L.4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
L.4.1 GEOLOGY
Comment Number 0072.124
CTUIR
Comment P 4-3: Sect. 4.1 Geology: This section is missing a table depicting the Ringold formation.
Response The Ringold Formation is shown in Figures 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 and described in Section 4.1.3. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted.
Comment Number 0072.125
CTUIR
Comment P 4-4: Fig. 4.1.1: Depressions are typically mapped by a closed end line with comb-like tooth projections pointing towards the depression, not as shown in this figure.
Response The closed line comb-tooth symbol is considered standard nomenclature for depicting a depression. The nomenclature used in the figure was adopted from a report on the geology of the Hanford Site (Lindsey 1992) and communicates the feature accurately. Because the information contained in the Draft EIS is correct, no change to the text was made.
Comment Number 0072.126
CTUIR
Comment P 4-7: PP 1: S 3: What direction are the fluvial sediments deposited, where is the figure depicting the direction of these sediments?
Response The direction of deposition of the fluvial sediments is not germane to the analysis of impacts and was therefore not included in the discussion. The information requested in the comment is a level of detail that DOE and Ecology believe is not necessary for meaningful discrimination among the alternatives.
Comment Number 0072.127
CTUIR
Comment P 4-9: PP4: S 5: What contamination exceeds which levels?
Response Radiological control areas are those areas where contaminants exceed natural background levels. Generally, the contaminants that exceed background levels are discussed in the sentences that proceed the referenced text in Volume One, Section 4.1 and in Appendix I. More detailed discussions are available in the source documents for this information, which are referenced in the EIS and available for public review in the DOE Reading Rooms and Information Repositories.
Comment Number 0072.128
CTUIR
Comment P 4-10: Sect. 4.1.5: Where are the references for these potential borrow sites?
Response The information concerning the potential borrow sites was obtained from the Site Evaluation Report for Candidate Basalt Quarry Sites, Bechtel Hanford Incorporated, February 1995. This reference was added to Volume One, Section 4.1.5.
Comment Number 0072.129
CTUIR
Comment P 4-10: Sect. 4.1.6: Please explain the stress regime for the fold belts indicated here in relation to the Cascadia subduction zone.
Response The stress regime of the Yakima Fold Belt is discussed in Volume Five, Section I.1.6.2. Because the geotechnical data presented in Volume Five, Appendix I is sufficient to support the EIS analysis of the seismicity, no further discussion is warranted.
Comment Number 0072.130
CTUIR
Comment P 4-10: Sect 4.1.6: PP2: Where is the diagram indicating the epicenters of these quake swarms? Please indicate a possible cause. Figures showing historical and recent seismicity of the Columbia Plateau are provided in Volume Five, Appendix I.
Response Earthquake swarms can occur at any location and their cause is not understood. They are not associated with known faults. Figures showing historical and recent seismicity of the Columbia Plateau are provided in Volume Five, Section I.1.6.
Comment Number 0089.20
Nez Perce Tribe ERWM
Comment Page 4-10, Paragraph 4
Not all earthquake sources are mentioned in this EIS, and Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis DOE Hanford Site, Washington, WHC-SD-W236A-TI-002, Revision 0, by Geomatrix Consultants should be referenced. Large earthquakes occurring on the Cascadia Subduction Zone pose a threat to the tanks and should have been considered in this EIS. Also, there is more than one earthquake swarm area located within the boundaries of the Hanford Site.
Response As stated in Volume Four, Section E.1.4, seismic scenarios were being studied by DOE and Ecology when the Draft EIS was published. The scenarios have been incorporated into the Final EIS in Volume Four, Appendix E. The hazard curves referenced in WHC-SD-W236A-TI-002, Rev. 1, were incorporated into the analysis. Please also refer to the response to Comment number 0072.130.
L.4.2 WATER RESOURCES
Comment Number 0072.131
CTUIR
Comment P 4-11: Sect. 4.2: Which contaminants that are not within the scope of this EIS.
Response The contaminants in the vadose zone, groundwater, and surface water due to past releases are not within the scope of this EIS. The EIS does present data regarding these contaminants in Volume One, Section 4.2. This information has been modified in the Final EIS to include data regarding vadose zone contamination that was unavailable when the Draft EIS was published. These new data are also addressed in Volume Six, Appendix K. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Volume One, Section 5.13 and Volume Four, Appendix F.4.5. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.08, 0012.01, and 0012.15 for issues related to vadose zone contamination and closure.
Comment Number 0072.132
CTUIR
Comment 4-12: Sect. 4.2.2: It is indicated that the confined aquifers are not likely to be impacted, please justify this statement.
Response Interconnection between the unconfined and lower confined aquifer is possible across the Central Plateau. However, except for the area near the erosional windows that occurs in the basalt several kilometers north of the 200 East Area and B Pond vicinity in the 200 East Area, there is no indication of aquifer interconnection. Groundwater mounding from discharges from B Pond have resulted in a substantial downward hydraulic gradient in this area. Groundwater mounding associated with B Pond are anticipated to greatly diminish by the time there are any releases from the TWRS facilities. The assertion that the confined aquifer is likely not impacted by TWRS alternatives is based on the TWRS facilities being separated from the confined aquifers by the vadose zone, unconfined aquifer, and confining layer(s) that are generally present in the lower portion of the unconfined aquifer, in addition to the reduction of downward hydraulic gradient in the vicinity of B Pond as discharges to the pond are reduced and eliminated. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0045.04 for a discussion of the text related to this issue that has been added to the Final EIS.
Comment Number 0072.133
CTUIR
Comment P 4-12: Sect. 4.2.2: Bullet 3: an overbank deposit is not necessarily laterally continuous; please indicate how these overbank deposits act as confining layers.
Response Overbank deposits are not necessarily laterally continuous; however, their presence, in conjunction with other relatively low-permeability sediments, combine to form a confining layer at the base of the unconfined aquifer, except as noted in the vicinity of an erosional window several kilometers north of the 200 East Area. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.132 and 0045.04.
Comment Number 0072.134
CTUIR
Comment P 4-14: PP 1: Please indicate how the groundwater flux influences the local groundwater north of the 200 West area.
Response The potential influences to the local groundwater north of the 200 West area due to waste water from the Effluent Treatment Facility will cease before tank waste releases addressed in this EIS reach groundwater for any of the alternatives. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0012.16. The information requested in the comment is a level of detail that DOE and Ecology believe is not necessary for meaningful discrimination among the alternatives.
Comment Number 0072.135
CTUIR
Comment P 4-15: Sect 4.2.2.4: In this section its indicated that the NW corner of the 200 West area that groundwater flows northward. Please indicate how the treated waste water from the affluent treatment facility impacts the ground water movement in this area.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.134, which addresses the same issue, and the response to Comment number 0012.16 for a related discussion of groundwater flow modeling.
Comment Number 0072.136
CTUIR
Comment P 4-18: PP2: Please indicate more clearly how the downward hydraulic gradients affect the local groundwater movement.
Response The potential effects of downward hydraulic gradients in the unconfined aquifer in the vicinity of B Pond will cease or be greatly reduced before tank waste releases occur for any of the alternatives. Consequently, these potential impacts are not germane to the analysis of impacts and are not included in the discussion. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.13, 0072.138, 0072.259, 0045.04, and 0089.23 for related discussions regarding B Pond.
Comment Number 0072.137
CTUIR
Comment P 4-18: Sect. 4.2.3: PP 3: Can you supply a figure indicating the relative levels that are consistently detected that are of Hanford origin?
Response Provided in this section are the current water quality and supply information. Relative levels of contaminants in the affected environment between Hanford and non-Hanford sources are not germane to the analysis of impacts and are therefore not included in the discussion. The two must be assessed together to provide a meaningful analysis. Any concentrations of radionuclides above background levels are assumed to come from the Hanford Site.
Comment Number 0072.138
CTUIR
Comment P 4-18: PP 4: Although the B pond is not used for human consumption today, it is still open to access from animals in the environment. Do the samples exceed chronic aquatic levels?
Response There is no indication that the TWRS alternatives would affect or be affected by B Pond. Thus, chronic aquatic (contaminant) levels in B Pond are not within the scope of this EIS.
Comment Number 0072.139
CTUIR
Comment P 4-21, 4-22, 4-23: The distributions of tritium, iodine-129, and nitrate are drawn with lines indicating a high level of certainty. Is there a figure indicating the depth of these distributions?
Response Typical monitoring well construction on the Site requires that the monitoring wells be screened from about 10 feet above the water table to 20 feet below the water table. The distributions of tritium, iodine-129, and nitrate are based on data from these wells and are assumed to represent concentration levels in the upper 20 feet of the unconfined aquifer. There are no known references that contain figures indicating the depth or vertical distribution of contaminants.
L.4.2.1 Surface Water
No comments were submitted or this topic.
