Cultural Resources Report Cover Sheet

CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET

DAHP Project Number: 2020-04-02572

Author: David Sheldon, M.S.

Title of Report: Cultural Survey Report for the Proposed Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory STEM Exploration Center at Hanford near Richland, Benton County, Washington (HCRC#2020-600-004)

Date of Report: May 2020

County(ies): Benton Section: 10, 11, 14 Township: 11 North Range: 27 East

Quad: Horn Rapids Dam, WA 7.5’ Acres: 25.5

PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes

Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No

Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No

TCP(s) found? Yes No

Replace a draft? Yes No

Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No

Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No

DAHP Archaeological Site #: 45BN2067 • Submission of PDFs is required.

• Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures,

graphics, appendices, attachments,

correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file.

• Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. Revised 9-26-2018

Proposed Laser Interferometer Gravitational- Wave Observatory STEM Exploration Center at Hanford near Richland, Benton County, Washington

Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

Final May 7, 2020

Prepared for:

National Science Foundation

Document No. (JETT) Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

Executive Summary

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is a national facility for gravitational- wave research. LIGO is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and operated by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The interferometer in Hanford, Washington (LIGO Hanford) is located on land owned by the United States and administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Per its 1993 Memorandum of Understanding with DOE, NSF has a permit to use the site for LIGO. The LIGO Hanford facility is approximately 13 miles northwest of the city of Richland in Benton County. The Observatory is adjacent to Hanford Site Route 10, which connects to State Highway 240 approximately 5 miles to the south.

In 2019, Caltech received a grant from the State of Washington to construct a LIGO Science Technology, Engineering and Math Exploration Center (LExC) (the Proposed Action) near Richland, Washington, adjacent to the interferometer. LExC would complement and enhance existing education and public outreach by improving STEM opportunities at LIGO Hanford and by accommodating up to 10,000 visitors per year.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), NSF has conducted a review of potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. NSF is the lead federal agency and will coordinate with DOE in the environmental review process. In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, NSF initiated consultation with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and Area Tribes and provided an Area of Potential Effects (APE) notification.

On March 17, 2020, a pedestrian survey was completed to identify historic properties within the APE. Tribal representatives were offered the opportunity to participate in the survey. The pedestrian survey used linear transects spaced at 15-meter intervals across the majority of the APE. Paved areas and one area of steep slope obscured by piled vegetation were not formally surveyed. A single historic site consisting of six fragments of cement irrigation pipe was recorded as historic archaeological site 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01). While the site is likely to be associated with pre- Hanford-era agriculture, the fragments appear to have been dumped from a nearby roadway. The site was evaluated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (54 United States Code Sections 302101–302108) and recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Pending concurrence from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation on the eligibility recommendations for site 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01), Jacobs recommends that the Proposed Action would result in a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected.”

FES0414201511TPA ES-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

Contents

Executive Summary ...... ES-1 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... iii 1. Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Credits and Acknowledgements ...... 1-1 2. Project Description ...... 2-1 2.1 Background ...... 2-1 2.1.1 The National Science Foundation ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Proposed LExC ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Activities and Elements ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Vertical and Horizontal Depth of Disturbance ...... 2-2 2.2.2 Borrow and Staging Areas, Cut and Fill, and Excavation for Utilities ...... 2-2 3. Project Background ...... 3-1 3.1 Location and Size of the Survey Area...... 3-1 3.2 Project Proponent, Property Owner, Agency, or Compliance Action ...... 3-1 3.3 Regulatory Background ...... 3-1 3.4 Survey Personnel ...... 3-1 3.5 Other Personnel ...... 3-1 3.6 Chain of Circumstances or Events Prompting the Survey ...... 3-1 3.7 Location of Inventory Forms and Report ...... 3-1 3.8 USGS 7.5 Minute Quad Map ...... 3-1 4. Environmental Setting ...... 4-1 4.1 Geomorphology ...... 4-2 4.2 Cultural Setting ...... 4-3 4.2.1 Columbia Plateau/Mid-Columbia Basin Pre-Contact Cultural Sequence ...... 4-3 4.2.2 Ethnographic Period ...... 4-4 4.2.3 Euro-American Period ...... 4-5 4.2.4 Manhattan Project/Cold War Era ...... 4-6 5. Literature Review ...... 5-1 5.1 Existing and Background Data ...... 5-1 5.2 Cultural Resources Reports in the Study Area ...... 5-1 5.3 Previously Documented Sites within the Study Area ...... 5-1 5.4 Historic Map Review ...... 5-1 5.4.1 Built Environment ...... 5-2 5.5 Aerial Imagery Review ...... 5-2 6. Research Design ...... 6-1 6.1 Objectives and Expectations ...... 6-1 6.1.1 Research Goals and Questions ...... 6-1 6.2 Field and Laboratory Methodology ...... 6-2 6.2.1 Proposed Archaeological Survey Methods ...... 6-2 6.2.2 Standing Structure Inventory Method ...... 6-2 6.2.3 Geoarchaeological Techniques for Assessing the Depositional Environment ... 6-2 6.2.4 Methods for Identifying Traditional Cultural Properties ...... 6-3 6.2.5 Remote Sensing Strategies ...... 6-3 6.2.6 Proposed Laboratory Methods ...... 6-3

FES0414201511TPA i Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

6.2.7 Person(s) Conducting the Analyses...... 6-3 6.2.8 Procedures to be followed in Data Collecting ...... 6-3 7. Survey Results ...... 7-1 7.1 Personnel Conducting the Survey ...... 7-1 7.2 Methodology ...... 7-1 7.3 Justification against Subsurface Testing Methodology ...... 7-1 7.4 Field Observations ...... 7-1 8. Analysis ...... 8-1 8.1 Property Eligibility Recommendations ...... 8-1 8.2 Other Cultural Resources within the APE ...... 8-1 9. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 9-1 9.1 Recommendations for Future Archaeological Work, Property Management, and Avoidance or Mitigation Options ...... 9-1 10. Bibliography ...... 10-1 10.1 Names and Addresses of Local Informants ...... 10-4 11. Consultation ...... 11-1 11.1 Native American Tribes ...... 11-1 11.2 State Historic Preservation Officer ...... 11-1 11.2.1 Area of Potential Effects ...... 11-1 11.2.2 Concurrence with APE received from the DAHP ...... 11-1 11.3 Survey Notification Transmittal Email ...... 11-1 12. Additional Information ...... 12-1 12.1 Location of Original Field Data ...... 12-1 12.2 Location of Artifacts...... 12-1 12.3 Osteological Report ...... 12-1

Appendixes A Figures B Photographs C Site Inventory Form D NRHP Evaluation Form E Section 106 Consultation Documentation

Tables 4-1 Summary of Available Local Climate Trend Data ...... 4-1 4-2 Pre-Contact Cultural Sequence at Hanford ...... 4-3 5-1 Previously Completed Cultural Resource Reviews in the Study Area ...... 5-1 5-2 Historic Map Sets Reviewed ...... 5-2 11-1 Correspondence with Consulting Parties ...... 11-1

ii FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

Acronyms and Abbreviations ac acre(s) APE area of potential effects ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act Caltech California Institute of Technology CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHRP Cultural and Historic Resources Program CRR cultural resources review DAHP Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DNR U.S. Department of Natural Resources DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOE-RL U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office ft feet/foot GIS geographic information system GPS Global Positioning System ha hectare(s) HCRMP Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan LExC LIGO STEM Exploration Center LIGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory m meter(s) MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NRHP National Register of Historic Places of 1966 NSF National Science Foundation SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer STEM science, technology, engineering and math TCP Traditional Cultural Property U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code USGS U.S. Geological Survey WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data YBP years before present YIIC Yakima Irrigating and Improvement Company

FES0414201511TPA iii Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

1. Introduction

This cultural resources review (CRR) was conducted in accordance with the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) of 1966 (54 United States Code [U.S.C.] Sections 302101–302108) and implementing regulation Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 36, Part 800. The Proposed Action is the construction and operation of a Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Exploration Center (LExC) adjacent to the interferometer in Hanford, Washington (LIGO Hanford).

Preparation of this CRR included a literature review, geomorphologic review, the use of geographic information system (GIS) analysis, tribal consultation, and archaeological fieldwork. Based on the information provided in this report, the undertaking as proposed would result in a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” as defined at 36 CFR Section 800.4(d)(1). Government-to-government consultations between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Tribes are ongoing.

1.1 Credits and Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank representatives from the Nez Perce Tribe, The Colville Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Wanapum, and the Yakama Nation for their participation and assistance in the development of this review. Additionally, the author would like to thank the staff at the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) Cultural and Historic Resources Program for their timely support.

FES0414201511TPA 1-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

2. Project Description

2.1 Background

2.1.1 The National Science Foundation NSF is an independent federal agency created by the U.S. Congress in 1950 “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…." With an annual budget of over $7 billion, NSF is the funding source for approximately 20 percent of federally supported basic research conducted by colleges and universities in the United States (U.S.).

NSF fulfills its mission chiefly by issuing limited-term grants (currently about 10,800 new awards per year, with an average duration of 3 years) to fund specific research proposals that have been judged the most promising by a rigorous and objective merit-review system. Most of these awards go to institutions supporting individual investigators or small groups of investigators. Others provide funding for research centers, instruments, and facilities that allow scientists, engineers, and students to work at the outermost frontiers of knowledge.

NSF also funds equipment and infrastructure needed by scientists and engineers that is often too expensive for any one group or researcher to afford. LIGO is an example of this type of significant investment.

2.1.2 Proposed LExC LIGO’s mission is to open the field of gravitational-wave astrophysics through the direct detection of gravitational waves. LIGO comprises four facilities across the U.S.: two gravitational wave detectors (the interferometers) and two university research centers. The interferometers are located in fairly isolated areas of Washington (LIGO Hanford) and Louisiana (LIGO Livingston). The two primary research centers are located at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, California and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The detector sites in Hanford and Livingston are home to the interferometers that make LIGO an "observatory."

Per the 1993 Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), NSF has a permit to use the Hanford Site for LIGO. In 2019, Caltech received a grant from the State of Washington to construct a LExC adjacent to the interferometer near Richland, Washington. Caltech has begun to design work for this facility. Should NSF provide authorization for Caltech to construct and operate the LExC, Caltech anticipates starting construction in October 2020.

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), NSF will review potential environmental impacts of this Proposed Action. NSF is the lead federal agency and will coordinate with DOE in the environmental review process.

2.2 Project Activities and Elements

The proposed LExC facility would be constructed east of the existing parking lot along the current access road to LIGO (Appendix A, Figures 1 through 3). The visitor center would include construction of a new approximately 13,000-square-foot building and associated infrastructure, including water and sewer utilities, electrical service, and telecommunications connection. Utilities would be extended from existing services at LIGO. LExC construction activities would require excavation to support utilities installation and grading as needed for construction of a parking lot. Other potential impacts include temporary traffic effects during construction and minor long-term traffic impacts from increased traffic on Saturday during public visitation day; however, the overall traffic increases impacts remain less on weekends than weekdays.

FES0414201511TPA 2-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

2.2.1 Vertical and Horizontal Depth of Disturbance

The project would have a footprint covering an area of approximately 10.4 hectares (ha) (25.5 acres [ac]), equivalent to that of the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Depth of disturbance for construction of the facilities and associated utilities would not exceed 12 feet (ft).

2.2.2 Borrow and Staging Areas, Cut and Fill, and Excavation for Utilities

All borrow and staging areas, parking lot grading, and excavation for construction of the LExC building and necessary utilities would take place within the 10.4-ha (25.5-ac) project area. Figure 3 (Appendix A) shows the project elements and the project APE.

2-2 FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

3. Project Background

3.1 Location and Size of the Survey Area

The APE is located in Township 11 North, Range 27 East, Sections 10, 11, and 14. The APE, which is the area that was surveyed, includes a square footprint measuring 244 meters (m) (800 ft) by 244 m (800 ft) as well as additional areas for required utilities. The APE is bordered to the north by an existing road and to the west by an existing facility. The APE includes areas for construction laydown, the facility itself, parking areas, and utility corridors. Areas on the north side of the access road and along the east side of the existing facility will be used for utility corridors. The APE is approximately 10.4 ha (25.5 ac) in size (Appendix A, Figures 1, 2, and 3).

