4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.10.1 Affected Environment
This section addresses the cultural resources associated with Pantex Plant. Because of the sensitive locational nature of cultural resources, the Region of Influence for this resource is the area inside the Pantex Plant boundaries. Cultural resources identified at Pantex Plant include prehistoric sites, consisting primarily of lithic scatters; historic sites that are mostly farmsteads; World War II Era buildings and structures that were once part of Pantex Ordnance Plant (1942-1945); and structures and features representing Cold War Era (1951-1991) resources (USCOE 1994b:167-168; Pantex 1996:12.0, 12.1). In addition, Pantex Plant also houses valuable historic documents, records, and artifacts pertinent to interpretation of the prehistoric and historic human activities conducted on Pantex Plant Site.
In an ongoing effort to manage and protect these resources and comply with applicable cultural resource management (CRM) laws and regulations at Pantex Plant, DOE is currently developing a CRM Plan (CRMP) that is scheduled for completion by calendar year (CY) 1998 (Pantex 1996:12.0). DOE will complete an Impact Mitigation Plan as part of the CRMP.
The CRM laws and regulations pertinent to Pantex Plant are described in chapter 6.0, Environmental Compliance Requirements for Implementing the Proposed Action and the Alternatives. Until the CRMP is implemented in CY 1998, cultural resources at Pantex Plant will be managed according to sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 CFR 800).
4.10.1.1 Prehistoric and Historic Resources
Prehistoric ResourcesIncluded in the general chronology developed for the Texas Panhandle, covering the period from 10,000 B.C. to A.D. 1750, are prehistoric sites identified at Pantex Plant. Tests conducted on 23 prehistoric sites at Pantex Plant suggest that a majority of the sites were occupied during either the Late Archaic (1,000 B.C.A.D. 0) or the Late Prehistoric (A.D. 0A.D. 1541) periods. These prehistoric sites are generally associated with local playas and contain cultural materials consisting mainly of lithic scatters of stone tools and flakes with varying amounts of fire-cracked rock. One tested site produced several stone artifacts in stratigraphic association with bison bone. To date, 57 prehistoric sites have been identified on Pantex Plant land, including Texas Tech University (Texas Tech University (TTU)TTU) property leased to DOE (USCOE 1994b:14, 167-168; Pantex 1996:12.1; Battelle 1996b:1).
Historic ResourcesHistoric sites also follow the period chronology developed for the Texas Panhandle, covering the period from A.D. 1541 to A.D. 1942 (USCOE 1994b:14). Historic sites include foundations of demolished buildings such as homes and agricultural support structures (e.g., barns, windmills), and surface scatters of metal, ceramic, or glass artifacts. To date, 12 pre-1942 historic sites have been identified on Pantex Plant land, including TTU property leased to DOE (Pantex 1996:12.1; Battelle 1996b:1). Three of these sites (41CZ45, 41CZ46, and 41CZ47) have been identified on the main DOE-owned plant site. The remaining five sites (41CZ52, 41CZ68, PP2, PP3, and PP8) are located on the TTU property leased to DOE.
Historical resources representing the World War II (19421945) and Cold War (19511991) Eras include standing structures, building foundations, and features reflecting these periods (Pantex 1996:12.1). Brief histories of Pantex Plant covering the period 19421992 have been prepared by B.H. Carr (Carr 1992), N.A. Stricker and R.M. Poet (Legacy 1994 and 1994a). Pantex Plant began as Pantex Ordnance Plant in 1942, with its primary mission being the production of military ordnance. Since 1951, Pantex Plant has had Cold War and post-Cold War missions, including the fabrication of high explosive(s) (HE)high explosives for nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly, and repair and modification of existing nuclear weapons (Pantex 1996:12.2).
