Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations

Chapter 5

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter provides the scientific and analytical base for the comparison of the alternatives. The discussion addresses the potential direct and indirect effects of each of the alternatives. In addition, this chapter contains discussions of unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship of short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in implementing an alternative.

Four alternatives are analyzed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Alternative 1 (Continue Current Operations), Alternative 2 (Discontinue Operations), Alternative 3 (Expanded Use), and Alternative 4 (Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands). Twelve environmental resources and/or environmental resource elements are analyzed for each alternative. These are as follows:

Land Use (includes land-use designations, site-support activities, and airspace)
Transportation (includes on-site traffic, off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation)
Socioeconomics
Geology and Soils
Hydrology (surface hydrology and groundwater)
Biological Resources
Air Quality (includes radiological air quality)
Noise
Visual Resources
Cultural Resources/American Indian
Occupational and Public Health and Safety
Environmental Justice

Five programs are analyzed for each of the environmental resources and resource elements. These include the Defense Program, the Waste Management Program, the Environmental Restoration Program, the Nondefense Research and Development Program, and the Work for Others Program. In addition, site-support activities are analyzed for each of the environmental resources and resource elements.

Each program identified within an alternative was evaluated separately to identify its potential environmental impact. By evaluating each program separately, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will be able to identify specific mitigation measures that may be necessary to alleviate the severity of impacts.

This EIS identifies the impacts of past, current, and potential programs of the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV). Proposed programs are included in one or more of the four alternatives and fall into three basic levels: (1) current activities, (2) planned projects, and (3) proposed projects. Current activities are those that are presently part of the normal operations of the Nevada Test Site (NTS), the Tonopah Test Range, portions of the Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) Complex, and other areas considered in this EIS, such as the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. Planned projects are those that are within the five-year planning cycle and are likely to be implemented, such as the Solar Enterprise Zone facility. Proposed projects are not currently considered within the five-year planning window, but have undergone sufficient conceptual development to allow a reasonable assessment. The most reliable data are clearly derived from ongoing activities. Planned projects would present slightly less reliable data. Data for proposed projects would be the least defined, but were determined to be essential to a full and open evaluation and disclosure of the potential effects of the alternatives. To provide an adequate analysis, conservative assumptions and parameter values were used toevaluate potential impacts of the less-defined activities.

Implementation of any of the alternatives could result in a permanent commitment of resources such as groundwater, soil, biota, minerals, surface area, and subsurface geology and would represent an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of such resources. In addition to the National Environmental Policy Act requirement to identify the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, it is also the intent of the DOE to identify these same resources within the meaning of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Section 107(f)(1). Though the NTS is not listed on the National Priorities List established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the requirement exists to address the natural resource damage liability as discussed in Section 107.

The impact analysis for this NTS EIS is based on the best data currently available. This EIS will serve as a baseline document for the preparation of subsequent, tiered National Environmental Policy Act documents that may be required prior to implementation of future specific projects.

5.1 Alternative 1 - Continue Current Operations (No Action)

Alternative 1, Continue Current Operations, is defined as Defense, Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, Nondefense Research and Development, and Work for Others. These programs would continue in the same manner and degree as they have within the past three to five years. This alternative includes programs at the NTS, the NAFR Complex, the Tonopah Test Range, the Project Shoal Area, and the Central Nevada Test Area. A more detailed description of the program projects and activities is presented in Appendix A.

Defense Program. Defense Program operations would continue under the conditions of the ongoing moratorium and the negotiations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Stockpile stewardship and nuclear emergency response would continue to be the two main categories of activitiesincluded in the Defense Program operations under Alternative 1. Stockpile stewardship includes a program of activities to maintain confidence in the safety, reliability, and performance of the nation’s nuclear weapons. Stockpile stewardship activities include nuclear test readiness, one or more underground nuclear weapons tests, if directed by the President, and hydrodynamic tests and dynamic experiments. The DOE cannot speculate on how many tests the President might direct the DOE to conduct in the unlikely event that the United States decides to renew underground nuclear testing. However, the DOE believes that this number is likely to be small and that the total environmental impact of any additional testing would be only a fraction of the impacts caused by the approximately 800 underground tests conducted prior to 1992 and documented in Chapter 4. This chapter describes the impacts each additional test would have and demonstrates that a limited testing program would result in only a few isolated areas of impact. Nuclear emergency response would continue to be composed of the Nuclear Emergency Search Team, the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center, the Aerial Measuring System, the Accident Response Group, the Radiological Assistance Program, and the DOE/NV Internal Emergency Management Program.

Waste Management Program. The primary mission of the NTS Waste Management Program would be to continue to serve as a transuranic storage and low-level and mixed waste disposal and storage facility in support of the DOE/NV. The NTS would continue to provide disposal capability for approved waste generated on the NTS, as well as for approved off-site waste generators. The NTS will continue to implement the Waste Minimization/ Pollution Prevention Program as described in Appendix C.6. Waste management activities at the NTS would continue to be conducted in four primary areas: Areas 3, 5, 6, and 11.

The Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site would continue to serve the NTS and approved off-site generators as a bulk, low-level waste disposal facility. Under Alternative 1, it is anticipated that two additional cells/craters and no additional support facilities would be opened. Two disposalunits in Area 3 would be closed under this alternative.

Although the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site would continue to serve the NTS as a low-level and mixed waste disposal site, existing capacity would not meet the disposal needs of low-level waste expected to be generated under Alternative 1. Greater confinement disposal technology would continue to be pursued for disposal of high-specific activity waste. The pit used for disposal of mixed waste has sufficient capacity to meet the expected amount generated under this alternative. Therefore, the mixed waste disposal capacity would not be expanded. No sanitary landfill construction or disposal activities would occur in Area 5 under Alternative 1. The Transuranic Waste Storage Unit and the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit would continue to be used to store waste.

Waste management operations in Area 6 under Alternative 1 would include continued storage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste, operation of the hydrocarbon landfill, and treatment of low-level waste at the Liquid Waste Treatment System Facility.

The Area 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit is a thermal treatment unit. Explosive ordnance wastes would continue to be detonated at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit under Alternative 1.

Environmental Restoration Program. The goal of the Environmental Restoration Program is to remediate contaminated sites while complying with applicable environmental regulations and statutes and protecting the public and workers’ health and safety. The Environmental Restoration Program projects that would continue under Alternative 1 are the Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit, Soils Media Corrective Action Unit, Industrial Sites Units, decontamination and decommissioning facilities, Defense Nuclear Agency sites, Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, and Central Nevada Test Area.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. The DOE has historically supported a variety ofresearch and development activities at the NTS in cooperation with universities, industries, and other federal agencies. Activities that would continue under Alternative 1 include development of a variety of alternative energy resources, a spill test facility, alternative-fueled vehicles and fueling station, development of an Environmental Management and Technology Development Program, and an Environmental Research Park.

Work for Others Program. The Work for Others Program would continue to be hosted by the DOE and includes the shared use of certain NTS and Tonopah Test Range facilities and resources with other federal agencies (such as the U.S. Department of Defense [DoD]) for various military training exercises and research and development projects. Activities included in the Work for Others Program under Alternative 1 are treaty verification, nonproliferation, counter-proliferation research and development, conventional weapons demilitarization, and defense-related research and development.

Activities at the NTS and NTS support facilities throughout Nevada are and would be affected by implementation of current and future international arms control treaties. Treaties currently in effect or under negotiation that are included as part of the treaty verification activities under Alternative 1 are the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Open Skies Treaty.

Nonproliferation is defined as the use of a full range of political, economic, and military tools to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction or missiles, diplomatically reverse the spread, or protect the United States interest against an opponent armed with these weapons, should that prove necessary. Under Alternative 1, the NTS and Tonopah Test Range would continue to provide critical support for the United States nonproliferation goals and objectives, particularly in the areas of research and technology development.

Counterproliferation refers to DoD efforts to combat the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As with nonproliferation, these efforts would continue to include the full range of political,economic, and military tools available. However, because facilities for developing, producing, and storing weapons of mass destruction would likely be located below ground, a considerable amount of counterproliferation research and development would involve the detection, monitoring, and neutralization of buried targets. Under Alternative 1, the NTS would continue current counterproliferation activities and could become the center for a national counterproliferation program.

Conventional weapons demilitarization activities would continue to include demonstration projects for the disposal or destruction of solid rocket motors and other nonnuclear energetic materials at the NTS.

Defense-related research and development activities under Alternative 1 would include tests and training exercises employing weaponry, such as small arms, artillery, guns, aircraft, armored vehicles, demolitions, rockets, bazookas, and air-dropped armaments, as well as a variety of electronic, imagery, and sensory technologies.

5.1.1 NTS

The following sections describe the potential effects the five programs and the site-support activities could have on the resources at the NTS.

5.1.1.1 Land Use.

The land-use analysis includes an assessment of the availability of land; potential disturbance of prime, unique, and other important features or habitat; and compatibility with land-use plans and policies. The baseline for each site and its immediate vicinity was established based on the interpretation of aerial photographs, land-use plans and policies, maps, and other sources available through local, state, and federal agencies and through information in the DOE files. Changes to land-use resource areas associated with the alternatives are compared to baseline land use discussed in Chapter 4 , and the potential impacts on these areas are assessed. No impacts to surrounding land uses have been identified under this alternative.

The NTS has been committed to weapons testing since the 1950s, and some of its land areas haveundergone changes that are considered to be permanent and irreversible. As stated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada (ERDA, 1977),

"...the addition of new underground pockets of radioactivity and the formation of subsidence craters in the test areas of the NTS will deny use of those sites for other nontest-related purposes. As a result of the test program, it will be necessary to subject those areas to rigorous control of access and limited use for an indefinite time. Such an evaluation of land-use impacts is largely qualitative and is supported by the quantitative impact analysis presented in other resource sections."

Defense Program. The entire NTS is designated as a Defense Program site. Defense Program projects, research and development, testing, and experimentation under this alternative are assumed to continue at levels equivalent to the past 3 to 5 years. Therefore, no new impacts to land use are expected. Defense Program activities are consistent with current site and land-use designation definitions. Land-use designation restrictions preclude activities that are inconsistent with current land uses.

