![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS)
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: November 12, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 218)]
[Notices]
[Page 61615-61625]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12no99-67]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan
Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS)
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Record of Decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of
Decision (ROD) to adopt a Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (CLUP) for its
Hanford Site in Washington. The purpose of this land-use plan and its
implementing policies
[[Page 61616]]
and procedures is to facilitate decision-making about the site's uses
and facilities over at least the next 50 years. The Department's
decision seeks to balance the Department's continuing land-use needs at
Hanford with its desire to preserve important ecological and cultural
values of the site and allow for economic development in the area. This
land-use plan consists of several key elements which are included in
the Department's Preferred Alternative in the Final Hanford
Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS).
These elements are a land-use map that addresses the Hanford Site as
five geographic areas--the Wahluke Slope, the Columbia River Corridor,
the Central Plateau, All Other Areas of the Site, and the Fitzner-
Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve--and depicts the planned
future uses for each area; a set of nine land-use designations that
define the permissible uses for each area of the site; and the planning
and implementing policies and procedures that will govern the review
and approval of future land uses. Together these four elements create
the Hanford CLUP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the Hanford
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS) or
to receive a copy of the HCP EIS or other information related to this
ROD, contact: Thomas W. Ferns, HCP EIS Document Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550, MSIN
HO-12, Richland, Washington 99352. You may call (509) 372-0649 or send
e-mail to thomas__w__ferns@rl.gov or a fax to (509) 376-4360. The HCP
EIS is available electronically on the DOE NEPA Web (http://tis-
nt.eh.doe/nepa/) under DOE NEPA Analyses, at http://nepa.eh.doe.gov/
eis/eis0222.html.
For information on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of
NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, (202) 586-4600, or
leave a message at (800) 472-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Purpose and Need for Agency Action
DOE has assigned elements of each of its four principal missions
(National Security, Energy Resources, Environmental Quality, and
Science) to the Hanford Site, and has established and maintains several
capabilities to support these missions. These Hanford Site capabilities
also support applications for other federal agencies and organizations
in accordance with national priorities and policies. Today, the Hanford
Site has diverse site-specific missions associated with environmental
restoration, waste management, and science and technology. These
missions have competing land-use needs and management values, and
governments and stakeholders within the region have an interest in the
management of Hanford resources over the long term. DOE needs to assess
the relative qualities of Hanford's resources, compare the priorities
and needs of Hanford's missions, and reach decisions such as the
identification and disposal of excess lands. DOE Order 430.1a, Life
Cycle Asset Management, and Public Law 104-201, Section 3153, National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, require a land-use plan
for the Hanford Site. The Final HCP EIS provides the analysis needed to
adopt a land-use plan. Once adopted, the land-use plan will provide a
framework for making land-use and facility-use decisions.
This ROD, after considering extensive public comment and
cooperating agency input, adopts a land-use map, land-use designations,
planning policies, and implementing procedures that the Department
believes will best meet its mission needs for at least the next 50
years. This ROD begins the implementation of the CLUP, as described in
the HCP EIS. There are four elements to the CLUP implementation:
(1) The DOE Preferred Alternative land-use map, that depicts land
uses for areas of the Hanford site, including the Wahluke Slope,
Columbia River Corridor, Central Plateau, Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands
Ecology (ALE) Reserve, and All Other Areas of the Hanford Site. The
Preferred Alternative land-use map reflects the expansion of the
proposed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wildlife refuge for
preservation as well as for Hanford Site buffer zone uses. This
expanded wildlife refuge includes the entire geographic areas of the
Wahluke Slope, the Columbia River islands not in Benton County, the
Riverlands, the McGee Ranch, and the ALE Reserve. The Preferred
Alternative land-use map also allows full implementation of DOE mission
elements assigned to Hanford, and will allow expansion of operations at
Hanford as the need arises.
(2) The land-use designations that define the purpose, intent, and
principal use(s) of each of the land-use designations on the CLUP
Preferred Alternative land-use map.
(3) The land-use policies that direct land-use actions. The
policies will help to ensure that individual land use actions
collectively advance the CLUP Preferred Alternative map, goals, and
objectives over time.
(4) The land-use plan implementing procedures that include
administrative procedures for reviewing and approving use requests; a
Site Planning Advisory Board (SPAB) consisting of representatives of
DOE, cooperating agencies of the HCP EIS, and affected Tribal
governments; and actions to be undertaken under the land-use plan to
align and coordinate Hanford site management plans.
II. Hanford Site Features
Key features of the Hanford Site that form the basis for the five
geographic areas used in the environmental impacts analysis and land-
use plan are summarized as follows.
<bullet> The Wahluke Slope. The area north of the Columbia River
encompasses approximately 357 km<SUP>2</SUP> (138 mi<SUP>2</SUP>) of
relatively undisturbed or recovering shrub-steppe habitat. The Wahluke
Slope is managed for DOE by both state and federal agencies under
permit agreements. The western portion of the Wahluke Slope is managed
by the USFWS as the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. The USFWS
has recently taken over management of most of the remainder of the
Wahluke Slope from the WDFW. Current permit conditions require the
Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to be closed to the public as
part of a security zone for the N Reactor (now shut down), and as a
buffer zone for the current K Basins spent nuclear fuel (SNF) removal
project. The area continues to serve as a buffer and security area for
several nuclear materials management and cleanup activities. Various
levels of public access for recreational activities are allowed on the
Wahluke Slope.
<bullet> Columbia River Corridor. The 111.6 km\2\ (43.1 mi\2\)
Columbia River Corridor, which is adjacent to and runs through the
Hanford Site, is used by the public and Tribes for boating, water
skiing, fishing, and hunting of upland game birds and migratory
waterfowl. While public access is allowed on certain islands, access to
other islands and adjacent areas is restricted because of unique
habitats and the presence of cultural resources.
Along the southern shoreline of the Columbia River Corridor, the
100 Areas occupy approximately 68 km\2\ (26 mi\2\). The facilities in
the 100 Areas include nine retired plutonium production
[[Page 61617]]
reactors, associated facilities, and structures. Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) closure permit restrictions have been
placed in the vicinity of the 100-H Area, which is associated with the
183-H Solar Evaporation Basins. Additional deed restrictions or
covenants for activities that potentially extend more than 4.6 m (15
ft) below ground surface are expected for the Comprehensive
Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and Liabilities Act of 1980
(CERCLA) remediation areas.
The area within the Columbia River Corridor known as the Hanford
Reach includes an average of a 402 m (1,320 ft) strip of public land on
either side of the Columbia River. The Hanford Reach is the last free
flowing, nontidal segment of the Columbia River in the United States.
<bullet> Central Plateau. The 200 East and 200 West Areas occupy
approximately 51 km \2\ (19.5 mi \2\) in the Central Plateau of the
Hanford Site. Facilities located in the Central Plateau were built to
process irradiated fuel from the plutonium production reactors. The
operation of these facilities resulted in the treatment, storage,
disposal, and unplanned release of radioactive and nonradioactive
waste. The Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility for CERCLA
cleanup wastes is located in the Central Plateau. Other federal
agencies, such as the Department of the Navy, also use Hanford nuclear
waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. Deed restrictions or
covenants for activities that potentially may extend more than 4.6 m
(15 ft) below ground surface are expected for CERCLA remediation areas
in the Central Plateau.