3.2 Project Proponent, Property Owner, Agency, or Compliance Action

The project proponent is the NSF, as the proposed project falls within the boundaries of its permit for LIGO Hanford. The property owner is the DOE-RL. For the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA, the NSF is the lead federal agency. This CRR is being conducted by a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist from Jacobs on behalf of NSF.

3.3 Regulatory Background

This CRR is conducted in accordance with the NHPA and implementing regulation 36 CFR Part 800. No Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit was acquired, as Jacobs has contracted directly with NSF for the purposes of this pedestrian survey.

3.4 Survey Personnel

The survey was completed by David Sheldon, M.S., an archaeologist for Jacobs who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. Mr. Sheldon acted as the Principle Investigator and also author of this report.

3.5 Other Personnel

No other cultural personnel were involved.

3.6 Chain of Circumstances or Events Prompting the Survey

The project meets the definition of a federal undertaking, which requires compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

3.7 Location of Inventory Forms and Report

Copies of any inventory forms recorded and this report are located on the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) website provided by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The report and forms will also be housed at the DOE-RL Cultural and Historic Resources Program (CHRP) Library in Richland, Washington.

3.8 USGS 7.5 Minute Quad Map

The APE is depicted on the 2017 Horn Rapids Dam, WA 7.5’ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle Map (Appendix A, Figure 2).

FES0414201511TPA 3-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

4. Environmental Setting

The project area is located in the Columbia Basin physiographic province (Franklin and Dyrness 1988:6), which occupies a large area ranging from the eastern slopes of the Cascade Range to the western slopes of the Blue Mountains. The area contains limited topographic relief comprised predominantly of undulating or rolling hills. Steep slopes are present only in areas where the major regional rivers have eroded basalt deposits, creating canyons and buttes (Franklin and Dyrness 1988).

Within the Columbia Basin, the Pasco Basin is bound by the Rattlesnake Hills and Umtanum Ridge to the west, the Wahluke Syncline to the north, Horse Heaven Hills and Wallula Gap to the south, and Toe of the Palouse Slope to the east. This subregion includes the lower Yakima, lower Snake, and middle Columbia Rivers, as well as the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The environment of the Pasco Basin today is described as a semiarid, low elevation sagebrush steppe. Annual precipitation averages less than 7 inches per year. Most precipitation currently comes from winter rainfall (Fecht et al. 2004).

Although the current climate in the Columbia Basin is semiarid, the region has undergone a succession of environmental changes during the period of human occupation. Table 4-1 was compiled for previous DOE-RL projects on the Hanford Site and is applicable to this project (Kiel et al. 2019). This table provides a summary of available local climate trend data dating to the late Pleistocene. Faunal remains from archaeological and paleontological sites indicate that elk (Cervus cf. elaphus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), and deer (Odocoileus sp.) were common in the cool and moist late Pleistocene environment, while American antelope (Antilocapra americana) appeared later during the xeric conditions of the early Holocene and Altithermal (Lyman and Livingston 1983). Table 4-1. Summary of Available Local Climate Trend Data Time Period Climate Trend Support

Late Pleistocene

14,000 Tundra-like Conditions Increase in grass and Artemisia (daisy family) pollens within the Columbia Basin (Blinnikov et al. 2002) 13,000-11,000 Mild Temperatures Increase in freeze-thaw rockfall relative to eolian deposition at Marmes Rockshelter (Huckleberry and Fadem 2007) Moist Environment Increase in tree pollen (Spruce, Whitebark Pine, and Fir) in the Okanogan Highlands and Channeled Scablands (Brunelle et al. 2005; Whitlock et al. 2000; Gavin and Hu 2013) Higher density of vegetation (Gavin and Hu 2013)

Holocene 11,000-9,500 Warming Trend Increase in herb taxa in western cold deserts (eastern Washington and Oregon) (Minckley et al. 2007) Decrease in fire events likely, indicating more sparse vegetation (Minckley et al. 2007) 8600-8000 Glacial Advance in Core samples from Lower Joffre and Green Lake; detrital wood (local in origin) Cascade Mountains sampled from glacial moraines in Southern British Columbia (Menounos et al. 2003) 7,000-5000 Cooler Temperatures Isotopic oxygen ratios in soil carbonates at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (McFarland et al. 2012) Increased Precipitation 4,400-4,000 Period of Glacial Aggradation episodes in Columbia River floodplain sequences (Chatters and Expansion Hoover 1992) 5,000 Glacial Advance in the Mountain treeline fluctuations (Osborn and Luckman 1988) Cascade Mountains 3,500-2,000 2,400-1,800 Period of Glacial Aggradation episodes in Columbia River floodplain sequences (Chatters and Expansion Hoover 1992)

Notes: Dates are expressed in years before present (YBP).

FES0414201511TPA 4-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

The current ecological setting of the Columbia Basin is defined as a combination of steppe and shrub- steppe. Vegetation in the region is consistent with the low precipitation, semiarid landscape and is dominated by communities of perennial grasses and sagebrush. Typical native vegetation in the area includes shrubs such as sagebrush (Artemesia sp.), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa); perennial grasses such as indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa sandbergii), bottlebrush squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix), and needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata); and non-native vegetation such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Russian thistle (Salsola kali), and tall tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). Common fauna for the area include the coyote (Canis latrans), elk (Cervus cf. elaphus) mule deer (Odocoileus heminonus), long‐billed curlew (Numenisu americanus), pygmy short‐horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), eastern racer snake (Coluber constrictor), night snake (Hypsiglena torgquata), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) (Sackschewsky et al. 1992).

4.1 Geomorphology

With the onset of the last major Ice Age some 2.6 million years ago, the Pasco Basin was inundated by a series of cataclysmic floods (e.g., Missoula floods), which deposited a thick sequence of outwash sediments (Bjornstad 2006; DOE-RL 2002). These sediments have been reworked by as many as 100 separate flood events as a result of Pleistocene glacial activity (Waitt 1994). Flood events and associated sediments have changed the course and dynamics of the Columbia River, altering its relative location through time and leaving relict channels and terraces across portions of the western Pasco Basin (Fecht et al. 2004; Fecht and Marceau 2006).

During the last 15,000 years, eolian processes further shaped the landscape and deposited reworked locally derived sediments. Eolian sediments are composed of wind-blown, sand-dominated accumulations of re-deposited Miocene and Pleistocene material interbedded with coarse-grained, poorly sorted sand (Gaylord et al. 1991; Rucker and Sweeney 2004). Thin blankets of volcanic ash from Cascade volcanoes are also present in local sediments. Two major volcanic eruptions, Glacier Peak (13,200 YBP) and Mount Mazama (7,500 YBP), have deposited layers of volcanic ash throughout the Pasco Basin (Gaylord et al. 1991).

The mid- to late-Holocene (approximately 8,000 YBP to present day) has been a period of significant eolian deposition for the Pasco Basin, responsible for deep deposits of sand and silt (Gaylord et al. 1991). The majority of eolian sedimentary deposition occurred after the eruption of Mount Mazama (Gaylord et al. 1991). During this time, local climates were warmer and more arid than present conditions.

Geomorphologic data can be used to identify areas of higher or lower probability for subsurface cultural materials. All stratigraphic deposits that contain archaeological remains in North America are assigned to the Quaternary period. The Quaternary period dates from 1.8 million years to the present and is subdivided into the Pleistocene epoch (> 10,000 YBP) and the Holocene epoch (< 10,000 YBP) (Waters 1992). On the Hanford Site, archaeological sites dating to the Pleistocene epoch are rare. However, Holocene sediments were deposited during a time of consistent human occupation and, therefore, have the potential to contain cultural materials throughout undisturbed deposits.

Based on this knowledge, a basic predictive model can be developed to predict the likelihood of a particular location containing buried cultural materials. Areas containing deep Holocene deposits possess a greater likelihood that cultural materials will be buried and, therefore, not available for visual inspection at the ground surface. If a location contains very shallow Holocene deposits, it is more likely that cultural materials will be present at or very near the ground surface and available for visual inspection. If a location is devoid of Holocene deposits, it is unlikely to contain buried cultural materials.

Additionally, temporally diagnostic cultural material can be linked to known geologic settings to develop a more comprehensive picture of land use through time. Inversely, known geologic events such as volcanic eruptions can be used as an index to attribute buried cultural material to a general time period.

In February 2020, David Sheldon conducted a geological review online through the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (DNR 2020) Washington State Geologic Information Portal

4-2 FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

electronic database. This review identified one sedimentary deposit within the APE and within 500 m (1,600 ft) of the APE. The sedimentary deposit identified consists of Holocene well-sorted, fine-to-medium grained sand and silt in active and stabilized dunes depicted as “Qds” on the geologic map. This information has been used to support the research design and field methodology.

4.2 Cultural Setting

The following synthesis of general cultural sequences at the Hanford Site appears in many recent cultural resource reviews for DOE-RL and NSF (Kiel et al. 2019) and is applicable to this CRR. The archaeological record of the Mid-Columbia Basin bears evidence of more than 10,000 years of human occupation. The arid climate provides favorable environmental conditions for the preservation of materials that may otherwise decay more quickly. Regional developments of hydro-electric dams, highways, commercial and residential real estate, and agriculture have obscured or destroyed much of this evidence. While there has been continual development in the region, there are places that remain largely undisturbed. Within these undisturbed portions of the landscape is the potential for evidence of past human behavior to be present in the archaeological record. The history of the Mid-Columbia Basin includes three distinct periods of human occupation: the Pre-Contact period, the Euro-American period, and the Manhattan Project/Cold War period.

4.2.1 Columbia Plateau/Mid-Columbia Basin Pre-Contact Cultural Sequence

Table 4-2. Pre-Contact Cultural Sequence at Hanford Cultural Years Before Period Present Site Types Architecture Subsistence

General Columbia Plateau

Rock shelters, caves, game processing sites, lithic reduction sites; isolated Large mammals supplemented with Rock shelters and caves; lithic tools. Examples small mammals and fish. Toolset: open habitation sites. No Windust include Marmes Windust, Clovis, Folsom, and 11,000 – 8,000 evidence of constructed Phase Rockshelter, Bernard Scottsbluff points; contracting dwellings or storage Creek, Lind Coulee, stemmed points and/or lanceolate features Kirkwood Bar, Deep Gully, points; cobble tools. Granite Point, Fivemile Rapids, and Bobs Point

Mid-Columbia Region—Vantage Area

Mobile, opportunistic foragers subsisting on fish, mussels, seeds, and mammals. Basalt leaf-shaped Cascade/ Lithic scatters, quarry sites, Rock shelters and caves; Cascade and stemmed projectile Vantage 8,000 – 4,500 resource processing sites, open habitation sites. points, ovate knives, edge-ground Phase temporary camps cobble tools, microblades, hammerstones, core tools, and scrapers.

Habitation sites along major As earlier, but with increased use of rivers, confluences, upland resources, seeds, and roots. tributaries, canyons, and Groundstone and cobble tools, rapids. Lithic scatters, Frenchman House dwellings, mortars, pestles, contracting quarry sites, resource Springs 4,500 – 2,500 including semi- stemmed, corner notched, and processing sites, Seasonal Period subterranean. stemmed projectile points, hopper round of upland-to-lowland mortar bases and pestles, knives, travel for resource scrapers, and gravers. Wider tool procurement; seasonal material variety. camps.