L.4.2.2 Groundwater
Comment Number 0045.01
DiGiromlamo, Linda Raye
Comment Page 4-12. Section 4.2.2, third bullet: Vertical gradients in some parts of the 200 Areas are downward from the unconfined aquifer to the confined aquifer. Therefore, assuming the mud and overbank materials are not completed impermeable, some movement of water from the unconfined to the confined aquifers is probable. Also, there have been some indications of "contaminants" in wells tapping the confined aquifer. This should be discussed in the Final EIS.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment number 0045.04.
Comment Number 0045.04
USDOI
Comment Page 4-15. Section 4.2.2.3, last paragraph, fourth sentence: The Draft EIS states that erosional windows "allow some interconnection" between the unconfined and confined aquifer. It would be more accurate to state in the Final EIS that some interconnection is possible everywhere and that the erosional windows enhance the degree of connection.
Response The following statements were added to the text of the EIS in Volume One, Section 4.2 and Volume Five, Appendix I. Interconnection between the unconfined and lower confined aquifer is possible across the Central Plateau; however, except for the area near the erosional windows that occur in the basalt several kilometers north of the 200 East Area and B Pond vicinity in the 200 East Area, there is no indication of aquifer interconnection. In the vicinity of B Pond, groundwater mounding from discharges from B Pond have resulted in a downward hydraulic gradient. Several kilometers north of the 200 East Area, there is an absence of confining layer(s) associated with an erosional window which has results in enhanced interconnection of the aquifers in this area. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.132 and 0072.133.
Comment Number 0053.03
Carpenter, Tom
Comment More recently, we hear that cesium could possibly be heading toward the ground water that is in the vadose zone underneath the tanks. This is an interesting finding because five years ago, John Brodeur, who is a geophysicist out there, was trying to get the attention of the Hanford officials saying you need to do better in monitoring the vadose zone and the soil underneath the tanks and eventually he lost his job but managed to be put back into Hanford under the auspices of another contractor, Rust Geotech, which ended up doing the type of state-of-the-art modeling that, in fact, showed in December of 1995 that there could be a problem with cesium 125 feet down in the vadose zone, which is a lot further than led to be believe the cesium would ever travel. It is a very significant environmental finding and yet the public was not told about the cesium possibilities until mid February and then only reluctantly and I wonder why that is.
Response In the Draft EIS in Volume One, Section 4.2 and Appendix I, vadose zone contamination beneath the tank farms was described, and in Volume One, Section 3.3 the emerging data on the extent of migration in the vadose zone were discussed. Appendix K includes a discussion of potential transport mechanisms that may result in the contaminant migration. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0030.02, 0012.15 and 0009.01 for discussion regarding the emerging data and how that data are addressed in the Final EIS.
Comment Number 0072.258
CTUIR
Comment P I-23: Sect. I.2.2.2.2: Indicating that perched water may occur in the West Area, is an indicator of the large amount of uncertainty involved with predicting subsurface structures. This section should also include the language that calcite layers may also occur under the East Area as well.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the uncertainty involved with predicting subsurface structures. Caliche layers, which are often associated with perched water in the vadose zone, could occur in other areas including the 200 East Area. Based on limited information from boreholes in both the 200 East and 200 West Areas, it is likely that caliche layer(s) would be encountered in the 200 West Area and much less likely that they would be encountered in the 200 East Area. Volume Five, Appendix I has been modified to indicate perched water is possible in the 200 East Area, but not as likely as the occurrence in the 200 West Area. A discussion regarding the emerging data on vadose zone contamination is provided in Volume Five, Appendix K.
Comment Number 0072.259
CTUIR
Comment P I -23: Sect. I.2.2.2.3: Areas where substantial amounts of liquid may affect vadose zone saturation characteristics, such as near the B Pond should be part of the uncertainty analysis. This does not seem to be the case. Please indicate why this fact was seemingly overlooked.
Response The liquids from B Pond were not overlooked in the EIS. This issue goes beyond those expressed in the comment and includes other potential effects on the saturated zone. The 1979 groundwater levels on which the impact analysis is based represents a point in time where the B Pond groundwater mound was at a high level, higher than would be expected for the future given the decrease in waste-water discharges to the pond and its ultimate closure. This results in a conservative vadose zone impact assessment (i.e., faster contaminant transport in the vadose zone) because the vadose zone saturations are high and vadose zone thickness is less than would be expected without the mound. Another major concern relating to B Pond is the effect of the groundwater mound on groundwater gradient direction and magnitude. As pointed out in the Draft EIS, Volume Four, Section F.4.3.5, Site predevelopment water levels, as represented by a hindcast (estimates of water levels and flow directions that existed before the Hanford Site was constructed) and predicted future water levels for the year 2040, compare favorably with the groundwater levels from the year 1979 on which the impact analyses are based. Volume Four, Appendix K of the Final EIS contains predictions of the future groundwater flow directions after all of the groundwater mounds caused by past practice activities are gone. This analysis validates the flow direction calculated for the EIS impacts. Discussions of uncertainties have been expanded in the Final EIS and are now presented in Volume Five, Appendix K. Because the information contained in the Draft EIS is correct, no change to the text was made.
Comment Number 0072.261
CTUIR
Comment P I-34: Sect. I.2.3.2: Existing groundwater contamination should also be part of the EIS evaluation, since the tank leaching will add to what is already there, and both of these contribute to risk.
Response Existing groundwater contamination is discussed in Volume Five, Appendix I and Volume One, Section 4.2. Potential cumulative impacts are discussed in Volume One, Section 5.13 and Volume Four, Section F.4.5. Existing groundwater and soil contamination is not within the scope of this EIS, but will be addressed in a future NEPA analysis on tank closure. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0012.15, 0030.02, and 0072.08 for more information related to this issue.
L.4.2.3 Water Quality and Supply
Comment Number 0072.260
CTUIR
Comment P I-23: Sect. I.2.2.2.4: Contaminants are listed, but concentrations and total mass are not listed. Why was this information included at all if existing contamination is not used in the EIS? Even though TWRS does not claim ownership of the contaminated soil, it should be part of the analysis since all of the tank leaching will be pushing this contamination into the groundwater.
Response Records on the inventory of past practice waste disposal are sparse. The list of contaminants in Volume Five, Table I.2.2.1 was provided to give an indication of waste disposal. Volume Four, Section F.4.5 and Volume One, Section 5.13 address potential cumulative impacts associated with past practice waste disposal and past leaks from the tanks. Included in this section is information on the quantity of the high-risk contaminants carbon-14, iodine-129, technetium-99, and uranium. The contaminants in the vadose zone from past tank leaks are not within the scope of this EIS, and will be addressed in future NEPA analysis for tank closure. The remediation plan will address vadose zone and groundwater contamination within the context of tank farm closure alternatives. Emerging information indicates that some contaminants such as cesium, potentially from past tank leaks, are 100 feet or more below the tanks. The potential mechanisms for this transport are discussed in the EIS in Volume Five, Appendix K.
For most of the TWRS remediation alternatives, the liquid fluxes (the driving force that could push existing contaminants deeper), either from infiltrating precipitation or combined with releases from the tanks, would be at or far less than current liquid fluxes due to infiltration and the fluxes associated with past leaks. It is only for ex situ alternatives, during the waste retrieval sluicing period, that the liquid flux would increase. During the retrieval period, the liquid flux would increase from 1.4E-5 m/day to a total of 2.1E-5 m/day. Following retrieval, there is a 14-year cap construction period where the infiltration would be approximately 1.4E-5 m/day. The cap is calculated to reduce total infiltration to 1.4E-6 m/day for a nominal 1,000-year period. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0012.15, and 0030.02 for additional information concerning existing contamination in the vadose zone and 0005.17 and 0072.08 for a discussion of the reasons for not including closure in the EIS.
L.4.3 METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY
Comment Number 0072.140
CTUIR
Comment P4-26: PP 2: Because the Hanford Site is classified as a major source of hazardous air pollutants, what portion of these pollutants is expected to be produced by TWRS activities?
Response The cumulative impacts of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable new Hanford activities, including TWRS, are presented in Volume One, Section 5.13. Ongoing Hanford operations would include the current impact of tank farm emissions, and the TWRS alternative would include new or increased tank farm emissions postulated to result from implementation of the alternative. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.243. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted.
Comment Number 0072.262
CTUIR
Comment P I-41: Sect. I.3.2.2: The statement is made that DOE has applied for a Sitewide Air Operating Permit for the Hanford Site; we expect to see the Vitrification Plants, EMSL, LIGO, and all other sources included.
Response The Hanford Sitewide Air Operating Permit will include all Hanford facilities within DOE oversight that have a stack or vent point, unless determined to be insignificant emission units, as defined in WAC 173-401. Volume One, Section 6.0 indicates that air emission permits are among the permits DOE will need to have modified or initiated depending on the alternative selected in the ROD.
