FEIS Vol 3, Part 4: Chap 8 Transportion Modes, Routes, Affected Environment, and Impacts, (part c)

Return to the Main Document

8.11.1 (6645)
Comment - EIS001878 / 0034
The land use descriptions for the rail corridors in Nevada are inadequate. (p. 3-101 to -103) The land use regions of influence are narrowly drawn (limited only to disturbed lands and changes in ownership), and the only information provided for the Carlin corridor (for example) is the amount of public and private land. Although the DEIS says that "detailed information on land use is available" in other documents, it fails to describe their contents even briefly, as required by 40 CFR 1502.21. According to testimony before the DOE at the Crescent Valley public hearing on December 9, 1999, the description in the DEIS of existing land uses is inadequate and inaccurate. On page 6-61, the DEIS names two towns, Gold Acres and Tenabo, that are not presently inhabited, witnesses said.

Response
Section 3.2.2.1 of the EIS provides the baseline environmental information for assessing the potential impacts of implementing Nevada rail implementing alternatives. The more notable land-use features and potential influences that exist or could exist on lands within the corridors are presented in Chapter 6. For example, the land features within the Carlin Corridor are presented in Section 6.3.2.2.2.

The listing of communities in Section 6.3.2.2.2 of the EIS served two purposes: (1) to identify potentially affected communities, and (2) as map references points. Gold Acres and Tenabo are historic reference points in the vicinity of the Carlin Corridor.

In its assessment of potential land-use impacts, DOE considered the differences between land-use types, land disturbances, land ownership, and the creation of barriers. The assessment compared proposed use of land for Yucca Mountain transportation purposes to existing or other proposed land uses to estimate the magnitude and context of potential conflicts. If an action would result in continuing a current land use either due to little or no impact or through mitigation, the effects were considered insignificant or small. For example, as discussed in Chapter 6, the impacts to livestock and Bureau of Land Management grazing allotments could be mitigated through the use of fencing, overpasses, and underpasses, which could provide a water source to animals cut off from current sources. By providing these mitigating measures, the impacts would be lessened and considered small. If an action could result in departures from existing uses, and mitigation could not remedy the conflict, the effects could be more substantial. Factors considered included the uniqueness of a geographic area; presence of historic, scientific, and cultural resources; potential effects on endangered species; and compliance with Federal, State, or local law.

As described in the introduction to Chapter 6, in response to interest and suggestions by the public and to better describe potential impacts of transportation alternatives in Nevada, DOE modified analyses and presentations of impacts in the EIS. For example, additional details, when available, and evaluations are included for wilderness study areas, grazing allotments, sensitive biological resources, management areas, cultural resources, and hydrologic resources.

DOE has identified mostly rail as its preferred mode of transportation, both nationally and in Nevada. At this time, however, the Department has not identified a preference among the five candidate rail corridors in Nevada. Should the branch rail line implementing alternative be selected and a preferred rail corridor identified, additional engineering and environmental studies would be conducted as a basis for detailed design and for appropriate National Environmental Policy Act reviews. During this process, DOE would initiate consultations with responsible local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies, landowners, and other stakeholders to identify, acquire, and evaluate additional information and develop mitigative actions necessary to minimize potential impacts, including land use.

8.11.1 (6679)
Comment - EIS001878 / 0051
The DEIS fails to analyze impacts of the proposed action on agriculture in Nevada and specifically Eureka County. Many residents of Eureka County depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. The BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the U.S. Forest Service administer numerous grazing allotments that are leased to ranchers in Eureka County and neighboring counties. The DEIS says that the Carlin corridor would cross 12 allotments, that construction of the rail line would require "conversion of land" within those allotments, but that "functionality" would not be affected. (p. 6-61) These statements are vague and unsupported by any evidence.

The DEIS must disclose the impacts upon Eureka County agriculture of: (1) conversion of water rights or agricultural land to other uses, (2) fragmentation of range or grazing allotments, (3) damage to forage from land disturbance, introduction of weeds, increased wildfire, or other factors, (4) restrictions on livestock movement, (5) loss of water supplies, or restricted access to water supplies, (6) loss of livestock hit by trains or other motor vehicles, and the associated public safety implications, (7) changes in value of agricultural lands or permits, (8) changes in the costs of agricultural production, and (9) increases in harassment of livestock. The impact analysis must address both construction and operation of fences, water wells, the railroad bed and tracks, and access roads along and perpendicular to the tracks. The DEIS must also disclose whether fragmentation of grazing allotments or changes in values of agricultural lands and associated appurtenances would be a taking of private property rights requiring compensation under the Constitution of the United States.

Regarding fences, testimony at the public hearing before the DOE at Crescent Valley on December 9, 1999, indicated that numerous railroad right-of-way fences were destroyed during recent range fires in Eureka County and neighboring counties, and that requests by the Board of Eureka County Commissioners to the railroads to repair the fences have not been filled. Thus, the DEIS must disclose how fences will be maintained, as well as the possible impacts on agriculture from poorly maintained right-of-way fences.

Response
Section 6.3.2.2.2 of the EIS discusses the potential impacts specific to the Carlin Corridor. For example, the land-use section lists the 12 grazing allotments that the corridor crosses. The EIS determines that a rail line could create a barrier to livestock movement, and quantitatively addresses the acres of grazing lands potentially affected by candidate rail corridors.

If the Carlin Corridor was selected for construction of a branch rail line, DOE would conduct field studies along the corridor that would identify specific land uses to be avoided. DOE would avoid land-use impacts and private land to the maximum possible extent. For example, access to grazing areas, forage, and water could be addressed in the early design phase of the rail corridor/alignment. This process would address Bureau of Land Management’s standard operating procedures for rights-of-way, construction and operation. Water wells would be required along the rail corridor in some areas for soil compaction and dust control during rail construction. It could be possible to improve grazing allotments if the Bureau permitted the use of this water for grazing. Grazing allotment access can be accomplished by designing at-grade structures to permit cattle to cross underneath the railbed. DOE would be responsible for track maintenance, including fencing.

8.11.1 (6691)
Comment - EIS001878 / 0060
The DEIS fails to adequately address the impacts of the proposed action on land use and community development in Eureka County. (pp. 6-36, -43, -44, -60) Impacts on land use would extend far beyond a 60-meter construction zone or a 400-meter corridor with construction camps. (p. 6-44) Almost 60 percent of the assessed private parcels of land in Eureka County are within 10 miles of the Carlin rail corridor, which would affect 1,730 acres of private land along its length. (p. 6-7) (See Exhibit G.) County residents also use public lands for mining, agriculture, and other uses. Eureka County’s Master Plan (January 1997) and its Land Use Element (July 1998) identify land use issues of concern to county residents, including (among others):

The protection of private property rights and the value of land assets;
The fiscal, agricultural, and groundwater impacts from parcelization of land; and
The need to acquire land from the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] for community expansion, to increase the amount of private land, and to ease restrictions on the use of federal lands.

The goals and policies of the Land Use Element:

Discourage federal actions that threaten to impair the use or value of private property rights;
Encourage the transfer of public land to private ownership; and discourage transfer of private land to public ownership.

The DEIS fails to describe the Eureka County Master Plan and its land use element, and fails to evaluate whether the proposed action conflicts with its policies. The DOE appears to assume that land uses of rural residents are not significant, while land uses by federal agencies are. The DEIS must disclose and evaluate: (1) the DOE’s planned use, if any, of eminent domain to take private land for the rail corridor, (2) the effect of the proposed action on private property values, including the effects of perceived risk and stigmatization and the effects of improved or restricted access to private property, and (3) the potential growth-inducing effects of the proposed action, and whether it would result in additional parcelization of private land. The DEIS must also disclose whether changes in values of private lands affected by a rail corridor would be a taking of private property rights requiring compensation under the Constitution of the United States.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Action. In addition, the EIS provides the environmental impact information necessary to make certain broad transportation-related decisions, namely the choice of a national mode of transportation outside Nevada (mostly rail or mostly legal-weight truck), the choice among alternative transportation modes in Nevada (mostly rail, mostly legal-weight truck, or heavy-haul truck with use of an associated intermodal transfer station), and the choice among alternative rail corridors or heavy-haul truck routes with use of an associated intermodal transfer station in Nevada.

DOE has identified mostly rail as its preferred mode of transportation, both nationally and in Nevada. At this time, however, the Department has not identified a preference among the five candidate rail corridors in Nevada. Should the branch rail line implementing alternative and the Carlin Corridor be selected, additional engineering and environmental studies would be conducted as a basis for detailed design and for appropriate National Environmental Policy Act reviews. During this process, DOE would initiate consultations with responsible local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies, landowners, and other stakeholders to identify, acquire, and evaluate additional information and develop mitigative actions necessary to minimize potential impacts, including land use.

Specifically, Section 6.3.2.2 of the EIS notes that the branch rail lines would require conversion of land within existing grazing allotments. DOE expects the potential impacts of construction to have a greater effect upon grazing lands than would operations. During the construction phase, it could be difficult for cattle to access water if the construction zone divided the grazing allotment. Construction activity and temporary camps with the presence of construction crews could result in disrupting ranch operations and livestock rotations. There is a possibility that some livestock could be killed along roads used during construction.

DOE, however, expects that after construction, operational impacts would be less even though the branch rail lines could divide some grazing lands. Input received by DOE from the Bureau of Land Management indicates that dividing grazing lands would result in a small loss of animal unit months in large allotments but would be unlikely to affect ranch operations. The loss of animal unit months in small allotments could affect the grazing permittee’s operation. The Bureau also indicated that if a branch rail line divided an allotment into separate pastures, such pastures could provide an opportunity to rotate grazing area use, allowing for new grazing management options. This opportunity could benefit livestock and vegetation management.

If the Carlin Corridor was selected for construction of a branch rail line, DOE would conduct field studies along the corridor that would identify specific land uses to be avoided. DOE would avoid land-use impacts and private land to the maximum possible extent. For example, access to grazing areas, forage, and water could be addressed in the early design phase of the rail corridor/alignment. This process would address Bureau of Land Management standard operating procedures for rights-of-way, construction and operation. Water wells would be required along the rail corridor in some areas for soil compaction and dust control during rail construction. As indicated in Section 9.3.1 of the EIS, DOE would evaluate appropriate mitigation actions that specifically address access to publicly owned lands, including grazing permits and leases. These actions could include providing access to lands on both sides of a branch rail line with underpasses and assisting in providing water should there be a need. It could be possible to improve grazing allotments if the Bureau permitted the use of this water for grazing.

