementation of protective measures.

Neal Snyder In an e-mail received on April 21, 2014, Mr. Snyder expressed concern that the debris flow diversion structure may not protect a number of his neighbors from debris flows.

Response: The structure is designed to protect most but not all residences within Rainbow Canyon. The structure is designed to tie into an existing ridgeline down gradient of approximately 15 private cabins within the Recreation Residential Tract. As a result, these cabins would not be protected under Alternative 2. Placing a structure upstream of the cabins in the Recreation Residential Tract is not logistically feasible as the land available is too small to adequately capture the volume of debris emanating from the hillsides.

Steve Stamler In an e-mail received on April 22, 2014, Mr. Stamler indicated that his cabin is located upstream of the proposed debris flow diversion structure and queried whether the Corps has additional funds to install culverts and drainage along a dirt access road.

Response: The Corps has no plans at this time to construct any additional structures upstream of the debris flow diversion structure. Placing structures upstream of the proposed project is not

logistically feasible as the land available is too small to adequately capture the volume of debris emanating from the hillsides.

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Principal Author: Kenneth Wong Chief, Regional Planning Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District

Contributors: Jennifer Brickey Botanist U.S. Forest Service

Carol Hotchkiss Natural Resource Specialist U.S. Forest Service

Robert Loudon Partnership Coordinator U.S. Forest Service

Patricia McQueary Senior Regulatory Project Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

Ron Mobley NEPA Planner U.S. Forest Service

Ms. Kelly Turner Archaeologist U.S. Forest Service

Jane Schumacher NEPA Planner U.S. Forest Service

Jesse Ray Biologist, Regional Planning Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District

Figure 1. Detailed Map of Alternative 1

Figure 2. Detailed Map of Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)

Access Road 45579B

Access Road 45579C

New Gate Location FLOW

Access Road 45579

Access Road 45066

Sources:

Coordinate System: State Plane Nevada East (FIPS 2701, Feet) Datum: NAD 1983

Legend MT. CHARLESTON Access Roads LAS VEGAS, NV

Top of Berm DIVERSION BERM Channel AND CHANNEL Property Boundaries U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE Project Boundary ³ HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST

0 150 300 600 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Feet LOS ANGELES DISTRICT 1 inch = 300 feet

May 12, 2014

Ms. Patricia McQueary U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 196 E Tabernacle Street Room 30 St. George, Utah 84770-3474

Dear Ms. McQueary,

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) grants 401 Water Quality Certification (NV401-14-012) for the Rainbow Canyon Debris Flow Diversion Project in Clark County, Nevada. In July 2013, fire damage destabilized the hillside above Rainbow Canyon in the Spring Canyon National Recreation Area. As a result, severe debris flows caused damage to homes and Rainbow Canyon Road during a storm event in September 2013. The project will involve construction of a 1900 foot trapezoidal, grouted rock channel and berm to divert future storm flows and debris away from residential and public infrastructure. The structure is considered temporary and will be removed after the watershed has recovered.

Photographs which document conditions before, during and after construction should be submitted to the Bureau of Water Quality Planning (BWQP) 30 days following project completion and must include BMPs used to prevent erosion, control sediment and protect water quality. If straw bales are selected as BMPs they should be certified as weed free. Any modifications to original project submittal must be reviewed and approved by this office prior to implementation. All conditions of NDEPs Temporary Authorization To Discharge Permit (Construction /Dewatering Permit) or any other permit issued by NDEP for the project must be followed.

This Section 401 Water Quality Certification is subject to the acquisition of all necessary local, regional, state and federal permits and approvals as required by law. Failure to meet any conditions of this 401 Water Quality Certification, the Temporary Authorization Permit (Construction/Dewatering Permit), any other permit issued by NDEP for this project or any violation of NAC 445A may result in the revocation of this 401 Water Quality Certification.

If you have any questions, please contact me via email or at 775-687-9456.

Sincerely yours,

Jeanmarie Stone Environmental Scientist III Bureau of Water Quality Planning

cc: Kenneth Wong, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jason Ferrin, NDEP

901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 4001 • Carson City, Nevada 89701 • p: 775.687.4670 • f: 775.687.5856 • ndep.nv.gov Printed on recycled paper

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Clean Water Act §401 Water Quality Certification Application Form

1. Name of Project:

2. Applicant's Information: 3. Agent's Information: Company Name: Company Name: Name: Name: Address: Address: City: City: State: State: Zip Code: Zip Code: Phone: Fax: Phone: Fax: Email: Email: 4. Project Information: 5. Project Location: Include GIS map, Topo Map-7.5 Address: min scale or equivalent Latitude (UTM or Dec/Deg): City:

State: Longitude (UTM or Dec/Deg): County:

Type of Waterbody: Township: Range: Section: ¼ Section: Name of Waterbody (if known):

6. Project Description: Include site plan with specific location and details of work elements. Include expected start and end date of project. Attach engineered drawings and provide digital photos of project site.

7. Quantity of Dredge and/or Fill Activity:

a) Amounts of Fill or Excavation in Acres and/or Linear Feet: 1. Temporary Impact: 2. Permanent Impact: b) Amounts of Dredge Material to be discharged in Waters of the State in Cubic Yards: 1. Temporary Impact: 2. Permanent Impact:

RAINBOW CANYON DEBRIS FLOW DIVERSION STRUCTURE PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Background

The July 1, 2013 Carpenter 1 Fire burned approximately 27,881 acres. Approximately 26,939 acres was located in the Springs Mountains National Recreation Area and encompassed Rainbow Canyon. On September 1, 2013, a two-year monsoon storm caused substantial debris flows and erosion that damaged dozens of residences and public infrastructure including Rainbow Canyon Road.

The potential for a catastrophic debris flow during the 2014 monsoon season affecting Rainbow Subdivision is high. As a result, a debris flow diversion structure is needed to protect life and property.

The state of Nevada requested direct and technical Advance Measures from the Corps of Engineers on February 27, 2014 pursuant to Public Law 84-99 (PL 84-99). Pursuant to PL 84- 99, Advance Measures consists of those activities performed prior to flooding or flood fighting to protect against loss of life and damages to urban areas and/or public facilities. Advance Measures are considered when requested by the Governor of a state confronted with an immediate threat of unusual flooding. Projects are designed for a specific threat and, unless specifically excepted, are temporary in nature.