The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive. For example, the impacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 1, ongoing Waste Management Program activities at the NTS would continue at current levels and are consistent with current site- and land-use designation definitions. Therefore, no new impacts to land use are expected.

Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 1, the Environmental Restoration Program would continue at current levels. Therefore, no adverse impacts to land use areanticipated. After existing facilities are decontaminated, they could be used for other purposes. Removal of plutonium-contaminated soils would provide additional areas that could be used for new facility construction.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 1, the DOE would continue to support ongoing program operations, but no new initiatives would be pursued. Thus, no new impacts to land use are expected.

Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, the DOE would continue to host projects and activities of other federal agencies (e.g., the DoD) at activity levels not exceeding those of the past 3 to 5 years. Activities are consistent with the site- and land-use designation definitions for the areas. No new impacts to land use are expected.

5.1.1.1.1 Site-Support Activities

Site-support activities are discussed in the following sections as an NTS resource that is affected by the implementation of the alternatives. The changes to the site-support activities are estimated based on changes in activities from baseline levels. Four subsections of site support are evaluated, including facilities, services, utilities, and on-site communications.

FACILITIES - Under Alternative 1, facilities would be maintained at approximately the current level. Facilities that are currently not in use would remain inactive, but be maintained to the extent possible so that they might be used at a later time.

SERVICES - Support services, such as law enforcement and security, fire protection, and health care, would remain at approximately the current level under this alternative.

UTILITIES - Water, wastewater, and electrical systems would be maintained to ensure they are defect free. Utilities currently not in use would be shut down and stabilized to the extent possible so that they might be restarted and used at a later time.

ON-SITE COMMUNICATION - Communication systems under Alternative 1 would be maintained at approximately the current capacity. Radio,telephone, and video communication systems would receive routine maintenance as deficiencies are identified. The internal and the United States mail systems would continue to operate.

5.1.1.1.2 Airspace

The effects of continued activities and aircraft operations under Alternative 1 would have a minimal effect on the NTS and NAFR Complex airspace.DOE operations (including Desert Rock Airport activities) may increase by approximately 2 percent each year and military operations may increase slightly under the Defense Program and Work for Others Program. As a result, internal NAFR Complex airspace boundaries may be modified to better accommodate range operations and facilitate movement of air traffic through the NAFR Complex. However, no significant modification to the external NTS and NAFR Complex airspace boundaries is anticipated.

The inherent constraints of the existing NTS and NAFR Complex restricted airspace would continue to require that nonparticipating civil and military aircraft be routed around the NTS and NAFR Complex, as necessary, contingent upon joint-use status, operations in progress, and air traffic considerations. The current level of air traffic control and radar/radio/navigational aid services would likely be maintained or improved under normal upgrade programs.

The possible effect on civilian aviation is keyed primarily to constraints that defense-related airspace might place on routes of flight. General aviation would continue to be diverted around the NTS and NAFR Complex. However, the current level of air traffic control and navigational aid services, as well as the same airspace structures, would most likely be maintained under this alternative. Based on the past trend and on improvements in communication, it would not appear that this alternative would cause a major change in civilian air traffic.

Under Alternative 1, the only activities that would affect airspace would be defense related. Therefore, only Defense and Work for Others Programs will be discussed and evaluated. However, with all programs, occasional flights of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft carrying supplies and personnel are anticipated.

Defense Program. Activities at the NTS would continue at the levels of the past 3 to 5 years. No new programs or initiatives would be pursued. Activities would likely include an increase in air traffic of approximately 2 percent per year for the next 3 to 5 years.

Work for Others Program. With the Work for Others Program, the continuation of the use of the NTS airspace for various training exercises and associated defense activities is anticipated. However, no commercial air passenger, general aviation, or air cargo activities would occur except for occasional DOE-related cargo and personnel operations or for emergency operations.

Airspace requirements under Alternative 1 would be the same as those currently in effect with the Nellis Air Force Base Air Traffic Control Facility, assuming full air traffic control in the NTS and surrounding area. The continuation of operation at the NTS under the Work for Others Program would not result in changed airspace or additional air traffic impacts.

5.1.1.2 Transportation

. The following sections contain the discussion of the environmental impacts related to transportation activities as defined under Alternative 1. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation.

5.1.1.2.1 On-Site Traffic

The majority of NTS employees commute to the site by bus and work 4 days per week. Currently there are 54 buses serving the Las Vegas area, and 5 buses that serve the town of Pahrump, located approximately 72 km (45 mi) south of the NTS on State Route 160. These buses have dedicated routes to the following locations on the NTS: Mercury (23 routes), Area 25 (12 routes), Control Point in Area 6 (8 routes), Area 6 operations (8 routes), Area 12 operations (1 route), Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (2 routes), and 1 mail route. There is a limited number of shuttle buses for on-site trips. The average number of daily trips attributable to the commuter buses would be 120 trips per day on roads within the NTS. All buses enter the site through the main gate onMercury Highway, except for two buses from Pahrump. These buses use Gate 510 on Lathrop Wells Road (Thomas, 1995).

Traffic generated within the NTS as a result of the land use, projects, and activities associated with Alternative 1 is estimated to be 3,370 trips per day. Table 5.1-1 shows the baseline average daily trip generation for each of the programs.

Table 5.1-2 summarizes the average daily traffic volume for the key roadways on the NTS under Alternative 1. The portion of the average daily traffic volume that would be attributable to each program is also provided. All key on-site roadways have capacities exceeding 2,000 vehicles per hour for both directions combined (Transportation Research Board, 1994). A comparison of capacity to volumes assigned to each segment on Table 5.1-2 shows that no roadway would experience significant traffic congestion under Alternative 1. The segment of roadway with the highest volume would be the section of Mercury Highway from Mercury to Road 5-01, with an average daily volume of 1,215 vehicles per day.

Defense Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Defense Program is estimated to be 635 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic-flow would occur as a result of the Defense Program.

Waste Management Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Waste Management Program is estimated to be 145 average daily trips under Alternative 1. The Radioactive Waste Management Sites in Areas 3 and 5 would continue to receive and dispose of low-level waste from approved waste generators within the DOE complex. The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site would also continue to make mixed waste disposal capability available to NTS generators. Acceptance of waste quantities would continue at levels consistent with past activity (Shott el al., 1995). Inbound shipments from off-site generators are estimated to be approximately 6,800 in the next 10 years for an average of 3 shipments per day. The number of waste shipments generated on the NTS is expected to be 11,615 in the next 10 years for an average of 6 shipments per day. The majority of the low-level waste would be shipped to the Radioactive Waste Management Site in Area 5. Access to this site would be provided by the Radioactive Waste Management Site access road from Mercury Highway to Road 5-01. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of the Waste Management Program.

Environmental Restoration Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Environmental Restoration Program is estimated to be 390 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of the Environmental Restoration Program.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Nondefense Research and Development Program is estimated to be 180 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of the Nondefense Research and Development Program.

Work for Others Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Work for OthersProgram is estimated to be 140 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of the Work for Others Program.

Site-Support Activities. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of activities associated with site-support activities is estimated to be 1,880 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of site-support activities.

5.1.1.2.2 Off-Site Traffic

Alternative 1 effects on roadway traffic were assessed by estimating the number of trips generated by each program-related activity and considered employees, visitors, residents, and service and delivery vehicles associated with construction and operations. These trips were then assigned to key roadway segments.

Traffic impacts were determined based on level of service changes for each of the key roads analyzed.

The major traffic generators at the site under Alternative 1 would be the construction and operation employees (totaling 2,947 employees on site in 1996 through 2005) and their activities. Table 5.1-3 shows a summary of average daily vehicle trips generated by each program activity for the years 1996, 2000, and 2005. Distribution among programs is assumed to remain approxi mately the same as the current trip distribution. The projected peak-hour traffic on key roads and the associated level of service that would result under Alternative 1 for 1996, 2000, and 2005 is shown on Table 5.1-4 . These include the average daily vehicle trip generation, by program, listed in Table 5.1-3 .

Based on American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials standards, level of service B is appropriate for freeways and arterials and rural highways (level or rolling terrain). Level of service C is appropriate for rural (mountainous), urban, and suburban highways. For local roads, level of service D is appropriate in all terrain (AASHTO, 1990). By 2005, all key roads in the immediate vicinity of the site (U.S. Highway 95; the Mercury interchange ramps; and the access highway to the site, State Route 433) would continue to operate at level of service C or better, which is acceptable according to American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials standards. However, key roads within metropolitan Las Vegas (segments of Interstate 15, U.S. Highway 95, and U.S. Highway 93) already operate at levels of service ranging from A to F, and by 2000, they would all deteriorate to an unacceptable level of service F. These conditions would prevail even without Alternative 1 because of cumulative traffic growth (recreational, regional, and commuter traffic). U.S. Highway 93 at Hoover Dam already operates at an unacceptable level of service F, and its level of service would continue to deteriorate further with or without Alternative 1 activitiesbecause of its geometry (steep grades and narrow curves) and partially because of its moderate traffic volume and truck traffic. All other key roadways would generally continue to operate at a level of service C or better throughout the period of analysis.

The off-site conditions described above would occur with or without Alternative 1 and with or without any single program activity. The following sections address the contribution of each program activity to traffic impacts.

Defense Program. The major Defense Program traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the approximately 660 on-site employees, generating approximately 330 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. Except for site-support, defense-related activities would have the highest number of daily vehicle trips (22 percent of the total) and the most traffic impacts.

Waste Management Program. The major traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the 112 on-site employees associated with the Waste Management Program, generating approximately 60 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. The Waste Management Program-related activities would contribute 4 percent of the total number of daily vehicle trips.

Environmental Restoration Program. The major traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the 174 on-site employees associated with the Environmental Restoration Program, generating approximately 90 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. The Environmental Restoration Program-related activities would contribute approximately 6 percent to the total number of daily vehicle trips.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. The major traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the 86 on-site employees associated with the Nondefense Research and Development Program, generating approximately 40 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. The Nondefense Research and Development Program activities would contribute slightly less than 3 percent to the total number of daily vehicle trips.

