Revised Draft Executive Summary

1 Cover Sheet 2

3

4 Lead Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

5

6 Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management,

7 Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Benton, Franklin, and Grant

8 counties; and the City of Richland 

9

10 Consulting Tribal Governments: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Environmental Restoration

11 and Waste Management and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

12

13 Title: Revised Draft Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement and

14 Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (HRA-EIS), Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

15

16 Contacts: For further information on this EIS call or contact:

17

18 Thomas W. Ferns, HRA-EIS Document Manager

19 U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office

20 P.O. Box 550, MSIN HO-12

21 Richland, Washington 99352

22 (509) 372-0649 or thomas_w_ferns@rl.gov

23 Fax: (509) 376-4360

24

25 For general information on DOE’s National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process,

26 call 1-800-472-2756 to leave a message, or contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of

27 NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence

28 Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-4600.

29

30 Abstract: The DOE prepared this Revised Draft Hanford Remedial Action Environmental

31 Impact Statement and Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (HRA-EIS) to evaluate the potential

32 environmental impacts associated with implementing a comprehensive land-use plan for the

33 Hanford Site for at least the next 50 years. With the exception of the required No-Action

34 Alternative, each of the six alternatives presented represents a Tribal, Federal, state, or local

35 agency’s Preferred Alternative. Each alternative is presented separately. The DOE’s

36 Preferred Alternative anticipates multiple uses of the Hanford Site, including: consolidating

37 waste management operations in the Central Plateau, allowing industrial development in the

38 eastern and southern portions of the site, increasing recreational access to the Columbia

39 River, and expanding the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to include all of the

40 Wahluke Slope (managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

41

42 The Hanford Site occupies 1,517 square kilometers (km ) (586 square miles [mi ]) in 2 2

43 southeastern Washington. Today, the Hanford Site has diverse missions associated with

44 environmental restoration, waste management, and science and technology. These missions

45 have resulted in the growing need for a comprehensive, long-term approach to planning and

46 development for the Site. 

47

48 Public Comments: The Revised Draft HRA-EIS is available for review and comment on the

49 Internet at http://www.hanford.gov/eis/hraeis/hraeis.htm. Written comments on the Revised

50 Draft HRA-EIS will be accepted from April 23 to June 7, 1999, at the Washington State

51 address or Internet address provided above. The date and location of the public hearing will

52 be announced in May of 1999. The DOE will consider public comments in preparing the Final

53 EIS and Record of Decision (ROD).
Executive Summary Revised Draft

1

2

3

4

5 This page intentionally left blank.
Revised Draft Foreword-1 Executive Summary

12 Foreword

3

4 Objective of the EIS

5

6 This Revised Draft HRA-EIS will be used by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its

7 nine cooperating and consulting agencies to develop a comprehensive land-use plan (CLUP)

8 for the Hanford Site. Public comment on this Revised Draft will be considered in completing a

9 Final EIS, followed by DOE’s issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD). While development of

10 the CLUP will be complete with release of the HRA-EIS ROD, full implementation of the CLUP

11 is expected to take at least 50 years.

12

13 Implementation of the CLUP will begin a more detailed planning process for land-use

14 and facility-use decisions at the Hanford Site. The DOE will use the CLUP to screen

15 proposals. Eventually, management of Hanford Site areas will move toward the CLUP land16 use goals. This CLUP process could take more than 50 years to fully achieve the land-use

17 goals.

18

19 The final CLUP will consist of the following:

20

21 A final Land-Use Map, depicting the desired future patterns of land use on the Hanford Site. 

22 This map will be one of the alternative land-use maps presented in the EIS, or a map that

23 combines features of several of the alternatives maps based on public comment.

24

25 Land-Use Definitions, describing the purpose, intent, and principal use(s) of each land-use

26 designation on the final CLUP map.

27

28 Land-Use Policies, directing land-use actions. These policies ensure that individual actions of

29 successive administrations shall collectively advance the adopted CLUP map, goals, and

30 objectives. 

31

32 Land-Use Implementing Procedures, including:

33

34 C Administrative procedures for reviewing and approving requests for use of Hanford Site

35 lands.

36

37 C A Site Planning Advisory Board (SPAB), consisting of representatives from the

38 cooperating agencies and the affected Tribes, to evaluate and make recommendations

39 on development proposals and land-use requests. It is anticipated that some

40 requested activities will be permitted under the plan, but that others will need to be

41 modified or required to incorporate mitigation to reduce potential impacts.

42

43 C New or revised “area” and “resources” management plans for the Site aligned and

44 coordinated with the new land-use map, policies and implementing procedures of the

45 adopted CLUP. 

46

47

48 Integration of the CLUP

49

50 The process described above would be integrated with existing DOE land-use review

51 procedures (e.g., the draft Biological Resources Management Plan and the draft Cultural

52 Resources Management Plan). The final CLUP map, policies and implementing procedures
Executive Summary Foreword-2 Revised Draft

1 would be integrated with and addressed at the threshold decision points of all authorizations,

2 operational plans, and actions, including contracts and budget proposals that directly or

3 indirectly affect land use so that they would not create unintentional conflicts with the CLUP, or

4 fail to forward CLUP objectives where the opportunity and ability to do so exists.

5

6 The DOE would have the final approval of all land-use decisions taking place on the

7 Hanford Site while under DOE responsibility. The DOE Richland Operations Office would

8 coordinate review of Hanford land development and land-use requests, and determine, with

9 input from the SPAB, whether a request represents an allowable use or, special use, or

10 whether the request would require an amendment to the CLUP. 

11

12

13 Cooperating Agencies and Consulting Tribal Governments

14

15 The nine cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal governments that participated in

16 the preparation of this Revised Draft HRA-EIS are: the U.S. Department of the Interior

17 (Bureau of Land Management [BLM], Bureau of Reclamation [BoR], and the U.S. Fish and

18 Wildlife Service [USFWS]); the City of Richland, WA; Benton, Franklin, and Grant counties; the

19 Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; and the

20 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR).

21
Revised Draft P-1 Executive Summary

12 Preamble

3

4 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is considering changing the name of this

5 environmental impact statement (EIS) from the Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact

6 Statement and Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (HRA-EIS) to the Hanford Comprehensive

7 Land-Use EIS. In the Notice of Intent in 1992, establishing future land uses was listed as one

8 of the HRA-EIS objectives. Since that time, various considerations have led to this Revised

9 Draft HRA-EIS in which future land use is now the EIS’s focus. To reflect this reduction in

10 scope from the 1996 Draft HRA-EIS, DOE is soliciting comments on the proposed name

11 change as well as the contents.

12

13 Originally, this EIS was intended to provide an environmental review under the National

14 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for all aspects of the developing Hanford

15 Environmental Restoration Project. The document, however, no longer directly considers

16 remediation issues. Instead, remediation issues are now integrated into specific Tri-Party

17 Agreement-remediation decision documents. Remediation decisions are made by the U.S.

18 Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Washington, as lead regulatory agencies,

19 and DOE as lead implementing agency. DOE does expect that the EIS process will assist

20 Hanford remediation efforts by determining reasonably foreseeable land uses and establishing

21 land-use decision-making processes to ensure the viability of any future institutional control

22 that might be required.

23

24

25
Executive Summary Revised Draft

1

2

3

4

5 This page intentionally left blank.
Revised Draft i Executive Summary

12 Table of Contents

3

4 Foreword ......................................................... Foreword-3

5

6 Preamble ............................................................... P-1

7

8 Acronyms and Initialisms ..................................................... v

9

10 ES1.0 Introduction ....................................................... ES-1

11 ES1.1 The National Environmental Policy Act ........................... ES-3

12 ES1.2 National Environmental Policy Act and Other Environmental Reviews ... ES-4

13 ES1.2.1 NEPA Reviews Affecting the Hanford Site ................ ES-4

14 ES1.2.2 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Reviews Affecting the

15 Hanford Site ....................................... ES-5

16 ES1.2.3 CERCLA Reviews Affecting the Hanford Site .............. ES-5

17 ES1.3 Hanford Site Planning Efforts .................................. ES-6

18 ES1.4 Integrating Planning Efforts by Other Governments and Agencies ...... ES-7

19 ES1.4.1 Tribal Rights ....................................... ES-7

20 ES1.4.2 Other Federal Agencies .............................. ES-7

21 ES1.4.3 Local Governments .................................. ES-9

22 ES1.4.3.1. Benton County ............................ ES-9

23 ES1.4.3.2. City of Richland ........................... ES-9

24 ES1.4.3.3. Grant, Franklin, and Adams Counties .......... ES-9

25

26 ES2.0 Purpose and Need .......................................... ES-9

27

28 ES3.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ..................................... ES-10

29 ES3.1 No-Action Alternative ....................................... ES-12

30 ES3.1.1 Wahluke Slope .................................... ES-14

31 ES3.1.2 Columbia River Corridor ............................. ES-14

32 ES3.1.3 Central Plateau .................................... ES-14

33 ES3.1.4 All Other Areas .................................... ES-14

34 ES3.1.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

35 ................................................ ES-14

36 ES3.2 The Agency’s (DOE’s) Preferred Alternative ...................... ES-16

37 ES3.2.1 Wahluke Slope .................................... ES-16

38 ES3.2.2 Columbia River Corridor ............................. ES-16

39 ES3.2.3 Central Plateau .................................... ES-17

40 ES3.2.4 All Other Areas .................................... ES-17

41 ES3.2.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

42 ................................................ ES-17

43 ES3.3 Alternative One ............................................ ES-25

44 ES3.3.1 Wahluke Slope .................................... ES-25

45 ES3.3.2 Columbia River Corridor ............................. ES-25

46 ES3.3.3 Central Plateau .................................... ES-26

47 ES3.3.4 All Other Areas .................................... ES-26

48 ES3.3.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

49 ................................................ ES-26

50 ES3.4 Alternative Two ............................................ ES-30

51 ES3.4.1 Wahluke Slope .................................... ES-30

52 ES3.4.2 Columbia River Corridor ............................. ES-30

53 ES3.4.3 Central Plateau .................................... ES-30
Executive Summary ii Revised Draft

1 ES3.4.4 All Other Areas .................................... ES-30

2 ES3.4.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

3 ................................................ ES-30

4 ES3.5 Alternative Three .......................................... ES-32

5 ES3.5.1 Wahluke Slope .................................... ES-32

6 ES3.5.2 Columbia River Corridor ............................. ES-32

7 ES3.5.3 Central Plateau .................................... ES-33

8 ES3.5.4 All Other Areas .................................... ES-33

9 ES3.5.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

10 ................................................ ES-33

11 ES3.6 Alternative Four ........................................... ES-38

12 ES3.6.1 Wahluke Slope .................................... ES-38

13 ES3.6.2 Columbia River Corridor ............................. ES-38

14 ES3.6.3 Central Plateau .................................... ES-38

15 ES3.6.4 All Other Areas .................................... ES-38

16 ES3.6.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

17 ................................................ ES-39

18 ES3.7 Comparisons of Affected Areas by Alternatives ................... ES-39

19

20 ES4.0 Affected Environment .............................................. ES-44

21 ES4.1 Existing Land Uses ......................................... ES-44

22 ES4.1.1 Wahluke Slope .................................... ES-44

23 ES4.1.2 Columbia River Corridor ............................. ES-45

24 ES4.1.3 Central Plateau .................................... ES-46

25 ES4.1.4 All Other Areas .................................... ES-46

26 ES4.1.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

27 ................................................ ES-47

28 ES4.2 Hanford Site Land Ownership ................................. ES-47

29 ES4.3 Geological and Soil Resources ................................ ES-48

30 ES4.4 Water Resources .......................................... ES-50

31 ES4.5 Air Resources ............................................. ES-51

32 ES4.6 Biological Resources ....................................... ES-51

33 ES4.7 Cultural Resources ......................................... ES-62

34 ES4.8 Socioeconomic Environment ................................. ES-64

35 ES4.9 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ............................... ES-65

36 ES4.10 Noise ................................................... ES-65

37 ES4.10.1 Hanford Site Sound Levels ........................... ES-65

38 ES4.11 Contaminated Areas ........................................ ES-65

39 ES4.12 Hanford Site Protective Safety Buffer Zones ..................... ES-66

40

41 ES5.0 Environmental Consequences ....................................... ES-67

42 ES5.1 Analysis Approach ......................................... ES-67

43 ES5.1.1 Methods and Assumptions for Estimating Environmental Impacts

44 ................................................ ES-67

45 ES5.1.2 Methods and Assumptions for Estimating Socioeconomic Impacts

46 ................................................ ES-68

47 ES5.1.2.1 Industrial Land Use ........................ ES-68

48 ES5.1.2.2 Industrial-Exclusive ........................ ES-68

49 ES5.1.2.3 Agricultural .............................. ES-68

50 ES5.1.2.4 Research and Development ................. ES-69

51 ES5.1.2.5 High-Intensity Recreation ................... ES-69

52 ES5.1.2.6 Low-Intensity Recreation .................... ES-69
Revised Draft iii Executive Summary

1 ES5.1.2.7 Conservation (Mining and Grazing) and Conservation

2 (Mining) ................................ ES-69

3 ES5.1.2.8 Preservation ............................. ES-69

4 ES5.2 Human Health Impacts ...................................... ES-69

5 ES5.3 Resource Impacts .......................................... ES-69

6 ES5.3.1 Geologic Resources ................................ ES-69

7 ES5.3.2 Water Resources .................................. ES-70

8 ES5.3.3 Impacts to Biological Resources ....................... ES-74

9 ES5.3.4 Mitigation Measures ................................ ES-74

10 ES5.3.5 Cultural Resources ................................. ES-74

11 ES5.3.6 Aesthetic Resources ................................ ES-75

12 ES5.3.7 Socioeconomic Impacts ............................. ES-75

13 ES5.3.7.1 No-Action Alternative ...................... ES-75

14 ES5.3.7.2 DOE’s Preferred Alternative ................. ES-75

15 ES5.3.7.3 Alternative One ........................... ES-76

16 ES5.3.7.4 Alternative Two ........................... ES-76

17 ES5.3.7.5 Alternative Three .......................... ES-76

18 ES5.3.7.6 Alternative Four ........................... ES-77

19 ES5.4 Environmental Justice Impacts ................................ ES-77

20 ES5.4.1 Health Impacts from Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife

21 ................................................ ES-77

22 ES5.4.2 Environmental Impacts to Low-Income and Minority Populations

23 ................................................ ES-78

24 ES5.4.3 Environmental Justice Impacts to American Indians ........ ES-78

25 ES5.4.4 Occupational Human Health Impacts ................... ES-80

26 ES5.5 Cumulative Impacts ........................................ ES-89

27 ES5.5.1 Cumulative Impacts to Land Use ...................... ES-89

28 ES5.5.2 Cumulative Impacts by Trustee Resource ............... ES-90

29 ES5.5.2.1 Geologic Resources ....................... ES-90

30 ES5.5.2.2 Water Resources ......................... ES-90

31 ES5.5.2.3 Biological Resources ....................... ES-92

32 ES5.5.2.4 Cultural Resources ........................ ES-93

33 ES5.5.2.5 Aesthetic Resources ....................... ES-94

34 ES5.5.3 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts

35

36 ....................................... ES-95

37 ES5.5.4 Cumulative Human Health Risk

38

39 ................................................ ES-95

40 ES5.6 Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Adjacent to the Hanford Site

41 ........................................................ ES-95

42 ES5.7 Other NEPA Considerations .................................. ES-96

43 ES5.7.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................ ES-96

44 ES5.7.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .... ES-96

45

46 ES6.0 Implementation of the Comprehensive Land-Use Plan ..................... ES-96

47 ES6.1 Definitions and Descriptions of Land-Use Map Designations ......... ES-97

48 ES6.2 Definitions for Terms Relating to Plan Implementation .............. ES-97

49 ES6.3 Hanford CLUP Policies ...................................... ES-99

50 ES6.3.1 Overall Policy ..................................... ES-99

51 ES6.3.2 Protection of Environmental Resources ................ ES-100

52 ES6.3.3 Protection of Cultural Resources ..................... ES-101

53 ES6.3.4 Siting New Development ............................ ES-101
Executive Summary iv Revised Draft

1 ES6.3.5 Utility and Transportation Corridors .................... ES-102

2 ES6.3.6 Economic Development and Diversification ............. ES-102

3 ES6.4 Organizational Structure for Review and Approval of Use Requests

4 ....................................................... ES-102

56 Figures

7

8 ES-1. Hanford Site Location and Landmarks ................................... ES-2

9 ES-2. Geographic Study Areas on the Hanford Site ............................ ES-13

10 ES-3. No-Action Alternative ............................................... ES-15

11 ES-4. Hanford Surface Waste Site Locations (Past and Present) .................. ES-18

12 ES-5. Distribution of Hazardous Chemicals in Groundwater Within the Hanford Site ... ES-19

13 ES-6. Distribution of Radionuclides of Concern in Groundwater Within the Hanford Site

14 ............................................................. ES-20

15 ES-7. Watertable Change Map for 1996 - 1997 ............................... ES-21

16 ES-8. Composite Map of Level II, Level III, and Level IV Biological Resources ........ ES-22

17 ES-9. Protective Safety Buffer Zones ....................................... ES-23

18 ES-10. DOE Preferred Alternative .......................................... ES-24

19 ES-11. Historic Distribution and Extent of Land Cover Classes Within a Portion of the

20 Columbia Basin Ecoregion ........................................ ES-27

21 ES-12. Current Distribution and Extent of Land Cover Classes Within a Portion of the

22 Columbia Basin Ecoregion ........................................ ES-28

23 ES-13. Alternative One .................................................. ES-29

24 ES-14. Alternative Two .................................................. ES-31

25 ES-15. Benton County Proposed Critical Areas Map ............................ ES-34

26 ES-16. City of Richland Urban Growth Area .................................. ES-35

27 ES-17. Wahluke 2000 Plan Map ........................................... ES-36

28 ES-18. Alternative Three ................................................. ES-37

29 ES-19. Alternative Four .................................................. ES-40

30 ES-20. Hanford Site Land Ownership ....................................... ES-49

31 ES-21. Topography of the Hanford Site ...................................... ES-52

32 ES-22. Surface Water on the Hanford Site ................................... ES-53

33 ES-23. Wetlands on the Hanford Site ....................................... ES-54

34 ES-24. Probable Maximum Flood of the Columbia River and Cold Creek, and the Actual 1948

35 Flood of the Columbia River ....................................... ES-55

36 ES-25. Estimated Recharge from Infiltration of Precipitation and Irrigation on the Hanford Site

37 ............................................................. ES-56

38 ES-26. WDFW Priority Habitats on the Hanford Site ............................ ES-57

39 ES-27. WDFW Priority Species: State Listed and Candidate ..................... ES-58

40 ES-28. WDFW Priority Species: Vulnerable Aggregations and Species of Recreation,

41 Commercial, and/or Tribal Importance ............................... ES-59

42 ES-29. Plant Communities of Concern on the Hanford Site ...................... ES-60

43 ES-30. Key Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Areas ............................. ES-63

44 ES-31. Organizational Structure for CLUP Implementation ...................... ES-104

45

46

4748 Tables

49

50 ES-1. Hanford Site Land-Use Designations ................................... ES-12

51 ES-2. Comparisons of Affected Areas by Alternative ........................... ES-41

52 ES-3. Potential Adverse Impacts of Each Land-Use Alternative ................... ES-43

53 ES-4. Occupational Fatality Rates for Selected Occupations ..................... ES-71
Revised Draft v Executive Summary

1 ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Hanford Site Resources .................. ES-81

2 ES-6. Present or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Compatible with Land-Use

3 Designations Under All Alternatives ................................. ES-91

4 ES-7. Present or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions with Nonconforming Land Uses

5 ............................................................. ES-92

6

7

89 Acronyms and Initialisms

10

11 ac acres 

12 AEA Atomic Energy Act 

13 AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

14 AMP area management plan

15 ATG Allied Technology Group 

16 BLM Bureau of Land Management 

17 BoR Bureau of Reclamation 

18 BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

19 BRMaP Biological Resources Management Plan 

20 BRMiS Biological Resources Mitigation Strategy 

21 CAA Clean Air Act of 1970

22 CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

23 CBC Columbia Basin College 

24 CBRP Columbia Basin Reclamation Project

25 CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

26 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

27 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980

28 CLUP comprehensive land-use plan 

29 CRADA Cooperative Research & Development Agreement 

30 CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan 

31 CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

32 D&D Decontamination and Decommissioning 

33 DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

34 DOH Department of Health 

35 DOI U.S. Department of Interior 

36 DSTs double-shell tanks

37 EA environmental assessment

38 Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

39 EIS environmental impact statement 

40 EM Environmental Management 

41 EMSL Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory 

42 Energy formerly known as the Washington Public Power Supply System

43 Northwest (WPPSS) 

44 EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

45 EPZ emergency planning zone 

46 ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 

47 ESU Evolutionary Significant Units 

48 EUZ exclusive use zone 
Executive Summary vi Revised Draft

1 FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992

2 FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility 

3 RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

4 FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

5 Working Group Future Site Uses Working Group

6 GIS Geographic Information System 

7 GMA Growth Management Act 

8 GSA General Services Administration 

9 HAB Hanford Advisory Board 

10 HAMMER Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response 

11 HAP hazardous air pollutants 

12 ha hectares 

13 HCRL Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory 

14 HEAL Hanford Education Action League 

15 HEHF Hanford Environmental Health Foundation 

16 HGIS Hanford Geographic Information System (database)

17 HMS Hanford Meteorological Station

18 HRA-EIS Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement and

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan

19 I&I irreversible and irretrievable 

20 ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

21 ILCR incremental lifetime cancer rate 

22 INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

23 km square kilometers 2

24 LIGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory 

25 MEI maximally exposed individual 

26 mi square miles 2

27 MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity

28 MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

29 MOX mixed oxide 

30 NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

31 NARM naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials 

32 NCO NEPA Compliance Officer 

33 NCP National Contingency Plan 

34 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

35 NERP National Environmental Research Park 

36 NOA Notice of Availability 

37 NOI Notice of Intent

38 NPA Northwest Power Act

39 NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

40 NPL National Priorities List 

41 NPPC Northwest Power Planning Council 

42 NPS U.S. National Park Service 

43 NWR National Wildlife Refuge

44 OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

45 PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

46 PFP Plutonium Finishing Plant 
Revised Draft vii Executive Summary

1 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

2 PUD Public Utility District

3 PUREX Plutonium-Uranium Extraction 

4 R&D research and development 

5 RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

6 RCW Revised Code of Washington 

7 REO Real Estate Officer 

8 RL (Department of Energy) Richland Operations Office 

9 RMP Resource Management Plan 

10 ROD Record of Decision 

11 SALDS state-approved land disposal structure 

12 SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

13 SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974

14 SEPA State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 

15 SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

16 SMB Site Management Board 

17 SPAB Site Planning Advisory Board 

18 SRS Savannah River Site 

19 SSTs single-shell tanks 

20 TAP toxic air pollutants

21 TRIDEC Tri-City Industrial Development Council 

22 TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

23 TSD Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

24 TSP total suspended particulates 

25 TWRS Tank Waste Remediation System 

26 UBC Uniform Building Code 

27 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

28 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

29 VOC volatile organic compounds 

30 WAC Washington Administrative Code 

31 WCAA Washington Clean Air Act of 1991

32 WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

33 WNP-2 Washington Nuclear Plant Number 2 

34 WSU-TC Washington State University - Tri-Cities

35 WIDS Waste Information Data System database

36
Executive Summary viii Revised Draft

1

2

3

4

5 This page intentionally left blank.

6

7
Revised Draft ES-1 Executive Summary

1 ES1.0 Introduction

2

3 Coordinated land-use planning is one of the many trustee responsibilities the U.S.

4 Department of Energy (DOE) has as a Federal agency holding Federal assets. This Revised

5 Draft Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Land6 Use Plan (HRA-EIS) considers several land uses for the Hanford Site planned over the next

7 half-century. As Hanford clean-up progresses through the next 40 years, cleanup Records of

8 Decision (RODs) issued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Recovery Act

9 of 1976 (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) will

10 impact some areas within the proposed land uses. Likewise, other DOE missions, such as

11 research and development, might be collocated at Hanford because of DOE’s continued

12 Federal presence as the long-term caretaker of CERCLA/RCRA or low-level waste disposal

13 sites. Other DOE missions such as economic development or even other Federal mandates

14 such as natural resource protection could also impact Hanford land uses.

15

16 As with all Federal activities, where, when, and how quickly Hanford waste sites are

17 remediated and proposed land uses are achieved depends on Congressional funding. The

18 Tri-Party Agreement, which defines the schedule for clean-up activities at the Hanford Site, is

19 itself dependent on Congressional funding. These clean-up activities are an important factor in

20 determining when, or even if, a proposed land use might be fulfilled.

21

22 The Hanford Site occupies 1,517 square kilometers (km ) (586 square miles [mi ]) in 2 2

23 southeastern Washington (Figure ES-1). For more than 40 years, the primary mission at

24 Hanford was the production of nuclear materials for national defense. The DOE developed

25 infrastructure and facility complexes to accomplish this work, but large tracts of land used as

26 protective buffer zones for safety and security purposes remained undisturbed. These buffer

27 zones preserved a biological and cultural resource setting unique in the Columbia Basin

28 region. In the late 1980s, the primary DOE mission changed from defense production to

29 environmental restoration.

30

31 Today, the Hanford Site has a diverse set of missions associated with environmental

32 restoration, waste management, and science and technology. These missions have resulted

33 in the growing need for a comprehensive, long-term approach to planning and development for

34 the Site. 

35

36 The DOE has prepared this HRA-EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts

37 associated with implementing a comprehensive land-use plan (CLUP) for the Hanford Site for

38 at least the next 50 years. Working with cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal

39 governments, DOE developed several land-use alternatives. The cooperating agencies are

40 the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), consisting of the Bureau of Land Management

41 (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Benton,

42 Franklin, and Grant counties; and the City of Richland. The consulting Tribal governments are

43 the Nez Perce Tribe Department of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, and

44 the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. With the exception of the required

45 No-Action Alternative, each alternative presented represents a Tribal, Federal, state, or local

46 agency’s Preferred Alternative. Each alternative is presented separately. Effort was taken to

47 present each alternative with equal measure to encourage public comment.

48

49
Executive Summary ES-2 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-1. Hanford Site Location and Landmarks. 2
Revised Draft ES-3 Executive Summary

1 ES1.1 The National Environmental Policy Act

2

3 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires consideration of

4 potential environmental impacts associated with Federal agency actions, and provides

5 opportunities for public involvement in the decision-making process.

6

7 In August 1996, DOE published the Draft Hanford Remedial Action Environmental

8 Impact Statement and Comprehensive Land Use Plan for public review. In response to

9 comments received on the Draft HRA-EIS (see Appendix F of EIS), DOE decided to reduce the

10 scope and issue a Revised Draft. Because the original EIS provided for consideration of land

11 use, no further scoping meetings were required, and; as Implementation Plans were no longer

12 required by DOE, the Implementation Plan was not reissued. 