Project description

In response to the request from the state of Nevada, the Corps proposes to construct an approximately 1,900 foot long trapezoidal berm and trapezoidal channel to divert debris flows away from residential structures within Rainbow Canyon. The structure would be constructed within a 30-45 construction period and would be in place before the onset of monsoon season. Native substrate would be excavated to construct an approximately 15 foot-wide trapezoidal channel with 3:1 slope. The excavated fill would be used to construct a trapezoidal berm with a top width of 15 feet and 3:1 slopes immediately adjacent to the channel. The entire structure would be armored with 4,930 tons of 18-inch rock. The rocks would be grouted in place. The footprint of the structure is 159,300 square feet (approximately 3 acres in size). The structure would be removed, and the disturbed ground would be restored upon sufficient recovery of the watershed affecting Rainbow Canyon.

Impacts to water the United States

The proposed structure would cross an ephemeral channel at Station 104+00. Excavated native substrate would be discharged into the ephemeral channel. The width of the ordinary high watermark at this juncture is approximately 10 feet. Elevation profiles indicate the maximum depth to be approximately 5 feet. The footprint of the structure at Station 104+00 is approximately 125 feet. Based on the above, the project would discharge approximately 231 cubic yards of native substrate into 0.028 acres of waters of the United States. The discharge would be temporary since the structure would be removed upon sufficient recovery of the watershed affecting Rainbow Canyon.

The discharge of fill into waters of the United States associated with the proposed structure meets the terms and conditions of Nationwide Permit 43: Storm Water Management. Verification of compliance with Nationwide Permit 43 is attached.

Best management practices

In addition to implementing conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the Corps would:

 Implement an erosion and sediment control plan which would identify the type and location of the erosion and sediment controls such as silt fencing or straw wattles down grade of work area to prevent sediment from entering waterways.

 Construction debris would be removed from waters of the United States upon completion of construction.

 Upon completion of construction, disturbed areas will be revegetated with a seed mix appropriate to the area.

ATTATCHMENT A: SECTION 404 CLEAN WATER ACT COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTATION

1. Requirements and Qualifications for NW43

13. Stormwater Management Facilities. The construction of Stormwater management facilities necessary for water control structures provided the activity meets all of the following criteria:

(a) The discharge must not cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of non-tidal waters of the United States, including the loss of no more than 300 linear feet of stream bed.

The discharge into waters of the U.S. will occur in an ephemeral wash and would result in fill of approximately 0.028 acre. The length of stream impact is less than 300-ft. The lower portion of the stream channel will not be filled and would continue to function as a local drainage feature. Any stormwater from the watershed would be re-routed to the south and into a drainage away from the Rainbow Canyon Subdivision.

(b) The activity does not involve discharges of dredged or fill material into special aquatic sites, unless the district engineer waives this criterion by making a written determination concluding that the discharge will result in minimal adverse effects. There are no special aquatic sites within the project area.

2. Compliance with General Conditions of NW43

1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. There are no navigable waters within the project area.

2. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. Rainbow Canyon is an ephemeral channel that does not support fish or other aquatic life, nor is the channel used for migration.

3. Spawning Areas. Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Rainbow Canyon is an ephmeral channel that does not support fish or other aquatic life, nor is the channel used for migration. The proposed diversion structure would not disrupt spawning activities.

4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Migratory birds may be present during construction activities associated with this project. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be completed before the project begins.

5. Shellfish Beds. No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48, or is a shellfish seeding or habitat restoration activity authorized by NWP 27. Rainbow Canyon is an ephemeral channel and does not provide any aquatic habitat.

6. Suitable Material. No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.). Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act). The proposed project would only discharge riprap and fill material, an inert substrate, into waters of the United States. The fill material would not impair surface waters.

7. Water Supply Intakes. No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake, except where the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. Rainbow Canyon is an ephemeral channel and is not used to convey water for public uses, nor does it have supply intakes.

8. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Rainbow Canyon diversion structure would help to convey storm flows from a burned area. It would not impound or impede flows.

9. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream channelization and storm water management activities, except as provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand expected high flows. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The activity may alter the pre-construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g., stream restoration or relocation activities). The Rainbow Canyon diversion structure is designed to safely convey stormwater flows away from existing infrastructure and residential housing to a forested area. The capacity and condition of the water would remain essentially the same. It would not impound or impede flows.

10. Fills Within 100-Year Floodplains. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA approved state or local floodplain management requirements. The construction of the Rainbow Canyon diversion structure would not entail construction of buildings within the 100 year-floodplain. The contours and conveyance capacity of the new channel would be very similar to the existing channel.

11. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. There are no wetlands or mudflats associated with the proposed project. Soil disturbance would be kept at a minimum.

12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low-flow or no-flow. Rainbow Canyon is an ephemeral channel and no in-water work is anticipated.

13. Removal of Temporary Fills. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated, as appropriate. Temporary fills will be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations.

14. Proper Maintenance. Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety and compliance with applicable NWP general conditions, as well as any activity-specific conditions added by the district engineer to an NWP authorization. Clark County Public Works will maintain the structure until the watershed has sufficiently recovered for its safe removal.

15. Single and Complete Project. The activity must be a single and complete project. The same NWP cannot be used more than once for the same single and complete project. The construction of the Rainbow Canyon diversion structure is not part of a larger project, nor would the construction result in new development in the uplands since the uplands either fully developed or are in public ownership.

16. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a “study river” for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency responsible for the designated Wild and Scenic River or study river (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Rainbow Canyon is not a designated Wild and Scenic River.

17. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. Rainbow Canyon is not located within tribal lands.

18. Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to directly or indirectly jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which will directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat, unless Section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the proposed activity has been completed. Threatened and Endangered Species: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species (USFWS) list was reviewed to determine the species in the project area that are protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act. There is no threatened or endangered species in the project area. The project area is not within a designated critical habitat.

19. Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any “take” permits required under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s regulations governing compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permittee should contact the appropriate local office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if such “take” permits are required for a particular activity. The proposed project action area contains approximately 15 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a wide variety of migratory birds. Construction activities would temporarily disrupt foraging activities and remove nesting and roosting habitat with vegetation clearing. Use of heavy equipment, machinery, blasting, and presence of crews would temporarily result in higher than usual noise levels, which may locally displace birds using the area. Construction activities will occur during nesting season (May 20-July 20) so direct harm to chicks and eggs during vegetation clearing is likely. A qualified biologist will be required to be on-site to survey and recover any chicks or eggs that are displaced during tree falling and vegetation removal.

20. Historic Properties. In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may affect properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, the activity is not authorized, until the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied. No cultural resources listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are present within the project area. Based on the debris flows of 2013, it is highly unlikely that any cultural resources would remain. Formal consultation with NVSHPO will be initiated prior to commencing work. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), the proposed project does not have the potential to cause effects.

