Record of Decision: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS)

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 [email protected] 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.

The Wahluke Slope. The area north of the Columbia River

encompasses approximately 357 km2 (138 mi2) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Industrial-Exclusive: An area suitable and desirable for

treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous, dangerous, radioactive,

nonradioactive wastes, and related activities.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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