White Bluffs Bladderpod and Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) Within Hanford Site, 100-N Source Operable Units

CHPRC-03893 Revision 0

Potential for the Presence of Two Federal Threatened Species (White Bluffs Bladderpod and Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) within Hanford Site, 100-N Source Operable Units

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management

Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-08RL14788 CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company P.O. Box 1600 Richland, Washington 99352

Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited CHPRC-03893 Revision 0

Potential for the Presence of Two Federal Threatened Species (White Bluffs Bladderpod and Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) within Hanford Site, 100-N Source Operable Units

Date Published January 2019

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management

Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-08RL14788 CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company P.O. Box 1600 Richland, Washington 99352

[APPROVED By Julia Raymer at 8:13 am, Jan 23, 2019l Release Approval Date

Approved for Public Release; Further Dissemination Unlimited CHPRC-03893 Revision 0

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by tradename, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors.

This report has been reproduced from the best available copy.

Printed in the United States of America

CHPRC-03893, REV. 0 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Potential for the Presence of Two Federal Threatened Species (White Bluffs Bladderpod and Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) within Hanford Site, 100-N Source Operable Units

Prepared for: 100-N Source Operable Units RI/FS Prepared by: Demitria Wright CCs: Bill Faught, Art Lee, and Dave Todak Date: October 31, 2018 Doc ID CHPRC-03893, Rev. 0

1 Summary The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is completing the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) for the 100-N Area (DOE/RL-2012-15, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units; hereinafter called the 100-N RI/FS) of the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington. The 100-N Area contains one dual-purpose production reactor (N Reactor) complex and the adjoining Hanford Generating Plant (HGP) (including its associated infrastructures), and contains the 100-NR-1 Source and the 100-NR-2 Groundwater Operable Units (OUs). This narrative evaluates the potential habitat for or documented presence of White Bluffs bladderpod (Physaria douglasii tuplashensis) and Umtanum desert buckwheat (Eriogonum codium) within the 100-N Area. Both species are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.1 This evaluation concludes there is no effect to either of these two species within the 100-N Area. The following sections describe the lines of evidence in more detail. 2 Introduction The 100-N Area is located in the northern portion of the Hanford Site adjacent to the Columbia River. It covers more than 9.0 km2 (3.5 mi2) of land along the southern shore of the Columbia River (Figure 1). Water level data and contaminant migration indicate that the direction of groundwater flow through the Hanford formation from north to southwest with mounding (DOE/RL-2012-15, Chapter 3). A detailed discussion of groundwater depths and contaminant plumes is presented in Chapters 3 through 5 of the 100-N RI/FS. The N Reactor was the focus of production activities at 100-N. Support facilities in the N Reactor complex included the adjoining HGP and its associated infrastructures, storage buildings, maintenance shops, office facilities, and an electrical substation. The 100-N Area is situated adjacent to the south bank of the Columbia River in the Wahluke synclinal low that formed between Gable Mountain (south) and the Saddle Mountains (north). From the riverbank, the topography of the 100-N Area rises from an elevation of about 120 m (390 ft) NAVD882 up a relatively narrow, and terraced, steep (>30%) slope onto the broad, slightly undulating plain that increases regionally in elevation from approximately 140 m (459 ft) NAVD88 nearest the river to 165 m (541 ft) NAVD88 inland (DOE/RL-93-81, Limited Field Investigation Report for the 100-NR-2 Operable Unit: Hanford Site, Richland, Washington). The reactor and all ancillary facilities are located on this broad, slightly undulating plain.

1 White Bluffs bladderpod - https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q3HR; Umtanum desert buckwheat - https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q3HN. 2 All elevations in this document are expressed in NAVD88, North American Vertical Datum of 1988.

CHPRC-03893, REV. 0

HANFORD REACH NATIONAL MONUMENT

100-D/H

Central Plateau

HANFORD REACH NATIONAL MONUMENT

300AREA

Hanford Reach National Monument I lilanford'data\sitedata"PRC-RCC\Remsel\RI FS\300 rea\MXDs\PRC 300 RCareas 28Nov2011.mxd Figure 1. Location of the 100-N Operable Unit, Hanford Site

In 1963, the construction of the dual-purpose N Reactor was completed, which featured a new closed-loop, primary cooling system. Plutonium production began in 1964. The 800-megawatt steam plant (HGP) began producing electricity in 1966 and was the world’s largest nuclear power plant for many years. The 105-N Reactor was shut down in 1986 and transitioned to cold standby in 1989, signaling the close of Hanford’s production mission and the start of its cleanup mission. Producing plutonium for national defense was the primary mission of the Hanford Site reactors. Materials that passed through the reactors for manufacture, or materials contacting items that passed through the reactors, were considered radiologically contaminated. These materials represent the majority of the wastes that were produced. Active physical barriers and administrative measures were in place to minimize radiological hazards throughout the Hanford Site production areas to protect plant personnel. These measures affected the placement of disposal locations and waste management procedures for various waste streams.