21. Discovery of Previously Unknown Remains and Artifacts. If you discover any previously unknown historic, cultural or archeological remains and artifacts while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify the district engineer of what you have found, and to the maximum extent practicable, avoid construction activities that may affect the remains and artifacts until the required coordination has been completed. The district engineer will initiate the Federal, Tribal and state coordination required to determine if the items or remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Corps would comply with all applicable laws and regulations upon discovery of unknown remains and artifacts.

22. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA managed marine sanctuaries and marine monuments, and National Estuarine Research Reserves. The district engineer may designate, after notice and opportunity for public comment, additional waters officially designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance, such as outstanding national resource waters or state natural heritage sites. The district engineer may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for public comment. The Rainbow Canyon is not located within or adjacent to navigable waters of the United States; nor is it a designated Critical Resource Waters.

23. Mitigation. Rainbow Canyon is an ephemeral channel with a major function of flood conveyance. The project would not result in the loss of waters of the U.S. and the diversion would create additional conveyance features on the landscape. Mitigation is not deemed necessary.

24. Safety of Impoundment Structures. To ensure that all impoundment structures are safely designed, the district engineer may require non-Federal applicants to demonstrate that the structures comply with established state dam safety criteria or have been designed by qualified persons. The district engineer may also require documentation that the design has been independently reviewed by similarly qualified persons, and appropriate modifications made to ensure safety. Not applicable. The proposed project entails a diversion structure that will not result in impoundment.

25. Water Quality. Where States and authorized Tribes, or EPA where applicable, have not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA Section 401, individual 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). The district engineer or State or Tribe may require additional water quality management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of water quality. The Corps would secure a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and implement the terms and conditions of the 401 to minimize impacts to water quality.

26. Coastal Zone Management. In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone management consistency concurrence, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained, or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). The district engineer or a State may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone management requirements. Not applicable. The project area is not located within the coastal zone.

27. Regional and Case-By-Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer. See compliance with regional conditions as documented below.

Based on the above, the preferred alternative for the Rainbow Canyon Debris flow Diversion Structure Project would comply with NW43 General Conditions

3. Compliance with Sacramento District Regional Conditions

Regional Conditions for Nevada and the Lake Tahoe Basin in California (Effective March 19, 2012 until March 18, 2017)

Regional conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, 22, 23, and 24 are not applicable to this project. 3. When a pre-construction notification (PCN) is required, the appropriate U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) District shall be notified in accordance with General Condition 31 using either the South Pacific Division PCN Checklist or a signed application form (ENG Form 4345) with an attachment providing information on compliance with all of the General and Regional Conditions. The PCN Checklist and application form are available at: http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx. All information required per General Condition 31 are contained within the environmental assessment.

Based on the above, the preferred alternative for the Rainbow Canyon Debris flow Diversion Structure Project would comply with Sacramento Regional Conditions for Nevada

Patricia L. McQueary Senior Regulatory Project Manager St. George Regulatory Office UT-NV Branch Regulatory Division

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Loader 120 0.0902 0.4119 0.5654 0.0007 0.0477 58.9 0.0081 Loader 250 0.1186 0.3553 1.0966 0.0017 0.0375 149 0.0107 Dozer 250 0.2322 0.6560 1.9517 0.0021 0.0821 183 0.0209 Exc 120 0.0998 0.5137 0.6331 0.0009 0.0519 73.6 0.0090 Exc 250 0.1180 0.3480 1.0099 0.0018 0.0333 159 0.0106 Off Hwy Trks 500 0.2065 0.6134 1.5945 0.0027 0.0567 272 0.0186 Plate Compactors Compos 0.0050 0.0263 0.0314 0.0001 0.0012 4.3 0.0005 500 0.2165 0.8647 1.9551 0.0023 0.0756 233 0.0195

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Loader 120 0.0902 0.4119 0.5654 0.0007 0.0477 58.9 0.0081 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 6.492669 29.65965 40.71106 0.049758 3.431755 4241.772 0.585823

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Loader 250 0.1186 0.3553 1.0966 0.0017 0.0375 149 0.0107 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 34.1567 102.3292 315.821 0.482758 10.80083 42905.29 3.081903

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Dozer 250 0.2322 0.6560 1.9517 0.0021 0.0821 183 0.0209 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 36.21727 102.3345 304.4684 0.322069 12.80069 28623.99 3.267827

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Exc 120 0.0998 0.5137 0.6331 0.0009 0.0519 73.6 0.0090 144 144 144 144 144 144 144 14.36656 73.97725 91.1709 0.124364 7.467382 10601.73 1.296272

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Exc 250 0.1180 0.3480 1.0099 0.0018 0.0333 159 0.0106 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 25.47907 75.16157 218.1326 0.385658 7.201714 34275.47 2.298936

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Off Hwy Trks 500 0.2065 0.6134 1.5945 0.0027 0.0567 272 0.0186 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 44.61335 132.501 344.4211 0.577378 12.24899 58824.14 4.025391

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Off Hwy Trks 500 0.2065 0.6134 1.5945 0.0027 0.0567 272 0.0186 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 59.48447 176.668 459.2282 0.769837 16.33199 78432.18 5.367188

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 compactor 500 0.0050 0.0263 0.0314 0.0001 0.0012 4.3 0.0005 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 0.361548 1.896464 2.264149 0.004833 0.08824 310.5938 0.032622

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Off Hwy Trks 500 0.2065 0.6134 1.5945 0.0027 0.0567 272 0.0186 516 516 516 516 516 516 516 106.5763 316.5301 822.7838 1.379292 29.26149 140524.3 9.616212 total hours 86 hours x 6 trucks= 516

6000 ton 70 tons/hour 86 hour/truck trips

20 ton trucks

86 hours to complete

3.5 trucks /per hours

30 mi one way.

OFF HIGHWAY TRUCKS ON SITE

(lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) Equipment MaxHP ROG CO NOX SOX PM CO2 CH4 Loader (72 hr) 6.49266875 29.6596521 40.7110562 0.04975816 3.43175504 4241.77237 0.58582314 Loader 250 HP 34.1566966 102.329243 315.821 0.48275808 10.8008282 42905.2854 3.08190323 Dozer 250 HP 36.217272 102.334484 304.468442 0.32206891 12.8006876 28623.9867 3.267827 Excavator 120 HP 14.3665635 73.9772522 91.1708989 0.12436363 7.46738237 10601.7265 1.29627191 Excavator 250 HP 25.4790742 75.1615717 218.132606 0.38565783 7.20171363 34275.4727 2.29893562 Off Hwy Trks 44.6133488 132.500967 344.421119 0.57737796 12.248994 58824.1366 4.02539086 Off Hwy Trks 59.484465 176.667956 459.228159 0.76983727 16.3319921 78432.1822 5.36718782 Compactor 0.36154766 1.89646409 2.26414908 0.00483311 0.08823998 310.593849 0.03262186 106.5763 316.5301 822.7838 1.379292 29.26149 140524.3 9.616212 total lbs 327.748 1011.058 2599.001 4.095947 99.63308 398739.5 29.57217 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 offroad total tons 0.16387398 0.50552884 1.29950061 0.00204797 0.04981654 199.369741 0.01478609 onroad 0.00505638 0.04754544 0.00471487 7.6989E-05 0.00066131 7.93851874 0.00045443 GRANT TOTAL 0.16893 0.553074 1.304215 0.002125 0.050478 207.3083 0.015241

