5.4 Alternative 4 - Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands
Under Alternative 4, Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands, all defense-related activities and most Work for Others Program activities at the NTS would be discontinued. A possible exception would be the allowance for an increased use of airspace by the U.S. Air Force. The primary activities anticipated under this alternative would be the continuation of waste management operations in support of NTS environmental restoration and waste-generating activities associated with projects sited at the NTS under this alternative. This alternative includes programs at the NTS, the NAFR Complex, the Project Shoal Area, the Central Nevada Test Area, and the three Solar Enterprise Zone locations: Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley, as well as the release of approximately 526 km2 (203 mi2) of lands currently within the NTS for public education and recreation. This section contains the summary of activities that are unique to Alternative 4. A more detailed description of the activities is presented in Appendix A. Defense Program. All defense-related activities would be discontinued at the NTS. The Tonopah Test Range would continue to conduct the passive tests identified under Alternative 1 and described in Appendix A. Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 4, the Waste Management Program would include the activities described under Alternative 3; however, these activities would be scaled back to provide service solely for the DOE waste generated within Nevada. Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental restoration activities would continue at current or accelerated rates. Cleanup levels and remediation could be stricter (where applicable), based on designated land use and potential return of some lands to the public domain. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 4, the Nondefense Research and Development Program activities would be the same as described under either Alternative 1 or 3. The Spill Test Facility, Alternative Fuels Demonstration Projects, and Environmental Research Park activities would be as described under Alternative 1. The alternative energy and environmental management and technology development activities would be as described under Alternative 3. Work for Others Program. Activities would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 with the one exception. It is anticipated that there would be an increased use of NTS airspace by the U.S. Air Force.
5.4.1 Nevada Test Site
Under Alternative 4, the DOE would discontinue all defense-related activities and most Work for Others Program activities. The program categories applicable under Alternative 4 are Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, Nondefense Research and Development, and Work for Others. However, the discontinuation or reduction of the Defense Program and Work for Others Program could result in some impacts. Therefore, all five programs are discussed under Alternative 4 when impacts are possible.
5.4.1.1 Land Use
The primary difference between this alternative and Alternative 1 is that no Defense Program activities would occur under Alternative 4. Consequently, no land-use demands would be made to accommodate the construction and operation of advanced nuclear weapons simulators; construction of a facility for storing nuclear weapons and their components and for their assembly and disassembly; long-term storage of weapons-usable fissile material; a large, heavy-industrial facility; and the National Ignition Facility. The DOE would relinquish its control of R-4808 airspace. It is assumed that the U.S. Air Force would retain control of that portion of R-4808 not overlying the NTS. Airspace over the NTS would then be publicly accessible. The bulk of the activities anticipated under this alternative would be the continuation of Waste Management Program operations in support of NTS environmental restoration and other NTS activities associated with projects sited at the NTS under Alternative 4. This alternative would result in approximately 4,600 acres of new ground disturbance. The single most important construction activity, which also appears under Alternatives 1 and 3, would be the Solar Enterprise Zone, which would disturb 2,402 acres. Waste Management Program. Waste Manage-ment Program operations and construction would include all the activities listed under Alternative 1, with the restriction that these services be provided solely for the DOE waste generation within Nevada. The construction of new or expanded disposal facilities would change the land-use status of limited areas adjacent to existing disposal sites. The areas used for waste disposal would be committed for the long term to that use and would be unavailable for other, less restricted uses. Environmental Restoration Program. The Environmental Restoration Program under Alternative 4 would continue as identified under Alternative 1. The acceleration of some actions might allow more rapid changes in the land-use status of areas that contain contaminated soils and former industrial sites. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 4, land areas previously designated as nuclear test zones and nuclear and high-explosive test zones would be designated as Nondefense Research and Development Program testing zones; this new zone designation would represent an approximately 2,849 km² (1,100 mi2) increase in land use. In addition, minor modifications to land-use status would be needed to accommodate some actions. The construction and operation of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility would preclude other land use within the zone. Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, it is anticipated that the NTS airspace would be accessible by the public. Conventional weapons demilitarization activities would not be sited at the NTS under this alternative, and defense-related research and training by other government agencies would not be conducted at the NTS. Therefore, these lands would be available for a greater variety of unrestricted land uses. However, the DOE would be required to provide for overflights andinspections of the NTS in accordance with international arms control treaties. Potential Public Uses of Relinquished NTS Lands. Under Alternative 4, likely public uses of NTS lands would include educational and recreational activities. Public education use of NTS lands would focus on the unique and remote characteristics of the site and the availability of existing site support for public activities. A nuclear era museum located at the NTS highlighting the testing activities would be an important contribution to a better understanding of the United States’ nuclear programs. The NTS is the only place where the public can see how the nuclear era unfolds; they can revisit nuclear rocket development and see the impacts that weapons effects testing had on common structures. The public could also learn more about the testing conducted for peaceful purposes (Plowshare tests), as well as the other programs that were part of the nuclear era. Student education through field trips and studies have taken place in the past to a limited extent. This type of education would allow students to see firsthand some of the nuclear testing impacts, as well as the geology and biology on the NTS. The environmental impacts as a result of this activity would be relatively minor. Public recreation on the NTS would focus on scenic areas, such as Timber Mountain and the isolated forested areas. Timber Mountain is a National Natural Landmark and is one of the best examples of a caldera with all the associated volcanic features. This area is also the location of American Indian petroglyphs. The road system on the NTS would provide a location for such events as 42 km (26 mi) marathon runs, closed-circuit bicycle and car races, and similar activities. The variety of terrain, the ability to control traffic in a cost-effective manner, and the available medical facilities make this an attractive alternative. Deer herds on the NTS have not been hunted within the site boundaries for many decades. A hunt could be run similar to the bighorn sheep trophy hunt, in which a drawing is held for a limited number of hunters who must attend a one-day training session to be properly oriented. These events could represent a widening of the types of land uses on the NTS to include dispersed and organized recreation. Additional recreational use could result in impactsto other natural and cultural resources found on the NTS. Relinquished NTS Lands. Under Alternative 4, an area of approximately 526 km2 (203 mi2) of currently withdrawn land has been identified for possible turn-back to the jurisdiction and management of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Should such an option be pursued, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management would conduct an evaluation of the suitability of the land for return to the public domain, and assess the value of the resources associated with the land for existingprograms. If the lands were accepted for return to the public domain, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management would determine the proper management prescriptions for the lands being returned.
5.4.1.1.1 Site-Support Activities
The NTS site-support activities would be reduced under this alternative. However, land-use designations are not expected to be impacted by this reduction in site support. Facilities associated with security and environmental monitoring would remain at a reduced level. Services required for this activity under Alternative 4 would be reduced. UTILITIESThe power grid would remain largely as it is described under Alternative 1. Parts of the grid could be shut off and abandoned; however, the lines and substations would not be removed because of the potential for future power requirements in remote locations to support environmental restoration and other turn-back activities. Power would continue to be provided by the existing 138 kV supply lines. Approximately 161 km (100 mi) of water supply lines would continue to be used for distributing water to various facilities around the NTS. In addition to the distribution lines, there would be numerous wells, water storage sumps, and tanks. Many of these water distribution and storage utilities would be shut down and abandoned or removed. It is not known at this time which utilities would need to remain functional to support the environmental restoration activities. The wells and storage utilities that support waste management activities in Areas 3 and 5 would remain in use. Some of the utilities in Areas 23 and 25 would alsoremain in use to support base camp and Yucca Mountain Project activities. The NTS sewage handling systems include sewage lagoons and septic tanks with leachfields. Most of the sewage handling systems would be discontinued and remediated. The sewage systems in Areas 3 and 5 might need to be expanded to provide coverage for the increase in waste management activities. The sewage systems in Areas 23 and 25 might receive some reduction in capacity. COMMUNICATIONRadio communications would be controlled through remote-control units. These units would use telephone-radio-telephone order lines connected to local transceivers. Mobile radio communications, which are primarily provided by digital microwave systems, would be reduced from three separate systems to one or two systems as mandated by the level of activity. Central monitoring of NTS radio nets would continue to be maintained at Station 900. This station function would remain as an emergency reporting point for both radio and telephone. The public safety network, which provides coverage to most of Nevada and portions of nearby states, would be abandoned. The system components would remain intact. It would take less effort and expense to maintain the system than it would to remove the system. The existing features of the NTS telecommunications network would be more than adequate to support the level of activity at the NTS. Video and data communications would continue to be provided by the digital microwave system as it is at this time. This system would continue to provide for security and alarms, as necessary. Retention of site infrastructure would require that the associated land uses remain similar to the present uses. Land use is already established in a zone surrounding the radioactive waste management facilities in Areas 3 and 5. Neither area would require additional land designated for disposal. Land so used would be restricted for most other uses for the long term to ensure the integrity of the closure and the safety of those who might inadvertently breach the waste. Construction of theSolar Enterprise Zone facilities would represent along-term, single-land use, which could be reversed when the project is completed and the site restored.
5.4.1.1.2 Airspace
There are few proposed changes in airspace associated with the other federal agency programs within this area. These changes would be local and would not change the overall NAFR Complex airspace structure. These changes are usually minor path changes to accommodate population changes in the areas of concern. The changes might redefine the boundaries between restricted areas R-4807 and R-4808 and redesignate a restricted area to facilitate joint use by civilian aircraft. Under this alternative, the restricted airspace that overlies the NTS would be relinquished and would be available for commercial and general aviation use. All defense-related activities at the NTS would be discontinued. Therefore, the discontinuation of airspace operations at the NTS associated with the Defense Program and Work for Others Program under this alternative would result in a beneficial impact for civilian air traffic. The DOE would be required to provide for overflights and inspections for the NTS in accordance with international arms control treaties. It is estimated that 200,000 people could visit the NTS for recreational purposes each year. It is possible that some visitors would come by air; however, the anticipated air traffic would be minimal, and its impact on airspace would be insignificant. There are few proposed changes in airspace associated with the NAFR Complex mission (SAIC/DRI, 1991). These changes would be local and would not change the overall airspace structure. Examples of changes would include relocation of a visual military training route to avoid residential areas in Pahrump, redefining the boundary between the restricted areas R-4807 and R-4808, and redesignating a restricted area to facilitate joint use by civil aircraft.
5.4.1.2 Transportation
The following sections address the environmental impacts related to trans-portation activities as defined under Alternative 4. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation.