Regarding private property along the rail corridor, DOE is required to use fair market value in the acquisition of real property. DOE must comply with the policies contained in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Title III, which includes the provision that the Agency (DOE) offer just compensation.

In light of the comments received on the Draft EIS concerning perceived risk, DOE examined relevant studies and literature on perceived risk and stigmatization of communities to determine whether the state-of-the-science in predicting future behavior based on perceptions had advanced sufficiently since scoping to allow DOE to quantify the impact of public risk perception on economic development or property values in potentially affected communities (see Section 2.5.4 and Appendix N of the EIS). Of particular interest were those scientific and social studies carried out in the past few years that directly relate to either Yucca Mountain or to DOE actions such as the transportation of foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel. DOE reevaluated the conclusions of previous literature reviews such as those conducted by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the State of Nevada, among others. DOE has concluded that:

While in some instances risk perceptions could result in adverse impacts on portions of a local economy, there are no reliable methods whereby such impacts could be predicted with any degree of certainty
Much of the uncertainty is irreducible, and
Based on a qualitative analysis, adverse impacts from perceptions of risk would be unlikely or relatively small.

While stigmatization of southern Nevada can be envisioned under some scenarios, it is not inevitable or numerically predictable. Any such stigmatization would likely be an aftereffect of unpredictable future events, such as accidents, which would not be expected to occur. As a consequence, DOE addressed but did not attempt to quantify any potential for impacts from risk perceptions or stigma in this Final EIS.

8.11.1 (6702)
Comment - EIS001878 / 0068
The DEIS fails to address the impacts of the proposed action on recreation in Eureka County and neighboring counties. Residents of Eureka County, as well as residents of other parts of Nevada and other states, rely on open spaces within the county for its unique recreation opportunities, including camping, hunting, fishing, nature study, history study, back country travel, horse pack trips, and sightseeing. Eureka County and its neighboring counties include large unspoiled areas that could be affected, directly or indirectly, by the proposed action.

The DEIS must analyze the anticipated impacts of the proposed action on recreation. Specifically, the DEIS must consider the impacts of: (1) constructing and operating a raised railroad bed and access road through back country areas and hunting ranges, (2) constructing and operating roads connecting the rail corridor to resources such as borrow pits, (3) constructing fences, (4) restricting or improving access to the back country, (5) direct and indirect damage to recreational, historical, and natural resources, and (6) direct and indirect impacts on fish and game.

The DEIS says, "Each corridor has areas the public uses and areas available for sale and transfer. As a consequence, the rail line could result in limited access to areas currently in use by the public." (p. 6-44) Does this mean that areas traditionally available for outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing, will be off limits? Does it mean that a person would need permission from the DOE or the rail operator to have access to such areas?

Response
DOE has identified mostly rail as its preferred mode of transportation, both nationally and in Nevada. At this time, however, the Department has not identified a preference among the five candidate rail corridors in Nevada. Should the branch rail line implementing alternative and the Carlin Corridor be selected, additional engineering and environmental studies would be conducted as a basis for detailed design and for appropriate National Environmental Policy Act reviews. During this process, DOE would initiate consultations with responsible local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies, landowners, and other stakeholders to identify, acquire, and evaluate additional information and develop mitigative actions necessary to minimize potential impacts, including land use.

DOE acknowledges the recreational resources afforded by open space within parts of Nevada. In Section 6.3.2 of the EIS, DOE identifies potentially affected natural resource areas within each rail corridor. DOE would seek to minimize any restriction to or control over public lands used for recreational purposes and would develop specific mitigation measures to alleviate potential impediments to continued use of public lands.

A branch rail line could be constructed across a trail or road access. However, access would not be restricted with the exception of that portion where the actual roadbed was constructed. Access to either side of a valley traversed by a rail branch line would be possible. Sufficient crossing structures would be constructed to allow access from either side.

8.11.1 (6986)
Comment - EIS002068 / 0003
One question I have is what happens to the mineral and Steam rights etc? Personally I think the Mineral etc rights should still belong to the owners of the land at the time of the Sale to the Gov.

Response
Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.3.3 of the EIS address the potential impacts of Nevada legal-weight truck, heavy-haul truck, and branch rail line implementing alternatives, respectively, including land-use impacts. These sections recognize and describe the impacts related to rights-of-way acquisition for branch rail lines and developing or upgrading highways. The Department is interested in acquisition of rights-of-way or land withdrawal from public and private land only for constructing and operating a branch rail line or expanding existing roads for heavy-haul trucks. The acquisition of mineral or steam rights would not be sought.

8.11.1 (7150)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0047
The County [Lincoln] and City [Caliente] urged DOE to assess rail construction related losses in forage for livestock grazing. While the DEIS recognizes that some forage might be lost and that livestock movements might be impeded, no estimate of lost animal unit months (AUM’s) of forage is provided within the DEIS.

Response
Because definitive information is not available on specific tracts of land that could be required in a given transportation alternative, DOE did not quantify potential impacts to animal unit months. Input received from the Bureau of Land Management, however, indicated that dividing grazing lands would result in a small loss of animal unit months in large allotments but would be unlikely to affect ranch operations. The loss of animal unit months in small allotments could affect a permittee’s operation. The Bureau also indicated that if a branch rail line divided an allotment into separate pastures, this could provide grazing management options, potentially benefiting livestock and vegetation management.

8.11.1 (7212)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0092
Page 3-101 Table 3-33. This table does not appear to reflect Bureau of Indian Affairs lands that would be crossed in the vicinity of U.S. 95 north of Las Vegas.

Response
Table 3-33 of the EIS does not include the Bureau of Indian Affairs lands referred to in this comment because the DOE analysis was limited to lands within the candidate rail corridors. However, Figure 3-1 does recognize lands controlled by Native American tribes in Nevada.

Section 6.3.2.2.5 of the EIS indicates that the Valley Modified Corridor would pass within about 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the Las Vegas Paiute Indian Reservation north of Las Vegas.

8.11.1 (7237)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0119
Page 8-87 Section 8.4.2.1. This section should recognize that before the Caliente Intermodal site could be used by DOE the existing City of Caliente wastewater treatment facilities would have to be relocated. A site for such relocation would need to be obtained by DOE.

Response
Section 6.3.3.2.1 of the EIS acknowledges that the northern site includes an existing wastewater treatment plant. The EIS has been revised by stating that a transfer of property from the Bureau, the City of Caliente, or other entities to DOE would be required.

Nonetheless, should the heavy-haul truck implementing alternative be selected for transporting large rail casks to the Yucca Mountain site, and the Caliente Route implementing alternative be identified as preferred, additional engineering and environmental studies would be conducted as a basis for detailed design and for appropriate National Environmental Policy Act reviews. During this process, DOE would initiate consultations with responsible local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies, landowners, and other stakeholders to identify, acquire, and evaluate additional information and develop mitigative actions necessary to minimize potential impacts, including location of facilities.

8.11.1 (7416)
Comment - EIS001912 / 0011
Lander County is opposed to the Crescent Valley rail alternative. The lack of proposed mitigation, limited impact analysis, and failure to consult appropriate land management agencies brings into question DOE’s commitment to building a transportation facility which adequately protects public health and implement mitigation which eliminates the radiological risks again imposed on Nevada communities.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS provides the environmental impact information necessary to make certain broad transportation-related decisions, namely the choice of a national mode of transportation outside Nevada (mostly rail or mostly legal-weight truck), the choice among alternative transportation modes in Nevada (mostly rail, mostly legal-weight truck, or heavy-haul truck with use of an associated intermodal transfer station), and the choice among alternative rail corridors or heavy-haul truck routes with use of an associated intermodal transfer station in Nevada. DOE has identified mostly rail as its preferred mode of transportation, both nationally and in Nevada. At this time, however, the Department has not identified a preference among the five candidate rail corridors in Nevada.

If the Yucca Mountain site was approved, DOE would issue at some future date a Record of Decision to select a mode of transportation. If, for example, mostly rail was selected (both nationally and in Nevada), DOE would identify a preference for one of the rail corridors in consultation with affected stakeholders, particularly the State of Nevada. In this example, DOE would announce a preferred corridor in the Federal Register and other media. No sooner than 30 days after the announcement of a preference, DOE would publish its selection of a rail corridor in a Record of Decision. A similar process would occur in the event that DOE selected heavy-haul truck as its mode of transportation in Nevada. Other transportation decisions, such as the selection of a specific rail alignment within a corridor, would require additional field surveys, State and local government and Native American tribal consultations, environmental and engineering analyses, and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act reviews.

With regard to risk reduction and mitigation, DOE is committed to protecting human and environmental health as its first priority. Transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would be conducted and risks would be managed in accordance with Federal regulations. DOE would consider the costs and benefits of additional protective and mitigative measures as more detailed transportation planning and studies are conducted to support the proposed repository. Section 9.3 of the EIS discusses potential measures under consideration by DOE to mitigate the impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository.

Appendix C of the EIS presents a list of Federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies and other organizations with which DOE has initiated interactions during the preparation of the EIS. As stated in Section C.2.4, Lander County is one of the units of local government that has been offered the opportunity to submit documents providing perspectives of issues associated with the EIS. DOE has held formal meetings twice a year with the affected units of local government.

8.11.1 (7453)
Comment - EIS001969 / 0009
The need for rights of way across public lands to access the Yucca Mountain Facility could create conflicts with existing land uses in the area through traffic, construction, accidents and incidental spillage of nuclear materials containers. How will these be addressed?

Response
Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.3.3 of the EIS address the potential impacts of Nevada legal-weight truck, heavy-haul truck, and branch rail line implementing alternatives, respectively, including land-use impacts. These sections recognize and describe the impacts related to construction and operation of branch rail lines and developing or upgrading highways, including traffic impacts. Section 6.2.4.2 addresses impacts from accidents, including spills.

DOE acknowledges that some land-use conflicts could be inevitable during the construction and operation of a transportation corridor for the Yucca Mountain Repository. The implementing alternatives for transportation described in the EIS were based in part on attempts to avoid or minimize potential land-use conflicts.

8.11.1 (7518)
Comment - EIS001912 / 0049
Section 3.2.2.1. The Baseline Description in the DEIS does not provide for the following:

Outdoor recreation use
Appropriate visual analysis including visual characteristics of surrounding lands.
Specific land uses residential, commercial, agricultural
Mining claims and activity-patented mining claims
Grazing-allotment, name of permit holder, season of use, total aums

Land use maps showing types of ownership and uses along the routes should be included in the DEIS. Simply referencing other BLM [Bureau of Land Management] documents is not sufficient. Lander County is not in the Tonopah Resource Area. All of the aforementioned resources and uses need to be shown on maps with discussion of various resources. Did any DOE staff or contractors actually visit the areas along proposed routes? Please identify the resource expert and the type of site visits made.

