FEIS Vol 3, Part 3: Chap 7 Comment Response Document, (part d)

Return to the Main Document

7.5.5 (9348)
Comment - EIS001888 / 0062
DEIS Table 2-7, pg. 2-76, Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternatives.

Does DOE intend to fund the protection of cultural resources exposed to risk under the proposed action? DOE should also explain in detail the differing view of the Native Americans as to impacts from nuclear waste transportation. It is insufficient to refer to the concerns of Native Americans as occurring solely with reference to the cultural resource impacts.

Response
The cultural resources management effort has been an integral component of the environmental compliance and field study program of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project since the early 1980s. Since that time, the Project has been in full compliance with applicable cultural resources laws and regulations including the National Historic Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. In addition, a formal Programmatic Agreement between DOE and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been in place during site characterization. However, DOE recognizes that construction of the repository and of the selected Nevada transportation implementing alternative would require an updated Programmatic Agreement. In conjunction with the Advisory Council, the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, involved Native American tribes and organizations, and other interested parties, DOE would complete a new Programmatic Agreement following the recently amended guidelines in 36 CFR Part 800, Section 106. A Programmatic Agreement stipulates the compliance and data recovery efforts an agency would undertake. On the Yucca Mountain Project, those efforts would be to protect cultural resources during all phases of the program; the Department would maintain appropriate budgets for such ongoing requirements.

As part of the DOE Native American Interaction Program, tribal representatives have continuously made clear their views about transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste through their ancestral homelands and near their reservations. Section 3.2.2.1.5 of the EIS discusses those views, and the Native American resource document prepared by tribal representatives for use as a reference in the EIS (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998) provides more detail. If DOE selected a specific transportation implementing alternative, it would continue to work with tribal representatives to ensure appropriate consideration of their concerns about cultural resources and other issues.

7.5.5 (10651)
Comment - EIS001965 / 0014
According to the DEIS, approximately 826 archaeological sites have been discovered in the analyzed land withdrawal area. (DEIS at 3-66). While none of these sites have been nominated to the National Register, at least 150 are potentially eligible. (Id.). The DEIS goes on to state that "DOE (1988b) describes how the Department meets its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act..." (Id.). Now, is it safe to assume that DOE’s responsibilities under current legislation remain unchanged, or have these too been abrogated? Given the bastardized version of NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] currently being applied to this project, is it still safe to assume that other relevant legislation remains intact?

Response
DOE responsibilities for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act have not changed (see Chapter 11 of the EIS).

7.5.5 (10652)
Comment - EIS001965 / 0015
We wish to remind the DOE of the three main federal statutes, and implementing regulations, that establish the framework for historic preservation and cultural resource management in Indian country and in areas currently outside of tribal jurisdiction where tribes have religious and cultural interests. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470-470w-6), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470ll), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) may all play a role in the decision-making process. Additionally, DOE must also keep in mind, the various Executive Orders and policy pronouncements concerning tribal-federal interactions.

From the information contained in the DEIS, we urge the DOE to immediately seek eligibility determinations for the 150 sites "potentially eligible for nomination" (DEIS at 3-66). We also urge the DOE to reanalyze the "826 archaeological sites" that have been discovered (Id.). During this process, DOE must remain mindful of the guidance provided in Bulletin 38 published by the National Park Service in 1990. Additionally, DOE must strictly adhere to good faith compliance with section 106 of the NHPA by following the Advisory Council’s regulations. These regulations set out the requirements for consultation with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, inter alia, undertakings that would affect tribes by affecting traditional cultural properties that are not located within artificial reservation boundaries.

Further, we demand the Department to conduct additional surveys of all lands within the proposed withdrawal. Given the evolving nature of NHPA compliance, we believe that many prior surveys may be tainted by the prejudices and past practices of various federal, state, and local entities. In order to purge these past efforts, as well as to fully and in good faith comply with the requirements of the NHPA, we feel a great deal of work has yet to be done. We remind the DOE to vigilantly adhere to its obligations as articulated in the statutes, policy pronouncements, and case law of this nation. Anything less than full compliance will certainly result in violations of both legal and moral norms.

Response
DOE is fully committed to complying with the cultural resource statutes and regulations that apply to the Yucca Mountain Repository (see Section 11.2.5 of the EIS). All previous cultural resource field surveys have been conducted in a legal and professional manner in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4 and the Guidelines for Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (53 FR 4727). Interactions with the involved Native American tribes and organizations, in accordance with applicable legislation, regulations, and Executive Orders, as well as DOE Native American Policy, is conducted on an ongoing basis through the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Native American Interaction Program (see Section 3.1.6.2.1 of the EIS).

The status of eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places for previously recorded archaeological sites in the Yucca Mountain area is handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on each site’s relationship to project-driven activities. For purposes of the EIS analysis, development of the repository surface facilities would not directly impact any known archaeological properties, regardless of their National Register status (see Section 4.1.5.2 of the EIS).

7.5.5 (11777)
Comment - 010345 / 0003
We believe there are many native cultural entities that need to be protected, preserved.

Response
DOE would avoid archaeological and cultural resource sites if possible. If avoidance were not possible, DOE would conduct a data recovery program of the sites consistent with applicable regulatory requirements and input from tribal representatives. DOE, through its Cultural Resource Management Program, along with the Native American Interaction Program, has identified a team approach for managing artifacts in place, rather than collecting and curating. DOE is committed to using Native American monitors on field crews when significant data recovery (collection of resources) at a site is necessary. Archaeological contractors are on call to monitor known sites for potential impacts from project activities. In addition, Native Americans can come to the site to monitor locations during Native American Interaction Program field trips, or during special trips, as necessary.

7.5.5 (12157)
Comment - 010115 / 0006
Pages 3-8 and 3-9 says human activities increase the access to land could result in harmful effects intentional to the fragile resources. So both intentional destruction and disturbance by placing the surface aging facility at Midway Valley, which is a known cultural resource site, is irresponsible.

Response
DOE states in the EIS that there are several known archaeological sites in the vicinity of Midway Valley that could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of a surface aging facility. One of these sites was partially mitigated during site characterization activities in 1991. The degree to which the aging facility could affect the archaeological sites in the vicinity cannot be determined until precise areas of ground disturbance are identified and the presence or absence of important cultural features or artifacts can be assessed for the disturbed areas.

DOE would avoid archaeological and cultural resource sites if practicable. If avoidance were not practicable, DOE would conduct a data recovery program of the sites consistent with applicable regulatory requirements and input from tribal representatives. DOE, through its Cultural Resource Management Program, along with the Native American Interaction Program, has identified a team approach for managing archaeological sites in place, rather than collecting and curating. DOE is committed to using Native American monitors on field crews when significant data recovery (collection of resources) at a site is necessary. Archaeological contractors are on call to monitor known sites for potential impacts from project activities. In addition, Native Americans can come to the site to monitor locations during Native American Interaction Program field trips, or during special trips, as necessary.

7.5.5 (12414)
Comment - 010279 / 0005
DOE activities which disturb Western Shoshone cultural sites on Yucca Mountain cannot be mitigated.

Response
DOE would include avoidance of significant archaeological sites as a mitigative option. Due to cultural value and cost, preservation of archaeological sites in place is the preferred alternative. If avoidance were not possible, a data recovery effort would be undertaken to preserve the archaeological data. DOE is committed to using Native American monitors on field crews when significant data recovery (collection of resources) at a site is necessary. Archaeological contractors are on-call to monitor known sites for potential impacts from project activities. In addition, Native Americans can come to the site to monitor locations during Native American Interaction Program field trips, or during special trips, as necessary. Section 9.2.5 of the EIS contains additional information regarding proposed mitigative measures.

7.5.5 (12802)
Comment - 010337 / 0004
I would say that based on the material I saw that there should not be such a project in that area, that we need to do whatever we can even if it’s flinging our bodies in front of something to protect those rock sites. The area is just amazingly full of culturally significant items.

Response
DOE acknowledges in the EIS that people from many Native American tribes have used the area proposed for the repository as well as nearby lands; that the lands around the site contain cultural, animal, and plant resources important to those tribes; and that the implementation of the Proposed Action would continue restrictions on access to the repository site environs. DOE does recognize that construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain would have continuing adverse impacts for Native Americans who view the past, ongoing, and future repository-related activities as an intrusion on a culturally important and sacred landscape. The Department would continue to interact with Native Americans to ensure that such adverse effects were minimized to the fullest extent possible.

7.5.5 (12879)
Comment - 010343 / 0004
And as far as the wind farm goes, I am not in support of the project mainly because as an Indian that from what I heard that there are culturally sensitive areas within this and I think that preservation needs to be looked at.

Response
A wind farm is not part of the Proposed Action for the Yucca Mountain Repository. DOE, however, is assessing alternative generation facilities for the Nevada Test Site that include 545 wind turbine generators on three areas of the Test Site. Chapter 8 of the EIS includes this proposed action as part of its cumulative impact assessment. The Preapproval Draft Environmental Assessment for a Proposed Alternative Energy Generation Facility at the Nevada Test Site (DIRS 154545-DOE 2001) contains more information. DOE is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement on the subject.
7.5.5 (13486)
Comment - 010260 / 0010
In terms of Environmental Justice, we find it hard to believe that the "DOE will continue its protection of Native American sacred sites, cultural resources, and potential traditional cultural properties" if it is still intent on having Yucca Mountain as the first federal repository since it is considered a sacred site to begin with (Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [SDEIS] P. 3-16). Additionally, the SDEIS states, "several known archeological sites could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the surface aging facility" (P. 3-9). "Reducing adverse effects to the resources" does not mean the same as "continue its protection of Native American sacred sites, cultural resources." How does the DOE determine that a decision made by our society today will not irreversibly negatively impact future generations of Native Americans? They have already been impacted by the Nevada Test Site, so why should they be the host community to an ill-conceived nuclear waste dump that will plague this location for essentially eternity?

The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project has maintained a Native American Interaction Program with 16 tribes and one organization since the mid-1980s (see Section 3.1.6.2.1 of the EIS). Each tribe appoints representatives to sit on a DOE-funded, self-organized committee called the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations. This group meets twice a year and participates in field trips to Yucca Mountain to impart cultural resource protection information and to become more aware of the ongoing studies. While the group does not support the use of Yucca Mountain as a repository, it has agreed to be involved in an honest and participatory process. DOE supported the American Indian Writers Subgroup of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations in its preparation of American Indian Perspectives on the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the Repository Environmental Impact Statements (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998). The results of this report were included in the EIS.

With regard to archaeological sites, the Cultural Resource Management Program, along with the Native American Interaction Program, has identified a team approach for managing archaeological sites in place, rather than collecting and curating.

7.5.5.1 Archaeological and Historical Resources

7.5.5.1 (1557)
Comment - EIS000357 / 0016
Page 3-70. Section 3.1.6.2.2. "According to Native American people, the Yucca Mountain area is part of the holy lands of the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone peoples. Native Americans generally do not concur with the conclusions of archeological [archaeological] investigators that their ancestors were highly mobile groups of aboriginal hunter-gatherers who occupied the Yucca Mountain area before Euroamericans began using the area for prospecting, surveying, and ranching." That was a quote out of the EIS.