L.4.4 BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Comment Number 0012.18
ODOE
Comment Figure I.7.2.1 on page I-90 of Volume Five is flawed. It claims areas outside the 200 Areas for waste operations. The Future Site Uses Working Group recommended use of the 200 Areas as needed for waste operations and only such additional areas between the 200 Areas as was required. The working group included a buffer around this area for protection of the public. The figure also fails to identify the mature shrub-steppe habitat as sensitive areas south of the 200 Areas. This habitat is identified by the State of Washington as needing special protection.
Figure I.7.2.2 on page I-92 of Volume Five claims a large section of the center of the Site for waste operations. This proposed area contains the bulk of the mature shrub-steppe habitat remaining on the Site. The area indicated is far larger than indicated by the working group. There is no approved future land use map of the Hanford Site. This figure and references to it need to be removed from the document.
Response Volume Five, Figure I.7.2.1 shows existing Hanford Site land uses and is adapted from the Hanford Site Development Plan issued by DOE in 1993. The figure is not intended to show biological information such as sensitive habitats. Vegetation types in the TWRS areas are shown in Volume Five, Figure I.4.2.1.
Volume Five, Figure I.7.2.2 is also adapted from DOE's 1993 Hanford Site Development Plan. The area shown for waste operations in the figure represent DOE's 1993 vision of future Site land uses based on existing and future Hanford Site missions. As stated in the comment, and noted in Volume Five, Figure I.7.2.1 and in Section I.7.2, there currently is no official approved land use map for the Site. The Hanford Site CLUP, currently in preparation, will provide an official DOE vision of future Site land uses. The Hanford Site Development Plan material is included in the EIS to provide an indication of the DOE vision of future land uses in the absence of an official land use plan. Because the information contained in the Draft EIS is correct, no change to the text was made.
Comment Number 0019.05
WDFW
Comment Significant adverse affects to wildlife will occur if the McGee Ranch is impacted from projects such as the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility and TWRS. These projects are citing the McGee Ranch as a borrow site for silt loam soil. Cumulative demands for this silt loam soil exceed the resource. The existing Priority Habitat and value as a wildlife corridor will be lost. WDFW has requested USDOE to protect and preserve this parcel of land as a wildlife corridor between the two largest contiguous tracts of shrub-steppe in the State of Washington (letter dated April 5, 1996 from Martin Baker, Assistant Director, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to John Wagoner, Manager, U.S. Department of Energy-Richland Operations, see enclosure).
Response The potential borrow sites identified in the EIS would not be selected to support borrow needs of the EIS alternatives based on the analysis in this EIS. These sites were identified to inform the decision maker of potential impacts associated with each of the alternatives should the representative closure option presented in the EIS be implemented. However, just as the EIS will not support selection of borrow sites, it will not support decisions associated with closure. The Draft EIS states in Volume One, Section 5.4 that use of the McGee Ranch borrow site would adversely affect an important wildlife corridor. The EIS was modified to note the Washington Department of Wildlife April 5, 1996 request to DOE to preserve this land as a wildlife corridor. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.08, 0101.05, and 0019.03 for discussion related to closure and borrow sites.
Comment Number 0019.08
WDFW
Comment Page 4-28, second paragraph. The Nature Conservancy has discovered 20 new species on the Hanford Site. Two plants and eighteen insects. Please revise your statement and elsewhere (e.g., I.4.1, I.4.3.4, etc.).
Response The EIS was updated in Volume One, Section 4.4 and Volume Five, Appendix I to note the Nature Conservancy's discovery of 20 new species on the Hanford Site.
Comment Number 0019.09
WDFW
Comment Page 4-28, section 4.4.2, second paragraph. The National Biological Service has listed native shrub and grassland steppe in Washington and Oregon as an endangered ecosystem (referenced earlier in this document). Please include this statement within the description of vegetation of the site, and elsewhere in the document (e.g., summary I.4.0, I.4.2., etc.).
Response The EIS was modified in Volume One, Section 4.4 and Volume Five, Appendix I to include the statement that the National Biological Service has listed native shrub and grassland steppe as an endangered ecosystem in Washington and Oregon.
Comment Number 0019.10
WDFW
Comment Page 4-52, 4.7.1.2. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife administers the Wahluke Wildlife Recreation Area. Please correct statement.
Response The EIS was modified in Volume One, Section 4.7 and Volume Five, Appendix I to indicate that the WDWF administers the Wahluke Wildlife Recreation Area.
Comment Number 0019.11
WDFW
Comment Page 4-54, Section 4.7.3, first bullet. WDFW is not aware of any State natural resource agency which has submitted a proposal for the Arid Land Ecology Reserve. Please delete the words "Washington State."
Response The words "Washington State" were deleted from the referenced text in Volume One, Section 4.7.
Comment Number 0019.21
WDFW
Comment Page R-11, Fitzner 1992. The letter written by L. Fitzner appears on Washington Department of Wildlife letterhead. Please correct the name of the agency.
Response The EIS was modified to identify the referenced document.
Comment Number 0019.22
WDFW
Comment Page I-1, section I.1.0, first paragraph, last sentence. Duranceau's report does not adequately evaluate potential borrow sites for soil or gravel nor does it adequately evaluate the impacts to wildlife at basalt sites. Thus, adequate NEPA documentation has not occurred.
Response The Duranceau report (Duranceau 1995) was not intended to represent NEPA documentation for TWRS borrow site use decisions. The report was prepared as part of the process of evaluating potential borrow sites for eventual TWRS program use. The TWRS EIS also does not provide NEPA documentation with respect to borrow site use because decisions regarding closure activities, during which most TWRS borrow site impacts would occur, cannot yet be made. Closure is not included in the scope of the TWRS EIS. Additional NEPA evaluations of the environmental impacts associated with closure and borrow site issues, such as potential habitat destruction, cultural resources, site-wide planning, and cumulative impacts, will be evaluated in future NEPA documents. The selection of borrow sites will be made after extensive evaluation of prehistoric, historic, and cultural significance. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.08, 0019.03, 0101.05, and 0072.263 for discussions related to closure and borrow sites. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted.
Comment Number 0019.23
WDFW
Comment Page I-44, section I.4.2, second paragraph, fourth sentence. WDFW disagrees with this statement. Cheatgrass provides less than fifty percent cover when woody and native herbaceous species are combined.
Response The EIS was modified in Volume Five, Appendix I to delete the statement that cheatgrass provides more than 50 percent of the vegetative cover in the Central Plateau vicinity.
Comment Number 0072.141
CTUIR
Comment P 4-27: Sect. 4.4.1: Biodiversity is also the buffer which keeps the ecosystems from upheaval.
Response Volume One, Section 4.4.1 has been modified to indicate that biodiversity provides a moderating effect on wide fluctuations in environmental conditions. Different plant and animal species respond differently to changes in environmental conditions. Ecosystems with higher levels of biodiversity are likely to experience less overall disruption as a result of events such as climatic changes, floods, or fires.
Comment Number 0072.142
CTUIR
Comment P 4-28: PP3: The recently discovered nine new plant/insect species on the Hanford Site is actually an indication of the amount of unrecorded biodiversity.
Response The EIS acknowledges in Volume One, Section 4.4 and in Volume Five, Appendix I that the discovery of new plant and insect species on the Hanford Site indicates the biodiversity of the Site. The ecological resources of the Hanford Site have been studied extensively. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.143.
Comment Number 0072.143
CTUIR
Comment P 4-30: PP 1: What was the amount of error associated with the biological surveys in relation to survey coverage, mis-identification, and were any of the nine newly recorded species found in these areas?
Response The Nature Conservancy study was a multi-year effort that focused only on the North Slope, the Fitzner Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve, and along the Columbia River. Although the study was intensive, the possibility remains that additional species could be discovered in the same areas in the future.
The Nature Conservancy did not study any of the potential TWRS areas. None of the new species were found in potential TWRS areas. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNL) and the WDFW are beginning studies that might identify additional previously unknown species in areas of the Site not studied by the Nature Conservancy. PNL biological specialists indicate that, while new species conceivably could be found anywhere, the potential Vernita Quarry borrow site is the most likely location for new species of the various potential TWRS sites. This is because Vernita Quarry is part of the Umtanum Ridge area where new species have been recorded in the past. The McGee Ranch area is less likely to contain newly discovered species than Vernita because McGee Ranch is partly disturbed by past agricultural use. The Central Plateau, where all other potential TWRS sites are located, is the least likely area for new species (Brandt 1996).
Comment Number 0072.144
CTUIR
Comment P 4-30: PP 4: Elk have also been sighted on islands and along the Columbia river.
Response The EIS has been modified in Volume One, Section 4.4 and Volume Five, Appendix I to indicate that elk reportedly also have been sighted on the islands and along the Columbia River. The presence of elk along the Columbia River and on the islands would not affect the analysis of TWRS alternatives' impacts because potential TWRS sites are 11 km (7 mi) or more from the river.
Comment Number 0072.145
CTUIR
Comment P 4-30: PP 5: S 2: The subjective use of the word 'near' is confusing, how far away is 'near'?
Response In this context, "near" is considered to be habitats occurring within 1 km (0.6 mi) of any TWRS site.
