NOISE

Would the project result in:	Potentially Significant Impact	Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated	Less-Than-Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?	.	.	x	.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?	.	.	.	x
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?	.	.	x	.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?	.	.	.	x
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?	.	.	.	x
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?	.	.	.	x

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Noise is defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. Airborne sound is described as a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below the atmospheric pressure. The following variables are used to characterize a particular noise: magnitude, frequency, and duration.

This section describes the existing acoustical conditions within the noise-sensitive areas that potentially may be affected by the project. An understanding of the current baseline conditions provides a context against which future changes brought about by the proposed divestiture project can be better evaluated. Any community noise issue can be described in terms of its basic components: the noise source, the sensitive receptor, and the environment between the source and the receptor. Any proposed change that would significantly affect either the amount of noise affecting sensitive land uses or the number of sensitive receptors exposed to it would result in noise-related environmental impacts.

Generally, enforcement authority for environmental noise laws resides with local agencies in the form of the noise element of the general plan and a draft or adopted noise ordinance. Such ordinances and standards often do provide criteria for evaluation of potential intrusive environmental noise, and any facility or operation located within the jurisdiction of a county or city with noise ordinances or standards would be required to comply with the applicable standards.

The generating units and other noise sources are located more than 0.5 miles from any residential or sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, and convalescence homes). SCE reports that no noise-related complaints have been received by the MGS (SCE 1999).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Sale of the MGS
a), b), c), d), e), f) The sale of the facility in and of itself would not cause noise impacts because no physical changes would occur.

Construction of 500 feet of Fence
a) Noise levels would not exceed applicable standards because the equipment to construct the fence would be used for a short duration and would not create noise that could be heard at the plant boundaries.

b) Fence construction would not create excessive groundborne noise or vibration because the equipment and operating procedures do not include activities that would generate substantial ground vibrations.

c) The fence would not have an effect on long-term noise conditions.

d) Fence construction may include temporary increases in ambient noise levels. However, it is not a significant impact because the fence would be installed in an open area away from sensitive noise receptors, construction noise would be temporary, and the machinery and techniques used in installation would not create substantial noise.

e) Not applicable because the project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.

f) Not applicable because the project is not located near a private airstrip.

Continued Existing Operations
a), b), c), d), e), f) Continued operations would not cause new noise impacts because no changes would occur to operations that would generate more noise.

Increased Plant Output by Approximately 10%
a) If an increase in output includes new equipment or longer operational hours for existing equipment, an increase in noise levels may occur. If the increase is in excess of applicable standards, workplace rules would protect workers. Noise would not be expected to result in significant impacts to workers because OSHA standards for industrial facilities would apply and subject to those standards, appropriate personal protective equipment or equipment muffling devices would be employed to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Increased noise from increased operations would be too far away from project boundaries to be audible at the project boundaries. Members of the public would not notice an audible increase in noise at the project boundaries.

b) No expected substantial increase in vibration or sound would emanate from the ground because the facility does not currently produce notable ground vibration and no new equipment that would increase ground vibration would be installed.

c) An increase in output would cause a change in long-term noise levels at the facility. However, it is not known if the noise levels would increase because of new equipment and longer hours or decrease because new equipment would be installed. A decrease would be beneficial and an increase would not be significant because the facility is sufficiently distant from project boundaries as to not be audible there. Industrial safety rules would protect the workers.

d) Noise levels at the project boundary would not be increased either temporarily or periodically by increased output. Noise levels at the facility would either increase or decrease depending upon the type of equipment installed and the number of operational hours.

e) Not applicable because the project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport.

f) Not applicable because the project is not located near a private airstrip.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the proposal have:	Potentially Significant Impact	Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated	Less-Than-Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?	.	.	x	.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?	.	.	.	x
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?	.	.	.	x

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Population
The Mohave Generating Station is located in southern Nevada in Clark County. The estimated population of Nevada as of July 1997 was 1,676,809, and the estimated population for Clark County was 1,106,047. From 1990 to 1997, the population increased 40 percent in the State of Nevada, and 49 percent in Clark County. The population density for Clark County, as of 1992, was 107 people per square mile (SCE 1999).