FES0414201511TPA 4-3 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

Table 4-2. Pre-Contact Cultural Sequence at Hanford Cultural Years Before Period Present Site Types Architecture Subsistence

Habitation sites at major Reliance on riverine resources, fish, rivers, confluences, and botanicals; basal-notched and tributaries, canyons, and corner-notched projectile points 2,500 – rapids. Lithic scatters, Pithouses with wall (most corner -notched); variety of I 1,200 quarry sites, resource benches. tools including groundstone, processing sites, seasonal scrapers, lanceolate and pentagonal round camps. Ideological knives, net weights, cobble tools, and spiritual sites. drills, etc. Cayuse 1,200 – Pithouses without wall Phase II Same as Cayuse Phase I. Same as Cayuse Phase I. 900 benches.

Increased mobility and hunting ability due to horse Decrease in corner notched points, introduction. Large village increase in stemmed and side- Pit longhouse village III 900 – 250 habitation sites along rivers, notched projectile points, fine sites. seasonal round camps. pressure flaked tools. Increase in Same site types as Cayuse trade goods. Phases I and II.

Sources: Morgan et al. 2001; Walker 1998; Sharpe and Marceau 2001; Swanson 1962; Nelson 1969; Galm et al. 1981; Benson et al. 1989; Thoms et al. 1983; Green 1975; Rice 1980

4.2.2 Ethnographic Period

The Hanford Site is located within the Southern Plateau region that was occupied by various Native American groups that shared similar social, political, and subsistence patterns. Groups in the region include the Wanapum, Yakama, Umatilla, Nez Perce, Walla Walla, Cayuse, Palouse and other neighboring groups (Fagan 2000; Schuster 1998; Stern 1998). The Southern Plateau groups did not have formal political unity under a permanent central influence; instead, they formed smaller politically self- governing groups (villages). The groups were joined by bordering territory, language (Sahaptin), common culture, and frequent social interaction (Stern 1998). Although the different groups within the Southern Plateau presided and had power over a specific territory, hunting and fishing grounds were shared among all, as cooperation between these groups was common.

Settlement changed based on the time of year and seasons. Most people lived in small nomadic groups, foraging over large areas based on major rivers throughout most of the year and then coming together into large winter camps (Chatters 1980; Fagan 2000). In the spring when the snows melted, the groups relied heavily upon the first salmon until the fish run diminished in late spring. During this time, many groups would convene and fish together. At several times throughout the spring and early summer, families would disperse to root-digging grounds where the women would harvest roots and the men would hunt for game (Schuster 1998). Towards the end of summer, families would coalesce in the mountains to gather huckleberries, other berries, and nuts. In the fall, families would return to the rivers for the fall fish runs and travel to trading centers located all along the Columbia River, where they would trade, visit with friends and family, and gather together the food they had collected. Around the middle of November, the groups would return to their winter villages along the rivers and streams, bringing their supplies of roots, salmon, berries, meat, and other food they had collected and preserved. Hunting and fishing continued through the winter on an as needed basis (Bard and McClintock 1996; Galm et al. 1981; Schuster 1998; Stern 1998).

Although the groups moved and changed between seasons, most of the camps were seen as permanent because they came back to these locations each year. The winter villages consisted of 5 to 15 multi- family lodges that accommodated related adults and their spouses, as well as their children. A few smaller, funnel-shaped lodges were used by a single family unit. There also would have been a few sweatlodges (Schuster 1998). Before the arrival of horses, people wintered in dwellings that were circular semi-subterranean house pits that varied between 12 to 30 ft in diameter. The later rectangular lodges

4-4 FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

(40 to 60-ft long) were built using an A-frame construction of poles covered in multiple layers of stitched tule mats (Schuster 1998).

Tule mats were used not only as layers on the outside of a lodge but also for wall linings, insulation, partitions, floor coverings, bedding, and eating surfaces such as plates and platters. The use of tule is one example of the type of technology the Southern Plateau people utilized (Bard and McClintock 1996; Galm et al. 1981; Schuster 1998; Stern 1998). Woven baskets, a specialized and famous art form among the Plateau people, were used to store food, roots, and water and to cook food. The baskets were made from materials usually gathered in the fall when families travelled to the mountains in search of berries (Schuster 1998). Clothing consisted of garments made from sagebrush or shredded cedar and willow bark (Schuster 1998). After contact with native groups from the Plains increased, buckskin became popular and was worn throughout the year (Schuster 1998; Stern 1998).

The introduction of horses in the 1730s increased mobility, expanded gathering territory, and increased contact with Plains people. Epidemics of smallpox broke out in the Plateau from both east and west in the 1770s and 1780s. In 1805 Meriwether Lewis and William Clark arrived at the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers, initiating the start of direct trade and social interactions between the indigenous groups and the white European population (Fagan 2000; Schuster 1998; Stern 1998). Prior to that time, acquisition of European items by the Southern Plateau groups was accomplished largely through Native American intermediaries, as well as long-distance trading expeditions (Walker 1998).

A review of Caw Pawa Laakni They Are Not Forgotten indicates that the project APE, approximately 3 miles north of the Yakima River, falls within the periphery of areas traditionally used as fisheries by the tribes that comprise the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla (Hunn et al. 2015:74, 102). Ethnographic research identified trail networks along the Yakima River, southwest of the project APE. According to Hunn et al. (2015), no trail networks are noted in the immediate vicinity of the project APE; however, that does not necessarily indicate that such trails did not exist in the past.

4.2.3 Euro-American Period The earliest non-native peoples to enter the region were explorers and fur traders. In 1805, American explorers Lewis and Clark stopped at the confluence of the Columbia and Yakima Rivers on their way to the Pacific Ocean. Six years later, the Columbia River became the major thoroughfare used by fur traders to move people, supplies, correspondence, and furs between upriver inland posts and Fort Astoria/Fort George, and later Fort Vancouver near the mouth of the Columbia River (Mackie 1997; Parker 1986; Ross 1849).

Starting in the mid-1850s, gold miners traveled through the region on their way north to gold fields on the Kootenai River near Fort Colville. This influx of miners created a demand for beef, and cattle ranching expanded into the region after the local bunch grass was found to provide excellent fodder for cattle. Additionally, this area was an ideal spot to winter cattle with its mild winter and early spring (Mendenhall 2006). However, overgrazing and several severe winters decimated cattle populations in the 1880s. Some cattlemen went out of business, while the more fortunate ones left the region or became local ranchers, growing rye and alfalfa to feed their stock. In place of cattle, sheep, which were better able to survive on the overgrazed bunchgrass, were brought into the area by English, Scottish, and later Basque drovers (Parker 1986).

These ranchers were soon joined by homesteaders, who came to the area after land in the Yakima and Kittitas Valleys began to fill up. Early homesteaders were concentrated along the edge of the Columbia River, dependent on the river to provide the necessary water to grow crops. Homesteaders built water wheels to catch water from the river and cisterns to store water. Early farmsteads were often limited in size and practiced subsistence farming. To make money, many of these early homesteaders worked other jobs. Commercial farming did not develop in the area until the 1890s, when river transportation necessary to ship produce became more reliable. Even then, few farmers possessed irrigation systems big enough to support such farming (Mendenhall 2006; Parker 1986).

FES0414201511TPA 4-5 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

In the 1890s and 1900s, land speculators bought cheap, unirrigated land, started towns (including Hanford), and developed large-scale irrigation systems that would supply water to thousands of acres in the White Bluffs, Hanford, Fruitvale, Vernita, and Richland areas (Mendenhall 2006; Parker 1986; Sharpe 1999; Stapp et al. 2005).

In the early 1890s, the Yakima Irrigating and Improvement Company (YIIC) constructed a small irrigation canal in Benton County from the Yakima River to the town of Kiona. In 1892, the YIIC spent considerable money constructing a canal at Horn Rapids, approximately 7 miles downstream of Kiona (Boening 1919: 23). The canal was not a complete success, because the ditch was too small, but the YIIC did not have funds to improve the ditch due to a financial depression. In 1902, the ditch, water rights, and holdings were passed to the Northern Pacific, Yakima and Kittitas Irrigating Company. This company spent the capital necessary to make developments to irrigate some 15,000 acres in the vicinity of Kennewick. In 1905, the Benton Water Company completed an irrigation canal from the Yakima River to North Richland. Settlement inland on what is now the Hanford reserve started around 1905. In 1906, the Hanford Irrigation and Power Company was formed and developed the Hanford Irrigation Canal (Gibson 2004). The town of Hanford was founded soon after.

These irrigation projects were advertised in elaborate brochures throughout the country. Touted within these advertisements was the region’s abundant water supply, early springs that allowed produce to reach the market before produce from neighboring regions, and a longer growing season during which multiple crops could be grown. Most importantly, irrigated farming would require less land and less work to make a profit (Mendenhall 2006; Parker 1986).

Laterals and sub-laterals from these larger irrigation canals would draw water to individual farmsteads. Early irrigation lines consisted of wood staves wrapped in steel bands, while later irrigation pipes of the pre-Hanford era were terracotta, cement (post-1915), and eventually steel lines (Sharpe 1999; Atomic Heritage Foundation 2019). Small perforations in the pipes would be used to direct water along hand-dug furrows. Given the arid environments of the shrub steppe, archaeological evidence of early irrigation agriculture is still present across portions of the Hanford Site.

4.2.4 Manhattan Project/Cold War Era

In 1942, the area around Hanford, Washington was selected by the federal government as one of the three principal Manhattan Project sites. Occupying portions of Grant, Franklin, and Benton counties, the Hanford Site was created to support the U.S.’s plutonium-production effort during World War II. Plutonium production, chemical separation, and research and development focusing on process improvement were the primary activities during the Manhattan Project, as well as the subsequent Cold War Era. The industrial components of the Manhattan Project and Cold War Era are located in discrete areas throughout the Hanford Site (Marceau et al. 2003).

Reactors in the 100 Areas were used to irradiate uranium fuel to produce plutonium. The 200 Areas were the locations of the chemical separation facilities that extracted plutonium from the irradiated fuel. The 300 Area was where the uranium fuel was manufactured prior to being delivered to the reactors in the 100 Areas, and the location for process improvement studies. The 400 Area, a Cold War expansion, was the location of advanced nuclear power plant research and development. The 600 Area was a broad expanse between the production areas that contained the infrastructure such as roads and rail systems that served the entire site. The 700 Area was the administration area in Richland (Marceau et al. 2003).

4-6 FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

5. Literature Review

A literature review was conducted by David Sheldon (Jacobs) in February 2020 through the DOE-RL Cultural Resources GIS Database and online through the WISAARD electronic database.

5.1 Existing and Background Data

The literature review identified two CRRs within the Study Area. The Study Area consists of a 500-m (1,640-ft) buffer surrounding the APE (Appendix A, Figure 5).

5.2 Cultural Resources Reports in the Study Area

Two previous CRRs studies were completed in the Study Area, shown in Table 5-1. O’Neill and Crist’s (1993) 2,183-acre survey covered the entirety of the APE. A “jeep trail is depicted within the APE for the LIGO facility. The jeep trail matches the route of the two-track road visible on the 1964 aerial imagery.” Keil and others (2019) conducted the most recent survey in the vicinity of the APE. The survey consisted of linear transects spaced at 15-m intervals over three small areas west of the APE. Neither study identified any archaeological sites within the Study Area; however, O’Neil and Crist’s survey did identify a single historic isolate within 500 m of the APE. Table 5-1. Previously Completed Cultural Resources Reviews in the Study Area HCRC Number Title Methods Reference Within APE?

90-600-028 Laser Interferometer Pedestrian Survey O’Neil and Crist 1993 Yes, covers entire APE Gravitational Wave (20-m intervals) Observatory (LIGO) Project A Cultural Resources Inventory Report

2019-600-010 Cultural Resources Pedestrian Survey Kiel et al. 2019 No, approximately Review for Facility (15-m intervals) 250 m (820 ft) west of Modification and APE. Infrastructure Upgrades at Laser Interferometer Gravitation Observatory (LIGO) Site, Benton County, Washington

5.3 Previously Documented Sites within the Study Area

No previously documented sites exist within 500 m of the APE (the Study Area). Only a single historic isolate, HI-92-012, consisting of one sanitary can was identified within the Study Area, along the west side of Route 10.

5.4 Historic Map Review

As a part of the review, various historic map sets were reviewed to determine if previously mapped features provide information about potential historic properties within the APE (Table 5-2).

