[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60247-60259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24168]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision and Floodplain Statement of Findings--Nevada 
Rail Alignment for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, NV

AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: In July 2008, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) 
issued the ``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a 
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-
Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada--Nevada 
Rail Transportation Corridor'' (DOE/EIS-0250F-S2) (hereafter referred 
to as the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS), the ``Final Environmental 
Impact Statement for a Rail Alignment for the Construction and 
Operation of a Railroad in Nevada to a Geologic Repository at Yucca 
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada'' (DOE/EIS-0369) (hereafter referred to as 
the final Rail Alignment EIS), and the ``Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the 
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at 
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada'' (DOE/EIS-0250F-S1) (hereafter 
referred to as the final Repository SEIS). The final Nevada Rail 
Corridor SEIS analyzed the potential impacts of constructing and 
operating a railroad for shipments of spent nuclear fuel, high-level 
radioactive waste, and other materials in the Mina corridor, and DOE 
concluded that the Mina corridor warranted further analysis at the 
alignment level. This further, more detailed analysis is presented in 
the final Rail Alignment EIS, which analyzed the potential 
environmental impacts of constructing and operating a railroad along 
rail alignments in both the Caliente and Mina rail corridors. The final 
Rail Alignment EIS also analyzed the potential environmental impacts 
from shipments of general freight (also referred to as common carriage

[[Page 60248]]

shipments or the Shared-Use Option) on a railroad in either corridor.
    The final Repository SEIS analyzed the potential environmental 
impacts of the construction, operation, and eventual closure of a 
repository at Yucca Mountain. The final Repository SEIS also included 
the potential impacts from national transportation, as well as the 
potential impacts in Nevada from the construction and operation of a 
railroad along specific alignments in the Caliente and Mina rail 
corridors. DOE concluded in the final Repository SEIS that the 
potential impacts associated with the repository design and operational 
plans are similar in scale to the impacts analyzed in the ``Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the 
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at 
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada'' (DOE/EIS-0250F, February 2002) 
(Yucca Mountain Final EIS).
    Based on the analyses in the final Rail Alignment EIS, among other 
considerations as discussed herein, the Department has decided to 
construct and operate a railroad along a rail alignment within the 
Caliente corridor. DOE also has decided to allow shipments of general 
freight on the rail line (Shared-Use Option). The Department will 
obtain all regulatory approvals necessary to construct and operate the 
railroad, and allow common carriage shipments.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS, final Rail 
Alignment EIS, final Repository SEIS, and this Record of Decision may 
be obtained by mailing a request to Dr. Jane Summerson at the U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, 
1551 Hillshire Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89134, or by calling 1-800-967-
3477. These documents also may be obtained via the Internet at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding these documents 
can be submitted to Dr. Jane Summerson by mail or telephone at the 
above address or phone number. For general information regarding the 
DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process contact: Ms. Carol 
M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), 
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 
20585, Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended 
(NWPA), and NEPA, DOE issued the Yucca Mountain Final EIS in February 
2002. The Yucca Mountain Final EIS analyzed a Proposed Action under 
which DOE would construct, operate, monitor and eventually close a 
geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, including shipment of spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from 72 commercial and 
five DOE sites to the Yucca Mountain repository. DOE evaluated the 
potential environmental impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste to the repository under a variety of 
modes, including legal-weight truck, rail, heavy-haul truck, and barge. 
Two national transportation alternatives, referred to as the mostly 
legal-weight truck alternative and the mostly rail alternative, and 
three Nevada alternatives, referred to as the legal-weight truck 
alternative, the rail alternative, and the heavy-haul truck 
alternative, were evaluated. The Department identified the mostly rail 
alternative as its preferred mode of transportation, both nationally 
and in the State of Nevada, in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS.
    DOE stated in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS that, if it were to 
select the mostly rail alternative (both nationally and in Nevada), a 
rail line would need to be constructed to connect the repository site 
at Yucca Mountain to an existing rail line in the State of Nevada. 
Accordingly, the Yucca Mountain Final EIS evaluated in detail the 
potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of 
a rail line within five rail corridors--Caliente, Carlin, Caliente-
Chalk Mountain, Jean, and Valley Modified. The Department did not 
identify a preferred rail corridor in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS, but 
indicated it would do so at least 30 days before making any decision on 
the selection of a rail corridor in which to construct a rail line in 
Nevada. On December 29, 2003, the Department announced in the Federal 
Register that the Caliente rail corridor was its preferred corridor (68 
FR 74951).
    On April 8, 2004, DOE announced in a Record of Decision the 
selection of the mostly rail alternative analyzed in the Yucca Mountain 
Final EIS for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste nationally and within Nevada (69 FR 18557). DOE also 
announced in that Record of Decision that it had selected the Caliente 
rail corridor in which to examine possible alignments for construction 
of a rail line in Nevada.
    In September 2004, the State of Nevada filed a petition for review 
with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit, pursuant to Section 119 of the NWPA, seeking review of DOE's 
April 8, 2004, Record of Decision and the transportation-related 
portions of the Yucca Mountain Final EIS on which it was based. Nevada 
claimed that in selecting a national transportation mode and Nevada 
rail corridor for the shipment of radioactive materials to Yucca 
Mountain, DOE violated NEPA and NEPA implementing regulations and acted 
in an arbitrary and capricious manner and contrary to law.
    In an August 8, 2006, decision, the District of Columbia Circuit 
denied Nevada's petition and rejected the State's claims on their 
merits. State of Nevada v. Department of Energy, 457 F.3d 78, 89-93 
(D.C. Cir. 2006). The Court held that DOE had met its obligations under 
the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 1503.1(a)(2)) with respect to consultation with other 
agencies; that DOE had appropriately tiered its proposed action 
analyses under 40 CFR 1508.28; that DOE had taken the requisite hard 
look at the potential rail corridor environmental impacts; that DOE's 
analysis of the environmental impacts of rail corridor selection in its 
Yucca Mountain Final EIS was adequate; and that DOE's selection of the 
Caliente corridor therefore was not arbitrary or capricious.
    On April 8, 2004, DOE announced in the Federal Register its intent 
to prepare an EIS under NEPA for the alignment, construction, and 
operation of a rail line for shipments of spent nuclear fuel, high-
level radioactive waste, and other materials related to the 
construction and operation of a repository from a site near Caliente, 
Lincoln County, Nevada, to a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye 
County, Nevada (69 FR 18565). The Federal Register notice also 
announced the schedule for public scoping meetings, and invited 
comments on the scope of the Rail Alignment EIS to ensure that all 
relevant environmental issues and reasonable alternatives would be 
addressed.
    During the public scoping process in 2004, DOE received comments 
suggesting that other rail corridors, in particular the Mina route, be 
considered. Following review of the scoping comments, DOE held 
discussions with the Walker River Paiute Tribe and, in May 2006, the 
Tribal Council informed DOE that it had

[[Page 60249]]