2 CHPRC-03893, REV. 0

3 White Bluffs Bladderpod Habitat The Federal Register describes White Bluffs bladderpod as “a low-growing, herbaceous, perennial plant with a sturdy tap root and a dense rosette of broad gray-green pubescent leaves (Figure 2). The species produces showy yellow flowers on relatively short stems in May, June, and July” (78 FR 23984-24005, 2013).

White Bluffs bladderpod (Physaria douglasii ssp. tuplashensis) Photo credit: Jane Abel3

Figure 2. White Bluffs Bladderpod

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated the final critical habitat for White Bluffs bladderpod in approximately 823 ha (2,033 ac), on the north bank of Columbia River Hanford Reach, in northwestern Franklin County, Washington (Figure 3) (78 FR 76995-77004). Approximately 85% of the population occurs on the Hanford National Monument, which is jointly managed by the USFWS and the DOE. The balance of the species’ current distribution occurs on adjacent private land (78 FR 76995-77004) (Figure 3). The habitat of this single population is currently threatened by slope failures primarily due to irrigation of adjacent lands, off-road vehicle use, invasive plant species such as cheat grass, wildfire (increased by presence of non-native species as fuel), and fire suppression activities (USFWS, 2010a; 78 FR 23984-24005).

3 https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Hanford_Reach/Multimedia/Wildflowers_4.html.

3 CHPRC-03893, REV. 0

The White Bluffs bladderpod population occurs only in a narrow geographic range within a small area known as the White Bluffs area, at the lower edge of the Wahluke Slope, adjacent to the Columbia River (78 FR 23984-24005) (Figure 3). Within this area, the White Bluffs bladderpod requires nearly vertical exposures at an elevation of 150 to 290 m (500 to 950 ft), and has very specific soil and vegetation requirements. The calcium carbonate paleosol soil is calcareous, highly alkaline (pH 8.4 in nearby area), and dry (Rollins et al., 1996). The species may be an obligate calciphile, as are many members of the endemic Lesquerella genus (now Physaria) (Rollins and Shaw, 1973). Vegetation is generally lacking within the sagebrush steppe habitat where the species is found (Rollins et al., 1996). Plant species known to be associated with the White-Bluffs bladderpod include big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), buckwheat milk-vetch (Astragalus caricinus), slender buckwheat (Eriogonum microthecum), and Snake River cryptantha (Cryptantha spiculifera) (78 FR 23984-24005).

-- 100-NArea Critical Habitat for Umtanum Dessert Buckwheat D /Eriogonum codium) Critical Habitat for White Bluffs Bladderpod D (Physaria dougfasii subspecies tupfashensis) Critical Habitat Data Source· o~=:;::==3.----"~ km } US Fish and Wildlife Seivice 412013, 12113. Imagery Source: National Agriculture Imagery Program (2015) a 2 mi I NR3RIFS0

Figure 3. Critical Habitat Designations

4 CHPRC-03893, REV. 0

3.1 Evaluation of Potential White Bluffs Bladderpod Habitat in 100-N Area Review of aerial photography indicates White Bluffs vertical exposures are restricted to the north bank of the Columbia River (Figure 3), on the bank opposite the Hanford Site. White Bluffs are not present in the vicinity of the 100-N Area and the area as a whole is generally flat (Figure 4). Geography in the 100-N Area is only generally similar to the White Bluffs (Figure 4) in the steep transition from the riparian to upland area of the site. However, the elevation of this area (elevations between 120 and 140 m [390 to 459 ft] NAVD88) is lower than bladderpod requirements (Figure 4). Therefore, the area lacks a specific habitat requirement for the White Bluffs bladderpod.

Figure 4. Local Topography

The three soil types (Burbank loamy sand, Ephrata sandy loam, and Ephrata stony loam) present within the 100-N OU (Figure 5) are not similar to the highly alkaline and cemented calcium carbonate dominated soils found within the critical habitat of the White Bluffs bladderpod. Although both series are well drained, both the Burbank and Ephrata series are only slightly to moderately alkaline (7.4 to 8.0) and do not contain notable amounts of calcium carbonate (USDA, 1997 and 1998).