FES0414201511TPA 5-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

Table 5-2. Historic Map Sets Reviewed Map Source Date/Name/Series Comments

GLO 1868 Plat Map A trail oriented roughly north to south is depicted east of the APE, roughly parallel with Route 10. No map features identified within the APE. Refer to Appendix A, Figure 4.

USGS 1917 Pasco, WA 1:125,000 An improved road oriented roughly north to south is depicted east of the APE, along the route depicted on the 1868 GLO Plat map and roughly parallel with Route 10. No map features identified within the APE.

Sharpe 1999 “Pre-Hanford” Benton County Lands The map of the Hanford site contains township range and sections as well as known irrigation districts and canals. The APE is located equidistant between the Hanford Ditch and the Richland Irrigation District Canal.

USGS 1951 Richland, WA 1:62,500 Minor topographic relief across the APE. A northwest to southeast trending road crosses at the corner of sections 11, 11, 14, and 16 south of the APE.

USGS 1977 Horn Rapids Dam, WA 1:24,000 Unimproved jeep trail depicted approximately 100 m south of APE. No map features identified within the APE.

5.4.1 Built Environment

Structures within the APE are associated with LIGO. Site construction for the Hanford facility began in the mid-1990s and the inauguration ceremony took place in 1999. Project activities within the APE are designed to increase the effectiveness of the LIGO Hanford facility. No other structures are present within the project APE. None of the structures known to exist within the vicinity of the APE are 40 years or older and, therefore, they are not considered eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP (DAHP 2020).

5.5 Aerial Imagery Review

Two sets of aerial imagery were reviewed as a part of this CRR, dating to 1943 and 1964. A review of aerial imagery from 1964 (www.historicaerials.com) indicates that the landscape of the APE consisted of undulating, semi-vegetated dunes. A two-track road, oriented roughly northeast to southwest, existed approximately 100 m south of the APE. Upon closer inspection, the two track remains faintly visible on modern aerial imagery. A review of 1943 aerial imagery shows no road at this location, indicating that the road was developed during the Hanford era (post-1943). No signs of agricultural development in the vicinity of the APE were observed on any of the aerial imagery.

5-2 FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

6. Research Design

6.1 Objectives and Expectations

The objectives of this CRR are to meet the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, specifically 36 CFR Sections 800.3 through 800.5, to identify potential historic properties (defined as properties that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP) that may be present within the APE and determine if there is a potential for project-related activities to cause direct or indirect effects to historic properties located therein. Historic properties include archaeological sites, structures, buildings, objects, and districts (36 CFR Sections 800.16(l)(1) and (2)).

The geology of the area consists of Holocene well-sorted, fine-to-medium grained sand and silt in active and stabilized dunes. The environmental information indicates that the project is located in an arid shrub step environment far from environmental resources that would support any significant pre-contact settlement or use. It is understood that proximity to a permanent water source or to infrastructure systems such as a travel corridor in an arid environment is an important limiting factor that has the potential to influence land use patterns.

Documentation researched for the historical period revealed no evidence of development prior to U.S. Government acquisition for the Manhattan Project (Section 4.2.4, Manhattan Project/Cold War Era). The entirety of the APE was previously surveyed for cultural resources in the early 1990s. No cultural resources have been previously identified within the APE, and the previously recorded resources nearby consist of a single historic isolate.

This information was used to prepare the field methods component of this CRR and assess whether project activities could directly or indirectly affect historic properties. Potential direct effects from this project could include disturbance to historic properties, if present, due to the ground disturbance associated with project tasks. Indirect effects could include temporary foot traffic.

6.1.1 Research Goals and Questions

6.1.1.1 Hypothesis

The likelihood of encountering unidentified historic properties or unevaluated cultural resources during fieldwork was low. The entirety of the APE had been surveyed previously and it is located within or near the footprint of previous disturbance from the construction of the LIGO Hanford facility.

6.1.1.2 Research Questions

Specific research questions were developed to test the hypothesis posed in Section 6.1.1.1. These research questions provided information on how cultural resources within the project APE add to the existing body of knowledge regarding land use in this area.

The following questions were used to identify the presence or absence of previously unrecorded cultural material, as well as to assess NRHP eligibility of any cultural resources.

• Based on background research and field investigations, are cultural resources located within the APE?

• If present, are cultural resources within the APE eligible for listing in the NRHP?

• Would the undertaking cause an adverse effect (including direct effects such as ground disturbance or indirect audio/visual effects such as traffic noise) to historic properties, including archaeological sites, structures, buildings, objects, and districts if any are present within the APE?

FES0414201511TPA 6-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

6.1.1.3 Data and Methods

Background research was combined with field observations to answer the research questions and test the hypothesis posed in Section 6.1.1.1. Field methodology included a pedestrian survey of accessible portions of the APE that were not located within graveled or paved areas. Field investigations were conducted following the guidelines of the Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan (HCRMP) (DOE-RL 2003).

6.1.1.4 How this Study Adds to the Knowledge Base of Other Archaeological Inventories in the Vicinity of the Project Area

The goal of this CRR was to identify and record previously unrecorded cultural resources present within the APE. While the age threshold for consideration as a historic property is 50 years, the DAHP recommends an age cutoff for survey of 40 years to account for resources that attain 50 years during the project period (DAHP 2020:38). If the newly identified cultural resources cannot be avoided, they will be evaluated against the NRHP eligibility criteria in 36 CFR Section 60.4.

6.2 Field and Laboratory Methodology

6.2.1 Proposed Archaeological Survey Methods

The field methods were designed from the environmental and cultural resources information presented previously. Archaeological survey transects were approximately 15 m (50 ft) apart and completed for areas of the APE that were not located within graveled or paved areas. The pedestrian survey was guided by the use of a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device with submeter accuracy. Photographs were taken at various locations throughout the APE to include in the survey findings of this CRR. The survey methodology was developed in a manner that would aid in the identification of any previously undocumented cultural resources within the APE. The age threshold for consideration for listing on the NRHP is 50 years; however, the survey was conducted using a 40-year-age threshold for consideration per the policy recommended by the DAHP (2020:38).

Subsurface testing was not used in any portion of the APE. The APE is located in a portion of the Hanford Site where there is a low density of previously recorded archaeological resources, none of which are located within the project APE. There is no record or evidence to suggest the area was developed for historic agricultural or residential use, and the entirety of the APE was surveyed for historic properties in the past. For these reasons, it was determined that subsurface testing was not warranted.

6.2.2 Standing Structure Inventory Method

Structures near the APE are associated with the LIGO Hanford facility. Site construction for the LIGO Hanford facility began in the mid-1990s and the inauguration ceremony took place in 1999. None of the buildings are near the 40-year threshold for consideration as NRHP-eligible and no other structures are present within the project APE.

6.2.3 Geoarchaeological Techniques for Assessing the Depositional Environment

The geomorphological setting was reviewed based on information gathered through the Washington DNR. Field observations of the depositional environment were then used to verify this information. Two previous geologic study reports on the course of the Columbia River were relied on for interpretations of the depositional environment. The 2004 Columbia River Sediments and Bedforms: Hanford Reach Area, Washington – Part 1 (Fecht et al. 2004) and the 2006 Columbia River Sediments and Bedforms: Hanford Reach Area, Washington – Part 2 (Fecht and Marceau 2006) discuss the geology of the mid-Columbia and reconstruct the post-glacial river history. No archaeometry methods were employed for this study.

6-2 FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

6.2.4 Methods for Identifying Traditional Cultural Properties

Existing documentation and previous studies have been reviewed for information pertaining to previously documented Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). Additionally, NSF sought input from consulting parties regarding TCPs via the APE notification that was transmitted for this project. Based on ongoing technical consultation with the Tribes, no documented TCP is currently located in the vicinity of the APE.

The Yakama Nation is working on an ongoing site-wide TCP study at Hanford. As outlined in 36 CFR Section 800.13, Post Review Discoveries, if any historic properties are discovered in the future or unanticipated effects on historic properties are identified, then the agency must make a reasonable effort to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. If historic properties within the APE are identified in the future, further consultation between the agency and consulting parties would occur.

6.2.5 Remote Sensing Strategies

Remote sensing techniques employed for this project included inspection of aerial and satellite imagery and historic aerial imagery. The information gathered through these techniques helped identify features on the landscape that might have been obscured or difficult to identify on the ground. Additionally, this information helped inform the investigator of land use patterns, both historic and recent, that might affect how the archaeological record could be better understood.

6.2.6 Proposed Laboratory Methods

As per the Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan (HCRMP) (DOE-RL 2003), with agreement from the consulting parties, a no collection policy has been implemented on the Hanford Site for surface archaeological inventories, with the exception of temporally diagnostic or endangered artifacts. Evaluation and recordation of artifacts were completed in the field. If diagnostic or endangered artifacts had been collected, they would have been treated in accordance with Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of HCRMP (DOE-RL 2003). Collected artifacts would have been curated in accordance with Appendix G, “Curation Plan for Hanford’s Archaeological Collections,” of the HCRMP.

6.2.7 Person(s) Conducting the Analyses

All analyses were conducted in the field by Jacobs archaeologist David Sheldon.

6.2.8 Procedures to be followed in Data Collecting

Non-diagnostic, non-endangered artifacts were photographed, measured, and described in the field. All data were collected in a manner to support the completion of the Washington DAHP’s Archaeological Site and/or Inventory Forms and the National Park Service’s National Register Evaluation Forms.

FES0414201511TPA 6-3 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

7. Survey Results

7.1 Personnel Conducting the Survey

The survey was conducted by David Sheldon, M.S. (Jacobs) in March 2020. Mr. Sheldon meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology.

7.2 Methodology

The majority of the APE was surveyed in 15-m (50-ft) transects. Areas within the APE that were graveled or paved were not surveyed but were visually inspected by Mr. Sheldon. A total of 8.7 ha (21.6 ac) of the 10.4-ha (25.5-ac) APE were surveyed (Appendix A, Figure 6). As discussed in Section 6.2.1, subsurface testing was not conducted within the APE. No subsurface trenching was conducted, so there was no need for mapping and drawing profiles or screening materials.

7.3 Justification against Subsurface Testing Methodology

Subsurface testing was not used in any portion of the APE. The APE is located in a portion of the Hanford Site where there is a low density of previously recorded archaeological resources, none of which are located within the project APE. There is no record or evidence to suggest the area was developed for any historic agricultural or residential use, and the entirety of the APE was surveyed for historic properties in the past. For these reasons, it was determined that subsurface testing was not warranted.

To support fieldwork for this project, existing field survey data from previous reports provided from the CHRP database were digitized. Previous survey information was overlaid on the APE map. This information was used to support the literature review and field activities.

7.4 Field Observations

The APE is located in the 600 Area within, and adjacent to the east of, the footprint for the existing LIGO Hanford facility. The APE includes areas for construction laydown, the facility itself, parking areas, and utility corridors (Appendix A, Figure 3). A pedestrian survey of the APE was completed on March 17, 2020, by Jacobs archaeologist David Sheldon (Appendix B, Photographs 1 through 5).

Vegetation consisted of isolated pockets of mature big sage (Artemisia tridentata), grey rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and tall tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). Windblown, detached Russian thistle (Salsola kali) was observed across the site and had accumulated in several areas. Low-lying vegetation obscured the ground surface in some areas, but blowouts of course sand with deflated gravels afforded excellent visibility in other areas. Generally across the site, ground visibility averaged 60 to 70 percent.

Where observed, soils generally consisted of fine-to-medium-grained unconsolidated sands. The soils observed matched the description of sediments identified in Section 4.1. In blowout areas, medium-to- coarse-grained, unconsolidated sands with small rounded gravels were often present on deflated surfaces.

Disturbance was observed in areas in the vicinity of the existing parking lot. The disturbance included a cut by heavy equipment around the perimeter of the existing parking lot. Sporadic evidence of vehicle disturbance was visible throughout the southeastern portion of the APE. The APE north of the access road and west of Route 10 will connect an existing electrical vault to the proposed LExC facility.

