[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75149-75150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24181]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 242 / Monday, December 19, 2005 / 
Notices  

[[Page 75149]]



ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION


Notice Seeking Public Input on ACHP Formal Comments Regarding the 
Spent Fuel Storage Project in Skull Valley, UT

AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

ACTION: Notice seeking public input on ACHP formal comments regarding 
the spent fuel storage project in Skull Valley, Utah.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Advisory Counsel on Historic Preservation will be 
accepting public comments in preparation for issuing formal comments, 
under the National Historic Preservation Act, to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission regarding its intent to issue a permit for a spent fuel 
storage facility project in Skull Valley, Utah.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2005.

ADDRESS: Address all comments to John L. Nau, III, Chairman, c/o Carol 
Legard, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004. Fax (202) 606-8672. 
Comments may also be submitted by electronic mail to: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Legard, (202) 606-8505, E-mail: 
[email protected]. In her absence, please contact Don Klima, (202) 606-
8505. E-mail: [email protected]. Further information may be found in the 
ACHP Web site: www.achp.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation (ACHP) is an independent Federal agency, established by 
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), that promotes the 
preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our Nation's historic 
resources, and advises the President and Congress on national historic 
preservation policy. Among other things, the ACHP issues formal 
comments to Federal agencies per Section 106 of the NHPA.
    Section 106 0f the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into 
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and 
afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on such 
undertakings. The procedures in 36 CFR part 800 define how Federal 
agencies meet these statutory responsibilities.
    When a Federal agency is unable to reach an agreement to avoid, 
minimize or mitigate the adverse effects of its undertaking, it must 
seek the formal comments from the ACHP. 36 CFR Sec.  800.7. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has informed the ACHP that it has 
terminated the consultation towards reaching such an agreement with 
regard to the undertaking described below, and has requested the formal 
comments of the ACHP. This notice seeks public input on the ACHP formal 
comments that will be sent to the NRC.

Undertaking Summary

    The NRC is considering a license application from Private Fuel 
Storage (PFS) to construct and operate an independent spent fuel 
storage installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of 
Goshute Indians in Tooele County, Utah. Spent nuclear fuel would be 
transported by rail from existing U.S. commercial reactor sites to 
Skull Valley. To transport the spent nuclear fuel from the existing 
rail line to the proposed facility, PFS proposes to construct and 
operate a 32-mile long rail line from the existing rail line near Low, 
Utah, to the Reservation.
    The PFS proposal requires approval from four Federal agencies: NRC, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 
the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB). These agencies have agreed 
to have NRC serve as lead federal agency for purposes of compliance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act. NRC published a final 
environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project in December 2001, 
in which BIA, BLM and STB joined as cooperating Federal agencies. NRC 
also took the lead in completing Section 106 review for the undertaking 
with participation by BIA, BLM and STB (BLM later became the ``lead 
Federal agency'' because all the identified, potentially affected 
historic properties are on BLM lands).

Affected Historic Properties

    No historic properties were identified on the site of the proposed 
storage facility itself. However, eight (8) historic properties were 
identified within the area of potential effects (APE) of the project 
based on the proposed rail line. All eight are linear features located 
on BLM lands. The cooperating Federal agencies have determined that 
construction of the rail line may adversely affect these properties 
within the APE:

(1) Part of the Emigrant Trail/Hastings Cutoff--a section of the 
California/Oregon National Historic Trail (1846);
(2) A portion of the roadbed and paved surface of historic U.S. Route 
40 (1920s-1966);
(2) Several segments of the ``New'' Victory Highway, later designated 
as U.S. Route 40 (1925-1940);
(4) A portion of the ``Old'' Victory Highway (1916-1925);
(5) Two segments of a late 1800's-early 1900s telegraph line (posts and 
cross beams);
(6) Western Pacific Railroad (1907-present)--a modern rail bed and 
tracks and a railroad bridge/road underpass;
(7) Deep Creek Road (mid-1800s-early 1900s); and
(8) Road to Sulphur Spring/Eight-Mile Spring (mid-1800s to early 
1900s).

History of Consultation

    NRC initiated consultation with the cooperating agencies and other 
parties in October 2000. NRC identified 14 consulting parties for 
purposes of Section 106, including: Bureau of Land Management; Bureau 
of Indian Affairs; Surface Transportation Board; Skull Valley Band of 
Goshute Indians; Utah State Historic Preservation Officer; Private Fuel 
Storage, L.L.C.; Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation; Tribal 
Council of the Te-Moak Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada; Utah 
Historic Trails Consortium; Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia; National Park 
Service, Long Distance Trails Office; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah; Utah 
Chapter of the Lincoln Highway Association; and Utah Chapter of the 
Oregon-California Trail Association.

