5.17 CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE OBJECTIVES OF FEDERAL, REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAND-USE PLANS, POLICIES OR CONTROLS
This section describes the possible conflicts between the various EIS alternatives and Federal, State, local, government, and Tribal plans and policies. Additional analyses of land-use issues are included in Sections 4.7 and 5.7.
All EIS alternatives would include a combination of land uses including waste management; processing; and treatment, storage, and disposal. The Hanford Site Development Plan is the only currently available land-use planning document until the Comprehensive Land-Use Plan insis finalized in 1997/ins (Section 5.7). The Hanford Site Development Plan identifies Waste Operations and Research and Development as the only allowable uses within and between the 200 East and 200 West Areas (DOE 1993e). The EIS alternatives are thus consistent with the planned land uses for the 200 Areas, based on the available Hanford Site land-use planning documents.
The current and planned land uses designated by the Hanford Site Development Plan for areas surrounding the 200 Areas include the categories of Research and Development and Undeveloped Area. The Research and Development land-use category includes scientific and engineering technology development for irradiated waste, while the Undeveloped Area provides a transitional land use and buffer between the Waste Operations and other more sensitive use areas. Industrial and waste management uses have occurred in the 200 Areas and surrounding areas for over 40 years without land-use conflicts. Thus, all proposed EIS alternatives' activities in the 200 Areas would be compatible with the currently available Federal land-use plans for the Hanford Site.
The potential Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch borrow sites are in areas identified as Undeveloped on the Hanford Site Development Plan's Future Land-Use Map (Figure 5.7.1). Use of the Vernita Quarry for the EIS alternatives would involve expanding an existing quarry, while McGee Ranch essentially would be newly developed as a borrow site (although one small, old borrow area exists at the McGee Ranch). The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has asked DOE to preserve the McGee Ranch area as a wildlife corridor (Baker 1996). Planning for possible borrow sites for the TWRS program is still in its early stages, and will be addressed in future NEPA analysis.
As described in Section 4.7 and 5.7, there are various wildlife and recreational land uses that exist and are planned or proposed on and near the Hanford Site (e.g., the Fitzner Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve and the proposed Wild and Scenic River designation for the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River). None of the EIS alternatives would impact proposed uses of those wildlife and recreational areas, and thus the alternatives are consistent with the land-use plans and policies that apply to the wildlife and recreational use areas.
5.17.1 State and Local Plans and Policies
The two local jurisdictions most directly concerned with Hanford Site land uses are Benton County, which contains the majority of the Hanford Site, and the city of Richland, which is located immediately adjacent to the Hanford Site and is in the process of annexing portions of the Hanford Site's 1100 Area.
Benton County is in the process of updating its comprehensive plan. This update will include a separate Hanford Comprehensive Plan that is expected to be compatible with the overall county plan, although this cannot be certain until the plan is released. Although all EIS alternatives involve uses compatible with the current DOE land uses of the 200 Areas, and with DOE's currently available land-use planning documents, it is not possible to evaluate compatibility with Benton County's land-use plans until the county's Hanford Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Adoption of the plan by Benton County Commissioners is expected by the end of 1996 (Fyall 1996).
The county's Draft Hanford Comprehensive Plan classifies the potential Vernita Quarry borrow site as Area Three (preservation area), where essentially no development activity would be allowed. The McGee Ranch is classified as Area Two (multiple-use, onsite mitigation), where development activity would be allowed only with mitigation of environmental (mainly habitat) effects on the site. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has asked Benton County to designate McGee Ranch as a critical area (preservation area) (McConnaughey 1996, a). The 200 Areas, where most TWRS activities would occur under all alternatives, is classified as Area One (multiple-use, offsite mitigation), where development would be allowed with mitigation offsite (Fyall 1996)
The city of Richland also is currently updating its comprehensive plan. Richland's planning encompasses only the southern areas of the Site that are within the city's 20-year growth boundary. The plan is expected to call for expanding industrial and research and development uses in areas adjacent to the Hanford Site. There would be no conflict between this planned land use and the activities of any EIS alternatives. No other local jurisdiction's land-use plans or policies would be affected by any of the EIS alternatives
5.17.2 Tribal Nation Plans and Policies
Land-use conflict issues related to Tribal Nation concerns are described in Sections 5.5 and 5.19.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