In 1964, a 410 ha (1,000 ac) tract was leased to the State of
Washington to promote nuclear-related development. A commercial low-
level radioactive waste disposal facility, run by U. S. Ecology, Inc.,
currently operates on 41 ha (100 ac) of the recently reduced leasehold.
<bullet> All Other Areas. All Other Areas comprise 689 km \2\ (266
mi \2\) and contain the 300, 400, and 1100 Areas, Energy Northwest
facilities, and a section of land currently owned by the State of
Washington for the disposal of hazardous substances.
The Hanford 1100 Area and the Hanford railroad southern connection
(from Horn Rapids Road to Columbia Center) have been transferred from
DOE ownership to Port of Benton ownership to support future economic
development. Although the 1100 Area is no longer under DOE control, it
is included in the HCP EIS to support the local governments with their
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EIS analyses of the Hanford sub-
area of Benton County under the State of Washington's Growth Management
Act.
The 300 Area is located just north of the City of Richland and
covers 1.5 km \2\ (0.6 mi \2\). The 300 Area is the site of former
reactor fuel fabrication facilities and is also the principal location
of nuclear research and development facilities serving the Hanford
Site.
The 400 Area, located southeast of the 200 East Area, is the site
of the Fast Flux Test Facility, which is being evaluated in an ongoing
EIS. The proposed mission for the 400 Area is reactor operations and
irradiation services with attendant support functions including fuel
and target fabrication, target processing, and interim storage.
Energy Northwest currently operates Washington Nuclear Plant Number
2 on leased land approximately 10 km (6 mi) north of the 1100 Area.
Originally leased for the operation of three nuclear power plants,
construction of two of the plants was halted and now other industrial
options are being considered.
In 1980, the Federal government sold a 259 ha (640 ac) section of
land south of the 200 East Area, near State Route 240, to the State of
Washington for the purpose of nonradioactive hazardous waste disposal.
To date, this parcel has not been used for hazardous waste disposal,
and it is undeveloped and uncontaminated (although the underlying
groundwater is contaminated). The deed requires that if it is used for
any purpose other than hazardous waste disposal, ownership would revert
to the Federal government.
Additional activities in the All Other Areas include: A specialized
training center. The Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency
Response (HAMMER) Volpentest Training and Education Center is used to
train hazardous materials response personnel. It is located north of
the 1100 Area and covers about 32 ha (80 ac). A regional law-
enforcement training facility. The Hanford Patrol Training Academy
provides a range of training environments including classrooms, library
resources, practice shoot houses, an exercise gym, and an obstacle
course. A national research facility. The Laser Interferometer
Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO), built by the National Science
Foundation for scientific research, is designed to detect cosmic
gravitational waves. The facility consists of two optical tube arms,
each 4 km (2.5 mi) long, arrayed in an ``L'' shape, and is extremely
sensitive to vibrations.
<bullet> Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE
Reserve). The ALE Reserve encompasses 308.7 km \2\ (119.2 mi \2\) in
the southwestern portion of the Hanford Site and is managed as a
habitat and wildlife reserve and environmental research center.
The mineral rights to a 518 ha (1,280 ac) area on the ALE Reserve
are owned by a private company. The company has been free to enter this
area and explore for oil or gas since 1977.
Public access to the ALE Reserve has been restricted since 1943,
resulting in high quality shrub-steppe habitat.
III. The Hanford Site and Its Missions:
The Hanford Site occupies 1,517 square kilometers (km \2\) (586
square miles [mi \2\]) in southeastern Washington. DOE has assigned
elements of each of its four principal missions (National Security,
Energy Resources, Environmental Quality, and Science) to the Hanford
Site, and has established and maintains several capabilities to support
these missions. These Hanford Site capabilities also support
applications for other federal agencies and organizations in accordance
with national priorities and policies. Today, the Hanford Site has
diverse site-specific missions associated with environmental
restoration, waste management, and science and technology. These
missions have resulted in the growing need for a comprehensive, long-
term approach to planning and development for the Site.
To meet this need, the HCP EIS analyzes the potential environmental
impacts of alternative land-use plans for the Hanford Site and
considers the land-use implications of ongoing and proposed activities.
DOE is currently engaged in other NEPA reviews that include the Hanford
Site as an alternative location for the proposals under consideration
such as possible new missions for the Fast Flux Test Facility. These
other NEPA reviews include programmatic and project-specific
environmental impact statements and are listed in the Final HCP EIS in
Table 1-1, NEPA Reviews Affecting the Hanford Site, along with their
potential land-use impacts. Since these other environmental impact
statements identify potential new or expanded activities for the
Hanford Site, DOE needs to retain infrastructure at the Hanford Site
pending completion of these reviews and corresponding decision
documents. DOE expects that, in the future, new programs, projects, and
facilities will be proposed for the Hanford Site, or will consider the
Hanford Site as an alternative site for such facilities or activities.
These new proposals will be analyzed in programmatic or project-
specific NEPA reviews. Subsequent DOE decisions on these proposals may
amend this ROD.
[[Page 61618]]
IV. 1996 Draft EIS Emphasized Remediation
After a public scoping process, DOE issued the Draft Hanford
Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Land-
Use Plan (HRA-EIS) (DOE/EIS-0222D) for public review and comment on
September 13, 1996. The public comment period for the Draft HRA-EIS
initially ran through November 1, 1996, and was extended through
December 10, 1996. During the public comment period, DOE held
informational meetings and public hearings to receive comments in
Richland, Seattle, and Mattawa, Washington; and in Portland and Hood
River, Oregon.
V. Revised Draft Emphasized Land-Use Planning
As a result of public comments received, and changes in DOE's NEPA/
CERCLA/RCRA integration policies, DOE focused the document on land-use
planning. Pursuant to DOE's NEPA Regulations at 10 CFR Part 1021, DOE
invited local and Federal governments to participate as cooperating
agencies, and the affected Tribal governments to participate in
preparing the EIS. Because DOE, the cooperating agencies and Tribal
governments significantly revised the Draft HRA-EIS and its
alternatives, DOE issued a Revised Draft HRA-EIS for public comment.
Since land use was within the scope of the original Draft HRA-EIS, no
further scoping was held.
VI. Public Review of the Revised Draft HRA-EIS
On April 23, 1999, the Department of Energy published a Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register (64 FR 19983) for the Revised
Draft HRA-EIS, starting a 45-day public comment period that ended on
June 7, 1999. Public hearings on the Revised Draft HRA-EIS were held on
May 18, 1999, in Portland, OR; May 20, 1999, in Richland, WA; June 2,
1999, in Mattawa, WA; and June 3, 1999, in Spokane, WA. DOE considered
all comments on the Revised Draft HRA-EIS in preparing the Final EIS.
DOE received more than 400 letters, postcards, questionnaires, surveys
and electronic mail messages. In addition, more than 200 pages of
transcripts were generated during the four public hearings.