Comment Number 0072.146
CTUIR
Comment P 4-31: S 4.4.4: Sensitive habitats also occur in the undisturbed shrub steppe.
Response The term "sensitive habitats" in Volume One, Section 4.4 refers only to wetlands and riparian habitats. There is no intention to imply that undisturbed shrub-steppe does not include habitat areas that can be considered "sensitive" to disturbance.
Comment Number 0072.147
CTUIR
Comment P 4-31: S 4.4.5: If the Pipers Daisy, a Washington State sensitive species has been found at the potential Pit-30 Borrow Site, What plans are there for mitigation and for increased surveys regarding this, also, this plant and potentially many other sensitive species were not mentioned in the Eco-Risk section.
Response Future NEPA documentation for TWRS closure activities, the phase of the TWRS program during which most borrow site activities would occur, would require additional site-specific biological surveys. While specific mitigation measures have not yet been determined for impacts associated with decisions that will be supported by the TWRS EIS, these measures will be addressed in the Mitigation Action Plan to be prepared after the TWRS Final EIS is completed. In general, as discussed in Volume One, Section 5.20 of the EIS, the principle of siting, configuring, and laying out facilities to avoid sensitive natural resources as much as possible would be a key element of a mitigation strategy. Additional potential mitigation measures that could be applied by DOE also are identified in Section 5.20. For additional information on closure and borrow site issues, please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0019.03, 0072.08, and 0101.05.
The analysis of chemical and radiological impacts presented in Volume One, Section 5.4 and Volume Three, Appendix D to biological and ecological resources considered a generic plant, as well as a number of wildlife species. Possible impacts considered to specific "sensitive" plant species were no greater than the low impacts expected on the generic plant analyzed.
Comment Number 0072.148
CTUIR
Comment P 4-32: PP 4: Please site where the reference is for the activities for the Native Americans written about here. Were the three affected tribes consulted regarding their activities, if so, please provide the references.
Response Hunn (Hunn 1990) was a primary reference for the material concerning Native American activities. Other references include Aiken (Aiken 1993), Devoto (Devoto 1953), and Irving (Irving 1976). Additional references are provided in Volume Five, Appendix I, Section I.4.6. Consultation with the affected Tribes occurred before publication of the Draft EIS. Additional consultation with these Tribes occurred subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS. The description of the affected environment (Volume One, Section 4.0 and Volume Five, Appendix I) and the environmental justice impact analysis (Volume One, Section 5.19) has been modified to reflect additional information (i.e., Native American natural and cultural resources, values, and perspectives) obtained through the consultation process. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.252, 0072.149, and 0012.19 for additional information on related topics.
Comment Number 0072.149
CTUIR
Comment P 4-32: PP5: Big game including elk and antelope were abundant on the Columbia Plateau, Bird species were an additional source of food. If the authors had followed the E.J. 12898 and consulted with the affected tribes instead of referencing HUNN, 1990, they would have been provided with appropriate information.
Response The EIS has been modified in Volume One, Section 4.5 and Volume Five, Appendix I to include additional information provided by affected Tribal Nations regarding big game on the Hanford Site. Affected Tribal Nations were consulted throughout the NEPA process as required by NEPA and the environmental justice Executive Order. This consultation process began in January 1994 with the publication of the Notice of Intent (FR 4250). In the Notice, DOE requested that "all interested parties submit written comments or suggestions concerning the scope of the issues to be addressed, alternatives to be analyzed, and environmental impacts to be addressed in the TWRS EIS." During the 45-day comment period from January 28, 1994 through March 15, 1994, comments were received from the public, agencies, and Tribal Nations. These comments were considered when preparing the Draft EIS. DOE's response to the comments and plan for preparation of the EIS in a manner responsive to the comments are documented in the Implementation Plan for the TWRS EIS (DOE 1995b).
During the preparation of the Draft EIS, DOE and Ecology initiated several meetings with representatives of Tribal Nations to inform them of progress on the preparation of the EIS and to solicit input regarding issues being addressed in the EIS. Meetings were held with representatives of one or more of the affected Tribal Nations in July, August, and September 1994; May, June, November, and December 1995; and May and June 1996. On four of these occasions, requests were made to the affected Tribal Nations to meet individually with DOE and Ecology representatives of the TWRS EIS project. Several of the meetings were follow-up meetings with individual Tribal Nation representatives to exchange technical information or to clarify requests for inclusion of data or analysis in the EIS.
In December 1995, DOE and Ecology issued formal consultation letters to all local, and Federal agencies and Tribal Nations with an interest in the Hanford Site. These consultation letters stated that "DOE requests formal consultation ... so that the Tribe can identify and comment on specific issues and concerns that it feels should be addressed in the TWRS EIS" (Draft EIS Volume Five, Appendix J).
On April 5, 1996, in advance of the April 12, 1996 start of the public comment period, DOE issued the TWRS Draft EIS to the affected Tribal Nations as part of the consultation process. DOE requested that the Tribal Nations review and comment on the Draft EIS and committed to consider those comments while preparing the Final EIS. Further, DOE and Ecology held one or more meetings with each of the affected Tribal Nations during and following the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIS to facilitate Tribal Nation review and comment on the Draft EIS and to exchange technical information.
Throughout the NEPA process, DOE and Ecology have been proactive in consulting with the affected Tribal Nations regarding the content of the TWRS EIS. Many substantive portions of the Draft EIS were the result of consultation with affected Tribes from scoping to the publication of the Draft EIS; a similar number of changes in the Final EIS reflect consultation following issuance of the Draft EIS for comment. Consultation is a valuable part of the NEPA process. As with any intergovernmental relationship, DOE and Ecology understand that the consultation process requires improvement and will continue to work with the affected Tribal Nations to that end. A proactive consultation process results in the meaningful exchange of technical information between both parties and a shared understanding of the challenges, issues, and concerns that the agencies and Tribal Nations face as they work to improve the environment of the Hanford Site. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.53 and 0072.252 for more information on this topic.
Comment Number 0072.150
CTUIR
Comment P 4-32: PP6: Once again, citing from HUNN, 1990 and Fortner 1994, is unacceptable for describing Native Activities on the Hanford Site. Please consult with the affected tribes regarding these issues.
Response The EIS has been modified in Volume One, Section 4.5 and Volume Five, Appendix I to include information provided by affected Tribal Nations concerning Native American activities on the Hanford Site. This information was secured following consultation with the affected Tribal Nations. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.53, 0072.149 and 0072.252 for more information on this topic.
Comment Number 0072.263
CTUIR
Comment P I-44: Sect. I.4.2: The potential borrow sites are not described as being very important ecologically; the descriptions are understated to such a degree that one would suspect that this is intentional. They are each located in important undisturbed or recovering shrub-steppe or corridor areas. The acknowledged Site value "Do no more harm during future actions" would clearly be violated if any of these locations is used.
Response Volume Five, Appendix I and Volume One, Section 4.0 of the EIS describe the affected environment that could potentially be impacted by TWRS alternatives. These sections also indicate that the potential borrow sites are in shrub-steppe areas, McGee Ranch is an important wildlife corridor, and shrub-steppe is classified as a priority habitat by Washington State because of the importance of this community-type to sensitive wildlife species. Volume One, Section 5.4 contains the analysis of the impacts of TWRS alternatives on the Hanford Site's shrub-steppe habitat and on McGee Ranch as a wildlife corridor. Volume One, Section 5.20 indicates measures that could be taken by DOE to mitigate these impacts. The information contained in the TWRS EIS will not support a decision on closure alternatives selected. Closure, and its associated borrow sites, will be evaluated in future NEPA documents. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0019.03, 0101.05, and 0072.08 for more information on closure and borrow sites.
Comment Number 0072.264
CTUIR
Comment P I-48: PP 1: There is no mention of mitigation of these treasured resources.
Response Volume Five, Appendix I and Volume One, Section 4.0 of the EIS describe existing conditions in the environment that potentially could be affected by the TWRS alternatives. Impacts to biological and ecological resources are discussed in Volume One, Section 5.4 of the EIS, and potential mitigation measures for these impacts are discussed in Volume One, Section 5.20.
Potential mitigation measures include siting and configuring TWRS facilities to minimize the amount of currently undisturbed land that would be affected by TWRS and revegetation with locally-derived native plant species. For areas of biological importance (i.e., shrub-steppe habitat) that cannot be avoided, compensatory mitigation could be implemented, which would focus on planting new sagebrush to replace mature plants that were unavoidably impacted. Specific mitigation sites, planting strategies (e.g., number, location, and plant density) and performance standards would be defined in the TWRS EIS Mitigation Action Plan that will be developed in coordination with various government agencies (e.g., WDFW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and with input from the Hanford Site Natural Resources Trustees Council. These mitigation measures may be most effective as part of the Sitewide Biological Resources Mitigation Plan that is planned for the Hanford Site. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0019.06 for more information on this topic.