Work for Others Program. The major traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the 157 on-site employees associated with the Work for Others Program, generating approximately 50 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. These activities would generate approximately 5 percent of the number of daily vehicle trips.

Site-Support Activities. Site-support activities are anticipated to generate 880 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. These trips account for operations activities related to roads, utilities, communication, and other site support. Under Alternative 1, these activities would contribute to approximately 60 percent of the total number of daily trips in 2005.

5.1.1.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste

The expected waste volumes and numbers of shipments for Alternative 1 are identified on Table 5.1-5 . Table 5.1-5 reflects a 10-year average estimate of low-level waste volumes and shipments by generator sites for Alternative 1. The yearly average for low-level waste, ignoring NTS generated low-level waste, is approximately 700 shipments/year. Low-level waste, mixed waste, and some defense programs nuclear material would be transported under this alternative. The specific routes analyzed and their lengths are provided in Appendix I.

Defense Program. The Defense Program requires the shipment of special nuclear materials and weapons components in a safe-secure trailer. Information regarding the total number of radioactive materials shipments generated by the Defense Program is classified for reasons of national security. In addition, with the current weapons testing moratorium in place, it is uncertain at this time how many tests and what types of tests would be performed, in the event the moratorium is lifted. Under Alternative 1, a total of 140 shipments of nuclear test devices to the NTS would occur. The risk associated with Defense Programs transportation is low. The risk of radiation induced latent cancer fatality in the exposed population is 4 x 10^-5; the risk of health effects due to vehicle emissions (nonradiological risk) is 1.85 x 10^-4. The risk of a vehicle-related traffic fatality is 6 x 10^-4. The accident-initiated radiological risk of latent cancer fatality is 8 x 10^-11.

The only on-site risk is from the 32 to 40 km (20 to 25 mi) of roadway that the safe-secure trailer would travel. A group of flammable-liquid storage tanks, protected by dikes, is located near Mercury, about 31 m (100 ft) off the roadway. A transportation accident having serious consequences along this route is estimated to have a probability of less than or equal to 1 in 1,000,000.

Waste Management and Environmental Restoration Programs. Under Alternative 1, a waste volume of 350,500 cubic meters (m³) (458,437 cubic yards [yd³]) would be expected, ofwhich 350,000 m³ (457,783 yd³) is low-level waste. Additionally, 200,000 m³ (261,590 yd³) of the waste would be from off-site generators. This volume of waste represents approximately 7,200 shipments for the 10-year period evaluated.

For the transportation risk analysis, health risk was estimated in terms of vehicle-related fatalities and cargo-related deaths and illness, such as latent cancer fatalities, from highway transportation of DOE-generated low-level and mixed waste. The results are given in Table 5.1-6 . Traffic injuries and fatalities would be the most dominant risk, followed by the risk of radiation-induced cancer, which would be dominated by incident-free transportation.

The nonradiological accident risk along the entire route for the 10-year duration of the program is an estimated 2 vehicle-related fatalities and 27 injuries. It is estimated that 0.002 latent cancer fatalities would be induced over 10 years as a result of exposure to radiation. Inside the borders of Nevada, the risk of a traffic-related fatality is estimated to be 0.02 in 10 years, and 1 traffic-related injury is expected in 10 years. The risk of a latent cancer fatality inside Nevada during 10 years is 6 x 10^-4 (6 x 10^-⁴ = 0.0006). The consequence and probability of the maximum foreseeable accidents were calculated based on the total number of low-level radioactive waste shipments to the NTS. Themost severe consequence from a low-level waste accident would be 8.08 x 10^-3 latent cancer fatalities and 1.04 x 10^-3 radiation detriments. The maximum probability of occurrence of this accident is 2.25 x 10^-3. There is no off-site mixed waste received at the NTS under Alternative 1.

On-site risks include those from the transport of NTS-generated waste, as well as those from the on-site transportation of wastes generated off site. As with off-site transportation, the risk is dominated by vehicle-related fatalities and injuries; the cargo-related risks are very small.

5.1.1.3 Socioeconomics

. This section discusses the potential socioeconomic effects associated with Alternative 1. The purpose of this section is to identify and analyze the major socioeconomic issues related to each possible future activity at the sites.

This analysis addresses the timing of effects associated with each alternative for future reuse and covers a period extending 10 fiscal years beyond 1996. Results are usually presented for each alternative for the benchmark years 1996, 2000, and 2005. Table 5.1-7 lists the economic activity projections for Clark and Nye Counties, and Table 5.1-8 lists total housing projections.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, POPULATION, AND HOUSING The baseline for this alternative was established from the total employment projected for each of the sites at the end of Fiscal Year 1995. These proposed Fiscal Year 1995 employment estimates are believed to best reflect the staffing levels needed as a result of recent stockpile requirement reductions.

The region of influence for Clark and Nye counties was identified based on the distribution of residents for current DOE and contractor personnel working at the NTS, the NAFR Complex, and the TonopahTest Range (DOE, 1994). The region of influence was determined to be the area in which approximately 97 percent of current DOE and contractor employees reside. It was estimated that future distribution of direct workers associated with the proposed alternatives would follow the same trend. For the purpose of this analysis, county data projections are accomplished separately. Because of the difference in size, economies, and contributions to the NTS, a misleading analysis would be produced if Clark and Nye Counties were analyzed as one aggregate area of impact. In other words, the effects might be different for each county.

Under Alternative 1, it was assumed that all sites would continue their current mission with the existing facilities that could comply with environmental, safety, and health requirements and current DOE guidance. It was estimated that a 6,576-person workforce would provide the necessary support to maintain current levels of operations. Figure 5.1-1 compares direct employment among all alternatives in 2005. With the 6,576-person workforce, it is estimated that direct payroll and purchases of goods and services would generate 12,516 secondary jobs (12,235 in Clark County and 281 in Nye County).

Direct earning levels are estimated at $323 million annually, and secondary earnings are estimated at more than $339 million annually. Of these earnings, $300 million in direct earnings and $330 million in secondary earnings would remain in Clark County, and $23 million direct earnings and $9 million in secondary earnings would remain in Nye County.

For all programs, because there would be no change in economic activity under Alternative 1, the unemployment rate would not be affected and would remain at 5.8 percent. Because of a lack of change in employment, no changes in population are anticipated. The demand for housing would not change under this alternative, because no in- or out-migration would be triggered with this alternative.

Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, the Defense Program would account for 1,472 direct jobs and 2,802 secondary positions, for a total of 4,274 jobs.

Waste Management Program. The Waste Management Program would result in no change in total current employment. This program would remain at approximately 726 jobs, including 250 direct and 476 secondary positions.

Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 1, total employment in this program would not change from current levels. This program would account for approximately 1,129 jobs, including 389 direct and 740 secondary positions.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 1, the DOE would continue to support ongoing program operations, but no new initiatives would be pursued. Total employment in this program would remain at the same levels. This program would support approximately 555 jobs, including 191 direct and 364 secondary positions.

Work for Others Program. Total employment in this program would remain at current levels.

This program would contribute approximately 1,016 jobs, including 350 direct and 666 secondary positions.

Site-Support Activities. Under Alternative 1, total employment in this program would remain at the same levels. This program would contribute approximately 11,392 jobs, including 3,924 direct and 7,468 secondary positions.

PUBLIC FINANCE.The fiscal effects of Alternative 1 are presented in this section. Table 5.1-9 outlines the projected financial summary for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2005 under Alternative 1. The fiscal impact of other alternatives can be determined by subtracting their totals from the Alternative 1 future baseline. The remaining fiscal impact would be the specific impact associated with that alternative.

Clark County. The expansion and improvement of the county infrastructure would continue to be the primary focus of Clark County fiscal efforts. In addition, Clark County has undertaken the implementation of a county facilities development program as discussed in Chapter 4

Under Alternative 1, revenues for Clark County would increase because of increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the county. Assuming continued small increases in revenues and slightly larger initial increases in expenditures, Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of a negative $2,502,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. It is expected that Clark County would achieve a positive fiscal position by Fiscal Year 2001. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures are expected to be $37,041,000. The fund balance (or reserves) as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 247 percent in 2000 and 379 percent in 2005.

City of Las Vegas. Under Alternative 1, revenues over expenditures for Las Vegas are expected to become positive in Fiscal Year 1995 because of increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the city. Assuming continued increases in revenues and expenditures, Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of $14,380,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. It is predicted that Las Vegas would achieve an increasingly positive fiscal position and by Fiscal Year 2005, revenues over expenditures would be $16,435,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 180 percent in 2000 and 273 percent in 2005.

City of North Las Vegas. Expenditures for North Las Vegas are forecast to continue outpacing revenues under Alternative 1. Revenues over expenditures in Fiscal Year 2000 would be a negative $7,077,000 and a less negative $6,580,000 in Fiscal Year 2005, despite increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the city. Public safety and capital projects are anticipated to continue to be the largest expenditures. Taxes, which recently decreased (from $10,059,472 in Fiscal Year 1993 to $7,941,972 in Fiscal Year 1994), are expected to slowly grow to 1993 levels by Fiscal Year 2001. The fund balance as apercentage of current expense is expected to be 64 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 94 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

Clark County School District. Under Alternative 1, revenues for the Clark County School District would expand because of increases in population and corresponding school enrollment. Regular program and undistributed expenditures would likely continue to increase at a slower rate. The school district is not predicted to achieve a positive fiscal position by Fiscal Year 2005. In Fiscal Year 2000, revenues less expenditures would be a negative $15,067,000 and in Fiscal Year 2005 a less negative $11,168,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 17 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 22 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

Nye County. Under Alternative 1, revenues for Nye County would increase slightly because of smallincreases in population, personal income, and total employment in the county. Assuming continued small increases in expenditures as well, a positive fiscal position is expected to be reached in Fiscal Year 1996. Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of $1,567,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures would be $3,455,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 56 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 97 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

Town of Tonopah. Revenues and expenditures for Tonopah would increase slightly because of small increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the county. Assuming continued small increases, Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of $79,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures would be $75,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense would be 128 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 186 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

Town of Pahrump. Under Alternative 1, revenues for Pahrump would increase slightly because of small increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the county. Assuming continued small increases in revenues and slightly smaller initial increases in expenditures compared to Fiscal Year 1994, Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of $224,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures would be $315,000. The fund balance (or reserves) as a percentage of current expense is anticipated to be 170 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 275 percent in the Fiscal Year 2005.

