No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Assessing Archaeological Resources
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 August 2016
Abstract
This article presents an overview of archaeological resources and methods in the context of environmental impact assessment (EIA). Archaeological best practices in the EIA process are summarized and examples of deficient work are provided so that readers—particularly those who are responsible for review and approval of environmental studies—will be able to judge the adequacy and professional quality of archaeological work performed for their clients or agencies.
Environmental Practice 18: 214–218 (2016)
- Type
- Features
- Information
- Copyright
- © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2016
References
1 See http://www.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm (accessed February 19, 2016).
2 See http://www.achp.gov/docs/NHPA%20in%20Title%2054%20and%20Conversion%20Table.pdf (accessed February 19, 2016).
4 See http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/ (accessed February 19, 2016).
5 See http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238 (accessed February 19, 2016).
6 For further discussion of the types of archaeological resources and their treatment in the EIA process, see Chapters 3 and 4 of T. F. King, ed., 2011. A Companion to Cultural Resource Management. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
7 These tasks are summarized more fully in M. J. Moratto’s Chapter 3 of T. F. King, ed., 2011. A Companion to Cultural Resource Management. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
8 Although the term “Area of Potential Effects” has a precise legal meaning under federal law in the US [see http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdfhttp://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf (accessed February 19, 2016)], it is used more broadly in this article to mean the area within which any project or activity has the potential to impact cultural, including archaeological, resources.
9 In archaeology, a “feature” is a large, often complex, artifact or part of a site such as a fire hearth, stone alignment, refuse scatter, or storage pit.
11 Direct impacts are the immediate and proximate result of the project or action (e.g., earthmoving); indirect impacts are triggered by, but removed in space and time from, the project or activity (e.g., looting of archaeological resources by occupants of a residential development after it is built); and cumulative impacts include the past, present, and future attrition of archaeological resources in a defined geographic area within which the project or activity is located.
11 As examples, see http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm and http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=prc&group=05001-06000&file=5097.9-5097.991 (accessed February 22, 2016).
12 See http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/36CFR79.htm (accessed February 22, 2016).
13 Examples of deficient survey crews include students working without adequate supervision, archaeologists lacking experience to recognize all the kinds of resources that occur in the survey area, and any crew that relies on assumptions about where archaeological sites are likely to be instead of determining “ground truth” by close inspection of the land.
14 Specialists in prehistoric archaeology sometimes dismiss and neglect to record historical resources, while experts in historical archaeology may not always recognize the subtle indicators of prehistoric resources.
15 Both sites have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources by a federal agency and the California State Historic Preservation Officer.
16 A midden is a soil deposit marking a former habitation site and consisting of discarded artifacts, bone, shell, charcoal, and other cultural debris.