13

14 The Revised Draft HRA-EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated

15 with establishing land uses at the Hanford Site for at least the next 50 years, defers the

16 evaluation of impacts associated with remedial actions to Tri-Party Agreement documents, and

17 includes the entire Hanford Site within the scope of the document. The major differences

18 between this Revised Draft HRA-EIS, and the August 1996 Draft HRA-EIS are as follows:

19

20 C The Revised Draft HRA-EIS focuses on land-use impacts and decisions rather than

21 potential remediation impacts.

22

23 C Each alternative in the Revised Draft HRA-EIS features a site-wide map designating

24 land uses, whereas alternatives in the August 1996 Draft HRA-EIS focused on

25 individual geographic areas.

26

27 C The Revised Draft HRA-EIS includes DOE’s Preferred Alternative as well as new

28 land-use alternatives developed by the cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal

29 governments.

30

31 C The Revised Draft HRA-EIS contains proposed land-use policies and implementing

32 procedures that would be integrated into the Hanford CLUP (see Chapter ES-6).

33

34 Refocusing the HRA-EIS is consistent with 42 USC 7274k (Public Law 104-201,

35 Section 3153 [as amended]), which requires the development of a future-use plan for the

36 Hanford Site; and is responsive to public comments received during scoping and during the

37 public comment period on the original draft (see DEIS, Appendix F). Refocusing the EIS also

38 provides a basis for considering potential future proposals regarding transferring ownership

39 and control of some or all of the Hanford Site. As the original EIS provided for consideration of

40 land use, no additional scoping meetings were required.

41

42 Since March 1997, DOE has worked with the cooperating agencies and consulting

43 Tribal governments to establish a framework for the environmental analyses presented in this

44 Revised Draft HRA-EIS. Substantial agreement was reached among the cooperating agencies

45 and consulting Tribal governments on the development of land-use designations and on the

46 format for determining the potential environmental impacts associated with the land uses

47 carried forward in this EIS. The cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal governments also

48 worked together to develop the proposed CLUP policies and implementing procedures.

49

50
Executive Summary ES-4 Revised Draft

1 ES1.2 National Environmental Policy Act and Other Environmental

2 Reviews

3

4 Past land-use commitments based on other NEPA documents, as well as CERCLA

5 RODs addressing remediation, have had a direct impact on the development of the land-use

6 alternatives presented in the Revised Draft HRA-EIS. These documents are listed in the

7 following sections.

8

9 ES1.2.1 NEPA Reviews Affecting the Hanford Site

10

11 C Waste Management Operations, Hanford Reservation, Richland, Washington

12 (ERDA-1538, December 1975)

13

14 C Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage, Hanford

15 Site, Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0062, April 1980)

16

17 C Decommissioning of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, Hanford Site,

18 Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0080, May 1982)

19

20 C Operation of PUREX and Uranium Oxide Plant Facilities, Hanford Site, Richland,

21 Washington (DOE/EIS-0089, February 1983)

22

23 C Disposal and Decommissioning, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants (Lead

24 Agency - Department of the Navy; DOE was a Cooperating Agency) (No document

25 no., May 1984)

26

27 C Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford

28 Site, Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0113, December 1987)

29

30 C Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at the Hanford Site,

31 Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0119, December 1991)

32

33 C Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

34 (DOE/EIS-0189, August 1996)

35

36 C Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS37 0200, May 1997)

38

39 C Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering

40 Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs

41 (DOE/EIS-0203, April 1995)

42

43 C Safe Retrieval, Transfer and Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes, Hanford Site,

44 Richland, Washington (DOE/EIS-0212, October 1995)

45

46 C Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization Environmental Impact Statement

47 (DOE/EIS-0244, May 1996)

48

49 C Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins Hanford Site, Richland,

50 Washington (DOE/EIS-0245, January 1996) 

51
Revised Draft ES-5 Executive Summary

1 C Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Cruiser, Ohio Class, and Los Angeles Class

2 Naval Reactor Plants Environmental Impact Statement (Adopted by DOE as

3 DOE/EIS-0259, April 1996)

4

5 C Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Comprehensive River Conservation Study

6 and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Hanford Reach EIS) (National Park

7 Service, June 1994)

8

9 C Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic

10 Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0229, November 1996)

11

12 C Surplus Plutonium Disposition Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0283)

13

14 C Columbia River System Operation Review Environmental Impact Statement

15 (DOE/EIS-0170, November 1995) 

16

17 C Environmental Impact Statement for the Geologic Repository for the Disposal of

18 Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye

19 County, Nevada (DOE/EIS-0250) – in preparation.

20

21 C Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental

22 Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0286) – in preparation.

23

24 C Proposed Production of Plutonium-238 (Pu-238) for Use in Advanced Radioisotope

25 Power Systems (RPS) for Space Missions (DOE/EIS-0299) – in preparation.

26

27 C Transfer of the Heat Source/Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator Assembly and

28 Test Operations From Mound Site (DOE/EIS-0302) – in preparation.

29

30 ES1.2.2 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Reviews Affecting the Hanford Site

31

32 C Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site (U.S. Ecology) on the

33 Hanford Site Environmental Impact Statement – in preparation.

34

35 C City of Richland Comprehensive Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

36 (August 1997).

37

38 C SEPA EIS on Treatment of Low-Level Mixed Wastes (Allied Technology Group) City

39 of Richland EIS (EA6-97, March 1998).

40

41 C Draft Benton County Comprehensive Plan (SEPA EIS Addendum) (September

42 1997)

43

44 ES1.2.3 CERCLA Reviews Affecting the Hanford Site

45

46 C 1100 Area Remediation – 1100-EM-1, 1100-EM-2, 1100-EM-3, and 1100-IU-1. 

47 Final Record of Decision (ROD) issued September 24, 1993; certified remedial

48 action - July 1996; delisted from National Priorities List (NPL).

49

50 C 300 Area Remediation – 300-FF-1, 300-FF-5. Final ROD issued July 17, 1996. 

51 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for NPL Site - to be completed after

52 all operable units are addressed.
Executive Summary ES-6 Revised Draft

1

2 C 100 Area Remediation – 100-BC-1, 100-HR-1, and 100-DR-1. Interim ROD for

3 37 high-priority waste sites issued September 1995. The ROD was amended May

4 14, 1997, to include additional waste sites.

5

6 C 100-HR-3/100-KR-4 (groundwater operable units). Interim ROD issued April 1,

7 1996. 

8

9 C 100-IU-1, 100-IU-3, 100-IU-4, 100-IU-5. Interim ROD issued February 12, 1996. 

10

11 RI/FS for NPL Site – to be completed after all operable units are addressed.

12

13 C 200 Area Remediation – Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility - Final ROD

14 issued January 1995.

15

16 200-ZP-1 (groundwater operable unit). Interim ROD issued June 5, 1995.

17

18 200-UP-1 (groundwater operable unit). Interim ROD issued February 24, 1997.

19

20 RI/FS for NPL site – to be completed after all operable units are addressed. 

21

22 Just as the restrictions posed by approved CERCLA RODs were taken into

23 consideration in the development of the land-use alternatives in this Revised Draft HRA-EIS, in

24 the future, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington State Department of

25 Ecology (Ecology), and DOE are expected to consider the land-use plan for a given area when

26 determining cleanup levels. Remediation is conducted under CERCLA/RCRA authority. If the

27 remediation process cannot support the proposed land use within the National Contingency

28 Plan’s (NCP) 10 to 10 risk range, then this EIS contains a proposed process for changing -4 -6

29 the use of the land while maintaining the effectiveness of institutional controls (see Chapter

30 ES-6).

31

32

33 ES1.3 Hanford Site Planning Efforts

34

35 Several Hanford Site planning documents have been developed to address the various

36 information needs of DOE managers. These planning documents are periodically updated to

37 reflect new information and DOE decisionmaking, such as the decision that DOE will make

38 based on the HRA-EIS. Summarized below, these planning documents are: 

39

40 C Draft Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan – The CRMP establishes

41 guidance for the identification, evaluation, recordation, curation, and management

42 of archaeological, historic, and traditional cultural resources. The plan specifies

43 methods of consultation with affected Tribes, government agencies, and interested

44 parties; and includes strategies for the preservation and/or curation of

45 representative properties, archives, and objects. 

46

47 C Draft Hanford Biological Resources Management Plan (BRMaP) – The BRMaP

48 provides DOE and DOE contractors with a consistent approach for protecting

49 biological resources and for monitoring, assessing, and mitigating impacts to

50 biological resources from site development and environmental restoration activities. 

51 The BRMaP provides a comprehensive direction that specifies DOE biological

52 resource policies, goals, and objectives.
Revised Draft ES-7 Executive Summary

1

2 C Hanford Strategic Plan – This plan articulates DOE’s vision and commitments to a

3 long-range strategic direction for Hanford Site missions. The strategic plan

4 provides a basis for decisions and actions to achieve DOE goals.

5

6 C Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure at the Hanford Site – A revision of

7 DOE’s 2006 Plan, this document builds on an already accelerated pace of activities

8 and numerous efficiencies implemented at the Hanford Site during the last few

9 years. It commits to significant cleanup progress on the Site by 2006, while

10 recognizing that much of the cleanup effort will remain beyond 2006.

11

12 C Hanford Site Ground-Water Protection Management Plan and Management and

13 Integration of Hanford Site Groundwater and Vadose Zone Activities – These

14 documents provide management and protection guidelines to protect Hanford

15 groundwater from radioactive and nonradioactive hazardous substances.

16

17 The Revised Draft HRA-EIS builds on past efforts to address land-use planning at the

18 Hanford Site and presents a range of alternative land uses that represent several different

19 visions. 

20

21

22 ES1.4 Integrating Planning Efforts by Other Governments and

23 Agencies

24

25 This section includes information supplied to DOE by representatives of other local

26 governments and agencies about their respective planning efforts. The concept of “agreeing

27 to disagree” on issues such as Tribal treaty rights allowed the agencies to set aside differences

28 and to work together on the land-use planning process.

29

30 ES1.4.1 Tribal Rights

31

32 Tribal governments and DOE agree that the Tribal governments’ treaty-reserved right of

33 taking fish at all “usual and accustomed” places applies to the Hanford Reach of the Columbia

34 River where it passes through Hanford.

35

36 Tribal governments and DOE, however, disagree over the applicability of Tribal

37 members’ treaty-reserved rights to hunt, gather plants, and pasture livestock on the Hanford

38 Site. The Tribal governments and DOE have decided not to delay completion and

39 implementation of a comprehensive land-use plan for the Hanford Site. Instead, the Tribes

40 and DOE have gone ahead with the land-use planning process while reserving all rights to

41 assert their respective positions regarding treaty rights. Neither the existence of this EIS nor

42 any portion of its contents is intended to have any influence over the resolution of the treaty

43 rights dispute.

44

45 ES1.4.2 Other Federal Agencies

46

47 In 1943, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began the acquisition of the

48 Hanford Site. Public land managed by the BLM was withdrawn from BLM and placed under

49 DOE control by a land withdrawal order. BoR land was placed under DOE control by a

50 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and, finally, land was purchased (sometimes via

51 condemnation) from private owners. Today, DOE continues to manage these acquired lands,
Executive Summary ES-8 Revised Draft

1 which form a checkerboard pattern of underlying ownership over large portions of the Hanford

2 Site (see Figure ES-20).

3

4 The BLM and BoR continue to retain an interest in their original property holdings prior

5 to the establishment of the Hanford Site. The DOE must use the land consistent with the

6 purposes for which they were originally acquired from BLM and BoR. Any other use of these

7 lands by DOE requires BLM and BoR involvement. The BLM is responsible for administering

8 Public Domain land. The BoR is responsible for the ultimate development of the irrigable lands

9 within the Wahluke Slope, as part of the Columbia Basin Reclamation Project. Both the BLM

10 and BoR have an interest in the Hanford resources and in management of those resources

11 over the long term. When DOE relinquishes its withdrawals on these lands, the BLM and/or

12 BoR would have the right of first refusal to the land. If they choose not to accept the land, then

13 DOE or the Federal General Services Administration (GSA) would have the responsibility to

14 dispose of the land.

15

16 In addition to BoR’s irrigation system maintenance activities, DOE lands on the

17 Wahluke Slope are managed in part by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

18 (WDFW) as the Wahluke State Wildlife Recreation Area and, in part, by the USFWS as the

19 Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge.

20

21 The USFWS is managing the Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE

22 Reserve) under a cooperative agreement with DOE that was signed on August 27, 1997. The

23 USFWS will be preparing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) (equivalent to an Area

24 Management Plan [AMP]; see Chapter ES-6) for the ALE Reserve.

25

26 Aside from BoR, BLM, and the USFWS current management responsibilities, the U.S.

27 National Park Service (NPS), with DOE as a co-preparer, completed an EIS in 1994 for the

28 Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. The Hanford Reach of the Columbia River,

29 Comprehensive River Conservation Study and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Hanford

30 Reach EIS) examined alternatives for preservation of the resources and features of the

31 Hanford Reach (including addition of the Hanford Reach to the National Wild and Scenic

32 Rivers System), and evaluated impacts that could result from various uses of the river. The

33 DOI’s ROD recommended that the Congress designate Federally owned and privately owned

34 lands within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the Columbia River, on both banks from river mile 396 to 346.5

35 as a Recreational River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and the portion of the

36 Hanford Site that lies north of the river, as a National Wildlife Refuge that is to be managed by

37 the USFWS. Congress is still contemplating actions that are necessary to implement the DOI’s

38 ROD.

39

40 In addition to the proposed wild and scenic discussions, other discussions have

41 occurred to swap certain parcels of land in the State of Washington from the Secretary of

42 Energy to the Secretary of the Interior, affecting ownership of about 197 km (75 mi ) of the 2 2

43 Hanford Site. This swap would consolidate the scattered Benton County portion of Hanford’s

44 BLM Public Domain lands into an area beginning near 100-D, running south and east along

45 the Columbia River shore, to just north of Energy Northwest (formerly the Washington Public

46 Power Supply System [WPPSS]) and then west to Gable Mountain. 

47

48 As long as these lands are needed by DOE (i.e., still withdrawn from BLM by DOE), this

49 legislative action would not affect DOE’s administration of the areas involved. The DOE’s use

50 of withdrawn BLM Public Domain lands is consistent with most land-use designations with the

51 exceptions of Industrial Exclusive, Research and Development, High-Intensity Recreation, or

52 Industrial designations where BLM’s multiple-use mandate would be limited by an extensive

53 infrastructure.
Revised Draft ES-9 Executive Summary

1 ES1.4.3 Local Governments

2

3 Portions of the Hanford Site lie within Benton, Franklin, Adams, and Grant counties. 

4 The primary contaminated portion of the Site falls within Benton County, and parts of the

5 Wahluke Slope fall within Franklin, Grant, and Adams counties. The City of Richland is

6 located in Benton County at the southern boundary of the Hanford Site, and considerable

7 development within the city limits and adjacent to the Site has already occurred. 

8

9 Most planning by local governments falls under the State of Washington Growth

10 Management Act of 1990 (GMA), which established a statewide planning framework and

11 created roles and responsibilities for planning at the local, regional, and state level. The GMA

12 required the largest and fastest growing counties, and cities within those counties, to develop

13 new comprehensive plans (counties not required to plan may elect to do so). Benton, Franklin,

14 and Grant counties, as well as the City of Richland, have elected to plan under the GMA

15 requirements. 

16

17 ES1.4.3.1. Benton County. Benton County is preparing a comprehensive land-use

18 plan that covers the entire county, including a portion of the Hanford Site. As a cooperating

19 agency, Benton County’s government does not agree with the Tribal view that Hanford lands

20 are “open and unclaimed.” As part of its planning effort, Benton County has developed a

21 proposed critical areas map (see Figure ES-15). Critical areas include wetlands, areas with a

22 critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat

23 conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas.

24

25 The Port of Benton, which must comply with county land-use plans, has already

26 received the 1100 and 3000 areas and has expressed interest in the industrial development of

27 portions of the 300 Area, and the area south of Energy Northwest (formerly WPPSS) Plant

28 Number 2. 

29 ES1.4.3.2. City of Richland. The City of Richland plans in coordination with Benton

30 County under the GMA. Future land use at the Hanford Site has the potential to affect the

31 economic development of Richland. The City of Richland has identified portions of the

32 southern Hanford Site suitable for urban development and possible annexation (see Figure

33 ES-16).

34

35 ES1.4.3.3. Grant, Franklin, and Adams Counties. Grant, Franklin, and Adams

36 counties coordinate local land-use planning for the Wahluke Slope. The three counties, along

37 with the Port of Mattawa, have expressed a desire to implement a land-use plan that would

38 accommodate increased agricultural activities, including irrigated cropping systems, along with

39 wildlife and cultural resource protections (see Figure ES-17).

40

41

42 ES2.0 Purpose and Need

43

44 The DOE has several missions to fulfill at the Hanford Site that have competing natural

45 resource consumption needs and management values. Governments and stakeholders within

46 the region have an interest in Hanford resources and in management of those resources over

47 the long-term. The DOE needs to assess the relative qualities of Hanford’s resources,

48 compare the priorities and needs of Hanford’s missions, and reach decisions such as the

49 identification and disposal of any excess lands. DOE Order 430.1 and 42 USC 7274k require

50 a land-use plan for the Hanford Site. The Revised Draft Hanford Remedial Action

51 Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (HRA-EIS) (DOE/EIS52 0222D) provides the analysis needed to adopt a land-use plan.
Executive Summary ES-10 Revised Draft

1 The role of the HRA-EIS is to document, in the public forum, the process of determining

2 the best combination of land uses required to meet DOE mission needs for at least the next

3 50 years. 

4

5

6 ES3.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

7

8 The proposed action for the HRA-EIS is to develop and implement a comprehensive

9 land-use plan for the Hanford Site. Federal law (42 USC 7274k) requires that the land-use

10 plan address at least a 50-year planning period, although some specific DOE activities such as

11 decommissioning of reactors are expected to take longer. A comprehensive land-use plan

12 consisting of a land-use map, land-use policies and implementing procedures would be

13 adopted in the ROD for this EIS. Once established, this land-use plan would provide a

14 framework for making land-use and facility-use decisions.

15

16 Six land-use alternatives (including the No-Action) were developed by the nine

17 Cooperating Agencies and Consulting Tribal Governments using common land-use

18 designations and definitions. With the exception of the No-Action Alternative, each of the six

19 alternatives presented represents a Tribal, Federal, state, or local agency’s Preferred 

20 Alternative.

21

22 No-Action Alternative. This alternative, developed by DOE in compliance with the National

23 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), presents the current status of land use at the

24 Hanford Site and represents no change from current land-management processes or 

25 intergovernmental relationships with the cooperating agencies. Specific land-use decisions for

26 Hanford would continue to be made under the NEPA process and the Tri-Party Agreement,

27 based on the Hanford Strategic Plan (Mission Plan) and on a project-by-project basis.

28

29 DOE’s Preferred Alternative. DOE’s Preferred Alternative anticipates multiple uses of

30 Hanford, including anticipated future DOE missions, non-DOE Federal missions, and other

31 public and private-sector land uses. The DOE Preferred Alternative would do the following:

32

33 C for the clean-up mission – consolidate waste management operations on 50.1 km2

34 (20 mi ) in the Central Plateau of the site 2

35

36 C for the economic development mission – allow industrial development in the eastern

37 and southern portions of Hanford and increase recreational access to the Columbia

38 River

39

40 C for the Natural Resource Trustee mission – expand the existing Saddle Mountain

41 National Wildlife Refuge to include all of the Wahluke Slope (North Slope) of the Site, 

42 consistent with the 1994 Hanford Reach EIS and 1996 Hanford Reach ROD; place the

43 Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve) under USFWS management by permit;

44 and ensure that, where practicable, withdrawn BLM lands are clean enough to support

45 BLM’s multiple-use mandate (i.e., mining and grazing).

46

47 Alternative One (Natural Resource Trustee). The USFWS’s alternative emphasizes a

48 Federal stewardship role for managing the natural resources at Hanford. This alternative

49 considers these resources in a regional context, and would expand the existing Saddle

50 Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to include all of the Wahluke Slope (North Slope), the

51 Riverlands, McGee Ranch, and the ALE Reserve (e.g., all of the Hanford lands north and east
Revised Draft ES-11 Executive Summary

1 of the Columbia River and west of State Highways 24 and 240). The vision of Alternative One

2 is to conserve the Hanford Site shrub-steppe ecosystem and protect the Hanford Reach.

3

4 Alternative Two (Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Environmental Restoration and Waste

5 Management). This Nez Perce alternative calls for preservation of natural and cultural

6 resources and traditional Tribal use at the site. Future DOE missions would be constrained to

7 the Central Plateau, 300 Area, and 400 Area. Both this alternative and Alternative Four

8 (developed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation) reflect Tribal

9 visions and views of Tribal treaty rights and traditional Tribal uses of Hanford lands. The

10 Tribes and DOE have “agreed to disagree” on the interpretation of treaty rights on Hanford

11 lands in the interest of moving the EIS process forward. Each party reserves the right to assert

12 its respective interpretation of treaty rights at Hanford.

13

14 Alternative Three (Cities and Counties). This local governments’ alternative is based on the

15 individual planning efforts of local agencies and organizations including Benton County,

16 Franklin County, Grant County, and the City of Richland. Alternative Three recognizes the

17 potential that land use at the Hanford Site has in relation to economic development. 

18 Alternative Three would allow dryland (non-irrigated) agricultural and grazing activities, and

19 irrigated agriculture on the Hanford Site. The land-use designations contained in Alternative

20 Three were developed consistent with local availability of infrastructure, nearness of urban

21 areas, soils capabilities, and current use patterns.

22

23 Alternative Four (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, [CTUIR]). This

24 CTUIR alternative calls for preservation of natural resources and areas of religious importance

25 to the CTUIR as well as traditional Tribal use at the Site. Both this alternative and Alternative

26 Two (developed by the Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Environmental Restoration and Waste

27 Management) reflect Tribal visions and views of Tribal treaty rights and traditional Tribal uses

28 of Hanford lands. The Tribes and DOE have “agreed to disagree” on the interpretation of

29 treaty rights on Hanford lands in the interest of moving the EIS process forward. Each party

30 reserves the right to assert its respective interpretation of treaty rights at Hanford.

31

32 The land-use designations and their definitions shown in Table ES-1 were co-written by

33 the cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal governments so alternative land-use plans

34 could be commonly developed and compared.

35

36 Based on goals, objectives, and values (vision) of the cooperating agencies and

37 consulting Tribal governments, the land-use designations were applied to specific geographic

38 areas of the Hanford Site (Figure ES-2). This process resulted in the development of the five

39 alternatives (six, including the No-Action Alternative) that are presented and analyzed in the

40 Revised Draft HRA-EIS. 

41

42 Following development of the alternatives, an analysis of potential environmental

43 impacts resulting from the proposed land uses associated with each alternative was

44 conducted. With the exception of DOE’s Preferred Alternative and the No-Action Alternative

45 (both of which were written by DOE), the narratives of each alternative do not contain precisely

46 parallel information because each alternative was written by a separate cooperating agency or

47 consulting Tribal government with differing management goals. A summary of the results of

48 the impact analyses from the EIS is presented in Section ES5.0 (Table ES-5).

49

50
Executive Summary ES-12 Revised Draft

1 Table ES-1. Hanford Site Land-Use Designations.

2 Land-Use

3 Designation Definition

4 Industrial- An area suitable and desirable for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous, dangerous,

5 Exclusive radioactive, and nonradioactive wastes. Includes related activities consistent with IndustrialExclusive uses.

6 Industrial An area suitable and desirable for activities, such as reactor operations, rail, barge transport

facilities, mining, manufacturing, food processing, assembly, warehouse, and distribution

operations. Includes related activities consistent with Industrial uses.

7 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 and the production of crops and livestock. Includes related activities consistent

with Agricultural uses.

8 Research and An area designated for conducting basic or applied research that requires the use of a large9 Development scale or isolated facility. Includes scientific, engineering, technology development, technology

transfer, and technology deployment activities to meet regional and national needs. Includes

related activities consistent with Research and Development.

10 High-Intensity An area allocated for high-intensity, visitor-serving activities and facilities (commercial and

11 Recreation governmental), such as golf courses, recreational vehicle parks, boat launching facilities,

Tribal fishing facilities, destination resorts, cultural centers, and museums. Includes related

activities consistent with High-Intensity Recreation.

12 Low-Intensity An area allocated for low-intensity, visitor-serving activities and facilities, such as improved

13 Recreation recreational trails, primitive boat launching facilities, and permitted campgrounds. Includes

related activities consistent with Low-Intensity Recreation.

14 Conservation An area reserved for the management and protection of archeological, cultural, ecological, and

15 (Mining and natural resources. Limited and managed mining and grazing could occur as a special use

16 Grazing) (e.g., a permit would be required) within appropriate areas. Limited public access would be

consistent with resource conservation. Includes activities related to Conservation (Mining and

Grazing), consistent with the protection of archeological, cultural, ecological, and natural

resources.

17 Conservation An area reserved for the management and protection of archeological, cultural, ecological, and

18 (Mining) natural resources. Limited and managed mining could occur as a special use (e.g., a permit

would be required) within appropriate areas. Limited public access would be consistent with

resource conservation. Includes activities related to Conservation (Mining), consistent with the

protection of archeological, cultural, ecological, and natural resources.

19 Preservation An area managed for the preservation of archeological, cultural, ecological, and natural

resources. No new consumptive uses (e.g., mining) would be allowed within this area. Public

access controls would be consistent with resource preservation requirements. Includes

activities related to Preservation uses.

20

21

22 ES3.1 No-Action Alternative

23

24 The No-Action Alternative is presented as "no change" from current management

25 direction or level of management intensity. Specifically, “no change” means the land uses

26 shown in Table ES-1, an alternative map (or combination of alternative maps), and the CLUP 

27 policies and implementing procedures would not be used for managing Hanford Site lands into

28 the future.

29

30 The No-Action Alternative serves two purposes. First, it serves as a baseline common

31 to all of the alternatives that presents the current status of land use and land management on

32 the Hanford Site. For this purpose, a baseline no-action map was developed that contains

33 available information defining existing buildings and infrastructure at the Hanford Site. 

