Other Alternatives Considered. Alternative A, ‘‘No Action.’’ Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve represents an unusual situation in which to explore a ‘‘no action’’ alternative. The preserve is, and will remain, under the ownership of the National Park Trust (NPT), yet Congress has authorized the National Park Service (NPS) to manage the land. Currently an interim cooperative agreement is in place to allow the NPT and the NPS to work together to address the immediate operational needs. It is assumed that under this alternative the NPT would continue to own all the land and the NPS would continue to provide minimal management, in accordance with the terms of the interim agreement.
Other Alternatives Considered. Consideration was given to having this EA provide complete NEPA compliance on additional future Third Party Contracts (for a total of 6,700 af). As stipulated in the Contract, an additional 3,700 af could be made available for M&I and other miscellaneous uses through future Third Party Contracts, subject to approval by Reclamation. This water could include water from the Voluntary Shareholder Pool, which could be used outside of the service area. The water beyond the 3,000 af in the Proposed Alternative might be needed to address needs outside of the service area. The alternative of providing NEPA compliance on the total 6,700 af was not selected because there is not adequate information on the impacts or needs for the use of the total amount of water. While these potential future contracts are mentioned in this EA, Reclamation does not believe that there is sufficient information on these potential future water uses, primarily as they relate to impacts to the basin hydrology, at this time to provide NEPA compliance and that future environmental analysis will be needed before they can be considered for approval. These Third Party Contracts would therefore be subject to future compliance efforts with NEPA, the 1920 Act, and other environmental regulations. If water beyond the 3,000 af in the Proposed Alternative is considered in the future, most of this water would likely be for Third Party Contracts. If this were to occur, it is anticipated that Reclamation would initiate NEPA and 1920 Act compliance on blocks of water rather than each individual contract. Providing for the use of additional water, beyond the 6,700 af identified in the Contract, was also considered; however, it is believed that the amount of water provided under the Contract is adequate for future needs in the service area for many years. Therefore additional water was not considered in detail. While the Southern Ute Indian Tribe has not at this time expressed interest in providing any of their water to meet the demands to be supplied by the Contract, it is recognized that at some point in the future, the Tribe could propose leasing some of their water to meet M&I demands in the area. If this were to occur it could result in reducing the demand for the District's water to be used for miscellaneous purposes which would mean that water would remain as Project irrigation water.
Other Alternatives Considered. The FEIS analyzed six other alternatives for the management of SNF from the K Basins at the Hanford Site. The other alternatives examined in detail were: • No action alternative: Under this alternative DOE would continue SNF storage in the KE and KW Basins for up to 40 years with no modifications except for maintenance, monitoring, and ongoing safety upgrades. Consideration of the no action alternative is required by CEQ regulation [40 CFR 1502.14(d)]. The principal advantage of the no action alternative is that it would require no movement of SNF and no construction of new facilities. Principal disadvantages of this alternative are that the K Basins were not designed for an 80-year life (40 years to date and up to an additional 40 years) and would require increasing maintenance of aging facilities with associated potential for increased radiological impacts on workers, would not place the SNF in a safer storage configuration, would not preclude leakage of radionuclides to the soil beneath the basins and near the Columbia River, and would fail to alleviate concerns expressed by regulatory agencies, advisory bodies and the public relative to environmental impacts induced by seismic events. • Enhanced K Basins storage alternative: Under this alternative DOE would perform facility life extension upgrades for KW Basin, containerize KE Basin SNF and sludge, and consolidate with KW Basin SNF for up to 40-year storage. Principal advantages of the enhanced K Basins storage alternative are that it would remove degrading SNF from the KE Basin, permit deactivation of the KE Basin, and would require no construction of new facilities. Principal disadvantages of this alternative are that the KW Basin was not designed for an 80-year life and would require increasing maintenance of the aging facility. Despite completion of practical upgrades, this alternative would not arrest continued fuel degradation, might result in conditions favorable to the production of reactive uranium hydrides in the repackaged KE Basin SNF transferred to the KW Basin, and would fail to alleviate concerns expressed by regulatory agencies, advisory bodies and the public relative to environmental impacts potentially induced by seismic events. • New wet storage alternative: Under this alternative DOE would remove SNF from the K Basins and provide for up to 40 years of new wet storage in a new facility located on the 200 Areas plateau that meets current design criteria. Principal advantages of the ne...
Other Alternatives Considered. The Existing Agreement is representative of other section 6 agreements throughout the Service. The Proposed Agreement is unique in its approach to cooperation and the first of its kind. Alternative amendments to the Existing Agreement other than the Proposed Agreement would require parallel components in the Commission’s authorities under the F.A.C. The Service is not aware of other programmatic alternatives to consider that would appreciably increase the conservation benefits associated with permitting of take under the Proposed Agreement. However, the Guidelines required under the Proposed Agreement will present opportunities unique to each species or suite of species covered to link incidental take permits to landscape- scale conservation initiatives, and the Service will prepare NEPA documents for the Guidelines as they are developed.