[[Page 75150]]

    NRC, BLM, STB and BIA met with various consulting parties beginning 
in October 2000 and provided the parties with opportunities to provide 
input on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic 
properties. Of particular interest in negotiating a Memorandum of 
Agreement to avoid, minimize or mitigate the effects on historic 
properties was the effect of the project on the Hastings Cutoff of the 
California Trail. NRC requested the ACHP to participate in 
consultation, and the ACHP agreed to do so on December 18, 2000.
    After ACHP became involved in consultation, NRC and BLM met with 
various consulting parties and transmitted drafts of a proposed 
Treatment Plan and Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to all of the 
consulting parties for review and comment.

Attempted Resolution of Adverse Effects

    The most significant adverse effect would be the destruction of a 
small portion of the Hastings Cutoff of the California Trail, which the 
proposed rail line crosses at approximately a right angle. The seven 
other historic properties, all linear features, pass in close proximity 
to or transect the proposed rail line on lands managed by the BLM.
    Through consultation during 2001, the consulting parties, except 
for SHPO, were able to reach agreement on the terms of a MOA. The draft 
MOA calls for PFS to finalize, in consultation with the consulting 
parties, a treatment plan for the eight affected historic properties 
and for properties that may be inadvertently discovered during project 
construction. A draft Treatment Plan (attached to the MOA) includes 
measures for the interim protection of the historic properties; funding 
for public outreach and education regarding the Emigrant Trail/Hastings 
Cutoff and the Road to Sulphur Spring; and detailed recordation of 
portions of the historic roads, rail road, and telegraph line that will 
be damaged or altered. The draft treatment plan also includes specific 
requirements for the curation of artifacts and documents according to 
Federal standards and a plan for treating historic properties that may 
be inadvertently discovered during construction. The MOA, as currently 
drafted, requires BLM to finalize the plan in consultation with the 
other parties and provides BLM with the flexibility to revise the final 
mitigation measures. The FEIS for the PFS facility discusses these 
potential impacts and states that, if an NRC license is issued for the 
facility, PFS will be required to perform the mitigation measures set 
forth in the MOA.
    When the MOA was finalized in October 2001, BLM declined to sign 
the agreement. Citing a moratorium on BLM carrying out land management 
planning contained in the National Defense Authorization Act, BLM's 
Field Office Director requested that NRC wait until both agencies were 
closer to a decision before executing the MOA. ACHP staff offered to 
include language in the MOA to clarify that signing that MOA did not 
constitute a decision to approve the license or the right-of-way, but 
the State Director, BLM made a decision that BLM would not sign the MOA 
until the agencies were closer to making a Record of Decision and the 
project was closer to licensing. NRC agreed to set aside the final MOA 
for a year or so, until it was closer to making a decision on the 
license application. On January 24, 2003, NRC again circulated for 
signature the final MOA with an attached draft Treatment Plan and 
Discovery Plan BLM again declined to sign the MOA.
    The Utah SHPO had initially commented to NRC on the identification 
of historic properties, but after June 1999, it ceased active 
participation in Section 106 review. The Governor's designated SHPO 
provided comments on the draft MOA on August 6, 2001. These comments 
were taken into account in finalizing a new draft on the MOA. With the 
impending decision to approve PFS's application for a license, NRC 
again circulated the MOA for signature on May 26, 2005. The MOA was 
signed by NRC, BIA, STB, the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, PFS, 
the NPS Long Distance Trails Office, and the Utah Historic Trails 
Consortium. On June 7, 2005, the SHPO wrote to BLM asking to defer 
signing the MOA until it was further along in considering PFS's 
application for rights-of-way for the proposed rail line. BLM again 
declined to sign the MOA.
    Since the MOA could not be fully executed without BLM and SHPO 
signatures, NRC terminated consultation and, on November 25, 2005, 
requested ACHP formal comment.
    Again, the ACHP seeks public input on those formal comments that 
ACHP will send to NRC. The ACHP formal comments must be sent to NRC on 
or before January 9, 2006.

    Dated: December 13, 2005.
John M. Fowler,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 05-24181 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4310-K6-M