34 Second, the No-Action Alternative provides a basis for comparing the alternatives against a

35 “no change” in land-use management policy baseline.
Revised Draft ES-13 Executive Summary

1
Executive Summary ES-14 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-2. Geographic Study Areas on the Hanford Site. 2
Revised Draft ES-15 Executive Summary

1 To analyze the impacts associated with implementing the no change in land-use

2 management policy/No-Action Alternative, assumptions regarding land-management options

3 were applied. In the No-Action Alternative, specific land-use decisions and designations would

4 be made through the NEPA process on a project-by-project basis as needed. Still, there would

5 not be a true land-use designation or land-use policies. There would only be areas of the

6 Hanford Site that are currently used or managed for specific purposes guided by administrative

7 agreements (e.g., the ALE Reserve and the Wahluke Slope), and areas of the Hanford Site

8 that are committed to a general land-use because of historical uses and existing NEPA or

9 CERCLA/RCRA ROD commitments, but are subject to change by future projects or missions

10 that are unknown at this time. Consequently, potential uses for the Hanford Site lands under

11 the No-Action Alternative are mapped using the policies presented in the Hanford Strategic

12 Plan (Figure ES-3).

13

14 ES3.1.1 Wahluke Slope

15

16 The area of the Wahluke Slope currently managed by the USFWS would continue to

17 be managed as Preservation. The area managed by the WDFW would continue to be

18 managed as Conservation (Mining and Grazing). Limited public access would be allowed for

19 hunting, fishing, or recreation; permitted mining and grazing would be allowed; and agricultural

20 leases would continue.

21

22 ES3.1.2 Columbia River Corridor

23

24 The Columbia River would continue to be managed to allow limited public access and

25 use as a Low-Intensity Recreation area. Access to the Columbia River's islands would remain

26 restricted to protect cultural and biological resources. Public access to the Reactors on the

27 River area (i.e., the 100 Areas) would remain restricted.

28

29 ES3.1.3 Central Plateau

30

31 Lands within the Central Plateau area would continue to be used for the management

32 of radioactive and hazardous waste materials. 

33

34 ES3.1.4 All Other Areas

35

36 These areas would be available for other Federal and non-Federal uses, which are

37 consistent with safety, cultural, and biological resources protection requirements. The area

38 north of the City of Richland would be used for industrial purposes. The lands in and adjacent

39 to the 300 and 400 Areas would remain under Federal ownership but could be leased for

40 private and public uses to support industrial and economic development. Other Federal uses

41 would be allowed by permit (e.g., the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory

42 [LIGO]).

43

44 ES3.1.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

45

46 The ALE Reserve geographic area would continue to be managed by the USFWS as

47 Preservation. The Big Bend Alberta Mining Company holds mineral rights on about 5.2 km2

48 (2 mi ) under the southern portion of the ALE Reserve. 2

49

50
Executive Summary ES-16 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-3. No-Action Alternative. 2
Revised Draft ES-17 Executive Summary

1 ES3.2 The Agency’s (DOE’s) Preferred Alternative

2

3 Much like the No-Action Alternative, DOE’s Preferred Alternative was developed based

4 on policies that are consistent with the Hanford Strategic Plan. However, unlike the No-Action

5 Alternative, DOE’s Preferred Alternative would establish land-use policies and implementing

6 procedures that would place Hanford’s land-use planning decisions in a regional context.

7

8 In the development of the Preferred Alternative, DOE took into account its role as the

9 long-term caretaker for the Site for at least the next 50 years. The DOE used information from

10 the Hanford Geographic Information System (HGIS) and Waste Information Data System

11 (WIDS) database. Information considered by DOE includes:

12

13 C All surface waste sites, including those remediated (Figure ES-4)

14

15 C Groundwater contaminants and flow direction (Figures ES-5, ES-6, and ES-7)

16

17 C Cultural and biological resources (Figure ES-8)

18

19 C Exclusive Use Zones (EUZs) and Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) associated

20 with DOE and other Hanford activities (e.g., Energy Northwest’s nuclear power

21 reactor, U.S. Ecology’s low-level waste disposal site, LIGO, etc.) (Figure ES-9).

22

23 Land-use designations identified for DOE’s Preferred Alternative are Industrial24 Exclusive, Industrial, Research and Development, High-Intensity Recreation, Low-Intensity

25 Recreation, Conservation (Mining and Grazing), Conservation (Mining), and Preservation. 

26 Figure ES-10 is a map of DOE’s Preferred Alternative. 

27

28 ES3.2.1 Wahluke Slope

29

30 The Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge would be expanded to include all of the

31 Wahluke Slope, consistent with the 1994 Hanford Reach EIS and 1996 Hanford Reach ROD. 

32 Until the USFWS develops an Area Management Plan (AMP) (e.g., Comprehensive

33 Conservation Plan [CCP]) for the expanded refuge, the Wahluke Slope would be designated

34 as Preservation to protect sensitive areas and species of concern with the exceptions near the

35 Columbia River, as discussed in the Columbia River Corridor Section below. The USFWS

36 would use their CCP process to develop wildlife compatible management plans.

37

38 ES3.2.2 Columbia River Corridor

39

40 The Columbia River Corridor would include High-Intensity Recreation, Low-Intensity

41 Recreation, Conservation (Mining and Grazing), and Preservation. The river islands and a

42 quarter mile buffer zone would be designated as Preservation to protect cultural and ecological

43 resources. 

44

45 Four sites away from existing contamination would be designated as High-Intensity

46 Recreation for visitor-serving activities and facilities development. The B Reactor would be

47 converted into a museum and the surrounding areas would be available for museum-support

48 facilities. The area near the Vernita Bridge would be expanded to include a boat ramp and

49 other visitor facilities. Two areas on the Wahluke Slope would be designated as High-Intensity

50 Recreation for potential exclusive Tribal fishing sites.

51
Executive Summary ES-18 Revised Draft

1 The area west of the B Reactor would be designated Low-Intensity Recreation and

2 used as a corridor between the High-Intensity Recreation areas associated with the B Reactor

3 and Vernita Bridge. A White Bluffs boat launch would be a Low-Intensity Recreation area

4 located between the H and F Reactors. Other areas would include visitor facilities near the old

5 Hanford High School and a support site near Energy Northwest (formerly WPPSS) for hiking

6 and biking trails from Richland to the Vernita rest stop.

7

8 The remainder of the land within the Columbia River Corridor outside the quarter mile

9 buffer zone would be designated for Conservation (Mining and Grazing). In the Corridor,

10 grazing would be used for fire and weed management and mining would be permitted only in

11 support of the cleanup mission. 

12

13 ES3.2.3 Central Plateau

14

15 The Central Plateau would be designated for Industrial-Exclusive use. This would allow

16 for continued waste management operations within the Central Plateau geographic area. 

17

18 ES3.2.4 All Other Areas

19

20 Within the All Other Areas geographic area, the Preferred Alternative would include

21 Industrial, Research and Development, High-Intensity Recreation, Low-Intensity Recreation,

22 Conservation (Mining and Grazing), and Preservation land-use designations.

23

24 The majority of the All Other Areas would be designated Conservation (Mining and

25 Grazing) to support a possible BLM mission of multiple uses. Two distinct areas, one located

26 east of the 200 Area and the other located north of Richland, would be designated for

27 Industrial use to support economic development. An area west of Highway 10 and east of

28 State Highway 240 would be designated for Research and Development to support economic

29 diversification and DOE’s Energy Research mission. Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, the area

30 from Umtanum Ridge to the ALE Reserve, and the active sand dunes areas would be

31 designated as Preservation to protect sensitive cultural and biological resources. Washington

32 State land that is deed restricted to waste management would be designated as Conservation

33 (Mining and Grazing).

34

35 ES3.2.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

36

37 Nearly all of the ALE Reserve geographic area would be designated as Preservation. 

38 A portion of the ALE Reserve would be managed as Conservation (Mining) for a basalt and

39 fine soils landfill cover source during the remediation of the Hanford Site.

40

41
Revised Draft ES-19 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-4. Hanford Surface Waste Site Locations (Past

2 and Present). 3
Executive Summary ES-20 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-5. Distribution of Hazardous Chemicals in

2 Groundwater Within the Hanford Site. 3
Revised Draft ES-21 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-6. Distribution of Radionuclides of Concern in

2 Groundwater Within the Hanford Site. 3
Executive Summary ES-22 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-7. Watertable Change Map for 1996 - 1997. 2
Revised Draft ES-23 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-8. Composite Map of Level II, Level III, and

2 Level IV Biological Resources. 3
Executive Summary ES-24 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-9. Protective Safety Buffer Zones. 2
Revised Draft ES-25 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-10. DOE Preferred Alternative. 2
Executive Summary ES-26 Revised Draft

1 ES3.3 Alternative One

2

3 Alternative One represents a Federal stewardship role for managing valuable national

4 resources on the Hanford Site. This alternative addresses these national resources (i.e.,

5 ecological, historic, cultural, and economic resources) in a regional context, and would be used

6 to enlarge an existing Federal Wildlife Refuge. Figures ES-11 and ES-12 show how the

7 Hanford Site has become a regional preserve for shrub-steppe species by presenting the

8 historic and current distributions. Figure ES-13 is a map of Alternative One. 

9

10 ES3.3.1 Wahluke Slope

11

12 The land-use designation for the Wahluke Slope under Alternative One would be

13 Preservation. The Wahluke Slope is currently administered for wildlife and recreation as the

14 Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge and the Wahluke State Wildlife Recreation Area

15 under permits granted by DOE to the USFWS and WDFW, respectively. Management of the

16 Wahluke Slope would be consolidated under the USFWS as a portion of the Saddle Mountain

17 National Wildlife Refuge. 

18

19 The Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge would be designated Preservation,

20 which is consistent with the current administered land use. Preservation would provide a

21 protective safety buffer zone for remedial activities in the 100 Area. These activities are

22 expected to continue for the planning period, and would continue to provide a sanctuary for

23 shrub-steppe dependent species that inhabit the area. Preservation would also prevent

24 activities within the BoR’s Red Zone (an area where irrigation is restricted because it

25 accelerates mud slides along the Columbia River) that could jeopardize stability of the White

26 Bluffs. Preservation would not interfere with the BoR’s management of the Columbia Basin

27 Project’s irrigation wasteways because they would be considered a pre-existing,

28 nonconforming use. An agreement would be established by the DOI between its four agencies

29 (i.e., USFWS, BoR, NPS, and BLM) to enable all to fulfill their congressionally mandated

30 missions on the Wahluke Slope. 

31

32 ES3.3.2 Columbia River Corridor

33

34 Land-use designations for the Columbia River Corridor under Alternative One would

35 include High-Intensity Recreation, Low-Intensity Recreation, Conservation (Mining), and

36 Preservation.

37

38 The Columbia River islands within the Hanford Site boundary would be designated for

39 Preservation and included in the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to maintain

40 important areas for wildlife. The Columbia River Corridor itself includes Low-Intensity

41 Recreation, High-Intensity Recreation, Conservation (Mining), and Preservation land-use

42 designations.

43

44 The 100 Areas would include High-Intensity Recreation, Conservation (Mining), and

45 Preservation land-use designations. The B Reactor would be designated High-Intensity

46 Recreation to allow tourism of the Federally registered landmark, and would be consistent with

47 the B Reactor museum proposal. Conservation (Mining) would provide local areas where

48 backfill and contouring materials could be obtained to protect the radioactive contamination

49 that would remain below 4.6 m (15 ft) in the 100 Areas vadose (the soil above groundwater)

50 zone. During the planning period for this document (at least the next 50 years), the spent fuel

51 will be removed from the K Basins. Associated environmental risks were evaluated in the K

52 Basin EIS.
Revised Draft ES-27 Executive Summary

1

2 ES3.3.3 Central Plateau

3

4 The Central Plateau would include Industrial-Exclusive and Preservation land-use

5 designations. Research and development projects specific to DOE’s waste management

6 activities would be allowed. Lands located to the west of the 200 West Area within the Central

7 Plateau geographic area that contain high-quality mature sagebrush would be designated as

8 Preservation. This designation encourages siting of new projects between the 200 East and

9 200 West Areas.

10

11 ES3.3.4 All Other Areas

12

13 The All Other Areas geographic area would include Industrial, Research and

14 Development, Low-Intensity Recreation, Conservation (Mining), and Preservation land-use

15 designations. All development would occur south of Energy Northwest (formerly WPPSS). 

16 This would include transition of existing facilities in the 300 and 400 Areas, and the Energy

17 Northwest site to Industrial, and Research and Development designations. The majority of the

18 non-Federal uses would occur offsite or within a portion of the area identified by the City of

19 Richland’s Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary in the southeast portion of the Site. Wildlife

20 corridors designated as Preservation would be located around this industrial development to

21 allow wildlife movements between the ALE Reserve, the Columbia River, and the Saddle

22 Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. Between the western boundary and State Highway 240, a

23 wildlife corridor would run north from the ALE Reserve to the Columbia River. This

24 northwestern wildlife corridor would include the areas known as McGee Ranch and the

25 Riverland. 

26

27 Within the southeastern wildlife corridor north of the Yakima River, a small area would

28 be designated Conservation (Mining) to allow potential extraction of geologic materials for use

29 in the 200 Areas remedial efforts. Considering this as a quarry site for basalt and soil provides

30 DOE with the option to designate Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, and West Haven as

31 Preservation because of their significant cultural value; and also to designate, as Preservation,

32 the McGee Ranch site (which is DOE land north and west of Highway 24 and south of the

33 Columbia River) and all of the ALE Reserve. This Preservation designation, and including the

34 McGee Ranch site as part of the expansion of the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge,

35 would allow consistent management of a large block of habitat and help preserve and protect

36 an important habitat link between the Hanford Site and the Yakima Training Center.

37

38 Just west of the Industrial designation is an extensive tract of seral shrub-steppe

39 habitat that has been designated as Conservation (Mining). As the canopy cover increases,

40 this seral shrub-steppe habitat will become more important for shrub-steppe dependent

41 species as additional shrub-steppe habitat is destroyed off-site. 

42

43 ES3.3.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

44

45 The ALE Reserve geographic area would be designated Preservation consistent with

46 the management of the expanded Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. Preservation,

47 and management of the ALE Reserve as an expansion of the Saddle Mountain National

48 Wildlife Refuge would protect the rare and high quality shrub-steppe plant communities, and

49 unique and rare fauna that reside on this portion of the Site. Many of these plant communities

50 and fauna are found nowhere else in the state of Washington or in the Columbia Basin

51 ecoregion. 

52

53
Executive Summary ES-28 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-11. Historic Distribution and Extent of Land

2 Cover Classes Within a Portion of the Columbia Basin

3 Ecoregion. 4
Revised Draft ES-29 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-12. Current Distribution and Extent of Land

2 Cover Classes Within a Portion of the Columbia Basin

3 Ecoregion. 4
Executive Summary ES-30 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-13. Alternative One. 2
Revised Draft ES-31 Executive Summary

1 ES3.4 Alternative Two

2

3 Alternative Two presents the vision of the Nez Perce Tribe Department of

4 Environmental Restoration and Waste Management. This vision calls for the preservation of

5 the natural and cultural resources at Hanford. Traditional tribal use is consistent with the

6 Preservation land-use designation. Figure ES-14 is a map of Alternative Two.

7

8 ES3.4.1 Wahluke Slope

9

10 Alternative Two would designate the entire Wahluke Slope as Preservation. 

11

12 ES3.4.2 Columbia River Corridor

13

14 The Columbia River Corridor would include High-Intensity Recreation, Low-Intensity

15 Recreation, Research and Development, and Preservation land-use designations. The

16 Columbia River (surface water only) would be designated for Low-Intensity Recreation. The

17 river islands would be designated as Preservation. The B Reactor and surrounding area would

18 be designed for High-Intensity Recreation, and would allow conversion of the reactor into a

19 museum. The K Reactor area would be designated for Research and Development and could

20 be used by Tribal governments and others for fish farming or for aquaculture and aquatic

21 research. The remainder of the land within the 100 Areas would be designated Preservation.

22

23 ES3.4.3 Central Plateau

24

25 Lands within the Central Plateau geographic area would be designated as Industrial26 Exclusive, allowing for continued management of radioactive and hazardous waste and other

27 related and compatible uses. 

28

29 ES3.4.4 All Other Areas

30

31 The All Other Areas would include Industrial, Research and Development, and

32 Preservation designations. Alternative Two designates the City of Richland UGA, the 400

33 Area (including the Fast Flux Test Facility [FFTF]), and the Energy Northwest (formerly

34 WPPSS) site as Industrial. The area around LIGO would be designated as Research and

35 Development. The remainder of the All Other Areas would be designated as Preservation to

36 protect natural, aesthetic, geologic, cultural, and archaeological features. 

37

38 ES3.4.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

39

40 The ALE Reserve geographic area would be designated as Preservation in accordance

41 with its management as the Rattlesnake Hills Research Natural Area.

42

43

44
Executive Summary ES-32 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-14. Alternative Two. 2
Revised Draft ES-33 Executive Summary

1 ES3.5 Alternative Three

2

3 Benton, Franklin, and Grant counties and the City of Richland contain portions of the

4 Hanford Site. Alternative Three represents the planning efforts of these local governments. 

5 The procedures used by these governments to develop Alternative Three vary by each

6 planning jurisdiction, as follows:

7

8 C Benton County is preparing a comprehensive land-use plan that covers the entire

9 county, which includes a portion of the Hanford Site. As part of its planning effort,

10 Benton County has developed a proposed critical areas map, which depicts lands

11 identified as critical areas under the GMA (Figure ES-15). Critical areas include

12 wetlands areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water,

13 fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and

14 geologically hazardous areas.

15

16 C The City of Richland plans in coordination with Benton County under the GMA. 

17 Richland is greatly influenced by activities at the Hanford Site and has gone through

18 several boom-and-bust cycles in response to employment levels at Hanford. Land

19 use at Hanford has the potential to affect the economic development of Richland. 

20 The city currently provides services such as water, electricity, and sanitary sewers

21 to the southern portion of the Hanford Site. The City of Richland has identified

22 portions of the southern Hanford Site (Figure ES-16) suitable for industrial

23 development and possible annexation.

24

25 C The designations in Franklin County result from a land-use analysis conducted by

26 the Franklin County Planning Department.

27

28 C The designations in Grant County reflect the Wahluke 2000 Plan prepared by

29 farming interests in 1992 and supported by Grant County (Figure ES-17). 

30

31 Alternative Three would accommodate both future Federal missions and private

32 activities such as business-related industry and research and development enterprises in the

33 southeastern portion of the Site. Accommodation for the expansion of public and commercial

34 recreational activities would be focused on the northern portion of the Site (i.e., primarily in the

35 vicinity of the Vernita Bridge). The Conservation (Mining) designation would extend over most

36 geographic areas except the southern portion of the Hanford Site and the Wahluke Slope. 

37 Figure ES-18 is a map of Alternative Three.

38

39 ES3.5.1 Wahluke Slope

40

41 Approximately two-thirds of the Wahluke Slope would be designated as Agricultural. 

42 Land designated as Agricultural within the "Red Zone" would be conserved under a "no-action"

43 scenario pending the completion of geotechnical studies analyzing the impacts of irrigation on

44 the White Bluffs and the Columbia River. Approximately one-third of the Wahluke Slope is

45 designated as Conservation, providing land for wildlife and Low-Intensity Recreation. 

46 Approximately 261 ha (645 ac) of BoR wetlands would be designated as Preservation.

47

48 ES3.5.2 Columbia River Corridor

49

50 The Preservation land-use designation would extend 0.4 km (0.25 mi) from the average

51 high-water line of the river. In Franklin and Grant counties, the boundary would extend further

52 inland to include sensitive features such as the White Bluffs and several upland wetlands. 
Executive Summary ES-34 Revised Draft

1 Permitted uses would be similar to those within the Conservation land-use designation, except

2 mining would be allowed as a conditionally permitted use. Agriculture would be prohibited. 

3

4 The areas outside of the KE, KW, N, D, DR, and H Reactor sites would be designated

5 as Low-Intensity Recreation. A hiking and biking recreational trail along the entire river corridor

6 would extend from North Richland to the Vernita Bridge. 

7

8 ES3.5.3 Central Plateau

9

10 The DOE would be expected to continue all waste management and disposal activities

11 in the Central Plateau. The Central Plateau would be designated for Industrial-Exclusive Use.

12

13 ES3.5.4 All Other Areas

14

15 The majority of the All Other Areas geographic area would be designated Conservation

16 (Mining). Within the Conservation land-use designation, mining would be allowed as a

17 conditionally permitted use. Agricultural uses would be prohibited. A small area along the

18 southern boundary of the Site near the Yakima River would be designated High-Intensity

19 Recreation. The area adjacent to the Vernita Rest Stop, east of State Highway 24 (which

20 includes the B Reactor Site) would also be designated as High-Intensity Recreation. The strip

21 designated for the west 135 ha (333 ac) of the Vernita Terrace would be designated Low22 Intensity Recreation, primarily for limited activities such as biking, hiking, fishing, hunting, boat

23 launching facilities, primitive camping, and nature viewing.

24

25 Areas north of the City of Richland would be designated as Industrial and Research

26 and Development. 

27

28 ES3.5.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

29

30 The ALE Reserve would be designated as Conservation (Mining) under Alternative

31 Three.

32

33
Revised Draft ES-35 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-15. Benton County Proposed Critical Areas Map. 2
Executive Summary ES-36 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-16. City of Richland Urban Growth Area. 2
Revised Draft ES-37 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-17. Wahluke 2000 Plan Map. 2
Executive Summary ES-38 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-18. Alternative Three. 2
Revised Draft ES-39 Executive Summary

1 ES3.6 Alternative Four

2

3 Alternative Four represents the vision of the CTUIR for the management of the Hanford

4 Site for the next 50 years. In the view of the CTUIR, the greatest value provided to the region

5 and the nation by the Hanford Site is its role as a natural resources reserve. The Hanford Site

6 contains numerous places of religious importance to members of the CTUIR who practice

7 traditional Indian religions. These places include the major basalt outcrops, the active dunes

8 area, and other sites. Protection of these sites and of Tribal governments' access to these

9 sites are of great important to the CTUIR and its members (as well as to other Hanford10 affected Tribal governments) and will be an issue of great importance. Figure ES-19 is a map

11 of Alternative Four.

12

13 ES3.6.1 Wahluke Slope

14

15 Alternative Four would manage the entire Wahluke Slope area as Preservation. Under

16 the Preservation designation, grazing would not be allowed.

17

18 ES3.6.2 Columbia River Corridor

19

20 Alternative Four would designate almost the entire Columbia River Corridor as

21 Preservation. The Preservation designation would allow managed recreation within the

22 Corridor. This activity would include the continued operation of the White Bluffs boat launch

23 on the east side of the river. A High-Intensity Recreation public boat launch would be located

24 near the Vernita Bridge on the south side of the river. Alternative Four would also provide

25 another High-Intensity Recreation boat launch, located at the White Bluffs boat launch on the

26 Benton County side of the river, to support Tribal treaty-reserved fishing activity throughout the

27 Hanford Reach.

28

29 ES3.6.3 Central Plateau

30

31 The Central Plateau would be used for waste management activities. All permanent

32 waste disposal at the Hanford Site and research and development activities associated with

33 waste management would take place within the Central Plateau. 

34

35 ES3.6.4 All Other Areas

36

37 While Low-Intensity Recreation generally does not appear as a separate land use in

38 this geographic area, it is anticipated that compatible Low-Intensity Recreation would be

39 established throughout much of the All Other Areas geographic regions.

40

41 Alternative Four designates the area within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the Columbia River as

42 Preservation to protect archaeological resources. Areas north of Gable Butte and Gable

43 Mountain would be designated Preservation to protect sagebrush-steppe habitat. The area

44 north of the ALE Reserve and south of Umtanum Ridge (also known as McGee Ranch) would

45 be designated as Preservation to avoid habitat fragmentation and to provide a wildlife corridor

46 between Hanford and the Yakima Training Center.

47

48 Gable Mountain in the east and moving west through Gable Butte, and Umtanum Ridge

49 would be designated Preservation because of their cultural and biological importance. 

50 Alternative Four also recognizes the religious, cultural, and habitat significance of active dunes

51 north of Energy Northwest (formerly WPPSS) by designating them as Preservation.

52
Executive Summary ES-40 Revised Draft

1 Alternative Four designates a large area near the Central Plateau and between the

2 Plateau and the southeastern border of the Hanford Site as Conservation (Mining). This area

3 contains large areas of high quality mature sagebrush communities; therefore, DOE would

4 need to make prudent choices regarding the removal of needed material. If these geologic

5 materials are not needed, the land-use designation for this area should revert to Preservation.

6

7 Alternative Four treats LIGO as a pre-existing, nonconforming use. The area south and

8 east of the Wye Barricade (between State Highway 10 and the Hanford Site rail line) is

9 designated as Research and Development, and Industrial. 

10

11 Alternative Four designates a 3.2 km (2 mi) corridor along the Yakima River as

12 Preservation because of the density of archaeological sites and the area's value as a wildlife

13 corridor.

14

15 ES3.6.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

16

17 Alternative Four would continue to manage the ALE Reserve in a manner consistent

18 with the Preservation designation. The sole exception is an area of the ALE Reserve

19 bordering State Highway 240 near the 200 West Area that would be designated Conservation

20 (Mining). If the site is not used as a source for waste site capping material, the land-use

21 designation should revert to Preservation.

22

23

24 ES3.7 Comparisons of Affected Areas by Alternatives

25

26 Table ES-2 shows comparisons of the affected areas by alternative, Table ES-3 shows

27 the potential realm of impacts from each of the land-use designations. Table ES-5

28 (immediately following Section ES.5.4.4) shows a summary of potential impacts to Hanford

29 Site resources. 

30
Revised Draft ES-41 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-19. Alternative Four. 2
Executive Summary ES-42 Revised Draft

1 Table ES-2. Comparisons of Affected Areas by Alternative. (2 pages)

2 No- Preferred

Action* Alt. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

3 Areas in Hectares

4 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 23,951 0 

5 Conservation (Mining and 0 43,857 0 0 6,476 0 

6 Grazing)

7 Conservation (Mining) 0 1,005 15,921 0 72,685 19,341 

8 Industrial 22,534 15,378 2,542 1,830 17,860 6,882 

9 Industrial-Exclusive 5,064 5,064 4,593 4,593 5,064 5,064 

10 Preservation 46,366 77,449 124,517 140,767 9,002 112,321 

11 High-Intensity Recreation 0 82 64 191 1,768 77 

12 Low-Intensity Recreation 1 334 29 0 3,097 7 

13 Research & Development 0 4,912 414 699 8,177 4,388 

14 Open Space Reserved 74,115 0 0 0 0 0 

15 **TOTAL 148,080 148,080 148,080 148,080 148,080 148,080 

16 Areas in Acres

17 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 59,184 0 

18 Conservation (Mining and 0 108,371 0 0 16,003 0 

19 Grazing)

20 Conservation (Mining) 0 2,483 39,342 0 179,609 47,793 

21 Industrial 55,684 38,000 6,281 4,522 44,133 17,006 

22 Industrial-Exclusive 12,513 12,513 11,350 11,350 12,513 12,513 

23 Preservation 114,573 191,381 307,688 347,843 22,244 277,551 

24 High-Intensity Recreation 0 203 158 472 4,369 190 

25 Low-Intensity Recreation 2 825 72 0 7,653 17 

26 Research & Development 0 12,138 1,023 1,727 20,206 10,843 

27 Open Space Reserved 183,142 0 0 0 0 0 

28 TOTAL 365,914 365,914 365,914 365,914 365,914 365,914 

29 * The No-Action Alternative does not have land-use designations. It has areas

30 administered similar to land-use designations (see Figure ES-3).