This statement is unsubstantiated, unquantified, and unsupportable. What are holy lands? How is it determined that Native Americans generally do not concur? What was the sampling design to determine this opinion? What Native Americans were interviewed or questioned? How were they determined to be representative? What was the specific questions asked to determine that there is a disagreement with archeological scholars.

These statements are outrageous and unsupportable stereotyping based on a sample of unknown representatives.

Response
Representatives of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations, consisting of members of the Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute/Shoshone tribes, wrote the statement to which the commenter is referring. DOE supported the preparation of an EIS reference document American Indian Perspectives on the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the Repository Environmental Impact Statement (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998), which presents the point of view of Native American peoples on the Yucca Mountain area and the potential siting of a repository there. DOE has no bias toward the views of archaeological scholars or Native Americans; the statement in question is a position of some Native Americans who have been interacting on the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, as well as their general perception of what other Native Americans believe.

7.5.5.1 (4229)
Comment - EIS001160 / 0045
The prevailing impression (including within the DEIS) is that significant archeological properties can be bought. Yet the cost of conducting data recovery operations is not specified within the DEIS. It appears that a majority of the significant archeological sites at the Yucca Mountain site have already been treated through data recovery. What have been the costs of this treatment? How do these costs at the sites at Yucca Mountain compare to data recovery costs at locations where highway or rail improvements may be made? The kinds of sites at Yucca Mountain may be much less expensive to conduct data recovery operations than sites in valley floors or riparian zones that tend to be more complex and therefore expensive to conduct data recovery operations. What kind of sites might be of such high value that data recovery should not be undertaken, but rather sites should be avoided by through rerouting and preserved in place. This is a particularly relevant question for a situation like Five Finger Ridge along 1-70 between Richfield and Cove Fort in Utah. This site should have (and could have) been avoided if there had not been a mentality at work in the early 1980’s that all archeological sites could be "mitigated" by data recovery. Why has the DEIS not considered off-site mitigation along potential "tourist corridors" that would be alternative routes to avoid heavy haul nuclear waste shipments?

There is reference to a DOE, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation agreement in each DEIS section on cultural resources. This agreement is now several years old. There are new standards for these agreements that emphasize public involvement and alternatives to data recovery as mitigation measures. Will this agreement be modified to deal with the very different issues in treating cultural properties on linear corridors rather than in large area blocks? Will there be more emphasis on public involvement and public availability of popular and research reports emanating from mitigation?

Response
Previous data recovery efforts at the proposed Yucca Mountain site included limited subsurface testing, National Register of Historic Places evaluations, and data recovery efforts at some archaeological sites to mitigate impacts from project-related field activities (such as exploratory trenches). In general, DOE used two data recovery methods: subsurface testing/surface analysis and collection of artifacts. Because such efforts have occurred over a long period, beginning in 1982, it is difficult to amass total costs for this work. Because of differences in costs associated with similar data recovery methods over a 20-year period, and the fact that data recovery efforts to mitigate potential impacts from a repository-related transportation corridor would be years away, past data recovery costs have little relevance to future costs.

Alignment-specific archaeological studies would occur if the Yucca Mountain site was approved and DOE selected a transportation mode and corridor or route. DOE cannot quantify numbers and importance of sites until these decisions are made. Therefore, it is premature to discuss the possible level of effort required and the associated costs. However, DOE would include avoidance of significant archaeological sites as a mitigative option. Due to cultural value and cost, preservation of archaeological sites in place is the preferred alternative. If avoidance was not possible, a data recovery effort would be necessary to preserve the archaeological data. Section 9.2.5 of the EIS contains more information on proposed mitigation measures.

The Programmatic Agreement between DOE and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation covers cultural resource requirements for site characterization activities at Yucca Mountain. DOE recognizes that construction of the repository and a Nevada transportation corridor would require a new and updated Programmatic Agreement. In conjunction with the Advisory Council, the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, involved Native American tribes and organizations, and other interested parties, DOE would complete the new programmatic agreement, following the recently amended guidelines in 36 CFR 800.106.

7.5.5.1 (4287)
Comment - EIS001160 / 0095
Page 3-112. Section 3.2.2.1.5. Analysis of a corridor limited to only 0.2 kilometers is incredibly restrictive for an overview assessment. This results in small sample sizes and an inability to reasonably characterize the affected environment. A wider corridor or sample design based on topographical, geomorphic, and vegetative strata for the corridors would be much more in keeping with current professional practice to predict impacts to cultural resources.

Response
DOE recognizes that the archaeological site file search for the 0.2-kilometer (660-foot)-wide corridor or routes yielded a limited sample of available known data. If DOE selected a final alignment, existing historic preservation laws and regulations require an intensive field survey of the corridor right-of-way to identify all potentially affected cultural resources, recording of these properties, and evaluation of their significance. Potential adverse effects to significant sites and resources would require mitigative attention.

DOE reviewed archaeological site file records at the Bureau of Land Management Battle Mountain and Elko offices to acquire information on known sites along corridors in Lander and Eureka Counties. DOE has revised Section 3.2.2.1.5 of the EIS to include this information. DOE has also incorporated information in the Final EIS from additional site file searches, including relevant Bureau of Land Management District and Resource Area office records, and literature reviews for the areas that the candidate corridors cross to support the comparative analysis of cultural resource issues between corridor alternatives.

7.5.5.1 (12385)
Comment - EIS001160 / 0121
Page 11-14: Executive Order 11593 is now incorporated (since 1986) as Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act as an Agency responsibility. References to EO 11593 are no longer appropriate as Section 110 of NHPA clarifies and mandates procedures for conformance with law.

Response
DOE has deleted references to Executive Order 11593 in the EIS.

7.5.5.1 (13085)
Comment - 010227 / 0003
The site of the proposed surface aging facility described in the SDEIS [Supplement to the Draft EIS] is occupied by a known archaeological site, a sacred treasure to the indigenous people of the area. The SDEIS fails to address how many of these sites, potentially eligible for listing on the Nation Register of Historic Places would be protected. DOE says they will develop a plan at some future date, yet gives no timeline for when that will happen, or any assurance that it will actually take place. These sites, these precious resources of traditional history. In an area where there have already been more than 25,000 cultural artifacts stolen and moved, this threat to the cultural resources is environmental racism.

Response
DOE states in the EIS that there are several known archaeological sites in the vicinity of Midway Valley that could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of a surface aging facility. One archaeological site was partially mitigated during site characterization activities in 1991. The degree to which the aging facility could affect the archaeological sites in the vicinity cannot be determined until precise areas of ground disturbance are identified and the presence or absence of important cultural features or artifacts can be assessed for the disturbed areas.

With regard to National Register eligibility, status for previously recorded archaeological sites or sites yet to be discovered in the Yucca Mountain area would be handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on each site’s relationship to project-driven activities. DOE would fully comply with its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

7.5.5.2 Native American Interests

7.5.5.2 (38)
Comment - 7 comments summarized
Several commenters noted the cultural beliefs of indigenous peoples and the very special status and sacredness of Yucca Mountain to the Western Shoshone. Commenters stated that the EIS does not incorporate Native American beliefs or the American Indian Writer’s Subgroup input and concerns. A commenter stated that there is no other group of people that have experienced holy land violations due to cultural affiliation and religious beliefs. Another commenter stated that the use of the term "cultural resources" was "dismissively patronizing." Sacred sites and burial sites are like temples, churches, and cemeteries. Another commenter said that Midway Valley has known cultural resource sites and that DOE’s stated goal is to avoid the area as much as possible. Yet, the commenter stated, human activities and increased access could result in harmful effects. Midway Valley and all of Yucca Mountain must be avoided.

Response
DOE supported the preparation of an American Indian Writers Subgroup document (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998) for use as a primary reference in the EIS. DOE did not ignore the Native American position or concerns, but agreed that applicable information would be summarized in Section 3.1.1.4, 3.1.6.2, 3.1.6.2.2, and 4.1.13.4 of the EIS. DOE has the utmost respect for Native American viewpoints and belief systems. DOE is also aware of the special significance that Yucca Mountain and the surrounding area hold for Native American tribes and bands. DOE will continue to consider the importance of this relationship via an active partnership with Native American tribes and organizations through the established Yucca Mountain Project Native American Interaction Program.

DOE does not intend the term "cultural resources" to be patronizing. The term is one in common use to describe the physical remains of a people’s way of life, but can also include such things as cultural uses of the natural environment, spiritual places, religious practices, and community values.

With regard to Midway Valley, DOE states in the EIS that there are several known archaeological sites in the vicinity of Midway Valley that could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of a surface aging facility. One of these sites was partially mitigated in 1991 during site characterization. The degree to which an aging facility could affect the archaeological sites in the vicinity could not be determined until precise areas of ground disturbance were identified and the presence or absence of important cultural features or artifacts could be assessed for the disturbed areas. The final footprint for a surface aging facility has not yet been determined and could ultimately be influenced by a number of factors, including the presence of known or yet-to-be discovered archaeological sites. In the case of impacts that could not be avoided, DOE would interact with Native American tribes and organizations to ensure the implementation of the most appropriate measures to reduce or control any adverse effects.

7.5.5.2 (150)
Comment - 3 comments summarized
Commenters stated that the discussion of Section 3.1.6.2 in the Draft EIS failed to identify the Western Shoshone Nation as it actually exists. Commenters said that for purposes of cultural resource studies at Yucca Mountain, DOE created the Pahrump Paiute Tribe and attributed historic tribal status to the Las Vegas Indian Center, which, out of 100 percent of its service, serves 3 percent of Western Shoshone and 6 percent of Southern Paiute who might have ties to Yucca Mountain. The Western Shoshone National Council was not identified for the purpose of this cultural resource study and the Treaty of Ruby Valley was not included in any review.

A commenter noted that the Director of the Las Vegas Indian Center, who participated in the cultural resource study, became a paid consultant for DOE, and then an employee of the Department. As indicated in the comment, this was a problem relationship because, as a DOE employee, the individual sat in a capacity to make recommendations for the Las Vegas Indian Center, the Pahrump Tribe, the Community Advisory Board for the Nevada Test Site, and the National Indian Nuclear Waste Policy Committee. The commenter stated that this is an unethical relationship.

A commenter also said that the systematic process used in cultural studies is "cultural triage," the forced-choice situation in which an ethnic group is faced with the decision to rank in importance equally valued cultural resources that could be affected by a proposed development project. The commenter likened this to cultural genocide. Several commenters also indicated that DOE activities would disturb Western Shoshone cultural sites and destroy Western Shoshone culture in ways DOE cannot understand. Ongoing ground disturbing activities disturb wildlife and plants and the whole ecosystem and physical access. Shoshone cultural sites on Yucca Mountain cannot be mitigated.

Response
The Western Shoshone people are represented by Federally recognized tribes. In addition, ethnographic studies and the Native American Interaction Program, which has been in existence since the mid 1980s, identified four Western Shoshone tribes -- Timbisha Shoshone, Yomba Shoshone, Ely Shoshone, and Duckwater Shoshone -- as having cultural ties to the Yucca Mountain area. At this time, representatives of three of these tribes are involved in the interaction program (the Duckwater Shoshone Tribe has chosen not to participate actively). Several members of the Pahrump Paiute Tribe, which is not Federally recognized, actively address Native American issues associated with the repository program. The Las Vegas Indian Center is a nonprofit organization that represents the urban Native American population. The Center is a resource for involvement in the interaction program, and its representatives provide constructive input about Native American issues. DOE will continue to invite the four Federally recognized Western Shoshone tribes to participate in the interaction program.

Because the Western Shoshone National Council does not officially represent all Western Shoshone Tribes, DOE prefers to interact directly with Western Shoshone Tribes that have been identified as having cultural affiliations with the Yucca Mountain area. The Ruby Valley Treaty issue is discussed in Section 3.1.1.4 of the EIS.

Native American involvement in the interaction program is not identified through one individual. The program consists of the active participation of as many as 30 individuals from 16 tribes and one organization, including the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone people from Nevada, California, Arizona, and Utah. DOE compensates Native Americans who attend sanctioned meetings or conduct activities on behalf of the interaction program. DOE receives input and recommendations through a consensus of those involved in the meetings.

With regard to the commenter’s concern about "cultural triage," the early DOE cultural and ethnographic study effort (1980s) prioritized the significance of resources to help focus study efforts on the cultural resource program.

DOE acknowledges in the EIS that people from many Native American tribes have used the area proposed for the repository, as well as nearby lands; that the lands around the site contain cultural, animal, and plant resources important to those tribes; and that the implementation of the Proposed Action would continue restrictions on access to the repository site environs. DOE does recognize that construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain would have continuing adverse impacts for Native Americans who view the past, ongoing, and future repository-related activities as an intrusion on a culturally important and sacred landscape. The Department would continue to interact with Americans Indians to ensure that such adverse effects were minimized to the fullest extent possible.

DOE would include avoidance of significant archaeological sites as a mitigative option; preservation of archaeological sites is the preferred course of action. DOE is committed to using Native Americans monitors in field crews when data recovery (collection of resources) at a site is necessary. Archaeological contractors are on call to monitor known sites for potential impacts from project activities. In addition, Native Americans are welcome to visit the site to monitor locations during Native American Interaction Program field trips or during special trips, as necessary. Section 9.2.5 of the EIS contains additional information regarding proposed mitigative measures.

7.5.5.2 (237)
Comment - 3 comments summarized
Commenters expressed the concern that adverse effects (damage to the natural state of artifacts) to cultural resources would result from workers and construction activities. One commenter indicated that the statement in Section 9.3.5 of the Draft EIS related to preconstruction surveys should emphasize the avoidance of significant sites. The commenter asked what is the reclamation potential of archaeological sites. Another commenter stated that the Draft EIS failed to reflect that most American Indians see the unwanted disturbance of cultural resources as the inevitable outcome of the Yucca Mountain Project. Most would prefer no disturbances and see mitigation of disturbed archaeological sites as a marginally acceptable alternative.

Response
In Section 4.1.5.1 of the EIS, DOE indicates it would avoid archaeological and cultural resource sites consistent with applicable regulatory requirements and input from tribal representatives. Section 9.3.5 of the EIS further describes mitigation actions that could be taken in those instances where adverse impacts could not be avoided. In addition, DOE has modified the text in Section 9.3.5 of the EIS to reflect the fact that part of the purpose of preconstruction surveys is to determine the research potential of sites, rather than the reclamation potential.

The Cultural Resource Management Program, along with the Native American Interaction Program, has identified a team approach for managing artifacts in place, rather than collecting and curating. DOE would continue to actively consult with Native Americans to ensure that potential adverse effects were minimized to the fullest extent possible.

7.5.5.2 (503)
Comment - EIS000125 / 0004
What about the American native people? What about their ancestors and all their archeological sites and stuff like that?

Response
The Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project has maintained a Native American Interaction Program with 16 tribes and one organization since the mid-1980s (see Section 3.1.6.2.1 of the EIS). Each tribe appoints representatives to sit on a DOE-funded, self-organized committee called the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations. This group meets twice a year and participates in field trips to Yucca Mountain to impart cultural resource protection information and to become more aware of the ongoing studies. While the group does not support the potential use of Yucca Mountain as a repository, it has agreed to be involved in an honest and participatory process. DOE supported the American Indian Writers Subgroup of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations in the preparation of American Indian Perspectives on the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project and the Repository Environmental Impact Statements (DIRS 102043-AIWS 1998), the results of which were included in the EIS.

DOE acknowledges in the EIS that people from many Native American tribes have used the area proposed for the repository as well as nearby lands; that the lands around the site contain cultural, animal, and plant resources important to those tribes; and that the implementation of the Proposed Action would continue restrictions on access to the repository site environs. DOE does recognize that construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain would have continuing adverse impacts for Native Americans who view the past, ongoing, and future repository-related activities as an intrusion on a culturally important and sacred landscape. The Department would continue to interact with Native Americans to ensure that such adverse effects were minimized to the fullest extent possible.

With regard to archaeological sites, the Cultural Resource Management Program, along with the Native American Interaction Program, has identified a team approach for managing artifacts in place, rather than collecting and curating.

DOE understands that all of "Mother Earth" holds sacred, spiritual, cultural, and historic value to Native Americans. It seeks to understand and document those views as part of the Native American Interaction Program.

Cultural resources, which include archaeological and historic resources of interest to Native Americans, are discussed throughout the EIS, including Sections 3.1.6, 3.1.6.2, and 4.1.5.

7.5.5.2 (6545)
Comment - 010485 / 0003
Given DOE’s admission that "DOE recognizes that it could not construct and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain without some conflict with Native American concerns," (p. 3-16) it seems an inherent contradiction in the EIS that DOE will respect and protect the sites’ cultural resources even as they presume land ownership.

Response
DOE does recognize that construction and operation of a repository at Yucca Mountain could have continuing adverse impacts for individuals who view past, ongoing, and future repository activities as an intrusion on a culturally important and sacred landscape. Although this viewpoint might suggest that the Yucca Mountain should not be developed, DOE and the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations recognize the restrictions on public access to the area have been generally beneficial and protective of cultural resources. Nevertheless, DOE would avoid archaeological and cultural resource sites to the extent possible and consistent with applicable regulatory requirements and input from tribal representatives. The Cultural Resource Management Program, along with the Native American Interaction Program, has identified a team approach for managing artifacts in place, rather than collecting and curating. Rather than a contradiction, this approach provides an active vehicle for DOE, in consultation with Native Americans, to ensure that such adverse effects would be minimized or avoided to the extent possible.

7.5.5.2 (8704)
Comment - EIS001480 / 0009
I’d like to read a short prepared document by the Western Shoshone National Council. The Western Shoshone National Council is the governing body of the Western Shoshone Nation, which is the true stewards of this land of Yucca Mountain. And the Western Shoshone National Council in December of 1995 passed a resolution that said – that created a nuclear free zone in their country, which is called Newe Sogobia. That’s the name of their country. And Yucca Mountain is within the boundaries of Newe Sogobia. I’d like to read this. It’s just going to take about two minutes, and then we’ll be done.

WHEREAS, the people of the Western Shoshone Nation find the presence of radioactive materials, nuclear power facilities and nuclear weapons facilities within the lands, the watershed or airshed of the lands of the Western Shoshone Nation, known in the Shoshone language as Newe Sogobia, as set forth in the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863, to be in conflict with the maintenance of the community’s economic well being, health and general welfare; and

WHEREAS, Nuclear weapons testing by the United States Government on Western Shoshone lands, in direct conflict with the Western Shoshone National Council law and policy, has left portions of Newe Sogobia scarred and permanently contaminated with radiation; and

WHEREAS, The aforementioned weapons testing by the United States Government on Western Shoshone lands has already caused widespread cancer, bringing illness and death to Western Shoshone, members of other Indian nations, and the non-Indian people of the Great Basin region; and

WHEREAS, The United States Government continues to contaminate Western Shoshone lands at the Nevada Test Site by importing and dumping radioactively [radioactivity].

WHEREAS, The United States Government continues to contaminate Western Shoshone lands at the Nevada Test Site by importing and dumping radioactively and chemically contaminated soil and other waste products; and

WHEREAS, The United States Geological Survey has found that the aquifer under the radioactive waste dump site is about to become contaminated with long-lived radionuclides, endangering drinking water on Western Shoshone lands; and

WHEREAS, The government of the United States, against the expressed wishes of the Western Shoshone National Council, is proposing to store highly-irradiated fuel from commercial nuclear power plants, which will remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years at Yucca Mountain within Western Shoshone lands; and

WHEREAS, A high volume of truck transportation of radioactive wastes can be expected through the Western Shoshone Nation’s lands and the surrounding region, increasing the likelihood of an accident and the rapid dispersal to the environment of deadly, long-lived radioactive wastes; and

WHEREAS, The presence of radioactive waste dumps in the region, and the publicity surrounding it, will severely harm the economy of the Western Shoshone and neighboring peoples; and

WHEREAS, Over 4,500 local communities throughout the world, 25 nations, and the regions of the Antarctic, Latin America and the South Pacific have been declared nuclear free zones; and,
WHEREAS, The National Council of the Western Shoshone encourages the development of clean, renewable energy resources in order to create jobs that maintain the traditional Native American values of caretaking and balance with natural creation; and

WHEREAS, The National Council of the Western Shoshone encourages research into radioactive waste neutralization techniques and demands the stabilization and/or cleanup, if possible, of existing radioactive wastes on the lands of the Western Shoshone Nation;

NOW, THEREFORE be it ordained by the Western Shoshone National Council that the following declaration be added to and made a part of the laws of the Western Shoshone Nation:

"Nuclear free zone. For the purposes of this article, the following definitions apply."

I’m going to jump a little bit. The prohibition of storage, use or disposal of radioactive materials; the prohibition of nuclear weapons work; the prohibition of nuclear reactors; the prohibition of uranium and milling; the prohibition of migration of radioactive materials.

"The Western Shoshone National Council shall post and maintain appropriate signs at all recognized entrances to the lands of the Western Shoshone Nation, at entrances to the Yucca Mountain facility and the Nevada Nuclear Test Site, and the National Council office in Cactus Springs, proclaiming the Western Shoshone Nation’s status as a nuclear free zone."

Response
Thank you for your comment.

7.5.5.2 (9667)
Comment - EIS002074 / 0011
With respect to an adverse impact to cultural resources, it states in the EIS that impacts may result from workers and from construction activities. Clearly a plan for mitigation has been established to monitor those areas and sites, but the plan does not include or have a provision for any monitors, even though this has been a long-standing relationship and that the tribes have direct cultural ties to the area.

Response
DOE is committed to using Native American monitors on field crews when significant data recovery (collection of resources) at a site is necessary. Archaeological contractors are on call to monitor known sites for potential impacts from project activities. In addition, Native Americans are welcome to visit the site to monitor locations during Native American Interaction Program field trips, or during special trips, as necessary.

7.5.6 Socioeconomics

7.5.6 (119)
Comment - 2 comments summarized
Commenters expressed concern that Esmeralda County was not adequately addressed in the Draft EIS even though a rail corridor is in or near Esmeralda County. Commenters expressed concern that the EIS discusses the impacts to employment and real disposable income for Clark, Nye, and Lincoln Counties, but does not mention Esmeralda County.

Response
The EIS presents information for counties within the defined region of influence (Clark, Nye, and Lincoln Counties) and the Rest of Nevada. The Rest of Nevada is an aggregate of the 14 remaining Nevada Counties. The socioeconomic simulation model DOE used to estimate potential impacts indicated that the rest of Nevada (including Esmeralda County) would experience some direct economic effects from spending by workers for food and lodging, but incremental changes to the economy would be very small.