Surveys/InventoriesSurveys of archaeological resources have been conducted at Pantex Plant since the first professional archaeological study conducted by West Texas State University during the spring of 1981 (MH 1981). This initial effort was a non-systematic survey of areas surrounding the playas on the main Pantex Plant Site and Pantex Lake (Pantex 1996:12.1). Other field investigations included the following: a 1992 Ditches and Playas Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation study by Mariah Associates; Phase II test excavations of 23 archaeological sites on Pantex Plant from 1993 through 1994 by Geo-Marine, Inc.; and a 1994 cultural resources survey of 1,700 hectares (4,200 acres) of previously unsurveyed land at Pantex Plant conducted by Geo-Marine, Inc. (Battelle 1993; USCOE 1994; USCOE 1994b). The 1994 study involved land owned by TTU and leased to DOE. In addition, 971 hectares (2,400 acres) of DOE land were systematically resurveyed in 1994 by Geo-Marine, Inc. (MH 1995b:1, 25).
During the 1981 survey, remains of 42 prehistoric Native American campsites and three pre-World War II farmsteads were identified. Except for one historic site (farmstead), all sites were found near Pantex Lake and Playas 1, 2, and 3 on the main plant site. None of the sites appear to be potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)NRHP), but the researchers felt that 17 sites had "medium" to "high" significance and recommended preservation or additional investigation (MH 1981:65-66). The 1992 survey of ditches and playas identified 5 new sites and 39 isolated occurrences (IOs). Three of the sites and 14 IOs were located along the perimeter of Playa 2, and 2 sites and 25 IOs were located along the perimeter of Playa 4. The 1994 survey on TTU land identified 6 Native American sites, 2 historic sites, and 17 IOs. The 1994 resurvey of DOE land identified 4 new prehistoric Native American sites and 22 IOs (MH 1995b:79).
A comprehensive survey of the World War II historic resourcehistorical resources at Pantex Plant was conducted from 1992 to 1994, when DOE authorized an inventory of buildings constructed between 1942 and 1945 (Pantex 1996:12.2; Legacy 1994 and 1994a). Initially, survey work focused on World War II standing structures, such as buildings used for magazine storage and bomb-loading lines, in the active zones of Pantex Plant. Through 1993 and 1994, survey efforts expanded to other World War II Era standing structures that had not been previously surveyed, and World War II Era foundations and ruins inside historical boundaries of Pantex Ordnance Plant. This effort inventoried an additional 29 World War II standing structures and documented 82 foundations and ruins (Pantex 1996:12.2). Historical resources still exist in the general area of Pantex Plant and include structures such as guard tower foundations, the Dunnage Mill Complex ruins, standing and in-use water towers, and a control lab foundation.
Cold War operations at Pantex Plant date from 1951 to 1991. Although historical resource surveys for this period of Pantex Plant operations have not yet been conducted, plans are currently being developed to begin such a survey. Completion of this work, combined with the surveys and evaluations of archaeological and World War II resources, will lead to the implementation of a comprehensive CRMP scheduled for completion by late 1998. The CRM staff at Pantex Plant considers resources from the Cold War period to be among the most important historical resources at Pantex Plant (Pantex 1996:12.2).
As part of the comprehensive CRMP, an Impact Mitigation Plan will be developed for preservation of cultural resources on Pantex Plant Site. Many of these resources have remained relatively undisturbed because of the security maintained by Pantex Plant during the past 50 years. Until a CRMP can be completed in CY 1998, cultural resources will be managed and protected by DOE. A programmatic agreement for the continued interim management of NRHP-eligible archaeological and historical resources at Pantex Plant will be implemented by DOE in 1996. The PA will be produced in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and will contain procedures that DOE will follow to ensure that plant operations comply with Section 106 and Section 110 requirements.
Cultural Resources Eligible for National Register ListingEligibility criteria for listing cultural resources on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)NRHP are contained in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60 (36 CFR 60.4). Cultural resource studies and eligibility determinations have been and are being coordinated with the Texas SHPO in accordance with Sections 106 and 110 of NHPA. Eligibility criteria are met if a cultural resource has integrity and exhibits any of the following characteristics:
- Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
- Association with the lives of persons significant in our past.
- Illustration of a type, period, or method of construction; for its aesthetic values or for its representation of the work of a master; or if it represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
- It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Earlier survey work on prehistoric sites at Pantex Plant did not result in a consensus on prehistoric sites eligible for the NRHP (MH 1981; Mariah 1992). However, test excavations conducted from 1993 to 1994 on 23 prehistoric sites did result in a recommendation that 22 out of the 23 sites may be ineligible for listing. No determinations of NRHP eligibility for Native American archaeological sites at Pantex Plant have been made (USCOE 1994b; Pantex 1996:12.1).