31 ** In addition to the 148,080 ha (572 mi ) of land surface areas, this EIS affects 3642.3 ha 2

32 (14.1 mi ) of surface water, almost all of which is the Columbia River. 2
Table ES-2. Comparisons of Affected Areas by Alternative. (2 pages)

No- Preferred

Action* Alt. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Revised Draft ES-43 Executive Summary

1 Areas in Square Miles

2 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 92 0 

3 Conservation (Mining and 0 169 0 0 25 0 

4 Grazing)

5 Conservation (Mining) 0 4 61 0 281 75 

6 Industrial 87 59 10 7 69 27 

7 Industrial-Exclusive 20 20 18 18 20 20 

8 Preservation 179 299 481 544 35 434 

9 High-Intensity Recreation 0 0 0 1 7 0 

10 Low-Intensity Recreation 0 1 0 0 12 0 

11 Research & Development 0 19 2 3 32 17 

12 Open Space Reserved 286 0 0 0 0 0 

13 **TOTAL 572 572 572 572 572 572 

14 Percentage of Area

15 Agriculture 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.17% 0.00%

16 Conservation (Mining and 0.00% 29.62% 0.00% 0.00% 4.37% 0.00%

17 Grazing)

18 Conservation (Mining) 0.00% 0.68% 10.75% 0.00% 49.08% 13.06%

19 Industrial 15.22% 10.38% 1.72% 1.41% 12.06% 4.65%

20 Industrial-Exclusive 3.42% 3.42% 3.10% 3.10% 3.42% 3.42%

21 Preservation 31.31% 52.30% 84.09% 94.89% 6.08% 75.85%

22 High-Intensity Recreation 0.00% 0.06% 0.04% 0.13% 1.19% 0.05%

23 Low-Intensity Recreation 0.00% 0.23% 0.02% 0.00% 2.09% 0.00%

24 Research & Development 0.00% 3.32% 0.28% 0.47% 5.52% 2.96%

25 Open Space Reserved 50.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

26 TOTAL 100.00% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

27 * The No-Action Alternative does not have land-use designations. It has areas

28 administered similar to land-use designations (see Figure ES-3).

29 ** In addition to the 148,080 ha (572 mi ) of land surface areas, this EIS affects 3642.3 ha 2

30 (14.1 mi ) of surface water, almost all of which is the Columbia River. 2
Executive Summary ES-44 Revised Draft

1 Table ES-3. Potential Adverse Impacts of Each Land-Use Alternative.

2 Alternative Land-Use

Designation

Geologic Features

Groundwater

Surface Water

Biological Resources

BRMaP Level II

BRMaP Level III

BRMaP Level IV

Cultural Resources

Aesthetic Resources

3 No-Action

Agriculture x x x x x

Development x x x x x x x x x

Recreation x x x x

Mining x x x x x x x x x

Grazing x x x x x x

4 Preferred

5 Alternative

Agriculture

Development x x x x x x

Recreation x x x x x x

Mining x x x x x x x x

Grazing x x x x x x x x

6 Alternative

7 One

Agriculture

Development x x x x x

Recreation x x x

Mining x x

Grazing x x

8 Alternative

9 Two

Agriculture

Development x

Recreation x

Mining

Grazing x x

10 Alternative

11 Three

Agriculture x x x x x x x x x

Development x x x x x x

Recreation x x x x x

Mining x x x x x x x x x

Grazing x x x x x

12 Alternative

13 Four

Agriculture

Development x x x x x x

Recreation x x x x x

Mining x x

Grazing

14 Note: X’s signify existence of potential impacts but do not indicate comparable impacts. Use

15 of X’s is consistent with methodology used by some of the Cooperating Agencies.

16
Revised Draft ES-45 Executive Summary

1 ES4.0 Affected Environment

2

3 The Hanford Site lies within the semiarid Pasco Basin of the Columbia Plateau in

4 southeastern Washington State. The Hanford Site occupies an area of approximately

5 1,517 km (586 mi ) north of the confluence of the Yakima River with the Columbia River. The 2 2

6 Columbia River flows through the northern part of the Hanford Site and, turning south, forms

7 part of the Hanford Site’s eastern boundary. This section of the Columbia River is known as

8 the Hanford Reach and is the last unimpounded, nontidal segment of the Columbia River in

9 the United States. The Yakima River runs near the southern boundary and joins the Columbia

10 River below the City of Richland, which bounds the Hanford Site on the southeast.

11

12 The production of defense nuclear materials at the Hanford Site since the 1940s has

13 necessitated the exclusion of public access and most non-government-related development on

14 the Hanford Site. As a result of its defense-related mission, the Hanford Site has also

15 provided de facto protection of the natural environment and cultural resources; however, the

16 defense nuclear production mission has also left the Hanford Site with an extensive legacy of

17 waste. Nuclear weapons material production and associated activities at the Hanford Site

18 during the past five decades have generated a variety of radioactive, hazardous, and other

19 wastes that have been disposed of or discharged to the air, soil, and water at the Hanford Site.

20

21

22 ES4.1 Existing Land Uses

23

24 For many years, the area along the Columbia River was used extensively by American

25 Indian tribal members for fishing, hunting, and gathering. Pasturing of livestock became 

26 important in pre-contact times. Land uses at the Hanford Site have changed dramatically over

27 the past 100 years. By the turn of the century, settlers had moved into the area, developing

28 irrigated farmland and practicing extensive grazing. In 1943, the Federal government acquired

29 the Hanford Site for production of nuclear materials to be used in the development of the

30 atomic bomb.

31

32 Existing land uses within the vicinity of the Hanford Site include urban and industrial

33 development, wildlife protection areas, recreation, irrigated and dryland farming, and grazing. 

34 Other land uses in the vicinity of the Hanford Site include a planned, low-level radioactive

35 waste decontamination, super-compaction, plasma gasification and vitrification unit (operated

36 by Allied Technology Group Corporation); and a commercial nuclear fuel fabrication facility

37 (operated by Siemens Power Corporation). Much of the Hanford Site is undeveloped,

38 providing a safety and security buffer for the smaller areas used for operations. 

39

40 ES4.1.1 Wahluke Slope

41

42 The area north of the Columbia River consists of 357 km (138 mi ) of relatively 2 2

43 undisturbed or recovering shrub-steppe habitat known as the Wahluke Slope. The northwest

44 portion of the area is managed by the USFWS as the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife

45 Refuge under a permit issued by DOE in 1971. The permit conditions require that the refuge

46 remain closed to the public as a protective perimeter surrounding Hanford operations. The

47 closure has benefitted migratory birds, such as curlews, and waterfowl.

48

49 In the northeast portion of the Wahluke Slope, the WDFW operates the Wahluke State

50 Wildlife Recreation Area, which was established in 1971. The WDFW has leased a total of

51 approximately 43 ha (107 ac) of the Wahluke State Wildlife Recreation Area for

52 sharecropping. The purpose of these agricultural leases is to produce food and cover for
Executive Summary ES-46 Revised Draft

1 wildlife and to manage the land for continued multi-purpose recreation. In addition, the WDFW

2 issued a grazing permit for approximately 3,756 ha (9,280 ac). The Wahluke State Wildlife

3 Recreation Area is open to the public for recreational uses during daylight hours. 

4

5 The Wahluke Slope once contained small, nonradioactively contaminated sites that

6 DOE remediated in 1997. The DOE is not planning to alter the current land uses of the

7 Wahluke Slope and is specifically prohibited from causing any adverse impacts on the values

8 for which the area is under consideration for Wild and Scenic River or National Wildlife Refuge

9 status.

10

11 ES4.1.2 Columbia River Corridor

12

13 The 111.6 km (43.1 mi ) Columbia River Corridor, which is adjacent to and runs 2 2

14 through the Hanford Site, is used by the public and Tribes for boating, water skiing, fishing,

15 and hunting of upland game birds and migratory waterfowl. While public access is allowed on

16 certain islands, access to other islands and adjacent areas is restricted because of unique

17 habitats and the presence of cultural resources.

18

19 The 100 Areas occupy approximately 68 km (26 mi ) along the southern shoreline of 2 2

20 the Columbia River Corridor. The area contains all of the facilities in the 100 Areas, including

21 nine retired plutonium production reactors, associated facilities, and structures. The primary

22 land uses are reactor decommissioning and undeveloped areas. Future use restrictions have

23 been placed in the vicinity of the 100-H Area, which is associated with the 183-H Solar

24 Evaporation Basins. Additional deed restrictions or covenants for activities that potentially

25 extend beyond 4.6 meters (m) (15 feet [ft]) below ground surface are expected for other

26 CERCLA remediation areas.

27

28 The area known as the Hanford Reach includes an average of a 402 m (1,320 ft) strip

29 of public land on either side of the Columbia River. The Hanford Reach is the last

30 unimpounded, nontidal segment of the Columbia River in the United States. In 1988,

31 Congress passed Public Law 100-605, Comprehensive River Conservation Study, which

32 required the Secretary of the Interior to prepare an environmental impact study (in consultation

33 with the Secretary of Energy) to evaluate the outstanding features of the Hanford Reach and

34 its immediate environment.

35

36 Alternatives for preserving the outstanding features also were examined, including the

37 designation of the Hanford Reach as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system with

38 the 1994 Hanford Reach EIS. In 1996 the DOI made a decision for Congressional

39 consideration in their 1996 Hanford Reach ROD. The ROD recommended that the Hanford

40 Reach be designated a “recreational river” as defined by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers

41 Act of 1968. The ROD also recommended that the remainder of the Wahluke Slope be

42 established as a National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Finally, the ROD recommended that the

43 approximately 728 ha (1,800 ac) of private land located in the Hanford Reach Study Area be

44 included in the recreational river boundary, but not the refuge boundary. The final designation

45 will require Congressional legislation. 

46

47 There are two proposals currently under consideration in Congress. The primary

48 differences between the proposals include the extent of the geographic scope (whether the

49 Wahluke Slope is addressed in addition to the river corridor), and the designation of the land

50 manager (i.e., local vs. Federal control).

51

52 In addition to the proposed Wild and Scenic legislation, discussions have been held to

53 swap certain parcels of land in the State of Washington from the Secretary of Energy to the
Revised Draft ES-47 Executive Summary

1 Secretary of the Interior, affecting about 197 km (75 mi ) of the Hanford Site. This swap 2 2

2 would consolidate the scattered Benton County portion of Hanford’s BLM Public Domain lands,

3 into an area beginning near 100-D, running south and east along the Columbia River shore, to

4 just north of Energy Northwest (formerly WPPSS) and then west to Gable Mountain. As long

5 as these lands are needed (i.e., still withdrawn from BLM by DOE), this legislative action would

6 not affect DOE’s administration of the areas involved. The DOE use of withdrawn BLM Public

7 Domain lands is consistent with most land-use designations with the exceptions of Industrial

8 Exclusive, Research and Development, or Industrial designations where BLM’s multiple-use

9 mandate would be limited by an extensive infrastructure.

10

11 ES4.1.3 Central Plateau

12

13 The 200 East and 200 West Areas occupy approximately 51 km (19.5 mi ). Facilities 2 2

14 located in the Central Plateau were built to process irradiated fuel from the production reactors. 

15 The operation of these facilities resulted in the storage, disposal, and unplanned release of

16 radioactive and nonradioactive waste. The primary land uses are waste operations and

17 operations support. Deed restrictions or covenants for activities that potentially may extend

18 beyond 4.6 m (15 ft) below ground surface are expected for CERCLA remediation areas in the

19 Central Plateau geographic area.

20

21 In 1964, a 410 ha (1,000 ac) tract was leased to the State of Washington to promote

22 nuclear-related development. A commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, run by

23 U.S. Ecology, Inc., currently operates on 41 ha (100 ac) of the leasehold. The rest of the

24 leasehold was not used by the State, and this portion of the leasehold recently reverted to

25 DOE. The DOE constructed the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) on this

26 tract. The ERDF is operated on the Central Plateau to provide disposal capacity for

27 environmental remediation waste (e.g., low-level, mixed low-level, and dangerous wastes)

28 generated during remediation of the 100, 200, and 300 Areas of the Hanford Site. The facility

29 is currently about 65 ha (160 ac) and can be expanded up to 414 ha (1.6 mi ) if additional 2

30 waste disposal capacity is required.

31

32 ES4.1.4 All Other Areas

33

34 The All Other Areas geographic area is 689 km (266 mi ) and contains the 300, 400, 2 2

35 and 1100 Areas; Energy Northwest (formerly WPPSS facilities); and a section of land currently

36 owned by the State of Washington. The DOE prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA)

37 that resulted in a finding of no significant impact on August 27, 1998 for the transfer of the

38 1100 Area and the Southern rail connection to the Port of Benton (DOE/RL EA-1260). The

39 Port officially took ownership and control of the “1100 Area” (consisting of 786 acres, 26

40 buildings, and 16 miles of rail tract) on Oct. 1, 1998. 

41

42 The 300 Area, located just north of the City of Richland, covers 1.5 km (0.6 mi ) and is 2 2

43 used for research and technology development facilities. The 400 Area, located southeast of

44 the 200 East Area, is the site of the FFTF, which was used in the testing of breeder reactor

45 systems and is scheduled to be shut down. Defueling of the FFTF, which was the first major

46 phase of deactivation, was completed in April 1995. The next deactivation phases are now

47 under way; however, DOE is also studying if the FFTF reactor could be used to produce

48 medical isotopes. The primary land use for the 400 Area is reactor operations and irradiation

49 services with attendant support functions including fuel and target fabrication, processing, and

50 interim storage.

51
Executive Summary ES-48 Revised Draft

1 The 1100 Area located north of Richland (now under ownership of the Port of Benton),

2 served as the central warehousing, vehicle maintenance, and transportation operations center

3 for the Hanford Site.

4

5 Other land uses in the All Other Areas geographic area include the Hazardous

6 Materials Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) Volpentest Training and

7 Education Center; land that was leased to Energy Northwest (formerly WPPSS) in the 1970s

8 to construct three commercial power reactors (one plant was completed and is currently

9 operating); the LIGO, built by the National Science Foundation on the Hanford Site; and a 259

10 ha (640 ac) section of land south of the 200 East Area, near State Highway 240, owned by the

11 State of Washington for the purpose of nonradioactive hazardous waste disposal. This parcel

12 is uncontaminated (although the underlying groundwater is contaminated) and undeveloped. 

13 The deed requires that the property shall be used only for storage, processing and disposal of

14 hazardous industrial (non-nuclear) waste, and for related activities. If the property is used for

15 any other purpose, ownership would revert to the Federal government.

16

17 ES4.1.5 Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve)

18

19 The Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (also designated the Rattlesnake

20 Hills Research Natural Area, or the ALE Reserve) encompasses 308.7 km (119.2 mi ) in the 2 2

21 southwestern portion of the Hanford Site and is managed as a habitat and wildlife reserve and

22 environmental research center. A Research Natural Area is a classification used by Federal

23 land management agencies to designate lands on which various natural features are

24 preserved in an undisturbed state solely for research and educational purposes. The ALE

25 Reserve remains the largest Research Natural Area in the State of Washington. 

26

27 The mineral rights to a 518 ha (1,280 ac) area on the ALE Reserve are owned by a

28 private company. The company has been free to enter this area and explore for oil or gas

29 since 1977.

30

31 Because public access to the ALE Reserve has been restricted since 1943, the shrub32 steppe habitat is virtually undisturbed and is part of a much larger Hanford tract of shrub33 steppe vegetation. This geographic area contained a number of small contaminated sites that

34 were remediated in 1994 and 1995 and have been revegetated. In 1997, DOE granted a

35 permit and entered into an agreement with USFWS to manage the ALE Reserve consistently

36 with the existing ALE Facility Management Plan. Under this framework, the USFWS is

37 preparing a CCP pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 to

38 identify refuge management actions and to bring the ALE into the National Wildlife Refuge

39 System.

40

41

42 ES4.2 Hanford Site Land Ownership

43

44 The Hanford Site land holdings consist of three different real property classifications: 

45 (1) lands acquired in fee by DOE or its predecessor agencies, (2) BLM-administered Public

46 Domain lands withdrawn from the Public Domain for use as part of the Hanford Site, and

47 (3) lands the BoR has withdrawn from the Public Domain or acquired in fee as part of the

48 Columbia Basin Project (Figure ES-20).

49

50 The BoR agreed in a MOA to transfer custody, possession, and use of certain acquired

51 and withdrawn lands situated within the control zone of the Hanford Works to the U.S. Atomic

52 Energy Commission (AEC) on February 27, 1957. These lands consisted of a checkerboard

53 pattern of alternating square-mile sections on the Wahluke Slope. The BoR retained the right
Revised Draft ES-49 Executive Summary

1 to construct, operate, and maintain the Wahluke Canal and related facilities and any

2 necessary wasteways and drainage ways through the Wahluke Slope in connection with

3 irrigation of lands outside of the control zone. These lands were included in the South

4 Columbia Basin Irrigation District and the East Columbia Irrigation District at the time of district

5 formation. In the MOA, the BoR identified a continued interest in development of irrigable

6 lands on the Wahluke Slope as part of the Columbia Basin Project. The AEC acknowledged

7 the interest of the BoR and reaffirmed a policy of keeping DOE land ownership and restrictions

8 of land use on the Wahluke Slope to a minimum.

9

10 The BoR continues to retain an interest in the ultimate development of the irrigable

11 lands within the Wahluke Slope as part of the Columbia Basin Project. The interest of the BoR

12 pertains not only to irrigation development, but also to other project purposes (e.g., fish and

13 wildlife protection) and to resource management and environmental concerns. The BoR

14 maintains that the agreement with the AEC assures return of the lands when the lands are no

15 longer necessary to support DOE’s mission for the Hanford Site. Furthermore, the BoR would

16 not concur with any change in the present use of the lands until technical and environmental

17 studies were completed.

18

19 The alternating square-mile sections that would eventually revert to the BLM or BoR are

20 an important consideration that complicates land-use planning. Because the lands are owned

21 by another government agency (BLM or BoR), DOE cannot authorize uses of the property

22 beyond the mission needs of DOE. Typically, after getting the land back, the BLM evaluates

23 current use(s) of the land, compatibility of uses, and suitability of the land for different uses

24 (i.e., mining, grazing, recreation, and preservation). When DOE relinquishes its withdrawals on

25 lands that were historically Federal, those lands withdrawn only by DOE would revert to the

26 Public Domain and management by BLM. Those lands withdrawn by the overlapping DOE

27 and BoR withdrawals would remain withdrawn and managed by the BoR.

28

29 The BoR’s use of the withdrawn Public Domain lands after the relinquishment of DOE’s

30 overlapping withdrawal must be consistent with the purposes for which they were originally

31 withdrawn from BLM by BoR. If they are not, the BoR would be expected to relinquish or

32 renegotiate its withdrawal notice under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

33 and the lands could be returned to the Public Domain for BLM management.

34

35

36 ES4.3 Geological and Soil Resources

37

38 The Hanford Site lies within the Columbia intermountain physiographic province, which

39 is bordered on the north and east by the Rocky Mountains and on the west by the Cascade

40 Range. The dominant geologic characteristics of this province are the thick accumulation of

41 basaltic lava flows.

42

43 A series of bluffs occurs for a distance of approximately 56 km (35 mi) along the

44 eastern and northern shores of the Columbia River (Figure ES-21). In the northern portion of

45 the area, these bluffs are known as the White Bluffs. The entire area of the bluffs along the

46 northern and eastern shores of the Columbia River is susceptible to landslides. Recent

47 landslides have occurred in four areas along the bluffs. A slide near Locke Island caused the

48 loss of cultural artifacts on the island by changing the channel of the river and causing erosion. 

49 These slides can also disturb and destroy salmonid spawning beds by siltation. Irrigation is a

50 contributing factor to these landslides.
Executive Summary ES-50 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-20. Hanford Site Land Ownership. 2
Revised Draft ES-51 Executive Summary

1 Natural gas was discovered on Rattlesnake Mountain in 1913. The small, shallow field

2 was developed in 1929 and produced natural gas until the field was closed in 1941. The

3 mineral rights to a 518 ha (1,280 ac) area of the ALE Reserve are still owned by a private

4 company.

5

6 The Hanford Dune Field, located north of WNP-2, is one of three great dune fields in

7 the Columbia River Basin. The Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service recommended

8 inclusion of the dunes in the National Natural Landmark System.

9

10 Earthquake hazards are relatively low. Several major volcanos are located in the

11 Cascade Range to the west of the Hanford Site. Mount St. Helens is located approximately

12 220 km (136 mi) west-southwest of the Hanford Site. The major concern is that ashfall could

13 disrupt communication and travel on the Site.

14

15 There are 15 different soil types on the Hanford Site that vary from sand to silt loam. 

16 The most common soil type is Quincy sand. Because of the recent Missoula Floods and dry

17 climate, pedogenesis in the area has not yet created a readily available clay that could be

18 used for remedial action landfill covers. No soils on the Hanford Site are currently classified as

19 prime or unique farmlands because they would require irrigation.

20

21

22 ES4.4 Water Resources

23

24 Primary surface-water features associated with the Hanford Site are the Columbia and

25 Yakima Rivers. In addition, several surface ponds and ditches are associated with Hanford

26 Site operation (Figure ES-22). Cold Creek and its tributaries are ephemeral springs within the

27 Yakima River drainage. Rattlesnake Springs, located on the western portion of the Site, forms

28 a small surface stream that flows for approximately 3 km (1.9 mi) before disappearing into the

29 ground. 

30

31 Wetlands include transitional lands occurring between terrestrial and aquatic

32 ecosystems (Figure ES-23) where the water table usually is close to the surface or where

33 shallow water covers the surface. The primary jurisdictional wetlands found on the

34 Hanford Site occur along the Hanford Reach and include the riparian and riverine habitats

35 located along the river shoreline. Riparian habitat includes the uplands immediately adjacent

36 to the Hanford Reach or its backwater sloughs and supports vegetation typical of a high water

37 table. Common riparian species found along the Hanford Reach include a variety of woody

38 and herbaceous plant species.

39

40 Flow along the Hanford Reach is controlled by the Priest Rapids Dam. The likelihood

41 of recurrence of large-scale flooding has been reduced by the construction of flood control and

42 water storage dams upstream of the Hanford Site (Figure ES-24). Artificial wetlands (caused

43 by irrigation) exist on the Wahluke Slope. Ecology has classified the Hanford Reach as

44 Class A (Excellent). Class A waters are suitable for essentially all uses, including drinking

45 water, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Potential well head protection areas would be

46 associated with areas of high recharge potential (Figure ES-25). Radionuclide concentrations

47 in the Columbia River are well below drinking water standards at all monitoring locations.

48

49 The quality of the groundwater at the Hanford Site has been affected by activities

50 related to the production of nuclear materials. Large areas underlying the Hanford Site have

51 elevated levels of both radiological and nonradiological constituents.

52
Executive Summary ES-52 Revised Draft

1 Water use in the area is primarily from surface diversion, with groundwater sources

2 accounting for less than 10 percent of the total use. The first downstream drinking water

3 intake below the Hanford Site is the City of Richland’s intake.

4

5 The Hanford Site and the Department of Defense Yakima Training Center (located to

6 the west of the Hanford Site) contain the largest remaining remnant of shrub-steppe vegetation

7 in the Columbia Basin. Washington State is rapidly losing shrub-steppe habitat. The State of

8 Washington has designated shrub-steppe habitat as priority habitat because shrub-steppe

9 areas possess unique or significant value to many species. The DOI National Biological

10 Service identifies native shrub and grassland steppe in Washington and Oregon as

11 endangered ecosystem (with an 85 to 98 percent decline). The ALE Reserve supports one of

12 the largest remnants of relatively undisturbed shrub-steppe ecosystem in the State of

13 Washington. A herd of approximately 800 Rocky Mountain elk is present on the ALE Reserve. 

14

15 ES4.5 Air Resources

16

17 The Hanford Site climate is semiarid with an average annual precipitation of 16 cm

18 (6.3 in). Summers are warm and dry with abundant sunshine. Prevailing wind directions are

19 from the northwest during all months of the year. Regional air quality is generally good. 

20 Particulate standards have been exceeded 20 times in the last 10 years due to blowing dust.

21

22 ES4.6 Biological Resources

23

24 As a Federal land manager, DOE is responsible for conserving fish, wildlife, and plant

25 populations and their habitats on the Hanford Site. Information about these natural resources

26 is presented below. The WDFW identifies priority habitats and priority species within

27 Washington State (Figures ES-26, ES-27, and ES-28). Counties and cities may use

28 information prepared by the WDFW to classify and designate locally important habitats and

29 species. While these priorities are those of the Department, they and the data on which they

30 are based may be considered by counties and cities when developing their land-use plans

31 under the GMA.

32

33 The Hanford Site is a relatively large, mostly undisturbed area of shrub-steppe habitat

34 containing numerous plant and animal species adapted to the semiarid environment of the

35 region characterized as a shrub-steppe ecosystem. In the early 1800s, the dominant plant in

36 the area was big sagebrush with an understory of perennial bunchgrasses, especially

37 Sandberg’s bluegrass and bluebunch wheatgrass. With the advent of settlement that brought

38 increased livestock grazing and crop raising, the natural vegetation has been invaded by non39 native annual species, especially cheatgrass. The dryland areas of the Hanford Site were

40 treeless in the years before land settlement; however, trees were planted and irrigated on most

41 of the farms to provide windbreaks and shade. Some of the trees died when the farms were

42 abandoned in 1943. Today these trees serve as nesting platforms for several species of birds

43 (e.g., hawks, owls, ravens, magpies, and great blue herons), and as night roosts for wintering

44 bald eagles.

45

46

47
Revised Draft ES-53 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-21. Topography of the Hanford Site. 2
Executive Summary ES-54 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-22. Surface Water on the Hanford Site. 2
Revised Draft ES-55 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-23. Wetlands on the Hanford Site. 2
Executive Summary ES-56 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-24. Probable Maximum Flood of the Columbia

2 River and Cold Creek, and the Actual 1948 Flood of the

3 Columbia River. 4
Revised Draft ES-57 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-25. Estimated Recharge from Infiltration of

2 Precipitation and Irrigation on the Hanford Site. 3
Executive Summary ES-58 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-26. WDFW Priority Habitats on the Hanford Site. 2
Revised Draft ES-59 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-27. WDFW Priority Species: State Listed and

2 Candidate. 3
Executive Summary ES-60 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-28. WDFW Priority Species: Vulnerable

2 Aggregations and Species of Recreation, Commercial,

3 and/or Tribal Importance. 4
Revised Draft ES-61 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-29. Plant Communities of Concern on the

2 Hanford Site. 3
Executive Summary ES-62 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-29. Plant Communities of Concern on the

2 Hanford Site (Legend). 3
Revised Draft ES-63 Executive Summary

1 Several large portions of the Hanford Site are administered in a manner to protect and

2 preserve biological resources, such as the ALE Reserve and the Wahluke Slope. The ALE

3 Reserve has been used for ecological research dating back to 1952. As a result of a Federal

4 interagency cooperative agreement, the ALE Reserve was designated as the Rattlesnake Hills

5 Research Natural Area in 1971 and is now managed by the USFWS under a 1998 DOE

6 permit. The ALE Reserve is a protected environmental and valuable ecological study site. 