In the Revised Draft EIS, DOE requested public comment on a
proposal to change the name of the document to more accurately reflect
its focus on land-use planning. Public comments supported this proposal
and DOE changed the name of the September 1999 final document to the
Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact
Statement (HCP EIS).
VII. Cooperating Agencies and Consulting Governments
Nine cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal governments
participated in preparing the HCP EIS: the U.S. Department of the
Interior (Bureau of Land Management [BLM], Bureau of Reclamation, and
the USFWS); the City of Richland, Washington; Benton, Franklin, and
Grant Counties; the Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management; and the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). Each of the EIS action
alternatives represents a land-use vision of one or more of the
cooperating and consulting agencies.
VIII. The Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered
The proposed action for the HCP EIS is to develop and implement a
comprehensive land-use plan (CLUP) for the Hanford Site. The elements
of the CLUP include a land-use map, land-use designations, land-use
policies, and a set of procedures for plan implementation. DOE and the
cooperating agencies and consulting governments analyzed six
alternative land-use maps, including the No-Action Alternative, the DOE
Preferred Alternative, and four other Alternatives, using the nine
land-use designations. The land-use designations and land-use plan
policies and implementation procedures described in Section IX do not
apply to the No-Action Alternative.
IX. Land-Use Designations
The land-use designations used in the evaluation process are as
follows:
<bullet> Industrial-Exclusive: An area suitable and desirable for
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous, dangerous, radioactive,
nonradioactive wastes, and related activities.
<bullet> Industrial: An area suitable and desirable for activities
such as reactor operations, rail, barge transport facilities, mining,
manufacturing, food processing, assembly, warehouse, distribution
operations and related activities.
<bullet> Agricultural: An area designated for the tilling of soil,
raising of crops and livestock, and horticulture for commercial
purposes along with all those activities normally and routinely
involved in horticulture, the production of crops and livestock, and
related activities.
<bullet> Research and Development: An area designated for
conducting basic or applied research that requires the use of a large-
scale or isolated facility or smaller scale time-limited research
conducted in the field or in facilities that consume limited resources.
This designation includes related activities.
<bullet> High-Intensity Recreation: An area allocated for high-
intensity, visitor-serving activities and facilities (commercial and
governmental), such as golf courses, recreational vehicle parks, boat
launching facilities, Tribal fishing facilities, destination resorts,
cultural centers, museums, and related activities and facilities.
<bullet> Low-Intensity Recreation: An area allocated for low-
intensity, visitor-serving activities and facilities, such as improved
recreational trails, primitive boat launching facilities, permitted
campgrounds, and related activities and facilities.
<bullet> Conservation (Mining and Grazing): An area reserved for
the management and protection of archeological, cultural, ecological,
and natural resources. Limited and managed mining (e.g., quarrying for
sand, gravel, basalt, and topsoil for governmental purposes only) and
grazing could occur as a special use (i.e., a permit would be required)
within appropriate areas. Limited public access would be consistent
with resource conservation. This designation includes related
activities.
<bullet> Conservation (Mining): An area reserved for the management
and protection of archeological, cultural, ecological, and natural
resources. Limited and managed mining (e.g., quarrying for sand,
gravel, basalt, and topsoil for governmental purposes only) could occur
as a special use (i.e., a permit would be required) within appropriate
areas. Limited public access would be consistent with resource
conservation. This designation includes related activities.
<bullet> Preservation: An area managed for the preservation of
archeological, cultural, ecological, and natural resources. No new
consumptive uses (i.e., mining or extraction of non-renewable
resources) would be allowed within this area. Limited public access
would be consistent with resource preservation and DOE's need to
provide a buffer zone. This designation includes related activities.
X. Alternatives Considered
The six alternative land-use maps analyzed in the HCP EIS include
the No-Action Alternative, DOE's Preferred
[[Page 61619]]
Alternative, and four other Alternatives that were developed by
cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal governments. The major
differences in environmental impacts among alternatives are potential
cultural, biological, and geological impacts due to consumptive land-
use practices; socioeconomic effects due to Hanford Site employment
changes; and human health risk impacts related to allowable land uses.
The six alternatives are:
<bullet> No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative
represents the current status of land use at the Hanford Site and no
change from current land management processes or intergovernmental
relationships with the cooperating agencies. Specific land-use
decisions for Hanford would continue to be made under the NEPA process,
based on the current Hanford Strategic Plan (Mission Plan) and on a
project-by-project basis, based on the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA)
remediation decision-making process.
<bullet> DOE's Preferred Alternative. DOE's Preferred Alternative
anticipates multiple uses of the Hanford Site, including future DOE
missions, non-DOE federal missions, and other public and private-sector
land uses. DOE's Preferred Alternative will do the following:
Consolidate waste management operations on 50.1 km \2\ (20 mi \2\) in
the Central Plateau of the site; allow industrial development in the
eastern and southern portions of the Hanford Site and allow an increase
in recreational access to the Columbia River; designate a portion of
the Hanford Site for preservation and a buffer zone by allowing for
expansion of the existing Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge
overlay to include all of the Wahluke Slope (North Slope) of the
Hanford Site (consistent with the Department of Interior's [DOI] 1994
Hanford Reach of the Columbia River Comprehensive River Conservation
Study and Final EIS, and 1996 Hanford Reach ROD); the Columbia River
islands not in Benton County; the Riverlands; the McGee Ranch; and the
ALE Reserve. It will also ensure that, where practicable, withdrawn
Bureau of Land Management lands are clean enough to support BLM's
multiple-use mandate.
<bullet> Alternative One (Natural Resources Trustee). The USFWS's
alternative emphasizes a Federal stewardship role for managing the
natural resources at Hanford. This alternative considers these
resources in a regional context, and would allow for expansion of the
existing Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to include all of the
Wahluke Slope (North Slope), all of the Columbia River Islands
including a 402 meter (quarter-mile) buffer on the Benton County side
of the river, the Riverlands, the McGee Ranch, and the ALE Reserve
(e.g., all of the Hanford lands north and east of the Columbia River
and west of State Highways 240 and 24, and the Hanford Reach study
area). Alternative One would conserve the Hanford Site shrub-steppe
ecosystem and protect the Hanford Reach.
<bullet> Alternative Two (Nez Perce Tribe, Department of
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management). The Nez Perce
alternative calls for preservation of natural and cultural resources
and traditional Tribal uses at the site. Future DOE missions would be
constrained to the Central Plateau, 300 Area, and 400 Area. Both this
alternative and Alternative Four reflect Tribal visions and views of
Tribal members' treaty rights and traditional Tribal uses of Hanford
lands. The Tribes and DOE have ``agreed to disagree'' on the
interpretation of treaty rights on Hanford lands in the interest of
moving the EIS process forward. Each party reserves the right to assert
its respective interpretation of treaty rights at Hanford.
<bullet> Alternative Three (Cities and Counties). This local
governments' alternative anticipates multiple uses and is based on the
individual planning efforts of local agencies and organizations under
the state's Growth Management Act including Benton County, Franklin
County, Grant County, and the City of Richland. Alternative Three
emphasizes the economic development potential of the Hanford Site.