withdrawn a previous objection to the completion of an EIS studying the 
potential transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste across its reservation.
    On October 13, 2006, DOE announced its intent to expand the scope 
of the Rail Alignment EIS to incorporate analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating a rail 
line within the Mina rail corridor (71 FR 60484). DOE indicated that it 
would supplement the rail corridor analysis of the Yucca Mountain Final 
EIS by evaluating the Mina rail corridor, and that it would update, as 
appropriate, the information and analysis for other rail corridors 
analyzed in detail in the Yucca Mountain Final EIS. DOE also indicated 
that it would include an analysis of alternative alignments within the 
Mina corridor at the same level of detail as the ongoing alignment 
analysis for the Caliente corridor.
    Also on October 13, 2006, DOE announced its intent to prepare a 
supplement to the Yucca Mountain Final EIS to address modifications to 
repository design and operation plans since completion of the Yucca 
Mountain Final EIS (71 FR 60490). DOE indicated that it would evaluate 
the potential environmental impacts of the construction, operation, and 
closure of the repository under the modified repository design and 
operational plans, and would update the analysis and potential 
environmental impacts of transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste to the repository under the mostly rail alternative.
    On April 17, 2007, the Walker River Paiute Tribal Council announced 
a resolution withdrawing support for the Tribe's participation in the 
EIS process, and renewing the Tribe's past objection to the 
transportation of nuclear waste through its reservation. In light of 
this, DOE identified the Mina alternative as nonpreferred in the draft 
Rail Alignment EIS and subsequently in the final Rail Alignment EIS.
    On October 12, 2007, the Department announced in the Federal 
Register the availability of the draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS, draft 
Rail Alignment EIS, and the draft Repository SEIS (72 FR 58071). DOE's 
Notice of Availability invited interested parties to comment on these 
NEPA documents during a 90-day public comment period that ended on 
January 10, 2008. DOE held eight public hearings at locations in 
Nevada, California, and Washington, DC. The Department received about 
4,000 comments from nearly 1,100 commenters. DOE has considered all of 
these comments, and responded as appropriate in the final Nevada Rail 
Corridor SEIS, the final Rail Alignment EIS, and the final Repository 
SEIS.
    On July 11, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in 
the Federal Register the availability of DOE's final Nevada Rail 
Corridor SEIS, final Rail Alignment EIS, and final Repository SEIS (73 
FR 39958). The final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS provided a corridor-
level analysis of the Mina rail corridor, and updated information, as 
appropriate, regarding the other rail corridors analyzed in detail in 
the Yucca Mountain Final EIS. DOE concluded in the final Nevada Rail 
Corridor SEIS that (1) the Mina rail corridor warranted further study 
at the alignment level as a nonpreferred alternative, and (2) there 
were no significant new circumstances or information relevant to 
environmental concerns that would warrant further consideration of the 
Carlin, Jean or Valley Modified corridors at the alignment level.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOE eliminated from further consideration the Caliente-Chalk 
Mountain rail corridor, which would cross the Nevada Test and 
Training Range, because of U.S. Air Force concerns that a rail line 
would interfere with military mission activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final Rail Alignment EIS analyzed the potential impacts of 
constructing and operating a railroad \2\ for shipments of spent 
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and other materials along 
the reasonable rail alignments \3\ in the Caliente and Mina rail 
corridors.\4\ A rail alignment is an engineered refinement of a rail 
corridor in which DOE would identify the location of a rail line. A 
rail alignment comprises common segments and alternative segments. A 
corridor is a strip of land 400 meters (0.25 mile) wide through which 
DOE would identify an alignment for the construction of the rail line. 
The final Rail Alignment EIS also analyzed the potential environmental 
impacts from common carriage shipments along those rail alignments (the 
Shared-Use Option).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A transportation system incorporating the rail line, 
operations support facilities, railcars, locomotives, and other 
related property and infrastructure.
    \3\ An engineered refinement of a rail corridor in which DOE 
would identify the location of a rail line. A rail alignment 
comprises common segments and alternative segments, as discussed 
herein.
    \4\ A corridor is a strip of land 400 meters (0.25 mile) wide 
through which DOE would identify an alignment for the construction 
of the rail line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Air Force, Surface Transportation Board, Bureau of Land 
Management, Lincoln County, Esmeralda County, Nye County, and the City 
of Caliente, Nevada, were cooperating agencies in the preparation of 
the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and the final Rail Alignment EIS.
    The final Repository SEIS analyzed the potential environmental 
impacts of national transportation, as well as the potential impacts in 
Nevada, from the construction and operation of a railroad along 
specific alignments in either the Caliente or the Mina corridor to 
ensure that the full scope of potential environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed construction and operation of the 
repository were considered. DOE concluded in the final Repository SEIS 
that the potential impacts associated with the repository design and 
operational plans are similar in scale to the impacts analyzed in the 
Yucca Mountain Final EIS. Nye County was a cooperating agency in the 
preparation of the final Repository SEIS.

Proposed Action and Alternatives in the Final Rail Alignment EIS

    The final Rail Alignment EIS examined a Proposed Action and a No 
Action Alternative. The Department's Proposed Action is to determine an 
alignment (within a corridor), and construct and operate a railroad in 
Nevada to transport spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, 
and other materials from an existing rail line to a repository at Yucca 
Mountain.
    Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not select a rail 
alignment within either the Caliente or Mina rail corridors for the 
construction and operation of a railroad. If DOE were not to select a 
rail alignment in either the Caliente or Mina rail corridor, the future 
course that it would pursue to meet its obligation under the NWPA is 
uncertain.
    There are two implementing alternatives under the Proposed Action--
the Caliente Implementing Alternative, under which the Department would 
construct the proposed railroad in the Caliente rail corridor, and the 
Mina Implementing Alternative, under which the Department would 
construct the proposed railroad in the Mina rail corridor. In each rail 
corridor, DOE evaluated a series of common segments and the range of 
reasonable alternative segments. Common segments are portions of the 
rail alignment for which DOE has identified a single route for the rail 
line. Alternative segments are portions of the rail alignment for which 
DOE has identified multiple routes for the rail line.
    DOE also evaluated the Shared-Use Option under each implementing 
alternative. Under the Shared-Use Option, DOE would allow common 
carriage shipments on the rail line.

[[Page 60250]]

    In addition to evaluating the potential impacts of constructing and 
operating the railroad, the final Rail Alignment EIS identified and 
evaluated the facilities needed to construct the railroad, such as 
quarries and construction camps, and to operate the railroad, such as 
staging yards and maintenance facilities, under each implementing 
alternative. Additional descriptive information for these facilities, 
as well as other aspects of the implementing alternatives, may be found 
in Chapter 2 of the final Rail Alignment EIS.

Caliente Implementing Alternative--Preferred Alternative

    A rail line in the Caliente rail corridor would extend north from 
Caliente, Nevada, turn west and proceed to near the northwest corner of 
the Nevada Test and Training Range, and then continue south-southeast 
to Yucca Mountain (see Figure S-3 of the Summary to the final Rail 
Alignment EIS). The rail line would range in length from about 528 to 
541 kilometers (328 to 336 miles), depending on the combination of 
alternative segments.
    There are six common segments along the Caliente rail alignment 
starting with common segment 1 south of Panaca, Nevada, and moving west 
sequentially to common segment 6 near Yucca Mountain. DOE evaluated 
alternative segments at six locations along the Caliente rail alignment 
starting at the interface with the Union Pacific Railroad mainline near 
Caliente, Nevada (two alternative segments referred to as Caliente and 
Eccles), and moving west to Garden Valley (Garden Valley segments 1, 2, 
3 and 8), southwest of the South Reveille Wilderness Study Area (South 
Reveille segments 2 and 3), near the town of Goldfield (Goldfield 
segments 1, 3 and 4), north of Scottys Junction (Bonnie Claire segments 
2 and 3), and near Oasis Valley (Oasis Valley segments 1 and 3). These 
common segments and alternative segments are shown in Figure S-3 of the 
Summary to the final Rail Alignment EIS.
    DOE anticipates that it would take 4 to 10 years to construct the 
proposed railroad. Construction of the railroad would include 
construction of the rail line, the infrastructure necessary to support 
the construction and operation of the railroad (for example, water 
wells, ballast \5\ quarries, construction camps), and operations 
support facilities. Construction activities would occur inside a 300-
meter (1,000-foot) wide construction right-of-way, except in some areas 
requiring deep cuts or high fills, which could extend beyond typical 
widths by up to 300 feet. Alternatively, the construction right-of-way 
would be more narrow than 300 meters (1,000 feet) when passing through 
certain areas such as private lands and wetlands. The total 
construction footprint would be approximately 164 square kilometers 
(40,600 acres). Obtaining a right-of-way for access to public land for 
construction of the railroad would be subject to approval by the Bureau 
of Land Management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Coarse rock placed under the railroad tracks to support the 
railroad ties and improve drainage along the rail line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Construction of the rail line would require DOE to obtain water, 
ballast, subballast,\6\ steel for bridges, concrete ties, and rail. 
Water would be obtained by pumping groundwater from water-supply wells 
along the rail alignment, and under the Caliente Implementing 
Alternative, a maximum of 107 well sites would be required to supply 
the estimated 6,100 acre-feet of water necessary for construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A layer of crushed gravel used to separate the ballast and 
roadbed for the purpose of load distribution and drainage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE would obtain ballast by constructing up to four quarries from 
six potential locations along the Caliente rail alignment. Subballast 
would be obtained from sites along the rail alignment, from waste rock 
generated at ballast quarry sites, from materials excavated during rail 
roadbed \7\ construction, or from the development of new subballast 
borrow sites established inside the construction right-of-way. The 
Department would obtain steel, concrete ties, and rail from existing 
commercial sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Earthwork foundation upon which the track, ties, ballast, 
and subballast of a rail line are laid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Construction of the rail line would require DOE to establish 
construction camps to provide housing for workers and a logistical base 
from which to conduct construction activities. The Department would 
establish up to 12 construction camps, with up to six operating at one 
time, along the Caliente rail alignment.
    DOE would construct the rail line in two steps: (1) Rail roadbed 
construction and (2) track construction. The rail roadbed would form 
the base upon which the subballast, ballast, concrete ties, and rail 
would be laid. Track construction would involve the placement of 
subballast, ballast, concrete ties, and rail on top of the rail 
roadbed, building a service road, and establishing power and 
communication systems.
    DOE also would construct bridges, culverts, and at-grade and grade-
separated road crossings.\8\ The Department would construct up to 240 
bridges, 138 large culverts, and five grade-separated crossings of 
highways along the Caliente rail alignment. Crossings at other paved 
public roadways would be at-grade where DOE would install active 
warning devices, such as flashing lights and gates. For crossings at 
unpaved roads and private crossings, DOE would install passive warning 
devices, such as stop signs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An at-grade crossing occurs when a road and a rail line 
cross paths at the same elevation. A grade-separated crossing occurs 
when a road and a rail line cross paths and one passes over the 
other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After completion of construction, the railroad would operate for up 
to 50 years. During that time, there would be about 3,000 rail 
shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the 
repository. There also would be shipments of construction materials, 
diesel fuel, and other supplies to the repository.
    Trains carrying spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 
would arrive at an Interchange Yard \9\ on the Union Pacific Railroad 
mainline near Caliente, Nevada, and proceed to a Staging Yard \10\ 
along either the Caliente or the Eccles alternative segment. DOE 
evaluated three staging yards in the final Rail Alignment EIS--the 
Indian Cove and Upland Staging Yards along the Caliente alternative 
segment, and the Eccles-North Staging Yard along the Eccles alternative 
segment. A typical train leaving the Staging Yard and transporting 
radioactive materials for the repository would consist of two or three 
4,000-horsepower diesel-electric locomotives followed by a buffer car, 
one to five cask cars followed by another buffer car, and one escort 
car carrying security personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Interchange Yard is the intersection between the Union 
Pacific mainline and the DOE rail line.
    \10\ The Staging Yard is the rail yard that would temporarily 
store, service and maintain railcars and locomotives, and assemble 
trains for trips to the repository at Yucca Mountain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trains transporting radioactive materials for the repository would 
depart the Staging Yard and travel to the Rail Equipment Maintenance 
Yard, the termination point of the railroad and the staging area for 
the delivery of loaded cask cars and other materials to the repository 
receiving and inspection area. The Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard 
would be located less than one mile from the southern boundary of the 
geologic repository operations area. A railroad crew would bring casks 
from the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard to the boundary of the 
geologic repository operations area. At the boundary, control of the 
casks would be

[[Page 60251]]

transferred to the geologic repository operations area for removal of 
the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Empty casks 
would be transferred back to railroad control at the boundary of the 
geologic repository operations area for transport back to the Union 
Pacific Railroad.
    A National Transportation Operations Center would oversee the 
shipment of casks from sites throughout the United States. The Nevada 
Railroad Control Center, co-located with the National Transportation 
Operations Center, would coordinate train movements, rail operations, 
and emergency response operations along the proposed railroad in 
Nevada. In the final Rail Alignment EIS, DOE evaluated these facilities 
at either the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard or at the Staging Yard 
(two locations for the Staging Yard were analyzed along the Caliente 
alternative segment, and one location for the Staging Yard was analyzed 
along the Eccles alternative segment).
    Under the Caliente Implementing Alternative, rail line maintenance 
and inspection activities would be conducted out of Maintenance-of-Way 
Facilities. DOE evaluated Maintenance-of-Way Facilities at different 
locations. Either a single Maintenance-of-Way Facility would be 
constructed along Goldfield alternative segment 4 just north of the 
town of Goldfield, Nevada, or a Maintenance-of-Way Headquarters 
Facility would be constructed near Tonopah, Nevada, and a Maintenance-
of-Way Trackside Facility would be constructed along common segment 3.
    DOE also analyzed a Shared-Use Option, under which the Department 
would allow common carriage shipments on the rail line. The Shared-Use 
Option would require construction of commercial sidings to provide 
access for potential commercial shippers other than the Department, and 
facilities for operation of commercial rail service. Funding for 
construction of these sidings and facilities for commercial rail 
service could be provided by either the private sector or Government 
sources. The Department's proposed design for the rail line (for 
example, grade and curvature) would accommodate shared use.
    DOE estimated that approximately eight common carriage shipments 
could run per week on the rail line. Trains carrying spent nuclear fuel 
and high-level radioactive waste would have priority.
    DOE could decide to abandon the proposed railroad after shipments 
to the repository were complete. Abandonment could involve the removal 
of the rail roadbed, ballast, track, ties, signaling, and other related 
infrastructure. DOE would reclaim the lands disturbed by the 
abandonment process. If DOE were to decide to abandon the railroad, it 
would relinquish its right-of-way and the Bureau of Land Management 
would continue to manage the public land. Abandonment of the railroad 
would be conducted in accordance with applicable requirements and in 
consultation with local governments, the Surface Transportation Board, 
and the Bureau of Land Management. It is premature at this time for DOE 
to decide the future disposition of the railroad after the end of the 
shipping campaign to the Yucca Mountain repository. Any such future 
decision would be subject to further NEPA review, as appropriate.

Mina Implementing Alternative

    A rail line in the Mina rail corridor would extend from near 
Wabuska, Nevada, in a southeasterly direction to Yucca Mountain. The 
total length of the rail line could range from about 452 to 502 
kilometers (281 to 312 miles), including the existing Department of 
Defense rail line (see Figure S-4 of the Summary to the final Rail 
Alignment EIS). The portion of the Mina rail alignment that would 
require construction of a new rail line could range in length from 
about 410 to 459 kilometers (255 to 285 miles), depending on the 
combination of common and alternative segments.
    There are four common segments along the Mina alignment. Common 
segment 1 starts west of Hawthorne continuing to Blair Junction, 
Nevada; common segment 2, which would start south of Lida Junction, 
Nevada; and common segment 5 and common segment 6, which are the same 
as common segments 5 and 6 along the Caliente rail alignment. DOE 
evaluated alternative segments at four locations along the Mina 
alignment starting near Schurz, Nevada (four alternative segments 
referred to as Schurz 1, 4, 5, and 6), and moving southeast toward the 
area of Montezuma southeast of Blair Junction (Montezuma segments 1, 2 
and 3), north of Scottys Junction (Bonnie Claire segments 2 and 3), and 
near Oasis Valley (Oasis Valley segments 1 and 3). Bonnie Claire 
segments 2 and 3, and Oasis Valley segments 1 and 3 are the same as 
those along the Caliente alignment.
    Construction and operation of a railroad along the Mina rail 
alignment would be implemented as described under the Caliente 
Implementing Alternative. However, the infrastructure necessary to 
support construction and operation of the railroad would differ in some 
respects. Under the Mina Implementing Alternative, water would be 
obtained from a maximum of 74 well sites to supply the estimated 5,950 
acre-feet of water necessary for construction. DOE would obtain ballast 
by constructing up to two quarries from five potential locations along 
the rail alignment, and there would be up to 10 construction camps, 
with up to six operating at one time. The Department would construct up 
to 69 bridges, 60 large culverts, and four grade-separated crossings of 
highways along the Mina rail alignment.
    Under the Mina Implementing Alternative, trains would arrive on the 
Union Pacific Railroad mainline near Hazen and proceed to the Staging 
Yard at Hawthorne via the Union Pacific Railroad Hazen Branchline, the 
Department of Defense Branchline North, one of the Schurz alternative 
segments, and the Department of Defense Branchline South. Unlike the 
Caliente Implementing Alternative, there is sufficient space to locate 
the functions of the Interchange Yard and Staging Yard in a single 
facility (the Staging Yard) at Hawthorne, Nevada.
    The National Transportation Operations Center and the Nevada 
Railroad Control Center would be co-located and perform the same 
functions as described under the Caliente Implementing Alternative. In 
the final Rail Alignment EIS, DOE evaluated both of these facilities at 
two locations--at the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard located less than 
one mile from the southern boundary of the geologic repository 
operations area on the Yucca Mountain site, and at the Staging Yard in 
Hawthorne, Nevada.
    Rail line maintenance and inspection activities would be conducted 
out of Maintenance-of-Way Facilities, which would consist of a 
Maintenance-of-Way Facility and two Satellite Maintenance-of-Way 
Facilities. DOE evaluated the Maintenance-of-Way facilities at 
different locations along the Mina rail alignment near Silver Peak, 
Nevada, along Montezuma alternative segment 1, and near Klondike, 
Nevada, along Montezuma alternative segments 2 and 3.
    Under the Mina Implementing Alternative, DOE analyzed a Shared-Use 
Option, under which the Department would allow common carriage 
shipments on the rail line. Shipments would occur as described above 
under the Caliente Implementing Alternative, except there would be an 
average of 18 common carriage shipments per week.

