Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings-Nevada Rail Alignment for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV, 60247-60259 [E8-24168]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
The 2005
BRAC Commission recommended the
closure of Fort McPherson no later than
15 September 2011 and the relocation of
tenant headquarters organizations to
Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Fort Eustis,
Virginia; Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force
Base, North Carolina; and Shaw Air
Force Base, South Carolina. The actions
at those places are subject to separate
NEPA analysis.
Following closure, the property
(approximately 487 acres) will be excess
to Army needs. Accordingly, the Army
proposes to dispose of its real property
interests at Fort McPherson. The Army
has recognized the McPherson Planning
Local Redevelopment Authority
(MPLRA) as the local reuse authority for
reuse planning associated with Fort
McPherson. The MPLRA released the
Fort McPherson Outreach and Land Use
Plan in September 2007. The plan is
available electronically at https://
www.mcphersonredevelopment.corn/
comprehensive_reuse.html.
The DES analyzed four alternatives:
(1) Early Transfer—under which transfer
and reuse of the property would occur
before environmental remedial action
has been completed; (2) Traditional
Disposal—under which transfer and
reuse of the property would occur once
environmental remediation is complete
for individual parcels of the installation;
(3) Caretaker Status—would begin
following the closure of the installation
in the event that the Army is unable to
dispose of the property. The
maintenance of the property would be
reduced to minimal activities necessary
to ensure security, health, and safety,
and to avoid physical deterioration of
facilities; and (4) No Action, under
which the Army would continue
operations at Fort McPherson at levels
similar to those occurring prior to the
BRAC Commission’s recommendation
for closure. Three reuse scenarios, based
on medium, medium-high, and high
intensity levels of reuse, are evaluated
as secondary actions of disposal of Fort
McPherson. These reuse scenarios
encompass the level of reuse expected
under the MPLRA’s reuse plan and
higher and lower levels of reuse.
For either of the transfer alternatives,
moderate adverse effects would be
expected to occur to aesthetics and
visual resources, noise, water resources,
biological resources, cultural resources,
transportation, and utilities. Reuse
analyzed in the DEIS could result in
significant adverse effects in the areas of
land use, air quality, socioeconomics,
transportation, and utilities. The
McPherson Implementation
Redevelopment Authority is authorized
to redevelop the installation in
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
accordance with the Reuse Plan.
Disposal of the property for reuse in
accordance with the Reuse Plan would
mitigate to less than significant the
direct and cumulative impacts of
disposal and reuse.
The Army invites the public, tribal
governments, local governments, and
state and federal agencies to submit
written comments or suggestions
concerning the alternatives and analyses
presented in the DEIS. The public and
government agencies also are invited to
participate in a public meeting where
oral and written comments and
suggestions will be received. A public
meeting will be held at a convenient
location near Fort McPherson. The date,
time, and location will be announced in
the local news media. Copies of the
DEIS will be available for review at
several local libraries prior to the public
meeting. The DEIS may also be viewed
at https://www.mcpherson
redevelopment.org and https://
www.hqda.army.mil/acsim/bractnepa
_eis_docs.htm.
Addison D. Davis, IV,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Environment, Safety and Occupational
Health).
[FR Doc. E8–23990 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–08–M
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Notice
U.S. Election Assistance
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
DATE & TIME: Wednesday, October 15,
2008, 1–4 p.m.
PLACE: National Press Club of
Washington, 529 14th St., NW., 13th
Floor, Washington, DC 20045, (202)
662–7500 (Metro Stop: Metro Center).
AGENDA: Commissioners will meet and
hold a panel discussion to examine key
issues facing election officials and
journalists in reporting election results,
particularly in competitive states. Some
of the topics include: (1) Voting systems
technology; (2) non-traditional ballots
such as provisional and absentee ballots
and ballots of military and overseas
citizens; (3) time and procedures for
getting election results; (4) post-election
issues such as recounts and audits; (5)
time zones, poll closings and reporting
exit polls and election results.
Participants will include media
representatives, state election officials
and a discussion moderator.
This meeting will be open to the
public.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60247
PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:
Sarah Litton, Telephone: (202) 566–
3100.
Rosemary E. Rodriguez,
Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–24360 Filed 10–8–08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820–KF–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision and Floodplain
Statement of Findings—Nevada Rail
Alignment for the Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nye County, NV
Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, U.S. Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In July 2008, the Department
of Energy (Department or DOE) issued
the ‘‘Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for a Geologic
Repository for the Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nye County, Nevada—Nevada Rail
Transportation Corridor’’ (DOE/EIS–
0250F–S2) (hereafter referred to as the
final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS), the
‘‘Final Environmental Impact Statement
for a Rail Alignment for the
Construction and Operation of a
Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye
County, Nevada’’ (DOE/EIS–0369)
(hereafter referred to as the final Rail
Alignment EIS), and the ‘‘Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for a Geologic Repository for
the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and
High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada’’ (DOE/
EIS–0250F–S1) (hereafter referred to as
the final Repository SEIS). The final
Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS analyzed the
potential impacts of constructing and
operating a railroad for shipments of
spent nuclear fuel, high-level
radioactive waste, and other materials in
the Mina corridor, and DOE concluded
that the Mina corridor warranted further
analysis at the alignment level. This
further, more detailed analysis is
presented in the final Rail Alignment
EIS, which analyzed the potential
environmental impacts of constructing
and operating a railroad along rail
alignments in both the Caliente and
Mina rail corridors. The final Rail
Alignment EIS also analyzed the
potential environmental impacts from
shipments of general freight (also
referred to as common carriage
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
60248
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
shipments or the Shared-Use Option) on
a railroad in either corridor.
The final Repository SEIS analyzed
the potential environmental impacts of
the construction, operation, and
eventual closure of a repository at Yucca
Mountain. The final Repository SEIS
also included the potential impacts from
national transportation, as well as the
potential impacts in Nevada from the
construction and operation of a railroad
along specific alignments in the Caliente
and Mina rail corridors. DOE concluded
in the final Repository SEIS that the
potential impacts associated with the
repository design and operational plans
are similar in scale to the impacts
analyzed in the ‘‘Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a Geologic
Repository for the Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nye County, Nevada’’ (DOE/EIS–0250F,
February 2002) (Yucca Mountain Final
EIS).
Based on the analyses in the final Rail
Alignment EIS, among other
considerations as discussed herein, the
Department has decided to construct
and operate a railroad along a rail
alignment within the Caliente corridor.
DOE also has decided to allow
shipments of general freight on the rail
line (Shared-Use Option). The
Department will obtain all regulatory
approvals necessary to construct and
operate the railroad, and allow common
carriage shipments.
Copies of the final Nevada
Rail Corridor SEIS, final Rail Alignment
EIS, final Repository SEIS, and this
Record of Decision may be obtained by
mailing a request to Dr. Jane
Summerson at the U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management, 1551 Hillshire
Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134, or by
calling 1–800–967–3477. These
documents also may be obtained via the
Internet at https://www.ocrwm.doe.gov.
ADDRESSES:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions regarding these documents
can be submitted to Dr. Jane Summerson
by mail or telephone at the above
address or phone number. For general
information regarding the DOE National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process contact: Ms. Carol M.
Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA
Policy and Compliance (GC–20), U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Ave., SW., Washington,
DC 20585, Telephone 202–586–4600, or
leave a message at 1–800–472–2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
Background
Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), and
NEPA, DOE issued the Yucca Mountain
Final EIS in February 2002. The Yucca
Mountain Final EIS analyzed a
Proposed Action under which DOE
would construct, operate, monitor and
eventually close a geologic repository at
Yucca Mountain, including shipment of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste from 72 commercial
and five DOE sites to the Yucca
Mountain repository. DOE evaluated the
potential environmental impacts of
transporting spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste to the
repository under a variety of modes,
including legal-weight truck, rail,
heavy-haul truck, and barge. Two
national transportation alternatives,
referred to as the mostly legal-weight
truck alternative and the mostly rail
alternative, and three Nevada
alternatives, referred to as the legalweight truck alternative, the rail
alternative, and the heavy-haul truck
alternative, were evaluated. The
Department identified the mostly rail
alternative as its preferred mode of
transportation, both nationally and in
the State of Nevada, in the Yucca
Mountain Final EIS.
DOE stated in the Yucca Mountain
Final EIS that, if it were to select the
mostly rail alternative (both nationally
and in Nevada), a rail line would need
to be constructed to connect the
repository site at Yucca Mountain to an
existing rail line in the State of Nevada.
Accordingly, the Yucca Mountain Final
EIS evaluated in detail the potential
environmental impacts from the
construction and operation of a rail line
within five rail corridors—Caliente,
Carlin, Caliente-Chalk Mountain, Jean,
and Valley Modified. The Department
did not identify a preferred rail corridor
in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS, but
indicated it would do so at least 30 days
before making any decision on the
selection of a rail corridor in which to
construct a rail line in Nevada. On
December 29, 2003, the Department
announced in the Federal Register that
the Caliente rail corridor was its
preferred corridor (68 FR 74951).
On April 8, 2004, DOE announced in
a Record of Decision the selection of the
mostly rail alternative analyzed in the
Yucca Mountain Final EIS for
transporting spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste nationally
and within Nevada (69 FR 18557). DOE
also announced in that Record of
Decision that it had selected the
Caliente rail corridor in which to
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
examine possible alignments for
construction of a rail line in Nevada.
In September 2004, the State of
Nevada filed a petition for review with
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit,
pursuant to Section 119 of the NWPA,
seeking review of DOE’s April 8, 2004,
Record of Decision and the
transportation-related portions of the
Yucca Mountain Final EIS on which it
was based. Nevada claimed that in
selecting a national transportation mode
and Nevada rail corridor for the
shipment of radioactive materials to
Yucca Mountain, DOE violated NEPA
and NEPA implementing regulations
and acted in an arbitrary and capricious
manner and contrary to law.
In an August 8, 2006, decision, the
District of Columbia Circuit denied
Nevada’s petition and rejected the
State’s claims on their merits. State of
Nevada v. Department of Energy, 457
F.3d 78, 89–93 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The
Court held that DOE had met its
obligations under the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
1503.1(a)(2)) with respect to
consultation with other agencies; that
DOE had appropriately tiered its
proposed action analyses under 40 CFR
1508.28; that DOE had taken the
requisite hard look at the potential rail
corridor environmental impacts; that
DOE’s analysis of the environmental
impacts of rail corridor selection in its
Yucca Mountain Final EIS was
adequate; and that DOE’s selection of
the Caliente corridor therefore was not
arbitrary or capricious.
On April 8, 2004, DOE announced in
the Federal Register its intent to prepare
an EIS under NEPA for the alignment,
construction, and operation of a rail line
for shipments of spent nuclear fuel,
high-level radioactive waste, and other
materials related to the construction and
operation of a repository from a site near
Caliente, Lincoln County, Nevada, to a
geologic repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nye County, Nevada (69 FR 18565). The
Federal Register notice also announced
the schedule for public scoping
meetings, and invited comments on the
scope of the Rail Alignment EIS to
ensure that all relevant environmental
issues and reasonable alternatives
would be addressed.
During the public scoping process in
2004, DOE received comments
suggesting that other rail corridors, in
particular the Mina route, be
considered. Following review of the
scoping comments, DOE held
discussions with the Walker River
Paiute Tribe and, in May 2006, the
Tribal Council informed DOE that it had
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
withdrawn a previous objection to the
completion of an EIS studying the
potential transportation of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste
across its reservation.
On October 13, 2006, DOE announced
its intent to expand the scope of the Rail
Alignment EIS to incorporate analysis of
the potential environmental impacts
associated with constructing and
operating a rail line within the Mina rail
corridor (71 FR 60484). DOE indicated
that it would supplement the rail
corridor analysis of the Yucca Mountain
Final EIS by evaluating the Mina rail
corridor, and that it would update, as
appropriate, the information and
analysis for other rail corridors analyzed
in detail in the Yucca Mountain Final
EIS. DOE also indicated that it would
include an analysis of alternative
alignments within the Mina corridor at
the same level of detail as the ongoing
alignment analysis for the Caliente
corridor.
Also on October 13, 2006, DOE
announced its intent to prepare a
supplement to the Yucca Mountain
Final EIS to address modifications to
repository design and operation plans
since completion of the Yucca Mountain
Final EIS (71 FR 60490). DOE indicated
that it would evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the
construction, operation, and closure of
the repository under the modified
repository design and operational plans,
and would update the analysis and
potential environmental impacts of
transporting spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste to the
repository under the mostly rail
alternative.
On April 17, 2007, the Walker River
Paiute Tribal Council announced a
resolution withdrawing support for the
Tribe’s participation in the EIS process,
and renewing the Tribe’s past objection
to the transportation of nuclear waste
through its reservation. In light of this,
DOE identified the Mina alternative as
nonpreferred in the draft Rail Alignment
EIS and subsequently in the final Rail
Alignment EIS.
On October 12, 2007, the Department
announced in the Federal Register the
availability of the draft Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS, draft Rail Alignment EIS,
and the draft Repository SEIS (72 FR
58071). DOE’s Notice of Availability
invited interested parties to comment on
these NEPA documents during a 90-day
public comment period that ended on
January 10, 2008. DOE held eight public
hearings at locations in Nevada,
California, and Washington, DC. The
Department received about 4,000
comments from nearly 1,100
commenters. DOE has considered all of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
these comments, and responded as
appropriate in the final Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS, the final Rail Alignment
EIS, and the final Repository SEIS.
On July 11, 2008, the Environmental
Protection Agency announced in the
Federal Register the availability of
DOE’s final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS,
final Rail Alignment EIS, and final
Repository SEIS (73 FR 39958). The
final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS
provided a corridor-level analysis of the
Mina rail corridor, and updated
information, as appropriate, regarding
the other rail corridors analyzed in
detail in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS.
DOE concluded in the final Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS that (1) the Mina rail
corridor warranted further study at the
alignment level as a nonpreferred
alternative, and (2) there were no
significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental
concerns that would warrant further
consideration of the Carlin, Jean or
Valley Modified corridors at the
alignment level.1
The final Rail Alignment EIS analyzed
the potential impacts of constructing
and operating a railroad 2 for shipments
of spent nuclear fuel, high-level
radioactive waste, and other materials
along the reasonable rail alignments 3 in
the Caliente and Mina rail corridors.4 A
rail alignment is an engineered
refinement of a rail corridor in which
DOE would identify the location of a
rail line. A rail alignment comprises
common segments and alternative
segments. A corridor is a strip of land
400 meters (0.25 mile) wide through
which DOE would identify an alignment
for the construction of the rail line. The
final Rail Alignment EIS also analyzed
the potential environmental impacts
from common carriage shipments along
those rail alignments (the Shared-Use
Option).
The U.S. Air Force, Surface
Transportation Board, Bureau of Land
Management, Lincoln County,
Esmeralda County, Nye County, and the
City of Caliente, Nevada, were
cooperating agencies in the preparation
1 DOE eliminated from further consideration the
Caliente-Chalk Mountain rail corridor, which
would cross the Nevada Test and Training Range,
because of U.S. Air Force concerns that a rail line
would interfere with military mission activities.
2 A transportation system incorporating the rail
line, operations support facilities, railcars,
locomotives, and other related property and
infrastructure.
3 An engineered refinement of a rail corridor in
which DOE would identify the location of a rail
line. A rail alignment comprises common segments
and alternative segments, as discussed herein.