on road = 8 cars x 40 mil/day x 45 days = 14400 miles

CO 0.00660353 14400 95.09088 2000 0.047545 NOx 0.00065484 14400 9.42973 2000 0.004715 ROG 0.00070227 14400 10.11276 2000 0.005056 SOx 0.00001069 14400 0.153977 2000 7.7E-05 PM10 0.00009185 14400 1.322626 2000 0.000661 PM2.5 0.00005939 14400 0.855166 2000 0.000428 CO2 1.10257205 14400 15877.04 2000 7.938519 CH4 0.00006312 14400 0.908861 2000 0.000454 Appendix D

Addendum to the Biological Assessment/ Biological Evaluation For BIRDS, MAMMALS, INSECTS and PLANTS

Rainbow Subdivision, Mount Charleston, Nevada

Spring Mountains National Recreation Area

PREPARED BY DATE ______Patricia L. McQueary Senior Regulatory Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

REVIEWED BY DATE ______Jennifer Brickey, Botanist, U.S. Forest Service

REVIEWED BY DATE ______Jesse Ray Biologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Appendix D

Summary

In May of 2014, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers submitted a Biological Evaluation for the Mt. Charleston Advanced Measures Project. The BE evaluates flora and fauna protected under the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area 1998 Conservation Agreement (CA), an agreement between the FWS and USFS, for species not listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

After initial development of Alternative 1, following the July 2014 monsoon, in which flows from the western watershed produced significant damages to homes and infrastructure, the design outlined as Alternative 1 was reevaluated. Alternative 2 was developed, and consists of the structure being extended further south to capture the flows from the western end of the watershed. Once extended, the diversion would be able to direct a greater percentage of runoff from the Rainbow Canyon catchment area into a drainage east of the subdivision.

Alternative 2 has the same construction as Alternative 1 except that it would be approximately 500 feet longer and could have a slightly different alignment on the upstream end. Alternative 2 would include more ground disturbance and construction commensurate with the additional structure length. Construction and equipment would be the same as Alternative 1, except for proportionally greater materials and timing of work based on the extended length. The original footprint of Alternative 1 was approximately 4.58 acres. The addition of the 500-ft extension increases the footprint to 5.73 acres, an increase of 1.15 acres. The attached figure shows the possible alignments of the extension and the original proposed structure.

Appendix D

Affects on Species

The original footprint (Alternative 1) would result in the short term loss of species from the project footprint. Based on aerial imagery, tree density in the project area appears to average about 40 trees per acre. The clearing and grading of the original project would have resulted in the removal of approximately 300 trees with about 7.5 acres of habitat loss. Under Alternative 2, the impacts to biological resources would be very similar to Alternative 1, except for the extension of the berm upstream 500-ft. This would result in an additional 1.1 acres of impact with approximately 350 trees removed. The additional acreage impacted is similar in habitat to the remainder of the project area. However, the majority of additional project area covered by Alternative 2 was burned by 2013 Carpenter fire. Therefore, species-specific considerations are the same as those described for Alternative 1.

The ultimate maintenance and removal of the structure would result in very similar impacts to biological resources as Alternative 1, except with an increase of 1.15-acres of additional impacts.

The Corps has determined that the additional 1.15 acres of impact associated with Alternative 2 does not change the affects determination presented in the original BE.

The habitat in the area of the extension was buried during the debris flow in 2013 and suffered additional damage during July of 2014. There is little vegetation in the general area and most of the substrate is currently covered with rocks. The effects of the extension would be very similar in nature to the previous project with some potential loss of habitat for sensitive species but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

The BE concluded that the project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for the Townsend‟s big-eared bat, Spotted bat, Northern goshawk, Peregrine falcon, Flammulated owl, Rough angelica, Charleston violet (Viola charlestonensis) , Long-eared myotis, Fringed myotis, Long- legged myotis, Palmer’s Chipmunk, Carole's silverspot butterfly, Charleston ant, Clokey mountain sage, Silver-haired bat, Clokey”s paintbrush, and Charleston lousewort.

The BE concludes that the project will have no impact on all other CA species.

Based on the current time line for completing the project, impacts to migratory birds will be avoided and construction should be completed before May 20 of 2015.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 Ph: (702) 515-5230 ~ Fax: (702) 515-5231

May20, 2014 84320-2014-CP A-0028

Mr. Kenneth Wong, Planning Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 915 Wilshire Blvd., 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017

Dear Mr. Wong:

Subject: Comments and Concurrence on the Biological Evaluations for the Rainbow Canyon Debris Flow Diversion Project, Clark County, Nevada

This letter responds to your request dated May 7, 2014, for review of the Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Rainbow Canyon Debris Flow Diversion Project. The following comments and concurrence are provided as they relate to the Conservation Agreement for the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada (Conservation Agreement) and the Memorandum ofAgreement Concerning Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations and Coordination between the US. Department ofAgriculture, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the US. Department ofInterior, US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is coordinating for the proposed Rainbow Subdivision Flood Protection Project occurring on land managed by the Forest Service.

Project Description

A complete description of the project area and proposed action is found in your BE. The proposed project is located in Rainbow Canyon and Kyle Canyon northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The Corps is proposing to construct an approximately 1,900 foot berm and channel to divert debris flow from the Rainbow Subdivision.

BE Analysis

A Biological Evaluation was prepared to analyze the impacts of the proposed action to Conservation Agreement species and Forest Service Region 4 Sensitive Species. For 13 Conservation Agreement species/subspecies, the project's effect determination was may impact individuals, hut is not likely to cause a trend leading to Federal listing or loss ofviability. For 10 Conservation Agreement species/subspecies the effect or impact determination was no impact. Based on our review of the information and analysis provided in the BEs including Rainbow Canyon Debris Flow Diversion Project File No. 84320-2014-CPA-0028 implementation of the appropriate project design features, communication between our staff, as well as our professional knowledge of the proposed project area and species, we agree with the impact determinations with one exception.