7.5.6 (130)
Comment - 43 comments summarized
Several commenters stated that the Draft EIS was inadequate because of reliance on 1990 Census data. Commenters specifically pointed out that the rapid growth of towns and counties in Southern Nevada made 1990 Census population information out of date with regard to both the repository and transportation corridors. These commenters identified alternative sources of population data such as the Nevada State Demographer’s Office and Nye County documents that provide data on current and projected population.

Other commenters indicated that the socioeconomic sections of the Draft EIS underestimated county and town populations and projections, most often citing Nye County and Pahrump. These comments included population projections for areas within the 80-kilometer (50-mile) radiological monitoring grid discussed in Section 3.1.8.1 of the EIS

A number of commenters indicated that DOE should project population growth in the region of influence. Several commenters took issue with the long-term population assumptions based on the National Academy of Sciences recommendations that long-term projections would likely be more in error than using present day conditions.

Response
When preparing the Draft EIS, DOE based the Nevada population estimates on the then-most-recent available information (1996 to 1997) from the Bureau of the Census. The Final EIS uses Nevada population data that incorporates data developed by and received from county and State officials.

DOE used the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) Economic and Demographic Forecasting System (EDFS) 53-sector computer model to project population growth in the regions of influence and to evaluate socioeconomic impacts from the Proposed Action. For the Final EIS, this model incorporates population estimates from 1998 to 1999 provided by Nye and Clark Counties for the socioeconomic baseline. For Lincoln County and the Rest of Nevada, DOE used State Demographer estimates as input to the REMI model. DOE compared these locally derived estimates to the 2000 data provided by the Bureau of the Census.
In general, the Bureau of the Census is the preferred source of information for use in DOE socioeconomic analyses because it provides a greater level of consistency across geopolitical boundaries than most other data sources. Bureau information is based on the direct collection of information, while other information sources often rely either on some form of the Bureau information or on proxies such as telephone and electrical connections to households and businesses. The information for a particular variable provided by local and state agencies or private vendors can differ, sometimes significantly, from one another because of the use of different methods, source data, level of detail and terminology. In addition, Bureau of the Census information is readily available and population estimates are updated annually.

In response to comments, however, DOE has updated its socioeconomic baseline projections and estimated impacts for the Final EIS to reflect the most recent data available from the State of Nevada and local communities, as well as the 2000 Census population summary data for Nevada.

In March 2001, the Bureau of the Census released its county-level population data for the State of Nevada based on 2000 Census. DOE then updated the baseline projection to 2000 Census data for the State of Nevada. The 2000 Census data baseline was then compared to baseline projections utilizing State and local data. Sensitivity analyses of the two data sets indicated that the differences between the two baselines were small. DOE’s population projections and impact estimates in the Final EIS are based on the most recent available information from State and local sources.

The Final EIS baseline uses REMI computer model projections of population totals for each county to 2035. The Clark County projections correspond to those used by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (DIRS 136698–Riddel and Schwer 1999), which are also based on the REMI EDFS 53-sector model. The Nye County population projections for the Final EIS are based on data supplied by Nye County (DIRS 150996-Williams 2000; DIRS 148140-PIC 1998) that are based, in part, on a REMI 14-sector model. For Lincoln County and the rest of Nevada, population projections by the Nevada State Demographer’s Office (Nevada Statistical Abstract) through 2018 were used as inputs to population projections for these areas. DOE used data from these sources to project the population distribution within the 80-kilometer radiological monitoring grid. For Inyo County, DOE used the California Department of Finance projections (DIRS 105294-State of California 1998) to project population distributions.

To update the health and safety analyses associated with transportation in Nevada, DOE used the baseline population for each county in the region of influence and forecast to 2035 to scale impacts from results based on the 1990 census. For example, if a county’s population was estimated to double from 1990 to 2035, DOE assumed that the population along the associated rail corridor also would double; radiological impacts were then doubled accordingly. In certain locales, however, such as around the planned Las Vegas Beltway, DOE used local sources of population information to better reflect population growth trends (in this instance information from a report prepared for the City of North Las Vegas).

As discussed in Section 5.2.4.1 of the EIS, DOE accepts the position of the National Academy of Sciences that it is not possible to accurately predict future human behavior. DOE used a default position of today’s conditions. For the Final EIS, DOE has projected baseline population and other economic measures to 2035.

7.5.6 (231)
Comment - 6 comments summarized
Several commenters said that the EIS needs to address a number of direct impacts to Lander County. The listing of issues include real estate property values, socioeconomic impacts, revenue sources for southern Lander County (fishing, hunting, and recreation), tourism, shortage of law enforcement officers, mining, ranching, and grazing allotments.

Response
DOE developed a list of assumptions to determine projected economic and demographic changes in Nevada from the construction and operation of the proposed repository. The Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) computer model used in these determinations incorporates four regions. Three of the regions are Clark, Nye, and Lincoln Counties. The fourth region is the Rest of Nevada, comprising the other 14 counties in the state (including Lander County).

DOE assumed for railroad construction that workers would be nominally assigned to base camps according to an even split by the number of camps. All railroad construction workers would commute weekly from Clark County to the trailer camps outside Clark County. The base camps would subcontract to provide mess facilities for its workers. For purposes of the economic analysis, it was assumed that monies expended on eating and drinking would enter the economy through retail establishments, although most meals would be eaten at the base camps. Operations workers would live in the county where the route branches off the main line, except for the Carlin routes, for which they would live in Elko.

Given these assumptions, the total estimated incremental population increases for the 14 counties in the Rest of Nevada attributed to the Carlin Corridor would be about 170 individuals in the peak year. Total employment associated with the Carlin Corridor for the 14 counties for the peak year would be about 90. DOE does not believe there would be discernible direct or indirect impacts to the infrastructure or revenue sources (such as public safety or recreation) for any of these counties, including Lander, because 90 individuals is a small percentage of the current and projected population of the Rest of Nevada.

DOE did not address potential changes in property values because of the dynamic nature of real estate and the uncontrollable factors that can influence property values. Similarly, definitive information is not available on specific tracts of land (grazing allotments, mining claims, or otherwise) that could be required for a given transportation alternative. For any land that would be required or otherwise affected, the Department would compensate landowners fairly under the Federal acquisition procedures, as applicable. If the Department had to exercise its rights of eminent domain, it would follow applicable laws and regulations.

7.5.6 (255)
Comment - 3 comments summarized
Several commenters indicated that the Supplement to the Draft EIS did not address the socioeconomic impacts associated with the aging facility.

Response
Section 3.1.8 of the Supplement to the Draft EIS includes a discussion of the potential socioeconomic impacts associated with the surface aging of spent nuclear fuel. Because about half of the operational period for an aging facility would occur after 2035, beyond the credible limits of the REMI computer model utilized to estimate socioeconomic impacts, DOE did not quantity impacts beyond 2035.

7.5.6 (338)
Comment - EIS000055 / 0002
Provide a version of Fig 3-21, pg 3-80 with Nye town boundaries and 1997 population distribution.

Response
Figure 3-25 of the EIS depicts 2035 (not 1997) population distribution within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the proposed repository. The distribution in the Final EIS is based upon 2000 population estimates incorporating housing counts estimated through windshield surveys and electric utility data. While it would be possible to overlay existing town boundaries on the radiological monitoring grid, DOE has not done so for the EIS because the focus of the assessment is to establish the relative number of residents in a given direction and distance from the repository. Potential health and safety impacts to individuals or populations groups are a function of direction and distance and independent of municipal boundaries or governmental jurisdictions.

7.5.6 (420)
Comment - EIS000071 / 0018
With the cessation of nuclear weapons testing in 1992, Nye County has made substantial efforts to plan for its economic future in the US 95 corridor.

The DEIS does not recognize these plans and does not reflect the DOE obligation to ensure that the Yucca Mountain project will not thwart those plans.

Response
Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508), DOE considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in its assessment of cumulative impacts and has reviewed a number of actions, both current and proposed, to determine relevance. The expression "reasonably foreseeable" refers to future actions where there is some reasonable expectation that the action will occur.

Cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapter 8 of the EIS. DOE developed these analyses by identifying other actions whose effects could coincide in time and space with the effects from the repository (examples include the underground testing at the Nevada Test Site, the proposed Desert Space Museum, and low-level radioactive waste disposal at the Nevada Test Site and in Beatty, Nevada). The identification of these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (including past, current and future actions at the Nevada Test Site) was based on a review of resource plans prepared by Federal agencies, other EISs and environmental assessments, tribal meeting records, and other documents developed by federal, state, local and private organizations including those submitted by Nye County. DOE has followed the Nye County economic development activities, particularly the development of the Desert Space Museum and adjacent business park. Other activities that have been followed include the possible siting of Kistler Aerospace and the VentureStar® Program. Thus far, these actions remain in the very early idea or planning. DOE would continue to have dialogue with and continue to monitor planning activities. The Final EIS includes factual changes and clarifications, and DOE believes that the EIS adequately characterizes the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed repository.

The documents cited in Section 3.2.2.1.1 of the EIS are source documents used by DOE for land use features and possible future actions taking place within the transportation corridors. The more notable land use features and influences that exist or could exist on lands within the transportation corridors are presented in Chapter 6 of the EIS. The potential impacts of each transportation alternative in Nevada are described in Section 6.3 of the EIS. Included are estimates of impacts to health and safety in Nevada from incident-free waste transport to Yucca Mountain and from transportation accidents, as well as regional socioeconomic impacts to potentially affected counties (see Table 6-4 of the EIS). Section 6.3 and Appendix J.3 of the EIS reflect planning/zoning designations in completed land use planning documents prepared by public entities with jurisdiction over transportation routes in Nevada. Section 6.3 of the EIS establishes the scope of land use information deemed useful for assessing potential impacts of transportation implementing alternatives in Nevada.

7.5.6 (464)
Comment - EIS000113 / 0003
I know demographically we don’t -- we’re not even a pimple on a gnat’s ass, and I say that because we will be the only place within fifty miles of a major DOE thing that is under 400,000 people.

So if this is saying we don’t count.

This is a moral question and should be answered.
We’re just as important as any place else in the nation, we think, and we hope.

Response
DOE agrees that small communities are just as important as large communities with regard to potential effects to individuals. As a consequence, the Department has estimated potential health and safety impacts by population sector and to the hypothetical maximally exposed individual.

7.5.6 (479)
Comment - EIS000084 / 0001
One of the criteria used in selecting Yucca Mountain was according to your EIS the sparsely populated area around Yucca Mountain. Well, this sparsely populated area of land around Yucca Mountain grows crops and feeds 5,000 milk cows which produces twenty percent of Nevada’s milk production. This dairy [Ponderosa Dairy in Amargosa Valley] ships out 128 million pounds of milk annually to 30 million people throughout California and the West Coast. In the future event of juvenile nuclear contamination, this dairy would be a direct conduit of that contamination to 30 million people. Yet this large dairy industry is not even mentioned in your report. Now, how could a comprehensive and well researched and documented EIS miss this? I don’t know. We have also invested over 1 million dollars in producing and marketing the first organic milk in Nevada. Who is going to want to drink organic milk produced next to the largest nuclear dump in the world? I want to know that.