[[Page 60252]]

Environmentally Preferable Implementing Alternative

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative

    In determining the environmentally preferable alternative, DOE 
considered potential environmental impacts that could occur under the 
Proposed Action from selecting a rail alignment within either the 
Caliente or Mina rail corridor and constructing and operating a 
railroad within the selected alignment, and the potential environmental 
impacts that would occur under the No Action Alternative from not 
selecting a rail alignment within either rail corridor. The potential 
environmental impacts of selecting a rail alignment within either the 
Caliente or Mina rail corridor and constructing and operating a 
railroad along such alignment would be greater than the potential 
environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative under which no such 
selection and therefore no construction or operation would occur within 
either of these rail corridors. For this reason, at least in the short 
term, the No Action Alternative is environmentally preferable to the 
Proposed Action. However, given DOE's responsibilities under the NWPA 
and the Yucca Mountain Development Act (Pub. L. 107-200), and 
consistent with DOE's tiered decisionmaking, it is necessary for DOE to 
proceed with the selection of an alignment and the construction and 
operation of a railroad within that alignment for shipments of spent 
nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and other materials to the 
Yucca Mountain site.

Caliente and Mina Implementing Alternatives

    DOE considered potential environmental impacts that could occur 
from the construction and operation of a railroad along the Caliente 
and Mina rail alignments. As a general matter, based on the analyses of 
the final Rail Alignment EIS, DOE concluded that construction and 
operation of a railroad along either the Caliente or Mina rail 
alignments would result in broadly similar, but generally small, 
potential impacts to natural, human health, social, economic, and 
cultural resources. More specifically, the analyses in the final Rail 
Alignment EIS showed there would be no significant differences (between 
the Caliente and Mina alignments) in potential impacts to aesthetic 
resources, air quality (including potential impacts on global climate 
change), groundwater resources, noise and vibration, socioeconomics, 
occupational and public health and safety (including potential risks 
from accidents and acts of sabotage or terrorism), utilities, energy 
and materials use, and the generation of hazardous materials and waste 
(additional detail may be found in Table S-8 of the Summary to the 
final Rail Alignment EIS. The following paragraphs summarize the 
differences between the Caliente and Mina alignments in potential 
impacts to land use, wetlands and other biological resources.
    Construction of the railroad along the Caliente rail alignment 
would disturb about 14,000 to 15,000 acres, and could result in a loss 
of about 300 to 440 acres of prime farmland. In contrast, construction 
along the Mina rail alignment would disturb less land (9,900 to 12,000 
acres) and result in less loss of prime farmland (less than 4 acres).
    Construction of the railroad along the Caliente rail alignment also 
would cross more private land (120 to 310 acres), active grazing 
allotments (23 to 25), and result in a loss of more animal unit months 
(999 to 1,034) than would occur along the Mina rail alignment, which 
would cross 53 to 199 acres of private land, 6 to 9 active grazing 
allotments, and a possible loss of 179 to 199 animal unit months. The 
Caliente rail alignment, however, does not cross a Native American 
tribe's reservation, unlike the Mina rail alignment, which would cross 
the Walker River Paiute Tribe Reservation. As described above under 
Background, the Tribe has renewed a past objection to the 
transportation of nuclear waste through its reservation.
    Depending on the segment considered, construction of the railroad 
along the Caliente rail alignment also would result in more short-term 
(about 3 to 69 acres) and long-term (about 3 to 45 acres) loss of 
wetlands and riparian habitat than would occur along the Mina rail 
alignment (about 3 to 9 acres in the short-term, and less than 0.4 
acres in the long-term). In contrast, a railroad along the Mina 
alignment could impact adversely a larger number of sensitive plant and 
animal communities than would occur along the Caliente alignment.
    On balance, even though construction and operation of a railroad 
along either the Caliente or Mina rail alignments would result in 
broadly similar, and generally small, potential impacts, DOE concludes 
that the Mina Implementing Alternative would be environmentally 
preferable to the Caliente Implementing Alternative.

Caliente Rail Alignment Alternative Segments

    In determining which alternative segments along the Caliente rail 
alignment would be environmentally preferable, DOE considered potential 
impacts to all resources, but focused on environmental impacts to those 
resources that allowed DOE to discriminate among alternative segments. 
Additional detail may be found in Table S-9 of the Summary to the final 
Rail Alignment EIS.
    DOE evaluated two alternative segments that would interface with 
the Union Pacific Railroad mainline near Caliente, Nevada--the Caliente 
and Eccles alternative segments. In determining which alternative 
segment would be environmentally preferable, DOE considered the 
potential environmental impacts to the physical setting, land use and 
ownership, aesthetics, surface-water resources, biological resources 
and noise. Construction of the railroad along the Eccles alternative 
segment would result in less land disturbance (480 acres compared to 
770 acres) and loss of prime farmland (about 23 acres compared to 40 
acres), and would cross fewer private land parcels (5 parcels involving 
about 74 acres compared to at least 30 parcels involving more than 270 
acres). In contrast, the Eccles alternative segment would cross more 
active grazing allotments (3 compared to 1) and result in a greater 
loss of animal units months (17 compared to 1). Potential impacts to 
aesthetic resources along the Eccles alternative segment would be less, 
as would impacts from noise when compared to the Caliente alternative 
segment. Construction of the rail line along the Eccles alternative 
segment would require that about 11 acres of a nearby creek (Clover 
Creek) be filled, which would impact downstream riparian areas and 
wetlands, including an area identified by the Bureau of Land Management 
as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern for the protection of 
threatened and endangered species. In contrast, construction of the 
rail line along the Caliente alternative segment would result in the 
loss of about nine acres of wetlands, and about another 28 acres of 
riparian area. On balance, since the Caliente alternative segment would 
result in less impact to aquatic resources and avoid an Area of 
Critical Environmental Concern, DOE considers it to be environmentally 
preferable to the Eccles alternative segment.
    DOE evaluated four alternative segments in Garden Valley (1, 2, 3, 
and 8). In determining whether a segment

[[Page 60253]]

would be environmentally preferable, DOE focused on the physical 
setting, land use and ownership, and cultural resources. Garden Valley 
alternative segment 1 would result in the smallest amount of surface 
disturbance (about 830 acres) followed by segment 2 (880 acres), 
segment 3 (890 acres) and segment 8 (910 acres). Garden Valley segment 
3 would not impact any prime farmlands, whereas segment 1 would result 
in the loss of about 70 acres of prime farmland, followed by segment 8 
(89 acres) and segment 2 (97 acres). Each alternative segment would 
cross five active grazing allotments, which would result in an 
estimated loss of animal unit months of 121 (segment 1), 125 (segment 
3), 126 (segment 8) and 132 (segment 2). Only Garden Valley segment 2 
could result in direct or indirect impacts to known archaeological 
sites that are eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places. DOE considers Garden Valley alternative segments 1 and 
3 to be preferable to segments 2 and 8, primarily because these 
segments would result in the lowest amount of disturbed land and loss 
of prime farmland. However, as between Garden Valley alternative 
segments 1 and 3, neither is clearly environmentally preferable.
    The Department considered potential impacts to all resources when 
determining whether South Reveille alternative segment 2 or 3 would be 
environmentally preferable. Based on the analyses of the final Rail 
Alignment EIS, however, there are no significant differences in 
potential environmental impacts between South Reveille alternative 
segments 2 and 3, and thus DOE concludes that neither segment is 
environmentally preferable.
    In evaluating whether an alternative segment near Goldfield, Nevada 
(alternative segments 1, 3, and 4) would be environmentally preferable, 
DOE focused on the physical setting, land use and ownership, cultural 
resources, surface-water resources, and aesthetic resources. 
Construction of the railroad along Goldfield alternative segment 4 
would result in the disturbance of about 1,600 acres of land, followed 
by segment 1 (2,400 acres), and segment 3 (2,500 acres). All three 
segments would cross private lands; segment 3 would affect about 46 
acres, followed by segment 4 (120 acres) and segment 1 (150 acres). 
Goldfield alternative segment 3 would cross 205 unpatented mining 
claims, followed by segment 4 (374 claims) and segment 1 (375 claims). 
The three alternative segments also would impact, directly and 
indirectly, cultural resources. Goldfield alternative segment 3 could 
impact one possible Western Shoshone camp and segment 1 could impact 
more than one such camp, whereas segment 4 could impact several 
archaeological sites that are eligible for listing on the National 
Register of Historic Places. Lastly, Goldfield alternative segment 3 
would have short-term (during construction) impacts to water quality at 
Willow Springs, and the proposed quarry near segment 4 would have 
short-term, moderate to strong visual contrast to nearby viewers. On 
balance, the Department considers Goldfield alternative segment 3 to be 
environmentally preferable, because it tends to impact (relative to 
segments 1 and 4) the smallest amount of private land, cross the fewest 
unpatented mining claims, and impact the fewest known significant 
cultural resources.
    The Department considered potential impacts to all resources when 
determining whether Bonnie Claire alternative segments 2 or 3 would be 
environmentally preferable. Based on the analyses of the final Rail 
Alignment EIS, however, there are no significant differences in 
potential environmental impacts between Bonnie Claire alternative 
segments 2 and 3, and thus DOE concludes that neither segment is 
environmentally preferable.
    DOE evaluated two alternative segments in Oasis Valley (1 and 3). 
In determining whether a segment would be environmentally preferable, 
DOE focused on the physical setting, land use and ownership and 
biological resources. Oasis Valley alternative segment 1 would disturb 
less land relative to segment 3 (250 acres compared to 330 acres), but 
would cross one private land parcel affecting less than one acre of 
this parcel (segment 3 does not cross private land). Both segments 
would cross an active grazing allotment, but segment 1 would result in 
a lower loss of animal unit months than would segment 3 (8 compared to 
12). Oasis Valley alternative segment 3 would disturb less than five 
acres of wetland/riparian habitat, but this would be a short-term 
impact. On balance, DOE considers neither alternative segment to be 
clearly preferable because the potential impacts are small in general, 
limited to a few resources, and the differences between impacts to 
those resources are small.