The BE concluded that there was no suitable habitat present for the Spring Mountains comma skipper (Hesperia colorado mojavensis) within the project area. We disagree with this because graminoid (potential larval host) and nectar plants are present within the project area. In addition, Weiss et al. (1997, Map 8.1) reported the presence of the subspecies in close proximity to the proposed project area. However, while individuals may be impacted by the project initially, within a short time, habitat for this subspecies may improve with the seeding of grasses as well as appropriate nectar plants.

We request that any project design features, conservation measures, mitigation measures or best management practices employed to minimize or mitigate impacts to Conservation Agreement species be included in your decision notice for the project. We also request that a copy of the decision notice and any monitoring reports for the project be provided to us for our project file. If you have questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Corey Kallstrom in the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office in Las Vegas at (702) 515-5230.

Michael J. Senn Assistant Field Supervisor cc Randy Swick, SMNRA Manager

2 Appendix F Appendix F Appendix F Appendix F Appendix F Appendix F Appendix F Appendix F Appendix F Appendix F Appendix F Appendix G Appendix G Appendix H Appendix H Appendix I

Hi Patricia,

On behalf of Michael Senn, this Addendum appears consistent with the initial BA/BE (file 84320-2014-CPA-0028). Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

FYI - if you need to contact Mike his email is [email protected].

Corey Kallstrom Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89130 (702) 515-5230 [email protected]

Appendix J

PUBLIC NOTICE ______

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES DISTRICT

RAINBOW CANYON DEBRIS FLOW DIVERSION STRUCTURE PROJECT

LOCATION: The project area is located within U.S. Forest Service land in the Rainbow Subdivision of the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area in the town of Mt. Charleston, Clark County, Nevada. The Rainbow Subdivision is an in-holding of private property within federal lands. See Figure 1.

PROPOSED PROJECT: The project entails construction of an approximately 1,200 foot long trapezoidal berm and trapezoidal channel to divert debris flows away from Rainbow Subdivision. The structure would be armored with riprap. The downstream terminus will be located northeast of the subdivision and connect to an existing ridge. The alignment will extend to the upstream terminus in a southwesterly direction. The structure would redirect flows away from the subdivision to an existing wash then into Kyle Canyon. At approximately 1,100 feet downstream, the diversion structure will cross an existing dirt road. A grade control structure will be needed to maintain the road elevations. About 270 feet downstream of the road, the existing bank may need to be bolstered with additional fill and armoring of the bank fill. This will be needed to direct the flows around the bend and away from the property immediately downstream. See Figure 1.

BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY: The July 1, 2013 Carpenter 1 Fire burned approximately 27,881 acres. Approximately 26,939 acres was located in the Springs Mountains National Recreation Area and encompassed Rainbow Canyon. On September 1, 2013, a typical monsoon storm (i.e., 2-year storm) caused substantial debris flows and erosion that damaged dozens of residences and public infrastructure including Rainbow Canyon Road. The potential for a catastrophic debris flow during the 2014 monsoon season affecting Rainbow Subdivision is high. As a result, a diversion structure is needed to protect life and property.

The Nevada Governor’s Office requested direct and technical advance measures from the Corps of Engineers on February 27, 2014. The Corps is authorized under Public Law 84-99 to provide flood emergency assistance when flood conditions exceed, or are predicted to exceed the response capability of local or state governments. The Corps of Engineers is coordinating this advance measures assistance work with the Nevada Division of Emergency Management, Clark County, and U.S. Forest Service.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT COMPLIANCE: Initial characterizations of biological and cultural resources from the March 5, 2014 site visit are noted below:

Biological Resources: The habitat associated with the proposed project area is a relatively young Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest interspersed with White Fir (Abies concolor). The trees are probably less than 50 years old and have been thinned in the past to accelerate the ecological succession. The area is relatively open with some grasses and a few shrub species that were unidentified at the time of the site visit on March 5, 2014, because the vegetation was still in a dormant stage.

 Rough Angelica (Angelica scabrida), currently a species of concern, was found on the proposed project site prior to the debris flow last August that buried much of the vegetation within the area. It is not known the current status of the population and a spring survey would be necessary to document whether the

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – LOS ANGELES DISTRICT

Appendix J

PUBLIC NOTICE ______species is still in the proposed project area. A conservation management plan may need to be provided for this plant species in order to proceed with the proposed project.

 The Mt. Charleston blue butterfly occurs within the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area, but habitat within the proposed project area does not provide ideal habitat for the species. The butterfly is dependent upon open habitats that support Torrey’s milkvetch (Astragalus calycosus var. mancus), the only known larval host plant for this species.

Cultural Resources: Coordination and consultation with Nevada State Historic Preservation Office may be necessary based on historical work by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the Rainbow Canyon area from 1934- 1936 which include several check dams constructed upstream of the proposed project area. However, these structures may have been destroyed during the events of August 2013.

Based on information gathered during the site visit, it is likely that the project would not result in significant impacts to endangered species, important fish and wildlife resources, water quality, or other natural and cultural resources. Therefore, the Corps proposes to prepare an Environmental Assessment for the proposed project.

SUBMITTING COMMENTS: The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, state, and local agencies and officials; and other interested parties. Comments will be accepted from April 7, 2014 to April 22, 2014.

Comments should be mailed to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Planning Division Attn: Kenneth Wong 915 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 930 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Alternatively, comments can be sent electronically to: [email protected]

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – LOS ANGELES DISTRICT

Appendix J

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS

o n

a n y

n b o w

a i R

Diversion Structure Coordinate System: State Plane California VI (FIPS 406, Feet) Flood Extent Datum: NAD 1983 RAINBOW CANYON FLOOD EVENT Burn Area SEPTEMBER 2013 Parcels

0 0.075 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Miles ³ LOS ANGELES DISTRICT Appendix K

Michael McDonald Shimon and Kristina Coneh Greta Weist and Carl Darby 5616 Avenida Tampico 3381 Westwind Road 3917 Shady Circle Las Vegas, NV 89108-4183 Las Vegas, NV 89146-6752 Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9196

Fielding and Ardis Beeler Norman and Janet Kennedy Dragos Survivor Trust 3927 Shady Circle 1600 S Valley View Blvd., #1029 2612 Ashby Ave. Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9196 Las Vegas, NV 89102-1896 Las Vegas, NV 89102-2102

Suzanne Mowbray Stanely and Rebecca Grismanauskas Steven Kammer 7597 Boca Raton Dr. 362 Rainbow Canyon Blvd. 3919 Davos Way Las Vegas, NV 89113-0409 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9185 Mt. Charleston, NV 9187

Donna Mansor Toucan Trust Rainbow Recess, LLC 920 RHYOLITE TERR 7255 W. LA MADRE WY 8199 Retriever Ave. Henderson, NV 89011 Las Vegas, NV 89149-5858 Las Vegas, NV 89147-3743

Neal Snyder William Wade Trust Raymond Abbott 228 RAINBOW CANYON BLVD 324 Rainbow Canyon Blvd 339 Ski Trail Road

Las Vegas, NV 89124-9130 Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9185 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9202

Kamer and Zucker Janece Cavin Thomas and Marlene McIntyre 3000 W CHARLESTON BLVD 1620 OVAL CIR 323 Ski Trail Road

Las Vegas, NV 89102-1926 Las Vegas, NV 89117-1312 Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9202

Troy Davis Michael and Tammi DeBauche Higher Ground, LLC P O BOX 2207 10235 SCHIRLLS ST P O BOX 98378

Bakersfield, CA 93303-2207 Las Vegas, NV 89141-8831 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8378

Saulpaw Family G P and P Trust Angela K. Austin 2005 CAMINO CULEBRA 2620 S MARYLAND PKWY #14-633 252 FLIRTATION CT

Vista, CA 92084-3607 Las Vegas, NV 89109 Henderson, NV 89074-7879

Terry and Mary Gale Betty June Mabrey Joyce Luman 5665 N CONQUISTADOR 1612 BASSWOOD 2004 PLAZA DEL DIOS

Las Vegas, NV 89149-1413 North Las Vegas, NV 89030-5001 Las Vegas, NV 89102-3983

Scott Richard Heer Charles and Diana Estell Martin and Luanne Glenn P O BOX 752462 2780 NATCHEZ CT 280 Alpine Crest Court

Las Vegas, NV 89136--2462 Henderson, NV 89074-2714 Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9149

Appendix K

Peter Specht Martin and Suzanne Squires Joseph and Linda Arana 9583 BLYTH ROCK AVE 9685 ELKHORN RD 1770 GARDEN RIDGE CT Las Vegas, NV 89147-7219 Las Vegas, NV 89149-1911 Henderson, NV 89012-3435

Dorothy Marynow Ronald and Debra Erskine Donald and Joan Davidson 3075 WESTWIND RD 20 HATTEN BAY ST 33115 SEAWATCH Las Vegas, NV 89146-6858 Henderson, NV 89012-2481 Dana Point, CA 92629-1852

Cleo Isom Benjamin Venger Walter and Nancy Zwijac 1335 SILVER LAKE DR 3140 E VIKING RD 3935 White Fir Way Las Vegas, NV 89108-1155 Las Vegas, NV 89121-4316 Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9209

Alireza Farabi Dennis and Elizabeth Lovell Colin Berry 9108 GOLDEN EAGLE DR 184 ALPINE WY 3017 FRIGATE WY Las Vegas, NV 89134 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9118 North Las Vegas, NV 89084

Margaret Foy Ignacio and Ingrid Trillo Lynn and Eric Hahn 4120 Evita Court 9866 November Rain St 3446 VIEWPOINT CIR N E North Las Vegas, NV 89032-2615 Las Vegas, NV 89178 Tacoma, WA 98422

Barbara and Thomas McDonald Tracy Lee Hurst Donald and Rosario Posson 3 SABLE RIDGE CT P O BOX 34720 5655 Indian Springs St Las Vegas, NV 89135-7868 Las Vegas, NV 89135-4720 North Las Vegas, NV 89031-5079

Nancy Harkess James Lochry and Linda Garrard Larry Sheeler 11772 Canons Brook Dr 222 Alpine Wy 3950 White Fir Way Las Vegas, NV 89141-6058 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9232 Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9209

David and Beverly Sandquist Kristine Morris Arthur Rowe 8701 Robinson Ridge Dr 1241 Shadow Ln 4905 Quasar Ct Las Vegas, NV 89117-5811 Las Vegas, NV 89102-2413 Las Vegas, NV 89130-1822

E G A Irrevocable Trust James Ward and Kevin Green Angela Branco 1881 Capo San Vito 4 Alpine Wy 513 Eastgate Rd Las Vegas, NV 89123-3946 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9118 Henderson, NV 89011

Timothy and Cynthia Hunt Gerald and Nancy Kukal Clifford and Marjorie Pitts 306 Alpine Way 1260 Dressen Ave 352 Waterwheel Falls Dr Las Vegas, NV 89124-9227 Las Vegas, NV 89123-5335 Henderson, NV 89015-7127 Appendix K

Todd Rentchler and Desiree Locatelli Richard and Normadene Paulin Brian Dewhurst 39 Edelweiss Pl 6730 W Rocking Horse 348 Edelweiss Place Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9124 Las Vegas, NV 89108-5922 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9167

Diane Rossi Thomas Elardi Hypernation Trust II 6256 Woodbury Ave 3411 Las Vegas Blvd S 330 Alpine Way Las Vegas, NV 89103-3236 Las Vegas, NV 89109-8955 Las Vegas, NV 89124

Whitt Family Trust Joseph and Lillian Robinson Roy Clark Trust 840 S Rancho Dr 6280 Farm Rd 1 N Central Ave #1000 Las Vegas, NV 89106 Las Vegas, NV 8989131-2167 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4469

John and Margaret Masanz Victoria Combs Charles and Janet Kajkowski 362 Alpine Way 7175 Tara Ave 6532 Orange Tree Ave Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9227 Las Vegas, NV 89117-3031 Las Vegas, NV 89142-0954

Johnny and Larry Clark Mary Ellen and Craig Vriend Mark Mushkin 630 Sari Dr 8628 Canyon Ranch St 6 Via Ravello Las Vegas, NV 89110-4227 Las Vegas, NV 89131-2090 Henderson, NV 89011-3642

Susan Meyer FH9 LLC Sierra Tahoe Trust 961 Highside Ct 1605 Iron Ridge Dr 6172 Gilmore Ave Las Vegas, NV 89110-2910 Las Vegas, NV 89117-5823 Las Vegas, NV 89108-5136

Suzanne Bruner Ann Marie Stewart and Darren Land Glenn and Adrienne Richardson 5540 Obannon Dr 4085 Tyrol Way 4095 Tyrol Way Las Vegas, NV 89146-3320 Mt. Charleston, NV 89124 Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9231

Charles and Mary Ella McBride Merle and Nancy Barber S.D. and Pauline Stark 4066 Tyrol Way 4086 Tyrol Wy 1209 Muscato Ct Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9231 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9231 Las Vegas, NV 89144-1122

Jacqueline and Gloria Marino Joshua and Cassandra Bowers Odgers Family Trust 4045 S Buffalo Dr #101-198 352 Moritz Way P O BOX 150235 Las Vegas, NV 89147-7479 Las Veags, NV 89124 Ely, NV 89135-0235

Diana and Floyd Hale Michael and Margaret Manning R.W. Trust 8705 Mesa Canoga Dr 6730 Irish Sea Ave P O BOX 98378 Las Vegas, NV 89148-1434 Las Vegas, NV 89146-6224 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8378 Appendix K