Response
Sections 6.3.2.1 and 6.3.2.2 of the EIS address the potential common and specific impacts of Nevada rail implementing alternatives, respectively, including land-use impacts. As described in the introduction to Chapter 6, in response to interest and suggestions by the public and to better describe potential impacts of transportation alternatives in Nevada, DOE modified analyses and presentations of impacts in the EIS. For example, additional details, when available, and evaluations are included for wilderness study areas, grazing allotments, sensitive biological resources, management areas, cultural resources, and hydrologic resources.

Section 3.2.2.1 of the EIS is based on a combination of published information and field observations. Based on published environmental data, 54 springs, perennial streams, and Bureau of Land Management-designated riparian areas were visited by DOE biologists to determine if those sites contain wetlands (DIRS 155378-Reilly and Smith 1997). Fifteen locations with sensitive species were visited to ensure that the sites still had suitable habitat for the species (DIRS 154825-CRWMS M&O 1997). In addition, DOE engineers made an initial visual survey of all rail corridor alternatives as a part of the routing analysis. Topography, land use, and known areas of environmental concern were observed as a part of the corridor centerline selection to minimize impacts to stakeholders (DIRS 131242-CRWMS M&O 1997). Cultural resources, noise, aesthetics, and existing visual conditions were observed by contractor personnel on a field trip along proposed heavy-haul truck routes and rail corridors. Additional interviews with responsible State and Federal agencies were conducted and additional literature searches were performed during the trip. A report has been prepared detailing the information obtained during the trip (DIRS 155826-Nickens and Hartwell 2001) and the relevant information is included in Chapter 6 of the EIS.

DOE acknowledges the recreational resources afforded by open space within parts of Nevada. In Section 6.3.2 of the EIS, DOE identifies potentially affected natural resource areas within each corridor. DOE would seek to minimize any restriction to or control over public lands used for recreational purposes and would develop specific mitigation measures to alleviate potential impediments to continued use of public lands.

For any land that would be acquired, including mineral claims, landowners would be fairly compensated under Federal eminent domain procedures. When affected property was not acquired by eminent domain, mitigation measures would be evaluated and implemented as appropriate, as indicated in Section 9.3.1 of the EIS, when construction and operation of transportation facilities would result in (1) impacts to publicly used lands such as grazing allotments, (2) direct and indirect land loss, and (3) displacement of capital improvements.

DOE believes that the EIS provides the environmental impact information necessary to make certain broad transportation-related decisions, namely the choice of a national mode of transportation outside Nevada (mostly rail or mostly legal-weight truck), the choice among alternative transportation modes in Nevada (mostly rail, mostly legal-weight truck, or heavy-haul truck with use of an associated intermodal transfer station), and the choice among alternative rail corridors or heavy-haul truck routes with use of an associated intermodal transfer station in Nevada.

8.11.1 (7625)
Comment - EIS001912 / 0081
P. 6-36 looks only at disturbed lands and not lands which are surrounding the corridors which could be impacted.

Response
DOE has not limited its assessment of land use to disturbed lands or changes in ownership. In fact, impacts to land use could occur even if ownership did not change or there was no direct land disturbance. For example, dividing grazing land in a rail corridor could result in the creation of a barrier to cattle movement and could affect a rancher’s ability to get cattle to water.

DOE is aware of the possible restrictions inherent in the construction and operation of a transportation corridor and would consider appropriate mitigation actions. For example, the discussions of the corridors in Section 6.3.2.2.1 of the EIS identify potential conflicts with existing or future land uses that a corridor could affect.

8.11.1 (8044)
Comment - EIS000391 / 0010
Other transportation issues of the waste to the Yucca Mtn. site are:

Land use consideration of present and planned land uses along possible routes identified.

Response
In its assessment of potential land-use impacts, DOE considered the differences between land-use types, land disturbances, land ownership, and the creation of barriers. The assessment compared proposed use of land for Yucca Mountain transportation purposes to existing or other proposed land uses to estimate the magnitude and context of potential conflicts. If an action would result in continuing a current land use either due to little or no impact or through mitigation, the effects were considered insignificant or small. For example as discussed in Chapter 6, the impacts to livestock and Bureau of Land Management grazing allotments could be mitigated through the use of fencing, overpasses, and underpasses, which could provide a water source to animals cut off from current sources. By providing these mitigating measures, the impacts would be lessened and considered small. If an action could result in departures from existing uses, and mitigation could not remedy the conflict, the effects could be more substantial.

Factors considered when assessing impacts included the uniqueness of a geographic area; presence of historic, scientific, and cultural resources; potential effects on endangered species; and compliance with Federal, State, or local law. Based on information available, potential land-use impacts associated with Yucca Mountain transportation activities could be minimized through judicious alignment of the branch rail line or through mitigation. Overall, the land-use impacts are not deemed substantial because of the use of various optional and alternate routes within the corridor, mitigation measures, and the judicious routing of the branch rail line within the corridor.

Section 8.4.2 of the EIS discusses the impacts that reasonably foreseeable future actions could have on the construction and operation of a branch rail line.

8.11.1 (8100)
Comment - EIS000406 / 0019
The following issues need to be addressed and thoroughly analyzed concerning direct impacts to Lander County in a detailed manner:

Ranching and grazing allotment impacts

Response
Land-use and ownership impacts common to the construction and operation the five branch rail lines are discussed Section 6.3.2.1 of the EIS and impacts specific to the Carlin Corridor are discussed in Section 6.3.2.2.2. The EIS determines that a branch rail line could create a barrier to livestock movement, and quantitatively addresses the acres of grazing lands potentially affected by candidate rail corridors.

If a corridor was selected for construction of a branch rail line, DOE would conduct field studies along the corridor that would identify specific land uses to be avoided. DOE would avoid land-use impacts and private land to the maximum possible extent. For example, access to grazing areas, forage, and water can be addressed in the early design phase of the rail corridor/alignment. This process would address Bureau of Land Management standard operating procedures for rights-of-way, construction and operation. Water wells would be required along the rail corridor in some areas for soil compaction and dust control during rail construction. It could be possible to improve grazing allotments if the Bureau permitted the use of this water for grazing. Grazing allotment access could be accomplished by designing at-grade structures to permit cattle to cross under the railbed.

8.11.1 (8128)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0080
Pg. 6-38 Section 6.3.1 states, "As a consequence, impacts to land use ... would not be large. With respect to land use, what process or methodology did DOE use to determine that impacts would not be large? Did DOE consider impacts to real estate development and values along the proposed route?

Response
In its assessment of potential land-use impacts, DOE considered the differences between land-use types, land disturbances, land ownership, and the creation of barriers. The assessment compared proposed use of land for Yucca Mountain transportation purposes to existing or other proposed land uses to estimate the magnitude and context of potential conflicts. If an action would result in continuing a current land use either due to little or no impact or through mitigation, the effects were considered insignificant or small. For example, as discussed in Chapter 6, the impacts to livestock and Bureau of Land Management grazing allotments could be mitigated through the use of fencing, overpasses, and underpasses, which could provide a water source to animals cut off from current sources. By providing these mitigating measures, the impacts would be lessened and considered small.

In light of the comments received on the Draft EIS concerning perceived risk, DOE examined relevant studies and literature on perceived risk and stigmatization of communities to determine whether the state-of-the-science in predicting future behavior based on perceptions had advanced sufficiently since scoping to allow DOE to quantify the impact of public risk perception on economic development or property values in potentially affected communities (see Appendix N of the EIS). Of particular interest were those scientific and social studies carried out in the past few years that directly relate to either Yucca Mountain or to DOE actions such as the transportation of foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel. DOE reevaluated the conclusions of previous literature reviews such as those conducted by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the State of Nevada, among others. DOE has concluded that:

While in some instances risk perceptions could result in adverse impacts on portions of a local economy, there are no reliable methods whereby such impacts could be predicted with any degree of certainty
Much of the uncertainty is irreducible, and

Based on a qualitative analysis, adverse impacts from perceptions of risk would be unlikely or relatively small.

8.11.1 (8145)
Comment - EIS001653 / 0088
DOE has not considered impacts to grazing allotments, mining, recreation use, and hunting. Are there any patented mining claims within the proposed rail corridor? How will DOE compensate mining claim holders? How many animal units months will be lost? What will DOE do to maintain access to water and movement of livestock in and around the rail corridor? What are BLM’s [Bureau of Land Management’s] standard operating procedures for rights of way, construction and operation?

Response
Land-use and ownership impacts common to the construction and operation of all five of the branch rail lines are discussed in Section 6.3.2.1 of the EIS and impacts specific to each proposed route are discussed in the appropriate subsection. The EIS indicates that a branch rail line would affect grazing allotments, mobility of grazing animals, watering capabilities, and recreational access. Based on current information provided by the Bureau of Land Management, the patented mining claims were skirted as much as possible by the five candidate rail corridors.

DOE acknowledges the recreational resources afforded by open space within parts of Nevada. In Section 6.3.2 of the EIS, DOE identifies potentially affected natural resource areas within each corridor. DOE would seek to minimize any restriction to or control over public lands used for recreational purposes and would develop specific mitigation measures to alleviate potential impediments to continued use of public lands.

If a corridor was selected for construction of a branch rail line, DOE would conduct field studies along the corridor that would identify specific land uses to be avoided. DOE would avoid land-use impacts and private land to the maximum possible extent. For example, access to grazing areas, forage, and water could be addressed in the early design phase of the rail corridor/alignment. This process would address Bureau of Land Management’s standard operating procedures for rights-of-way, construction and operation. Water wells would be required along the rail corridor in some areas for soil compaction and dust control during rail construction. It could be possible to improve grazing allotments if the Bureau permitted the use of this water for grazing. Grazing allotment access can be accomplished by designing at-grade structures to permit cattle to cross underneath the railbed.

A branch rail line could be constructed across a mining claim. However, access to claims would not be restricted with the exception of that portion where the actual roadbed was constructed. Access to either side of a valley traversed by a rail branch line would be possible. Sufficient crossing structures would be constructed to allow access from either side.

8.11.1 (9505)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0164
[Summary of comments noted by Clark County Nuclear Waste Division staff at various citizens’ meetings.]

It seems obvious that DOE did not look at the site plan for Summerlin or the Las Vegas Valley and all the residential and commercial uses planned along the western beltway.

