• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section describes the impacts of the EIS alternatives on prehistoric and historic sites. The approach used was to 1) define specific land areas that would be disturbed by construction and operation; and 2) identify any prehistoric or historic materials or sites at those locations that might be adversely impacted. Table 5.5.1 summarizes these impacts and identifies the areas that potentially would be impacted. Issues of potential concern to Native Americans, such as land use and access, are presented in Section 5.5.3 and also are discussed in Section 5.19 (Environmental Justice).

Table 5.5.1 Prehistoric and Historic Impacts of TWRS Alternatives

Cultural resources surveys conducted in 1994 for this EIS and previous cultural resources surveys indicated existing ground disturbance at portions of the sites proposed for TWRS facilities in the 200 East Area proposed under the various ex situ alternatives and the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 alternatives (PNL 1994a, b, c). This disturbance has resulted from past and ongoing Hanford Site activities. However, it is possible that the disturbed areas may contain cultural resources that were not identified in past surveys. Thus, additional cultural resource surveys would be conducted and TWRS construction would include procedures and monitoring activities to protect cultural resources encountered during construction.

Survey work in the 200 East Area has recorded two historic isolated artifacts within the proposed TWRS sites. These items, a flat-bottomed, crimped tin can and a double-soldered tin can, are considered of little importance as they probably do not meet National Register of Historic Places eligibility criteria because they lack physical integrity. Surveys of the proposed Phased Implementation (Phase 1) alternative site in the 200 East Area identified no archaeological sites (Cadoret 1995). Surveys of the 200 West Area also have identified very few archaeological sites (Section 4.5).

Under all tank waste alternatives except No Action, approximately 13,000 m (33,000 ft) of replacement underground pipelines would be placed at various locations in the 200 East and 200 West Areas. These pipelines would be placed adjacent to and replace the existing pipelines. Thus, no currently undisturbed land would be impacted, and no prehistoric or historic sites would be impacted by the activities under any EIS alternative.

Archaeological surveys of the three potential borrow sites have identified a variety of prehistoric or historic artifacts and sites at the Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch. The likelihood of disturbing additional archaeological sites in these areas is considered high. The McGee Ranch site is part of the proposed McGee Ranch/Cold Creek Archaeological District, which has been deemed eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The potential of disturbing archaeological sites at Pit 30 is considered low because of its location between the 200 West and 200 East Areas, a vicinity where few prehistoric or historic sites have been identified (Duranceau 1995).

5.5.1 Prehistoric Sites Impacts

5.5.1.1 Tank Waste Alternatives

No Action Alternative

The No Action alternative would involve no new construction, and thus no impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites would occur.

Long-Term Management Alternative

This alternative would disturb 50 ha (124 ac) in the 200 East Area and 16 ha (40 ac) at the potential Pit 30 borrow site for the construction of two new tank farms. This disturbance in the 200 East Area would occur in the same area proposed for the waste treatment facilities under the various ex situ alternatives. Because no important prehistoric sites were found in surveys of this area, no impacts would be expected. It is unlikely that activities at the potential Pit 30 borrow site would encounter any prehistoric sites.

In Situ Fill and Cap Alternative

During remediation activities, there would be minimal new disturbances (0.1 ha [0.5 ac]) in the 200 Areas near the tank farms. There would be approximately 25 ha (62 ac) disturbed at the potential Pit 30 borrow site where it is unlikely that activities would encounter prehistoric sites.

The remediation and closure activities under the In Situ Fill and Cap alternative would involve disturbing areas within and adjacent to the tank farms and at the potential borrow sites. Activities at and near the tank farms would have low impact potential. Disturbance of about 37 ha ( 91 ac) by construction activities at the potential Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch borrow sites would have a high likelihood of impacting prehistoric sites because past surveys have found prehistoric materials in both areas. However, it is unlikely that activities at the potential Pit 30 borrow site would encounter any prehistoric sites.

In Situ Vitrification Alternative

During remediation, the in situ vitrification activities would occur in disturbed areas within and immediately adjacent to the various tank farms in the 200 Areas, and thus impacts to archaeological sites were considered unlikely. The In Situ Vitrification alternative would involve constructing a new substation and new power transmission lines in the 200 Areas to bring power to the in situ vitrification activities at the tank farms. The new substation would be located in currently disturbed areas, and it is likely that no impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites would occur. Constructing the new power lines would affect approximately 70 ha (170 ac) of land in approximately 17,000-m (57,000-ft) by 15-m (50-ft)-wide corridors. The bulk of this area, about 47 ha (115 ac), is currently disturbed, and thus it is unlikely that any new impacts to archaeological sites would occur. The remaining 23 ha (57 ac) are undisturbed. A cultural resources field survey of these power line routes would be performed before any final power line alignment would be selected. During remediation, 23 ha ( 57 ac) of currently undisturbed land would be impacted at the potential Pit 30 borrow site. However, activities would not likely encounter prehistoric sites.