Nye County School District. Under Alternative 1, revenues for Nye County School District would increase slightly because of small increases in population. Local sources would continue to generate the most revenue. Revenues less expenditures would be a negative $1,402,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 and a less negative $136,000 in Fiscal Year 2005. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense would be a negative 2 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 14 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

PUBLIC SERVICESThe public service impacts of all other alternatives can be determined by subtracting total personnel required from the Alternative 1 future baseline. The addition or reduction in personnel required would be the specific impact associated with that alternative. Table 5.1-10 summarizes the levels of service that would be required for Alternative 1. In each case, the current levels of service are assumed to continue.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 requires state and local jurisdiction, within the United States, to plan for and have the capability to respond to incidents involving all hazardous materials, including waste, that reside in or pass through their jurisdiction. This process is implemented through the Local Emergency Planning Committee and the State Emergency Response Commission. As part of this program, local communities and counties are required to implement an Emergency Response Plan. These plans define chain-of-command, notification procedures, and evacuation procedures for each community.

For the past 15 years, the DOE has provided training to responders in Nevada through the First-On-Scene Program. The environmental safety and health training will continue to be made available to state regulators, educators, the public, and agencies (firefighters, law enforcement, and emergency, medical personnel) within Nevada. Training courses for environmental safety and health, transportation, radioactive materials management, environmental restoration, and classes that meet or exceed federally-mandated training requirements for personnel involved with the generation or disposal of radioactive or hazardous waste can be provided by the DOE/NV. Courses conducted associated with transportation activities include: first-on-scene responder for law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel.

Public Education. A total of 7,928 full-time equivalent licensed teachers were employed by the Clark County School District in the 1993 to 1994 school year, resulting in a student-to-teacher ratio of 18 students to 1 teacher. To continue with this ratio, the Clark County School District would require 11,105 teachers by the school year 2004 to 2005. This is an increase of 40 percent over this period from 1993 to 1994 to 2004 to 2005. The student-to-teacher ratio for the Nye County School District was 16.39 students to 1 teacher in the school year 1994 to 1995. Projecting this ratio to the school year 2004 to 2005, a total of 384 additional teachers would be required. This additional increase is 61 percent above the 1994 to 1995 school year's full-time teaching staff.

Police Protection. Assuming the same levels of service in the future, requirements for sworn police and deputy protection in the year 2005 can be examined. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department would require 1,705 sworn officers. The North Las Vegas Police Department would require 182 sworn officers. The Nye County Sheriff's Office in Tonopah would require 15 deputy sheriffs. The Pahrump Sheriff's Substation would require 51 deputy sheriffs, the Beatty Sheriff's Substation would require 5 deputy sheriffs, and the Amargosa Valley Sheriff's Substation would require 3 deputy sheriffs.

Fire Protection. The following discussion addresses firefighter personnel expected to be required in the year 2005 under Alternative 1. The Clark County Fire Department, which handles urban fires in the county, would be expected to require 564 firefighters. Some 406 firefighters would be required in the Las Vegas Fire Department in 2005. The North Las Vegas Fire Department would require 120 firefighters. The Tonopah, Pahrump, Beatty, and Amargosa Valley Volunteer Fire Departments would require 30, 55, 28, and 36 firefighters, respectively.

Health Care. The 1995 level of service for medical doctors and registered nurses was used to determine future needs based on population growth. In 2005, a total of 1,897 medical doctors and 6,689 registered nurses would be required in Clark County. In Nye County, 13 medical doctors and 59 registered nurses would be required. However, because of the present difficulty in obtaining medical services in Nye County, it is anticipated that this level of service would increase in the future.

AMERICAN INDIAN SOCIOECONOMICS This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 1, as summarized by the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO).

Indian people prefer to live in their traditional homelands. One reason for this preference is that Indian people have special ties to their traditional lands and a unique relationship with each other. When Indian people receive employment near their reservations, they can remain on the reservation while commuting to work. This pattern of employment tends to have positive benefits for both the Indian community and tribal enterprises like housing. The reservation Indian community has the participation of the individual and his(her) financial contribution. The individual payment for housing is tied to income level, so the more a person earns with the job, the more they pay to the tribal housing office, thus making tribally sponsored housing more economically viable.

When employment opportunities decline on reservations, however, often times Indian families must move away from their reservations to seek employment. These situations have resulted in approximately one-half to two-thirds of the tribal members in the CGTO region of influence moving away from their reservations.

As Indian people move away from reservations due to employment opportunities, Indian culture is threatened because the number of families living on reservations declines. Tribal members who choose to relocate from their reservations impact reservation economies, school, housing, and emergency services. Both schools and economies are impacted because federal funding available to tribes is based on population statistics.

With local employment opportunities such as those offered by the NTS to neighboring tribes, prices of tribal housing rise because they are based on income. If a positive balance between increased income and increased cost of living in tribal reservations is achieved, then both individual members and the tribe benefit from employment opportunities. However, continued salary raises may tip the balance toward sharp increase in cost of living, making it unable for tribal members to continue living in the reservation.

Tribal housing programs become jeopardized if vacancies occur in tribal housing projects and cannot be reoccupied. If vacancies occur, tribal revenues and federal funding will be adversely impacted and will make it more difficult to expand housing programs in future years.

Additionally, vacant units require more maintenance. If tribal members are unavailable to occupy a tribal housing unit, then tribes make units available to non-Indians, and this too potentially impacts Indian culture. The increased presence of non-Indians on a reservation or in an Indian community reduces the privacy needed for the conduct of certain ceremonies and traditional practices. When non-Indian children are in constant interaction with Indian children, it creates a situation that potentially disrupts cultural learning opportunities that occur in everyday life.

Small rural reservations must have a sufficient number of people to generate an emergency response capability. The need for emergency services will decline as people move away from the reservation. Tribal members employed in these emergency service occupations may move away because of their marketable skills. Tribal revenues for administration, school, housing, and emergency services will be reduced accordingly, due to a decline in population size.

When Indian people move away from their reservations several dilemmas occur. Typically, Indian people experience a feeling of isolation from their tribe, culture, and family. When an Indian person relocates to an off-reservation area, the individual finds that there are fewer people of their tribe and culture around them. As a result, Indian people must decide on the appropriateness of practicing traditional ceremonies in the presence of non-Indian people. Indian people are continually torn between the decision to stay in the city or return to the reservation to participate in traditional ceremonies and interact with other tribal members. This dilemma occurs on a regular basis and potentially impacts the livelihood and cultural well-being of off-reservation employees and their families. When off-reservation individuals choose to return to their homelands to participate in traditional ceremonies, they risk their jobs or disciplinary actions against their children who attend public schools due to excessive absenteeism.

Should an emergency situation resulting from NTS- related activities, including the transportation of hazardous and radioactive waste occur, it could result in the closure of a major reservation road. Many of the Indian reservations within the region of influence are located in remote areas with limited access by standard and substandard roads. Were a major (only) road into a reservation to be closed, numerous adverse social and economic impacts could occur. For example, Indian students who have to travel an unusually high number of miles to or from school could realize delays. Delays also could occur for regular deliveries of necessary supplies for inventories needed by tribal enterprises and personal use. Purchases by patrons of tribal enterprises and emergency medical services enroute to or from the reservation could be dramatically impeded. Potential investors interested in expanding tribal enterprises and on- going considerations by tribal governments for future tribal developments may significantly diminish because of the perceived risks associated with NTS-related activities including the transportation of hazardous waste.

Defense ProgramUnder Alternative 1, the Defense Program would produce a total of 4,274 jobs. It is expected that a percentage of these jobs would be filled by tribal members from reservations within the American Indian Region of Influence. Many of these Indian people will move away from their reservations to take these jobs causing the socioeconomic impacts discussed above. Increased employment can positively impact American Indian employees and their families; however, this off-reservation employment is expected to adversely impact the social structure and cultural activities on the reservation.

Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 1, the Environmental Restoration Program would create approximately 1,129 jobs. Although this is approximately one-third the number of jobs created by the Defense Program, it is anticipated that a higher percentage of American Indians would be attracted to the Environmental Restoration jobs because they are more consistent with American Indian land preservation values. American Indians have special skills that may be especially critical to Environmental Restoration activities, and the CGTO has specifically asked that Indian people be involved in these programs. American Indians have asked to be involved when soil mediation actions remove contaminated soil, and afterwards, during habitat restoration.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 1, no new jobs would be created by the Nondefense Research and Development Program. Were existing research programs, especially the National Environmental Research Park Program, to integrate American Indians into the study designs, it is possible that a few more Indian people would be employed. These shifts in employment are expected to be minor, so no American Indian socioeconomic impacts are expected.

Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, no new jobs would be created by the Work for Others Program. No American Indian socio economic impacts are expected.

Site-Support Activities. Under Alternative 1, no new jobs would be created by the site-support activities. No American Indian socioeconomic impacts are expected.

5.1.1.4 Geology and Soils

. The impacts to geology and soils resulting from the five programs and site-support activities are presented in this section.

Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, two scenarios for stockpile stewardship are considered. In the first scenario, a state of readiness to conduct nuclear tests is maintained, but no tests are conducted. No impacts to geologic and soil media result from readiness activities. In the second scenario, which the DOE believes to be highly unlikely, the President directs that one or more nuclear test be conducted. These stockpile tests would be conducted on Pahute Mesa and/orYucca Flat; because the type of test that would be conducted cannot be identified, the impacts associated with both types of potential tests are discussed.

Approximately 12 acres of surface geologic media are disturbed in each underground nuclear test in Yucca Flat. The surface area disturbed is three times this amount for each test on Pahute Mesa. Radioisotope contamination could extend up to five cavity radii from the point of detonation. Radii of cavities at the NTS range up to 49 meters (m) (160 feet [ft]), and rubble chimneys range up to 351 m (1,150 ft) high (Borg et al., 1976).