Alternative Three would allow dryland (non-irrigated) agricultural and
grazing activities, and irrigated agriculture on the Hanford Site. The
land-use designations contained in Alternative Three were developed
consistent with local availability of infrastructure, nearness of urban
areas, soils capabilities, and current use patterns.
<bullet> Alternative Four (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation [CTUIR]). This CTUIR alternative calls for
preservation of natural resources and areas of religious importance to
the CTUIR as well as traditional Tribal uses at the Site. Both this
alternative and Alternative Two reflect Tribal visions and views of
Tribal members' treaty rights and traditional Tribal uses of Hanford
lands.
XI. Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations (40 CFR
1505.2) require a ROD to identify the ``environmentally preferable
alternative''--that is, the alternative that causes the least damage to
the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves,
and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. After
considering impacts to each resource area by alternative, DOE has
identified Alternative One as the Environmentally Preferable
Alternative. Alternative One represents a Federal stewardship role for
managing natural resources on the Hanford Site with the acknowledged
consumptive treaty-reserved rights from Article 3 of the Yakama and Nez
Perce Treaties, ``the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed
places in common with citizens of the Territory; and of erecting
temporary buildings for curing''; as well as the similar language from
Article 1 of the CTUIR Treaty, ``the exclusive right of taking fish in
the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby
secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and accustomed stations
in common with citizens of the United States, and of erecting suitable
buildings for curing the same.'' Alternative One does not, however,
include the tribal vision of consumptive non-fishing activities by
tribal members exercising their reserved treaty rights, implicit in
Alternatives Two and Four. Specifically, these asserted consumptive
rights are from Article 3 of the Yakama and Nez Perce Treaties,
``together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries,
and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land,''
as well as the similar language from Article 1 of the CTUIR treaty,
``the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and pasturing
their stock on unclaimed lands in common with citizens, is also secured
to them.''
XII. Environmental Impacts of the DOE Preferred Alternative
In making its decision, DOE balanced environmental impacts with
other factors, including meeting DOE mission needs and allowing
regional economic development. DOE analyzed the potential impacts that
might occur to land, water, air, ecological and biological resources,
human health, environmental justice, cultural resources, socioeconomic
values, infrastructure, and waste management for the six alternatives.
DOE considered the impacts that might occur from use of special nuclear
materials, facility accidents, and other materials associated with
Hanford Site operations. DOE considered the impacts of projects and
activities, the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources,
and the relationship between short-term
[[Page 61620]]
uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-
term productivity. The highest resource impacts, as with any other
alternative, will be to cultural, biological, and geological resources
from consumptive land-use practices. Under DOE's Preferred Alternative,
the following resources potentially would be affected: geologic, water,
biologic, cultural, visual, noise, and socioeconomic. Generally, the
environmental impacts from the preservation and conservation aspects of
this alternative would be environmentally beneficial. Any negative
environmental impacts would be more likely for biological, cultural,
and geological resources as a consequence of consumptive land uses. The
impacts of the DOE Preferred Alternative that we are adopting today are
discussed fully in Chapter 5 of the HCP EIS. Additionally, mitigation
of these impacts would occur through the resource management plans
identified in Chapter 6 of the HCP EIS. (See ``Mitigation Measures''
that follow.)
DOE also evaluated the environmental justice and human health
impacts of this alternative.
<bullet> Environmental Justice: DOE expects no environmental
justice impacts from the operation of the Hanford Site under the
Preferred Alternative (i.e., projected impacts from the Preferred
Alternative would not be disproportionately high and adverse for
minority or low-income populations in the area). As a general matter,
the human health effects from any of the alternatives is expected to be
small. DOE analyzed human health impacts from exposure through special
pathways, including ingestion of game animals, fish, native vegetation,
surface waters, sediments, and local produce; absorption of
contaminants in sediments through the skin; and inhalation of plant
materials. The special pathways have the potential to be important to
the environmental justice analysis because some of these pathways may
be more important or viable for the traditional or cultural practices
of minority populations in the area. In this case, however, these
special pathways would not be expected to result in disproportionately
high and adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations.
Increased access to the Columbia River would potentially increase
exposure. Minority or low-income populations may be more prone to adopt
a subsistence lifestyle, but the adoption of such a lifestyle would not
be expected to result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts.
Areas of cultural value to Tribal members would be protected, but
development would be allowed within the viewscapes of some of those
areas. Economic development of Hanford Site lands would not impose
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on low-income and minority
communities within the assessment area. Prohibiting agriculture on the
Wahluke Slope would not change the current socioeconomic condition.
<bullet> Human Health: Land uses under the Preferred Alternative,
like any other alternative, could indirectly affect human health. New
developments on the Hanford Site under the Preferred Alternative could
lead to an increase in occupational injuries and fatalities associated
with sand, gravel and basalt mining and industrial activities, and
increased recreational activities could increase the risk of injury
from recreational accidents. DOE's current monitoring program data do
not indicate that adverse health impacts would be associated with
consumption of fish and game.
The alternatives considered in the HCP EIS, including the Preferred
Alternative, were developed based on the assumption that human health
risks associated with contamination at the Hanford Site will continue
to be addressed through the RCRA and CERCLA processes. These processes
are expected to reduce human health risk to acceptable levels through
remedial actions and administrative controls, such as deed
restrictions, which are imposed by CERCLA RODs. DOE has also assumed
that the future land uses under the Preferred Alternative would not be
allowed until remediation has reduced human health risk to levels
acceptable for the intended land uses, or DOE has followed the process
described in Chapter 6 of the HCP EIS that would modify that land use
while maintaining institutional controls.
XIII. Mitigation Measures
Future uses of the Hanford Site will be subject to mitigation under
the CLUP policies and procedures or the NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integrated
processes. All proposals of land use potentially affecting resources
will be required to comply with the applicable resource-specific
requirements. The CLUP policies and procedures will provide resource
management plans to advise the project proponent on strategies to avoid
or minimize environmental impacts. Plan policies and procedures, as
conveyed by resource management plans and area management plans, will
be developed and integrated to support an overall mitigation strategy.
Mitigation for specific actions, such as sand, gravel and basalt
mining, would be controlled through the issuance of special use
permits. Mitigation efforts that may be required by DOE include,
avoidance of impacts, replacement of topsoil, soil stabilization
techniques to control wind erosion, and documentation of unique
features before mining. To reduce the impacts on water resources, the
following tactics can be employed: using silt fences around development
sites to contain soil erosion and minimize silt release near surface
water, requiring a demonstration of no adverse impact on groundwater
due to increased infiltration and transportation of vadose zone
contamination resulting from development, and minimizing the use of
groundwater so that water withdrawal will not alter groundwater flow
and influence existing contamination plumes.
All proposals of land use potentially affecting sensitive
biological resources are required to comply with applicable statutes,
such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Some mitigation efforts
that could reduce impacts to biological resources include minimizing
disturbance of wetlands and replacing disturbed wetlands through
purchase, construction, or restoration; reclamation of disturbed areas
using native vegetation; and scheduling activities to avoid critical
nesting, roosting, leking (i.e., mating), breeding, and fawning times.