Response
Section 3.1.1.1 of the EIS acknowledges there are farming and dairy operations about 30 kilometers (19 miles) south of the proposed repository in the Amargosa Valley. The concerns the commenter raises relate ultimately to the marketability of milk produced in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. While DOE has not addressed marketing issues, it has assessed the potential health and safety issues for all applicable environmental pathways associated with the repository in Chapter 4 of the EIS. In addition, the Department has programs in place that includes testing to ensure the safety of milk produced near its sites. In Nevada, DOE has established a milk surveillance network to monitor the potential uptake of radioisotopes in milk near the Nevada Test Site. The network includes commercial dairies and family-owned milk cows and goats representing the major milksheds within 300 kilometers (186 miles) of the Test Site. In southern Nye County, this includes the Pahrump Dairy and Ponderosa Dairy. The program specifically identifies the use of farmland and dairies in Amargosa Valley and other areas within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the proposed repository.

7.5.6 (480)
Comment - EIS000084 / 0002
In your EIS draft, page 3-75, it states that 110 people are employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries in all of Nye County. We [Ponderosa Dairy in Amargosa Valley) alone employ over a hundred people directly. We alone. Here is yet another serious error in just simple basic facts. 27 million dollars and they can’t figure out how many farm workers there are in Nye County? I’m really having some serious doubts now.

Response
Page 3-75 of the Draft EIS reported 110 employees in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sector for 1995. The Draft EIS, however, also reported 210 employees in the farming sector for 1995. These data and job sector classifications are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analyses, Regional Economic Information System. This is the same data source Nye County used in its socioeconomic reports prepared by the Planning Information Corporation. The information for 2000 reported in the Final EIS shows levels of employment in the farming and agricultural services sectors. The agricultural sector is 110 (the same as in 1995), while farming is 260 (about 50 employees higher).

7.5.6 (529)
Comment - EIS000118 / 0001
Our basic preliminary comments on the socioeconomics are that the EIS does not sufficiently deal with -- sort of reflect ground truth in Nye County communities as they have evolved in the last few years in the 1990s.

It doesn’t include [an] adequate reflection of what Nye County communities, especially southern Nye communities, are -- could become over the long period of time of this project, and it does not address some of the actions of the Commission and other agencies regarding land development and activities of Nye County.

A few quick examples. On page -- I think it’s 3-17 [3-73] of the [Draft] EIS, it says that Nye County had a population of 26,000 in 1997, and it also says that no community level population estimates were available for 1991 or 1995.

Nye County has prepared community level population estimates since before the 1990 census on a quarterly basis using a consistent method with methods fully explained and with results fully distributed since or before the 1990 census and people in Pahrump think our estimates are conservative.

But our estimate for 1997 is 31,000, not 26,000, and our estimates for today are in the 37,000 area. The point is that the EIS assumes that Yucca Mountain is going to be imposed on basically a static community, not one that is changed as much as this one has.

Another quick example is that all the radiation exposure estimates in the EIS assume that there will be 28,000 people within fifty miles of the repository. That includes all of Pahrump.

Nye County has published population projections that say that by 2010, which is when this project is scheduled to go operational, there will be at least 47,100 population within fifty miles and in Nye County.

That doesn’t include California, that doesn’t include Indian Springs, within fifty miles, and that estimate it says in the projection doesn’t include some of the economic development matters. It doesn’t include some of the extraordinary subdivision developments in Pahrump.

Since 1992, when nuclear weapons testing was stopped at the Nevada Test Site, the DOE Nevada has sought out to think through new kinds of missions for the test site, and Nye County has made a considerable effort sort of reflecting that to develop ideas of economic development for the US 95 corridor, Indian Springs all the way up to Tonopah.

These are ambitious, they are innovative and they reflect a vision for Nye County’s future that should not just be done for nuclear weapons testing, low-level radioactive test and high-level radioactive waste.

And so the use of the 28,000 estimate reflects a notion that this is being imposed on a community that is static at a level that was passed back in 1995.

Response
In the area of socioeconomic impacts, the primary uncertainties that could be analyzed are those associated with projections of population and economic growth. The Final EIS incorporates Nevada population data developed by and received from county and state officials. In response to comments, DOE has updated its population estimates in the regions of influence to reflect the most recent state and local information. For the repository- and transportation-related regions of influence, DOE performed Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) computer model simulations to establish an updated population baseline by accounting for population estimates and projections provided by county governments. In the absence of county information, population estimates and projections from the Nevada State Demographer’s Office were used. The updated population baselines were then used to estimate populations for Clark, Nye, and Lincoln Counties and the Rest of Nevada through 2035. In addition, DOE prepared estimates based on the actual 2000 Census data for that year and projections of growth rates provided by local and state agencies. A sensitivity analysis revealed only small differences in the two projections.

The Final EIS baseline used REMI model projections of population totals for each Nevada county in the region of influence and the rest of Nevada until 2035. DOE based inputs to Nye County projections for the Final EIS on data identified in Nye County documents (DIRS 150996-Williams 2000; DIRS 148140-PIC 1998). The Nye County projections provided during the comment response period are based in part on a REMI 14-sector model. Nye County projections and source documents were used to project population distributions within the 80-kilometer (50-mile) radiological monitoring grid.

Consistent with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508), DOE considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in its assessment of cumulative impacts and has reviewed a number of actions both current and proposed to determine relevance. The expression "reasonably foreseeable" refers to future actions where there is some reasonable expectation that the action could occur.

Such as a Proposed Action under analysis, a project that has already started, or a future action that has obligated funding.

DOE has followed the Nye County economic development activities, particularly the development of the Desert Space Museum and adjacent business park. Other activities that have been followed include the possible siting of Kistler Aerospace and the VentureStar® program. Thus far, these actions remain in the very early idea or planning stage. DOE would continue to have dialogue with, and continue to monitor the planning activities of the affected units of local government to ensure they are taken into account in the decision-making process for the proposed repository.

7.5.6 (558)
Comment - EIS000227 / 0006
The draft EIS completely ignores the potential for major and widespread socioeconomic impacts from the project, both in Nevada and in cities and communities throughout the nation.

Response
DOE has assessed the potential socioeconomic impacts associated with development of a repository at the Yucca Mountain. The Department estimated the incremental impacts at the county level for Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, and the rest of the 14 Nevada Counties aggregately. It used the REMI EDFS-53 Forecasting and Simulation Model. The model segments age, ethnicity, and gender based on 600 cohorts to predict population. The model also calculates births, deaths, and aging. Employment and fiscal changes to the economy are derived from inter-industry relationships, labor markets, and national/worldwide economic variables. Based on the results of the model outputs, DOE does not believe the incremental increases in socioeconomic parameters represents large or widespread economic impacts.

From the national perspective, DOE did not analyze the potential socioeconomic impacts of transportation because all spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste shipments would be over existing highways and railroads. The shipments would represent a very small fraction of total national highway and railroad traffic (0.008 percent of truck kilometers and 0.007 percent of railcar kilometers).

With regard to suggestions that major or widespread socioeconomic impacts would arise through perceptions of the repository or transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, DOE has determined that it could not measure any potential impacts in a meaningful way. This is discussed in Section 2.5.4 of the Final EIS and Appendix N.

7.5.6 (603)
Comment - EIS000127 / 0020
It says in here that Pahrump has all the services we need to take care of the problem. We don’t even have a hospital.

Response
Section 3.1.7.5 of the EIS notes that there are no hospitals in Southern Nye County. Section 4.1.6.2.5 states that the Proposed Action would increase demand for public services in pathway and other portions of Southern Nye County. After a decision was made on the proposed repository, and transportation modes and routes, local jurisdictions would be better able to identify the likely economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts that would be the basis for a request for economic assistance, which might include assistance in providing additional medical and emergency response facilities, under Section 116(c) of the NWPA.

In the Final EIS, DOE has expanded its socioeconomic discussions in Chapter 3 to provide a clarified basis for understanding the potential impacts described in Chapter 4. This discussion includes a projection of baseline parameters through 2035 based on the most recently available information and assumptions. Section 116(c)(2)(A)(i) of the NWPA states that "the Secretary shall provide financial and technical assistance to the State of Nevada and any affected unit of local government to mitigate the impact on such [an affected unit of local government or the State of Nevada] of the development of [a] repository and the characterization of [the Yucca Mountain] site." Such assistance can be given to mitigate likely "economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts." Within that broad framework, neither Section 116 nor any other provision of the NWPA limits the impacts that are subject to assistance under Section 116 to the environmental impacts considered in this EIS.

Under the NWPA, the Section 116 impact assistance review process and this EIS process are distinct from one another, and the implementation of one is not dependent on the implementation of the other. Thus, the provision of assistance under Section 116 would not necessarily be limited either by the impacts identified in this EIS or by its findings on such impacts. Any decision to provide assistance under Section 116 would be based on an evaluation of a report submitted by an affected unit of local government or the State of Nevada pursuant to Section 116 to document likely economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts. If the proposed repository was to become operational, DOE would enter into discussions with the State of Nevada and affected units of local government and consider appropriate support and mitigation measures.

7.5.6 (606)
Comment - EIS000127 / 0024
There’s one thing left I’d like to say. You talk about worst case scenarios. What about the socioeconomic impacts of a worst case scenario that nobody in the State of Nevada wants Yucca Mountain; not the government, not the people.

If they try to ram it down Nevada’s throat, what if Nevada tries to secede from the union? That’s a socioeconomic impact that could be very real.

You got a lot of militias out here who don’t like the Federal Government, anyway. So that is something that really should be considered. What about if we just say, "No go."

Response
DOE recognizes that there is considerable opposition to the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository. The decision as to whether or not the repository would be implemented as proposed lies with the President, the State of Nevada, the United States Congress, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

7.5.6 (1130)
Comment - EIS000270 / 0013
Factors that give rise to public concerns about and opposition to approval of the Yucca Mountain site include:

Adoption of arbitrarily limited, unrealistic scenarios, cultural and economic systems and characteristics, to describe future conditions and situations affecting future populations.

Response
DOE has assessed the potential socioeconomic impacts associated with the proposed Yucca Mountain Project. The Department estimated the incremental impacts at the county level for Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, and the rest of the 14 Nevada Counties aggregately. It used the REMI EDFS-53 Forecasting and Simulation Model. The model segments age, ethnicity, and gender based on 600 cohorts to predict population. The model also calculates births, deaths, and aging. Employment and fiscal changes to the economy are derived from inter-industry relationships, labor markets, and national and worldwide economic variables. Based on the results of the model outputs, DOE does not believe the incremental increases in socioeconomic parameters represent large or widespread economic impacts.

7.5.6 (1184)
Comment - EIS000114 / 0005
If you read the Environmental Impact Statement, they estimate our population in Pahrump to be 16,800 in the year 2000. We’re now double that.

If you look at the baseline population estimates and you draw the graph, it comes from his office -- we’re going to be guaranteed 45,000 people in the year 2005 before they’ll even start construction up on the railway.

What was amazing to me about the summary or in the impact statement was the bomb that went off. This is a radius of fifty miles. Pahrump’s in it.

It shows population 16,800, and they don’t want to address sabotage.

Isn’t it amazing that Mr. Reagan allowed us to take in ten percent of outside nuclear storage to include high-level plutonium, and in our impact statement, they say that sabotage is very unlikely, yet we’re going to be out here in the middle of nowhere on a railway and all it’s going to take is a couple tons of dynamite to blow it up and to get to that plutonium.

Response
The Final EIS uses Nevada population estimates that incorporate data developed by and received from county and State officials. In the case of Nye County population estimates, DOE incorporated the latest population estimates received from Nye County.

Sabotage is discussed in Sections 4.1.8.3, 6.2.4.2.3, 7.2.1.15, and 7.2.2.9 of the EIS. The commenter is correct in that portions of Pahrump are within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the proposed repository. Figure 3-20 of the EIS shows the areas that DOE regularly monitors for radiological releases to the environment.

7.5.6 (1187)
Comment - EIS000114 / 0008
The population studies suck. You’re wrong. You’re wrong.

Response
The Final EIS uses Nevada population estimates that incorporate data developed by and received from County and State officials.

7.5.6 (2652)
Comment - EIS000409 / 0009
Socio & Economic hardships. Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 7735, Oct. 4, 1993) and other OMB reviewed Presidential Orders will affect the economies of many places in the nation. YM could potentially materially alter, as well as adverse economic impacts on a city like Chicago or a town like Pahrump ($100 million or more impact).

Response
Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review," sets forth guidance for a more efficient regulatory process.

DOE agrees that Yucca Mountain activities could affect small and large communities. As a consequence, the Department has estimated the potential socioeconomic impacts to areas that could receive the most impacts. The concern is not with the size of the community, but with the distribution of people in the potentially affected areas and with the incremental change in a given parameter.

7.5.6 (4388)
Comment - EIS001399 / 0003
This city is the fastest growing city in the United States with a growth rate of over 400%. It is estimated that we will have a population of influence within the next 10 years of approximately 80,000. The draft statement has not addressed the fiscal impact to the city or its businesses. We suggest that the Environmental Draft Statement be rejected on the basis of incomplete or outdated data and assumptions that do not include the City of Mesquite.

Response
DOE has evaluated socioeconomic impacts of its actions on Clark County, based on the historic residential patterns of its employees who live in Clark County; the majority of new employees associated with the Yucca Mountain Project would reside in the Las Vegas urban area. Potential fiscal impacts on the county level were captured through estimation of real disposable income and state and local spending.

7.5.6 (5037)
Comment - EIS001520 / 0005
Population data used in the EIS should be updated from the 1990 census figures and should be extrapolated to estimate continued population growth for a reasonable time in the future.

The draft EIS uses 1990 census data for those analyses that require estimates of population sizes. Because of rapid growth in the Las Vegas Valley area, the 1990 census data are out of date. More recent population estimates and twenty-year projections of future growth are available from the Nevada State Demographer’s Office at the University of Nevada, Reno. The Board recommends that the State Demographer’s population projections be used when preparing impact estimates for the final EIS.

Response
The Final EIS incorporates Nevada population data developed by and received from county and State officials.

After DOE issued the Draft EIS and the Supplement to the Draft EIS and reviewed public comments on these documents, it started revising its socioeconomic baseline projections and estimated impacts for the Final EIS utilizing population data from the State of Nevada and local communities. The revisions include an estimated baseline projection to 2035 for the socioeconomic parameters considered in the EIS.

In March 2001, while DOE was preparing the Final EIS, the Bureau of the Census released its county-level population data for the State of Nevada based on the 2000 Census. DOE prepared an additional baseline projection anchored to the 2000 Census data for the State of Nevada.

DOE compared the 2000 Census baseline to the baseline projections incorporating State and local data. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the incremental differences between the two baselines were generally small.

DOE elected to incorporate the most recently available information from state and local sources as a basis for impact assessment in the Final EIS in consideration of the critiques received from commenters for the following reasons:

Analyses showed that the differences or potential socioeconomic impacts associated with Yucca Mountain Repository activities are basically insensitive to which baseline is used.
There is some uncertainty involving what the final totals will be for the Census data at the county level.
The State of Nevada and local communities have not yet made available their independent estimates based on the 2000 Census data.

Similarly, DOE based its estimated population distribution within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the repository on projections to 2035, utilizing the information available from State and local sources. DOE based the allocation of individuals to a particular sector within the 80-kilometer area on surveys conducted in 2000. Figure 3-25 of the EIS provides the population distribution for 2035.

The Final EIS baseline uses REMI model projections of population totals for each county until 2035. DOE’s Clark County projections correspond to those used by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (DIRS 136698-Riddel and Schwer 1999), which also uses the REMI Economic and Demographic Forecasting System (EDFS) 53-sector model. DOE used inputs to the Nye County projections for the Final EIS on data identified in Nye County documents (DIRS 150996-Williams 2000; DIRS 148140-PIC 1998). The Nye County projections provided during the Draft EIS public comment period are based in part on a REMI 14-sector model. DOE used Lincoln County and Rest of Nevada projections through 2018 from the Nevada State Demographer’s Office (DIRS 155350-State of Nevada 1999) as inputs to population projections for these areas. DOE used the county projections and Nye County source documents to project population distribution within the 80-kilometer (50-mile) radiological monitoring grid. DOE used California Department of Finance projections (DIRS 150294-State of California 1998) for Inyo County, California, as the basis for projecting population distributions for Inyo County sections of the radiological monitoring grid.

To update the health and safety analyses with transportation in Nevada, DOE used the baseline population for each county in the region of influence and forecast to 2035 to scale impacts from results based on the 1990 Census. For example, if a county’s estimated population would double from 1990 to 2035, DOE assumed that the population along the associated rail corridor also would double, and doubled the radiological impacts accordingly. In certain locales, however, such as around the planned Las Vegas Beltway, DOE used local sources of population information to better reflect population growth trends (in this instance, information from a report prepared for the City of Las Vegas).

For other Nevada counties, Nevada State Demographer projections (DIRS 155350-State of Nevada 1999) are used as the basis for population projections used in analyses of accidents near transportation corridors and for health effects modeling. Estimates of historic populations of towns and cities in Nevada are obtained from the Nevada State Demographer’s Office or from county documents, as appropriate.

7.5.6 (5208)
Comment - EIS001443 / 0032
Socioeconomic impact analysis in the DEIS is limited to regional impacts on employment, housing and other standard economic indicators. There is no analysis of potential socioeconomic disturbances due to repository operation and transportation under both normal and accident conditions. Conversely, the DEIS lacks discussion of the impact of socioeconomic changes on the operation of the repository. Growth rates and development expectations along transportation corridors, and the implications of same for the evolution of new transportation risks during the 30-year span of repository operations are not considered.

Response
The EIS does assess potential socioeconomic impacts of each repository and transportation scenario. Section 4.1.6.2 contains impact estimates for each phase of repository construction and operations for the three counties most likely to be affected (Clark, Nye, and Lincoln) and for the remaining 14 counties in Nevada together. Sections 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.3 contain socioeconomic impact estimates for each rail corridor and Nevada heavy-haul truck route, respectively.

The analyses for each scenario estimate the projected change in a number of socioeconomic parameters through 2035. The changes are based on baseline projected growth trends and economic activity for each potentially affected county and the Rest of Nevada, with Yucca Mountain-associated influences factored in as potential activities are scheduled to occur.

The EIS does not present quantitative socioeconomic analysis for areas outside Nevada since no effects from repository construction, operating and monitoring, and closure are expected and since all transportation outside Nevada would occur on existing corridors and would constitute only a small portion of overall traffic on those corridors.

While the socioeconomic analyses focus on normal operations, the EIS also analyzes a range of accident scenarios. These scenarios are based on probabilities, with no definitive knowledge of when or where an accident could occur. Therefore, an attempt to assess potential socioeconomic impacts of an accident to a specific local economy would be highly speculative.

7.5.6 (5285)
Comment - EIS000968 / 0006
Population figures used in the DEIS to describe the population along the routes is from 1990 census. Clark County has been the fastest growing area of the country for the past 10 years. This would then effect the numbers in the exposure figures that are calculated.

The study should identify special populations along proposed routes as well. The Local Emergency Planning Committee identified 37 schools, 23 hotels (6,000+ rooms), 1 major health care facility and 1 special event facility within 1/2 mile of the proposed routes.

Response
The Final EIS uses Nevada population data that reflect data developed by and received from county and state officials.

The REMI Economic and Demographic Forecasting System (EDFS) 53-sector computer model incorporates population estimates from recent years (1998 to 1999) provided by officials from Nye and Clark Counties for the socioeconomic baseline. For Lincoln County and the Rest of Nevada, the REMI model uses State Demographer estimates for the period.

To update the health and safety analyses with transportation in Nevada, DOE used the baseline population for each county in the region of influence and forecast to 2035 to scale impacts from results based on the 1990 census. For example, if a county’s estimated population would double from 1990 to 2035, DOE assumed that the population along the associated rail corridor also would double, and doubled the radiological impacts accordingly. In certain locales, however, such as around the planned Las Vegas Beltway, DOE used local sources of population information to better reflect population growth trends (in this instance, information from a report prepared for the City of North Las Vegas).

For other Nevada counties, Nevada State Demographer projections (Budget and Planning Division 1999) are used for population projections used in analyses of accidents near transportation corridors and for health effects modeling. Estimates of historical populations of towns and cities in Nevada are obtained from the Nevada State Demographer’s Office or from county documents, as appropriate.

The Yucca Mountain Draft EIS used U.S. Census data to estimate the number of people in the general population who would live near the highway and rail routes that were selected for analysis. However, it was not possible or practical to identify each special or transient population that would be in each of the thousands of Census blocks crossed by the routes analyzed. However, the use of Census data for populations along real routes selected for the analysis ensured that estimated impacts would be calculated for the health and safety of real people -- not generic populations along generic routes. Because resident-in-care facilities for the elderly are included in Census data, the analysis included the impacts to these populations. Furthermore, impacts to temporary occupants of schools and hospitals that would be near routes and whose temporary occupancy is not included in Census data were included in the analysis, because the analysis assumed that adults, children, and hospital patients should be present in their homes when every shipment passes. Thus, while it is certain that the approach of using Census data to estimate the number of people who would be exposed to passing shipments leaves some uncounted, it is also certain that the analysis counts some who would not be affected. For the purpose of estimating health and safety risks to populations along routes, the approach provides reasonable estimates and does not exclude special populations.

7.5.6 (5548)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0187
Page 3-76; Section 3.1.7.3 - Payments Equal to Taxes

The Draft EIS briefly discusses the Payments Equal to Taxes (PETT) paid to State and local governments under Section 116 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It is unclear what purpose this discussion serves since it is not part of a larger description of State and local revenues. The Draft EIS should have described the status of State and local government revenue systems (of which PETT is a very small element) as a basis for examining the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on State and local government finances. As noted in comments on Section 4 of the Draft EIS, the proposed Yucca Mountain project has the potential to result in significant impacts to Nevada’s tourism-based economy, leading to fewer tourist visits and to reduced gaming, sales, room, and related taxes. Because of the State’s unique revenue system and the way sales and gaming taxes are collected and distributed to local governments, even a relatively small decline in tourism can have significant impacts to State and local government revenues. An understanding and explication of Nevada’s unique revenue system is a prerequisite for carrying out any meaningful socioeconomic impacts assessment.

