0.3 rem per year 70 years
0.0005 latent cancer fatality per person-rem3. Affected Environment
To analyze potential environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the Proposed Action, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has compiled extensive information about the environments that could be affected. The Department used this information to establish the baseline against which it measured potential impacts (see Chapter 4). Chapter 3 describes (1) environmental conditions that will exist at and in the region of the proposed repository site at Yucca Mountain after the conclusion of site characterization activities (Section 3.1); (2) environmental conditions along the proposed transportation corridors in Nevada that DOE could use to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site (Section 3.2); and (3) environmental conditions at the 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites in the United States that manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (Section 3.3). DOE obtained baseline environmental information from many sources. These sources included reports and studies sponsored by DOE, other Federal agencies (for example, the U.S. Geological Survey), and the State of Nevada and affected units of local government. Affected units of local government include Nye County, which is the county in which the repository site is located, by DOE decision as allowed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended (this EIS refers to the amended Act as the NWPA), counties contiguous to Nye County (that is, Clark, Lincoln, White Pine, Eureka, Lander, Churchill, Mineral, and Esmeralda Counties in Nevada and Inyo County in California). In addition, DOE has sought input from Elko County, Nevada, which could be affected by transportation activities associated with the Proposed Action. DOE received reports from the State of Nevada and affected units of local government during the EIS scoping process, informally from local government personnel, and formally during ongoing interactions between DOE and State and local governments. The subjects of these reports include socioeconomics, cultural resources, hydrology, transportation planning and emergency response, and resource supply. DOE evaluated these reports and, where appropriate, they are discussed in individual resource area sections of the EIS.3.1 Affected Environment at the Yucca Mountain Repository Site at the Conclusion of Site Characterization Activities
To define the existing environment at and in the region of the proposed repository, DOE has compiled environmental baseline information for 13 subject areas. This environment includes the manmade structures and physical disturbances from DOE-sponsored site selection studies (1977 to 1988) and site characterization studies (1989 to 2001) to determine the suitability of the site for a repository. This chapter and supporting documents, called environmental baseline files, contain baseline information for:3.1.1 Land Use and Ownership
The region of influence for land use and ownership includes land at the site of the proposed repository that DOE would not disturb and the lands that surround the site of the proposed repository over which DOE would have to obtain permanent control to operate the repository. The Department has compiled land-use and ownership information for this region. Most of the land in the region is managed by agencies of the Federal Government. Sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2 discuss land use and ownership for the region of influence and for a larger area around Yucca Mountain. Section 3.1.1.3 describes the analyzed land withdrawal area for the repository. Section 3.1.1.4 discusses Native American views about the ownership of the land around Yucca Mountain. The Environmental Baseline File for Land Use (DIRS 104993-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) is the basis of the information in this section unless otherwise noted.3.1.1.1 Regional Land Use and Ownership
The Federal Government manages more than 85 percent of the land in Nevada (about 240,000 square kilometers or 93,000 square miles). Most of this land is under the control of the Bureau of Land Management (which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior), the U.S. Department of Defense, and DOE. The remainder of the Federally managed land is primarily under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with smaller areas under the control of the National Park Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, both of which are parts of the Department of the Interior. About 42,000 square kilometers (16,000 square miles) are under State, local, or private ownership, and about 5,000 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) are Native American lands. Table 3-3 summarizes Nevada land holdings and the controlling authority. Figure 3-1 shows ownership and use of lands around the site of the proposed repository. The Nevada Test Site, which is a DOE facility, covers about 3,700 square kilometers (1,400 square miles). The Atomic Energy Commission, a DOE predecessor agency, established the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s to test nuclear devices. More information on current and future uses of the Nevada Test Site is available in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, all). The U.S. Air Force operates the Nellis Air Force Range [its name recently changed to the Nevada Test and Training Range (DIRS 157220-BLM 2001, all)], which covers about 12,000 square kilometers (4,500 square miles) and is one of the largest and most active military training ranges in the United States. More information on current and future uses of the Nellis Range is available in the Renewal of the Nellis Air Force Range Land Withdrawal Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 103472-USAF 1999, all). The Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999, approved by the passage of Public Law 106-65 on October 5, 1999, went into effect on November 6, 2001 and extended the affected land withdrawal until November 6, 2021. Actions taken under the Act at the Nellis Range also affected lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy (DIRS 103472-USAF 1999, pp. 2-8 to 2-10). Approximately 140 and 520 square kilometers (55 and 200 square miles) of land were transferred from the Department of Defense (that is, the Nellis Range) to the Bureau of Land Management (for public use) and DOE, respectively. Approximately 160 square kilometers (60 square miles) of land formerly withdrawn for use by DOE was transferred to the Department of Defense. The Nevada land areas and controlling authorities summarized in Table 3-3 incorporate these changes. The region has special-use areas, which generally are excluded from development that would require terrain alterations unless such alterations would benefit wildlife or public recreation. The Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior manages the Desert National Wildlife Range and the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, which are about 50 kilometers (30 miles) east and 39 kilometers (24 miles) south of Yucca Mountain, respectively (Figure 3-1). These areas provide habitat for a number of resident and migratory animal species in relatively undisturbed natural ecosystems. The National Park Service manages Death Valley National Park, which is in California and Nevada approximately 35 kilometers (22 miles) southwest of Yucca Mountain. The small enclave of Devils Hole Protective Withdrawal in Nevada adjacent to the east-central boundary of Ash Meadows is also administered by the National Park Service (Figure 3-1). The Timber Mountain Caldera National Natural Landmark is located primarily on the Nellis Air Force Range and the Nevada Test Site. The Landmark is just north of the proposed repository withdrawal area. The Timber Mountain Caldera is also designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (DIRS 157220-BLM 2001, p. 2-9). [CALDERA]There is virtually no State-owned land immediately adjacent to the repository site. There are scattered tracts of private land in and near communities such as Beatty and Indian Springs in Nevada. There are also larger private tracts in the Las Vegas Valley, around Pahrump, and in the south-central portion of the large area that makes up Amargosa Valley. The closest year-round housing is at what was once referred to as Lathrop Wells, about 22 kilometers (14 miles) south of the site. This location is now part of the unincorporated Town of Amargosa Valley. There is farming—primarily grasses and legumes—for hay and dairy operations about 30 kilometers (19 miles) south of the proposed repository (Figure 3-1).
3.1.1.2 Current Land Use and Ownership at Yucca Mountain
DOE has established land-use agreements to support its site characterization activities at Yucca Mountain. The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Zone (Figure 3-2) includes DOE, Bureau of Land Management, and Air Force lands. The Bureau of Land Management granted DOE a right-of-way reservation (N-47748) for Yucca Mountain site characterization activities (DIRS 102218-BLM 1988, all). This reservation comprises 210 square kilometers (52,000 acres). The land in this reservation is open to public use, with the exception of about 20 square kilometers (5,000 acres) near the site of the proposed repository that were withdrawn in 1990 from the mining and mineral leasing laws to protect the physical integrity of the repository block (P.L. Order 6802, "Withdrawal of Public Land to Maintain the Physical Integrity of the Subsurface Environment, Yucca Mountain Project"). The lands in this reservation not withdrawn from the mining and mineral leasing laws contain a number of unpatented mining claims (lode and placer). In addition, there is one patented mining claim surrounded by the reservation. Patented Mining Claim No. 27-83-0002 covers 0.8 square kilometer (200 acres) to mine volcanic cinders used as a raw material in the manufacture of cinderblocks. The Bureau of Land Management manages surface resources on the Nellis Air Force Range. In 1994, the Bureau granted DOE a right-of-way reservation (N-48602) to use about 75 square kilometers (19,000 acres) of Nellis land for Yucca Mountain site characterization activities (DIRS 102219-BLM 1994, all). This land, which is closed to public access and use, has been studied extensively. Many of the exploratory facilities are on Nellis land. The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office and the DOE Nevada Operations Office have a management agreement that allows the use of about 230 square kilometers (58,000 acres) of Nevada Test Site land for site characterization activities. The Land Facility Use Management Policy under the Memorandum of Agreement with the Nevada Test Site gives the Yucca Mountain Project technical responsibility independent of, but in coordination with, environmental activities at the Nevada Test Site. The Yucca Mountain Project is in compliance with the agreement, which requires it to meet the same environmental requirements that apply to the Nevada Test Site.3.1.1.3 Potential Repository Land Withdrawal
Nuclear Regulatory Commission initial licensing conditions for a monitored geologic repository (10 CFR Part 60) have been modified under 10 CFR Part 63 to include risk-informed, performance-based environmental regulations. These conditions include a requirement that the lands for which DOE is seeking a repository license be either acquired and under the jurisdiction and control of DOE or be permanently withdrawn and reserved for its use. As noted, portions of the lands being used for site characterization that would be required for the repository are controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force, and the DOE Nevada Operations Office. Because all of these lands are not under permanent DOE control, a land withdrawal would be required. The procedure for land withdrawal is the method by which the Federal Government places exclusive control over land it owns with a particular agency for a particular purpose. Only Congress has the power to withdraw Federal lands permanently for the exclusive purposes of specific agencies. Congress can authorize and direct a permanent withdrawal of lands such as those required for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The extent and conditions of the withdrawal would be determined by Congress. The extent of a land withdrawal area is important to the analysis and understanding of the impacts of the Proposed Action. For example, the magnitude of impacts to a member of the public from an accident at an operating repository would be determined in part by the proximity of the land withdrawal boundary to the repository operations areas. As a consequence, DOE used a conservative land withdrawal area to extend control toward the closest populated area, the Town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada, thus preventing future encroachment as the basis for analysis in this EIS. The identification of either a restricted or controlled area boundary would be defined as part of the licensing process, if there was a determination to proceed with the Yucca Mountain Repository. Figure 3-2 shows the land withdrawal area analyzed in this EIS that encompasses the current right-of-way reservations for site characterization. This area includes about 600 square kilometers (150,000 acres) of land. The land in this area is currently under the control of the Air Force, DOE, and the Bureau of Land Management (Table 3-4). Approximately 180 square kilometers (45,000 acres) of Bureau of Land Management land in the southwestern portion of the withdrawal area overlaps the taxing district for the unincorporated Town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada. This taxing district, described under Section 18.04.010 of the Nye County Code and Nye County Ordinance 136, encompasses approximately 1,300 square kilometers (320,000 acres). The 180 square kilometers of overlap is Federal land that the Bureau of Land Management administers as public land under a multiple-use classification that the Federal Government has not conveyed to a municipality. Most of the land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management in the analyzed land withdrawal area is associated with the current right-of-way reservation (N-47748) for Yucca Mountain site characterization activities. This land is open to public use, with the exception of about 20 square kilometers (5,000 acres) near the site of the proposed repository that are withdrawn from the mining and mineral leasing laws and an existing patented mining claim (No. 27-83-0002). The lands open to public use also contain a number of unpatented mining claims (lode and placer). Off-road vehicle use is permitted in these lands. There is a designated utility corridor in the southern portion of these lands. More detailed descriptions of the land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management in the region of Yucca Mountain are available in the Proposed Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 103079-BLM 1998, all).3.1.1.4 Native American Treaty Issue
One Native American ethnic group with cultural and historic ties to the Yucca Mountain region is the Western Shoshone. A special concern of the Western Shoshone people is the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone people maintain that the treaty gives them rights to 97,000 square kilometers (24 million acres) in Nevada, including the Yucca Mountain region (DIRS 102216-Western Shoshone v. United States 1997, all). The legal dispute over the land began in 1946 when the Indian Claims Commission Act gave tribes the right to sue the Federal Government for unkept treaty promises. If a tribe were to win a claim against the Government, the Act specifies that the tribe could receive only a monetary award and not land or other remunerations. The Western Shoshone people filed a claim in the early 1950s alleging that the Government had taken their land. The Indian Claims Commission found that Western Shoshone title to the Nevada lands had gradually extinguished and set a monetary award as payment for the land. In 1976, the Commission entered its final award to the Western Shoshone people, who dispute the Commission findings and have not accepted the monetary award for the lands in question. They maintain that a settlement has not been reached (the U.S. Treasury is holding these monies in an interest-bearing account) and that Yucca Mountain is on Western Shoshone land. A 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision (DIRS 148197-United States v. Dann 1985, all) ruled that even though the money has not been distributed, the United States has met its obligations with the Commission's final award and, as a consequence, the aboriginal title to the land had been extinguished.3.1.2 Air Quality and Climate
The region of influence for air quality is an area within a radius of about 80 kilometers (50 miles) around the site of the proposed repository and at the boundaries of controlled lands around Yucca Mountain. This region encompasses portions of Esmeralda, Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties in Nevada and a portion of Inyo County, California. To determine the air quality and climate for the Yucca Mountain region, DOE site characterization activities have included the monitoring of air quality and meteorological conditions. The Department has monitored the air for gaseous criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide) and for particulate matter. This section describes the existing air quality and climate at the proposed repository site and in the surrounding region. Sections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2 describe the air quality and climate, respectively. Unless otherwise noted, the Environmental Baseline File for Meteorology and Air Quality (DIRS 102877-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) is the basis for the information provided in this section.3.1.2.1 Air Quality
Air quality is determined by measuring concentrations of certain pollutants in the atmosphere. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designates an area as being in attainment for a particular pollutant if ambient concentrations of that pollutant are below National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Table 3-5). (Ambient air is that part of the atmosphere outside buildings to which the general public has access.) The Environmental Protection Agency established the national standards, as directed by the Clean Air Act, to define levels of air quality that are necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health (primary standards) and the public welfare (secondary standards). The standards specify the maximum pollutant concentrations and frequencies of occurrence for specific averaging periods.Areas in violation of one or more of these standards are called nonattainment areas. If there are not enough air quality data to determine the status of attainment of a remote or sparsely populated area, the area is listed as unclassified. For regulatory purposes, unclassified areas are considered to be in attainment.
Section 176(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that their actions conform to applicable implementation plans for achieving and maintaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants. In addition, this section of the Act assigns primary oversight responsibility to the agencies, not to the Environmental Protection Agency or the States. Specifically, for there to be conformity, a Federal action must not contribute to new violations of standards for ambient air quality, increase the frequency or severity of existing violations, or delay timely attainment of standards in the area of concern (for example, a State or a smaller air quality region). The Environmental Protection Agency general conformity regulations (40 CFR 93, Subpart B) contain guidance for determining if a proposed Federal action would cause emissions to be above certain levels in locations designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas. In this case, a maintenance area is a region that was previously in nonattainment, but which has been redesignated to an attainment area with a requirement to develop a maintenance plan. The quality of the air at the site of the proposed repository and the surrounding parts of the Nevada Test Site, Nellis Air Force Range (including southwestern Lincoln County), southwestern Esmeralda County, and southern Nye County is unclassified because there are limited air quality data (40 CFR 81.329). Data collected at the site indicate the air quality is within applicable standards. Portions of Clark County in the air quality region of influence are in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Inyo County, California, is in attainment with national and California ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. It is in attainment with the national PM10 standard, but in nonattainment with the more restrictive California standard (DIRS 103161-CEPA 1998, pp. H6 to H35). Outside the repository air quality region of influence, most of Nevada is unclassified and therefore in attainment. There are Nevada exceptions; Reno and Las Vegas are both in nonattainment for carbon monoxide and PM10 and the Lake Tahoe basin is in nonattainment for carbon monoxide. In addition, the Reno area is in nonattainment for ozone. Section 3.2.2 contains additional air quality information. Air quality in attainment areas is controlled under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program of the Clean Air Act, with the goal of preventing significant deterioration of existing air quality. Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions, Congress established a land classification scheme for areas of the country with air quality better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Class I allows very little deterioration of air quality; Class II allows moderate deterioration; and Class III allows more deterioration; but in all cases the pollution concentrations shall not violate any of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Congress designated certain areas as mandatory Class I, which precludes redesignation to a less restrictive class, to acknowledge the value of maintaining these areas in relatively pristine condition. Congress also protected other nationally important lands by originally designating them as Class II and restricting redesignation to Class I only. All other areas were initially classified as Class II, and can be redesignated as either Class I or Class III. In the region of influence, all areas are designated as Class II. There are no Class I areas, although one area, the Death Valley National Park, is a national monument and a protected Class II area that could be redesignated as Class I (DIRS 148117-EPA 1998, all; DIRS 148119-EPA 1997, all). It is about 35 kilometers (22 miles) southwest of Yucca Mountain. The construction and operation of a facility in an attainment area could be subject to the requirements of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program if the facility received a classification as a major source of air pollutants. At present, the proposed repository site and the Nevada Test Site have no sources subject to those requirements (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, p. 4-146). As part of Yucca Mountain site characterization, DOE obtained an air quality operating permit from the State of Nevada (DIRS 104920-Del Porto 1996, all). The permit places specific operating conditions on various systems that DOE uses during site characterization activities. These conditions include limiting the emission of criteria pollutants, defining the number of hours a day and a year a system is allowed to operate, and determining the testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping required for the system. In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and particulate matter. The new standard for particulate matter (40 CFR 50.7) includes fine particles in the respirable range with diameters smaller than 2.5 micrometers (see Table 3-5). The implementation of this new standard applies to all areas, but initial monitoring will focus on urban areas because (1) this pollutant comes primarily from combustion (auto exhaust, etc.) rather than fugitive dust sources (windblown dust, etc.) and (2) the first priority for monitoring programs is the assessment of densely populated areas. The new (1997) standard for ozone included revoking the 1-hour ozone standard for all counties in the United States with no current measured violations, including all of Nevada and the region around Yucca Mountain, and replacing it with a new 8-hour ozone standard. The new particulate and ozone standards were challenged in court and subsequently overturned by a Federal appeals court (DIRS 148090-American Trucking Associations v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999, all). As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency reinstated the 1-hour ozone standard in July 2000. However, early in 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to set national air quality standards (DIRS 156704-Whitman v. American Trucking Associations 2001, all). Following its ruling, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the appeals court to resolve all outstanding issues in light of its opinion. Implementation of the standards is delayed pending resolution of implementation details and some additional legal issues. In 1989, DOE began monitoring particulate matter at the site of the proposed repository as part of site characterization activities and later as part of the Nevada Air Quality operating permit requirements. Concentration levels of inhalable particles smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter have been well below applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards, with annual average concentrations 20 to 25 percent of the standard (see Table 3-5). From October 1991 through September 1995, DOE monitored the site of the proposed repository for gaseous criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide) as part of site characterization. The concentration levels of each pollutant were well below the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (see Table 3-5). In fact, concentrations of carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide were not detectable during the entire monitoring period. Nitrogen dioxide was detected occasionally at concentrations of a few parts per billion (around 0.002 part per million) by volume, probably from nearby vehicle exhausts, about 4 percent of the applicable annual average standard (see Table 3-5). Ozone was the only criteria pollutant routinely detected; the maximum hourly concentrations were 0.081 to 0.096 part per million, which is 67 to 80 percent of the 1-hour regulatory standard. The source of the ozone has not been determined, but could be urban areas in southern California.3.1.2.2 Climate
The Yucca Mountain region has a relatively arid climate, with annual precipitation totals ranging between approximately 10 and 25 centimeters (4 and 10 inches) per year (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998, Volume 1, p. 2-29). Precipitation at a given location depends on nearby topographic features. The winter season is mild, with some periods of below freezing temperatures. Occasional periods of persistent rain have produced more than 5 centimeters (2 inches) of rainfall in daily periods. The summer season is typically hot and dry, with occasional periods of monsoon thunderstorms producing locally large amounts of rain. Storms can produce more than 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) of rain in a matter of hours. Mean nighttime and daytime air temperatures typically range from 22°C to 34°C (72°F to 93°F) in the summer and from 2°C to 10.5°C (34°F to 51°F) in the winter (DIRS 100117-CRWMS M&O 1997, pp. A-1 to A-16). Temperature extremes range from -15°C to 45°C (5°F to 113°F). On average, the daily range in temperature change is about 10°C (18°F). Higher elevations are cooler, though the coldest areas can be in canyons and washes to which heavy cold air flows at night. Relative humidity levels range from about 10 percent on summer afternoons to about 50 percent on winter mornings and to near 100 percent during precipitation events. In the valleys, airflow is channeled by local topography, particularly at night during stable conditions (DIRS 100117-CRWMS M&O 1997, p. 4-13 to 4-16). With the exception of the nearby confining terrain, which includes washes and small canyons on the east side of Yucca Mountain, local wind patterns have a strong daily cycle of daytime winds from the south and nighttime winds from the north. Confined areas also have daily cycles, but the wind directions are along terrain axes, typically upslope in the daytime and downslope at night. Wind direction can also vary with height. As shown in Figure 3-3, the winds at a height of 60 meters (200 feet) show a strong north-south flow up and down the valley. The winds at 10 meters (33 feet) show a strong southerly flow, but at night the wind pattern reflects more of the drainage flow downslope from Yucca Mountain. Hourly average wind speeds are usually greater than 1.8 meters a second (4 miles an hour), indicating few calm periods. Over the entire monitoring network, the average wind speed ranges from 2.5 to 4.4 meters a second (5.6 to 9.8 miles an hour); the fastest 1-minute wind speeds range from 19 to 33 meters a second (42 to 74 miles an hour); and the peak gusts range from 26 to 38 meters a second (59 to 86 miles an hour). The highest wind speeds typically occur on exposed ridges. Severe weather can occur in the region, usually in the form of summer thunderstorms. These storms can generate an abundant amount of lightning, strong winds, and heavy and rapid precipitation. Tornadoes can occur, though they are not a substantial threat in the region; four have been recorded within 240 kilometers (150 miles) of the site of the proposed repository during the past 53 years, and one occurred in 1987 in the Amargosa Desert about 50 kilometers (30 miles) south of the site (DIRS 100117-CRWMS M&O 1997, p. 4-26). Paleoclimatology. Climate studies and analyses pursued as part of the Yucca Mountain project have also included paleoclimatology, which is the study of ancient climates. These studies looked at time scales as large as hundreds of millennia. The primary assumption associated with paleoclimatology efforts is that climate is cyclical so that past climates provide insight into potential future climates (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 6.4-2). The efforts have incorporated studies of the Earth's orbital and global circulation parameters and how those parameters have affected ancient climates in the Yucca Mountain region. Orbital parameters include theories that the shape of the Earth's orbit and the "wobble" in its axial spin change in cycles that repeat over tens and hundreds of millennia (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 6.3-4). Correlations have been made between these global position changes and long duration traces, or evidence, of paleoclimate conditions in the region. Two of the primary sources of this evidence are calcite deposited on the walls of rock fractures at Devils Hole in Nevada and lake deposits at the historic Owens Lake location in California. In these examples, analysis of residues left behind has provided insights into climate conditions as far back as 600,000 to 850,000 years ago (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 6.3-9 and 6.3-12). Climate regimes believed to have existed in Yucca Mountain's past, and therefore that should occur in its future, have been grouped into the following categories: (1) a warm and dry, modern-like interglacial climate; (2) a warm and wet monsoon climate; (3) an intermediate glacial transition climate; and (4) glacial periods (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 6.4-11 and 6.4-17). The driest of these climate groupings is the modern-like interglacial climate and (as indicated by its name) represents the climate currently being experienced at Yucca Mountain. Characteristics of these climate regimes and postulated future durations are included as input parameters to the long-term performance assessment modeling performed for the site (DIRS 153246-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 3-38 to 3-42).3.1.3 Geology
DOE has studied the existing physiographic setting (characteristic landforms), stratigraphy (rock strata), and geologic structure (structural features resulting from rock deformations) at Yucca Mountain and in the surrounding region. These studies have yielded detailed information about the surface and subsurface features in the region. This section describes the region of influence for geology, which includes the baseline conditions of the region's geology as well as the specific geology of Yucca Mountain. DOE investigated seismicity (earthquake activity) in the Yucca Mountain region; the investigations focused on understanding the Quaternary history of movement on faults in the region and the historic record of earthquake activity. The Department also investigated volcanoes in the Yucca Mountain region to assess the potential for volcanism to result in adverse effects to a repository. In addition, DOE considered the possibility that there might be minerals and energy resources at or near the site of the proposed repository.3.1.3.1 Physiography (Characteristic Landforms)
Yucca Mountain is in the southern part of the Great Basin subprovince of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province (Figure 3-4), a region characterized by generally north-trending, linear mountain ranges separated by intervening valleys (basins) (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 2.2-1). The Great Basin encompasses nearly all of Nevada plus parts of Utah, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Mountain ranges of the Great Basin, including Yucca Mountain, are mostly tilted, fault-bounded crustal blocks that are as much as 80 kilometers (50 miles) long and 8 to 24 kilometers (5 to 15 miles) wide. Ranges typically rise from 300 to 1,500 meters (1,000 to 4,900 feet) above the adjacent valley floors and occupy 40 to 50 percent of the total land area (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 4.4-1 and 4.4-2). Valleys between the mountain ranges are filled with alluvial sediments (deposits of sand, mud, and other such materials formed by flowing water) from the adjacent ranges. Many valleys are called closed basins because they, like the Great Basin on a regional scale, lack a drainage outlet (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 2.2-1). Water and sediment from adjacent ranges become trapped and move to the lowest part of such valleys to form a playa, a flat area that is largely vegetation-free owing to high salinity, which results from evaporation of the water. Valleys with drainage outlets have intermittent stream channels that carry eroded sediment to lower drainage areas. The present landscape, distinguished by the broad series of elongated mountain ranges alternating with parallel valleys, is the result of past episodes of faulting that elevated the ranges above the adjacent valleys. Section 3.1.3.2 addresses such faulting. Yucca Mountain is an irregularly shaped volcanic upland, 6 to 10 kilometers (4 to 6 miles) wide and 35 kilometers (22 miles) long (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 2.2-1 and 4.4). This mountain is part of a volcanic plateau formed between about 14 million and 11.5 million years ago (DIRS 100075-Sawyer et al. 1994, p. 1304) known as the Southwestern Nevada volcanic field. Although Yucca Mountain is a product of both volcanic activity and faulting, the region exhibits evidence of a complex history of deformation associated with past interactions of crustal segments (plates) (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 4.2-1). Geologic relations indicate that many of the current features and the landscape in the Yucca Mountain region formed between 12.7 million and 11.7 million years ago (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 4.4-2). Remnants of the Timber Mountain caldera (one of the centers of the southwestern Nevada volcanic field from which most of the volcanic rocks on the surface of Yucca Mountain were erupted) and other calderas are north of Yucca Mountain (see Figure 3-5). Almost without exception, west-facing slopes at Yucca Mountain are steep and east-facing slopes are gentle, which expresses the underlying geologic structure (see Section 3.1.3.2). Small valleys eroded in the mountain are narrow, V-shaped drainages that flatten and broaden near the mountain base. The crest of Yucca Mountain reaches elevations from 1,500 meters (4,900 feet) to 1,900 meters (6,300 feet) above sea level. The bottoms of the adjacent valleys are approximately 650 meters (2,100 feet) lower (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 4.4-4). Yucca Mountain is bordered on the north by Pinnacles Ridge and Beatty Wash, on the west by Crater Flat, on the south by the Amargosa Desert, and on the east by the Calico Hills and by Jackass Flats, which contains Fortymile Wash (Figure 3-6). Beatty Wash is one of the largest tributaries of the Amargosa River and drains the region north and west of Pinnacles Ridge, including the northern end of Yucca Mountain. Crater Flat (Figure 3-6) is an oval-shaped valley between Yucca Mountain and Bare Mountain. It contains four prominent volcanic cinder cones and related lava flows that rise above the valley floor. Crater Flat drains to the Amargosa River through a gap in the southern end of the basin. Jackass Flats is an oval-shaped valley east of Yucca Mountain bordered by Yucca, Shoshone, Skull, and Little Skull Mountains (Figure 3-6). It drains southward to the Amargosa River. Fortymile Wash is the most prominent drainage through Jackass Flats to the Amargosa River. Site Stratigraphy and Lithology3.1.3.2 Geologic Structure
Geologic structures (folds, faults, etc.) are features that result from deformation of rocks after their original formation. The present-day geologic structure of the Great Basin, including the Yucca Mountain region, is the cumulative product of multiple episodes of deformation caused by both compression and extension (stretching) of the Earth's crust. Major east-west crustal compression occurred periodically in the Great Basin between about 350 million and 65 million years ago (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 4.2-21 and 4.2-27). This compression moved large sheets of older rock great distances upward and eastward over younger rocks (for example, thrust faults) to produce mountains. During the last 20 million years, crustal extension has resulted in the pattern of elongated mountain ranges and intervening basins (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 4.2-27 and 4.2-28). Crustal extension has resulted in vertical, lateral, and oblique movements (Figure 3-9). By about 11.5 million years ago the present mountains and valleys were well developed (DIRS 104181-Scott and Bonk 1984, all; DIRS 101557-Day et al. 1998, all). Figure 3-7 shows the bedrock geology at the Yucca Mountain site and Figure 3-8 shows geologic structure. Figure 3-10 shows the surface traces of faults and their characteristic northerly alignment. The crustal extension during the last 20 million years fractured the crust along the generally north-trending normal faults. Some of the crustal blocks were downdropped and tilted by movement along their bounding faults (called block-bounding faults). The estimated total displacement along the major north-trending block-bounding faults during the last 12 million years ranges from less than 100 meters (330 feet) to greater than 500 meters (1,600 feet) (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 12.3-38 to 12.3-58). Measurements of Quaternary (1.6 million years to present) displacement reported on these faults range from 0 to 6 meters (0 to 20 feet), with most displacement in the 1-to-2.5-meter (3.3-to-8.2-foot) range (DIRS 101929-Simonds et al. 1995, Table 2). Displacements along faults are characterized in terms of the amount of movement per seismic event. For the set of faults of primary significance to the Yucca Mountain site, these values range from 0 to 1.7 meters (0 to 5.6 feet) per event (Table 3-8). Table 3-8 lists the characteristics of the faults that are important to an understanding of seismic hazards to the potential repository. The Solitario Canyon fault along the west side of Yucca Mountain and the Bow Ridge Fault along the east side are the major block-bounding faults that bracket the area under consideration for the proposed repository. The proposed repository has been configured so that there would be no block-bounding faults in the emplacement zone. Between the major north-trending, block-bounding faults there are intrablock or subsidiary faults. One intrablock fault, called the Ghost Dance fault, is in the area of the proposed repository. The Ghost Dance fault has a near-vertical dip from the surface to the depth of the repository (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 4.6-22). This fault crosses the Exploratory Studies Facility tunnel. There is no evidence of Quaternary movement along the Ghost Dance fault (Table 3-8). Within the repository block, there are many subsidiary northwest-trending faults with smaller displacements than the block-bounding faults (DIRS 104181-Scott and Bonk 1984, all). There is no clear evidence that displacements have occurred along these subsidiary faults during the last 1.6 million years (DIRS 101929-Simonds et al. 1995, all). One short northwest-trending subsidiary fault, called the Sundance fault, transects the potential repository area (Figure 3-10). The faults described above are associated with well-defined fractures in the rock structure. In addition to these fault fractures where there is a displacement of the sides in relation to each other, there are also fractures along which no appreciable movement has occurred. These are called joints. In the Paintbrush Group (Tiva Canyon, Yucca Mountain, Pah Canyon, and Topopah Spring tuffs), joints are subdivided into three groups based on their generating mechanism and time of occurrence: early cooling joints, later tectonic joints, and joints due to erosional unloading (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 4.7-5 to 4.7-7). Each type of joint exhibits different characteristics with respect to its length, orientation, and connectivity. The cooling and tectonic joints have similar orientations (generally running north-south), but cooling joints include irregularly spaced horizontal joints as well. Joints due to erosional unloading are variably oriented but tend predominantly east to west, cross-wise to the cooling and tectonic joints. Tectonic joints occur throughout the Paintbrush Group and cooling joints are identified in each of the welded units. In general, the highest joint frequencies and connectivities occur in the units of the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring tuffs and the lowest occur in the nonwelded Yucca Mountain and Pah Canyon tuffs. Most joints, particularly cooling joints, are confined to specific rock units and do not cross unit boundaries. They do not generally form through-going features like faults. Geologic, geoengineering, and hydrologic aspects of fractures are discussed in detail in the Yucca Mountain Site Description (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 4.6-17 to 4.6-19, 4.7-5 to 4.7-7, 4.7-36 to 4.7-40, and 8.9-1 to 8.9-15). DOE identified and described alternative tectonic models to explain the current geologic structure resulting from past tectonic processes and deformation events that have affected the Yucca Mountain site. These models are described in the Yucca Mountain Site Description (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.3), and were considered by the experts in the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DIRS 100354-USGS 1998, all) discussed below. Computer models provide a means of integrating data on volcanism, deposition, and fault movement, and include a representation of the existing geologic structures and the processes that operate at depth. Tectonic models provide a basis for evaluating the processes and events that could occur in the future and potentially affect the performance of a repository. The DOE hazard assessments used models that are supported by data.3.1.3.3 Modern Seismic Activity
DOE has monitored seismic activity at the Nevada Test Site since 1978. The epicenters of many earthquakes that the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network has located within 20 kilometers (12 miles) of Yucca Mountain do not correlate with mapped surface traces of Quaternary faults (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 12.3-17 and 12.3-18). This lack of correlation is a common feature of earthquakes, particularly those of smaller magnitude, in the Great Basin and elsewhere. Earthquakes in the Yucca Mountain region have focal depths (the point of origin of an earthquake below the ground surface) ranging from near-surface to about 5 to 12 kilometers (3 to 7 miles) (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 12.3-18). The earthquake focal mechanisms are strike-slip to normal oblique-slip along moderately to steeply dipping fault surfaces. These focal mechanisms indicate the nature of the fault planes on which the earthquakes occur, as shown in Figure 3-9. The largest recorded historic earthquake within 50 kilometers (30 miles) of Yucca Mountain was the Little Skull Mountain earthquake in 1992 (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 12.3-7 and Figure 12.3-4, p. F12.3-4), which had a Richter magnitude of 5.6 (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 12.3-18). This seismic event occurred about 20 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of Yucca Mountain, about a day after the magnitude 7.3 earthquake at Landers, California, 300 kilometers (190 miles) south-southeast of Yucca Mountain. The Little Skull Mountain event caused no damage at Yucca Mountain, although some damage occurred at the Field Office Center in Jackass Flats (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 12.3-18) about 5 kilometers (3 miles) north of the epicenter. Seismic Hazard3.1.3.4 Mineral and Energy Resources
The southern Great Basin contains valuable or potentially valuable mineral and energy resources, including deposits with past or current production of gold, silver, mercury, base metals, and uranium. The proximity of known deposits and the identification of similar geologic features at Yucca Mountain have led some investigators to propose that the analyzed Yucca Mountain land withdrawal area (see Figure 3-2) could have the potential for mineral resources (DIRS 103483-Weiss, Noble, and Larson 1996, p. 5-26). DOE site investigations included evaluation of the potential for mineral and energy resources in the analyzed withdrawal area because the presence of such resources could lead to exploration and inadvertent human intrusion (see Chapter 5). The Yucca Mountain Site Description (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.9) describes results of investigations that address relevant natural resources. Site characterization investigators identified no economic deposits of base or precious metals, industrial rocks or minerals, and energy resources, based on present use, extraction technology, and economic value of the resources (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 4.9-12 to 4.9-14). DOE believes the potential for economically useful mineral or energy resources in the analyzed Yucca Mountain withdrawal area is low.3.1.4 Hydrology
This section describes the current hydrologic conditions in the Yucca Mountain region in terms of surface-water and groundwater system characteristics. The region of influence considered for surface water includes construction or land disturbance areas that could be susceptible to erosion, areas affected by permanent changes in surface-water flow, and areas downstream of the proposed repository that could be affected by eroded soil or potential spills of contaminants. The groundwater region of influence includes aquifers that would underlie areas of construction and operation, aquifers that could be sources of water for construction and operations, and aquifers downgradient of the proposed repository that repository use, including long-term releases, could affect. Section 3.1.4.1 describes surface-water conditions, and Section 3.1.4.2 describes groundwater conditions. The hydrologic system in the Yucca Mountain region is characterized and influenced by a very dry climate, limited surface water [annual average precipitation of about 10 to 25 centimeters (4 to 10 inches) (Section 3.1.2.2), potential evaporation of almost 170 centimeters (66 inches) per year (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998, Volume 1, p. 2-29)], and deep aquifers. Important characteristics of the hydrologic system include drainages and streambeds, streams, springs, and playa lakes. In addition, water quantity and quality are important characteristics. Yucca Mountain is in the Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek groundwater basin of the larger Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System. Death Valley is a terminal hydrologic basin; surface water and groundwater cannot leave except by evapotranspiration (DIRS 100465-Luckey et al. 1996, p. 30). Important characteristics of the groundwater system include recharge zones (areas where water infiltrates from the surface and reaches the saturated zone), discharge points (locations where groundwater reaches the surface), unsaturated zones (the portion of the groundwater system above the water table), saturated zones (the portion of the groundwater system below the water table), and aquifers (water-bearing layers of rock that provide water in usable quantities). In combination, these characteristics define the quantity and quality of the available groundwater. This section also describes groundwater use as part of the system.[EVAPOTRANSPIRATION]3.1.4.1 Surface Water
3.1.4.1.1 Regional Surface Drainage
Yucca Mountain is in the southern Great Basin, which generally lacks perennial streams and other surface-water bodies. The Amargosa River system drains Yucca Mountain and the surrounding areas (Figure 3-11). Although referred to as a river, the Amargosa and its tributaries (the washes that drain to it) are dry along most of their lengths most of the time. Exceptions include short stretches where groundwater discharges to or converges with the channel (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 7.1-3); examples are near Beatty, Nevada; south of Tecopa, California; and in southern Death Valley, California. The river drains an area of about 8,000 square kilometers (3,100 square miles) by the time it reaches Tecopa (DIRS 103090-Bostic et al. 1997, pp. 103 and 112), and its course extends roughly 100 kilometers (60 miles) farther before it ends in the Badwater Basin in Death Valley (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 7.1-2 and Figures 7.1-1 and 7.1-4, pp. F7.1-1 and F7.1-4), which is more than 80 meters (260 feet) below sea level (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 2.2-1). The nearest surface-water impoundments are Peterson Reservoir, Crystal Reservoir, Lower Crystal Marsh, and Horseshoe Reservoir. The largest of these is Crystal Reservoir, a manmade impoundment at Ash Meadows, which captures the discharge from several springs in the area and has a capacity of 1.8 million cubic meters (1,500 acre-feet). Crystal Reservoir and other smaller pools in Ash Meadows drain to the Amargosa River through Carson Slough (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 7.1-2).3.1.4.1.2 Yucca Mountain Surface Drainage