Impacts to cultural resources of specific project proposals will be
evaluated through the resource management plan process, including
potential impacts on American Indian treaty rights and known
archaeological and historic sites. To reduce impacts to cultural
resources, DOE will continue to schedule activities to avoid conflicts
with American Indian traditional and religious uses, and will continue
to conduct consultations with the DOE Richland Operations Office
Cultural Resources Program Manager, the Washington State Historic
Preservation Office, affected Tribal governments, and Wanapum Band
representatives to identify additional mitigation measures or project
alternatives.
Potential mitigation for aesthetic resources include: site
reclamation, implementing dust control measures, covering loads when
hauling materials away from project sites, siting development or sand,
gravel and basalt mining activities in areas where these activities
least impact the viewshed from basalt outcrops or their talus slopes
such as Gable Butte and Gable Mountain, and minimizing noise impacts to
wildlife by restricting activities that generate noise.
[[Page 61621]]
XIV. Discussion of Comments on the Final Hanford Comprehensive
Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement
DOE made the Final HCP EIS publicly available and distributed
approximately 500 copies to Congressional members and Committees, the
States of Washington and Oregon, various American Indian Tribal
governments and organizations, local governments, other Federal
agencies, and interested organizations and individuals. DOE received
three comment letters on the Final HCP EIS from three sources: (1)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), (2) an individual
commenter, and (3) National Center for Environmental Health.
WDFW Comment: In a letter dated 10/25/99, the WDFW commended DOE
for designating the ALE Reserve, McGee Ranch/Riverland Site, and the
North Slope (Wahluke Slope) as Preservation consistent with national
wildlife refuge management, stating that ``With these actions, USDOE
will strengthen the integrity of Hanford's terrestrial ecosystem and
further the protection of important aquatic resources with the Hanford
Reach.'' WDFW also applauded DOE for designating both shorelines of the
Columbia River as Preservation, and for removing grazing from the
Preferred Alternative. WDFW stated that, ``These actions are consistent
with USDOE's stewardship role and policies on ecosystem management.''
WDFW was disappointed that the Final HCP EIS does not address
several concerns that WDFW had expressed earlier. It was ``generally
concerned about the fate of biological resources that occur within
central Hanford but outside the Preservation and Conservation
designation delineated in the Preferred Alternative specifically shrub-
steppe habitat, a priority habitat for WDFW, and attendant biological
resources in the subject areas remain vulnerable to development.
Further, it appears that the probable listing of Washington's sage
grouse population under the Endangered Species Act has not been
considered by USDOE. Even without a Federal ESA listing action, we view
the shrub-steppe habitats of the Hanford Site as invaluable elements in
the recovery of Washington's sage grouse.''
DOE Response: DOE believes that it is premature to consider the
potential specific impacts of a petitioned Endangered Species Act (ESA)
listing until the listing and associated conditions are issued.
However, it should be noted that the McGee Ranch, which WDFW considers
as habitat critical to the natural reestablishment of sage grouse
populations on ALE, is designated Preservation under the Preferred
Alternative. In addition, grazing, which has been identified as a
threat to sage grouse, has been deleted from the Preferred Alternative
as an allowable land use for this area. The wildlife agencies managing
the areas of the Hanford Site designated Preservation may decide to
attempt to reintroduce sage grouse within those areas.
WDFW Comment: ``Our largest area of concern lies in the southeast
corner of the site, where Industrial, and Research and Development
designations overlay Level II (shrub steppe) resources. The FEIS relies
on the Draft Hanford Site Biological Resource Management Plan (BRMaP)
and its sub-tier document the Draft Hanford Site Biological Resources
Mitigation Strategy Plan (BRMiS) to describe biological resources and
to make decisions about mitigation requirements. The current drafts of
BRMaP and BRMiS would require avoidance and minimization of impacts to
Level II resources but would not require compensatory mitigation for
unavoidable impacts. This single loophole puts more than 80,000 acres
of shrub steppe habitat at risk. The FEIS calls for revisions to the
two biological plans but there is no commitment to the outcome. We
request that the ROD include a commitment to use the full mitigation
hierarchy, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
wherever impacts to biological resources occur at Hanford.''
DOE Response: DOE will continue its policy to mitigate impacts in
areas disturbed by new activities, as appropriate. Specific commitments
and Mitigation Action Plans will be developed on a case-by-case basis
during project-specific NEPA reviews. For any specific new proposals,
DOE will consider in its decision making all appropriate types of
mitigation defined by CEQ.
WDFW Comment: WDFW maintains that ``it is inappropriate for USDOE
to invoke Irretrievable and Irreversible language to avoid the
responsibility to mitigate for impacts to shrub steppe and other
biological resources (See specific FEIS response RL318-44). Unavoidable
adverse impacts can be substantially reversed and habitat functions
restored through implementation of CEQ's mitigation hierarchy. There
are many disturbed areas and old fields within Conservation
designations where compensatory mitigation can be conducted. Especially
with the potential ESA listing of sage grouse, USDOE and other federal
agencies should exercise all practical means to contribute to the
protection and restoration of sage grouse habitat.''
DOE Response: Irretrievable and irreversible commitments of
resources could effect CERCLA natural resources damages assessment
liabilities, and such potential commitments are discussed in the HCP
EIS as required by NEPA regulations. To the extent that such
irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources are made in the
future as described in Chapter 6 of the HCP EIS, it does not mean that
DOE would not voluntarily mitigate potential injuries to natural
resources. This land-use plan ensures that the mitigations taken will
be coordinated and located in appropriate areas. For example,
mitigation could be conducted in areas designated for Conservation or
Preservation as allowed under the CLUP or the administering wildlife
agencies' management plans.
WDFW Comment: ``Our final concern also relates to potential shrub
steppe impacts, due to the lack of a thorough NEPA analysis of geologic
source sites. The current EIS process seemed to be the logical place
for such an analysis, but no biological surveys were included for any
of the source sites mentioned. We strongly endorse ``a coordinated NEPA
analysis to address the gravel quarries on a site-wide basis''
(specific FEIS response #445-21). We request that USDOE commit to this
analysis in the ROD, thereby honoring earlier commitments made in the
Tank Waste Remediation System Environmental Impact Statement and
addressing Hanford Natural Resource Trustee Council concerns expressed
by letter to Mr. Paul Dunigan, USDOE, dated August 13, 1999.''
DOE Response: In addition to the ALE soil and basalt quarry site
that was evaluated in Appendix D, the HCP EIS designates general areas
for consideration as potential sources of geological material
(Conservation [Mining]). DOE intends to honor the commitment in the
Tank Waste Remediation System EIS to perform a NEPA analysis addressing
gravel quarries.
Individual Commenter: ``Now that the Final Hanford CLUP-EIS
designates areas for industrial land use, I expect the numeric cleanup
levels to increase significantly in those areas designated for
`industrial use.' I disagree with USDOE's response to my comment
(Comment Response Document response number RL 154-08) that this `is a
TPA issue.'''