To the west of the existing parking lot, much of the APE is paved. This area was walked to confirm the disturbance but not formally surveyed. South and east of the existing drain field, electrical utility vaults were observed, indicating past disturbance. A small portion of the APE east of the existing drain field was

FES0414201511TPA 7-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004 not surveyed due to a steep slope and dense piles of Russian thistle that had accumulated in a stand of sagebrush, completely obscuring the surface visibility.

A small pile of six fragments of cement irrigation pipe was documented in a 5-by-5-ft area on the south end of the project APE in Township 11 North Range 27 East Section 11. The irrigation pipe fragments were recorded as a historic archaeological site identified with the Smithsonian trinomial 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01). The six fragments were approximately 5.5 inches in internal diameter and 18 to 30 inches in length; 1-to-2-inch-diameter perforations were observed on two of the fragments for field drainage. These pieces appear to crossmend as if from a single length of pipe; however, this cannot be stated with certainty. It appears these pipe fragments were patched with cement. Lichen was present on some of the pipe fragments. The pipe fragments were haphazardly piled and did not appear to be part of an existing irrigation feature, indicating they were of secondary disposition. No other artifacts or features were identified in the vicinity of the irrigation pipe fragments. A two-track road is visible on aerial imagery dating from 1964 approximately 50 m (146 ft) south of the APE, and approximately 75 m (246 ft) south of site 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01). The road did not exist on the 1943 aerial imagery. It is likely that these irrigation remnants were discarded as a part of an opportunistic roadside dump during Hanford operations.

No other cultural resources were found as a part of this field investigation.

7-2 FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

8. Analysis

A single historic era archaeological site—a small pile of six fragments of cement irrigation pipe—was documented within the boundaries of the APE as site 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01).

The objective of the analysis was to determine what era the irrigation pipe was associated with and whether it was part of an intact irrigation network in the area. Background research was completed on irrigation technology during the pre-Hanford era, as well as a review of previously recorded irrigation systems to which the site was potentially associated.

Background research indicates irrigation played a critical role in the development of pre-Hanford-era agriculture. According to Sharpe (1999:18), irrigation pipe was used as mainlines to transport water from canals or wells to weirboxes near farmsteads. Initial mainlines were constructed of wooden staves wrapped in steel bands, but they were replaced by cement pipe in 1915. Cement pipe was preferable to wood pipe as it reduced water loss. Later irrigation pipes consisted of steel before Hanford was taken over for the war effort (Atomicheritage.org 2019). Pipes contained small holes with plugs that could be removed in sections to provide water along rill ditches in different sections of a field.

A request for GIS data from the CHRP database associated with known irrigation features on the Hanford Site was granted on April 6, 2020. The GIS data show that the Hanford Canal and its laterals are located over 7 miles northeast of site 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01). A 1943 map of the Hanford Site provided by Sharpe (1999:3) shows that the Richland Irrigation District Canal was about equidistant, approximately 10 miles southeast of the site.

When reviewing the Washington State Standards for Cultural Resources Reporting (2020:23) to determine the most appropriate form on which to record these pipe fragments, the guidelines note that Historic Agriculture types should be documented on an archaeological site form if older than 50 years and in ruin. An archaeological site form was prepared through the WISAARD portal and is attached as Appendix C.

8.1 Property Eligibility Recommendations

A single historic archaeological site was documented within the boundaries of the APE. Historic archaeological site 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01) was identified during the pedestrian survey. Background research indicates the site is not associated with any known agricultural activity in the area and has likely been redeposited in a secondary context and would lack integrity for inclusion in the NRHP. The site does not retain the integrity needed to be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. Site 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01) is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP. An NRHP evaluation is provided in Appendix D.

8.2 Other Cultural Resources within the APE

No other resources were observed during the pedestrian survey.

FES0414201511TPA 8-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

9. Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1 Recommendations for Future Archaeological Work, Property Management, and Avoidance or Mitigation Options

Historic archaeological site 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01) was identified during the pedestrian survey within the APE. Background research indicates the site is not associated with any known agricultural activity in the area and was likely redeposited in a secondary context and, therefore, lacks integrity for inclusion in the NRHP. Pending concurrence from DAHP on the eligibility recommendation for site 45BN2067 (temporary site number LIGO20-S-01), there will be no historic properties to be directly or indirectly affected. As such, Jacobs recommends a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected.”

No additional cultural resources investigations are recommended. Cultural resources monitoring is not recommended for this project. Although no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated, all workers must be directed to watch for cultural materials such as bones, stone tools, mussel shell, cans, and bottles during ground-disturbing activities. If any cultural materials are encountered, work in the vicinity of the discovery must stop until a Cultural Resources Specialist has been notified, the significance of the find has been assessed, appropriate consulting parties have been notified, and if necessary, arrangements made for mitigation of the find.

FES0414201511TPA 9-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

10. Bibliography

Atomic Heritage Foundation. 2019. The Importance of Irrigation: Irrigation Evolution. Electronic document. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.atomicheritage.org/tour-stop/importance-irrigation,.

Bard, J., and R. McClintock. 1996. A Historical Context Statement for the Ethnographic/Contact Period (Lewis and Clark 1805-Hanford Engineer Works 1943) at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington. CH2M HILL, Richland, Washington.

Benson, J. R., J. V. Jermann, and D. E. Lewarch. 1989. Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Yakima Firing Center Expansion Area East-Central Washington, Contract CACA67 86-D 0051, Sacramento, California.

Bjornstad, B. N. 2006. On the Trail of the Ice Age Floods: A Geological Field Guide to the Mid-Columbia Basin. Keokee Co. Publishing Inc., Sandpoint, Idaho.

Blinnikov, M., A. Busacca, and C. Whitlock. 2002. “Reconstruction of the Late Pleistocene Grassland of the Columbia Basin, Washington, USA, Based on Phytolith Records in Loess.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 177:77-101.

Boening, Rose M. 1919. History of Irrigation in the State of Washington: The State Epoch of Canal Building. In The Washington Historical Quarterly 10(1) pp. 21-45.

Brunelle, A., C. Whitlock, P. Bartlein, and K. Kipfmuller. 2005. “Holocene fire and vegetation along environmental gradients in the Northern Rocky Mountains.” Quaternary Science Reviews. 24: 2281– 2300.

Chatters, J., and K. Hoover. 1992. “Response of the Columbia River Fluvial System to Holocene Climate Change.” Quaternary Research. 37:42-59.

DOE-RL. 2002. Standardized Stratigraphic Nomenclature for Post-Ringold Formation Sediments Within the Central Pasco Basin. DOE/RL-2002-39, Rev. 0. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

DOE-RL. 2003. Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan (HCRMP). DOE/RL-98-10, Rev. 0. U. S. Department of Energy, Richland, Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Fagan, Brian M. 2000. Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames & Hudson, New York.

Fecht, K. R., and T. E. Marceau. 2006. Columbia River Sediments and Bedforms: Hanford Reach Area, Washington, Part 2. Washington Closure Hanford. Report on file at the DOE-RL Cultural and Historic Resources Program Library housed at Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.

Fecht, K. R., T. E. Marceau, B. N. Bjornstad, D. G. Horton, G. V. Last, R.E. Peterson, S. P. Reidel, and M. M. Valenta. 2004. Late Pleistocene and Holocene-Age Columbia River Sediments and Bedforms, Hanford Reach Area, Washington, Part I. BHI-01648. Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Report on file at the DOE-RL Cultural and Historic Resources Program Library housed at Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.

Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. OSU Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

FES0414201511TPA 10-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

Galm, J. R., G. D. Hartmann, R. A. Masten, and G. O. Stephenson. 1981. A Cultural Resources Overview of the Bonneville Power Administration’s Mid-Columbia Project, Central Washington. Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington.

Gavin, D. G., and F. S. Hu. 2013. “Pollen Records, Postglacial.” Northwestern North America Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. pp. 2736–2744.

Gaylord, D. R., L. D. Stetler, G. D. Smith, and R. W. Mars. 1991. Summary of 1990 Eolian Characterization Studies, Hanford Site, Washington. PNL-8862/UC-702. Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Report on file at the DOE-RL Cultural and Historic Resources Program Library housed at Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.

Gibson, Elizabeth. 2004. Benton County – Thumbnail History - Watering a Dry Land. HistoryLink.org essay 5671. Accessed March 25, 2020. https://www.historylink.org/File/5671.

Green, G. S. 1975. Prehistoric Utilization in the Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

Huckleberry, G., and C. Fadem. 2007. “Environmental Change Recorded in Sediments from the Marmes Rockshelter Archaeological Site, Southeastern Washington State, USA.” Quaternary Research 67(1):21– 32.

Hunn, Eugene, E. Thomas Morning Owl, Phillip E. Cash, and Jennifer Karson Engum. 2015. Caw Pawa Laakni They Are Not Forgotten. Sahaptian Place Names Atlas of the Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla. Tamastslikt Cultural Institute, Pendleton, Oregon. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

Kiel, Lindsay, Chantry Currie, Raena DeMaris, Keith Mendez. 2019. Cultural Resources Review for Facility Modification and Infrastructure Upgrades at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Observatory (LIGO) Site, Benton County, Washington (HCRC#2019-600-010). Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.

Lyman, R. L., and S. D. Livingston. 1983. “Late Quaternary Mammalian Zoogeography of Eastern Washington.” Quaternary Research 20:360-373.

Mackie, R. S. 1997. Trading Beyond the Mountains: The British Fur Trade on the Pacific 1793‐1843. UBC Press, Vancouver, B.C.

Marceau, Thomas E., D. W. Harvey, D. C. Stapp, S. D. Cannon, C. A. Conway, D. H. DeFord, B. J. Freer, M. S. Gerber, J. K. Keeting, C. F. Noonan, and G. Weisskopf. 2003. Hanford Site Historic District History of the Plutonium Production Facilities 1943-1990, DOE/RL-97-1047. U. S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

McFarland, D .P., J. L. Mendez, S. S. Hughes, T. E. Marceau, E. P. Kennedy, B. N. Bjornstad, G. V. Last, and H. T. Schaeff. 2012. Investigation, National Register Evaluation, and Assessment of Adverse Effect for Archaeological Sites 45BN1514 and 45BN1506, in the 600 Area of the Hanford Site, Benton County, Washington. DOE/RL-2012-42. Report on file at the DOE-RL Cultural and Historic Resources Program Library housed at Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.

Mendenhall, N. 2006. Orchards of Eden: White Bluffs on the Columbia, 1907–1943. Far Eastern Press, Seattle, Washington.

Menounos, B., J. Koch, G. Osborn, J. Clague, and D. Mazzicchi. 2003. “Early Holocene Glacier Advance in, Southern Coast Mountains, British Columbia, Canada.” Quaternary Science Reviews. 23: 1543-1550.

Minckley T., C. Whitlock, and P. Bartlein. 2007. “Vegetation, fire, and climate history of the northwestern Great Basin during the last 14,000 years.” Quaternary Science Reviews. 26: 2167–2184.

10-2 FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

Morgan, V., R. Bruce, J. Creighton, and S. Emerson. 2001. A Cultural Resources Overview for the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Generation Project (FERC Project No. 2114), Grant, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, and Yakima Counties, Washington, Ephrata, Washington.

Nelson, C. M. 1969. The Sunset Creek Site (45-KT-28) and its place in plateau prehistory. Report of Investigations No. 47. Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, Pullman, Washington.

O’Neil, T. K., and M. E. Crist. 1993. Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) Project A Cultural Resources Inventory Report. Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Osborn, G., and B. H. Luckman. 1988. “Holocene Glacier Fluctuations in the Canadian Cordillera (Alberta and British Columbia).” Quaternary Science Reviews. 7:115–128.

Parker, M. B. 1986. Tales of Richland, White Bluffs, and Hanford 1805–1943 Before the Atomic Reserve. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington.

Rice, D. G. 1980. Overview of Cultural Resources on the Hanford Reservation in South Central Washington State. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Ross, A. 1849. Adventures of the First Settlers on the Oregon or Columbia River. Smith, Elder and Co., London, England.

