DOE/EIS-0222-F
	Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statements September 1999

Go to Table of Contents

Because Web documents (due to HTML coding, etc.) are fundamentally different from printed documents, this internet version of the Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS) should not be considered the official Administrative Record document. The official record document is available for review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) local and Headquarters public reading rooms and DOE's Tri-Party Agreement Public Information Repositories:

University of Washington
Suzzallo Library
Government Publications Room
Seattle, WA 98195-2900
(206) 543-4664
ATTN: Eleanor Chase

Gonzaga University
Foley Center East
502 Boone Spokane, WA 99258
(509) 328-4220, ext. 3839
ATTN: Connie Scarpelli

Portland State University
Branford Price Millar Library
Science and Engineering Floor
SW Harrison and Park
P.O. Box 1151 Portland, OR 97207
(503) 725-3690
ATTN: Michael Bowman

Freedom of Information Public Reading Room
Forrestal Building
1000 Independence Ave.,
SW Washington, D.C. 20585
(202) 586-3142

U.S. Department of Energy Public Reading Room
2770 University Drive
Richland, WA 99352
(509) 372-7443 ATTN: Terri Traub

Cover Sheet

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

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Benton, Franklin, and Grant counties; and the City of Richland , Washington

Consulting Tribal Governments: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Title: Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS), Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

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

Thomas W. Ferns, HCP EIS Document Manager
U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office
P.O. Box 550, MSIN HO-12
Richland, Washington 99352
(509) 372-0649 or thomas_w_ferns@rl.gov
Fax: (509) 376-4360

For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process, call 1-800-472-2756 to leave a message, or contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-4600.

Abstract: The DOE prepared this Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement (HCP EIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with implementing a comprehensive land-use plan for the Hanford Site for at least the next 50 years. With the exception of the required No-Action Alternative, each of the six alternatives presented represents a Tribal, Federal, state, or local agency's Preferred Alternative. Each alternative is presented separately. The DOE's Preferred Alternative anticipates multiple uses of the Hanford Site, including: consolidating Waste Management operations in the Central Plateau, allowing industrial development in the eastern and southern portions of the Site, increasing recreational access to the Columbia River, and expanding the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to include all of the Wahluke Slope and ALE (managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

The Hanford Site occupies 1,517 square kilometers (km²) (586 square miles [mi²]) in southeastern Washington. Today, the Hanford Site has diverse missions associated with environmental restoration, Waste Management, and Science and Technology. These missions have resulted in the growing need for a comprehensive, long-term approach to planning and development for the Site.

Public Comments: The Final EIS is a revision of the Revised Draft Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (HRA-EIS) published in April 1999 and responds to comments received in writing and at public hearings. The Final EIS is being transmitted to commenting agencies and individuals, made available to the public, and filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A DOE decision on proposed actions will not be made earlier than 30 days after EPA issues a public notice of availability for the Final EIS. The DOE will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) published in the Federal Register.

Foreword⁽¹⁾

Objective of the EIS

This Final HCP EIS was prepared by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its nine cooperating and consulting agencies to develop a comprehensive land-use plan (CLUP) for the Hanford Site. The DOE will use the Final HCP EIS as a basis for a Record of Decision (ROD) on a CLUP for the Hanford Site. While development of the CLUP will be complete with release of the HCP EIS ROD, full implementation of the CLUP is expected to take at least 50 years.

Implementation of the CLUP will begin a more detailed planning process for land-use and facility-use decisions at the Hanford Site. The DOE will use the CLUP to screen proposals. Eventually, management of Hanford Site areas will move toward the CLUP land-use goals. This CLUP process could take more than 50 years to fully achieve the land-use goals.

The final CLUP will consist of the following:

A Final Land-Use Map, depicting the desired future patterns of land use on the Hanford Site. This map will be one of the alternative land-use maps presented in the EIS, or a map that combines features of several of the alternatives maps such as the new Preferred Alternative based on public comment.

Land-Use Definitions, describing the purpose, intent, and principal use(s) of each land-use designation on the final CLUP map.

Land-Use Policies, directing land-use actions. These policies will help to ensure that individual actions of successive managers collectively advance the adopted CLUP map, goals, and objectives over time.

