State of Nevada Comments on BLM's May 21, 2004 Federal Register

June 29, 2004 Mr. Dan Netcher Ely Field Office Bureau of Land Management HC33 Box 33500 Ely, Nevada 89301–9408 RE: State of Nevada Comments on BLM’s May 21, 2004 Federal Register “Notice of Public Meetings; Notice of Intent to Amend the Caliente Management Framework Plan, Schell Management Framework Plan, Tonopah Resource Management Plan, and the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan; Nevada” [NV–040–1430–ET–007F; 4–08807]. Dear Mr. Netcher: The following comments are provided in response to BLM’s May 21, 2004 Federal Register “Notice of Public Meetings; Notice of Intent to Amend the Caliente Management Framework Plan, Schell Management Framework Plan, Tonopah Resource Management Plan, and the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan; Nevada” [NV–040– 1430–ET–007F; 4–08807]. These comments are in addition to the comments already submitted on this matter by the State of Nevada in response to BLM’s earlier (December 29, 2003) Federal Register Notice on the proposed land withdrawal.1 The State of Nevada has also submitted extensive comments to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in response to a related Federal Register Notice published on April 8, 2004. Those comments titled, “State of Nevada Comments on DOE’s Notice of Intent to Prepare and Environmental Impact Statement for Alignment, Construction, and Operation of a Rail Line to a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,” deal directly with issues related to the use of public lands for construction and operation of a rail line to the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository. They are attached hereto and incorporated by reference into these comments on BLM’s May 21, 2004 Federal Register Notice. 1 Reference “State Of Nevada Comments On The Bureau Of Land Management’s December 29, 2003 Federal Register Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting; Nevada [NV-930-1430-ET; NVN-77880; 4-08807]” dated March 29, 2004. Insufficient Public Notice of Public Meetings and Opportunities for Comment While BLM issues a Federal Register notice announcing the two public meetings and the address for sending written comments, very little else appears to have been done to make people aware of the proposed land withdrawal, amendments to the various resource management and management framework plans, and the dates and location of the public meetings. It is our understanding that BLM did not place notices in newspapers or run announcements on radio or TV. As a result, both public meetings were very sparsely attended. If it was BLM intention to discourage public awareness of and attendance at the meetings, the agency appears to have succeeded. Conversely, BLM could have chosen to directly notify all potentially affected BLM lease-holders along the Caliente Corridor, and invite them to participate in the meetings. There is a serious discrepancy between the Federal Register notice and the May 24, 2004 BLM Press Release. Although the Federal Register Notice states that an alternative to the withdrawal may be issuance of rights-of-way, the Press Release states: “Comments will be considered as input to the proposed withdrawal and the associated environmental impact statement.” People relying on the Press Release, as most of the public does, would not be aware that BLM apparently does not plan to conduct an additional scoping process for the issuance of rights-of-way. Therefore, the public may not have provided comments specific to the construction of the rail line. The format of the meetings was likewise not conducive to encouraging public comments and enhancing the public’s awareness about the proposed land withdrawal and plan amendments. The information available at the meetings was minimal. BLM did not display maps showing the sections of land being considered for withdrawal or identifying potentially affected lease-holdings along the corridor. Although BLM did have maps that showed the boundaries of the grazing allotments affected, they did not have any information on who holds those allotments. Many people attending the meeting requested copies of the maps that were available. Surprisingly, BLM representatives stated that they were DOE maps (for the rail center lines) and DOE representatives stated that the maps were BLM maps (for the various land uses shown). Neither agency was able to commit to providing the public with copies of the maps within the time frame allowed for scoping comments. This is a serious deficiency in the scoping process. Many of the people attending the meetings were made aware of potential impacts on their operations or property for the first time. Without the ability to study the information on the maps in detail, their ability to provide meaningful comments is seriously limited. Detailed maps should be available to the public prior to the conclusion of the scoping period. Maps should show the proposed centerlines and the various BLM land uses that were displayed on maps at the scoping meetings, such as grazing allotments, wilderness study areas, wild horse management areas, etc. At a minimum, hard copies of the maps should be available to the public at a reasonable scale to allow the affected public to determine the impact of the proposed withdrawal or rail line. BLM should also explore the possibility of providing the maps to the public through the use of public domain software such as ESRI’s Arc Explorer program. 2 The maps showing the centerlines of the proposed corridors included alternatives that were not generally available to the public prior to the scoping meetings. These alternatives are primarily new routes shown to avoid wilderness study areas. Members of the public affected by these new alternatives may not have attended the scoping meetings since previous maps had not shown these new alternatives. BLM should ensure that the public has accurate information on the proposed routes prior to closely the scoping process. There was no opportunity at either meeting for interested parties to make oral statements or have their comments recorded for the record. It is difficult to understand why BLM would go through the effort of holding such meetings and then not provide the public and affected parties with the opportunity to record their comments and suggestions orally. Because the purpose for which land being considered for withdrawal (i.e., a rail transportation corridor for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste) is of vital concern to – and would impact significantly – the State of Nevada as a whole and not simply the rural areas where the proposed rail corridor is located, we again urge BLM to hold additional public meetings in Las Vegas and Reno, that those meetings be widely publicized, and that there be opportunities for people to have their oral presentations and comments recorded for the record. BLM’s NEPA Responsibilities It appears to us that BLM has a primary responsibility (independent of DOE) for the preparation of an environmental impact statement that would support any decision BLM makes relative to DOE’s request for withdrawal of land for a rail line. Since BLM’s decision to grant DOE’s application is primary in the sequence of events that must occur before a rail line can be sited, constructed, and operated, BLM should approach its NEPA responsibilities seriously and aggressively. While somewhat unclear, it appears that the Federal Register Notices of December 29, 2003 and May 21, 2004 describe two distinct actions or decisions. DOE is asking (1) that the land encompassing a one-mile wide corridor from the vicinity of Caliente to Yucca Mountain be immediately segregated from public use (and in fact BLM has announced that the land has been, at least temporarily, so segregated) for a period of two years and (2) that land in question (308,600 acres) be subsequently withdrawn from surface entry and mining for a period of 20 years. It appears that the decision to immediately segregate this land is already having – and will continue to have – impacts on ranchers and other users, and that such impacts are separate from those that would attend to the twenty year formal land withdrawal. BLM should, therefore, consider the expeditious preparation of an EIS or environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the impacts of the two-year segregation and provide for appropriate relief and mitigation. BLM, in a written statement and chart distributed at the Tonopah and Pioche meetings, has differentiated the DOE application for land withdrawal from an anticipated future DOE application for right-of-way reservation. BLM asks rhetorically, “Could right-of-ways be an alternative to a withdrawal?” and answers: “It is anticipated that 3 DOE could file rights-of-way applications on the specific route it desires. At that time, DOE would file a map showing specific routes.” The accompanying BLM chart states: “The filing of an application [for right-of-way] does not require publication in the Federal Register and does not segregate the land.” The chart further states that an EIS, EA, “or other environmental documentation” would be required for right-of-way reservation. BLM does not clarify whether, or how, environmental documentation required for right- of-way would differ from that required for withdrawal. Information Required for Right-of-Way Application In the event DOE requests a right-of-way reservation for a specific railroad alignment within the Caliente Corridor, the State of Nevada believes that BLM should prepare a separate EIS to evaluate the DOE proposed action. In addition to the standard impacts of railroad construction and operation, BLM should specifically consider the impact of the track structure itself on ranching, farming, mining, and recreation. Typical track structures (rails, ties, ballast, and subballast) are 25-30 feet in width; where significant cuts and fills are required on side slopes, the width can exceed 80 feet.

Load more