Occurrence. No perennial streams, natural bodies of water (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 7.1-2 and 7.1-3), or naturally occurring wetlands (DIRS 104592-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 2-14) occur at Yucca Mountain or in the analyzed land withdrawal area. Fortymile Wash, a major wash that flows to the Amargosa River, drains the eastern side of Yucca Mountain (Figure 3-12) (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 7.1-2). The primary washes draining to Fortymile Wash at Yucca Mountain include Yucca Wash to the north; Drill Hole Wash, which, together with its tributary, Midway Valley Wash, drains most of the repository site; and Busted Butte (Dune) Wash to the south. The western side of Yucca Mountain is drained through Solitario Canyon Wash and Crater Flat, both of which eventually drain to the Amargosa River (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 7.1-2). In this area, most of the water from summer storms is lost relatively quickly to evapotranspiration unless a storm is intense enough to produce runoff or subsequent storms occur before the water is lost (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 7.5-1). Evapotranspiration is lower during the winter, when water from precipitation or melting snow has a better chance to result in stream flow. Thunderstorms in the area can be local and intense, creating runoff in one wash while an adjacent wash receives little or no rain (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 7.1-3). In rare cases, however, storm and runoff conditions can be extensive enough to result in flow being present throughout the drainage system. DIRS 155679-Glancy and Beck (1998, all) documented conditions during March 1995 and February 1998 where Fortymile Wash and the Amargosa River flow simultaneously through their primary channels to Death Valley. The 1995 event represented the first documented case of this flow condition. The 1995 event involved the higher recorded flows. The peak flow near the location where the existing Yucca Mountain access road crosses Fortymile Wash was reported as about 100 cubic meters (3,500 cubic feet) per second (DIRS 155679-Glancy and Beck 1998, p. 7). This flow is much less than that calculated as the 100-year flood event for Fortymile Wash (as discussed in the next paragraph). The occurrence of flow throughout the drainage, however, might be a more unusual event because it would require the generation of runoff over a much larger area than the Fortymile Wash drainage, and in the same timeframe. Flood Potential. Although flow in most washes is rare, the area is subject to flash flooding from intense summer thunderstorms or sustained winter precipitation (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 7.3-1). When it occurs, intense flooding can include mud and debris flows in addition to water runoff (DIRS 100530-Blanton 1992, p. 2). Table 3-9 lists peak discharges for estimated floods along the main washes at Yucca Mountain, a value for a regional maximum flood. In addition to the flood estimates listed in the table, DOE used another estimating method, the probable maximum flood methodology [based on American National Standards Institute and American Nuclear Society Standards for Nuclear Facilities (DIRS 103071-ANS 1992, all)] to generate another maximum flood value for washes adjacent to the existing facilities and operations at the North and South Portals (DIRS 100530-Blanton 1992, all; DIRS 108883-Bullard 1992, all). The flood value this method generates, which includes a bulking factor to account for mud and debris (including boulder-size materials), is the most severe reasonably possible for the location under evaluation and is larger than the regional maximum flood listed in Table 3-9 (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 7.3-3 and 7.3-4). DOE used the probable maximum flood values to predict the areal extent of flooding and to determine if facilities and operations are at risk of flood damage.[PREDICTED FLOODS] Figure 3-12 shows the extent of estimated floods calculated for the proposed repository before the construction of the Exploratory Studies Facility. It shows the area that the estimated 100- and 500-year floods would inundate as well as the inundation area for the most conservative (highest) of the estimated maximum floods. As indicated on the figure, the partial or discontinuous inundation areas in Midway Valley Wash and the upper reaches of Drill Hole Wash are based on the probable maximum flood values derived in accordance with guidelines of the American National Standards Institute and American Nuclear Society; for other areas, the most extensive flood zones are based on the regional maximum flood levels listed in Table 3-9. The figure also shows that all floods along Fortymile Wash and Yucca Wash would remain within existing stream channels. Along Busted Butte (Dune) and Drill Hole Washes, the 500-year flood would exceed stream channels at several places, and the probable maximum flood would inundate broad areas in Midway Valley Wash near the North Portal. None of the identified flood estimates predicts water levels high enough to reach either the North or South Portal opening to the subsurface facilities (DIRS 100530-Blanton 1992, pp. 4 and 7), which would be at either end of the Exploratory Studies Facility tunnel shown in the figure. The U.S. Geological Survey (DIRS 103469-Thomas, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer 1997, all) recently published a revised methodology for calculating peak flood discharges in the southwestern United States. A preliminary evaluation indicates that the methodology, if appropriate for use, could result in estimates for 100-year floods that are larger than those listed in Table 3-8 and shown in Figure 3-12. However, the new methodology affects only the 100-year flood estimate, so discharge numbers and expanded inundation lines resulting from its use would be within the bounds set by the 500-year flood. DOE has prepared a floodplain assessment for the Proposed Action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 1022. Appendix L contains the floodplain assessment. Surface-Water Quality. Samples of stream waters in the Yucca Mountain region have been collected and analyzed for their general chemical characteristics. Because surface-water flows are rare and in immediate response to storms, data from sampling events are sparse. Results of the surface-water sample analyses (Table 3-10) bear some resemblance to those from groundwater samples, as discussed in Section 3.1.4.2.2, because both contain bicarbonate as a principal component. However, in general, the groundwaters have a higher mineral content, suggesting more interaction between rock and water (see Section 3.1.4.2.2, Tables 3-13 and 3-17).3.1.4.2 Groundwater
This section discusses groundwater, first on a regional basis and then in the Yucca Mountain vicinity. Many studies have been conducted on the groundwater system under and surrounding Yucca Mountain. These studies provide a firm basis of understanding of the hydrology of the region. However, because groundwater systems are complex and difficult to study, there are differences of opinion among experts related to interpreting available data and describing certain aspects of the Yucca Mountain groundwater system. Therefore, this section also discusses the various views on the groundwater system under Yucca Mountain, where viewpoints differ.3.1.4.2.1 Regional Groundwater
The groundwater flow system of the Death Valley region is very complex, involving many aquifers and confining units. Over distance, these layers vary in their characteristics or even their presence (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 9.2-5 to 9.2-10). In some areas confining units allow considerable movement between aquifers; in other areas confining units are sufficiently impermeable to support artesian conditions (where water in a lower aquifer is under pressure in relation to an overlying confining unit; when intersected by a well, the water will rise up the borehole). In general, the principal water-bearing units of the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system (or simply Death Valley region) are grouped in three types of saturated hydrogeologic units: basin-fill alluvium (or alluvial aquifer), volcanic aquifers, and carbonate aquifers (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 9.2-23 and 9.2-24). An alluvial aquifer is in a permeable body of sand, silt, gravel, or other detrital material deposited primarily by running water. Volcanic and carbonate aquifers are in permeable units of igneous (of volcanic origin) and carbonate (limestone or dolomite) rock, respectively. The mountainous area that makes up the north-central portion of the Death Valley region that includes the Yucca Mountain area is often underlain by volcanic rocks and associated volcanic aquifers. The valley or basin areas to the south and southeast of Yucca Mountain contain alluvial aquifers, including those beneath the Amargosa Desert. Carbonate aquifers are regionally extensive and generally occur at large depths below volcanic aquifers or alluvial aquifers (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.6-2). The discussion of groundwater at Yucca Mountain describes the position of the various aquifers and confining units in relation to each other and to stratigraphic units. The alluvial aquifers below the Amargosa Desert receive underflow (groundwater movement from one area to another) from groundwater basins to the north as well as from basin areas to the east and, therefore, contain a mixture of water from several different aquifers (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 9.2-16 to 9.2-18). For example, the volcanic aquifers beneath Yucca Mountain are believed to provide inflow to the alluvial aquifers beneath the Amargosa Desert. In addition, the springs in the Ash Meadows area are fed in part by the carbonate aquifers (DIRS 101167-Winograd and Thordarson 1975, p. C53) and what is not discharged through the springs flows into groundwater moving through the alluvial aquifers at the southeast end of the Amargosa Desert and then discharges at Alkali Flat (Franklin Lake Playa) or continues as groundwater into Death Valley (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 9.2-17 and 9.2-18). There is also evidence that indicates a carbonate aquifer might be present below the volcanic sequence, extending from eastern Yucca Mountain south into the Amargosa Desert (DIRS 100465-Luckey et al. 1996, pp. 32 and 40).[HYDROGEOLOGIC TERMS] Basins. The Death Valley regional groundwater flow system (Figure 3-13) or region covers about 50,000 square kilometers (19,000 square miles) (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-3). Straddling the Nevada-California border, this flow system includes several prominent valleys (Amargosa Desert, Pahrump Valley, and Death Valley) and their separating mountain ranges and extends north to the Kawich Valley, encompassing all of the Nevada Test Site (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, Figures 9.2-1 and 9.2-2, pp. F9.2-1 and F9.2-2). The major recharge areas are mountains in the east and north portions of the region (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, pp. 9.2-11 and 9.2-15). The discharge points are primarily to the south and include the southernmost discharge points in Death Valley and intermediate points such as Ash Meadows in the Amargosa Desert and Alkali Flat (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-13). Therefore, flow is primarily to the west or south. Figure 3-13 shows a slightly reduced outline for the regional flow system that some Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project modeling efforts (for example, DIRS 100131-D'Agnese et al. 1997, all) have used as the boundary. This reduced area is divided into the Northern, Central, and Southern Death Valley subregions. The Central Death Valley subregion contains the area of Yucca Mountain. Hydrologic investigations of the Death Valley region date back to the early 1900s, with early work performed primarily by the U.S. Geological Survey (DIRS 100131-D'Agnese et al. 1997, p. 4). More recently, studies by both the U.S. Geological Survey and the State of Nevada have included efforts to collect and compile water-level data from regional wells (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-39). DOE has collected groundwater-level data from wells at Yucca Mountain and in neighboring areas on a routine basis since 1983, and has used the levels to which water rises in these wells—called the potentiometric surface—to map the slope of the groundwater surface and to determine the direction of flow. Figure 3-14 is a potentiometric surface map of the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system. Based on these and other data, groundwater in aquifers below Yucca Mountain and in the surrounding region flows generally south toward discharge areas in the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley (Figure 3-15). The area around Yucca Mountain is in the central subregion of the Death Valley region, and this subregion has three groundwater basins: (1) Ash Meadows, (2) Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek, and (3) Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley (DIRS 102893-Rush 1971, pp. 10 and 11; DIRS 101062-Waddell 1982, pp. 13 to 20; DIRS 100465-Luckey et al. 1996, pp. 28-30; and DIRS 100131-D'Agnese et al. 1997, p. 65). The aquifers below Yucca Mountain have been included in the Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek groundwater basin because of evidence that the groundwater discharges mainly at Alkali Flat (Franklin Lake Playa) and potentially to the Furnace Creek Wash area of Death Valley (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-18). The Ash Meadows groundwater basin is the easternmost of the three basins that make up the Central Death Valley subregion. It underlies eastern portions of the Nevada Test Site (Yucca Flat, Frenchman Flat, Mercury Valley, Rock Valley), parts of Shoshone Mountain, Rainier Mesa to the north, and the Ash Meadows area of the Amargosa Desert in the south. Inflow is principally from the Spring Mountains, Pahranagat Range, Sheep Range, and Pahranagat Valley in the eastern portion of the basin (DIRS 100131-D'Agnese et al. 1997, pp. 67 and 68). Outflow is basically in the form of discharge to the surface and underflow to the lower portion of the Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek groundwater basin. The primary discharge point for this groundwater basin is Ash Meadows, where springs occur in a line along a major fault (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-17). Estimates of discharge at Ash Meadows range from 21 million to 37 million cubic meters (17,000 to 30,000 acre-feet) per year (DIRS 103022-Walker and Eakin 1963, p. 24; DIRS 100131-D'Agnese et al. 1997, p. 46). The Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley groundwater basin includes Oasis Valley, Gold Flat, the southern parts of Cactus Flat and Kawich Valley, and the western portion of Pahute Mesa. Recharge areas are primarily in the north in the Belted and Kawich Ranges and Pahute Mesa, but include Timber Mountain and the Bullfrog Hills, and along the Amargosa River and its tributaries (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-17). Subsurface outflow is into the Amargosa Desert of the Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek groundwater basin, and has been estimated at about 0.49 million cubic meters (400 acre-feet) per year (DIRS 106695-Malmberg and Eakin 1962, p. 26). The Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek groundwater basin is bordered on the northwest by the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley basin and on the east by the Ash Meadows basin. This groundwater basin includes portions of the Nevada Test Site (parts of Rainier Mesa, Pahute Mesa, and Buckboard Mesa to the north, Shoshone Mountain, Yucca Mountain, and Jackass Flats in the southern half), Crater Flat in the west, and part of Death Valley and the central part of the Amargosa Desert in the south (DIRS 100131-D'Agnese et al. 1997, pp. 67 to 69). As shown in Figure 3-15, this basin includes the groundwater area designated as the Fortymile Canyon Section, which includes the area of Buckboard Mesa to the north and a portion of Jackass Flats to the south. Groundwater moving beneath the proposed repository site is in the Fortymile Canyon section. In the immediate vicinity of Yucca Mountain, sources of recharge to the groundwater include Fortymile Wash and precipitation that infiltrates the surface. However, these local sources are not among the primary sources of recharge in the area that makes up the Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek groundwater basin. The primary sources of surface recharge in this area are infiltration on Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa, Timber Mountain, and Shoshone Mountain to the north (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-18), and the Grapevine and Funeral Mountains to the south (DIRS 100131-D'Agnese et al. 1997, p. 68). One numerical model of infiltration for Yucca Mountain used energy- and water-balance calculations to obtain an average infiltration rate of 4.7 millimeters (0.2 inch) a year over the potential repository area for the current climate (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, Table 8.2-9, p. T8.2-7). This represents less than 3 percent of an average annual precipitation rate of about 200 millimeters (8 inches) used in the model for the crest at Yucca Mountain. In comparison, areas such as Pahute Mesa, Timber Mountain, and Shoshone Mountain receive more precipitation (DIRS 103021-DOE 1997, Plate 1) and have higher estimated percentages of precipitation infiltrating deep into the ground and eventually becoming recharge to the aquifer. Water infiltrating at Yucca Mountain and becoming recharge to the groundwater would join with water in the Fortymile Canyon Section (Figure 3-15). From there the general direction of groundwater flow is to the Amargosa Desert basin and then Death Valley (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-18). There have been many estimates of the amount of groundwater moving along this path. One study (DIRS 103016-State of Nevada 1971, p. 50) that is still used extensively by the State of Nevada in its groundwater planning efforts estimated annual groundwater movement of 10 million cubic meters (8,100 acre-feet) from the area of Jackass Flats to the Amargosa Desert and 23.4 million cubic meters (19,000 acre-feet) from the Amargosa Desert to Death Valley. DOE studies indicate that the quantity of water that might move through a repository area of 10 square kilometers (2,500 acres) (the largest repository footprint under any of the operating modes), assuming 4.7 millimeters (0.2 inch) of infiltration per year, would be about 0.2 percent of the estimated 23.4 million cubic meters (19,000 acre-feet) that moves from the Amargosa Desert to Death Valley on an annual basis. DOE has performed a study (DIRS 157072-BSC 2001, all) to develop an "expected-case" model of groundwater flow in the saturated zone from beneath Yucca Mountain. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of several specific elements of conservatism in the groundwater flow model used in the Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA; see Chapter 5 and Appendix I). The study looked at the physical parameter values used in that model, for example the diffusion coefficient, porosity for fractured tuffs, and permeability for alluvial materials. It also looked at the location assumed in the TSPA where the groundwater flow path in the saturated zone changes from tuff to alluvial material. The recent effort looked at data collected on several specific parameters that would support what were felt to be more realistic, less conservative values. The expected-case model was run with these parameters changed and assuming a nonsorbing tracer was released as a point source to the water table beneath the proposed repository. The results of these model runs indicated it would take in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 years for 50 percent of the tracer to reach a distance of 20 kilometers (12 miles) in the groundwater flow path (DIRS 157072-BSC 2001, Figure 10, p. 43). Some of the tracer would find its way to faster pathways; some would take longer to travel the distance. DOE believes these estimates of groundwater travel time in the saturated zone represent reasonable estimates of what occurs in the natural setting. As water in the Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek groundwater basin moves south through the Amargosa Desert, eastern portions of the flow are joined by underflow from the Ash Meadows groundwater basin (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998, Volume 1, pp. 2-56 to 2-58). The line of springs formed by discharge from the Ash Meadows groundwater basin provides much of the boundary between the two basins (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-17). In this area there is a marked decline of about 64 meters (210 feet) in water table elevation between Devils Hole and Carson Slough, approximately 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) to the west (DIRS 103415-Dudley and Larson 1976, p. 23). This elevation decline indicates that the potential groundwater flow is from Ash Meadows toward the Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek groundwater basin, rather than the opposite. The primary groundwater discharge point for this groundwater basin is Alkali Flat (Franklin Lake Playa) as indicated by the potentiometric surface (or slope) of the groundwater and hydrochemical data. A small portion could move toward discharge points in the Furnace Creek area of Death Valley (DIRS 151945-CRWMS M&O 2000, p. 9.2-18). Different researchers have speculated that the general flow boundaries of the three groundwater basins in the Central Death Valley subregion are in slightly different locations (DIRS 100131-D'Agnese et al. 1997, p. 59). Some studies [for example, DIRS 101062-Waddell (1982, p. 15)] have placed the Kawich Valley area in the Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek groundwater basin rather than in the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley groundwater basin as shown in Figure 3-15. This uncertainty in general flow boundaries is a reflection of the complex groundwater flow systems in the Death Valley region. The differing interpretations of the groundwater basin boundaries do not, however, disagree on the relative location of the aquifers below Yucca Mountain, which are consistently placed in the central Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek basin. To reduce uncertainties, studies of the regional groundwater flow system are continuing. This is particularly true of that portion of the flow system that is downgradient of Yucca Mountain. Nye County, under a Cooperative Agreement with DOE, has implemented the Early Warning Drilling Program to install a series of wells in the Amargosa Valley area and the southern part of the Nevada Test Site. The purpose of this program is to characterize and monitor the saturated zone along possible transport pathways from Yucca Mountain. At the time this document was prepared, plans were underway to extend this program, which was originally set at 3 years (with a scheduled end date of November 2001). Under terms of the agreement, Nye County has had the responsibility to drill, test, and monitor a series of shallow and deep wells to investigate the upper volcanic or alluvial aquifers and the deep carbonate aquifer. The objective of the work is to determine aquifer characteristics, water chemistries, and flow paths. The County provides DOE splits of all samples collected and copies of all data obtained. DOE will continue to study the saturated zone south of Yucca Mountain through the simultaneous collection of data from this program and the use of data obtained by Nye County. In addition, a set of wells will be installed in Fortymile Wash to help identify the extent of the alluvium and valley fill along the potential flow path. Some of these wells will also be used to support an Alluvial Testing Complex, where aquifer and tracer tests in the alluvium and valley fill will be conducted. DIRS 156115-NWRPO (2001, all) described its efforts for Fiscal Years 1996 to 2001 in an August 2001 report prepared for DOE. Some of the groundwater findings discussed in this report include the following:3.1.4.2.2 Groundwater at Yucca Mountain
Groundwater at Yucca Mountain occurs in an unsaturated zone and a saturated zone. This section describes these zones and the characteristics of the groundwater in them. Unsaturated Zone3.1.5 Biological Resources and Soils
The region of influence for biological resources and soils is the area that contains all potential surface disturbances that would result from the Proposed Action plus some additional area to evaluate local animal populations. This region is roughly equivalent to the analyzed land withdrawal area of about 600 square kilometers (230 square miles). DOE used available information and studies on plants and animals at the site of the proposed repository and the surrounding region to identify baseline conditions for biological resources. This information included land cover types, vegetation associations, and the distribution and abundance of plant and animal species in the region of influence (the analyzed land withdrawal area) and in the broader region. The plants and animals in the Yucca Mountain region are typical of species in the Mojave and Great Basin Deserts. DOE has surveyed the region for naturally occurring wetlands and has studied soil characteristics (thicknesses, water-holding capacity, texture, and erosion hazard) in the region. This section summarizes this information and describes existing soil conditions in relation to potential contaminants. Unless otherwise noted, this information is from the Environmental Baseline File for Biological Resources (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) or the Environmental Baseline File for Soils (DIRS 104592-CRWMS M&O 1999, all). The State of Nevada (DIRS 148188-Loux 1997, all) expressed the view that there was no systematic integrated environmental program to characterize the unique and fragile desert environment at Yucca Mountain before 1982, when DOE began site investigation that may have caused irreversible alterations (DIRS 103298-Lemons and Malone 1989, pp. 435 to 441). However, the State acknowledged that after site investigations started and impacts might have occurred, DOE began studies of sensitive species, archaeology, airborne particulates, and groundwater (DIRS 103298-Lemons and Malone 1989, pp. 435 to 441), and established an environmental baseline from these data (DIRS 103396-Malone 1989, pp. 77 to 95). DIRS 103398-Malone (1995, pp. 271 to 284) contended that many of the studies conducted to establish the baseline and evaluate impacts, particularly those on plants and animals, were not adequately designed and did not use an integrated ecosystem approach and, therefore, were of little value for evaluating impacts of the repository. DOE contends that studies initiated after the start of site investigations are suitable for establishing the baseline needed for this EIS. The purpose of studies of the impacts of site characterization activities on plants and animals was not to evaluate potential impacts from a repository, but rather to focus on the appropriate level of ecological organization for the types of impacts that occurred during characterization activities. DOE used the results of those studies in the EIS analysis to understand and predict possible impacts from similar activities that would occur during repository construction and operation (for example, habitat destruction).3.1.5.1 Biological Resources
3.1.5.1.1 Vegetation
DOE adapted broad categories of land cover types for the analyzed land withdrawal area (based primarily on predominant vegetation; see Figure 3-21) from two sources: a statewide classification and a detailed, field-validated classification of the area surrounding the location of the proposed repository. Land cover types typical of the Mojave and Great Basin Deserts occur in the analyzed land withdrawal area; they include creosote-bursage (56 percent), blackbrush (14 percent), hopsage (13 percent), Mojave mixed scrub (10 percent), salt desert scrub (4 percent), sagebrush (3 percent), and pinyon-juniper (much less than 1 percent). None of the more than 210 plant species known to occur in the analyzed land withdrawal area is endemic to the area; that is, they all occur in other places. Plant species typical of the Mojave Desert dominate the vegetation at low elevations in the analyzed land withdrawal area. Low-elevation valleys, alluvial fans, and large washes are dominated by white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), creosotebush (Larrea tridentata), Nevada jointfir (Ephedra nevadensis), littleleaf ratany (Krameria erecta), and pale wolfberry (Lycium pallidum). Low-elevation hillsides are dominated by similar species, with the addition of shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa). At higher elevations, generally at the northern end of the analyzed land withdrawal area, species typical of the Great Basin Desert are dominant. Ridge tops and slopes are dominated by blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), heathgoldenrod (Ericameria teretifolius), Nevada jointfir, broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), green ephedra (Ephedra viridis), and California buckwheat. On some steep north-facing slopes, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) is predominant. There are approximately 30 exotic plant species present in the Yucca Mountain area. The most common species include red brome (Bromus rubens), Russian thistle (Salsola spp.), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), and Arabian schismus (Schismis arabicus). Red brome is the most abundant exotic species in the area. None of these exotic species is on the State of Nevada's Noxious Weed List (DIRS 155925-NWAC 2000, Appendix A).3.1.5.1.2 Wildlife
Wildlife at Yucca Mountain is dominated by species associated with the Mojave Desert, with some species from the Great Basin Desert at higher elevations. The 36 species of mammals that have been observed in the analyzed Yucca Mountain land withdrawal area include 17 species of rodents, seven species of bats, three species of rabbits and hares, and nine species of large mammals such as coyote (Canis latrans), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and burros (Equus asinus). The most abundant species are long-tailed pocket mice (Chaetodipus formosus) and Merriam's kangaroo rats (Dipodomys merriami). The 27 species of reptiles include 12 species of lizards, 14 species of snakes, and the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). The most abundant lizard is the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), while the western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris) is common. The most abundant snakes are the coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) and the long-nosed snake (Rhinocheilus lecontei). No amphibians have been found at Yucca Mountain. There have been no formal attempts to quantify the birds present at Yucca Mountain, but at least 120 species have been sighted in or near the analyzed land withdrawal area, including 14 species that nest there. Transient and resident species have been recorded including species typical of the desert, migrating water birds and warblers, and raptors. Black-throated sparrows (Amphispiza bilineata) are the most common resident birds and mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) are seasonally common. Researchers have collected invertebrates from 18 orders and 53 families at Yucca Mountain. Members of the insect orders Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, and ants), and Coleoptera (beetles) were the most numerous of those collected. Several game species and furbearers (see Nevada Administrative Code 503.125) have been observed in the analyzed land withdrawal area, including (1) three species of game birds—Gambel's quail (Callipepla gambelii), chukar (Alectoris chukar), and mourning doves, (2) mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and (3) three species of furbearers—kit foxes (Vulpes velox), mountain lions (Puma concolor), and bobcats (Lynx rufus).3.1.5.1.3 Special Status Species
No plant species listed as threatened or endangered or that are proposed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act occur in the analyzed land withdrawal area. No plant species classified as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management are known to occur in the analyzed land withdrawal area. Several species of cacti and yucca, all of which are protected by the State of Nevada from commercial collection, are scattered throughout the region, including the analyzed land withdrawal area.[SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES] One animal species that occurs at Yucca Mountain, the desert tortoise, is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Yucca Mountain is at the northern edge of the range of the desert tortoise (DIRS 101915-Rautenstrauch, Brown, and Goodwin 1994, p. 11), and the abundance of tortoises at Yucca Mountain is low or very low in comparison to other portions of its range. Aspects of the ecology of the desert tortoise population at Yucca Mountain have been studied extensively (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, all). Individual bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) occasionally migrate through the region; these species have been seen once each at the Nevada Test Site. Both species are rare in the region and have not been seen at Yucca Mountain. Bald eagles are classified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and the State of Nevada classifies both birds as endangered. No other Federally listed threatened or endangered species or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act occur at Yucca Mountain. Five species classified as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management occur at Yucca Mountain. Two species of bats—the long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) and the fringed myotis (M. thysanodes)—have been observed near the site. Three other species, the western chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus), burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), and Giuliani's dune scarab beetle (Pseudocotalpa giulianii), occur in the analyzed land withdrawal area. The chuckwalla, one of the largest lizards in Nevada, is locally common and widely distributed in rocky habitats throughout the analyzed land withdrawal area and the surrounding region. The seldom-seen burrowing owl generally occurs in valley bottoms and is known to be a year-round resident at the Nevada Test Site. Giuliani's dune scarab beetle has been found near the cinder cones north of U.S. Highway 95 at the south end of Crater Flat. Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and Devils Hole (which is administered as part of Death Valley National Park) are about 39 kilometers (24 miles) south of Yucca Mountain. Although Ash Meadows and Devils Hole are outside the region of influence for biological resources, they contain a number of special status species that an evaluation of regional biological resources should consider. Of the eight endemic plant species at Ash Meadows, one is listed as endangered (Amargosa alkali plant, Nitrophila mohavensis) and six are listed as threatened (Spring-loving centaury, Centaurium namophilum; Ash Meadows milkvetch, Astragalus phoenix; Ash Meadows naked stem sunray, Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata; Kings Mousetail, Ivesia kingii var. eremica; Ash Meadows gumweed, Grindelia fraximopratensis; and Ash Meadows blazing star, Mentzelia leucophylla) (50 FR 20777, May 20, 1985). Four endemic fish species occur in the springs and pools. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Nevada list these species—the Ash Meadows Amargosa speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis), Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish (Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes), Devils Hole pupfish (C. diabolis), and Warm Springs Amargosa pupfish (C. nevadensis pectoralis)—as endangered. The springs also provide habitat for a number of endemic riffle beetles, springsnails, and other invertebrates, including the threatened Ash Meadows naucorid bug (Ambrysus amargosus).3.1.5.1.4 Wetlands
There are no naturally occurring jurisdictional wetlands (wetlands that are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) at Yucca Mountain. Four manmade ponds in the Yucca Mountain region have riparian vegetation. Fortymile Wash and some of its tributaries might be classified as waters of the United States as defined by the Clean Water Act. Jurisdictional wetlands associated with Ash Meadows are outside the region of influence for the Proposed Action.3.1.5.2 Soils
Researchers have conducted a soil survey centered on Midway Valley (the location of the proposed North Portal facilities) and the ridges to the west (DIRS 103450-Resource Concepts 1989, all), and a more general soil survey of the entire Yucca Mountain region (DIRS 104851-YMP 1997, all). The survey that centered on Midway Valley identified 17 soil series and seven map units (Table 3-20) at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 103450-Resource Concepts 1989, all); none of these series is classified as prime farmland. Based on a wetlands assessment at the Nevada Test Site (DIRS 101833-Hansen et al. 1997, all), there are no hydric soils at Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain soils are derived from underlying volcanic rocks and mixed alluvium dominated by volcanic material, and in general have low water-holding capacities.[SOIL TERMS] The shallow soils on ridge tops at Yucca Mountain often consist of a thin hardpan (hardened or cemented soil layer) on top of bedrock and range from well drained to excessively drained, which means that water drains readily to very rapidly. The soil has a topsoil layer typically less than 15 centimeters (6 inches) thick and, in some instances, a subsoil layer 5 to 30 centimeters (2 to 12 inches) thick. Soil textures range from gravelly to cobbly, loamy sands to sandy loams. Soils are calcareous (high in calcium carbonate), with lime coatings on the undersides of rocks in the subsoil layer. The soils are moderately to strongly alkaline, with a pH ranging from 8.0 to 8.6. Rock fragments ranging in size from gravel to cobbles dominate 45 to 65 percent of the ground surface. Soils on fan piedmonts and in steep, narrow canyons are relatively deep and are well drained (water is drained readily, but not rapidly). These soils developed from residues of volcanic parent material, with a component of calcareous eolian sand. Soils formed from the volcanic parent material generally range from moderately shallow [50 to 75 centimeters (20 to 30 inches)] to moderately deep [75 to 100 centimeters (30 to 40 inches)] over a thin hardpan on top of bedrock. The topsoil layers are generally less than 25 centimeters (10 inches) thick, with a subsoil layer thickness of 25 to 50 centimeters (10 to 20 inches). The mixed soils, containing residues from volcanic parent material and calcareous eolian sand, are often deep [100 to 150 centimeters (40 to 60 inches)] or moderately deep, having a well-cemented hardpan. The topsoil layers are less than 15 centimeters (6 inches) thick, with the layer of soil parent material as deep as 150 centimeters (60 inches). Soil textures are gravelly, sandy loams with 35 to 70 percent rock fragments. Soils are generally calcareous and moderately to strongly alkaline. Soils on alluvial fans and in stream channels are very deep [greater than 150 centimeters (60 inches)] and range from well drained to excessively drained. The topsoil layers are generally less than 20 centimeters (8 inches) thick, with the layer of soil parent material as deep as 150 centimeters. Soil textures are very gravelly, with fine sands to sandy loams and abundant rock fragments. The soils are calcareous and moderately alkaline. The Yucca Mountain site characterization project has sampled and analyzed surface soils for radiological constituents. In addition, records of spills or releases of nonradioactive materials have been maintained to meet regulatory requirements and to provide a baseline for the Proposed Action. A recent summary of existing radiological conditions in soils is based on 98 surface samples collected within 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the Exploratory Studies Facility. The results of that analysis, when compared to other parts of the world, indicate average levels of the naturally occurring radionuclide uranium-238 series decay products and above-average levels of the naturally occurring radionuclides potassium-40 and thorium-232 series decay products. The higher-than-average radionuclide values might be due to the origin of the soil at the site from tuffaceous igneous rocks. The studies also detected concentrations of the manmade radionuclides strontium-90, cesium-137, and plutonium-239 from worldwide nuclear weapons testing.3.1.6 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object resulting from or modified by human activity. Cultural resources could also include potential traditional cultural properties. Under Federal regulation, cultural resources designated as historic properties warrant consideration with regard to potential adverse impacts resulting from proposed Federal actions. A cultural resource is an historic property if its attributes make it eligible for listing or it is formally listed on the National Register of Historic Places. For this analysis, DOE has evaluated the importance of historic and archaeological resources according to National Register eligibility criteria.[CULTURAL RESOURCES] Cultural resources at Yucca Mountain include archaeological resources that are prehistoric or historic, and other resources important to Native American tribes and organizations, such as potential traditional cultural properties. The region of influence for cultural resources includes the land areas that would be disturbed by the proposed repository activities (as described in Chapter 2) and areas in the analyzed land withdrawal area where impacts could occur. DOE has collected information on the various types of archaeological sites, detailing their purposes and the kinds of artifacts typically present. DOE also has focused on Native American interests in the region's cultural resources. Section 3.1.6.2 summarizes these issues in discussions of Native American views of the affected environment. Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this section is derived from either the summary of past archaeological projects at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 104997-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) or from American Indian Perspectives on the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the Repository Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998, all).3.1.6.1 Archaeological and Historic Resources
Site characterization efforts have led to a number of archaeological investigations at Yucca Mountain over the past two decades, including, as an early action, an archaeological field survey of a 44-square-kilometer (about 11,000-acre) parcel that proposed repository activities probably would affect. The field survey was followed by limited test excavations at 29 sites to determine their scientific importance and to develop management strategies for the protection of archaeological resources. Additional archaeological surveys have been conducted along nearby Midway Valley and Yucca Wash, in lower Fortymile Canyon just east of the Yucca Mountain site, and around Dune Wash east of southern Yucca Mountain. Concurrent with these investigations, DOE directed archaeological surveys and data-recovery projects before beginning planned ground-disturbing activities specific to the Yucca Mountain Project. Limited data-recovery efforts at 18 archaeological sites support a model for a local cultural sequence that includes a pattern of linear-shaped sites along major drainages dating as far back as 7,000 years, and a shift to a more dispersed pattern of sites about 1,500 years ago. A site monitoring program designed to examine human and natural impacts to cultural resources through time began in 1991 and is continuing at Yucca Mountain. Decades of cultural resource investigations at Yucca Mountain and at the Nevada Test Site have revealed archaeological features and artifacts. Based on archaeological site file searches at the Desert Research Institute in Las Vegas and Reno and at the Harry Reid Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, approximately 830 archaeological sites have been discovered in the analyzed land withdrawal area. Most of the known archaeological sites are small scatters of lithic (stone) artifacts, usually comprised of fewer than 50 artifacts with few formal tools and no temporally or culturally diagnostic artifacts in the inventory. None of the sites has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but 150 are considered by DOE to be eligible for nomination as historic properties (see Table 3-21) based on National Register eligibility criteria. Several reports describe the specific procedures used to study and protect these cultural sites (DIRS 104807-CRWMS M&O 1995, all; DIRS 104810-CRWMS M&O 1995, all; DIRS 104813-CRWMS M&O 1995, all; DIRS 104814-CRWMS M&O 1995, all; DIRS 104818-CRWMS M&O 1995, all; DIRS 104819-CRWMS M&O 1995, all; DIRS 104822-CRWMS M&O 1995, all; DIRS 104824-CRWMS M&O 1995, all; DIRS 103198-YMP 1992, all). DIRS 104558-DOE (1988, all) describes how the Department meets its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and interactions with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer. This EIS separates archaeological sites into two broad groups, prehistoric and historic, separated by the first contact between American Indians and Euroamericans; in the Great Basin, this contact occurred in the early 1800s. The oldest prehistoric sites in southern Nevada are about 11,000 years old. These sites include one or more of the following features: temporary campsites, rock art, scattered lithic artifacts, quarries, plant-processing remains, hunting blinds, and rock alignments. The sites are categorized as temporary camps, extractive localities, processing localities, localities, caches, and stations. Historic sites include mining sites, ranching sites, transportation and communication sites, and some Cold War facilities. The following paragraphs define eligible types of sites at Yucca Mountain in each group (Table 3-21). Temporary Camps. When occupied by a group of people, a temporary camp was a hub of activity for raw materials processing, implement manufacturing, and maintenance and general living activities. Camp artifacts typically include debris and discards from the making of stone tools, projectile points, bifacial stone tools, cores, milling stones, pottery, specialized tools, hearths, shelters, structures, and art. The nature and diversity of artifacts and features are the basis for designating a site as a temporary camp. Extractive Localities. These were sites for specific extractive or resource-procurement tasks. They probably were occupied for short periods and for such limited activities as toolstone quarrying, hunting, and seed gathering. A single locality can contain isolated artifacts or large quantities of artifacts that reflect specific activities. In comparison to temporary camps, extractive localities have a low diversity of artifacts. Extractive locality artifacts include isolated projectile points or bifacial stone tools where hunting occurred, toolstone quarries with thousands of flakes, diffuse scatters of lithic flakes where plant materials were gathered, hunting blinds, and tinajas or water-catchment basins. Processing Localities. Specific resource-processing tasks occurred at processing localities. These localities probably were occupied only for short periods and for limited activities such as butchering, milling, and roasting. A single site can contain an isolated artifact or large quantities of artifacts that reflect specific activities. Like extractive localities, processing localities have a low diversity of artifacts. Examples of processing localities include stone tool manufacturing stations, milling stations for processing food, diffuse scatters containing stone tools for processing meat and hides, hearths, and roasting pits. Localities. This category includes sites that might have been either extractive or processing localities but for which there is not enough information to determine if such activities occurred. Caches. Caches are temporary places for storing resources or artifacts. They include sealed rock shelters, rock piles, rock rings without evidence of habitation, rock alignments, brush piles held in place by rocks, and storage pits. A cache can also be an association of similar artifacts such as heat-treated bifacial stone tools, projectile points, and snares, or such resources as toolstone blanks and firewood in or on a natural feature such as at the base of a tree, in a rock shelter, or in a mountain saddle. Caches are distinguished from localities as places for storing resources, rather than as places of procurement or processing. Stations. Stations are sites where groups gathered to exchange information about such things as game movement, routes of travel, and ritual activities. Examples of stations are rock cairns marking routes of travel, isolated petroglyphs and pictographs, geoglyphs, and observation points and overlooks. Historic Sites. Historic sites are contemporaneous with or postdate the introduction of European influences in the region. Historic archaeological sites are few in number in the project area, usually represented by a small scatter of artifacts (cans and bottles). These short-term activities were related to mining, ranching, and transportation.3.1.6.2 Native American Interests
3.1.6.2.1 Yucca Mountain Project Native American Interaction Program
In 1987, DOE initiated the Native American Interaction Program to consult and interact with tribes and organizations on the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site and the possible construction and operation of a repository. These tribes and organizations—Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone people from Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah—have cultural and historic ties to the Yucca Mountain area. The Native American Interaction Program concentrates on the protection of cultural resources at Yucca Mountain and promotes a government-to-government relationship with the tribes and organizations. Its purpose is to help DOE comply with various Federal laws and regulations, including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, DOE Order 1230.2 (American Indian and Tribal Government Policy), and Executive Orders 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) and 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). These regulations mandate the protection of archaeological sites and cultural items and require agencies to include Native Americans and Federally recognized tribes in discussions and interactions on major Federal actions. Initial studies identified three tribal groups—Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone—whose cultural heritage includes the Yucca Mountain region (DIRS 104927-Stoffle 1987, p. 5-13). Additional ethnographic efforts eventually identified 17 tribes and organizations involved in the Yucca Mountain Project Native American and cultural resource studies. Figure 3-22 shows the traditional boundaries and locations of the 17 tribes and organizations. Of the 17 tribal groups, 15 are Federally recognized tribes. The Pahrump Paiute Indian Tribe, which consists of a group of Southern Paiutes living in Pahrump, Nevada, has applied for Federal tribal recognition but to date has not received it. In addition, the Las Vegas Indian Center is not a Federally recognized tribe, but DOE included it in the Native American Interaction Program because it represents the urban Native American population of Las Vegas and Clark County, Nevada (DIRS 103465-Stoffle et al. 1990, p. 7). The 17 tribes and organizations have formed the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations, which consists of officially appointed tribal representatives who are responsible for presenting their respective tribal concerns and perspectives to DOE. The primary focus of this group has been the protection of cultural resources and environmental restoration at Yucca Mountain. Members of the group have participated in many ethnographic interviews and have provided DOE valuable insights into Native American cultural and religious values and beliefs. These interactions have produced several reports that record the regional history of Native American people and the interpretation of Native American cultural resources in the Yucca Mountain region (DIRS 104958-DOE 1989, pp. 30 to 74; DIRS 103465-Stoffle et al. 1990, pp. 11 to 25; DIRS 104959-DOE 1990, pp. 23 to 49). In addition, tribal representatives have identified and discussed traditional and current uses of plants in the area (DIRS 103464-DOE 1989, pp. 22 to 139).3.1.6.2.2 Native American Views of Affected Environment