Response
DOE believes that the EIS description of socioeconomic components at the State level is appropriate. The analysis considered the entire State of Nevada. DOE structured the information in the EIS into four regions – Clark County, Nye County, Lincoln County, and the Rest of Nevada, which is a compilation of the 14 remaining counties. DOE used the same economic parameters to estimate the potential impacts of each alternative on each region. DOE believes the analyses provide a reasonable representation of impact. Furthermore, attempts to assess fiscal changes at the agency level would not provide discriminating information for the decisionmaker.

Regarding potential impacts to "Nevada’s tourism-based economy," over the past several years DOE has received other comments that it should analyze the socioeconomic effects of perception-based impacts on business, tourism, property values, and other economic and quality-of-life issues. While DOE agrees stigmatization could result in adverse impacts under some scenarios, it is not inevitable or measurable, and such stigmatization would likely be an after-effect of unpredictable future events. As a consequence, DOE addressed but did not attempt to quantify potential impacts from risk perception or stigma in the Final EIS. This is discussed in Section 2.5.4 and Appendix N of the Final EIS.

Regarding impact mitigation measures and "Nevada’s unique revenue system," DOE will not speculate on what local governments or agencies feel that they might need to do to serve their citizenry, nor will it comment on the State’s preferred fiscal structure. The Department would, however, enter into discussions with the State of Nevada and affected units of local government and consider appropriate support and mitigation measures.

Section 116 (c) of the NWPA provides a process by which DOE and the State of Nevada or local governments can negotiate for compensation outside the National Environmental Protection Agency framework.

7.5.6 (5574)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0200
Page 3-114; Section 3.2.2.1.6 - Socioeconomics

The Draft EIS is deficient in its description of the socioeconomic component of the affected environment. The Draft EIS fails to include any description of socioeconomic conditions/factors at the State level that stand to be impacted by the Proposed Action. State-level revenues and expenditures, such as costs and other impacts to State agencies affected by the project (such as the State Department of Transportation, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, the State Health Division, and other agencies) and impacts to the State’s major economic sector are all missing from the Draft EIS -- either in Section 3 or in subsequent sections on impact assessment.

Please refer to previous comments regarding the inappropriateness of limiting the socioeconomic scope of the Draft EIS to just three counties in DOE’s truncated "region of influence."

See detailed comments regarding the inadequacy of DOE treatment of socioeconomic conditions and impacts in comments on Section 4 of the Draft EIS.

Response
DOE believes that the description of socioeconomic components at the State level is adequate. The economic and demographic simulations that DOE performed using the REMI EDFS-53 Forecasting and Simulation Model derived fiscal changes to the economy from interindustry relationships (including the Eating and Drinking Places and Hotel Sectors of the Standard Industrial Code), labor markets, and national and worldwide economic variables.

The analyses considered the entire State of Nevada. DOE structured the information presented in the EIS into four regions – Clark County, Nye County, Lincoln County, and the Rest of Nevada, which is an aggregate of the 14 remaining Nevada counties. DOE estimated the potential impacts of each alternative on the same economic parameters for each region. One of the parameters was change in State and local spending. DOE believes the analytical structure provides a reasonable representation of impacts. Further, attempts to assess fiscal changes at the agency level would not provide discriminating information.

7.5.6 (5638)
Comment - EIS001887 / 0261
Page 4-105; Section 4.2.1.2.6 - Impacts to Socioeconomics from Retrieval

The Draft EIS treatment of socioeconomic impacts of retrieval (limiting them to merely the effects of employment during the retrieval period) is entirely inadequate and grossly understates the real impacts associated with such a dramatic and far reaching event.

The Draft EIS should comprehensively examine the impacts of the retrieval scenario on the State of Nevada and on the State’s principal economic sector. (See comments on Socioeconomics for Section 4.1.6 above and contained in Appendix I of these comments.) The decision to remove waste from a Yucca Mountain facility will undoubtedly be accompanied by considerable national and international media attention. The decision will have been made amidst major public and political controversy and concern regarding the safety of the facility. Such a situation will have considerable stigmatizing potential that could easily spill over to the State and the State’s tourism industries. In many ways, the need to retrieve waste would be a worst case situation for generating broad and potentially substantial economic impacts statewide, since it would mean that the repository’s waste isolation systems had failed and that such failure was receiving major media attention.

Response
DOE is required to maintain the ability to retrieve emplaced waste for at least 50 years after the start of emplacement and may preserve the retrieval option for up to 300 years after the completion of emplacement. Because potential retrieval actions are not part of the Proposed Action, and are assumed to be needed only far in the future, DOE did not quantify potential socioeconomic impacts beyond its current modeling capabilities. However, DOE assumes that socioeconomic impacts of retrieval would be of a magnitude similar to those of emplacement.

Assessing the perceived impact of the retrieval on quality-of-life variables or the impact of "stigma" is generally problematic because it does not necessarily depend on the actual physical effects or risks of the proposed action, but the negative perception of those effects or risks by the public. While DOE agrees stigmatization could result in adverse impacts under some scenarios, it is not inevitable or measurable, and such stigmatization would likely be an after-effect of unpredictable future events. As a consequence, DOE addressed but did not attempt to quantify potential impacts from risk perception or stigma in the Final EIS. This issue is discussed in Section 2.5.4 and Appendix N of the Final EIS.

7.5.6 (5993)
Comment - EIS001879 / 0019
The Draft EIS estimates Nye County’s population at 18,000 in 1990, 24,000 in 1995 and 26,000 in 2000 (pg. 3-78). It elsewhere estimates the 1997 population of Nye County at 26,000, and the 1997 population of the community of Pahrump at 19,000 (pg. 3-73). The Draft EIS estimates the year 2000 population within a 50-mile radius of the proposed repository at about 28,000 of which 25,600 are residents of Nye County (pg. 3-79, 80).

The Draft EIS ignores state and local population monitoring and projection information, and ignores locally approved economic development plans. The Draft EIS characterizes Nye County as a community that has been relatively static in the 1990s, and which can be expected to remain static through the first decade of the 21st century and throughout the emplacement period. It seriously underestimates the current and potential population within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain -- the population that is the most at risk of exposure to radiological contamination from emplacement of highly radioactive wastes at the geologic repository.

Nye County Conditions During the 1990s

As noted above, the Draft EIS estimates the population of the site county at 18,000 in 1990 and 26,000 in the year 2000, suggesting an average annual population growth rate of 3.75 percent in the 1990s. Nye County has monitored community population, using accepted estimation data and procedures, on a quarterly basis since the 1990 census. These estimates show that Nye County’s population has grown at over twice the average annual rate assumed in the Draft EIS. This growth rate (8.1 percent) is more rapid that [then] that of the State of Nevada (7.0 percent), the Mountain West Region (2.5 percent) or the nation as a whole (1.0 percent). The Nye County community of Pahrump has grown at a 14.5 percent average annual rate during the 1990s.¹

Economic and demographic conditions in the site county have been dynamic, not static, during the 1990s. They should not be expected to become static in future decades. There is no valid basis to assume that the Yucca Mountain site is in a community that can be expected to remain sparsely populated and static over the next decades and centuries.

If the communities affected by the Yucca Mountain Project can reasonably be expected to be dynamic, not static, during the construction and operation periods at Yucca Mountain, and if the dynamic elements are aspects that have been promoted and advocated by Nye County’s elected commission, then it becomes an obligation of the proponent to ensure that its project does not, directly or indirectly, thwart Nye County’s desired economic future.

Comparison of State and Local Population Monitoring Methods

Nye County’s population estimates have been consistently above those of the State of Nevada, especially since 1994.² In 1998, the county’s estimate was 4,300 persons (14.4 percent) above that of the State Demographer.

The State Demographer’s estimates have used housing vacancy rates, which in 1999 were demonstrated to be about twice the actual rate. By contrast, Nye County’s estimate uses active residential utility accounts, thus avoiding the vacancy factor. Also, the State Demographer averages an estimate based on the housing unit method with an estimate based on employment. Since a very large number of DOE employees are in-commuters to Nye County worksites, employment-based estimates are unreliable in Nye County. By contrast, Nye County’s estimate uses a housing unit method only.

Nye County Growth

The Draft EIS presents no projections of socioeconomic conditions in the county and communities most affected by the Yucca Mountain Project. By not addressing other economic potentials for the site county, the EIS avoids the question whether the repository program, by raising concerns about the potential radiological contamination beyond the site boundary, could thwart other desired economic development that has been supported and advocated by the Nye County community and its elected officials.

Nye County population is projected to reach 54,000 by 2010, the State Demographer’s "Middle" Projection, and could reach 62,000, which is the State Demographer’s "High" Projection. Either projection reflects a higher average annual growth rate than that projected for the State (3.2 percent) or the nation (0.8 percent).³ Consistent with these projections, in the community of Pahrump can be projected to grow at a 6.4 percent average annual rate. While the percentage growth rate in Pahrump is expected to decline, the population increase could be almost 2,500 persons annually over the coming decade, up from about 2,100 persons annually in the 1990s.

Using a respected economic model, Nye County has prepared a "baseline" projection in which the County’s population increases to 54,000 in 2010. This projection, which is consistent with the State Demographer’s "middle" projection for the County, does not reflect special economic events, some of which the County has addressed in separate assessments.⁴ Thus, not only have economic and demographic conditions in the site county been dynamic in the last decade of the 20th century, they are projected, by both the State and the County, to be dynamic in the first decade of the 21st century. Nye County does not offer Yucca Mountain a site community that will remain sparsely populated and static over the life of the project.

Nye County Population and Current Baseline Projections

Nye County has examined the economic impacts of several potential economic events not reflected in its baseline projections. One of these alone, the development of two subdivision communities in Pahrump that are proposed for build-out over the next decade, could add 30,000 persons to Nye County’s population, thus exceeding the State’s "high" projection for Nye County in the year 2020.⁵

Since the end of the Cold War in 1992, Nye County has made special efforts to devise a new economic future for the US-95 corridor in which development historically has been complicated by the proximity of nuclear weapons testing conducted at the NTS. These efforts are taking shape, and are being advanced in a project referred to as the "Science and Technology Corridor." Nye County communities and the Nye County Board of Commissioners have supported the economic proposals, and do not wish them to be jeopardized by the development of a Yucca Mountain repository.

Economic Contribution of Yucca Mountain Project

The Draft EIS does not address changes in the traditional management of the DOE’s activity in Nevada, changes that have long been advocated by Nye County. Nor does it address the consequence of a continuation of current management practices. This consequence is that the Yucca Mountain Project makes a minor contribution to Nye County economy, while posing potential threats to other desirable development within the US-95 corridor and the 50-mile radius for radiological exposure calculation. The repository depicted in the Draft EIS poses a potential threat to the site county’s desired post-Cold War economic future, without providing a guarantee that the project will not threaten that future, or even an economic basis for Nye County to accept the additional risk imposed by the transfer of the nation’s entire inventory of highly radioactive commercial and defense wastes.