DOE Response: The CLUP is to provide guidance to all of Hanford's
land-use activities, including the clean-
[[Page 61622]]
up mission. The CLUP may be used by the regulators to help establish
clean-up goals during the CERCLA/RCRA process. However, land-use is
only one of several criteria the TPA regulators may use to determine
clean-up levels. The TPA governs selection of specific remedies,
including numeric clean-up levels for those remedies. The TPA has its
own public involvement process during which these clean-up levels would
be subject to public comment. There is also a regulatory link between
the state's Model Toxics Control Act and the state's Growth Management
Act (as represented by Alternative Three) that could also affect clean-
up levels. DOE will forward this comment letter to the appropriate TPA
contacts at EPA and Ecology.
Individual Commenter: ``It is requested that the Final Hanford
CLUP-EIS ROD include language which identifies the USDOE the primary
environmental steward for all Hanford Site areas regardless of land-use
designation. In addition, it is requested that the Final Hanford CLUP-
EIS ROD identify a commitment to ensure applicable contamination
pathways (groundwater and surface water) will be taken into
consideration for establishment of all future cleanup levels.''
DOE Response: Environmental stewardship responsibilities are
clearly assigned by Federal law and Executive Order to DOE for lands
under its executive control. Consideration of applicable contamination
pathways would occur under the TPA process.
Individual Commenter: ``My comment (number 15 of my May 27, 1999
letter numbered RL 154-06 by the Comment Response Document) regarding
disclosure of remaining soil contamination during the conveyance of
ownership was not addressed.''
DOE Response: Transfer of federal lands where hazardous substances
have been used is controlled by section 120(h) of CERCLA where a notice
of the type and quantity of hazardous substances that have been on the
property is required before transfer. Additionally, for economic
development transfers, please refer to page 1-42 of the Final HCP EIS,
Table 1-4, ``Regulations Affecting Land Transfer'' (under Approvals),
which states: ``Section 3154 of the Hall Amendment of the Defense
Authorization Act of 1994 requires Secretary approval or designee plus
Administrator of EPA for NPL Site or appropriate State official''
before the land can be transferred.
National Center for Environmental Health Comment: The National
Center for Environmental Health Comment thanked DOE for the opportunity
to review and comment on the FEIS and requested a copy of any future
environmental impact statements which may indicate potential public
health impacts that are developed under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
DOE'S Decision
DOE's decision is to adopt the DOE Preferred Alternative land-use
map as shown in the HCP EIS and to implement the DOE Preferred
Alternative using the policies and procedures described in Chapter 6 of
the HCP EIS. DOE is selecting the Preferred Alternative over the other
alternatives, including the Environmentally Preferable Alternative
(Alternative One) because it offers the best balance between DOE's
mission needs, including economic development, and the need to protect
environmental resources. In response to comments received during the
public review of the Revised Draft EIS, DOE modified its Preferred
Alternative in the Final EIS, bringing it closer to the Environmentally
Preferable Alternative by increasing natural resource protection while
still providing for anticipated DOE mission needs. These modifications
include changing all Conservation (Mining and Grazing) designations to
Conservation (Mining) and extending the national wildlife refuge
designation (from the Environmentally Preferable Alternative,
Alternative One) to include the entire geographic areas of the Wahluke
Slope, the Columbia River islands not in Benton County, the Riverlands,
the McGee Ranch, and the ALE Reserve. Future individual project land-
use requirements would be irreversible and irretrievable committed
through appropriate NEPA or, NEPA, CERCLA, or RCRA integrated processes
as described in Chapter 6 of the HCP EIS. DOE's decision is detailed by
geographic area as follows:
The Wahluke Slope
The Wahluke Slope is currently managed under a 1971 permit by both
state and Federal agencies for DOE. DOE will continue a permit
arrangement for management of the Wahluke Slope. The Wahluke Slope has
been administered for wildlife and recreation as the Saddle Mountain
National Wildlife Refuge and the Wahluke Wildlife State Recreation Area
under permits granted by DOE to the USFWS and WDFW, respectively.
Section 2 of the 1971 permit allows the USFWS and WDFW to adjust their
respective management responsibilities and boundaries on the Wahluke
Slope as long as they notify the Department within thirty days of such
adjustment. In accordance with that provision, in April 1999, the WDFW
and the USFWS notified DOE of their intent to modify their management
responsibilities on the Wahluke Slope, leaving only a small portion
(about 324 ha [800 ac]) northwest of the Vernita Bridge under WDFW
management. In August 1999, USFWS notified DOE that it had taken over
management of the entire Wahluke Slope except for those portions
retained by the WDFW northwest of the Vernita Bridge. The USFWS
informed DOE that it intends to allow essentially the same uses
permitted by the State of Washington under the WDFW's management of the
Wahluke Slope. Therefore, adjusting the management responsibility for
the Wahluke Slope involved only a change in the agency managing the
property and did not involve any change in the management activities
for the Wahluke Slope.
DOE's Preferred Alternative will allow expansion of the existing
Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge as an overlay wildlife refuge
within the Hanford buffer zone to include all of the Wahluke Slope,
consolidating management of the Wahluke Slope under the USFWS. An
overlay wildlife refuge is one where the land belongs to one or more
Federal or state agencies, but is managed by the USFWS. Management of
the Wahluke Slope by the USFWS as an overlay wildlife refuge is
consistent with the 1996 DOI Hanford Reach EIS ROD. That ROD
recommended that the Wahluke Slope be designated a wildlife refuge and
the Hanford Reach a Wild and Scenic River, and that the wildlife refuge
be managed by the USFWS.
The entire Wahluke Slope will be designated Preservation, with the
exceptions near the Columbia River as discussed in the Columbia River
Corridor section that follows. The major reason for designating this
area as Preservation is to provide protection for sensitive areas or
species of concern (e.g., wetlands, sand dunes, steep slopes, or the
White Bluffs) from impacts associated with intensive land-disturbing
activities.
A Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Wahluke Slope will be
developed by USFWS in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. This Act provides significant guidance
for management and public use of refuges allowing for wildlife-
dependent recreation uses such as hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. The USFWS will consult
[[Page 61623]]
with DOE during the development of this plan to ensure necessary and
appropriate buffer zones for ongoing and potential future missions at
the Hanford Site. Pursuant to its role as the underlying land owner,
and under the terms of the use permit granted to the USFWS, DOE
reserves the right to approve or disapprove this plan.
The Columbia River Corridor
The Columbia River Corridor has historically contained reactors and
associated buildings to support Hanford's former defense production and
energy research missions. Nevertheless, remediation planning documents,
public statements of advisory groups, and such planning documents as
the Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford
Site (DOE-EIS-0119, December 1991) have resulted in determinations that
remediation and restoration of the Columbia River Corridor will return
the corridor to an undeveloped, natural condition over a 75-year
period. Restrictions on certain activities may continue to be necessary
to prevent the mobilization of contaminants, the most likely example of
such restrictions being on activities that discharge water to the soil
or excavate below 4.6 m (15 ft). Although the Surplus Reactor EIS ROD
calls for the reactor buildings to be demolished and the reactor blocks
to be moved to the Central Plateau, this action might not take place
until 2068 or until a new Tri-Party Agreement milestone is negotiated.