During the EIS scoping process, DOE visited many tribes to encourage their participation. Members of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations designated individuals who represented the three tribal entities (Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone) to document their viewpoints on the Yucca Mountain area. This group, the American Indian Writers Subgroup, prepared a resource document that provides Native American perspectives on the repository (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998, all). This report also describes the relationship between Native American people and DOE and discusses impacts of the Proposed Action while recommending impact mitigation approaches for reducing potential impacts to Native American resources and other heritage values in the Yucca Mountain region. In addition to the general and specific cultural resources issues, which are summarized in the following paragraphs, the report covers other critical topics, including concerns for occupational and public health and safety, environmental justice and equity issues, and social and economic issues. The report also provides recommendations for the conduct of appropriate consultation procedures for the repository and associated activities, and requests Native American participation in development of project resource management approaches to enable the incorporation of accumulated centuries of ethnic knowledge in long-term cultural resource protection strategies. Native Americans believe that they have inhabited their traditional homelands since the beginning of time. Archaeological surveys have found evidence that Native Americans used the immediate vicinity of Yucca Mountain on a temporary or seasonal basis (DIRS 103465-Stoffle et al. 1990, p. 29). Native Americans emphasize that a lack of abundant artifacts and archaeological remains does not mean that their people did not use a site or that the land is not an integral part of their cultural ecosystem. Native Americans assign meanings to places involved with their creation as a people, religious stories, burials, and important secular events. The traditional stories of the Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone peoples identify such places, including the Yucca Mountain area. Native Americans believe that cultural resources are not limited to the remains of native ancestors but include all natural resources and geologic formations in the region, such as plants and animals and natural landforms that mark important locations for keeping their historic memory alive and for teaching their children about their culture. Equally important are the water resources and minerals in the Yucca Mountain region. Native Americans used traditional quarry sites to make tools, stone artifacts, and ceremonial objects; many of these sites are power places associated with traditional healing ceremonies. Despite the current physical separation of tribes from Yucca Mountain and neighboring lands, Native Americans continue to value and recognize the meaningful role of these lands in their culture and continued survival. Many areas in the Yucca Mountain region are important to them. Fortymile Canyon was an important crossroad where a number of traditional trails from such distant places as Owens Valley, Death Valley, and the Avawtz Mountain came together. Oasis Valley was an important area for trade and ceremonies. Native Americans believe that Prow Pass was an important ceremonial site and, because of this religious importance, have recommended that DOE conduct no studies in this area. Other areas are important based on the abundance of artifacts, traditional-use plants and animals, rock art, and possible burial sites. According to Native Americans, the Yucca Mountain area is part of the holy lands of the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone peoples. Native Americans generally do not concur with the conclusions of archaeological investigators that their ancestors were highly mobile groups of aboriginal hunter-gatherers who occupied the Yucca Mountain area before Euroamericans began using the area for prospecting, surveying, and ranching. They believe that these conclusions overlook traditional accounts of farming that occurred before European contact. Yucca Mountain and nearby lands were central in the lives of the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone peoples, who shared them for religious ceremonies, resource uses, and social events. Native Americans value the cultural resources in these areas, viewing them in a holistic manner. They believe that the water, animals, plants, air, geology, and artifacts are interrelated and dependent on each other for existence.3.1.7 Socioeconomics
To define the existing conditions for the socioeconomic environment in the Yucca Mountain region, DOE determined the current economic and demographic status in a well-defined region (called the region of influence) near the site of the proposed repository. DOE based its definition of the socioeconomic region of influence on the distribution of the residences of current employees of the Department and its contractors who work on the Yucca Mountain Project or at the Nevada Test Site. The region of influence, therefore, consists of the three Nevada counties (Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties) where about 98 percent of the DOE 2001 workforce lives. The region of influence includes Lincoln County because of the possibility that DOE could build and operate an intermodal transfer station there. The Department used the residential distribution, which reflects existing commuting patterns, to estimate the future distribution of direct workers associated with the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. The socioeconomic region of influence for the Proposed Action, consisting of Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties in Southern Nevada, is shown in Figure 3-23. Clark County contains the City of Las Vegas and its suburbs. Based on a count of workers in a 1994 data report, 79 percent of the Yucca Mountain Project and Nevada Test Site onsite employees live in Clark County and approximately 19 percent live in Nye County (Table 3-22). DOE received numerous reports from affected units of local government providing socioeconomic baseline environmental information. In addition, DOE regularly requests and receives economic and demographic data from local and State of Nevada agencies. The data and reports contain information that characterizes the existing community environment, provides assessments of economic development, or includes basic economic and demographic trends. DOE reviewed these reports and incorporated pertinent information in this EIS. DOE used the REMI Economic-Demographic Forecasting System model to estimate the baseline for population, employment, and three other economic measures: Gross Regional Product, real disposable income, and State and local government spending. The baseline was projected from 2000 to 2035 for the three counties in the Region of Influence, for the Rest of Nevada, and for all of Nevada. This baseline information is provided in Table 3-23. The REMI model was used to estimate changes to the socioeconomic measures from the baseline based on different cases for repository construction and operation and for different transportation options. These changes from the baseline are discussed in Chapters 4 and 6. The version of the REMI model used for the Final EIS is based on historical data through 1997. This model was updated to include State of Nevada employment data for 1998. Additional local information was incorporated in the baseline projections. These included expected near-term changes and long-term stability in the mining industry in Nye County; changes in employment by DOE during 1999 and 2000; and expected increases in hotel-casino employment as a result of openings of new hotels and casinos through 2001. Finally, the baselines were adjusted to account for population estimates and projections made for Clark and Nye Counties and by the Nevada State Demographer's Office. Chapter 3 cites information, when available, from the 2000 Census as gathered by the Bureau of the Census. The analysis of impacts to socioeconomic parameters, including population and employment, in subsequent chapters are projected, however, from baselines developed with input from the State of Nevada and local sources. Section 3.1.7.2 discusses employment estimates by industrial sectors by county in the region of influence.3.1.7.1 Population
Southern Nevada has been and continues to be among the fastest-growing areas in the country. During the 1980s, the population of the region of influence had an average annual growth rate of 4.8 percent, with a total growth of 66.5-percent for the decade, adding more than 29,000 people annually and reaching 780,000 residents in 1990. In comparison to the State of Nevada, which had a growth of 50.1 percent between 1980 and 1990, the United States had a growth of less than 10 percent during the same period (DIRS 102119-Bureau of the Census 1995, all). This trend has continued during the 1990s. By 2000, the population of Clark County was about 1.4 million people. The region of influence grew by 88 percent from 1990 to 2000, averaging almost 65,000 new residents annually. In 2000, the estimated population of the region of influence was about 1.41 million people. Led by Clark County, Nevada is the fastest growing state in the country. From 1990 to 2000, Nevada had a total growth of 66.3 percent compared to the 13.1-percent overall growth of the United States.[2000 CENSUS DATA AND UPDATED REMI MODEL] Las Vegas and the immediate surrounding area dominate the Clark County population. The Las Vegas economy is driven by the growth of the hotel, amusement and recreation, and eating and drinking sectors associated with the gaming industry. As the popularity of gaming grew in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, Las Vegas evolved as one of the country's major tourism and convention destinations. In 2000, Las Vegas hosted 35.8 million visitors, contributing $31.5 billion to the local economy (DIRS 148157-LVCVA 1999, all). The tourism trend is expected to continue well into this century. However, there are a number of economic indicators that suggest the growth in the gaming industry is slowing. The relatively moderate housing costs, temperate climate, abundance of recreational opportunities, favorable business conditions, and absence of a State income tax have contributed to commercial and residential growth. The number of retirees (from across the United States) moving to communities in the region of influence is escalating. Nye County, which has been the site of booms and busts due to fluctuating mining activity and the recent decline of Nevada Test Site employment, is home to approximately 4 percent of the Yucca Mountain Project employees who work in Nevada (DIRS 155987-DOE 2001, Tables 3-14 and 3-22). Pahrump, in southern Nye County, is experiencing growth caused primarily by inmigrating retirees and its proximity to Las Vegas. In 2000, Nye County had about 32,500 residents, having experienced an 82.7-percent growth in the 1990s. The 2000 population in Lincoln County was about 4,200, up from about 3,800 in 1990, a growth of approximately 10.3 percent. Although the annual growth rate of the region of influence is likely to slow from the extraordinary pace of the 1990s, the population should continue to grow at a rate of 2 to 4 percent a year in this decade. Clark County will continue to lead the population growth in the foreseeable future in the region of influence. The region of influence includes a number of incorporated cities and towns as well as unincorporated communities (Table 3-24). The largest city in Clark County is Las Vegas, followed by Henderson. In 2000, Las Vegas had a population of about 480,000 compared to Henderson, which had about 180,000 residents. Nye County has no incorporated cities, but the largest community is unincorporated Pahrump, which had an estimated population of about 25,000 in 2000. Lincoln County has only one incorporated city, Caliente, which is the largest community with a 2000 population of about 1,100. Clark County has a population density of about 140 persons per square mile. Lincoln County has approximately 0.4 person per square mile, and Nye County has a population density of about 1.4 persons per square mile. Population growth in the State of Nevada and Clark County is expected to exceed average national trends through 2035. The explosive population growth in Clark County is expected to slow, but remain well above national averages, at about 3 percent through 2035. Clark County will continue to house approximately 97 percent of the population in the region of influence. Nye County is also expected to grow at an accelerated rate, with an average annual increase of approximately 2 percent to 2035. Lincoln County is expected to experience less than 1-percent annual growth through the first third of this century. Figure 3-24 shows estimated populations for the region of influence and the State of Nevada, projected out to 2035.3.1.7.2 Employment
Of the three counties that comprise the region of influence, Clark County has by far the largest economy; in 2000, the estimated employment was about 840,000. This constituted 98 percent of the regional employment and about 68 percent of the State employment. During the same year Nye County had an employment base of about 13,000, and the Lincoln County employment base was about 2,000. Clark County should continue to lead employment growth in the region of influence. Between 1980 and 1990, Clark County added an average of 19,000 jobs a year (Table 3-25). Since 1990 that pace has increased to more than 38,000 new jobs a year. Total employment increased 35 percent between 1990 and 1995, adding about 160,000 jobs. In 2000, Clark County added 3,000 jobs a month to its labor force. The services sector, which includes hotels, eating and drinking establishments, and amusement and recreation facilities, is the largest employer in Clark County, representing 45 percent of the employment in 2000. Although Nye County's employment increased between 1980 and 1990, it declined to about 11,000 in 1995, a decrease of 15 percent (Table 3-26). Employment rebounded and by 2000 there were approximately 13,000 jobs in the county. Services represents the largest employment sector in the Nye County economy. In 2000, services comprised 43 percent of Nye County's employment and retail trade made up an additional 14 percent. Lincoln County's employment declined between 1990 and 1995 after growth during the 1980s (Table 3-27). Employment had declined to about 2,000 positions by 2000. As in Clark and Nye Counties, services represented the largest sector of the Lincoln County economy, about 35 percent. Employment in Federal, State, and local government agencies represented a significant presence in the County's employment, about 29 percent. Las Vegas, in Clark County, has one of the fastest growing economies in the country. The rapid growth of the Las Vegas area is driven by the gaming and tourism industry. For each hotel room constructed, an employment multiplier effect creates an estimated 2.5 direct and indirect (composite) jobs. About 4,200 hotel rooms were added in 2000 alone. Despite an inventory of more than 124,000 rooms, hotels consistently operate at 90 percent occupancy, reaching 97 percent on weekends. Hundreds of new jobs are added to the regional economy each month, and many job seekers have come to the area (primarily Clark County). Some of these new arrivals, however, lack the necessary job skills or experience that area employers require. As a result, Clark County has maintained a healthy, relatively low unemployment rate, but one that remains near State and national averages. In 2000, Clark and Nye Counties had unemployment rates of 4.3 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively (DIRS 155818-NDETR 2001, all). The average in the State of Nevada was about 4.4 percent, and nationwide the unemployment rate was about 4.0 percent. Lincoln County had an unemployment rate above the national average at 6.6 percent (DIRS 155818-NDETR 2001, all). Onsite employment levels at the Exploratory Studies Facility remained relatively constant between 1995 and 2000, and are not likely to fluctuate substantially through the end of site characterization activities. In 2000, an average of about 2,320 workers (220 work on the site and 2,100 off the site) worked on the Yucca Mountain Project. Most offsite workers are employed in the Las Vegas area (DIRS 155987-DOE 2001, Table 3-1). As would be expected, projected employment in the region of influence broadly reflects population trends. The number of jobs in Clark County will reach approximately 1.3 million in 2035, up from 840,000 in 2000. Clark County will host 98 percent of the employment opportunities in the three-county region of influence. Nye County will add approximately 10,000 additional workers by 2035 from the 13,000 base in 2000. Lincoln County employment will expand from 2,040 in 2000 to approximately 2,700 in 2035. The 1997 per-capita income of Clark County was about $26,200, near the State's average of about $26,600. The per-capita income in Nye County was $20,400 and in Lincoln County it was $18,400. The U.S. average was $25,300 in the same year (DIRS 155987-DOE 2001, Tables: 1994-1998 Per Capita Income, Nevada vs. Western States; 1970-1998 Total & Per Capita Income in Nevada; and 1989-1997 Per Capita Income in Nevada, by County).3.1.7.3 Payments-Equal-to-Taxes
Another issue of interest is the DOE Payments-Equal-To-Taxes Program. Section 116(c)(3)(A) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, requires the Secretary of Energy to "…grant to the State of Nevada and any affected unit of local government an amount each fiscal year equal to the amount such State or affected unit of local government, respectively, would receive if authorized to tax site characterization activities…." The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office is responsible for implementing and administering this program for the Yucca Mountain Project. DOE acquired data from the project organizations that purchase or acquire property for use in Nevada, have employees in Nevada, or use property in Nevada. These organizations include Federal agencies, national laboratories, and private firms. Not all of them have a Federal exemption, so they pay the appropriate taxes. The purchases (sales and use tax), employees (business tax), and property (property or possessory use taxes) of the Yucca Mountain Project organizations that exercise a Federal exemption are subject to the Payments-Equal-To-Taxes Program (DIRS 156763-YMP 2001, all). The actual sales and use taxes, property taxes, and Nevada business taxes paid by Yucca Mountain Project organizations that are not exempted from tax payment obligations for May 1986 through June 2000 have been totaled. These organizations paid sales or use taxes of $2.5 million for purchases consumed in Clark County and $5.1 million in Nye County, paid property or possessory taxes of about $90,000 in Clark County and $37,000 in Nye County, and paid Nevada business taxes of about $810,000 (DIRS 156763-YMP 2001, all). The Payments-Equal-To-Taxes for sales or use taxes from May 1986 through June 2000 was about $4.4 million for purchases consumed in Clark County and $450,000 in Nye County. For property taxes it was about $940,000 in Clark County, $46 million in Nye County, $8,000 in Lincoln County, and $3,700 in Esmeralda County. For Nevada business taxes (Clark, Nye, Esmeralda, and Lincoln Counties), about $160,000 was paid (DIRS 156763-YMP 2001, all).3.1.7.4 Housing
Spurred by the rapid population growth and soaring employment opportunities, the residential housing market is strong and steady in the Las Vegas area. From 1992 to 1996, annual sales of new homes exceeded 16,000 units. In 1999, a record 21,200 units were sold. In 2000, 20,500 new homes and 29,500 existing homes were sold. More than 400 residential developers sell properties in the Las Vegas area, leading to a highly competitive market. The competitive environment has kept price increases to the rate of inflation. Eighty-five percent of the new homes sold were priced between $100,000 and $200,000. In 2000, the median price of a new home was about $160,000 and the median price of a resale home was about $132,000. These sale prices are slightly below the national median prices of $165,000 for new homes and $143,500 for existing units. Large master-planned communities are common, and average about 30 percent of the total home sales. Steady employment and population growth should continue to spur demand for housing. Sustained growth will depend on further development of large-scale resort and gaming projects. The housing stock of Clark County in 1990 was about 320,000 units, which consisted of about 157,000 single-family units, 130,000 multifamily units, and 33,000 mobile homes or other accommodations. About 290,000 of these units were occupied (DIRS 148097-Bureau of the Census 1998, all) resulting in 2.5 persons per household. The number of households in Clark County in 2000 was about 560,000 units (DIRS 155872-Bureau of the Census 2000, all). The housing stock of Nye County in 1990 was about 8,100 units, which consisted of about 2,300 single-family units, 560 multifamily units, and 5,200 mobile homes or other accommodations. About 6,700 of these units were occupied, resulting in 2.5 persons per household (DIRS 148097-Bureau of the Census 1998, all). The number of households in Nye County in 2000 was about 15,900 (DIRS 155872-Bureau of the Census 2000, all). The housing stock of Lincoln County in 1990 was about 1,800 units, which consisted of about 1,000 single-family units, 160 multifamily units, and 600 mobile homes or other accommodations. About 1,300 of these units were occupied, resulting in 2.6 persons per household (DIRS 148097-Bureau of the Census 1998, all). The number of households in Lincoln County in 2000 was about 2,200 (DIRS 155872-Bureau of the Census 2000, all). Because most population and employment growth in the region of influence will occur in Clark County, most housing growth also will occur there. The only other area in the region likely to see large growth is Pahrump in southern Nye County. Housing changes in Lincoln County probably will be minimal in the foreseeable future.3.1.7.5 Public Services
Education. In the 2000-2001 school year, the region of influence contained about 223 public elementary and middle schools, 37 public high schools, 13 alternative schools, 4 special education schools, an Advanced Technology Academy, an adult education center, and 3 charter schools (DIRS 157141-NDE 2001, all). Clark County opened 11 of these schools in the 2000-2001 school year. The average pupil-teacher ratio was about 21-to-1 for elementary schools and 19-to-1 for secondary schools (DIRS 157142-NDE 2001, all). In 1999, the national pupil-teacher ratio was about 19-to-1 for elementary schools and 15-to-1 for secondary schools (DIRS 155819-NCES 2000, all). Clark County has the tenth-largest school district in the country; during the 2000-2001 school year, Clark County had about 258 schools and nearly 232,000 students (Table 3-28). During the same period, Nye County had approximately 5,300 students, and Lincoln County had about 1,020 students (DIRS 155820-NDE 2001, all). Health Care. Health care services in the region of influence are concentrated in Clark County, particularly in the Las Vegas area. In 2000, Clark County had nine community hospitals (DIRS 156286-Medical Central Online 2001, all), including the newly opened 141-bed Siena campus of St. Rose Dominican (DIRS 156288-Babula 2000, all) and several specialized care facilities. Several major health care providers have proposed new hospitals or expansions of existing facilities and are awaiting various approval processes. Voters rejected a proposed Children's Hospital in June 2001. Although Nye County has one hospital in Tonopah, most people in the southern part of the county use local clinics or go to hospitals in Las Vegas. Lincoln County has one hospital in Caliente (DIRS 156286-Medical Central Online 2001, all). Table 3-29 lists hospital use in the region of influence. Medical services are available at the Nevada Test Site for Exploratory Studies Facility personnel; these services include two paramedics and an ambulance in Area 25. Backup services are on call from other Test Site locations. In addition, the Nevada Test Site provides medical services for Yucca Mountain Project workers at a clinic in Mercury, which has no overnight capability. When patients need urgent care, the Yucca Mountain Project relies on the helicopter "Flight for Life" and "Air Life" operations from Las Vegas. In emergencies, Area 25 can call on Nellis Air Force Base or Nye County for help. Law Enforcement. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is responsible for law enforcement in Clark County with the exceptions of the Cities of North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, and Mesquite, which have their own police departments. The Las Vegas police department is the largest law enforcement agency in Nevada; in 2001, it had about 2,620 employees including 1,750 commissioned officers; a ratio of about 2.5 employees or 1.6 commissioned officers per 1,000 residents. In 2000, the Nye County Sheriff Department had 113 employees, a ratio of 3.5 employees per 1,000 residents, and Lincoln County had 17 sheriff department employees serving an area of 27,500 square kilometers (10,600 square miles), a ratio of 4.0 employees per 1,000 residents. In comparison, the national officer-to-population ratio is 2.4 officers per 1,000 residents, (DIRS 148129-FBI 1996, pp. 1 to 3). Protection. A combination of fire departments provides protection in the region of influence; these include the Clark County, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas fire departments and several other city, county, and military departments. In 2001, the Clark County Fire Department had about 500 paid and 390 volunteer firefighters. The Las Vegas Fire Department had 334 paid firefighters and the North Las Vegas Fire Department had 259 firefighters. In 2001, Nye County and Lincoln County met fire suppression needs with volunteers from the individual communities in the counties. The national average is 4.1 firefighters (paid and volunteer) per 1,000 residents.3.1.8 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
The public health and safety region of influence consists of the number of persons residing within an 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius of the repository site at the end of site characterization. The estimated population in 2000 is about 34,000, which could grow to an estimated 76,000 by 2035. Both the population estimate for 2000 and the projection for 2035 are based on the State Demographer and Local Agencies' Baseline as described in Section 3.1.7, and are distributed over the 80-kilometer (50-mile) radius as shown in Figure 3-25. The region of influence includes parts of Nye, Clark, Lincoln, and Esmeralda Counties in Nevada, as well as Inyo County in California (Figure 3-25). Potentially affected workers include those at the repository site and at nearby Nevada Test Site facilities. This section describes the existing radiation environment and the baseline cancer incidence in the region of influence. Unless otherwise noted, the Environmental Baseline File for Human Health (DIRS 104544-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) is the basis of the information in this section. Section 3.1.8.1 describes the various radiation sources that make up the radiation environment. Section 3.1.8.2 describes the existing radiation environment in the Yucca Mountain region. Section 3.1.8.3 describes the health-related mineral issues encountered during site characterization activities. Section 3.1.8.4 describes the worker industrial safety experienced from site characterization activities.3.1.8.1 Radiation Sources in the Environment
Types of Radiation. There are ambient levels of radiation at and around the site of the proposed repository just as there are around the world. All people are inevitably exposed to the three sources of ionizing radiation: those of natural origin unaffected by human activities, those of natural origin but affected by human activities (called enhanced natural sources), and manmade sources. Natural sources (natural background radiation) include cosmic radiation from space, cosmogenic radionuclides produced when cosmic radiation interacts with matter in the atmosphere or ground, and naturally occurring, long-lived primordial radionuclides in the Earth's mantle. Enhanced natural sources include those that can increase exposure as a result of human actions, deliberate or otherwise. For example, a mill tailings pile from a uranium extraction process probably would contain concentrated levels of naturally occurring radionuclides. A variety of radiation exposures, generally smaller than those caused by natural sources, result from manmade sources including nuclear medicine, medical X-rays, and consumer products. Natural background radiation is the largest contributor to the average radiation dose of individuals. The natural occurrence of cosmic radiation, cosmogenic radionuclides, and primordial radionuclides varies throughout the world depending on such factors as altitude and geology. External radiation comes from all three of these natural sources, but cosmic radiation and radiation from primordial radionuclides are the largest dose contributors. Cosmic radiation consists of charged particles (primarily protons from extraterrestrial sources) that have sufficiently high energies to generate secondary particles that have direct and indirect ionizing properties. The three main primordial radionuclide contributors to external terrestrial gamma radiation are potassium-40 and the members of the thorium and uranium decay series. Most external terrestrial gamma radiation comes from the top 20 centimeters (8 inches) of soil, with a small contribution from airborne radon decay products. Although of smaller importance to natural external dose than the other two mechanisms, two cosmogenic radionuclides, sodium-22 and beryllium-7, produce quantifiable external doses in humans. Internal radiation dose from natural sources comes primarily from the primordial radionuclides and their decay products. The largest individual source of internal dose comes from the inhalation of radon-222 and its decay products, which are all members of the uranium-238 decay series. This exposure comes mainly from inhalation of these radionuclides in indoor air, coming from the soil underneath buildings. All of the primordial radionuclides are in the body in various concentrations, incorporated by ingesting or inhaling these radionuclides in air, water, and all types of food products. In addition, two cosmogenic radionuclides—tritium (hydrogen-3) and carbon-14—produce quantifiable internal doses. Table 3-30 lists estimated radiation doses from natural sources to individuals in the region of influence and other locations in the United States. Effects of Radiation Exposure. The effect of radiation on people depends on the kind of radiation exposure (alpha and beta particles, and X-rays and gamma rays), the total amount of tissue exposed to radiation, and the duration of the exposure. The amount of radiant energy imparted to tissue from exposure to ionizing radiation is referred to as absorbed dose. The sum of the absorbed dose to each tissue, when multiplied by certain quality and weighting factors that take into account radiation quality and different sensitivities of the various tissues, is referred to as effective dose equivalent and is expressed in rem. The Code of Federal Regulations contains further discussion of DOE radiation protection standards and methods of dose assessment (10 CFR Part 835). An individual can be exposed to radiation from outside or inside the body because radioactive materials can enter the body by ingestion or inhalation. External dose is different from internal dose in that it is delivered only during the actual time of exposure. An internal dose, however, continues to be delivered as long as the radioactive source is in the body (although both radioactive decay and elimination of the radionuclide by ordinary metabolic processes usually decrease the dose rate with the passage of time).[TERMS USED IN RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENT] Radiation can cause a variety of adverse health effects in people. The following discussion is an overview of the method commonly used to estimate effects of radiation exposure; Appendix F contains more detailed information. At low doses, the most important adverse health effect for depicting the consequences of environmental and occupational radiation exposures (which are typically low doses) is the potential inducement of cancers that can lead to death in later years. This effect is referred to as latent cancer fatalities because the cancer can take years to develop and for death to occur, and might never actually be the cause of death. The collective dose to an exposed population is calculated by summing the estimated doses received by each member of the exposed population. This is referred to as a population dose. The total population dose received by the exposed population is measured in person-rem. For example, if 1,000 people each received a dose of 0.001 rem, the population dose would be 1.0 person-rem (1,000 persons multiplied by 0.001 rem equals 1.0 person-rem). The same population dose (1.0 person-rem) would result if 500 people each received a dose of 0.002 rem (500 persons multiplied by 0.002 rem equals 1 person-rem). The factor used in this EIS to relate a dose to its potential effect is 0.0004 latent cancer fatality per person-rem for workers and 0.0005 latent cancer fatality per person-rem for individuals among the general population (DIRS 101856-NCRP 1993, p. 3). The latter factor is slightly higher because some individuals in the public, such as infants, might be more sensitive to radiation than workers. These risk factors have also been endorsed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. The Environmental Protection Agency recently published an age-specific risk factor of 0.000575 latent cancer fatality per person-rem (DIRS 153733-EPA 2000, Table 7.3, p. 179), which is discussed in Appendix F. Both the Agency and DOE recognize that there are large uncertainties associated with these risk factors. As a consequence, DOE believes that the 15-percent difference in these risk factors (between 0.0005 and 0.000575) is well within other uncertainties and would provide little additional information to the decisionmaking process supported by this document. For these reasons, in its National Environmental Policy Act documents, DOE has continued to use risk factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. These concepts can be used to estimate the effects of exposing a population to radiation. For example, if 100,000 people were each exposed only to background radiation (0.3 rem per year), 15 latent cancer fatalities could occur as a result of 1 year of exposure (100,000 persons multiplied by 0.3 rem per year multiplied by 0.0005 latent cancer fatality per person-rem equals 15 latent cancer fatalities). Calculations of the number of latent cancer fatalities associated with radiation exposure do not normally yield whole numbers and, especially in environmental applications, can yield numbers less than 1.0. For example, if 100,000 people were each exposed to a total dose of only 1 millirem (0.001 rem), the population dose would be 100 person-rem, and the corresponding estimated number of latent cancer fatalities would be 0.05 (100,000 persons multiplied by 0.001 rem multiplied by 0.0005 latent cancer fatality per person-rem equals 0.05 latent cancer fatality). The average number of deaths that would result if the same exposure situation were applied to many different groups of 100,000 people is 0.05. In most groups, nobody (zero people) would incur a latent cancer fatality from the 1-millirem dose each member would have received. In a small fraction of the groups, 1 latent fatal cancer would result; in exceptionally few groups, 2 or more latent fatal cancers would occur. The average number of deaths over all the groups would be 0.05 latent fatal cancer (just as the average of 0, 0, 0, and 1 is 0.25). The most likely outcome is no latent cancer fatalities in these different groups. To aid in decisionmaking, DOE has applied these same concepts in estimating the effects of radiation exposure on a single individual. Consider the effects, for example, of exposure to background radiation over a lifetime. The probability of a latent cancer fatality corresponding to a single individual's exposure to 0.3 rem a year over a (presumed) 70-year lifetime is:| Probability of a latent cancer fatality | = 1 person 0.3 rem per year 70 years |
| 0.0005 latent cancer fatality per person-rem |
|
| = 0.011 probability of a latent cancer fatality. |
3.1.8.2 Radiation Environment in the Yucca Mountain Region
Ambient radiation levels from cosmic and terrestrial sources at Yucca Mountain are higher than the U.S. average. The higher elevation at Yucca Mountain results in higher levels of cosmic radiation due to less shielding by the atmosphere. The U.S. average for cosmic, cosmogenic, and terrestrial radiation exposures is 56 millirem per year (Table 3-30). The exposures at the Yucca Mountain ridge and Yucca Mountain surface facilities are about 160 and 150 millirem per year, respectively. Moreover, there are higher amounts of naturally occurring radionuclides in the soil and parent rock of this region than in some other regions of the United States, which also results in higher radiation doses. The surface environment, or soil, of Yucca Mountain contains the following naturally occurring radionuclides (DIRS 146183-CRWMS M&O 1996, all):| Radionuclide |  Dry weight concentration (picocuries per gram) |
| Uranium-238 | 0.002 to 0.22 |
| Radium-226 | 0.77 to 3.3 |
| Thorium-232 | 0.17 to 0.92 |
| Potassium-40 | 18 to 35 |
3.1.8.3 Health-Related Mineral Issues Identified During Site Characterization
Certain minerals known to present a potential risk to worker health are present in the volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain (DIRS 101779-DOE 1998, Volume 1, pp. 2-24 and 2-25). The risks are generally related to potential exposures caused by inhalation of airborne particulates (dust). Some of the minerals represent a hazard commonly associated with underground construction, whereas others are rare and less well known. Crystalline silica (silicon dioxide) comes in several forms—among them quartz, tridymite, and cristobalite. Inhaling silica dust causes a disease called silicosis that damages an area of the lungs called the air sac (alveoli) (DIRS 103243-EPA 1996, all). The presence of silica dust in the alveoli causes a defensive reaction that results in the formation of scar tissue in the lungs. This scar tissue can reduce overall lung capacity. DOE typically performs evaluations of exposure to crystalline silica at Yucca Mountain for cristobalite that encompass potential impacts from exposure to other forms of crystalline silica. The repository host rock has a cristobalite content ranging from 18 to 28 percent (DIRS 104523-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 4-81). The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has established Threshold Limit Values for various forms of crystalline silica (DIRS 103070-ACGIH 1999, p. 61). These limits are based on an 8-hour day and 40-hour week and, therefore, could be exceeded for a short period—as long as the average time spent by a worker is below the limit. The Threshold Limit Values for respirable cristobalite dust and quartz dust are 0.05 and 0.1 milligram per cubic meter, respectively. In addition, crystalline silica has been listed by the World Health Organization as a carcinogen (DIRS 100046-IARC 1997, p. 41). Normal underground mechanical excavation produces dust when the rock is broken loose from the face. Dust is also generated when the broken rock is transferred to railcars or conveyors, or a storage pile. Dust can also be generated by wind erosion of excavated rock storage piles. Excavation activities during site characterization have caused exceedances of crystalline silica Threshold Limit Values at specific work locations. Workers at these locations were required to wear respirators. DOE will use the experience gained during Exploratory Studies Facility activities to design engineering controls to minimize future exposures. Erionite is an uncommon zeolite mineral that the International Agency for Research on Cancer recognized as a human carcinogen in 1987; at Yucca Mountain, it occurs primarily in the basal vitrophyre of the Topopah Spring tuff and in isolated zones of the Tiva Canyon tuff (see Section 3.1.3). Even at low concentrations erionite is believed to be a potent carcinogen capable of causing mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer. As a result of its apparent carcinogenicity, erionite could pose a risk if encountered in quantity during underground construction, even with standard modern construction practices. Because erionite appears to be absent or rare at the proposed repository depth and location, most repository operations should not be affected. However, repository workers would take precautions (for example, dust suppression, air filters, personal protective gear) during construction when penetrating horizons in which erionite could occur, such as in the basal vitrophyre of the Topopah Spring tuff. A number of other minerals present at Yucca Mountain might have associated health risks if prolonged exposures occur; however, there is no evidence suggesting a link to cancer. Therefore, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has ranked these substances not classifiable (DIRS 100046-IARC 1997, all). Some of the minerals identified and considered in establishing health and safety practices for potential repository operations include the zeolite group minerals mordenite (which is fibrous and similar in some respects to erionite), clinoptilolite, heulandite, and phillipsite. Because there is no known risk associated with the other zeolite minerals, and because they occur primarily in nonwelded units below the repository horizon, they probably do not represent a large risk. The measures implemented to mitigate risk from silica (for example, dust suppression, air filters, personal protective gear) should also protect workers from exposure to other minerals.3.1.8.4 Industrial Health and Safety Impacts During Construction of the Exploratory Studies Facility
During Yucca Mountain site characterization activities, health and safety impacts to workers have resulted from common industrial hazards (such as tripping and falling). The categories of worker impacts include total recordable incidents, lost workdays, and fatalities. Recordable incidents or cases are occupational injuries or occupation-related illnesses that result in (1) a fatality, regardless of the time between the injury or the onset of the illness and death, (2) lost workday cases (nonfatal), and (3) incidents that result in the transfer of a worker to another job, termination of employment, medical treatment, loss of consciousness, or restriction of motion during work activities. Site characterization activities at Yucca Mountain have had no involved worker fatalities. DOE has compiled statistics for the other types of health and safety impacts in accordance with the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR Part 1904) (see Appendix F, Section F.2). These statistics cover the 30-month period from the fourth quarter of 1994 through the first quarter of 1997. DOE selected this period because there was high onsite work activity in which the tunnel-boring machine was in operation in the Exploratory Studies Facility. DOE expects this condition to be characteristic of the types of activities that would occur during the construction of the surface facilities and the development of the emplacement drifts. Table 3-31 lists the industrial health and safety loss statistics for industry, general construction, general mining, and the Yucca Mountain site.3.1.9 Noise and Vibration
The region of influence for noise includes existing residences in the Yucca Mountain region and at the approximate boundary of the analyzed land withdrawal area. Noise comes from either natural or manmade sources. DOE has evaluated existing noise conditions in the Yucca Mountain region and has compiled the detected ranges of noise levels at different locations under differing conditions.3.1.9.1 Noise Sources and Levels
Yucca Mountain is in a quiet desert environment where natural phenomena such as wind, rain, and wildlife account for most background noise. The acoustic environment is typical of other desert environments where average day-night sound-level values range from 22 decibels on calm days to 38 decibels on windy days (DIRS 102224-Brattstrom and Bondello 1983, p. 170). Manmade noise occurs periodically in the area as vehicles travel to and from Yucca Mountain, from site characterization activities at the operations areas, and from occasional low-flying military jets. Sound-level measurements recorded in May 1997 at areas adjacent to and at the Yucca Mountain operations areas were consistent with noise levels associated with industrial operations [sound levels from 44 to 72 decibels (A-weighted)] (DIRS 101531-Brown-Buntin 1997, pp. 4-6). Table 3-32 lists estimated sound-level values for Yucca Mountain, nearby communities and cities, and other environments.3.1.9.2 Regulatory Standards
With the exception of prohibiting nuisance noise, neither the State of Nevada nor local governments have established numerical noise standards. Nevertheless, many Federal agencies use average day-night sound levels as guidelines for land-use compatibility and to assess the impacts of noise on people. Many agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, recognize an average day-night sound level of 55 decibels (A-weighted) as an outdoor goal for protecting public health and welfare in residential areas (DIRS 101821-EPA 1974, p. 3). This noise level, which has been established by scientific consensus, is not a regulatory criterion in Nevada, and could protect against activity interference and annoyance. While Nevada does not have a noise code, daytime and nighttime noise standards adopted by Washington State (WAC-173-60 and 70) for residential and commercial areas can serve as benchmarks for evaluating potential impacts based on land use. These benchmarks are 60 decibels for residential use (nighttime reduction to 50 decibels), 65 decibels for light commercial, and 70 decibels for industrial zones. As required, DOE monitors noise levels in worker areas, and a hearing protection program has been in place during site characterization. Hearing protection is used as a supplement to engineering controls, which are the primary method of noise suppression. Sound levels that cause annoyance in people vary greatly by individual and background conditions. However, the threshold for hearing hazard, which depends on the frequency of the sound, ranges from around 65 decibels at a frequency of 4,000 hertz to about 88 decibels at frequencies of 125 and 8,000 hertz (DIRS 155778-Melnick 1998, Vol. 12, p. 18). These threshold levels assume continuous exposure for periods of hours. High risk for hearing loss occurs at 120 decibels and can result from short-term exposure of seconds to minutes. Ground transportation activities such as those associated with the Proposed Action (either rail or heavy-haul trucks) would not propagate noise levels of this magnitude to the environment.3.1.9.3 Vibration
Ground vibration is an element of environmental assessment. Many natural phenomena (wave action on beaches, strong winds, earthquakes, etc.) as well as human activities (construction, transportation, military activities, etc.) can contribute to ground vibration. As a consequence, there is a component of background vibration that exists, generally higher in large cities than in rural communities, and lower in areas more distant from human activities. This vibration component can be altered by a change in site activities. There are two measurements for evaluating ground vibration: peak particle velocity and root-mean-square velocity (DIRS 155547-HMMH 1995, p. 7-3). Peak particle velocity is the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, measured as a distance per time (such as millimeters or inches per second). This measurement has been used historically to evaluate "shock"-wave type vibrations from actions like blasting, pile driving, and mining activities, and their relationship to building damage. The root-mean-square level is an average or smoothed vibration amplitude, commonly measured over 1-second intervals. It is expressed on a log scale in decibels (VdB) referenced to 0.000001 (10-6) inch per second and is not to be confused with noise decibels. It is more suitable for addressing human annoyance and characterizing background vibration conditions because it better represents the response time of humans to ground vibration signals. A typical background level of ground vibration is 52 VdB, and the human threshold for the perception of ground vibration is 65 VdB (DIRS 148155-Hanson, Saurenman, and Towers 1998, p. 46.17). There are three ground vibration impacts of general concern: human annoyance, damage to buildings, and interference to vibration-sensitive activities. Three categories of buildings and associated human activities have been established for the assessment of annoyance or interference impacts from ground vibration (DIRS 155547-HMMH 1995, pp. 8-2 to 8-3). Table 3-33 lists these categories along with associated benchmark vibration levels at which adverse impacts might be likely. An important element of the criteria for human disturbance is the frequency of distinct ground vibration events; the more events, the higher the likelihood of annoyance. Most environmental evaluations have focused on mass transit, where there is a high frequency of events. Vibration criteria for structural damage in fragile or extremely fragile buildings have separate structural criteria based on peak particle velocity and an approximation of VdB that have been segregated into impulse and rail impacts. Table 3-33 lists these criteria. Building damage from ground vibration, which is rare, is associated with vibration levels that are unpleasant or disturbing long before there is any possibility of damage to the building. Background levels of ground vibration at the Yucca Mountain site are low. Other than site characterization-related activities, there is basically a lack of the classical, manmade sources of ground vibration impacts; that is, impacts from pile driving, heavy earth-moving equipment (particularly equipment with metal tracks), and blasting.[NOISE MEASUREMENT]3.1.10 Aesthetics
Visual resources, with nighttime darkness as a component, include the natural and manmade physical features that give a particular landscape its character and value as an environmental factor. The physical features representing the region of influence for aesthetics are those found within the approximate boundary of the analyzed land withdrawal area. Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.5 describe the geologic and biological settings, respectively, at Yucca Mountain. The region surrounding Yucca Mountain consists of unpopulated to sparsely populated desert and rural lands. Because much of Yucca Mountain is on the Nevada Test Site and Nellis Air Force Range with restricted public access, public visibility is limited to portions of U.S. Highway 95 near Amargosa Valley. The Bureau of Land Management uses four visual resource classes in the management of public lands (DIRS 101505-BLM 1986, all). Classes I and II are the most valued, Class III is moderately valued, and Class IV is of least value. Visual resources fall into one of these management classes based on a combination of three factors: (1) scenic quality, (2) visual sensitivity, and (3) distance from travel routes or observation points (DIRS 101505-BLM 1986, all). There are three scenic quality classes in the Bureau of Land Management Visual Resource Management system. Class A includes areas that combine the most outstanding characteristics of each physical feature category. Class B includes areas in which there is a combination of some outstanding and some fairly common characteristics. Class C includes areas in which the characteristics are fairly common to the region. A visual sensitivity rating for an area is based on the number and types of users, special areas (natural areas, wilderness areas), public interest in the area, and adjacent land uses. Though a scenic quality rating (A, B, or C) is used in conjunction with visual sensitivity and distance zones (foreground, middleground, background, and seldom seen) to produce Visual Resource Management Classes, the scenic quality rating is often used independently to emphasize a visual resource within a management class area. For example, a Wilderness Study Area might have a Class A scenic rating and be in a Class II or III management area. The Bureau of Land Management has not assigned a Visual Resource Management class to Yucca Mountain because the Nevada Test Site is not under the Bureau's jurisdiction. However, using the Bureau's method of determining scenic quality, DOE has evaluated the visual resources of the Yucca Mountain region from two observation points—one at Amargosa Valley on U.S. 95 and the other on the Nevada Test Site at a location that provides a clear view of the proposed repository site (DIRS 105002-CRWMS M&O 1999, all). The visual assessment at both these locations concluded that the scenic quality classification of Yucca Mountain is C. Nighttime darkness in the Yucca Mountain region is a valued component of the solitude experience sought by many individuals, and greatly enhances astronomy and stargazing activities. It is also felt to be one of the important scenic resources of the Death Valley National Park. Existing or potential sources of nighttime light in this area include the Towns of Beatty and Amargosa Valley that lie between Death Valley National Park and the Yucca Mountain site; the community of Pahrump slightly east of the Park; and Las Vegas farther to the east. Las Vegas is the largest source of nighttime light in the extended region; the glow of its lights is evident in the night sky at much farther distances than other city features. Current lighting at the repository site is similar to or less than lighting at other work areas on the Nevada Test Site and represents a minor contribution to the area's sources of nighttime lighting.[BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASS OBJECTIVES (used in the management of public lands]3.1.11 Utilities, Energy, and Site Services