Response
The representative highway routes identified for the EIS analysis conform to U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (49 CFR 397.101). These regulations, developed for transport of Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials, require such shipments to be on preferred routes selected to reduce the time in transit. A preferred route is an Interstate System highway, bypass, or beltway, or an alternate rout designated by a state or tribal routing agency. Alternate routes could be designated by states or tribes under Department of Transportation regulations (49 CFR 397.103) that require consideration of the overall risk to the public and prior consultation with local jurisdictions and other states and tribes. The State of Nevada has not designated an alternate route, so DOE used the western Las Vegas Beltway for the EIS analysis.

8.11.1 (9646)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0310
Another issue is ongoing interaction between the Bureau of Land Management and the local governments in southern Nevada and California. Although the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] manages most of the land in the region, the BLM has made agreements with various local governments in the region. It is likely that major construction of rail lines, heavy haul roads, and intermodal facilities will conflict with these agreements. The DEIS does not address the issue.

Response
Section 6.3 of the EIS describes the methods that were used to analyze the potential impacts to the many resource areas in Nevada from implementation of alternative transportation modes and routes. These analyses, discussed in subsequent sections, include land use and ownership and describe land-use and ownership issues for all three modes and the five candidate rail corridors. Existing land use and ownership is described, as are potential impacts on private, Bureau of Land Management, and other landowners.

8.11.1 (9851)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0415
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Commenters suggested that the EIS evaluate the impacts to current land uses along the potential regional rail and heavy-haul routes. Land uses and related issues identified for evaluation include: (1) the availability of public lands, (2) the ease of obtaining rights-of-way, (3) consideration of eminent domain, (4) impacts to hunting and fishing opportunities and other recreational water uses, (5) effects on grazing allotments and livestock permittees, (6) public travel across Big Smokey Valley, and (7) potential interference with U.S. Air Force operations on the Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range.

Response
Section 6.3.2.2 of the EIS notes that the branch rail lines could require conversion of land within existing grazing allotments. DOE expects the potential impacts of construction to have a greater effect upon grazing lands than would operations. During the construction phase, it could be difficult for cattle to access water if the construction zone divided the grazing allotment. Construction activity and temporary camps with the presence of construction crews could result in disrupting ranch operations and livestock rotations. There is a possibility that some livestock could be killed along roads used during construction.

DOE, however, expects that after construction, operational impacts would be less even though the branch rail lines could divide some grazing lands. Input received by DOE from the Bureau of Land Management indicates that dividing grazing lands would result in a small loss of animal unit months in large allotments but would be unlikely to affect ranch operations. The loss of animal unit months in small allotments could affect the grazing permittee’s operation. The Bureau indicated that if a branch rail line divided an allotment into separate pastures, such pastures could provide an opportunity to rotate grazing area use, allowing for new grazing management options. This opportunity could benefit livestock and vegetation management.

As indicated in Section 9.3.1 of the EIS, DOE would evaluate appropriate mitigation actions that specifically address access to publicly owned lands, including grazing permits and leases. These actions could include providing access to lands on both sides of a branch rail line through underpasses and assisting in providing water should there be a need.

DOE acknowledges the recreational resources afforded by open space within parts of Nevada. In Section 6.3.2 of the EIS, DOE identifies potentially affected natural resource areas within each corridor. DOE would seek to minimize any restriction to or control over public lands used for recreational purposes and would develop specific mitigation measures to alleviate potential impediments to continued use of public lands.

DOE is aware of the operational issues associated with the Nellis Air Force Range. Section 8.1.2.2 of the EIS discusses Nellis in the context of potential cumulative impacts. DOE has initiated interagency and intergovernmental interactions with a number of governmental agencies and other organizations, including the U.S. Air Force. Appendix C provides a summary of DOE’s interactions with other organizations.

8.11.1 (10851)
Comment - EIS000359 / 0007
DOE also doesn’t assume any mitigation for the transportation accident scenario, which is misleading given that in the unlikely event of a severe accident, emergency response will occur swiftly and a comprehensive plan will be developed to mitigate the consequences of an accident. We have emergency response capability on a federal level to respond to the radiation accidents in the United States, and radiation workers would be available to assist in the unlikely event of an accident, as well as to train emergency response workers across the states.

Response
The analysis of the impacts of transportation accidents in the EIS did not take credit for the mitigating effects of emergency response activities. However, in response to comments, additional information on emergency response activities following transportation accidents has been added to Section M.5 of the EIS.

Section 180(c) of the NWPA requires DOE to provide technical assistance and funds to states for training of public safety officials of appropriate units of local government and tribes through whose jurisdictions it would transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The training would cover procedures required for safe routine transportation of these materials, as well as procedures for dealing with emergency response situations. DOE would provide the assistance based on the training needs of the states and tribes, as they determined using an up-front planning grant and based on availability of funds in annual Program budgets specified by Congress. Additional Federal response capabilities, such as expert services from the Radiological Assistance Program Team, could be activated, as requested by states and tribes. The schedule in the proposed policy and procedures for implementation of Section 180(c) (63 FR 23753, April 30, 1998) is designed to provide adequate time for training of first responders in advance of the first shipments. Should a decision to proceed with the development of a repository at Yucca Mountain be made, shipping routes would be identified at least 4 years before shipments began and Section 180(c) assistance would be made available approximately 4 years prior to shipments through a jurisdiction. See Section M.6 of the EIS for a discussion of the DOE Section 180(c) Policy and Procedures.

DOE has several programs available to provide assistance to state, tribal, and local governments in response to radioactive material accidents. The Radiological Assistance Program, for example, provides trained personnel with equipment to evaluate, assess, advise, and assist in the mitigation and monitoring of potential immediate hazards associated with a transportation accident. As part of the program, DOE maintains eight Regional Coordinating Offices across the country that are staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year The staff consists of nuclear engineers, health physicists, industrial hygienists, public affairs specialists, and other personnel who provide field monitoring, sampling, decontamination, communications, and other services, as requested. In addition DOE’s Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site (REAC/TS) focus on providing rapid medical attention to people involved in radiation accidents. REAC/TS maintains a 24-hour response center to provide direct support, including deployable equipment and personnel trained and experienced in the treatment of radiation exposure to assist Federal, state, tribal, and local organizations.

8.11.1 (11282)
Comment - EIS001814 / 0016
DEIS Page 2-47
Under this scenario, DOE would construct and operate a branch line in Nevada. Based on previous studies (described in Section 2.3), DOE has narrowed its consideration for a new branch rail line to five potential rail corridors Caliente, Carlin, Caliente Chalk Mountain, Jean, and Valley Modified.

DOE’s corridor selection study is flawed. The first selection criteria used by DOE to select potential routes was land use compatibility. For this criteria, DOE selected corridors based upon using "land under public ownership, to the greatest extent possible, to minimize land-use conflicts." Favorable topography was used as a selection criteria only within "areas not excluded because of land-use conflicts" (Nevada Potential Repository Preliminary Transportation Strategy, Study 1, April 1995, page 25).

There are serious problems with this approach. Land ownership does not accurately reflect land-use. Most western ranching operations are based upon a combination of privately owned fee land and grazing leases on publicly owned lands. In many, if not all cases, the ranching unit depends on these grazing leases to be economically viable. Most grazing leases are held by the ranches that can access the lease as a logical part of their operation. Splitting an existing operation with a rail line, that will limit access to the leased land, can have significant adverse effects on the operation of the ranch. Using the avoidance of privately owned land as the corridor selection process without regard to the existing ranching operations’ use of private and public lands may very well result in greater impact on an operation than using private land.

Most of the private land in western States with high percentages of federally owned land is land with gentle topography. Early settlers selected the flatter land for their own. The land with rugged topography was not settled, and remained in public ownership. This shift to rugged terrain to avoid private land is a dominant factor in most of the routes selected for further study in the 1990 Preliminary Rail Access Study as reflected by the following: "An option was selected from the Caliente area in order to avoid land use impacts encountered in most of the southern areas of Nevada, ... The base route has the most favorable land-use compatibility, but would incur significant costs due to the complex engineering and construction required to traverse rough terrain" (page 17). "However, the checkerboard pattern of private and public land ownership surrounding the railroads across northern Nevada makes the complete avoidance of private land difficult. The minimum impact departure point is a location about 5 miles west of Carlin. The terrain in this area is so rugged that private developers were uninterested in the land, and as a result, the greater portions of the terrain were left in BLM [Bureau of Land Management] ownership" (page 21).

By using land ownership for the first selection criteria, DOE’s selection process actually favored more rugged terrain where construction of the proposed rail line is more difficult. This creates many additional land use impacts due to the extensive cuts and fills required by unfavorable topography. These cuts and fills will further exacerbate the problem faced by ranchers of moving livestock and equipment across the rail line.

Crucial habitat for big game is frequently located in or near rugged terrain. This is especially true for crucial winter habitat. Daylight cuts required to traverse rugged terrain also pose a significant threat to big game, which tend to use these areas for movement, especially in times of heavy snow cover. When trapped in a daylight cut, big game cannot escape from an oncoming train, resulting in significant mortality rates for big game in these areas. Thus, the selection criteria that favors more rugged terrain by virtue of avoiding private land ownership greatly increases the potential impact on biological resources.

Roadless areas are also more likely to be found in rugged terrain. Virtually all potential wilderness areas are located on public lands. The selection criteria that avoids private lands results in more potential impact to roadless areas and potential wilderness areas.

Response
Sections 2.1.3.3 and 2.3.3 of the EIS describe the methods used to select and describe the alternative routes and modes for transportation in Nevada. Section 6.3 describes the potential impacts for these routes and modes.

DOE’s objective, with respect to rail corridors, was to identify reasonable and representative 400-meter (0.25-mile)-wide corridors that would produce the least environmental and stakeholder impact based on published environmental and land-use data. Another consideration was to evaluate corridors that are cost-effective (for example, balancing cut and fill to the extent possible).

Factors considered included the uniqueness of a geographic area; presence of historic, scientific, and cultural resources; potential effects on endangered species; and compliance with Federal, State, or local law. Based on information available, potential land-use impacts associated with Yucca Mountain transportation activities could be minimized through judicious alignment of the branch rail line or through mitigation. Overall, the land-use impacts are not deemed substantial because of the use of various optional and alternate routes within the corridor, mitigation measures, and the judicious routing of the branch rail line within the corridor.

8.11.1 (11298)
Comment - EIS001814 / 0027
DEIS Page 2-70
One new route, Valley Modified, was added in the 1995 Study based on updated information from the Bureau of Land Management on the status of two Wilderness Study Areas that represent possible land-use conflicts for the Valley route in the original evaluation.