During closure activities, this alternative would disturb land at the potential Vernita Quarry, McGee Ranch, and Pit 30 borrow sites. The likelihood of impacting prehistoric archaeological sites would be high at Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch because prehistoric materials have been recorded there in past cultural resource surveys. Approximately 37 ha (91 ac) would be disturbed at these two potential borrow sites. Impact potential is considered low at the potential Pit 30 borrow site because prehistoric sites are scarce in and around the arid 200 Areas.

Ex Situ Intermediate Separations Alternative

As indicated previously, field investigations have indicated no important archaeological sites at the proposed 200 East Area site for the remediation activities under the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. Thus, no impacts on prehistoric sites would be expected.

During closure activities, the alternative would disturb land at all three potential borrow sites. The potential for impacts on prehistoric archaeological sites would be similar to those described previously, (i.e., high at the potential Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch borrow sites and low at the potential Pit 30 borrow site).

Ex Situ No Separations Alternative

The prehistoric archaeological site impact potential during remediation activities would be very low at the proposed 200 East Area waste treatment site and the potential Pit 30 borrow site. During closure activities, there would be a high potential for impacts at the Vernita Quarry and McGee Ranch borrow sites.

Ex Situ Extensive Separations Alternative

The prehistoric archaeological site impact potential during remediation activities would be the same as described for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. During closure activities, the same amount of land disturbance would occur at the primary areas of potential impact (the potential McGee Ranch and Vernita Quarry borrow sites).

Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 Alternative

During remediation, this alternative would involve activities at the proposed waste processing site in the 200 East Area and in currently disturbed areas in and around the tank farms. Impact potential would be the same as for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. During closure activities, a total of 42 ha ( 100 ac) of land would be disturbed at the potential McGee Ranch and Vernita Quarry borrow sites.

Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 2 Alternative

During remediation, this alternative would involve activities at the same locations as for the Ex Situ/ In Situ Combination 1 alternative, but would disturb a somewhat smaller total area. Impact potential would be the same as for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative. During closure activities, a total of 38 ha (94 ac) would be disturbed at the potential McGee Ranch and Vernita Quarry borrow sites.

Phased Implementation Alternative

Phase 1

Past surveys of the proposed Phased Implementation alternative facility sites that would be used during Phase 1 in the 200 East Area revealed no prehistoric materials or sites (Cadoret 1995). Thus, no impacts would be expected. Borrow material used during remediation activities would be obtained from the potential Pit 30 borrow site so there would be a low probability of impacting archaeological sites.

Total Alternative

The Phased Implementation alternative would have the same potential impacts on prehistoric sites as were described for the Ex Situ Intermediate Separations alternative.

5.5.1.2 Capsule Alternatives

The capsule No Action alternative would involve no additional ground disturbance, and therefore no impacts to prehistoric archaeological sites would occur. The Onsite Disposal alternative would involve ground disturbance at a site adjacent to the 200 East Area that is mostly disturbed, and thus no new impacts to archaeological sites are likely. The Overpack and Ship and Vitrify with Tank Waste alternatives would involve using small amounts of land at the waste treatment site in the 200 East Area proposed under the various ex situ alternatives. As described previously, because site surveys revealed no important archaeological sites, no impacts would be expected from these capsule alternatives.

5.5.2 Historic Site Impacts

Except for within the tank farms, there would be no facilities constructed in areas that contained historic structures (i.e., structures that were occupied or used after written records became available) under all tank waste and capsule alternatives. In addition, no new construction activities would occur adjacent to existing historic buildings or structures. No existing buildings or structures would be modified other than possibly the waste storage tanks and other structures at the tank farms (WHC 1995a, c, e, f, g, h, j, n). Under the In Situ Vitrification and the various ex situ alternatives, facilities within the tank farms (e.g., buildings and water tanks) could be modified or destroyed.