4 A corridor is a strip of land 400 meters (0.25
mile) wide through which DOE would identify an
alignment for the construction of the rail line.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60249
of the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS
and the final Rail Alignment EIS.
The final Repository SEIS analyzed
the potential environmental impacts of
national transportation, as well as the
potential impacts in Nevada, from the
construction and operation of a railroad
along specific alignments in either the
Caliente or the Mina corridor to ensure
that the full scope of potential
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed construction and
operation of the repository were
considered. DOE concluded in the final
Repository SEIS that the potential
impacts associated with the repository
design and operational plans are similar
in scale to the impacts analyzed in the
Yucca Mountain Final EIS. Nye County
was a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the final Repository SEIS.
Proposed Action and Alternatives in
the Final Rail Alignment EIS
The final Rail Alignment EIS
examined a Proposed Action and a No
Action Alternative. The Department’s
Proposed Action is to determine an
alignment (within a corridor), and
construct and operate a railroad in
Nevada to transport spent nuclear fuel,
high-level radioactive waste, and other
materials from an existing rail line to a
repository at Yucca Mountain.
Under the No Action Alternative,
DOE would not select a rail alignment
within either the Caliente or Mina rail
corridors for the construction and
operation of a railroad. If DOE were not
to select a rail alignment in either the
Caliente or Mina rail corridor, the future
course that it would pursue to meet its
obligation under the NWPA is
uncertain.
There are two implementing
alternatives under the Proposed
Action—the Caliente Implementing
Alternative, under which the
Department would construct the
proposed railroad in the Caliente rail
corridor, and the Mina Implementing
Alternative, under which the
Department would construct the
proposed railroad in the Mina rail
corridor. In each rail corridor, DOE
evaluated a series of common segments
and the range of reasonable alternative
segments. Common segments are
portions of the rail alignment for which
DOE has identified a single route for the
rail line. Alternative segments are
portions of the rail alignment for which
DOE has identified multiple routes for
the rail line.
DOE also evaluated the Shared-Use
Option under each implementing
alternative. Under the Shared-Use
Option, DOE would allow common
carriage shipments on the rail line.
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
60250
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
In addition to evaluating the potential
impacts of constructing and operating
the railroad, the final Rail Alignment
EIS identified and evaluated the
facilities needed to construct the
railroad, such as quarries and
construction camps, and to operate the
railroad, such as staging yards and
maintenance facilities, under each
implementing alternative. Additional
descriptive information for these
facilities, as well as other aspects of the
implementing alternatives, may be
found in Chapter 2 of the final Rail
Alignment EIS.
Caliente Implementing Alternative—
Preferred Alternative
A rail line in the Caliente rail corridor
would extend north from Caliente,
Nevada, turn west and proceed to near
the northwest corner of the Nevada Test
and Training Range, and then continue
south-southeast to Yucca Mountain (see
Figure S–3 of the Summary to the final
Rail Alignment EIS). The rail line would
range in length from about 528 to 541
kilometers (328 to 336 miles),
depending on the combination of
alternative segments.
There are six common segments along
the Caliente rail alignment starting with
common segment 1 south of Panaca,
Nevada, and moving west sequentially
to common segment 6 near Yucca
Mountain. DOE evaluated alternative
segments at six locations along the
Caliente rail alignment starting at the
interface with the Union Pacific
Railroad mainline near Caliente, Nevada
(two alternative segments referred to as
Caliente and Eccles), and moving west
to Garden Valley (Garden Valley
segments 1, 2, 3 and 8), southwest of the
South Reveille Wilderness Study Area
(South Reveille segments 2 and 3), near
the town of Goldfield (Goldfield
segments 1, 3 and 4), north of Scottys
Junction (Bonnie Claire segments 2 and
3), and near Oasis Valley (Oasis Valley
segments 1 and 3). These common
segments and alternative segments are
shown in Figure S–3 of the Summary to
the final Rail Alignment EIS.
DOE anticipates that it would take 4
to 10 years to construct the proposed
railroad. Construction of the railroad
would include construction of the rail
line, the infrastructure necessary to
support the construction and operation
of the railroad (for example, water wells,
ballast 5 quarries, construction camps),
and operations support facilities.
Construction activities would occur
inside a 300-meter (1,000-foot) wide
5 Coarse rock placed under the railroad tracks to
support the railroad ties and improve drainage
along the rail line.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
construction right-of-way, except in
some areas requiring deep cuts or high
fills, which could extend beyond typical
widths by up to 300 feet. Alternatively,
the construction right-of-way would be
more narrow than 300 meters (1,000
feet) when passing through certain areas
such as private lands and wetlands. The
total construction footprint would be
approximately 164 square kilometers
(40,600 acres). Obtaining a right-of-way
for access to public land for
construction of the railroad would be
subject to approval by the Bureau of
Land Management.
Construction of the rail line would
require DOE to obtain water, ballast,
subballast,6 steel for bridges, concrete
ties, and rail. Water would be obtained
by pumping groundwater from watersupply wells along the rail alignment,
and under the Caliente Implementing
Alternative, a maximum of 107 well
sites would be required to supply the
estimated 6,100 acre-feet of water
necessary for construction.
DOE would obtain ballast by
constructing up to four quarries from six
potential locations along the Caliente
rail alignment. Subballast would be
obtained from sites along the rail
alignment, from waste rock generated at
ballast quarry sites, from materials
excavated during rail roadbed 7
construction, or from the development
of new subballast borrow sites
established inside the construction
right-of-way. The Department would
obtain steel, concrete ties, and rail from
existing commercial sources.
Construction of the rail line would
require DOE to establish construction
camps to provide housing for workers
and a logistical base from which to
conduct construction activities. The
Department would establish up to 12
construction camps, with up to six
operating at one time, along the Caliente
rail alignment.
DOE would construct the rail line in
two steps: (1) Rail roadbed construction
and (2) track construction. The rail
roadbed would form the base upon
which the subballast, ballast, concrete
ties, and rail would be laid. Track
construction would involve the
placement of subballast, ballast,
concrete ties, and rail on top of the rail
roadbed, building a service road, and
establishing power and communication
systems.
DOE also would construct bridges,
culverts, and at-grade and grade6 A layer of crushed gravel used to separate the
ballast and roadbed for the purpose of load
distribution and drainage.
7 Earthwork foundation upon which the track,
ties, ballast, and subballast of a rail line are laid.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
separated road crossings.8 The
Department would construct up to 240
bridges, 138 large culverts, and five
grade-separated crossings of highways
along the Caliente rail alignment.
Crossings at other paved public
roadways would be at-grade where DOE
would install active warning devices,
such as flashing lights and gates. For
crossings at unpaved roads and private
crossings, DOE would install passive
warning devices, such as stop signs.
After completion of construction, the
railroad would operate for up to 50
years. During that time, there would be
about 3,000 rail shipments of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste to the repository. There also
would be shipments of construction
materials, diesel fuel, and other supplies
to the repository.
Trains carrying spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste would
arrive at an Interchange Yard 9 on the
Union Pacific Railroad mainline near
Caliente, Nevada, and proceed to a
Staging Yard 10 along either the Caliente
or the Eccles alternative segment. DOE
evaluated three staging yards in the final
Rail Alignment EIS—the Indian Cove
and Upland Staging Yards along the
Caliente alternative segment, and the
Eccles-North Staging Yard along the
Eccles alternative segment. A typical
train leaving the Staging Yard and
transporting radioactive materials for
the repository would consist of two or
three 4,000-horsepower diesel-electric
locomotives followed by a buffer car,
one to five cask cars followed by
another buffer car, and one escort car
carrying security personnel.
Trains transporting radioactive
materials for the repository would
depart the Staging Yard and travel to the
Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard, the
termination point of the railroad and the
staging area for the delivery of loaded
cask cars and other materials to the
repository receiving and inspection
area. The Rail Equipment Maintenance
Yard would be located less than one
mile from the southern boundary of the
geologic repository operations area. A
railroad crew would bring casks from
the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard
to the boundary of the geologic
repository operations area. At the
boundary, control of the casks would be
8 An at-grade crossing occurs when a road and a
rail line cross paths at the same elevation. A gradeseparated crossing occurs when a road and a rail
line cross paths and one passes over the other.
9 The Interchange Yard is the intersection
between the Union Pacific mainline and the DOE
rail line.
10 The Staging Yard is the rail yard that would
temporarily store, service and maintain railcars and
locomotives, and assemble trains for trips to the
repository at Yucca Mountain.
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
transferred to the geologic repository
operations area for removal of the spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste. Empty casks would be
transferred back to railroad control at
the boundary of the geologic repository
operations area for transport back to the
Union Pacific Railroad.
A National Transportation Operations
Center would oversee the shipment of
casks from sites throughout the United
States. The Nevada Railroad Control
Center, co-located with the National
Transportation Operations Center,
would coordinate train movements, rail
operations, and emergency response
operations along the proposed railroad
in Nevada. In the final Rail Alignment
EIS, DOE evaluated these facilities at
either the Rail Equipment Maintenance
Yard or at the Staging Yard (two
locations for the Staging Yard were
analyzed along the Caliente alternative
segment, and one location for the
Staging Yard was analyzed along the
Eccles alternative segment).
Under the Caliente Implementing
Alternative, rail line maintenance and
inspection activities would be
conducted out of Maintenance-of-Way
Facilities. DOE evaluated Maintenanceof-Way Facilities at different locations.
Either a single Maintenance-of-Way
Facility would be constructed along
Goldfield alternative segment 4 just
north of the town of Goldfield, Nevada,
or a Maintenance-of-Way Headquarters
Facility would be constructed near
Tonopah, Nevada, and a Maintenanceof-Way Trackside Facility would be
constructed along common segment 3.
DOE also analyzed a Shared-Use
Option, under which the Department
would allow common carriage
shipments on the rail line. The SharedUse Option would require construction
of commercial sidings to provide access
for potential commercial shippers other
than the Department, and facilities for
operation of commercial rail service.
Funding for construction of these
sidings and facilities for commercial rail
service could be provided by either the
private sector or Government sources.
The Department’s proposed design for
the rail line (for example, grade and
curvature) would accommodate shared
use.
DOE estimated that approximately
eight common carriage shipments could
run per week on the rail line. Trains
carrying spent nuclear fuel and highlevel radioactive waste would have
priority.
DOE could decide to abandon the
proposed railroad after shipments to the
repository were complete.
Abandonment could involve the
removal of the rail roadbed, ballast,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
track, ties, signaling, and other related
infrastructure. DOE would reclaim the
lands disturbed by the abandonment
process. If DOE were to decide to
abandon the railroad, it would
relinquish its right-of-way and the
Bureau of Land Management would
continue to manage the public land.
Abandonment of the railroad would be
conducted in accordance with
applicable requirements and in
consultation with local governments,
the Surface Transportation Board, and
the Bureau of Land Management. It is
premature at this time for DOE to decide
the future disposition of the railroad
after the end of the shipping campaign
to the Yucca Mountain repository. Any
such future decision would be subject to
further NEPA review, as appropriate.
Mina Implementing Alternative
A rail line in the Mina rail corridor
would extend from near Wabuska,
Nevada, in a southeasterly direction to
Yucca Mountain. The total length of the
rail line could range from about 452 to
502 kilometers (281 to 312 miles),
including the existing Department of
Defense rail line (see Figure S–4 of the
Summary to the final Rail Alignment
EIS). The portion of the Mina rail
alignment that would require
construction of a new rail line could
range in length from about 410 to 459
kilometers (255 to 285 miles),
depending on the combination of
common and alternative segments.
There are four common segments
along the Mina alignment. Common
segment 1 starts west of Hawthorne
continuing to Blair Junction, Nevada;
common segment 2, which would start
south of Lida Junction, Nevada; and
common segment 5 and common
segment 6, which are the same as
common segments 5 and 6 along the
Caliente rail alignment. DOE evaluated
alternative segments at four locations
along the Mina alignment starting near
Schurz, Nevada (four alternative
segments referred to as Schurz 1, 4, 5,
and 6), and moving southeast toward
the area of Montezuma southeast of
Blair Junction (Montezuma segments 1,
2 and 3), north of Scottys Junction
(Bonnie Claire segments 2 and 3), and
near Oasis Valley (Oasis Valley
segments 1 and 3). Bonnie Claire
segments 2 and 3, and Oasis Valley
segments 1 and 3 are the same as those
along the Caliente alignment.
Construction and operation of a
railroad along the Mina rail alignment
would be implemented as described
under the Caliente Implementing
Alternative. However, the infrastructure
necessary to support construction and
operation of the railroad would differ in
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60251
some respects. Under the Mina
Implementing Alternative, water would
be obtained from a maximum of 74 well
sites to supply the estimated 5,950 acrefeet of water necessary for construction.
DOE would obtain ballast by
constructing up to two quarries from
five potential locations along the rail
alignment, and there would be up to 10
construction camps, with up to six
operating at one time. The Department
would construct up to 69 bridges, 60
large culverts, and four grade-separated
crossings of highways along the Mina
rail alignment.
Under the Mina Implementing
Alternative, trains would arrive on the
Union Pacific Railroad mainline near
Hazen and proceed to the Staging Yard
at Hawthorne via the Union Pacific
Railroad Hazen Branchline, the
Department of Defense Branchline
North, one of the Schurz alternative
segments, and the Department of
Defense Branchline South. Unlike the
Caliente Implementing Alternative,
there is sufficient space to locate the
functions of the Interchange Yard and
Staging Yard in a single facility (the
Staging Yard) at Hawthorne, Nevada.
The National Transportation
Operations Center and the Nevada
Railroad Control Center would be colocated and perform the same functions
as described under the Caliente
Implementing Alternative. In the final
Rail Alignment EIS, DOE evaluated both
of these facilities at two locations—at
the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard
located less than one mile from the
southern boundary of the geologic
repository operations area on the Yucca
Mountain site, and at the Staging Yard
in Hawthorne, Nevada.
Rail line maintenance and inspection
activities would be conducted out of
Maintenance-of-Way Facilities, which
would consist of a Maintenance-of-Way
Facility and two Satellite Maintenanceof-Way Facilities. DOE evaluated the
Maintenance-of-Way facilities at
different locations along the Mina rail
alignment near Silver Peak, Nevada,
along Montezuma alternative segment 1,
and near Klondike, Nevada, along
Montezuma alternative segments 2 and
3.
Under the Mina Implementing
Alternative, DOE analyzed a Shared-Use
Option, under which the Department
would allow common carriage
shipments on the rail line. Shipments
would occur as described above under
the Caliente Implementing Alternative,
except there would be an average of 18
common carriage shipments per week.
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
60252
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
Environmentally Preferable
Implementing Alternative
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Proposed Action and No Action
Alternative
In determining the environmentally
preferable alternative, DOE considered
potential environmental impacts that
could occur under the Proposed Action
from selecting a rail alignment within
either the Caliente or Mina rail corridor
and constructing and operating a
railroad within the selected alignment,
and the potential environmental
impacts that would occur under the No
Action Alternative from not selecting a
rail alignment within either rail
corridor. The potential environmental
impacts of selecting a rail alignment
within either the Caliente or Mina rail
corridor and constructing and operating
a railroad along such alignment would
be greater than the potential
environmental impacts of the No Action
Alternative under which no such
selection and therefore no construction
or operation would occur within either
of these rail corridors. For this reason,
at least in the short term, the No Action
Alternative is environmentally
preferable to the Proposed Action.