The potential land use constraints for the Valley Modified route have not been eliminated. 1995 Study states "The original Valley route identified in the Preliminary Rail Access Study was considered not feasible due to possible land use conflicts with two BLM [Bureau of Land Management]-administered areas (Quail Springs WSA NV-050-411 and Nellis WSA NV-050-4R A, B, and C) that were studied for potential designation as Wilderness Areas. Due to uncertainties on the final land use of these areas (based on recent discussion with BLM Las Vegas District personnel), the Valley Modified route was added to the list of alternatives" (Nevada Potential Repository Preliminary Transportation Strategy, Study 1, TRW, April 1995, p. 34). Uncertainty in the final land use for an area does not mean that the land-use constraint has been eliminated. These same land-use conflicts with the wilderness study areas are reiterated in the 1996 analysis (Nevada Potential Repository Preliminary Transportation Strategy, Study 2, TRW, February 1996, p. 2-18).

Response
Section 2.3.3.1 of the EIS discusses the process used to evaluate the 13 candidate rail routes in Nevada and which routes were eliminated from further study.

Section 6.3.2.2.5 of the EIS describes the impacts from construction and operation of the Valley Modified Corridor Implementing Alternative. The land-use discussion has been expanded and discusses the relationship of the Sheep Mountain Alternate and the Wilderness Study Areas raised by the commenter. Although the Bureau of Land Management considers the Wilderness Study Areas unsuitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness System, DOE would have to consult with the Bureau before it could build a branch rail line.

In addition, based on public comments, a new subsection has been added to Section J.3.1.2 of the EIS that discusses potential land-use conflicts. Figure J-20 shows the Quail Springs Wilderness Study Area and the Nellis A, B, and C Wilderness Study Areas in relation to the Valley Modified Corridor.

8.11.1 (11309)
Comment - EIS001814 / 0038
DEIS Page 6-8
Land-use impacts would be greatest for the mostly rail scenario, with disturbed land areas ranging from about 5 square kilometers (1,200 acres) for the Valley Modified route to 19 square kilometers (5,000 acres) for the Carlin route.

DOE has not accurately identified or assessed the land-use impacts of the Nevada Transportation alternatives. Even where DOE has identified land-use impacts, DOE has understated the nature and severity of the impacts. The failure by DOE to accurately describe the proposed action also prevents an adequate assessment of land-use impacts. For example, the land-use impacts associated with the development of ballast and sub-ballast quarries, solid waste disposal facilities, construction lay-down areas, and construction staging areas cannot be assessed until these areas are identified.

The conclusions regarding land-use impacts in the DEIS rely primarily on disturbed acreage. Although this is one measure of land-use impacts, it is not the only one. For linear facilities such as a branch rail line, an assessment of land-use impacts should also include an evaluation of the impacts of bisecting current and future land-uses. As discussed above in the comment on Section 2.1.3.3.2 Nevada Rail Scenario, splitting an area with a branch rail line can have significant impacts on the entire area, not just the area within the right-of-way. This is particularly true for ranching operations. DOE has not assessed this type of land-use impact in the EIS.

DOE has identified a number of land-use conflicts with the proposed rail line, but has not accurately characterized the impact of these conflicts. For example, rail potential corridors cross the Simpson Park Habitat Management Area (Carlin), the Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road special recreation management area (Jean), Wilderness Study Areas (Valley Modified) and the Desert National Wildlife Range (Valley Modified). A rail line through these special land-use areas would have significant impact on the purpose of these special areas. The EIS does not even discuss these impacts. It is particularly difficult to understand why DOE has not eliminated the Caliente Chalk Mountain alternative. The U.S. Air Force has unequivocally stated that this alternative is unacceptable due to its impacts on the Nellis Air Force Range.

Proposed rail line corridors also cross areas of potential future community growth. Although DOE identifies these areas, the EIS does not contain an assessment of the impacts of this conflict on future community growth patterns. The area of particular concern is the impact of the proposed Valley Modified route on growth in the North Las Vegas urban area.

Many of the areas crossed by potential rail corridors are currently remote, undeveloped areas. Much of the area is currently roadless, including Wilderness Study Areas. Regardless of the decision by the land management agency regarding classification as wilderness, construction of a rail line through a remote, roadless area will have land-use impacts. These changes in land-use should be identified and assessed.

From a land-use perspective, the only rail alternative that does not have serious land-use conflicts is the Caliente corridor. Even this corridor could impact the Nellis Air Force Range. All other rail alternatives cross or impact areas designated as special purpose land-use. These conflicts are summarized below:

Caliente: Requires use of land on Nellis AF [Air Force] Range. Alternatives cross difficult terrain.

Carlin: Requires use of land on Nellis AF Range. Alternatives cross difficult terrain.
Bates Mountain Antelope Release Area
Simpson Park Habitat Management Area

Caliente/Chalk Mountain: Traverses Nellis AF Range, which is unacceptable to AF.

Jean: Impacts Pahrump potential community growth
Old Spanish Trail/Mormon Road special recreation management area
Adjacent to Stateline Wilderness Area
Valley Modified: Encroaches on the Desert National Wildlife Range
Impacts community growth in the North Las Vegas urban area
Crosses Nellis A, B, & C and Quail Spring WSA [Wilderness Study Area]
Impacts Nellis AFB small arms range
Impacts Indian Springs Auxiliary Field facilities

Response
Sections 6.3.2.1 and 6.3.2.2 of the EIS address the potential common and specific impacts of Nevada rail implementing alternatives, respectively, including land-use impacts. In an effort to provide decisionmakers and stakeholders with the information needed to make a rail or heavy-haul truck transportation decision for Nevada, regions of influence were developed and the level of information needed within those regions defined.

In its assessment of potential land-use impacts, DOE considered the differences between land-use types, land disturbances, land ownership, and the creation of barriers. The assessment compared proposed use of land for Yucca Mountain transportation purposes to existing or other proposed land uses to estimate the magnitude and context of potential conflicts. If an action would result in continuing a current land use either due to little or no impact or through mitigation, the effects were considered insignificant or small. For example, as discussed in Section 6.3.2.1, the EIS determines that a branch rail line could create a barrier to livestock movement, and quantitatively addresses the acres of grazing lands potentially affected by candidate rail corridors. However, the impacts to livestock and Bureau of Land Management grazing allotments could be mitigated through the use of fencing, overpasses, and underpasses, which could provide a water source to animals cut off from current sources. By providing these mitigating measures, the impacts would be lessened and considered small. If an action could result in departures from existing uses, and mitigation could not remedy the conflict, the effects could be more substantial. Factors considered when assessing impacts included the uniqueness of a geographic area; presence of historic, scientific, and cultural resources; potential effects on endangered species; and compliance with Federal, State, or local law.

Section 6.3.2.2.5 of the EIS describes the impacts from construction and operation of the Valley Modified Corridor. The land-use discussion has been expanded and discusses the relationship of the Sheep Mountain Alternate and the Wilderness Study Areas raised by the commenter. In addition, a new subsection has been added to Section J.3.1.2 that discusses potential land-use conflicts. Figure J-20 shows the Quail Springs Wilderness Study Area and the Nellis A, B, and C Wilderness Study Areas in relation to the Valley Modified Corridor.

DOE acknowledges the recreational resources afforded by open space within parts of Nevada. In Section 6.3.2 of the EIS, DOE identifies potentially affected natural resource areas within each corridor. DOE would seek to minimize any restriction to or control over public lands used for recreational purposes and would develop specific mitigation measures to alleviate potential impediments to continued use of public lands.

In comments on the Draft EIS, the Air Force restated its position that routes across the Nevada Test and Training Range would not be consistent with its national security uses. The Air Force concluded that use of such a corridor or route could adversely affect critical and sensitive national security activities. In response, DOE reevaluated whether the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor and Caliente/Chalk Mountain heavy-haul truck route should be eliminated from further evaluation. DOE met with the Air Force (see Appendix C of the EIS), considered the information they provided, and concluded that the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor and Caliente/Chalk Mountain heavy-haul truck route implementing alternatives should remain identified as "nonpreferred alternatives" in this Final EIS.

DOE believes, however, that the EIS adequately analyzes the environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Action. In addition, the EIS provides the environmental impact information necessary to make certain broad transportation-related decisions, namely the choice of a national mode of transportation outside Nevada (mostly rail or mostly legal-weight truck), the choice among alternative transportation modes in Nevada (mostly rail, mostly legal-weight truck, or heavy-haul truck with use of an associated intermodal transfer station), and the choice among alternative rail corridors or heavy-haul truck routes with use of an associated intermodal transfer station in Nevada.

8.11.1 (11760)
Comment - EIS001660 / 0054
The land use descriptions for the rail corridors in Nevada are inadequate. (p. 3-101 to -103). The land use regions of influence are narrowly drawn (limited only to disturbed lands and changes in ownership), and the only information provided for the Carlin corridor (for example) is the amount of public and private land. Although the DEIS says that "detailed information on land use is available" in other documents, it fails to describe their contents even briefly, as required by 40 CFR 1502.21.

As described in the introduction to Chapter 6, in response to interest and suggestions by the public and to better describe potential impacts of transportation alternatives in Nevada, DOE modified analyses and presentations of impacts in the EIS. For example, additional details, when available, and evaluations were included for wilderness study areas, grazing allotments, sensitive biological resources, management areas, cultural resources, and hydrologic resources.

8.11.1 (11873)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0388
The statement in the last sentence of the second paragraph that "no new land acquisition and construction would be required to accommodate these shipments" is misleading. There may well be additional land acquisitions and construction required once DOE identifies the specific shipping routes nationwide (something the Draft EIS fails to do). In the case of transuranic waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, DOE agreed to pay for bypasses around/near Santa Fe and Roswell. There were also safe parking facilities that needed to be improved in other states. It is very likely that, once states and cities become aware of the nature, volume, and duration of the shipping campaign needed to support the Proposed Action, DOE will be forced to assist with the construction of bypasses or other infrastructure improvements.

Response
Section 6.2 of the EIS discusses other potential impacts of national transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Because existing rail and highway systems would be adequate for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain, except under conditions where heavy-haul trucks would be used, infrastructure upgrades would not be necessary and therefore are not included in the analysis. The EIS assumes that sites identified as being served by a railroad would use rail and that sites that do not have rail service (for example, needing rail spur upgrades) would ship using heavy-haul trucks or barges to the nearest railheads.

8.11.1 (12530)
Comment - EIS000630 / 0004
The EIS does not have adequate information about the impacts on grazing. The EIS states that fencing decision rests with the Bureau of Land Management and US Fish and Wildlife. The information on fencing is not definitive and excludes local government, the local community, and most of all, those livestock permittees that will be impacted. They need input.