Facilities Associated With the Caliente Rail Alignment

    DOE evaluated two staging yards along the Caliente alternative 
segment--the Upland Staging Yard and the Indian Cove Staging Yard. In 
determining which staging yard was environmentally preferable, DOE 
considered potential impacts to all resources, but focused on land use 
and ownership and wetlands as they offer a means to discriminate 
between the yards. Construction of the Upland Staging Yard would cross 
about 110 acres of private land and would not require wetlands to be 
filled. In contrast, construction of the Indian Cove Staging Yard would 
cross about 180 acres of private land and would require about 47 acres 
of wetlands to be filled. DOE considers the Upland Staging Yard to be 
environmentally preferable.
    DOE evaluated three locations along the Caliente rail alignment for 
the National Transportation Operations Center and Nevada Railroad 
Control Center: (1) At the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard, which is 
located less than one mile from the southern boundary of the geologic 
repository operations area; and (2) at two locations along the Caliente 
alternative segment--co-located with the Upland Staging Yard or with 
the Indian Cove Staging Yard. In determining which location for these 
facilities was environmentally preferable, DOE considered potential 
impacts to all resources, but focused on land use and ownership and 
wetlands as they offer a means to discriminate between the locations. 
Locating the National Transportation Operations Center and Nevada 
Railroad Control Center at the Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard would 
not affect private land or wetlands. In contrast, locating these 
facilities at the Upland Staging Yard would require the use of private 
land, and locating these facilities at the Indian Cove Staging Yard 
would require private land and wetlands to be filled. For these 
reasons, DOE considers locating the National Transportation Operations 
Center and Nevada Railroad Control Center at the Rail Equipment 
Maintenance Yard to be environmentally preferable to locating these 
facilities at the Upland or Indian Cove Staging Yards.

Shared Use

    In determining whether the Proposed Action with the Shared-Use 
Option or without the Shared-Use Option was environmentally preferable, 
the Department considered potential impacts to all resources. As DOE 
concluded in the final Rail Alignment EIS, potential impacts under the 
Shared-Use Option would be, in general, slightly greater than impacts 
under the Proposed Action without shared use. For example, under the 
Shared-Use Option, the construction of additional sidings would 
increase (relative to the Proposed Action without shared use) surface 
disturbance by about 0.1 percent, and during railroad operations there 
would be increases in air emissions from locomotives,

[[Page 60254]]

interactions with wildlife (such as collisions and nest abandonment), 
traffic delays at highway-rail grade crossings, and rail-related 
accidents. Therefore, DOE considers the Proposed Action without the 
Shared-Use Option to be environmentally preferable to the Proposed 
Action with the Shared-Use Option.

Comments on the Final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and the Final Rail 
Alignment EIS

    DOE distributed more than 4,400 copies of the final Nevada Rail 
Corridor SEIS, final Rail Alignment EIS, and the final Repository SEIS; 
the documents also were posted on DOE's Web site (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov). On July 11, 2008, the Environmental Protection 
Agency announced in the Federal Register the availability of the 
documents. DOE has received written comments on these documents from 
the Environmental Protection Agency, N-4 State Grazing Board, N-6 State 
Grazing Board, White Pine County Nuclear Waste Project Office, and the 
Board of County Commissioners of Lincoln County. The Department has 
reviewed these comments and concluded that none of the comments present 
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 
concerns bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts. The following 
summarizes and addresses those comments received on the final Nevada 
Rail Corridor SEIS and the final Rail Alignment EIS.
    Some commenters stated they were unable to identify responses, in 
the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and final Rail Alignment EIS, to 
some of their comments. For those comments for which commenters stated 
that responses were missing, the Department reviewed the comments and 
associated index(ices) to determine whether responses had been included 
in the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and/or the final Rail Alignment 
EIS. Based on this review, DOE concluded that appropriate responses had 
been prepared for all these comments and that these responses were 
included in these final NEPA documents.
    Commenters also asserted that some DOE responses to comments were 
inadequate and demonstrated a lack of understanding of aspects of the 
affected environment, or that the analyses and methods used to estimate 
potential environmental impacts were inadequate. As examples, 
commenters indicated that there is ample literature and accepted 
methods to address the impacts of stigma and risk perception, that 
DOE's groundwater use rates were understated and should have been 
defined more accurately to estimate impacts, that remote sensing 
techniques and/or field surveys should have been used to map locally 
important vegetation and soil types and range improvements, and that 
the regions of influence used to estimate potential impacts to certain 
resources were too limited in geographic extent.
    DOE has reviewed these comments and determined that the 
environmental analyses in these NEPA documents are adequate. In 
preparing the final Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and the final Rail 
Alignment EIS, DOE first determined the scope of the analyses to be 
considered (range of actions, alternatives, impacts). In doing so, DOE 
evaluated comments received through the public scoping process, 
identified the range of reasonable alternatives that would meet the 
purpose and need for DOE's underlying action, and identified the 
analytical approaches and methods needed to determine potential 
environmental impacts for each resource area and issue. For some 
issues, such as stigma and risk perception, DOE considered various 
analytical approaches and methods for determining potential impacts, 
but concluded there were no reliable methods for quantifying such 
impacts with any degree of certainty. For those resource areas and 
issues for which there were reliable methods, DOE focused its analyses 
on significant environmental issues and evaluated impacts in proportion 
to their potential significance, in accordance with the Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.1 and 1502.2(b)). DOE 
used the best available information, including information developed 
from field surveys and aerial mapping, and commonly-used analytical 
approaches to estimate reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts. As 
appropriate, DOE also used conservative but reasonable assumptions to 
address incomplete or unavailable information or uncertainties in these 
analyses. The information, analytical approaches and assumptions used 
in the analysis were developed in consultation with DOE's cooperating 
agencies.
    The Department received comments stating that DOE did not include 
the appropriate level of detail regarding the design, construction and 
operation of the railroad, and consequently the impacts analyses were 
inadequate. As examples, commenters suggested that DOE determine the 
specific locations of subballast quarries and communication towers 
along the rail alignments, redesign the rail line so that the service 
road and rail roadbed were at the same elevation (a single, wider 
raised platform for the track and road), space the concrete ties at 
more narrow intervals, and construct sidings every 10 miles to decrease 
train delays under the Shared-Use Option. DOE based the analyses on a 
conceptual design of the railroad, consistent with the Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500.5, 1501.2, 1502.5, and 
1508.23) that call for environmental impact analyses to be undertaken 
early in the process of developing a proposed Federal project. As DOE 
acknowledged in the final Rail Alignment EIS, the conceptual design 
will advance through preliminary to final design, during which time 
many of the details requested by the commenters will become available. 
Further, DOE will make additional refinements before construction. As 
these details become available, the Department, consistent with its 
regulations, will determine if there is a need for additional NEPA 
review.
    Commenters, in general, favored DOE's proposed process for the 
development, implementation and monitoring of best management practices 
and mitigation measures as discussed in the final Rail Alignment EIS. 
Commenters, however, also stated that this proposed process and the 
associated practices and measures are preliminary, but should be 
committed to in DOE's Record of Decision; some commenters requested to 
participate in the process. Further, commenters took exception to some 
practices and measures presented in the final Rail Alignment EIS, 
suggested modifications to others (such as the use of adapted plant 
species in reclaiming disturbed lands), and offered additional 
practices and measures for consideration (such as the use of temporary 
irrigation to promote plant growth).
    The Environmental Protection Agency focused on wetlands issues and 
concluded that the Caliente alternative segment (relative to the Eccles 
segment) represented the least environmentally damaging practicable 
alternative. The Agency supported the conclusions regarding the 
floodplain and wetlands assessment contained in the final Rail 
Alignment EIS, with the understanding that DOE will implement one of 
three compensatory mitigation measures specific to the loss of wetlands 
that will be impacted by the Caliente rail alignment.
    In response to comments regarding mitigation, the Department 
recognizes that the best management practices and mitigation measures 
described in the final Rail Alignment EIS are preliminary

