United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office August 2007 Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 Environmental Assessment NV-2006-292 Reid Gardner Facility Pond and Landfill Expansion Project Moapa, Nevada DRAFT Case File # N-82003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Nevada Power Company (NPC) operates the Reid Gardner Generating Facility (Facility) in Moapa, Nevada. The Facility is a coal-fired electric generation station producing nominally 557 megawatts (MW) of total electrical output. NPC is requesting a right-of-way (ROW) grant from the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Las Vegas Field Office to construct, maintain and operate new evaporation ponds and a new solid waste landfill for combustion wastes produced at the plant (Proposed Action). The purpose of the Proposed Action is to maintain the effective management of the wastewater evaporation process, and to provide adequate landfill space for fly ash, bottom ash and solids from the evaporation ponds in order to allow the Facility to continue to supply power to customers in Southern Nevada. The Proposed Action would occur within a 560-acre project area and would result in disturbance of approximately 444 acres within this project area. This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental effects of the Reid Gardner Expansion Project. Numerous agencies were invited to participate in the EA process as cooperating agencies; to date these agencies have declined to participate as a cooperating agency for this project. To support preparation of this EA, the BLM solicited input from the public to help identify issues and concerns that should be addressed in the document. As part of the scoping process, the BLM conducted two public meetings and attended one meeting with the Moapa Band of Paiutes. Approximately 55 comment letters and forms were received as a result of public scoping. The primary concerns raised were over air quality and public health and safety. In most instances health concerns were related to effects from emissions from the existing Facility rather than effects of the Proposed Action. The EA considers several alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. Alternatives considered but not carried forward for analysis in the EA include fly ash sales, covering the ponds, building deeper ponds and fly ash landfill, underground injection of wastewater, construction of a slurry disposal reservoir, use of scrubber waste to make gypsum board, locating the Proposed Action south of the existing Facility in Sections 16, 17, and 18, locating the Proposed Action north of the existing Facility, utilizing Section 5 for ponds and Section 8 for landfill, finding an alternative location for the landfill and continue to use existing ponds, and transporting solids off-site. As part of the Proposed Action, NPC has incorporated environmental protection measures and management practices into the Proposed Action. The implementation of environmental protection measures and management practices, along with the implementation of protocols and measures mandated by the BLM and Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), have minimized potential impacts to the environment. NEVADA POWER COMPANY –REID GARDNER FACILITY POND AND LANDFILL EXPANSION PROJECT AUGUST 2007 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NV-2006-292; CASE FILE N-82003 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED........................................................1 1.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................2 1.3 NEED FOR AGENCY ACTION..........................................................................2 1.4 CONFORMANCE WITH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................2 1.5 OTHER REGULATORY ACTIONS REQUIRED............................................3 1.6 PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS............................................................................3 1.6.1 SCOPING AND ISSUE IDENTIFICATION............................................................3 1.6.2 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION .............................................................4 1.6.3 COOPERATING AGENCIES..............................................................................4 1.6.4 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING ...........................................................................4 1.6.5 SUMMARY OF SCOPING ISSUES .....................................................................5 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................6 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION...........................................................................................6 2.1.1 LANDFILL......................................................................................................6 2.1.2 EVAPORATION PONDS.................................................................................11 2.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES ................................................14 2.2 PROCESS OF ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT......................................18 2.3 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE..........................................................................18 2.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD ..........................................................................................................18 2.4.1 FLY ASH SALES ..........................................................................................18 2.4.2 COVER PONDS.............................................................................................19 2.4.3 BUILD DEEPER PONDS AND FLY ASH LANDFILL.........................................20 2.4.4 UNDERGROUND INJECTION .........................................................................20 2.4.5 SLURRY DISPOSAL RESERVOIR ...................................................................20 2.4.6 USE SCRUBBER WASTE TO MAKE GYPSUM BOARD....................................22 2.4.7 LOCATE PROPOSED FACILITIES SOUTH OF FACILITY (SECTIONS 16, 17, 18)22 2.4.8 LOCATE PROPOSED FACILITIES NORTHEAST OF FACILITY ..........................23 2.4.9 UTILIZE SECTION 5 FOR PONDS AND SECTION 8 FOR LANDFILL ..................24 2.4.10 NEW LOCATION FOR LANDFILL AND CONTINUE TO USE EXISTING PONDS .24 2.4.11 TRANSPORT OF SOLIDS OFF-SITE ................................................................25 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................26 3.1 GENERAL SETTING.........................................................................................26 3.2 CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT....................26 3.2.1 AIR QUALITY ..............................................................................................26 3.2.1.1 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................26 3.2.1.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.......................................27 3.2.1.3 Fugitive Emissions.........................................................................27 3.2.1.4 Prevention of Significant Deterioration.........................................28 3.2.2 CLIMATE.....................................................................................................28 3.2.2.1 Wind Conditions ............................................................................28 NEVADA POWER COMPANY –REID GARDNER FACILITY POND AND LANDFILL EXPANSION PROJECT AUGUST 2007 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NV-2006-292; CASE FILE N-82003 ii 3.2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................28 3.2.3.1 Reid Gardner Facility.....................................................................29 3.2.4 CULTURAL,PALEONTOLOGICAL, AND HISTORICAL RESOURCE VALUES.....32 3.2.5 MIGRATORY BIRDS .....................................................................................33 3.2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..........................................................................33 3.2.7 PRIME OR UNIQUE FARMLANDS..................................................................34 3.2.8 INVASIVE,NON-NATIVE SPECIES.................................................................34 3.2.9 NATIVE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS CONCERNS.................................................34 3.2.10 THREATENED,ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE..................35 3.2.11 THREATENED,ENDANGERED,AND SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS ....................37 3.2.12 WASTES,HAZARDOUS OR SOLID ................................................................38 3.2.13 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................39 3.2.14 FLOODPLAINS .............................................................................................41 3.2.15 WETLANDS/RIPARIAN AND WATERS OF THE U.S........................................41 3.2.16 WILDERNESS VALUES AND AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN....................................................................................................42 3.2.17 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS..........................................................................43 3.3 NON-CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT..........43 3.3.1 GEOLOGY AND MINERALS..........................................................................43 3.3.2 LAND USE...................................................................................................44 3.3.3 SOCIAL AND