7

8 Mule deer are found throughout the Hanford Site, although areas of the highest

9 concentrations are on the ALE Reserve and along the Columbia River. Islands in the Hanford

10 Reach are used extensively as fawning sites by deer.

11

12 There are three species of birds and one fish species that are on the Federal List of

13 Endangered and Threatened Species, and several species of plants and animals are under

14 consideration for formal listing by the State of Washington. State endangered plants and state

15 threatened plants are found on the Hanford site. The state endangered plants are the

16 northern wormwood and the Columbia yellowcress; state-threatened plants are the Columbia

17 milk-vetch, Hoover’s desert-parsley, and white eatonella. State-sensitive plant species

18 occurring along the Hanford Reach include Piper’s daisy, the southern mudwort, dense sedge,

19 shining flatsedge, false pimpernel, gray crypthana, and the dwarf evening primrose.

20

21 The Columbia River and other water bodies on the Hanford Site provide valuable

22 habitat for aquatic organisms. The Hanford Reach represents the only remaining significant

23 mainstream Columbia River spawning habitat for stocks of upriver bright fall chinook salmon

24 and white sturgeon (Figure ES-30). The Upper Columbia River spring run chinook salmon (E25 3/99), Middle Columbia River steelhead (T-3/99) and Upper Columbia River steelhead (E-8/97)

26 have been placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. These fish spawn in

27 or migrate through the Hanford Reach. 

28

29 The DOE is currently in the process of developing and implementing an overall

30 management strategy for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant populations and their

31 habitats on the Hanford Site. The BRMaP provides a broad, but comprehensive, direction that

32 specifies DOE biological habitat resources policies, goals, and objectives; and prescribes how

33 they will be met. 

34

35

36 ES4.7 Cultural Resources

37

38 The Hanford Site is rich in cultural resources, with well-preserved archaeological sites. 

39 The Draft Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan was developed to establish guidance

40 for the identification and management of archaeological, historic, and traditional cultural

41 resources. Hanford Site cultural resources include American Indian historic and prehistoric

42 sites, historic properties representing early Euro-American settlements, and more recent

43 structures associated with the Manhattan Project and Cold War eras. 

44

45

46

47
Executive Summary ES-64 Revised Draft

1 Figure ES-30. Key Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Areas. 2
Revised Draft ES-65 Executive Summary

1 Because of the construction of dams and the resulting development elsewhere along

2 the Columbia River, many of the original cultural resources have been destroyed or are under

3 water. The Hanford Site is one of the few remaining archaeologically rich areas in the western

4 Columbia Plateau. Locations along the Columbia River played a central role in the

5 development of the Washane religion, which is still practiced by American Indian tribal

6 members in the region. The Hanford Site is considered to be culturally important by many

7 American Indians. Certain sites demonstrate traditional cultural significance because of

8 traditional beliefs, religious practices, and cultural practices. 

9

10 Recent historic structures are the defense reactors and associated materials11 processing facilities that are present on the Hanford Site. Plutonium for the first atomic

12 explosion (the Trinity test) and the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki to end World War II were

13 produced at the B Reactor on the Hanford Site as part of the Manhattan Project.

14

15

16 ES4.8 Socioeconomic Environment

17

18 Activity on the Hanford Site plays a dominant role in the socioeconomics of the

19 Tri-Cities and other parts of Benton and Franklin counties. The Tri-Cities serves as a market

20 center for a much broader area of eastern Washington and northeastern Oregon. 

21 Socioeconomic impacts of changes at Hanford are mostly confined to the immediate Tri-Cities

22 community and Benton and Franklin counties (and Yakima County, to a lesser extent). 

23

24 The 1996 estimated population of the three Tri-Cities was as follows: Richland, 35,990;

25 Pasco, 22,370; and Kennewick, 48,010. Estimates for 1996 placed population totals for

26 Benton and Franklin counties at 131,000 and 43,700, respectively.

27

28 Approximately 384,000 people reside within an 80 km (50 mi) radius of the Hanford

29 Site. The minority population within the area consists of about 95,000 people and represents

30 approximately 25 percent of the population. The ethnic composition of the minority population

31 is primarily Hispanic (approximately 80 percent) and American Indian (8 percent). Low-income

32 population represents approximately 42 percent of the households in the area.

33

34 Three major sectors have been the principal driving forces of the economy in the

35 Tri-Cities since the early 1970s:

36

37 C DOE and Hanford Site contractors – Approximately 11,400 employees worked for

38 DOE and its Hanford contractors in 1996. This number is down from over 19,000 in

39 1994 due to downsizing activities. An additional approximately 2,000 employees

40 support site cleanup though the "enterprise companies." Future downsizing in

41 Hanford Site employment is anticipated, although the extent of this downsizing is

42 unknown at this time.

43

44 C Energy Northwest (formerly Washington Public Power and Supply System

45 [WPPSS]) – In 1995 and 1996, downsizing activities at Energy Northwest

46 headquarters decreased employment to about 1,164 workers (down from more than

47 1,900 in 1994). The decommissioning of the mothballed Energy Northwest plants

48 (WNP-1 and WNP-4) within the next few years is expected to reduce the number of

49 employees further.

50

51 C Agriculture – In 1995, agricultural activities in Benton and Franklin counties were

52 responsible for approximately 9,739 jobs, or 12 percent of the total employment in

53 the area. Area farms and ranches generate a sizable number of jobs in supporting
Executive Summary ES-66 Revised Draft

1 sectors, such as agricultural services (e.g., application of pesticides and fertilizers or

2 irrigation system development) and sales of farm supplies and equipment. More

3 than 20 food processors in Benton and Franklin counties produce items such as

4 potato products, canned fruits and vegetables, wine, and animal feed.

5

6 Per capita income in 1994 for Benton County was $22,053, Franklin County was

7 $16,999, and Washington State was $22,526. The median household income in 1994 for

8 Benton County was estimated to be $43,684, Franklin County was estimated to be $31,121,

9 and the State of Washington was estimated at $38,094.

10

11 In 1996, 91 percent of all housing (44,488 total units) in the Tri-Cities was occupied. 

12 Single-unit housing, which represents nearly 59 percent of the total units, has a 95 percent

13 occupancy rate throughout the Tri-Cities.

14

15 The Hanford Site infrastructure is a significant resource for furthering industrial

16 development of the region. Key elements of this infrastructure include facilities, road and rail

17 systems, utilities, and support services.

18

19

20 ES4.9 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

21

22 The land in the vicinity of the Hanford Site is generally flat with little relief. Rattlesnake

23 Mountain, rising to 1,060 m (3,477 ft) above sea level, forms the southeastern boundary of the

24 Hanford Site. Gable Mountain and Gable Butte are the highest land forms within the Hanford

25 Site. The view toward Rattlesnake Mountain is aesthetically appealing, particularly in the

26 spring when wildflowers are in bloom. Large rolling hills are located to the west and north. 

27 The Columbia River, flowing across the northern part of the Hanford Site and forming the

28 Site’s eastern boundary, is scenic with its contrasting blue against a background of brown

29 basaltic rocks and desert sagebrush. The White Bluffs, steep whitish-brown bluffs adjacent to

30 the Columbia River, are a striking natural feature of the landscape.

31

32

33 ES4.10 Noise

34

35 ES4.10.1 Hanford Site Sound Levels

36

37 Most industrial facilities on the Hanford Site are located far enough away from the Site

38 boundary that noise levels at the boundary are not measurable or are barely distinguishable

39 from background noise levels. 

40

41

42 ES4.11 Contaminated Areas

43

44 Three operating areas of the Hanford Site (the 100, 200, and 300 Areas) are still

45 included on the EPA’s National Priorities List. Radioactive and hazardous materials have been

46 disposed onsite throughout the period of active Hanford Site operations, resulting in 

47 contamination of the vadose zone and groundwater.

48

49 The Columbia River has received radiological and chemical contamination as a result of

50 past operations at the Hanford Site. Sediments in the Columbia River contain low levels of

51 Hanford radionuclides (e.g., cobalt-60 and europium-154), metals, and radionuclides from

52 worldwide nuclear weapons testing fallout, which collect in slack water habitats. 
Revised Draft ES-67 Executive Summary

1 In the 100 Area, contamination (e.g., strontium-90, tritium, nitrate, and chromium) exists

2 in some areas of surface soils, subsurface soils, and groundwater.

3

4 The Central Plateau has been used for fuel reprocessing, waste management, and

5 disposal activities and is the most extensively contaminated area at the Hanford Site. 

6 Contaminants include extensive groundwater plumes of technetium-99, iodine-129, nitrate,

7 tritium, uranium, and chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and

8 trichloroethylene).

9

10 The 600 Area presents a diverse range of existing contamination. Portions of the

11 600 Area vadose zone are essentially uncontaminated, while nearby operating areas, such as

12 the 300 Area, present significant environmental remediation challenges. Extensive

13 groundwater contamination (e.g., nitrate, tritium, technetium-99, and iodine-129) is present in

14 the 600 Area.

15

16 ES4.12 Hanford Site Protective Safety Buffer Zones

17

18 Existing and planned waste disposal sites, waste processing facilities, and hazardous

19 or radiological materials storage facilities are found throughout the Hanford Site. To protect

20 the public from routine or accidental releases of radiological contaminants and/or hazardous

21 materials, the use of protective buffer zones surrounding the waste remediation, processing,

22 and disposal areas is required by DOE O 151.1 - Comprehensive Emergency Management

23 System, Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations 29 CFR 1910.120 -

24 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, and OSHA 29 CFR 1910.119 -

25 Process Safety Management (PSM) Rule. 

26

27 These buffer zones limit public exposure to radiological and hazardous chemicals from

28 routine operations and accidents. A methodology was developed to determine the location,

29 size, shape, and characteristics of the buffer zones needed for the Hanford Site, using existing

30 safety analysis reports, hazard assessments, and emergency planning zone studies. This

31 methodology allows decision makers to restrict potential land uses in areas where hazardous

32 or radioactive material handling could pose an unacceptable risk to human health.

33

34 Buffer zones necessary to protect human health and safety in potential accidents are

35 divided into two main components – an inner exclusion zone or an exclusive use zone (EUZ)

36 and an emergency planning zone (EPZ) (see Figure ES-9).

37

38 C The EUZ is an area designated for operation activities associated with a waste site

39 or facility. Each DOE nuclear facility is required to maintain a public buffer zone

40 where 25 rem would not be exceeded in the event of an unmitigated accident

41 (DOE O 420.1). The EUZ is reserved for DOE or other hazardous operations with

42 severely restricted public access. This zone extends from the facility fence line to a

43 distance at which threats to the public from routine and accidental releases diminish

44 to the point where public access can be routinely allowed. It is inside the EPZ and

45 is equivalent to the exclusion zone boundary required by DOE’s “Comprehensive

46 Emergency Management System Order” (DOE O 151.1).

47

48 C The EPZ is an area surrounding a facility for which emergency planning and

49 preparedness efforts are carried out to ensure that prompt and effective actions can

50 be taken to minimize the impact to onsite personnel, public health and safety, and

51 the environment in the event of an operational emergency. The EPZ begins at the

52 boundary of the facility and ends at a distance for which special planning and

53 preparedness efforts are no longer required. Access restrictions are not required
Executive Summary ES-68 Revised Draft

1 within an EPZ; however, DOE would be responsible for ensuring adequate planning

2 and preparedness efforts for every person within the zone.

3

4 In addition to DOE’s need for land to isolate from the public hazardous processes and

5 facilities that could produce a 25 rem radiological dose under any accident conditions, the

6 current site boundary has been used to identify and design safety class systems, structures

7 and components that are required to keep any accident from exceeding 500 mrem at the site

8 boundary. The current site boundary is also the point-of-compliance for protection of the

9 public to assure that routine releases from all DOE activities are less than 100 mrem (DOE O

10 5400.5), and that not more than 10 mrem is from airborne sources (40 CFR 61) or that not

11 more than 4 mrem are from groundwater sources (40 CFR 141). In addition to radiological

12 accident con-ditions, DOE also uses the current site boundary to protect the public from

13 potential hazardous chemical accidents such as a chlorine gas leak. If the CLUP policies and

14 implementing procedures on EUZs are adopted in the ROD, DOE expects to use DOE’s

15 annual review of safety and environmental permitting documentation to be the basis for EUZ

16 policy (see Chapter ES-6).

17

18

19 ES5.0 Environmental Consequences

20

21 The future land-use alternatives developed by DOE and the cooperating agencies and

22 consulting Tribal governments would have impacts to natural and cultural resources and could

23 affect the socioeconomic environment in the region. The potential environmental impacts of

24 each land use would depend on its nature, location, and amount of land affected. With the

25 exception of the No-Action Alternative, impacts would be mitigated by the proposed CLUP

26 Policies and implementing procedures. The reader should keep in mind that the impacts

27 presented here are the most severe, reasonably foreseeable, impacts that could result without

28 the mitigation of CLUP Policies and implementing procedures. For this reason, alternatives

29 that rely heavily on CLUP Policies and implementing procedures for mitigation (e.g., Alternative

30 Three) will show greater impacts than alternatives that rely on land-use designations (e.g.,

31 Alternative Two) for mitigation. The proper execution of the proposed CLUP Policies and

32 implementing procedures would bring the potential impacts of the alternatives closer together. 

33

34

35 ES5.1 Analysis Approach

36

37 ES5.1.1 Methods and Assumptions for Estimating Environmental Impacts

38

39 The analysis of impacts of alternatives focused on important resource elements are as

40 follows:

41

42 C Key resources, such as surface water (e.g., the Columbia River), groundwater, and

43 geologic resources

44

45 C Unique features, such as basalt outcrops, sand dunes and ripple marks, vistas,

46 viewsheds, archaeological and historic sites, and areas of cultural and religious

47 importance to American Indians

48

49 C Species and habitats, such as plant communities of concern, wildlife and wildlife

50 habitat, aquatic species and habitat, wetlands, and biodiversity.

51

52 Plant communities of concern were identified using the classification under the BRMaP:
Revised Draft ES-69 Executive Summary

1 C Level I – Biological resources that require some level of status monitoring because

2 of the recreational, commercial, or ecological role or previous protection status

3

4 C Level II – Biological resources that require consideration of compliance with laws

5 such as NEPA and CERCLA

6

7 C Level III – Biological resources that require mitigation because the resource is listed

8 by the State of Washington, is a candidate for Federal or state listing, has unique or

9 significant value, has a special administrative designation, or is environmentally

10 sensitive 

11

12 C Level IV – Biological resources that justify preservation because these resources

13 are Federally protected or have regional and national significance. These include

14 high quality or rare plant communities, habitats, and species.

15

16 The possible impacts under the nine land-use designations were organized into five

17 impacting activities: 

18

19 C Mining

20 C Livestock grazing

21 C Cultivated agriculture

22 C Development

23 C Recreation.

24

25 These five impacting activities were used to identify and describe the potential impacts to

26 resource elements under each land-use designation.

27

28 ES5.1.2 Methods and Assumptions for Estimating Socioeconomic Impacts

29

30 The socioeconomic analysis focused on opportunities for economic development. 

31

32 ES5.1.2.1 Industrial Land Use. The socioeconomic impacts of the Industrial land use

33 designation were evaluated by comparing the industrial use land area under each alternative

34 to the estimated land needed for industrial development. The Benton County Planning

35 Department estimated industrial land development needs for the next 50 years to be 1,620 ha

36 (4,050 ac).

37

38 The area of land designated for Industrial was then correlated with potential

39 employment levels expressed as three ranges: less than 100 employees, 100 to 1,000

40 employees, and over 1,000 employees. The potential for future Federally sponsored industrial

41 projects was also considered by estimating land available for industrial development land in

42 excess of identified needs.

43

44 ES5.1.2.2 Industrial-Exclusive. The Industrial-Exclusive land-use designation applies to the

45 Central Plateau, where DOE would continue to manage Hanford Site waste. In general, this

46 designation involves the same land and activities for all alternatives. 

47

48 ES5.1.2.3 Agricultural. The evaluation of these impacts was based on the increase in land

49 available for agriculture use, as a percentage of agricultural land in Benton, Franklin, and

50 Grant counties.

51

52 Three scenarios for agricultural development on the Wahluke Slope were identified: 

53
Executive Summary ES-70 Revised Draft

1 C Scenario 1 – All agricultural lands would be used to produce a mix of crops similar

2 to those currently produced in the three-county study area. Lands in the BoR’s Red

3 Zone would be used for grazing.

4

5 C Scenario 2 – All agricultural lands would be used to produce a mix of crops similar

6 to those currently produced in the three-county study area.

7

8 C Scenario 3 – All agricultural lands would be used to produce specialty crops such

9 as irrigated fruits and vegetables. Lands in the BoR’s Red Zone would be used for

10 grazing.

11

12 ES5.1.2.4 Research and Development. The Research and Development land-use

13 designation involves the siting of large-scale or isolated facilities. This land use designation

14 was evaluated by estimating potential employment levels that could be supported under each

15 alternative. 

16

17 ES5.1.2.5 High-Intensity Recreation. The High-Intensity Recreation land-use designation

18 would involve intensive development of the Vernita Terrace area along the Columbia River

19 including a B-Reactor Museum, golf course, and a recreational vehicle park at Vernita Terrace. 

20 The economic impacts of intensive recreational use were estimated using regional averages of

21 recreational expenditures and data from golf courses in the area. 

22

23 ES5.1.2.6 Low-Intensity Recreation. The socioeconomic impacts of the Low-Intensity

24 Recreation land-use designation were evaluated using the data for sport fishing and day-use

25 activities.

26

27 ES5.1.2.7 Conservation (Mining and Grazing) and Conservation (Mining). Limited mining

28 and commercial grazing would be allowed under this land use. The economic impact of

29 grazing was based on the increase in the number of cattle that could be supported over the

30 current baseline. The economic effects of limited mining under the Conservation land-use

31 designation could not be quantified because of the lack of data on mining in the study area.

32

33 ES5.1.2.8 Preservation. The Preservation land-use designation would have little direct

34 impact, but may have indirect impacts on the quality of life, new educational and research

35 opportunities, and ecologically based tourism.

36

37

38 ES5.2 Human Health Impacts

39

40 Health risks are based on occupational activities that would be expected to occur under

41 different land-use scenarios (e.g., farming versus recreational are summarized in Table ES-4). 

42 Human health risk associated with contamination at the Hanford Site will continue to be

43 addressed through the RCRA and CERCLA processes. 

44

45 ES5.3 Resource Impacts

46

47 ES5.3.1 Geologic Resources

48

49 Impacts to unique geologic features would occur from mining under the Conservation

50 land-use designations. Development under the Industrial, Research and Development, and

51 High-Intensity Recreation land-use designations could also result in destruction of unique
Revised Draft ES-71 Executive Summary

1 features. Grazing is not anticipated to have impacts on these features, although overgrazing

2 could result in increased erosion of some features and terracing on the hillsides.

3

4 Except for the No-Action Alternative, mining activities would be consistent with the

5 CLUP policies requiring protection of natural and cultural resources. These policies are

6 designed to minimize future impact on unique geologic features. Other mitigation measures

7 that could reduce impacts to unique geologic features include the following:

8

9 C Perform scientific investigation of unique features so the scientific value would not

10 be lost

11

12 C Regulate recreational uses to protect areas containing unique geologic features

13

14 C Employ irrigation methods to minimize groundwater recharge in the White Bluffs

15 area.

16

17 ES5.3.2 Water Resources

18

19 Surface water resources could be impacted by future land uses in several ways. Water

20 quality could be degraded as a result of industrial wastewater discharges or runoff of

21 agricultural chemicals from cultivated fields or golf courses. Surface water could also be

22 degraded by livestock congregating in the vicinity of the water during dry periods. 

23

24 Impacts to groundwater could occur as a result of consumptive use or contamination. 

25 Contamination could result from infiltration of chemicals from spills or infiltration of agricultural

26 chemicals applied to crops, landscaped areas, or golf courses.

27

28 The CLUP planning process would be used to screen development proposals for

29 Hanford Site lands. Some activities would not be permitted and others would be required to

30 incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Examples of these activities include the

31 following:

32

33 C Minimize the use of groundwater

34

35 C Restrict irrigated agriculture on the Wahluke Slope or require efficient irrigation

36 methods to protect the White Bluffs

37

38 C Designate “no-wake” zones along areas of the Columbia River vulnerable to erosion

39

40
Executive Summary ES-72 Revised Draft

1 Table ES-4. Occupational Fatality Rates for Selected Occupations (1996) (3 pages).

2 Number, percent, and rate of potential fatal occupational injuries by selected worker

3 characteristics, industry, and occupation, 1996.

4 Characteristic Number Percent (thousands) workers (percent)

Fatalities

Employed per 100,000 Standard error 1

Fatalities Relative

2

3

5 TOTAL 6,112 100 127,997 4.8 .2

6 Employee Status

7 Wage and salary workers 1,207 80 117,329 4.2 .2

8 Self-employed 20 10,668 11.1 1.1

9 Gender 5,605

10 Men 507 92 69,329 8.1 .3

11 Women 8 58,668 0.9 .4

12 Age 27

13 Under 16 years 43 -- -- -- --

14 16 to 17 years 124 1 2,648 1.6 2.2

15 18 to 19 years 440 2 3,941 3.1 1.8

16 20 to 24 years 1,336 7 12,532 3.5 1.0

17 25 to 34 years 1,563 22 32,579 4.1 .6

18 35 to 44 years 1,226 26 35,319 4.4 .5

19 45 to 54 years 847 20 25,550 4.8 .6

20 55 to 64 years 492 14 11,741 7.2 1.0

21 65 years and over 14 8 3,690 13.3 1.8

22 Not reported -- -- -- –

23 Race 5,047

24 White 617 83 108,805 4.6 .2

25 Black 35 10 13,789 4.5 .9

26 American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut 163 1 -- -- --

27 Asian and Pacific Islander 91 3 -- -- --

28 Other 159 1 -- -- --

29 Not reported 3 -- -- –

30 Hispanic origin 626

31 Hispanic 10 11,725 5.3 1.0

32 Industry 5,521

33 PRIVATE INDUSTRY 798 90 108,472 5.1 .2

34 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 335 13 3,505 22.2 1.9

35 Agricultural production, crops 154 5 1,025 31.3 3.5

36 Agricultural production, livestock 171 3 1,214 12.2 3.2

37 Agricultural services 73 3 1,189 14.3 3.2

38 Fishing, hunting and trapping 152 1 53 137.7 15.4

39 Mining 39 2 567 26.8 4.7

40 Coal mining 82 1 98 39.8 11.3

41 Oil and gas extraction 1,039 1 302 27.2 6.5

42 Construction 715 17 7,464 13.9 1.3

43 Manufacturing 70 12 20,434 3.5 .7

44 Food and kindred products 203 1 1,706 4.1 2.7

45 Lumber and wood products 947 3 794 25.6 4.0

46 Transportation and public utilities 78 15 7,248 13.1 1.3

47 Local and interurban passenger transit 511 1 503 15.5 5.0

48 Trucking and warehousing 113 8 2,451 20.8 2.3
Table ES-4. Occupational Fatality Rates for Selected Occupations (1996) (3 pages).

Number, percent, and rate of potential fatal occupational injuries by selected worker

characteristics, industry, and occupation, 1996.

Characteristic Number Percent (thousands) workers (percent)

Fatalities

Employed per 100,000 Standard error 1

Fatalities Relative

2

3

Revised Draft ES-73 Executive Summary

1 Transportation by air 88 2 778 14.5 4.0

2 Electric, gas, and sanitary services 267 1 1,066 8.3 3.4

3 Wholesale trade 672 4 4,942 5.4 1.6

4 Retail trade 173 11 21,443 3.1 .7

5 Food stores 98 3 3,507 4.9 1.9

6 Automotive dealers and service stations 166 2 2,165 4.5 2.4

7 Eating and drinking places 114 3 6,483 2.6 1.4

8 Finance, insurance, and real estate 767 2 7,862 1.5 1.2

9 Services 168 13 35,008 2.2 .5

10 Business services 103 3 5,680 3.0 1.5

11 Auto repair, services, and parking 50 2 1,618 6.4 2.8

12 Not reported 591 1 -- -- –

13 GOVERNMENT 178 10 19,525 3.0 .8

14 Federal 127 3 4,583 3.9 1.6

15 State 284 2 5,150 2.5 1.5

16 Local 711 5 9,791 2.9 1.1

17 Managerial and professional specialty occupations 437 12 36,497 1.9 .5

18 Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations 75 7 17,746 2.5 .8

19 Managers, food serving and lodging establishments 274 1 1,383 5.4 3.0

20 Professional specialty 761 4 18,752 1.5 .8

21 Technical, sales, and administrative support occupations 163 12 37,683 2.0 .5

22 Technicians and related support occupations 100 3 3,926 4.2 1.8

23 Airplane pilots and navigators 503 2 114 87.7 10.5

24 Sales occupations 225 8 15,404 3.3 .9

25 Supervisors and proprietors, sales occupations 94 4 4,501 5.0 1.7

26 Cashiers 95 2 2,856 3.3 2.1

27 Administrative support occupations, including clerical 8 2 18,353 0.5 .8

28 Messengers 492 -- 175 4.6 8.5

29 Service occupations 248 8 17,177 2.9 .8

30 Protective service occupations 37 4 2,187 11.3 2.4

31 Fire fighting and fire prevention occupations 4 1 270 13.7 6.8 4

32 Police and detectives 4 114 2 1,057 10.83.4

33 Guards 883 97 2 859 11.33.8

34 Farming, forestry, and fishing occupations 569 14 3,566 24.2 1.9

35 Farm occupations 90 9 2,212 24.8 2.4

36 Groundskeepers and gardeners, except farm 134 1 875 10.3 3.8

37 Forestry and logging occupations 118 2 108 124.1 10.8

38 Timber cutting and logging occupations 72 2 75 157.3 13.0

39 Fishers, hunters, and trappers 72 1 49 146.9 16.0

40 Fishers 1,072 1 47 153.2 16.4 5

41 Precision production, craft, and repair occupations 282 18 13,587 7.9 .9

42 Mechanics and repairers 35 5 4,521 6.2 1.6

43 Automobile mechanics and apprentices 38 1 889 3.9 3.8

44 Heavy equipment mechanics 592 1 156 24.4 9.0

45 Construction trades 87 10 5,108 11.6 1.5

46 Carpenters and apprentices 98 1 1,220 7.1 3.2
Table ES-4. Occupational Fatality Rates for Selected Occupations (1996) (3 pages).

Number, percent, and rate of potential fatal occupational injuries by selected worker

characteristics, industry, and occupation, 1996.