[[Page 60255]]

and, as such, will be further developed and detailed through the 
regulatory compliance process, development of the final design and 
associated specifications, and through consultations with directly 
affected parties. As stated below (see Use of All Practicable Means to 
Avoid or Minimize Harm), DOE is committing to a mitigation process, 
proposing to constitute one or more Mitigation Advisory Boards and 
consult with directly affected parties. DOE will prepare a Mitigation 
Action Plan in accordance with its NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.331). 
Further, DOE is committing to a wetlands compensatory mitigation plan, 
including implementing the recommendations of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the details of which will be described in the 
Mitigation Action Plan. Lastly, the Department will reconsider the 
suggested modifications to the best management practices and mitigation 
measures, as well as other related recommendations of the commenters, 
in preparing the Mitigation Action Plan.

Decision

    Under the NWPA and the Yucca Mountain Development Act, the 
Department is responsible for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel 
and high-level radioactive waste to the Yucca Mountain site. In April 
2004, the Department selected the mostly rail scenario analyzed in the 
Yucca Mountain Final EIS for transporting spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste nationally and within Nevada. DOE also selected 
the Caliente rail corridor in which to examine possible alignments for 
construction of a rail line in Nevada.
    As the next step in fulfilling its responsibilities and consistent 
with its tiered decisionmaking, the Department is issuing this Record 
of Decision to construct and operate a railroad along a rail alignment 
within the Caliente corridor. The Department has selected the following 
common and alternative segments as the rail alignment--Caliente 
alternative segment, common segment 1, Garden Valley alternative 
segment 3, common segment 2, South Reveille alternative segment 3, 
common segment 3, Goldfield alternative segment 4, common segment 4, 
Bonnie Claire alternative segment 3, common segment 5, Oasis Valley 
alternative segment 1, and common segment 6, which are the preferred 
segments identified in the final Rail Alignment EIS.
    In addition, the Department has decided to construct the 
Interchange Yard at the location where the Caliente alternative segment 
connects with the Union Pacific Railroad mainline, the Upland Staging 
Yard along the Caliente alternative segment, and the Maintenance-of-Way 
Facility along Goldfield alternative segment 4. The Department also has 
decided to construct and operate the Nevada Railroad Control Center and 
National Transportation Operations Center, co-located with the Upland 
Staging Yard, along the Caliente alternative segment.
    In proceeding with construction of the railroad, the Department 
will develop up to four quarries from six potential locations, and up 
to 12 construction camps at the locations analyzed in the final Rail 
Alignment EIS. The initiation of construction of the railroad on public 
land, including the quarries and construction camps, is dependent upon 
receipt of a right-of-way grant, free use permits, and possibly 
temporary use permits, from the Bureau of Land Management. Construction 
and operation of the railroad will be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    Finally, DOE has decided to select the Shared-Use Option, and allow 
common carriage shipments on the rail line. Prior to constructing and 
operating a common carriage railroad, the Surface Transportation Board 
must grant a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to DOE. 
The Department applied to the Board for a Certificate of Public 
Convenience and Necessity on March 17, 2008.
    As necessary, DOE will apply for any additional regulatory 
approvals to construct the railroad, ship radioactive materials and 
other materials to the repository, and allow common carriage shipments 
(general freight).

Basis for Decision

Alignment Within Rail Corridor

    Based on a consideration of the environmental analyses included in 
the final Rail Alignment EIS, the objection of the Walker River Paiute 
Tribe to the transportation of nuclear waste across its reservation, 
and preferences expressed in public comments, the Department has 
decided that it will construct and operate a railroad along the rail 
alignment described above within the Caliente rail corridor. In 
reaching its decision to construct and operate a railroad along a rail 
alignment within the Caliente corridor, DOE considered potential 
environmental impacts to all resources, including the impacts from land 
disturbance during construction, land use changes and conflicts from 
operation of the railroad, and impacts to wetlands. As a general 
matter, DOE concluded in the final Rail Alignment EIS that construction 
and operation of a railroad along either the Caliente or Mina rail 
alignments would result in broadly similar, but generally small, 
potential impacts to natural, human health, social, economic, and 
cultural resources. More specifically, DOE found there would be no 
significant differences between the Caliente and Mina alignments in 
potential impacts to aesthetic resources, air quality (including 
potential impacts on global climate change), groundwater resources, 
noise and vibration, socioeconomics, occupational and public health and 
safety (including potential risks from accidents and acts of sabotage 
or terrorism), utilities, energy and materials use, and the generation 
of hazardous materials and waste.
    DOE recognized that constructing and operating a railroad along an 
alignment within the Mina corridor would tend to result in less land 
disturbance, and cross fewer private land parcels and grazing 
allotments than within the Caliente corridor. The Department, however, 
also recognized that an alignment within the Mina corridor would need 
to cross the Walker River Paiute Tribe Reservation. If DOE were to 
select such an alignment, DOE would need to obtain a right-of-way from 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau's regulations (25 CFR 
169.3(a)) \11\ require written consent of the Tribe before granting the 
right-of-way. Because the Tribe has renewed its past objection to the 
transportation of nuclear waste through its reservation (as described 
above under Background), obtaining a right-of-way is not possible at 
this time. DOE's inability to obtain a right-of-way through the 
reservation in the absence of the Tribe's consent would necessarily 
impact the Department's ability to construct and operate the railroad 
in the Mina corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The regulation states, ``No right-of-way shall be granted 
over and across any tribal land, nor shall any permission to survey 
be issued with respect to any such lands, without the prior written 
consent of the tribe.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also considered potential unavoidable adverse impacts in 
reaching its decision. Construction of a railroad in either corridor 
would result in the permanent loss of wetlands. Within the Caliente 
corridor, about 8.7 acres of wetlands would be lost, whereas the 
corresponding loss within the Mina corridor would be about 0.01 acres. 
As described below under Use of All Practicable Means to Avoid or 
Minimize Harm, DOE will develop measures to compensate for the loss of 
wetlands as part of its compliance with section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act in coordination with the Army Corps of

[[Page 60256]]

Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and applicable land-
management agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management.
    In making its decision to construct and operate a railroad along a 
rail alignment within the Caliente corridor, DOE considered 
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources and potential 
cumulative impacts. There would be an irreversible and irretrievable 
commitment of resources, such as electric power, fossil fuels and 
construction materials, associated with the construction of a railroad 
in either the Caliente or Mina corridors, although this commitment of 
resources would not significantly diminish these resources, either 
nationwide or in Nevada.
    DOE also recognized there could be some moderate to large impacts 
from the construction and operation of a railroad along a rail 
alignment in either corridor when considered in tandem with other past, 
present and reasonably foreseeable future activities (cumulative 
impacts). In general, the potential for moderate to large cumulative 
impacts would be limited to certain resources, such as groundwater use 
and air quality; further limited in geographic extent to certain areas 
within segments, such as air quality impacts from a particular quarry; 
and would be short-term, i.e., limited to the construction period. 
There also could be longer term, moderate to large cumulative impacts, 
such as a loss of specific types of habitat, although DOE will develop 
mitigation measures to minimize its contribution to these potential 
cumulative impacts, as discussed below under Use of All Practicable 
Means to Avoid or Minimize Harm.
    In making its decision, the Department also considered the direct 
costs of constructing and operating a railroad, and the consequences 
from potential delays in the availability of the railroad. DOE has 
estimated that the total cost to construct the railroad along the Mina 
rail alignment would be approximately 20 percent less than to construct 
the railroad along the Caliente rail alignment ($2.03 billion compared 
to $2.57 billion in 2008 dollars). However, objections by the Walker 
River Paiute Tribe will prevent DOE from constructing the railroad in 
the Mina corridor, which in turn will preclude DOE from disposing of 
large amounts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in 
a timely manner.
    The Department has concluded that construction and operation of a 
railroad along the Caliente rail alignment would result in generally 
small potential impacts to natural, human health, social, economic, and 
cultural resources. Moreover, as described below under Use of All 
Practicable Means to Avoid or Minimize Harm, the use of best management 
practices and mitigation measures will reduce and minimize those 
potential impacts or compensate for those impacts. Lastly, when 
considering other relevant aspects, there are no land use conflicts 
along the rail alignment within the Caliente corridor that should 
prevent DOE from acquiring the necessary land and rights-of-way to 
construct the railroad.