Comment Number 0072.265
CTUIR
Comment P I-49: Sect. I.4.3.1: Insert 'Elk' after mule deer.
Response Volume Five, Section I.4.3.1 and Volume One, Section 4.4, have been modified to indicate that elk reportedly have been sighted elsewhere on the Hanford Site, although they occur primarily on the Fitzner Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve.
Comment Number 0072.266
CTUIR
Comment P I-54: Sect. I4.6: PP 5: Ethnobiological resources (based on one published reference, one unavailable report, and one set of unpublished field notes, without any consultation with the affected tribes) also seem considerably understated. These references are not in the reading room, and should have been forwarded to the affected Tribes for consideration. Please provide us with a copy of the Fortner reference.
Response The requested materials were provided to the CTUIR on receipt of the request. Reports regarding cultural and natural resource surveys relative to Tribal Nation resources are not provided to the general public. However, Tribal Nation officials are provided access to these reports.
L.4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Comment Number 0072.37
CTUIR
Comment Cultural resources were not described with any real understanding of Native American heritage, rights or concerns. The sparse description does not reflect the intended breadth of DOE and federal policy with respect to traditional cultural properties, and does not demonstrate an understanding of DOE responsibilities for natural and cultural trusteeship.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the concern that the Draft EIS may not adequately reflect Native American views concerning their heritage, cultural and natural resources, values, and perspectives. Additional consultation has occurred with the affected Tribal Nations. The EIS has been modified in Volume One, Sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, and 4.9; Volume Five, Appendix I; and Volume One, Sections 5.4, 5.5, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.19 to provide additional material that more fully reflects Tribal concerns and perspectives. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers, 0072.149, 0072.53, and 0072.252.
Comment Number 0072.38
CTUIR
Comment The basis for identifying natural resources of cultural importance was a single set of unpublished notes that were not forwarded to the CTUIR technical staff. No consultation whatsoever with CTUIR staff occurred during the preparation of this EIS.
Response The unpublished material referred to in the comment concerning natural resources of cultural importance has been provided to the CTUIR. Cultural surveys are not published to protect any cultural resources that may be present. Consultation with the affected Tribes that occurred during preparation of the Draft EIS is identified in Volume One, Section 7.0. Additional consultation with the affected Tribes occurred during preparation of the Final EIS. The Affected Environment section of the EIS (Volume One, Section 4.0 and Volume Five, Appendix I) and the Environmental Consequences (Volume One, Section 5.0) have been modified to reflect additional material obtained during the consultation process. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.53, 0072.149, and 0072.252 for information related to consultation with the Tribal Nations within the EIS process.
Comment Number 0072.39
CTUIR
Comment The Environmental Justice Executive Order is ignored completely in this section.
Response Volume One, Section 4.5 describes the affected environments' cultural resources, which include prehistoric, historic, and ethnographic sites. Potential impacts on the affected environment are described in Volume One, Section 5.5. The assessment of whether the impacts identified represent an environmental justice impact (e.g., adverse and disproportionate impact to minority, Native American, or low-income populations) is presented in Volume One, Section 5.19, which complies with the environmental justice Executive Order 12898. For additional information on Tribal Nations consultations regarding TWRS EIS, please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.53, 0072.252, and 0072.149.
Comment Number 0072.40
CTUIR
Comment Sacred sites are clearly within the TWRS impact zone, as are cultural resources and natural resources of cultural importance. If any consultation at all had occurred, this error could have been avoided.
Response In Volume One, Sections 5.5 and 5.19 the EIS has been modified in response to this and other comments to indicate that specific cultural and natural resources of cultural importance to Tribal Nations would potentially be impacted by TWRS alternatives. Volume One, Section 5.8 (visual impacts) and Section 5.9 (noise impacts) have been modified to address concerns expressed by Tribal Nations that construction and operation of facilities in the 200 Areas under some TWRS alternatives would adversely impact Gable Mountain. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.154, 0072.252, and 0072.53 for information regarding changes to the EIS based on consultation with Tribal Nations. These modifications were made in response to Tribal Nation comments submitted on the Draft EIS, an important step in the consultation process. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.149 for information regarding Tribal Nation consultations. Extensive consultation was performed with the Tribal Nations during the preparation of the EIS. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.53, 0072.154, 0072.225, and 0072.252 for information regarding changes to the EIS based on consultations with the Tribal Nations.
Comment Number 0072.151
CTUIR
Comment P 4-34: PP1: Although the White Bluffs road has been fragmented by past contemporary activities it remains just as important to the affected tribes as any other cultural site within the Pasco Basin.
Response The EIS was modified in Volume One, Sections 4.5 and 5.5 and Volume Five, Appendix I to note that the White Bluffs Road is considered an important cultural site by the affected Tribes even though it has been fragmented by recent activities.
Comment Number 0072.152
CTUIR
Comment P 4-34: PP5: Please indicate how much Plutonium, and other hazardous materials were deposited to the environment from this "monument." A careful presentation of the historical facts would be appropriate here.
Response This section describes historical resources only. Information on environmental releases and impacts from the 105-B Reactor are outside the scope of the TWRS EIS and are not discussed in this EIS. No TWRS activities are proposed at or near the 105-B Reactor, nor would any activities at the reactor site have any impacts on the TWRS alternatives analyzed as part of this EIS.
Comment Number 0072.153
CTUIR
Comment P 4-35: Sect. 4.5.3: The first paragraph of this section must be deleted in its entirety. The information contained within this paragraph is not necessary as a component of the EIS. The sole justification for this paragraph appears to be to inject DOEs unsubstantiated legal opinions into the record for this document. This is not a legitimate reason to include a statement in an EIS. In addition, the CTUIR considers the core DOE opinion contained in this paragraph to be fallacious. In the CTUIRs opinion, federal law indicates that the U.S. Department of Energys Hanford Nuclear Reservation is, indeed, "open and unclaimed land" upon which, under the terms of the CTUIRs and the Yakama Indian Nations treaties of 1855, these Tribes have the right to hunt, gather plants and pasture livestock, should they so choose. Moreover, by appearing to make a distinction between the terms "right" and "privilege" as they appear in these Tribes' treaties, this paragraph promotes a legal position that has been rejected by the Washington Supreme Court and others.
It is inappropriate for this EIS to contain a paragraph that: 1) contributes nothing to the analysis and decisions being made in the EIS, 2) on its face is nothing more than a statement of legal opinion by a party that would have a great deal to gain from the adoption of that opinion, 3) is based upon debatable, misleading and/or inaccurate legal statements, and 4) which statements and opinions, if uncritically accepted, would severely injure the interests of sovereign tribal governments which the Department of Energy, as an agency of the federal government, has a fiduciary trust duty to protect. Paragraph one of Section 4.5.3. must be deleted in its entirety. Please contact CTUIR/SSRP staff directly concerning your response to this comment before completing the text of the final EIS.
Response The cited paragraph has been deleted from Volume One, Section 4.5, and a similar paragraph has been deleted from Volume Five, Appendix I, based on consultation with affected Tribal Nations.
Comment Number 0072.154
CTUIR
Comment P 4-35: Sect. 4.5.3: Although no specific religious Native American sites have been identified in the TWRS area of influence, it must be recognized that construction activities occurring during the cold war did not have cultural monitors. Also Gable Mountain is within the emergency reaction zones of the TWRS activities and this is a culturally significant religious site.
Response Many construction activities that occurred on the Hanford Site during the Cold War era did not have cultural monitors. Volume One, Section 5.8 indicates that activities conducted during implementation of all alternatives evaluated in this EIS would be visible from elevated locations (i.e., Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, and Rattlesnake Mountain). These locations are acknowledged as culturally important sites to Native Americans. Volume One, Section 5.19 has been modified based on additional consultation with the affected Tribes to indicate potential environmental justice impacts based on Tribal Nation cultural and natural resources values. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.37.
The direction from Recommendation for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, Office of NEPA Oversight, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C., May 1993 (DOE 1993d) is to calculate the potential risk from accidents (e.g., the number of latent cancer fatalities [LCFs] from exposure to radiological constituents). The risk is not to be measured against risk acceptance guidelines, but against potential risks calculated in the other proposed alternatives.
Risk is measured against risk acceptance guidelines in safety analysis reports for operation and facility design. It helps provide guidance in establishing administrative and mechanical barriers to mitigate or prevent unacceptable accidents from occurring during final design activities. A discussion of potential accident and mitigation impacts on land use and access to sacred sites has been added to Volume Four, Appendix E. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.225 for a discussion of potential accident impacts on significant religious sites and other cultural resources.
Comment Number 0072.267
CTUIR
Comment P I-58: PP 4: The fish consumption rate of 59 g/d is not the correct number to use, nor is it 9 times the average rate for non-Native Americans (this statement also appeared in the original CRITFC report; the discrepancy is due to political disagreements between the EPA Water Quality and EPA CERCLA offices). Please consult with the CTUIR technical staff regarding this matter.