However, given DOE’s responsibilities
under the NWPA and the Yucca
Mountain Development Act (Pub. L.
107–200), and consistent with DOE’s
tiered decisionmaking, it is necessary
for DOE to proceed with the selection of
an alignment and the construction and
operation of a railroad within that
alignment for shipments of spent
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive
waste, and other materials to the Yucca
Mountain site.
Caliente and Mina Implementing
Alternatives
DOE considered potential
environmental impacts that could occur
from the construction and operation of
a railroad along the Caliente and Mina
rail alignments. As a general matter,
based on the analyses of the final Rail
Alignment EIS, DOE concluded that
construction and operation of a railroad
along either the Caliente or Mina rail
alignments would result in broadly
similar, but generally small, potential
impacts to natural, human health,
social, economic, and cultural
resources. More specifically, the
analyses in the final Rail Alignment EIS
showed there would be no significant
differences (between the Caliente and
Mina alignments) in potential impacts
to aesthetic resources, air quality
(including potential impacts on global
climate change), groundwater resources,
noise and vibration, socioeconomics,
occupational and public health and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
safety (including potential risks from
accidents and acts of sabotage or
terrorism), utilities, energy and
materials use, and the generation of
hazardous materials and waste
(additional detail may be found in Table
S–8 of the Summary to the final Rail
Alignment EIS. The following
paragraphs summarize the differences
between the Caliente and Mina
alignments in potential impacts to land
use, wetlands and other biological
resources.
Construction of the railroad along the
Caliente rail alignment would disturb
about 14,000 to 15,000 acres, and could
result in a loss of about 300 to 440 acres
of prime farmland. In contrast,
construction along the Mina rail
alignment would disturb less land
(9,900 to 12,000 acres) and result in less
loss of prime farmland (less than 4
acres).
Construction of the railroad along the
Caliente rail alignment also would cross
more private land (120 to 310 acres),
active grazing allotments (23 to 25), and
result in a loss of more animal unit
months (999 to 1,034) than would occur
along the Mina rail alignment, which
would cross 53 to 199 acres of private
land, 6 to 9 active grazing allotments,
and a possible loss of 179 to 199 animal
unit months. The Caliente rail
alignment, however, does not cross a
Native American tribe’s reservation,
unlike the Mina rail alignment, which
would cross the Walker River Paiute
Tribe Reservation. As described above
under Background, the Tribe has
renewed a past objection to the
transportation of nuclear waste through
its reservation.
Depending on the segment
considered, construction of the railroad
along the Caliente rail alignment also
would result in more short-term (about
3 to 69 acres) and long-term (about 3 to
45 acres) loss of wetlands and riparian
habitat than would occur along the
Mina rail alignment (about 3 to 9 acres
in the short-term, and less than 0.4 acres
in the long-term). In contrast, a railroad
along the Mina alignment could impact
adversely a larger number of sensitive
plant and animal communities than
would occur along the Caliente
alignment.
On balance, even though construction
and operation of a railroad along either
the Caliente or Mina rail alignments
would result in broadly similar, and
generally small, potential impacts, DOE
concludes that the Mina Implementing
Alternative would be environmentally
preferable to the Caliente Implementing
Alternative.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Caliente Rail Alignment Alternative
Segments
In determining which alternative
segments along the Caliente rail
alignment would be environmentally
preferable, DOE considered potential
impacts to all resources, but focused on
environmental impacts to those
resources that allowed DOE to
discriminate among alternative
segments. Additional detail may be
found in Table S–9 of the Summary to
the final Rail Alignment EIS.
DOE evaluated two alternative
segments that would interface with the
Union Pacific Railroad mainline near
Caliente, Nevada—the Caliente and
Eccles alternative segments. In
determining which alternative segment
would be environmentally preferable,
DOE considered the potential
environmental impacts to the physical
setting, land use and ownership,
aesthetics, surface-water resources,
biological resources and noise.
Construction of the railroad along the
Eccles alternative segment would result
in less land disturbance (480 acres
compared to 770 acres) and loss of
prime farmland (about 23 acres
compared to 40 acres), and would cross
fewer private land parcels (5 parcels
involving about 74 acres compared to at
least 30 parcels involving more than 270
acres). In contrast, the Eccles alternative
segment would cross more active
grazing allotments (3 compared to 1)
and result in a greater loss of animal
units months (17 compared to 1).
Potential impacts to aesthetic resources
along the Eccles alternative segment
would be less, as would impacts from
noise when compared to the Caliente
alternative segment. Construction of the
rail line along the Eccles alternative
segment would require that about 11
acres of a nearby creek (Clover Creek) be
filled, which would impact downstream
riparian areas and wetlands, including
an area identified by the Bureau of Land
Management as an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern for the
protection of threatened and endangered
species. In contrast, construction of the
rail line along the Caliente alternative
segment would result in the loss of
about nine acres of wetlands, and about
another 28 acres of riparian area. On
balance, since the Caliente alternative
segment would result in less impact to
aquatic resources and avoid an Area of
Critical Environmental Concern, DOE
considers it to be environmentally
preferable to the Eccles alternative
segment.
DOE evaluated four alternative
segments in Garden Valley (1, 2, 3, and
8). In determining whether a segment
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
would be environmentally preferable,
DOE focused on the physical setting,
land use and ownership, and cultural
resources. Garden Valley alternative
segment 1 would result in the smallest
amount of surface disturbance (about
830 acres) followed by segment 2 (880
acres), segment 3 (890 acres) and
segment 8 (910 acres). Garden Valley
segment 3 would not impact any prime
farmlands, whereas segment 1 would
result in the loss of about 70 acres of
prime farmland, followed by segment 8
(89 acres) and segment 2 (97 acres).
Each alternative segment would cross
five active grazing allotments, which
would result in an estimated loss of
animal unit months of 121 (segment 1),
125 (segment 3), 126 (segment 8) and
132 (segment 2). Only Garden Valley
segment 2 could result in direct or
indirect impacts to known
archaeological sites that are eligible for
listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. DOE considers Garden
Valley alternative segments 1 and 3 to
be preferable to segments 2 and 8,
primarily because these segments would
result in the lowest amount of disturbed
land and loss of prime farmland.
However, as between Garden Valley
alternative segments 1 and 3, neither is
clearly environmentally preferable.
The Department considered potential
impacts to all resources when
determining whether South Reveille
alternative segment 2 or 3 would be
environmentally preferable. Based on
the analyses of the final Rail Alignment
EIS, however, there are no significant
differences in potential environmental
impacts between South Reveille
alternative segments 2 and 3, and thus
DOE concludes that neither segment is
environmentally preferable.
In evaluating whether an alternative
segment near Goldfield, Nevada
(alternative segments 1, 3, and 4) would
be environmentally preferable, DOE
focused on the physical setting, land use
and ownership, cultural resources,
surface-water resources, and aesthetic
resources. Construction of the railroad
along Goldfield alternative segment 4
would result in the disturbance of about
1,600 acres of land, followed by segment
1 (2,400 acres), and segment 3 (2,500
acres). All three segments would cross
private lands; segment 3 would affect
about 46 acres, followed by segment 4
(120 acres) and segment 1 (150 acres).
Goldfield alternative segment 3 would
cross 205 unpatented mining claims,
followed by segment 4 (374 claims) and
segment 1 (375 claims). The three
alternative segments also would impact,
directly and indirectly, cultural
resources. Goldfield alternative segment
3 could impact one possible Western
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
Shoshone camp and segment 1 could
impact more than one such camp,
whereas segment 4 could impact several
archaeological sites that are eligible for
listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. Lastly, Goldfield
alternative segment 3 would have shortterm (during construction) impacts to
water quality at Willow Springs, and the
proposed quarry near segment 4 would
have short-term, moderate to strong
visual contrast to nearby viewers. On
balance, the Department considers
Goldfield alternative segment 3 to be
environmentally preferable, because it
tends to impact (relative to segments 1
and 4) the smallest amount of private
land, cross the fewest unpatented
mining claims, and impact the fewest
known significant cultural resources.
The Department considered potential
impacts to all resources when
determining whether Bonnie Claire
alternative segments 2 or 3 would be
environmentally preferable. Based on
the analyses of the final Rail Alignment
EIS, however, there are no significant
differences in potential environmental
impacts between Bonnie Claire
alternative segments 2 and 3, and thus
DOE concludes that neither segment is
environmentally preferable.
DOE evaluated two alternative
segments in Oasis Valley (1 and 3). In
determining whether a segment would
be environmentally preferable, DOE
focused on the physical setting, land use
and ownership and biological resources.
Oasis Valley alternative segment 1
would disturb less land relative to
segment 3 (250 acres compared to 330
acres), but would cross one private land
parcel affecting less than one acre of this
parcel (segment 3 does not cross private
land). Both segments would cross an
active grazing allotment, but segment 1
would result in a lower loss of animal
unit months than would segment 3 (8
compared to 12). Oasis Valley
alternative segment 3 would disturb less
than five acres of wetland/riparian
habitat, but this would be a short-term
impact. On balance, DOE considers
neither alternative segment to be clearly
preferable because the potential impacts
are small in general, limited to a few
resources, and the differences between
impacts to those resources are small.
Facilities Associated With the Caliente
Rail Alignment
DOE evaluated two staging yards
along the Caliente alternative segment—
the Upland Staging Yard and the Indian
Cove Staging Yard. In determining
which staging yard was environmentally
preferable, DOE considered potential
impacts to all resources, but focused on
land use and ownership and wetlands
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60253
as they offer a means to discriminate
between the yards. Construction of the
Upland Staging Yard would cross about
110 acres of private land and would not
require wetlands to be filled. In contrast,
construction of the Indian Cove Staging
Yard would cross about 180 acres of
private land and would require about 47
acres of wetlands to be filled. DOE
considers the Upland Staging Yard to be
environmentally preferable.
DOE evaluated three locations along
the Caliente rail alignment for the
National Transportation Operations
Center and Nevada Railroad Control
Center: (1) At the Rail Equipment
Maintenance Yard, which is located less
than one mile from the southern
boundary of the geologic repository
operations area; and (2) at two locations
along the Caliente alternative segment—
co-located with the Upland Staging
Yard or with the Indian Cove Staging
Yard. In determining which location for
these facilities was environmentally
preferable, DOE considered potential
impacts to all resources, but focused on
land use and ownership and wetlands
as they offer a means to discriminate
between the locations. Locating the
National Transportation Operations
Center and Nevada Railroad Control
Center at the Rail Equipment
Maintenance Yard would not affect
private land or wetlands. In contrast,
locating these facilities at the Upland
Staging Yard would require the use of
private land, and locating these facilities
at the Indian Cove Staging Yard would
require private land and wetlands to be
filled. For these reasons, DOE considers
locating the National Transportation
Operations Center and Nevada Railroad
Control Center at the Rail Equipment
Maintenance Yard to be
environmentally preferable to locating
these facilities at the Upland or Indian
Cove Staging Yards.
Shared Use
In determining whether the Proposed
Action with the Shared-Use Option or
without the Shared-Use Option was
environmentally preferable, the
Department considered potential
impacts to all resources. As DOE
concluded in the final Rail Alignment
EIS, potential impacts under the SharedUse Option would be, in general,
slightly greater than impacts under the
Proposed Action without shared use.
For example, under the Shared-Use
Option, the construction of additional
sidings would increase (relative to the
Proposed Action without shared use)
surface disturbance by about 0.1
percent, and during railroad operations
there would be increases in air
emissions from locomotives,
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
60254
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
interactions with wildlife (such as
collisions and nest abandonment),
traffic delays at highway-rail grade
crossings, and rail-related accidents.
Therefore, DOE considers the Proposed
Action without the Shared-Use Option
to be environmentally preferable to the
Proposed Action with the Shared-Use
Option.
Comments on the Final Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS and the Final Rail
Alignment EIS
DOE distributed more than 4,400
copies of the final Nevada Rail Corridor
SEIS, final Rail Alignment EIS, and the
final Repository SEIS; the documents
also were posted on DOE’s Web site
(https://www.ocrwm.doe.gov). On July
11, 2008, the Environmental Protection
Agency announced in the Federal
Register the availability of the
documents. DOE has received written
comments on these documents from the
Environmental Protection Agency, N–4
State Grazing Board, N–6 State Grazing
Board, White Pine County Nuclear
Waste Project Office, and the Board of
County Commissioners of Lincoln
County. The Department has reviewed
these comments and concluded that
none of the comments present
significant new circumstances or
information relevant to environmental
concerns bearing on the Proposed
Action or its impacts. The following
summarizes and addresses those
comments received on the final Nevada
Rail Corridor SEIS and the final Rail
Alignment EIS.
Some commenters stated they were
unable to identify responses, in the final
Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and final Rail
Alignment EIS, to some of their
comments. For those comments for
which commenters stated that responses
were missing, the Department reviewed
the comments and associated
index(ices) to determine whether
responses had been included in the final
Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and/or the
final Rail Alignment EIS. Based on this
review, DOE concluded that appropriate
responses had been prepared for all
these comments and that these
responses were included in these final
NEPA documents.
Commenters also asserted that some
DOE responses to comments were
inadequate and demonstrated a lack of
understanding of aspects of the affected
environment, or that the analyses and
methods used to estimate potential
environmental impacts were
inadequate. As examples, commenters
indicated that there is ample literature
and accepted methods to address the
impacts of stigma and risk perception,
that DOE’s groundwater use rates were
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
understated and should have been
defined more accurately to estimate
impacts, that remote sensing techniques
and/or field surveys should have been
used to map locally important
vegetation and soil types and range
improvements, and that the regions of
influence used to estimate potential
impacts to certain resources were too
limited in geographic extent.
DOE has reviewed these comments
and determined that the environmental
analyses in these NEPA documents are
adequate. In preparing the final Nevada
Rail Corridor SEIS and the final Rail
Alignment EIS, DOE first determined
the scope of the analyses to be
considered (range of actions,
alternatives, impacts). In doing so, DOE
evaluated comments received through
the public scoping process, identified
the range of reasonable alternatives that
would meet the purpose and need for
DOE’s underlying action, and identified
the analytical approaches and methods
needed to determine potential
environmental impacts for each
resource area and issue. For some
issues, such as stigma and risk
perception, DOE considered various
analytical approaches and methods for
determining potential impacts, but
concluded there were no reliable
methods for quantifying such impacts
with any degree of certainty. For those
resource areas and issues for which
there were reliable methods, DOE
focused its analyses on significant
environmental issues and evaluated
impacts in proportion to their potential
significance, in accordance with the
Council on Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR 1502.1 and
1502.2(b)). DOE used the best available
information, including information
developed from field surveys and aerial
mapping, and commonly-used
analytical approaches to estimate
reasonably foreseeable environmental
impacts. As appropriate, DOE also used
conservative but reasonable
assumptions to address incomplete or
unavailable information or uncertainties
in these analyses. The information,
analytical approaches and assumptions
used in the analysis were developed in
consultation with DOE’s cooperating
agencies.
