Columbia River Crossing FEIS Ch. 3 Sect. 8 Historic and Archaeological
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3.8 Historic and Archaeological Resources The cultural resources in a given area form a vital contribution to the sense of place and identity for those who live, work, and visit that area. Cultural resources are broadly divided into the historic built environment (buildings, structures, and objects), archaeological sites, and other defined features or areas that are important to maintaining cultural identity. Because of their importance, various types of cultural resources are protected by federal, state, and/or local laws. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) establishes a process for identifying and preserving historic properties and resources in the United States. In particular, Section 106 of the NHPA defines the process by which federal agencies must take into account the effects of their undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included on or eligible for inclusion (listing) on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 applies whenever there is a federal nexus to a project, that is, whenever the project requires a federal permit, uses federal dollars, or takes place (in whole or in part) on federal lands. The Section 106 regulatory procedures and requirements (provided in 36 CFR 800) require that “consulting parties”—parties with legal jurisdiction over or special interest in historic properties or resources—be included in decision-making that affects those resources. This includes the state department or office chartered to address the preservation of the state’s historic resources, other legal entities entrusted with the care and preservation of historic resources, as well as any Native American tribes with tribal ties to or an interest in the affected areas. A cultural resource is considered an “historic property,” and “significant” pursuant to 36 CFR 800, if it is determined to be National Register-eligible. Eligible properties generally must be at least 50 years old, possess integrity of physical characteristics, and meet at least one of the four criteria of significance: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. For the CRC project, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the lead federal agencies for the project, identified the following Section 106 consulting parties: • Chinook Tribe, Washington • City of Portland HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES • 3-211 COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING • City of Vancouver • Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington • Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington • Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon • Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, Oregon • Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon • Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon • Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Washington • National Park Service (NPS) • Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho • Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) • Spokane Tribe of the Spokane Reservation, Washington • Nisqually Indian Tribe, Washington • United States Army Corps of Engineers • Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) • Washington Department of Natural Resources TERMS & DEFINITIONS Accordingly, each of these consulting parties was notified of the project and Consulting Party given opportunity to participate. In addition, information about the project’s consideration of historic properties, excluding sensitive archaeological Section 106 requires 8 that “consulting parties” resources, was discussed publicly through the project’s public involvement be involved in all program, which included a Cultural Resources Open House (see Chapter 6 determinations of eligibility, and the Cultural Resources Technical Report for more information). These findings of effect, and discussions have occurred throughout the project’s conceptual alternative any Memorandum during development and evaluation phases, and will continue through construction. the Section 106 process. These consulting parties include the State Historic Historic properties that are NRHP-listed or determined to be Preservation Offices (DAHP NRHP-eligible may also be subject to Section 4(f ) provisions of the and SHPO), federally and Department of Transportation Act of 1966. In addition, for archaeological non-federally recognized tribes, local government, sites that are NRHP-eligible under multiple criteria, the artifacts may warrant and other individuals preservation in place, and would therefore qualify as Section 4(f ) properties. or organizations with a The project team prepared a Section 4(f ) Evaluation covering the historic demonstrated interest in the properties whose NRHP qualifying characteristics may be “used” by the project and its effects on proposed project, and for three archaeological sites that are subject to Section historic properties. 4(f ) provisions. The 4(f ) Evaluation is in Chapter 5 of the FEIS. This section summarizes the potential adverse effects of the CRC project alternatives, and of the locally preferred alternative (LPA) in particular, on cultural resources in the project area and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or compensate for those effects. The information presented in this section is based on the CRC Archaeology and Historic Built Environment Technical Reports. These technical reports are included as electronic appendices to this FEIS. 8 Information regarding certain sensitive historic or cultural resources can be legally withheld from the public at large in order to protect those resources. 3-212 • CHAPTER 3 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This section focuses primarily on the LPA. A comparison of impacts from the LPA and the DEIS alternatives is summarized in Exhibit 3.8-8. A more detailed description of the impacts of the DEIS alternatives on historic and archaeological resources is in the DEIS starting on page 3-211. 3.8.1 New Information Developed Since the Draft EIS Since the completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and in accordance with 36 CFR 800, the project has continued to follow the appropriate steps for identification and evaluation of resources and determinations of effects. Analytical steps completed since the publication of the DEIS include the following: • Completed a shading analysis of the historic apple tree in Apple Tree Park, where new highway ramps would encroach on the tree. • Conducted a parking utilization analysis to help identify critical on-street parking deficits. These deficits could indicate areas where loss-of-parking might have an effect on the occupancy and/or use of historic buildings or an adverse effect on characteristics that make the buildings historically significant. • Conducted additional historic built-environment and archaeological investigations regarding the Ruby Junction Maintenance Facility and potential staging areas and casting yards. • Conducted ethnographic/oral histories to assist in identifying historic and archaeological resources important to Native Americans, including, but not limited to, traditional cultural properties. • Performed pedestrian archaeological surveys of accessible areas that would experience potential adverse effects. This survey consisted of archaeologists walking over the ground surface to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources visible on the ground and to characterize the likelihood of areas to contain buried resources. • Used non-invasive ground penetrating radar (GPR) to identify subsurface soil anomalies that could indicate the location of potential archaeological features and guide archaeological subsurface investigations. • Collected and observed geo-core samples at geotechnical drilling locations to investigate the potential for the presence of archaeological resources. • Monitored geotechnical drilling to identify presence or absence of archaeological resources in the samples. • Performed subsurface archaeological testing to delineate the boundaries and evaluate the significance of archaeological sites. • In coordination with the Oregon SHPO and the property owner, assessed impacts to LCI-713, an NRHP-listed ship moved into the study area after the completion of the historic survey in 2007. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES • 3-213 COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING In addition to new information developed since the DEIS, the FEIS includes refinements in design, impacts and mitigation measures. Where new information or design changes could potentially create new significant environmental impacts not previously evaluated in the DEIS, or could be meaningful to the decision-making process, this information and these changes were applied to all alternatives, as appropriate. However, most of the new information did not warrant updating analysis of the non-preferred alternatives because it would not