Nye County’s economic impact analyses show that the Yucca Mountain Project made a very limited contribution to the economy of the site county in 1999. Of about $112 million in Gross Regional Product attributed to the Yucca Mountain Project in the State of Nevada, only $8.1 million (7.3 percent) occurred in the site county. The estimates reflect traditional DOE management of its activities in Nevada, patterns that the Draft EIS suggests DOE expects to continue in the future.⁶

The current contribution of the YMP to Nye County’s economy is much smaller than that of DOE/NV ($47.8 million), or of two dairies operating in Nye County ($12.4 million), or of the proposed Desert Space Station Science Museum and its visitors ($13.1 million).⁷

Nye County is concerned that the repository project, a project that makes little contribution to County’s economy, will jeopardize other desired economic efforts that the County has worked hard to identify and promote. The EIS must address what measures the DOE will adopt if the proposed repository results in a loss of economic opportunity. Nye County believes that it should not be required to accept the risk associated with the repository without the benefit of appropriate mitigation.

Population Within the Radiologic Risk Zone

The Draft EIS estimates the 1997 population within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain at 19,340, of which 16,700 is in Nye County.⁸ Nye County’s population monitoring program estimates the Nye County population within the radius used for calculations of radiological risk at 24,700 persons; this estimate is 4.1 percent above the Draft EIS estimate for Beatty, 7.7 percent above Draft EIS estimate for Amargosa Valley, and 57.5 percent above Draft EIS estimate for Pahrump.⁹

The Draft EIS estimates year 2000 population within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain at about 28,000 persons, of which 25,600 are in Nye County (pg. 3-80). Nye County’s baseline population projections estimate the County population within the radius used for calculations of radiological risk at 32,500 persons; this estimate is 26.4 percent above the Draft EIS estimate for Beatty, 11.8 percent above the Draft EIS estimate for Amargosa Valley, and 28.1 percent above the Draft EIS estimate for Pahrump.¹⁰

Nye County’s baseline projections for 2010 place 47,900 persons within the 50-mile radius used in calculation of radiological risk, a figure 85 percent greater than the Draft EIS year 2000 estimate. Other special economic events could easily increase this figure to three times the Draft EIS year 2000 estimate.

Baseline Projections For Nye County

It is apparent that baseline model runs were conducted in preparing estimates of the Draft EIS estimates of the economic impacts of the Yucca Mountain Project from 2010 through 2035 (pg. 4-44). However, these baseline projections are not presented or discussed in the Draft EIS projection. Thus, the Draft EIS presents no information about the context of the socioeconomic conditions affected by the Yucca Mountain Project in Nye County, nor does it recognize the ongoing local economic development efforts aimed at improving the post-Cold War economic conditions. There is no recognition by the DOE of any intent to avoid harm to this locally planned economic future.

¹ See Figure 1: Estimates for the U.S. and the Mountain West Region (AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WY) are based on data from the U.S. Census (State Population Estimates: Annual Time Series: ST-99-3). Estimates for the State of Nevada are based on data from the NV Department of Taxation & NV State Demographer. Estimates for Nye County and Pahrump are based on data from the Nye County Population Monitoring Program.

² See Figure 2: The State Demographer’s estimates include the initial revision of the estimate for 1999. The Nye County estimates are from the County’s Population Monitoring Program. Note: The State’s 1998 estimates are 6.2 percent above those of the Census for the State of Nevada, and 3.2 percent above those of the Census for Nye County (See U.S. Census: CO-98-2).

³ See Figure 3: U.S. forecast from U.S. Census "Resident Population Series (March 1996, Middle Series). Nevada and Nye County forecasts from Nevada State Demographer’s Office: "Population Estimates (1997) and Forecasts (1998-2018)". Pahrump forecast based on the State Demographer’s forecast for Nye County, and applies Nye County estimates of the percentage of county population growth in Pahrump.

⁴ See "Baseline Economic and Demographic Projections for Nye County, Nevada", Nye County Repository Program, January 1998.

⁵ See "Nye County Economic-Demographic Reports: #10", Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities, December 1999.

⁶ See: Nye County Economic-Demographic Reports: #1, Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities, December 1999.

⁷ See Figures 4 & 5: Based on Nye County Economic-Demographic Reports #1, #6, #7, #3. Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities, December 1999.

⁸ Based on DOE estimates of population within 50-miles of the repository site: 1997 (Quarter 1-4) and 1998 (Quarter 1), as requested from DOE.

⁹ See Figures 6a-c: Nye County Population Monitoring Program.

¹⁰ See Figures 7a-c: "Baseline Economic and Demographic Projections for Nye County, Nevada," Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities, January 1998, and Nye County Economic-Demographic Reports.

Response
DOE appreciates the breadth of this comment and the information provided. The final EIS reflects some of the issues raised and this response provides a capsule of how DOE has taken steps to incorporate Nye County’s opinions into its assessments.

Nye County Conditions During the 1990s and Nye County Growth

DOE acknowledges Southern Nevada, including Nye County, has been and continues to be one of the fastest growing areas in the country. As noted in Section 3.1.7.1 of the EIS, Nye County and Pahrump are experiencing growth caused primarily by in-migrating retirees and the development of master planned communities. Nye County has about 32,500 residents in 2000, having experienced an 82.7-percent growth in the 1990s. DOE agrees that although the annual growth rate experienced in the 1990s is likely to slow, the population should continue to grow at a rate of 2 to 4 percent a year in this decade. Clark County is expected to continue to lead the population growth in Southern Nevada for the foreseeable future.

Population Monitoring Methods and Baseline Projections

The REMI Economic and Demographic Forecasting System 53-sector computer model incorporates population estimates from recent years provided by officials from Nye County for the socioeconomic baseline projected through 2035. DOE compared the locally derived estimates to the 2000 data provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Inputs to the Nye County projections for the Final EIS are based on data identified in Nye County documents (DIRS 150996-Williams 2000; DIRS 148140-PIC 1998). The Nye County projections provided during the comment response period are based in part on a REMI 14-sector model. The county projections and Nye County source documents were used to project population distribution within the 80-kilometer (50-mile) radiological monitoring grid.

Economic Contribution of the Yucca Mountain Project

DOE agrees with the Nye County assessment that, as currently configured, the Yucca Mountain Project economic impact in Nye County is relatively minor, although the Payments-Equal-to-Taxes monies in accordance with Section 116(c)(3)(A) of the NWPA are provided (see Appendix M of the EIS). However, should the construction and operation of a repository be authorized, there would be an increased impact in Nye County, as discussed in Chapter 4 of the EIS. DOE does not believe these impacts would be large.

DOE has followed with interest the Nye County economic development activities, particularly the development of the Desert Space Museum and adjacent business park. Other activities that have been followed include the possible siting of Kistler Aerospace and the VentureStar® program. Thus far, these remain in the early idea or planning stage. Should they come to fruition, DOE does not believe that the proposed repository would have any impact on their development. Chapter 8 of the EIS discusses these and other potential cumulative impacts of the proposed repository.

Suggested management changes by DOE that would require or provide incentives to firms or employees to locate in Nye County are not analyzed within the scope of the EIS and are not contemplated under the National Environmental Policy Act.

With regard to mitigation under Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.20), mitigation includes activities that (1) avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (3) repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected environment; (4) reduce or eliminate impacts over time by preservation or maintenance operations during the life of the action; or (5) compensate for the impact by replacing or substituting resources or environments.

Section 116(c) of the NWPA states that "the Secretary [of Energy] shall provide financial and technical assistance to [an affected unit of local government or the State of Nevada] … to mitigate the impact on such [an affected unit of local government or the State of Nevada] of the development of [a] repository and the characterization of [the Yucca Mountain] site." Such assistance can be given to mitigate likely "economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts." Within that broad framework, neither Section 116 nor any other provision of the Act limits the potential scope of impacts that are appropriate for consideration under Section 116 to the environmental impacts considered in this EIS. Any decision to provide assistance under Section 116 would be based in part on an evaluation a report submitted by an affected unit of local government or the State of Nevada pursuant to Section 116(c)(2) to document likely economic, social, public health and safety, and environmental impacts.

Population Within the Radiological Risk Zone

Figure 3-25 of the EIS depicts population distribution within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the proposed repository. The total population within the 80-kilometers grid incorporates Nye County population estimates. The distribution of population in the Final EIS is based upon 2000 estimates incorporating housing counts obtained through windshield surveys and electric utility data. The focus of this information is to establish the relative number of residents in a given direction and distance from the repository.

7.5.6 (6049)
Comment - EIS001898 / 0013
Additional documentation or analysis should be provided in the FEIS to support the characterization of impacts and the description of environmental parameters in some areas of the FEIS.

Section 4.1.6.2.1 (Environmental Consequences of Repository Construction, Operation and Monitoring, and Closure-Impacts to Employment), page 4-41 states "[i]f the present economic growth continued in the region of influence, it could absorb declines in the repository workforce." To assess the adequacy of this statement, the assumptions used to generate the Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) (Treyz et al., 1992) baseline results should be provided. The conclusion appears to require the assumption that the skills of displaced workers are compatible with the employment growth and needs of other sectors.

Reference:

Treyz, G.I., D.S. Rickman, and G. Shao. The REMI economic-demographic forecasting and simulation model. International Regional Science Review 14(3): 221-253. 1992.

Response
The Final EIS presents the baseline information for economic measures to 2035. The intent of the cited statement in Section 4.1.6.2.1 is that there would not be a significant decline in the economy due to the closure of the repository. It does not indicate that individual workers might not be absorbed into the local economy fully using their "repository skills." This would be no different than the closure of any workplace, such as a manufacturing facility, where displaced employees might have to change occupations or move, although the impacts to the local economy might be small.

7.5.6 (6120)
Comment - EIS001654 / 0046
Page 3-73. Socioeconomic Analysis Needs Revision.

NARUC ES-11 gave our opinion that the socioeconomic analysis is flawed by choosing an overlarge region of influence that includes metropolitan Las Vegas. We think a segmented or two-tier approach might be more appropriate:

Primary Impact: Portions of Nye County and other areas with adjoining boundaries to the repository using some criterion like a 25 mile zone

Secondary Impact: Balance of Nye County and other areas (including Clark County/Las Vegas) with socioeconomic resources related to or affected by the repository

Nye County is relatively fast growing. We understand Nye County residents have complained that county population has grown far greater than the 26,000 level shown in the DEIS. More current data should be included in the FEIS and used for refined localized socioeconomic analysis.

Response
DOE believes its approach to socioeconomic analysis is appropriate. The comment’s suggestion of using two tiers with the first tier of approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) would include only the unincorporated areas of Amargosa Valley and Beatty. This approach would ignore the fact that the economic driver for southern Nevada is the metropolitan area of Clark County. The analysis assumed that construction and operation of the repository would rely heavily on the resources available only in the greater Las Vegas area. Yucca Mountain Project workers currently live primarily in Clark County. DOE assumes that workers needed to construct and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain would also live primarily in Clark County. Of those who would live in Nye County (which is estimated to be approximately 20 percent of the employees at the Yucca Mountain site), the most common residence would likely be Pahrump, based on current trends. Pahrump is 64 to 80 kilometers (40 to 50 miles) from the Yucca Mountain site.

The Final EIS incorporates Nevada population data developed by and received from county and state officials.

The REMI Economic and Demographic Forecasting System (EDFS) 53-sector computer model incorporates population estimates from recent years (1998 and 1999) provided by officials from Nye and Clark Counties for the socioeconomic baseline. For Lincoln County and the Rest of Nevada, the REMI model uses State Demographer estimates for the period. DOE compared these locally derived estimates to the 2000 data pr