The Department received comments
stating that DOE did not include the
appropriate level of detail regarding the
design, construction and operation of
the railroad, and consequently the
impacts analyses were inadequate. As
examples, commenters suggested that
DOE determine the specific locations of
subballast quarries and communication
towers along the rail alignments,
redesign the rail line so that the service
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
road and rail roadbed were at the same
elevation (a single, wider raised
platform for the track and road), space
the concrete ties at more narrow
intervals, and construct sidings every 10
miles to decrease train delays under the
Shared-Use Option. DOE based the
analyses on a conceptual design of the
railroad, consistent with the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40
CFR 1500.5, 1501.2, 1502.5, and
1508.23) that call for environmental
impact analyses to be undertaken early
in the process of developing a proposed
Federal project. As DOE acknowledged
in the final Rail Alignment EIS, the
conceptual design will advance through
preliminary to final design, during
which time many of the details
requested by the commenters will
become available. Further, DOE will
make additional refinements before
construction. As these details become
available, the Department, consistent
with its regulations, will determine if
there is a need for additional NEPA
review.
Commenters, in general, favored
DOE’s proposed process for the
development, implementation and
monitoring of best management
practices and mitigation measures as
discussed in the final Rail Alignment
EIS. Commenters, however, also stated
that this proposed process and the
associated practices and measures are
preliminary, but should be committed to
in DOE’s Record of Decision; some
commenters requested to participate in
the process. Further, commenters took
exception to some practices and
measures presented in the final Rail
Alignment EIS, suggested modifications
to others (such as the use of adapted
plant species in reclaiming disturbed
lands), and offered additional practices
and measures for consideration (such as
the use of temporary irrigation to
promote plant growth).
The Environmental Protection Agency
focused on wetlands issues and
concluded that the Caliente alternative
segment (relative to the Eccles segment)
represented the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative. The
Agency supported the conclusions
regarding the floodplain and wetlands
assessment contained in the final Rail
Alignment EIS, with the understanding
that DOE will implement one of three
compensatory mitigation measures
specific to the loss of wetlands that will
be impacted by the Caliente rail
alignment.
In response to comments regarding
mitigation, the Department recognizes
that the best management practices and
mitigation measures described in the
final Rail Alignment EIS are preliminary
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
and, as such, will be further developed
and detailed through the regulatory
compliance process, development of the
final design and associated
specifications, and through
consultations with directly affected
parties. As stated below (see Use of All
Practicable Means to Avoid or Minimize
Harm), DOE is committing to a
mitigation process, proposing to
constitute one or more Mitigation
Advisory Boards and consult with
directly affected parties. DOE will
prepare a Mitigation Action Plan in
accordance with its NEPA regulations
(10 CFR 1021.331). Further, DOE is
committing to a wetlands compensatory
mitigation plan, including
implementing the recommendations of
the Environmental Protection Agency,
the details of which will be described in
the Mitigation Action Plan. Lastly, the
Department will reconsider the
suggested modifications to the best
management practices and mitigation
measures, as well as other related
recommendations of the commenters, in
preparing the Mitigation Action Plan.
Decision
Under the NWPA and the Yucca
Mountain Development Act, the
Department is responsible for the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste to the
Yucca Mountain site. In April 2004, the
Department selected the mostly rail
scenario analyzed in the Yucca
Mountain Final EIS for transporting
spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste nationally and within
Nevada. DOE also selected the Caliente
rail corridor in which to examine
possible alignments for construction of
a rail line in Nevada.
As the next step in fulfilling its
responsibilities and consistent with its
tiered decisionmaking, the Department
is issuing this Record of Decision to
construct and operate a railroad along a
rail alignment within the Caliente
corridor. The Department has selected
the following common and alternative
segments as the rail alignment—Caliente
alternative segment, common segment 1,
Garden Valley alternative segment 3,
common segment 2, South Reveille
alternative segment 3, common segment
3, Goldfield alternative segment 4,
common segment 4, Bonnie Claire
alternative segment 3, common segment
5, Oasis Valley alternative segment 1,
and common segment 6, which are the
preferred segments identified in the
final Rail Alignment EIS.
In addition, the Department has
decided to construct the Interchange
Yard at the location where the Caliente
alternative segment connects with the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
Union Pacific Railroad mainline, the
Upland Staging Yard along the Caliente
alternative segment, and the
Maintenance-of-Way Facility along
Goldfield alternative segment 4. The
Department also has decided to
construct and operate the Nevada
Railroad Control Center and National
Transportation Operations Center, colocated with the Upland Staging Yard,
along the Caliente alternative segment.
In proceeding with construction of the
railroad, the Department will develop
up to four quarries from six potential
locations, and up to 12 construction
camps at the locations analyzed in the
final Rail Alignment EIS. The initiation
of construction of the railroad on public
land, including the quarries and
construction camps, is dependent upon
receipt of a right-of-way grant, free use
permits, and possibly temporary use
permits, from the Bureau of Land
Management. Construction and
operation of the railroad will be subject
to the availability of appropriated funds.
Finally, DOE has decided to select the
Shared-Use Option, and allow common
carriage shipments on the rail line. Prior
to constructing and operating a common
carriage railroad, the Surface
Transportation Board must grant a
Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity to DOE. The Department
applied to the Board for a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity on
March 17, 2008.
As necessary, DOE will apply for any
additional regulatory approvals to
construct the railroad, ship radioactive
materials and other materials to the
repository, and allow common carriage
shipments (general freight).
Basis for Decision
Alignment Within Rail Corridor
Based on a consideration of the
environmental analyses included in the
final Rail Alignment EIS, the objection
of the Walker River Paiute Tribe to the
transportation of nuclear waste across
its reservation, and preferences
expressed in public comments, the
Department has decided that it will
construct and operate a railroad along
the rail alignment described above
within the Caliente rail corridor. In
reaching its decision to construct and
operate a railroad along a rail alignment
within the Caliente corridor, DOE
considered potential environmental
impacts to all resources, including the
impacts from land disturbance during
construction, land use changes and
conflicts from operation of the railroad,
and impacts to wetlands. As a general
matter, DOE concluded in the final Rail
Alignment EIS that construction and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60255
operation of a railroad along either the
Caliente or Mina rail alignments would
result in broadly similar, but generally
small, potential impacts to natural,
human health, social, economic, and
cultural resources. More specifically,
DOE found there would be no
significant differences between the
Caliente and Mina alignments in
potential impacts to aesthetic resources,
air quality (including potential impacts
on global climate change), groundwater
resources, noise and vibration,
socioeconomics, occupational and
public health and safety (including
potential risks from accidents and acts
of sabotage or terrorism), utilities,
energy and materials use, and the
generation of hazardous materials and
waste.
DOE recognized that constructing and
operating a railroad along an alignment
within the Mina corridor would tend to
result in less land disturbance, and
cross fewer private land parcels and
grazing allotments than within the
Caliente corridor. The Department,
however, also recognized that an
alignment within the Mina corridor
would need to cross the Walker River
Paiute Tribe Reservation. If DOE were to
select such an alignment, DOE would
need to obtain a right-of-way from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau’s
regulations (25 CFR 169.3(a)) 11 require
written consent of the Tribe before
granting the right-of-way. Because the
Tribe has renewed its past objection to
the transportation of nuclear waste
through its reservation (as described
above under Background), obtaining a
right-of-way is not possible at this time.
DOE’s inability to obtain a right-of-way
through the reservation in the absence
of the Tribe’s consent would necessarily
impact the Department’s ability to
construct and operate the railroad in the
Mina corridor.
DOE also considered potential
unavoidable adverse impacts in
reaching its decision. Construction of a
railroad in either corridor would result
in the permanent loss of wetlands.
Within the Caliente corridor, about 8.7
acres of wetlands would be lost,
whereas the corresponding loss within
the Mina corridor would be about 0.01
acres. As described below under Use of
All Practicable Means to Avoid or
Minimize Harm, DOE will develop
measures to compensate for the loss of
wetlands as part of its compliance with
section 404 of the Clean Water Act in
coordination with the Army Corps of
11 The regulation states, ‘‘No right-of-way shall be
granted over and across any tribal land, nor shall
any permission to survey be issued with respect to
any such lands, without the prior written consent
of the tribe.’’
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
60256
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
Engineers, Environmental Protection
Agency, and applicable landmanagement agencies such as the
Bureau of Land Management.
In making its decision to construct
and operate a railroad along a rail
alignment within the Caliente corridor,
DOE considered irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of resources
and potential cumulative impacts. There
would be an irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of resources,
such as electric power, fossil fuels and
construction materials, associated with
the construction of a railroad in either
the Caliente or Mina corridors, although
this commitment of resources would not
significantly diminish these resources,
either nationwide or in Nevada.
DOE also recognized there could be
some moderate to large impacts from the
construction and operation of a railroad
along a rail alignment in either corridor
when considered in tandem with other
past, present and reasonably foreseeable
future activities (cumulative impacts).
In general, the potential for moderate to
large cumulative impacts would be
limited to certain resources, such as
groundwater use and air quality; further
limited in geographic extent to certain
areas within segments, such as air
quality impacts from a particular quarry;
and would be short-term, i.e., limited to
the construction period. There also
could be longer term, moderate to large
cumulative impacts, such as a loss of
specific types of habitat, although DOE
will develop mitigation measures to
minimize its contribution to these
potential cumulative impacts, as
discussed below under Use of All
Practicable Means to Avoid or Minimize
Harm.
In making its decision, the
Department also considered the direct
costs of constructing and operating a
railroad, and the consequences from
potential delays in the availability of the
railroad. DOE has estimated that the
total cost to construct the railroad along
the Mina rail alignment would be
approximately 20 percent less than to
construct the railroad along the Caliente
rail alignment ($2.03 billion compared
to $2.57 billion in 2008 dollars).
However, objections by the Walker
River Paiute Tribe will prevent DOE
from constructing the railroad in the
Mina corridor, which in turn will
preclude DOE from disposing of large
amounts of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel radioactive waste in a timely
manner.
The Department has concluded that
construction and operation of a railroad
along the Caliente rail alignment would
result in generally small potential
impacts to natural, human health,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
social, economic, and cultural
resources. Moreover, as described below
under Use of All Practicable Means to
Avoid or Minimize Harm, the use of
best management practices and
mitigation measures will reduce and
minimize those potential impacts or
compensate for those impacts. Lastly,
when considering other relevant
aspects, there are no land use conflicts
along the rail alignment within the
Caliente corridor that should prevent
DOE from acquiring the necessary land
and rights-of-way to construct the
railroad.
Caliente Rail Alignment
The Department’s decision to select
certain alternative segments comprising
the Caliente rail alignment was based on
the analyses of the final Rail Alignment
EIS and consideration of comments
received. In selecting the Caliente
alternative segment and its associated
Interchange and Staging Yard, DOE
considered that constructing a railroad
on the Eccles alternative segment would
be more complex due to its larger
drainages and steeper terrain, and
would present greater challenges to
operating the railroad due to the steeper
slope of its Interchange Yard tracks and
main track leaving the interchange. In
addition, constructing the Caliente
alternative segment would avoid the
need to realign parts of Clover Creek,
which would be required to construct
the Eccles-North Interchange Yard, and
would avoid indirect impacts to riparian
areas along Clover Creek downstream of
that Interchange Yard (the riparian areas
have been proposed by the Bureau of
Land Management as an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern).
The selection of the Upland Staging
Yard (along the Caliente alternative
segment) is preferable to the Indian
Cove Staging Yard because the Upland
Staging Yard would not impact
wetlands. In contrast, construction of
the Indian Cove Staging Yard would
require filling up to 47 acres of
wetlands.
In selecting Garden Valley alternative
segment 3, DOE considered potential
impacts to all resources and engineering
factors, but engineering factors did not
offer a means to discriminate clearly
among Garden Valley segments 1, 2, 3,
and 8. As described above under
Environmentally Preferable
Implementing Alternative, DOE
determined segments 1 and 3 to be
environmentally preferable to segments
2 and 8, but as between segment 1 and
3, neither was clearly preferable.
Nevertheless, DOE has decided to
construct the railroad along Garden
Valley 3 because it is farthest from City,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
an earthworks sculpture located on
private land, and this would reduce
(relative to other segments) any
potential noise or aesthetic impacts to
those visiting the sculpture.
DOE selected South Reveille
alternative segment 3, rather than
segment 2, along which to construct the
railroad. Construction of the railroad
along South Reveille alternative
segment 3 would be preferable to
construction along South Reveille
segment 2, because it would avoid a
complex road and wash crossing. Also,
a railroad along South Reveille
alternative segment 3 would minimize
potential impacts to noise, air quality
and aesthetic resources because it is
located farther from the boundary of the
South Reveille Wilderness Study Area
than is South Reveille segment 2.
In selecting Goldfield alternative
segment 4 (and its associated
Maintenance-of-Way Facility), DOE
considered potential impacts to all
resources and engineering factors and
determined that it would be preferable
to construct and operate the railroad
along this segment rather than along
Goldfield alternative segments 1 or 3. As
described above under Environmentally
Preferable Implementing Alternative,
DOE determined that Goldfield
alternative segment 3 was
environmentally preferable. However,
Goldfield alternative segment 3 also
presents more complex engineering and
railroad operation challenges than the
selected segment (Goldfield 4) because
of its topography (many more curves
and grades to negotiate). In addition, the
design and construction of Goldfield
alternative segment 1 is more uncertain
than that of Goldfield segment 4,
because it would cross a mining district
likely to contain as-yet-unidentified
abandoned mine drifts and shafts. DOE
also considered that Goldfield
alternative segment 4 is preferred by the
Esmeralda County government. For
these reasons, DOE selected Goldfield
alternative segment 4 along which to
construct the railroad.
DOE selected Bonnie Claire
alternative segment 3, rather than
segment 2, because it would be farthest
from the boundary of the Nevada Test
and Training Range, and would be less
difficult to construct as it requires fewer
drainage structures in less complex
terrain. DOE also selected Oasis Valley
alternative segment 1, rather than
segment 3, because it too would be less
difficult to construct. The potential
environmental impacts to the Bonnie
Claire and Oasis Valley alternative
segments did not offer a means to
discriminate clearly between the
segments.
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
Facilities Associated With the Caliente
Rail Alignment
DOE also has decided to construct
and operate the Nevada Railroad
Control Center and the National
Transportation Operations Center, colocated with the Upland Staging Yard,
along the Caliente alternative segment,
rather than one mile from the southern
boundary of the geologic repository
operations area at the Rail Equipment
Maintenance Yard. In making this
selection, DOE recognizes that locating
these facilities at the Upland Staging
Yard would require the use of private
land, but believes that locating these
facilities nearer Caliente, Nevada, is
responsive to public comments received
on the draft Rail Alignment EIS.
Shared Use
Lastly, the Department has decided to
select the Shared-Use Option for the
railroad. DOE finds that the potential
impacts from the Shared-Use Option
generally would result in a small
incremental increase relative to those of
the Proposed Action without the
Shared-Use Option. Further, DOE
believes that this decision is responsive
to public comments received on the
draft Rail Alignment EIS, which
generally supported the Shared-Use
Option and identified economic benefits
that could accrue to those communities
through which the railroad would pass.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Floodplain Statement of Findings
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022,
‘‘Compliance with Floodplain and
Wetland Environmental Review
Requirements,’’ DOE prepared a
floodplain and wetland assessment for
the Caliente rail alignment (see
Appendix F of the final Rail Alignment
EIS). Many of the floodplains that
would be encountered unavoidably by
the railroad are associated with
internally draining basins with few, if
any, inhabitants or facilities, and where
the floodwaters end in playa areas. The
floodplains are primarily those areas of
normally dry washes that are
temporarily and infrequently inundated
from runoff during 100-year or 500-year
floods.