To date, no historic sites at Pantex Plant have been recommended as potentially eligible for NRHP listing; however, numerous World War II historical resources at Pantex Plant are potentially eligible for listing under the criteria discussed above (USCOE 1994b:174; Mariah 1992:3; Pantex 1996:12.1, 12.2, 12.4).
4.10.1.2 Native American Groups
In 1994, 10 Native American tribes with possible traditional interests in the Pantex Plant area were notified by Pantex Plant regarding their potential interest in proposed activities to be addressed in the Pantex EIS; these included the following: the Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma; the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma; the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; the Mescalero Apache Tribe; the Jicarilla Apache Tribe; the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe of Oklahoma; the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes; the Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma; the Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma; and the Fort Sill Apache Tribe. The Jicarilla and Mescalero Apache Tribes stated that they did not have concerns in the Central Texas Panhandle.
The eight remaining tribes were provided detailed information on EIS/NEPA and NHPA activities. Appendix J contains this documentation. These tribes expressed an interest in acquiring further information on future activities at Pantex Plant. In response, the Pantex Plant Cultural Resource Management staff visited each of the eight tribal offices during June, 1994. Each tribe was given a Pantex Plant EIS/NEPA information packet, an opportunity to view an informational video on the Pantex Plant EIS process, and CRMP/NHPA information packets. Only the Kiowa and Apache Tribes of Oklahoma have been in contact with the plant since these 1994 visits.
The U.S. Indian Claims Commission has found that the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, the Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma have legally recognized traditional interests in the Texas Panhandle. These 3 tribes have been contacted and encouraged to participate in the EIS, NEPA, CRMP, and NHPA processes at Pantex Plant (Pantex 1996:12.4).
Inventory of Traditional SitesNative American sites, traditional cultural properties (TCPs), or mortuary remains have not been discovered at Pantex Plant. If these are located during future activities they will be managed in compliance with relevant cultural and historical resource management regulations and statutes. DOE recognizes that its management of Pantex Plant may have cultural implications for concerned Native American tribes. To address these concerns, the DOE asked the tribes during their consultations in 1994 if any of Pantex Plants mission plans impacted their traditional interests. No TCPs within the plant boundaries were identified by the tribes. The tribes are encouraged to notify the plant regarding potential future concerns of a cultural nature. This process will allow the DOE to address concerns on a government-to-government basis. No Native American mortuary remains have been located at Pantex Plant; however, if any such remains are uncovered, they will be managed in compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001) (Pantex 1996:12.4).
Treaty ConsiderationsTo ensure that the rights and interests of Native Americans are protected, DOE is performing a historic treaties search and a public outreach program to involve Native American stakeholders in decision making related to the use of plant land and the protection of cultural resources (Pantex 1996:12.4).
4.10.1.3 Paleontological Resources
The surficial geology of the Pantex Plant area consists of silts, clays, and sands of the Blackwater Draw Formation. In other areas of the High Plains, this formation contains Late Pleistocene vertebrate remains, including bison, camel, horse, mammoth, and mastodon, with occasional and important evidence of their use by early humans. A recent archaeological testing program at the plant recovered bison bones associated stratigraphically with stone artifacts along an active drainage that flows south into Pantex Lake (USCOE 1994b:140, 154; DOE1995k:4-300).
4.10.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action
4.10.2.1 Impacts of Continued Operations
Weapons-Related ActivitiesImpacts to cultural and paleontological resources at Pantex Plant as a result of the weapons-related activities under the Proposed Action are expected to be negligible. No land disturbance is proposed for these activities. Impacts of construction of new facilities under the Proposed Action are discussed separately in section 4.10.2.2.
Pit Storage ActivitiesThe storage of up to 20,000 pits would utilize existing facilities and would not pose adverse impacts to cultural resources.
Environmental Restoration ActivitiesAlthough no cultural resources have been identified in the contaminated areas identified for environmental restoration, a cultural resources monitor would be present to identify any subsurface cultural resources during the land disturbance phase. Land disturbance for environmental restoration activities is a small fraction (less than 1 percent) of the total DOE-owned land at Pantex Plant Site. Cultural resource impacts, if any, would not be significant.