The formation of an underground cavity, a subsurface pocket of radioactivity, and a subsidence crater, as a result of underground testing under Alternative 1, represents an unavoidable and incremental impact on the geologic media in the vicinity of the planned tests. There are, however, already hundreds of such cavities and craters on the NTS where radioactivity has been released into the geologic media, as discussed in Chapter 4 , Affected Environments. The impacts associated with conducting a single underground nuclear test also are described in Chapter 4 (Sections 4.1.4.2 , 4.1.4.3 , 4.1.5.1 , 4.1.5.2 , and 4.1.11 ), Affected Environments. The adverse impacts on geology and soils of one to a small number of nuclear tests are a small increment when viewed against existing baseline conditions. The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive. For example, the impacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

Fault reactivation and associated seismicity induced by underground testing of nuclear devices are described in Section 4.1.4 . Fault reactivation from testing of nuclear devices disturbs subsurface and surface geologic media, which is potentially significant in terms of resultant limitations on land use or resultant changes in surface and subsurface water movement. The yield or size of underground nuclear explosions is controlled by the Threshold Test Ban Treaty to a maximum high-explosive equivalent of 150 kilotons (kt). For the purposes ofthis evaluation, any future weapons testing is assumed to occur under this limitation. Currently, underground nuclear testing can be conducted in the Pahute Mesa and Yucca Flat areas. Because geologic structure may differ considerably among the testing areas, predicting the effects of tests prior to characterizing the geologic environment in the unused areas is uncertain. Nevertheless, the geographic areas for testing and the yield limits can be used to estimate ground-motion effects from future weapons tests.

Ground-motion hazards can result from the underground nuclear explosion and secondary seismic effects. Because of the rather complete recording of ground motions emanating from NTS activities, the effects of the weapons testing program are predictable, and damage effects have been documented.

Communities within 48 kilometers (km) (30 miles [mi]) of testing areas that could be most affected by ground motion from underground nuclear explosions are Beatty, Amargosa Valley, and Indian Springs. The closest potential testing area for these communities is 31 to 40 km (19 to 25 mi) away. Table 5.1-11 is a tabulation of peak horizontal ground-motions for 150-kt tests at 31 km (19 mi), using regressions developed by Long (1986). Peak ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement were computed at the 50th and 84th percentiles of the log-normal distributions given by Long (1986) for rock and alluvium recording geology at 31 km (19 mi) for a 150-kt test. Expected peak ground accelerations (g) are well below 0.05 g, which is the acceleration where slight damage might occur in typical buildings less than several stories in height.

Several Nye County mines are located in the testing vicinity, but all are at a distance greater than 40 km (25 mi) from the closest potential testing area. Because the distances from these mines to the underground nuclear explosions are approximately the same as, or greater than, the distances for communities, damage to structures in the mines is not expected. In investigations of earthquake effects to mines (Owen, 1981), there are very few reports of damage. Surveys of mines in the vicinity of the NTS by Owen and Scholl support these findings (ERDA, 1977).

In addition to direct ground motion effects of underground nuclear explosions, there is also potential hazard from secondary seismic effects. Secondary effects are associated with co-seismic strain release attributed to the release of tectonic strain, aftershocks that can be associated with tectonic strain release, and events associated with the collapse of cavities created by the underground nuclear explosions. Beyond 4.8 to 9.7 km (3 to 6 mi) of even the largest underground nuclear explosion (greater than 1 megaton), there was no evidence of significant secondary seismic effects associated with the test. In no case has the magnitude of an aftershock been larger than the magnitude of the underground nuclear explosion (URS/John A. Blume and Associates, 1986).

Underground subcritical experiments would produce some physical effects on the geologic media. Approximately 2,314 m³ (81,700 cubic feet [ft³]) would be disturbed each year in association with the conduct of up to four experiments. Irreversible effects would include the deposition of radiological material within the cavity mined in the subsurface. Approximately 20 acres of surface geologic media are currently disturbed in association with the Lyner Complex, where these experiments would be conducted.

In addition to the direct effect of detonating nuclear and other devices on geologic media and processes, preparation for such tests also disturbs geologic media. Disturbances include any associated infrastructure, excavated tunnels, and an existing inventory of deep boreholes up to 4 m (12 ft) in diameter for detonation of nuclear devices. Geologic media excavated in tunnels, boreholes, and burrow pits are considered to be permanently lost. Excavation of tunnels and testing conducted in those tunnels could potentially impact slope stability.

Withdrawal of the NTS would continue to exclude locatable minerals from exploration or appropriation. The presence of past production indicates a potential for future production using modern techniques. Thus, some potential impact regarding availability of these undefined resources exists. Industrial minerals and materials are widespread throughout Nevada. The unavailability of these minerals and materials from the NTS has had little effect on Nevada's mining, manufacturing, and construction industries and would probably have little effect in the future. Aggregate resources have been used in the past as part of Defense Program actions, and aggregate mining would continue under Alternative 1. The impacts of this mining are not considered significant with respect to the resource availability. The aggregateresources of the region are immense, and the demand outside metropolitan Clark County is negligible.

The NTS is considered to have a low potential for geothermal, oil, and gas resources. No impact on these resources is anticipated as a result of Defense Program activities under Alternative 1.

The impacts of soils grading and excavation in support of testing under Alternative 1 are not considered significant. Testing locations in Yucca Flat require that 12 acres be disturbed, while locations on Pahute Mesa require almost 3 times that amount. Given that one or more tests would be conducted under Alternative 1 and that an inventory of prepared sites exists, the associated soil disturbance either already exists or would be minor if a new location(s) was prepared. There is the potential for minor soil contamination as a result of drill-back operations. In the event that such a release occurs and results in soil contamination, corrective actions would be initiated, as required under the appropriate environmental regulations and DOE orders. The soil removed would be lost for the long term.

The consequences of altering the natural drainages and erosion rates are not considered significant. Short-term increases in sediment loss might occur; however, because of the overall slight precipitation over the NTS, increased soil erosion would be limited in both time and extent. Activities associated with conventional high-explosive testing, surface dynamic experiments, and hydrodynamic tests are not anticipated to significantly disturb the surface geology. No significant change in surface topography and drainage paths are anticipated, and, thus, the impacts would be negligible. Construction activities associated with these activities are mitigated to minimize impacts.

Waste Management Program. Craters resulting from underground nuclear tests in Area 3 that meet certain criteria have been excavated to dispose of bulk low-level waste. In this process, the area between adjacent crater pairs is removed, and the floors are reshaped so waste containers can be stacked for disposal. The Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site covers approximately 128 acres. The craters that are, and would continue to be, used at the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site represent the unavoidable adverse impacts that resulted from past underground nuclear tests. Use of the craters for waste disposal is a beneficial use of lands that have been significantly and unavoidably impacted by past actions.

The underground shot cavities beneath the subsidence craters and waste cells in the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site are much deeper than active hydrologic surface processes (infiltration, redistribution, and evapotranspiration) operating beneath the waste unit from the ground surface to a depth of 31 m (100 ft). Current scientific models suggest that the chimney beneath the low-level waste unit does not enhance or promote vertical groundwater flow between the waste unit (subsidence crater) and the deep shot cavity. This conceptual model was confirmed by hydrologic data obtained in 1996 from the exploratory borehole completed beneath U-3bl. Water-potential data indicate that there is no groundwater movement from a 40-m to 96-m (131-ft to 315-ft) depth within the subsurface chimney (Van Cleave, 1996). Given the proximity of Area 5 to Area 3 (23 km [14 mi]) and the very similar hydrologic conditions, the defensible hydrogeologic conceptual model for Area 5 is being tested and validated for the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site. The underground shot cavities beneath the subsidence craters and waste cells in the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site are located in the unsaturated zone more than 101 m (330 ft) above the water table. This substantial separation between the shot cavities and the water table provides a further basis, albeit preliminary, to conclude that there is no vertical groundwater flow between the low-level waste unit and the water table. The Environmental Restoration Program will evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination from shot cavities located in the unsaturated zone.

The trenches, pits, and boreholes in Area 5 have been excavated to dispose of containerized low-level waste and mixed waste. The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site covers approximately 732 acres surrounded by a fence. The waste disposal craters and excavations areanticipated to be closed with an engineered cap. The presence of a landfill is essentially a long-term commitment of the area.

Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental Restoration Program activities on the NTS and NAFR Complex are not anticipated to significantly impact geologic media. Safety tests, venting, drill-backs, and atmospheric tests in certain areas of the NTS and NAFR Complex have resulted in radioactive soil contamination, as described in Chapter 4 . Various methods of cleanup of these areas have been proposed, including removal of contaminated soil media followed by revegetation. This method of cleanup could temporarily make the surface vulnerable to erosion by water or wind processes. Chemical stabilization followed by revegetation would provide longer-term stability. Reclamation will be based on the specific circumstances of the site and will be addressed in site-specific reclamation plans. Among the variables which will be considered are size of the area, future use, nature of soils, annual precipitation, slope aspect, and site location. The range of options includes natural revegetation, gravel armoring, chemical stabilization, seeding, planting, and irrigating. When highly intensive revegetation techniques are necessary, subsoils could be amended and irrigation could be used. Soils from areas used for staging and support sites could also be salvaged and replaced at the completion of activities. Some areas would be restored to full productivity, while others would be impaired for the long term. Industrial processes have resulted in various areas of chemical or hydrocarbon soil contamination. Remediation of these areas would result in closure in place or removal to an authorized facility. The soils involved would be lost for the long term.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Projects conducted within the NTS Environmental Research Park are not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to geologic media. Tests conducted at the Spill Test Facility on Frenchman Playa in Area 5 do not pose a risk of significant adverse impact to geologic media at or near the facility (DOE/OFE, 1994).