Construction of the Caliente rail
alignment will affect floodplains, either
through direct alteration of the stream
channel cross section that will affect the
flow pattern of the stream, or through
indirect changes in the amount of
impervious surfaces and additional
water volume added to the floodplain.
In most areas, construction in a
floodplain will not increase the risk of
future flood damage or increase the
impact of floods on human health and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
safety, because there are very few
human activities or facilities in the areas
adjacent to the rail alignment, except for
example, in the City of Caliente.
Potential impacts from construction will
be minimized because DOE will reduce
the area of disturbance where the rail
alignment will cross floodplains, and
because construction activities will be
based on design standards that limit the
degree to which floodwaters will be
allowed to rise. DOE will incorporate
hydraulic modeling into the engineering
design process to ensure that crossings
are designed to limit adverse impacts to
nearby populations and resources.
In areas where drainage structures
cross a 100-year floodplain designated
by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the railroad will be designed in
compliance with the Agency’s
floodplain protection standards and
applicable county regulations. In other
areas, hydraulic design will be based
upon Class 1 freight railroad standard
design criteria, which require that the
50-year flood not come into contact with
the top of a culvert or the lowest point
of a bridge. For the 100-year flood, these
criteria require that the floodwaters not
rise above the subgrade elevation of a
structure. The Department will
construct bridges where flows will be
larger and where the rail surface
elevation would not be high enough to
accommodate a sufficiently sized
culvert. Culverts, bridge abutments, and
piers will be constructed to include
riprap around the exposed ends to
protect the fill material. In places,
channel improvements might be
necessary for a short distance upstream
and downstream of the rail line to
intercept and redirect flows through
drainage structures. DOE also will
design the rail line to accommodate 100year floods, based on Class 1 freight
railroad standard design criteria, as
described above.
Constructing structures to cross
washes or other flood-prone areas may
reduce the area through which
floodwaters naturally flow, which could
cause water levels to rise at the
upstream side of crossings.
Sedimentation would be likely to occur
on the upstream side of crossings in
those areas where the flow of water is
restricted to the point where ponding
occurs. DOE will manage sedimentation
of this type under a regular maintenance
program.
While some changes will be
unavoidable, DOE will take steps to
ensure that the alterations to natural
drainage, sedimentation, and erosion
processes will not increase future
flooding potential, increase the impact
of floods on human health and safety, or
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60257
cause identifiable harm to the function
and values of floodplains. The
Department will implement best
management practices, including
erosion control measures such as the
use of silt fences and flow-control
devices, to reduce flow velocities and
minimize erosion, and other mitigation
measures, as needed (see Use of All
Practicable Means to Avoid or Minimize
Harm below).
Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act
DOE has complied with section 404(r)
of the Clean Water Act. Pursuant to the
requirements of that section, DOE
included in Appendix F of the final Rail
Alignment EIS an analysis of wetlands
impacts under the guidance of section
404(b)(1) of the Act and has submitted
the final Rail Alignment EIS, including
the requisite analysis under the
guidelines, to members of Congress. As
required by the guidelines, which are
described in 40 CFR Part 230, Appendix
F included a demonstration of the need
to fill wetlands, an analysis and
comparison among alternatives of the
potential impacts to aquatic resources
demonstrating that the practicable
alternative with the least impact to
aquatic resources has been selected, and
a description of methods for mitigating
unavoidable impacts (see Use of All
Practicable Means to Avoid or Minimize
Harm below). On the basis of the
conclusions in Appendix F, the
proposed discharge of fill materials into
wetlands and other waters of the United
States complies with the guidelines of
40 CFR Part 230, and DOE has met the
associated requirements of section
404(r) by including in the final Rail
Alignment EIS an analysis of wetlands
impacts in accordance with the
guidelines developed under section
404(b)(1).
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
DOE has complied with section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act. Pursuant to
the regulations that implement the Act
(50 CFR Part 402), in March 2008, DOE
submitted a biological assessment
regarding the potential impacts to the
threatened Mojave desert tortoise, the
endangered southwestern willow
flycatcher, and the threatened Ute
ladies’-tresses from the construction and
operation of a railroad in the Caliente
corridor, and initiated consultation with
the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Bureau of Land Management and the
Surface Transportation Board were
supporting agencies on this
consultation.
On September 19, 2008, the Fish and
Wildlife Service issued its biological
opinion and found that construction
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
60258
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
and operation of the railroad is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the threatened Mojave
population of the desert tortoise or the
Ute ladies’-tresses. In addition, the Fish
and Wildlife Service concluded that the
railroad will not result in adverse effects
to the critical habitat designated for the
Mojave desert tortoise, and further
analysis of potential critical habitat
impacts is not necessary (critical habitat
for the Ute ladies’-tresses in Nevada has
not been designated). The Fish and
Wildlife Service also included an
incidental take 12 statement and
identified reasonable and prudent
measures (mitigation measures) that
must be implemented by DOE to
minimize take of Mojave desert tortoise,
and conservation and minimization
measures that must be implemented if
the Fish and Wildlife Service
determines that the loss of Ute ladies’tresses by construction activities would
be significant. The Department is
committing to these measures, the
details of which will be included in the
Mitigation Action Plan (see below under
Use of All Practicable Means to Avoid
or Minimize Harm).
The Fish and Wildlife Service
concurred with DOE’s determination
that construction and operation of a
railroad in the Caliente corridor may
affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect, the southwestern willow
flycatcher. The Service’s concurrence
concluded the informal consultation for
that species pursuant to regulations
implementing the Endangered Species
Act.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Use of All Practicable Means To Avoid
or Minimize Harm
Pursuant to the NWPA, spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste
will be transported in casks certified by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). The NRC regulates and certifies
the design, manufacture, testing and use
of these casks. Additionally, the NWPA
requires that DOE comply with NRC
regulations regarding advance
notification of State and local
governments prior to transportation of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste.
In its Record of Decision of April 8,
2004 (69 FR 18557), DOE committed to
implementing measures to avoid or
minimize harm related to the shipment
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste, identified specific
measures, and committed to following
12 Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or
attempt to engage in such conduct without a special
exemption.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
current and future Department of
Transportation and NRC transportation
rules. DOE also committed to consult
with states, Native American tribes,
local governments, utilities, the
transportation industry, and other
interested parties in a cooperative
manner to refine the transportation
system as it is developed. DOE, in this
Record of Decision, is reaffirming its
commitment to those implementing
measures, which are incorporated by
reference herein.
In the final Rail Alignment EIS
(Chapter 7), DOE identifies preliminary
best management practices and
mitigation measures that represent the
initial step in an iterative process to
develop and eventually implement
these practices and measures. The
preliminary best management practices
and mitigation measures will be further
developed and detailed through (1) the
regulatory compliance process, such as
that associated with DOE’s right-of-way
application to the Bureau of Land
Management and DOE’s application for
a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity to the Surface Transportation
Board; (2) development of the final
design and associated specifications,
such as the selection of specific seed
mixes and application techniques for
reclaiming disturbed land; and (3)
consultation with directly affected
parties, such as grazing permittees and
local communities through which the
Caliente rail alignment will pass.
The Department will undertake this
mitigation process in consultation with
federal, state, and local regulatory
authorities having jurisdiction over the
construction and operation of the
railroad, and in consultation with
directly affected parties. To that end,
DOE proposes to constitute one or more
Mitigation Advisory Boards to assist
DOE, the Bureau of Land Management,
and the Surface Transportation Board in
developing, implementing, and
monitoring best management practices
and mitigation measures during the
construction and operation of the
railroad.
Further, DOE will conduct an
ethnographic evaluation of the rail
alignment area to develop a cultural
resources management program. DOE
proposes that the Consolidated Group of
Tribes and Organizations 13 assist in the
ethnographic evaluation, and in the
development and implementation of
13 DOE maintains a Native American Interaction
Program. As part of this Program, 17 tribes and
organizations have formed the Consolidated Group
of Tribes and Organizations, which consists of
appointed tribal representatives responsible for
presentation of their respective tribal concerns and
perspectives to DOE.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
best management practices and
mitigation measures.
In Appendix F of the final Rail
Alignment EIS, DOE identifies
preliminary measures to mitigate the
potential adverse impacts of actions in
a floodplain or wetlands, including but
not limited to, minimum grading
requirements, runoff controls, design
and construction constraints, and
protection of ecologically sensitive
areas. To the extent practicable, DOE
will avoid disturbing floodplains and
wetlands, and, if avoidance is not
possible, will minimize impacts to the
extent practicable. In general, DOE will
minimize impacts to floodplains and
wetlands through the implementation of
engineering design standards and best
management practices. DOE has
designed the rail alignment to avoid
potential direct and indirect impacts to
water resources wherever practicable.
Due to the nature of rail line design and
the construction activities that would be
required to implement the design, the
rail line cannot avoid crossing
floodplains or wetlands. The
engineering design process will ensure,
however, that the engineered structures
used to pass water runoff from one side
of the rail line to the other will do so
in a way that will minimize impacts to
floodplains and wetlands. Such impacts
will be limited mostly to the
construction phase, which will be
subject to Clean Water Act regulations.
In most cases, DOE will minimize
potential adverse impacts through the
implementation of best management
practices in concert with the permits
and plans regulatory agencies will
require.
DOE will implement a wetlands
compensatory mitigation plan that will
meet the requirements of the
Environmental Protection Agency for
mitigating losses of aquatic resources
(Subpart J, 40 CFR Part 230). As
specified in the Agency’s comment
letter of August 11, 2008, this plan will
include one of the following options to
compensate for the loss of wetlands: (1)
Restore or create three acres of wetlands
of equivalent function within the
watershed for every acre of wetlands
filled to construct the railroad; (2)
restore or create one acre of wetlands of
equivalent function within the
watershed, and remove non-native
plants in five acres within the
watershed for every acre of wetlands
filled; or (3) restore or create one acre
of wetlands of equivalent function in
the watershed, and enhance five acres of
riparian wetland habitat in upper
Meadow Valley, including Rainbow
Canyon, for every acre of wetlands
filled. The compensatory mitigation
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
plan will be developed and
implemented in accordance with
requirements of the Environmental
Protection Agency (40 CFR 230.91
through 230.97), and in coordination
with the Army Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Land Management.
The Department will implement the
conservation and minimization
measures listed in the biological
opinion to protect Ute ladies’-tresses,
and the reasonable and prudent
measures identified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service to protect the Mojave
population of the desert tortoise.
Implementation of these measures will
be coordinated with the Bureau of Land
Management and Surface
Transportation Board, as appropriate.
Based on all of the above, DOE will
prepare a Mitigation Action Plan in
accordance with its NEPA regulations
(10 CFR 1021.331). The Mitigation
Action Plan will include an
introduction describing the basis,
function, and organization of the plan;
a summary of the potential impacts to
be mitigated; a description of
preliminary best management practices
and specific mitigation measures from
Chapter 7 of the final Rail Alignment
EIS; a description of all mitigation
commitments in this Record of
Decision, including wetlands
compensatory measures and measures
to protect the Mojave desert tortoise and
Ute ladies’-tresses; a description of the
Mitigation Action Plan monitoring and
reporting system that DOE will
implement to ensure that elements of
the plan are met and are effective; and
a schedule for actions and identification
of the responsible parties. DOE will
develop the Mitigation Action Plan in
consultation with the proposed
Mitigation Advisory Board(s) and
directly affected parties.
The Mitigation Action Plan will be
completed and made publicly available
before DOE takes any action under this
decision that is the subject of a
mitigation commitment. DOE may
revise the Plan as more specific and
detailed information becomes available,
or in consultation with the proposed
Mitigation Advisory Board(s) and
directly affected parties. At this stage in
the process, the Department has adopted
all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6,
2008.
Edward F. Sproat, III,
Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive, Waste
Management.
[FR Doc. E8–24168 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. ER09–2–000]
[Docket No. PR08–15–003]
Energy Transfer Fuel, LP; Notice of
Compliance Filing
October 6, 2008.
Take notice that on October 1, 2008,
Energy Transfer Fuel, LP filed a Report
of Refunds in compliance with the
Commission’s letter order issued on July
11, 2008 in Docket Nos. PR08–15–000
and PR08–15–001.
Any person desiring to protest this
filing must file in accordance with Rule
211 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.211). Protests to this filing will be
considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be
taken, but will not serve to make
protestants parties to the proceeding.
Such protests must be filed on or before
the date as indicated below. Anyone
filing a protest must serve a copy of that
document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at
https://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to
file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest to
the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
This filing is accessible on-line at
https://www.ferc.gov, using the
‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for
review in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to
receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
Online service, please e-mail
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call
(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call
(202) 502–8659.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
Tuesday, October 14, 2008.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–24159 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 6450–01–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:11 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
60259
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Butler Ridge, LLC; Supplemental
Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate
Filing Includes Request for Blanket
Section 204 Authorization
October 6, 2008.
This is a supplemental notice in the
above-referenced proceeding of Butler
Ridge, LLC’s application for marketbased rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that
such application includes a request for
blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities
and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest should file with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
§ 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy
of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the
deadline for filing protests with regard
to the applicant’s request for blanket
authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of
future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability, is October 27,
2008.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the
FERC Online links at https://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic
service, persons with Internet access
who will eFile a document and/or be
listed as a contact for an intervenor
must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
Persons unable to file electronically
should submit an original and 14 copies
of the intervention or protest to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First St., NE., Washington, DC
20426.
The filings in the above-referenced
proceeding are accessible in the
Commission’s eLibrary system by
clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for
review in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to
receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed
dockets(s). For assistance with any
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60247-60259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24168]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings--Nevada
Rail Alignment for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV
AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S.
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In July 2008, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE)
issued the ``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-
Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada--Nevada
Rail Transportation Corridor'' (DOE/EIS-0250F-S2) (hereafter referred
to as the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS), the ``Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the Construction and
Operation of a Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada'' (DOE/EIS-0369) (hereafter referred to as
the final Rail Alignment EIS), and the ``Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada'' (DOE/EIS-0250F-S1) (hereafter
referred to as the final Repository SEIS). The final Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS analyzed the potential impacts of constructing and
operating a railroad for shipments of spent nuclear fuel, high-level
radioactive waste, and other materials in the Mina corridor, and DOE
concluded that the Mina corridor warranted further analysis at the
alignment level. This further, more detailed analysis is presented in
the final Rail Alignment EIS, which analyzed the potential
environmental impacts of constructing and operating a railroad along
rail alignments in both the Caliente and Mina rail corridors. The final
Rail Alignment EIS also analyzed the potential environmental impacts
from shipments of general freight (also referred to as common carriage
[[Page 60248]]
shipments or the Shared-Use Option) on a railroad in either corridor.
The final Repository SEIS analyzed the potential environmental
impacts of the construction, operation, and eventual closure of a
repository at Yucca Mountain. The final Repository SEIS also included
the potential impacts from national transportation, as well as the
potential impacts in Nevada from the construction and operation of a
railroad along specific alignments in the Caliente and Mina rail
corridors. DOE concluded in the final Repository SEIS that the
potential impacts associated with the repository design and operational
plans are similar in scale to the impacts analyzed in the ``Final
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada'' (DOE/EIS-0250F, February 2002)
(Yucca Mountain Final EIS).