5.4.1.2.1 On-Site Traffic
Traffic generated within the NTS as a result of the land use, projects, and activities associated with Alternative 4 is estimated to be 12,180 trips per day. Table 5.4-1 shows the estimates of average daily trips for each program. The daily trips were distributed on site, based on existing travel patterns for commuters and the current NTS areas affected by each program. Table 5.4-2 summarizes the average daily traffic volume for the key roadways on the NTS for Alternative 4. 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 the volumes assigned to each segment on Table 5.4-2 shows that no roadway would experience any significant traffic congestion under Alternative 4. Defense Program. Impacts resulting from the discontinuation of Defense Program activities under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described for Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.2.1. Waste Management Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with waste management is estimated to be 200 average daily trips under Alternative 4. Road 5-01, the access to the Radioactive Waste Management Site in Area 5, is scheduled for improvement by the second quarter of Fiscal Year 1997. The improvement project is described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.2.1. 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 480 average daily trips for Alternative 4. 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 10,680 average daily trips under Alternative 4. Traffic volumes on Jackass Flats Road, Cane Spring Road, and the portion of Mercury Highway that is south of Cane Spring Road would be approximately 5,300 vehicles per day for each segment, representing a substantial increase over Alternative 1. These volumes, however, represent on-site trips that were assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the day. This, together with the fact that all on-site trips were also assumed to have an endpoint in Mercury, shows that 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 Others Program is estimated to be 60 average daily trips under Alternative 4. 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 site-support activities is estimated to be 760 average daily trips under Alternative 4. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of site-support activities.
5.4.1.2.2 Off-Site Traffic
The major traffic generators at the site with the various programs under Alternative 4 would be the construction and operations employees and their associated activities.Table 5.4-3 shows the changes in the average daily vehicle trips generated by each program activity for the years 1996, 2000, and 2005. These overall changes reflect reductions for the Defense Program, Work for Others Program, and site-support activities and slight increases for other programs relative to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, vehicular traffic would decrease on key roadways from 1996 to 2005. The greatest reduction in traffic would occur in 2000 and 2005 on the access highway to the NTS, by approximately 120 vehicles during the peak hour. The ramps on the Mercury interchange and U.S. Highway 95 between Mercury and Las Vegas would also experience a reduction of 100 vehicles during peak hours. The traffic on all other key roads are likely to be reduced by less than 100 vehicles. Trip generations would remain constant after an initial reduction in 1997. The projected peak-hour traffic on key roads and the associated level of service that would result under Alternative 4 for 1996, 2000, and 2005 are shown in Table 5.4-4 . 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 Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials Standards. 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; by 2000, they would all deteriorate to unacceptable level of service F. These conditions would prevail even without Alternative 4 because of cumulative traffic growth (recreational, regional, and commuter traffic). U.S. Highway 93 at Hoover Dam already operates at unacceptable level of service F, and its level of service would continue to deteriorate further with or without this alternative because of its geometry (steep grades and narrow curves) and partially to its moderate traffic volume and truck traffic. All otherkey roadways, in general, would continue to operate at level of service C or better (Table 5.4-4). The conditions described above would prevail with or without Alternative 4 and with or without any single program activity. The following sections address the contribution of each program to traffic impacts. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, a vehicle trip reduction on a typical weekday of 330 trips under Alternative 1 would occur by 2005. These trips account for construction and operations activities generated by workers at the site and would occur at the access road off U.S. Highway 95. Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 4, the Waste Management Program would generate 40 more vehicle trips than Alternative 1. Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 4, employees associated with the Environmental Restoration Program would generate 90 more trips than Alternative 1. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 4, employees associated with the Nondefense Research and Development Program would generate 40 vehicle trips above Alternative 1 in 2005. Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, employees associated with this program would generate 80 vehicle trips below Alternative 1 in 2005. Potential Turn-Back Uses. Under Alternative 4, it is estimated that 200,000 people would visit the NTS for recreational purposes and for museum visits. Weekends would be the peak period for these visits. On average, there would be 500 to 600 persons per day, generally less than 200 vehicles per day (one way), assuming 3 persons per car and 90 percent passenger cars and 10 percent buses, or less than 40 vehicles during peak hours. This volume is not large enough to affect any level of service on any key road segment. Site-Support Activities. Under Alternative 4, the discontinuation of programs would result in a corresponding loss of site-support personnel. A reduction of 370 vehicle trips would occur by 2005. These trips would account for activities related to roads, utilities, communications, and other site support.
5.4.1.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste
Under Alternative 4, no off-site transportation of low-level waste, mixed waste, or nuclear materials would occur. The waste volumes for NTS-generated waste that would be transported on-site are given in Table 5.4-5. The human health risks associated with on-site transportation would generally be small, particularly in comparison with off-site transportation risks, primarily because of the differences in distance traveled and population densities and the lower rates of speed. On-site transportation risks would not contribute significantly to the total risk of any alternative. Results of the on-site transportation risk analysis under Alternative 4 are shown in Table 5.4-6. The highest risk would be from vehicle-related fatalities and injuries. Cargo-related risks would be small because of the low gamma activity in the NTS-generated waste and the small exposed population.
5.4.1.2.4 Other Transportation
Because Alternative 4 activities do not include direct use of local railroads, air, or other modes of transportation, direct effects on rail, air, and other modes of transportation are expected to be minimal. Furthermore, given the nature and scale of anticipated activities under Alternative 4, transportation demand for other than commuters is expected to remain minimal. There would be little indirect impact on other modes of transportation.
5.4.1.3 Socioeconomics
This section addresses the potential socioeconomic effects associated with Alternative 4. The description of socioeconomic conditions includes indicators (population, civilian labor force, employment, unemployment rate, and income) that provide a basis for comparing regional socioeconomic conditions of the site with Alternative 1. In addition, public finance and public services (public education, police and fire protection, and health) are described. Alternative 1 was considered equivalent to future baseline conditions without new activities. American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for tribal members from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, POPULATION, AND HOUSINGThe net effect of Alternative 4 is the loss of 4,625 jobs (1,496 direct and 3,129 secondary) in 1996 and 7,981 jobs (2,748 direct and 5,233 secondary) in 2000 and 2005 (Table 5.4-7). In Clark County, this employment would generate the loss of 4,401 jobs in 1996; 7,582 in 2000; and 7,582 in 2005. In Nye County, this employmentwould contribute to the total loss of 179 jobs in 1996; 317 jobs in 2000; and 317 jobs in 2005 (see Figure 5.1-1). The total earning levels are estimated to decrease by $157.0 million in 1996 and $277.0 million in 2000 and 2005. Of these decreased earnings, Clark County would lose a total of $149.4 million in 1996 and $263.3 million in 2000 and 2005. For Nye County, this economic activity would generate a decrease in earnings of $7.5 million in 1996 and $13.7 million in 2000 and 2005. Out-migration analysis was based on historical unemployment. The lowest unemployment rate for Clark County in the last 20 years was 4.7 percent in 1990, and the highest was 10.9 percent in 1975 and 1982. The volatile unemployment rates and the high increase in population indicate that a midpoint would provide a more realistic analysis. For this analysis, 7.7 percent was assumed for Clark County unemployment. The same analysis was done for Nye County. The lowest unemployment rate was 1.8 percent in 1970, and 10.9 percent was the highest rate in 1987. A more realistic assumption rate of 4.7 percent was used for Nye County. Alternative 4 would not generate or lose enough jobs to reach the base unemployment rate. Therefore, no out-migration would be triggered, and it can be assumed that no change in population or housing demand would be generated. Defense Program. Total employment lost as a result of Alternative 4 would include both direct and secondary jobs. In the region of influence, in addition to the loss of 1,472 direct positions, an additional 2,802 secondary positions would be lost for a total of 4,274 jobs. Secondary positions are lost because of the decrease in procurement and personal consumption expenditures of site personnel. In Clark County, the reduction in civilian employment (4,060 jobs) would contribute to the total increase in the unemployment rate from 5.8 percent to 6.9 percent in 2005. In Nye County, the decrease in employment would result in a loss of 170 jobs, which would contribute to the total increase in the unemployment rate from 5.2 percent to 7.1 percent in 2005. Waste Management Program. In the region of influence, this program would create a total of 454 jobs, including 157 direct and 297 secondary positions, starting in 1996 and continuing through 2005. In Clark County, this program would contribute 431 jobs (141 direct and 290 secondary), and in Nye County, it would contribute 18 jobs (11 direct and 7 secondary). In Clark County, this increase in civilian employment (431 jobs) would help maintain a total unemployment rate at 6.9 percent, higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.8. In Nye County, the increase of 18 jobs would help maintain the total unemployment rate at 7.1 percent, again higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.2 percent. Environmental Restoration Program. In the region of influence, this program would create a total of 1,150 jobs, including 396 direct and 754 secondary positions, starting in 1996 and continuing through 2005. In Clark County, this program would contribute 1,093 jobs (357 direct and 736 secondary), and in Nye County, it would contribute 46 jobs (28 direct and 18 secondary). In Clark County, this increase in civilian employment (1,093 jobs) would help maintain a total unemployment rate at 6.9 percent, higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.8. In Nye County, the increase of 46 jobs would help maintain the total unemployment rate at 7.1 percent, again higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.2 percent. Nondefense Research and Development Program. In the region of influence, the Nondefense Research and Development Program would create 468 jobs (including 161 direct and 307secondary positions) starting in 1996 and continuing through 2005. In Clark County, this program would contribute 444 jobs (145 direct and 299 secondary) in 2005. In Nye County, this program would contribute 19 jobs (11 direct and 8 secondary) in 2005. In Clark County, this increase in civilian employment (444 jobs) would help maintain the total unemployment rate at 6.9 percent, higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.8 percent. In Nye County, the increase of 19 jobs would help maintain the total unemployment rate at 7.1 percent, again higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.2 percent. Work for Others Program. In the region of influence, in addition to the loss of 350 direct positions, an additional 666 secondary positions would be lost for a total of 1,016 jobs under Alternative 4. Secondary positions are lost because of the decrease in procurement and personal consumption expenditures of site personnel. In Clark County, the reduction of civilian employment (965 jobs) would help maintain a total unemployment rate at 6.9 percent, higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.8 percent. In Nye County, the reduction of 40 jobs would help maintain the total unemployment rate at 7.1 percent, again higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.2 percent. Site-Support Activities. In the region of influence, in addition to the loss of 1,640 direct positions, an additional 3,123 secondary positions would be lost for a total of 4,763 jobs. In Clark County, the reduction of civilian employment (4,525 jobs) would help maintain a total unemployment rate at 6.9 percent, higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.8. In Nye County, the reduction of 189 jobs would help maintain the totalunemployment rate at 7.1 percent, again higher when compared to the Alternative 1 level of 5.2 percent. PUBLIC FINANCEThe fiscal effects of Alternative 4 are presented in this section. Table 5.4-8 outlines the projected financial summary for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2005 under Alternative 4. The fiscal impact of each alternative can be determined by subtracting its income statement totals from the Alternative 1 future baseline. The remaining fiscal impact is the specific impact associated with each 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 Public Finance, Section 4.1.3. Under Alternative 4, revenues for Clark County would increase because of increases in personal income and total employment in the county. Assuming continued small increases in revenues and slightly larger initial increases in expenditures (see discussion on capital projects in Public Finance, Section 4.1.3), Alternative 4 would result in revenues less expenditures of a negative $4,289,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. Clark County is anticipated to achieve a positive fiscal position in Fiscal Year 2001. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures are expected to be $35,254,000. The fund balance (or reserves) as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 246 percent in 2000 and 247 percent in 2005. To compare with Alternative 1, Clark County revenues over expenditures would be $1,787,000 more in 2000 and 2005. City of Las Vegas. Under Alternative 4, revenues over expenditures for the city of Las Vegas are expected to become positive in Fiscal Year 1995 because of increases in personal income and total employment in the city. Assuming continued increases in revenues and expenditures, this alternative would result in revenues less expenditures of $13,652,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. It is predicted that by Fiscal Year 2005, revenues over expenditures would be $15,708,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 179 percent in 2000 and 269 percent in 2005. To compare with Alternative 1, revenues over expenditures would be $728,000 less in 2000 and $727,000 less in 2005. City of North Las Vegas. Expenditures for North Las Vegas are forecast to continue to outpace revenues. Revenues over expenditures in Fiscal Year 2000 would be a negative $7,229,000 and a less negative $6,732,000 in Fiscal Year 2005. This is despite increases in personal income and totalemployment 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 a percentage of current expense is expected to be 62 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 92 percent in Fiscal Year 2005. Clark County School District. Revenues over expenditures would be the same as Alternative 1. This is because school enrollment, along with revenues and expenditures, is largely population-driven, and the population levels under Alternatives 1 and 4 are the same. In other words, Alternative 4 would cause no change in population growth as compared to the future baseline, which is Alternative 1. Nye County. Under Alternative 4, revenues for Nye County would increase slightly because of increases in personal income and total employment. Assuming continued small increases in expenditures as well, a positive fiscal position is expected to be reached in Fiscal Year 1999. This alternative would result in revenues less expenditures of $1,549,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures would be $3,437,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 56 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 96 percent in Fiscal Year 2005. To compare with Alternative 1, revenues over expenditures would be $18,000 less in 2000 and 2005. Town of Tonopah. Revenues and expenditures for the town of Tonopah would increase slightly because of increases in personal income and total employment in Nye County. Assuming continued increases, Alternative 4 would result in revenues less expenditures of $78,000 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 127 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 185 percent in Fiscal Year 2005. To compare with Alternative 1, revenues over expenditures would be $973 less in 2000 and $867 less in 2005. Town of Pahrump. Under Alternative 4, revenues for the town of Pahrump would increase slightly because of increases in personal income and total employment in Nye County. Assuming continued increases in revenues and slightly smaller initial increases in expenditures compared to Fiscal Year 1994, this alternative would result in revenues less expenditures of $219,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures would be $310,000. The fund balance (or reserves) as a percentage of current expense is anticipated to be 168 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 271 percent in Fiscal Year 2005. To compare with Alternative 1,revenues over expenditures would be $5,000 less in 2000 and 2005. Nye County School District. Revenues over expenditures would be the same as under Alternative 1. This is because school enrollment along with revenues and expenditures are largely population-driven, and the population levels under Alternatives 1 and 4 would be the same. In other words, Alternative 4 would cause no change in population growth as compared to the future baseline, which is Alternative 1. PUBLIC SERVICESEffects to key local public services are determined by the change in demand for personnel. The public service impacts 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. The current levels of service per 1,000 population discussed in Chapter 4 are assumed to continue. Alternative 4 has no in- or out-migration triggered by high or low levels of employment; therefore, this alternative has the same population level as Alternative 1. In all cases, there is no change in levels of service over the future baseline (Alternative 1).
5.4.1.4 Geology and Soils
This section addresses the potential impacts to geology and soils in each program under Alternative 4. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts to geology and soils would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.4. Waste Management Program. Waste Management Program activities are anticipated to result in the same adverse impacts to geologic media, processes, or resources as described under the Waste Management Program under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.4. Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental Restoration Program activities are anticipated to result in adverse impacts to geologic media, processes, or resources as described under the Environmental Restoration Program under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.4. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Nondefense Research and Development Program activities are anticipated to result in the same adverse impacts to geologic media, processes, or resources as described under Alternative 1 and 3, Sections 5.1.1.4 and 5.3.1.4, respectively. Work for Others Program. Work for Others Program activities are not anticipated to result in the same adverse impacts to geologic media, processes, or resources beyond those from past activities asdescribed in the Work for Others Program under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.4. Site-Support Activities. The impacts associated with site-support activities under Alternative 4 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.1.4.
5.4.1.5 Hydrology
The section addresses the impacts of each program to surface hydrology and groundwater. Because groundwater is the main source of water at the NTS, water resource impacts are presented in the groundwater section.
5.4.1.5.1 Surface Hydrology
The environmental impacts to surface hydrology from each program under Alternative 4 are presented in this section. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, all defense-related activities would be discontinued. Therefore, the impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.5. Waste Management Program. Waste Management Program activities are anticipated to result in the same adverse impacts to the surface hydrologic environment as described for Waste Management under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.5. Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental Restoration Program activities are anticipated to result in the same adverse impacts to the surface hydrologic environment as described for Environmental Restoration under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.5. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Nondefense Research and Development Program activities are anticipated to result in the same adverse impacts to the surface hydrologic environment as described for the Nondefense Research and Development Program under Alternatives 1 and 3 in Sections 5.1.1.5 and 5.3.1.5, respectively. Work for Others Program. Work for Others Program activities are not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to the surface hydrologic environment beyond those from past activities asdescribed for the Work for Others Program under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.5. Site-Support Activities. The impacts associated with site-support activities under Alternative 4 would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 3. 5.4.1.5.2 GroundwaterThe demand for water resources under Alternative 4 would be greatly reduced. In fact, the demand for water resources would be substantially less than those of recent years because of the cessation of actions required to maintain test readiness. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts to groundwater would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.5. Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 4, the water demand for Waste Management Program activities would be reduced from Alternative 1 levels. Because the demand for water would be insignificant (less than 1,233 m3/yr [1 ac-ft/yr]), there would be no significant impacts associated with groundwater withdrawals for waste management. Environmental Restoration Program. The demand for water resources for Environmental Restoration Program activities would accelerate under Alternative 4 if specific actions are accelerated; however, the total demand for water for environmental actions would still be quite small, less than 2.5 x 105 m³ (200 ac-ft/yr). No significant impacts on water resources are anticipated because of an acceleration of Environmental Restoration Program activities under Alternative 4. Nondefense Research and Development Program. The actions under Alternative 4 for this program are the same as those under Alternative 3; therefore, the expected impacts on water resources would be similar. The major demand for water would be for the Solar Enterprise Zone. The impacts would be as described under Alternative 3, except that any reductions in underflow to downgradient basins would be reduced. No significant impacts on water resources are anticipated under Alternative 4. Work for Others Program. The water demand for the Work for Others Program under Alternative 4 would be reduced from Alternative 1. Because the demand for water would be insignificant, there are no significant impacts associated with groundwater withdrawals for the Work for Others Program. Site Support Activities. The reduction in site support activities and personnel would result in an overall decrease in water demand. However, support activities for environmental restoration actions might offset this water demand reduction.
5.4.1.6 Biological Resources.
The Solar Enterprise Zone Project would significantly increase the risk of tortoises being crushed during construction and would remove approximately 2,400 acres of undisturbed habitat. Surface-disturbing activities may kill or displace wildlife such as small mammals, reptiles, and soil-dwelling invertebrates. If ground clearing for construction occurs during the breeding season, the eggs of birds in nests on the ground within a project area may be destroyed. Most birds that breed on the NTS are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Under this alternative, approximately 14,300 acres may be disturbed. This project would also greatly increase traffic compared to Alternative 1 and thus the risk of accidental crushing of tortoises. The Alternative Energy Project would be sufficiently large to remove small localized populations depending on final siting decisions. Given these potential impacts of the Alternative Energy Project, Alternative 4 could reduce biodiversity in the region. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts to biological resources would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.6. Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 4, this program would consist of activities in Areas 3, 5, 6, and 11 on the NTS. Activities at these sites would be similar to those described under Alternative 1, and only 11 acres of habitat would be disturbed; therefore, the impacts of this program would be less than those described under Alternative 1. Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 4, activities from this program are similar to those described under Alternative 1, except that the rate at which these activities would be initiated and completed is likely to be accelerated; therefore, impacts would also be similar. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Five of the projects in this program would be in operation under Alternative 4. For four of these projects (Environmental Management and Technology Development, Alternative Fuels Demonstration Projects, National Environmental Research Park, and Spill Test Facility), the impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 1. Activities and impacts for the fifth, the Alternative Energy project, would be the same as those described under Alternative 3. Work for Others Program. The only activity that would occur is treaty verification; therefore, there are no anticipated impacts on biological resources. Site-Support Activities. Activities associated with site-support activities should be about 75 percent less than under Alternatives 1 and 3. About 18 acres of habitat would be disturbed during construction and maintenance of roads under Alternative 4. As was concluded under Alternative 1, these activities would have little or no impact on biological resources. Potential Public Uses of Relinquished NTS Lands. Activities associated with these proposed uses are not likely to adversely affect biological resources on the NTS. Trophy hunts for deer would be run by the Nevada Division of Wildlife with the intent to provide recreation while maintaining healthy herds. Few individuals will be removed and population viability will not be adversely affected. Other public uses of the NTS for such activities like educational tours or bike and car racing are not expected to significantly impact biological resources as long as no off-road vehicle use is permitted.
5.4.1.7 Air Quality
This section addresses the potential effects that the five programs and site-support activities of the NTS might have on regional air quality. The region of influence for thisair quality analysis includes Nye and Clark counties, Nevada. Construction and mobile-source emissions are shown in Table 5.4-9, and site-support activities stationary-source emissions are shown in Table 5.4-10. Carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources in the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area would be approximately 61 tons per year (40 percent of 153 tons, see Table 5.4-9 and Section 5.1.1.7). This value is below the 100 ton carbon monoxide de minimus value shown in Table 5.1-14; therefore, a general conformity analysis would not be required for this alternative. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts to air quality would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.7. Even a doubling in the increased use of airspace would contribute only about 0.10 percent to the allowable ambient pollutant surface concentrations (SAIC/DRI, 1991). Thus, the emission reduction would provide a small beneficial impact on the regional air quality. Waste Management Program. Waste Manage-ment Program impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. No new construction would occur, and fugitive dust emissions were not estimated. No air quality impacts are anticipated. Environmental Restoration Program. Under this alternative, the Environmental Restoration Program impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 3. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 4, impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 3. If lands are redesignated as turn-back areas, one potential use that has been proposed is a nuclear era museum. Available facilities would be used and no new construction would be required. It has been estimated that about 200,000 people would visit the museum each year. Exhaust emissions would be produced by the visitors' vehicles. Assuming an average of three occupants per vehicle, approximately 66,700 vehicles would visit the areaeach year. For the purpose of emission calculations, it was assumed that a trip would consist of 145 km (90 mi) in Nye County and 97 km (60 mi) in Clark County. The 145 km (90 mi) in Nye County would include travel on the site. Work for Others Program. Emissions from increased use of NTS airspace would have a negligible effect on surface air quality. A doubling of airspace usage would produce no more then 0.10 percent of the allowable surface-pollutant concentration (SAIC/DRI, 1991). There would be no construction activity on-site, and off-site emissions would be negligible. Site-Support Activities. Emissions from NTS stationary sources related to site-support activities are shown in Table 5.4-10. Examples of the sources include boilers, fuel storage tanks, and a concrete batch plant. Portable compressor emissions are also included. Total Nye County emissions are presented in the table for comparison with NTS emissions. These emissions were obtained from the Bureau of Air Quality (State of Nevada, 1995). It is anticipated that 14 acres of land would be disturbed, generating 4.2 tons of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions. RADIOLOGICAL AIR QUALITYImpacts to the air quality from radioactive effluents under Alternative 4 would be the same as under Alternative 2.
5.4.1.8 Noise
This section addresses the potential effects of the five programs and site-support activities on noise. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts of noise would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.8. Waste Management Program. Noise impacts associated with Waste Management Program activities under Alternative 4 would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.8. Environmental Restoration Program. Noise impacts from Environmental Restoration Program activities under Alternative 4 would be the same as described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.8. The noise levels produced by environmentalrestoration activities with this alternative would produce only minor noise impacts, both on site and off site. Nondefense Research and Development Program. Noise impacts under Alternative 4 of the Nondefense Research and Development Program would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1, in Section 5.1.1.8. Work for Others Program. Overflights to support treaty verification are flown at high altitudes and would not be detectable on or near the NTS. Site-Support Activities. Transportation noise levels on the site would be minimal and would not produce any noise impacts.
5.4.1.9 Visual Resources
The effects of Alternative 4 on visual resources are presented in this section. Increased public access for museum visits, road races, special hunts, and other recreation would make substantially more area of the NTS visible to increasing numbers of visitors, thus increasing the impact of existing or new development on visual resources. However, much of the landscape character is common to the region. Some operations would produce PM10 and mobile-source emissions. Defense and Work for Others Programs. Under Alternative 4, all facilities associated with each program would be abandoned in place. Only maintenance necessary for safety would occur. There could be a slow deterioration of facilities; however, there would be little change in the overall appearance of the existing landscape. Sensitivity levels could increase because of greater public access. Therefore, impacts to visual resources would be negligible. Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 4, the Waste Management Program would continue its activities at a reduced level. No new ground disturbance would occur, and activities would take place in areas currently used for waste management. Impacts to visual resources would be negligible. Table 5.4-9. Summary of NTS construction emissions and mobile source emissions (on site and off site), tons per year, Alternative 4 Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 4, the Environmental Restoration Program impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.1.9. However, sensitivity levels could increase because of greater public access to the NTS. Nondefense Research and Development Program. The Nondefense Research and Development Program impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.1.9. Site-Support Activities. Approximately 14 acres of new ground disturbance would occur for site-support activities under this alternative. Most ground disturbance would be related to new road and utility corridor construction. The ground disturbance would be scattered throughout the NTS.Impacts to visual resources would be negligible.
5.4.1.10 Cultural Resources
Impacts would be similar to those listed under Alternative 3. However, the total amount of acreage disturbed will be reduced to 14,400 acres, because of a reduction in defense-related testing, reduction in the size of waste facilities, and a lack of landlord-relatedconstruction. Continued visitation and vehicular traffic could lead to vandalism or artifact collecting that could indirectly affect recorded archaeological sites and archaeologically sensitive areas. Although archaeological surveys have not been conducted in these areas, it is estimated that more than 67 sites could be impacted by projects associated with this alternative based on surveys conducted in adjacent areas in 1994. The precise location and number of these resources are unknown until archaeological surveys are conducted. Surveys will be conducted prior to any ground-disturbing activities, and impacts would be mitigated through the measures described in Chapter 7. At least eight structures will be decommissioned under Alternative 4. If these buildings are determined to be historically significant, they would be mitigated using measures described in Chapter 7. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts to cultural resources would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.10. Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 4, the Waste Management Program would continue its activities at a reduced level. At Area 5, construction for new facilities has been proposed. These activities may disturb the physical integrity of some cultural resources. Increased pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic could result in unauthorized artifact collecting and vandalism that could indirectly affect cultural resources. Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts to cultural resources would be the same as those contained in Section 5.1.1.10. All Environmental Restoration Program activities are expected to accelerate. Accelerated remediation at contaminated sites would be likely to result in both direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources. Few sites have been recorded directly within the area of potential effect for Area 13, and impacts directly within the area of potential effect are predicted to be minimal. However, sites have been recorded in the general area, and it is likely that indirect impacts to these sites might be incurred as a result of increased visitation to the site area. Nondefense Research and Development Program.Direct impacts to cultural resources are likely to result from the construction of new facilities and utility upgrades associated with the Solar Enterprise Zones located on the NTS and at one other off-site location. Additional facilities may be required under the Environmental Management and Technology Development Program. Construction of such facilities may also result in impacts to undiscovered cultural resources. Indirect impacts resulting from increased access to the NTS as part of the Environmental Research Park may occur. Work for Others Program. Many activities would be discontinued under Alternative 4. The two exceptions would be for treaty verification and the increased use of NTS airspace by the U.S. Air Force. Because most activities would be discontinued under Alternative 4, there would be no impacts to cultural resources. Site-Support Activities. Cultural resource impacts from Site-support activities under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.10. AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 4, as summarized by the CGTO. Defense Program at NTSUnder Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will no longer be impacted by defense activities; however, oversight and monitoring have the potential for impacting American Indian cultural resources. Indian people require further information before completely evaluating the cultural impacts of this Defense Program alternative. Waste Management Program at NTSUnder Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will continue to be adversely impacted because the waste has not been disposed of in a culturally appropriate manner. Access to culturally significant places on the NTS will be reduced because waste isolation facilities increase Indian people’s perception of health and spiritual risks. Environmental Restoration Program at NTS Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted by monitoring well program and access road activities, but will be positively impacted by actions that return disturbed lands to their natural condition in a culturally appropriate manner and with the participation of Indian people. Nondefense Research and Development Program at NTSUnder Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted by visits by students and researchers. Work for Others Program at the NTSUnder Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be impacted if activities at the Spill Test Facility in Area 5, the Treatability Test Facility in Area 25, and the newly renovated decontamination pad in Area 6 are expanded. It is expected that American Indian cultural resourceswill continue to be adversely impacted by military training exercises and weapons. Defense Program at Area 13Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted. Waste Management Program at Area 13Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because there is no program at the Area 13 site and none has been identified. Environmental Restoration Program at Area 13 Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped during environmental restoration. Access to culturally significant places will be increased if environmental restoration is successful, thus reducing Indian people’s perception of health and spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success. Nondefense Research and Development Program at Area 13Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if military training exercises and weapons tests continue. Work for Others Program at Area 13.Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be impacted if the military training exercises and weapons test continue. 5.4.1.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety. Most of the program activities under the Defense Program and Work for Others Program would be discontinued under Alternative 4. Waste Management Program activities would be reduced in scope compared to Alternative 3. Activities under the Environmental Restoration and Nondefense Research and Development programs would be similar to Alternative 3. Table 5.4-11 summarizes the occupational public health and safety impacts for each NTS program under Alternative 4. Impacts to public health and safety under Alternative 4 are primarily related to routine airemissions. Potential impacts to the public from routine air emissions of radioactivity and priority pollutants are discussed in Section 5.4.1.7, Air Quality. Transportation impacts, which are discussed in Section 5.4.1.2, Transportation, would be reduced by the elimination of waste shipments to the NTS from other sites. Subsurface radioactivity from past underground nuclear weapons tests would continue to be a potential exposure pathway for the public under Alternative 4. Potential impacts to the public would be identical to those described under Alternative 1. The maximally exposed public individual is estimated to have a lifetime probability of contracting a fatal cancer between 8 X 10-13 (about one in one trillion) and 1 x 10-5 (about one in 100,000). The public exposure scenario assumes that the individual consumes contaminated well water for 70 years centered around the time of peak tritium concentration in well water. These impacts are not expected to occur within the 10-year timeframe of this EIS. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts to public health and safety would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.11. Waste Management Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction and other industrial activities and on projected changes in the worker population under Alternative 4, the Waste Management Program at the NTS is expected to result in 50 injuries to workers during routine program activities and 14 injuries as a result of construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same time period, 0.95 fatalities are expected because of routine activities, and 0.024 fatalities are expected to result from construction activities. Based on previous NTS occupational radiation records and on projected changes in the worker population under Alternative 4, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to NTS Waste Management Program workers of about 10-person rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.004 latent cancer fatalities and 0.0016 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. The risk of accidental exposure increases the latent cancer fatality risk by 0.016 and detrimental health effect risk by 0.0064. The risk of a single cancer in the worker population as a result of accidental exposure to hazardous chemicals is estimated to be 5.2 x 10-7. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects to a single worker from Waste Management Program hazardous chemical accidents has a hazard index of 0.48. A hazard index less than 1.0 indicates that no life-threatening noncarcinogenic health effects would be expected to occur. The health and safety impact to the public from potential Waste Management Program accidents could result in about 5.1 x 10-5 latent cancer fatalities and 2.3 x 10-5 other detrimental health effects in the population. Waste Management Program accidents involving hazardous chemicals could result in about 2.0 x 10-5 cancers in the population. No noncancer effects from chemical accidents would be expected to occur. The maximum reasonably foreseeable Waste Management Program radiological accident at the NTS would be the same as described in Section 5.1.1.11 for Alternative 1 (an airplane crash into the Area 5 transuranic waste storage unit, which has a probability of occurrence of 6 x 10-7 [1 in 1,700,000] per year). For Waste Management Programs hazardous chemical effects, the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident would also be the same as described in Section 5.1.1.11 for Alternative 1 (an airplane crash into the Area 5 hazardous waste storage unit, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10-7 [1 in 10,000,000] per year). Environmental Restoration Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction and other industrial activities, and projected changes in the worker population under Alternative 4, the Environmental RestorationProgram at the NTS is expected to result in 8 injuries to workers during routine program activities and about 2 injuries as a result of construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, 0.027 fatalities are expected because of routine activities, and 0.004 fatalities are expected to result from construction activities. Based on previous NTS occupational radiation records and on projected changes in the worker population under Alternative 4, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to NTS Environmental Restoration Program workers of about 21-person rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.0085 latent cancer fatalities and 0.0034 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. The risk of accidental worker exposure to hazardous chemicals increases the risk of a single cancer in the worker population by 2.8 x 10-7. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects to a single worker from Environmental Restoration Program hazardous chemical accidents has a hazard index of 0.14. The health and safety impact to the public from potential Environmental Restoration Program accidents could result in about 2.3 x 10-10 latent cancer fatalities and 1.1 x 10-10 other detrimental health effects in the population. Environmental Restoration Program accidents involving hazardous chemicals could result in about 1.6 x 10-5 cancers in the population. No noncancer effects to the public from chemical accidents would be expected to occur. The maximum reasonably foreseeable Environmental Restoration Program radiological accident at the NTS would be the same as described in Section 5.1.1.11 for Alternative 1 (an airplane crash into the Area 13 site, which has a probability of occurrence of 7 x 10-7 [1 in 1,400,000] per year). For Environmental Restoration Program hazardous chemical effects, the maximum reasonablyforeseeable accident would also be the same as described in Section 5.1.1.11 for Alternative 1 (an airplane crash into a hypothetical environmental restoration site consisting of a composite of hazardous sites across the NTS, which has a probability of occurrence of 7 x 10-7 [1 in 1,400,000] per year). Nondefense Research and Development Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction activities and on projected changes in the worker population under Alternative 4, the Nondefense Research and Development Program at the NTS is expected to result in about 9 injuries and 0.015 fatalities to workers during construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are expected because of routine activities. Based on previous NTS occupational radiation records and on projected changes in the worker population under Alternative 4, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to NTS Nondefense Research and Development Program workers of about 11-person rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.0042 latent cancer fatalities and 0.0017 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. No Nondefense Research and Development Program accident resulting in measurable radiological effects at the NTS has been identified. The risk of accidental worker exposure to hazardous chemicals increases the risk of a single cancer in the worker population by 3.2 x 10-6. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects to a single worker from Nondefense Research and Development hazardous chemical accidents has a hazard index of 0.58. The health and safety impact to the public from potential Nondefense Research and Development Program accidents could result in about 1.9 x 10-4 cancers in the population. No noncancer effects to the public from chemical accidents would be expected to occur. For Nondefense Research and Development Program hazardous chemical effects, the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident would be the same as described in Section 5.1.1.11 for Alternative 1 (an airplane crash into the tank farm at the Fuel Spill Test Facility, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10-7 [1 in 10,000,000] per year). Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts to public health and safety would be the same as those described under Alternative 2 in Section 5.2.1.11. Site-Support Activities. Site-support activities are distributed among the program areas. Under Alternative 4, site-support activities at the NTS are expected to result in 19 injuries and 0.033 fatalities as a result of construction activities during the 10-year period evaluated by this EIS. No injuries or fatalities are projected as a result of routine site-support activities. Occupational exposure to radiation is expected to result in a collective dose to NTS site-support workers of about0.046-person rem in 10 years. This dose could result in about 0.063 latent cancer fatalities and about 0.025 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. Perceptions of radiation effects are discussed in Section 4.1.11 and are well known among the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley Paiute people of this region. These perceptions of risks from radiation are frightening, and remain an important part of our lives. We will always carry these thoughts with us. Today, people are afraid of many things and places in this whole area, but we still love to come out and see our land. We worry about more radiation being brought to this land. If the DOE wants to better understand our feelings about the impacts of radiation on our cultures, they should support a study of risks from radiation designed, conducted, and produced by the CGTO. At this time there has not been a systematic study of American Indians ’ perceptions of risk. Therefore, it is not possible to provide action by action estimation of risk perception impacts. We believe it is a topic that urgently needs to be studied so that Indian people may better address the actual cultural impacts of proposed DOE actions. There have been recent workshops funded by the National Science Foundation to understand how to research the special issue of culturally based risk perception among American Indian communities, and at least one major project has been funded. Although this is a relatively new topic of research, it is one that can be more fully understood by research that deeply involves the people being considered. To understand our view of radiation is to begin to understand why we responded in certain ways to past and present, and why we will continue to respond to future DOE activities.
5.4.1.12 Environmental Justice.
Environmental Justice analysis involves two tiers of investigation. One is the determination of significant and adverse impacts as a result of the alternative. The other is an evaluation of whether a minority or low-income population is disproportionately affected by these significant and adverse impacts. If there are no significant and adverse impacts, there would be no significant, disproportionately high and adverse impacts experienced by minority and low-income populations. The location of minority or low-income populations is shown on the figures in Section 4.1.12. The CGTO has identified impacts to American Indian groups as a result of Alternative 4. While not physically located in Clark, Nye, or Lincoln counties, these groups have traditional ties to the NTS and surrounding areas. Impacts would include continued reduced access to culturally significant areas, the potential for unauthorized artifact collection, and the potential for culturally inappropriate environmental restoration techniques. With Alternative 4, access impacts would be less than with Alternative 1. However, the potential for unauthorized artifact collection would be increased because of the increased number of visitors. These impacts would be perceived only by American Indian groups and would, therefore, have a disproportionately high impact on these groups. No other significant adverse impacts as a result of this alternative were ascertained; therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverseimpacts to other minority and low-income populations. American Indian Environmental Justice concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. These impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.1.10, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and Public Health and Safety. There has not been a systematic study of these issues for the NTS. The CGTO maintains that past, present, and future activities on the NTS have, are, or will disproportionately impact these American Indian people. Under Alternative 4, there is a high potential of adverse impacts to these issues, even though most DOE activities would be discontinued. The continuation of waste management operations, the physical activities associated with environmental restoration and other planned activities are expected to cause both risks from radiation and reduced access from the land disturbance which is expected to occur. The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian Environmental Justice study before new activities are approved. Program-by-program responses are assessed in Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here.
5.4.2 Tonopah Test Range
Under Alternative 4 for the Tonopah Test Range, activities are restricted to the Defense Program, Environmental Restoration Program, Work for Others Program, and site support activities. Therefore, these are the only programs discussed in all sections, with the exception of Section 5.4.2.1.2, Airspace. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, Tonopah Test Range activities associated with maintaining readiness and assisting with the DOE weapons research and design would be in accordance with treaty requirements. Certain defense-related activities might be scaled down or discontinued. Environmental Restoration Program. Environ-mental Restoration Program activitiesat theTonopah Test Range would continue at current or accelerated rates. Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 4, the DOE would continue to support other federal agencies’ programs and research and development projects, as well as provide for overflights and inspections of the Tonopah Test Range in accordance with international arms control treaties such as the Open Skies Treaty.
5.4.2.1 Land Use
There would be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding land use as a result of the cleanup goals under this alternative. Other land-use impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 1.
5.4.2.1.1 Site-Support Activities
Under Alternative 4, three scenarios could occur with respect to site-support activities. If the planned programs are aligned with the DOE or other federal agencies, site-support requirements could increase by 20 percent. Otherwise, the intended users of the Tonopah Test Range would have to determine if all site-support activities could be integrated within their operations. If not, some site-support activities would cease. Facilities would be maintained to prevent deterioration. Efforts that would be required to conserve needed services would continue. In addition, services would increase with new technologies and programs at the Tonopah Test Range. Utilities would be maintained to ensure they are in working order. Utilities that are not currently being used could be put back into service if new technologies and operations were started at the Tonopah Test Range. It is estimated that the water supply system and the wastewater system would support new activities. The estimated lifespan of the sanitary landfill would support all new activities at the Tonopah Test Range. The communications systems have the capacity to be expanded to meet the needs of new activities at the Tonopah Test Range.
5.4.2.1.2 Airspace
Airspace actions associated with Alternative 4 would most likely be similar to those discussed under Alternative 1. Maintenanceof the current level of air traffic control, as well as the same airspace structure, would continue. Defense Programs. The continuation of Defense Program operations at the Tonopah Test Range under Alternative 4 would not result in any airspace or air traffic impacts. The continued coordination with the U.S. Air Force would be required to ensure that both missions are accommodated. Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental Restoration Program activities would have no impact on airspace at the Tonopah Test Range. Work for Others Program. Airspace requirements under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1, with the Nellis Air Force Base Air Traffic Control Facility assuming coordination of air traffic control at the Tonopah Test Range and surrounding area. The continuation of operations at the Tonopah Test Range under the Work for Others Program under this alternative would result with continued coordination between the DOE and the U.S. Air Force to ensure that both missions are accommodated.
5.4.2.2 Transportation
The following sections address the environmental impacts related to transportation activities as defined under Alternative 4. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation.