5 CHPRC-03893, REV. 0

. t for Umtanu m Dessert Buckwheat Soil Name Critical Hab1taodium) . rvice 4/2013 .---, (Eriogonum c_ h and Wildlife Se Burbank Loamy Sand L...... J Source: US Fis ~ D D Ephrata Sandy Loam 1.5 km Ephrata Stoney Loam I D Kiana Silt Loam l

Figure 5. Soil Type Designations

Dominant vegetation within the riparian zone includes mulberry (Morus alba), willow (Salix sp.), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), northern wormwood (Artemisia campestris), sweet clover (Melilotus alba or M. officinalis), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) (DOE/RL-2007-21, River Corridor Baseline Risk Assessment, Volume II: Human Health Risk Assessment). A mix of rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus sp. and Ericameria sp.), Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda) and cheatgrass are the dominant species along the incline and in the upland areas that are not currently disturbed by 100-N OU activity (Figure 6). While some of these species are associated with White Bluffs bladderpod habitat, the transitional area is not primarily barren as preferred by the White Bluffs bladderpod. No Hanford Site activities, processes, or operations were conducted within the 100-N Area boundary in the vicinity of White Bluffs. Neither topography, soil composition, nor vegetation within the 100-N Area meet the requirements for White Bluff bladderpod establishment within the site; therefore, there is no historic or future potential for the 100-NR-1 or 100-NR-2 Source OUs to affect plant establishment atop White Bluffs or within the 100-N Area. The lack of a single observed White Bluffs bladderpod specimen in this area is not caused by industrial activity tied to the Hanford Site activities, processes, and operations. The final result of this evaluation of Hanford Site Operations, including those within the 100-N Area, is that there is no effect on White Bluffs bladderpod and no effect on the designated critical habitat.

6 CHPRC-03893, REV. 0

100-N Area Vegetation D Bitterbrush/Sandberg's Bluegrass - Cheatgrass • Riparian/Wetlands/Aquatic Habitats • Buildings • Big Sagebrush - Spiny Hopsage/Sandberg's Bluegrass - Cheatgrass D Bunchgrass Mosaic D Sandberg's Bluegrass - Cheatgrass ~ Waste Sites D Big Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Mosaic D Gravel/Industria l/Non -Vegetated/Agricultural/Exotic Weed . Snow Buckwheat/Bunchgrass Mosaic Roads D Big Sagebrush/Sandberg's Bluegrass - Cheatgrass Rabbitbrush/Bunchgrass Mosaic • Spiny Hopsage/Sandberg's Bluegrass - Cheatgrass D Bitterbrush/Bunchgrass Mosaic • Rabbitbrush/Sandberg's Bluegrass - Cheatgrass 810 1,620 m

3 250 6 500 ft /

Figure 6. Vegetation Types

4 Umtanum Desert Buckwheat Habitat The Washington Natural Heritage Program describes Umtanum desert buckwheat as a low, tufted, long-lived woody perennial that grows very slowly (78 FR 23984-24005) (Figure 7). The species produces showy yellow flowers that bloom May to August during wet years (WNHP and WDNR, 2011). USFWS designated the final critical habitat for the Umtanum desert buckwheat in approximately 139 ha (344 ac) of Benton County, Washington (Figure 3) (78 FR 76995-77004). This critical habitat is southwest of the 100-N Area. The single discontinuous population occurs on the crest of Umtanum Ridge on the Hanford National Monument, which is jointly managed by the USFWS and DOE. This single population is threatened primarily by wildfire and fire-fighting activities, ant predation of seeds, off-road vehicles, and climate change (USFWS, 2010b).

7 CHPRC-03893, REV. 0

Umtanum desert buckwheat (Eriogonum codium) Photo credit: Tim McCracken (USFWS)4

Figure 7. Umtanum Desert Buckwheat

Since identification in 1995, a single discontinuous Umtanum desert buckwheat population exists and occurs only in a narrow geographic range near the top of a steep slope of Umtanum Ridge, a 340 to 400 m (1,120 to 1,300 ft) mountain ridge on the south side of the Columbia River, in Benton County, Washington (Figure 3) (78 FR 23984-24005; WNHP and WDNR, 2011). The species grows on lithosol soils, in the Kiona series, developed by the underlying basalt from the Lolo Flow of the Wanapum Basalt Formation. This soil is well-drained with a high water-holding capacity, shallow, stony, and has a very specific chemical and mineral composition. It is unknown if this plant species is dependent on the lithosols of the Lolo Flow or a combination of factors (Reveal et al., 1995). While it is unknown whether this species once grew in other locations, evidence indicates this is the only location for the past 150 years (78 FR 23984-24005). Numerous studies indicate this narrow endemic species has a low seed set and low survival past one-year germination, which may also indicate why this species does not spread beyond the critical habitat to any of the suitable areas of habitat nearby (78 FR 23984-24005). Several low growing perennial and annual plants are associated with the Umtanum desert buckwheat such as big sagebrush, spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), rock buckwheat (Eriogonum sphaerocephalum), cheatgrass, and shy gilia (Aliciella sinuata).