Based on the analyses in the final Rail Alignment EIS, among other
considerations as discussed herein, the Department has decided to
construct and operate a railroad along a rail alignment within the
Caliente corridor. DOE also has decided to allow shipments of general
freight on the rail line (Shared-Use Option). The Department will
obtain all regulatory approvals necessary to construct and operate the
railroad, and allow common carriage shipments.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS, final Rail
Alignment EIS, final Repository SEIS, and this Record of Decision may
be obtained by mailing a request to Dr. Jane Summerson at the U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,
1551 Hillshire Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134, or by calling 1-800-967-
3477. These documents also may be obtained via the Internet at https://
www.ocrwm.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding these documents
can be submitted to Dr. Jane Summerson by mail or telephone at the
above address or phone number. For general information regarding the
DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process contact: Ms. Carol
M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20),
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC
20585, Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended
(NWPA), and NEPA, DOE issued the Yucca Mountain Final EIS in February
2002. The Yucca Mountain Final EIS analyzed a Proposed Action under
which DOE would construct, operate, monitor and eventually close a
geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, including shipment of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from 72 commercial and
five DOE sites to the Yucca Mountain repository. DOE evaluated the
potential environmental impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste to the repository under a variety of
modes, including legal-weight truck, rail, heavy-haul truck, and barge.
Two national transportation alternatives, referred to as the mostly
legal-weight truck alternative and the mostly rail alternative, and
three Nevada alternatives, referred to as the legal-weight truck
alternative, the rail alternative, and the heavy-haul truck
alternative, were evaluated. The Department identified the mostly rail
alternative as its preferred mode of transportation, both nationally
and in the State of Nevada, in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS.
DOE stated in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS that, if it were to
select the mostly rail alternative (both nationally and in Nevada), a
rail line would need to be constructed to connect the repository site
at Yucca Mountain to an existing rail line in the State of Nevada.
Accordingly, the Yucca Mountain Final EIS evaluated in detail the
potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of
a rail line within five rail corridors--Caliente, Carlin, Caliente-
Chalk Mountain, Jean, and Valley Modified. The Department did not
identify a preferred rail corridor in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS, but
indicated it would do so at least 30 days before making any decision on
the selection of a rail corridor in which to construct a rail line in
Nevada. On December 29, 2003, the Department announced in the Federal
Register that the Caliente rail corridor was its preferred corridor (68
FR 74951).
On April 8, 2004, DOE announced in a Record of Decision the
selection of the mostly rail alternative analyzed in the Yucca Mountain
Final EIS for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste nationally and within Nevada (69 FR 18557). DOE also
announced in that Record of Decision that it had selected the Caliente
rail corridor in which to examine possible alignments for construction
of a rail line in Nevada.
In September 2004, the State of Nevada filed a petition for review
with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, pursuant to Section 119 of the NWPA, seeking review of DOE's
April 8, 2004, Record of Decision and the transportation-related
portions of the Yucca Mountain Final EIS on which it was based. Nevada
claimed that in selecting a national transportation mode and Nevada
rail corridor for the shipment of radioactive materials to Yucca
Mountain, DOE violated NEPA and NEPA implementing regulations and acted
in an arbitrary and capricious manner and contrary to law.
In an August 8, 2006, decision, the District of Columbia Circuit
denied Nevada's petition and rejected the State's claims on their
merits. State of Nevada v. Department of Energy, 457 F.3d 78, 89-93
(D.C. Cir. 2006). The Court held that DOE had met its obligations under
the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 1503.1(a)(2)) with respect to consultation with other
agencies; that DOE had appropriately tiered its proposed action
analyses under 40 CFR 1508.28; that DOE had taken the requisite hard
look at the potential rail corridor environmental impacts; that DOE's
analysis of the environmental impacts of rail corridor selection in its
Yucca Mountain Final EIS was adequate; and that DOE's selection of the
Caliente corridor therefore was not arbitrary or capricious.
On April 8, 2004, DOE announced in the Federal Register its intent
to prepare an EIS under NEPA for the alignment, construction, and
operation of a rail line for shipments of spent nuclear fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, and other materials related to the
construction and operation of a repository from a site near Caliente,
Lincoln County, Nevada, to a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye
County, Nevada (69 FR 18565). The Federal Register notice also
announced the schedule for public scoping meetings, and invited
comments on the scope of the Rail Alignment EIS to ensure that all
relevant environmental issues and reasonable alternatives would be
addressed.
During the public scoping process in 2004, DOE received comments
suggesting that other rail corridors, in particular the Mina route, be
considered. Following review of the scoping comments, DOE held
discussions with the Walker River Paiute Tribe and, in May 2006, the
Tribal Council informed DOE that it had
[[Page 60249]]
withdrawn a previous objection to the completion of an EIS studying the
potential transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste across its reservation.
On October 13, 2006, DOE announced its intent to expand the scope
of the Rail Alignment EIS to incorporate analysis of the potential
environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating a rail
line within the Mina rail corridor (71 FR 60484). DOE indicated that it
would supplement the rail corridor analysis of the Yucca Mountain Final
EIS by evaluating the Mina rail corridor, and that it would update, as
appropriate, the information and analysis for other rail corridors
analyzed in detail in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS. DOE also indicated
that it would include an analysis of alternative alignments within the
Mina corridor at the same level of detail as the ongoing alignment
analysis for the Caliente corridor.
Also on October 13, 2006, DOE announced its intent to prepare a
supplement to the Yucca Mountain Final EIS to address modifications to
repository design and operation plans since completion of the Yucca
Mountain Final EIS (71 FR 60490). DOE indicated that it would evaluate
the potential environmental impacts of the construction, operation, and
closure of the repository under the modified repository design and
operational plans, and would update the analysis and potential
environmental impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste to the repository under the mostly rail alternative.
On April 17, 2007, the Walker River Paiute Tribal Council announced
a resolution withdrawing support for the Tribe's participation in the
EIS process, and renewing the Tribe's past objection to the
transportation of nuclear waste through its reservation. In light of
this, DOE identified the Mina alternative as nonpreferred in the draft
Rail Alignment EIS and subsequently in the final Rail Alignment EIS.
On October 12, 2007, the Department announced in the Federal
Register the availability of the draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS, draft
Rail Alignment EIS, and the draft Repository SEIS (72 FR 58071). DOE's
Notice of Availability invited interested parties to comment on these
NEPA documents during a 90-day public comment period that ended on
January 10, 2008. DOE held eight public hearings at locations in
Nevada, California, and Washington, DC. The Department received about
4,000 comments from nearly 1,100 commenters. DOE has considered all of
these comments, and responded as appropriate in the final Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS, the final Rail Alignment EIS, and the final Repository
SEIS.
On July 11, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in
the Federal Register the availability of DOE's final Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS, final Rail Alignment EIS, and final Repository SEIS (73
FR 39958). The final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS provided a corridor-
level analysis of the Mina rail corridor, and updated information, as
appropriate, regarding the other rail corridors analyzed in detail in
the Yucca Mountain Final EIS. DOE concluded in the final Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS that (1) the Mina rail corridor warranted further study
at the alignment level as a nonpreferred alternative, and (2) there
were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns that would warrant further consideration of the
Carlin, Jean or Valley Modified corridors at the alignment level.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOE eliminated from further consideration the Caliente-Chalk
Mountain rail corridor, which would cross the Nevada Test and
Training Range, because of U.S. Air Force concerns that a rail line
would interfere with military mission activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final Rail Alignment EIS analyzed the potential impacts of
constructing and operating a railroad \2\ for shipments of spent
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and other materials along
the reasonable rail alignments \3\ in the Caliente and Mina rail
corridors.\4\ A rail alignment is an engineered refinement of a rail
corridor in which DOE would identify the location of a rail line. A
rail alignment comprises common segments and alternative segments. A
corridor is a strip of land 400 meters (0.25 mile) wide through which
DOE would identify an alignment for the construction of the rail line.
The final Rail Alignment EIS also analyzed the potential environmental
impacts from common carriage shipments along those rail alignments (the
Shared-Use Option).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A transportation system incorporating the rail line,
operations support facilities, railcars, locomotives, and other
related property and infrastructure.
\3\ An engineered refinement of a rail corridor in which DOE
would identify the location of a rail line. A rail alignment
comprises common segments and alternative segments, as discussed
herein.
\4\ A corridor is a strip of land 400 meters (0.25 mile) wide
through which DOE would identify an alignment for the construction
of the rail line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Air Force, Surface Transportation Board, Bureau of Land
Management, Lincoln County, Esmeralda County, Nye County, and the City
of Caliente, Nevada, were cooperating agencies in the preparation of
the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and the final Rail Alignment EIS.
The final Repository SEIS analyzed the potential environmental
impacts of national transportation, as well as the potential impacts in
Nevada, from the construction and operation of a railroad along
specific alignments in either the Caliente or the Mina corridor to
ensure that the full scope of potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed construction and operation of the
repository were considered. DOE concluded in the final Repository SEIS
that the potential impacts associated with the repository design and
operational plans are similar in scale to the impacts analyzed in the
Yucca Mountain Final EIS. Nye County was a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the final Repository SEIS.
Proposed Action and Alternatives in the Final Rail Alignment EIS
The final Rail Alignment EIS examined a Proposed Action and a No
Action Alternative. The Department's Proposed Action is to determine an
alignment (within a corridor), and construct and operate a railroad in
Nevada to transport spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste,
and other materials from an existing rail line to a repository at Yucca
Mountain.
Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not select a rail
alignment within either the Caliente or Mina rail corridors for the
construction and operation of a railroad. If DOE were not to select a
rail alignment in either the Caliente or Mina rail corridor, the future
course that it would pursue to meet its obligation under the NWPA is
uncertain.
There are two implementing alternatives under the Proposed Action--
the Caliente Implementing Alternative, under which the Department would
construct the proposed railroad in the Caliente rail corridor, and the
Mina Implementing Alternative, under which the Department would
construct the proposed railroad in the Mina rail corridor. In each rail
corridor, DOE evaluated a series of common segments and the range of
reasonable alternative segments. Common segments are portions of the
rail alignment for which DOE has identified a single route for the rail
line. Alternative segments are portions of the rail alignment for which
DOE has identified multiple routes for the rail line.
DOE also evaluated the Shared-Use Option under each implementing
alternative. Under the Shared-Use Option, DOE would allow common
carriage shipments on the rail line.
[[Page 60250]]
In addition to evaluating the potential impacts of constructing and
operating the railroad, the final Rail Alignment EIS identified and
evaluated the facilities needed to construct the railroad, such as
quarries and construction camps, and to operate the railroad, such as
staging yards and maintenance facilities, under each implementing
alternative. Additional descriptive information for these facilities,
as well as other aspects of the implementing alternatives, may be found
in Chapter 2 of the final Rail Alignment EIS.
Caliente Implementing Alternative--Preferred Alternative
A rail line in the Caliente rail corridor would extend north from
Caliente, Nevada, turn west and proceed to near the northwest corner of
the Nevada Test and Training Range, and then continue south-southeast
to Yucca Mountain (see Figure S-3 of the Summary to the final Rail
Alignment EIS). The rail line would range in length from about 528 to
541 kilometers (328 to 336 miles), depending on the combination of
alternative segments.
There are six common segments along the Caliente rail alignment
starting with common segment 1 south of Panaca, Nevada, and moving west
sequentially to common segment 6 near Yucca Mountain. DOE evaluated
alternative segments at six locations along the Caliente rail alignment
starting at the interface with the Union Pacific Railroad mainline near
Caliente, Nevada (two alternative segments referred to as Caliente and
Eccles), and moving west to Garden Valley (Garden Valley segments 1, 2,
3 and 8), southwest of the South Reveille Wilderness Study Area (South
Reveille segments 2 and 3), near the town of Goldfield (Goldfield
segments 1, 3 and 4), north of Scottys Junction (Bonnie Claire segments
2 and 3), and near Oasis Valley (Oasis Valley segments 1 and 3). These
common segments and alternative segments are shown in Figure S-3 of the
Summary to the final Rail Alignment EIS.
DOE anticipates that it would take 4 to 10 years to construct the
proposed railroad. Construction of the railroad would include
construction of the rail line, the infrastructure necessary to support
the construction and operation of the railroad (for example, water
wells, ballast \5\ quarries, construction camps), and operations
support facilities. Construction activities would occur inside a 300-
meter (1,000-foot) wide construction right-of-way, except in some areas
requiring deep cuts or high fills, which could extend beyond typical
widths by up to 300 feet. Alternatively, the construction right-of-way
would be more narrow than 300 meters (1,000 feet) when passing through
certain areas such as private lands and wetlands. The total
construction footprint would be approximately 164 square kilometers
(40,600 acres). Obtaining a right-of-way for access to public land for
construction of the railroad would be subject to approval by the Bureau
of Land Management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Coarse rock placed under the railroad tracks to support the
railroad ties and improve drainage along the rail line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction of the rail line would require DOE to obtain water,
ballast, subballast,\6\ steel for bridges, concrete ties, and rail.
Water would be obtained by pumping groundwater from water-supply wells
along the rail alignment, and under the Caliente Implementing
Alternative, a maximum of 107 well sites would be required to supply
the estimated 6,100 acre-feet of water necessary for construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A layer of crushed gravel used to separate the ballast and
roadbed for the purpose of load distribution and drainage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE would obtain ballast by constructing up to four quarries from
six potential locations along the Caliente rail alignment. Subballast
would be obtained from sites along the rail alignment, from waste rock
generated at ballast quarry sites, from materials excavated during rail
roadbed \7\ construction, or from the development of new subballast
borrow sites established inside the construction right-of-way. The
Department would obtain steel, concrete ties, and rail from existing
commercial sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Earthwork foundation upon which the track, ties, ballast,
and subballast of a rail line are laid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction of the rail line would require DOE to establish
construction camps to provide housing for workers and a logistical base
from which to conduct construction activities. The Department would
establish up to 12 construction camps, with up to six operating at one
time, along the Caliente rail alignment.
DOE would construct the rail line in two steps: (1) Rail roadbed
construction and (2) track construction. The rail roadbed would form
the base upon which the subballast, ballast, concrete ties, and rail
would be laid. Track construction would involve the placement of
subballast, ballast, concrete ties, and rail on top of the rail
roadbed, building a service road, and establishing power and
communication systems.
DOE also would construct bridges, culverts, and at-grade and grade-
separated road crossings.\8\ The Department would construct up to 240
bridges, 138 large culverts, and five grade-separated crossings of
highways along the Caliente rail alignment. Crossings at other paved
public roadways would be at-grade where DOE would install active
warning devices, such as flashing lights and gates. For crossings at
unpaved roads and private crossings, DOE would install passive warning
devices, such as stop signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ An at-grade crossing occurs when a road and a rail line
cross paths at the same elevation. A grade-separated crossing occurs
when a road and a rail line cross paths and one passes over the
other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After completion of construction, the railroad would operate for up
to 50 years. During that time, there would be about 3,000 rail
shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the
repository. There also would be shipments of construction materials,
diesel fuel, and other supplies to the repository.