Characteristic Number Percent (thousands) workers (percent)

Fatalities

Employed per 100,000 Standard error 1

Fatalities Relative

2

3

Executive Summary ES-74 Revised Draft

1 Electricians and apprentices 38 2 763 12.8 4.1

2 Electrical power installers and repairers 45 1 126 30.2 10.0

3 Painters, construction and maintenance 32 1 504 8.9 5.0

4 Plumbers, pipefitters, steamfitters, and apprentices 61 1 555 5.8 4.8

5 Roofers 52 1 197 31.0 8.0

6 Structural metal workers 87 1 61 85.2 14.4

7 Extractive occupations 22 1 130 66.9 9.8

8 Drillers, oil wells 28 -- 22 100.0 23.9

9 Mining machine operators 2,006 -- 39 71.8 18.0

10 Operators, fabricators, and laborers 218 33 18,197 11.0 .8

11 Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors 62 4 7,874 2.8 1.2

12 Welders and cutters 1,154 1 605 10.2 4.6

13 Transportation and material moving occupations 913 19 5,302 21.8 1.5

14 Motor vehicle operators 785 15 4,025 22.7 1.7

15 Truck drivers 35 13 3,019 26.0 2.0

16 Drivers-sales workers 65 1 156 22.4 9.0

17 Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs 42 1 203 32.0 7.9

18 Water transportation occupations 33 1 69 60.9 13.5

19 Sailors and deckhands 177 1 25 132.0 22.5

20 Material moving equipment operators 38 3 1,093 16.2 3.4

21 Operating engineers 26 1 245 15.5 7.2

22 Excavating and loading machine operators 46 -- 92 28.3 11.7

23 Industrial truck and tractor equipment operators 634 1 512 9.0 5.0

24 Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 291 10 5,021 12.6 1.6

25 Construction laborers 21 5 809 35.7 3.9

26 Garbage collectors 213 -- 43 48.8 17.1

27 Laborers, except construction 123 3 1,334 15.9 3.1

28 Military 64 2 1,289 9.5 --

29 Not reported 1 -- -- --

30 The employment figures, except for military, are annual average estimates of employed civilians 16 years of age and older, from 1

31 the Current Population Survey (CPS), 1996. The resident military figure, derived from resident and civilian population data from

32 the Bureau of the Census, was added to the CPS employment total.

33 The rate represents the number of fatal occupational injuries per 100,000 employed workers and was calculated as follows: 2

34 (N/W) x 100,000, where N = the number of fatal work injuries, and W = the number of employed workers, as described in the

35 previous footnote. There were 27 fatally injured workers under the age of 16 years that were not included in the rate calculations

36 to maintain consistency with the CPS employment.

37 The relative standard errors of the CPS employment estimates can be used to approximate confidence ranges for the fatality 3

38 rates. For example, a confidence range for the roofers rate can be approximated as follows: 31.0 x .08 x 1.6 = 4.0, where 31.0 =

39 the rate, .08 = the relative standard error (8.0 percent), and 1.6 = the factor for a 90 percent confidence level. The confidence

40 range for this rate is 27.0 to 35.0 (31.0 plus or minus 4.0).

41 Includes supervisors. 4

42 Includes captains and other officers. 5

43 NOTE: The rates are experimental measures using CPS employment. Selected rate categories had 20 or more reported work

44 injury fatalities in 1996 and 20,000 or more employed workers. Dashes indicate data not available or less than .5 percent. 

45 Totals for major categories may include subcategories not shown separately. Figures may not add to totals because of

46 rounding.

47 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 1996.

48 C Employ agricultural practices that minimize the use of agricultural chemicals

49

50 C Employ agricultural practices that minimize soil erosion

51

52 C Use silt fences to contain soil erosion at development sites
Revised Draft ES-75 Executive Summary

1

2 C Implement water conservation measures wherever possible

3

4 C Implement spill control and cleanup measures to minimize the risk from accidental

5 releases

6

7 C Manage grazing activities to minimize livestock access to wetlands and riverbanks.

8

9 ES5.3.3 Impacts to Biological Resources

10

11 Sensitive biological resources are present on the Hanford Site in association with the

12 Columbia River, basalt outcrops, and other unique features. Biological resource elements

13 considered for each alternative include terrestrial vegetation and habitat, plant communities of

14 concern, wildlife and wildlife habitats, aquatic species and habitats, wetlands, and biodiversity.

15

16 ES5.3.4 Mitigation Measures

17

18 The CLUP planning process would screen development proposals for Hanford Site

19 lands. Some activities would not be permitted and others would be modified or required to

20 incorporate mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Examples of mitigation measures include

21 the following:

22

23 C Eliminate all disturbances around winter roosts for bald eagles and avoid habitat

24 alteration within 400 m (0.25 mi) of bald eagle roosts

25

26 C Minimize disturbance of wetlands and replace disturbed wetlands through

27 purchase, construction, or restoration of wetlands

28

29 C Compensate for adverse impacts to habitats by restoration of comparable habitats

30 on the Hanford Site

31

32 C Revegetate disturbed areas using native vegetation.

33

34 ES5.3.5 Cultural Resources

35

36 Impacts to cultural resources include damage or destruction of archaeological and

37 historic sites and artifacts, and disruption of religious and traditional uses of the American

38 Indians.

39

40 The CLUP planning process described would screen development proposals for

41 Hanford Site lands. Some projects would not be permitted and others may be required to

42 incorporate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources

43 include the following:

44

45 C Survey cultural resources of proposed project locations

46

47 C Consult with American Indians concerning traditional and religious uses

48

49 C Consult with DOE’s Cultural Resources Program Manager, the Washington State

50 Historic Preservation Office, and American Indian tribal representatives concerning

51 any survey findings.

52
Executive Summary ES-76 Revised Draft

1 ES5.3.6 Aesthetic Resources

2

3 Key aesthetic resources include viewing locations, viewsheds, visibility (ambient air

4 quality), and ambient noise levels. Impacts to aesthetic resources would result from altering

5 viewing locations, viewsheds, or visibility through mining or development; releasing

6 atmospheric pollutants from industrial activities; releasing fugitive dust from construction and

7 agricultural activities, and resulting new noise impacts from development, mining, or recreation.

8

9 Under all alternatives, new development projects would be subject to a New Source

10 Review (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-400) that would identify probable air

11 emissions and air emission control technology required to comply with state air quality

12 standards.

13

14 The CLUP planning process would screen development proposals. Proposed projects

15 would be planned to be consistent with the CLUP policies requiring protection of aesthetic

16 resources. Potential mitigation measures for aesthetic resources include the following:

17

18 C Implement dust control measures, such as use of water or other dust suppressants

19

20 C Cover loads when hauling materials away from construction or excavation sites

21

22 C Site development or mining activities in areas with the least impact on the viewshed

23

24 C Minimize noise impacts to wildlife.

25

26 ES5.3.7 Socioeconomic Impacts

27

28 ES5.3.7.1 No-Action Alternative. Under this alternative, facility planning and siting would

29 continue on a project-by-project basis. The potential socioeconomic impacts from this

30 alternative cannot be predicted. The lack of a land-use plan may discourage new uses for the

31 Hanford Site. In the absence of a land-use plan, it is also unlikely that new recreational

32 opportunities would be developed. It is assumed that this alternative would allow industrial

33 development and research and development activities to occur in the southern portion of the

34 600 Area. The impacts of research and development and industrial development could

35 exceed the City of Richland's capacity to provide supporting infrastructure. 

36

37 ES5.3.7.2 DOE’s Preferred Alternative. This alternative would increase the land base

38 available for industrial uses and research and development, which would allow the siting of

39 manufacturing facilities with a total employment of 1,000 or more. Lands under the Research

40 and Development land-use designation could support 100 to 300 employees.

41

42 Future industrial development on Hanford Site lands would require additional

43 infrastructure such as roads and utilities. Additional industrial development on Hanford Site

44 lands under the Preferred Alternative could exceed the City of Richland’s capacity to provide

45 supporting infrastructure.

46

47 The DOE Preferred Alternative would also make much of the Hanford Site available for

48 grazing and mining. Up to 43,857 ha (108,373 ac) available for grazing, which could support

49 7,706 Animal Unit Months (AUM) with a value of approximately $92,472. This alternative could

50 support existing claims and new claims for sand, gravel, and natural gas development. The

51 possible socioeconomic effects were not estimated in this analysis.

52
Revised Draft ES-77 Executive Summary

1 Increased access for recreation under DOE’s Preferred Alternative could double the

2 amount of use and result in an additional $1.4 million per year to the local area from

3 recreational spending. 

4

5 ES5.3.7.3 Alternative One. Alternative One would create an increased opportunity for

6 ecotourism with the expansion of an existing Federal wildlife refuge. Alternative One would

7 allow continued industrial development and limited recreational uses on Hanford Site lands. 

8 The areas allowed for industrial development would exceed the estimated need and would

9 provide land to support possible future DOE missions. This would allow the siting of several

10 manufacturing facilities, with a total employment of 100 to 1,000. Additional industrial

11 development on Hanford Site lands under this alternative could exceed the City of Richland’s

12 capacity to provide supporting infrastructure.

13

14 Alternative One would allow High-Intensity Recreational uses at the B Reactor and

15 Vernita Bridge, along with additional boat launches along the Columbia River Corridor, which

16 would have economic impacts similar to the Preferred Alternative. 

17

18 ES5.3.7.4 Alternative Two. Alternative Two would allow limited industrial development and

19 recreational uses on the Hanford Site and would have the least economic potential of the

20 alternatives being considered. The relatively small amount of vacant land designated for

21 industrial development under this alternative would probably limit new industrial employment to

22 less than 100. The Research and Development land uses would be limited to existing uses at

23 LIGO and the K Reactor Basins.

24

25 This alternative would allow High-Intensity Recreation associated with the B Reactor

26 museum only. It would not increase recreational access to the river. The economic benefit

27 would be substantially less than those estimated for the recreational uses under the other

28 alternatives.

29

30 An economic benefit may be realized from the Preservation land-use designation,

31 which could increase interest in the Hanford Site in the ecologically based tourism market.

32

33 ES5.3.7.5 Alternative Three. Alternative Three would have the highest potential for

34 economic development. The economic impact of agricultural development on former Hanford

35 Site lands would increase from 1.7 to 9.4 percent corresponding to $16 million to $88 million

36 (using 1992 prices) in additional revenues. Livestock grazing on the Wahluke Slope would

37 increase the total grazing by 2 percent with an approximate value of $15,000.

38

39 Alternative Three would increase the land base available for industrial and research

40 and development uses in Benton County in excess of estimated need. This amount of land

41 would allow the siting of facilities, with a total employment of 1,000 or more. Lands under the

42 Research and Development land-use designation would support total employment of 300 or

43 more. Additional industrial development on Hanford Site lands under this alternative could

44 exceed the City of Richland’s capacity to provide supporting infrastructure.

45

46 High-Intensity Recreational development of the Vernita Terrace may include a golf

47 course, destination resort, recreational vehicle (RV) park, boat launch, Tribal fishing facilities,

48 cultural centers, and the B Reactor museum. Such developments combined with expanded

49 Low-Intensity Recreation areas along the Columbia River and additional High-Intensity

50 Recreational use near Horn Rapids could contribute to the economy in the study area.

51

52 A RV park could generate approximately $1.3 million annually. A golf course could

53 generate approximately $1.4 million annually. Increased access to the Columbia River
Executive Summary ES-78 Revised Draft

1 Corridor under Alternative Three could also generate revenues from sport fishing and other

2 day uses that would be similar to those estimated for the Preferred Alternative.

3

4 ES5.3.7.6 Alternative Four. Land for industrial development would exceed the estimated

5 need and provide additional land to support possible future DOE missions. This amount of

6 land would allow the siting of facilities, with a total employment of 100 to 1,000. Land under

7 the Research and Development land-use designation could support 100 to 300 employees.

8

9 Alternative Four would provide increased boating access to the Columbia River, which

10 would generate increased revenues from sport fishing and recreational boating, similar to

11 those estimated for the Preferred Alternative.

12

13

14 ES5.4 Environmental Justice Impacts

15

16 Under the Executive Order for Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898, 59 Fed.

17 Reg. 32, 1994), Federal agencies are required to identify and address disproportionately high

18 and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs on minority and low-income

19 populations.

20

21 Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate

22 for a minority population or low-income population from exposure to an environmental hazard

23 significantly exceeds the risk or rate to the general population and other appropriate

24 comparison groups. A disproportionately high environmental effect refers to an impact (or risk

25 of an impact) in a low-income or minority community that significantly exceeds the impact on

26 the larger community. 

27

28 A total population of approximately 384,000 people reside within an 80 km (50 mi)

29 radius of the Hanford Site. The minority population within the area consists of approximately

30 95,000 people and represents approximately 25 percent of the population. The ethnic

31 composition of the minority population is primarily Hispanic (approximately 80 percent) and

32 American Indian (8 percent). Census tracts where the percentage of minority persons within

33 the population exceeds 20 percent are located to the southwest and northeast of the Hanford

34 Site and within the City of Pasco, Washington. 

35

36 The low-income population within the 80 km (50 mi) area of impact represents

37 approximately 42 percent of households within the area. Census tracts where the percentage

38 of the population consisting of low-income households exceeds 25 percent are principally

39 located to the southwest and north of the Hanford Site and within the City of Pasco,

40 Washington. Considerable overlap between low-income populations and minority populations

41 exists in the vicinity of the Hanford Site. 

42

43 Increased human health risk would be associated with Agricultural, Industrial, and

44 Research and Development processes and High-Intensity Recreation uses. Of these, the

45 Agricultural land-use designation is the most likely to have disproportionately high human

46 health effects in minority or low-income populations because agricultural crop-production jobs

47 generally have higher health risks (31 fatalities annually per 100,000 workers), and are often

48 filled by minority or low-income individuals. Alternative Three and the No-Action Alternatives

49 are the only alternatives that involve agriculture. The other alternatives would have lesser

50 human health risk, mainly associated with Industrial processes (3.5 fatalities annually per

51 100,000 workers), and High-Intensity Recreation uses (2.6 to 153 fatalities annually per

52 100,000 workers) (see Table ES-4).

53
Revised Draft ES-79 Executive Summary

1 ES5.4.1 Health Impacts from Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife

2

3 Data from monitoring programs have not indicated that adverse health risks would be

4 associated with consumption of fish and game. The radiation dose received by a person who 

5 subsisted on wild game and fish would be higher than the 2.2 x 10 mrem reported as the -3

6 “Sportsman Dose” in the Hanford Site Annual Environmental Report by Pacific Northwest

7 National Laboratory (PNNL). However, this incremental dose to natural background of

8 approximately 300 mrem would be unlikely to be sufficiently high to cause adverse health

9 effects.

10

11 A person who relied soley on subsistence hunting or fishing would have a much higher

12 probability of fatality due to the inherent dangers of the activities. The occupational fatality rate

13 for fishing, hunting, and trapping is 137.7 fatalities annually per 100,000 workers (see

14 Table ES-4).

15

16 The Screening Assessment and Requirements for a Comprehensive Assessment,

17 Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment (CRCIA) evaluated both chemical and

18 radiological health risk potential for a variety of site use scenarios including Native American

19 subsistence scenarios. These Native American scenarios were developed by a Native

20 American representative on the CRCIA team specifically for the CRCIA effort. Environmental

21 measurements used for the CRCIA analysis were based on data collected from 1990 through

22 1996 and, as a consequence, would not necessarily reflect the future condition of the site as

23 these scenarios do not assume cleanup.

24

25 In these Native American scenarios, people who live along the Columbia River were

26 assumed to eat substantial quantities of food grown in the riparian zone, fish and wildlife from

27 the river, and to drink seep water would have a much larger potential exposure and, thus,

28 estimated health risk. Significant health risks (e.g., for carcinogens lifetime health risk greater

29 than 10 in 100,000) were found in many sections of the river as a result of potential exposure

30 to chromium, copper, strontium-90, uranium-238, lead, and tritium. The contaminants

31 assessed fell into one of three categories: carcinogenic chemicals, toxic chemicals, and

32 radionuclides. Because the three categories of contaminants resulted in different types of risk,

33 the estimates for each category were reported differently. The estimates for carcinogenic

34 chemicals were reported as the probability of the incidence of cancer. The estimates for toxic

35 chemicals were reported as a ratio (a hazard index) between the reference dose determined

36 by EPA to be safe and the dose that had been estimated. The estimates for radionuclides

37 were reported as the risk of cancer fatality.

38

39 Although many cultural differences exist between the general population and American

40 Indians, the common pathways of food and water consumption could affect both groups.

41

42 ES5.4.2 Environmental Impacts to Low-Income and Minority Populations

43

44 Low-income and minority populations in the vicinity of the Hanford Site could be

45 affected by potential socioeconomic impacts and impacts to biological and cultural resources

46 valued by American Indians.

47

48 ES5.4.3 Environmental Justice Impacts to American Indians

49

50 Under separate treaties signed in 1855, lands occupied by the present Hanford Site

51 were ceded to the United States by the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian

52 Nation and by the CTUIR. Under these treaties, Tribal governments retained the right to fish in

53 their usual and accustomed places in common with the citizens of the Territories. The treaties
Executive Summary ES-80 Revised Draft

1 also retained to the Tribal governments the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries,

2 and pasturing horses and cattle on open unclaimed lands. The 1855 Treaty with the Nez

3 Perce also retained the right to fish at usual and accustomed places. The Wanapum People

4 did not sign a treaty with the United States and are not a Federally recognized Tribal

5 government; however, the Wanapum People were historical residents of what would become

6 the Hanford Site and their interests in the area have been acknowledged by the State of

7 Washington.

8

9 The Tribal government fishing rights reserved under the treaties have been recognized

10 as effective within the Hanford Reach. Tribal governments also have an interest in renewing

11 traditional uses, such as gathering of foods and medicines, hunting, and pasturing horses and

12 cattle on Hanford Site lands.

13

14 Future opportunities of Tribal governments to exercise reserved treaty rights are

15 dependent upon the health of the ecosystems. The Tribal governments assert that a treaty16 given right to hunt, fish, or gather plants is diminished (if not voided) if the fish, wildlife, or

17 plants have vanished or are contaminated to the extent that they threaten human health. 

18 These resources, particularly the resources with cultural and religious connotations, do not

19 have equivalent value for the general population. Consequently, impacts to these resources

20 represent an environmental justice impact to American Indian populations.

21

22 Cultural and biological resources valued by American Indians have, in effect, been

23 preserved by the presence of the Hanford Site. The Conservation and Preservation land-use

24 designations would continue to protect these resources and may allow Tribal governments to

25 resume traditional uses of these resources. However, the Agricultural, Industrial-Exclusive,

26 Industrial, and High-Intensity Recreation land-use designations are likely to result in damage or

27 destruction of cultural and biological resources important to American Indians. The Research

28 and Development and Low-Intensity Recreation designations would be less likely to result in

29 resource destruction. However, these uses may not be compatible with traditional subsistence

30 uses by American Indians.

31

32 High promontories that provide a commanding and panoramic view of the surrounding

33 terrain are culturally significant to American Indian Tribes, which historically used the land that

34 would become the Hanford Site. Alteration of the viewshed from these sites could

35 disproportionately impact American Indian populations. This alteration could occur under the

36 Agricultural, Industrial, Research and Development, and High-Intensity Recreation land-use

37 designations. Mining activities under the Conservation designation could also have adverse

38 effects, either directly by mining of basalt outcrops or indirectly by altering the viewshed. 

39 Mining of the basalt outcrops would be considered an environmental justice impact, because

40 these sites are sacred to American Indians but are of less significance to the general

41 population.

42
Revised Draft ES-81 Executive Summary

1

2 ES5.4.4 Occupational Human Health Impacts

3

4 The Hanford Site has an annual average accident fatality rate that has ranged from 4.9

5 (1994) to 2.8 (1997) per 100,000 workers. The national annual average accident fatality rate

6 for private industry in 1996 was 5.1 per 100,000 workers and Hanford was 4.3 per 100,000

7 workers. The transfer jobs from the government to the private sector statistically doubles the

8 accident fatality risk for the average worker in 1997. Some comparisons can be made

9 regarding occupational health risks among the land-use designations using statistics from the

10 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

11

12 The data indicate that the riskiest occupation is law enforcement with an annual fatality

13 rate of 1,057 per 100,000 workers (equivalent to a 10 risk per year). Industrial activities -2

14 associated with Industrial, Industrial Exclusive and Research and Development have annual 

15 fatal accident rates that vary from administrative support operations at 0.5 fatalities per

16 100,000 workers to, 4.1 fatalities per 100,000 workers for food manufacturing workers, to 20.8

17 fatalities per 100,000 workers for trucking and warehousing workers. The land-use

18 designations of Preservation, Conservation (Mining), Conservation (Mining and Grazing), Low19 Intensity Recreation, High-Intensity Recreation have a different set of occupational hazards

20 associated with recreational activities. Fishing, hunting and trapping are very risky occupations

21 with an annual fatality rate of 137.7 fatalities per 100,000 workers. For sand and gravel

22 mining operations, excavating and loading machine operators have an annual 28.3 fatalities

23 per 100,000 workers. The Agriculture land-use designation would expose workers to annual

24 occupational fatality rates of 31.3 fatalities per 100,000 workers for crop production, 12.2

25 fatalities per 100,000 workers for livestock production and 14.3 fatalities per 100,000 workers

26 for agricultural services (see Table ES-4).

27

28 Increased recreational opportunities associated with the Preferred Alternative and

29 Alternatives One, Three, and Four could increase accident risks associated with outdoor

30 recreation activities. These would include risks from boating and swimming accidents, hunting

31 and target shooting accidents, and bicycling accidents. Alternative Three would introduce the

32 relatively risky occupation of agriculture onto the Hanford site. The DOE Preferred Alternative

33 and Alternative Three would best support the selection of some of the occupationally safer

34 uses of the Hanford Site such as manufacturing, managerial and administrative support

35 functions.

36
Revised Draft ES-82 Executive Summary

1 Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Hanford Site Resources. (8 pages)

2 Resource Preferred Alternative Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three Alternative Four No-Action Alternative

3 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

4 Features Unique geologic Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Unique geologic Same as the Preferred Unique geologic features could be

features such as Gable Alternative. Alternative. Stabilized features could be Alternative except stabilized developed.

Mountain, Gable Butte, sand dunes would also developed to obtain sand dunes would also be

the White Bluffs; and be protected. materials for remediation protected.

active sand dunes would and economic

be protected. development.

5 Missoula Flood Missoula Flood features Missoula Flood features Missoula Flood features Missoula Flood features Missoula Flood features Same as Preferred Alternative

6 Deposits would be protected by would be protected by would be protected by would be protected by would be protected. because of their cultural significance.

Plan Policies and Plan Policies and Plan Policies and Plan Policies and

Procedures. Procedures. Procedures. Procedures.

7 Geologic Materials Viable sources of Geologic materials could Geologic resources to Same as Preferred Geologic materials could be Commercial development of geologic

geologic materials for be developed only from support remediation Alternative. developed only to support resources would not be restricted.

remediation and regional existing quarries and to would need to be remediation.

use could be developed. support remediation. obtained from offsite

sources.

8 Natural Gas Existing natural gas Same as Preferred Same as Preferred Existing natural gas Same as Preferred Existing natural gas claims could be

claims on the ALE Alternative. Alternative. claims could be Alternative. developed and an access road could

Reserve could be developed and an be constructed.

developed, but the access road could be

Preservation designation constructed under the

surrounding those Conservation (Mining)

claims would preclude designation.

construction of an

access road.

9 Soils Soil compaction and Soil compaction and The potential for soil Soil compaction and The potential for soil Mining, grazing, and cultivated

erosion could occur erosion could occur erosion and compaction erosion could occur erosion and compaction agriculture could increase soil

around quarry sites. around quarry sites. would be minimized by around quarry sites. would be minimized. Some compaction or erosion.

Grazing could result in maintaining existing Cultivated agriculture soil erosion and compaction

soil compaction around vegetative cover and would increase soil could occur as a result of

water sources and precluding development. erosion through removal mining in support of

increased erosion by of existing cover and remediation.

reducing vegetative tillage.

cover.
Revised Draft ES-83 Executive Summary

Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Hanford Site Resources. (8 pages)

Resource Preferred Alternative Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three Alternative Four No-Action Alternative

1 WATER RESOURCES

2 Surface Water Runoff from mining Mining restricted to Mining, and agriculture Mining prohibited within Same as Alternative One. Same as the Preferred Alternative.

3 operations located close upland areas would have would not be allowed; 1/4 mile of the Columbia

4 to the Columbia River little impact on water therefore, there would be River, would have little

could lead to water quality. no impacts to surface impact on water quality.

quality degradation. water except for

noncommercial grazing.

Grazing along the Grazing would be Experimental Grazing permitted in Grazing would not be Same as the Preferred Alternative.

Columbia River would allowed only as a aquaculture could irrigation flow returns on allowed, so no impacts

not be allowed except as management tool. increase the nutrient Wahluke, potentially would result from this

a management tool. load in the Columbia leading to increased activity.

River. siltation.

Increased recreational Similar to the Preferred Recreational access to Similar to the Preferred Similar to the Preferred Same as Alternative Two.

access to the Columbia Alternative, but fewer the Columbia River Alternative. Alternative.

River could increase access points would be would not be increased.

shoreline erosion from provided and use of the

boating wake and could river might not increase

generate additional as much.

pollution, such as oil,

gas, and engine

exhaust.

5 Groundwater Mining operations could Similar to the Preferred Mining operations would Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Alternative.

require groundwater Alternative. not be allowed. Alternative. Alternative.

withdrawal for material

washing and dust

control. Surface water

could also collect in

quarry sites increasing

groundwater recharge

locally.

Groundwater withdrawal New impacts to New impacts to Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Same potential impacts as the

for industrial uses could groundwater from groundwater from Alternative. Alternative. Preferred Alternative, but new

alter flow patterns. industrial development industrial development Agricultural chemicals impacts could be distributed across

Discharges to the soil would be minimal would be minimal. could impact Wahluke the Hanford Site.

column could mobilize groundwater and Potential impacts from Agricultural

contaminants in the recharge from Wahluke similar to Alternative Three.

vadose zone and irrigation could alter flow

accidental releases patterns and lead to

could contaminate slumping in the White

groundwater. Bluffs.
Revised Draft ES-84 Executive Summary

Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Hanford Site Resources. (8 pages)

Resource Preferred Alternative Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three Alternative Four No-Action Alternative

1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

2 Vegetation Surface clearing would Much lower than the Much lower than the Greater impacts than the Less than the Preferred Greater than the Preferred

eliminate vegetation and Preferred Alternative. Preferred Alternative. Preferred Alternative. Alternative. Alternative.

wildlife habitat in areas Clearing of vegetation

designated for for cultivated agriculture.

development.

3 Habitat Utility corridors and Lower than under the Potential impacts Same as the Preferred Less than the Preferred Greater than Preferred Alternative.

access roads could Preferred Alternative. restricted to Urban Alternative, but larger Alternative.

fragment habitat within Growth Area. areas designated for

areas designated for development, so

industrial development. potential greater need

Generally protected by for new infrastructure.