Work for Others Program. Activities under the Work for Others Program, such as defense-related research, development projects, and military training exercises, could have an adverse impact on geologic media of the NTS and NAFR Complex. One potential impact would be soil contamination resulting from weapons firing tests on the NTS and NAFR Complex. Another would be alteration of natural drainage paths, resulting in potential preferential erosion of natural or fill deposits or deposition of sediments. Weapons-firing tests conducted on the NTS, primarily in Area 25, have contaminated relatively small areas of surface and near-surface geologic media. Lead and depleted uranium are the primary contaminants. Continued tests are assumed to have similar impacts as those in the past. Assuming that contaminants are long-lived, these media would be considered permanently lost either through closure in place or removal to a disposal facility. Removal of the contaminated media would make that surface temporarily vulnerable to erosion by water or wind processes.

Site-Support Activities. Infrastructure and grading associated with disposal of bulk waste in Area 3 and containerized waste in Area 5 have further disturbed nearby surface and near-surface unconsolidated deposits, including soils. Continued aggregate use on the NTS as a result of road and facility construction would result under Alternative 1. Aggregate excavated for site-support activities is considered to be permanently lost. Other geologic resources are not anticipated to be significantly impacted by site-support activities. Site-support structures (i.e., roads and buildings) could be removed, and the disturbed geologic media could be restored.

5.1.1.5 Hydrology

. The environmental impacts to surface hydrology and groundwater are described in the sections that follow.

5.1.1.5.1 Surface Hydrology

The impacts to surface hydrology for the five programs and site-support activities are presented in this section. One potential impact from all the programs would be effects to mines (Owen, 1981), and there are very few reports of damage. Surveys of mines alteration of natural drainage paths, resulted in potential preferential erosion of natural or fill deposits,deposition of sediments, ponding of water, or inundation of infrastructure. There is little surface water present on the NTS or NAFR Complex. Surface waters on the NTS consist of small areas of seepage associated with springs, small ponds associated with production wells, tritium-contaminated ponds created by tunnel drainage, and ephemeral waters caused by convective summer thunderstorms and runoff during wet winters. No surface waters are used for water supply. The ephemeral waters exist in normally dry washes for short periods of time and on the surfaces of playas for periods of days to weeks. Water quality of the ephemeral waters is poor because of naturally high sediment loads and dissolved solids. Activities could have minor effects on drainage patterns and discharge rates because of surface disturbance, existing surficial contamination, and altered infiltration rates (see Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.5). Change to sediment loads and dissolved solids because of project activities would be minor compared to the natural conditions. No significant change in surface water quality or quantity is anticipated, and, thus, the impacts would be negligible.

Defense Program. Ground-surface disturbance and craters associated with underground nuclear tests have rerouted parts of natural drainage paths in areas of underground nuclear testing. Some craters have captured nearby drainage, and headward erosion of drainage channels is occurring. However, this is considered to be negligible. In some areas of the NTS, the natural drainage system has been all but obliterated by the craters. As noted in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada (ERDA, 1977), the development of surface craters is an unavoidable adverse impact of underground nuclear testing.

Alteration of natural drainage in the areas of nuclear-device testing is considered to be irrevocable. Whether water entering these craters and subsequently infiltrating into the ground has other than a negligible effect onthe unsaturated zone, or potentially the saturated zone, is unknown. However, water entering the unsaturated zones or the saturated zone would account for a negligible source component when compared to the overallbaseline condition. The erosion would continue, and over extended periods of time could result in some alteration of the natural drainage system. However, the principal areas where cratering has occurred are in Frenchman Flat and Yucca Flat, which are both topographically closed basins, and no effects on drainage would occur beyond the limits of these basins.

The potential impacts of detonating additional underground nuclear device(s) on flow rates of springs on the NTS are assumed to be negligible. Springs on the NTS are located outside the testing areas or are generally upgradient.

The impacts associated with conducting a single underground nuclear test are described in Sections 4.1.4.2, 4.1.4.3, 4.1.5.1, 4.1.5.2, and 4.1.11. The adverse impacts on hydrology of a small number of additional nuclear tests are small when viewed against existing baseline conditions.

The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive; that is, the impacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

Activities associated with conventional high- explosive testing, surface dynamic experiments, and hydrodynamic tests are not anticipated to contaminate the water table. No significant change in surface water quality or quantity is anticipated, and, thus, the impacts would be negligible. Construction activities associated with these activities are mitigated to minimize impacts.

Waste Management Program. Potential flood hazards on the NTS and portions of the NAFR Complex are presented in Section 4.1.5 of Chapter 4, Affected Environments. Siting of waste management facilities is a critical issue in terms of protecting the facilities from floods. Also important, however, is the impact on natural processes and media of siting such facilities in areas of potential flood hazard.

The Radioactive Waste Management Sites in Areas 3 and 5 and other waste disposal areas on theNTS alter natural drainage paths. The craters that are, and would continue to be used, in the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site resulted from underground nuclear tests. The craters have significantly altered the topography and have significantly impacted the surface drainage as discussed in Section 4.1.5 . Emplacement of waste in the craters and subsequent engineered closure of the cells would return portions of the surface topography to a natural grade and help to restore drainage patterns. Similarly, engineered berms at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site constructed to prevent run-on to the site cause negligible impacts to the natural drainage of the area.

Environmental Restoration Program. Water produced from characterization and monitoring wells drilled as part of the Environmental Restoration Program can only be discharged to the surface if it is in compliance with requirements of the Clean Water Act. Because monitoring of the water would be performed and erosion would be reduced through channel protection, drilling activities would have no significant impact to drainage channels or to downstream springs or surface impoundments. Any accidental discharge of produced water that is contaminated with radionuclides or hazardous substances has the potential to contaminate surface and near-surface geologic media. However, present practice is to contain all discharged water in lined sumps until the water quality is determined.

As with Defense Program activities, the Environmental Restoration Program soil-disturbing activities might result in slight increases in sediment yield and some inorganic compounds in surface water. The only planned Environmental Restoration Program action that could result in significant adverse impacts is the cleanup of large areas of plutonium-contaminated soils on the NTS. Appropriate dust and drainage controls would be implemented to ensure that unacceptable levels of plutonium would not become available for transport via surface water flows. Because such controls would be implemented, the impacts of soil restoration actions on surface water quality would not be considered significant.

Other Environmental Restoration Program activities would not have significant impacts to surface waters on the NTS and NAFR Complex; therefore, the impact of environmental restoration actions on the quantity of surface water resources is not expected to be significant.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. The facilities for the Nondefense Research and Development Program have already been constructed, and no new soil-disturbing actions that might impact the surface water regime are included as part of Alternative 1. Tests conducted at the Spill Test Facility on Frenchman Playa in Area 5 do not pose a significant adverse impact to any surface water at or near the facility (DOE/OFE, 1994).

Work for Others Program. Surface-based testing under the Work for Others Program might have negligible impacts on the surface water regime. Slight alterations in runoff and minor contributions of inorganic compounds and increased sediment yield might occur. Any such impacts would likely be very short term and small scale. Because of the very limited surface water flows and the limited extent of disturbances, significant impacts on the surface-water regime are not anticipated.

Other activities of the Work for Others Program could have a significant impact on surface waters of the NTS and NAFR Complex. Whether these activities have a significant impact is dependent on the size and location of the activity, which are yet to be determined.

One potential impact would be contamination of surface waters resulting from weapons-firing tests on the NTS and NAFR Complex. Weapons-firing tests conducted on the NTS, primarily in Area 25, have contaminated relatively small areas of surface and near-surface geologic media. Lead and depleted uranium are the primary contaminants. Continued tests and military training activities are assumed to have similar impacts as in the past.

Site-Support Activities. As with the five programs discussed prior, a potential impact from the siting of support infrastructure in certain areas would be the alteration of natural drainage paths, resulting inpotential preferential erosion of natural or fill deposits, deposition of sediments, ponding of water, or inundation of infrastructure.

Construction activities could result in some temporary impacts on surface water quality. Anticipated impacts include increases in sediment yield and perhaps in the loading of naturally occurring inorganic compounds (salts). Because of the very infrequent surface water flows, these impacts would likely be negligible and are not considered significant.

Road building associated with well drilling and soil remediation might disturb significant areas of soils. However, because of the very limited nature of surface water resources on the NTS and other DOE-administered lands in Nevada, the impact on surface water flows is expected to be minimal.

5.1.1.5.2 Groundwater

Impacts to groundwater from the five programs and site-support activities are presented in this section. In addition, because groundwater is an important resource in Nevada and the primary source of water for the NTS, the impacts to this resource are analyzed.

The consequences of Alternative 1 activities on the water resources of the NTS and adjacent areas include two broad types of effects: reductions in water resource availability and impacts on water quality. The DOE routinely withdraws groundwater at the NTS and other DOE-administered lands in Nevada. These groundwater withdrawals could result in localized impacts, including a lowering of water levels, changes in groundwater flow directions, and a reduction in the quantity of water available to other users. If large-scale groundwater withdrawals occur, the impacts could increase to include reductions in spring off-site discharge rates, water quality impairment, and reduced underflow to downgradient areas.

The potential for increased percolation of water downward through the chimney and into the groundwater system is another potential impact. However, water entering the unsaturated zones or the saturated zone would account for a negligible source component when compared to the overall baseline conditions. The Desert Research Institute(Tyler et al., 1986) has investigated the effects of craters on infiltration and soil moisture movement, and research is continuing in this area. This study was inconclusive; additional studies are planned during 1997.

Two key areas of environmental concern are located beyond the NTS boundaries to the south: Devils Hole National Monument and Ash Meadows. Devils Hole is a small pool in the limestone in the Amargosa Desert that is the habitat for the desert pupfish. This fish feeds and spawns in the shallow water on limestone ledges in the pool. An adequate water level must be maintained in the pool to provide for the continued success of this endangered species. The Ash Meadows area is a point of regional discharge for the carbonate aquifer system. An estimated 2.09 x 10⁷m³/yr (17,000 acre-feet/year) discharges to the surface, creating an extensive area of spring pools, streams, and wetlands. These wetlands form a valuable habitat for a great diversity of unique species. While the results of past investigations have not found any impacts resulting from DOE operations on these key environmentally sensitive areas, additional evaluation would be performed using sophisticated numerical simulation methods to ensure the continued existence of the pupfish and the important habitat at Ash Meadows.