DOE research into the current consumer demand for utilities and energy in the Yucca Mountain region has yielded information on water and power sources, use, and supply systems. The research included water treatment capabilities. The region of influence for potential impacts to utility and energy supplies consists of those public and private resources on which DOE would draw to support the Proposed Action, and which are in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties in Nevada. Sections 3.1.11.1 and 3.1.11.2 contain information on current water and energy suppliers and consumer use. Unless otherwise noted, the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Environmental Baseline File for Utilities, Energy, and Site Services (DIRS 104988-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) is the basis of the information in this section.3.1.11.1 Utilities
Water and sewer utilities in the region could be affected by the Proposed Action as a result of project-related increases in population and the associated increases in water demand and sewage production. DOE anticipates that the predominant project-related increase in population would occur in Clark County, with a smaller increase in Nye County (see Section 3.1.7). Water. The Southern Nevada Water Authority supplies water to five communities in Clark County: Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas (including parts of unincorporated Clark County), Nellis Air Force Base, and North Las Vegas. Eighty-five percent of the water supplied to the Las Vegas Valley comes from the Colorado River through Lake Mead; the remaining 15 percent comes from groundwater (Las Vegas Valley Hydrographic Area; DIRS 101923-SNWA 1997, p. 2). To meet growing water demands, the Water Authority is upgrading current facilities and installing new facilities, such as a second raw water intake at Lake Mead, a second water treatment facility, and additional pipelines and pumping stations. In southern Nye County, where the repository would be, groundwater is the only source of water. In August 1996, a water supply and demand evaluation for southern Nye County, including Beatty, Amargosa Desert, and Pahrump, was performed (DIRS 101542-Buqo 1996, all). The evaluation indicated the Beatty (Oasis Valley Hydrographic Area) water utility would have difficulty meeting future water demands due not to a high growth rate but to falling well yields and poor water quality in some wells. It further predicted that existing pumping capacity would not be adequate to meet projected peak demands between 1997 and 2000, and one or more additional wells would be needed. Since the 1996 evaluation, Beatty has gained the use of another well (formerly used by the Bullfrog Mine), which has provided a capacity sufficient to meet water demand now and for the immediate future, even while ending the use of two wells with high fluoride (DIRS 156759-Davis 2001, all). In Amargosa Desert (Amargosa Desert Hydrographic Area), the current committed amount of groundwater appropriations (permits and certificates) is larger than the lower estimate of perennial yield for the applicable groundwater. However, historic pumping amounts have never been higher than the estimates of yield. In Pahrump (Pahrump Valley Hydrographic Area), the total groundwater pumped from the basin in 1995 was almost 30 million cubic meters (24,000 acre-feet). This is about 25 percent higher than the upper end of estimates of the basin's perennial yield, which range from 15 million cubic meters [12,000 acre-feet (DIRS 103406-NDWP 1992, Region 10)] to 23 million cubic meters [19,000 acre-feet (DIRS 101542-Buqo 1996, p. 17)]. Much of Pahrump's water consumption results from about 7,000 domestic water supply wells. Drilling continues at a rate of about 700 wells a year (DIRS 103099-Buqo 1999, p. 36). Alternatives to address long-term water supply issues in Pahrump Valley include optimizing the locations of new wells, reducing per capita consumption, developing the carbonate aquifer, and importing water from other groundwater basins. Overall groundwater withdrawals in Nye County totaled about 93 million cubic meters (75,000 acre-feet) in 1995. The predominant use of this water was agriculture, accounting for 80 percent of the total; domestic use was responsible for only 7 percent of the total withdrawal (DIRS 104888-LeStrange 1997, Table 1). Sewer. Wastewater treatment needs in the Las Vegas Valley are supported by three major wastewater treatment facilities: one operated by the City of Las Vegas (which also serves the City of North Las Vegas); one operated by the City of Henderson; and one operated by the Clark County Sanitation District. The County Sanitation District includes all the unincorporated areas in Clark County, and it provides services to several outlying communities including Blue Diamond, Laughlin, Overton, and Searchlight (DIRS 148106-Clark County Sanitation District 1999, all). However, its primary service area is the portion of the Las Vegas Valley south and east of the City of Las Vegas and extending to Henderson. There might be other small wastewater treatment units serving parts of Clark County outside the populous area of the Las Vegas Valley, but septic tank and drainage field systems provide the primary means of wastewater treatment in these outlying areas, particularly for private residences. Southern Nye County does not have a metropolitan area or a sanitation district comparable to Clark County. Most communities in this area rely primarily on individual dwelling or small communal wastewater treatment systems, with the exception of Beatty, which has municipal sewer service. For example, Pahrump has no community-wide wastewater treatment system. Several wastewater treatment units serve parts of the town, such as the dairy and the jail, but most households have septic tank and drainage field systems. This is likely to be typical of the small communities in southern Nye County.3.1.11.2 Energy
Electric Power. Three different power distributors—Nevada Power Company, Valley Electric Association, Inc., and Lincoln County Power District No. 1—supply electric power in the region of influence. Nevada Power Company supplies electricity to southern Nevada in a corridor from southern Clark County, including Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Laughlin, to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County. In 2000, the power sources were about 50 percent company-generated and about 50 percent purchased power. In 2000, Nevada Power Company sold 17.9 million megawatt-hours to its 620,000 customers, and the peak load was the highest ever at about 4,300 megawatts. Nevada Power Company has an annual customer growth rate of about 6 percent. To keep pace with demands for electricity, each year Nevada Power must build more substations and transmission and distribution facilities; in 2001 to 2003, it plans to invest about $320 million in such equipment (DIRS 155864-NPC 2000, all). Recent energy concerns have caused the forecasting of supply and demand to be much more uncertain than in the past, as reflected in recent planning documents released by Nevada Power Company. Nevada Power Company merged with Sierra Pacific Resources in July 1999 (DIRS 153929-NPC 1999, all). Sierra Pacific Resources is the holding company for the Sierra Pacific Power Company, which provides electric power to much of northern Nevada and the Lake Tahoe area. The Valley Electric Association is a nonprofit cooperative that distributes power to southern Nye County, including Pahrump Valley, Amargosa Valley, Beatty, and the Nevada Test Site. The Western Area Power Administration allocates Valley Electric a portion of the lower cost hydroelectric power from the Colorado River dams. The private power market supplies the supplemental power necessary to meet the needs of the members. Since 1995, the amount of power available in the marketplace has been abundant. The amount of energy that Valley Electric sells annually to its members almost tripled in the 11 years from 1985 through 1995. In 1995, Valley Electric sold about 300 million kilowatt-hours to its 8,600 members (DIRS 101846-McCauley 1997, pp. 54 and 55). To meet the power demands of its members, Valley Electric has built a new 230-kilovolt transmission line from Las Vegas to Pahrump and plans to install three new substations in Pahrump. At present, two commercial utility companies own transmission lines that supply electricity to the Nevada Test Site (Figure 3-26). The electric power for the Yucca Mountain Project in Area 25 comes through the Nevada Test Site power grid. The Test Site buys power at 138 kilovolts at the Mercury Switch Station and at the Jackass Flats Substation. The 138-kilovolt system at the Test Site has nine substations, one switching center, and one tap station, which are connected by approximately 210 kilometers (130 miles) of transmission line. A 138-kilovolt line owned by Nevada Power Company connects the Mercury Switch Station to the Jackass Flats substation, which reduces the power and transmits it to the Field Operations Center and nearby buildings in Area 25 that support the Yucca Mountain Project. A Valley Electric Association 138-kilovolt line also provides power to the Jackass Flats Substation. From the Jackass Flats substation, a 138-kilovolt line feeds the Canyon Substation in Area 25, which provides power to the Exploratory Studies Facility. The Canyon Substation reduces the voltage from 138 to 69 kilovolts, with a capacity of 10 megawatts, and transmits it to the Yucca Mountain substation at the Exploratory Studies Facility. The capacity of the Nevada Test Site grid is 72 megawatts. Since 1990, the peak load was about 37 megawatts and occurred in January 1992 (DIRS 104955-LeStrange 1997, p. 1). Table 3-34 lists the combined historic and projected electricity use for the Exploratory Studies Facility and the Field Operations Center for 1995 through 2000. The Exploratory Studies Facility consumed about 70 percent of the listed amounts (DIRS 104955-LeStrange 1997, all). Annual power use and peak demand at the Exploratory Studies Facility would probably decline and stabilize at a lower level than the 1997 use rates because site activity would decline until repository construction began in 2005. Historically, from 1995 through 1997 Exploratory Studies Facility use has accounted for about 15 percent to 20 percent of the electric power used by all of the Nevada Test Site (DIRS 104988-CRWMS M&O 1999, Table 2, p. 6). Fossil Fuel. The fossil fuels that DOE has used at the Exploratory Studies Facility are heating oil, propane, diesel, gasoline, and kerosene. Natural gas, coal, and jet fuel have not been used. In 1996, site activities consumed about 1.02 million liters (270,000 gallons) of heating oil and diesel fuel and about 65,000 liters (17,000 gallons) of propane; in 1997, they consumed slightly less than 1 million liters (264,000 gallons) of heating oil and diesel fuels. The amounts of gasoline and kerosene used at the Exploratory Studies Facility were very small in those years. Fossil-fuel supplies are delivered to the Nevada Test Site and the Exploratory Studies Facility by truck from readily available supplies in southern Nevada.3.1.11.3 Site Services
DOE has established an existing support infrastructure to provide emergency services to the Exploratory Studies Facility. The Yucca Mountain Project Emergency Management Plan (DIRS 102618-YMP 1998, all) describes emergency planning, preparedness, and response. The project cooperates with the Nevada Test Site in such areas as training and emergency drills and exercises to provide full emergency preparedness capability to the site. In addition, the project trains and maintains an underground rescue team. The Nevada Test Site security program is responsible for project security, with enforcement provided by a contractor following direction from DOE. The Nye County Sheriff's Department provides law enforcement and officers for Yucca Mountain site patrol. Nevada Test Site personnel and equipment support fire protection and medical services. Medical services are provided through the Nevada Test Site by two paramedics and an ambulance stationed in Area 25 with backup from other Test Site locations. The Yucca Mountain staff uses a medical clinic with outpatient capability at Mercury. Urgent medical transport is provided by the "Flight for Life" and "Air Life" programs from Las Vegas. Nellis Air Force Base and Nye County also provide emergency support.3.1.12 Waste and Hazardous Materials
The region of influence for waste and hazardous materials consists of on- and offsite areas, including landfills and radioactive waste processing and disposal sites, in which DOE would dispose of waste generated under the Proposed Action. This region of influence can be described, to a large extent, through considering the manner in which waste has been managed during the current Yucca Mountain activities. The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project developed its waste management systems to handle the waste and recyclable material generated by its activities. This material includes nonhazardous solid waste; construction debris; hazardous waste; recyclables such as lead-acid batteries, used oil, metals, paper, and cardboard (DIRS 152012-McCann 2000, pp. 1 to 6); sanitary sewage; and wastewater. It does not include low-level radioactive or mixed wastes. DOE uses landfills to dispose of solid waste and construction debris; accumulates and consolidates hazardous waste, then transports it off the site for treatment and disposal; treats and reuses wastewater; and treats and disposes of sanitary waste. In most categories of waste, especially solid waste, some types of material can be recycled or reused. DOE has processes in place to ensure that it collects the material and recycles it as appropriate.3.1.12.1 Solid Waste
DOE disposes of Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project solid waste and construction debris in landfills in Areas 23 and 9, respectively, on the Nevada Test Site. The Area 23 landfill has a capacity of 450,000 cubic meters (16 million cubic feet) (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, p. 4-37) and a 100-year estimated life (DIRS 101803-DOE 1995, p. 9). The Area 9 landfill, which is in Crater U-10C, is an open circular pit with steep, almost vertical sides formed as a result of an underground nuclear test. The Area 9 landfill has a disposal capacity of 990,000 cubic meters (35 million cubic feet) (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, p. 4-37) and an estimated 70-year operational life (DIRS 101803-DOE 1995, p. 8). The environmental impact statement for the Nevada Test Site describes these landfills (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, p. 4-37). DOE disposes of Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project oil-contaminated debris from maintenance activities at the industrial landfill at Apex, Nevada, using an environmental company for transport and disposal. The Apex facility is a multilined landfill with on- and offsite monitoring in compliance with State of Nevada requirements (DIRS 152012-McCann 2000, p. 3). DOE recycles as many materials as feasible from its site characterization activities. The Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Awareness Plan, Approved (DIRS 103203-YMP 1997, all) governs recycling and other waste minimization activities. At present, a Nevada Test Site contractor collects paper, cardboard, aluminum cans, and scrap metal and recycles it. For such recyclables as oils, solvents, coolants, lead-acid batteries, and oil-contaminated soils, the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project contracts directly with recycling services (DIRS 152012-McCann 2000, pp. 1 to 5). Solid waste generated by the construction and operation of transportation facilities could be disposed of in offsite landfills. At present, there are 24 operating municipal solid waste landfills in Nevada (DIRS 155563-NDEP 2001, all) with a combined capacity to accept 11,000 metric tons (12,000 tons) of waste per day. In 2000, about 3.5 million metric tons (3.9 million tons) of sanitary solid waste was disposed of in Nevada (DIRS 155565-NDEP 2001, Section 2.1). Eleven Nevada landfills accept industrial and special waste (DIRS 155563-NDEP 2001, all), which includes construction debris and other solid waste such as tires that have specific management requirements for permitted landfill disposal. The State's largest regional landfill accepts municipal and industrial waste and has a capacity of 6,300 metric tons (6,900 tons) per day (DIRS 155563-NDEP 2001, all). In 2000, about 750,000 metric tons (823,000 tons) of construction debris and about 83,000 metric tons (91,000 tons) of other wastes were disposed of in the State (DIRS 155565-NDEP 2001, Section 2.1).3.1.12.2 Hazardous Waste
The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project is a small-quantity [less than 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) a month] generator of hazardous waste. DOE accumulates hazardous wastes near their generation sources, consolidates them at a central location at the Yucca Mountain site, and ships them off the site for treatment and disposal. The hazardous waste accumulation areas are managed in accordance with Federal and State regulations. The waste is treated and disposed of off the site at a permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facility (DIRS 152012-McCann 2000, p. 6).3.1.12.3 Wastewater
DOE uses a septic system to treat and dispose of sanitary sewage at the Yucca Mountain site (DIRS 102303-CRWMS M&O 1998, p. 15). The system design can handle a daily flow of about 76,000 liters (20,000 gallons) (DIRS 102599-CRWMS M&O 1998, p. 64). At present, wastewater from tunneling operations and water from secondary containment (following rains) is processed through an oil-water separator, and the treated water is used for dust suppression in accordance with a State of Nevada permit (DIRS 152012-McCann 2000, p. 4). The oil is recycled with the other used oil generated by the project.3.1.12.4 Existing Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Capacity
The Nevada Test Site accepts low-level radioactive waste for disposal from approved generator sites. It has an estimated disposal capacity of 3.7 million cubic meters (130 million cubic feet). DOE estimates a that a total of approximately 1.1 million cubic meters (39 million cubic feet) of low-level radioactive waste will be disposed of at the Test Site through 2070 (DIRS 155856-DOE 2000, Table 4-1, p. 4-2), not including repository-generated waste. Commercial spent nuclear fuel generators and contractor-operated transportation facilities such as an intermodal transfer station would dispose of low-level radioactive waste in commercial facilities. Commercial disposal capacity for low-level radioactive wastes is available at three licensed facilities (DIRS 152583-NRC 2000, U.S. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Section).3.1.12.5 Materials Management
DOE has programs and procedures in place to procure and manage hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals and materials (DIRS 104842-YMP 1996, all). By using these programs, the Department is able to minimize the number and quantities of hazardous chemicals and materials stored at the Yucca Mountain site and maintain appropriate storage facilities. The chemical and material inventory report (DIRS 148107-Dixon 1999, pp. 4, 4a, and 5) for the Nevada State Fire Marshal's office lists 33 hazardous chemicals and materials. The Yucca Mountain Project holds many of these in small quantities, and it stores sulfuric acid in larger quantities [above the threshold planning quantity of about 450 kilograms (1,000 pounds) that requires emergency planning]. Most of the sulfuric acid is in lead-acid batteries (DIRS 148107-Dixon 1999, all). In addition, the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project stores the following hazardous chemicals in large amounts [exceeding 4,500 kilograms (10,000 pounds)]: propane, gasoline, cement, and lubricating and hydraulic oils. The project does not store highly toxic substances in quantities higher than the State of Nevada reporting thresholds (DIRS 148107-Dixon 1999, p. 1).3.1.13 Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs each Federal agency "to make achieving environmental justice a part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." DOE has identified the minority and low-income communities in the Yucca Mountain region of influence, which consists of Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties in southern Nevada. Unless otherwise noted, the Environmental Baseline File for Environmental Justice (DIRS 105004-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) is the basis for information in this section.[ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE TERMS] To identify minority and low-income communities in the region of influence, DOE analyzed Bureau of the Census population designations called block groups. DOE pinpointed block groups where the percentage of minority or low-income residents is meaningfully greater than average. For environmental justice purposes, the pinpointed block groups are minority or low-income communities. This EIS considers whether activities at Yucca Mountain could cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to those communities.3.1.13.1 State of Nevada
Minority persons comprised 21 percent of the population in Nevada in the 1990 census (DIRS 103118-Bureau of the Census 1992, Table P8; DIRS 103119-Bureau of the Census 1992, Table P12). In the 2000 Census, minority persons comprised 35 percent of the population of Nevada (DIRS 156909-Bureau of the Census 2001, p. 1 of Table DP-1; Nevada). It should be noted, however, that between the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census, changes in the Bureau of the Census definitions modified previous race and ethnic categories and for the first time permitted citizens to identify themselves as belonging to more than one category. The Bureau's Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin, a Census 2000 Brief issued in March 2001, stated (DIRS 157135-Bureau of the Census 2001, all):Because of these changes, the Census 2000 data on race are not directly comparable with data from the 1990 census or earlier censuses. Caution must be used when interpreting changes in racial composition of the U.S. population over time.The environmental justice analysis considered the potential for disproportionately high and adverse impacts on two portions of the overall population—minority communities and low-income communities. While 2000 Census data concerning minority communities in Nevada was available at the block level in time for the Final EIS analysis, comparable 2000 Census data on low-income communities was not. The Final EIS presents 2000 Census data at the block level on minority communities and 1990 Census data at the block group level on low-income communities. This data is the most up-to-date information available for each. As a consistent criterion for identifying minority and low-income blocks and block groups, DOE employed a 10-percent threshold, meaning that the environmental analysis focused on blocks and block groups in Nevada having a 10-percent or greater minority population or low-income population than the State averages. DOE adopted the 10-percent threshold for the Draft EIS from a 1995 Nuclear Regulatory Commission document, Interim NRR Procedure for Environmental Justice Reviews (DIRS 103426-NRC 1995, all). This threshold is consistent with the recent revision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's guidance on environmental justice (DIRS 157276-NRC 1999, all). The environmental justice analysis identified minority communities at the Bureau of the Census block level and low-income communities at the Bureau of the Census block group level. Figure 3-27 shows blocks in the State of Nevada in which 45 percent or more of the population consists of minority persons, according to the 2000 Census. The difference between block level and block group level can be seen in comparing Figure 3-27 to Figure 3-28, which identifies low-income communities at the block group level. The block is a finer resolution; the block group presents the criterion over an aggregate of blocks. Both types of data sets have advantages over the other, depending on the specific analysis being performed. Census blocks can be quite large in rural areas where population density is low because they are associated with a relatively small number of persons. In populous areas such as Las Vegas, the block size is usually quite small and is not clearly depicted on a scale such as that shown in Figure 3-27. Figure 3-29 shows blocks in the Las Vegas area with 45 percent or higher minority population. The 1990 census characterized about 10 percent of the people in Nevada as living in poverty (DIRS 103120-Bureau of the Census 1992, Table P117). The Bureau of the Census characterizes persons in poverty as those whose income is less than a statistical poverty threshold, which is based on family size and the ages of its members. In the 1990 census the threshold for a family of four was a 1989 income of $12,674 (DIRS 102119-Bureau of the Census 1995, Section 14). In this environmental impact statement, low-income communities are those block groups in which the percentage of persons in poverty equals or exceeds 20 percent as reported by the Bureau of the Census. Figure 3-28 shows low-income communities in Nevada by block group. Figure 3-30 shows low-income communities in the Las Vegas area by block group.
3.1.13.2 Clark County
In 2000, the minority population of Clark County was about 548,000 persons, or 40 percent of the total population (DIRS 156909-Bureau of the Census 2001, p. 3 of Table DP-1; Clark County). In 1990, a total of about 80,000 residents, or 11 percent of the Clark County population, was characterized as living in poverty (DIRS 103123-Bureau of the Census 1992, Table P117).3.1.13.3 Lincoln County
In 2000, the Lincoln County minority population consisted of about 450 persons, or 10 percent of the population (DIRS 156909-Bureau of the Census 2001, p. 10 of Table DP-1; Lincoln County). In 1990, 500 persons, or 14 percent of the population, were characterized as living in poverty (DIRS 103127-Bureau of the Census 1992, Table P117).3.1.13.4 Nye County
In 2000, the Nye County minority population was about 5,000 persons, or 15 percent of the population (DIRS 156909-Bureau of the Census 2001, p. 13 of Table DP-1; Nye County). In 1990, there were 2,000 persons, or 11 percent of the population, characterized as living in poverty (DIRS 103131-Bureau of the Census 1992, Table P117).3.1.13.5 Inyo County, California
One block group with a low-income population located in the area of the Stewart Valley in Inyo County, California, lies partly within the 80-kilometer (50-mile) air quality region of influence for the repository (Figure 3-25). DOE performed additional review, including a ground survey, and concluded that low-income persons living in the block group would be likely to live outside the 80-kilometer region of influence for the repository.3.2 Affected Environment Related to Transportation
This section describes the existing (or baseline) environmental conditions along the candidate rail corridors and truck (legal-weight and heavy-haul) routes to the Yucca Mountain site. The EIS treats these corridors and routes as current analytical tools and refers to them in the present tense. The EIS refers to impacts associated with these alternatives in the conditional voice (would) because they would not occur unless DOE proceeded with the Proposed Action. This convention is applied whenever the EIS discusses the transportation implementing alternatives. DOE has made revisions to this section since the publication of the Draft EIS to present newly acquired information that contributes to an improved (or updated) understanding of the potentially affected environment, to address more specifically the affected environment along the rail corridor variations in Nevada, and to include information and suggestions for improvement provided through public comment on the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS. The more significant changes occur in the Nevada Transportation section (Section 3.2.2) and particularly in the discussion of candidate rail corridors (Section 3.2.2.1). Key changes to the Final EIS that deal with affected environment for transportation are summarized in the following:3.2.1 National Transportation
The loading and shipping of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would occur at 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites in 37 states. Transport of these materials to the Yucca Mountain site could involve trains, legal-weight trucks, heavy-haul trucks, and barges; the trains and trucks would travel on the Nation's railroads and highways. This includes existing railroads and highways in Nevada up to a point of departure to specific Nevada routes described in Section 3.2.2. Barges and heavy-haul trucks would be used for short-distance transport of spent nuclear fuel from storage sites to nearby railheads. (Heavy-haul trucks could also be used for Nevada transportation, as discussed in Section 3.2.2.2.) The national transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (including transportation in Nevada to a point of departure to a specific Nevada transportation route) would use existing highways and railroads and would represent a small fraction of the existing national highway and railroad traffic [less than 1 percent (0.006 percent) of truck miles per year or 0.007 percent of railcar miles per year (DIRS 150989-BTS 1998, p. 6)]. Because no new land acquisition and construction would be required to accommodate these shipments, this EIS focuses on potential impacts to human health and safety and the potential for accidents along the shipment routes. The region of influence for public health and safety along existing transportation routes is 800 meters (0.5 mile) from the centerline of the transportation rights-of-way and from the boundary of railyards for incident-free (nonaccident) conditions. The region of influence extends to 80 kilometers (50 miles) to address potential human health and safety impacts from accident scenarios. DOE used HIGHWAY (DIRS 104780-Johnson et al. 1993, all) and INTERLINE (DIRS 104781-Johnson et al. 1993, all) computer models to derive representative highway and rail routes, respectively, for shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In addition to identifying routes that were used in the analysis, these models were used to estimate population densities along routes in states other than Nevada based on the 1990 Census. The HIGHWAY model identified highway routes between the commercial and DOE generator sites and the proposed repository that would meet the requirements of U.S. Department of Transportation regulations; there are no corresponding Federal regulations that constrain the routing of rail shipments. The analysis used population densities along the highway and rail routes to estimate human health impacts and consequences of transportation. Except in Nevada, the analysis accounted for growth in populations along routes by increasing impacts based on Bureau of the Census forecasts of state populations in 2025, population reported by the 2000 Census for each state, and extrapolation of population growth along routes to 2035. For routes in Nevada, DOE used a Geographic Information System and 1990 census data to develop an initial estimate of the populations within 800 meters (0.5 mile) along highways, commercial rail lines, and the potential corridors for a proposed branch rail line. The analysis of health and safety impacts accounted for growth in populations along Nevada routes by increasing impacts based on forecasts of population growth in Nevada counties using the REMI computer program. The analysis using the REMI program used population growth forecasts provided by Clark County, Nye County, and the State of Demographer and census data for each county provided by the 2000 Census to estimate populations in Nevada in 2035.3.2.1.1 Highway Transportation
Highway (legal-weight truck) transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site would use local highways near the commercial and DOE sites and near Yucca Mountain, Interstate Highways, Interstate bypasses around metropolitan areas, and preferred routes designated by state routing agencies where applicable. DOE used the HIGHWAY computer program (DIRS 104780-Johnson et al. 1993, all) to derive representative highway routes for shipping spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste between the commercial and DOE sites and the proposed repository. Population density distributions, with the exception of those routes in Nevada, were calculated along the routes to support human health risk consequences. DOE used a Geographic Information System to calculate the population density distributions for routes in Nevada.[USE OF REPRESENTATIVE ROUTES IN IMPACT ANALYSIS] Appendix J describes the representative routes used for analysis in this EIS. Actual transportation mode and routing decisions would be made on a route-specific basis during the transportation planning process, if a decision was made to build a repository at Yucca Mountain.3.2.1.2 Rail Transportation
In most cases, rail transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would originate on track operated by shortline rail carriers that provide service to the commercial and DOE sites. At railyards near the sites, shipments in general freight service would switch from trains and tracks operated by the shortline rail carriers to trains and tracks operated by national mainline railroads. Figure 2-23 in Chapter 2 shows existing mainline track for the major U.S. railroads that DOE could use for shipments to Nevada. This interlocking network has about 290,000 kilometers (180,000 miles) of track that link the major population centers and industrial, agricultural, and energy and mineral resources of the Nation (DIRS 103069-AAR 1996, all). With the exception of shortline regional railroads that serve the commercial and DOE sites, DOE anticipates that cross-country shipments would move on mainline railroads. Rail transportation routing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste shipments is not regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The routes used in this EIS were derived from the INTERLINE computer program (DIRS 104781-Johnson et al. 1993, all). The identification for purposes of analysis of these routes was based on current railroad practices using existing routes. Appendix J describes the rail routes used in this EIS analysis.3.2.1.3 Barge and Heavy-Haul Truck Transportation
Commercial sites that do not have direct rail service could ship spent nuclear fuel on heavy-haul trucks or barges to nearby railheads. Heavy-haul trucks would use local highways to carry the spent nuclear fuel to a nearby railhead for transfer to railcars for transport to Nevada. Barge shipments would use navigable waterways accessible from the nuclear plant site. These shipments would travel on the waterways to nearby railheads for transfer to railcars for transport to Nevada. Appendix J describes the heavy-haul truck and barge routes used in this EIS analysis.3.2.2 Nevada Transportation
Shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste arriving in Nevada would be transported to the Yucca Mountain site by legal-weight truck, rail, or heavy-haul truck. The discussion of national transportation modes and routes in Section 3.2.1 addresses the affected environment for legal-weight truck transport from commercial and DOE facilities to the Yucca Mountain site, including travel in Nevada. This section addresses the affected environment in Nevada for candidate rail corridors, heavy-haul truck routes, and potential locations for an intermodal transfer station that DOE could use for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and that would require new construction. Legal-weight truck shipments in Nevada would use existing highways and would be a very small fraction of the total traffic [less than 0.5 percent of commercial vehicle traffic on U.S. Highway 95 in southern Nevada (DIRS 103405-NDOT 1997, p. 9; DIRS 104727-Cerocke 1998, p. 1). Because no new land acquisition and construction would be required to accommodate legal-weight trucks, this EIS focuses on potential impacts to human health and safety and the potential for accidents along the shipment routes from legal-weight truck shipments. Appendix J contains baseline environmental information related to human health and safety and the impacts from accident scenarios. To allow large-capacity rail cask shipments to the repository, DOE is considering the construction of a new branch rail line or the establishment of heavy-haul truck shipment capability. Sections 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2 describe the existing (or baseline) environment for each of the candidate rail corridors and heavy-haul truck routes and for potential locations for an intermodal transfer station. The locations selected for candidate rail corridor starting points and for a potential intermodal transfer station are all accessible by main rail lines that are currently in operation. National rail transportation would simply involve routings to accommodate the selected starting point for Nevada transportation. DOE would prefer to use a branch rail line to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain.3.2.2.1 Environmental Baseline for Potential Nevada Rail Corridors
This section discusses the environmental characteristics of land areas that could be affected by the construction and operation of a rail line to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the proposed repository. It describes the environmental conditions in five alternative rail corridors—Caliente, Carlin, Caliente-Chalk Mountain, Jean, and Valley Modified. Chapter 2, Section 2.1.3.2, describes these corridors in more detail. Figures 6-15 through 6-19 [6-15, 6-16, 6-17, 6-18, 6-19] in Chapter 6 show detailed maps for these corridors. To define the existing (or baseline) environment along the five proposed rail corridors; DOE has compiled environmental information for each of the following subject areas:3.2.2.1.1 Land Use and Ownership
Table 3-36 summarizes the estimated land commitment and current ownership or control of the land in each rail corridor. It addresses both the representative corridor and the range of values applicable to corridor variations. Public lands in and near the corridors are used for a variety of activities including grazing, mining, and recreation. All public land in the Caliente, Carlin, Jean, and Valley Modified Corridors is open to mining and mineral leasing laws and offroad vehicle use, with restrictions in some areas (DIRS 101504-BLM 1979, all; DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, all; DIRS 103080-BLM 1999, all). The rail corridor descriptions, unless otherwise noted, are from DIRS 104993-CRWMS M&O (1999, all), DIRS 101214-CRWMS M&O (1996, all) and DIRS 104560-YMP (1998, all). Caliente. Most of the lands associated with the Caliente Corridor (92 percent) are public lands managed by the Ely, Battle Mountain, and Las Vegas offices of the Bureau of Land Management. Detailed information on land use is available in the Proposed Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, all), the Department of the Interior Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Domestic Livestock Grazing Management Program for the Caliente Area (DIRS 101504-BLM 1979, all), the Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, Timbisha Homeland (DIRS 154121-DOI 2000, all) the Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat (DIRS 103080-BLM 1999, all), and the Proposed Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 103079-BLM 1998, all). The U.S. Air Force uses about 5 percent of the lands associated with the Caliente Corridor. The corridor crosses the western boundary of the Nellis Air Force Range near Goldfield and again northeast of Scottys Junction. Detailed information on current and future uses of the Nellis Air Force Range is available in the Renewal of the Nellis Air Force Range Land Withdrawal: Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 103472-USAF 1999, all). DOE uses about 2 percent of the lands associated with the Caliente Corridor. The corridor enters the Nevada Test Site south of Beatty. Detailed information on current and future uses of the Nevada Test Site is available in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, all). Less than 1 percent of the land associated with the Caliente Corridor is private. The corridor crosses private land near Caliente. The Caliente Corridor (Chapter 2, Figure 2-26) begins in Lincoln County, at an existing section of the Union Pacific Railroad at Eccles, and moves north across mostly Bureau of Land Management lands toward U.S. 93 near Comet Siding, which is south of Panaca. Two alternate sections are being evaluated as the beginning point of this corridor. One is west of a section of the Union Pacific Railroad at Crestline [approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) west of the Dixie National Forest]. From that point it continues west across Bureau of Land Management lands to the point south of Panaca where it joins the main corridor. The other alternate section originates at the Town of Caliente. This section travels north along an existing Union Pacific rail line, running parallel to U.S. 93 to the intersection with the main rail corridor in the same area just south of Panaca. Although the 1990 Bureau of Land Management Master Title Plats indicate that the former Union Pacific right-of-way remains active, the right-of-way ownership for the abandoned rail bed is not clear. Each of these starting sections passes through Meadow Valley Wash. Approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) north of this corridor (just north of Panaca) is the Cathedral Gorge State Park. The section from Caliente has seen more development and has more inhabitants than the Crestline and the Eccles corridor initiation locations. A utility transmission line extends from Caliente to an area west of Panaca. The Eccles, Caliente, and Crestline Options cross private lands. There are numerous houses, farms, and ranches north of Caliente and extending toward Panaca. Areas of ponded water and streams associated with the Meadow Valley Wash occur through this area along the eastern side of U.S. 93 (which in this area is part of the State Scenic Byway). The Crestline and Caliente Options cross two rights-of-way: one for U.S. 93 and one telephone; the Eccles Option does not cross any rights-of-way. Past the area where the alternate starting sections converge, the corridor passes west on Bureau of Land Management lands near Bennett Springs Road, moves through the Highland Range in the area of Bennett Pass, and continues across Bureau land in the northern section of the North Pahroc Range. Through this section the corridor passes through two pipeline, one telephone, and two road rights-of-way, and east of a wilderness study area. The corridor then moves through Bureau lands west of Nevada State Route 318, along the Lincoln/Nye County line north of the Seaman Range. The corridor passes just north of the Weepah Springs Wilderness Study Area located in the vicinity of Timber Mountain in Lincoln County. The rail corridor splits in the area of Timber Mountain Pass, with a possible section (the White River Alternate) going north of the Seaman Range into the White River Valley and then passing back to the south and west along and through the Golden Gate Range. The corridor continues on Bureau of Land Management lands in a general southwesterly direction and back into Lincoln County through Garden and Sand Spring Valleys. In Garden Valley, the corridor and the Garden Valley Alternate wind around private land. The corridor crosses one road and one pipeline right-of-way, and five oil or gas leases. The Garden Valley Alternate crosses two road and two pipeline rights-of-way. The corridor continues on Bureau land and passes generally to the southwest into Nye County, to land around the Reveille Range north of the Cedar Pipeline Ranch. It then turns north toward Warm Springs, passing between the Reveille and Kawich Ranges, and passing to the east of the Eden Creek Ranch. As the corridor passes between the southern portion of the Kawich and South Reveille Ranges, it passes just east of the Kawich Wilderness Study Area and encroaches on the South Reveille Wilderness Study Areas. The corridor turns southwest again toward the Nellis Air Force Range, passing the Town of Golden Arrow and the Reeds Ranch, which is just north of the Nellis Range. Also north of the Nellis Range, the Kawich Range contains several ranches and small towns and communities, as well as abandoned and current mining operations. The Toiyabe National Forest is approximately 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) northwest of the corridor as it passes north of the Kawich Range. Numerous two-track roads surround the Kawich Range providing access to grazing allotments, mining claims, and recreational areas. The corridor then passes along the northern boundary of the Nellis Air Force Range through Ralston Valley. From the merging of the Garden Valley Alternate to the western boundary of the Nellis Range, the corridor crosses or travels along two Bureau of Land Management utility corridors. The corridor also crosses two road, two pipeline, and two powerline rights-of-way. It then turns south along the western boundary of the Nellis Range. Both gravel and two-track roads are present in that area, and throughout the remainder of the corridor, with many entering the Nellis Range. The corridor splits east of the Town of Goldfield, with the alternate segment going west of Blackcap Mountain, through Bureau of Land Management land and two parcels of private property to the south along the Nye/Esmeralda County line. The corridor traverses a section on the Nellis Air Force Range. The corridor and the alternate segment rejoin in Bureau land along the Nye/Esmeralda County line near the Town of Ralston. The corridor proceeds south until it splits again around the Town of Scottys Junction in Nye County. One segment, the Bonnie Claire Alternate, passes to the west, crossing U.S. 95 and State Route 267. This western segment passes through 11 square kilometers (2,800 acres) of formerly Bureau of Land Management lands transferred to the Timbisha Shoshone. This parcel of land is being proposed for Tribal economic development (tourism) and Tribal housing (DIRS 154121-DOI 2000, all). In addition to rights-of-way for U.S. 95 and State Route 267, the Bonnie Claire Alternate crosses two powerline and one telephone rights-of-way. It passes through a portion of private land south of U.S. 95. The corridor crosses into the Nellis Air Force Range for a short distance northeast of Scottys Junction before moving back into Bureau of Land Management land. The alternate segment merges with the corridor, which then follows U.S. 95 toward the Town of Beatty, which it passes to the east. A minor segment, the Oasis Alternate, goes slightly farther east of Beatty before merging with the corridor. A little farther to the southeast, the Beatty Wash Alternate then diverges for a short distance until it realigns with the corridor and crosses a Bureau of Land Management utility corridor several times. Death Valley National Park, west of Beatty at the point closest to the rail corridor, is approximately 11 kilometers (7 miles) to the west. The area surrounding Beatty and extending southeast toward Amargosa Valley has several small towns and numerous current and historic mining operations. There are also campgrounds along U.S. 95. The corridor bypasses most of these areas by moving between Beatty and the Nellis Air Force Range. It continues generally to the south and enters DOE property west of Yucca Mountain and north of the Town of Amargosa Valley. Carlin. Most of the lands associated with the Carlin Corridor (about 86 percent) are public lands managed by the Battle Mountain and Las Vegas offices of the Bureau of Land Management. Detailed information on land use is available in the Draft Shoshone-Eureka Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 103077-BLM 1983, all), the Proposed Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, all), the Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, Timbisha Homeland (DIRS 154121-DOI 2000, all) and the Proposed Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 103079-BLM 1998, all). The U.S. Air Force uses about 5 percent of the lands associated with the Carlin Corridor. The combined Carlin/Caliente Corridor crosses into the western portion of the Nellis Air Force Range near Goldfield and again northeast of Scottys Junction. Detailed information on current and future uses of the Nellis Air Force Range is available in DIRS 103472-USAF (1999, all). DOE uses about 2 percent of the lands associated with the Carlin Corridor. The combined Carlin/Caliente Corridor enters the Nevada Test Site south of Beatty. Detailed information on current and future uses of the Nevada Test Site is available in DIRS 101811-DOE (1996, all). About 7 percent of the land associated with the Carlin Corridor is private. The corridor crosses private roads in the northern part of the route, from Beowawe through Crescent Valley. The Carlin Corridor (Chapter 2, Figure 2-26) begins near the Town of Beowawe in Eureka County, at an existing Union Pacific Railroad line. The corridor moves south along Crescent Valley through a mix of private and Bureau of Land Management lands that extend south of the Town of Crescent Valley, near the Dean Ranch. The corridor crosses numerous gravel and two-track roads, most of which lead to adjoining valleys, ranches, or grazing allotments in Crescent Valley and in the adjacent mountains. The corridor runs east of State Route 306 and continues south toward the Dean Ranch. Just north of the Dean Ranch and east of State Route 306, the corridor splits. The corridor itself crosses State Route 306 to the west and continues south and west of the Dean Ranch, and the alternate segment travels south and east of the Dean Ranch. The two rejoin south of the ranch on Bureau of Land Management land near the Cortez Airstrip west of the Cortez Gold Mine. An expansion of the Cortez Gold Mine operations, recently approved by the Bureau of Land Management (DIRS 155095-BLM 2000, all), involves the disturbance of an additional 18 square kilometers (4,450 acres) of public lands. This action includes expansion of an existing open pit, extension of process solution pipelines, modifications to the existing road between Gold Acres and the Cortez milling facility, the increase of waste rock and tailings facilities, and a pipeline right-of-way from the mine to the Dean Ranch for supplying water to the ranch. The corridor passes from Eureka County into Lander County near the Dean Ranch. Through Crescent Valley it crosses private lands and two road, one powerline, and two telephone rights-of-way. One of the road rights-of-way runs from the Gold Acres Mine to the Cortez Mine milling facility. The Crescent Valley Alternate crosses private lands, one right-of-way, and another road with no right-of-way listed. Near the Town of Gold Acres, the Gold Acres Mine and its spoils pile are the dominant features in the valley. There are numerous active and abandoned mine sites in the area of the Shoshone Range and the Cortez Mountains. Also in this area are several small towns and numerous ranches in the Crescent Valley and Grass Valley. The corridor passes east and south of the Cortez Airstrip and through a northern portion of the Toiyabe Range that is not part of the Toiyabe National Forest. In this section of the Toiyabe Range, there is a split in the corridor for engineering design reasons. The corridor passes into Grass Valley west of Hot Springs Point, extending to the south, east of the Cowboy Rest Ranch. It follows the western side of the valley until it splits north of the Grass Valley Ranch. The corridor segment runs west of the Grass Valley Ranch, where it crosses private lands adjacent to Bureau of Land Management lands. Roads connect Grass Valley to the surrounding areas, most of which appear to be two-track roads that extend from main gravel roads in the valley to the mountainous areas on both sides of the valley. Some of these two-track roads might be for recreation, but are probably used to access Bureau grazing or mining allotments in the area. The corridor follows Bureau lands and continues to the south. The alternate segment (the Steiner Creek Alternate) passes to the east of the Grass Valley Ranch, along the western base of the Simpson Park Mountains. The Steiner Creek