Plan’s Policies that

designate development

in habitat that is of lower

biological value.

4 Grazing Livestock grazing could Grazing is only allowed Commercial grazing Similar to Preferred Grazing is not allowed Grazing impacts restricted to the

affect sensitive habitats as a management tool would not be allowed Alternative as grazing is under this alternative. Wahluke Slope north of State

by altering plant under this alternative. under this alternative. a permitted interim use Highway 24.

communities. for other than

Preservation or

Conservation uses

under this alternative’s

Policies.

5 Aquatic Resources Increased recreational Lower than the Preferred No increase in Same as the Preferred Similar, but potentially Less than the Preferred Alternative

access to the Columbia Alternative. recreational access Alternative. lower, impacts than the because no new boat ramps.

River could adversely under this alternative, so Preferred Alternative.

affect salmonid no new impacts.

spawning areas, aquatic

plant communities, and

other resources

associated with the river.

6 Wildlife Migration The integrity of the Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred McGee Ranch available Same as the Preferred McGee Ranch available for

7 Corridor wildlife migration Alternative. Alternative. for development. Alternative. development.

corridor associated with

McGee Ranch would be

maintained.
Revised Draft ES-85 Executive Summary

Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Hanford Site Resources. (8 pages)

Resource Preferred Alternative Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three Alternative Four No-Action Alternative

1 Preservation of Preservation designation Preservation designation Preservation designation Preservation designation Preservation designation The No-Action Alternative does not

2 BRMaP Level III and would protect 66% of would protect 100% of would protect 96% of would protect 5% of would protect 85% of specifically designate land for

3 Level IV Resources BRMaP Level III, and BRMaP Level III and BRMaP Level III and BRMaP Level III and BRMaP Level III and 85% Preservation.

85% of BRMaP Level IV 85% of BRMaP Level IV 85% of BRMaP Level IV 13% BRMaP Level IV of BRMaP Level IV

resources. resources. resources. resources. resources.

4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

5 Religious Sites Cultural resources and Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Cultural resources and Same as the Preferred Cultural resources and religious sites

religious sites Alternative. Alternative. religious sites Alternative. associated with basalt outcrops such

associated with basalt associated with basalt as Gable Butte and Gable Mountain

outcrops such as Gable outcrops such as Gable would be protected by NEPA and

Butte and Gable Butte and Gable CRMP Plan Policies and Procedures.

Mountain would be Mountain would be

protected. protected by Plan

Policies and

Procedures.

6 Viewsheds Mining and industrial Area that could be Viewsheds would be Development could Same as Alternative Two. Development not precluded at any

development could developed within protected. Impacts occur within viewsheds Less than the Preferred location. Greater than for the

occur within viewsheds viewsheds is smaller would be less than for to a greater extent than Alternative. Preferred Alternative.

from high promontories. than for the Preferred the Preferred for the Preferred

Alternative. Alternative. Alternative.

7 Natural Resource Damage to natural Less than the Preferred Impacts to natural Same as the Preferred Less than the Preferred Greater than the Preferred

8 Gathering Areas resource gathering Alternative. resource gathering Alternative. Alternative. Alternative.

areas from development, areas would be minimal.

increased recreational

use of the Columbia

River, and grazing.

9 Cultural Sites Damage to cultural sites Less than the Preferred Commercial grazing Impacts to the Wahluke Less than the Preferred Greater than the Preferred

from livestock grazing Alternative. would not be allowed Slope and White Bluffs Alternative. Alternative.

and development. and impacts to cultural only. Damage to cultural

Increased access to the sites from development sites on the Wahluke

Columbia River could would be minimal. Slope from agriculture

result in damage from Access to the Columbia (including grazing), and

artifact collection, River would not be could lead to loss of the

vandalism, and erosion. increased. White Bluffs.

10 Salmonid Spawning No impact to salmonid Same as Preferred Same as Preferred Increased sediment Same as Preferred Between Alternative Three and

11 Sites spawning sites. Alternative. Alternative. loading from White Alternative. Preferred Alternative.

Bluffs irrigation

sloughing, and grazing

could damage salmonid

spawning sites.
Revised Draft ES-86 Executive Summary

Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Hanford Site Resources. (8 pages)

Resource Preferred Alternative Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three Alternative Four No-Action Alternative

1 AESTHETIC RESOURCES

2 Viewsheds Viewing locations Same as the Preferred Minimal impacts; less Viewing locations Viewing locations would be Viewing locations and viewsheds

3 associated with Gable Alternative. than the Preferred associated with basalt protected. Minimal impacts could be adversely impacted. Greater

Butte and Gable Alternative. outcrops could be to viewsheds. Less than than the Preferred Alternative.

Mountain would be adversely impacted, but the Preferred Alternative.

protected. Locations locations along the river

associated with the would be protected. 

Columbia River would Viewsheds could be

be disrupted. disrupted.

Viewsheds could be

disrupted.

4 Ambient Visibility Visibility could be Similar to, but less than, Minimal impacts; less Greater than the Less than the Preferred Greater than the Preferred

5 impacted by releases of the Preferred than the Preferred Preferred Alternative. Alternative. Alternative.

fugitive dust from Alternative. Alternative.

construction sites and

pollutants from new

industrial sources.

6 Ambient Noise Blasting, industrial sites, Less than the Preferred Minimal impacts; less Greater than the Less than the Preferred Same as the Preferred Alternative.

and increased use of Alternative. than the Preferred Preferred Alternative. Alternative.

motorized water craft Alternative.

could increase noise

levels, disrupt wildlife,

and detract from

recreational

experiences.

7 SOCIO- 15,378 ha available for 2,542 ha available for 1,830 ha available for 17,860 ha available for 6,882 ha available for Facility planning and siting conducted

8 ECONOMICS AND industrial development, industrial development, industrial development, industrial development, industrial development, on a project-by-project basis as

9 INDUSTRIAL which would meet the which would meet the but much of the land is which would meet the meeting the estimated guided by the Site Strategic Plan. At

10 DEVELOPMENT need forecasted by the forecasted need and already developed. need forecasted by the future need and providing least 22,534 ha available to support

Benton County Planning provide 1,615 ha for Would not provide Benton County Planning land for future DOE future Industrial or Research and

Department and provide possible future DOE sufficient vacant land to Department and provide missions. This land could Development DOE missions

ample area to support missions. This land meet Benton County’s ample area to support support employment of 100

possible future DOE could support estimated future needs possible future DOE to 1,000.

missions. This amount employment of 100 to or provide for possible missions. This amount

of land would support 1,000. future DOE missions. of land would support

employment of 1,000 or Employment limited to employment of 1,000 or

more. less than 100. more.
Revised Draft ES-87 Executive Summary

Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Hanford Site Resources. (8 pages)

Resource Preferred Alternative Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three Alternative Four No-Action Alternative

1 RESEARCH AND 4,912 ha designated for 414 ha designated for Research and Greater than the 4,388 ha designated for Facility siting conducted on a project2 DEVELOPMENT Research and Research and Development limited to Preferred Alternative Research and Development by-project basis. Ample land

Development could Development, but limited 699 ha of existing uses 8,177 ha designated for could support up to 300 available. At least 22,534 ha available

support up to 300 to previously developed at LIGO and the K Research and employees to support future Industrial or

employees. areas. Reactor water supply Development could Research and Development DOE

used for fish rearing. support up to 600 missions

employees

3 GRAZING AND Up to 43,857 ha No lands designated for No lands designated for 1,059 AUM with a value No lands designated for Lack of a plan may discourage

4 AGRICULTURE available for grazing, commercial grazing or commercial grazing. of $12,700. Cultivated grazing or cultivated multiple use of Hanford lands and

which could support cultivated agriculture. Cultivated agriculture agriculture could agriculture. grazing and agriculture would be

7,706 AUM with a value would not be allowed. generate from $16 to considered under individual

of approximately $88 million in additional proposals. Lands permitted for

$92,472. Cultivated revenue depending on grazing could support 1,655 AUM

agriculture would not be the scenario. with a value of $19,900. Cultivated

allowed. agriculture would be allowed.

5 MINERAL Existing natural gas Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Existing claims could be Same as the Preferred Existing natural gas claims could be

6 RESOURCES claims could be Alternative. Alternative. developed and access Alternative. developed and access road could be

7 (Privately held) developed, but the roads could be constructed.

Preservation designation constructed. Additional

in the surrounding are development of natural

would preclude gas could be

construction of an encouraged.

access road.

8 RECREATION Increased recreation Less than the Preferred Less than the Preferred A destination Less than the Preferred New revenue generating recreational

could increase revenues Alternative. Alternative. resort/conference center Alternative. opportunities would be unlikely.

generated by tourism. at Vernita Terrace could

generate up to $2 million

to $4 million in payroll.
Revised Draft ES-88 Executive Summary

Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Hanford Site Resources. (8 pages)

Resource Preferred Alternative Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three Alternative Four No-Action Alternative

1 ENVIRONMENTAL Increased access to the Because the purpose of Access to the Columbia Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Alternative.

2 JUSTICE Columbia River would a Federal Wildlife River would be limited. Alternative. Alternative.

potentially increase Refuge is to conserve No disproportionately

exposure and health native ecological high impacts would

risk. Minority or low- systems, consumption occur.

income populations may of those systems would

be more prone to adopt be limited and therefore

a subsistence lifestyle, provide better protection

but a particular from contamination than

population would not the Preferred

necessarily be affected. Alternative.

Areas of cultural value to Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Areas of cultural value to Same as Alternative Two. Same as Alternative Three.

American Indians would Alternative. Alternative, but American Indian tribes

be protected, but viewscapes would also could be developed and

development would be be protected. development could

allowed within the occur within culturally

viewscape of some of significant viewscapes.

those areas.

Economic development Limitation on Same as Alternative Same as Preferred Same as Preferred Same as Preferred Alternative.

of Hanford Site lands development could One. Alternative. Alternative.

would be neutral in low- adversely impact lowincome and minority income populations. 

communities within the However, local lowassessment area. income populations are

not greatly influenced by

Hanford Site spending.

Prohibiting agriculture Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Agriculture on the Same as the Preferred Same as the Preferred Alternative.

on the Wahluke Slope Alternative. Alternative. Wahluke Slope, Alternative. 

would reduce the potentially benefitting

potential for new jobs low-income and minority

available to low-income populations or creating

and minorities north of an excess of

the Hanford Site. commodities that would

reduce the profit margin

for the producer and

drive down the worker’s

wages.

3 HUMAN HEALTH Increased access to Less than the Preferred Access to Hanford Greater than the Less than the Preferred Access would be restricted and risks

Hanford Site lands Alternative. would be limited and the Preferred Alternative Alternative. would be less than for the Preferred

would increase the potential for health risks because of the intensity Alternative.

potential for health risks. would be minimized. of use.
Revised Draft ES-89 Executive Summary

Table ES-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Hanford Site Resources. (8 pages)

Resource Preferred Alternative Alternative One Alternative Two Alternative Three Alternative Four No-Action Alternative

New developments on Less than the Preferred Much less than the Greater than the Less than the Preferred Potentially greater risk than for the

the Hanford Site could Alternative. Preferred Alternative. Preferred Alternative Alternative. Preferred Alternative.

lead to an increase in and would have the

occupational injuries and additional risk of

fatalities associated with occupational injuries

mining and industrial from agriculture.

activities.

Increased recreational Less than the Preferred No increase in Greater than the Less than the Preferred Minimal increase in recreational use. 

activities could increase Alternative. recreational use and the Preferred Alternative. Alternative. Risk of recreational accidents would

the risk of injury from risk of recreational not increase.

recreational accidents. accidents would be

minimized.

1

Remediation to an Minimum Industrial Minimum Industrial Maximum Industrial Industrial development Minimal increase in changes of land

Industrial standard in the development could development could development could between Alternative One use from open space reserved

300 and 200 areas require more require the most require the least and the Preferred designation. The validity of an

would involve less remediation worker risk remediation worker risk remediation worker risk Alternative. Industrial remediation scenario could

remediation worker risk exposure than Preferred exposure. exposure. be questioned without an integrated

from hazardous Alternative. GMA Industrial designation. 

materials exposure and

cumulative equipment Actual remediation scenario will be

operation time than picked through the CERCLA/RCRA

some of the CRCIA process which could require more or

scenarios could require less remediation based on the

for non-industrial uses. scenario chosen.

Actual remediation

scenario will be picked

through the

CERCLA/RCRA

process which could

require more or less

remediation based on

the scenario chosen.

2

3

4
Executive Summary ES-90 Revised Draft

1 ES5.5 Cumulative Impacts

2

3

4 This section summarizes cumulative impacts associated with Hanford Site land-use

5 designations for each alternative identified in Chapter ES3. Cumulative impacts result 

6

7 . . . from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,

8 and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal

9 or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can

10 result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over

11 a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

12

13 Reasonably foreseeable actions are identified and the relationship between these actions and

14 the proposed land-use designations is discussed. The description of potential cumulative

15 impacts couples impacts of each alternative with impacts from past and existing operations at

16 the Hanford Site and impacts that may be associated with anticipated future actions. 

17 Section ES5.5.1 discusses cumulative impacts to land use associated with present and

18 reasonably foreseeable actions; Section ES5.5.2 discusses cumulative impacts to trustee 

19 resources; and Sections ES5.5.3 and ES5.5.4 discuss cumulative socioeconomic impacts and

20 cumulative human health risk, respectively.

21

22 ES5.5.1 Cumulative Impacts to Land Use

23

24 The alternatives analyzed in this document would establish acceptable uses for

25 Hanford Site lands for at least the next 50 years. The alternative identified and selected for

26 implementation in the ROD will allocate lands for use under the defined land-use designations. 

27 Other present and reasonably foreseeable actions at the Hanford Site that involve siting new

28 facilities or using Site resources also would, in effect, allocate lands for certain uses. Those

29 present and reasonably foreseeable actions that involve land uses that are compatible with the

30 proposed land-use designations under all the alternatives would not have cumulative impacts

31 for land use; these actions are listed in Table ES-6. However, those present and reasonably

32 foreseeable actions that do not conform with the proposed land-use designations would

33 change the land-use allocations and, in this sense, could be considered to have cumulative

34 impacts. Those present and reasonably foreseeable actions involving nonconforming uses are

35 listed in Table ES-7.

36

37 The five actions listed in Table ES-7 could involve land uses that conflict with land-use

38 designations under some alternatives. The USFWS is initiating a Comprehensive

39 Conservation Plan (CCP) for the ALE Reserve. Assuming that the USFWS management plan

40 would call for maintaining the ALE Reserve in its present, Preservation and Conservation type

41 of management, the management plan would not conflict with any of the proposed land-use

42 designations. If the USFWS plan only addresses preservation, then the proposed mining

43 alternative on ALE, in lieu of the McGee Ranch mining area, would be in conflict with

44 alternatives, Preferred, Four and Three. 

45

46 A similar situation exists with the alternative selected in the ROD for the Hanford

47 Reach, which calls for designating the Wahluke Slope as an overlay refuge and designating

48 the Columbia River Corridor on the Hanford Site (i.e., the Hanford Reach) as a Wild and

49 Scenic Recreational River. These designations could result in the management of the

50 Wahluke Slope and the Columbia River Corridor as Preservation, Conservation or Agriculture 

51 depending on the USFWS’s CCP and intent for establishing the refuge. The management of

52 the Wahluke Slope as a wildlife refuge could conflict with the Agriculture land-use designation

53 under Alternative Three unless a purpose of establishing the refuge as defined in the
Revised Draft ES-91 Executive Summary

1 USFWS’s CCP included sharecropping for wildlife. The need to link agriculture to furthering

2 the purposes of wildlife is the reason agriculture appears as a conflict in Table ES-7. Of the

3 181 National Wildlife Refuges with farming programs in 1989, 612 km (233 mi ) of the129 2 2

4 refuges were farmed by permittees who retained a share of the crop in return for costs

5 incurred to farm the land. On the remaining refuges, Service personnel conducted farming

6 operations with government equipment.

7

8 The remaining nonconforming uses listed in Table ES-7 involve present or upcoming

9 actions that would conflict with land-use designations. The operation of LIGO would be

10 considered a pre-existing, nonconforming use under Alternative One and Alternative Four,

11 which could require that the LIGO site be restored to the designated use at the end of the

12 facility’s life. Operation of LIGO conflicts with Conservation mining designations because of

13 the facility’s sensitivity to vibrations. The Inert/Demolition Waste Landfill proposed for Pit 9

14 involves using an existing gravel pit located north of the 300 Area for disposal of inert and

15 demolition wastes from the 300 Area. This would be classified as an Industrial land use, and

16 would be considered a pre-existing, nonconforming use under Alternative One, Alternative

17 Two, and Alternative Four. The proposed salvage and demolition of the 300 Area Steam Plant

18 calls for obtaining fill from Pit 9 for filling voids and constructing the final cover. The use of Pit

19 9 for quarrying materials would be a pre-existing, nonconforming use under Alternative One,

20 Alternative Two, and Alternative Four. The B-Reactor Museum would be in conflict with the

21 Preservation designation of Alternative Four. Management and mitigation of these

22 nonconforming land uses would be accomplished through the CLUP policies and implementing

23 procedures as explained in Chapter 6.

24

25 ES5.5.2 Cumulative Impacts by Trustee Resource

26

27 ES5.5.2.1 Geologic Resources. Geologic resources on the Hanford Site include unique

28 features that have been preserved while similar features in the region have been damaged or

29 destroyed by development. Mining of geologic materials would be allowed under all

30 alternatives being considered, except Alternative Two, and could damage or destroy unique

31 geologic features, such as Missoula Floods features and sand dunes. Mining under the No32 Action Alternative and Alternative Three, if permitted by DOE, could also impact basalt

33 outcrops, such as Umtanum Ridge, Gable Mountain, and Gable Butte. Because these

34 features are rare and susceptible to development elsewhere in the region, damage or

35 destruction of these features on the Hanford Site would increase their aesthetic and ecological

36 value offsite, and decrease their availability for scientific study.

37

38 Alternative Three would allow development of cultivated agriculture on the Wahluke

39 Slope. Increasing irrigated lands in the vicinity of the White Bluffs would cumulatively increase

40 groundwater recharge in the area and also could result in additional slumping of the White

41 Bluffs. Additional slumping of the White Bluffs would further reduce their aesthetic, historic,

42 and ecological value; would cumulatively increase sedimentation of the Columbia River; and

43 could accelerate riverbank and island erosion. The No-Action Alternative would also allow the

44 WDFW’s current management practice of growing crops for wildlife management purposes on

45 the Wahluke Slope.

46

47 ES5.5.2.2 Water Resources. Water resources on the Hanford Site, including groundwater

48 and surface water, have been impacted by past waste disposal practices at Hanford. 

49 Remediation strategies for cleaning up past contamination are designed for current and

50 predicted future hydrologic conditions. Additional development on the Hanford Site could alter

51 hydrologic conditions, disrupt CERCLA ROD conditions, and increase impacts to water quality

52 from contamination. 
Executive Summary ES-92 Revised Draft

1 Table ES-6. Present or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Compatible with

2 Land-Use Designations Under All Alternatives.

3 Present or Reasonably Foreseeable

4 Future Action Location Land Use

5 Wild and Scenic River Designation for Hanford Reach Hanford Reach Preservation

6 Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production Reactors 200 Areas (disposal) Industrial-Exclusive

7 Deactivation of the N Reactor 200 Areas (disposal) Industrial-Exclusive

8 Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

9 Tank Waste Remediation System 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

10 Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

11 Decommissioning of Building 232-Z and Building 233-S 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

12 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Expansion 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

13 Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

14 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

15 Operation of 200 Areas LLW Burial Grounds 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

16 Operation of U.S. Ecology Commercial LLW Burial 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

17 Ground

18 Solid Waste Retrieval Complex, Enhanced Radioactive 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

19 and Mixed Waste Storage Facility, and Central Waste

20 Support Complex

21 Tank 241-C-106 Sluicing and Waste Removal 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

22 Special Case Waste Storage Facility 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

23 Disposal of Decommissioned Naval Reactor Plants 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

24 Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory 300 Area Industrial, Research &

Development (R&D)

25 Disposition of Sodium Test Loops 200 Areas, 300 Area Industrial-Exclusive,

Industrial, R&D

26 Fast Flux Test Facility for Medical Isotope Production 400 Area Industrial, R&D

27 Disposal of S3G and D1G Prototype Reactor Plants 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

28 Hanford Solid Waste EIS 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

29 Offsite Thermal Treatment of Low-Level Mixed Waste 200 Areas, Industrial-Exclusive,

City of Richland Industrial, R&D

30 200 Area Emergency Facilities Campus 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

31 300 Area Steam Replacement 300 Area Industrial, R&D

32 Lead Test Assembly Irradiation and Analysis 200 Areas, 300 Area Industrial-Exclusive,

Industrial, R&D

33 Management of Hanford Site Non-Defense Production 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

34 Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel

35 Relocation and Storage of Sealed Isotopic Heat 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

36 Sources

37 Trench 33 Widening in 218-W-5 LLW Burial Ground 200 Areas Industrial-Exclusive

38 1171 Building Annex Lease 1100 Area Industrial

39 City of Richland Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 300 Area, 600 Area Industrial, R&D

40 Expansion of the Energy Northwest (formerly known as 600 Area Industrial, R&D

41 WPPSS) area industrial facilities (natural gas fired

42 electric generator turbine or aluminum smelter)

43
Revised Draft ES-93 Executive Summary

1 Table ES-7. Present or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions with

2 Nonconforming Land Uses.

3

4 Present or Reasonably

5 Foreseeable Future Action

Nonconforming Land-Use Designations

T = nonconforming

No- Preferred Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative

Action Alternative One Two Three Four

6 Development of a Comprehensive N/A T T T

7 Conservation Plan for the ALE Conservation Conservation Conservation

8 Reserve by the USFWS (Mining) (Mining) (Mining)

9 (Preservation)

10 Designation of the Wahluke Slope as N/A T

11 a National Wildlife Refuge Agriculture 

12 (Preservation)

13 Operation of the Laser Interferometer N/A T T T T

14 Gravitational Wave Observatory Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation

15 (Research and Development) (Mining) (Mining) (Mining) (Mining)

16 Inert/Demolition Waste Landfill N/A T T T

17 (Pit 9) (Industrial) Preservation Preservation Preservation

18 B-Reactor Museum N/A T

19 (High-Intensity Recreation) Preservation

20

21

22 Industrial development would be allowed under all alternatives being considered and

23 would increase groundwater consumption and alter groundwater hydrology. Changes to

24 groundwater hydrology as a result of aquifer drawdown and discharges to the soil column

25 could alter the rate of the movement of contaminants toward the Columbia River or in any

26 other direction. Groundwater recharge from industrial waste water discharges and collection

27 and infiltration of runoff in quarries could mobilize contaminants in the vadose zone and

28 cumulatively increase contaminant levels in groundwater.

29

30 The Preferred Alternative and Alternatives One, Three, and Four would increase

31 recreational use of the Columbia River over existing levels, which would cumulatively increase

32 levels of oil, gas, and engine exhaust discharged to the river; and increase riverbank and

33 island erosion from boat wakes. Unregulated non-point sources associated with industrial

34 development and mining could add to pollutants discharged to the river from upstream

35 sources, resulting in further water quality degradation. Mining and grazing along the Columbia

36 River Corridor, which would be allowed under the No-Action Alternative, would increase

37 sedimentation in the river, with possible cumulative impacts on spawning areas in the

38 Columbia River. 

39

40 ES5.5.2.3 Biological Resources. Because the Hanford Site contains much of remaining

41 undisturbed Columbia Basin shrub-steppe habitat, proposed developments of undisturbed

42 areas would result in cumulative impacts to rare plants and animals, unique plant communities,

43 and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. In addition, the Hanford Site contains the last

44 unimpounded, nontidal segment of the Columbia River, and further development along the

45 Reach could result in cumulative losses to species and habitats associated with the Hanford

46 Reach. In some cases (e.g., Upper Columbia River spring run chinook salmon (E-3/99),

47 Middle Columbia River steelhead (T-3/99) and Upper Columbia River steelhead [E-8/97]),

48 further losses of habitat could endanger remaining populations. 

49

50 The Industrial, Research and Development, and Industrial-Exclusive land-use

51 designations would allow industrial development to displace native plant communities and

52 wildlife habitats where the habitats still exist. In addition, ongoing remediation activities, such

53 as the decommissioning of surplus production reactors, would result in further habitat losses. 

54 Many of the actions listed in Table ES-6 for the 200 Areas would involve small losses of
Executive Summary ES-94 Revised Draft

1 habitat, but expansion of the Environmental Restoration and Disposal Facility (ERDF) and

2 other future actions in the 200 Areas could involve larger losses, with cumulative impacts to

3 shrub-steppe habitat. Alternatives One and Two would limit cumulative impacts in the

4 200 Areas by reducing the size of the Industrial-Exclusive land-use designation. 

5

6 The Conservation land-use designations could result in cumulative impacts by allowing

7 commercial livestock grazing and mining. Cumulative impacts from grazing are most likely

8 under the No-Action and Preferred Alternatives, which would allow grazing over the largest

9 area and could result in further losses of regional biodiversity.

10

11 Although basalt and sand and gravel quarries are unlikely to have cumulative impacts

12 because they would disturb relatively small areas, large-scale soil mining to support

13 remediation could result in large habitat losses. If permitted by DOE, the potential for

14 cumulative effects from mining are greatest under the No-Action Alternative and Alternative

15 Three, which would allow development of quarry sites at the McGee Ranch. Losses of

16 shrub-steppe habitat in this area could eliminate the remaining segments of the wildlife

17 movement corridor between the Hanford Site and the Yakima Training Center; which are

18 among the last remaining large tracts of shrub-steppe habitat in the region. Mining in the

19 McGee Ranch area would add to habitat fragmentation that has previously taken place in the

20 region as a result of agricultural, residential, and industrial development; and could further

21 reduce regional biodiversity.

22

23 Increased recreational use associated with the Wild and Scenic River designation and

24 High- or Low-Intensity Recreation land-use designations under the Preferred Alternative and

25 Alternatives One, Three, and Four could result in cumulative impacts to wildlife and habitats

26 that are not currently accessible by the public under the No-Action Alternative. Recreation

27 designations would increase impacts from boating as well as foot traffic on sensitive plant

28 communities and habitats.

