[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60247-60259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://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 (http://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 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 high-level 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, 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, 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.
[[Page 60257]]
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, co-
located 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.
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 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
100-year 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 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
[[Page 60258]]
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 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 best management practices and mitigation measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 60259]]
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]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P 6450-01-P