Gary and Sheri Dilger Zimmerman Investment Robert and Laura Lockwood 7444 Grassy Field Ct 704 Pont Chartrain Dr 5485 N Durango Dr Las Vegas, NV 89131-4116 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Las Vegas, NV 89149-4066

Kenneth Giles Laurie Louise Bougard Kim and Joy English 17 Mont Blanc Wy 7628 Desert Cactus Cir 3997 Mont Blanc Way Las Vegas, NV 89124-9169 Las Vegas, NV 89149-5122 Mt Charleston, NV 89124-9183

Mountain Spirit Revocable Terry Leavitt Shah Dhaval Family Trust 601 S 6th St 7452 Grassy Field Ct 23 Moritz Wy Las Vegas, NV 89101-6919 Las Vegas, NV 89131-4116 Mt Charleston, NV 89124-9173

Jerry and Dennis Lee Gregory Kamer Bradford Holding LLC 125 Pebble Creek Heights 3000 Loma Vista Ave 3155 Loma Vista Ave Mesquite, NV 89027 Las Vegas, NV 89120-3017 Las Vegas, NV 89120-3008

Charles and Cynthia Kehoe Craig S. Steele Renee DeBruyn 1215 Santa Ynez Ave P O BOX 43057 HC #38 BOX 557 Henderson, NV 89002 Las Vegas, NV 89116-1057 Lee Canyon, NV 89124-9102

Pear Blossom Properties Eldine Stevens Kyle Canyon Water District 5880 S Wynn 7217 Alta Dr 200 S 3rd Las Vegas, NV 89118-3060 Las Vegas, NV 89145-5209 Las Vegas, NV 89101-5914

Irene Kent Kenneth Kulas Diane Pollard 3255 Phantom Rock St 8525 W Verde Way 1860 Jasmine Joy Ct Las Vegas, NV 89135-2137 Las Vegas, NV 89149 Las Vegas, NV 89117-1937

Dan and Debbie Huber Donald Jacobson Stan Van Wagenen 9921 Barrier Reef Dr 721 Arizona St 8917 Windsor Locks Ave Las Vegas, NV 89117-094 Boulder City, NV 89005-2601 Las Vegas, NV 89134

L.M. Aiken James Shugart Constance and Paul Blau 4673 Regalo Bello 1155 Dry Falls Bend 1793 Santa Anita Dr Las Vegas, NV 89135-2534 Mesquite, NV 89034-1103 Las Vegas, NV 89119-6285

David and Mariann Rexing Bryan Kirk Robin Craig 845 Robinson Ln 6850 N Grand Canyon Dr 4673 Regallo Bello Boulder City, NV 89005-1127 Las Vegas, NV 89149-1370 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Appendix K

Robert Park Steve Stamler Dennis and laura Dillon 2737 Redwood 9528 Hershey Ln 429 Birch St Las Vegas, NV 89146-5110 Las Vegas, NV 89134-0172 Boulder City, NV 89005-2411

McCaw Commincations Ann and Marc Pitchford Leonelle Alverson 909 Chestnut St Rm 36-M-1 1693 Valley Glen Ct 6800 N Rainbow Blvd St Louis, MO 63101-2065 Las Vegas, NV 89119-2117 Las Vegas, NV 89131-3443

S.W. Cranley Revocable Trust Donald Dennison Daniel Sussman 3801 Maurice Ct 303 Barcelona Wy 181 Mont Blanc Wy Las Vegas, NV 89108-5245 Boulder City, NV 89005-1513 Mt Charleston, NV 89124-9122

Joan Reynar Larry and Joanne Villnow Neuman Family Trust 111 Matterhorn Wy 2750 Westwind Rd 240 Concho Dr Mt Charleston, NV 89124-9121 Las Vegas, NV 89146-5458 Henderson, NV 89015-5241

Hershey Holdings, LLC Nicholas and tracy Wolf Kirk Blackstone LLC 7320 Falvo Ave 7065 W Ann Rd 130-500 P O BOX 750787 Las Vegas, NV 89131 Las Vegas, NV 89130-3865 Las Vegas, NV 89136

Richard and Karen Harris Mario and Rachel Lorensen B K M Summerlin LLC 801 S Fourth St 7274 LATOUR CT 1930 Village Center CIR #293 Las Vegas, NV 89101-6708 Las Vegas, NV 89117-3164 Las Vegas, NV 89134-6299

William and Kristy Muir Kathleen Beesley Shawn and Cathlyn Dettrey 504 Royal DR 12560 DEZAUCHE LN Collier Hills ST Henderson, NV 89144-0825 Grand Way, AL 36541 Las Vegas, NV 89149-4018

D Z Living Trust Michael and Jennifer Benefico Glen and Rhonda Russell 2836 BELMONT DR 4130 Matterhorn Way 4325 Matinee Ave Henderson, NV 89074 Las Vegas, NV 89124 North Las Vegas, NV 89031-0407

Michael and Susan Digregorio Michael Byrnes Robert Longvan Ly 92 Zugspitz WY 408 San Simon DR P O BOX 80386 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9141 Alamogordo, NM 88310 Las Vegas, NV 89180

James and Kathrymn Plaire Ralph and Betty McKnight Edward Underhill 2444 PING DR 2216 Glenbrook WY P O BOX 2322 Henderson, NV 89074-8313 Las Vegas, NV 89117-5852 PAHRUMP, NV 89041-2322 Appendix K

Thomas and Bonnie Park D'AMATO INVESTMENT TRUST S M R Trust 6466 Mondell Pine Cir P O BOX 778118 7311 Rockwood CT Las Vegas, NV 89146-6644 Henderson, NV 89077-8118 Las Vegas, NV 89129-5921

Charles Pesca Walter Dowd Frey Revekka Trust 169 Matterhorn WY 4207 Fulton PL 2747 Paradise RD #3401 Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9121 Las Vegas, NV 89107-4118 Las Vegas, NV 89109-9077

Richard and Melinda Decosta Dennis and Janice Bowmer Karen and Joseph Azzara 4165 Mont Blanc Way 4186 Woodcrest RD 3422 Villa Hermosa DR Mt. Charleston, NV 89124-9217 Las Vegas, NV 89121-4942 Las Vegas, NV 89121-4036

Valley Performance LLC Robert and Kathy Diechler Kern Living Trust 5105 W Sawyer 7241 Heggie Ave 5020 Meadow Grove CT Las Vegas, NV 89108-3057 Las Vegas, NV 89131-3233 Las Vegas, NV 89120-1443