Trains carrying spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
would arrive at an Interchange Yard \9\ on the Union Pacific Railroad
mainline near Caliente, Nevada, and proceed to a Staging Yard \10\
along either the Caliente or the Eccles alternative segment. DOE
evaluated three staging yards in the final Rail Alignment EIS--the
Indian Cove and Upland Staging Yards along the Caliente alternative
segment, and the Eccles-North Staging Yard along the Eccles alternative
segment. A typical train leaving the Staging Yard and transporting
radioactive materials for the repository would consist of two or three
4,000-horsepower diesel-electric locomotives followed by a buffer car,
one to five cask cars followed by another buffer car, and one escort
car carrying security personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Interchange Yard is the intersection between the Union
Pacific mainline and the DOE rail line.
\10\ The Staging Yard is the rail yard that would temporarily
store, service and maintain railcars and locomotives, and assemble
trains for trips to the repository at Yucca Mountain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trains transporting radioactive materials for the repository would
depart the Staging Yard and travel to the Rail Equipment Maintenance
Yard, the termination point of the railroad and the staging area for
the delivery of loaded cask cars and other materials to the repository
receiving and inspection area. The Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard
would be located less than one mile from the southern boundary of the
geologic repository operations area. A railroad crew would bring casks
from the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard to the boundary of the
geologic repository operations area. At the boundary, control of the
casks would be
[[Page 60251]]
transferred to the geologic repository operations area for removal of
the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Empty casks
would be transferred back to railroad control at the boundary of the
geologic repository operations area for transport back to the Union
Pacific Railroad.
A National Transportation Operations Center would oversee the
shipment of casks from sites throughout the United States. The Nevada
Railroad Control Center, co-located with the National Transportation
Operations Center, would coordinate train movements, rail operations,
and emergency response operations along the proposed railroad in
Nevada. In the final Rail Alignment EIS, DOE evaluated these facilities
at either the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard or at the Staging Yard
(two locations for the Staging Yard were analyzed along the Caliente
alternative segment, and one location for the Staging Yard was analyzed
along the Eccles alternative segment).
Under the Caliente Implementing Alternative, rail line maintenance
and inspection activities would be conducted out of Maintenance-of-Way
Facilities. DOE evaluated Maintenance-of-Way Facilities at different
locations. Either a single Maintenance-of-Way Facility would be
constructed along Goldfield alternative segment 4 just north of the
town of Goldfield, Nevada, or a Maintenance-of-Way Headquarters
Facility would be constructed near Tonopah, Nevada, and a Maintenance-
of-Way Trackside Facility would be constructed along common segment 3.
DOE also analyzed a Shared-Use Option, under which the Department
would allow common carriage shipments on the rail line. The Shared-Use
Option would require construction of commercial sidings to provide
access for potential commercial shippers other than the Department, and
facilities for operation of commercial rail service. Funding for
construction of these sidings and facilities for commercial rail
service could be provided by either the private sector or Government
sources. The Department's proposed design for the rail line (for
example, grade and curvature) would accommodate shared use.
DOE estimated that approximately eight common carriage shipments
could run per week on the rail line. Trains carrying spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste would have priority.
DOE could decide to abandon the proposed railroad after shipments
to the repository were complete. Abandonment could involve the removal
of the rail roadbed, ballast, track, ties, signaling, and other related
infrastructure. DOE would reclaim the lands disturbed by the
abandonment process. If DOE were to decide to abandon the railroad, it
would relinquish its right-of-way and the Bureau of Land Management
would continue to manage the public land. Abandonment of the railroad
would be conducted in accordance with applicable requirements and in
consultation with local governments, the Surface Transportation Board,
and the Bureau of Land Management. It is premature at this time for DOE
to decide the future disposition of the railroad after the end of the
shipping campaign to the Yucca Mountain repository. Any such future
decision would be subject to further NEPA review, as appropriate.
Mina Implementing Alternative
A rail line in the Mina rail corridor would extend from near
Wabuska, Nevada, in a southeasterly direction to Yucca Mountain. The
total length of the rail line could range from about 452 to 502
kilometers (281 to 312 miles), including the existing Department of
Defense rail line (see Figure S-4 of the Summary to the final Rail
Alignment EIS). The portion of the Mina rail alignment that would
require construction of a new rail line could range in length from
about 410 to 459 kilometers (255 to 285 miles), depending on the
combination of common and alternative segments.
There are four common segments along the Mina alignment. Common
segment 1 starts west of Hawthorne continuing to Blair Junction,
Nevada; common segment 2, which would start south of Lida Junction,
Nevada; and common segment 5 and common segment 6, which are the same
as common segments 5 and 6 along the Caliente rail alignment. DOE
evaluated alternative segments at four locations along the Mina
alignment starting near Schurz, Nevada (four alternative segments
referred to as Schurz 1, 4, 5, and 6), and moving southeast toward the
area of Montezuma southeast of Blair Junction (Montezuma segments 1, 2
and 3), north of Scottys Junction (Bonnie Claire segments 2 and 3), and
near Oasis Valley (Oasis Valley segments 1 and 3). Bonnie Claire
segments 2 and 3, and Oasis Valley segments 1 and 3 are the same as
those along the Caliente alignment.
Construction and operation of a railroad along the Mina rail
alignment would be implemented as described under the Caliente
Implementing Alternative. However, the infrastructure necessary to
support construction and operation of the railroad would differ in some
respects. Under the Mina Implementing Alternative, water would be
obtained from a maximum of 74 well sites to supply the estimated 5,950
acre-feet of water necessary for construction. DOE would obtain ballast
by constructing up to two quarries from five potential locations along
the rail alignment, and there would be up to 10 construction camps,
with up to six operating at one time. The Department would construct up
to 69 bridges, 60 large culverts, and four grade-separated crossings of
highways along the Mina rail alignment.
Under the Mina Implementing Alternative, trains would arrive on the
Union Pacific Railroad mainline near Hazen and proceed to the Staging
Yard at Hawthorne via the Union Pacific Railroad Hazen Branchline, the
Department of Defense Branchline North, one of the Schurz alternative
segments, and the Department of Defense Branchline South. Unlike the
Caliente Implementing Alternative, there is sufficient space to locate
the functions of the Interchange Yard and Staging Yard in a single
facility (the Staging Yard) at Hawthorne, Nevada.
The National Transportation Operations Center and the Nevada
Railroad Control Center would be co-located and perform the same
functions as described under the Caliente Implementing Alternative. In
the final Rail Alignment EIS, DOE evaluated both of these facilities at
two locations--at the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard located less than
one mile from the southern boundary of the geologic repository
operations area on the Yucca Mountain site, and at the Staging Yard in
Hawthorne, Nevada.
Rail line maintenance and inspection activities would be conducted
out of Maintenance-of-Way Facilities, which would consist of a
Maintenance-of-Way Facility and two Satellite Maintenance-of-Way
Facilities. DOE evaluated the Maintenance-of-Way facilities at
different locations along the Mina rail alignment near Silver Peak,
Nevada, along Montezuma alternative segment 1, and near Klondike,
Nevada, along Montezuma alternative segments 2 and 3.
Under the Mina Implementing Alternative, DOE analyzed a Shared-Use
Option, under which the Department would allow common carriage
shipments on the rail line. Shipments would occur as described above
under the Caliente Implementing Alternative, except there would be an
average of 18 common carriage shipments per week.
[[Page 60252]]
Environmentally Preferable Implementing Alternative
Proposed Action and No Action Alternative
In determining the environmentally preferable alternative, DOE
considered potential environmental impacts that could occur under the
Proposed Action from selecting a rail alignment within either the
Caliente or Mina rail corridor and constructing and operating a
railroad within the selected alignment, and the potential environmental
impacts that would occur under the No Action Alternative from not
selecting a rail alignment within either rail corridor. The potential
environmental impacts of selecting a rail alignment within either the
Caliente or Mina rail corridor and constructing and operating a
railroad along such alignment would be greater than the potential
environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative under which no such
selection and therefore no construction or operation would occur within
either of these rail corridors. For this reason, at least in the short
term, the No Action Alternative is environmentally preferable to the
Proposed Action. However, given DOE's responsibilities under the NWPA
and the Yucca Mountain Development Act (Pub. L. 107-200), and
consistent with DOE's tiered decisionmaking, it is necessary for DOE to
proceed with the selection of an alignment and the construction and
operation of a railroad within that alignment for shipments of spent
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and other materials to the
Yucca Mountain site.
Caliente and Mina Implementing Alternatives
DOE considered potential environmental impacts that could occur
from the construction and operation of a railroad along the Caliente
and Mina rail alignments. As a general matter, based on the analyses of
the final Rail Alignment EIS, DOE concluded that construction and
operation of a railroad along either the Caliente or Mina rail
alignments would result in broadly similar, but generally small,
potential impacts to natural, human health, social, economic, and
cultural resources. More specifically, the analyses in the final Rail
Alignment EIS showed there would be no significant differences (between
the Caliente and Mina alignments) in potential impacts to aesthetic
resources, air quality (including potential impacts on global climate
change), groundwater resources, noise and vibration, socioeconomics,
occupational and public health and safety (including potential risks
from accidents and acts of sabotage or terrorism), utilities, energy
and materials use, and the generation of hazardous materials and waste
(additional detail may be found in Table S-8 of the Summary to the
final Rail Alignment EIS. The following paragraphs summarize the
differences between the Caliente and Mina alignments in potential
impacts to land use, wetlands and other biological resources.
Construction of the railroad along the Caliente rail alignment
would disturb about 14,000 to 15,000 acres, and could result in a loss
of about 300 to 440 acres of prime farmland. In contrast, construction
along the Mina rail alignment would disturb less land (9,900 to 12,000
acres) and result in less loss of prime farmland (less than 4 acres).
Construction of the railroad along the Caliente rail alignment also
would cross more private land (120 to 310 acres), active grazing
allotments (23 to 25), and result in a loss of more animal unit months
(999 to 1,034) than would occur along the Mina rail alignment, which
would cross 53 to 199 acres of private land, 6 to 9 active grazing
allotments, and a possible loss of 179 to 199 animal unit months. The
Caliente rail alignment, however, does not cross a Native American
tribe's reservation, unlike the Mina rail alignment, which would cross
the Walker River Paiute Tribe Reservation. As described above under
Background, the Tribe has renewed a past objection to the
transportation of nuclear waste through its reservation.
Depending on the segment considered, construction of the railroad
along the Caliente rail alignment also would result in more short-term
(about 3 to 69 acres) and long-term (about 3 to 45 acres) loss of
wetlands and riparian habitat than would occur along the Mina rail
alignment (about 3 to 9 acres in the short-term, and less than 0.4
acres in the long-term). In contrast, a railroad along the Mina
alignment could impact adversely a larger number of sensitive plant and
animal communities than would occur along the Caliente alignment.
On balance, even though construction and operation of a railroad
along either the Caliente or Mina rail alignments would result in
broadly similar, and generally small, potential impacts, DOE concludes
that the Mina Implementing Alternative would be environmentally
preferable to the Caliente Implementing Alternative.
Caliente Rail Alignment Alternative Segments
In determining which alternative segments along the Caliente rail
alignment would be environmentally preferable, DOE considered potential
impacts to all resources, but focused on environmental impacts to those
resources that allowed DOE to discriminate among alternative segments.
Additional detail may be found in Table S-9 of the Summary to the final
Rail Alignment EIS.
DOE evaluated two alternative segments that would interface with
the Union Pacific Railroad mainline near Caliente, Nevada--the Caliente
and Eccles alternative segments. In determining which alternative
segment would be environmentally preferable, DOE considered the
potential environmental impacts to the physical setting, land use and
ownership, aesthetics, surface-water resources, biological resources
and noise. Construction of the railroad along the Eccles alternative
segment would result in less land disturbance (480 acres compared to
770 acres) and loss of prime farmland (about 23 acres compared to 40
acres), and would cross fewer private land parcels (5 parcels involving
about 74 acres compared to at least 30 parcels involving more than 270
acres). In contrast, the Eccles alternative segment would cross more
active grazing allotments (3 compared to 1) and result in a greater
loss of animal units months (17 compared to 1). Potential impacts to
aesthetic resources along the Eccles alternative segment would be less,
as would impacts from noise when compared to the Caliente alternative
segment. Construction of the rail line along the Eccles alternative
segment would require that about 11 acres of a nearby creek (Clover
Creek) be filled, which would impact downstream riparian areas and
wetlands, including an area identified by the Bureau of Land Management
as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern for the protection of
threatened and endangered species. In contrast, construction of the
rail line along the Caliente alternative segment would result in the
loss of about nine acres of wetlands, and about another 28 acres of
riparian area. On balance, since the Caliente alternative segment would
result in less impact to aquatic resources and avoid an Area of
Critical Environmental Concern, DOE considers it to be environmentally
preferable to the Eccles alternative segment.
DOE evaluated four alternative segments in Garden Valley (1, 2, 3,
and 8). In determining whether a segment
[[Page 60253]]
would be environmentally preferable, DOE focused on the physical
setting, land use and ownership, and cultural resources. Garden Valley
alternative segment 1 would result in the smallest amount of surface
disturbance (about 830 acres) followed by segment 2 (880 acres),
segment 3 (890 acres) and segment 8 (910 acres). Garden Valley segment
3 would not impact any prime farmlands, whereas segment 1 would result
in the loss of about 70 acres of prime farmland, followed by segment 8
(89 acres) and segment 2 (97 acres). Each alternative segment would
cross five active grazing allotments, which would result in an
estimated loss of animal unit months of 121 (segment 1), 125 (segment
3), 126 (segment 8) and 132 (segment 2). Only Garden Valley segment 2
could result in direct or indirect impacts to known archaeological
sites that are eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. DOE considers Garden Valley alternative segments 1 and
3 to be preferable to segments 2 and 8, primarily because these
segments would result in the lowest amount of disturbed land and loss
of prime farmland. However, as between Garden Valley alternative
segments 1 and 3, neither is clearly environmentally preferable.
The Department considered potential impacts to all resources when
determining whether South Reveille alternative segment 2 or 3 would be
environmentally preferable. Based on the analyses of the final Rail
Alignment EIS, however, there are no significant differences in
potential environmental impacts between South Reveille alternative
segments 2 and 3, and thus DOE concludes that neither segment is
environmentally preferable.
In evaluating whether an alternative segment near Goldfield, Nevada
(alternative segments 1, 3, and 4) would be environmentally preferable,
DOE focused on the physical setting, land use and ownership, cultural
resources, surface-water resources, and aesthetic resources.
Construction of the railroad along Goldfield alternative segment 4
would result in the disturbance of about 1,600 acres of land, followed
by segment 1 (2,400 acres), and segment 3 (2,500 acres). All three
segments would cross private lands; segment 3 would affect about 46
acres, followed by segment 4 (120 acres) and segment 1 (150 acres).
Goldfield alternative segment 3 would cross 205 unpatented mining
claims, followed by segment 4 (374 claims) and segment 1 (375 claims).
The three alternative segments also would impact, directly and
indirectly, cultural resources. Goldfield alternative segment 3 could
impact one possible Western Shoshone camp and segment 1 could impact
more than one such camp, whereas segment 4 could impact several
archaeological sites that are eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. Lastly, Goldfield alternative segment 3
would have short-term (during construction) impacts to water quality at
Willow Springs, and the proposed quarry near segment 4 would have
short-term, moderate to strong visual contrast to nearby viewers. On
balance, the Department considers Goldfield alternative segment 3 to be
environmentally preferable, because it tends to impact (relative to
segments 1 and 4) the smallest amount of private land, cross the fewest
unpatented mining claims, and impact the fewest known significant
cultural resources.