5.4.2.2.1 On-Site Traffic
Traffic volumes on the Tonopah Test Range roadways are believed to be below 1,000 vehicles per day on any roadway. Activities associated with Tonopah Test Range programs would add a very small amount of traffic volume to these already under used roadways.
5.4.2.2.2 Off-Site Traffic
Under Alternative 4, activities at the Tonopah Test Range as a result of Defense, Environmental Restoration, and Work for Others Programs would generate only minor amounts of vehicular traffic on the local access roads and on the immediate regional highway (U.S. Highway 6 near Tonopah). In 1993, the average daily traffic on U.S. Highway 6 near Tonopahamounted to 1,095 vehicles. This traffic volume is far below the capacity of U.S. Highway 6 at this location. Therefore, under Alternative 4, there would be no traffic impacts on off-site roadways.
5.4.2.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste
Under Alternative 4, the risks discussed in Section 5.1.2.2.3 apply. To summarize the risks (for all the DOE/NV environmental restoration sites), the highest risk is in traffic fatalities and injuries. Both were calculated as less than one person being affected. Even if the environmental restoration projects were accelerated under this alternative, the risks would remain the same. These risks are based on the number of shipments and not on annual rate.
5.4.2.2.4 Other Transportation
Under Alternative 4, the impacts related to other transportation would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.2.2.4.
5.4.2.3 Socioeconomics
The socioeconomic analysis has been prepared for the region of influence, regardless of where employees work. Therefore, the place of employment would not change the effects in any of the socioeconomic issues. The analysis for this site is included in Section 5.4.1.3. American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for tribal members from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3.
5.4.2.4 Geology and Soils
Impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.2.4.
5.4.2.5 Hydrology
The potential impacts to hydrology under Alternative 4 are discussed in this section. The discussion is broken into two subsections: surface hydrology and groundwater.
5.4.2.5.1 Surface Hydrology
5.4.2.5.2 Groundwater
Water demand, impacts, and productivity are the same for the Tonopah Test Range as those described under Alternative 3 and are not significantly different from those under Alternative 1. There would be no significant additive or subtractive impacts under Alternative 4.
5.4.2.6 Biological Resources
Under Alternative 4, the impacts to biological resources would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.2.6.
5.4.2.7 Air Quality
Under Alternative 4, the impacts to air quality would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.2.7.
5.4.2.8 Noise
Noise impacts as a result of Alternative 4 for the Environmental Restoration and Work for Others Programs would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.2.8. The only impact to noise as a result of Defense Program activities would be the periodic, short-term noise caused by artillery and explosive testing operations.
5.4.2.9 Visual Resources
Alternative 4, the only program anticipated to have impacts on visual resources at the Tonopah Test Range would be the Environmental Restoration Program. The impacts to visual resources would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.2.9.
5.4.2.10 Cultural Resources
Direct impacts to cultural resourcesinclude ground disturbing activities associated with new construction, and possible off-road vehicle travel. Direct impacts such as unauthorized artifact collecting and vandalism, may also occur. Defense Program. Under Alternative 4, the impacts to cultural resources would include ground disturbing activities associated with off-road vehicle travel for the Smart Transportation Project and construction of the Climatic Test Operation Facility (Appendix A). Increased access may result in unauthorized artifact collecting. Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 4, no waste management activities will occur at theTonopah Test Range. Therefore, cultural resources will not be affected. Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 4, direct impacts to archaeological resources from cleanup activities could include disturbance of sites found within the area of potential effect. Indirect impacts could result from increased visitation to the site area. Work for Others Program. Treaty verification activities at the Tonopah Test Range would have no impact on cultural resources. Site-Support Activities. Impacts resulting from site-support activities under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.2.10. AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section addresses the American Indian cultural concerns associated with implementing Alternative 4, as summarized by the CGTO. Defense Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted by defense activities; however, overflights and monitoring have the potential for impacting American Indian cultural resources. Indian people require further information before completely evaluating the cultural impacts of this Defense Program alternative. Waste Management Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be adversely impacted because there are no actions planned. Environmental Restoration Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped during environmental restoration. Access to culturally significant places will be increased if environmental restoration is successful, thus reducing Indian people ’s perception of health and spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success. Nondefense Research and Development Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because no activities are planned under this alternative. Work for Others Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be impacted by military training exercises and conventional weapons tests.
5.4.2.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety.
Under Alternative 4, the only activities that would be important to health and safety are associated with the Environmental Restoration Program. Defense Program activities are mostly discontinued. Table 5.4-12 summarizes the occupational and public health and safety impacts for the applicable Tonopah Test Range program areas under Alternative 4. None of the activities under Alternative 4 have a potential to impact public health and safety. Defense Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction activities, the Defense Program at the Tonopah Test Range is expected to result in 2.5 injuries and 0.0044 fatalities to workers during construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are projected as a result of routine program activities. Based on previous occupational radiation periods, occupational exposure to radiation is not expected to exceed a collective dose to Defense Program workers of about 6 person-rem in 10-years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.0025 latent cancer fatalities and 0.001 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. The risk of accidental exposure to radioactive or hazardous chemical releases contributes nearly zero increase to the risk of latent cancer fatality or detrimental health effect. The health and safety impact to the public from potential Defense Program accidents at TonopahTest Range could result in about 9.0 x 10-9 latent cancer fatalities and 4.1 x 10-9 other detrimental health effects in the population. Additional risk due to accidental exposure to hazardous chemicals would be even less. The maximum reasonably foreseeable Defense Program radiological accident at the Tonopah Test Range would be the same as described in Section 5.1.2.11 for Alternative 1 (a failure of an artillery fired test assembly, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10-7 [1 in 10,000,000] per year). For Defense Programs hazardous chemical effects at the Tonopah Test Range, the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident also would be the same as described in Section 5.1.2.11 for Alternative 1 (an explosion of a rocket test assembly containing depleted uranium and beryllium, which has a probability of occurrence of 6 x 10-6 [1 in 170,000] per year). Environmental Restoration Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for industrial activities, Environmental Restoration Program activities are expected to result in 0.0049 injuries and 0.001 fatalities to workers during routine program activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are expected to result from construction activities. Based on previous occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to Tonopah Test Range Environmental Restoration Program workers of about 0.6-person rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 2.4 x 10-4 latent cancer fatalities and 9.6x10-5 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. The risk of accidental exposure to radioactive releases contributes nearly zero increase to the risk of latent cancer fatality or detrimental health effect. No Environmental Restoration Program hazardouschemical accident resulting in measurable effects at the Tonopah Test Range has been identified. The health and safety impact to the public from potential Environmental Restoration Program accidents at Tonopah Test Range could result in about 1.2 x 10-9 latent cancer fatalities and 5.7 x 10-10 other detrimental health effects in the population. The maximum reasonably foreseeable Environmental Restoration Program radiological accident at the Tonopah Test Range would be the same as described in Section 5.1.1.11 for Alternative 1 (an airplane crash into the Project Roller Coaster site, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10-6 [1 in 1,000,000] per year).
5.4.2.12 Environmental Justice.
Environmental Justice impacts for the region of influence are the same as those described in Section 5.4.1.12. American Indian Environmental Justice concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. These impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.2.10, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and Public Health and Safety. There has not been a systematic study of these issues for the Tonopah Test Range. The CGTO maintains that past, present and future activities on the Tonopah Test Range have, are, or will disproportionately impact the American Indian people. Under Alternative 4, there is a high potential of adverse impacts to these issues. As more activities occur, both risks from radiation and reduced access from land disturbance is expected to occur. The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian Environmental Justice study before new activities are approved. Program-by-program responses are assessed in Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here.
5.4.3 Project Shoal Area
Under Alternative 4, activities at the Project Shoal Area would be limited to Environmental Restoration Program activities; therefore, it is the only program discussed in this section. Activities include continuation of characterization and remediation actions at the Project Shoal Area.
5.4.3.1 Land Use
Under Alternative 4, the impacts expected at the project area would be the same as under Alternative 1. Continued site characterization and long-term hydrologic monitoring could result in the disturbance of 10 acres of land. The 10 acres identified for Environmental Restoration Program activities would represent less than 0.4 percent of the project land area. Adverse impacts from Environmental Restoration Program activities to land-use resources would be negligible.
5.4.3.1.1 Site-Support Activities
Impacts resulting from Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.1.1.
5.4.3.1.2 Airspace
Under Alternative 4, impacts to airspace would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.1.2.
5.4.3.2 Transportation
The following sections address the environmental impacts related to transportation activities as defined under Alternative 4. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of radioactive materials and waste, and other transportation.
5.4.3.2.1 On-Site Traffic
Environmental Restoration Program activities would be short-term and would require relatively few personnel (less than 10 people at any given time). No public roads currently exist on the site. Minor vehicular traffic is anticipated, but no traffic impacts are expected.
5.4.3.2.2 Off-Site Traffic
Environmental Restoration Program activities would generate only an occasional and minor amount of vehicular traffic (less than 100 vehicle trips per day) on the local access roads and on the immediate regional highway (U.S. Highway 50). In 1993, the average daily traffic on U.S. Highway 50 near the site amounted to 1,340 vehicles (NDOT, 1993); this traffic volume is far below the capacity of U.S. Highway 50 at this location. Therefore, under Alternative 4, there would be no traffic impacts on off-site roadways.
5.4.3.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste
Under Alternative 4, the risks discussed in Section 5.1.3.2.3 apply. The highest risk from environmental restoration activities would be in traffic fatalities and injuries. Both were calculated as less than one person being affected. Even if the environmental restoration activities were accelerated under this alternative, the risks would remain the same. These risks are based on shipments and not an annual rate.
5.4.3.2.4 Other Transportation
Because Alternative 4 would not include direct use of local railroads, air transportation, or other modes of transportation to the Project Shoal Area, direct effects on rail, air, and other modes of air transportation are expected to be minimal.5.4.3.3 Socioeconomics.
The socioeconomic analysis has been prepared for the region of influence, regardless of where employees work. Therefore, the place of employment would not change the effects in any of the socioeconomic issues. The analysis for this site is included in Section 5.4.1.3. American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for tribal members from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3.
5.4.3.4 Geology and Soils
The Project Shoal Area would be used for any of the described expanded uses, so the potential impacts to the geology and soils would be the same as described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.4.
5.4.3.5 Hydrology.
Under Alternative 4, the impacts to surface water and groundwater would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.5. Acceleration of the schedule would not significantly impact water demand.
5.4.3.6 Biological Resources
The impacts to biological resources under Alternative 4 would be very similar to those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.6.