Alternate passes close to the Simpson Park Wilderness Study Area in Lander County just east of the Grass Valley Ranch. The corridor and alternate segments rejoin near Bates Mountain and continue south through Bureau lands in Rye Patch Canyon, still following the western edge of the Simpson Park Mountains. In this area, the corridor splits again, still on Bureau lands. The corridor and the Rye Patch Alternate diverge to bypass sensitive habitat at Rye Patch Spring. Both cross two road rights-of-way. At this point, the corridor splits into two major variations, the Big Smoky Valley Option and the Monitor Valley Option, both of which run mostly through Bureau lands. Soon after this split, both cross the Nye/Lander County line. The Big Smoky Valley portion of the corridor begins just south of the Givens Ranch in Rye Patch Canyon and continues south along the eastern side of the valley. U.S. 50, a State Scenic Byway, crosses the Valley from east to west, just to the south of the Givens Ranch. The Lander/Nye County line is approximately 26 kilometers (16 miles) south of U.S. 50. South of the county line, the Big Smoky Valley Alternate crosses three road, one flume, four powerline, and two pipeline rights-of-way, and a Desert Land Entry withdrawal parcel west of the Town of Hadley. It also passes through a Bureau of Land Management utility corridor. The Big Smoky Valley is comprised of Bureau lands and private property. The Bureau lands consist primarily of grazing allotments. The main road, State Route 376, runs along the western side of the valley. Other roads cross the valley, generally running east-west, leading to the National Forest on both sides of the valley and to small communities and public recreation areas. Some of these are Forest Service roads that cross the National Forest and connect with State or other Forest Service roads in adjacent valleys. One of the most frequently used public recreation areas is Peavine Public Campgrounds in the southern part of the Toiyabe National Forest in the Toiyabe Range. There are numerous ranches, most along the western edge of the valley. Small roads (two-tracks) run along the valley floor, generally through grazing allotments. A power line runs along the route, just west of the Town of Millers, and continues north up the valley near Manhattan. In this area, the valley is flanked by the Toquima and Toiyabe Ranges, both of which are part of the Toiyabe National Forest. The southern portion of Big Smoky Valley narrows, and there are many small towns in this portion of the valley, limiting the opportunity to avoid private land. The corridor passes west of State Route 376 and proceeds to the west of the Round Mountain Golf Course near the Town of Hadley and its airport. The route follows the western edge of the valley and continues to the south near the San Antonio Ranch, running between the Town of Midway Station and the San Antonio Mountains, where there is a large section of private land, most of which probably is associated with mining. The route crosses Secondary State Route 89 and, after crossing into Esmeralda County, continues south across U.S. 95/6 west of Tonopah. It then turns to the southeast toward Nellis Air Force Range, crossing U.S. 95 again and moving south and east of the Town of Klondike, where it joins with the Monitor Valley Alternate. The Monitor Valley Option runs east from the Rye Patch Canyon area along the Simpson Park Mountains, near the Hicks Summit Petroglyph Recreation Area. It crosses U.S. 50 and extends south into Monitor Valley, generally following Stoneberger Creek and adjacent to a two-track road along the western side of the valley. It then continues through the valley east of Secondary State Route 82 and moves into Nye County, passing east of the Monitor Ranch between Potts and the Toquima Range to the west. Monitor Valley is bounded on both east and west by the Toiyabe National Forest, which includes several wildlife areas, recreation areas, ranches, and small communities. Numerous roads cross the valley, leading through the adjacent mountain ranges or to isolated ranches and grazing allotments. The option remains to the east of Secondary State Route 82, continuing south to the community of Belmont, where the valley narrows, and follows along or just west of Secondary State Route 82. Past Belmont, the option follows Secondary State Route 82 to its intersection with State Route 376 and then continues south through Ralston Valley, crossing U.S. 6 west of the Tonopah Municipal Airport. There is a state prison on the western side of State Route 376, approximately 13 kilometers (8 miles) north of U.S. 6. The option continues south until it rejoins the corridor near the Nye/Esmeralda County line. In Monitor Valley, the option crosses one telephone, two road, and one pipeline rights-of-way. There are two Desert Land Entry parcels between the Town of Hadley and the Nye/Esmeralda County line. The rejoined corridor and option intersect the Caliente Corridor (as described above) near Mud Lake in the northwest corner of the Nellis Air Force Range before continuing to Yucca Mountain. As with the Caliente Corridor, the Carlin Corridor's Bonnie Claire Alternate passes through an area recently designated for the creation of a section of the Timbisha Shoshone Reservation on lands transferred from the Bureau of Land Management (DIRS 154121-DOI 2000, all). Caliente-Chalk Mountain. Most of the lands associated with the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor (about 57 percent) are public lands managed by the Ely Office of the Bureau of Land Management. Detailed information on land use is available in DIRS 101504-BLM (1979, all) and DIRS 103080-BLM (1999, all). The U.S. Air Force uses about 16 percent of the lands associated with the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor. The corridor enters the Nellis Air Force Range west of Rachel, Nevada, and travels south through the range. Detailed information on current and future uses of the Nellis Air Force Range is available in DIRS 103472-USAF (1999, all). DOE uses about 27 percent of the lands associated with the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor. The corridor crosses the northern border of the Nevada Test Site and travels to the Yucca Mountain site. Detailed information on current and future uses of the Nevada Test Site is available in DIRS 101811-DOE (1996, all). Less than 1 percent of the lands associated with the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor is private. The combined Caliente and Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor crosses private lands near Caliente. The beginning portion of the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor (Chapter 2, Figure 2-26) is the same as the beginning portion of the Caliente Corridor described above. The two corridors and their variations are identical until they reach the area of Sand Spring Valley. At Sand Spring Valley, the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor splits from the Caliente Corridor and continues on Bureau of Land Management land to pass generally south along the Lincoln/Nye County line. The corridor crosses State Route 375 and enters the Nellis Air Force Range east of Queen City Summit. The Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor continues south just west of Chalk Mountain and into the northern portion of Emigrant Valley. It passes numerous paved and two-track roads through this area. The corridor passes almost due south into the Nevada Test Site. Once inside the Test Site the corridor divides just north of the main infrastructure area. The Orange Blossom Road Option continues generally to the south just east of the infrastructure area in the eastern portion of the Test Site. This option continues southeast of French Peak and then passes generally to the west around infrastructure and just north of Skull Mountain. It continues generally westward, passing infrastructure south of the Calico Hills, crossing Fortymile Wash, and into the proposed repository area. It crosses a power right-of-way twice and a waterline right-of-way. It also crosses Nevada Test Site roads. The Mercury Highway Option splits from the corridor just north of the large Nevada Test Site infrastructure area. This option turns generally south along the east of the Elena Range through Yucca Flat and the center of the Test Site, crossing roads and bypassing existing infrastructure until it joins with the Orange Blossom Road Option just north of Skull Mountain and continues to the proposed repository site. The Area 4 Alternate splits from the Mercury Highway Option along the western edge of the Nevada Test Site infrastructure area in the vicinity of Syncline Ridge where it joins with the Tonopah Option. This option crosses the Mercury Highway. The Mine Mountain Alternate splits from the Area 4 Alternate in the vicinity of Mine Mountain Junction to minimize impacts to cultural sites in the area. It splits for only a short distance and then rejoins the Area 4 Alternate. The Tonopah Option travels just inside the northern Nevada Test Site boundary westward until it begins to turn to the south along the eastern edge of the Elena Range bypassing Test Site infrastructure areas. The route passes along the western edge of Barren Wash until it strikes westward south of the Calico Hills and continues across Fortymile Wash. The Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor crosses lands in which paved, gravel, and two-track roads are abundant. These roads provide access to grazing and mining allotments and recreational areas on Bureau of Land Management lands. Some roads provide access to recreational areas on State and Federal lands (Humboldt National Forest). Jean. Most of the lands associated with the Jean Corridor (about 83 percent) are public lands managed by the Las Vegas office of the Bureau of Land Management. Detailed information on land use is available in DIRS 103079-BLM (1998, all). DOE uses about 12 percent of the lands associated with the Jean Corridor. The corridor enters the Nevada Test Site near Amargosa Valley traveling north to the Yucca Mountain site. Detailed information on current and future uses of the Nevada Test Site is available in DIRS 101811-DOE (1996, all). About 5 percent of the land associated with the Jean Corridor is private. The corridor crosses private lands in the Pahrump Valley. The Jean Corridor consists of the Wilson Pass Option (the corridor) and the Stateline Pass Option starting sections (Chapter 2, Figure 2-26). The Wilson Pass Option begins along the Union Pacific rail line just north of Jean. The corridor extends northwest and runs north of State Route 161, along Bureau of Land Management lands toward Goodsprings, and along the southern edge of the Bird Spring Range. It crosses two pipeline, three road, and two powerline rights-of-way. The corridor passes through the Bureau of Land Management mining area containing the Bluejay, Snowstorm, and Pilgrim Mines, and runs within about 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) south of the Toiyabe National Forest in the Spring Mountains. The area contains a number of access roads to the mine sights. Several State and access roads associated with the National Forest cross the corridor. The corridor passes just to the south of the National Forest and traverses Wilson Pass along Bureau lands, continuing to the northwest until its intersection with State Route 160. It then continues across a Bureau utility corridor and continues on Bureau lands north of State Route 160 until it intersects the Stateline Pass Option. The Stateline Pass Option begins in Ivanpah Valley along the Union Pacific rail line south of Jean and just north of Roach Lake, in an area that Clark County is proposing as the location for a cargo airport and other purposes. This option passes through Bureau of Land Management lands, going south through mining areas along the California/Nevada state line and then turns northwest, skirting private land around the Sandy Valley community. It crosses two pipeline, two road/highway, and one powerline and telephone rights-of-way. It also passes near the Stateline Wilderness Area. Continuing along Bureau of Land Management lands just north of Secondary State Route 16, the Stateline Pass Option crosses State Route 160 to intersect the Jean Corridor east of Pahrump. In the Pahrump vicinity, State roads access the national forests to the north, and there are several tracks and trails in the area. The corridor then crosses from Clark County into Nye County before splitting, with the corridor passing close to the Town of Pahrump and the Pahrump Valley Alternate passing closer to the Spring Mountains east of Pahrump. The corridor segment crosses several parcels of private property. The alternate segment abuts the Toiyabe National Forest and a Bureau of Land Management utility corridor and then enters the utility corridor. The corridor and alternate segments rejoin near the community of Johnnie, just east of State Route 160. There are several tracks and trails in this area. The corridor continues to the north until it passes just south of U.S. 95, where it turns northwest through Bureau of Land Management land north of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge [approximately 14 kilometers (9 miles) west of Johnnie]. Continuing to the north across the Amargosa Desert, the corridor crosses State Route 160, several gravel roads, and a number of two-track roads on Bureau of Land Management land. The corridor crosses a Bureau utility corridor, two telephone, and two powerline rights-of-way. It then crosses U.S. 95 and enters Nevada Test Site property northeast of the Town of Amargosa Valley and continues to the proposed repository site at Yucca Mountain. Valley Modified. About 53 percent of the lands associated with the Valley Modified Corridor are public lands managed by the Las Vegas office of the Bureau of Land Management. Detailed information on land use is available in DIRS 103079-BLM (1998, all). The U.S. Air Force uses about 11 percent of the lands associated with the Valley Modified Corridor. The corridor crosses Nellis Air Force Base northeast of Las Vegas and the Nellis Air Force Range near Indian Springs. Detailed information on current and future uses of the Nellis Air Force Range is available in DIRS 103472-USAF (1999, all). DOE uses about 32 percent of the lands associated with the Valley Modified Corridor. The corridor enters the Nevada Test Site near Mercury, traveling northwest to the Yucca Mountain site. Detailed information on current and future uses of the Nevada Test Site is available in DIRS 101811-DOE (1996, all). The Fish and Wildlife Service manages about 3 percent of the lands associated with the Valley Modified Corridor as part of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in 1936 for the protection and preservation of desert bighorn sheep. Portions of this refuge overlap the Nellis Air Force Range and are controlled jointly by the Air Force and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Use and public access to the joint-use area of the Desert National Wildlife Range and Nellis Air Force Range are restricted by a memorandum of understanding (DIRS 103472-USAF 1999, Appendix C). The Valley Modified corridor passes potential Wilderness Study Areas under consideration by Congress. The Quail Springs Wilderness Study Area, and the Nellis Air Force Range A, B, and C Wilderness Study Areas, located on Bureau of Land Management lands, were inventoried under the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act in support of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness Study Areas cannot be altered unless they have been released from the program. At this time, there has been no action to release these areas. The Valley Modified Corridor begins along the Union Pacific rail line in the Apex/Las Vegas area of Clark County, Nevada (Chapter 2, Figure 2-26). The corridor has two possible starting locations and two possible variations, until they merge north of the City of Las Vegas in the Apex area. Clark County is proposing an industrial park on lands transferred from the Bureau of Land Management that would encompass the primary corridor origination location. The Valley Connection starting segment begins in a Bureau corridor near private property in the vicinity of the City of North Las Vegas and travels along the Union Pacific rail line toward Apex until it turns west. The alternate segment crosses three powerline rights-of-way before turning to the west. After the corridor turns west from either starting location, there are again two options--the corridor itself and the Sheep Mountain Option slightly north of the corridor. Both the corridor and the alternate cross Bureau of Land Management lands and then enter the Nellis Small Arms Range. After leaving the Small Arms Range, they cross the Nellis Air Force Range Wilderness Study Areas A, B, and C and then pass through the Desert National Wildlife Range and the Quail Springs Wilderness Study Area. Both cross several gravel and two-track roads, some of which enter the Desert National Wildlife Range to the north. The corridor and alternate merge before the corridor crosses the Wildlife Range and the Quail Springs Wilderness Study Area a second time. A powerline follows U.S. 95 from its intersection with State Route 157 to Mercury, where it enters the Nevada Test Site. After the corridor and alternate join, the corridor continues to the northwest through the Las Vegas Valley, passing northeast of U.S. 95 and just to the north of Floyd Lamb State Park and the Las Vegas Paiute Reservation. It crosses several roads and two-track roads that lead into the Desert National Wildlife Range. Continuing to the northwest and running just north of U.S. 95, the corridor crosses an area close to the Desert National Wildlife Range, Desert View Natural Environmental Area, and Nellis Air Force Range. The corridor then splits east of Indian Springs, with both segments continuing west and crossing from Clark County into Nye County east of Mercury. The northern segment (the corridor) bypasses Indian Springs and Cactus Springs, running to the north across the Desert National Wildlife Range and Bureau of Land Management lands until it merges with the southern segment just south of Mercury. The corridor crosses existing roads and tracks in the area south of Mercury, in the vicinity of Desert Rock. The Indian Hills Alternate passes south of U.S. 95 across Bureau of Land Management lands until it crosses back to the north of U.S. 95 and joins the corridor south of Mercury. After the routes join, the corridor enters DOE property just southwest of Mercury and continues south of Skull Mountain to Yucca Mountain.3.2.2.1.2 Air Quality and Climate
This section contains information on the existing air quality in areas through which the candidate rail corridors pass. It also provides background on the general climate in those areas. Air Quality. The Caliente, Carlin, Caliente-Chalk Mountain, and Jean Corridors pass through rural parts of Nevada that are either unclassifiable or in attainment for criteria pollutants (DIRS 148123-EPA 1999, all; DIRS 149905-EPA 1999, all; DIRS 149906-EPA 1999, all; DIRS 149907-EPA 1999, all). There are no State air-quality monitoring stations in these corridors (DIRS 103404-Bureau of Air Quality 1999, pp. A1-1 through A1-9). The Valley Modified Corridor crosses central Clark County at the north end of the Las Vegas Valley and continues in a northwest direction toward the Nevada Test Site. The air quality in the part of the corridor that passes through the Las Vegas Valley and extends part of the way to Indian Springs is in nonattainment for particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10). Clark County adopted a revised implementation plan in 2001 for demonstrating PM10 attainment (DIRS 155557-Clark County 2001, Executive Summary) that includes a request to the Environmental Protection Agency to extend the year for attainment demonstration of the 24-hour standard from 2001 to 2006. The plan includes proposals to reduce emissions of particulate matter from a variety of sources. A decision has not been made on the county's request for an extension to the attainment period. The Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged the request, but has not yet completed its formal review of the revised implementation plan (DIRS 156896-Davis 2001, all). In addition, the Las Vegas Valley air basin is in nonattainment for the 3-hour carbon monoxide standard, largely the result of vehicular emissions. Clark County adopted a State Implementation Plan for carbon monoxide to achieve the attainment criteria by December 2000 (DIRS 156706-Clark County 2000, all). The Plan outlines a methodology to maintain acceptable carbon monoxide concentrations through transportation planning and control measures. The Environmental Protection Agency has deemed the motor vehicle carbon monoxide estimates indicated in the Plan adequate (65 FR 71313; November 30, 2000). In 2000, monitoring results indicated that the Plan criteria has been met (DIRS 157158-EPA 2000, all); however, the area is still officially classified as in nonattainment. Climate. There are two general climate descriptions for the five rail corridors: one for the three corridors that approach the Yucca Mountain site from the north and one for the two corridors that approach the site from the south or southeast. The Caliente, Carlin, and Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridors approach from the north and cross a number of mountain ranges and valleys with elevations well above 1,500 meters (4,900 feet). Although much of Nevada is arid, in central Nye County the annual precipitation exceeds 20 centimeters (8 inches), and the annual snowfall exceeds 25 centimeters (10 inches); annual precipitation exceeds 40 centimeters (16 inches) in some mountainous areas, and snowfall exceeds 100 centimeters (40 inches) (DIRS 106182-Houghton, Sakamoto, and Gifford 1975, pp. 45, 49, and 52). Occasional brief periods of intense rainfall at rates exceeding 5 centimeters (2 inches) an hour can occur in the summer. Each of the three corridors approaching Yucca Mountain from the north pass through central Nye County, and DOE believes that the climate described is a reasonable average for conditions along these corridors. The Jean and Valley Modified Corridors approach the Yucca Mountain site from the south where precipitation is generally between 10 and 20 centimeters (4 and 8 inches) per year and snowfall is rare. Occasional brief periods of intense rainfall at rates exceeding 5 centimeters (2 inches) an hour can occur in the summer (DIRS 106182-Houghton, Sakamoto, and Gifford 1975, pp. 45, 49, and 52).3.2.2.1.3 Hydrology
This EIS discusses hydrologic conditions in terms of surface water and groundwater.3.2.2.1.3.1 Surface Water.
Researchers studied the alternative rail corridors for their proximity to sensitive environmental resources, including surface waters and riparian lands (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, Appendixes E, F, G, H, and I). The goal in planning the corridors was to avoid springs and riparian lands by 400 meters (1,300 feet) if possible. Table 3-37 summarizes potential surface-water-related resources along the candidate corridors. It lists resources within the 400-meter corridor or within a 1-kilometer (0.6-mile) region of influence along the corridor. Table 3-38 presents similar information for the variation segments. The last column of Table 3-37 identifies water resources that DOE would avoid by using a specified variation rather than the corresponding segment along the rail corridor. Water resources along the variation segment that would be "substituted" can be linked from Table 3-38. If the same water resource would be in proximity to both the corridor and variation segment, it is marked as "Avoided" in Table 3-37, but appears again in Table 3-38 for the variation. Potential hydrologic hazards along the rail corridors include flash floods and debris flow. All corridors have potential flash flooding concerns. DOE would design and build a rail line that would be able to withstand a 100-year flood event safely. Appendix L of this environmental impact statement is a floodplain/wetland assessment for the proposed repository action, including the Nevada transportation routes. This appendix includes the results of efforts to identify flood zones along the potential rail corridors and their associated alternate segments through the use of Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The flood zone maps do not provide complete coverage for any of the rail corridors primarily because there are none for the large areas of the Nevada Test Site and the Nellis Air Force Range. In some areas the maps do, however, provide a good indication of 100-year flood zones that might exist in the rail corridors. Consistent with the distribution of surface-water resources listed in Table 3-37, the floodplain information in Appendix L (see Table L-4) indicates the greatest number of different flood zones would occur along the Caliente and Carlin Corridors.3.2.2.1.3.2 Groundwater.
Groundwater basins that the candidate rail corridors cross represent part of the potentially affected environment. As described for groundwater in the immediate region of Yucca Mountain (Section 3.1.4.2.1), the State of Nevada has been divided into groundwater basins and sub-basins. The sub-basins are called hydrographic areas. A map of these areas (DIRS 101486-Bauer et al. 1996, p. 543) was overlain with a drawing of the proposed rail corridors to produce a reasonable approximation of the areas that would be crossed by each corridor. Table 3-39 lists results of this effort for the rail corridors. Table 3-40 presents similar information for the different segments associated with the corridor variations. The tables also list estimates of the perennial yield for each hydrographic area crossed and if the area is a State Designated Groundwater Basin [a hydrographic area in which the permitted water rights approach or exceed the estimated perennial yield and the water resources are depleted or require additional administration, including a State declaration of preferred uses (municipal and industrial, domestic supply, agriculture, etc.)] (DIRS 103406-NDWP 1992, p. 18). These are the areas where additional water demand would be most likely to produce an adverse effect on local groundwater resources. Table 3-39 indicates that none of the corridors would completely avoid Designated Groundwater Basins. However, the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor would cross only two Designated Basins, one at Panaca Valley near the start of the corridor and one at Penoyer Valley where the Caliente and Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridors split. The last column of Table 3-39 identifies hydrographic areas that DOE would avoid or cross differently if a corridor variation (also identified in the table) were to be used. In most cases, the variation listed in Table 3-40 would have little or no effect on the hydrographic areas crossed. The Crestline Option, Caliente Option, White River Alternate, Goldfield Alternate, and Stateline Pass Option would involve changing, dropping, or adding a single hydrographic area to those that the rail corridor would cross. The Monitor Valley Option is the only other variation that would make a difference and would result in changing two and adding one to the list of hydrographic areas that the Carlin Corridor would cross. There are a number of published estimates of perennial yield for many of the hydrographic areas in Nevada, and they often differ from one another by large amounts. This is the reason for listing a range of perennial yield values in Table 3-11 for the hydrographic areas in the Yucca Mountain region. For simplicity, the perennial yield values listed in Table 3-39 generally come from a single source (DIRS 103406-NDWP 1992, Regions 4, 10, 13, and 14) and, therefore, do not show a range of values for each area. The hydrographic areas in the Yucca Mountain region (that is, areas 225 through 230) are the exception to perennial yield values from the single source. The perennial yield values for these areas are from DIRS 147766-Thiel (1999, pp. 6 to 12), which compiles estimates from several sources. The table lists the lowest values in that document. The perennial yield value shown for Area 227A is the lowest estimated value presented in DIRS 147766-Thiel (1999, p. 8) and is further divided into 300 acre-feet (370,000 cubic meters) for the eastern third of the area and 580 acre-feet (720,000 cubic meters) for the western two-thirds.3.2.2.1.4 Biological Resources and Soils
3.2.2.1.4.1 Biological Resources.
The following sections describe biological resources along each of the candidate rail corridors. These environments include habitat types and springs and riparian areas located in a 400-meter (1,300-foot)-wide corridor along each route. Springs and riparian areas are important because they provide habitat for large numbers of plants, animals, and insects. Unless otherwise noted, this information is from the Environmental Baseline File for Biological Resources (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, all). Caliente. From the beginning of the corridor at Caliente to Mud Lake, the Caliente Corridor crosses Meadow, Dry Lake, Coal, Garden, Sand Spring, Railroad, Reveille, Stone Cabin, and Ralston Valleys. From Mud Lake, the corridor crosses Stonewall and Sarcobatus flats, the upper portion of the Amargosa River, the lower portion of Beatty Wash, and Crater and Jackass Flats. The valleys and flats along the corridor range in elevation from 900 to 1,800 meters (3,000 to 5,900 feet). The corridor also crosses through passes or foothills of several mountain ranges including the Highland, Seaman, Golden Gate, Worthington, and Kawich mountain ranges at elevations ranging from 1,600 to 1,900 meters (5,200 to 6,200 feet). The Caliente Corridor is in the southern Great Basin from its beginning at Caliente to near Beatty Wash. The land cover types along this portion of the corridor include salt desert scrub (60 percent) and sagebrush (33 percent). South of Beatty Wash, the corridor crosses into the Mojave Desert. Predominant land cover types from Beatty Wash to Yucca Mountain include creosote-bursage (59 percent), Mojave mixed scrub (22 percent), and salt desert scrub (19 percent) (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 3-22). Table 3-41 lists biological resources, including sensitive species, identified in or near the corridor. The following paragraphs describe biological resources in the Caliente Corridor. Unless specifically identified otherwise, the text does not describe resources along the corridor variations (that is, options and alternates). The only resident threatened or endangered species in the Caliente Corridor is the desert tortoise, which occurs only along the southern end of the corridor from about Beatty Wash to Yucca Mountain (DIRS 103160-Bury and Germano 1994, pp. 57 to 72). This area is not critical habitat for desert tortoises (50 CFR 17.95) and their abundance in this area is low in relation to other areas in the range of the species in Nevada (DIRS 103281-Karl 1981, pp. 76 to 92; DIRS 101914-Rautenstrauch and O'Farrell 1998, pp. 407 to 411). Southwestern willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii extimus), an endangered species, have been observed in dense stands of riparian vegetation in Lincoln County, but there is no suitable habitat for this species in the corridor (DIRS 152511-Brocoum 2000, pp. A-9 to A-13). The Railroad Valley springfish (Crenichthys nevadae), which is Federally threatened and State protected (Nevada Administrative Code 503.067) occurs in Warm Springs about 3 kilometers (1.9 miles) north of the corridor in Hot Creek Valley (DIRS 103261-FWS 1996, all). Three other species classified as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management occur in the corridor. Unnamed subspecies of the Meadow Valley Wash speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) and Meadow Valley Wash desert sucker (Catostomus clarki ssp. 2) have been found in Meadow Valley Wash north of Caliente. In the Beatty area, the Nevada sanddune beardtongue (Penstemon arenarius) has been found on sandy soils 10 kilometers (6 miles) north of Springdale. Though not listed in the table, a number of bats classified as sensitive by the BLM also may occur along the corridor and the southern end of the corridor is in the range of the chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesis). The Caliente Corridor crosses several areas designated as game habitat by the Bureau of Land Management (DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, Maps 9 through 13). The corridor crosses bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) habitat west of Goldfield near Stonewall Mountain. It also crosses mule deer use areas in or near the Chief/Delamar, Worthington, Quin Canyon, Reveille, and Kawich mountain ranges. The corridor crosses pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) habitat in the Railroad/Reveille, Sandspring, Stone Cabin, and Ralston Valleys; Ralston Range; and north of Goldfield. Parts of Meadow Valley Wash north of Caliente are classified as waterfowl and quail habitat, and the corridor crosses another area classified as quail habitat at the north end of the Chief Range. At least four springs or groups of springs and three streams or riparian areas are within 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) of the corridor (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, Appendix E). These might be wetlands or other waters of the United States, as defined in the Clean Water Act, although no formal wetlands delineation has been conducted along the corridor. Black Spring is near the corridor at the north end of the Kawich Range and an unnamed spring is near the corridor at the north end of the North Pahroc Range. A series of springs is in the corridor near the Amargosa River in Oasis Valley. The corridor crosses the Meadow Valley Wash south of Panaca. The corridor also crosses the White River between U.S. 93 and Sand Spring Valley and parallels the river for approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles). An August 1997 survey of that portion of the river found it was mostly dry with some standing water in stock waterholes. The corridor crosses the Amargosa River in the north end of the Oasis Valley, in an area designated as a riparian area by the Bureau of Land Management (DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, Maps 14 and 15). The corridor also crosses a number of ephemeral streams that might be classified as waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Four of the variations (Crestline Option, Caliente Option, Goldfield Alternate, and Oasis Valley Alternate) along the Caliente Corridor would affect the number of, or distance to, associated water resources. Using the Crestline Option, Caliente Option, or Goldfield Alternate would add one spring within 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) of the corridor. The Oasis Alternate is close to the same water resources as the corresponding portion of the rail corridor, but it would be farther away from two groups of springs identified near the Amargosa River. The Caliente Corridor also crosses eight Bureau of Land Management-designated wild horse or wild horse and burro herd management areas (DIRS 101504-BLM 1979, pp. 2-26 through 2-35; DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, Maps 18 and 19). From the beginning of the corridor to Sand Spring Valley, the corridor passes through herd management areas in the Cedar and Chief Ranges. From Sand Spring Valley to Mud Lake, the corridor crosses the Saulsbury, Reveille, and Stone Cabin herd management areas, and from Mud Lake to Yucca Mountain the route crosses the Goldfield, Stonewall, and Bullfrog herd management areas. Carlin. The Carlin Corridor crosses Crescent and Grass Valleys, then passes through Big Smoky Valley to Mud Lake. From Mud Lake, the corridor crosses Stonewall and Sarcobatus Flats, the upper portion of the Amargosa River, the lower portion of Beatty Wash, and Crater and Jackass Flats. Elevations along the route range from 900 to 2,200 meters (3,000 to 7,200 feet). The Carlin Corridor is in the Great Basin from its start in Beowawe to near Beatty Wash. Land cover types along this portion of the corridor are dominated by salt desert scrub (57 percent), sagebrush (28 percent), and greasewood (7 percent). At Beatty Wash, the corridor crosses into the Mojave Desert. Predominant land cover types from Beatty Wash to Yucca Mountain include creosote-bursage (59 percent), Mojave mixed scrub (22 percent), and salt desert scrub (19 percent) (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 3-24). Table 3-42 lists biological resources, including sensitive species, identified in or near the corridor. The following paragraphs describe biological resources in the Carlin Corridor (without options or alternates) unless specifically identified otherwise. The only resident threatened or endangered species in the Carlin Corridor is the desert tortoise, which occurs only along the southern end of the corridor from about Beatty Wash to Yucca Mountain (DIRS 103160-Bury and Germano 1994, pp. 57 to 72). This area is not critical habitat for desert tortoises (50 CFR 17.95) and their abundance in the region is low (DIRS 103281-Karl 1981, pp. 76 to 92; DIRS 101914-Rautenstrauch and O'Farrell 1998, pp. 407 to 411). Three other species classified as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management or as protected by Nevada occur along the Carlin Corridor. A ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) (also classified as protected by Nevada) nesting area is east of Mount Callaghan. The San Antonio pocket gopher (Thomomys umbrinus curtatus) has been found in Big Smoky Valley northwest of the San Antonio Mountains. The Nevada sand dune beardtongue has been found in sandy soils 10 kilometers (6 miles) north of Springdale. A number of bats classified as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management might occur along the corridor, and the southern end of the corridor is in the range of the chuckwalla. The Carlin Corridor crosses several areas designated as game habitat by the Bureau of Land Management (DIRS 103077-BLM 1983, Map 3-1; DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, Maps 9 to 13; DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 3-25). The corridor crosses an area designated as sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) habitat in western Grass Valley and another at the southeast end of Rye Patch Canyon. The corridor enters pronghorn antelope habitat north of U.S. Highway 50 near Rye Patch Canyon, along most of Big Smoky Valley, and from Mud Lake to Stonewall Mountain. The corridor crosses mule deer habitat on the west side of Grass Valley and bighorn sheep habitat east of Goldfield. Three springs, five riparian areas, and one reservoir are within 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) of the Carlin corridor (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, Appendix F). These areas might be wetlands or other waters of the United States, as defined by the Clean Water Act, although no formal wetlands delineation has been conducted along the corridor. Rye Patch Spring is on the edge of the corridor at the south end of the Simpson Park Mountains. A series of springs is in the corridor near the Amargosa River in Oasis Valley. Seyler Reservoir is less than 0.3 kilometer (0.2 mile) from the corridor in the south end of Big Smoky Valley. Three of the riparian areas (Skull and Ox Corral Creeks, and Rye Patch Canyon) are along the section of the route between Beowawe and Austin at the south end of Grass Valley. Ox Corral Creek, at the south end of Grass Valley, is ephemeral and has little or no riparian vegetation where the route crosses it. The corridor crosses the Amargosa River in the north end of the Oasis Valley, in an area designated as a riparian area by the Bureau of Land Management. This corridor also crosses a number of ephemeral streams that might be classified as waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Five of the variations (Oasis Valley Alternate, Steiner Creek Alternate, Rye Patch Alternate, Monitor Valley Option, and Goldfield Alternate) would affect the number of, or distance to Carlin Corridor water resources. Changes associated with the Oasis Valley and Goldfield Alternates were covered above in the Caliente Corridor discussion. The Rye Patch Alternate would involve no changes to water resources identified in, or within 0.4 kilometer of the rail corridor, but would parallel the riparian area in Rye Patch Canyon rather than cross it. The Steiner Creek Alternate would avoid two riparian areas, but another two would be within this variation. The Monitor Valley Option would represent a major change in the corridor, but with respect to water resources within 0.4 kilometer, it would avoid only Seyler Reservoir and would add a designated riparian area northwest of Belmont in its stead. The corridor crosses two wild horse or wild horse and burro herd management areas between Beowawe and Austin (Mount Callaghan and Bald Mountain), one in Big Smoky Valley (Hickison) and three between Mud Lake and Yucca Mountain (Goldfield, Stonewall, and Bullfrog) (DIRS 103077-BLM 1983, Map 2-4; DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, Maps 18 and 19). Caliente-Chalk Mountain. The Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor begins near Caliente and is identical to the Caliente Corridor from Caliente to Sand Spring Valley, crossing Meadow, Dry Lake, Coal, and Garden Valleys at elevations ranging from 1,400 to 1,600 meters (4,600 to 5,200 feet). This portion of the corridor also crosses through passes or foothills of the Highland, Seaman, Golden Gate, and Worthington mountain ranges at elevations of 1,500 to 1,800 meters (4,900 to 5,900 feet). After splitting from the Caliente Corridor, the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor proceeds south through Sand Spring and Emigrant Valleys, over Groom Pass, and through Yucca and Jackass Flats to Yucca Mountain. The elevation along this portion of the route ranges from approximately 1,100 to 1,700 meters (3,600 to 5,600 feet). Predominant land cover types between Caliente and Sand Spring Valley include sagebrush (50 percent) and salt desert scrub (47 percent). The vegetation along the route from Sand Spring Valley to Yucca Flat is typical of the southern portion of the Great Basin. From Yucca Flat to Yucca Mountain, the corridor passes through a zone of transition between the Mojave and Great Basin deserts. The predominant land cover types from Sand Spring Valley to the Yucca Mountain site are blackbrush (50 percent), salt desert scrub (31 percent), and sagebrush (9 percent). Table 3-43 lists biological resources, including sensitive species, identified in or near the corridor. The following paragraphs describe biological resources in the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor (without variations) unless specifically identified otherwise. The only resident threatened or endangered species in the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor is the desert tortoise, which occurs on the Nevada Test Site south of Yucca Flat. This area is not critical habitat for desert tortoises (50 CFR 17.95) and their abundance is low (DIRS 101914-Rautenstrauch and O'Farrell 1998, pp. 407 to 411). Southwestern willow flycatchers, an endangered species, have been observed in dense stands of riparian vegetation in Lincoln County, but there is no suitable habitat for this species in the corridor (DIRS 152511-Brocoum 2000, pp. A-9 to A-13). Four species classified as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management have been found in the corridor. Unnamed subspecies of the Meadow Valley Wash speckled dace and Meadow Valley Wash desert sucker have been found in Meadow Valley Wash. Ripley's springparsley (Cymopterus ripleyi var. saniculoides) has been reported between Sand Spring Valley and Yucca Mountain in Yucca Flat. The largeflower suncup (Camissonia megalantha) has been found in the corridor at three locations in Yucca Flat. Bats classified as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management also may occur near the corridor. Chuckwalla may occur in suitable habitat on the Nevada Test Site. The Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor crosses several areas designated as game habitat by the Bureau of Land Management (DIRS 101504-BLM 1979, pp. 2-26 through 2-35; DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, Maps 9, 10, and 11). The corridor crosses mule deer use areas in or near the Chief and Delamar ranges, Worthington and Quinn Canyon ranges and north of Groom Pass. The corridor crosses pronghorn habitat in Sand Spring and Emigrant Valleys. Parts of Meadow Valley north of Caliente are classified as waterfowl and quail habitat and the corridor crosses another area classified as quail habitat at the north end of the Chief Range. At least one spring or group of springs and two streams occur within 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) of the corridor. These areas might be classified as wetlands or other waters of the United States (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 3-27), as defined in the Clean Water Act, although no formal wetlands delineation has been conducted. An unnamed spring is near the corridor at the north end of the North Pahroc Range. The corridor crosses Meadow Valley Wash south of Panaca. The corridor crosses the White River between U.S. 93 and Sand Spring Valley and parallels the river for approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles). An August 1997 survey of that portion of the river found it was mostly dry with some standing water in stock waterholes. This corridor also crosses a number of ephemeral streams or washes that might be classified as waters of the United States. Two of the variations (Crestline Option and Caliente Option) would affect the number of or distance to, water resources within a 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) of the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor. Changes in the list of nearby water resources for both of these options were covered above in the Caliente Corridor discussion. The Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor passes through two wild horse or wild horse and burro herd management areas (DIRS 101504-BLM 1979, pp. 2-42 and 2-43; DIRS 101523-BLM 1994, Maps 18 and 19) in the Cedar Mountains south of Panaca and in the Chief Range west of Panaca. Jean. The Jean Corridor starts in Ivanpah Valley north of Jean and proceeds west of Wilson Pass to the Pahrump Valley. The corridor continues to the Yucca Mountain site through Pahrump Valley and across the Amargosa Desert and Jackass Flats. This corridor is in the Mojave Desert, with elevations ranging from about 850 to 1,500 meters (2,800 to 4,900 feet). The predominant land cover types in the corridor are creosote-bursage (59 percent), Mojave mixed scrub (21 percent), and blackbrush (18 percent) (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 3-28). Table 3-44 lists the biological resources, including sensitive species, identified in or near the corridor. The following paragraphs describe biological resources in the Jean Corridor (without alternates) unless specifically identified otherwise. The only resident threatened or endangered species in the Jean Corridor is the desert tortoise. The entire corridor is in the range of this species (DIRS 103160-Bury and Germano 1994, pp. 57 to 72). Along most of the corridor, especially the western portions from Pahrump to Yucca Mountain, the abundance of desert tortoises is low (DIRS 101840-Karl 1980, pp. 75 to 87; DIRS 101914-Rautenstrauch and O'Farrell 1998, pp. 407 to 411). However, some areas crossed by the corridor in Ivanpah, Goodsprings, Mesquite, and Pahrump Valleys have a higher abundance of tortoises (DIRS 101521-BLM 1992, Map 3-13). The corridor does not cross areas classified as critical habitat for desert tortoises (50 CFR 17.95). One location of each of two subspecies of the pinto beardtongue (Penstemon bicolor bicolor and P.b. roseus), which is classified as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management, is in the first 5 kilometers (3 miles) of the corridor near Jean. No other Bureau of Land Management sensitive species have been documented in the corridor, although chuckwalla, gila monsters (Heloderma suspectus cinctum), and a number of bat species classified as sensitive probably occur there in suitable habitat. The Jean Corridor crosses several areas the Bureau of Land Management designates as game habitat (DIRS 103079-BLM 1998, Maps 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9). The corridor crosses chukar habitat north of Goodsprings, and quail habitat northwest of Wilson Pass, east of Pahrump, and northwest of Johnnie. The corridor crosses mule deer winter habitat around Wilson Pass and north of Pahrump. The southern edge of bighorn sheep winter range is crossed in the southern Bird Spring Mountains and crucial bighorn habitat is crossed around Wilson Pass. The corridor also crosses a bighorn sheep migration route between the Bird Springs and Spring Mountains and a potential migration corridor from winter range in the Devils Hole Hills to historic but currently unoccupied habitat at the west end of the Spring Mountains. There are no springs, perennial streams, or riparian areas within 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) of this corridor or its variations. The corridor crosses a number of ephemeral washes that might be classified as waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. There are three wild horse and burro herd management areas in the corridor (DIRS 103079-BLM 1998, Map 2-1). The Red Rock herd management area is southeast of the Spring Mountains and the Wheeler Pass and Johnnie herd management areas are west of the Spring Mountains. Valley Modified. The Valley Modified Corridor begins in the northeastern corner of the Las Vegas Valley, crosses the northern edge of the valley south of the Las Vegas Range, and continues northwest toward Indian Springs. The route continues across the southern portion of Three Lakes and Indian Springs Valleys to the Nevada Test Site and passes through Mercury Valley, Rock Valley, and Jackass Flats to the Yucca Mountain site. The corridor ranges in elevation from approximately 700 to 1,100 meters (2,300 to 3,600 feet). This route is in the Mojave Desert and the predominant land cover types are creosote-bursage (79 percent) and Mojave mixed scrub (16 percent; DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 3-29). Table 3-45 lists biological resources, including sensitive species, identified in or near the corridor. The following paragraphs describe biological resources in the Valley Modified Corridor (without alternatives) unless specifically identified otherwise. The only resident threatened or endangered species in the Valley Modified Corridor is the desert tortoise. The entire corridor is in the range of this species (DIRS 103160-Bury and Germano 1994, pp. 57 to 72). In general, the abundance of tortoises along this corridor through Las Vegas Valley, Indian Springs Valley, and the Nevada Test Site is low (DIRS 101521-BLM 1992, Map 3-13; DIRS 101914-Rautenstrauch and O'Farrell 1998, pp. 407 to 411). This corridor does not cross areas classified as critical habitat for desert tortoises (50 CFR 17.95). The razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), classified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and as protected under Nevada Administrative Code, have been introduced into ponds at Floyd Lamb State Park, 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) south of the corridor (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 3-29). Refuge populations of the Pahrump poolfish (Empetrichthys latos latos), classified as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and Nevada Administrative Code, have been introduced into ponds in Floyd Lamb State Park and into the outflow of Corn Creek Springs, 4.5 kilometers (2.8 miles) northeast of the corridor (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 3-29). Two other species classified as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management occur in the corridor. Three populations of Parish's scorpionweed (Phacelia parishii) and a population of Ripley's springparsley have been reported on the Nevada Test Site in Rock Valley. No other Bureau of Land Management sensitive species have been documented in the corridor, although chuckwalla, gila monsters, and a number of bat species probably occur there in suitable habitat. There are no herd management areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or designated game habitat in the Valley Modified Corridor (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, p. 3-29; DIRS 103079-BLM 1998, Maps 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9). No springs or riparian areas occur within 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) of this rail corridor or its variations. This corridor crosses a number of ephemeral streams or washes that might be classified as waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.3.2.2.1.4.2 Soils.