As a result, the reactor buildings could remain in the Columbia River
Corridor and be considered a pre-existing nonconforming land use into
the 50-year-plus planning period addressed by the HCP EIS. The reactor
hazards drive DOE to retain an appropriate buffer zone for eventual
remediation activities.
The Columbia River Corridor will include High-Intensity Recreation,
Low-Intensity Recreation, Conservation (Mining), and Preservation land-
use designations. The river islands and a quarter-mile buffer zone will
be designated as Preservation to protect cultural and ecological
resources. Those islands not in Benton County will be designated
Preservation and made available for inclusion in the overlay wildlife
refuge. Those islands within Benton County will be designated
Preservation, but will not be included in the proposed overlay wildlife
refuge at this time. Four sites, away from existing contamination, will
be designated High-Intensity Recreation to support visitor-serving
activities and facilities development. DOE will allow the B Reactor to
be converted into a museum and the surrounding area will be made
available for museum-support facilities. The High-Intensity Recreation
area near Vernita Bridge (where the current Washington State rest stop
is located) will be expanded across State Highway 240 and to the south
to include a boat ramp and other visitor-serving facilities. Two areas
on the Wahluke Slope will be designated as High-Intensity Recreation
for potential exclusive Tribal fishing villages. Six areas will be
designated for Low-Intensity Recreation. The area west of the B Reactor
will be used as a corridor between the High-Intensity Recreation areas
associated with the B Reactor and the Vernita Bridge rest stop and boat
ramp. A second area near the D/DR Reactors site will be used for
visitor services along a proposed recreational trail as conceptualized
on Alternative Three's map. The third and fourth areas, the White
Bluffs boat launch, and its counterpart on the Wahluke Slope, are
located between the H and F Reactors and will be used for primitive
boat launch facilities. A fifth area, near the old Hanford High School,
will accommodate visitor facilities and access to the former town site
and provide visitor services for hiking and biking trails that could be
developed along the Hanford Reach. A sixth site, just north of Energy
Northwest (formerly known as Washington Public Power Supply System),
will also provide visitor services for recreational trails (e.g.,
hiking and biking) along the Hanford Reach. On the Wahluke Slope side
of the Columbia River, the White Bluffs boat launch will remain managed
as is, with a Low-Intensity Recreation designation. A Low-Intensity
Recreation designation for the water surface of the Columbia River will
be consistent with current management practices and the wishes of many
stakeholders in the region. The remainder of land within the Columbia
River Corridor outside the quarter-mile buffer zone will be designated
for Conservation (Mining). This designation will allow for DOE-
permitted sand, gravel and basalt mining activities and support BLM's
mission of multiple use. Sand, gravel and basalt mining will be
permitted only in support of governmental missions or to further the
biological function of wetlands (e.g., conversion of a gravel pit to a
wetland by excavating to groundwater). A Conservation (Mining)
designation will allow DOE to provide protection to sensitive cultural
and biological resource areas, while allowing access to geologic
resources. A Preservation land-use designation for the Columbia River
islands is consistent with the DOI's Hanford Reach EIS ROD and will
provide additional protection to sensitive cultural areas, wetlands,
flood plains, three federally listed stocks of anadromous salmon and
steelhead, and bald eagles from impacts associated with intensive land-
disturbing activities. Remediation activities will continue in the 100
Areas (i.e., 100-B/C, 100-KE, 100-KW, 100-N, 100-D, 100-DR, 100-H, and
100-F), and will be considered a pre-existing, nonconforming land use
in the Preservation land-use designation.
The Central Plateau
The Central Plateau (200 Areas) geographic area will be designated
Industrial-Exclusive. An Industrial-Exclusive land-use designation will
allow for continued Waste Management operations within the Central
Plateau geographic area consistent with past NEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA
commitments that have established numerous waste management treatment,
storage and disposal facilities such as, low-level waste burial
grounds, hazardous wastes burial grounds, transuranic treatment and
storage facilities, liquid wastes treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, transuranic separation facilities, isotopic separation
facilities, vitrification facilities, etc. This designation will also
allow expansion of existing facilities or development of new compatible
facilities. Designating the Central Plateau as Industrial-Exclusive
will be consistent with the Hanford Future Site Working Group's 1992
recommendations, current DOE management practice, other governments'
recommendations, and many public stakeholder values throughout the
region.
All Other Areas
Within the All Other Areas geographic area, the Preferred
Alternative will include Industrial, Research and Development, High-
Intensity Recreation, Low-Intensity Recreation, Conservation, and
Preservation land-use designations. The majority of the All Other Areas
will be designated Conservation (Mining) to support a possible BLM
mission of multiple use and sand, gravel and basalt mining for DOE and
other governmental purposes such as facility aggregate, road aggregate,
remediation backfill, remediation cover materials, etc.
Several areas that will be designated as Conservation (Mining) will
be unable to fulfill the designated land use, such as:
<bullet> A Notice of Deed Restriction has been placed in those
areas where vadose zone contamination remained in-place,
[[Page 61624]]
according to the CERCLA ROD or RCRA Closure Permit (e.g., the Horn
Rapids Landfill asbestos trench, Central Waste Complex asbestos trench,
183-H Solar Basins, etc.), foreclosing the sand, gravel and basalt
mining option. New areas may be restricted as new CERCLA RODs or RCRA
Closure Permits are completed.
Other land-use designations will further define how the All Other
Areas will be managed. These designations and the areas affected are as
follows:
<bullet> Two distinct areas, one located east of the 200 Areas
(i.e., May Junction) and the other located north of Richland, will be
designated for Industrial use to support new DOE missions or economic
development. This designation will provide additional industrial
development and/or expansion area for current facilities.
<bullet> An area west of State Highway 10 and east of State Highway
240 will be designated for Research and Development (R&D) to support
economic diversification and DOE's Energy Research mission. This area
will allow for the development of R&D facilities, such as LIGO, which
could require substantial buffer zones for operation. In addition, R&D
facilities not requiring large areas for operation will also be located
within this area.
<bullet> A small area at the junction of State Highway 10 and State
Highway 240 will be designated High Intensity Recreation to allow for
visitor serving facilities at the gateway to the Hanford Reach, ALE,
Horn Rapids Park and other recreational areas.
<bullet> Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, the area west of State
Highway 240 from the Columbia River across Umtanum Ridge to the ALE
Reserve, and the active sand dunes areas will be designated for
Preservation, which will provide additional protection of these
sensitive areas. The extant railroad grade across the Riverlands area
will be considered an active permitted infrastructure to clarify its
status with respect to policy section 6.3.5. Utility and Transportation
Corridors in the Final HCP EIS.
The Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)
All of the ALE Reserve will be included in the proposed overlay
wildlife refuge. Nearly all of the ALE Reserve geographic area will be
designated as Preservation. This designation is consistent with current
management practices of the Rattlesnake Hills Research Natural Area and
the USFWS permit. A portion of the ALE Reserve will be managed as
Conservation (Mining) during the remediation of the Hanford Site. This
basalt and soil mining area was identified to DOE by several parties as
an alternative minerals materials location during discussions with the
cooperating agencies and after public comment. The ALE site was
identified as a suitable area in Appendix D of the HCP EIS that could
fulfill DOE's requirement for remediation materials while preserving a
wildlife corridor through the McGee Ranch area where suitable soils had
been identified, while concurrently preserving basalt outcrops where
both biological and cultural resources were at risk.
Basis for the Decision
DOE has considered the environmental and other relevant concerns
presented by cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal governments,
organizations, officials, and individuals on the proposed action to
establish a CLUP for the Hanford Site.
DOE has decided to implement the DOE Preferred Alternative land-use
map that is shown in Figure 3-3 of the Final HCP EIS, along with the
land-use designations and CLUP policies and implementing procedures
that are described in Chapter 6 of the Final HCP EIS. DOE's selection
and implementation of the Preferred Alternative allows DOE to most
effectively balance the elements of each of its four principal missions
(National Security, Energy Resources, Environmental Quality, and
Science) that have been assigned by DOE to the Hanford Site, while
considering the diverse interests of cooperating agencies, consulting
Tribal governments, organizations, officials, and individuals in
Hanford Site resources. From DOE's perspective, the Preferred
Alternative balances DOE's cleanup mission, economic development
mission, and natural resources trustee mission to a greater extent than
do any of the other Alternatives considered.
Designation of the Wahluke Slope and the Columbia River Corridor
buffer zone and river islands for Preservation, and the expansion of
the wildlife refuge, are consistent with the DOI ROD for the Hanford
Reach EIS, allowing DOE to meet its natural resource trustee mission
and safety and buffer zone needs, while protecting cultural resources,
sensitive areas and species of concern, and providing for increased
High-Intensity and Low-Intensity Recreation in the Columbia River
Corridor. The designating of the major portion of the ALE Reserve for
Preservation and allowing the incorporation of the ALE Reserve in the
proposed wildlife refuge is consistent with current management
practices and allows DOE to protect biological and cultural resources.
The DOE Preferred Alternative provides for a wildlife corridor through
the McGee Ranch, while also allowing DOE to obtain geologic resources
at ALE for use in site remediation activities. Designation of the major
portion of these areas of the Hanford Site for Preservation allows DOE
to more effectively protect the biological, cultural, and aesthetic
resources in these areas than would designating the major portion of
these areas for Agriculture, Conservation (Mining), Conservation
(Mining and Grazing) or Low-Intensity or High-Intensity Recreation, as
in Alternative Three. Pursuant to its role as underlying land owner,
and under the terms of the use permits granted to the USFWS, DOE
reserves the right to approve or disapprove all USFWS management plans
for these areas.
The designation of the Central Plateau for Industrial Exclusive use
is consistent with its current management and operation and allows DOE
to continue Waste Management operations in this area of the site and to
expand existing facilities or develop new facilities to meet future
mission needs. The designation of the All Other Areas of the Hanford
Site to include Industrial, Research and Development, High-Intensity
Recreation, Low-Intensity Recreation, and Conservation (Mining) is
consistent with a possible BLM multiple-use mission; it lets DOE meet
current and future Science missions while allowing economic development
in the eastern and southern portions of the site, and recreational
access to the Columbia River, and it assures protection of sensitive
areas including Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, and active sand dune
areas.
The No-Action Alternative fails to implement regional planning with
the cooperating agencies and fails to provide DOE with a systematic
process to ensure that DOE lands are put to their highest and best use.
DOE did not select Alternative One, which is the environmentally
preferable alternative, primarily because DOE considers the amount of
area that would be designated for Low-and High-Intensity Recreation,
Conservation (Mining) and Industrial and Research and Development land
use under Alternative One to be too limited to allow DOE to effectively
meet its current Hanford Science and Technology mission or economic
development mission. Furthermore, the DOE Preferred Alternative
reserves space and infrastructure to support potential National
Security and Energy Resources missions. The shoreline and islands of
[[Page 61625]]
Benton County that are included in Alternative One's proposed wildlife
refuge boundary are not included in the Preferred Alternative because
they are still subject to planned remediation activities and are not
yet appropriate to be included in a national wildlife refuge.
DOE selected the Preferred Alternative over Alternative Two
primarily because DOE considers the amount of area that would be
designated for Low-Intensity Recreation, High-Intensity Recreation,
Industrial, and Research and Development land use under Alternative Two
to be too limited to allow DOE to effectively meet its current Hanford
Science and Technology mission or economic development mission. In
Alternative Two, Conservation (Mining) is absent as a land use which
would restrict DOE from using existing site sand, gravel and basalt
resources needed for site activities such as remediation, road
building, and building foundations. Furthermore, the DOE Preferred
Alternative reserves space and infrastructure to support potential
National Security and Energy Resources missions. One of the implicit
consumptive uses associated with the Alternative Two's reserved treaty
rights (e.g., grazing) conflicted with a strongly expressed stakeholder
value not to allow grazing on the Hanford Site.
Alternative Three provides DOE with appropriate Industrial,
Research and Development, and Industrial Exclusive areas to effectively
meet its current Hanford Science and Technology mission or economic
development mission. Furthermore, Alternative Three reserves space and
infrastructure appropriate to support potential DOE National Security
and Energy Resources missions. However, Alternative Three does not
adequately address DOE's resource trustee mission. The DOE Preferred
Alternative designates the major portion of the Hanford Site for
Preservation, allowing DOE to more effectively protect the biological,
cultural, and aesthetic resources than would be possible under the
Agriculture, Conservation (Mining), Conservation (Mining and Grazing),
Low-Intensity or High-Intensity Recreation designations presented in
Alternative Three.
Alternative Four provides less area for Low-Intensity Recreation,
High-Intensity Recreation, Industrial, Research and Development, and
Conservation (Mining) than does the Preferred Alternative. The area
reserved for Conservation (Mining) is appropriate for gravel resources,
but not for fine soils or basalt. DOE selected the Preferred
Alternative over Alternative Four primarily because DOE considers the
amount of area that would be designated for Low-Intensity Recreation,
High-Intensity Recreation, Industrial, and Research and Development
land use under Alternative Two to be too limited to allow DOE to
effectively meet its current Hanford Science and Technology mission or
economic development mission. Additionally the DOE Preferred
Alternative reserves space and infrastructure to support potential
National Security and Energy Resources missions. One of the implicit
consumptive uses associated with the Alternative Four's reserved treaty
rights (e.g., grazing) conflicted with a strongly expressed stakeholder
value to not allow grazing.
Conclusion
DOE has considered the environmental and relevant concerns
presented by the cooperating agencies and tribal governments,
organizations, officials, and individuals on the proposed action to
establish a CLUP for the Hanford Site. DOE has decided to implement the
DOE Preferred Alternative map with stated land-use designations and
implementing policies and procedures as presented in Chapter 6 of the
HCP EIS.
Dated: November 2, 1999.
Carolyn L. Huntoon,
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of
Energy.
[FR Doc. 99-29325 Filed 11-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P