The waste storage tanks could be considered of potential historical importance because they represent activities of the World War II and Cold War periods. Under all alternatives involving ex situ treatment, the waste contents of the tanks would be retrieved by hydraulic or mechanical means or both. Waste retrieval might require modifications to the existing tank structures to allow waste content removal. Under the In Situ Vitrification alternative, the waste tanks would be melted into glass with their waste contents. Typically, contaminated structures of historical value would have their history and use documented but would not be preserved intact. DOE has received an exemption that would allow documenting of only one SST, one DST, and one inactive miscellaneous underground storage tank, rather than documenting each tank individually (DOE 1996e).

The former White Bluffs Freight Road crosses diagonally through the 200 West Area from the northeast to the southwest and would be intersected in two places by the new power transmission corridors under the In Situ Vitrification alternative. What is now known as the White Bluffs Freight Road has been in continuous use since prehistoric times. It has played a role in Euro-American immigration in the nineteenth century, in agriculture, and in Hanford Site operations (Cushing 1994). Nomination of this property to the National Register of Historic Places is pending, and a 100-m (330-ft) easement exists to protect the road from uncontrolled disturbance. However, the road segment that passes through the 200 West Area is not an important element in the National Register nomination largely because it has been disturbed in places by past Hanford Site activities (Cadoret 1995). Affected Tribal Nations indicate that although the White Bluffs Freight 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 (CTUIR 1996).

Historic sites have been recorded at the potential McGee Ranch and Vernita Quarry borrow sites. These sites are representative of Euro-American settlement activities from the turn of the century to the 1940's. One structure from the pre-Hanford Site homesteading period is known to exist at the potential Pit 30 borrow site. Impact potential is considered high for historic sites at both the potential McGee Ranch and Vernita Quarry borrow sites . At McGee Ranch, the historic sites are the primary basis for its being judged eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (Cadoret 1995). The historic structure at the potential Pit 30 borrow site has not yet been evaluated for its historic importance, but the overall historic site impact potential is considered low.

5.5.3 Issues of Potential Concern to Native Americans

As described in Section 4.5, the Hanford Site as a whole has special importance for Native Americans. By treaty, the Hanford Site was ceded by the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to the United States. There are Native American remains and other specific sites of religious and cultural importance at various locations around the Hanford Site, approximately 94 percent of which has not been disturbed by past activities and currently is unused. The Native American perspective on resources is different in many ways from the perspective of Euro-Americans (Harper 1995).

Development of the Hanford Site has altered substantially the natural landscape. Buildings have been erected, soil and water has been disturbed, and the distribution of plants and animals has been altered. Environmental cleanup and restoration activities will further alter the visual landscape, disrupt wildlife, and alter plant communities, leaving the Site less natural than it once was. Such changes affect the relationship between the Native Americans and the native lands.

Access to the Hanford Site by Native Americans, as well as all members of the public, has been restricted since the Hanford Site was established as a national defense facility in 1943. However, Tribal Nations have continued to express the desire to access and use Hanford Site areas. The various alternatives would have different long-term impacts on Native American land access and use. However, access to and use of the 200 Areas would be restricted regardless of which EIS alternative is selected because of environmental contamination of areas surrounding the tank farms (e.g., the existing processing facilities).

For remediation activities, the tank waste No Action and Long-Term Management alternatives would leave the tank waste intact in its current location and form indefinitely, thereby restricting access and use of land associated with the tank farms. All other tank waste alternatives also would leave various amounts of residual waste in the tanks but with less potential health hazard than No Action or Long-Term Management. For post-remediation activities associated with the closure scenario, all the alternatives except No Action and Long-Term Management would result in areas covered by the Hanford Barriers that would be restricted from alternative uses and access. To support closure activities, all tank waste alternatives except No Action and Long-Term Management would change the land forms and land uses at the three potential borrow sites (i.e., Vernita Quarry, McGee Ranch, and Pit 30).

During remediation, the In Situ Vitrification alternative would involve additional power transmission corridor development that would limit uses of the corridor during the alternative's construction and operation phases. The Ex Situ Intermediate Separations, Ex Situ Extensive Separations, Phased Implementation (total alternative), and the Ex Situ/In Situ Combination 1 and 2 alternatives would involve permanent onsite disposal of LAW, which would require restricting future use of this area. The Ex Situ No Separations alternative would involve no onsite LAW storage.

The cesium and strontium capsule Onsite Disposal alternative would maintain access restrictions for 100 years for the drywell disposal location. Alternative uses and access would be precluded at least for that time frame. The Overpack and Ship alternative would remove all waste from the Hanford Site, as would the capsule Vitrify with Tank Waste alternative. Consequently, these alternatives would have no impact on future Native American land use or access.