Soil surveys have been performed and documented throughout much of the United States, including portions of Nevada, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Further, the Department of Agriculture has undertaken several efforts to compile this soil survey data into computerized databases for use by government agencies and the general public. One of these databases, the State Soil Geographic database, was developed by generalizing more detailed soil survey data; its purpose is to support planning on the State and multicounty level (DIRS 154246-USDA 1994, pp. 1 and 2). The Yucca Mountain Project has queried the database for information on soils along the rail corridors. Though the database presents generalized, or higher level information, it still contains massive amounts of data, much more than can be presented in this EIS. However, DOE selected several soil characteristics with potential for environmental impact implications for presentation here to indicate the types of soil along the corridors. One of the database elements selected was soil areas designated as prime farmland. Prime farmlands are defined as lands that have the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics needed to economically produce sustained high-yield agricultural crops [7 CFR 657.5(a)]. Based on the query of the State Soil Geographic database, there are no soils classified as prime farmlands in the rail corridors, including the option and alternate segments (DIRS 155600-Sorensen 2001, p. 2). DOE also queried the database for other codes representing soil attributes that could be of concern from an environmental perspective and that would need to be considered during the design and construction of a new branch rail line. The query was made by overlaying the rail corridor locations on the soil units in the database and the result was the identification, by corridor segment, of whether the identified attribute might be present in the area in or around the segment. The selected soil attributes in this query are termed "shrink swell," "erodes easily," "unstable fill," and "blowing soil." Each of these attributes not only represents potential environmental and construction concerns, but is associated with physical characteristics of soil. The following paragraphs describe these attributes. The shrink swell attribute is a gauge of how much the volume of a soil changes when it is wet compared to when it is dry. In the State Soil Geographic database, any soil that swells less than 3 percent when wet is considered to have "low" limitations with respect to its use in construction; 3 to 6 percent is considered to present "moderate" limitations and greater than 6 percent has "high" limitations [DIRS 155602-USDA 2001, Part 620.05(a)(2) and Table 620-2]. Querying the database for the shrink swell code identifies (but does not distinguish) soils with moderate or high limitations. The purpose of these limitations is not to indicate that construction cannot or should not be performed in such soils, but rather that the design and construction plans need to account for that soil characteristic. A soil's potential for volume change with loss or gain of moisture varies with the amount and type of clay minerals it contains. In general, more clay in the soil indicates a greater volume change. The erodes easily attribute is a measure of the susceptibility of bare soil to be detached and moved by water. It is based on a factor (designated as "K") used in the commonly employed Universal Soil Loss Equation [DIRS 155602-USDA 2001, Part 620.04 and 620.06(f)(9)]. Measurements on standardized plots are used to determine experimentally values for K, which range from 0.02 to 0.64. Other factors in the equation being equal, a higher K value indicates more susceptibility to erosion by water. The main properties affecting this attribute are soil texture, organic material structure, and permeability. In general, clay soils have low K values because they are resistant to detachment, and sandy soils have low values because they have high infiltration rates (reduced runoff) and particles that erode are not easily transported. Silt loam soils have moderate to high K values. Silt soils have the highest values because they readily form crusts that promote runoff and the particles are easily detached and transported (DIRS 155601-USDA 2001, all). Querying the database for the erodes easily code identifies soils with K values greater than 0.35. These are soils with fair to poor erosion characteristics when disturbed and that probably contain relatively high amounts of loams and silts. The unstable fill attribute is a measure of a soil's tendency to move when it is wet or loaded, or both. Stable soils are generally not subject to mass movement under these conditions, and moderately stable soils can involve mass movement when a moderate disturbance provides the initiating action. In unstable soils, slight disturbances can result in mass movement when soil is wet or loaded [DIRS 155602-USDA 2001, Part 620.12(a)(1) and Table 620-37]. Soils identified in the database with the unstable fill code are those likely to be moderately stable or unstable when used as fill. The blowing soil attribute is based on groupings used during soil surveys to classify the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion. This classification method uses eight groupings. Soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. Descriptions of soils in the groupings range from sands to coarse fragments not susceptible to wind erosion (DIRS 155602-USDA 2001, Part 618.72 and Exhibit 618-16). Querying the database for the blowing soil code identifies soils with wind erodibility groups of 1 or 2 [DIRS 155602-USDA 2001, Part 620.06(f)(9) and Table 620-11]. The definitions of these two groups are as follows:3.2.2.1.5 Cultural Resources
The baseline environmental conditions presented in this section focus on the archaeological and historic resources associated with the candidate rail corridors. This section also discusses Native American interests in relation to two of the corridors. Unless otherwise noted, this information is from the Environmental Baseline File for Archaeological Resources (DIRS 104997-CRWMS M&O 1999, all). In addition, information from the American Indian Perspectives on the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the Repository Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998, all) and Additional Baseline Cultural Resources Data for the Nevada Transportation Scenario (DIRS 155826-Nickens and Hartwell 2001, all) were used. Archaeological and Historic Resources. Based on a records search at the Desert Research Institute in Las Vegas and Reno, the Harry Reid Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the Bureau of Land Management Battle Mountain and Elko Offices, archaeological surveys have been conducted in less than 1 percent of the total areas for the Caliente, Jean, and Valley Modified Corridors, less than 3 percent of the total area for the Carlin Corridor, and less than 5 percent of the total area for the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor. The record searches examined each candidate rail corridor, including the variations. Although it is possible to identify areas in a corridor that are most likely to contain cultural resources based on such factors as general land forms and proximity to water, these predictions are highly uncertain prior to corridor selection and the completion of intensive field studies and, therefore, are not included in this EIS. Initially, archaeological site file searches were completed for larger rail corridors, ranging between 1.6 and 8 kilometers (1 and 5 miles) in total width. More than 2,300 archaeological and historic sites were documented for these wider corridors. The wider corridors used in the initial records searches included all corridor variations. As project plans become more detailed, it was possible to reduce the potential corridor width to a 0.2-kilometer (0.1-mile)-wide buffer zone on either side of the centerline. Records indicate that a number of archaeological sites have been identified along the reduced corridors and that some of these sites are recorded as potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Table 3-51 summarizes this information. The table also lists potentially eligible sites by type. For conservatism, this group includes sites not yet evaluated for eligibility. The sites recorded but not included in the potentially eligible group represent sites that had no recommendations about eligibility to the National Register. DOE is implementing the stipulations and forms of a Programmatic Agreement (DIRS 104558-DOE 1988, all) with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to address DOE's responsibilities under Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historical Preservation Act and the Council's implementing regulations. Although not a formal signatory to the Agreement, the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer has the right at any time, upon request, to participate in monitoring DOE compliance with the Programmatic Agreement. In addition, DOE provides annual reports to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer describing the activities conducted by DOE each year to implement the stipulations of the Programmatic Agreement. This report includes a description of DOE coordinations and consultations with Federal and State agencies and Native American tribes concerning historic and culturally significant properties at Yucca Mountain. DOE will continue to seek input from the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and will interact appropriately to meet the reporting and other stipulations of the existing Programmatic Agreement. Because the 1988 Programmatic Agreement primarily covers site characterization activities at the Yucca Mountain site, DOE would negotiate a new programmatic agreement to cover cultural resources requirements for any selected Nevada transportation corridor. Records and literature reviews reveal the presence of numerous historic properties and districts that one or more of the candidate rail corridors could affect, depending on the route selected. A number of these are linear features that a given corridor would intersect. Table 3-52 lists the more important of these linear properties. In addition to the linear historic properties, the candidate rail corridors are close to several other historic properties, many of which are already listed on either the Nevada State Register of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places, or are currently unevaluated. Table 3-53 lists the more important properties. Other potentially important historic properties that could be within rail corridors include elements of many historic mining districts, several historic ranches (especially Crescent, Grass, Big Smoky, and Monitor Valleys), and the World War II Tonopah Army Air Field bombing range. Numerous Cold War-era resources that have been documented at the Nevada Test Site could be affected (for example, Camp Desert Rock). Native American Interests. Through the American Indian Writers Subgroup of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations, Native Americans have noted that, while transportation issues are of extreme interest to them, at present they cannot provide specific comments on any of the Nevada transportation project alternatives (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998, pp. 4-4 to 4-6) due to the absence of systematic ethnographic studies for any of the proposed project areas. General concerns for potential transportation-related impacts raised by Native Americans include the following:3.2.2.1.6 Socioeconomics
Section 3.1.7 describes the socioeconomic backgrounds of the three counties (Clark, Lincoln, and Nye) most involved in the corridors. The Carlin corridor includes other counties—Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander—in addition to Nye County. This section contains baseline socioeconomic information for Eureka, Esmeralda, and Lander Counties. Socioeconomic effects from the construction of a rail line would be small and, for the most part, short-term. Therefore, the socioeconomic information for Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander Counties is less detailed than the information for the counties in the repository site region of influence in Section 3.1.7. Population. Section 3.1.7.1 contains population data on Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties. This section provides population background for the other counties potentially affected by the Carlin Corridor (Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander). The population of Esmeralda County is 100 percent rural. The 1990 Census population for the county was about 1,300 persons. The 2000 population density of the county is somewhat less than 0.3 person per square mile. The estimated Esmeralda County population in 2000 was about 970 (DIRS 155872-Bureau of the Census 2000, County Totals). The population of Eureka County is 100 percent rural. The 1990 Census population of the county was about 1,500. The estimated population of Eureka County in 2000 was about 1,650 (DIRS 155872-Bureau of the Census 2000, County Totals). The 2000 population density was about 0.4 person per square mile. The population of Lander County is rural, with a small urbanized population concentrated entirely in Battle Mountain. The 1990 Census population of the county was about 6,300 persons. The estimated population of Lander County in 2000 was about 7,100 (DIRS 155872-Bureau of the Census 2000, County Totals). The county had a 2000 population density of about 1.2 persons per square mile. Employment. Section 3.1.7.2 contains employment and economic information on Clark, Nye, and Lincoln Counties. Portions of the potential Carlin rail route pass through Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander Counties. In 2000, Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander Counties had average labor forces of about 470, 850, and 2,320, respectively, and average unemployment rates of 10.0, 2.6, and 7.7 percent (DIRS 155818-NDETR 2001, all). In 1997, the per capita income of Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander Counties was about $19,200, $22,000, and $21,000, respectively (DIRS 153928-NDA 2000, all). All three of these counties are small in economic terms. Housing. Section 3.1.7.4 contains housing data on Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties. Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander Counties are all rural areas. The housing stock of Esmeralda County in 1990 was about 1,000 units, of which about 590 were occupied (DIRS 148097-Bureau of the Census 1998, Esmeralda). There were about 830 units in 2000 (DIRS 155872-Bureau of the Census 2000, all). The housing stock of Eureka County in 1990 was about 820 units, of which about 620 were occupied (DIRS 148097-Bureau of the Census 1998, Eureka). In 2000, there were about 1,000 units (DIRS 155872-Bureau of the Census 2000, Eureka). The housing stock of Lander County in 1990 was about 2,600 housing units, of which about 2,200 were occupied (DIRS 148097-Bureau of the Census 1998, Lander). In 2000, there were about 2,800 units (DIRS 155872-Bureau of the Census 2000, Lander). Economy. Section 3.1.7.2 contains employment and economic information on Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties. Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander are very small counties in economic terms. Eureka and Esmeralda Counties derive most of their economic activity from the accommodations and food service industry. Lander County's largest industries are in the retail and wholesale sectors. Like Lincoln County, Esmeralda and Lander have lower per capita incomes than other Nevada counties and chronically high unemployment. Public Services. Section 3.1.7.5 contains information on public services in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties. Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander Counties are rural areas. County sheriff departments serve Eureka, Esmeralda, and Lander Counties. During the 2000-2001 school term, the Eureka County school district served 305 students, the Lander County district enrolled 1,449 (847 kindergarten through grade 6 and 602 secondary students), and the Esmeralda County school district served 107 students in kindergarten through grade 8. High-school aged students from Esmeralda attended school in Tonopah (Nye County) (DIRS 155820-NDE 2001, "Nevada School Enrollment 2000-2001"). In 1998, Esmeralda had no practicing doctors or dentists, Eureka had a single practicing physician but no dentists, and Lander County had three doctors and two dentists (DIRS 153928-NDA 2000, all).3.2.2.1.7 Noise and Vibration
Most of the proposed rail corridors pass through unpopulated desert with average day-night background sound levels of 22 to 38 A-weighted decibels (dBA). (A-weighted decibels are explained in Section 3.1.9.1.) However, each candidate corridor passes near small rural communities (see Chapter 6, Figures 6-15 through 6-19 [6-15, 6-16, 6-17, 6-18, 6-19]). Noise levels in rural communities usually range from 40 to 55 dBA. DOE used computerized mapping programs to examine proposed transportation corridors for the presence and proximity to routes that could be designated for the transfer of nuclear material to the Yucca Mountain site. The process involved the examination of computerized maps at very high detail to determine the extent of road grids in communities and major road intersections. The analysis estimated the distance from the proposed rail corridor and the community to determine if the community was in the region of influence for rail transportation. Caliente. Most of the Caliente Corridor passes through undeveloped Bureau of Land Management land where background noise levels range from 22 to 38 dBA (Table 3-32), influenced primarily by wind. Noise levels of 40 to 55 dBA are present in the rural communities along the corridor including Beatty, Goldfield, Panaca, and Caliente (Table 3-32). Carlin. The Carlin Corridor, from its origin at Beowawe to its terminus at Yucca Mountain, including the Monitor Valley option and other options south of Tonopah, traverses mostly unpopulated desert. The only town within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the corridor is Hadley at the southern end of Big Smoky Valley (Monitor Valley option). Noise levels of 40 to 55 dBA are present in rural communities near the corridor, including Beatty, Goldfield, Tonopah, Austin, and smaller communities between Tonopah and Battle Mountain (Table 3-32). Occasional noise from military aircraft overflights occurs near the Nellis Air Force Range. Caliente-Chalk Mountain. Almost half of the 345-kilometer (214-mile) Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor is on Nellis Air Force Range or Nevada Test Site land; the remainder is on Bureau on Land Management land. Noise levels of 40 to 55 dBA are present in rural communities along the corridor including Panaca and Caliente (Table 3-32). Occasional noise from military aircraft overflights occurs near and in the Nellis Air Force Range. Jean. The Jean Corridor, with the Stateline option, passes through Bureau of Land Management land and a small section of private land. A large portion of this proposed corridor passes through unpopulated desert. Noise levels of 40 to 55 dBA are present in small communities along the corridor including Amargosa Valley, Goodsprings, Pahrump, and Jean (Table 3-32). Occasional noise from military aircraft overflights occurs near and in the Nellis Air Force Range. Valley Modified. The Valley Modified Corridor, and its various options, begins in the northeast end of the Las Vegas Valley, travels west across Nellis Air Force Base and the southern end of the Desert National Wildlife Range, and then closely parallels U.S. 95 to the vicinity of Mercury (a government installation). Noise levels along stretches of unpopulated desert should range from 22 to 38 dBA, which are typical for a desert environment during calm and windy days (DIRS 101531-Brown-Buntin 1997, p. 7). The corridor would pass 3 kilometers (2 miles) north of Floyd R. Lamb State Park and less than 5 kilometers (3 miles) south of Corn Creek Station, which is part of the Desert National Wildlife Range managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Noise levels at the state park and at Corn Creek would probably be only slightly higher than those in an unpopulated desert environment. Noise levels in the northern Las Vegas Valley can be as high as 60 dBA (Table 3-32). Noise levels in Indian Springs, Cactus Springs, and Mercury probably range from 40 to 55 dBA (Table 3-32). Occasional noise from military aircraft overflights occurs near and in the Nellis Air Force Range. Ground Vibration. Railroad construction and the operation of trains transporting materials and nuclear waste in casks have been proposed for several candidate rail corridors. These corridors have been planned to avoid human residences and communities to the extent possible. As a consequence, background levels of ground vibration lack human influence and are small; that is, most likely less than 50 VdB (velocity decibels, a measure of vibration amplitude).3.2.2.1.8 Aesthetics
To assist in the management of public lands under its control, the Bureau of Land Management established land management guidelines based on the visual resources of an area. Visual resources include the natural and manmade physical features that give a particular landscape its character and value as an environmental factor. There are four visual resource classes. Classes I and II are the more highly valued. Class III is moderately valued, and Class IV is of least value. The majority of land in the potential rail corridors is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. The following paragraphs contain aesthetic baseline information for each of the rail corridors. Visual resource classifications described for the rail corridors were obtained from published Bureau of Land Management documents or through conversations with Bureau of Land Management personnel. Scenic quality classifications for lands that would be crossed on the Nevada Test Site were generated by DOE using Bureau of Land Management guidelines. Section 3.1.10 contains more information on the Bureau of Land Management visual resource classes and scenic quality classes. Unless otherwise noted, this information is from the Environmental Baseline File: Aesthetics (DIRS 105002-CRWMS M&O 1999, all). Caliente. Section 3.2.2.1.4 describes the environmental setting along the Caliente Corridor. The corridor passes through the Caliente, Schell, Tonopah, and Las Vegas Bureau of Land Management resource areas. The corridor crosses mostly Class IV lands, crosses Class III land near Caliente, and crosses or skirts the edges of Class II lands near Caliente and in the Seaman, Reveille and Kawich ranges, the Golden Gate Hills, and the Worthington Mountains. Lands crossed on the Nevada Test Site have scenic quality ratings of Class B or C (Figure 3-31). Carlin. Section 3.2.2.1.4 describes the environmental setting of the Carlin corridor. The corridor passes through four Bureau of Land Management resource areas (Elko, Shoshone-Eureka, Tonopah, and Las Vegas). The route is on Class IV land from its beginning to the Nevada Test Site border. Lands crossed on the Nevada Test Site have scenic quality ratings of Class B or C (Figure 3-31). Caliente-Chalk Mountain. Section 3.2.2.1.4 describes the environmental setting of the Caliente-Chalk Mountain Corridor. The corridor passes through the Caliente and Schell Bureau of Land Management resource areas. The route begins on Class III land east of Caliente, and crosses mostly Class IV land to the border of the Nevada Test Site (Figure 3-31). On the Nevada Test Site the corridor passes through lands with scenic quality Class B or C. Jean. Section 3.2.2.1.4 describes the environmental setting of the Jean Corridor. The corridor crosses the Las Vegas and the Northern and Eastern Mojave Bureau of Land Management resource areas. The Wilson Pass Option of the corridor passes through Class II land in Goodsprings Valley and the Spring Mountains, but the rest of the route to the west and the Stateline Pass Option cross Class III land. Approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) of the route crosses lands in California; that area does not have Visual Resource Management class ratings. Lands crossed on the Nevada Test Site have scenic quality ratings of Class B or C (Figure 3-31). Valley Modified. Section 3.2.2.1.4 describes the environmental setting of the Valley Modified Corridor. The corridor crosses the Las Vegas Bureau of Land Management resource area. The entire route to the boundary of the Nevada Test Site crosses Class III land. Lands on the Nevada Test Site have scenic quality ratings of Class B or C (Figure 3-31). Section 3.2.2.1.1 contains additional information on current land use. Based on these descriptions, all of the candidate rail corridors have been affected to some extent by man. Based on a field survey by DOE, these impacts can be seen from the potential corridors and in detail from the adjacent mountains.3.2.2.1.9 Utilities, Energy, and Materials
All five primary rail corridors pass through typically remote Nevada countryside but are within the southern Nevada supply chain for the commodities required during construction and operation. Electric power, which would be available to a limited extent at nearby communities or other locations near power lines, probably would not be needed.3.2.2.1.10 Environmental Justice
The five candidate rail corridors would not appreciably affect counties other than those through which they pass. Section 3.1.13 contains information on the minority and low-income communities in the three counties most involved in the corridors (Clark, Lincoln, and Nye) and includes Figures 3-27 and 3-28, which show locations of minority and low-income communities, respectively, in Nevada. Figures 3-29 and 3-30 provide similar information, at a higher resolution, for the Las Vegas metropolitan area in Clark County. The Carlin corridor is the only route that passes through other counties (Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander, in addition to Nye). This section contains baseline information on minority and low-income communities in Esmeralda, Eureka, and Lander Counties, in addition to the information shown in Figures 3-27 and 3-28. Unless otherwise noted, the Environmental Baseline File for Environmental Justice (DIRS 105004-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) is the basis for the information in this section. DOE has updated and refined information germane to the environmental justice analysis since the Publication of the Draft EIS, including an additional and more detailed mapping of minority populations (see Appendix J, Section J.3.1.2). Although 2000 Census data concerning minority communities in Nevada were available at the Census block level in time for the Final EIS analysis, 2000 Census data on low-income communities were not. Therefore, the information on low-income communities is from the most current available source, the 1990 Census. In 2000, the minority population (White Hispanic, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/ Eskimo/Aleut, and Other) of Esmeralda County was about 190, or 20 percent of the population (DIRS 156909-Bureau of the Census 2001, p. 6 of Table DP-1; Esmeralda County). In 1990, there were about 210 persons living in poverty, or 15 percent of the population. No block group in Esmeralda County exceeded the threshold for identification as a low-income community (DIRS 103134-Bureau of the Census 1992, Table P117). (Section 3.1.13 defines minority and low-income communities.) In 2000, the minority population of Eureka County was about 250 persons, or 15 percent (DIRS 156909-Bureau of the Census 2001, p. 7 of Table DP-1; Eureka County). In 1990, there were about 160 persons living in poverty, or 10 percent of the population. No block group in Eureka County exceeded the threshold for identification as a low-income community (DIRS 103141-Bureau of the Census 1992, Table P117). In 2000, the minority population of Lander County was about 1,400 persons, or 24 percent (DIRS 156909-Bureau of the Census 2001, p. 9 of Table DP-1; Lander County). In 1990, there were about 670 persons living in poverty, or 11 percent of the population. No block group in Lander County exceeded the threshold for identification as a low-income community (DIRS 103144-Bureau of the Census 1992, Table P117). Some detail on the affected environment for environmental justice that was presented in the Draft EIS for rail corridors has been deleted because of a change in the nature and level of available information. Because of the differences in the level of data between the minority and low-income categories, a combined, parallel discussion is no longer appropriate. The baseline presentation of information now relies on the Section 3.1.13 figures referenced above to identify locations of minority and low-income communities in proximity to the candidate rail corridors.3.2.2.2 Heavy-Haul Truck Route and Intermodal Transfer Station Environmental Baseline
This section discusses the environmental characteristics of counties and land areas that could be affected by the construction and operation of an intermodal transfer station and the operation of heavy-haul trucks carrying spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain Repository on Nevada highways. The discussion describes existing environmental conditions in the candidate areas where an intermodal transfer station could be located along Nevada highway routes that could be used for the heavy-haul truck transportation of casks containing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The candidate locations for an intermodal transfer station are near the communities of Caliente, Sloan, and Jean, and northeast of Las Vegas near Dry Lake on the Union Pacific Railroad Valley siding. These locations can be grouped into three general sites near existing rail lines and highways: near Caliente (Caliente), southeast of Las Vegas (Sloan/Jean), and northeast of Las Vegas (Apex/Dry Lake). DOE is considering more than one site for the station in each general area. The heavy-haul trucks would use existing highways that would be upgraded as necessary to accommodate such vehicles. There are five potential heavy-haul truck routes. Three of these routes (Caliente, Caliente/Chalk Mountain, and Caliente/Las Vegas) are associated with the Caliente intermodal transfer station site. The Sloan/Jean and Apex/Dry Lake intermodal transfer station sites are associated with one candidate route each. To define the existing (or baseline) environment associated with the three candidate intermodal transfer station locations and along the five candidate heavy-haul truck routes, DOE has compiled environmental information for each of the following subject areas.3.2.2.2.1 Land Use and Ownership
This section describes existing land use and ownership for the candidate intermodal transfer station locations and for the candidate heavy-haul truck routes. Table 3-55 summarizes the size and ownership of the land parcels DOE considered for each site at the three candidate locations. An intermodal transfer station and support area would require about 0.2 square kilometer (50 acres), so in some cases the ultimate commitment of land would be much less than the parcel size under consideration. Caliente. DOE has identified two potential locations for an intermodal transfer station southwest of the City of Caliente. Table 3-55 lists the ownership of the land involved. Both sites would use a local road to provide access to U.S. 93, the starting point for all three of the heavy-haul truck routes associated with this intermodal transfer station. Both parcels being considered are in the Rainbow Canyon section of Meadow Valley Wash. This canyon is used for ranching and a variety of recreational purposes and is the route of the Union Pacific railroad. Kershaw-Ryan State Park is across Meadow Valley Wash about 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) east of the station sites (DIRS 104873-CRWMS M&O 1997, all). Based on visual observations of the locations, the parcels are currently used as a wastewater treatment facility operated by the City of Caliente. Land near the facility is used for hay production. Sloan/Jean. DOE has identified three possible parcels in the area of Sloan and Jean for potential use as the location of an intermodal transfer station. Each provides adequate land area adjacent to the Union Pacific mainline and has access to nearby existing roadways. Figure 6-21 in Chapter 6 shows these sites. The Bureau of Land Management controls all lands associated with these parcels through its Las Vegas Field Office. The parcels are currently used for recreation and mining. Detailed information on land use is available in the Proposed Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 103079-BLM 1998, all). Apex/Dry Lake. DOE has identified three land parcels near the intersection of U.S. 93 and Interstate 15 at the Apex and Dry Lake areas northeast of Las Vegas for the possible location of an intermodal transfer station. Each parcel provides adequate land area close to the Union Pacific mainline and has access to existing roadways. The parcels are crossed by several roads and appear to be used mostly for recreation. The Bureau of Land Management controls all lands associated with these parcels through its Las Vegas Field Office. Detailed information on land use is available in DIRS 103079-BLM (1998, all). The Moapa Indian Reservation is about 5 kilometers (3 miles) north of the proposed station site. The Dry Lake solar enterprise zone is almost 5 kilometers west of the site (DIRS 101811-DOE 1996, p. 4-227). The Apex industrial complex is about 16 kilometers (10 miles) to the southwest. Tenants at the complex include Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Chemstar Inc., and Georgia Pacific Corporation. Silver State Disposal operates a waste landfill and waste-processing facilities east of I-15 about 5 kilometers south of the southernmost site. The Apex area is also proposed for the construction of several new power-generating plants. Routes for Heavy-Haul Trucks. The five possible routes that heavy-haul trucks could use in Nevada—Caliente, Caliente/Las Vegas, Caliente/Chalk Mountain, Sloan/Jean, and Apex/Dry Lake—have existing highways in established rights-of-way. The routes use combinations of highways that, after improvement, heavy-haul trucks could use to travel from an intermodal transfer station at a mainline railroad to the repository.3.2.2.2.2 Air Quality and Climate
This section summarizes existing air quality and climate conditions for each of the candidate intermodal transfer station sites and the five candidate heavy-haul truck routes. Air Quality. Both the Caliente and Apex/Dry Lake sites are in areas that are either unclassified or in attainment for criteria pollutants (DIRS 104879-Fosmire 1999, all). The northern portion of the Sloan/Jean site is in the Las Vegas nonattainment area (DIRS 104879-Fosmire 1999, all; DIRS 148123-EPA 1999, all; DIRS 149905-EPA 1999, all; DIRS 149906-EPA 1999, all; DIRS 149907-EPA 1999, all). There are no State of Nevada air quality monitoring stations at or near either the Caliente or Apex/Dry Lake site (DIRS 103404-Bureau of Air Quality 1999, pp. A1-1 through A1-9). Clark County operates a particulate matter (PM10) monitoring station at Jean. The Caliente and Caliente/Chalk Mountain heavy-haul truck routes both pass through rural parts of Nevada. These areas are either unclassifiable or in attainment for criteria pollutants. The air quality in these areas is good. There are no State of Nevada air quality monitoring stations along these routes (DIRS 103404-Bureau of Air Quality 1999, pp. A1-1 through A1-9). These statements are also true for the Caliente/Las Vegas, Sloan/Jean, and Apex/Dry Lake routes before they enter and after they leave the Las Vegas Valley. The air quality in the segments of the Caliente/Las Vegas, Sloan/Jean, and Apex/Dry Lake routes that pass through the Las Vegas Valley and extend part of the way to Indian Springs is in serious nonattainment for particulate matter (PM10) (DIRS 149905-EPA 1999, Region 9 PM10 Nonattainment Areas). Clark County adopted a revised implementation plan in 2001 for demonstrating PM10 attainment (DIRS 155557-Clark County 2001, Executive Summary) that includes a request to the Environmental Protection Agency to extend the year for attainment demonstration of the 24-hour standard from 2001 to 2006. The plan includes proposals to reduce emissions of particulate matter from a variety of sources. A decision has not yet been made on the County's request for an extension to the attainment period. The Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged the request, but has not yet completed their formal review of the revised implementation plan (DIRS 156896-Davis 2001, all). In addition, the Las Vegas Valley air basin is in nonattainment for the 3-hour carbon monoxide standard, largely the result of vehicular emissions. Clark County adopted a State Implementation Plan for carbon monoxide to achieve the attainment criteria by December 2000 (DIRS 156706-Clark County 2000, all). The Plan outlines a methodology to maintain acceptable carbon monoxide concentrations through transportation planning and control measures. The Environmental Protection Agency has deemed the motor vehicle carbon monoxide estimates indicated in the Plan adequate (65 FR 71313; November 30, 2000). In 2000, monitoring results indicated that the Plan criteria had been met (DIRS 157158-EPA 2000, all); however, the area is still officially classified as in nonattainment. Climate. This section describes the climate affecting the candidate intermodal transfer station sites and heavy-haul truck routes. The community of Caliente and the site of the proposed intermodal transfer station are in Meadow Valley Wash, a relatively narrow canyon that trends to the northeast. Small canyons enter Meadow Valley Wash from the east and west. The diurnal cycle of up-canyon winds during the daytime and down-canyon winds at night minimizes periods of calm conditions. The community of Caliente is about 1,300 meters (4,300 feet) above sea level. Average annual precipitation is about 22 centimeters (9.0 inches); average snowfall is about 35 centimeters (14 inches) (DIRS 100117-CRWMS M&O 1997, p. A-14). The maximum single-day precipitation record is 5.4 centimeters (2.1 inches). Occasional brief periods of intense rainfall at rates exceeding 5 centimeters (2 inches) an hour can occur in the summertime. The mean maximum July temperature is 35°C (95°F), and the mean minimum January temperature is -8.2°C (18°F) (DIRS 100117-CRWMS M&O 1997, p. A-14). The climate at the Sloan/Jean and Apex/Dry Lake station sites is similar to Las Vegas (DIRS 100117-CRWMS M&O 1997, Section 4.1; DIRS 106182-Houghton, Sakamoto, and Gifford 1975, pp. 45, 49, and 52). Precipitation in Las Vegas averages between 10 and 20 centimeters (4 and 8 inches) a year and snowfall is rare. Occasional brief periods of intense rainfall, at rates exceeding 5 centimeters (2 inches) an hour, can occur in the summertime. The maximum recorded daily precipitation is 6.6 centimeters (2.6 inches). The mean maximum July temperature is 40°C (104°F), and the mean minimum January temperature is 0.9°C (33°F). The Caliente and Caliente/Chalk Mountain heavy-haul truck routes, and to a lesser extent the Caliente/Las Vegas route, cross mountain ranges and valleys with elevations well above 1,500 meters (4,900 feet). Although much of Nevada is arid, in central Nevada the annual precipitation exceeds 20 centimeters (8 inches), and the annual snowfall exceeds 25 centimeters (10 inches) in central White Pine and Nye Counties; annual precipitation exceeds 40 centimeters (16 inches) in some mountainous areas, and snowfall exceeds 100 centimeters (40 inches) (DIRS 106182-Houghton, Sakamoto, and Gifford 1975, pp. 45, 49, and 52). The southern portion of the Caliente/Las Vegas route, through Clark County, is at low elevations where precipitation averages between 10 and 20 centimeters (4 and 8 inches) a year and snowfall is rare (DIRS 106182-Houghton, Sakamoto, and Gifford 1975, pp. 45, 49, and 52). Along all three of these routes, occasional brief periods of intense rainfall at rates exceeding 5 centimeters (2 inches) an hour can occur in the summertime. The Sloan/Jean and Apex/Dry Lake heavy-haul truck routes are at low elevations where precipitation averages between 10 and 20 centimeters (4 and 8 inches) a year and snowfall is rare (DIRS 106182-Houghton, Sakamoto, and Gifford 1975, pp. 45, 49, and 52). However, occasional brief periods of intense rainfall, at rates exceeding 5 centimeters (2 inches) an hour, can occur in the summertime.3.2.2.2.3 Hydrology
This section describes hydrologic conditions in terms of surface water and groundwater near the candidate intermodal transfer stations and along the candidate heavy-haul shipment routes.3.2.2.2.3.1 Surface Water.
DOE studied each of the candidate intermodal transfer station sites and associated highway routes for their proximity to sensitive environmental resources (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, Appendixes J, K, L, M, N, and O), including surface waters and riparian lands. Table 3-56 summarizes potential surface-water-related resources within a 1-kilometer (0.6-mile) region of influence from the station sites and highway routes that heavy-haul trucks would use. The table lists surface-water-related resources associated with the Caliente intermodal transfer station site and with each of the potential routes starting at that site. No surface-water-related resources were identified in the region of influence for either the Sloan/Jean or Apex/Dry Lake station site, and none were identified along the associated routes. Appendix L of this EIS is a floodplain/wetland assessment for the proposed repository action, including the Nevada transportation routes. With respect to heavy-haul truck routes, the appendix addressed floodplain actions that could be required near the repository site as well as at the intermodal transfer station locations. With respect to the heavy-haul truck routes, the Proposed Action would involve modifications of existing roadways, which should already incorporate appropriate flood design, so no new floodplain issues are expected. Intermodal Transfer Station Locations3.2.2.2.3.2 Groundwater.