Another category of effects is the potential impact of a given activity on the quality of the water resources. The grading of soils and other construction actions could slightly alter the quantity and quality of runoff.

Defense Program. Historically, the total annual demand for water at the NTS since the early 1960s has varied considerably, ranging from about 1.0x10⁶ m³/yr (850 acre-feet) in 1963 to a peak of 4.2x10⁶ m³/yr (3,430 acre-feet) in 1989.

Long-term measurements of the water levels have demonstrated that historic water withdrawals have not resulted in significant impacts on water levels. It is considered unlikely that future Defense Program water withdrawals under Alternative 1 would result in significant impacts. Localized water-level declines and changes in flow direction would occur during periods of active pumping. These effects would be limited and are thus considered to be unavoidable, but not significant, impacts.

As an unavoidable consequence of underground nuclear testing, the quality of the groundwater under some portions of the NTS has been impaired. If an underground nuclear test is conducted under or near the water table, additional impairment of water quality and further losses of groundwater resources could be expected. NTS standard operating procedures are designed to protect groundwaters from contamination by ensuring that no tests are conducted within two cavity radii (ora minimum of 100 m [328 ft]) of the groundwater table.

The effects of underground testing have been well-documented in Borg et al. (1976), and the hazardous materials associated with testing have been detailed by Bryant and Fabryka-Martin (1991). A detailed discussion of the effects of past underground testing on the groundwater is presented in Sections 4.1.5 and 4.1.11.

Yields, locations, and proximity to the water table of tests to be conducted under Alternative 1 have not been defined. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the total potential releases to the groundwater. If tests are conducted in or near the water table, then significant releases of radionuclides and hazardous materials into the near test environment are to be expected. The estimated total release of fission and source-term radionuclides and activation products is 804,500 curies (Ci)/kt of explosive yield. Thus, the potential releases to the groundwater environment from testing of a single device far exceed releases from other actions to be included under Alternative 1. Tests conducted well above the water table would release significant quantities of radionuclides and hazardous materials into the unsaturated zone. Some downward migration of these contaminants may occur and may have the potential to contaminate the underlying groundwater.

The ancillary operations related to testing under Alternative 1 are primarily surface-based and have little potential for groundwater contamination. Minor quantities of drilling fluids or lost circulationmaterials might be introduced into the near-water-table environment during test hole drilling and post-shot drill-back operations. Any contamination that results from these activities would be considered inconsequential compared to the releases from the actual test.

The continuation of testing under Alternative 1 would have a significant impact on groundwater quality only if the testing is conducted in, or near, the water table. In this event, contamination of the near-test groundwater resources would occur. However, because of the conditions at the NTS (long travel paths, sorptive geologic media, slight hydraulic gradients, and the depths of the stockpiled holes), it is not considered likely that significant impacts would occur in areas downgradient of the underground testing locations.

Underground conventional high-explosive, hydrodynamic tests, and dynamic experiments would not affect the groundwater because such tests and experiments would be conducted well above the water table.

Waste Management Program. Water use in support of Waste Management Program actions under Alternative 1 would be minimal. The impact of withdrawing limited quantities of groundwater in support of the Waste Management Program would not result in significant impacts to groundwater availability.

The craters that are and would continue to be used at the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site represent unavoidable adverse impacts that resulted from past underground nuclear tests. Use of the craters for waste disposal and subsequent capping with engineered covers would prevent the downward migration of precipitation into the waste.

The underground shot cavities beneath the subsidence craters and waste cells in the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site are much deeper than active hydrologic surface processes (infiltration, redistribution, and evapotranspiration) operating beneath the waste unit from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 31 m (100 ft). Current scientific models suggest that the chimney beneath the low-level waste unit does not enhanceor promote vertical groundwater flow between the waste unit (subsidence crater) and the deep shot cavity. This conceptual model was confirmed by hydrologic data obtained in 1996 from the exploratory borehole completed beneath U-3bl. Water potential data indicate that there is no groundwater movement from a 40-m to 96-m (131-ft to 315-ft) depth within the subsurface chimney (Van Cleave, 1996). Given the proximity of Area 5 to Area 3 (23 km [14 mi]) and the very similar hydrologic conditions, the defensible hydrogeologic conceptual model for Area 5 is being tested and validated for the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site. The Environmental Restoration Program, will evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination from shot cavities located in the unsaturated zone (more than 101 m [330 ft] above the water table).

After 30 years of waste disposal operations, groundwater monitoring at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site has not detected any contamination. In addition, field studies conducted to support the Performance Assessment (Shott et al., 1995), which included monitoring of soil moisture and chloride ion concentrations, indicate that water falling on the surface (precipitation) does not reach the groundwater. These studies and the absence of contamination support the conclusion that no groundwater pathway exists beneath the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. Thus, no impact to groundwater from waste management operations at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site would occur during the timeframe covered by this EIS and long into the future. (See Volume 1: Appendix A, Section A.2; Chapter 2 , Section 2.5.6 ;and Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.2 for additional information.)

Environmental Restoration Program. Groundwater use during environmental restoration activities would be minimal and would be limited to that used in pad and road construction, dust control, drilling and testing of characterization wells, decontamination of sampling materials, and purging of wells prior to sampling. Annual water requirements for characterization have not been well defined, but are expected to be minimal.

According to information from the Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit project, the greatest demand for nonpotable water for drilling a characterization well was 7,401 m³ (6 acre-feet). The total water demand for this program would probably be less than 74,009 m³/yr (60 acre-feet/year) between 1995 and 2005. Smaller quantities of water would be required to support decontamination and well sampling. Total demand for site characterization activities would probably be 123,348 m³/yr (100 acre-feet/year), and no significant impact is expected from the withdrawal of such a small quantity of water.

Information concerning future remediation efforts is preliminary. Water demands projected for the decommissioning of some sites (e.g., the demolition of structures at Test Cell C) have been as high as3,785 liters (L)/day (1,000 gallons [gal]/day) of potable water (or about 1,357 m³/yr [1.1 acre-feet/year] over a two-year period). Long-term remediation requirements have not yet been determined. If it is assumed that remediation does not include any active groundwater controls, future requirements for monitoring and well-testing would be a few thousands of cubic meters per year (tens of acre-feet per year). If active groundwater controls were implemented (e.g., hydraulic barriers or extraction wells), future water demands could be several million cubic-meters per year (thousand acre-feet per year).

Nondefense Research and Development Program. The current water demand for the Spill Test Facility has not been determined, but is expected to be slight for fire control, safety, experiments, and potable and nonpotable water. Similarly, the Environmental Management and Technology Development Program has unquantified, but minimal, water demands. Some field measurements and testing might be included in the feasibility study of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility; however, any requirements would be negligible. In total, the water demands for the Nondefense Research and Development Program activities would probably be no more than 12,335 m³/yr (10 acre-feet/year), and no significant impact would be related to this water use.

Work for Others Program. The water demand for the Work for Others Program has not been defined, but is expected to be minimal. The defense-related research and development activities would include the development of nonintrusive detection and imaging capabilities and surface-based testing. Small quantities of water (probably less than 1,234 m³/yr [1 acre-feet/year]) may be required to support personnel. The withdrawal of this quantity of water is not significant.

Site-Support Activities. The DOE monitored water withdrawals at the NTS for the periods between 1951 through 1990 (see Chapter 4 ). These records serve as the basis for predicting the demand for water for the period 1996 through 2005. Under Alternative 1, water use is expected to remain relatively stable because the activities included within the alternative are the same as those that have been conducted previously at the NTS. For the purpose of evaluating the environmental consequences of testing, the water-use rate for 1989 was assumed to be representative for active testing conditions. Water use for 1993 was assumed to be representative of the water demand to support nuclear testing readiness.

Because the water required to support the NTS is derived exclusively from groundwater, there would be some level of impacts on groundwater resources. Because the effects of groundwater withdrawals vary depending on the location, geologic conditions, and withdrawal rates, a more detailed evaluation is required.

The localized water-level declines in areas adjacent to operating water supply wells is not considered a significant impact. The impacts of water-level declines would not be considered significant unless water levels decline in areas off site from the NTS or if the quantity of groundwater discharging from the NTS to downgradient areas would be diminished. The U.S. Geological Survey maintains a water-level monitoring network downgradient of the NTS. The water level in the Devils Hole well rose more than 1 m (3 ft) between the lowest recorded measurement in 1972 and the highest recorded measurement in 1993. Similarly, in the Point of Rocks south well, static water levels rose more than 22 m (72 ft) between the lowest recordedmeasurement in 1970 and 1994. These data and records for other monitoring wells in the region do not show any effects that might be attributed to water withdrawals on the NTS.

5.1.1.6 Biological Resources

. Little or no previously undisturbed habitat would be cleared for the Defense, Waste Management, Nondefense Research and Development, and Work for Others Programs. About9,800 acres of land would be cleared for the Environmental Restoration Program. Most of this land has been contaminated by radioactive or hazardous materials, and some of it has been disturbed previously. Much of that land would be stabilized and/or revegetated. Infrastructure development wouldresult in the removal of approximately 18 acres of previously undisturbed habitat. Collectively, approximately 9,900 acres, part of which has been disturbed previously, would be disturbed by the DOE or DOE-sponsored organizations under Alternative 1. This represents approximately 1 percent of undisturbed habitat present at the NTS (Hunter and Medica, 1992). Military training exercises under the Work for Others Program might impact additional sizeable habitat blocks, but these exercises are not defined well enough to allow estimation of the potential extent of disturbances. No projects in Alternative 1 are large enough that they would likely lower the viability of populations of any species, including candidate species and economically or recreationally important species.

Because Alternative 1 does not include additional atmospheric, safety, or cratering tests, the concentrations of radionuclides that the flora and fauna are exposed to will not increase. Since few deleterious effects were observed in species or populations when such activities were conducted in the past, no additional impacts are anticipated.