Waste Management ActivitiesThe waste management activities will not disturb any new lands; hence no cultural resource impacts are anticipated.
4.10.2.2 Impacts of New Facility Construction and Upgrades
The six new facilities constructed under the Proposed Action will be located in or adjacent to Zone 11 and Zone 12 (as shown in Figure 3.1.11). Some soil disturbance would be associated with these construction and facility upgrade projects. Although no cultural resources have been identified on the surface, subsurface cultural resources may be discovered during construction, remodeling, or land altering activities. If that occurs, the work would be stopped until an evaluation can be conducted to determine the significance of the resource. Mitigation, documentation, and/or preservation measures would be conducted as necessary.
The Hazardous Waste Treatment and Processing Facility (HWTPF) would be constructed in an area that has previously been surveyed for cultural resources. No sites were located in the area to be affected by the proposed construction of this facility.
Modifications and building upgrades are proposed to convert bays 2, 4, 6, and 8 at Building 12104 into a Pit Reuse Facility. Building 12104 is of recent construction, and its eligibility to the NRHP has not been determined. Further, no prehistoric or historic sites are known to exist in this area.
The activities proposed for the Gas Analysis Laboratory (GAL) are currently being conducted in Building 1221. This was originally the location of the third Cooling and Top-off Building at the Pantex Ordnance Plant. This structure was demolished and replaced with a new building in 1951. The building was included in Legacys 1994 historic building survey. Based on that evaluation, Building 1221 was not recommended by the Texas State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)SHPO as potentially eligible to the NRHP (Legacy 1994:107, 109, 111, 125). No cultural resources are known to exist in the proposed construction area.
The proposed construction of the Materials Compatibility Assurance Facility is within an area that has been inventoried for historic structures (Legacy 1994:167-168). The foundations of Ramp 11R23 are located adjacent to and immediately south of the proposed Materials Compatibility Assurance Facility (MCAF). The remains of another structure, Building 1113, adjacent to the south end of Ramp 11R23, are not considered eligible to the NRHP, and would not require avoidance. The remains of Ramp 11R23 will need to be monitored for avoidance during construction, and/or mitigated prior to construction.
Construction of the Nondestructive Evaluation Facility and the Metrology and Health Physics Calibration and Acceptance Facility is planned within Zone 12. These areas have been extensively disturbed by the growth and building activities within Zone 12 and are not adjacent to any buildings thought to be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)NRHP. Further, no prehistoric sites are known to exist in this area.
4.10.2.3 Summary of Impacts
No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated from the continued operations at Pantex Plant. No surface remains or historical structures potentially eligible for the NRHP have been identified at the six new project sites. If subsurface cultural features or artifacts are identified during land disturbance for construction, appropriate mitigation measures would be taken in consultation with theState Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) SHPO.
4.10.3 Impacts of No Action AlternativeImpacts to cultural resources at Pantex Plant as a result of the No Action Alternative are expected to be negligible. Plant operations will not impact known cultural resources at Pantex Plant Site. No new projects would be constructed under this alternative. Impacts, therefore, are considered negligible.
4.10.4 Impacts of Pit Storage Relocation Alternative
As discussed in section 3.1.3, the Pit Storage Relocation Alternative would involve relocation of pits from storage at Pantex Plant to storage at one or more alternate sites.
4.10.4.1 Impacts of Relocating 20,000 Pits
Even if 20,000 pits are relocated from Pantex Plant to any other site, Pantex Plant activities would remain as identified for the Proposed Action, including the construction of six new projects. The only exception would be the availability of current storage magazines for other uses when pits are relocated to another site. Impacts on cultural resources would, therefore, be similar to those identified for the Proposed Action.
4.10.4.2 Impacts of Relocating 8,000 Pits
The impacts of relocating 8,000 pits would be similar to those identified for the Proposed Action and relocation of 20,000 pits, except that fewer magazines would become available for other uses once the pits are transferred. The alternative uses of these magazinemagazines would not affect their historic structure status; thus no impacts are anticipated.