Response Additional consultation has occurred with the affected Tribes to obtain data for a Native American subsistence risk assessment scenario that has been added to the Final EIS in Volume One, Section 5.11 and Volume Three, Appendix D. This scenario includes information from the Tribes concerning Native American fish consumption. The Native American subsistence risk assessment scenario is discussed in the response to Comment number 0072.198. Volume Five, Appendix I has been revised to delete the fish consumption data.
Comment Number 0072.268
CTUIR
Comment P I-58: Sect. I.5.0: This section, like the others, is taken largely from other documents. The sentence: "The Hanford Site is considered to be a traditional homeland by many Native Americans" needs to read: "The Hanford Site is part of the original homeland of several Hanford Site Nations." The previous sentence ("The Hanford Site is of particular importance...") needs to be revised as follows: "The Hanford Site is of particular importance to Native Americans. Although no specific religious sites have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the tank farms, Gable Mountain is a traditional cultural property among many on the site that is only a short distance away, is within the visual disturbance range of the vitrification plant, and would be one of the highest impact areas due to airborne releases from the 200 Areas. Additionally, the groundwater itself as well as the Columbia River are also cultural resources that have been and will continue to be adversely impacted by past TWRS activities and all of the proposed alternatives. All natural resources are also cultural resources to indigenous peoples."
Response Volume Five, Section I.5.0, and Volume One, Section 4.5 have been modified to include information relating to Tribal Nation perspectives on cultural and ethnic resources. The Final EIS indicates that the Hanford Site is part of the original homeland of several Hanford Site Nations. The second sentence cited has been modified to add that all natural resources also are cultural resources to indigenous peoples and potential visual and air quality impacts may occur on Gable Mountain, and that groundwater and the Columbia River are also considered cultural resources by the affected Tribal Nations. Volume One, Sections 5.5 and 5.19 also have been modified to indicate potential environmental impacts based on Tribal Nations' cultural and natural resource values. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.40, and 0072.140.
Comment Number 0072.269
CTUIR
Comment P I-62: Sect. I.5.3: The following sentence: "DOE has maintained the position that, for safety and security reasons, Hanford Site land uses are not compatible with exercising the privileges of hunting and gathering and pasturing and thus these lands are not considered open and unclaimed" does not reflect reality. It merely reflects the opinion of a few well-known DOE persons who consistently take such a minimalist approach to compliance as to be non-credible. Other DOE programs do, in fact, assume that Native American can and will exercise their treaty-reserved rights on Site, and are taking active measures to ensure that this can be done safely. The sentence quoted above must be omitted.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.153 for information regarding the response to the treaty issue in the comment. For the purposes of analysis, the EIS assumes that institutional control would be maintained for 100 years. At the end of institutional control and for purposes of providing a baseline comparison for evaluating the alternatives contained in this document, the EIS assumes a variety of alternative land uses would be potential for the Hanford Site. This analysis, presented in Volume One, Section 5.11 and Volume Three, Appendix D, includes potential impacts associated with the land uses, such as Native American residential subsistence uses, residential farming, industrial worker uses, recreational shoreline users, and intruders. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0040.02 and 0101.01 for issues related to the 100-year administrative control period and to the response to Comment numbers 0072.154, 0072.37, 0072.225, and 0072.198 for issues related to remediation and post-remediation Site conditions and health risks.
Comment Number 0072.270
CTUIR
Comment P I-62: Sect. I.5.3: PP 4: While there may be no specifically identified sacred sites within 200E or 200W, there are most definitely sacred sites and traditional cultural properties within the TWRS impact area (i.e., downgradient in the groundwater and the River, and down-plume for airborne releases). There are many culturally important biota within this larger impact zone.
Response The EIS has been modified in Volume One, Section 4.5 and Volume Five, Appendix I to note that there are sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, and culturally important biota located in areas that potentially could be impacted by TWRS EIS alternatives. Potential impacts to these sites, when feasible, have been addressed in the Final EIS. For example, in Volume One, sections on noise (Section 5.9) and visual (Section 5.8) impacts associated with construction and operation of TWRS facilities in the 200 Areas, which could impact Gable Mountain, have been modified. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.154, and 0072.225 for more information.
Comment Number 0089.17
Nez Perce Tribe ERWM
Comment Nez Perce treaty rights and interest in the region are not mentioned at all in this section. Please correct this oversight in the Final EIS.
Response Volume One, Sections 4.4 and 4.5 and Appendix I, Section I.5 of the EIS have been modified to note that the Nez Perce Tribe has retained rights on the Columbia River under a treaty between the Tribe and the U.S. Government.
Comment Number 0089.21
Nez Perce Tribe ERWM
Comment Page 4-35, Paragraph 3
The Nez Perce Tribe's presence is there and retained rights to the Columbia River should be mentioned.
Response Please refer to the response to Comment number 0089.17, which addresses this issue.
Comment Number 0089.22
Nez Perce Tribe ERWM
Comment Page 4-35, Paragraph 4
Same as previous comment. (Comment number 0089.21)
Response Please refer to the response to Comment number 0089.17, which addresses this issue.
L.4.6 SOCIOECONOMICS
Comment Number 0072.155
CTUIR
Comment P 4-38: Table 4.6.2: The category White + the category Minority Group should add up to 100 percent. The statement that the category, group, consists of all races other than White + Whites of Hispanic origin is very confusing, please explain.
Response The categories "White," "African American," "Native American," "Asian and Pacific Islanders," and "Other" in Volume One, Section 4.6, Table 4.6.2 add up to 100 percent of the total population. The additional data in the table on "Hispanic Origin" and "Minority Group" have been deleted to avoid presenting confusing information.
Comment Number 0072.156
CTUIR
Comment P 4-38: Sect. 4.6.1.2: Drawing an artificial line to separate potentially impacted people from potentially non-impacted people is misleading in the case of the three affected Tribes. Please list them as three separate affected populations within this section. It is apparent that within this section that executive order 12898 has not been fulfilled, simply listing statistics of demographics and presenting them as fulfilling.
Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low income populations is incorrect and misleading. Consultation with the affected Tribes would have resulted in the net benefit of demographic information that would have been appropriate for this section.
Response An important distinction exists between the area of potential impacts, which is depicted in the EIS as an 80-km (50-mi) radius surrounding the Hanford Site, and the populations residing within this area and the affected Tribes (i.e., CTUIR, Yakama, and Nez Perce). Both are important aspects of the environmental justice initiative and were addressed as such in the Draft EIS. Where impacts were to populations based on location of residence, the EIS addressed those impacts in terms of the geographic location of the minority, Native American, or low-income population as expressed in Volume One, Section 4.6. Where a potential impact would diminish potential treaty rights and privileges of Tribal Nations or cultural resources, regardless of whether or not the population of that nation resided in the area of potential impacts, the EIS addressed these situations in terms of impacts to the Tribal Nations. An example of this is expressed in Volume One, Section 5.19, regarding potential continued restrictions on access to portions of the 200 Areas.
In Volume One, Section 4.6, the Draft EIS presented the demographics of the potentially affected area. The Draft EIS also indicated that Tribal Nations with interest in the Hanford Site were located outside of the area of potential impacts. The Final EIS has been modified to clarify the delineation between potentially impacted populations residing within the area of potential impacts and the Tribal Nation populations. Further, the Final EIS has been modified in other sections to respond to comments and consultation with the affected Tribes regarding potential impacts to the CTUIR, Yakama, and Nez Perce. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.252, 072.271 and 0072.37. For example, the following sections were revised:
- A Native American scenario in Volume One, Section 5.11 and Volume Three, Appendix D (please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.153).
- Environmental justice analysis in Volume One, Section 5.19 to more fully present Tribal perspectives on potential impacts (please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.40).
- Volume One, Section 4.5 to communicate the perspective of Tribal Nations regarding cultural and natural resource values (please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.37).
Comment Number 0072.157
CTUIR
Comment P 4-43: Sect. 4.6.1.3: Where is the household income and educational attainment for Yakima County within this paragraph? Where also is the information for Oregons Morrow and Umatilla counties?
Response As stated in Volume One, in the introductions to both, Sections 4.6 and 5.6 (Existing Socioeconomic Environment and Socioeconomic Impacts), detailed socioeconomic information and impact analysis are provided only for Benton and Franklin counties because impacts outside these two counties would be insufficient to require detailed analysis. Demographic data on the 80-km (50-mi) radius around the Hanford Site, including Yakima and Morrow counties, are included to provide the basis for the environmental justice analysis in Volume One, Section 5.19. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.53, 072.252 and 0072.271.