The desert tortoise is the only threatened or endangered species commonly found on the NTS. Individual desert tortoises might be accidentally killed or injured during military training exercises. However, because surveys are conducted and tortoises are removed prior to soil-disturbing activities on the NTS, this is unlikely. From 1989 through 1994 on average, less than one tortoise was killed per year on roads on the NTS (DOE/NV,1991, 1993, and 1994a). Because vehicular traffic patterns are expected to be similar or lower under Alternative 1 than they were during 1989 through 1994, a similar or lower number of tortoises probably would be killed under this alternative. Groundwater withdrawals under Alternative 1 would not likely affect water flow rates at springs on and around the area. Only military training exercises located at or near springs on the NTS or NAFR Complex could significantly impact the biota associated with these springs.

In a Draft Biological Opinion issued to the DOE/NV on May 21, 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the level of effect described in the NTS EIS would not reduce appreciably the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Mojave Desert population of the desert tortoise in the wild or diminish the value of critical habitat both for survival and recovery of the desert tortoise because:

The proposed programmatic area does not occur within any areas recommended for recovery of the desert tortoise or areas designated as critical habitat.
Rehabilitation and revegetation of disturbed sites or payment of off-site mitigation fees will benefit conservation and recovery of the desert tortoise as directed under Section 7(a)(1) of the Act.
The desert tortoise is a wide-ranging species occurring over a large area. The degree of threats to the species vary in different parts of the Mojave Desert, requiring implementation of management actions tailored to the needs of specific areas (Service, 1994). The loss of habitat associated with the proposed action translates to approximately 1 percent of the total habitat on the NTS. With proper management and conservation, important desert tortoise populations both inside and outside designated recovery areas, will remain viable.
The NTS occurs within the northeastern Recovery Unit in Nye County, Nevada. Activities on the NTS should not result in asubstantial loss of the tortoises within this Recovery Unit. The potential effects on desert tortoises as a result of implementation of the proposed programs by the DOE/NV, as described in the Description of the Proposed Action, represents a small impact to the Mojave population of the desert tortoise when total desert tortoise population numbers and geographical extent are considered.

Because there would be few significant impacts to population viability, rare species, or rare habitats in the region, Alternative 1 should have little negative impact on biodiversity or ecosystem functions in this area.

Defense Program. No new facilities would be needed for stockpile stewardship or emergency response activities, and transportation of hazardous or radioactive materials would not likely result in significant impacts on biological resources (Appendix I). Therefore, these projects would have no significant impact on biological resources.

Counterproliferation research and development activities involve detecting underground objects related to nuclear testing or eliminating such objects. Some activities would take place in buildings or, if outside, would involve nondestructive sampling. Thus, this part of the project is unlikely to impact biological resources. Other activities might include aboveground detonations near bunkers. Some activities involve developing technologies for the safe rendering of nuclear devices. This includes aboveground detonations of conventional high explosives at the Big Explosives Experimental Facility (see Appendix F). The detonations would take place on the 20 m x 20 m (66 ft x 66 ft) gravel firing pad constructed for high-explosive detonations. The facility site consists of 8 acres of graded and cleared land surrounding the bunkers and firing pad. It is unlikely that explosions would significantly impact surrounding habitat, affect the viability of plant or animal populations, or impact springs. This facility is north of the range of the desert tortoise (Rautenstrauch et al., 1994). Transportation to study sites would be infrequent; therefore, the impact of this program on biological resources would not be significantly increased.

Under Alternative 1, one or more nuclear tests could be conducted underground on Pahute Mesa or in Yucca Flat. Because the DOE has already prepared sufficient sites to handle numerous underground tests, no new impacts on biological resources would arise from maintaining readiness for these tests. A subsidence crater could be created by the underground test of the nuclear device. Because this crater would form in the area disturbed during site preparation for the test, no new loss of habitat would occur. Drilling sumps constructed as part of post-shot drilling operations could attract waterfowl and doves. Exposure to drilling fluid additives might increase these organisms' probability of drowning (Greger, 1995).

Additional releases of tritium into the aquifer from the underground nuclear test would not likely increase the impact to threatened and endangered species located at Devils Hole National Monument or Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. The short half-life of tritium and the slow rate of water exchange between the nuclear test sites and groundwater and the resulting model studies indicate that tritium would not be detected off government-controlled lands (Borg et al., 1976; GeoTrans Inc., 1995). Hydrodynamic tests and dynamic experiments conducted at the existing Big Explosives Experimental Facility in Area 4 and at the Lyner Complex in Area 1 are not expected to impact biological resources. Conventional high-explosives testing is expected to occur in areas previously cleared of vegetation, so no new wildlife or plant habitat would be lost. No other significant impact to biological resources is expected.

The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive; that is, the impacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

Waste Management Program. Activities at the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site would disturb very little of the previously undisturbed areas and would not have a significant impact on habitat or population viability. Closure of the two disposal cells would result in a beneficial impact because these sites would be revegetated with nativeplants. Area 3 is north of the range of the desert tortoise; therefore, construction and operation would have no effect on this species. This program also would have no effect on other threatened and endangered species or springs and their associated biota.

Land disturbance at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site is too localized to impact viability of plant and animal populations. Construction activity would include one new trench and closure of several pits and trenches. Because these disturbed sites would be revegetated, this activity would have a positive impact on habitat. Effects on threatened or endangered species would be unlikely given that no tortoises or tortoise sign has been seen in this area (EG&G/EM, 1994), and other threatened and endangered species would be unlikely to use this area. No springs are near this site.

At the Area 6 Waste Management Site, PCBs are temporarily stored prior to being transported off site for disposal at EPA-permitted facilities. Because this waste would be stored in a developed area with no anticipated releases to the environment, this activity would have no biological impacts. Disposal activities at the hydrocarbon landfill in Area 6 are also not expected to impact biological resources.

In Area 11, explosive ordnance would be destroyed in an 8 m x 31 m (26 ft x 102 ft) detonation pit surrounded by an earthen pad. No new land would be disturbed. Detonations occur infrequently. They would not likely impact habitat use by animals in areas around this site, because desert tortoises are rare near this facility. A 40-acre area surrounding this facility was searched in 1991; no tortoise or tortoise sign was found. It is, therefore, unlikely that tortoises would be directly injured or killed by this project.

Environmental Restoration Program. Five projects in the Environmental Restoration Program would occur on the NTS or NAFR Complex under Alternative 1. None of the environmental restoration actions would have significant impacts on population viability or habitat of plants or animals. The impacted areas are small relative to the geographic areas inhabited by affectedpopulations, and very little undisturbed habitat would be disturbed. About 50 acres would be cleared for the Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit project; however, much of this land is already disturbed. Burrowing owls, candidate species of bats, and economically or recreationally important species like doves or waterfowl might be exposed to drilling mud contained in drill sumps. Drilling mud, although nontoxic, might contain polymers and surfactants that could coat birds or mammals that land in or drink from the sumps. This could increase their probability of drowning (Greger, 1995). Drilling also might result in production of some hazardous and radioactive wastes; these wastes would be transferred to waste management facilities for disposal. Transport of the removed material to approved disposal sites would not likely impact biological resources (Appendix I).

The second project, the Soils Media Corrective Action Unit activities, would involve the removal and transport of radioactively contaminated soils from 3,257 acres to approved disposal locations. The habitat would be destroyed during soil removal, but may be revegetated afterward. This area is adjacent to the playa and, thus, is not desert tortoise habitat (EG&G/EM, 1991). No candidate species of plants occur on those sites (Blomquist et al., 1995). These activities would not occur near springs nor require pumping of shallow groundwater; thus, the tortoises would not be affected.

The third project, the Industrial Site Unit activities, would disturb about 2,510 acres. Almost all of this land has been disturbed previously and is not wildlife habitat. It is unlikely that desert tortoises would be killed or injured during earthmoving. Surveys would be conducted, and all tortoises would be removed prior to those activities. Removal of hazardous or radioactive materials might have positive impacts on the survival of individuals of threatened or endangered species, such as desert tortoises. Transport of the removed material to approved disposal sites would not likely impact biological resources because workers follow stringent safety protocols (Appendix I). This project is unlikely to take place near springs; thus, springs should not be affected.

During the fourth project, Decontamination and Decommissioning, eight contaminated buildings or building complexes could be torn down and transferred to appropriate disposal areas. Transport of the contaminated material to approved disposal sites would not likely impact biological resources.

There are 100 Defense Nuclear Agency sites in Area 12 of the NTS that were contaminated with radioactive or hazardous waste. This project might continue operations to contain contaminant migration, characterize and remediate contaminated muck piles and ponds, and select and implement post-contamination remediation actions. About 50,971 m³ (1.8 x 10⁶ ft³) of radioactive wastes would be removed from a 500-acre area. Therefore, a substantial amount of habitat would be destroyed, but might be revegetated. Revegetation could have a positive impact on habitat in highly disturbed areas because it would advance the successional process in these areas (Call and Roundy, 1991). Cleanup might also have negative impacts on habitat in areas where mature, undisturbed natural vegetation existed prior to cleanup. Transport of the removed material to approved disposal sites would not likely impact biological resources (Appendix I). This project would not take place near springs; thus, springs would not be impacted.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. All five activities within this program would be operational under Alternative 1. The first activity, the Alternative Energy Project, and the second activity, the Environmental Management and Technology Development Project, would be in planning or design stages and would not affect biological resources.

The third activity, the Alternative Fuels Demonstration Projects would not require destruction of habitat or have other negative impacts on biological resources. Over the long term, information from this project might have significant positive ramifications for biological resources because of potential influences on fossil fuel use.

The fourth activity, the National Environmental Research Park, would have no negative effect on habitat, population viability of plants or animals,

threatened or endangered species, or springs. Over the long term, research into many of these topics might have positive impacts on biological resources because the findings could result in improved management of resources.

The fifth activity, the Spill Test Facility, is not expected to result in any significant impact to vegetation or wildlife. A monitoring program was established in 1981 to evaluate impacts from chemical spill tests at various distances downwind (northeast) from the Spill Test Facility. Results of monitoring vegetation, small mammals, kit foxes, lizards, and lagomorphs showed no measurable

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)