29

30 The potential for cumulative impacts to biological resources may best be evaluated by

31 determining the amount of BRMaP Level III and IV resources that could be affected. The

32 BRMaP III and IV designations identify the resources that could be most adversely affected by

33 further habitat losses. Alternative Three has the greatest potential to impact Level III and IV

34 resources, primarily because it would allow conversion of native plant communities on the

35 Wahluke Slope to cultivated agriculture. The Preferred Alternative and the No-Action

36 Alternative would have less potential for impacts to BRMaP Level III and IV resources, but are

37 more likely to impact those resources than Alternatives One, Two, or Four. Alternative Two is

38 least likely to have cumulative effects on biological resources, based on the amounts of

39 BRMaP Level III and IV resources that could be impacted by development.

40

41 ES5.5.2.4 Cultural Resources. Regionally, agricultural, industrial, and residential

42 development have damaged or destroyed cultural resources. In addition, construction of dams

43 along the Columbia River has inundated cultural resources and sites of significance to

44 American Indian tribes. Cultural resources on the Hanford Site have been preserved by

45 access restrictions for the past 55 years. Preservation of the Hanford Reach as the last free46 flowing stretch of Columbia River would also preserve cultural resources associated with the

47 river. Loss of these sites through development of Hanford Site lands could lead to potentially

48 significant impacts on the remaining cultural resources in the region. 

49

50 Many of the biological resources on the Hanford Site are also important to American

51 Indian tribes for traditional subsistence uses. In addition, the Hanford Site includes religious

52 sites important to American Indians. American Indian tribes with ties to the Hanford Site have

53 long advocated the protection of these resources in their efforts to maintain their cultures and
Revised Draft ES-95 Executive Summary

1 traditional life ways. Further losses of these resources could impact American Indian cultures

2 associated with the Hanford Site. 

3

4 Potential cumulative impacts to cultural resources are most likely to occur along the

5 Columbia River, where cultural resources and traditional American Indian uses are

6 concentrated. The No-Action Alternative has the greatest potential to affect these resources

7 by allowing mining, grazing, or industrial development in the Columbia River Corridor. The

8 Preferred Alternative and Alternatives One, Three, and Four would increase recreational

9 access to the corridor, which could result in impacts to cultural resources from unauthorized

10 artifact collection, vandalism, and losses to riverbank and island erosion from boat wakes. 

11

12 Industrial development under any of the alternatives has the potential to disturb

13 archaeological and historic sites. Alternatives One and Two are least likely to result in

14 cumulative impacts because these alternatives would minimize the amount of land designated

15 for Industrial, Research and Development, and Industrial-Exclusive land uses. Ongoing

16 remediation activities and some of the proposed projects listed in Table ES-7 could also have

17 cumulative effects on cultural resources.

18

19 Other cumulative impacts to American Indian cultures could occur under the No-Action

20 Alternative and Alternative Three which, if permitted by DOE, would allow quarrying on basalt

21 outcrops that are important religious and cultural sites. Alternative Two would designate most

22 of the Hanford Site for Preservation to protect cultural resources and would be least likely to

23 have cumulative impacts.

24

25 ES5.5.2.5 Aesthetic Resources. The large, undeveloped portions of the Hanford Site and

26 features such as the basalt outcrops, Rattlesnake Mountain, the White Bluffs, and the

27 Columbia River Corridor have aesthetic values that are unique to the region. Industrial

28 development associated with past Hanford operations has altered some viewsheds. Future

29 development of Hanford Site lands could further alter viewsheds and reduce the aesthetic

30 value by increasing airborne particulate, odors, or other pollutants. 

31

32 The potential for cumulative impacts to viewsheds would be greatest under the No33 Action Alternative, which would allow development of Hanford Site lands on a project-by34 project basis. This alternative is more likely to result in the siting and construction of industrial

35 developments in previously undisturbed viewsheds. Alternative Three could also have

36 cumulative impacts to viewsheds by allowing, if permitted by DOE, quarrying on basalt

37 outcrops, the conversion of native plant communities on the Wahluke Slope to crop land and

38 orchards, and development of High-Intensity Recreational facilities adjacent to the Columbia

39 River Corridor. Future industrial development under the Industrial-Exclusive land-use

40 designation, along with proposed and planned actions listed in Table ES-6, would have

41 cumulative effects on viewsheds that would be similar under the alternatives being considered.

42

43 Alternative Three also has the greatest potential for cumulative impacts on visibility

44 associated with air quality. The conversion of much of the Wahluke Slope to agriculture would

45 create a significant new source of fugitive dust from cultivated fields. Industrial development

46 under this alternative as well as all other alternatives being considered could also result in new

47 sources of industrial pollutants, which could further diminish visibility.

48

49 Future development could also increase ambient noise levels, which would detract from

50 the recreational experience associated with the Columbia River Corridor and other natural

51 areas on the Hanford Site. Cumulative increases in noise are most likely occur under the No52 Action Alternative, which could allow industrial development along the Columbia River. Mining

53 along the river corridor, which could occur under the No-Action Alternative, could also increase

54 noise impacts. Increases in High-Intensity Recreational land-use activities such as Alternative
Executive Summary ES-96 Revised Draft

1 Three’s proposed destination resort and RV camps or the Preferred Alternative’s and

2 Alternative Four’s proposed Tribal fishing camps, could also increase the noise along the river

3 and distract from the aesthetic experience. 

4

5 ES5.5.3 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts

6

7 The economy of the area has in the past been strongly influenced by Hanford Site

8 activities. Changes in the Site mission and reductions in Site activities have had negative

9 impacts in the past. Recently, the area economy has become more diversified and less

10 dependent on the Hanford Site. Future development of Hanford Site lands under multiple

11 uses could accelerate the transition to a diversified economy. On the other hand, economic

12 growth associated with future uses of the Hanford Site could cumulatively increase demand for

13 infrastructure and services.

14

15 Alternative Three has the greatest potential to have cumulative impacts, both positive

16 and negative, on socioeconomic conditions. On the positive side, Alternative Three would

17 provide the most opportunities to develop alternate uses of Hanford Site lands, maximizing the

18 economic return. Alternative Three could have negative impacts on socioeconomic conditions

19 by increasing the demand for services, including schools, law enforcement, and health and

20 human services. Alternative Two has the least potential to have cumulative socioeconomic

21 impacts because it would minimize future site development.

22

23 Industrial development on Hanford Site lands could place increased demand on

24 infrastructure beyond the City of Richland’s capacity. This potentially cumulative impact could

25 occur under the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives Three and Four because they have

26 Industrial land-use designations larger than the City of Richland UGA. However, the impact

27 would be the most under the No-Action Alternative, because no land-use plan would be

28 available to assist government entities in anticipating and addressing increased demand.

29

30 ES5.5.4 Cumulative Human Health Risk

31

32 Risks due to exposure to residual contamination remaining after completion of

33 CERCLA activities would be dependent on the level of access to any particular area where

34 residual contamination remained. Consequently, the cumulative health risk to humans would

35 be expected to be greatest under Alternative Three because it would provide greater access to

36 more areas and would provide more opportunities for development of Hanford Site lands than

37 would the other alternatives. Conversely, Alternative Two would have the least potential for

38 cumulative human health risks, because it would provide the least access to Hanford Site

39 lands.

40

41 Significant occupational risk to workers could occur under some industrial uses, under

42 both the Industrial-Exclusive and Industrial land-use designations. Agriculture is also

43 traditionally a high risk occupation (Table ES-4). Cumulative occupational risk would likely be

44 the greatest under Alternative Three because of the large area designated for Agriculture and

45 the higher level of use associated with the entire Hanford Site. Conversely, occupational risk

46 would be lowest for Alternative Two because industrial risk would be limited to workers in the

47 200 Areas (similar under all alternatives) and Alternative Two designates the smallest area for

48 Industrial development.

49

50

51 ES5.6 Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Adjacent to the

52 Hanford Site

53
Revised Draft ES-97 Executive Summary

1 C Offsite thermal treatment of low-level mixed waste – The Allied Technology

2 Group (ATG) proposes to construct a facility that would be located adjacent to the

3 Hanford Site boundary in the northeast corner of the City of Richland. DOE has

4 proposed that approximately 5,120 m (6,696 yd ) of contact-handled low-level 3 3

5 mixed waste be shipped from the Hanford Site to the ATG facility for treatment. 

6

7 Land-use planning efforts for areas outside of and surrounding the Hanford Site are

8 currently being undertaken by Benton, Franklin, and Grant counties; and by the City of

9 Richland. These planning efforts will establish land uses that would be permitted by local

10 governments in areas surrounding the Hanford Site.

11

12

13 ES5.7 Other NEPA Considerations

14

15 ES5.7.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

16

17 Unavoidable adverse impacts are impacts that would occur after implementation of all

18 feasible mitigation measures. The greatest potential for unavoidable adverse impacts is

19 associated with more intensive land uses and the area extent of those uses in each

20 alternative. These impacts would principally be associated with the degree of disturbance of

21 sensitive habitats and loss of cultural resources.

22

23 ES5.7.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

24

25 Irreversible and irretrievable (I&I) commitments of resources are related to use of

26 nonrenewable resources and the effects that consumption of those resources could have on

27 future generations. Irreversible effects occur as a result of use or destruction of a resource

28 (e.g., energy and minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time. Irretrievable

29 resources commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be

30 restored (e.g., extinction of a species or disturbance of a cultural site). This land-use plan

31 would establish programmatic land-use policies and implementing procedures that will

32 influence how natural resources are consumed by specific projects in the future, but each

33 future project will carry its own level of NEPA or CERCLA/RCRA NEPA integrated analyses

34 that would make the required I&I commitments for the proposed project.

35

36

37 ES6.0 Implementation of the Comprehensive Land-Use

38 Plan

39

40 This section provides an overview of the procedures and guidance which will be used

41 by DOE and the cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal governments for implementing the

42 CLUP. The CLUP would provide the framework within which future use of the Hanford Site’s

43 lands and resources would occur. This framework consists of four basic elements:

44

45 1. A final Hanford CLUP Land-Use Map, depicting land uses for the Site. The ROD

46 for this EIS will select one of the alternative land-use maps presented in Chapter

47 ES3 or will select a land-use map that combines features of several alternatives.

48

49 2. Hanford CLUP Land-Use Definitions, describing the purpose, intent, and principal

50 use(s) of each of the land-use designations on the adopted CLUP map (see Table

51 ES-1).

52
Executive Summary ES-98 Revised Draft

1 3. Hanford CLUP Policies, directing land-use actions. These policies ensure that

2 individual actions of successive administrations shall collectively advance the

3 adopted CLUP map, goals, and objectives. 

4

5 4. Hanford CLUP Implementing Procedures, including:

6

7 C Administrative procedures for reviewing and approving Use Requests for

8 consistency with the CLUP

9

10 C A Site Planning Advisory Board (SPAB) consisting of representatives from the

11 cooperating agencies and the affected Tribal governments

12

13 C Actions which, after plan adoption, shall be undertaken to align and coordinate

14 existing and new “area” and “resource” management plans for the Site (e.g., the

15 CCP for the ALE Reserve; fire; cultural and historical resources; and species

16 management), with the CLUP land-use map, land-use policies and

17 implementing procedures.

18

19 For all proposals and projects, the above procedures and actions would be integrated

20 with existing DOE land-use review procedures (e.g., biological, cultural, and the NEPA), while

21 DOE maintains control of the land. The DOE has the final determination and approval of all

22 land-use decisions taking place on Hanford-site lands under DOE authority. 

23

24

25 ES6.1 Definitions and Descriptions of Land-Use Map Designations

26

27 The land-use designations of each alternative land-use map depict land uses that could

28 occur on the Site. The definitions of the various land-use designations are provided in Table

29 ES-1. These land-use designations and their definitions and descriptions were co-developed

30 by the cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal governments. 

31

32 ES6.2 Definitions for Terms Relating to Plan Implementation

33

34 The following three definitions – Allowable Use, Special Use, and Amendments – relate

35 the land-use policies to the land-use maps:

36

37 • Allowable Use – Any reservation of land for a physical development or land-use

38 activity that is consistent with the land-use designation and policies of the land-use

39 map and CLUP, or a specifically identified part of an approved area management

40 plan (AMP), except for “Amendments” or uses that are identified as “Special Use.”

41

42 • Special Use – Activities requiring further review and approval prior to being

43 allowed. The following are special uses.

44

45 1. Any physical development or land-use activity in the Preservation or

46 Conservation designation

47

48 2. AMPs outside of the 200, 300, 400, and 1100 Areas

49

50 3. Any proposed new development that is inconsistent with the adopted local

51 counties’ or cities’ comprehensive plans for the Hanford Site

52

53 4. Mining or grazing activities within areas designated for Conservation
Revised Draft ES-99 Executive Summary

1 5. Any proposed new project that is located within a deed restricted area

2

3 6. Additions to or enlargements of pre-existing, nonconforming uses

4

5 7. Any proposed new project that establishes an exclusive use zone (EUZ) over

6 lands not currently under an EUZ.

7

8 C Amendments – Amendments are required for the following:

9

10 1. Any change to the map land-use designation of an area

11

12 2. Any change to CLUP policy

13

14 3. Any change in the use of land or an existing facility to a use that is inconsistent

15 with the land-use designation.

16

17 Additionally, definitions are used to define the terms of the land-use policies. These

18 definitions include the following:

19

20 C Area Management Plans (AMPs) – AMPs are management plans for specific

21 geographic areas, which may include specific resource management plans,

22 mitigation strategies, and various uses and facilities. An AMP shall be consistent

23 with the CLUP’s land-use designations and policies.

24

25 C Use Request – A Use Request is a proposal to use land or a facility for an activity

26 different from what is currently occurring. This Use Request can be brought to DOE

27 during the scoping of either NEPA, RCRA, CERCLA, or SEPA proposed actions. 

28 Use Requests can include site preparations, leasing, granting right-of-ways, or any

29 other land-use related activities.

30

31 C Policy – Policies are statements of intent which direct decisions toward the

32 accomplishment of adopted goals and objectives. Policies are applied on a

33 continuous basis and applied consistently over time. 

34

35 C Pre-existing, Nonconforming Use – Any existing lawfully established use that is

36 neither allowed nor conditionally permitted within a land-use designation, but exists

37 therein, having been established prior to the CLUP land-use designation.

38

39 C Resource Management Plan (RMP) – An RMP contains adopted management

40 standards and strategies for a specific resource. Generally, resources subject to

41 RMPs are not confined to geographically discrete areas and they are not static

42 (i.e., their characteristics and conditions often vary in time and/or location across

43 the Site). Examples of resources which have RMPs are biological resources

44 (BRMaP), cultural resources (CRMP), and the Bald Eagle Management Plan. The

45 provisions of each RMP apply wherever its subject resource occurs on the Site,

46 except for areas specifically exempted within the RMP itself. 

47

48 Several RMPs may apply within an AMP. A single RMP may extend across several

49 AMPs. Where an RMP exists within an AMP, the provisions of both must be

50 integrated toward achieving their common objectives, consistent with land-use

51 designations within which they occur.

52

53 C RL Manager – The RL Manager is the Manager of DOE’s Richland Operations

54 Office (RL).
Executive Summary ES-100 Revised Draft

1

2 C RL Site Management Board (SMB) – The SMB is chaired by the Site Deputy

3 Manager and comprises selected members of RL senior management staff.

4

5 C Real Estate Officer (REO) – The REO, from the RL Site Infrastructure Division

6 (SID), is the single point of contact for reviewing, processing, and coordinating land7 use activities on the Hanford Site.

8

9 C Shall – For the purpose of Chapter 6 of this EIS, “shall” refers to activities that

10 would be mandatory if adopted by the ROD.

11

12 C Should – For the purpose of Chapter 6 of this EIS, “should” refers to activities that

13 would be discretionary if adopted by the ROD.

14

15 C Site Planning Advisory Board (SPAB) – The SPAB is an advisory board to land16 use matters on the Hanford Site. The SPAB consists of representatives from

17 HRA-EIS cooperating agencies and affected Tribal governments. The SPAB

18 reviews Use Requests that are other than “allowable uses” and makes

19 recommendations to DOE.

20

21

22 ES6.3 Hanford CLUP Policies

23

24 The Hanford CLUP policies connect all the CLUP elements. It is expected that the

25 ROD for this EIS would set forth policies that do the following:

26

27 C Establish land-use mitigation procedures 

28

29 C Establish hierarchies, priorities, and standards relating to land use, resource use,

30 and values

31

32 C Integrate competing land and resource goals and objectives

33

34 C Provide reference points for addressing unanticipated circumstances and making

35 actual Amendments to the CLUP when necessary

36

37 C Identify which RMPs or AMPs shall be considered for development or revision as

38 part of the CLUP implementation.

39

40 Land-use and resource-related decisions, actions, and programs should neither conflict

41 with, nor be inconsistent with the adopted CLUP map and policies. Actions related to policies

42 should be feasible and practical, and policies should be consistently applied on a continuous

43 basis.

44

45 The proposed Hanford CLUP policies are described below. They are a synthesis of

46 stated values and objectives from DOE, Future Site Uses Working Group, Hanford Advisory

47 Board, August 1996 Draft HRA-EIS public hearing and public meetings, cooperating agencies,

48 consulting Tribal governments, and those associated with municipal and county land-use

49 planning principles.

50
Revised Draft ES-101 Executive Summary

1 ES6.3.1 Overall Policy

2

3 The CLUP policy would accomplish the following for the Hanford Site:

4

5 1. Protect the Columbia River and associated natural and cultural resources and water

6 quality.

7

8 2. Wherever possible, locate new development, including cleanup and remediation9 related projects, in previously disturbed areas.

10

11 3. Protect and preserve the natural and cultural resources of the Hanford Site for the

12 enjoyment, education, study, and use of future generations.

13

14 4. Honor treaties with American Indian Tribes as they relate to land uses and resource

15 uses.

16

17 5. Reduce EUZ areas to maximize the amount of land available for alternate uses

18 while still protecting the public from inherently hazardous operations.

19

20 6. Allow access for other uses (e.g., recreation) outside of active waste management

21 areas, consistent with the land-use designation.

22

23 7. Ensure that a public-involvement process is used for amending the CLUP and land24 use designations to respond to changing conditions.

25

26 8. As feasible and practical, remove pre-existing, nonconforming uses.

27

28 9. Facilitate cleanup and waste management.

29

30 ES6.3.2 Protection of Environmental Resources

31

32 The CLUP policy would accomplish the following for the Site:

33

34 1. Implement DOE’s Land- and Facility-Use Policy (DOE P 430.1) which is to protect

35 and sustain native species and their habitats on the Site. The Conservation and

36 Preservation land-use designations are the primary land-use controls to accomplish

37 this policy. Within the Conservation and Preservation designations, land uses shall

38 be consistent with the purpose of the designation and significant impacts shall be

39 mitigated. Implementation mechanisms such as the Draft Biological Resources

40 Mitigation Strategy (BRMiS), and habitat management plans augment these

41 designations for development review and approval sitewide. Developments for

42 public access and recreation should be according to adopted AMPs depicting

43 management of use, and siting of support facilities.

44

45 2. Within land-use designations other than Conservation and Preservation, mitigate

46 significant unavoidable (residual) impacts at locations by enhancing habitats within

47 the Conservation or Preservation designations. To accomplish this, undertake the

48 following actions:

49

50 a. Modify the BRMaP and BRMiS to be consistent with this policy and with

51 implementing procedures.

52
Executive Summary ES-102 Revised Draft

1 b. Review habitat management plans to redirect their actions and strategies,

2 where necessary and possible, to the Conservation and Preservation

3 designations.

4

5 c. Consider provisions for the protection of “vulnerable aggregations,” as defined

6 by the WDFW, for nongame species wherever they occur on the Site.

7

8 3. Require that projects have reasonable setbacks from the Preservation and

9 Conservation features of importance.

10

11 4. Within all land-use designations, require that land not be cleared until a specific

12 project has been approved.

13

14 ES6.3.3 Protection of Cultural Resources

15

16 The CLUP policy would accomplish the following for the Site:

17

18 1. Implement DOE’s Land- and Facility-Use Policy (DOE P 430.1) which is to protect

19 and sustain cultural resources on the Site. The Conservation and Preservation

20 land-use designations are the primary land-use controls to accomplish this policy. 

21 The CRMP addresses those actions where land-use controls are not the

22 appropriate mitigation (i.e., if a cultural resource is found in an industrial

23 designation, provisions of the CRMP would be applied to mitigate impacts to the

24 resource). Within the Conservation and Preservation designations, land uses shall

25 be consistent with the purpose of the designation and significant impacts mitigated. 

26 Implementation mechanisms such as the CRMP, and habitat management plans

27 augment these designations for development review and approval sitewide. 

28 Developments for public access and recreation should be according to adopted

29 AMPs depicting management of use, and siting of support facilities. 

30

31 2. Proposed developments within all areas should be reviewed consistent with the

32 BRMaP and the CRMP, and reflected in the applicable AMP.

33

34 ES6.3.4 Siting New Development

35

36 The CLUP policy would accomplish the following for the Site:

37

38 1. Locate and approve new developments in areas consistent with the adopted

39 Hanford CLUP.

40

41 2. Locate proposed projects, as feasible and practical, in those areas of the Hanford

42 Site where the adopted CLUP and the local cities’ and counties’ land-use maps are

43 consistent.

44

45 3. Within all land-use designations, previously disturbed areas (as defined by the

46 BRMaP) should be developed first, followed by the acreages with the least sensitive

47 biological and cultural resources. Within the site plan of any proposed new

48 development, the acreages with the most sensitive biological and cultural resources

49 should be worked into natural open space for landscaping, buffers, natural drainage

50 areas, etc.

51

52 4. Focus on using existing infrastructure and developed areas for new projects within

53 a land-use designation. 

54
Revised Draft ES-103 Executive Summary

1 a. Locate new development in close proximity to existing infrastructure unless a

2 project requires an isolated site away from incompatible uses.

3

4 b. Concentrate development on or adjacent to existing infrastructure. Where

5 extensions of infrastructure are necessary, minimize the extension of

6 infrastructure into undeveloped areas.

7

8 c. Site, plan, and design development to avoid significant impacts on resources. 

9 Mitigate unavoidable impacts through design to minimize impacts and mitigation

10 costs associated with biological and cultural resources.

11

12 ES6.3.5 Utility and Transportation Corridors

13

14 The CLUP policy would accomplish the following for the Site:

15

16 1. With to-be-identified exception(s), existing utility and transportation corridor rights17 of-way are the preferred routes for expanded capacity and new infrastructure.

18

19 2. Existing utility corridors that are in actual service, clearly delineated, and of defined

20 width, are not considered “nonconforming” uses in any land-use designation.

21

22 3. Utility corridors and systems without the characteristics of number 2 (above) are

23 considered to be nonconforming uses and shall be identified in the applicable RMP

24 or AMP.

25

26 4 Avoid the establishment of new utility corridors within the Conservation and

27 Preservation designations unless the use of an existing corridor(s) is infeasible or

28 impractical.

29

30 5. Avoid the location of new above-ground utility corridors and systems in the

31 immediate viewshed of an American Indian sacred site. Prioritize for removal, as

32 funding is available, existing nonconforming utility corridors and systems in such

33 areas.

34

35 ES6.3.6 Economic Development and Diversification

36

37 The CLUP policy would promote the following for the Site:

38

39 1. Multiple land uses for both the private and public sector.

40

41 2. Protection and maintenance of existing functional infrastructure and utilities for use

42 in economic development and Site transition.

43

44 3. Future Federal missions and programs, consistent with the provisions of the CLUP.

45

46 4. Protection of natural, historic, and cultural resources to assure continued

47 biodiversity and cultural values as essential elements of a recreation and tourism

48 economy.

49

50 5. Reduction or elimination of existing conditions which are impediments to the

51 realization of the land-use designations (e.g., scattered withdrawn Public Domain

52 land, contamination, and nonconforming and abandoned developments).

53

54
Executive Summary ES-104 Revised Draft

1 ES6.4 Organizational Structure and Procedure for Review and Approval

2 of Use Requests

3

4 It is intended that the existing organizational structure within DOE be used to implement

5 the Hanford CLUP, augmented with the SPAB consisting of representatives from cooperating

6 agencies and affected Tribal governments (Figure ES-31).

7

8 It is recommended that the CLUP land-use map, land-use policies and implementing

9 procedures be integrated with and addressed at the threshold decision points of all

10 authorizations, operational plans (e.g., the Hanford Strategic Plan), and actions. This includes

11 contracts and budget proposals that directly or indirectly affect land use on the Site so they will

12 not create conflicts with the CLUP, or fail to forward its map and policy objectives where the

13 opportunity and ability to do so exists.

14

15 After the HRA-EIS ROD is approved, the actions presented in this section would be

16 undertaken to ensure that the plan is implemented. The objectives of these actions are as

17 follows:

18

19 C To streamline and integrate procedures for project review, including ensuring

20 project consistency with the plan, pre-planning for large areas, siting new

21 developments, providing and using infrastructure and utilities, managing resources,

22 notifying the public, and conducting environmental review.

23

24 C To make decisions on the use of lands and resources on the Site within the frame25 work of existing DOE legal and administrative procedures, with an implementation

26 process that parallels, and efficiently coordinates with local land-use regulatory

27 processes, and provides similar accountability and tracking.

28

29 C To make adjustments in existing DOE administrative structures as necessary to

30 efficiently implement the CLUP.

31

32 Achieving these objectives is essential to accomplishing DOE missions and working

33 with Federal agencies, Tribes, and local cities and counties to jointly accomplish planning

34 goals, economic transition, and multiple uses of the Site.

35

36

37

38

39

40
NCO

 reviews

 and

 approves

Categorical

Exclusions

(CXs) and

resolution

 of

EAs

(FONSI or

 EIS

determination)

and

EISs

 (RODs) and

coordinates

CERCLA

RODs, RCRA

Permits,and

SEPA Reviews

ALLOWABLE

 USE

SPECIAL USE

AMENDMENT

RL Site Management

Board (SMB) reviews DOE

recommendation and

forwards approval or

denial back to the REO

SPAB reviews proposed

 use for consistency with

the Plan Map and

Policies and

recommends approval,

approval with conditions,

or denial to REO

REO forwards DOE’s Recommendation

REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT AS A USE REQUEST1 PROJECT REVIEW UNDER NEPA,

CERCLA, RCRA AND SEPA

REO forwards DOE’s Recommendation

REO forwards DOE’s Recommendation

1

The proposed land or facility use, and location are reviewed for consistency with the Plan Map and Policies.

Real Estate Officer (REO) receives application for proposed project and

initiates processing, which includes determining whether the proposal

is an Allowable Use, Special Use, or Amendment to the Plan.

Where appropriate, as part of project review, the REO obtains

recommendations from the Site Planning Advisory Board (SPAB).

REO

and

NEPA

Compliance

Officer

(NCO)

coordinate

project review

and the

integration

of applicable

requirements

(e.g.,

AMPs

and

RMPs)

SPAB reviews proposed

 use for consistency with

the Plan Map and

Policies and

recommends approval,

approval with conditions,

or denial to REO

Revised Draft ES-105 Executive Summary

1 Figure ES-31. Organizational Structure for CLUP

2 Implementation. 3

4

5 AMP = Area Management Plan

6 CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

7 CX = Categorical Exclusion

8 EA = Environmental Assessment

9 FONSI = Finding of No Significant Impact

10 EIS = Environmental Impact Statement

11 NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act

12 RCRA = Resource Conservation Recovery Act

13 ROD = Record of Decision

14 SEPA = State Environmental Policy Act

15

16