As discussed in relation to the potential rail corridors, all of Nevada has been divided into groundwater basins and sub-basins, with these latter, smaller divisions termed hydrographic areas. The water resource planning and management information generated by the State of Nevada for these hydrographic areas provides the basis for groundwater information presented for both intermodal transfer station locations and the candidate highway routes that would be used by heavy-haul trucks. The following paragraphs provide an overview of the groundwater conditions at these sites and along the associated routes. Water demand at an intermodal transfer station would be small for both construction and operations. Water needs during operations would consist primarily of the needs of the personnel that staff the station. Water needs for construction and operations would be met by trucking water to the site, installing a well, or possibly by connection to a local water distribution system. This demand would be unlikely to cause noticeable change in water consumption rates for the area. Consequently, no baseline water-use information is provided. Intermodal Transfer Station Locations3.2.2.2.4 Biological Resources
The existing biological environment described in this section includes the areas inside the boundaries of the intermodal transfer station sites and within 100 meters (about 330 feet) of the centerline of the heavy-haul truck routes. It also includes springs within 400 meters (0.25 mile) of the intermodal transfer sites and the routes. The section discusses environmental settings and important biological resources for each candidate station and associated heavy-haul truck routes. Unless otherwise noted, this information is from the Environmental Baseline File for Biological Resources (DIRS 104593-CRWMS M&O 1999, all). Caliente Intermodal Transfer Station3.2.2.2.5 Cultural Resources
The description of environmental conditions in this section focuses on archaeological and historic resources associated with the candidate intermodal transfer station areas and the associated heavy-haul truck routes. In addition, this section discusses Native American interests in relation to several of the heavy-haul truck routes. Unless otherwise noted, the Environmental Baseline File for Archaeological Resources (DIRS 104997-CRWMS M&O 1999, all) and Additional Baseline Cultural Resources Data for the Nevada Transportation Scenario (DIRS 155826-Nickens and Hartwell 2001, all) are the bases for the information in this section. Archaeological and Historic Resources. Archaeological data from the candidate intermodal transfer station sites are very limited. Based on a records search at the Desert Research Institute in Las Vegas and Reno and at the Harry Reid Center at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, four, seven, and two archaeological sites have been recorded at or near the Caliente, Sloan/Jean, and Apex/Dry Lake sites, respectively. These sites have not been evaluated with regard to their potential eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The I-15 frontage road that runs through the northern location for the Apex/Dry Lake intermodal transfer station is an unrecorded segment of the former Arrowhead Trail Highway, the first automobile highway through southeastern Nevada. Also in this location are the remains of an unrecorded motel and gas station that were associated with the early highway. Based on recent work by the cultural resources staff at the Harry Reid Center of the University of Las Vegas, Nevada, railroad construction camps could occur in the Apex/Dry Lake or Sloan/Jean intermodal transfer station locations. Seven of these early 20th-century camps were recently excavated in the vicinity of Apex, along with another construction camp associated with a realignment of the Arrowhead Highway in the 1920s. The "Last Spike" site, where the two stretches of the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad were joined in 1905, is within the existing railroad right-of-way adjacent to the middle of the three properties being considered for the Sloan/Jean intermodal transfer station location. Archaeological remains of associated construction camps could occur there as well. There is some relevant information about the area of the candidate Caliente intermodal transfer locations, which have been extensively disturbed through their current use. Various cultural groups have occupied the Caliente/Meadow Valley Wash area for at least the past 11,000 years (DIRS 103260-Fowler et al. 1973, all; DIRS 102217-D'Azevedo 1986, all). Previously recorded prehistoric archaeological resources in the region include scattered lithic artifacts, rock shelters, temporary camps, and rock art (DIRS 102201-Kautz and Oothoudt 1992, all). Historic archaeological resources in the region typically consist of remains of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century activities such as mining and ranching. The Nevada Department of Transportation has completed archaeological field surveys for each of the rights-of-way for the candidate heavy-haul truck routes (Table 3-58). Only the proposed segment of the Caliente/Chalk Mountain route that extends from Highway 375 across Nellis Air Force Range and the Nevada Test Site has not been surveyed. An archival search of a 0.2-kilometer (0.1-mile)-wide corridor along this route identified five archaeological sites, two of which are not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; the other three have not been evaluated. A number of historic properties occur along the proposed heavy-haul truck routes that have been listed on either the Nevada State Register of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places. These historic properties are shown in Table 3-59. Native American Interests. Section 3.2.2.1.5 discusses general Native American concerns about transportation routes. The discussion that follows identifies Native American tribes and lands that could be affected by heavy-haul truck routes. Also discussed are resources (crossed by or near heavy-haul truck routes) identified as having significance for Native Americans. The Moapa Paiute Indian Tribe is a Federally recognized tribe of about 290 Southern Paiute people. The tribe's reservation near the town of Moapa on I-15 and the Union Pacific Railroad's mainline contains homes and business enterprises. The reservation is about 6 kilometers (4 miles) east of the Caliente/Las Vegas heavy-haul truck route and about 5 kilometers (3 miles) north of the Apex/Dry Lake station site (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998, Chapter 4). The Las Vegas Paiute Tribe is a Federally recognized tribe of about 100 people living on two separate tribal parcels in southern Nevada (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998, Chapter 4). One parcel near downtown Las Vegas consists of 73,000 square meters (18 acres) of land with about 20 homes, tribal administrative offices, and various tribal business enterprises. This parcel is about 11 kilometers (7 miles) from an overlapping portion of the Caliente/Las Vegas, Sloan/Jean, and Apex/Dry Lake heavy-haul truck routes (northern Las Vegas beltway for the Las Vegas and Apex/Dry Lake routes, and western Las Vegas beltway for the Sloan/Jean route). The other parcel is in the northwest part of the Las Vegas Valley along U.S. 95. It consists of 16.2 square kilometers (4,000 acres) with over 10 homes and various business enterprises. An overlapping portion of the Caliente/Las Vegas, Sloan/Jean, and Apex/Dry Lake heavy-haul truck routes goes through a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) corner of this parcel. A land transfer of Bureau of Land Management land at Scottys Junction, Nevada, to the Timbisha Shoshone, a Federally recognized tribe of about 280 people located at Death Valley, California, includes 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of frontage along the south side of U.S. 95 along the Caliente heavy-haul truck route. The Timbisha Shoshone plan to use this land for single-family residences and small-scale economic development (DIRS 154121-DOI 2000, Volume I, p. 19). Although intensive studies are not yet complete, earlier projects involving Native American fieldwork indicate both the presence of and potential for important resources to occur along the candidate heavy-haul truck routes. Ethnographic fieldwork for the Intermountain Power Project in the early 1980s and, more recently, for the proposed intermodal transportation of low-level radioactive waste to the Nevada Test Site has identified the following areas as having significance for Native Americans:3.2.2.2.6 Socioeconomics
The candidate heavy-haul intermodal transfer station sites and routes would not appreciably affect counties other than those in which the facilities were located. Section 3.1.7 contains socioeconomic background information on the three counties (Clark, Lincoln, and Nye) most involved in the heavy-haul truck routes. The Caliente heavy-haul truck route is the only route involving a county outside the region of influence; it passes through Esmeralda County in addition to Lincoln and Nye Counties. Section 3.2.2.1.6 contains socioeconomic information for Esmeralda County.3.2.2.2.7 Noise and Vibration
Most of the proposed routes pass through unpopulated desert with background noise levels of 22 to 38 dBA. All routes pass through small rural communities (see Chapter 6, Figures 6-22 through 6-26 [6-22, 6-23, 6-24, 6-25, 6-26). Noise levels in rural communities usually range from 40 to 55 dBA (Table 3-32). Traffic noise along highways generally ranges from 5 to 15 dBA above natural background levels (DIRS 101821-EPA 1974, p. D.5). Roadside noise levels are highly dependent on the volume of traffic, the road surface, composition of the traffic (trucks, automobiles, motorcycles, etc.), and vehicle speed. Measurements taken 90 meters (300 feet) from the centerline of U.S. 95 just outside the Nevada Test Site ranged from 45 to 55 dBA (DIRS 101531-Brown-Buntin 1997, pp. 8 and 9). Less traveled rural highways would have lower 1-hour noise levels, possibly as low as 33 dBA at 90 meters (300 feet) from the centerline. Communities potentially affected by the candidate intermodal transfer stations and associated heavy-haul truck routes were identified by examining the proposed route of each corridor and estimating if construction or heavy-haul vehicle noise could affect area communities. Occasional noise from passing military aircraft occurs near and in the Nellis Air Force Range. Caliente Station3.2.2.2.8 Aesthetics
This section describes the existing aesthetic qualities associated with each of the intermodal transfer station sites and associated heavy-haul truck routes. Section 3.1.10 provides additional description of Bureau of Land Management visual resource classes and scenic quality classes. Unless otherwise noted, this information is from the Environmental Baseline File: Aesthetics (DIRS 105002-CRWMS M&O 1999, all). Caliente Station3.2.2.2.9 Utilities, Energy, and Materials
The implementation of the heavy-haul approach for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to the repository would involve the construction and operation of an intermodal transfer station and upgrades of existing highways. The scope of the utilities, energy, and materials analysis includes consumption of electric power, fossil fuel, and construction materials such as concrete and steel to support these activities. The sites studied for the intermodal transfer station (Caliente, Sloan/Jean, and Apex/Dry Lake) are in areas with at least some light industrial activity or other activity that requires electric power. The sites would, therefore, have access to light industrial levels of electric power. The sites under consideration would also have access to the regional supply capability to provide fossil fuel and construction materials. Heavy-haul truck route upgrades would also use the southern Nevada regional supply system to provide materials for highway upgrades.3.2.2.2.10 Environmental Justice
The candidate location for the Caliente intermodal transfer station is in Lincoln County and the associated heavy-haul truck routes go through Lincoln, Nye, and Esmeralda Counties for the Caliente route; Lincoln and Nye Counties for the Caliente/Chalk Mountain route; and Lincoln, Clark, and Nye Counties for the Caliente/Las Vegas route. Section 3.1.13 discusses minority and low-income populations in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties and includes Figures 3-27 and 3-28, which show locations of minority and low-income communities, respectively, in Nevada. Figures 3-29 and 3-30 provide similar information at a higher resolution for the Las Vegas metropolitan area in Clark County. Section 3.2.2.1.10 discusses minority and low-income populations in Esmeralda County. The candidate locations for both the Sloan/Jean and Apex/Dry Lake intermodal transfer stations are in Clark County; the associated heavy-haul truck routes both go through Clark and Nye Counties. Section 3.1.13 discusses minority and low-income populations in Clark and Nye Counties. Some detail on the affected environment for environmental justice that was presented in the Draft EIS for heavy-haul truck routes and intermodal transfer station sites has been deleted because of a change in the nature and level of available information presented. As described in Section 3.1.13, baseline environmental justice data consists of minority populations at the block level based on 2000 Census data (newly available since the Draft EIS) and low-income populations at the block group level based on 1990 Census data. These represent the most up-to-date data in both categories at the time of this document's preparation. Because of the differences in the level of data between the two categories, a combined, parallel discussion is no longer appropriate. The baseline presentation of information now relies on the Section 3.1.13 figures referenced above to identify locations of minority and low-income communities in proximity to the candidate heavy-haul truck routes and intermodal transfer station sites.3.2.2.2.11 Existing Traffic on Candidate Routes for Heavy-Haul Trucks
The description of the affected transportation environment characterizes routes in terms of traffic volume and roadway capability (DIRS 103225-DOE 1998, pp. 3-1 to 3-14). The potential for congestion and other problems on a roadway is expressed in terms of levels of service. The level of service scale ranges from A to F, as follows:3.3 Affected Environment at Commercial and DOE Sites
In response to public comments, DOE has revised Section 3.3 to provide more information on the methodology the Department used to determine baseline conditions at the 72 commercial and 5 DOE sites evaluated under the No-Action analysis. The revisions include added information on the individual site environmental factors (Section 3.3.1) and augmented information on regional environmental factors (Section 3.3.2). In providing this new information, DOE changed the section numbers for the information that appeared in the Draft EIS. The No-Action Alternative analyzes the impacts of not constructing and operating a monitored geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. It assumes that the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste would remain at commercial and DOE sites throughout the United States. This section describes baseline environmental factors at commercial and DOE sites including land use requirements, radiological effluents, worker and offsite populations, and occupational and public radiation doses. These factors provide a basis for comparison of impacts with the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. In addition to the site environmental factors, this section also includes regional environmental factors for five regions of the United States, including climate, groundwater, waterways, and potentially affected populations. These regional parameters provide the baseline information necessary for estimating potential impacts resulting from the No-Action Alternative Scenario 2 described in Chapter 7 of the EIS.3.3.1 Site Environmental Factors
3.3.1.1 Commercial Sites
At present, there are 103 operating commercial nuclear powerplants at 69 sites in 31 of the contiguous United States. In addition, three sites (Trojan in Oregon, and Humboldt Bay and Rancho Seco in California) have reactors in various stages of decommissioning. The locations of the 72 commercial nuclear powerplants evaluated in this EIS are shown in Figure 3-33. Approximately half of these sites contain two or three nuclear units. There are no commercial nuclear powerplants in Alaska or Hawaii.3.3.1.1.1 Land Use and Ownership
Typically, nuclear powerplant sites and the surrounding areas are flat-to-rolling countryside in wooded or agricultural areas. More than half of the sites have 80-kilometer (50-mile) population densities of fewer than 200 persons per square mile, and more than 80 percent have 80-kilometer densities of fewer than 500 persons per square mile (DIRS 101899-NRC 1996, Section 2.2.1, p. 2-2). The most notable exception is the Indian Point Station, which is within 80 kilometers of New York City, which has a population density of more than 2,000 persons per square mile. Site areas range from 0.34 square kilometer (84 acres) for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California to 120 square kilometers (30,000 acres) for the McGuire Nuclear Station in North Carolina. More than half of the plant sites encompass 2 to 8 square kilometers (500 to 2,000 acres). Larger land use areas are usually associated with plant cooling systems that include reservoirs, artificial lakes, and buffer zones. Typically, 0.2 to 0.4 square kilometer (50 to 100 acres) might actually be disturbed during plant construction. Other land commitments can amount to many tens of square kilometers for transmission line rights-of-way and cooling lakes (if used). In general, these sites are owned and maintained by the investor owned utilities (sites operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority are Federally owned) that operate the associated power plants and control egress to the sites to protect the health and safety of the public.3.3.1.1.2 Socioeconomic Environment
Although the size of the workforce varies considerably among sites, the average permanent staff size at a nuclear powerplant ranges from 800 to 2,400 people, depending on the number of operating units at the site (DIRS 101899-NRC 1996, Section 2.3.8.1, p. 2-26). In rural or low-population communities, the number of permanent jobs can represent a substantial portion of the local workforce. In addition to the permanent workforce, many temporary workers are required for tasks that occur during refueling and maintenance outages. Between 200 and 900 additional workers can be employed during these outages to perform the normal maintenance work. Although these temporary workers are in the community for only a short time (usually 1 to 2 months a year), they can have a substantial effect on the area (DIRS 101899-NRC 1996, Section 2.3.8.1, p. 2-27). In addition to direct employment, plant subcontractors and service industries in the area provide hundreds of indirect jobs. In rural communities, industries that provide this number of jobs at relatively high wages are major contributors to the local economy. In addition to the beneficial effect of these jobs, plant purchasing and worker spending can generate considerable income for local businesses (DIRS 101899-NRC 1996, Section 2.3.8.2, p. 2-28). A nuclear powerplant represents an investment of several billion dollars. Such an asset on the tax rolls is extraordinary for rural communities and can constitute the major source of local revenues for small or remote taxing jurisdictions. This revenue often enables higher quality and more extensive public services with lower tax rates to the citizens (DIRS 101899-NRC 1996, Section 2.3.8.2, p. 2-28). For these reasons, nuclear powerplants can have a significant positive effect on the local community environment. These effects are stable and long-term. Because these effects generally enhance the economic structure of the local community, nuclear powerplants become a major positive contributor to the local area (DIRS 101899-NRC 1996, Section 2.3.8.2, p. 2-28).3.3.1.1.3 Radioactive Effluents
During normal operations, nuclear powerplants release small amounts of radioactive materials to the environment through atmospheric and aquatic pathways. These radioactive materials, released under controlled conditions, include fission and activation products. Releases to the atmosphere consist primarily of the noble gases and some of the more volatile materials like tritium, isotopes of iodine, and cesium. Releases to aquatic pathways consist primarily of nonvolatile fission and activation products such as isotopes of cesium and cobalt. After appropriate holdup and processing, these materials are monitored carefully before and during releases to determine whether the licensed release limits can be met (for example, 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 50.36a, and 40 CFR Part 190). In 1993 (the last year for which information is readily available), boiling-water and pressurized-water reactors released about 31,000 and 28,000 curies, respectively, of fission and activation gases to the atmosphere (DIRS 155108-Tichler, Doty, and Lucadamo 1995, Tables 1 and 2, pp. 6-12). Thus, the estimated average atmospheric release per boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water reactor was 760 and 380 curies per year, respectively. In addition, boiling-water reactors and pressurized-water reactors released 0.75 and 0.30 curies, respectively, of iodine-131 and particulates to the atmosphere (DIRS 155108-Tichler, Doty, and Lucadamo 1995, Tables 3 and 4, pp. 12-17). This resulted in boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water reactor average unit releases of 0.018 and 0.0041 curies, respectively. Liquid releases of tritium in 1993 for boiling-water reactors and pressurized-water reactors totaled about 530 and 36,000 curies, respectively (DIRS 155108-Tichler, Doty, and Lucadamo 1995, Tables 5 and 6, pp. 18-24), and about 11 and 35 curies, respectively (DIRS 155108-Tichler, Doty, and Lucadamo 1995, Tables 7 and 8, pp. 24-29), of mixed fission and activation products.3.3.1.1.4 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
Occupational Radiation Exposures3.3.1.2 DOE Sites
This EIS focuses on the five DOE sites at which spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste currently exists or where existing Records of Decision have authorized placement of these materials (see Chapter 7, Section 7.2 for details). The five sites are the Hanford Site, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Fort St. Vrain (spent nuclear fuel only), the West Valley Demonstration Project (high-level radioactive waste only), and the Savannah River Site (Figure 3-33).3.3.1.2.1 Land Use and Ownership
Of the five DOE sites that manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, three (Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Savannah River Site) are on large tracts of Federally owned land ranging from 2,300 square kilometers (890 square miles) for Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to 800 square kilometers (310 square miles) for the Savannah River Site. On these three sites, most of the land is undeveloped or forest management areas. These undeveloped areas serve as buffer zones between the operating areas and the public. Access to these sites is controlled for national security purposes to prevent ingress by unauthorized personnel. The Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent Nuclear Fuel Installation and West Valley Demonstration Project are on much smaller tracts of land, 3.8 acres and 220 acres, respectively, which are mostly developed but are surrounded by low-population-density lands used mostly for agricultural and residential purposes.3.3.1.2.2 Socioeconomic Environment
Because of their large employment base, the Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, West Valley Demonstration Project, and Savannah River Site represent a substantial portion of their respective local workforces. For example, in December 1997 the Hanford Site employed almost 11,000 DOE and contractor personnel, which represented 13 percent of the total employment in the area (DIRS 156931-DOE 2000, p. 4-101). Similarly, in 1998 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and Savannah River Site employed 8,100 and 14,000 workers, respectively, which represented about 7 percent of their local area workforces (DIRS 156914-DOE 2000, all). In 1993, the West Valley Demonstration Project employed more than 1,000 DOE and contract workers and was the largest local employer; these workers represented almost 4 percent of the local workforce (DIRS 101729-DOE 1996, p. 4-58). In 1995, approximately 230 persons worked at the Fort St. Vrain site. Of these, approximately 16 full-time-equivalent personnel worked on the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility (DIRS 103213-DOE 1996, Appendix E, Section 3, pp. 3-53 and 54). Based on the 1980 census, the population within an 8 kilometer (5-mile) radius of the site was 3,148, with 1,662 residing in the Town of Platteville. The projected population for 2012 (through the 20-year license) for this area will be 4,526, with 3,040 residing in Platteville. However, even with this relatively small local workforce, the 16 workers and the DOE site would have minimal impact. In addition to base employment, DOE sites contribute to the local economic conditions through the creation of indirect employment and through the purchase of goods and services from local firms.3.3.1.2.3 Radioactive Effluents
As a result of ongoing process and remediation activities, most DOE sites routinely release quantities of radioactive materials to the atmosphere and surface waters that eventually enter the surrounding environment. These effluents are carefully monitored at their points of discharge to ensure that releases remain within limits specified by DOE Orders and applicable state and Federal statutes and regulations. Radioactive materials released from DOE sites consist of fission and activation products (such as tritium, cesium, strontium, iodine, and krypton), transuranics (such as plutonium and americium), and source material (such as uranium). Atmospheric releases consist primarily of tritium and noble gases (such as krypton and argon), and liquid releases consist primarily of tritium with much smaller quantities of fission products and transuranics. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory typically does not release radioactive liquid effluents off the site. Rather, liquid effluents are sent to two plastic-lined evaporation ponds (DIRS 156914-DOE 2000, Section 7.1, p. 7-3) that prevent percolation of contaminated water into the ground and eventual release to the accessible environment. In addition, the Hanford Site 200-Area facilities discharge radioactive liquid effluents to the 616-A-Crib (also known as the State-Approved Land Disposal Site) rather than directly to the Columbia River (DIRS 156931-DOE 2000, Section 3.1.3, p. 3.6). The Fort St. Vrain site does not have atmospheric or liquid effluents (DIRS 155101-DOE 1998, Section 2.3.4.1, p. 2-25 and Section 2.4.2, p. 2-35) because the spent nuclear fuel is stored in sealed canisters and is not typically handled or processed. In 1999, the four DOE sites with radioactive effluents discussed in this section released about 92,000 curies of fission and activation products to the atmosphere (DIRS 156914-DOE 2000, Table 7-1, p. 7-4; DIRS 156931-DOE 2000, Table 3.1.1, p. 3.6; DIRS 155094-Arnett and Mamatey 2000, Table 4, p. 13; DIRS 154284-WVNS 2000, Tables D-2 through D-11, pp. D-4 through D-12). Most of these releases occurred at the Savannah River Site, which released about 89,000 curies. The Savannah River Site atmospheric releases consisted almost entirely of tritium (about 52,000 curies) and noble gases (about 37,000 curies). In addition, the four sites released 0.0025 curie of transuranics and 0.048 curie of source material to the atmosphere. In 1999, the DOE sites released about 6,400 curies of fission and activation products in liquid effluents (DIRS 156914-DOE 2000, Table 7-2, p. 7-5; DIRS 156931-DOE 2000, Tables 3.1.3 and 3.1.4, p. 3.7; DIRS 155094-Arnett and Mamatey 2000, Table 6, p. 22; and DIRS 154284-WVNS 2000, Table C-1, p. c-3). More than 99 percent of these releases consisted of tritium, and most (about 6,300 curies) occurred at the Savannah River Site.3.3.1.2.4 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
Occupational Radiation Exposures3.3.2 Regional Environmental Factors
For analytic purposes, DOE divided the country into five regions (see Figure 3-33). This section describes the affected environment for each region that reflects the average or mean conditions of the sites in the region. The affected environment includes spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste inventories, climatic parameters, groundwater flowrates, downstream surface-water users, and downstream surface-water flowrates. In all cases, DOE used data consisting of average or mean conditions from actual sites to develop hypothetical sites. To develop the hypothetical sites, DOE divided the generator sites among the five regions (Figure 3-33). Climate varies considerably across the United States. Radionuclide release rates would depend primarily on the interaction of climate and materials. DOE analyzed release rates for a hypothetical site in each region that was a mathematical representation of the actual sites in that region. The development process for the hypothetical site used weighted values for material inventories, climate, and groundwater flow information from each actual site to ensure that the results of the analyses of the hypothetical site were comparable to the results for each actual site, if analyzed independently. Similarly, the process constructed downstream populations of water users and river flow for the hypothetical sites from population and river flow data for actual sites, so they reflect the populations downstream of actual storage facilities and the actual amount of water those populations use.3.3.2.1 Regional Inventories of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste
Table 3-61 lists the Proposed Action quantities of commercial spent nuclear fuel, DOE spent nuclear fuel, and high-level radioactive waste in each of the five regions. The information in the table is a projection of quantities and forms that would exist at a point in the future, not as they currently exist. For example, high-level radioactive waste is listed in the table as having gone through a vitrification process with subsequent packaging in canisters, as if ready for disposal in a repository.3.3.2.2 Climatic Factors and Material
DOE assumed that a single hypothetical site in each region would store all the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in each region. Such a site does not exist, but DOE used it for this analysis. To ensure that the calculated results of the regional analyses reflected the appropriate inventory, facility and material degradation, and radionuclide transport, DOE developed the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste inventories, engineered barriers, and environmental parameters for the hypothetical site from data from the actual sites in that region. Weighting criteria accounted for the different amounts and types of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at each site, so the results of the analyses of the hypothetical site were representative of the sum of the results if DOE had modeled each actual site independently. If there are no storage areas in a particular part of a region, DOE did not analyze the environmental parameters of that part (for example, there are no storage facilities in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, so the analysis for Region 3 did not include environmental parameters from cities in the Upper Peninsula). In addition, if the storage area would not affect drinking water (for example, groundwater near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Generating Plant outcrops to the Chesapeake Bay), the regional hypothetical storage facility did not include their fuel inventories. The following climate parameters are important to material degradation times and rates of release:3.3.2.3 Groundwater Parameters
Most of the radioactivity and metals from degraded material would seep into the groundwater and flow with it to surface outcrops to rivers or streams. Therefore, the analysis had to account for the groundwater characteristics at each site, including the time it takes the water to move through the unsaturated zone and the aquifer. The analysis assumed that the storage facilities would be 490 meters (1,600 feet) up the groundwater gradient from the hypothetical reactor and used this assumption to calculate the time it would take contaminants to reach surface water. Table 3-63 lists the ranges of groundwater flow times in each region. Appendix K contains more information on the sources of groundwater data.3.3.2.4 Affected Waterways
Most of the estimated population dose for the No-Action Alternative would be a result of drinking contaminated surface water. The first step in determining the population dose was to identify the waterways that receive groundwater from beneath existing storage facilities (Figure 3-34) and the number of public drinking water systems that draw water from the potentially contaminated waterways (Table 3-64). DOE calculated the river flow past each population center (Section 3.3.2.5) along each river, and used this number in the calculation to determine dose to the population.3.3.2.5 Affected Populations
After identifying the affected waterways, DOE identified the populations that get their drinking water from those waterways. The total population using the river was expressed as number of people per cubic foot per second. If a river system traverses more than one region (for example, the Mississippi drains three regions), weighting criteria accounted for materials received from storage facilities upstream of the region that would flow past several downstream population centers, as necessary. Table 3-64 lists the number of people using the public drinking water systems potentially affected by the degradation of radioactive materials.References
Note: In an effort to ensure consistency among Yucca Mountain Project documents, DOE has altered the format of the references and some of the citations in the text in this Final EIS from those in the Draft EIS. The following list contains notes where applicable for references cited differently in the Draft EIS.| 155092 | Aaberg and Baker 1996 | Aaberg, R.L. and Baker, D.A. 1996. Dose Commitments Due to Radioactive Releases from Nuclear Power Plant Sites in 1992. NUREG/CR-2850, Vol. 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 241611. | ||
| 103069 | AAR 1996 | AAR (Association of American Railroads) 1996. Railroad Facts. 1996 Edition. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Railroads. TIC: 243890. | ||
| 103070 | ACGIH 1999 | ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists) 1999. 1999 TLVs® and BEIs®, Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents, Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. TIC: 243476. | ||
| 156932 | AIET 2000 | AIET (American Indian Ethnography Team) 2000. Preliminary Cultural Assessment of Wildhorse Spring and the Willow Springs Complex on and Near the Nellis Air Force Range. Las Vegas, Nevada: Nellis Air Force Base. | ||
| 102043 | AIWS 1998 | AIWS (American Indian Writers Subgroup) 1998. American Indian Perspectives on the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the Repository Environmental Impact Statement. Las Vegas, Nevada: Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations. ACC: MOL.19980420.0041. | ||
| 148090 | American Trucking Associations v. EPA 1999 | American Trucking Associations v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 97-1440 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit). Decided May 14, 1999. TIC: 244121. | ||
| 103071 | ANS 1992 | ANS (American Nuclear Society) 1992. American National Standard for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites. ANSI/ANS-2.8-1992. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 236034. | ||
| 155090 | Arnett and Mamatey 2000 | Arnett, M.W. and Mamatey, A.R. eds. [2000]. Savannah River Site, Environmental Report for 1999. WSCR-TR-99-00299. Aiken, South Carolina: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. ACC: MOL.20010731.0302. | ||
| 155094 | Arnett and Mamatey 2000 | Arnett, M.W. and Mamatey, A.R., eds. [2000]. Savannah River Site, Environmental Data for 1999. WSRC-TR-99-00301. Aiken, South Carolina: Westinghouse Savannah River Company. ACC: MOL.20010731.0301. | ||
| 156288 | Babula 2000 | Babula, J. 2000. "New Hospital Stimulates Senses, St. Rose Dominican Hospital’s Siena Campus in Henderson Will Offer a Gardenlike Atmosphere." Las Vegas, Nevada: Las Vegas Review-Journal. Accessed October 15, 2001. TIC 250918. http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2000/May-30-Tue-2000/news/13617847.html | ||
| 101486 | Bauer et al. 1996 | Bauer, D.J.; Foster, B.J.; Joyner, J.D.; and Swanson, R.A. 1996. Water Resources Data for Nevada Water Year 1995. Water-Data Report NV-95-1. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 234695. | ||
| 155983 | BEA 1998 | BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) 1998. Regional Economic Information Service Data, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Clark County 1969-96. [Las Vegas, Nevada]: Bureau of Economic Analysis. ACC: MOL.19991015.0367. | ||
| 101036 | Benson and McKinley 1985 | Benson, L.V. and McKinley, P.W. 1985. Chemical Composition of Ground Water in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1971-84. Open-File Report 85-484. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19900207.0281. | ||
| 146592 | Black and Townsend 1998 | Black, S.C. and Townsend, Y.E., eds. 1998. Nevada Test Site, Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year - 1997. DOE/NV/11718-231. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. TIC: 242871. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Bechtel 1998 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104804 | Bland 1999 | Bland, J. 1999. "Maps Showing Minority and Low-Income Census Block Groups in Nevada and Greater Las Vegas." Memo from J. Bland (CRWMS M&O) to File, February 17, 1999, with attachments. ACC: MOL.19990223.0199. | ||
| 100530 | Blanton 1992 | Blanton, J.O., III 1992. Nevada Test Site Flood Inundation Study, Part of U.S. Geological Survey Flood Potential and Debris Hazard Study, Yucca Mountain Site for United States Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. TIC: 205029. | ||
| 101504 | BLM 1979 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1979. Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Domestic Livestock Grazing Management Program for the Caliente Area. INT FES 79-44. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 231827. | ||
| 103077 | BLM 1983 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1983. Draft Shoshone-Eureka Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. INT DEIS 83-40. Battle Mountain, Nevada: U.S. Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 241518. | ||
| 101505 | BLM 1986 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1986. Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 241833. | ||
| 102218 | BLM 1988 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1988. Right-Of-Way Reservation. N-47748. Reno, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. ACC: NNA.19880113.0002. | ||
| 101521 | BLM 1992 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1992. Draft Stateline Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Two Volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 206004. | ||
| 101523 | BLM 1994 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1994. Proposed Tonopah Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Tonopah, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 241484. | ||
| 102219 | BLM 1994 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1994. Right-of-Way Reservation Renewed. N-48602. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. ACC: MOL.19970701.0775. | ||
| 103079 | BLM 1998 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1998. Proposed Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Three Volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 239216; 239217; 239218. | ||
| 103080 | BLM 1999 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 1999. Proposed Caliente Management Framework Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of Desert Tortoise Habitat. Ely, Nevada: U.S. Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 244133. | ||
| 155095 | BLM 2000 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 2000. Record of Decision and Plan of Operations Approval, Cortez Gold Mines South Pipeline Project. NV64-93-001P(96-2A). NV063-EIS98-014. Battle Mountain, Nevada: Bureau of Land Management. TIC: 250223. | ||
| 157220 | BLM 2001 | BLM (Bureau of Land Management) 2001. Draft Nevada Test & Training Range Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Reno, Nevada: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office. | ||
| 148091 | BLS 1998 | BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) 1998. "Safety and Health Statistics, Table 1. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Selected Industries and Case Types, 1997." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. Accessed December 18, 1998. TIC: 243569. http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/osh.t01.htm | ||
| 100627 | Bodvasson and Bandurraga 1996 | Bodvarsson, G.S. and Bandurraga, T.M., eds. 1996. Development and Calibration of the Three-Dimensional Site-Scale Unsaturated Zone Model of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970211.0176. | ||
| 103082 | Bonner et al. 1998 | Bonner, L.J.; Elliot, P.E.; Etchemendy, L.P.; and Swartwood, J.R. 1998. Water Resources Data Nevada Water Year 1997. Water-Data Report NV-97-1. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 242466. | ||
| 103090 | Bostic et al. 1997 | Bostic, R.E.; Kane, R.L.; Kipfer, K.M.; and Johnson, A.W. 1997. Water Resources Data Nevada Water Year 1996. Water-Data Report NV-96-1. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 236837. | ||
| 102224 | Brattstrom and Bondello 1983 | Brattstrom, B.H. and Bondello, M.C. 1983. "Effects of Off Road Vehicle Noise on Desert Vertebrate." Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles: Impact and Management in Arid Regions, 167-206. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 221245. | ||
| 152511 | Brocoum 2000 | Brocoum, S. 2000. "Biological Assessment of the Effects of Construction, Operation and Monitoring, and Closure of a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada," Letter from S. Brocoum (DOE/YMSCO) to R.D. Williams (DOI), April 24, 2000, with enclosures. ACC: MOL.20000605.0309. | ||
| 101531 | Brown-Buntin 1997 | Brown-Buntin Associates 1997. Background Noise Analysis Proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Depository. Fair Oaks, California: Brown-Buntin Associates. TIC: 242246. | ||
| 155950 | BSC 2001 | BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. FY 01 Supplemental Science and Performance Analyses, Volume 1: Scientific Bases and Analyses. TDR-MGR-MD-000007 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20010801.0404; MOL.20010712.0062; MOL.20010815.0001. | ||
| 156609 | BSC 2001 | BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Unsaturated Zone Flow Patterns and Analysis, MDI-NBS-HS-000012 REV 00, Las Vegas, Nevada. MOL.20011029.0315. | ||
| 157072 | BSC 2001 | BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Saturated Zone Flow Patterns and Analysis. ANL-NBS-HS-000038 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. Submit to RPC. | ||
| 150989 | BTS 1998 | BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics) 1998. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Pocket Guide to Transportation. BTS98-S-02. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. TIC: 243148. | ||
| 108883 | Bullard 1992 | Bullard, K.L. 1992. Nevada Test Site Probable Maximum Flood Study, Part of U.S. Geological Survey Flood Potential and Debris Hazard Study, Yucca Mountain Site for U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. TIC: 205030. | ||
| 101542 | Buqo 1996 | Buqo, T.S. 1996. Baseline Water Supply and Demand Evaluation of Southern Nye County, Nevada. Pahrump, Nevada: Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office. TIC: 235774. | ||
| 103099 | Buqo 1999 | Buqo, T.S. 1999. Nye County Perspective: Potential Impacts Associated With the Long-Term Presence of a Nuclear Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Pahrump, Nevada: Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Office. TIC: 244065. | ||
| 103404 | Bureau of Air Quality 1999 | Bureau of Air Quality 1999. "State of Nevada, Bureau of Air Quality, 1988-1997 Trends Report." Carson City, Nevada: State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Accessed April 27, 1999. TIC: 243946. http://www.state.nv.us/ ndep/bao/cover99.htm. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as NDCNR 1999 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 103118 | Bureau of the Census 1992 | Bureau of the Census 1992. "Population and Housing - Detailed Tables." P008 Race, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 244075. | ||
| 103119 | Bureau of the Census 1992 | Bureau of the Census 1992. "Population and Housing - Detailed Tables." P012 Hispanic Origin by Race, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 244083. | ||
| 103120 | Bureau of the Census 1992 | Bureau of the Census 1992. "Population and Housing - Detailed Tables." P117 Poverty Status in 1989 by Age, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 244090. | ||
| 103123 | Bureau of the Census 1992 | Bureau of the Census 1992. "Population and Housing - Detailed Tables." P117 Poverty Status in 1989 by Age, Clark County, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 244091. | ||
| 103127 | Bureau of the Census 1992 | Bureau of the Census 1992. "Population and Housing - Detailed Tables." P117 Poverty Status in 1989 by Age, Lincoln County, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 244094. | ||
| 103131 | Bureau of the Census 1992 | Bureau of the Census 1992. "Population and Housing - Detailed Tables." P117 Poverty Status in 1989 by Age, Nye County, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 244095. | ||
| 103134 | Bureau of the Census 1992 | Bureau of the Census 1992. "Population and Housing - Detailed Tables." P117 Poverty Status in 1989 by Age, Esmeralda County, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 244096. | ||
| 103141 | Bureau of the Census 1992 | Bureau of the Census 1992. "Population and Housing - Detailed Tables." P117 Poverty Status in 1989 by Age, Eureka County, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 244092. | ||
| 103144 | Bureau of the Census 1992 | Bureau of the Census 1992. "Population and Housing - Detailed Tables." P117 Poverty Status in 1989 by Age, Lander County, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 244093. | ||
| 102119 | Bureau of the Census 1995 | Bureau of the Census 1995. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995. 115th Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. TIC: 243747. | ||
| 148097 | Bureau of the Census 1998 | Bureau of the Census 1998. "1990 US Census: Housing Data for Selected Counties in Nevada (Clark, Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye)." Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. Accessed December 7, 1998. TIC: 243201. http://www.venus. census.gov/cdrom/lookup/913058887 | ||
| 155872 | Bureau of the Census 2000 | Bureau of the Census 2000. Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File, Census of Population and Housing, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. ACC: MOL.20011009.0041. | ||
| 156775 | Bureau of the Census 2000 | Bureau of the Census 2000. Statistical Abstract of the United States 2000. 120th Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. TIC: 251127. | ||
| 156909 | Bureau of the Census 2001 | Bureau of the Census 2001. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Census of Population and Housing - Nevada. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. TIC: 251410. | ||
| 157135 | Bureau of the Census 2001 | Bureau of the Census 2001. "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin." Census 2000 Brief. Accessed December 6, 2001. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census. | ||
| 103160 | Bury and Germano 1994 | Bury, R.B. and Germano, D.J., eds. 1994. Biology of North American Tortoises. Fish and Wildlife Research Report 13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. TIC: 225209. | ||
| 155605 | Bush, Bunker, and Spengler 1983 | Bush, C.A.; Bunker, C.M.; and Spengler, R.W. 1983. Radioelement Distribution in Drill-Hole USW-G1, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Open File Report 83-847. [Denver, Colorado]: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA. 19930715.0047. | ||
| 148102 | Cappaert v. United States 1976 | Cappaert et al. v. United States et al., 426 U.S. 128; 96 S. Ct. 2026. Decided June 7, 1976. TIC: 243576. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Cappaert v. United States 1976 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 156114 | Carl 2001 | Carl, B. 2001. "Request from EIS Folks." E-mail from B. Carl (BSC) to T. Ikenberry, July 25, 2001, with attachment. ACC: MOL.20011015.0088. | ||
| 102046 | Carr et al. 1986 | Carr, M.D.; Waddell, S.J.; Vick, G.S.; Stock, J.M.; Monsen, S.A.; Harris, A.G.; Cork, B.W.; and Byers, F.M., Jr. 1986. Geology of Drill Hole UE25p#1: A Test Hole Into Pre-Tertiary Rocks Near Yucca Mountain, Southern Nevada. Open-File Report 86-175. Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: HQS.19880517.2633. | ||
| 103161 | CEPA 1998 | CEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency) 1998. Proposed Amendments to the Designation Criteria and to the Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards and Proposed Maps of the Area Designations for the State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Sacramento, California: California Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 243397. | ||
| 104727 | Cerocke 1998 | Cerocke, C. 1998. Truck Percents. Facsimile from C. Cerocke (Nevada Department of Transportation) to R. Best (Jason Technologies), July 8, 1998. ACC: MOL.19990511.0291. | ||
| 156706 | Clark County 2000 | Clark County 2000. Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Las Vegas Valley Nonattainment Area. Las Vegas, Nevada: Department of Comprehensive Planning, Clark County Board of Commissioners. | ||
| 155557 | Clark County 2001 | Clark County 2001. "Particulate Matter (PM-10) State Implementation Plan." [Las Vegas, Nevada]: Clark County. Accessed April 10, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010802.0201. http://www.co.clark.nv.us/compplan/Environ/Aqteam/Pm10/pm10_Chpt1.htm | ||
| 148106 | Clark County Sanitation District 1999 | Clark County Sanitation District 1999. "Sanitation District Board of Trustees." Las Vegas, Nevada: Clark County Sanitation District. Accessed May 5, 1999. TIC: 244140. http://www.sandist.co.clark. nv.us/sandist/aboutus.htm In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Clark County 1999 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 103171 | Clary et al. 1995 | Clary, S.L.; McClary, D.R.; Whitney, R.; and Reeves, D.D. 1995. Water Resources Data for Nevada Water Year 1994. Water-Data Report NV-94-1. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 236835. | ||
| 104828 | Covay 1997 | Covay, K. 1997. Water-Quality Data Collected May 6-15, 1997, by the US Geological Survey at Eight Selected Well and Spring Sites Near Yucca Mountain Letter from K. Covay (USGS) to W. Dixon (DOE/YMSCO), October 6, 1997, with enclosures. ACC: MOL.19981013.0007. | ||
| 104956 | CRWMS M&O 1993 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1993. Repository Subsurface Layout Options and ESF Interface. B00000000-01717-5705-00009 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: NNA.19940124.0036. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1993 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104807 | CRWMS M&O 1995 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1995. Archaeological Survey. NWI-ARCH-01, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19951211.0094. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Buck and Powers 1995 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104810 | CRWMS M&O 1995 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1995. Recording Archaeological Sites. NWI-ARCH-02, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19951211.0098. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Buck and Powers 1995 in Chapter 12 | ||
| 104813 | CRWMS M&O 1995 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1995. Surface Artifact Collection. NWI-ARCH-03, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19951211.0102. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Buck and Powers 1995 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104814 | CRWMS M&O 1995 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1995. Archaeological Excavation. NWI-ARCH-04, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19951211.0106. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Buck and Powers 1995 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104818 | CRWMS M&O 1995 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1995. Archaeological Monitoring. NWI-ARCH-05, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19951211.0110. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Buck and Powers 1995 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104819 | CRWMS M&O 1995 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1995. Archaeological Records Management. NWI-ARCH-06, Rev Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19951211.0114. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Buck and Powers 1995 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104822 | CRWMS M&O 1995 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1995. Laboratory Analysis. NWI-ARCH-07, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19951211.0118. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Buck and Powers 1995 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104824 | CRWMS M&O 1995 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1995. Artifact Collections Management. NWI-ARCH-08, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19951211.0122. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Buck and Powers 1995 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 100116 | CRWMS M&O 1996 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1996. Probabilistic Volcanic Hazard Analysis for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. BA0000000-01717-2200-00082 REV 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19971201.0221. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Geomatrix and TRW 1996 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 101214 | CRWMS M&O 1996 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1996. Nevada Potential Repository Preliminary Transportation Strategy Study 2. B00000000-01717-4600-00050 REV 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19960724.0199; MOL.19960724.0200. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1996 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 101535 | CRWMS M&O 1996 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1996. Yucca Mountain Project Stratigraphic Compendium. BA0000000-01717-5700-00004 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19970113.0088. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1996g in Chapter 12. | ||
| 146183 | CRWMS M&O 1996 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1996. Distribution of Natural and Man-Made Radionuclides in Soil and Biota at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990218.0217. | ||
| 100117 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1997. Engineering Design Climatology and Regional Meteorological Conditions Report. B00000000-01717-5707-00066 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980304.0028. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1997a in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104873 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1997. Intermodal Transfer Site Caliente Siting Area Map. BCBI00000-01717-2700-82038 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990615.0031. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1998j in Chapter 12. | ||
| 155984 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1997. Intermodal Transfer Site, Sloan Siting Area Map. BCBI00000-01717-2700-82040 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990615.0029. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999d in Chapter 12. | ||
| 155985 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1997. Intermodal Transfer Site, Apex/Dry Lake Siting Area Map. BCBI00000-01717-2700-82039 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990615.0030. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999d in Chapter 12. | ||
| 155986 | CRWMS M&O 1997 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1997. Intermodal Transfer Site, Jean Siting Area Map. BCBI00000-01717-2700-82041 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990615. 0032. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999d in Chapter 12. | ||
| 100353 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1998. Saturated Zone Flow and Transport Expert Elicitation Project. Deliverable SL5X4AM3. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980825.0008. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Geomatrix and TRW 1998 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 102045 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1998. Off-Site Utilities Preliminary Assessment. B00000000-01717-5705-00091 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980519.0235. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1998e in Chapter 12. | ||
| 102303 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1998. Repository Surface Design Site Layout Analysis. BCB000000-01717-0200-00007 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980410. 0136. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1998f in Chapter 12. | ||