Response
Land-use and ownership impacts common to the construction and operation of all five of the branch rail lines are discussed Section 6.3.2.1 of the EIS and impacts of specific routes are discussed in appropriate subsections. The EIS determines that a branch rail line could create a barrier to livestock movement, and quantitatively addresses the acres of grazing lands potentially affected by rail corridors.

If a corridor was selected for construction of a branch rail line, DOE would conduct field studies along the corridor that would identify specific land uses to be avoided. DOE would avoid land-use impacts and private land to the maximum possible extent. For example, access to grazing areas, forage, and water could be addressed in the early design phase of the rail corridor/alignment. This process would address Bureau of Land Management standard operating procedures for rights-of-way, construction and operation. Water wells would be required along the rail corridor in some areas for soil compaction and dust control during rail line construction. It could be possible to improve grazing allotments if the Bureau permitted the use of this water for grazing. Grazing allotment access can be accomplished by designing at-grade structures to permit cattle to cross underneath the railbed.

8.11.2 Air Quality

8.11.2 (1410)
Comment - EIS000355 / 0005
I’m as much concerned about the excess heat in the summertime, and the potential below zero temperatures in the wintertime. And I don’t see anything like that being addressed with my scientific accuracy. And if you’re going to do an environmental impact statement, you have to consider every aspect of the environment all along the way. Because each is particular, each is specific.

Response
The EIS describes the means of extreme temperature data given current climatic conditions in Section 3.1.2.2. DOE evaluated the effect of extreme temperatures on facility safety systems and transportation casks in the preliminary repository design and preliminary transportation operational plans. Section 4.1.8 describes accident scenario impacts where extreme weather (including extreme episodes of fog, frost, hail, ice cover, etc.) were considered as accident-initiating events. Appendix I provides detailed supporting information on the calculation of the environmental consequences of long-term repository performance, which included evaluating three different climate scenarios and its effect on repository performance.

8.11.2 (4362)
Comment - EIS001157 / 0007
Air quality in the Las Vegas Valley is in the "serious" non-attainment category for carbon monoxide and PM10 particulates. Any induced traffic congestion, such as that created by slow-moving vehicles on a heavy-haul route through the valley, and its associated air quality impacts must be quantified and addressed. Using 10,815 as the number of shipments (Appendix J), there would be about 2 heavy-haul trucks using the roadways every day for 24 years. The DEIS did not propose any mitigation measures to alleviate the deterioration in air quality caused by oversized, heavy-haul vehicles creating congestion.

Response
Section 6.3.3.1 of the EIS notes the potential impacts of temporary but large traffic obstructions on the planned Las Vegas Beltway from heavy-haul trucks. Each of the three implementing alternatives with Las Vegas Valley routes (Caliente/Las Vegas, Sloan/Jean, and Apex/Dry Lake) note the air quality impacts to the Las Vegas Valley airshed from the operation of a few heavy-haul trucks and associated traffic congestion would be very small in comparison to the amount of pollutants emitted by automobile travel and other commercial vehicles in the basin. DOE believes that quantification of such comparatively small impacts is unnecessary. However, DOE anticipates transportation authorities of the State of Nevada and Clark County would require heavy-haul trucks that used the Las Vegas Beltway to travel at times that would not coincide with the heaviest traffic densities (rush-hour periods). Travel-time restrictions and other requirements for heavy-haul vehicles using the Beltway would mitigate impacts to traffic congestion and associated potential air quality impacts.

8.11.2 (5497)
Comment - EIS001660 / 0025
The DEIS fails to analyze impacts of the proposed action on air quality in Nevada and Mineral County (pp. 6-9,-36). Residents and visitors of Mineral County benefit from excellent air quality conditions that could be affected by the proposed action. The DEIS says that air emissions would affect a very large area (p. 6-44) but provides little or no additional information.

The DEIS must disclose the impacts upon Mineral County’s air quality from: (1) fugitive dust releases during construction and operations, (2) diesel engine emissions during construction and operations, including emissions from water trucks, and (3) increased risk of wildfire. The analysis must address visual range (i.e., haze) in addition to bulk emissions and concentrations of criteria pollutants.

Response
The Proposed Action would cause no air quality impacts to Mineral County. None of the proposed transportation routes that would require road or rail construction or upgrade activities enter Mineral County. The "large area" in Section 6.3.2.1 of the Draft EIS noted by the commenter refers to the area that could be affected by construction activities that could generate fugitive dust emissions along the length of a corridor. As noted in the EIS, these effects would be temporary and limited to those areas affected by the construction activities. Because of the distance from Mineral County to the proposed repository, there would be no air quality impacts in Mineral County due to repository construction, operation, and closure.

With the exception of the Las Vegas Valley, the areas potentially affected by transportation activities in Nevada are unclassified and therefore "in attainment" with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Section 3.1.2.1 of the EIS has been clarified to note that these areas are unclassified and in attainment.

8.11.2 (6669)
Comment - EIS001878 / 0052
The DEIS fails to adequately analyze impacts of the proposed action on air quality in Nevada and Eureka County. (pp. 6-9, -36) Appendix G, Air Quality, does not address transportation-related impacts at all. Residents of Eureka County benefit from excellent air quality conditions that could be affected by the proposed action. The DEIS says that air emissions would affect a very large area (p. 6-44) but provides little or no additional information.

The DEIS must disclose the impacts upon Eureka County’s air quality from: (1) fugitive dust releases during construction and operations, (2) diesel engine emissions during construction and operations, including emissions from water trucks, and (3) increased risk of wildfire. The analysis must address visual range (i.e., haze) in addition to bulk emissions and concentrations of criteria pollutants.

Response
Chapter 6 and Appendix J of the EIS address potential impacts of repository-related transportation on air quality. Impacts to air quality from the construction and operation of a branch rail line, including one in the Carlin Corridor that could cross the northwest corner of Eureka County, are discussed in Section 6.3.2.1. Emissions during construction would be temporary and would move as construction progressed along the length of the corridor. Based on Federal standards for locomotives, train emissions would not have a significant impact on air quality. Because potential highway upgrades, construction of an intermodal transfer station, or heavy-haul truck operations would not occur in Eureka County, the air quality in the county would not be affected by these activities.

With the exception of the Las Vegas Valley, all areas of Nevada potentially affected by transportation activities addressed in the EIS are "unclassified" and, therefore, considered to be "in attainment" with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Section 3.1.2.1 of the EIS has been revised to clarify this issue.

There would be no meaningful impacts related to increased risk of wildfire and visual haze in Eureka County from Yucca Mountain Repository-related transportation impacts.

8.11.2 (6901)
Comment - EIS001539 / 0005
Meteorology: The potential for atmospheric inversions increases risks to Denver residents from accidental releases. DEH assumes these risks are unacceptable, until demonstrated otherwise by DOE.

In the DOE/EIS, accidental release scenarios are calculated using two meteorological conditions, the most conservative of which is stated to be "...stable (slowly dispersing) conditions that would not be exceeded (more still) about 95 percent of the time..." (p. 6-30), as based on national weather data (p. J-8). Weather conditions in the Denver area can differ significantly from those in other parts of the country. During the winter months, the Denver air basin commonly experiences atmospheric inversion layers that trap air constituents near ground level and prevent dispersion. DOE must provide documentation that the air modeling procedures conducted in the DOE/EIS are conservative for the inversion/stable weather conditions that may occur in the Denver area.

Response
The national meteorological data set included 5 years of meteorological data from Denver. The data DOE used in its analysis represented stable inversion-type atmospheric conditions that are not unique to Denver. The 95th-percentile characteristics noted are Pasquill-Gifford stability class F (moderately stable) and a wind speed of 0.89 meter per second (2 miles per hour). DOE believes that the 95th-percentile meteorological data used with other selected accident analysis parameters represent conditions that tend to maximize potential credible accident consequences. Selection of worst-case values for all parameters, including meteorology, would lead to accident consequence estimates that are very unrealistic and even incredible when the analysis considers probabilities of occurrence.

8.11.2 (7082)
Comment - EIS001337 / 0031
The County [Lincoln] and City [Caliente] noted that the DEIS should include a description of ambient air quality conditions within potentially impacted basins of Lincoln County. Information regarding current air quality conditions in the County were provided to DOE during EIS scoping. The DEIS Affected Environment section on Air Quality does not even refer to Lincoln County specifically and offers only very general observations not useful to determine impacts.

The County and City noted in scoping comments that although construction and operation of repository system components within Lincoln County will not likely affect regional climate, local climatic conditions may impact upon safe operation of the repository system, particularly transportation. The County and City recommended that DEIS consider impacts of climate upon safe transport of radioactive wastes. Aspects of the climate recommended by the County and City for consideration included precipitation (particularly snow and ice), temperature (as may impact upon highway infrastructure and road surface conditions), and fog. The DEIS section on Affected Environment offers only a modest description of the climate within Lincoln County which provides insufficient information upon which to determine potential effects of climate upon safe transportation.

Response
With the exception of the Las Vegas Valley, all areas of Nevada potentially affected by transportation activities are unclassified for air quality and, therefore, "in attainment" with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. A change in air quality resulting from transportation activities associated with the proposed repository project would be unlikely. DOE has revised Section 3.1.2.1 of the EIS to note that these areas of Nevada are unclassified and, therefore, in attainment.

DOE used U.S. Department of Transportation accident and vehicle fatality rate data (DIRS 103455-Saricks and Tompkins 1999) to analyze the impacts presented in Chapter 6 of the EIS. These data include accident statistics for each state under the full range of climatic, road, and traffic conditions that occurred in the United States from 1994 to 1996. Thus, the EIS analysis considered the effects of weather and road conditions in Nevada such as those identified in the comment. In response to public comments, DOE has included Section M.3 to the EIS to discuss transportation protocols that would be implemented for the travel of vehicles carrying spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste in the event of inclement weather.

U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for routing shipments of Highway-Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials (49 CFR Part 397) include rules to minimize radiological risk and consider overall public safety. Highway shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain would comply with these regulations. Preferred routes (see 49 CFR 397.103) that the State of Nevada might designate would comply with these regulations.

8.11.2 (9568)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0241
The DEIS fails to examine the likely interaction of the Yucca Mountain Program Federal activities in Nevada. For example, Clark County is non-attainment for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The DEIS does not analyze the effect construction of the Heavy Haul infrastructure improvements or a rail line will have on the Regional Transportation Plan.