Rucker, D. F., and M. D. Sweeney. 2004. Plume Delineation in the BC cribs and Trenches Area PNNL- 14498. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Report on File at the DOE-RL Cultural and Historic Resources Program Library housed at Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.

Sackschewsky, M. R., D. S. Landeen, G. I. Baird, W. H. Rickard, and J. L. Downs. 1992. Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site. WHC-EP-0554,Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D196110665.

Schuster, Helen H. 1998. “Yakima and Neighboring Groups.” In Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Vol. 12. pp. 327-351.

Sharpe, J. 1999. Pre-Hanford Agricultural History: 1900-1943. Rev. 0. BHI 01326, Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Richland, Washington.

Sharpe, J. J., and T. E. Marceau. 2001. Archaeological Excavation Report for Extraction Well C3662 in Support of the 100-KR-4 Pump and Treat Project. U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations, Richland, Washington.

Stapp, D. C., D. H. Harvey, E. Prendergast-Kennedy, and D. W. Woody. 2005. The Hanford and White Bluffs Agricultural Landscape: Evaluation for Listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Report on file at the DOE‐RL Cultural and Historic Resources Program Library housed at Mission Support Alliance, Richland, Washington.

Stern, T. 1998. Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla. Pages 395-419 in: D.E. Walker, Jr. (ed.). In Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau. Vol. 12. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. 791 p.

Swanson, E. H. 1962. The Emergence of Plateau Culture. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State College Museum No. 8, Pocatello, Idaho.

Thoms, A. V., S. J. Bobalick, K. Bohm, T. R. Metzger, D. Olson, and S. R. Samuels. 1983. Archaeological Investigations in Upper McNary Reservoir: 1981–1982. Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.

FES0414201511TPA 10-3 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

Waitt, R. B. Jr. 1994. Scores of Gigantic, Successively Smaller Lake Missoula Floods Through Channeled Scabland and Columbia Valley. In Geologic Field Trips in the Pacific Northwest, D. A. Swanson and R. A. Haugerud (eds). Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 1K-1–1K-88.

Walker, D. Jr. (ed.). 1998. Handbook of North American Indians: Plateau. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Vol. 12.

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). 2020. Washington State Standards for Cultural Resources Reporting. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. https://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/CR%20Update%20Dec%202019%20.pdf

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2020. Washington Interactive Geologic Map, Washington State Geologic Information Portal, Geology and Earth Resources Division, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/geology/

Waters, M. R. 1992. Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Whitlock, C., A. M. Sarna-Wojcicki, P. J. Bartlein, and R. J. Nickmann. 2000. “Environmental History and Tephrostratigraphy at Carp Lake, Southwestern Columbia Basin, Washington, USA.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 155(1–2):7–29.

10.1 Names and Addresses of Local Informants

Not applicable.

10-4 FES0414201511TPA Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

11. Consultation

In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, NSF has initiated Section 106 consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and local Native American tribes and has consulted with them to create an appropriate project APE.

11.1 Native American Tribes

The Nez Perce Tribe, The Colville Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Wanapum, and the Yakama Nation participated in the development of this review. The area tribes were offered an opportunity to observe or participate in the pedestrian survey. Initial survey notifications were transmitted to the tribes for a survey on March 18, 2020; however, this date caused scheduling conflicts with the monthly DOE-RL tribal meeting and the survey was rescheduled for March 17, 2020. No tribal representatives observed or participated in the survey.

11.2 State Historic Preservation Officer

NSF initiated Section 106 consultation with the Washington SHPO (DAHP) via letter on [February 7, 2020]. A summary of correspondence with Section 106 consulting parties and SHPO is provided in Table 11-1. Section 106 consultation correspondence is provided in Appendix E.

Table 11-1. Correspondence with Consulting Parties Date Correspondence

February 7, 2020 APE transmitted to area Tribes and DAHP SHPO.

February 10, 2020 DAHP concurs with APE Notification.

February 19, 2020 Project Information presented to area Tribes and DAHP at February Monthly Cultural Resources Meeting.

March 6, 2020 Notification of pending field survey for March 18, 2020 transmitted to area Tribes.

March 13, 2020 Notification of pending field survey rescheduled for March 17, 2020 transmitted to area Tribes.

11.2.1 Area of Potential Effects

Refer to Appendix E, Section 106 Consultation Documentation.

11.2.2 Concurrence with APE received from the DAHP

Refer to Appendix E, Section 106 Consultation Documentation.

11.3 Survey Notification Transmittal Email

Refer to Appendix E, Section 106 Consultation Documentation.

FES0414201511TPA 11-1 Cultural Survey Report HCRC#2020-600-004

12. Additional Information

12.1 Location of Original Field Data Data collected for this project are incorporated into Section 7, "Survey Results," of this report. Field notes and photographs are kept on file at the Jacobs Portland, Oregon Office. The report will be maintained in the DOE-RL Cultural and Historic Resources Program Library in Richland, Washington.

12.2 Location of Artifacts No artifacts were observed or collected.

12.3 Osteological Report

No osteological remains were found or analyzed.

FES0414201511TPA 12-1

Appendix A Figures

HCRC#2020-600-004

Figure 4. Overview of Project Area of Potential Effects on Historic 1868 General Land Office Map

1 • �,; ij / ... I I ""'- ...... - ..,. -- ; --- .' -• ...,;: .. .. .rd .. _ .. .(.fl' ,... . • ... -I)" .1. ,. - ...... �j 7 - ? . . . 'hll,t',.._ 1:�t.! ,,, t -� , - � - •-:;

' '. • ' .t---i- . ? /(I ' II I .I .., •r • l .r

-- .... .J, .•fl' .J�I •Jr.. , •• :t} -� Tl t /; ·,11 / I -,,"I ,•

.- , ; II' ii_.., .. II r)' '1- I• , j �:..t...... (I·. I', .�•h _,,, ;,. �.a,:.•.·· .,-• •.I'. �t I ...... ' ,. /.9(J"/ '½"(I,,.;... , ..., •J. I r. • I ; -

�t - �) I �r-r? ,.,� ,, 1

t�-. � I ..:-...

•I� I 1 ✓ •,r? /... V, .;.'/ ,I I •I

-I J • .,_ t•iJf I . 1 I - , IF ') ' 1,.f

Legend Extent of Main Map D Area of Potential Effect (APE) □ a Fr nklin �• Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ·------ Benton ity

0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Proposed Laser Interferometer Kilometers N Gravitational-Wave Observatory STEM 0 0.25 0.5 1 Exploration Center at Hanford ------======::::JMiles i Benton County, Washington

Appendix B Photographs

Cultural Survey Report (HCRC#2020-600-004) Appendix B Photographs

Photograph 1. Overview of Area of Potential Effects (APE). Existing Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) facility in background on right. Aspect: northwest.

Photograph 2. Overview of APE from access road. Note road prism fill in foreground. Aspect: southwest.

B-1 Appendix B Photographs Cultural Survey Report (HCRC#2020-600-004)

Photograph 3. Overview of APE for electrical utilities north of access road. Aspect: west.

Photograph 4. Overview of APE for drain field. Existing drain field present in background below building with LIGO logo. Aspect: northwest.

B-2 Cultural Survey Report (HCRC#2020-600-004) Appendix B Photographs

Photograph 5. Overview of portion of APE not surveyed due to Russian thistle and slope. Aspect: northeast.

B-3

Appendix C Site Inventory Form

STATE OF WASHINGTON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM

Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 County: Benton Date: 4/6/2020 Human Remains? DAHP Case No.: Compiled By: David Sheldon CH2M Hill

Archaeological Sites are exempt from public disclosure per RCW 42.56.300 SITE DESIGNATION Site Name: LIGO20-S-01 Field/Temporary ID: LIGO20-S-01 Site Type: Historic Agriculture Historic Debris Scatter/Concentration As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this request for determination of eligibility meet the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the site meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: Criteria Statement of Significance Historic Context Statement:

Irrigation played a critical role in the Euro-American settlement of the arid shrub-step environments of Eastern Washington from the beginning of the 20th century through the federal government takeover of the Hanford Reserve under the War Powers Act (Marceau et al. 2003). Attempts at dryland agriculture were largely unsuccessful due to low annual rainfall and blowing sands which were hard on young crops in the arid shrub-steppe environments (Scrivner 1982). In the 1890s and 1900s, land speculators bought cheap unirrigated land, started towns (including Hanford), and developed large-scale irrigation systems that would supply water to thousands of acres in the White Bluffs, Hanford, Fruitvale, Vernita, and Richland areas (Mendenhall 2006; Parker 1986; Sharpe 1999; Stapp et al. 2005).

Three types of irrigation systems were employed during the Pre-Hanford era: (1) wells, (2) water withdrawal directly from the Columbia River, and (3) canal systems (Sharpe 1999:9). Wells and pumping directly from the Columbia River provided reliable water but had their drawbacks. Wells were pumped by gasoline engine or later by electricity and were generally cost prohibitive. Pump operations along the Columbia River were typically no farther than 1.5 miles from the river. The vast majority of agriculture in the area was derived from privately constructed irrigation canals. Irrigation canals were the key to unlocking the agricultural potential of the region; however, they required a large amount of capital investment to create. Privately funded irrigation projects began springing up in the early 1900s (Sharpe 1999).

These irrigation projects were advertised in elaborate brochures throughout the country. Touted within these advertisements was the region͛s abundant water supply, early springs that allowed produce to reach the market before produce from neighboring regions, and a longer growing season during which multiple crops could be grown. Most importantly, irrigated farming would require less land and less work to make a profit (Mendenhall 2006; Parker 1986).

One of the first successful irrigation projects in the area was the development of the Hanford Ditch by the Hanford Irrigation Company. One of the laterals of the ditch supplied water to the newly established town of Hanford in 1906. Laterals and sub-laterals from these larger irrigation canals would draw water to individual farmsteads. Early irrigation lines consisted of wood staves wrapped in steel bands, while later irrigation pipes of the pre-Hanford era were terracotta, cement (post-1915), and eventually steel (Sharpe 1999; Atomic Heritage Foundation 2019). Small perforations in the pipes would be used to direct water along hand-dug furrows. Given the arid environment of the shrub steppe, archaeological evidence of early irrigation agriculture is still present across portions of the Hanford Site. Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 2 of 14

The farmers who came to the region to start irrigated farms faced a number of challenges, including engineering difficulties when it came to the canals and irrigation systems; the high cost of power needed to irrigate the land; the lack of railroads for shipping produce; and climate extremes, which could damage crops. Additionally, an economic downturn after World War I that continued through the 1930s depressed crop prices, putting some farmers in debt or forcing them to abandon their farms (Mendenhall 2006; Sharpe 1999). The hard financial times also affected the privately funded irrigation companies. Five privately funded irrigation companies constructed canals and delivered water to farming communities during the Pre-Hanford era. While water was readily available in the area, with fewer farms providing income, the irrigation companies faced difficult financial futures. By the time the federal government took over the Hanford Reserve in 1943, only two of the five irrigation companies were still operating (Sharpe 1999:31). Despite these problems many farmers remained in the area. In 1943, the federal government took over the area under the War Powers Act and residents were forced to abandon their property (Marceau et al. 2003).

Evaluation against the National Register of Historic Places Criteria:

Site LIGO20-S-01 was evaluated against the four criteria for listing on the NRHP: Criteria A through D.

Criterion A. Important aspects of integrity to convey the significance of a Pre-Hanford Era irrigation-related resource would include its ability to convey significance through location, design, setting, association, and feeling. Site LIGO20-S-01 exists as a secondary deposit, likely dumped from a nearby roadway. LIGO20-S-01 lacks integrity of location, design, setting, association and feeling. Due to the site͛s removal from its original context, it no longer possesses historical integrity, nor is it capable of yielding important information relevant to the significance of any of the Pre-Hanford Era irrigation-related Historic Properties. As such, site LIGO20-S-01 is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A.