4.10.5 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts presented here include impacts of the continued operations at Pantex Plant combined with impacts associated with activities described in the WM PEIS, SSM PEIS, and S&D PEIS. Since the Pantex Plant EIS Proposed Action and the SSM PEIS No Action Alternative represent a continuum of operations, the impacts associated with any new mission or facility that could be implemented at Pantex Plant are discussed in the context of that continuum. The impacts from the WM PEIS program are combined with those of the Pantex Plant EIS Proposed Action. The impacts from the S&D PEIS are combined with those of the SSM PEIS No Action Alternative. A detailed discussion of this methodology is presented in section 4.2.
4.10.5.1 Impacts of Alternatives in the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The actual location of waste management facilities would likely disturb additional DOE-owned land at Pantex Plant. However, no specific locations have been identified in the WM PEIS. Therefore, cumulative impacts to cultural resources cannot be identified at this stage. In general, given that specific projects would likely undergo their own NEPA review, it is unlikely that the eventual siting would impact cultural resources.
4.10.5.2 Impacts of Alternatives in the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The SSM PEIS includes three alternatives that apply to Pantex Plant: No Action, Downsize Existing Capability, and Relocate Capability. Under the No Action Alternative, no downsizing or modification of facilities would occur. Impacts to cultural resources from operations are expected to remain the same as current impacts. Under the downsizing alternative, all construction activities would be modifications to existing facilities. Consequently, no potential impacts to cultural resources would occur.
4.10.5.3 Impacts of Alternatives in the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The S&D PEIS is considering Pantex Plant for long-term storage of inventories of nonsurplus weapons-usable plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU), storage of inventories of surplus weapons-usable plutonium and HEU pending disposition, and disposition of surplus weapons-usable plutonium. For storage, the strategy for long-term storage of weapons-usable plutonium and HEU, as well as the storage site(s), would be decided. The storage alternatives include upgrading the existing plutonium storage facilities, consolidation of plutonium from other sites, and collocation of plutonium and HEU storage. The collocation alternative is used for analysis purposes in this EIS as the bounding storage alternative.
Under the S&D PEIS Collocation Alternative, construction of new storage facilities would be required in order to store plutonium and HEU at Pantex Plant. No prehistoric or historic resources were identified in the project area. Impacts to prehistoric or historic resources are not anticipated.
For the disposition alternatives in the S&D PEIS, the emphasis at this stage in the NEPA decision process is on the strategy and technology mix rather than the actual site. The evolutionary Light Water Reactor is used for analysis purposes in this EIS as the bounding disposition alternative. Implementation of this disposition alternative would require the construction and operation of a pit disassembly and conversion facility, plutonium conversion facility, MOX fuel fabrication facility, and one or more light water reactors. The bounding alternative also assumes that all of the facilities previously mentioned would be collocated at the same site (potentially Pantex Plant).
Some NRHP-eligible resources may be affected by the construction of the disposition facilities. Any resources would be identified during Section 106 of the NHPA compliance process. There would be no operational impacts to archaeological remains because no additional ground disturbance is involved. Construction and operation of these facilities may affect some Native American resourceNative American resources. Native American resources would be identified through project-specific consultation with potentially affected groups. Some paleontological resources may occur in the area to be affected by construction. These operations would not have an additional impact (DOE 1996a:4.0).
4.10.6 Potential Mitigation Measures
No long-term adverse impacts to cultural resources have been identified relative to the Proposed Action, No Action, or Pit Storage Relocation Alternative; hence, no mitigation measures are needed. A Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the continued interim management of the NRHP-eligible archaeological and historical resources at Pantex Plant is being developed for implementation in 1996. The PA will be superseded by the CRMP, which is scheduled for implementation in 1998 (Pantex 1996).
If subsurface remains are identified during project construction, mitigation measures would be taken in consultation with the SHPO. These may include: groundwork monitoring, stopping work upon discovery, and mitigation or avoidance of cultural resources to minimize the potential for adverse effects.
If Native American traditional use resources are identified, but cannot be avoided through project design or location, than acceptable mitigation measures to lessen the effect on the resources would be determined in consultation with the appropriate Tribal organizations or governments. Mitigation measures may include; reconfiguration of project plan designs, appropriate relocation of human remains and associated funerary items in compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001), reducing visual intrusion, or transplanting/harvesting traditional or secular plant resources to minimize the potential of adverse effects.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