| 102599 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1998. Site Gas/Liquid Systems Technical Report. BCBC00000-01717-5705-00001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19980501.0178. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1998g in Chapter 12. | ||
| 103237 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1998. Preliminary Preclosure Design Basis Event Calculations for the Monitored Geologic Repository. BC0000000-01717-0210-00001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981002.0001. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Kappes 1998 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104878 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1998. Evaluation of Flow and Transport Models of Yucca Mountain, Based on Chlorine-36 and Chloride Studies for FY98. BA0000000-01717-5700-00007 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19981208.0119. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Fabryka-Martin et al. 1998 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104963 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1998. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Radiological Programs, Radioactivity in FY 1997 Groundwater Samples from Wells and Springs Near Yucca Mountain. Rev. 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990218.0213. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1998b in Chapter 12. | ||
| 148111 | CRWMS M&O 1998 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1998. Transmittal Form for Environmental Baseline File/Engineering File Information, Addendum # 3 for EBF/EF General. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990513.0044. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1998i in Chapter 12. | ||
| 102877 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File for Meteorology and Air Quality. B00000000- 01717-5705-00126 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990302.0186. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999g in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104508 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Repository Surface Design Engineering Files Report. BCB000000-01717-5705-00009 REV 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990615.0238. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999a in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104523 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Engineering File - Subsurface Repository. BCA000000-01717-5705-00005 REV 02 DCN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990621.0157; MOL.19990615.0230. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999b in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104544 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File for Human Health. B00000000-01717-5705-00114 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990608.0035. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999o in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104592 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File for Soils. B00000000-01717-5700-00007 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990302.0180. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999l in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104593 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File for Biological Resources. B00000000-01717-5700-00009 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990302.0181; MOL.19990330. 0560. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999k in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104986 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File for Water Resources. B00000000-01717-5705-00118 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990608.0036. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999i in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104988 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Environmental Baseline File for Utilities, Energy, and Site Services. B00000000-01717-5705-00124 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990302.0182. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999j in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104993 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File for Land Use. B00000000-01717-5705-00115 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990302.0178. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999f in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104997 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File: Archaeological Resources. B00000000-01717-5705-00122 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990302.0187. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999m in Chapter 12. | ||
| 105002 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File: Aesthetics. B00000000-01717-5705-00082 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990302.0179. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999p in Chapter 12. | ||
| 105004 | CRWMS M&O 1999 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 1999. Environmental Baseline File For Environmental Justice. B00000000-01717-5705-00123 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990608.0038. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as TRW 1999q in Chapter 12. | ||
| 137917 | CRWMS M&O 2000 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 2000. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000717.0292. | ||
| 151945 | CRWMS M&O 2000 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 2000. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 01 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001003.0111. | ||
| 153246 | CRWMS M&O 2000 | CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & Operating Contractor) 2000. Total System Performance Assessment for the Site Recommendation. TDR-WIS-PA-000001 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001220.0045. | ||
| 100131 | D’Agnese et al. 1997 | D’Agnese, F.A.; Faunt, C.C.; Turner, A.K.; and Hill, M.C. 1997. Hydrogeologic Evaluation and Numerical Simulation of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California. Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4300. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980306.0253. | ||
| 102217 | D’Azevedo 1986 | D’Azevedo, W.L., ed. 1986. Great Basin. Volume 11 of Handbook of North American Indians. Sturtevant, W.C., general ed. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. TIC: 243925. | ||
| 103180 | Davies and Archambeau 1997 | Davies, J.B. and Archambeau, C.B. 1997. "Geohydrological Models and Earthquake Effects at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Environmental Geology, 32, (1), 23-35. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 237118. | ||
| 156759 | Davis 2001 | Davis, K. 2001. Status of Beatty Water System. Telephone log call to J.C. Weeks, District Manager, Beatty Water and Sanitation District from K. Davis (Jason Technologies) dated October 25, 2001. | ||
| 156896 | Davis 2001 | Davis, K. 2001. "Status of Clark County PM10 Implementation Plan (Air Quality)." Telephone log call from K. Davis (Jason Technologies), to Clete Kus (Clark County Air Quality Planning), October 31, 2001. | ||
| 101557 | Day et al. 1998 | Day, W.C.; Potter, C.J.; Sweetkind, D.S.; Dickerson, R.P.; and San Juan, C.A. 1998. Bedrock Geologic Map of the Central Block Area, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2601. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 237019. | ||
| 104920 | Del Porto 1996 | Del Porto, D. 1996. Class II Air Quality Operating Permit. Permit No. AP9611-0573. Carson City, Nevada: State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. ACC: MOL.19960812.0465. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as NDCNR 1996 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 148107 | Dixon 1999 | Dixon, W.R. 1999. "Renewal of the State Fire Marshall Hazardous Materials Storage Permit (#13-98-0073-X) and Compliance with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Sections 302, 311, and 312." Letter from W. Dixon (DOE/YMSCO) to V. Cappucci (State of Nevada), February 26, 1999, OPE:SAW-0875, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.19990329.0386; MOL.19990329.0387. | ||
| 100282 | DOE 1988 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1988. Site Characterization Plan Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada Research and Development Area, Nevada. DOE/RW-0199. Nine volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: HQO.19881201.0002. | ||
| 104558 | DOE 1988 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1988. Programmatic Agreement Between the United States Department of Energy and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the Nuclear Waste Deep Geologic Repository Program Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: HQX.19890426.0057. | ||
| 103464 | DOE 1989 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1989. Native American Plant Resources in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, Interim Report. DOE/NV-10576-19. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: HQX.19000627.0001. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Stoffle et al. 1989 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104958 | DOE 1989 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1989. Native American Interpretation of Cultural Resources in the Area of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. DOE/NV-10576-17. [Las Vegas], Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. ACC: NNA.19890406.0052. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Stoffle, Evans, and Harshbarger 1989 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104959 | DOE 1990 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1990. Literature Review and Ethnohistory of Native American Occupancy and Use of the Yucca Mountain Area. DOE/NV-10576-21. [Las Vegas], Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. ACC: NNA.19900516.0216. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Stoffle, Olmsted, and Evans 1990 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104957 | DOE 1994 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1994. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Socioeconomic Monitoring Program 1994 U.S. Department of Energy/Nevada Employee Survey Data Report, Executive Summary. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19950518.0077. | ||
| 101803 | DOE 1995 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Final Environmental Assessment for Solid Waste Disposal, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EA-1097. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 235646. | ||
| 103207 | DOE 1995 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Savannah River Site, Waste Management, Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0217. Aiken, South Carolina: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243607. | ||
| 103208 | DOE 1995 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1995. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Tritium Supply and Recycling, Executive Summary. DOE/EIS-0161. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243898. | ||
| 101729 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Completion of the West Valley Demonstration Project and Closure or Long-Term Management of Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center. DOE/EIS-0226-D. Two volumes. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 223997. | ||
| 101811 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada. DOE/EIS 0243. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. TIC: 239895. | ||
| 103213 | DOE 1996 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1996. Addendum (Final Environmental Impact Statement), Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K-Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0245F. Richland, Washington: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243958. | ||
| 103021 | DOE 1997 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of the Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. DOE/NV-477. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243999. | ||
| 101779 | DOE 1998 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE/RW-0508. Overview and five volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19981007.0027; MOL.19981007.0028; MOL.19981007.0029; MOL.19981007.0030; MOL.19981007.0031; MOL.19981007.0032. | ||
| 103225 | DOE 1998 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Intermodal Transportation of Low-Level Radioactive Waste to the Nevada Test Site, Preapproval Draft Environmental Assessment. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243941. | ||
| 155101 | DOE 1998 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Safety Analysis Report, Revision 2. Docket No. 72-09. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20010721.0047. | ||
| 103233 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Accelerator Production of Tritium at the Savannah River Site and Modifications to Chapters 1 through 7 of the Draft APT EIS. DOE/EIS-0270. Aiken, South Carolina: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 243880; 244215. | ||
| 155091 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure, 1999 Report. DOE/EH-0629. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Safety and Health. TIC: 250221. | ||
| 155097 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0222-F. Richland, Washington: U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20010731.0306. | ||
| 155100 | DOE 1999 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1999. Idaho High-level Waste and Facilities Disposition Draft Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0287D. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20001030.0151. | ||
| 155856 | DOE 2000 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2000. The Current and Planned Low-Level Waste Disposal Capacity Report. Revision 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. ACC: MOL. 20011009.0040. | ||
| 156914 | DOE 2000 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2000. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1998. DOE/ID-12082(98). Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. | ||
| 156931 | DOE 2000 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2000. Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1999. PNNL-13230. Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy-Idaho Operations Office. | ||
| 153849 | DOE 2001 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2001. Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report. DOE/RW-0539. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20010524.0272. | ||
| 155987 | DOE 2001 | DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2001. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Socioeconomic Monitoring Program Quarterly Employment Data Report, October 2000 through December 2000. North Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.20010510.0563 | ||
| 154121 | DOI 2000 | DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) 2000. Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement, Timbisha Shoshone Homeland. Three volumes. San Francisco, California: U.S. Department of the Interior, Timbisha Shoshone Tribe. Order Requested. | ||
| 104875 | Dublyansky 1998 | Dublyansky, Y.V. 1998. Fluid Inclusion Studies of Samples from the Exploratory Study Facility, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Takoma Park, Maryland: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. ACC: HQO.19990201.0012. | ||
| 154789 | Dublyansky 2000 | Dublyansky, Y. 11/14/00. "Secondary Mineral Assemblages in Fractures and Lithophysal Cavities at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA." Reno, Nevada: Geological Society of America. Accessed 2/26/01. http://www.geosociety.org/cgi-bin/hilight.pl?Dublyansky^/var/www/docs/pubs/abs.../51659.ht | ||
| 103415 | Dudley and Larson 1976 | Dudley, W.W., Jr. and Larson, J.D. 1976. Effect of Irrigation Pumping on Desert Pupfish Habitats in Ash Meadows, Nye County, Nevada. Professional Paper 927. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 219489. | ||
| 101821 | EPA 1974 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 550/9-74-004. Arlington, Virginia: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ACC: NNA.19870406.0098. | ||
| 104876 | EPA 1993 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1993. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. ACC: NNA.19940510.0010. | ||
| 103243 | EPA 1996 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1996. Ambient Levels and Noncancer Health Effects of Inhaled Crystalline and Amorphous Silica: Health Issue Assessment. EPA/600/R-95/115. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 243562. | ||
| 148119 | EPA 1997 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1997. "California Federal Class I Areas." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed March 18, 1999. TIC: 243573. http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/maps/. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as EPA 1993b in Chapter 12. | ||
| 148117 | EPA 1998 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1998. "Nevada Federal Class 1 Areas." EPA Region 9. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed April 20, 1999. TIC: 243566. http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/maps/nv_clss1.html. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as EPA 1999a in Chapter 12. | ||
| 148123 | EPA 1999 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999. "Region 9 CO Nonattainment Areas." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed March 18, 1999. TIC: 243565. http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/maps/ | ||
| 149905 | EPA 1999 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999. "Region 9 PM10 Nonattainment Areas." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed March 18, 1999. TIC: 243567. http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/maps/ | ||
| 149906 | EPA 1999 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999. "Region 9 Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Areas." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed March 18, 1999. TIC: 243571. http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/maps/ | ||
| 149907 | EPA 1999 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1999. "Region 9 NO2 Nonattainment Areas." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed March 18, 1999. TIC: 243572. http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/maps/ | ||
| 153733 | EPA 2000 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2000. Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides. EPA 402-C-99-001. Federal Guidance Report No. 13. CD Supplement. [Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TIC: 249372. | ||
| 157158 | EPA 2000 | EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2000. "Peak Air Quality Statistics for the Six Principal Pollutants by Metropolitan Statistical Area." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends | ||
| 100144 | Fabryka-Martin et al. 1997 | Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; Flint, A.L.; Sweetkind, D.S.; Wolfsberg, A.V.; Levy, S.S.; Roemer, G.J.C.; Roach, J.L.; Wolfsberg, L.E.; and Duff, M.C. 1997. Evaluation of Flow and Transport Models of Yucca Mountain, Based on Chlorine-36 Studies for FY97. LA-CST-TIP- 97-010. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19980204.0916. | ||
| 148129 | FBI 1996 | FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 1996. "Uniform Crime Reporting Program Press Release, October 13, 1996." U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed April 8, 1998. TIC: 243835. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr95prs.htm | ||
| 148130 | FEMA 1988 | FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 1988. FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Lincoln County, Nevada (Unincorporated Areas). Panel 3006 of 5525, Community-Panel Number 320014 3006 C. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency. TIC: 243867. | ||
| 148131 | FEMA 1988 | FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 1988. FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Lincoln County, Nevada (Unincorporated Areas). Panel 3008 of 5525, Community-Panel Number 320014 3008 C. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency. TIC: 243866. | ||
| 148132 | FEMA 1995 | FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 1995. FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Clark County, Nevada and Incorporated Areas. Panel 3125 of 4090, Map Number 32003C3125 D. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency. TIC: 243864. | ||
| 148133 | FEMA 1995 | FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 1995. FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Clark County, Nevada and Incorporated Areas. Map Index, Map Number 32003C0000. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency. TIC: 244000. | ||
| 148134 | FEMA 1995 | FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 1995. FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Clark County, Nevada and Incorporated Areas. Panel 1450 of 4090, Map Number 32003C1450 D. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency. TIC: 243865. | ||
| 105337 | Fleck et al. 1996 | Fleck, R.J.; Turrin, B.D.; Sawyer, D.A.; Warren, R.G.; Champion, D.E.; Hudson, M.R.; and Minor, S.A. 1996. "Age and Character of Basaltic Rocks of the Yucca Mountain Region, Southern Nevada." Journal of Geophysical Research, 101, (B4), 8205-8227. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 234626. | ||
| 100147 | Flint, Hevesi, and Flint 1996 | Flint, A.L.; Hevesi, J.A.; and Flint, L.E. 1996. Conceptual and Numerical Model of Infiltration for the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada. Milestone 3GUI623M. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970409.0087. | ||
| 104879 | Fosmire 1999 | Fosmire, C. 1999. "Location of Sloan and Apex IMT with Respect to LV AirBasin." E-mail from C. Fosmire to J. Jessen (CRWMS M&O), March 19, 1999, with attachment. ACC: MOL.19990511.0376. | ||
| 103260 | Fowler et al. 1973 | Fowler, D.D.; Madsen, D.B.; Hattori, E.M.; Sharrock, F.W.; Cutler, H.C.; and Blake, L.W. 1973. Prehistory of Southeastern Nevada. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences, No. 6. Reno, Nevada: Desert Research Institute. TIC: 243691. | ||
| 103261 | FWS 1996 | FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1996. Railroad Valley Springfish, Crenichthys Nevadae, Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. TIC: 241499. | ||
| 103262 | FWS 1998 | FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1998. Recovery Plan for the Aquatic and Riparian Species of Pahranagat Valley. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. TIC: 240435. | ||
| 155679 | Glancy and Beck 1998 | Glancy, P.A. and Beck, D.A. 1998. "Modern Flooding and Runoff of the Amargosa River, Nevada–California, Emphasizing Contributions of Fortymile Wash." Quaternary Geology of the Yucca Mountain Area, Southern Nevada, Field Trip Guide, Prepared for the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Friends of the Pleistocene, Pacific Cell, October 9-11, 1998. Taylor, E.M., ed. Pages 51-62. [Boulder, Colorado: Friends of the Pleistocene]. TIC: 244815. | ||
| 156118 | Gonzalez 2001 | Gonzalez, D. 2001. "Request for Information: Dose to Subsurface Workers in the ESF." E-mail from D. Gonzalez to T. Ikenberry, September 13, 2001, with attachment. ACC: MOL.20010921.0087. | ||
| 101833 | Hansen et al. 1997 | Hansen, D.J.; Greger, P.D.; Wills, C.A.; and Ostler, W.K. 1997. Nevada Test Site Wetlands Assessment. DOE/NV/11718-124. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy. TIC: 242338. | ||
| 148155 | Hanson, Saurenman, and Towers 1998 | Hanson, C.E.; Saurenman, H.J.; and Towers, D.A. 1998. "Rail Transportation Noise and Vibration." Chapter 46 of Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Harris, C.M., ed. 3rd Edition (Reprint). Woodbury, New York: Acoustical Society of America. TIC: 250744. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Hanson, Sauerman, and Towers 1991 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 155547 | HMMH 1995 | HMMH (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson) 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. ACC: MOL.20010802.0222. | ||
| 106182 | Houghton, Sakamoto, and Gifford 1975 | Houghton, J.G.; Sakamoto, C.M.; and Gifford, R.O. 1975. Nevada’s Weather and Climate. Special Publication 2. Reno, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. TIC: 225666. | ||
| 100046 | IARC 1997 | IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) 1997. Silica, Some Silicates, Coal Dust and Para-Aramid Fibrils. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. Volume 68. Lyon, France: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. TIC: 236833. | ||
| 152469 | Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1999 | Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 1999. Exposure of the American People to Iodine-131 from Nevada Nuclear-Bomb Tests. Review of the National Cancer Institute Report and Public Health Implications. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. TIC: 248692. | ||
| 155933 | Jacobs 2001 | Jacobs, W. 2001. "Area 25 Facilities NTS." E-mail from W. Jacobs (BSC) to G. Gunter (BSC), August 24, 2001. ACC: MOL.20011009.0058. | ||
| 104780 | Johnson et al. 1993 | Johnson, P.E.; Joy, D.S.; Clarke, D.B.; and Jacobi, J.M. 1993. HIGHWAY 3.1—An Enhanced Highway Routing Model: Program Description, Methodology, and Revised User’s Manual. ORNL/TM-12124. D00000000-02268-2003-20012 REV 1. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ACC: MOV.19960711.0024. | ||
| 104781 | Johnson et al. 1993 | Johnson, P.E.; Joy, D.S.; Clarke, D.B.; and Jacobi, J.M. 1993. INTERLINE 5.0—An Expanded Railroad Routing Model: Program Description, Methodology, and Revised User’s Manual. ORNL/TM-12090. D00000000-02268-2002-20015 REV 1. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ACC: MOV.19960711.0014. | ||
| 155099 | Karagiannis and Hagemeyer 2000 | Karagiannis, H. and Hagemeyer, D.A. 2000. Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 1999, Thirty-Second Annual Report. NUREG-0173, Volume 21. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACC: MOL.20010721.0045. | ||
| 101840 | Karl 1980 | Karl, A. 1980. "Distribution and Relative Densities of the Desert Tortoise in Nevada." Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, March 22-24, 1980, Riverside, California. Pages 75-87. Long Beach, California: Desert Tortoise Council. TIC: 240684. | ||
| 103281 | Karl 1981 | Karl, A. 1981. "Distribution and Relative Densities of the Desert Tortoise, Gopherus Agassizii, in Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada." Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, 28-30 March 1981, Riverside, California. Pages 76-92. [Riverside, California]: Desert Tortoise Council. TIC: 243166. | ||
| 102201 | Kautz and Oothoudt 1992 | Kautz, R.R. and Oothoudt, J.W. 1992. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Caliente Wastewater Treatment Project, Lincoln County, Nevada. Reno, Nevada: Mariah Associates. TIC: 243954. | ||
| 103282 | Kersting et al. 1999 | Kersting, A.B.; Efurd, D.W.; Finnegan, D.L.; Rokop, D.J.; Smith, D.K.; and Thompson, J.L. 1999. "Migration of Plutonium in Ground Water at the Nevada Test Site." Nature, 397, ([6714]), 56-59. [London, England: Macmillan Journals]. TIC: 243597. | ||
| 103011 | La Camera and Locke1997 | La Camera, R.J. and Locke, G.L. 1997. Selected Ground-Water Data for Yucca Mountain Region, Southern Nevada and Eastern California, Through December 1996. Open File Report 97-821. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 236683. | ||
| 103283 | La Camera, Locke, and Munson 1999 | La Camera, R.J.; Locke, G.L.; and Munson, R.H. 1999. Selected Ground-Water Data for Yucca Mountain Region, Southern Nevada and Eastern California, Through December 1997. Open-File Report 98-628. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19990921.0120. | ||
| 102890 | La Camera, Westenburg, and Locke 1996 | La Camera, R.J.; Westenburg, C.L.; and Locke, G.L. 1996. Selected Ground-Water Data for Yucca Mountain Region, Southern Nevada and Eastern California, through December 1995. Open-File Report 96-553. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19990513.0041. | ||
| 103298 | Lemons and Malone 1989 | Lemons, J. and Malone, C. 1989. "Siting America’s Geologic Repository for High-Level Nuclear Waste: Implications for Environmental Policy." Environmental Management, 13, (4), 435-441. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 241782. | ||
| 104888 | LeStrange 1997 | LeStrange, S. 1997. Repository EIS Contact Report: Collect Information About Water Use in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties. Telephone conversation from S. LeStrange (CRWMS M&O) to G. Horton (Nevada Division of Water Planning), November 12, 1997, with attachment. ACC: MOL.19990513.0046. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Horton 1997 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104955 | LeStrange 1997 | LeStrange, S. 1997. Repository EIS Contact Report: Gather Information on Historical Electrical Power Usage On-Site at the Yucca Mountain Project. Telephone conversation from S. LeStrange (CRWMS M&O) to K. Thurman (CRWMS M&O), December 9, 1997, with attachment. ACC: MOL.19990224.0384. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Thurman 1997 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 154565 | Levich et al. 2000 | Levich, R.A.; Linden, R.M.; Patterson, R.L.; and Stuckless, J.S. 2000. "Hydrologic and Geologic Characteristics of the Yucca Mountain Site Relevant to the Performance of a Potential Repository." Lageson, D.R.; Peters, S.G.; and Lahren, M.M., eds. Great Basin and Sierra Nevada: Field Guide 2. Pages 383-414, 423-430. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 249782. | ||
| 148060 | Levy 1997 | Levy, L.E. 1997. "Population Estimates Through the Third Quarter, 1996, Nye County, Nevada." Memorandum from L.E. Levy (Planning Information Corporation) to L. Bradshaw (Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Program), October 1, 1997, with enclosure. TIC: 247291. | ||
| 101005 | Levy et al. 1997 | Levy, S.S.; Sweetkind, D.S.; Fabryka-Martin, J.T.; Dixon, P.R.; Roach, J.L.; Wolfsberg, L.E.; Elmore, D.; and Sharma, P. 1997. Investigations of Structural Controls and Mineralogic Associations of Chlorine-36 Fast Pathways in the ESF. Milestone SP2301M4. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19971119.0044. | ||
| 148188 | Loux 1997 | Loux, R.R. 1997. Public Inquiry, Ecological Effects Studies at Yucca Mountain. Letter from R.R. Loux (State of Nevada/NWPO) to W. Barnes (DOE/YMSCO), February 6, 1997, with attachments. ACC: MOL.19970718.0117; MOL.19970718.0118; MOL.19970718.0119. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as NWPO 1997 in Chapter 12. | ||
| Luckey et al. 1996 | Luckey, R.R.; Tucci, P.; Faunt, C.C.; Ervin, E.M.; Steinkampf, W.C.; D’Agnese, F.A.; and Patterson, G.L. 1996. Status of Understanding of the Saturated-Zone Ground-Water Flow System at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as of 1995. Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4077. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970513.0209. | |||
| 148157 | LVCVA 1999 | LVCVA (Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority) 1999. "Visitor Statistics 1970-1998." Las Vegas, Nevada: Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. Accessed April 30, 1999. TIC: 244070. http://www.lasvegas24hours.com/general/gen_vstat.html. | ||
| 106695 | Malmberg and Eakin 1962 | Malmberg, G.T. and Eakin, T.E. 1962. Ground-Water Appraisal of Sarcobatus Flat and Oasis Valley, Nye and Esmeralda Counties, Nevada. Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 10. Carson City, Nevada: State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. TIC: 208666. | ||
| 103396 | Malone 1989 | Malone, C.R. 1989. "Environmental Review and Regulation for Siting a Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 9, 77-95. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 241459. | ||
| 103398 | Malone 1995 | Malone, C.R. 1995. "Ecology, Ethics, and Professional Environmental Practice: The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Project as a Case Study." Environmental Professional, 17, 271-284. [Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press]. TIC: 240317. | ||
| 156302 | Marks 2001 | Marks, S.L. 2001. "First Report on Results from Geodetic Monitoring of the Yucca Mountain Region Using Continuous GPS Measurements - Task 1." Letter from S.L. Marks (UNLV) to R. James (DOE), August 16, 2001, with enclosures. ACC: MOL.20010924.0030. | ||
| 152012 | McCann 2000 | McCann, E.W. 2000. "Summary of Waste Management Activities by the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project (YMP) for Calendar Year 1999." Letter from E.W. McCann (CRWMS M&O) to S.A. Wade (DOE/YMSCO), March 24, 2000, LV.ECD.KOW.03/00-T2-022, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20000413.0334. | ||
| 101846 | McCauley 1997 | McCauley, J. 1997. "The Challenge of Supplying Power In Booming Pahrump Valley." Pahrump Valley Magazine, 8, Pages 54-55. Pahrump, Nevada: Pahrump Valley Chamber of Commerce. TIC: 240471. | ||
| 156286 | Medical Central Online 2001 | Medical Central Online 2001. "Search results for Las Vegas, NV with Radius of <100 Mile(s)." Highland Park, Illinois: Medical Central Online. Accessed September 24, 2001. http://www.hospitalcentral.com/HospSearchResults.asp | ||
| 155778 | Melnick 1998 | Melnick, W. 1998. "Hearing Loss from Noise Exposure." Chapter 18 of Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Harris, C.M., ed. 3rd Edition (Reprint). Woodbury, New York: Acoustical Society of America. TIC: 250744. | ||
| 106342 | Menges and Whitney 1996 | Menges, C.M. and Whitney, J.W. 1996. "Distribution of Quaternary Faults in the Site Area." Chapter 4.2 of Seismotectonic Framework and Characterization of Faulting at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Whitney, J.W., ed. Milestone 3GSH100M. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 237980. | ||
| 153066 | Murphy 2000 | Murphy, S.L. 2000. Deaths: Final Data for 1998. National Vital Statistics Reports. Vol. 48, No. 11. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. TIC: 249111. | ||
| 105162 | National Research Council 1992 | National Research Council 1992. Ground Water at Yucca Mountain, How High Can It Rise? Final Report of the Panel on Coupled Hydrologic/Tectonic/Hydrothermal Systems at Yucca Mountain. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. TIC: 204931. | ||
| 155819 | NCES 2000 | NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) 2000. "Digest of Education Statistics, 2000." Chapter 2. Elementary and Secondary Education/Table 65. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Accessed August 14, 2001. ACC: MOL.20011009.0017. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/digest/dt065.html | ||
| 101855 | NCRP 1987 | NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1987. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 93. Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. TIC: 229033. | ||
| 101856 | NCRP 1993 | NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1993. Limitation of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. NCRP Report No. 116. Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. TIC: 207090. | ||
| 153928 | NDA 2000 | NDA (Nevada Department of Administration) 07/06/00. "Population Trends." Nevada Statistical Abstract. Carson City, Nevada: Department of Administration. Accessed October 10, 2000. http://www.state.nv.us/budget/sapop00.htm Library Tracking Number-249435 | ||
| 155820 | NDE 2001 | NDE (Nevada Department of Education) 2001. "Nevada School Enrollments, 2000-2001." Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Department of Education. Accessed August 14, 2001. ACC: MOL.20011009.0018. http://www.nde.state.nv.us/admin/deptsuper/fiscal/2000_20001DistrictTotal.html. ACC: MOL.20011009.0018. | ||
| 157141 | NDE 2001 | Nevada Department of Education 2001. "Draft--Nevada Public Schools, 2001-2002 School Year." Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Department of Education. Accessed December 10, 2001. http://www.nde.state.nv.us/hrt/resources/index.html. TIC: 251442. | ||
| 157142 | NDE 2001 | Nevada Department of Education 2001. "School District Class-Size 1998-99 and 1999-00." Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Department of Education. Accessed December 5, 2001. http://www.nde.state.nv.us/hrt/reports/index.html. TIC: 251443. | ||
| 157146 | NDE 2001 | NDE (Nevada Department of Education) 2001. "Nevada Public Schools Four Year Comparison of Enrollments End of First School Month." Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Department of Education. Accessed December 11, 2001. TIC: 251444. http://www.nde.state.nv.us/admin/deptsuper/fiscal/research.html | ||
| 155563 | NDEP 2001 | NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection) 2001. "State of Nevada — Landfill Inventory." Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Management. [Carson City, Nevada]: State of Nevada, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Accessed March 29, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010802.0198. http://ndep.state.nv.us/bwm/landfill.htm | ||
| 155565 | NDEP 2001 | NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection) 2001. "Status of Recycling in Nevada." 2001 Recycling Report. [Carson City, Nevada]: State of Nevada, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Accessed March 19, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010802.0196. http://www.state.nv.us/ndep/recycl/report00.htm | ||
| 155818 | NDETR 2001 | NDETR (Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation) 2001. "Nevada Labor Force Summary Data 1990 through 2000." Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation. Accessed August 14, 2001. ACC: MOL.20011009.0016. http://detr.state.nv.us/lmi/lmi%5Flfrc.htm | ||
| 103405 | NDOT 1997 | NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation) 1997. The Annual Traffic Report. Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Department of Transportation. TIC: 242973. | ||
| 103406 | NDWP 1992 | NDWP (Nevada Division of Water Planning) 1992. Nevada Water Facts. Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Planning. TIC: 241353. | ||
| 148164 | NDWP 1999 | NDWP (Nevada Division of Water Planning) 1999. "Nevada Water Facts, Surface and Ground-Water Quality." Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Planning. Accessed April 21, 1999. TIC: 244073. http://www.state.nv.us/cnr/ndwp/wat-fact/sgwq.htm | ||
| 148165 | NDWP 1999 | NDWP (Nevada Division of Water Planning) 1999. "Nevada Hydrographic Regions/Basins." Carson City, Nevada: Nevada Division of Water Planning. Accessed April 21, 1999. TIC: 244047. http://www.state.nv.us/cnr/ndwp/basins/hydro-nv.htm | ||
| 155093 | Newkirk and Hall 2000 | Newkirk, J.R. and Hall, G.G. 2000. Annual Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Report for the Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. DOE/ID-10742 (1999). Idaho Falls, Idaho: U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20010730.0379. | ||
| 155826 | Nickens and Hartwell 2001 | Nickens, P.R. and Hartwell, W.T. 2001. Additional Cultural Resources Baseline Data for the Yucca Mountain Nevada Transportation Scenario. Las Vegas, Nevada: Battelle and Desert Research Institute. ACC: MOL.20011009.0020. | ||
| 103411 | Nimz and Thompson 1992 | Nimz, G.J. and Thompson, J.L. 1992. Underground Radionuclide Migration at the Nevada Test Site. DOE/NV-346. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Field Office. TIC: 233802. | ||
| 153929 | NPC 1999 | NPC (Nevada Power Company) 1999. "Sierra Pacific - Nevada Power Complete Merger Todau [Today]." Reno, Nevada: Nevada Power Company. Accessed October 17, 2000. TIC: 249436. http://www.nevadapower.com/news/releases/933145200.html | ||
| 155864 | NPC 2000 | NPC (Nevada Power Company) 2000. "20-Year Electric 2001 Resource Plan Summary." Las Vegas, Nevada: Nevada Power Company. Accessed x. http://www.nevadapower.com/news/ releases/994748400.html Copyright Requested Library Tracking Number-251027 | ||
| 103426 | NRC 1995 | NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 1995. Environmental Justice in NEPA Documents. NMSS Policy and Procedure Letter 1-50, Rev. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 243843. | ||
| 101899 | NRC 1996 | NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 233963. | ||
| 157276 | NRC 1999 | NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 1999. Environmental Justice in NEPA Documents. NMSS Policy and Guidance Letter. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACC: MOL.20000601.0212. | ||
| 152583 | NRC 2000 | NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2000. "Radioactive Waste." Information Digest, 2000 Edition. NUREG 1350, Vol. 12. Pages 73-91. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. TIC: 231071. | ||
| 100065 | NSDO 1998 | NSDO (Nevada State Demographer’s Office) 1998. "Population of Nevada’s Counties and Incorporated Cities." Reno, Nevada: Nevada Department of Taxation. Accessed 02/24/1998. TIC: 237862. http://www.scs.unr.edu.demographer/product3.htm | ||
| 155925 | NWAC 2000 | NWAC (Nevada Weed Action Committee) 2000. Nevada’s Coordinated Invasive Weed Strategy. [Carson City, Nevada]: Nevada Department of Agriculture. ACC: MOL.20010724.0156. | ||
| 156115 | NWRPO 2001 | Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office 2001. Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office Independent Scientific Investigations Program Final Report, Fiscal Years 1996-2001. NWRPO-2001-04. [Pahrump], Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office. ACC: MOL.20010906.0199. | ||
| 153135 | ORNL | ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) 1999. Oak Ridge Reservation Annual Site Environmental Report for 1998. DOE/ORO/2091. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.20001214.0482. | ||
| 154790 | Pashenko and Dublyansky 2000 | Pashenko, S. and Dublyansky, Y. 11/14/00. "Early Thermal History of the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA." Reno, Nevada: Geological Society of America. Accessed February 26, 2001. http://www.geosociety.org/cgi-bin/hilight.pl?Dublyansky^/var/www/docs/pubs/abs.../51664.ht | ||
| 148031 | PIC 1993 | PIC (Planning Information Corporation) 1993. Population Estimates Through the Third Quarter, 1992, Nye County, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: Planning Information Corporation. TIC: 247276. | ||
| 101911 | Poe 1998 | Poe, W.L., Jr. 1998. Regional Binning for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Wastes. Las Vegas, Nevada: Jason Technologies. TIC: 244049. | ||
| 101914 | Rautenstrauch and O’Farrell 1998 | Rautenstrauch, K.R. and O’Farrell, T.P. 1998. "Relative Abundance of Desert Tortoises on the Nevada Test Site." Southwestern Naturalist, 43, (3), 407-411. Lubbock, Texas: Southwestern Association of Naturalists. TIC: 242257. | ||
| 101915 | Rautenstrauch, Brown, and Goodwin 1994 | Rautenstrauch, K.R.; Brown, G.A.; and Goodwin, R.G. 1994. The Northern Boundary of the Desert Tortoise Range on the Nevada Test Site. EGG 11265-1103. Las Vegas, Nevada: EG&G Energy Measurements. TIC: 240498. | ||
| 103450 | Resource Concepts 1989 | Resource Concepts 1989. Soil Survey of Yucca Mountain Study Area, Nye County, Nevada. NWPO EV 003-89. Carson City, Nevada: Resource Concepts. TIC: 206227. | ||
| 103451 | Rodefer et al. 1996 | Rodefer, T.; Selmi, S.; Butler, J.; and Naroll, M. 1996. Nevada Statistical Abstract 1996. [Carson City, Nevada]: State of Nevada, Department of Administration. TIC: 243961. | ||
| 102893 | Rush 1971 | Rush, F.E. 1971. Regional Ground-Water Systems in the Nevada Test Site Area, Nye, Lincoln, and Clark Counties, Nevada. Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 54. Carson City, Nevada: State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. ACC: HQS.19880517.1834. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as Rush 1970 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 103457 | Savage et al. 1994 | Savage, J.C.; Lisowski, M.; Gross, W.K.; King, N.E.; and Svarc, J.L. 1994. "Strain Accumulation Near Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 1983-1993." Journal of Geophysical Research, 99, (B9), 18, 103-18,107. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 235681. | ||
| 118952 | Savage, Svarc, and Prescott 1999 | Savage, J.C.; Svarc, J.L.; and Prescott, W.H. 1999. "Strain Accumulation at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 1983-1998." Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, (B8), 17627-17631. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 245645. | ||
| 100075 | Sawyer et al. 1994 | Sawyer, D.A.; Fleck, R.J.; Lanphere, M.A.; Warren, R.G.; Broxton, D.E.; and Hudson, M.R. 1994. "Episodic Caldera Volcanism in the Miocene Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field: Revised Stratigraphic Framework, 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology, and Implications for Magmatism and Extension." Geological Society of America Bulletin, 106, (10), 1304-1318. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 222523. | ||
| 104181 | Scott and Bonk 1984 | Scott, R.B. and Bonk, J. 1984. Preliminary Geologic Map of Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, with Geologic Sections. Open-File Report 84-494. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203162. | ||
| 101929 | Simonds et al. 1995 | Simonds, F.W.; Whitney, J.W.; Fox, K.F.; Ramelli, A.R.; Yount, J.C.; Carr, M.D.; Menges, C.M.; Dickerson, R.P.; and Scott, R.B. 1995. Map Showing Fault Activity in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nye County, Nevada. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2520. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 232483. | ||
| 155549 | Skorska 2001 | Skorska, M. 2001. "Response to Jason’s FEIS Data Request; Attachment C - Transportation." E-mail from M. Skorska to J. Rivers, April 3, 2001, with attachments. ACC: MOL.20010618.0335. | ||
| 155600 | Sorensen 2001 | Sorensen, C.D. 2001. "Contract #: DE-AC08-01NV12101 - Analysis of Soil Conditions Along Proposed Rail Alignments." Letter from C.D. Sorensen (BSC) to R.L. Sweeney (DOE/YMSCO), March 27, 2001, ESH.03/01-013, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20010721.0016. | ||
| 101923 | SNWA 1997 | SNWA (Southern Nevada Water Authority) 1997. "Groundwater Protection Bill Drafted." Water Wise, Winter 1997. Las Vegas, Nevada: Southern Nevada Water Authority. Accessed November 12, 1997. TIC: 240485. http://www.snwa.com/snwa/html/wwovervw.html | ||
| 102783 | Squires and Young 1984 | Squires, R.R. and Young, R.L. 1984. Flood Potential of Fortymile Wash and Its Principal Southwestern Tributaries, Nevada Test Site, Southern Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4001. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: HQS.19880517.1933. | ||
| 103016 | State of Nevada 1971 | State of Nevada. 1971. Water for Nevada. Nevada’s Water Resources, Report No. 3. Carson City, Nevada: State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources. TIC: 217668. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as NDCNR 1971 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 155910 | State of Nevada 1999 | State of Nevada 1999. "Nevada Statistical Abstract, Health and Human Services." 1999 Edition. [Carson City, Nevada]: State of Nevada, Budget and Planning Division. Accessed August 14, 2001. http://www.budget.state.nv.us/stateab.htm | ||
| 104927 | Stoffle 1987 | Stoffle, R.W. 1987. Native Americans and Nuclear Waste Storage at Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Potential Impacts of Site Characterization Activities. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. ACC: MOL.19980610.0352. | ||
| 103465 | Stoffle et al. 1990 | Stoffle, R.W.; Halmo, D.B.; Olmsted, J.E.; and Evans, M.J. 1990. Native American Cultural Resource Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. TIC: 201417. | ||
| 104951 | Striffler et al. 1996 | Striffler, P.; O’Brien, G.M.; Oliver, T.; and Burger, P. 1996. Perched Water Characteristics and Occurrences, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Milestone 3GUS600M. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980224.0105. | ||
| 106963 | Szymanski 1989 | Szymanski, J.S. 1989. Conceptual Considerations of the Yucca Mountain Groundwater System with Special Emphasis on the Adequacy of This System to Accommodate a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. Three volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. ACC: NNA.19890831.0152. | ||
| 147766 | Thiel 1999 | Thiel Engineering Consultants 1999. Data Assessment & Water Rights/Resource Analysis of: Hydrographic Region #14 Death Valley Basin. Reno, Nevada: Thiel Engineering Consultants. ACC: MOL.19990218.0214. | ||
| 103469 | Thomas, Hjalmarson, and Waltemeyer 1997 | Thomas, B.E.; Hjalmarson, H.W.; and Waltemeyer, S.D. 1997. Methods for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the Southwestern United States. USGS-WSP-2433. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 243122. | ||
| 101933 | Thomas, Welch, and Dettinger 1996 | Thomas, J.M.; Welch, A.H.; and Dettinger, M.D. 1996. Geochemistry and Isotope Hydrology of Representative Aquifers in the Great Basin Region of Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent States. Professional Paper 1409-C. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 235070. | ||
| 155108 | Tichler, Doty, and Lucadamo 1995 | Tichler, J.; Doty, K.; and Lucadamo, K. 1995. Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, Annual Report 1993. NUREG/CR-2907. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACC: MOL.20010721.0046. | ||
| 155569 | Townsend and Grossman 2000 | Townsend, Y.E. and Grossman, R.F., eds. 2000. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 1999. DOE/NV/11718-463. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office. ACC: MOL.20010802.0220. | ||
| 157089 | TtNUS 2001 | TtNUS (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.) 2001. Data Package for Socioeconomic Analysis, Yucca Mountain Repository: Methodology, Assumptions, and Baseline Data for the Repository Design and Operation, Rail Corridors and Heavy Haul Truck Routes: Clark County, Nevada; Lincoln County, Nevada; Nye County, Nevada; "Rest of Nevada", State of Nevada. TtNUS-09/014. Aiken, South Carolina: Tetra Tech NUS. | ||
| 148197 | United States v. Dann 1985 | United States v. Dann 1985, 470 U.S. 39; 105 S. Ct. 1058. Decided February 20, 1985. TIC: 243427. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as United States v. Dann 1985 in Chapter 12. | ||
| 103472 | USAF 1999 | USAF (U.S. Air Force) 1999. Renewal of the Nellis Air Force Range Land Withdrawal: Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Air Force. TIC: 243264. | ||
| 154246 | USDA 1994 | USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 1994. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Data Base, Data Use Information. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1492. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center. TIC: 249639. | ||
| 155601 | USDA 2001 | USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 2001. "Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation." [Oxford, Mississippi]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Sedimentation Laboratory. Accessed April 12, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010721.0017. http://www.sedlab.olemiss.edu/ rusle/description.html | ||
| 155602 | USDA 2001 | USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 2001. "National Soil Survey Handbook." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed June 22, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010721.0018. http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/nssh/homepage.htm | ||
| 103473 | USGS 1993 | USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 1993. "What is Ground Water?" Ground Water Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed April 30, 1999. TIC: 243570. http://water.usgs.gov.pubs/FS/OFR93-643/index.html | ||
| 100354 | USGS 1998 | USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 1998. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for Fault Displacement and Vibratory Ground Motion at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Milestone SP32IM3, June 15, 1998. Three volumes. Oakland, California: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980619.0640. | ||
| 105946 | Vaniman et al. 1996 | Vaniman, D.T.; Bish, D.L.; Chipera, S.J.; Carlos, B.A.; and Guthrie, G.D., Jr. 1996. Chemistry and Mineralogy of the Transport Environment at Yucca Mountain. Volume I of Summary and Synthesis Report on Mineralogy and Petrology Studies for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project. Milestone 3665. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19961230.0037. | ||
| 101062 | Waddell 1982 | Waddell, R.K. 1982. Two-Dimensional, Steady-State Model of Ground-Water Flow, Nevada Test Site and Vicinity, Nevada-California. Water-Resources Investigations Report 82-4085. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19870518.0055. | ||
| 103022 | Walker and Eakin 1963 | Walker, G.E. and Eakin, T.E. 1963. Geology and Ground Water of Amargosa Desert, Nevada-California. Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 14. Carson City, Nevada: State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. TIC: 208665. | ||
| 103483 | Weiss, Noble, and Larson 1996 | Weiss, S.I.; Noble, D.C.; and Larson, L.T. 1996. "Hydrothermal Origin and Significance of Pyrite in Ash-Flow Tuffs at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Economic Geology, 90, 2081-2090. El Paso, Texas: Economic Geology Publishing Company. TIC: 234950. | ||
| 103485 | Wernicke et al. 1998 | Wernicke, B.; Davis, J.L.; Bennett, R.A.; Elosegui, P.; Abolins, M.J.; Brady, R.J.; House, M.A.; Niemi, N.A.; and Snow, J.K. 1998. "Anomalous Strain Accumulation in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada." Science, 279, 2096-2100. New York, New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science. TIC: 235956. | ||
| 157168 | Westcamp 2001 | Westcamp, M. 2001. "Minority Census Blocks Based on 2000 Census Data." E-mail from M. Westcamp (BSC) to A. Marquez (Jason Technologies), December 7, 2001. | ||
| 102216 | Western Shoshone v. United States 1997 | Western Shoshone National Council v. United States of America, No. CV-S-97-23237-HDM (RLH) (U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada). Dated April 23, 1998. Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. TIC: 243975. | ||
| 156704 | Whitman v. American Trucking Associations 2001 | Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 99-1257, 99-1426. February 27, 2001. Supreme Court Decision on the EPA’s Ozone & Particulate Matter Air Quality Standards. | ||
| 154280 | Wilson et al. 2000 | Wilson, N.S.F.; Cline, J.S.; Rotert, J.; and Amelin, Y.V. 2000. "Timing and Temperature of Fluid Movement at Yucca Mountain, NV: Fluid Inclusion Analyses and U-Pb and U-Series Dating." Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 32, (7), A-260. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 249113. | ||
| 101167 | Winograd and Thordarson 1975 | Winograd, I.J. and Thordarson, W. 1975. Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Framework, South-Central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with Special Reference to the Nevada Test Site. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-C. Washington, [D.C.]: United States Government Printing Office. TIC: 206787. | ||
| 154284 | WVNS 2000 | WVNS (West Valley Nuclear Services Company) 2000. West Valley Demonstration Project, Site Environmental Report, Calendar Year 1999. West Valley, New York: West Valley Nuclear Services Company. ACC: MOL.20001214.0481. | ||
| 103198 | YMP 1992 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1992. Environmental Field Activity Plan for Archaeological Resources, Revision 0. YMP/92-15, Rev. 0. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: NNA.19921027.0021. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1992a in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104842 | YMP 1996 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1996. Regulated Materials Management Plan. YMP/91-35, Rev. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19960722.0079. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1996h in Chapter 12. | ||
| 103203 | YMP 1997 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1997. Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Awareness Plan. YMP/95-01, Rev. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19980224.0441. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1997h in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104851 | YMP 1997 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1997. Soil Types Within the Busted Butte USGS 7.5 Min. Quadrangle. YMP-97-008.1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19990610.0224. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1997f in Chapter 12. | ||
| 102618 | YMP 1998 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1998. Emergency Management Plan. YMP/92-38, Rev. 3. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19980921.0373. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1998k in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104560 | YMP 1998 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1998. Potential Rail Alignments. YMP/98-104.0. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19990526.0034. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1998f in Chapter 12. | ||
| 104854 | YMP 1998 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1998. Disturbances at Yucca Mountain Since June 21, 1991. YMP-97-160.2. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.19990610.0319. In the Draft EIS, this reference was cited as DOE 1998h in Chapter 12. | ||
| 153650 | YMP 1998 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1998. Proposed Land Withdrawal Area. YMP-98-200.0. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: MOL.20000926.0169. | ||
| 154913 | YMP 1998 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1998. Land Cover Types in the Proposed Land Withdrawal Area. YMP-98-094.2. Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. TIC: MOL.19990224.0274. | ||
| 156763 | YMP 2001 | YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 2001. "PETT and Tax Numbers." E-mail from Yucca Mountain Project to P. Baxter, June 26, 2001, with attachments. ACC: MOL.20010816.0151. |