Criterion B. Site LIGO20-S-01 was evaluated against criterion B. Given the secondary context of site LIGO20-S-01 and the limited information that can be gathered from the industrially constructed and standardized materials, the site cannot be associated with any specific person, community leader, or prominent family, and only generally with the Pre-Hanford Era agricultural community. As such, site LIGO20-S-01 lacks integrity of association and is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion B.

Criterion C. Irrigation systems during the Pre-Hanford Era were utilitarian in nature. During the Pre-Hanford Era, the components used to construct irrigation systems were mass produced and standardized. The irrigation pipe fragments that comprise site LIGO20-S-01 were likely part of an irrigation lateral from a main canal. Site LIGO20-S-01 was compared to the NRHP- eligible Hanford Ditch (45BN309), a similar site type located approximately 7 miles northeast of the site. Irrigation main laterals from the Hanford Ditch are considered contributing elements to the NRHP-eligible site. However, the cement pipe fragments present at site LIGO20-S-01 were not found in their primary context, and lack integrity of location, design, and setting necessary to convey their significance under criterion C. As such, site LIGO20-S-01 is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion C.

Criterion D. Irrigation systems during the Pre-Hanford Era were utilitarian in nature. Important information can be gathered from these resource types based on their location, design, materials, and workmanship. During the Pre-Hanford Era, the components used to construct utilitarian irrigation systems components were often mass produced and standardized. The types of irrigation resources and descriptions of their use are well documented (Sharpe 1999). Documentation of the materials and dimensions of the irrigation pipe fragments at Site LIGO20-S-01 have exhausted the data potential of the site. As such, site LIGO20-S-01 is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D.

NRHP Significance:

Based on the information presented above, site LIGO20-S-01 does not meet the criteria for a significant resource under any criteria as the site lacks integrity and consists of standardized, mass produced materials. As such, Site LIGO20-S-01 is Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 3 of 14

recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

Integrity The site appears to be a roadside dump of agricultural debris located in a secondary context and lacks the necessary aspects of integrity for inclusion in the NRHP. SHPO Determination Eligibility Potentially Eligible Determined On 4/28/2020 Determined By SHPO Comments

SITE LOCATION USGS Quad Map Name(s): HORN RAPIDS DAM T: 10 R: 27 E/W: E Section: 11 T: 10 R: 27 E/W: E Section: 10 T: 10 R: 27 E/W: E Section: 14 UTM: Zone: 11 Easting: 315516 Northing: 5147115 Latitude: Longitude: Elevation (ft/m): 140.55 Drainage, Major: Drainage, Minor: River Mile Aspect Flat Slope None Location Description (General to Specific): Located in the Pasco Basin, the site is situated in an flat area of low, semi-vegetated dunes. Directions (For Relocation Purposes): From Richland, take WA-240 8.3 miles north. Take a right on Route 10 and travel 5.2 miles. Take a left at the entrance for the LIGO facility and travel 0.3 mile and park in the parking lot on the left. The site is located approximately 435 feet southeast of the eastern edge of the parking lot. SITE DESCRIPTION Narrative Description (Overall Site Observations): The site consists of 6 pieces of lichen covered cement irrigation pipe piled in the vicinity of a Hanford-era two-track road. Site Dimensions (Overall Site Dimensions): Length: 5 ft Direction: E/W Width: 5 ft Direction: N/S Method of Horizontal Measurement: GPS Device with <1 meter accuracy Depth: 0 Method of Vertical Measurement: Visual inspection

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 4 of 14

Vegetation (On Site): Local: Mature big sage (Artemisia Regional: Shrub-steppe tridentata), grey rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and Jim Hill mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). Windblown, detached Russian thistle (Salsola kali) were observed across in the vicinity of the site and accumulated in several areas.

Landforms (On Site): Local: semi-vegetated low dunes. Regional: Pasco Basin Fairly flat. Water Resources (Type): Yakima River Distance: 5.0 miles at 180 Permanence: Permanent degrees. CULTURAL MATERIALS AND FEATURES Narrative Description (Specific Inventory Details): Six fragments of cement irrigation pipe piled on ground surface. Pipe inner diameter approximately 5.5-inches. Segment lengths between 18 and 30 inches. Pieces possibly crossmend. Lichen covers all the fragments. Pipes appear to have originated elsewhere and dumped at current location. Method of Collection: Not Collected. Location of Artifacts (Temporary/Permanent): At recorded site location. SITE AGE Component Type Historic Dates post-1915 (earliest use of cement irrigation pipe at Hanford [Sharpe 1999]) and pre-1943 (end of commercial agriculture on Hanford Reservation.) Dating Method Historical research Phase Basis for Phase Designation SITE RECORDERS Observed By Address David Sheldon 9191 South Jamaica St, Englewood, CO 80112 Date Recorded: 3/17/2020 Recorded by (Professional Archaeologist): David Sheldon Organization: CH2M Hill Phone Number: 360-219-6953 Address: 9191 South Jamaica St, Email: [email protected] Englewood, CO 80112

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 5 of 14 SITE HISTORY Previous Archaeological Work: No previous documentation of this site. The area was surveyed in 1990; however the site was not recorded. LAND OWNERSHIP Owner Address Parcel RESEARCH REFERENCES Items/Documents Used in Research: Sharpe, J. 1999. Pre-Hanford Agricultural History: 1900-1943. Rev. 0. BHI 01326, Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Richland, Washington.

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 6 of 14 USGS MAP

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 7 of 14 SKETCH MAPS

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 8 of 14 Photographs, Tables and Additional Information

Photo ID 467819 Title Figure_A_site_point_USGStopo.jpg Year Taken Is Circa? Notes Type image/jpeg Photo View Source 3/17/2020 Inventory - CH2M Hill Copyright

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 9 of 14

Photo ID 470963 Title DSCN2932.JPG Year Taken 2020 Is Circa? Notes Overview of lichen covered cement irrigation pipe segments at historic site LIGO20-S-01. Type image/jpeg Photo View southeast Source 3/17/2020 Inventory - CH2M Hill Copyright

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 10 of 14

Photo ID 470962 Title DSCN2931.JPG Year Taken 2020 Is Circa? Notes Overview of cement irrigation pipe segment at historic site LIGO20-S-01. Type image/jpeg Photo View southeast Source 3/17/2020 Inventory - CH2M Hill Copyright

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 11 of 14

Photo ID 470961 Title DSCN2930.JPG Year Taken 2020 Is Circa? Notes Overview of historic site LIGO20-S-01 Type image/jpeg Photo View southeast Source 3/17/2020 Inventory - CH2M Hill Copyright

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 12 of 14

Photo ID 470960 Title DSCN2929.JPG Year Taken 2020 Is Circa? Notes Historic Site LIGO20-S-01. Concrete pipe fragment with 6-inch internal diameter. Type image/jpeg Photo View north Source 3/17/2020 Inventory - CH2M Hill Copyright

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 13 of 14

Photo ID 470959 Title DSCN2928.JPG Year Taken 2020 Is Circa? Notes Overview of historic site LIGO20-S-01. Pre-Hanford era irrigation pipe in secondary context. Type image/jpeg Photo View northwest Source 3/17/2020 Inventory - CH2M Hill Copyright

Tuesday, May 5, 2020 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM Smithsonian Number: 45BN02067 Page 14 of 14

Photo ID 467820 Title Figure_B_site_point_aerial.jpg Year Taken Is Circa? Notes Type image/jpeg Photo View Source 3/17/2020 Inventory - CH2M Hill Copyright

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

Appendix D NRHP Evaluation Form

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a).

1. Name of Property historic name N/A other names/site number LIGO20-S-01

2. Location street & number 127124 North Route 10 X not for publication city or town Richland X vicinity state Washington code WA county Benton code 005 zip code 99354

3. State/Federal Agency Certification

As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination X request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: national statewide local Applicable National Register Criteria A B C D

Signature of certifying official/Title Date WASHINGTON STATE SHPO State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government

In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.

Signature of commenting official Date

Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government

4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register

determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register

other (explain:) ______

Signature of the Keeper Date of Action 1

5. Classification

Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property (Check as many boxes as apply.) (Check only one box.) (Do not include previously listed resources in the count.)

Contributing Noncontributing private building(s) buildings public - Local district district public - State X site 1 site X public - Federal structure structure object object Total

Name of related multiple property listing Number of contributing resources previously (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing) listed in the National Register

N/A 0

6. Function or Use Historic Functions Current Functions (Enter categories from instructions.) (Enter categories from instructions.) Agricultural/Subsistence – Irrigation Facility Vacant/Not In Use

7. Description

Architectural Classification Materials (Enter categories from instructions.) (Enter categories from instructions.)

No Style foundation:

walls:

roof:

other: Six fragments of cement irrigation pipe

Narrative Description (Describe the historic and current physical appearance of the property. Explain contributing and noncontributing resources if necessary. Begin with a summary paragraph that briefly describes the general characteristics of the property, such as its location, setting, size, and significant features.)

Site LIGO20-S-01 is a small historic archaeological site located in Township 11 North, Range 27 East, Section 11. The site is situated in a relatively flat area of partially vegetated low dunes. The site consists of a small 5-foot by 5-foot area where six pieces of cement irrigation pipe are piled on the ground surface. The six fragments are approximately 5.5 inches in internal diameter and 18 to 30 inches in length; 1-to-2-inch-diameter perforations were observed on two of the fragments for field drainage. These pieces appear to crossmend as if from a single length of pipe. It appears these pipe fragments were patched with cement. Lichen was present on some of the pipe fragments. The pipe fragments were haphazardly piled and did not appear to have a subsurface component. The pipe fragments do not appear to be part of an existing irrigation feature, indicating they were of secondary disposition. No other artifacts or features were identified in the vicinity of the irrigation pipe fragments. A two-track road approximately 100 meters (330 feet) south of the APE is visible on aerial imagery dating from 1963. The road did not exist on the 1943 aerial imagery.

Background research indicates that the area in which the site is located appears to have always been in a relatively natural state with no agricultural development in the vicinity of site LIGO20-S-01. Cement irrigation pipe began to replace wooden stave irrigation pipe in 1915 (Sharpe 1999:9). It is likely that these irrigation remnants were discarded as a part of an opportunistic roadside dump during Hanford operations, post-1943. Given the secondary deposition of the site, it cannot be associated with any specific individual, and only loosely associated with Pre-Hanford Era agriculture.

8. Statement of Significance Applicable National Register Criteria

(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property C a birthplace or grave. for National Register listing.)

D a cemetery. A Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. E a reconstructed building, object, or structure. B Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. F a commemorative property.

G less than 50 years old or achieving significance C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics within the past 50 years. of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.

D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Criteria Considerations (Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.)

Property is:

A Owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes.

B removed from its original location.

Areas of Significance

(Enter categories from instructions.)

Agriculture; Other - Irrigation Significant Person (Complete only if Criterion B is marked above.)

N/A

Cultural Affiliation

Euro-American

Period of Significance

Pre-Hanford era (ca. 1900 to 1943) Architect/Builder

N/A

Significant Dates

1915 to 1943

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

LIGO20-S-01 Benton County, Washington Name of Property County and State

Narrative Statement of Significance ______(Provide at least one paragraph for each area of significance.)

Historic Context Statement

Evaluation against the National Register of Historic Places Criteria

Site LIGO20-S-01 was evaluated against the four criteria for listing on the NRHP: Criteria A through D.

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

LIGO20-S-01 Benton County, Washington Name of Property County and State it capable of yielding important information relevant to the significance of any of the Pre-Hanford Era irrigation-related Historic Properties. As such, site LIGO20-S-01 is recommended as ineligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A.

NRHP Significance

9. Major Bibliographical References Bibliography (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form.)

Atomic Heritage Foundation. 2019. The Importance of Irrigation: Irrigation Evolution. Electronic document. Accessed March 31, 2020. https://www.atomicheritage.org/tour-stop/importance-irrigation,.

Mendenhall, N. 2006. Orchards of Eden: White Bluffs on the Columbia, 1907-1943. Far Eastern Press, Seattle, Washington.