The Department considered potential impacts to all resources when
determining whether Bonnie Claire alternative segments 2 or 3 would be
environmentally preferable. Based on the analyses of the final Rail
Alignment EIS, however, there are no significant differences in
potential environmental impacts between Bonnie Claire alternative
segments 2 and 3, and thus DOE concludes that neither segment is
environmentally preferable.
DOE evaluated two alternative segments in Oasis Valley (1 and 3).
In determining whether a segment would be environmentally preferable,
DOE focused on the physical setting, land use and ownership and
biological resources. Oasis Valley alternative segment 1 would disturb
less land relative to segment 3 (250 acres compared to 330 acres), but
would cross one private land parcel affecting less than one acre of
this parcel (segment 3 does not cross private land). Both segments
would cross an active grazing allotment, but segment 1 would result in
a lower loss of animal unit months than would segment 3 (8 compared to
12). Oasis Valley alternative segment 3 would disturb less than five
acres of wetland/riparian habitat, but this would be a short-term
impact. On balance, DOE considers neither alternative segment to be
clearly preferable because the potential impacts are small in general,
limited to a few resources, and the differences between impacts to
those resources are small.
Facilities Associated With the Caliente Rail Alignment
DOE evaluated two staging yards along the Caliente alternative
segment--the Upland Staging Yard and the Indian Cove Staging Yard. In
determining which staging yard was environmentally preferable, DOE
considered potential impacts to all resources, but focused on land use
and ownership and wetlands as they offer a means to discriminate
between the yards. Construction of the Upland Staging Yard would cross
about 110 acres of private land and would not require wetlands to be
filled. In contrast, construction of the Indian Cove Staging Yard would
cross about 180 acres of private land and would require about 47 acres
of wetlands to be filled. DOE considers the Upland Staging Yard to be
environmentally preferable.
DOE evaluated three locations along the Caliente rail alignment for
the National Transportation Operations Center and Nevada Railroad
Control Center: (1) At the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard, which is
located less than one mile from the southern boundary of the geologic
repository operations area; and (2) at two locations along the Caliente
alternative segment--co-located with the Upland Staging Yard or with
the Indian Cove Staging Yard. In determining which location for these
facilities was environmentally preferable, DOE considered potential
impacts to all resources, but focused on land use and ownership and
wetlands as they offer a means to discriminate between the locations.
Locating the National Transportation Operations Center and Nevada
Railroad Control Center at the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard would
not affect private land or wetlands. In contrast, locating these
facilities at the Upland Staging Yard would require the use of private
land, and locating these facilities at the Indian Cove Staging Yard
would require private land and wetlands to be filled. For these
reasons, DOE considers locating the National Transportation Operations
Center and Nevada Railroad Control Center at the Rail Equipment
Maintenance Yard to be environmentally preferable to locating these
facilities at the Upland or Indian Cove Staging Yards.
Shared Use
In determining whether the Proposed Action with the Shared-Use
Option or without the Shared-Use Option was environmentally preferable,
the Department considered potential impacts to all resources. As DOE
concluded in the final Rail Alignment EIS, potential impacts under the
Shared-Use Option would be, in general, slightly greater than impacts
under the Proposed Action without shared use. For example, under the
Shared-Use Option, the construction of additional sidings would
increase (relative to the Proposed Action without shared use) surface
disturbance by about 0.1 percent, and during railroad operations there
would be increases in air emissions from locomotives,
[[Page 60254]]
interactions with wildlife (such as collisions and nest abandonment),
traffic delays at highway-rail grade crossings, and rail-related
accidents. Therefore, DOE considers the Proposed Action without the
Shared-Use Option to be environmentally preferable to the Proposed
Action with the Shared-Use Option.
Comments on the Final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and the Final Rail
Alignment EIS
DOE distributed more than 4,400 copies of the final Nevada Rail
Corridor SEIS, final Rail Alignment EIS, and the final Repository SEIS;
the documents also were posted on DOE's Web site (https://
www.ocrwm.doe.gov). On July 11, 2008, the Environmental Protection
Agency announced in the Federal Register the availability of the
documents. DOE has received written comments on these documents from
the Environmental Protection Agency, N-4 State Grazing Board, N-6 State
Grazing Board, White Pine County Nuclear Waste Project Office, and the
Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln County. The Department has
reviewed these comments and concluded that none of the comments present
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts. The following
summarizes and addresses those comments received on the final Nevada
Rail Corridor SEIS and the final Rail Alignment EIS.
Some commenters stated they were unable to identify responses, in
the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and final Rail Alignment EIS, to
some of their comments. For those comments for which commenters stated
that responses were missing, the Department reviewed the comments and
associated index(ices) to determine whether responses had been included
in the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and/or the final Rail Alignment
EIS. Based on this review, DOE concluded that appropriate responses had
been prepared for all these comments and that these responses were
included in these final NEPA documents.
Commenters also asserted that some DOE responses to comments were
inadequate and demonstrated a lack of understanding of aspects of the
affected environment, or that the analyses and methods used to estimate
potential environmental impacts were inadequate. As examples,
commenters indicated that there is ample literature and accepted
methods to address the impacts of stigma and risk perception, that
DOE's groundwater use rates were understated and should have been
defined more accurately to estimate impacts, that remote sensing
techniques and/or field surveys should have been used to map locally
important vegetation and soil types and range improvements, and that
the regions of influence used to estimate potential impacts to certain
resources were too limited in geographic extent.
DOE has reviewed these comments and determined that the
environmental analyses in these NEPA documents are adequate. In
preparing the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and the final Rail
Alignment EIS, DOE first determined the scope of the analyses to be
considered (range of actions, alternatives, impacts). In doing so, DOE
evaluated comments received through the public scoping process,
identified the range of reasonable alternatives that would meet the
purpose and need for DOE's underlying action, and identified the
analytical approaches and methods needed to determine potential
environmental impacts for each resource area and issue. For some
issues, such as stigma and risk perception, DOE considered various
analytical approaches and methods for determining potential impacts,
but concluded there were no reliable methods for quantifying such
impacts with any degree of certainty. For those resource areas and
issues for which there were reliable methods, DOE focused its analyses
on significant environmental issues and evaluated impacts in proportion
to their potential significance, in accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.1 and 1502.2(b)). DOE
used the best available information, including information developed
from field surveys and aerial mapping, and commonly-used analytical
approaches to estimate reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts. As
appropriate, DOE also used conservative but reasonable assumptions to
address incomplete or unavailable information or uncertainties in these
analyses. The information, analytical approaches and assumptions used
in the analysis were developed in consultation with DOE's cooperating
agencies.
The Department received comments stating that DOE did not include
the appropriate level of detail regarding the design, construction and
operation of the railroad, and consequently the impacts analyses were
inadequate. As examples, commenters suggested that DOE determine the
specific locations of subballast quarries and communication towers
along the rail alignments, redesign the rail line so that the service
road and rail roadbed were at the same elevation (a single, wider
raised platform for the track and road), space the concrete ties at
more narrow intervals, and construct sidings every 10 miles to decrease
train delays under the Shared-Use Option. DOE based the analyses on a
conceptual design of the railroad, consistent with the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500.5, 1501.2, 1502.5, and
1508.23) that call for environmental impact analyses to be undertaken
early in the process of developing a proposed Federal project. As DOE
acknowledged in the final Rail Alignment EIS, the conceptual design
will advance through preliminary to final design, during which time
many of the details requested by the commenters will become available.
Further, DOE will make additional refinements before construction. As
these details become available, the Department, consistent with its
regulations, will determine if there is a need for additional NEPA
review.
Commenters, in general, favored DOE's proposed process for the
development, implementation and monitoring of best management practices
and mitigation measures as discussed in the final Rail Alignment EIS.
Commenters, however, also stated that this proposed process and the
associated practices and measures are preliminary, but should be
committed to in DOE's Record of Decision; some commenters requested to
participate in the process. Further, commenters took exception to some
practices and measures presented in the final Rail Alignment EIS,
suggested modifications to others (such as the use of adapted plant
species in reclaiming disturbed lands), and offered additional
practices and measures for consideration (such as the use of temporary
irrigation to promote plant growth).
The Environmental Protection Agency focused on wetlands issues and
concluded that the Caliente alternative segment (relative to the Eccles
segment) represented the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative. The Agency supported the conclusions regarding the
floodplain and wetlands assessment contained in the final Rail
Alignment EIS, with the understanding that DOE will implement one of
three compensatory mitigation measures specific to the loss of wetlands
that will be impacted by the Caliente rail alignment.
In response to comments regarding mitigation, the Department
recognizes that the best management practices and mitigation measures
described in the final Rail Alignment EIS are preliminary
[[Page 60255]]
and, as such, will be further developed and detailed through the
regulatory compliance process, development of the final design and
associated specifications, and through consultations with directly
affected parties. As stated below (see Use of All Practicable Means to
Avoid or Minimize Harm), DOE is committing to a mitigation process,
proposing to constitute one or more Mitigation Advisory Boards and
consult with directly affected parties. DOE will prepare a Mitigation
Action Plan in accordance with its NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.331).
Further, DOE is committing to a wetlands compensatory mitigation plan,
including implementing the recommendations of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the details of which will be described in the
Mitigation Action Plan. Lastly, the Department will reconsider the
suggested modifications to the best management practices and mitigation
measures, as well as other related recommendations of the commenters,
in preparing the Mitigation Action Plan.
Decision
Under the NWPA and the Yucca Mountain Development Act, the
Department is responsible for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site. In April
2004, the Department selected the mostly rail scenario analyzed in the
Yucca Mountain Final EIS for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste nationally and within Nevada. DOE also selected
the Caliente rail corridor in which to examine possible alignments for
construction of a rail line in Nevada.
As the next step in fulfilling its responsibilities and consistent
with its tiered decisionmaking, the Department is issuing this Record
of Decision to construct and operate a railroad along a rail alignment
within the Caliente corridor. The Department has selected the following
common and alternative segments as the rail alignment--Caliente
alternative segment, common segment 1, Garden Valley alternative
segment 3, common segment 2, South Reveille alternative segment 3,
common segment 3, Goldfield alternative segment 4, common segment 4,
Bonnie Claire alternative segment 3, common segment 5, Oasis Valley
alternative segment 1, and common segment 6, which are the preferred
segments identified in the final Rail Alignment EIS.
In addition, the Department has decided to construct the
Interchange Yard at the location where the Caliente alternative segment
connects with the Union Pacific Railroad mainline, the Upland Staging
Yard along the Caliente alternative segment, and the Maintenance-of-Way
Facility along Goldfield alternative segment 4. The Department also has
decided to construct and operate the Nevada Railroad Control Center and
National Transportation Operations Center, co-located with the Upland
Staging Yard, along the Caliente alternative segment.
In proceeding with construction of the railroad, the Department
will develop up to four quarries from six potential locations, and up
to 12 construction camps at the locations analyzed in the final Rail
Alignment EIS. The initiation of construction of the railroad on public
land, including the quarries and construction camps, is dependent upon
receipt of a right-of-way grant, free use permits, and possibly
temporary use permits, from the Bureau of Land Management. Construction
and operation of the railroad will be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds.
Finally, DOE has decided to select the Shared-Use Option, and allow
common carriage shipments on the rail line. Prior to constructing and
operating a common carriage railroad, the Surface Transportation Board
must grant a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to DOE.
The Department applied to the Board for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity on March 17, 2008.
As necessary, DOE will apply for any additional regulatory
approvals to construct the railroad, ship radioactive materials and
other materials to the repository, and allow common carriage shipments
(general freight).
Basis for Decision
Alignment Within Rail Corridor
Based on a consideration of the environmental analyses included in
the final Rail Alignment EIS, the objection of the Walker River Paiute
Tribe to the transportation of nuclear waste across its reservation,
and preferences expressed in public comments, the Department has
decided that it will construct and operate a railroad along the rail
alignment described above within the Caliente rail corridor. In
reaching its decision to construct and operate a railroad along a rail
alignment within the Caliente corridor, DOE considered potential
environmental impacts to all resources, including the impacts from land
disturbance during construction, land use changes and conflicts from
operation of the railroad, and impacts to wetlands. As a general
matter, DOE concluded in the final Rail Alignment EIS that construction
and operation of a railroad along either the Caliente or Mina rail
alignments would result in broadly similar, but generally small,
potential impacts to natural, human health, social, economic, and
cultural resources. More specifically, DOE found there would be no
significant differences between the Caliente and Mina alignments in
potential impacts to aesthetic resources, air quality (including
potential impacts on global climate change), groundwater resources,
noise and vibration, socioeconomics, occupational and public health and
safety (including potential risks from accidents and acts of sabotage
or terrorism), utilities, energy and materials use, and the generation
of hazardous materials and waste.
DOE recognized that constructing and operating a railroad along an
alignment within the Mina corridor would tend to result in less land
disturbance, and cross fewer private land parcels and grazing
allotments than within the Caliente corridor. The Department, however,
also recognized that an alignment within the Mina corridor would need
to cross the Walker River Paiute Tribe Reservation. If DOE were to
select such an alignment, DOE would need to obtain a right-of-way from
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau's regulations (25 CFR
169.3(a)) \11\ require written consent of the Tribe before granting the
right-of-way. Because the Tribe has renewed its past objection to the
transportation of nuclear waste through its reservation (as described
above under Background), obtaining a right-of-way is not possible at
this time. DOE's inability to obtain a right-of-way through the
reservation in the absence of the Tribe's consent would necessarily
impact the Department's ability to construct and operate the railroad
in the Mina corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The regulation states, ``No right-of-way shall be granted
over and across any tribal land, nor shall any permission to survey
be issued with respect to any such lands, without the prior written
consent of the tribe.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also considered potential unavoidable adverse impacts in
reaching its decision. Construction of a railroad in either corridor
would result in the permanent loss of wetlands. Within the Caliente
corridor, about 8.7 acres of wetlands would be lost, whereas the
corresponding loss within the Mina corridor would be about 0.01 acres.
As described below under Use of All Practicable Means to Avoid or
Minimize Harm, DOE will develop measures to compensate for the loss of
wetlands as part of its compliance with section 404 of the Clean Water
Act in coordination with the Army Corps of
[[Page 60256]]
Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and applicable land-
management agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management.
In making its decision to construct and operate a railroad along a
rail alignment within the Caliente corridor, DOE considered
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources and potential
cumulative impacts. There would be an irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources, such as electric power, fossil fuels and
construction materials, associated with the construction of a railroad
in either the Caliente or Mina corridors, although this commitment of
resources would not significantly diminish these resources, either
nationwide or in Nevada.
DOE also recognized there could be some moderate to large impacts
from the construction and operation of a railroad along a rail
alignment in either corridor when considered in tandem with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future activities (cumulative
impacts). In general, the potential for moderate to large cumulative
impacts would be limited to certain resources, such as groundwater use
and air quality; further limited in geographic extent to certain areas
within segments, such as air quality impacts from a particular quarry;
and would be short-term, i.e., limited to the construction period.
There also c