5.4.3.7 Air Quality
Under Alternative 4, the impacts to air quality would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.7.
5.4.3.8 Noise
Noise impacts as a result of Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.8.
5.4.3.9 Visual Resources
Under Alternative 4, impacts to visual resources would be the same as described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.9.
5.4.3.10 Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural resources under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.10. AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 4 as summarized by the CGTO. This study area is not within the traditional lands of the Indian people represented by the CGTO. It is recommended by the CGTO that the DOE NTS EIS team directly contact Indian tribes and organizations having traditional lands in the Project Shoal Area. The following tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiute, Pyramid Lake, and Lovelock Paiute Tribes. NOTE: The Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiute, and Lovelock Paiute Tribes were contacted by the DOE in letters dated May 12, 1995.
5.4.3.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
The Environmental Restoration Program is the only program expected to result in health and safety impacts to workers at the Project Shoal Area under Alternative 4. No contamination has been detected in surficial soils at this site, and no surface soil remedial actions are proposed. Activities at this site would consist of characterization and hydrologic monitoring. Alternative 4 would accelerate the program activities described under Alternative 1. For Project Shoal workers, the increased activities are expected to result in a corresponding increase in human health and safety impacts compared to Alternative 1. Table 5.4-13 summarizes the occupational and public health andsafety impacts for Environmental Restoration Program activities under Alternative 4. As under Alternative 1, no impacts to public health and safety are reasonably foreseeable from either routine activities or accidents under Alternative 4. Potential impacts to public health and safety from subsurface contamination of groundwater are the same as those discussed under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.11. Environmental Restoration. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for industrial activities, Environmental Restoration Program activities at the Project Shoal Area are expected to result in 1.6 x 10-4 injuries and 3.1 x 10-5 fatalities to workers during routine program activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same time period, no injuries or fatalities are expected because of construction activities. Based on previous occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to Project Shoal Area Environmental Restoration Program workers of about 0.04-person rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 1.7 x 10-5 latent cancer fatalities and 6.8 x 10-6 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. No Environmental Restoration Program accidents resulting in measurable radiological or chemically hazardous effects at the Project Shoal Area have been identified.
5.4.3.12 Environmental Justice.
Environmental Justice impacts for the region of influence would be the same as those discussed in Section 5.4.1.12. The American Indian response regarding Environmental Justice is discussed in Section 4.1.12. American Indian Environmental Justice concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations. (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival especially access violations. There has been no systematic study of these issues for the Project Shoal Area site. This study area is not within the traditional lands of the American Indian people represented by the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations. It is recommended by the CGTO that the DOE NTS EIS team directly contact American Indian tribes and organizations having traditional lands in the Project Shoal Area. The following tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiute, Pyramid Lake, and Lovelock Paiute Tribes.
5.4.4 Central Nevada Test Area
Under Alternative 4, the programs at the Central Nevada Test Area would be limited to the Environmental Restoration Program; therefore, the only impacts discussed in this section are the results of that program. Activities would include continuation of characterization and remediation actions at the Central Nevada Test Area.
5.4.4.1 Land Use
Under Alternative 4, the impacts expected at the Central Nevada Test Area would be the same as under Alternative 1. Acceleration of activities and more stringent cleanup requirements would impact the schedule, but impacts to land use are not expected.
5.4.4.1.1 Site-Support Activities
No significant impacts on site-support activities would occur as a result of Alternative 4 actions. Requirements for water, power, and other facilities would not be increased over Alternative 1.
5.4.4.1.2 Airspace
There would be minimal effects on airspace at the Central Nevada Test Area as a result of Alternative 4.
5.4.4.2 Transportation
The following sections address the environmental impacts related to transportation activities as defined under Alternative 4. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation.
5.4.4.2.1 On-Site Traffic
Environmental Restoration Program activities would be short term and would require relatively few personnel (less than 10 at any given time). There are no public roads currently on the site, and the low level of personnelanticipated would generate a minor amount of traffic. No public roads currently exist on the Central Nevada Test Area.
5.4.4.2.2 Off-Site Traffic
Under Alternative 4, there would be minor vehicular traffic generated. No traffic impacts are expected on off-site road ways. The impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.4.2.2.
5.4.4.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste
Under Alternative 4, the risks discussed in Section 5.1.4.2.3 apply. Even if the Environmental Restoration Program activities were accelerated under this alternative, the risks would remain the same. These risks are based on the number of shipments and not on an annual rate.
5.4.4.2.4 Other Transportation
Because Alternative 4 activities do not include direct use of local railroads, air transportation, or other modes of transportation to this site, direct effects on rail, air, and other modes of transportation are expected to be minimal.
5.4.4.3 Socioeconomics
The socioeconomic analysis has been prepared for the region of influence, regardless of where employees work; therefore, the place of employment would not change the effects in any of the socioeconomic issues. The analysis for this site is included under Section 5.4.1.3. American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for tribal members from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3.
5.4.4.4 Geology and Soils
The Central Nevada Test Area would not be used for any of the described expanded uses, so the potential impacts to geology and soils would be the same as described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.4.4.
5.4.4.5 Hydrology.
Under Alternative 4, the impacts to surface water and groundwater would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.3.5. Acceleration of the activities would not significantly impact water demand.
5.4.4.6 Biological Resources
The impacts to biological resources under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.4.6.
5.4.4.7 Air Quality
Under Alternative 4, the impacts to air quality would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.4.7.
5.4.4.8 Noise
Noise impacts as a result of Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.4.8.
5.4.4.9 Visual Resources
Under Alternative 4, impacts to visual resources would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.4.9.
5.4.4.10 Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 4, impacts to cultural resources would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.4.10. AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 4, as summarized by the CGTO. Defense Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted. Waste Management Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted. Environmental Restoration Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources on the Central Nevada Test Area will be impacted if natural lands are scraped during environmental restoration. Access to culturally significant places will be increased if environmental restoration is successful, thus reducing Indian people 's perception of health and spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success. Nondefense Research and Development Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be adversely impacted. Work for Others Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted.
5.4.4.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
The Environmental Restoration Program is the only active program expected to result in health and safety impacts to workers at the Central Nevada Test Area under Alternative 4. Activities at this site would consist of site characterization and remediation with removal of contaminated mud and sludge. Alternative 4 accelerates the program activities described under Alternative 1. For Central Nevada Test Area workers, the increased activities are expected to result in a corresponding increase in human health and safety impacts compared to Alternative 1. Table 5.4-14 summarizes the occupational and public health and safety impacts for Environmental Restoration Program activities under Alternative 4. As in Alternative 1, no impacts to public health and safety are reasonably foreseeable from either routine activities or accidents under Alternative 4. Potential impacts to public health and safety from subsurface contamination of groundwater are the same as those discussed under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.4.11. Environmental Restoration Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for industrial activities, Environmental Restoration Program activities at the Central Nevada Test Area are expected to result in 1.6 x 10-4 injuries and 3.1 x 10-5 fatalities to workers during routine program activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are expected because of construction activities. Based on previous occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to Central Nevada Test Area Environmental Restoration Program workers of about 0.04-person rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 1.7 x 10-5 latent cancer fatalities and 6.8 x 10-6 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. No Environmental Restoration Program accidents resulting in measurable radiological or chemically hazardous effects at the Central Nevada Test Area have been identified.
5.4.4.12 Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice impacts for the region of influence would be the same as those discussed in Section 5.4.1.12. American Indian Environmental Justice concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival especially access violations. These impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.4.10, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and Public Health and Safety. There has not been a systematic study of these issues for the Central Nevada Test Area. The CGTO maintains that past, present, and future activities on the Central Nevada Test Area have, are, or will disproportionately impact the American Indian people. Under Alternative 4, there is a high potential of adverse impact. As more activities occur, both risks from radiation and reduced access from land disturbance is expected to occur. Even though the CGTO has not been permitted to visit the area, the area is especially important due to the concentration of cultural resources. Therefore, this area provides a special opportunity for the DOE to resolve past Environmental Justice impacts. The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian Environmental Justice study, before new activities are approved. Program-by-program responses are assessed in Section 5.1.1.1.2 and are not repeated here.
5.4.5 Eldorado Valley
Under Alternative 4, the only program expected to occur in Eldorado Valley is the Nondefense Research and Development Program; therefore, the impacts discussed in this section are limited to that program. A sitewide EIS, supplemental EIS, and or other environmental studies could be performed to describe all impacts should this site be chosen for a Solar Enterprise Zone facility . Project plans, site preparation, technical studies, and worker-transition training development and implementation could also be accomplished.
5.4.5.1 Land Use
The location of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility in Eldorado Valley would not result in significant impacts on land uses under Alternative 4. The designation of the site for renewable energy development is consistent with the plans for a tortoise preserve and other uses for the annexed land. Boulder City has already designated 6,000 acres of the land annexed for the purpose of renewable resource development. This designation is consistent with the location of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility in Eldorado Valley. a Solar Enterprise Zone facility at this site, under Alternative 4, would have the same impacts as described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.5.1.
5.4.5.2 Transportation
The following sections address the environmental impacts related to transportation activities as defined under Alternative 4. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation.
5.4.5.2.1 On-Site Traffic
Impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.5.2.1.
5.4.5.2.2 Off-Site Traffic
Under Alternative 4, impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.5.2.2.
5.4.5.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste
This section is not applicable to the Eldorado Valley Solar Enterprise Zone site.5.4.5.2.4 Other Transportation
Because this alternative does not assume extensive transportation of personnel and materials via rail or air, impacts to these transportation modes would be minimal and would not be significant.5.4.5.3 Socioeconomics.
The socioeconomic analysis has been prepared for the region of influence regardless of where employees work. Therefore, the place of employment would not change the effects in any of the socioeconomic indicators. The analyses for this site is included in Section 5.4.1.3. Table 5-4-14 American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for tribal members from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3.
5.4.5.4 Geology and Soils
Impacts on the geologic resources and soils of Eldorado Valley, as a result of developing a Solar Enterprise Zone, facility would be the same under Alternative 4 as under Alternative 3 and are described in Section 5.3.5.4.
5.4.5.5 Hydrology.
Surface water and groundwater impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same for Eldorado Valley as Alternative 3. There would be no significant impacts under Alternative 4, as described in Section 5.3.5.5.