Parker, M. B. 1986. Tales of Richland, White Bluffs, and Hanford 1805-1943 Before the Atomic Reserve. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington.

Scrivner, J.F. 1982. Family Histories from Hanford and White Bluffs, WA. White Bluffs Hanford Pioneer Association, Richland, Washington. Pp. 1-3.

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

LIGO20-S-01 Benton County, Washington Name of Property County and State

Sharpe, J. 1999. Pre-Hanford Agricultural History: 1900-1943. Rev. 0. BHI 01326, Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Richland, Washington.

Previous documentation on file (NPS): Primary location of additional data: preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67 has been State Historic Preservation Office requested) Other State agency previously listed in the National Register Federal agency previously determined eligible by the National Register Local government designated a National Historic Landmark University recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey #______Other recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # ______Name of repository: recorded by Historic American Landscape Survey # ______

Historic Resources Survey Number (if assigned):

10. Geographical Data

Acreage of Property <0.0001 (Do not include previously listed resource acreage.)

UTM References NAD 1927 or X NAD 1983

(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet.)

1 11 315516 5147115 3 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing

2 4 Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing

Or Latitude/Longitude Coordinates (enter coordinates to 6 decimal places)

1 3 Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

2 4 Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

Verbal Boundary Description (Describe the boundaries of the property.)

The site consists of a 5-foot by 5-foot area surrounding a small pile of six pieces of cement irrigation pipe.

Boundary Justification (Explain why the boundaries were selected.) Artifacts.

11. Form Prepared By name/title David Sheldon, Professional Archaeologist 7

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

LIGO20-S-01 Benton County, Washington Name of Property County and State organization Jacobs Engineering Group Inc date 04-13-2020 street & number 2020 SW 4th Avenue Suite 300 telephone (360)219-6953 city or town Portland state OR zip code 97201 e-mail [email protected]

Additional Documentation Submit the following items with the completed form:

• Maps: A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.

A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources. Key all photographs to this map.

• Continuation Sheets

• Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items.)

Photographs: Submit clear and descriptive photographs. The size of each image must be 1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger. Key all photographs to the sketch map.

Name of Property:

City or Vicinity: Richland (vicinity)

County: Benton State: Washington

Photographer: David Sheldon

Date Photographed: 03-17-2020

Description of Photograph(s) and number:

1 of ___.

Property Owner: (Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.)

United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018

LIGO20-S-01 Benton County, Washington Name of Property County and State name Department of Energy – Richland Operations Office street & number 2420 Stevens Center Place H520 telephone 509-376-7411 city or town Richland state WA zip code 99354

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.460 et seq.).

Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Office of Planning and Performance Management. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, DC.

Appendix E Section 106 Consultation Documentation

Native American Tribes

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 2415 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, Virginia 22314

February 7, 2020

Dr. Allyson Brooks State Historic Preservation Officer / Director Dept of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343

Re: Section 106 consultation initiation; proposed Area of Potential Effects; notice of upcoming informational meeting and cultural resource survey (DAHP Identification number pending)

Dear Dr. Brooks,

With this letter, the National Science Foundation (NSF) seeks to inform you of a proposed federal undertaking and to initiate Section 106 consultation, per the National Historic Preservation Act. We also invite your comments on the proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE) and your participation at an upcoming informational meeting and cultural resources survey, as described below. NSF is the lead agency for this undertaking. Because the proposed undertaking would occur on federal land administered by the Department of Energy (DOE), DOE is providing support and the two agencies will coordinate closely on this consultation. Concurrent to this letter, NSF has notified tribes about the proposal and the upcoming meeting and survey.

Background

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is a national facility for gravitational-wave research and consists of two interferometers, located in Livingston, Louisiana and Hanford, Washington. LIGO operation is funded by NSF and operated by the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The interferometer in Hanford (LIGO Hanford) is located on land owned by the United States and administered by DOE. Per its 1993 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DOE, NSF has a permit to use the site for LIGO.

Proposed LIGO Exploration Center

In 2019, CalTech received a grant for $7.7 million from the State of Washington to construct a LIGO STEM Observatory adjacent to the interferometer, in Richland, WA. CalTech has begun design work for this facility, calling it the LIGO Stem Exploration Center (LExC) and proposes to begin construction in October 2020. LExC has the potential to complement and enhance the existing Education and Public Outreach component of NSF's award for the operations of LIGO Hanford. NSF, as the permit holder, is therefore considering whether to authorize Caltech to construct and operate LExC within the boundaries of the land described in the permit issued by DOE. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, NSF will conduct a review of potential environmental impacts of this proposal. NSF intends to conduct Section 106 consultation concurrent with the NEPA process.

Proposed Area of Potential Effects

The proposed LExC would be constructed east of the existing parking lot along the current access road to LIGO (see attached plan). The visitor center would include construction of a new 234, 227 f2 building and associated infrastructure including water/sewer utilities, electrical service and telecommunications connection. All utilities would be extended from existing services at the LIGO. LExC construction activities would require excavation to support utilities installation and grading as needed for construction of a parking lot. The project area is approximately 14.7 acres.

NSF proposes to include the full project area, as shown in the enclosed, as the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the determination of potential effects to historic properties. This is the area that would contain all proposed development, as well as staging and construction vehicles. LExC operations would be limited to this area. Following input from your office and the tribes, NSF will refine the APE document in response to any comments received; place it on the relevant USGS quad map; and indicate the locations of the proposed facilities, related staging area, and utilities on the final APE document. NSF will also consider your comments in refining the scope of the cultural resource survey.

Informational Meeting

CalTech will be presenting information about the proposed LExC at DOE's February meeting with the SHP° and tribes; due to travel constraints, NSF will be available by phone to hear about any concerns and to address questions about NSF's role and the Section 106 consultation process. Further information about the February meeting is provided below: Date: February 19, 2020 Location: 2420 Stevens Place, Richland WA Time and teleconference option will be included on the agenda provided by DOE.

Upcoming Cultural Resource Survey

NSF has engaged a contractor, Jacobs Engineering, Inc., to perform the cultural resource survey that will be needed to identify any historic properties within the APE. We expect that the survey will occur in late February or the first part of March. We will be in touch, via email, with you and the tribes with the dates for the survey, as well as the survey methodology, so that you may provide input on how to adequately identify any historic properties within the APE. You are also invited to observe the survey.

In summary, please review this preliminary information on the proposed LExC, and provide us with any comments you may have on the proposed APE on or before Friday, February 21, 2020. Comments should be forwarded via email to Kristen Hamilton at [email protected]. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone at 703-292-4592 or by email at [email protected]. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Caroline M. Blanco Federal Preservation Officer Assistant General Counsel National Science Foundation

Cc (via email): Warren Hurely and So Yon Bedlington, DOE Rob Whitlam, SHP() Arrow Coyote, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Bambi Rodriguez, Nathan May, and Teara Farrow Ferman, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Mike Sobotta, Josiah Pinkman, Lucy Samuels, Jared Norman, and Jessica Glindeman, Nez Perce Tribe Rose Ferri, and Laurene Contreras, Yakama Nation Rex Buck and Alyssa Buck, Wanapum Keith Mendez, MSA Cultural Resources, Cultural Resource Program Database Manager for the Hanford Site Attachments:

• Proposed LExC site overview • Proposed LExC site plan • Proposed APE From: Rose Ferri To: Kristen Hamilton; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Trina Sherwood; [email protected]; Luciana Chester Cc: Blanco, Caroline M; [email protected]; Hurley, Warren F; Sheldon, David/PDX; Bedlington, So Yon; Rau, Michelle/TPA Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: March 18 survey- Proposed Exploration Center at LIGO Hanford Date: Friday, March 6, 2020 3:09:44 PM

Kristen Yakama nation would like to participate in this work however it has been scheduled during our regular monthly Cultural Issues meeting. The third week of the month is when we have standing meetings with DOE, BPA, PNSO, FWS. I am not sure if this could be accommodated, but it would be nice if it could. Thank you Rose

Rose Ferri MS Project Tracking/Resource Analyst 1019 S 40th Ave Yakima, WA 98908 Direct line 509-907-1500 Cell 509-307-2009

______This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this e-mail from your system. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited

From: Hamilton, Kristen Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 12:19 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rose Ferri ; Trina Sherwood ; [email protected] Cc: Blanco, Caroline M ; [email protected]; Hurley, Warren F ; Sheldon, David/PDX ; Bedlington, So Yon ; Rau, Michelle/TPA Subject: March 18 survey- Proposed Exploration Center at LIGO Hanford

Good afternoon, the National Science Foundation invites you to participate in the following survey. Please confirm attendance at least a day ahead of the field work.

Project: NSF LIGO Facility Proposed STEM Exploration Center Project Type Section 106 Cultural Survey (Pedestrian Survey Only) LIGO Contact: Jeffrey Jones, LIGO Operations Manager (509)438-0823 Field Contact: David Sheldon, Jacobs Archaeologist (360)219-6953 Where to meet: LIGO Lab Support Building, check in at front desk Driving directions: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/lho- directions-contact What time to 7:45 AM March 18, 2020 meet: What to bring: Substantial footwear for field survey, safety vest, water and a lunch. Additional If you plan on attending please confirm with David Information: Sheldon via phone or text at least one day in advance of the fieldwork.

------Kristen Hamilton Environmental Compliance Officer Office of the General Counsel National Science Foundation 2415 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 (793)292-4820 [email protected]

Good morning, we’ve confirmed that David Sheldon, Jacobs Archaeologist, is still able to travel to conduct the cultural resources survey at LIGO next week. In the meantime, however, it’s come to our attention that the scheduled date of Wednesday, March 18th, conflicts with the monthly standing DOE cultural resources meeting. To avoid this certain conflict, we have rescheduled this survey for Tuesday, March 17th, see below notice. For those who have other conflicts next week, please feel free to give David Sheldon a call if you’d like to discuss any concerns prior to the survey, or if you’d like an out brief following the survey. If you do plan to attend, please confirm with him at least a day ahead of the field work.

Project: NSF LIGO Facility Proposed STEM Exploration Center Project Type Section 106 Cultural Survey (Pedestrian Survey Only) LIGO Contact: Jeffrey Jones, LIGO Operations Manager (509)438-0823 Field Contact: David Sheldon, Jacobs Archaeologist (360)219-6953 Where to meet: LIGO Lab Support Building, check in at front desk Driving directions: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/WA/page/lho- directions-contact What time to 7:45 AM March 17, 2020 (changed from March 18th) meet: What to bring: Substantial footwear for field survey, safety vest, water and a lunch. Additional If you plan on attending please confirm with David Information: Sheldon via phone or text at least one day in advance of the fieldwork.

From: "Hamilton, Kristen" Date: Friday, March 6, 2020 at 3:20 PM To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" , "[email protected]" Cc: "Blanco, Caroline M" , "[email protected]" , "Hurley, Warren F" , "Sheldon, David/PDX" , "Bedlington, So Yon" , "Rau, Michelle/TPA" Subject: March 18 survey- Proposed Exploration Center at LIGO Hanford

Good afternoon, the National Science Foundation invites you to participate in the following survey. Please confirm attendance at least a day ahead of the field work.

------Kristen Hamilton Environmental Compliance Officer Office of the General Counsel National Science Foundation 2415 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 (793)292-4820 [email protected]

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

February 10, 2020 Ms. Caroline M. Blanco National Science Foundation 2415 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314

RE: LIGO STEM Observatory Project Log No.: 2020-02-01140-NRCS

Dear Ms. Blanco:

Thank you for contacting our Department. We have reviewed the materials you provided for the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed LIGO STEM Observatory Project at Hanford, Benton County, Washington.

We concur with your proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE) as described and presented in the letter, figures, and text.

We look forward to receiving the results of your tribal consultations, professional cultural resources survey report, and the Determination of Effect.

We would also appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4).

These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations 36CFR800.4.). Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to the results of your efforts and your Determination of Effect. Sincerely,

Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360) 586-3080 email: [email protected]

State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov