The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, particularly Section 106, mandates a specific process for federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This process involves several key steps: initiation, identification of historic properties, assessment of adverse effects, and resolution of adverse effects. The identification phase requires a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking. If adverse effects are anticipated, resolution strategies must be developed, often through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) if tribal lands or resources are involved, and other consulting parties. These consultations aim to find ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. Importantly, the ultimate responsibility for complying with Section 106 rests with the federal agency undertaking the project. The consulting parties play a crucial role in advising and shaping the agency’s decisions, but the agency is accountable for ensuring the process is followed and for making informed decisions based on the information gathered and the consultations held. Mitigation measures can range from data recovery excavations to preservation in place, depending on the nature of the resource and the impact of the undertaking.

When analyzing lithic artifacts, several key attributes are examined to understand their function, technology, and raw material sources. Raw material identification is crucial for determining the origin of the stone and understanding trade networks or resource procurement strategies. Technological analysis focuses on the methods used to manufacture the tools, including knapping techniques, core preparation, and tool finishing. Typological analysis involves classifying the tools based on their form and function, using established typologies or creating new ones as needed. Debitage analysis examines the waste flakes and other byproducts of stone tool manufacture to reconstruct the knapping process and identify activity areas. Use-wear analysis involves examining the microscopic wear patterns on the tool surfaces to determine how they were used. These analyses provide insights into the behavior and adaptations of past peoples.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This process typically involves several phases. Phase I is identification, where the goal is to locate archaeological sites within the area of potential effect (APE). Phase II is evaluation, where the significance of identified sites is assessed based on criteria like integrity, association with significant events or persons, and potential to yield important information. If a site is deemed significant, Phase III, data recovery (mitigation), may be necessary. Data recovery involves excavation and analysis to mitigate the adverse effects of the project. The determination of “no historic properties affected” is a finding that, based on the investigations conducted, no properties that meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places will be impacted by the undertaking. This determination is made after a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties. If historic properties are present but the undertaking will not adversely affect them, a finding of “no adverse effect” is made. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, mitigation measures are developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and, if applicable, tribal representatives. A finding of “adverse effect” means that the undertaking will negatively impact the characteristics that qualify a historic property for inclusion in the National Register. The key is to determine whether the undertaking will alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

When excavating human remains, it’s crucial to meticulously document the burial context. This includes recording the position of the body (e.g., flexed, extended, prone, supine), the orientation of the body (e.g., head to the east), and any associated artifacts. The location and type of grave goods can provide insights into the individual’s status, beliefs, and cultural affiliation. Soil samples should be collected from around the remains for pollen, phytolith, and other analyses. Photographs and detailed drawings are essential for documenting the burial. Osteological analysis, conducted by a qualified bioarchaeologist, can determine the individual’s age, sex, health, and possible cause of death. All excavation and analysis must be conducted with respect and in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) if the remains are Native American. Consultation with descendant communities is essential throughout the process.

When conducting a pedestrian survey, systematic transects are a common method employed to ensure thorough coverage of the survey area. The spacing between transects is a crucial factor that affects the probability of detecting archaeological sites or artifacts. Narrower transect spacing increases the likelihood of detection because surveyors are walking closer together, reducing the distance between them and any potential surface remains. However, narrower transects also increase the time and resources required for the survey. Wider transect spacing, on the other hand, reduces the survey time but decreases the probability of detection, as surveyors are more likely to miss smaller or less visible sites. The optimal transect spacing depends on several factors, including the size and visibility of the expected archaeological sites, the terrain, vegetation cover, and the available resources. Survey intensity, which refers to the percentage of the survey area that is actually inspected, is directly related to transect spacing. Higher survey intensity (narrower transects) results in a greater probability of detection.

Proper artifact storage is crucial for preserving archaeological materials for future research. Artifacts should be stored in stable environmental conditions, with controlled temperature and humidity to minimize deterioration. Acid-free materials, such as boxes and tissue paper, should be used to prevent chemical reactions that can damage artifacts. Fragile artifacts should be individually wrapped and supported to prevent breakage. Artifacts should be organized and labeled clearly, with their catalog numbers and provenience information readily visible. A detailed inventory of all artifacts should be maintained, including their location in storage.

When interpreting aerial photographs for archaeological site identification, several key indicators should be considered. Cropmarks, which are variations in crop growth caused by subsurface features, are a common indicator. Buried ditches or pits tend to retain more moisture, leading to enhanced crop growth (positive cropmarks), while buried walls or pavements restrict root growth, resulting in stunted crop growth (negative cropmarks). Soilmarks are variations in soil color or texture caused by buried features. For example, the fill of a ditch may be a different color or texture than the surrounding subsoil, creating a visible contrast on the surface. Shadowmarks are subtle variations in topography that are highlighted by low-angle sunlight. These can reveal the presence of earthworks, such as mounds or embankments, that are not readily visible at other times of day. Vegetation marks are variations in vegetation density or species composition caused by subsurface features. For example, certain plant species may prefer soils with higher nutrient content or moisture levels, leading to distinct vegetation patterns over buried features. The interpretation of aerial photographs should also consider the scale, resolution, and date of the imagery. High-resolution imagery is essential for identifying subtle features, while multiple dates of imagery can reveal changes in crop growth or soil conditions over time. It is also important to consider the potential for non-archaeological features to create similar patterns, such as geological formations, agricultural practices, or modern disturbances. Ground truthing, which involves visiting the site and verifying the features identified in the aerial photographs, is essential for confirming the presence of archaeological sites and distinguishing them from non-archaeological features.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A Phase I archaeological survey, often the initial step in CRM, aims to identify archaeological resources within a project area. If a Phase I survey identifies potentially significant archaeological resources, a Phase II evaluation is conducted to determine the site’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This eligibility is based on criteria outlined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, which includes the site’s potential to yield information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). Consultation with stakeholders, including Native American tribes, is crucial throughout the Section 106 process, particularly when dealing with sites of cultural significance. The final determination of eligibility and the need for mitigation measures (e.g., Phase III data recovery) rests with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), in consultation with the federal agency and other stakeholders. In this scenario, the discovery of potential human remains necessitates immediate notification of the appropriate authorities (SHPO/THPO) and consultation with affiliated Native American tribes, as outlined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The ultimate decision on whether to proceed with Phase III data recovery, which involves excavation, depends on the SHPO/THPO’s assessment of the site’s significance and the potential impact of the project.

Understanding the principles of remote sensing methods is critical for archaeological site survey and reconnaissance. Remote sensing involves acquiring information about an object or area without making physical contact. In archaeology, remote sensing methods are used to identify and map archaeological sites and features. Aerial photography is one of the oldest and most widely used remote sensing methods. Aerial photographs can be used to identify cropmarks, soilmarks, and other features that may indicate the presence of buried archaeological sites. LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) is a laser-based remote sensing technique that can be used to create high-resolution topographic maps. LiDAR data can be used to identify subtle changes in elevation that may indicate the presence of buried features. Drone surveys are becoming increasingly popular for archaeological site survey and reconnaissance. Drones can be equipped with a variety of sensors, including cameras, LiDAR scanners, and thermal sensors. Geophysical prospecting methods, such as magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar (GPR), can be used to detect buried archaeological features without excavation. Magnetometry measures variations in the Earth’s magnetic field, which can be caused by buried iron objects, hearths, and other features. GPR uses radio waves to detect changes in the subsurface, which can be caused by buried walls, pits, and other features.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is a crucial concept in this process. The APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is determined by considering the nature and scope of the undertaking and may be different for different types of effects. Direct effects are caused by the undertaking and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the undertaking but occur later in time or are farther removed in distance, yet are still reasonably foreseeable. The APE should be of sufficient size to account for all potential direct and indirect effects of the undertaking. For example, if a project involves the construction of a new highway, the APE should include not only the area where the highway will be built, but also any areas that may be affected by increased traffic, noise, or visual impacts. This requires a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts, including consultation with stakeholders like Native American tribes and State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). The goal is to identify historic properties within the APE and assess whether the undertaking will have an adverse effect on them. If adverse effects are identified, mitigation measures must be developed to avoid, minimize, or compensate for those effects.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This process involves several steps, including identifying historic properties (sites eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places) within the area of potential effect (APE). After identifying these properties, the agency, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) if applicable, and other consulting parties, assesses whether the undertaking will have an adverse effect on these historic properties. If an adverse effect is found, the agency must consult to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. This often involves developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) outlining the agreed-upon mitigation measures. If no adverse effect is found, or if an agreement on mitigation is reached, the agency can proceed with the undertaking. The key is that the process is consultative and aims to balance the needs of the undertaking with the preservation of historic resources. The act does not outright prohibit development, but ensures that historic preservation is considered.

The question focuses on the practical application of GPS technology in archaeological survey and mapping. The accuracy of GPS data is influenced by various factors, including the number of satellites visible, atmospheric conditions, and the quality of the GPS receiver. Differential GPS (DGPS) is a technique that improves the accuracy of GPS data by using a network of fixed base stations to correct for errors in the satellite signals. Real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS is a more advanced form of DGPS that provides even higher accuracy, typically within a few centimeters. To achieve the highest possible accuracy when mapping archaeological sites, it is essential to use a high-quality GPS receiver and to employ DGPS or RTK techniques. It is also important to follow proper GPS data collection procedures, such as ensuring that the GPS receiver has a clear view of the sky and that data are collected for a sufficient period of time. The corrected data can then be used to create accurate site maps and to record the precise location of archaeological features and artifacts.

Ethical dilemmas in archaeology often arise when there are conflicting values or interests, such as the preservation of archaeological resources versus the needs of development, or the rights of indigenous communities versus the interests of researchers. Addressing these dilemmas requires careful consideration of all stakeholders’ perspectives, adherence to ethical codes of conduct, and a commitment to responsible and respectful archaeological practice. Ethical decision-making often involves weighing the potential benefits and harms of different courses of action and striving to find solutions that are both ethical and practical.

Ethical considerations are paramount in archaeology. Respect for cultural heritage means treating archaeological sites and artifacts as non-renewable resources that hold cultural and historical significance. Data integrity requires maintaining accurate and reliable records of all archaeological work, from field notes to artifact catalogs. Collaboration and communication involve working effectively with colleagues, stakeholders, and the public to share archaeological findings and promote stewardship of cultural resources. Confidentiality means protecting sensitive information about archaeological sites, such as their location or the contents of burials, to prevent looting or vandalism. Ethical dilemmas often arise when these principles conflict, requiring careful consideration and consultation with colleagues and stakeholders.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A critical component of this process is determining whether a site possesses the integrity and significance to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This assessment relies on the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4), which outlines four main criteria (A, B, C, and D). Criterion A is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion B is associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; Criterion C is associated with distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Criterion D is associated with sites that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In the scenario presented, the archaeological site is a prehistoric lithic scatter with no associated features or burials. The artifacts are typical of the region and do not exhibit unique technological attributes. Given this information, the site is unlikely to meet Criteria A, B, or C. However, if the lithic assemblage can contribute significant data regarding regional settlement patterns, technological adaptations, or paleoenvironmental reconstruction, it may meet Criterion D. The determination hinges on the potential of the site to yield important information. A qualified archaeologist must assess the research potential of the lithic scatter and articulate how the site’s data can address specific research questions relevant to the prehistory of the region. The key is the potential to contribute to research, not simply the presence of artifacts.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The determination of “no historic properties affected” requires a systematic process. This process begins with defining the Area of Potential Effects (APE), which includes the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. After defining the APE, a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties within the APE must be undertaken. This involves background research, consultation with relevant parties (e.g., State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), Native American tribes), and often a pedestrian survey. If, after these efforts, no historic properties are identified, or if identified properties will not be adversely affected by the undertaking, a finding of “no historic properties affected” may be appropriate. However, this finding requires thorough documentation demonstrating the steps taken to identify historic properties and the rationale for concluding that no such properties will be affected. The key is the defensibility of the determination, ensuring that the process was rigorous and considered all available information. A lack of identified historic properties does not automatically equate to “no effect”; the potential for buried or unrecorded resources must be considered.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, particularly Section 106, mandates a specific process for federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This process involves several steps, including identifying historic properties, assessing potential adverse effects, and consulting with relevant stakeholders to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those effects. In this scenario, the discovery of human remains during construction triggers specific legal and ethical obligations. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 provides a framework for the treatment, repatriation, and disposition of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. Under NAGPRA, if remains are discovered on federal or tribal lands, the responsible federal agency or tribe must notify the appropriate Native American tribe(s) and consult with them regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains. The NHPA and NAGPRA work in conjunction to protect cultural resources and ensure respectful treatment of human remains. Therefore, the immediate action should involve contacting both the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and consulting with affiliated Native American tribes to ensure compliance with both federal laws. Ceasing construction is crucial to prevent further disturbance and potential legal violations.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates a specific process for federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This process involves several steps, including identifying historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE), assessing the effects of the undertaking on those properties, and consulting with relevant stakeholders to resolve any adverse effects. Crucially, the regulations implementing Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) outline a tiered approach to consultation, prioritizing consultation with certain parties based on their legal standing and demonstrated interest in the historic properties. Federally recognized Indian tribes, including Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) when a tribe has assumed Section 106 responsibilities, are afforded a higher level of consultation due to their inherent sovereign rights and unique cultural connection to ancestral lands and resources. State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) are also primary consulting parties, representing the interests of the state in preserving its historic resources. Local governments, while important stakeholders, typically have a secondary role in the consultation process, especially in initial stages. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) provides guidance and oversight to the Section 106 process, but its direct involvement in consultation is typically reserved for cases involving complex or contentious issues. Therefore, the consultation hierarchy prioritizes federally recognized Indian tribes (THPOs), followed by SHPOs, with local governments and the ACHP playing supporting roles as needed. This prioritization reflects the legal framework and the recognition of tribal sovereignty and cultural heritage.