Comment Number 0072.271
CTUIR
Comment P I-62: Sect. I.6.0: Each of these sections mentions the Environmental Justice Executive Order (EO 12898), and claims to satisfy it by estimating the number of Native Americans living within the 3 counties closest to Hanford. This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the Order, which clearly states that the evaluation must cover human health and the environment of minority populations, differential patterns of consumption, economic and social impacts, and an evaluation of whether there is a disproportionate burden placed on these populations. Counting the number of Native Americans (and Hispanics) who live within 50 miles of Hanford does not satisfy this Order. Other information, such as educational attainment, public safety, schools, and so on, is interesting, but does not seem to be used for anything, and is not related to the rest of the EIS. Information that would be more directly relevant to local tribes would be the number of Native Americans actually employed at Hanford relative to local populations within 50 miles, and the trends in their employment over the years.
Response Volume One, Section 5.19, was specific to environmental justice issues. Mitigation measures associated with environmental justice are located in Volume One, Section 5.20. The demographic information in this section provides the basis for the environmental justice analysis provided in Volume One, Section 5.19. Volume Five, Appendix I does not purport to contain the environmental justice analysis. The appendix is intended to describe the potentially affected human and natural environment. The impacts of the alternatives on that environment are presented in Volume One, Section 5.0.
For the description of the affected environment, the EIS presents demographic data relative to Native American populations within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Hanford Site, which consist of the area of potential environmental impacts from TWRS EIS alternatives. This area includes all or portions of 10 counties by census tract (eight in Washington and two in Oregon). The EIS also describes the labor force within Benton and Franklin counties, an area that comprises the region of economic impact of the Hanford Site and hence the TWRS EIS alternatives. This description includes a breakout of the labor force by category by race and sex. Finally, the data presented provide a breakout of the Hanford Site contractor workforce representation by gender and race. The data presented indicate that the Native American population in the two-county area was approximately 0.8 percent, the Native American percent of the two-county labor force was approximately 0.8 percent, and the Native American percentage of the Hanford Site labor force was approximately 1 percent.
The data presented in Volume One, Section 4.6 and Volume Five, Appendix I were prepared to support the environmental justice analysis. Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to identify minority and low-income populations that may be impacted by the proposed action. The above referenced data were provided to support that requirement.
Other information presented in the socioeconomic section, such as public schools, public safety, and infrastructure, is provided to support the NEPA-required assessment of each EIS alternative's potential impact on public services. This analysis is presented in Volume One, Section 5.6.
The second NEPA requirement is to determine the potential impact of the EIS alternatives on the affected environment. The analysis of potential impact to the affected environment is presented in Volume One, Section 5.0. Socioeconomic impacts are presented in Section 5.6. Several modifications to the impact analysis have been made in response to consultation from Tribal Nations. For example, in Volume One, noise impacts (Section 5.9) and visual impacts (Section 5.8) address potential impacts to sacred sites that are within sight or sound of the proposed TWRS activities. The long-term human health impacts have been expanded to include a Native American Subsistence user in Volume One, Section 5.11 and Volume Three, Appendix D. Please also refer to the response to Comment number 0072.37 for a discussion of additional changes to the Final EIS in response to this issue.
Based on the analysis of potential impacts to the human and natural environment, the environmental justice initiative requires the agency to determine if any of the impacts would pose a disproportionate and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. This analysis is presented in Volume One, Section 5.19. For each area of potential impact (e.g., land use, human health, air quality, water quality, etc.), impacts presented in Section 5.0 were reviewed to determine if there were any potential disproportionate and adverse impacts to the surrounding populations. If an adverse impact was identified, a determination was made whether minority or low-income populations would be disproportionately affected. In the Draft EIS, two potential impacts were identified that would present a concern based on the requirements of the environmental justice initiative. The analysis of the impacts for the Final EIS has been reviewed based on comments and consultation with Tribal Nations. The result of this review has been a modification to the text of Volume One, Section 5.19 to indicate that under all of the alternatives except No Action and Long-Term Management, certain adverse impacts to scared sites would occur.
The final requirement of the environmental justice initiative is to mitigate any disproportionate and adverse impacts. In the EIS, mitigation measures that address the environmental justice impacts are addressed in Volume One, Section 5.20. Based on the decision documented in the ROD, DOE will prepare a Mitigation Action Plan, which will document mitigation measures to be implemented. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.53, 0072.225, 0072.157, and 0072.252 for discussions related to this topic.
Comment Number 0072.272
CTUIR
Comment P I-66: PP 1: The first step in identifying Native American communities is to contact the Affected Tribes. Those Tribes are: The CTUIR, YAKAMA, and NEZ PERCE.
Response Consultations with the affected Tribes have been conducted and the identification of Native American communities has been modified in Volume Five, Appendix I and in Volume One, Section 4.6, to specifically identify the CTUIR, Yakama, and Nez Perce Tribes. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.53, 0072.271, 0072.149, and 0072.157 for discussions of changes to the EIS based on Tribal Nation consultations.
L.4.7 LAND USE
Comment Number 0072.158
CTUIR
Comment P 4-48: Sect. 4.7.1: The invitation to the CTUIR for participation in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was not on a Government to Government basis. This misunderstanding is in the process of being rectified. Additionally, where are the values brought forward from the Hanford from the Hanford Site Future Uses working Group?
Response The values of the Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group (HFSUWG) were one input to the 1993 Hanford Site Development Plan. The relationship between the values of the HFSUWG and the Site Development Plan is addressed in the EIS in Volume One, Section 4.7 and Volume Five, Appendix I.
Participation of the CTUIR in the CLUP is outside of the scope of the TWRS EIS. DOE and Ecology acknowledge the important role all affected Tribes have had in the NEPA process for the TWRS EIS. Consultation with the affected Tribes has resulted in many improvements to the EIS and has strengthened the decision-making process associated with the proposed action. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.149, and 0072.251 for more information. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted.
Comment Number 0072.159
CTUIR
Comment P-4-51: PP 4: The Hanford Site Development Plan is not the "Official Land Use Plan." Please provide an explanation for what a 'passive agricultural use' is. Most agricultural uses involve the ripping or tearing of the land and injection of chemicals and the control of insects and water. This is not passive in any sense of the word. In addition, the FITZNER EBERHARDT Arid Lands Ecology Reserve and the proposed National Wildlife Refuge and Wild and Scenic River north of/and along the Columbia River consists of large tracts of the remaining undisturbed habitat of this type in America. The loss of these lands and their uncounted biodiversity should be considered priceless.
Response Volume One, page 4-49 of the Draft EIS states that the Hanford Site Development Plan, "is not a comprehensive formal land-use plan." The paragraph in Volume One, page 4-51 referenced in this comment has been modified to discuss the relationship between the TWRS EIS and the 1996 CLUP. None of the TWRS alternatives would adversely affect either the Fitzner Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve or the proposed Wildlife Refuge/Wild and Scenic River area along and north of the Columbia River. DOE and Ecology remain committed to preserving the environmental quality of all protected lands and areas designated for protection. The word "passive" has been deleted from the phrase "passive agricultural uses." Please refer to the response to Comment number 0012.18 for a related discussion on this topic.
Comment Number 0072.273
CTUIR
Comment P I-88: Sect. I.7.0: The Future Site Uses Working Group Report is conspicuously absent from the document citation list. The Hanford Site Development Plan should not be used as a reference since it has not been endorsed by the tribes or the Natural Resource Trustee Council, and is contrary to identified Site values and Energy Secretary OLearys commitment to manage Hanford as a national natural resource.
Response The HFSUWG Report is cited in the TWRS EIS in Volume One, Section 4.7 and in Volume Five, Appendix I. This report is cited and included in the EIS reference lists for Volumes 1 and 5 as HFSUWG 1992. The recommendations contained in the HFSUWG Report were an input to the development by DOE of the Hanford Site Development Plan. Neither the Hanford Site Development Plan nor the HFSUWG Report represent an official land use plan for the Hanford Site. The CLUP, currently in preparation, will provide an official vision of future Site land uses. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0012.18 and 0072.159. Because the information requested in the comment was included in the Draft EIS, no modification to the document is warranted.
Comment Number 0072.274
CTUIR
Comment P I-88: Sect. I.7.2.1: This section should be omitted altogether, since it is inaccurate and not current.
Response One of the areas of analysis CEQ recommends for an EIS is examination of potential conflicts between the proposed action and local, State, Federal, and Tribal Nation current land uses and future land use plans (40 CFR 1502.16). Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0012.18, 0072.159, and 0072.273. If the TWRS EIS alternative selected in the ROD were to include land uses that would be incompatible with land use policies adopted in the CLUP, additional NEPA analysis may be required.
Comment Number 0072.275
CTUIR
Comment P I-90: Fig. I.7.2.1: This figure woefully understates the ecologically and culturally significant areas on Site. Simply indicating areas as undeveloped does not do justice to a national treasure.
Response This figure presents existing land uses, as presented in the DOE 1993 Hanford Site Development Plan to support Volume One, Section 1.7.2, Existing Land-Use Types and Land-Use Plans. The ecological and cultural resources of the Hanford Site are discussed in Volume One, Sections 4.4 and 4.5 and Volume Five, Sections I.4 and I.5. A figure presenting the vegetation communities of the Site is provided in Volume One, Section 4.4 and Volume Five, Section I.4. No graphics have been included for cultural resources to preserve the confidentiality of specific cultural resources sites.
The cultural resources and biological resources impact analysis included the most recent available information from surveys conducted for this EIS and from other available previous research. The EIS then evaluated the impact of the various TWRS alternatives on the cultural and biological resources of specific locations used for each TWRS alternative.
Comment Number 0072.276
CTUIR
Comment P I-92: Fig. I.7.2.2: This figure similarly overstates the areas designated for waste management and R&D development. This map (from the Development Plan, which is not current) did not consider the various Threatened and Endangered species located on Site, and has no relation to current thinking. Additionally the non-surveyed areas which comprise 90 percent of the site are inadequately portrayed.
Response Volume Five, Figure I.7.2.2 presents information from the 1993 DOE Hanford Site Development Plan. This plan will be superseded by the information contained in the CLUP for the Hanford Site, which was released for public comment in August 1996 (DOE 1996c). The CLUP will be an official land use plan and will contain DOE's land use planning decisions. The CLUP and the related DOE land use decisions are expected to reflect the most current available information on plant and animal species of concern (threatened and endangered, as well as candidates for inclusion in both categories). The CLUP also will present DOE's land use decisions concerning areas of the Site that remain unsurveyed in terms of biological resources.
Following identification of the Final TWRS remedy and approval of the ROD, DOE will evaluate the land use impacts of the selected remedy for consistency with the final CLUP. The potential land use impacts considered with the alternatives evaluated in the EIS were coordinated with the expected requirements of the CLUP. Because these two documents have been prepared concurrently, it is unlikely that any inconsistencies will have major impacts (i.e., to the extent that the selected alternative would be withdrawn). Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0012.18, 0072.159, and 0072.273 for more information on this topic.
Comment Number 0072.277
CTUIR
Comment P I-94: Sect. I.7.2.3: It is correct that Hanford is located on ceded lands. However, the statement that "Tribal Nations have often expressed their desire to exercise the rights and privileges at the Hanford Site that were reserved in the 1855 treaties" is, to put it mildly, an understatement. To limit the description of tribal land uses to this meager paragraph demonstrates how little input the tribes have actually had into the EIS. The tribes have worked long and hard to educate DOE about tribal rights, responsibilities, interests and concerns, and to educate DOE about federal responsibilities as a trustee of natural resources on behalf of the tribes. This section should be rewritten to show a little more understanding of tribal rights and concerns and DOEs trusteeship responsibilities. Please contact the CTUIR technical staff regarding this section.
Response The EIS has been modified following additional consultation with the CTUIR, Yakama, and Nez Perce Tribes. Additional text describing Tribal perspectives on Native American land uses and natural and cultural resources values is located in Volume One, Section 4.5 and Volume Five, Section I.5.4. Tribal land use descriptions also were discussed in Volume Five, Section I.5.3 in the Draft EIS. Both the Draft and Final EIS reference added discussion of Tribal land uses in this section. Please refer to response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.153, 0072.154, 0072.268, 0072.225, and 0072.198, which discuss modifications to the EIS based on Tribal Nation consultation.
Comment Number 0072.278
CTUIR
Comment P I-96: Sect. I.7.3: Where within this section have the Natural Resource Trustee Council been mentioned? Please provide an explanation discussing the NRTC absence.
Response Consultation with the Natural Resources Trustee Council was addressed in Volume One, Section 7.0 of the Draft EIS. The EIS has been revised in Volume One, Section 4.7 and Volume Five, Appendix I to discuss the composition, roles, and responsibilities of the Hanford Site Natural Resources Trustee Council. The Hanford Site Natural Resources Trustees Council is composed of Federal agencies (DOE and the Department of the Interior), States (Washington and Oregon) and the affected Tribes (the Yakama Indian Nation, the CTUIR, and the Nez Perce Tribe). The primary purpose of the Council is to facilitate the coordination and cooperation of the Trustees in restoring and minimizing impacts to natural resources injured as a result of cleanup of releases associated with activities at the Hanford Site. DOE will coordinate with the Council in developing the Mitigation Action Plan for impacts to natural resources identified in the TWRS EIS. Please refer to the response to Comment number 0072.264 for a related discussion on mitigation.
Comment Number 0072.279
CTUIR
Comment P I-98: Sect. I.7.3.5: This section slants the EIS in favor of development; it is mentioned that the local counties (actually a few county commissioners, not the entire counties) opposed designating the Hanford Reach as a Wild & Scenic River. There is no mention of the many groups and individuals (and indeed the vast majority of residents in those three counties) who support the Wild & Scenic designation. Again, the wording of the EIS implies some specific goal of developing as much of the Site as possible in order to avoid the cleanup goals agreed to in the Tri-Party Agreement.
Response DOE and Ecology acknowledge the concern expressed in the comment that local support exists for designating the Hanford Reach as a Wild and Scenic River. The agencies also are aware that local support exists for legislation. The EIS has been revised in Volume One, Section 4.7 to clarify that a number of county commissioners for Benton, Franklin, and Grant Counties are on record as opposing the designation of the Hanford Reach as a Wild and Scenic River, but that other residents and organizations of the Tri-Cities area support the wild and Scenic River designation.
The EIS assumes that DOE will retain administrative control for 100 years following approval of the TWRS ROD. During this administrative control period, the 200 Areas will be waste management and disposal areas with restricted access and use consistent with requirements described in the Tri-Party Agreement, the CLUP currently being drafted, and the HFSUWG recommendations. After the 100-year administrative control period, the EIS assumes no administrative control as the bounding condition for land use impacts by the Native American, residential farmer, shoreline, and industrial user. The EIS evaluates the land use impact of each alternative for these four types of users after the 100-year period has expired and there are no land use restrictions. DOE and Ecology consider the four users identified to represent reasonable potential future uses following administrative control, and do not consider these land impacts uses and users to represent a bias toward development, but rather baseline impact analysis prepared to support public and decision maker consideration of potential impacts to future generations from the alternatives analyzed in the EIS.
L.4.8 VISUAL RESOURCES
Comment Number 0072.160
CTUIR
Comment P 4-57: Sect 4.8.2: Because the TWRS area can be seen from Gable Mountain, this will impact the religious practices of the affected Tribes.
Response Volume One, Section 5.8, Visual Resources Impacts, acknowledges that TWRS areas would be visible from elevated locations such as Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, and Rattlesnake Mountain. However, the TWRS facilities generally would be similar in type and location to existing Site facilities and thus TWRS would represent a continuation of past visual impacts rather than new and additional visual impacts. Volume One, Section 5.8 has been modified to make explicit that these elevated locations (i.e., Gable Mountain, Gable Butte, Rattlesnake Mountain) are used by Native Americans in their religious practices. Based on additional consultation with the affected Tribal Nations (e.g., the CTUIR), Volume One, Sections 5.5 and 5.19 of the EIS (Cultural Resource and Environmental Justice, respectively) have been modified to more fully place in context potential impacts to Tribal cultural values and lifestyle. Volume One, Section 5.20, Mitigation Measures, describes measures that could be taken by DOE to minimize the visual impacts of TWRS facilities (e.g., recontouring newly disturbed land areas to conform with the existing terrain and constructing TWRS facilities using colors that conform with the surrounding environment). Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.40, and 0072.140 for discussion related to this subject.
L.4.9 NOISE
Comment Number 0072.161
CTUIR
Comment P 4-59: Sect. 4.9: Noise conditions from the TWRS activities may impact the religious practices of the affected Tribes, Please indicate how this subject has been addressed under Executive Order 12898.
Response The EIS has been modified in Volume One, Sections 5.9 and 5.19 (i.e., Noise and Environmental Justice, respectively), to state that noise emissions from TWRS activities might adversely affect activities conducted at Native American religious sites. Noise emissions would be greatest during construction. As noted in Volume One, Section 5.9, at distances greater than 600 m (2,000 ft) from TWRS construction sites, noise levels would approach existing background levels. Thus, it is considered likely that minimal noise impacts would occur at religious sites (e.g., Gable Mountain), which are approximately 3 km (2 mi) from potential TWRS areas. Please refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.40, 0072.270 and 0072.271.
Comment Number 0072.280
CTUIR
Comment P I-103: Sect. I.9.0: These sections may satisfy the minimal requirements, but do not really show aesthetic sensitivity, especially with respect to tribal spiritual concerns and aesthetic buffer zones around sacred sites.
Response The EIS has been modified in Volume One, Sections 5.9 and 5.19 (Noise and Environmental Justice, respectively) to indicate the Native American concerns about potential impacts of noise emissions from TWRS alternatives' activities on Native American cultural and aesthetic values.
Volume One, Section 5.19 has been modified to reflect information obtained in additional consultation with the affected Tribes (i.e., the Yakama Indian Nation, Nez Perce, and CTUIR) that more fully places in context potential impacts to Tribal culture and lifestyle. Please also refer to the response to Comment numbers 0072.37, 0072.40, 0072.140, and 0072.268.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