5.4.5.6 Biological Resources
The impacts at this site under Alternative 4 would be the same as those under Alternative 3, as described in Section 5.3.5.6.
5.4.5.7 Air Quality
Under Alternative 4, impacts to air quality would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.5.7.
5.4.5.8 Noise
Noise impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.5.8.
5.4.5.9 Visual Resources
The impacts on the visual resources of Eldorado Valley under Alternative 4 would be the same as those under Alternative 3, as described in Section 5.3.5.9.
5.4.5.10 Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 4, impacts to cultural resources would be the same as those described under Alternative 1 in Section5.1.1.10. AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 4, as summarized by the CGTO. Defense Program Under Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because no Defense Program activities are scheduled for Eldorado Valley. Waste Management Program Under Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because no Waste Management Program activities are scheduled for Eldorado Valley. Environmental Restoration Program Under Alternative 4, no environmental restoration activities are planned for Eldorado Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to American Indian resources are expected. Nondefense Research and Development Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if a solar production facility is constructed and operated. Work for Others Program It is unlikely that Work for Others Program activities will be implemented in Eldorado Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts on American Indian resources are expected under Alternative 4.
5.4.5.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety.
Minimal occupational health and safety impacts are expected as a result of construction and operation of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility . All activities at the site would be conducted in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and requirements.
5.4.5.12 Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice impacts in the region of influence would be the same as those described in Section 5.4.1.12. American Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. These impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.5.10, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and Public Health and Safety. There has not been a systematic study of these issues for the Eldorado Valley. The CGTO maintains that past activities in the Eldorado Valley have disproportionately impacted the American Indian people, especially regarding Holy Land violations. The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian Environmental Justice study before new activities are approved.
5.4.6 Dry Lake Valley
Activities at Dry Lake Valley are limited to the Nondefense and Research Program; therefore, impacts discussed in this section would be the result of Nondefense and Research Program activities. A sitewide environmental impact statement, supplemental environmental impact statement, and or other environmental studies could be performed to describe all impacts should this site be chosen for a Solar Enterprise Zone facility . Project plans, site preparation, technical studies, and worker-transition training development and implementation could also be accomplished.
5.4.6.1 Land Use
The location of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility in Dry Lake Valley would not result in significant impacts on land uses under Alternative 4. The designation of the site for renewable energy development is consistent with the plans for energy production in this area. The impacts to airspace under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.6.1.
5.4.6.2 Transportation
The following sections address the environmental impacts related to transportation activities as defined under Alternative 4. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation.
5.4.6.2.1 On-Site Traffic
Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative 3, Section 5.3.6.2.1.
5.4.6.2.2 Off-Site Traffic
U.S. Highway 93 would be the major regional access to the site. It is a two-lane, two-way rural highway with 1,210 average daily traffic in 1993 south of State Route 375 Junction. The projected peak hour traffic and associated level of service for 1996, 2000, and 2005 are shown in Table 5.4-4. With the Solar Enterprise Zone facility in operation, U.S. Highway 93 near the site would continue to operate at level of service C or better.
5.4.6.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste
Transportation of materials and waste are not expected to occur at a Solar Enterprise Zone facility . Therefore, this section is not applicable to this site.
5.4.6.2.4 Other Transportation
Because activities under Alternative 4 do not include extensive rail or air transportation of personnel and materials, impacts to these transportation modes would be minimal and would not be significant.
5.4.6.3 Socioeconomics
The socioeconomic analysis has been prepared for the region of influence regardless of where employees work. Therefore, the place of employment would not change the effects in any of the socioeconomic indicators. The analyses for this site is included in Section 5.4.1.3. American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for tribal members from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3
5.4.6.4 Geology and Soils
Impacts on the geologic resources and soils of Dry Lake Valley as a result of the development of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility would be the same under Alternative 4 as under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.6.4.
5.4.6.5 Hydrology.
Surface water and groundwater impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.6.5.
5.4.6.6 Biological Resources
The impacts to biological resources at this site under Alternative 4 would be the same as under Alternative 3, as described in Section 5.3.6.6.
5.4.6.7 Air Quality
Impacts to air quality would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.6.7.
5.4.6.8 Noise
Noise impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.6.8.
5.4.6.9 Visual Resources
The impacts on the visual resources of Dry Lake Valley under Alternative 4 would be the same those under Alternative 3, as described in Section 5.3.6.9.
5.4.6.10 Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 4, impacts to cultural resources at Dry Lake Valley would be the same as those described for Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.6.10. AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 4, as summarized by the CGTO. Defense Program Under Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because no Defense Program activities are scheduled for Dry Lake Valley. Waste Management Program Under Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because no Waste Management Program activities are scheduled for Dry Lake Valley. Environmental Restoration Program No environmental restoration activities are planned for Dry Lake Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to American Indian resources are expected under Alternative 4. Nondefense Research and Development Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if a solar production facility is constructed and operated. Work for Others Program It is unlikely that Work for Others Program activities will be implemented in Dry Lake Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts on American Indian resources are expected under Alternative 4.
5.4.6.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety
Minimal occupational health and safety impacts are expected as a result of construction and operation of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility . All activities at the site would be conducted in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and requirements.
5.4.6.12 Environmental Justice.
Environmental Justice impacts for the region of influence would be the same as those discussed in Section 5.4.1.12. American Indian concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. These impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.6.10, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.4.1.11, Occupational and Public Health and Safety. There has not been a systematic study of these issues for the Dry Lake Valley have disproportionately impacted these American Indian people especially regarding Holy Land violations. Any activities occurring near Indian reservations further precludes future opportunities for expansion and access to these lands for any purpose. The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian Environmental Justice study before new activities are approved. Program-by-program responses are assessed in Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here.
5.4.7 Coyote Spring Valley
Under Alternative 4, the Nondefense Research and Development Program would be the only program conducting activities; therefore, the impacts discussed in this section are limited to Nondefense Research and Development Program activities. A sitewide EIS, supplemental EIS, and or other environmental studies could be performed to describe all impacts should this site be chosen for a Solar Enterprise Zone facility . Project plans, site preparation, technical studies, and worker-transition training development and implementation could also be accomplished.
5.4.7.1 Land Use
Under Alternative 4, alternative energy projects would be located as approved. Alternative 4 actions would not significantly impact surrounding land uses, which include wildlife management, mining, and recreation. Under Alternative 4, impacts to airspace would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.7.1
5.4.7.2 Transportation
The following sections address the environmental impacts related to transportation activities as defined under Alternative 4. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation.
5.4.7.2.1 On-Site Traffic
Impacts to on-site traffic under alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section5.3.7.2.
5.4.7.2.2 Off-Site Traffic
Impacts to off-site traffic would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.7.2.
5.4.7.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste
Transportation of materials and waste are not expected at the Solar Enterprise Zone facility. Therefore, this section is not applicable to this site.
5.4.7.2.4 Other Transportation
Because this alternative's activities do not include extensive rail or air transportation of personnel and materials, impacts to these transportation modes would be minimal and would not be significant.
5.4.7.3 Socioeconomics
A major objective of the Solar Enterprise Zone facility in Coyote Spring Valley is to provide local employment and economic benefits to offset the impact of defense conversion and Alternative 4 activities on the NTS. a Solar Enterprise Zone facility would stimulate the economy of Coyote Spring Valley and Lincoln County, while simultaneously serving national energy and environmental objectives. Building individual solar projects would provide construction jobs for a short period of time, while a fairly small, stable work force would be required for sustained operation and maintenance of the facilities. Solar energy could fill the increased demand for electricity without damaging the environment. The development of a new science and manufacturing base mission is important. At the same time, environmental concerns create a growing demand for alternative generating technologies. The socioeconomic impacts of the Solar Enterprise Zone facility will be presented when more information with respect to economic activity, population, housing, public finance, and public services is available. A sitewide EIS, supplemental EIS, and/or other environmental studies will be performed to describe all socioeconomic impacts. In addition, project plans, site preparation, technical studies, and worker-transition training development and implementation could be accomplished. American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for tribal members from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in 5.1.1.3 .
5.4.7.4 Geology and Soils
There would be the same impacts on the geologic resources and soils of Coyote Spring Valley as a result of the development of a Solar Enterprise Zone under Alternative 4 as under Alternative 3. Impacts under Alternative 3 are described in Section 5.3.7.4.
5.4.7.5 Hydrology.
Surface water and groundwater impacts under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.7.5.
5.4.7.6 Biological Resources
The impacts to biological resources activities at this site under Alternative 4 would be the same as under Alternative 3. These are described in Section 5.3.7.6.
5.4.7.7 Air Quality
Impacts to air quality under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.7.7.
5.4.7.8 Noise
Noise impacts under this alternative would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.7.8.
5.4.7.9 Visual Resources
The impacts to visual resources of Coyote Spring Valley under Alternative 4 would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.7.9.
5.4.7.10 Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural resources would be the same as those described under Alternative 3 in Section 5.3.7.10. AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 4, as summarized by the CGTO. Defense Program Under Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because no Defense Program activities are scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. Waste Management Program Under Alternative 4, American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because no Waste Management Program activities are scheduled for Coyote Spring Valley. Environmental Restoration Program No environ mental restoration activities are planned for Coyote Spring Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts to American Indian resources are expected under Alternative 4. Nondefense Research and Development Program Under Alternative 4, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources at Coyote Spring Valley will be adversely impacted if a solar production facility is constructed and operated. Work for Others Program It is unlikely that Work for Others Program activities will be implemented in Coyote Spring Valley; therefore, no adverse impacts on American Indian resources are expected under Alternative 4.
5.4.7.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety.
Minimal occupational health and safety impacts are expected as a result of construction and operation of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility . All activities at the site would be conducted in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and requirements.
5.4.7.12 Environmental Justice
The Environmental Justice impacts for the region of influence are the same as those discussed in Section 5.4.1.12. American Indian Environmental Justice concerns include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival, especially access violations. There has not been asystematic study of these issues for the Coyote Spring Valley The CGTO maintains that past activities in the Coyote Spring Valley have impacted these American Indian Environmental Justice issues, especially Holy Land violations . This area was traditional lands for Southern Paiutes especially the Moapa Paiute Tribe. Any activities occurring near Indian reservations further precludes future opportunities for expansion and access to these lands for any purpose. The CGTO should be funded to design, conduct, and produce a systematic American Indian Environmental Justice study before new activities are approved. Program-by program responses are assessed in Section 5.1.1.12 and are not repeated here.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