Land-Use Implementing Procedures, including:

• Administrative procedures for reviewing and approving requests for use of Hanford Site lands.
• A Site Planning Advisory Board (SPAB), consisting of representatives from DOE, the cooperating agencies with land-use authority, and the affected Tribes, to evaluate and make recommendations on development proposals and land-use requests.  It is anticipated that some requested activities will be permitted under the plan, but that others will need to be modified or required to incorporate mitigation to reduce potential impacts.
• New or revised "area" and "resource" management plans for the Site aligned and coordinated with the new land-use maps, policies and procedures of the adopted CLUP.

Integration of the CLUP

The process described above would be integrated with existing DOE land-use review procedures (e.g., the Draft Biological Resources Management Plan and the Draft Cultural Resources Management Plan). The final CLUP map, policies, and implementing procedures would be integrated with and addressed at the threshold decision points of all authorizations, operational plans, and actions, including contracts and budget proposals that directly or indirectly affect land use so that they would not create unintentional conflicts with the CLUP, or fail to advance CLUP objectives where the opportunity and ability to do so exists.

The DOE would have the final approval of all land-use decisions taking place on the Hanford Site while under DOE responsibility. The DOE Richland Operations Office would coordinate review of Hanford land development and land-use requests and determine, with input from the SPAB, whether a request represents an allowable use, special use, or whether the request would require an amendment to the CLUP.

Cooperating Agencies and Consulting Tribal Governments

The nine cooperating agencies and consulting Tribal governments that participated in the preparation of this Final HCP EIS are the U.S. Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management [BLM], Bureau of Reclamation [BoR], and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]); the City of Richland, Washington; Benton, Franklin, and Grant counties; the Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management; and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR).

The HCP EIS Alternatives

Six land-use alternatives (including the No-Action) were developed by the nine Cooperating Agencies and Consulting Tribal Governments using common land-use designations and definitions. With the exception of the No-Action Alternative, each of the six alternatives presented represents a Tribal, Federal, state, or local agency's Preferred Alternative.

No-Action Alternative. This alternative, developed by DOE in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), presents the current status of land use at the Hanford Site and represents no change from current land-management processes or intergovernmental relationships with the cooperating agencies. Specific land-use decisions for Hanford would continue to be made under the NEPA process and the Tri-Party Agreement, based on the current Hanford Strategic Plan (Mission Plan) and on a project-by-project basis.

DOE's Preferred Alternative. DOE's Preferred Alternative anticipates multiple uses of the Hanford Site, including anticipated future DOE missions, non-DOE Federal missions, and other public and private-sector land uses. The DOE Preferred Alternative would do the following:

• For the cleanup mission ­ Consolidate Waste Management operations on 50.1 km² (20 mi²) in the Central Plateau of the Site.
• For the economic development mission ­ Allow industrial development in the eastern and southern portions of Hanford and increase recreational access to the Columbia River.
• For the Natural Resource Trustee mission ­ Expand the existing Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to include all of the Wahluke Slope (North Slope) of the Site, consistent with the 1994 Hanford Reach EIS and 1996 Hanford Reach ROD; place the Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE Reserve) under USFWS management by permit so it may be included in the overlay wildlife refuge, add McGee Ranch to the overlay wildlife refuge; and ensure that, where practicable, withdrawn BLM lands are clean enough to support BLM's multiple-use mandate.

Alternative One (Natural Resource Trustee). The USFWS's alternative emphasizes a Federal stewardship role for managing the natural resources at Hanford. This alternative considers these resources in a regional context, and would expand the existing Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge to include all of the Wahluke Slope (North Slope), the Riverlands, McGee Ranch, and the ALE Reserve (e.g., all of the Hanford lands north and east of the Columbia River and west of State Highways 24 and 240). The vision of Alternative One is to conserve the Hanford Site shrub-steppe ecosystem and protect the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.

Alternative Two (Nez Perce Tribe, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Department). This Nez Perce alternative calls for preservation of natural and cultural resources and traditional Tribal use at the Site. Future DOE missions would be constrained to the Central Plateau, 300 Area, and 400 Area. Both this alternative and Alternative Four (developed by the CTUIR) reflect Tribal visions and views of Tribal members' treaty rights and traditional Tribal uses of Hanford lands. The Tribes and DOE have "agreed to disagree" on the interpretation of treaty rights on Hanford lands in the interest of moving the EIS process forward. Each party reserves the right to assert its respective interpretation of treaty rights at Hanford.

Alternative Three (Cities and Counties). This local governments' alternative is based on the individual planning efforts of local agencies and organizations including Benton County, Franklin County, Grant County, and the City of Richland. Alternative Three recognizes the potential that land use at the Hanford Site has in relation to economic development. Alternative Three would allow dryland (non-irrigated) agricultural and grazing activities, and irrigated agriculture on the Hanford Site. The land-use designations contained in Alternative Three were developed consistent with local availability of infrastructure, nearness of urban areas, soils capabilities, and current use patterns.

Alternative Four (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, CTUIR). This CTUIR alternative calls for preservation of natural resources and areas of religious importance to the CTUIR as well as traditional Tribal use at the Site. Both this alternative and Alternative Two (developed by the Nez Perce Tribe, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Department) reflect Tribal visions and views of Tribal members' treaty rights and traditional Tribal uses of Hanford lands. The Tribes and DOE have "agreed to disagree" on the interpretation of treaty rights on Hanford lands in the interest of moving the EIS process forward. Each party reserves the right to assert its respective interpretation of treaty rights at Hanford.

Public Comment

The DOE received more than 400 comment letters, 30 E-mails, and 86 transcript comments from four public hearings on the Revised Draft HRA-EIS. The DOE also accepted a binder with 922 endorsements for the Wild and Scenic River (with the inclusion of a Wahluke Wildlife Refuge) that were collected for the Department of the Interior's Hanford Reach EIS in 1994. More than 200 request forms for farmland on the Wahluke Slope (also generated for the Hanford Reach EIS in 1994) were accepted in the same spirit. Each of these signature-gathering efforts were assigned only one comment number. Based on the public comment received, the following changes have been made to the DOE's Preferred Alternative:

• All Conservation (Mining and Grazing) has been changed to Conservation (Mining).
• The National Wildlife Refuge designation (from Alternative One) has been extended to include the ALE Reserve, the Riverlands, and McGee Ranch; and all river islands not in Benton County. The Preferred Alternative clarifies that the refuge will be an overlay wildlife refuge (without a transfer of title from DOE), and that DOE retains the right to mine the ALE insert for cover materials.
• A railroad right-of-way through the Riverlands portion of the proposed Refuge will be given status as a preexisting condition and included in the proposed USFWS permit to manage the Refuge.
• The White Bluffs town-site (from Alternatives One and Three) has been added to the Preferred Alternative map as Low-Intensity Recreation to serve as the White Bluffs Memorial.
• The Low-Intensity Recreation dots (comfort stations) along the river which could eventually serve as anchor points for a river trail from Richland to Vernita Bridge have been moved to ensure that they have both river and road access.
• A High-Intensity Recreation triangle (from Alternative Three) has been added to the Preferred Alternative map near Horn Rapids Park on the Yakima River

In addition to changes made to the Preferred Alternative, and the identifying of Alternative One as the environmentally preferable alternative, many other changes were made to the document updating items, refining analyses, and correcting errors. Each change in the Final EIS from the Revised Draft EIS is identified by vertical line on the outside margin of the page such as the one that accompanies this paragraph.

Preamble

In response to public comment, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has changed the name of this environmental impact statement (EIS) from the Hanford Remedial Action Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Land-Use Plan (HRA-EIS) to the Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS (HCP EIS). In the Notice of Intent in 1992, establishing future land uses was listed as one of the HRA-EIS objectives. Since that time, various considerations have led to this Final HCP EIS in which future land use is now the EIS's main objective. To reflect this reduction in scope from the 1996 Draft HRA-EIS, DOE solicited comments on the proposed name change (as well as the contents), and in response to comments has changed the name to the HCP EIS .

Originally, this EIS was intended to provide an environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for all aspects of the developing Hanford Environmental Restoration Project. The document, however, no longer directly considers remediation issues. Instead, remediation issues are now integrated into specific Tri-Party Agreement remediation decision documents. Remediation decisions are made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Washington, as lead regulatory agencies, and DOE as lead implementing agency. The DOE does expect that the EIS process will assist Hanford remediation efforts by determining reasonably foreseeable land uses and establishing land-use decision-making processes to ensure the viability of any future institutional control that might be required.