Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 60247 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 http:// 

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 

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 http://www.mcpherson

redevelopment.org and http:// 

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 

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

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. 

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 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 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 60249 

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. 

2A transportation system incorporating the rail 

line, operations support facilities, railcars, 

locomotives, and other related property and 

infrastructure. 

3An 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. 

4A 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. 

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

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 

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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

60250 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 

5Coarse rock placed under the railroad tracks to 

support the railroad ties and improve drainage 

along the rail line. 

6A layer of crushed gravel used to separate the 

ballast and roadbed for the purpose of load 

distribution and drainage. 

7Earthwork foundation upon which the track, 

ties, ballast, and subballast of a rail line are laid. 

8An 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. 9The Interchange Yard is the intersection 

between the Union Pacific mainline and the DOE 

rail line. 

10The 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. 

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. 

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 gradeseparated 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 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 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, 

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 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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

60252 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 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 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 

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, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

60254 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / 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 

(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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 60255 

11The 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.’’ 

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, 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 

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 

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, 

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. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 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, 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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

60258 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 

12Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or 

attempt to engage in such conduct without a special 

exemption. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[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 

http://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 

http://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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER09–2–000] 

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 http:// 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES