ML20198G164

Suggests Utilization of Georgia State College Study Re Recreational Values Due to Concern Over Large Plant Site Using Agricultural Land

ML20198G164
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton, 05000000, Washington Public Power Supply System
Issue date:	11/08/1974
From:	Barth C US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Youngblood J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20198G146	List: ML20198G141 ML20198G151 ML20198G164
References
CON-WNP-1016 NUDOCS 8605290265
Download: ML20198G164 (2)

Text

. . . _ . .

~

-Y . ..

,. .c f~l lfg, November 8,1974  :. -

.~...

. .: . .?

- .- s

~~

ilo'te to Joe Youngblood -

~ .

RE: CLIrlT0tl FOLlER STATI0t! .. .

Clinton is a more recent'versica of La Salle, see our memo' of.

. February 12, 1974 where we expressed concern over (a) the .

excessively large site using agricultura' land no~t necessary-

.for the nuclear power station and (b) the lack of quantifica- '

' tion of recreational value. In regard to the later, we suggested that the study by Georgia State College regarding

. recreational values be utilized.~ ,, ,

.The ' difference between the Hennepin a'nd Clinten sites [seems to be 60 million in transmission lines, a smaller site at -

000 acres of farm land at- Clinton .

Hennepin, needed for the plant, _ versus the.8,1/ and speculative recreational values - '

g at Clinton. If EPA says towers at Clinton, which is not .

unlikely, then the cost difference will largely disappear-and the Clinton site will have to be justified on recreation '

val ues. .

A detailed analysis of a complete recreation plan tould be mandatory, including menetary values. In this regard, the .

staff should analyze the need for receation in the area. in-cluding such matters as the impact on existing recreational facilities. of the proposed Clinton recreational -facility.

Our analysis should also have competent fish biologist evidence that the lake will, in fact, support a viable sport-fi:hing aquatic co muni:p A3 .;e vi r., the proc 2eding, the scaf f till hm t] ~ne a ca :.a for the re.Toval of 6,C00 to 3,000 acras frcm agricul turai pro- ,

. duction. We shculd have an agricultural economist, a speciali- .

1/ We assume that we will be successful in assuring that applicant offers to return all the excess farmland back to the farmers.

~

8605290265 741111 i-PDR ADOCK 05000460 *

. D PDR .

. , .i ,

u - . - - - . -. . -

, i. . . . ,

- .< .~ ..

. / -

-_ .s . - .

.?. ..

.]

- - 2. .

,j

. . ,.~

j. .

e, .

.)

'zatica which does not r.cw seem to be' cn the staff. Ua "shall .

have to deal.with the "non-dollar, intangible value", of

.... preservation'of- farm land. .See the second La Salle decisica ..

ALAB-193, RAI 74-4, April 15,.1974,. page 423.

~

. Thes'e factors have to be weighed agathst dollar value plus -

speculative recreation if towers are not required. If towers are required the " values" ,of farmland would have to be weighed . .-

-,,aga i nst the " values" of recreation. This will req 0 ire very ,

, strong evidence as to the recreational values that the plant' -.

.will, in fact, provide. . .

. _.- , .: = .

.s .

.pI'a hp.2b ,

~ ' '

- ~

Charles A.'Barth -

• . 8 -

p} -

s . .

~. - -

,1 .

, .i .

. , e

. *I.

. M .

s.

e

- g

. '*m*

em .. ,

0 *

, y . f. , .

- - ,n .. - -