Jeffrey and Diane Burger Robert and Marilyn Oehler Samuel Boyd 6630 Eldora Ave 2115 S Tenaya WY 5138 Spanish Hills Dr Las Vegas, NV 89146 Las Vegas, NV 89117-2008 Las Vegas, NV 89148-1410

James and Abby Smallridge David Martin and Deborah Elliot-Martin Derald and Lavina Grauberger 4332 Snead Dr 112 Mont Blanc WY 1200 Cahlan Dr Las Vegas, NV 89107-2054 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9122 Las Vegas, NV 89102-2116

Tyrol Investments BERRY FAMILY TRUST Joe Sobb 1880 E Warm Springs RD #130 115 Tyrol WY 6510 W Sobb Ave Las Vegas, NV 89119-4579 Las Vegas, NV 89124-9101 Las Vegas, NV 89118-3207

EASY STREET TRUST Yasenia Yatomi and Andrew Pennucci Lillian Norton 4115 Tyrol Way 8595 Bella Vacio 2801 Ashby Ave Las Vegas, NV 89124-9207 Las Vegas, NV 89149-3971 Las Vegas, NV 89102-1901

Joseph and Karen Calarco James and Roberta Dunn James and April Main 7744 Rancho Destino Rd HCR-38, 136 MONT BLANC 8929 BROOKBAY CT Las Vegas, NV 89123-1744 LAS VEGAS, NV 89124-9120 LAS VEGAS, NV 89134

Garry and Angelica Tomashowski Frank and Shari Gargano Anthony and Sydney Rae Morgan P O BOX 750475 2008 WINTER WIND ST 14778 KYLE CANYON RD LAS VEGAS, NV 89130-0475 LAS VEGAS, NV 89134-6696 LAS VEGAS, NV 89166-9101 Appendix K

George and Patricia Bishop Shumar Living Trust Navid Kausar 4084 Zugspitz Way 616 VIA COLMO AVE 509 LAKE HAVASU LN MT CHARLESTON, NV 89124-9210 HENDERSON, NV 89011-0864 BOULDER CITY, NV 89005-1051

Roy Holland Curtis and Susan Anderson Donald and Sharon Brown 84 ZUGSPITZ WY 10981 KEYMAR DR 4063 Zugspitz Way MT CHARLESTON, NV 89124-9141 LAS VEGAS, NV 89135-1718 LAS VEGAS, NV 89124-9210

Dennis and Laura Toya Marshall Family Trust Dennis and Laura Toya 151 ZUGSPITZ WY 4735 ROCKVALE DR 2674 CAUMSETT CT MT CHARLESTON, NV 89124-9141 LAS VEGAS, NV 89103-4761 LAS VEGAS, NV 89117-7624

Diane Flora Mary Martini Samuel Salde and Bernadette Bridger 5116 CHATBURN LN P O BOX 751773 5182 BLISSFUL VALLEY CIR MCKINNEY, TX 75070 LAS VEGAS, 89136-1773 LAS VEGAS, NV 89149-5262

Don Brown and Armida Lopez B. Chue and A. Poon-Chue Richard and LaRue Worthen 3406 WESTLEIGH AVE 1551 CORONA HILL CT 125 WORTHEN CIR LAS VEGAS, NV 89102-1828 LAS VEGAS, NV 89123-6877 LAS VEGAS, NV 89145-4017

Ileana Drobkin Stephen and Crystal Rubyor Barney and Mary Ales 2201 WALDMAN AVE 7956 MARBELLA CIR P O BOX 20563 LAS VEGAS, NV 89102-2456 LAS VEGAS, NV 89128-2801 LAS VEGAS, NV 89112-2563

U.S. National Bank Mont Blanc Trust Rosendo Velazquez 7495 NEW HORIZON WY, MAIL 2657 WINDMILL PKWY #309 1786 CRYSTAL STREAM AVE STOP-NAC #X3902-01F HENDERSON, NV 89074-3384 HENDERSON, NV 89102 FREDERICK, MD 21703-8388

William and Johanna Green Larkin Family Holdings N M G Group LLC 4008 Mont Blanc Way 251 W CHICAGO AVE 9609 VERLAINE CT LAS VEGAS, NV 89124-9216 LAS VEGAS, NV 89102-2804 LAS VEGAS, NV 89145-8694

Kenneth and Mi Matonovich Maria Holton Siegfried Coach and Rosemary Rodman 2329 DELINA DR 15 MONTE BLANC WY 2764 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #294 LAS VEGAS, NV 89134-1832 LAS VEGAS, NV 89124 Henderson, NV 89014

Ernest and Connie Freiggiaro Patrick and Myphuong Clark Martha Brandon 3981 Arleberg Way 2316 SUNRISE MEADOWS DR 73 ARLBERG WY LAS VEGAS, NV 89124-9157 LAS VEGAS, NV 89134-6926 MT. Charleston, NV 89124-9132 Appendix K

Norton and Tammie Roitman Albert and Kan Moreira James Howard 2340 PASEO DEL PRADO #D-307 4020 ZAPOTEC WY 3990 ARLBERG WAY LAS VEGAS, NV 89102-4342 LAS VEGAS, NV 89103-2250 LAS VEGAS, NV 89124

Kathleen Hamers and Lucas Ham Harry WINDHORST F.W. Grimes and Jessy Fadgen 3982 Arlberg Way 3974 Arlberg Way P O BOX 363614 MT CHARLESTON, NV 89124-9157 LAS VEGAS, NV 89124 North LAS VEGAS, NV 89036-7614

Clark County Regional Clark County Public Works Flood Control District U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 7361 W. Charleston Blvd. 600 S. Grand Central Parkway, Suite 300 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89117 ATTN: Mr. Tim Sutko Las Vegas, NV 89130 Las Vegas, NV 89106-4511 Nevada Department of Nevada Department of Wildlife Environmental Protection U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4747 Vegas Drive 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001 75 Hawthorne Street ATTN: Mr. Matt Maples ATTN: Ms. Jean Stone San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 Las Vegas, NV 89108 Carson City, NV 89701-5249 Nevada Department of Nevada State Historic Preservation Office Nevada Department of Transportation Environmental Protection 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 5004 1263 South Stewart Street 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001 ATTN: Mr. Ronald James ATTN: Mr. Steve Cooke ATTN: Jason Ferrin Carson City, NV 89701-5248 Carson City, NV 89712 Carson City, NV 89701-5249

Anthony Pollard JAMES SCAGNELLI Ralph and Anita Carlson P.O. Box 34271 3708 Miguels Lane 7560 Angels Alcove Court Las Vegas, NV 89133 Las Vegas, NV 89120 Las Vegas, NV 89131

Mitzi Dillom‐Goldman, Stephanie Myers, [email protected] Don Aikin, [email protected] [email protected]