This question tests understanding of the principles of artifact cataloging and labeling. Assigning unique catalog numbers is crucial for tracking artifacts throughout the analysis and curation process. These numbers serve as a primary identifier, linking each artifact to its specific provenience information (location where it was found). Provenience information is essential for understanding the context of an artifact and its relationship to other artifacts and features at the site. The catalog number should be directly and permanently marked on the artifact itself, using archival-quality materials that will not damage the artifact. This ensures that the artifact can always be identified, even if its original packaging or documentation is lost. The catalog number should also be recorded in a comprehensive artifact inventory or database, along with other relevant information about the artifact (e.g., material, dimensions, description). This database allows researchers to easily search for and retrieve information about specific artifacts or groups of artifacts.

The primary goal of flotation in archaeology is to recover small, light-weight botanical remains (paleobotanical remains) and other small artifacts from soil samples. This is achieved by gently agitating the soil in water, allowing the lighter organic materials (such as seeds, charcoal, and small bone fragments) to float to the surface, where they are skimmed off and collected. The heavier fraction, consisting of sand, gravel, and larger artifacts, sinks to the bottom and is also collected separately. While flotation can indirectly aid in the recovery of some small artifacts, such as beads or micro-lithics, its main purpose is not artifact cleaning or stabilization. Radiocarbon dating requires specific sample preparation techniques and is not directly related to the flotation process itself. Soil pH analysis is a separate laboratory procedure conducted on soil samples collected from the site. Therefore, the primary purpose of flotation is to recover botanical remains and other small artifacts from soil samples.

Stratigraphy is the foundation of archaeological excavation. It involves understanding the layers of soil and deposits (strata) and their relationships to each other. The Law of Superposition states that, in undisturbed contexts, the oldest layers are typically found at the bottom, and the youngest layers are at the top. However, this law has limitations. Disturbances such as animal burrows, root action, or human activities (e.g., pit digging) can invert or mix the layers. Therefore, careful observation and recording are crucial. Context sheets are used to document the specific characteristics of each stratum, including soil color, texture, composition, and the artifacts found within it. These sheets provide a detailed record of the stratigraphic relationships and the provenience of artifacts. Features, such as hearths or postholes, can cut through multiple strata, indicating their relative age. For instance, a feature that originates in a higher stratum and cuts through lower strata is younger than the lower strata it intersects. Understanding these relationships is essential for reconstructing the site’s history and chronology.

Geophysical prospecting techniques are valuable tools for archaeological site investigation. Magnetometry measures variations in the Earth’s magnetic field to detect subsurface features, such as hearths, ditches, and buried structures. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) uses radar pulses to image subsurface features, providing information on their depth, shape, and size. Resistivity surveys measure the electrical resistance of the soil to identify buried features, such as walls, pavements, and graves. Each technique has its strengths and limitations, depending on soil conditions, site characteristics, and target features. Magnetometry is particularly effective for detecting features with high magnetic susceptibility, such as iron objects or burned materials. GPR is best suited for sandy or gravelly soils and can provide high-resolution images of subsurface features. Resistivity surveys are useful for identifying features with contrasting electrical properties, such as walls or ditches. The choice of geophysical technique depends on the specific research questions and site conditions. Often, a combination of techniques is used to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the subsurface.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, particularly Section 106, mandates a specific process for federal agencies when their actions might affect historic properties. This process involves several key steps. First, the agency must determine if the proposed action is indeed a federal undertaking as defined by the NHPA. Next, it needs to identify historic properties that could be affected by the undertaking. This identification involves background research, consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and often archaeological surveys. The criteria for evaluating the significance of archaeological sites are outlined in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria (36 CFR Part 60). These criteria consider the site’s potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, its association with significant events or persons, its embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or its representation of the work of a master. If adverse effects are found, the agency must consult with the SHPO/THPO and other consulting parties to seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those effects. Mitigation can include data recovery (archaeological excavation), preservation in place, or other measures agreed upon by the consulting parties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) provides guidance and oversight on the Section 106 process. The Section 106 process is not solely about preventing all impacts to historic properties, but rather about ensuring that federal agencies consider historic preservation values in their decision-making and attempt to balance preservation with other public interests. The depth of investigation and mitigation is proportional to the significance of the resource and the nature of the impact.