Response
DOE has updated the information on potential impacts of Yucca Mountain transportation activities in Nevada throughout the EIS. For the example cited in the comment, repository activities would cause no air quality impacts to Clark County; potential impacts at the land withdrawal boundary would be small fractions of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (see Section 4.1.2 of the EIS). Section 6.3 describes potential air quality impacts from transportation-related construction and infrastructure improvements. While portions of Clark County do not comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards because of vehicular traffic, any Yucca Mountain-related activities would not cause further deterioration of the existing air quality in this area. The three heavy-haul truck route scenarios through the Las Vegas basin evaluated in the EIS assumed that the affected segments of the Las Vegas Beltway would be completed by 2010, the same year shipments would begin under current DOE plans. Because the required construction and infrastructure upgrades on the planned Las Vegas Beltway would be completed an estimated 10 years before the current estimated completion date of 2020, traffic congestion in the Las Vegas Valley would be improved and the action would complement the Regional Transportation Plan. If DOE selected one of the three heavy-haul truck routes through the Las Vegas basin, it would consult with Clark County on specific impacts to the transportation system caused by the heavy-haul truck route improvements.

8.11.2 (9644)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0309
The DEIS is insufficient because it fails to consider how the Yucca Mountain Program may impact other federally mandated programs that are ongoing in Clark County, Nevada. The best example of this is the issue of air quality. Clark County is nonconforming for Federal air quality standards for both ozone and particulate matter emissions. Construction of rail lines or heavy haul infrastructure proposed in the DEIS will have an effect on air quality in Clark County. It is likely that the Regional Transportation Plan, the Statewide Implementation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program will all be affected by the construction of the infrastructure necessary to support the Yucca Mountain Project. The DOE must establish a provision to perform a conformity analysis for the proposed projects necessary to demonstrate that these construction activities will have no impact on Clark County’s air quality. Other federal activities related to the environment, endangered species, flood control and land management must also be addressed by the DEIS.

Response
All of the areas cited in this comment are addressed in Section 4.1.2 of the EIS for the proposed repository and Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 for transportation-related activities. The specific examples noted for air quality are addressed below.

The Las Vegas Air Basin, part of Clark County, is in nonattainment for carbon monoxide and particulate matter (PM₁₀), but is in attainment for ozone. An analysis of the transportation options that specifically focused on carbon monoxide and PM₁₀ has been conducted for the EIS (see Chapter 6) and in a separate Clean Air Act conformity review.

Potential air quality impacts from construction of a branch rail line that would cross the Las Vegas Air Basin are addressed in Section 6.3.2.2.5 of the EIS. DOE used comparisons to Clark County’s EIS for the northern and western Las Vegas Beltway project to determine there would be no significant impacts to air quality in this area from branch rail line construction.

The potential impacts of the intermodal transfer station that is part of the Sloan/Jean heavy-haul truck implementing alternative are discussed in Section 6.3.3.1 of the EIS. The site of this intermodal transfer station could be in the Las Vegas Air Basin, and thus subject to analysis of air quality attainment status. However, the results of the analyses in Section 6.3.2.1 show that impacts from the construction and operation of the intermodal transfer station would be below the emission threshold rates and, therefore, would meet the requirements for Clean Air Act conformity. Highway upgrades in the Las Vegas Air Basin would not be necessary, so there would be no associated emissions.

In addition, DOE conducted a conformity review to evaluate the potential for air quality impacts of vehicle emissions in the Las Vegas Air Basin arising from transport of materials and personnel for constructing and operating a repository at Yucca Mountain. Because the estimated direct and indirect emissions would be below threshold emission rates for each pollutant of concern established by Environmental Protection Agency regulations (see Section 6.3.3.2.4 of the EIS), DOE determined conformity requirements for the Las Vegas Air Basin would not apply to repository-related transportation activities.

DOE believes that the EIS adequately analyzes the potential for air quality impacts of transportation in the Las Vegas Air Basin. Section 6.3.2.1 of the EIS addresses resource areas common to Nevada branch rail line implementing alternatives and Section 6.3.3.1 addresses those for Nevada heavy-haul truck implementing alternatives. Sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3.2 discuss impacts specific to each Nevada branch rail line or heavy-haul truck implementing alternative, respectively. Once a specific rail corridor or heavy-haul truck route was selected, additional engineering and environmental studies and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act reviews would be conducted, together with consultations with responsible Federal, State, tribal, and local authorities. Mitigative actions would be developed to preclude or compensate for potential impacts.

8.11.2 (9808)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0395
[Clark County summary of comments it has received from the public.]

Several commenters noted that construction and operation of the repository and transportation facilities could degrade current air-quality attainment status (Lincoln and Clark Counties), and that emissions of fugitive dust could impair visibility and reduce the safety of waste transport. Thus, the EIS should describe existing air- quality and meteorological conditions (severity of storms, temperature extremes, fog) in each affected area, and assess the potential environmental consequences to air quality and the extent to which meteorological conditions could affect waste transport.

Response
With the exception of the Las Vegas Valley, all areas of Nevada potentially affected by transportation activities are unclassified and therefore "in attainment" with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The text in Section 3.1.2.1 has been clarified to specifically note that those areas of Nevada potentially affected by the Proposed Action (including Lincoln County) are unclassified and, therefore, in attainment.

Potential air quality impacts from construction and operations at the repository are described in Section 4.1.2 of the EIS. There would be no impacts to air quality on Lincoln or Clark counties from activities at the repository site. Potential air quality impacts from transportation-related construction and operation are described in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3. If DOE selected the Valley Modified Corridor, which passes through the Las Vegas Valley, for the construction and operation of a branch rail line, the final plans, specifications, and estimates would include the Clark County Health District PM₁₀ emissions control measures.

No additional climate description is necessary for those areas where the only potential inputs are related to candidate transportation routes. Any roads that would be considered or designated for transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would have to meet the criteria for safe transportation, meaning that they must be constructed in such a manner to allow for safe transportation considering normal meteorological conditions such as rain, snow, ice, and fog. Normal roadway maintenance such as snow removal can be considered, and in the event of severe meteorological conditions such as a blizzard, trucks could be ordered off the road to wait out such conditions.

8.11.2 (10248)
Comment - EIS002115 / 0010
Weather and natural disasters. Although weather does not seem to be an issue, Mineral County believes it’s a big issue. Most of the radioactive waste would be transported through the northern part of Nevada. This part of the state may have bad weather from November to May as well as many other states from east, central and northwest America. Will the radioactive waste be transported during their timeframe? The DEIS does not have adequate information in case of road closures due to inclement weather, nor provide complete information about safe havens or alternate trucks and siting for rail.

Response
The climate along the transportation routes being considered in the EIS was not described because DOE would consider or designate for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste only those roads that meet the criteria for safe transportation of these materials. Such roads must be constructed in a manner that enables safe transportation considering normal meteorological conditions such as rain, snow, ice, and fog. DOE would purchase services and equipment from Regional Servicing Contractors, who would perform waste acceptance and transportation operations. As described in Section M.3.2.1.4 of the EIS, the Regional Servicing Contractor would obtain route weather forecast information as part of the preshipment planning and notification and shipment process. At the time of departure, current weather conditions would have to be acceptable for safe vehicle operation. Shipments would not travel when severe weather conditions developed along routes or adverse road conditions made travel hazardous. In the event of severe meteorological conditions such as blizzards, trucks could be ordered off the road to wait out such conditions. Similar types of requirements would apply for rail shipments. The appropriate documentation would be prepared on safe havens when a specific route and mode of transportation were selected.

8.11.2 (10886)
Comment - EIS000817 / 0147
P. 6-89. What is the total of pollutants from the total transport of the waste? Here we are trying to cut back on all this, and instead, this project adds to the problem. Are we creating more air hazards to bury a waste?

Response
DOE did not calculate the total quantity of pollutants generated over time from transportation activities and determined that national transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste by truck and rail would not constitute a meaningful source of air pollution along the nation’s highways and railroads. As noted in Section J.1.3.2.3 of the EIS, human health impacts to vehicle exhaust depend principally on the distance traveled in an urban population zone and on the impact factors for particulates and sulfur dioxide from truck or rail emissions, fugitive dust generation, and tire abrasion. National transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would use existing highways and railroads and would average 14.2 million truck kilometers (8.8 million miles) per year for the mostly truck case and 3.5 million railcar shipments per year from the mostly rail case. The national yearly average for total highway and railroad traffic is 186 billion truck kilometers (116 billion miles) and 49 billion railcar kilometers (30 billion miles) (DIRS 148081-BTS 1999). Therefore, the transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would represent 0.008 percent and 0.007 percent of truck and railcar-kilometers traveled, respectively.

8.11.2 (11008)
Comment - EIS001896 / 0006
Section 3.2.2.1.2

The Valley-Modified Rail Corridor crosses Clark County, which could impact PM₁₀ attainment.

Response
Section 6.3.2.1 of the EIS provides a summary discussion of the Conformity Review of the Nevada Rail Implementing alternatives for PM₁₀. Part of this Conformity Review evaluates PM₁₀ emissions in the Las Vegas nonattainment area. A significant portion of PM₁₀ emissions in the nonattainment area are the result of construction activities (DIRS 155557-Clark County 2001). The Valley Modified Corridor would require construction within the nonattainment area. DOE has made quantitative estimates of PM₁₀ releases from rail-line construction, based on the limited amount of information available. These PM₁₀ releases would include the emissions from disturbing the ground and from fuel combustion of the construction equipment. Dust abatement measures (for example, water applications) are assumed to reduce fugitive dust PM₁₀ emissions by 70 percent. Given these assumptions, PM₁₀ emissions during the construction phase of the Valley Modified Corridor are estimated to be up to 190 percent [120 metric tons (130 tons) per year] of the General Conformity threshold level for a PM₁₀ serious nonattainment area, 64 metric tons (70 tons) per year (40 CFR 93.153). This value could be reduced by lengthening the construction time, extremely diligent attention to dust suppression measures, or more detailed task planning to reduce the sources of particulate emissions. Valley Modified Corridor emissions into the nonattainment area would occur during the much longer operations phase, as locomotives passed through the nonattainment area on their way to the Yucca Mountain site. The operations emissions of PM₁₀ for the Valley Modified Corridor were estimated to be less than 3 percent of the General Conformity threshold levels. In addition, the Conformity Review compared the PM₁₀ release estimates to the Nevada PM₁₀ State Implementation Plan’s (DIR 155557-Clark County 2001) estimated annual [154,788 metric tons (170,625 tons) per year (2001 estimate)] and daily [653 metric tons (719.78 tons) per year (2001 estimate)] inventories of PM₁₀ for the nonattainment area. The Valley Modified Corridor PM₁₀ emissions estimates are less than 0.08 percent of these inventories during construction.