Caliente Rail Alignment

    The Department's decision to select certain alternative segments 
comprising the Caliente rail alignment was based on the analyses of the 
final Rail Alignment EIS and consideration of comments received. In 
selecting the Caliente alternative segment and its associated 
Interchange and Staging Yard, DOE considered that constructing a 
railroad on the Eccles alternative segment would be more complex due to 
its larger drainages and steeper terrain, and would present greater 
challenges to operating the railroad due to the steeper slope of its 
Interchange Yard tracks and main track leaving the interchange. In 
addition, constructing the Caliente alternative segment would avoid the 
need to realign parts of Clover Creek, which would be required to 
construct the Eccles-North Interchange Yard, and would avoid indirect 
impacts to riparian areas along Clover Creek downstream of that 
Interchange Yard (the riparian areas have been proposed by the Bureau 
of Land Management as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern).
    The selection of the Upland Staging Yard (along the Caliente 
alternative segment) is preferable to the Indian Cove Staging Yard 
because the Upland Staging Yard would not impact wetlands. In contrast, 
construction of the Indian Cove Staging Yard would require filling up 
to 47 acres of wetlands.
    In selecting Garden Valley alternative segment 3, DOE considered 
potential impacts to all resources and engineering factors, but 
engineering factors did not offer a means to discriminate clearly among 
Garden Valley segments 1, 2, 3, and 8. As described above under 
Environmentally Preferable Implementing Alternative, DOE determined 
segments 1 and 3 to be environmentally preferable to segments 2 and 8, 
but as between segment 1 and 3, neither was clearly preferable. 
Nevertheless, DOE has decided to construct the railroad along Garden 
Valley 3 because it is farthest from City, an earthworks sculpture 
located on private land, and this would reduce (relative to other 
segments) any potential noise or aesthetic impacts to those visiting 
the sculpture.
    DOE selected South Reveille alternative segment 3, rather than 
segment 2, along which to construct the railroad. Construction of the 
railroad along South Reveille alternative segment 3 would be preferable 
to construction along South Reveille segment 2, because it would avoid 
a complex road and wash crossing. Also, a railroad along South Reveille 
alternative segment 3 would minimize potential impacts to noise, air 
quality and aesthetic resources because it is located farther from the 
boundary of the South Reveille Wilderness Study Area than is South 
Reveille segment 2.
    In selecting Goldfield alternative segment 4 (and its associated 
Maintenance-of-Way Facility), DOE considered potential impacts to all 
resources and engineering factors and determined that it would be 
preferable to construct and operate the railroad along this segment 
rather than along Goldfield alternative segments 1 or 3. As described 
above under Environmentally Preferable Implementing Alternative, DOE 
determined that Goldfield alternative segment 3 was environmentally 
preferable. However, Goldfield alternative segment 3 also presents more 
complex engineering and railroad operation challenges than the selected 
segment (Goldfield 4) because of its topography (many more curves and 
grades to negotiate). In addition, the design and construction of 
Goldfield alternative segment 1 is more uncertain than that of 
Goldfield segment 4, because it would cross a mining district likely to 
contain as-yet-unidentified abandoned mine drifts and shafts. DOE also 
considered that Goldfield alternative segment 4 is preferred by the 
Esmeralda County government. For these reasons, DOE selected Goldfield 
alternative segment 4 along which to construct the railroad.
    DOE selected Bonnie Claire alternative segment 3, rather than 
segment 2, because it would be farthest from the boundary of the Nevada 
Test and Training Range, and would be less difficult to construct as it 
requires fewer drainage structures in less complex terrain. DOE also 
selected Oasis Valley alternative segment 1, rather than segment 3, 
because it too would be less difficult to construct. The potential 
environmental impacts to the Bonnie Claire and Oasis Valley alternative 
segments did not offer a means to discriminate clearly between the 
segments.

[[Page 60257]]

Facilities Associated With the Caliente Rail Alignment

    DOE also has decided to construct and operate the Nevada Railroad 
Control Center and the National Transportation Operations Center, co-
located with the Upland Staging Yard, along the Caliente alternative 
segment, rather than one mile from the southern boundary of the 
geologic repository operations area at the Rail Equipment Maintenance 
Yard. In making this selection, DOE recognizes that locating these 
facilities at the Upland Staging Yard would require the use of private 
land, but believes that locating these facilities nearer Caliente, 
Nevada, is responsive to public comments received on the draft Rail 
Alignment EIS.

Shared Use

    Lastly, the Department has decided to select the Shared-Use Option 
for the railroad. DOE finds that the potential impacts from the Shared-
Use Option generally would result in a small incremental increase 
relative to those of the Proposed Action without the Shared-Use Option. 
Further, DOE believes that this decision is responsive to public 
comments received on the draft Rail Alignment EIS, which generally 
supported the Shared-Use Option and identified economic benefits that 
could accrue to those communities through which the railroad would 
pass.

Floodplain Statement of Findings

    In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022, ``Compliance with Floodplain 
and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements,'' DOE prepared a 
floodplain and wetland assessment for the Caliente rail alignment (see 
Appendix F of the final Rail Alignment EIS). Many of the floodplains 
that would be encountered unavoidably by the railroad are associated 
with internally draining basins with few, if any, inhabitants or 
facilities, and where the floodwaters end in playa areas. The 
floodplains are primarily those areas of normally dry washes that are 
temporarily and infrequently inundated from runoff during 100-year or 
500-year floods.
    Construction of the Caliente rail alignment will affect 
floodplains, either through direct alteration of the stream channel 
cross section that will affect the flow pattern of the stream, or 
through indirect changes in the amount of impervious surfaces and 
additional water volume added to the floodplain. In most areas, 
construction in a floodplain will not increase the risk of future flood 
damage or increase the impact of floods on human health and safety, 
because there are very few human activities or facilities in the areas 
adjacent to the rail alignment, except for example, in the City of 
Caliente. Potential impacts from construction will be minimized because 
DOE will reduce the area of disturbance where the rail alignment will 
cross floodplains, and because construction activities will be based on 
design standards that limit the degree to which floodwaters will be 
allowed to rise. DOE will incorporate hydraulic modeling into the 
engineering design process to ensure that crossings are designed to 
limit adverse impacts to nearby populations and resources.
    In areas where drainage structures cross a 100-year floodplain 
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the railroad 
will be designed in compliance with the Agency's floodplain protection 
standards and applicable county regulations. In other areas, hydraulic 
design will be based upon Class 1 freight railroad standard design 
criteria, which require that the 50-year flood not come into contact 
with the top of a culvert or the lowest point of a bridge. For the 100-
year flood, these criteria require that the floodwaters not rise above 
the subgrade elevation of a structure. The Department will construct 
bridges where flows will be larger and where the rail surface elevation 
would not be high enough to accommodate a sufficiently sized culvert. 
Culverts, bridge abutments, and piers will be constructed to include 
riprap around the exposed ends to protect the fill material. In places, 
channel improvements might be necessary for a short distance upstream 
and downstream of the rail line to intercept and redirect flows through 
drainage structures. DOE also will design the rail line to accommodate 
100-year floods, based on Class 1 freight railroad standard design 
criteria, as described above.
    Constructing structures to cross washes or other flood-prone areas 
may reduce the area through which floodwaters naturally flow, which 
could cause water levels to rise at the upstream side of crossings. 
Sedimentation would be likely to occur on the upstream side of 
crossings in those areas where the flow of water is restricted to the 
point where ponding occurs. DOE will manage sedimentation of this type 
under a regular maintenance program.
    While some changes will be unavoidable, DOE will take steps to 
ensure that the alterations to natural drainage, sedimentation, and 
erosion processes will not increase future flooding potential, increase 
the impact of floods on human health and safety, or cause identifiable 
harm to the function and values of floodplains. The Department will 
implement best management practices, including erosion control measures 
such as the use of silt fences and flow-control devices, to reduce flow 
velocities and minimize erosion, and other mitigation measures, as 
needed (see Use of All Practicable Means to Avoid or Minimize Harm 
below).

Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act

    DOE has complied with section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act. 
Pursuant to the requirements of that section, DOE included in Appendix 
F of the final Rail Alignment EIS an analysis of wetlands impacts under 
the guidance of section 404(b)(1) of the Act and has submitted the 
final Rail Alignment EIS, including the requisite analysis under the 
guidelines, to members of Congress. As required by the guidelines, 
which are described in 40 CFR Part 230, Appendix F included a 
demonstration of the need to fill wetlands, an analysis and comparison 
among alternatives of the potential impacts to aquatic resources 
demonstrating that the practicable alternative with the least impact to 
aquatic resources has been selected, and a description of methods for 
mitigating unavoidable impacts (see Use of All Practicable Means to 
Avoid or Minimize Harm below). On the basis of the conclusions in 
Appendix F, the proposed discharge of fill materials into wetlands and 
other waters of the United States complies with the guidelines of 40 
CFR Part 230, and DOE has met the associated requirements of section 
404(r) by including in the final Rail Alignment EIS an analysis of 
wetlands impacts in accordance with the guidelines developed under 
section 404(b)(1).

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

    DOE has complied with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 
Pursuant to the regulations that implement the Act (50 CFR Part 402), 
in March 2008, DOE submitted a biological assessment regarding the 
potential impacts to the threatened Mojave desert tortoise, the 
endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, and the threatened Ute 
ladies'-tresses from the construction and operation of a railroad in 
the Caliente corridor, and initiated consultation with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. The Bureau of Land Management and the Surface 
Transportation Board were supporting agencies on this consultation.
    On September 19, 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued its 
biological opinion and found that construction

[[Page 60258]]

and operation of the railroad is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the threatened Mojave population of the desert tortoise or 
the Ute ladies'-tresses. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
concluded that the railroad will not result in adverse effects to the 
critical habitat designated for the Mojave desert tortoise, and further 
analysis of potential critical habitat impacts is not necessary 
(critical habitat for the Ute ladies'-tresses in Nevada has not been 
designated). The Fish and Wildlife Service also included an incidental 
take \12\ statement and identified reasonable and prudent measures 
(mitigation measures) that must be implemented by DOE to minimize take 
of Mojave desert tortoise, and conservation and minimization measures 
that must be implemented if the Fish and Wildlife Service determines 
that the loss of Ute ladies'-tresses by construction activities would 
be significant. The Department is committing to these measures, the 
details of which will be included in the Mitigation Action Plan (see 
below under Use of All Practicable Means to Avoid or Minimize Harm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct 
without a special exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with DOE's determination 
that construction and operation of a railroad in the Caliente corridor 
may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the southwestern 
willow flycatcher. The Service's concurrence concluded the informal 
consultation for that species pursuant to regulations implementing the 
Endangered Species Act.

Use of All Practicable Means To Avoid or Minimize Harm

    Pursuant to the NWPA, spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste will be transported in casks certified by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC). The NRC regulates and certifies the design, 
manufacture, testing and use of these casks. Additionally, the NWPA 
requires that DOE comply with NRC regulations regarding advance 
notification of State and local governments prior to transportation of 
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
    In its Record of Decision of April 8, 2004 (69 FR 18557), DOE 
committed to implementing measures to avoid or minimize harm related to 
the shipment of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, 
identified specific measures, and committed to following current and 
future Department of Transportation and NRC transportation rules. DOE 
also committed to consult with states, Native American tribes, local 
governments, utilities, the transportation industry, and other 
interested parties in a cooperative manner to refine the transportation 
system as it is developed. DOE, in this Record of Decision, is 
reaffirming its commitment to those implementing measures, which are 
incorporated by reference herein.
    In the final Rail Alignment EIS (Chapter 7), DOE identifies 
preliminary best management practices and mitigation measures that 
represent the initial step in an iterative process to develop and 
eventually implement these practices and measures. The preliminary best 
management practices and mitigation measures will be further developed 
and detailed through (1) the regulatory compliance process, such as 
that associated with DOE's right-of-way application to the Bureau of 
Land Management and DOE's application for a Certificate of Public 
Convenience and Necessity to the Surface Transportation Board; (2) 
development of the final design and associated specifications, such as 
the selection of specific seed mixes and application techniques for 
reclaiming disturbed land; and (3) consultation with directly affected 
parties, such as grazing permittees and local communities through which 
the Caliente rail alignment will pass.
    The Department will undertake this mitigation process in 
consultation with federal, state, and local regulatory authorities 
having jurisdiction over the construction and operation of the 
railroad, and in consultation with directly affected parties. To that 
end, DOE proposes to constitute one or more Mitigation Advisory Boards 
to assist DOE, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Surface 
Transportation Board in developing, implementing, and monitoring best 
management practices and mitigation measures during the construction 
and operation of the railroad.
    Further, DOE will conduct an ethnographic evaluation of the rail 
alignment area to develop a cultural resources management program. DOE 
proposes that the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations \13\ 
assist in the ethnographic evaluation, and in the development and 
implementation of best management practices and mitigation measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ DOE maintains a Native American Interaction Program. As 
part of this Program, 17 tribes and organizations have formed the 
Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations, which consists of 
appointed tribal representatives responsible for presentation of 
their respective tribal concerns and perspectives to DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Appendix F of the final Rail Alignment EIS, DOE identifies 
preliminary measures to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of 
actions in a floodplain or wetlands, including but not limited to, 
minimum grading requirements, runoff controls, design and construction 
constraints, and protection of ecologically sensitive areas. To the 
extent practicable, DOE will avoid disturbing floodplains and wetlands, 
and, if avoidance is not possible, will minimize impacts to the extent 
practicable. In general, DOE will minimize impacts to floodplains and 
wetlands through the implementation of engineering design standards and 
best management practices. DOE has designed the rail alignment to avoid 
potential direct and indirect impacts to water resources wherever 
practicable. Due to the nature of rail line design and the construction 
activities that would be required to implement the design, the rail 
line cannot avoid crossing floodplains or wetlands. The engineering 
design process will ensure, however, that the engineered structures 
used to pass water runoff from one side of the rail line to the other 
will do so in a way that will minimize impacts to floodplains and 
wetlands. Such impacts will be limited mostly to the construction 
phase, which will be subject to Clean Water Act regulations. In most 
cases, DOE will minimize potential adverse impacts through the 
implementation of best management practices in concert with the permits 
and plans regulatory agencies will require.
    DOE will implement a wetlands compensatory mitigation plan that 
will meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency for 
mitigating losses of aquatic resources (Subpart J, 40 CFR Part 230). As 
specified in the Agency's comment letter of August 11, 2008, this plan 
will include one of the following options to compensate for the loss of 
wetlands: (1) Restore or create three acres of wetlands of equivalent 
function within the watershed for every acre of wetlands filled to 
construct the railroad; (2) restore or create one acre of wetlands of 
equivalent function within the watershed, and remove non-native plants 
in five acres within the watershed for every acre of wetlands filled; 
or (3) restore or create one acre of wetlands of equivalent function in 
the watershed, and enhance five acres of riparian wetland habitat in 
upper Meadow Valley, including Rainbow Canyon, for every acre of 
wetlands filled. The compensatory mitigation

[[Page 60259]]

plan will be developed and implemented in accordance with requirements 
of the Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR 230.91 through 230.97), 
and in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Land Management.
    The Department will implement the conservation and minimization 
measures listed in the biological opinion to protect Ute ladies'-
tresses, and the reasonable and prudent measures identified by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service to protect the Mojave population of the desert 
tortoise. Implementation of these measures will be coordinated with the 
Bureau of Land Management and Surface Transportation Board, as 
appropriate.
    Based on all of the above, DOE will prepare a Mitigation Action 
Plan in accordance with its NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.331). The 
Mitigation Action Plan will include an introduction describing the 
basis, function, and organization of the plan; a summary of the 
potential impacts to be mitigated; a description of preliminary best 
management practices and specific mitigation measures from Chapter 7 of 
the final Rail Alignment EIS; a description of all mitigation 
commitments in this Record of Decision, including wetlands compensatory 
measures and measures to protect the Mojave desert tortoise and Ute 
ladies'-tresses; a description of the Mitigation Action Plan monitoring 
and reporting system that DOE will implement to ensure that elements of 
the plan are met and are effective; and a schedule for actions and 
identification of the responsible parties. DOE will develop the 
Mitigation Action Plan in consultation with the proposed Mitigation 
Advisory Board(s) and directly affected parties.
    The Mitigation Action Plan will be completed and made publicly 
available before DOE takes any action under this decision that is the 
subject of a mitigation commitment. DOE may revise the Plan as more 
specific and detailed information becomes available, or in consultation 
with the proposed Mitigation Advisory Board(s) and directly affected 
parties. At this stage in the process, the Department has adopted all 
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2008.
Edward F. Sproat, III,
Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive, Waste Management.
 [FR Doc. E8-24168 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P 6450-01-P