When conducting a pedestrian survey, systematic transects are a common technique. This involves walking parallel lines across the survey area, ensuring complete coverage. The spacing between transects depends on the survey intensity and the visibility conditions. Visual inspection involves carefully scanning the ground surface for artifacts or features. Surface artifacts should be collected and their locations recorded using GPS. Mapping surface features, such as mounds or depressions, is also important. Field notes should document the survey methods, visibility conditions, and any artifacts or features observed. Photographic documentation should capture the overall landscape and any significant finds. A grid system can be used to divide the survey area into smaller units, allowing for more systematic coverage and artifact recording.

The primary goal of artifact cataloging is to create a comprehensive and organized record of all artifacts recovered during an archaeological project. Each artifact is assigned a unique catalog number that links it to its specific provenience (location of discovery), context (associated features and deposits), and other relevant information. This catalog number serves as a unique identifier for the artifact throughout the entire research process, from initial field recording to final analysis and curation. The catalog typically includes information such as the artifact’s material, type, dimensions, weight, condition, and any modifications or use-wear. Detailed descriptions and photographs are also often included. The catalog is essential for tracking artifacts, ensuring data integrity, and facilitating analysis and interpretation. It allows researchers to easily retrieve information about specific artifacts and to compare artifacts from different contexts. While cataloging may contribute to conservation efforts by identifying fragile or unstable artifacts, and while it can be used to estimate the total number of artifacts recovered, its main function is to create a detailed and organized record that links each artifact to its provenience and context.

The Section 106 process, mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A key component is consultation with relevant stakeholders, especially Native American tribes, when projects might impact sites of religious or cultural significance. The determination of “adverse effect” is crucial. It occurs when an undertaking diminishes the integrity of a historic property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Mitigation strategies are developed to resolve adverse effects. These can include avoidance, minimization, or compensation. Avoidance involves altering the project to completely bypass the historic property. Minimization reduces the degree of impact through design modifications or protective measures. Compensation involves activities to offset the adverse effects, such as data recovery (archaeological excavation) or interpretive displays. The selection of mitigation depends on the specific circumstances and is usually determined through consultation. In situations where human remains are discovered, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) takes precedence, dictating specific procedures for consultation and repatriation. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) also plays a role, particularly concerning unauthorized excavation or damage to archaeological resources on federal or tribal lands.

When documenting archaeological features, creating accurate plan and profile drawings is essential for recording their spatial dimensions and stratigraphic relationships. A plan drawing is a horizontal representation of the feature, showing its outline, internal components, and relationship to the surrounding excavation grid. A profile drawing is a vertical cross-section of the feature, revealing its stratigraphy, depth, and construction details. Both types of drawings should be made to scale, using accurate measurements taken with surveying equipment or hand tools. The drawings should include a north arrow, scale bar, datum reference, and labels for all significant features and stratigraphic layers. Consistency in drawing conventions and labeling is crucial for ensuring clarity and comparability across different features and excavation units. These drawings serve as a permanent record of the feature’s form and context, providing valuable information for interpretation and analysis.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This process involves several steps, including identifying historic properties, assessing potential adverse effects, and consulting with relevant stakeholders to resolve those effects. A key aspect is determining if a site is “significant,” usually meaning eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). NRHP eligibility is guided by criteria outlined in 36 CFR Part 60.4. These criteria (A-D) assess a site’s significance based on its association with significant events, persons, design/construction, or information potential. Mitigation strategies, such as data recovery (archaeological excavation), are implemented when adverse effects cannot be avoided. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) provides guidance on the Section 106 process. The level of documentation required during Section 106 compliance varies depending on the project’s potential impact on historic properties. Phase I surveys typically involve background research and pedestrian survey to identify potential sites. Phase II testing assesses the eligibility of identified sites for the NRHP. Phase III mitigation involves data recovery excavations. The depth of excavation and analysis is dictated by the research questions and the site’s significance.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. “Undertakings” are broadly defined and encompass a wide range of projects, activities, or programs funded, permitted, or licensed by a federal agency. The key element is federal involvement. A private construction project, even if large, typically does not trigger Section 106 review unless it involves federal funding, permits, or licenses. For example, if the construction requires a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for impacting wetlands, Section 106 would be triggered. Direct funding from a federal agency for the construction of a new building would also trigger Section 106. Similarly, if a developer needs a permit from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to build a cell tower, this federal permit triggers Section 106 compliance. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) oversees the Section 106 process and provides guidance to federal agencies. The goal is to balance preservation concerns with the needs of federal projects. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of historic properties worthy of preservation. Properties listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP are subject to Section 106 review.