8.11.2 (11009)
Comment - EIS001896 / 0007
Section 3.2.2.2.2

The Sloan/Jean Intermodal Transfer Station could impact PM₁₀ attainment.

Response
Section 6.3.3.1 of the EIS discusses potential impacts from constructing and operating an intermodal transfer station that could be part of the Sloan/Jean heavy-haul truck implementing alternative. Implementation of this implementing alternative could result in an intermodal transfer station in the Las Vegas Air Basin. Tables 6-83 and 6-84 of the EIS lists annual criteria pollutant releases from constructing and operating an intermodal transfer station over 24 years. The results of the analyses discussed in Section 6.3.3.1 demonstrate that the PM₁₀ emissions from >construction and operation of the intermodal transfer station would not exceed General Conformity threshold levels for areas such as the Las Vegas Valley, which is classified as a serious nonattainment level.

8.11.2 (13187)
Comment - EIS010243 / 0034
The EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] issued transportation conformity regulations on Nov 24, 1993 to implement section 176(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act as amended. The transportation conformity regulations apply to actions of the FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] and FTA [Federal Transit Administration]. Actions of other federal agencies, including other transportation agencies are covered by the general conformity regulations issued by the EPA on November 30, 1993. The DOE is covered by these general conformity regulations.

The Las Vegas Valley is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a serious non-attainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM₁₀). The Clark County Regional Transportation Commission is responsible for establishing CO and PM₁₀emissions and for demonstrating conformity. Because Clark County is a non-attainment area for air quality emissions, the pollutants generated by the NPA are of concern. Air quality impacts are important to Clark County for regulatory purposes that are not considered in the SDEIS. The construction and operation of NPA transportation facilities effects the ability of Clark County to meet national air quality standards. Failure to meet these standards will harm Clark County’s ability to obtain Federal funding for transportation facilities and will generally harm the quality of life in Clark County.

Vehicular emissions are the primary source of CO pollutants, whereas construction activities are the primary source of dust (PM₁₀) in the Valley. In addition to vehicle miles of travel, congestion is a significant contributor to increased CO emissions.

Projected carbon monoxide emissions calculated by the Regional Transportation Commission for the projected roadway types, travel speed characteristics, and emission factors using the Mobile 5b model are:

Facility Type Major Arterial (four lane)
Posted Speed 45 mph
Free Flow Speed 45 mph
Average Travel Speed 35 mph
Congested Speed 20 mph

Figure 3 Uncongested Travel Speed Characteristics and Carbon Monoxide Emissions

45 mph 4.87 grams/mile
35 mph 6.82 grams/mile
20 mph 13.51 grams/mile

Figure 2 Emission Factors and carbon dioxide emission factors

These emission factors are used to calculate the amount of air quality impact on Clark County attributable to the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project].

The emissions for the construction phase air quality impact cannot be calculated because not enough information is provided by the SDEIS on the vehicle trips required to construct and operate the facility. During the operational phase of the NPA there will be significant air quality problems. The impacts on air quality due to legal-weight truck shipments will be very substantial. The results of the analysis are presented below.

Pollutants Truck Air Quality Impacts
CO2 48,213,000
PM10 47,223,000

Figure 3 Total Grams of Air Pollutants During the Operational Phase

The cumulative impacts due to the shipment of LLW [low-level radioactive waste] to the NTS [Nevada Test Site] are assumed to be the emissions from the legal-weight trucks that will traverse the valley en route to the NTS. Because these shipments take place on the region’s freeways, the emission factors for higher speeds are used. The cumulative impacts of LLW transportation are below.

Air Quality Impact Cumulative Impacts
CO2 182,274,840
PM10 869,450,987

Figure 4 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts

The air quality impacts due to the YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] will substantially degrade Clark County’s air quality. They will make it increasingly difficult for local government to meet air quality goals and could cause other Federal agencies to take punitive action on Clark County due to the YMP. The NPA should have been prepared to accommodate the regional transportation plans and conform to the FHWA’s [Federal Highway Administration] regulations for statewide planning.

Response
DOE agrees with the Clark County Regional Transportation Commission comment that the Las Vegas Valley is classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a serious nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM₁₀). Section 6.3 of the EIS describes the impacts of these emissions and other listed pollutants from cars, trucks, rail, and other conveyance vehicles that would travel through the Las Vegas Valley and construction activities within the Valley. In Appendix J of the EIS, DOE states that it has developed the transportation conformity documentation to demonstrate that carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions would not hinder the Las Vegas Valley in their efforts to meet national ambient air quality standards. DOE has recognized the carbon monoxide and PM₁₀ State Implementation Plans in the EIS and would abide by the requirements of the plan in any actions taken following a decision to proceed with the repository and related transportation program.

DOE has converted the results of the analyses performed by the Clark County Regional Transportation Commission, as presented in the comment, to the units used in the Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan (Table 8-3) (DIRS 156706-Clark County 2000) and determined the percent of 2000 "daily budget" that they would represent. For legal-weight trucks transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, the 48,213,000 grams of carbon monoxide emissions during the repository operation period (24 years) would be 0.0029 percent of the "daily budget" for on-road mobile sources. For legal-weight trucks transporting low-level radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site, the 182,274,840 grams of carbon monoxide emissions during the same period would be 0.011 percent of the "daily budget".

DOE converted the results of the analyses performed by the Clark County Regional Transportation Commission, as presented in the comment, to the units used in the Particulate Matter (PM₁₀) State Implementation Plan (Table 3-8) (DIRS 155557-Clark County 2001) and determined the percent of 2001 "annual inventory" that they would represent. For legal-weight trucks transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, the 47,223,000 grams of PM₁₀ emissions during the repository operation period (24 years) would be 0.0027 percent of the "annual inventory" for on-road mobile sources. For legal-weight trucks transporting low-level radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site, the 869,450,987 grams of PM₁₀ emissions during the same period would be 0.051 percent of the "annual inventory." Note that the transportation of low-level radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site is not part of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository action but would be a cumulative impact under the National Environmental Policy Act going on at the same time in the same area as the proposed action. Cumulative impacts, including the transportation of low-level radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site, are given in Chapter 8 of the EIS.

It is DOE’s opinion that these potential air quality impacts would be very small and that adequate information on potential air quality impacts of transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including cumulative impacts, is provided in the EIS to support current decisionmaking.

8.11.3 Hydrology/Geology

8.11.3 (3019)
Comment - EIS000593 / 0004
Mineral County’s flood plain map is incorrect. If this is so, how reliable is the information gathered for Yucca Mountain and other areas?

Response
DOE has added more information to the floodplain/wetland assessment in Appendix L of the EIS to address flooding along candidate Nevada transportation routes. Appendix L now identifies 100-year flood zones that the rail corridors and their alternative alignment segments would cross, based on information from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The EIS does not, however, show or discuss floodplain areas in Mineral County, because none of the rail corridors or heavy-haul truck routes under consideration in the EIS pass through Mineral County.

8.11.3 (3020)
Comment - EIS000593 / 0005
The flood plain report in the DEIS is too generalized. Mineral County would like to have a detailed flood plain analysis done of Yucca Mountain and each affected county.

Response
The floodplain/wetland assessment in Appendix L of the EIS examines the effects to floodplains and wetlands of the construction of a branch rail line or intermodal transfer station, along with its associated route for heavy-haul trucks to Yucca Mountain. Appendix L compares the impacts from construction on the floodplains/wetlands along the candidate rail corridors, and at candidate intermodal transfer stations and associated heavy-hail truck routes. The assessment does not evaluate potential effects along existing routes because such roads should be designed to meet 100-year floodplain design specifications. For the Final EIS, DOE selected rail as the preferred mode of waste transport to the repository. A more detailed floodplain/wetland assessment of the rail alignment in Nevada would be conducted.

8.11.3 (4197)
Comment - EIS001160 / 0015
White Pine County has recently adopted a plan for managing the abundant and high-quality surface and ground water resources which characterize the area. Said plan envisions significant portions of these waters being put to beneficial use by way of beverage bottling to meet an ever-growing demand for beverages in the Western United States. The DEIS does not reference the White Pine County Water Resources Management Plan nor the potential for transportation of radioactive wastes through the County to stigmatize area water resources.

Response
If the repository was to be approved, and if a mode and route to transport waste through Nevada were selected, DOE would conduct additional detailed field surveys, government consultations, analyses, and appropriate National Environmental Policy Act reviews. If any waste-transport route could affect White Pine County, the Water Resources Management Plan for the County would be examined, along with other county-specific information on the physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic conditions in the County.

During scoping for the EIS, DOE received comments on the need to address perception-based and stigma-related impacts. DOE considered these issues and was guided by the results of its own research and those of the State of Nevada, and by relevant conclusions reached by reviews of this subject matter by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (an independent board established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982) in 1995 and other researchers up through about 1997. During preparation of the Draft EIS, DOE concluded that analysis of perception-based or stigma-related impacts would be uncertain or speculative at best and thus would not have been meaningful in the context of the EIS. Therefore, DOE addressed, but did not quantify, whether or how individual members of the public, or the public collectively, could or would respond to the perception of risk, whether or not this risk was real.

For this Final EIS, however, DOE elected to reexamine the relevant literature and the state of research into perception-based impacts and stigma effects. DOE reevaluated the independent reviews conducted by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and the State of Nevada, among others, and identified and assessed relevant studies that have been published in the interim. DOE has concluded that while there might be a modest relationship between negative perceptions and human behaviors that could adversely affect the local economy, there are no known analytical methods by which the occurrence, timing, and extent of such impacts can be accurately predicted as they relate to the transportation or disposal of radioactive materials.

8.11.3 (5539)
Comment - EIS001660 / 0041
The DEIS fails to adequately disclose the impacts of the proposed action on water and water rights (pp. 6-10,-36,-61,62). The State Engineer oversees use of waters of the State of Nevada for the long-term benefit of residents. Given the and climate and the scarcity of surface water resources, the quality and quantity of groundwater are particularly important to Mineral County and the state as a whole. The DOE must consult the State Engineer to determine whether the utilization of groundwater from wells in the Nevada affected counties (p. 6-10) would be consistent with the water laws of the State of Nevada, affect the water rights of the existing holders of such rights, or affect the cost of water for domestic and agricultural use. The DEIS must also disclose the risk to groundwater resources that could be affected by a radiological accident and hazardous waste discharge associated with the propo