4 https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/HanfordPlants.html.

8 CHPRC-03893, REV. 0

4.1 Evaluation of Potential Umtanum Desert Buckwheat Habitat in 100-N Area The Wanapum Basalt Formation, where the Umtanum desert buckwheat grows, is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of the predominantly flat 100-N Area (PNNL-13688, Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site). The species grows on lithosol soils, in the Kiona series, developed by the underlying basalt from the Lolo Flow of the Wanapum Basalt Formation. Lithosol refers to soils associated with basalt outcrops and cliffs that are gravelly, rocky, and talus (PNNL-13688). This soil is well-drained with a high water-holding capacity, shallow, stony, and has a very specific chemical and mineral composition. While the Burbank and Ephrata series soils are well-drained and stony, these series lack the specific chemical composition present in basalt outcrops and are not considered lithosols (USDA, 1997 and 1998). Although vegetation associated with this plant species are present in some areas of the 100-N Area, the overall requirements for this narrow endemic species are not completely known. The species is not present and is not known to have existed outside of the critical habitat area in the past 150 years (78 FR 23984-24005); decades before Hanford facilities were present. Further, historical activity conducted within the 100-N Area boundary has not changed the habitat within the 100-N Area boundary in a manner to prevent establishment of this species in this area. The lack of Umtanum desert buckwheat populations in the vicinity of 100-N Area is not caused by industrial activity tied to the Hanford Site activities, processes, and operations. The final result of this evaluation of Hanford Site operations, including those within the 100-N Area, is that there is no effect on the Umtanum desert buckwheat species and no effect on the designated critical habitat. 5 References 78 FR 23984, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs Bladderpod) and Designation of Critical Habitat,” Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 245, pp. 76995-77005, December 20, 2013. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Hanford_Plants/finalrulerev.pdf. 78 FR 23984-24005, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii subsp. Tuplashensis (White Bluffs Bladderpod); Final Rule,” Federal Register, April 23, 2013. Available at: http://www.federalregister.com/Browse/Document/usa/na/fr/2013/4/23/2013-09409. 78 FR 76995-77004, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Eriogonum codium (Umtanum Desert Buckwheat) and Physaria douglasii subsp. tuplashensis (White Bluffs Bladderpod) and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final rule; revision,” Federal Register, December 20, 2013. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-12-20/html/2013-30164.htm. DOE/RL-93-81, 1995, Limited Field Investigation Report for the 100-NR-2 Operable Unit: Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=D196022787.

9 CHPRC-03893, REV. 0

DOE/RL-2007-21, 2011, River Corridor Baseline Risk Assessment, Volume II: Human Health Risk Assessment, Volume II, Parts 1 and 2, Rev. 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0093676. http://pdw.hanford.gov/arpir/index.cfm/viewDoc?accession=0093675. DOE/RL-2012-15, 2018, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the 100-NR-1 and 100-NR-2 Operable Units, Decisional Draft B, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-205, as amended, 16 USC 1531, et seq. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg884.pdf. NAVD88, 1988, North American Vertical Datum of 1988, as revised, National Geodetic Survey, Federal Geodetic Control Committee, Silver Spring, Maryland. Available at: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/NAVD88/navd88report.htm. PNNL-13688, 2001, Vascular Plants of the Hanford Site, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Available at: http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-13688.pdf. Reveal, James L., Florence Caplow, and Kathryn Beck. 1995. Eriogonum codium (Polygonaceae: Eriogonoideae), a new species from southcentral Washington. Rhodora 97:350- 356.Rollins, R.C., K.A. Beck, and F.E. Caplow, 1996, “An undescribed species of Lesquerella (Cruciferae) from the state of Washington.” Rhodora. 97 (No. 891): 201-207. Rollins, R.C. and E.A. Shaw, 1973, “The Genus Lesquerella (Cruciferae) in North America,” Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 25 pp. USFWS, 2010a, Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Scientific Name: Physaria douglasii subspecies tuplashensis, previously Lesquerella tuplashensis, Common Name: White Bluffs bladderpod, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/cp-fws-candidate-va- physaria-douglasii-tuplashensis-2010-04.pdf. USFWS, 2010b, Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Scientific Name: Eriogonum codium, Common Name: Umtanum Desert Buckwheat, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/cp-fws-candidate-va- eriogonum-codium-2010-04.pdf. USDA, 1997, Burbank Series. Established Series. Rev. JJR/RJE/KWH. 8/97. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/B/BURBANK.html. USDA, 1998, Burbank Series. Established Series. Rev. ARH/RJE/TLA. 1/98. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/E/EPHRATA.html. WNHP and WDNR, 2011, Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington, P. Camp and J.G. Gamon (eds.), published with Washington National Heritage Program and Washington State Department of Natural Resources, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.