The community around Mohave is referred to as the Tri-State Area (Nevada, Arizona, and California). Total population of the surrounding communities of Laughlin, Nevada, Bullhead City and Mohave Valley, Arizona, and Needles, California is approximately 65,000. The population varies with winter seasonal visitors. The estimated population for Laughlin in 1996 was 8,100 (SCE 1999).

The estimated labor force in Clark County in 1991 was 406,708 with an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent. The Mohave Generating Station currently employs 354 workers, which represents 0.1 percent of the employed labor force for Clark County (SCE 1999). The work force within Laughlin is estimated to be over 14,000, with a large percentage of the work force residing in Bullhead City and Needles (SCE 1999).

The primary industry in the project area is tourism. There are a total of 11 casinos with approximately 11,000 rooms and four golf courses in the area. Lake Mohave and the Colorado River, which divides Arizona and Nevada, provide an abundance of recreational activities for the area.
The per capita income in Clark County in 1989 was $15,109, and the median household income was $30,746. The average salary for union-represented workers at the Mohave Generating Station was over $49,000 in 1998. Total payroll for the Mohave Generating Station in 1998 was over $19 million (SCE 1999).

Housing
The existing housing stock in Clark County as of 1990 was 317,188, with a vacancy rate of 9.5 percent. Persons per household in Clark County is 2.54. Laughlin has approximately 822 single-family units, 3 mobile homes, 1,152 apartment units, 333 townhomes, and 1,093 condominiums. The vacancy rate is approximately 3 percent for single family units, and 6.5 percent for all other housing units (SCE 1999).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Sale of the MGS
a), b), c) Sale of the MGS itself would not have any physical impacts on the environment because it would only change the owner of the MGS. The sale of the MGS would not induce population growth and would not displace any housing or population.

Construction of 500 feet of Fence
a) Construction of 500 feet of fence is a very small project that is not large enough to induce population growth. Fence construction would not induce population growth.

b) Construction of 500 feet of fence would occur on an existing power plant site where no housing is located. The construction of 500 feet of fence would not result in the loss of any housing.

c) Construction of 500 feet of fence on an existing power plant site where no people currently live would not displace any population or induce population growth elsewhere.

Continued Existing Operations
a), b), c) Continued operation of the MGS would not have any new physical impacts on the environment. The continuation of operations would not induce population growth and would not displace any housing or population.

Increase Plant Output by Approximately 10%
a) Increased output at the MGS could result in a small increase in the amount of coal used that may increase the number of employees slightly at the Peabody Mine. Employment at the MGS would likely not change because current employees could continue to operate the plant. There is sufficient labor in the mine area where unemployment rates are high. The increased job opportunities would not increase population because the existing population would provide sufficient employees for the small increase in job opportunities.

b) Increased plant output would result in increased coal mining rates and operation of the MGS at a higher intensity. No housing is located in the area where the mining occurs and where the plant is located. The increased output of the MGS would therefore not result in any displacement of housing.

c) Increased plant output would result in increased coal mining rates and operation of the MGS at a higher intensity. No people are located at the location where mining would occur and no housing is located on the MGS site. The increased output of the MGS would not result in any displacement of population and no replacement housing would be necessary.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Would this project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Would the project have:	Potentially Significant Impact	Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated	Less-Than-Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Fire protection?	.	.	x	.
b) Police protection?	.	.	x	.
c) Schools?	.	.	x	.
d) Parks?	.	.	x	.
e) Other public facilities?	.	.	x	.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The public services included in this analysis are fire and police protection, schools, public parks, and medical services. This section also includes a discussion regarding tax revenues for Clark County and the fiscal contribution made annually by the MGS.
Two Clark County Fire Stations serve Laughlin. The stations are manned by 45 firefighters, one fire prevention officer, and one chief. They are equipped with one ladder truck, two pumper trucks, one tanker truck, and one rescue unit, all of which are split between the two stations (SCE 1999).

The Metropolitan Police Department provides basic law enforcement for Laughlin. The Department has a staff of 12 patrol officers, one detective, three sergeants, and one lieutenant (SCE 1999).

Schools that currently serve the Laughlin area include Bennett Elementary School for grades kindergarten through fifth, Laughlin High School for grades sixth through twelfth, and Community College of Southern Nevada. Bennett Elementary currently enrolls 393 students and is operating below capacity. Laughlin High currently has 428 students enrolled and is also operating below capacity.

The Clark County Parks and Recreation Department manages two parks in Laughlin. Sportsman’s Park is a special use facility operated as a recreational vehicle and camping site. The park has access to the Colorado River for fishing and picnic areas for public use. The second park, Mountain View Park, opened in 1995 on land licensed by the MGS owners. The park has picnic areas, ball fields, tennis courts, and a Senior Center and Boys and Girls Club facilities. A new State Park is currently under construction and is located on the Colorado River to the southwest of the project site.

Medical service is provided by the Laughlin Medical Center, which is a walk-in clinic with two doctors. The nearest hospital is Arizona Western Regional Medical Center located approximately six miles away.

The MGS contributes $11.4 million each year in Nevada taxes. In addition, the plant and its employees contribute to state and local taxes and local commerce resulting from purchases. In 1996, the MGS purchased nearly $26 million in goods and services from vendors and contractors throughout Arizona, Nevada, and California. Typical supplies and services purchased locally included welding supplies, locksmith services, equipment rentals, valve supplies, and electrical parts.

The MGS is fueled by low-sulfur coal from the Peabody Western Coal Company's (Peabody’s) Black Mesa Mine located on the Navajo and Hopi reservations. The mine has a work force of 300 whose employment is directly related to the operations of the MGS. Peabody is the single largest private employer on the Navajo reservation, with the 1998 payroll for the Black Mesa Mine totaling $21.1 million. The Black Mesa Mine pays over $42 million annually to outside vendors for supplies and services. Also, the Black Mesa Mine pays taxes, royalties, and water payments to the Navajo ($15.3 million in 1996) and Hopi tribes ($3.6 million in 1996), which support many tribal programs on the reservations. In addition, the Black Mesa Mine contributed $4.2 million in Arizona state and local taxes in 1998 (SCE 1999).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Sale of the MGS
a), b), c), d), e) Sale of the MGS itself will not have any physical impacts on the environment because it will only change the owner of the MGS. Therefore, the sale of the MGS will not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.

Construction of 500 feet of Fencing
a) Construction of 500 feet of fencing could create a short-term need for additional workers at the site during fence construction. The additional personnel could cause a negligible increase in the likelihood of fires or accidents on or near the site that would necessitate response from fire or rescue personnel, but only during the short period when the fence is under construction. The existing fire stations could provide adequate response. Fence construction would not require new or altered fire protection facilities and would thus have a less-than-significant effect on fire protection facilities. The fence itself would have no effect on fire protection.

b) Construction of 500 feet of fencing could create a short-term need for additional workers at the site during fence construction. The additional personnel could cause a negligible increase in the likelihood of events on or near the site requiring police response, but only during the short period when the fence is under construction. The existing police department could provide adequate response. Fence construction would thus not require new or altered police protection facilities and would thus have a less-than-significant effect on police protection facilities. The fence itself would have no effect on police protection.

c), d) Fence construction would only create a short-term need for a small number of workers at the site. The small number of workers and the temporary nature of the work would not create an increased need for school or park facilities. The fence itself would have no effect on schools or parks.

e) Construction of 500 feet of fencing could create a short-term need for additional workers at the site during fence construction. The additional personnel could cause a negligible increase in the likelihood of accidents on or near the site resulting in a need for medical services, but only during the short period when the fence is under construction. The existing clinic and hospital could adequately serve this temporary need. Fence construction would not require new or altered medical facilities and would have a less-than-significant effect on other public facilities. The fence itself would have no effect on other public facilities.

Continued Existing Operations
a), b), c), d), e) Continued operation of the MGS will not have any new physical impacts on the environment. Therefore, the continuation of operations will not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.

Increased Plant Output by Approximately 10%
a) Increase in generation at the MGS would result in a more intense use of the MGS. This increased use of the MGS could create a long-term need for a small number of additional employees. The small number of additional workers and increased intensity of use could create a slight increase in the likelihood of fires or accidents that would necessitate response from the fire or rescue personnel. Any such demand would not be substantial, and the existing fire stations could provide adequate response. Increasing plant output would not require new or altered fire protection facilities and would thus have a less-than-significant effect on fire protection facilities.

b) Increase in generation at the MGS would result in a more intense use of the MGS. This increased use of the MGS could create a long-term need for a small number of additional employees. The small number of additional workers and increased intensity of use could create a slight increase in the likelihood of events requiring police response. Any such demand would not be substantial, and the existing police department could provide adequate response. Increasing plant output would not require new or altered police protection facilities and would thus have a less-than-significant effect on police protection facilities.

c), d) Increase in generation at the MGS would result in a more intense use of the MGS, which could create a long-term need for a small number of additional employees. The small number of additional workers and their families would likely reside in the Laughlin area, creating a negligible increase in the demand for parks and schools. Bennett Elementary School and Laughlin High School are currently operating below capacity and could accommodate this small number of new students. Likewise, park facilities that are currently available or under construction would accommodate this minor potential increase in demand. Increasing plant output would not require new or altered school or park facilities and would thus have a less-than-significant effect on such facilities.

e) Increase in generation at the MGS would result in a more intense use of the MGS. This increased use of the MGS could create a long-term need for a small number of additional employees. The small number of additional workers and increased intensity of use could create a slight increase in the need for medical services. Any such demand would not be substantial, and the existing clinic and hospital could adequately serve this need. Increasing plant output would not require new or altered medical facilities and would thus have a less-than-significant effect on other public facilities.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

RECREATION

Would the project have:	Potentially Significant Impact	Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated	Less-Than-Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?	.	.	x	.
Does the project:
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?	.	.	.	x

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Recreation resources are areas designated for the enjoyment and relaxation of residents of the region and visitors to the area. They include lands that are formally managed (such as neighborhood parks and recreation sites) and other public lands and waters where dispersed activities take place (such as sightseeing, hiking, off-road vehicle travel, fishing, pleasure boating, etc.). The recreation resources in the project area consist of neighborhood parks and ball fields, as well as public lands and waters where dispersed recreation activities occur.

Casual or dispersed recreation is the principal opportunity available to visitors on BLM lands in the project area. These opportunities include photography, off-road vehicle use, hiking, picnicking, bird watching, rock climbing, primitive camping, nature study, and general sight seeing. Off-road vehicle use accounts for the greatest single recreational use of public lands.

The Colorado River and the Lake Mead National Recreation Area also offer water-based recreational opportunities, such as fishing, pleasure boating, sightseeing, swimming, and sun bathing. The Lake Mead National Recreation Area also provides managed campsites and boat launch areas. A new state park is currently under construction and is located on the Colorado River to the southwest of the project site.

The Clark County Parks and Recreation Department manages two parks in Laughlin. Sportsman’s Park is a special-use facility operated as a recreational vehicle and camping site. The park has access to the Colorado River for fishing and picnic areas for public use.

The other park is Mountain View Park. The current owners of the MGS are currently licensing approximately 17.49 acres of land to Clark County Parks and Recreation Department for Mountain View Park. The park opened in 1995 on land owned by the MGS owners. The park has picnic areas, ball fields, tennis courts, a senior center, police sub-station, and Boys and Girls Club facilities. Clark County has requested a donation of an additional four acres adjacent to Mountain View Park for the construction of a child development center and possibly a swimming pool. The MGS also has ball fields that are used by the community when ball fields at Mountain View Park are fully utilized.

Mountain View Park is operated under a license agreement, between the MGS owners and Clark County Parks and Recreation Department, set to expire on October 31, 2000. Currently, the license can be voided by either party at any time with a 12-month written notice.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Sale of the MGS
a), b) The proposed sale itself would not result in a substantial increase in employment at the MGS. Consequently, there would be no population increase that would affect recreation resources.

In the past, the MGS owners have expressed a willingness to extend the existing arrangement on generally the same terms as exist today. Future use of these two sites (Mountain View Park and the ball fields) would be at the discretion of the new owner. There is no reason to believe that the sale of the MGS will make a change in the park facilities more likely.

Construction of 500 feet of Fence
a), b) Construction of fencing on the MGS would have no impact on recreation because the proposed fence is in the industrial area of the facility. Should additional workers be needed for the fence project, the increase would be very small and temporary and would thus not create a need for additional recreational facilities.

Continued Existing Operations
a), b) Continuation of existing operations would maintain the existing level of recreational use by the MGS employees and their families at the local recreational facilities. No effects to recreational resources would occur.

Increased Plant Output by Approximately 10%
a) Increasing output may reduce the use of recreational facilities if the number of hours worked by employees increases. Recreation use may increase if more workers are hired and use the area for recreation. Both of these effects are negligible and do not rise to the level of significance.

b) Increased plant output would not result in increased recreational facilities that could affect the environment.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

Would the project have:	Potentially Significant Impact	Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated	Less-Than-Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Cause increased traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?	.	.	x	.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated road or highways?	.	.	x	.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?	.	.	.	x
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?	.	.	x	.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?	.	.	.	x
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?	.	.	x	.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?	.	.	.	x

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Access into the Laughlin area is provided by Nevada State Highway 163, which runs in an east-west direction and connects Laughlin to Arizona and the Needles Highway that provides north-south access. The Laughlin Bridge crosses the Colorado River in northern Laughlin, providing access from Bullhead City, Arizona and other points to the east. Approximately 35,000 vehicles per day enter and leave the town of Laughlin on these roads (SCE 1999).

There are five internal roads that comprise the major road network in Laughlin: Casino Drive, Laughlin Civic Drive, Big Bend Drive, Desert Drive, and Edison Way. Laughlin Civic Drive is a diagonal road that connects State Highway 163 and Casino Drive. Big Bend Drive parallels Casino Drive from Laughlin Civic Drive to the vicinity of Harrah’s Casino. Edison Way and Desert Drive combine east-west access between the Needles Highway and Casino Drive.

The MGS is accessible from Needles Highway, Edison Way, and Desert Drive. Three roads provide access into the MGS from these public roads. The first begins at the intersection of the public portion of Edison Way and Desert Road. This is a two-lane, half-mile long, paved roadway. The road ends at the main MGS security gate. This road is curbed and usable by heavy truck traffic. The second road begins just west of the first on Desert Road and ends at the entrance to the contractor parking lot in the MGS. This is a two-lane, paved roadway approximately one-quarter mile in length. The third is an unpaved road between Desert Road and the contractor parking lot. This road is used only intermittently.

The ability of a roadway to handle prevailing traffic volumes is expressed in terms of level of service (LOS), which is the most common method to evaluate traffic impacts. LOS ranges from "A" (representing free flow conditions) to "F" (representing extreme traffic conditions). No roads in the study area are operating at a LOS of "C" or lower.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Sale of the MGS
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The sale itself would only result in a change of ownership and no effects to transportation or traffic would occur.

Construction of 500 feet of Fence
a) Construction of 500 feet of fencing would generate a small amount of traffic moving materials, equipment and workers to and from the project site. This traffic would be temporary and would generate less than 10 trips per day on average. This temporary and small increase in traffic would be less-than-significant.

b) Construction of 500 feet of fencing would generate a small amount of traffic moving materials, equipment and workers to and from the project site. This traffic would be temporary and would generate less than 10 trips per day on average. The proposed sale would not by itself or cumulatively result in a change in LOS and would not violate any LOS standard. This temporary and small increase in traffic would be less than significant.

c) The construction of 500 feet of fence at the MGS would not affect air traffic patterns.

d) No new roads would be constructed as a result of the fence construction and so no new increase in safety hazards due to design features or incompatible uses would be created.

e) The construction of 500 feet of fence would include a gate to access the switching yard. No additional new emergency access would be required to access the switching yard.

f) The construction of 500 feet of fence would not result in a need for any new permanent parking. Existing parking capacity would be adequate; therefore, the project would not result in any need for additional parking capacity.
g) Construction of 500 feet of fence on an existing industrial facility site would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

Continued Existing Operations
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) Continuation of existing operations would not result in any new physical impacts or changes. Therefore, the continuation of existing uses would not result in any increase in traffic, exceed any LOS standard, changes in air traffic patterns, increased hazards, or inadequate emergency access or parking and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

Increased Plant Output by Approximately 10%
a) Increased output at the MGS would result in an increase in the rate of coal mining and more intense operation of the plant. Some relatively minor improvements may occur at the MGS to increase generation. Increased operations at the mine may result in an incremental increase in traffic for more employees going to and leaving work at the mine. This increase in traffic in Arizona where the mine is located would likely be relatively small and existing streets would have adequate capacity to accommodate this small incremental increase in traffic.

Increased fuel use would not result in increased traffic to transport the fuel because the fuel is transported to the MGS in a coal slurry pipeline.

Increased operation at the MGS may result in a small increase in employment at the MGS. There would likely be less than 10 new employees that could generate less than 20 vehicle trips per day. Installation of improvements to increase output would result in temporary increases in traffic as workers making the improvements and equipment are transported to and from the site. Traffic associated with improvements would be temporary, lasting only while improvements are made and are expected to be less than 100 vehicle trips per day. It is unlikely that this amount of traffic would be sufficient to noticeably change the existing traffic load and affect street capacity.

b) Project traffic would be expected to be minor and all roads are operating at a high LOS ("B" or higher). The small amount of additional traffic generated by new employees would be insufficient to result in reducing the LOS on area roadways.

c) The increased generation of power at the MGS may result in increased use of coal and operation of the power plant. This would not change any air traffic patterns.

d) No new roads would be constructed and so no new hazards due to design features would be created.

e) Emergency access at the MGS is adequate and would not be affected by the minor changes that might result from increasing plant output.

f) The potential increase in employment at the MGS may generate additional need for parking. The project site is large enough to accommodate the small number of vehicles from new employees and workers. Therefore, no significant impact on parking would be expected.
g) The increase in generation would not conflict with any policies, plans, and programs in adopted transportation plans because it does nothing to affect those plans.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

UTILTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project have:	Potentially Significant Impact	Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated	Less-Than-Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?	.	.	.	x
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?	.	.	.	x
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?	.	.	.	x
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?	.	.	.	x
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?	.	.	.	x
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?	.	.	.	x
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?	.	.	.	x

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Utilities at the MGS include potable water, electric power, communications, and sewage treatment and disposal. Domestic (potable) water is provided by treating makeup water from the Colorado River. The plant has an average requirement of 15,000 acre-feet of water per year for plant cooling, process water, and domestic water purposes. Electric power is provided by the station’s auxiliary grid. If both units are off-line, power is supplied from the 500 kV transmission system. In an emergency, power can be supplied from NPC’s 69 kV system. Remote locations are supplied off the NPC’s distribution system. Telephone service is provided by Sprint of Las Vegas.

Sanitary sewage is processed through an on-site sewage treatment plant. The sanitary sewage disposal facility for the site consists of a sewage treatment plant and piping system. Sewage from the powerblock and all other buildings with restroom facilities flows through cast iron piping into a common pre-cast manhole. The manhole discharges by gravity into the treatment plant located 10-feet below grade. Three life stations serve the more remote facilities located just west of the training facility, just west of the East Maintenance Building, and southeast of the Mobile Equipment Repair Facility. The treatment plant is an aerobic digestion treatment system with a capacity of 30,000 gallons per day. This capacity is adequate for normal use and the periodic increased use during periods of major maintenance and associated increases in plant personnel. Effluent from the treatment plant flows into a 48-inch diameter concrete treatment sump and pumped from the sump through a 6-inch diameter pipe to an evaporation pond.

At the Mohave Generating Station, combustion waste in the form of fly ash from the plant is disposed of in a 360-acre canyon located in the southern portion of the property. The disposal site is permitted as a Class III disposal area and is not permitted for the disposal of hazardous material.

Silver State Disposal provides solid waste disposal service to Laughlin, and Silver State Disposal operates the Laughlin Landfill and a transfer station. Both facilities are open to the public for general waste disposal.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Sale of the MGS
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The sale of the MGS itself would result in a change of ownership and would not result in any direct physical changes to the site. The existing utilities and service systems provided to the MGS are adequate to meet the plant's existing needs. A transfer in ownership would not result in a significant change in operations that would require additional utilities. Therefore, no impacts to utilities and service systems would occur.

Construction of 500 feet of Fence
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The utilities and service systems currently serving the MGS are adequate for normal use and increased use that might occur during the fence construction. The construction of the fence would not require utilities and service systems beyond those that already exist at the MGS. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Continued Existing Operations
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The existing utilities and service systems provided to the MGS are adequate to meet the plant's existing needs. Continued existing operations would not impact the utilities and service systems that exist at the MGS.

Increased Plant Output by Approximately 10%
a) Increasing the facility’s output may involve the acquisition of new equipment, increased operational time of the existing equipment, or a change in maintenance practices. A minimal amount of new personnel may need to be employed for the increase. The increase in personnel would not cause the MGS to exceed its wastewater treatment requirements because a significant increase in wastewater generation would not be expected. The MGS’s existing treatment facilities could continue to adequately handle the small increase in wastewater.

b) Increasing the facility’s output may require more water to be supplied to the MGS. The increased need for water is not expected to require or result in the construction of a new water treatment plant or expansion of existing facilities because the existing facility would be able to meet the water treatment needs. The increased output would not result in the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility because the existing facility would be adequate for the small increase in personnel.

c) Increasing the facility’s output may involve the acquisition of new equipment, increased operational time of the existing equipment, or a change in maintenance practices. These methods of increasing output would not be expected to create a need for the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities because they would not create significant new impervious surface at the site.

d) Increasing the facility’s output may require more water to be supplied to the MGS. The increased need for water is expected to be minimal and to be met by existing entitlements. Generation at the MGS would be curtailed to avoid exceeding the MGS Colorado River water allotment.

e) The existing on-site sewage treatment plant, evaporation pond, and associated infrastructure at the MGS would adequately serve any minor increases in plant personnel that might occur due to an output increase. No additional capacity would be needed.

f) Increasing the facility’s output would not create a significant increase in solid waste. The landfill that serves the MGS has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the small increase in solid waste from increased facility output.

g) The increase in facility output scenario would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.


MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Does the project have:	Potentially Significant Impact	Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated	Less-Than-Significant Impact	No Impact
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?	.	x	.	.
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)	.	.	x	.
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?	.	.	.	x

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a) The proposed valuation project could result in the addition of approximately 500 feet of fencing to an existing fence that separates the 500-kV switchyard from the remaining station, but this change would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment. Related actions include an increase in generation. The project and related actions would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. The desert tortoise, a federally listed species, could be impacted, but the impact would not be significant because of the habitat fee that would be paid in accordance with the HCP. No important examples of history or prehistory would be affected.

b) Project impacts are generally minor and can all be mitigated to a less than significant level. The only probable future project identified in addition to the MGS project are the improvements by Clark County proposed on a four acre site on the MGS property adjacent to the existing park. The site has not yet been secured; Clark County is interested in leasing an additional four acres from the MGS owners, but it is not certain that this will occur. In the event that the land were made available to Clark County and that this proposal were to proceed, the improvements would consist of a child development center and a swimming pool. No other information about these facilities has been developed because these facilities are in their initial planning stages.

The impacts of the construction of a swimming pool and child development center on four acres are expected to be relatively minor. The most likely environmental factor where the child development center and pool could result in environmental impacts is biology. Desert tortoises may occur in the area. The Clark County Desert Conservation Plan addresses this species and provides mitigation for impacts to the species that occur on private lands. Impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated with this project.

The minor impacts associated with a child development center and swimming pool, when combined with the minor impacts of the project are not expected to result in any significant impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated.

c) The proposed project and related actions would not have any direct or indirect environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.