Some Strategies for Effective Cultural Resources Management in Pipeline Permitting

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Bergman ◽  
Steven Law ◽  
Crista Haag ◽  
John Hein ◽  
Donald Brice
Keyword(s):  
Historic Preservation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Potential Effect ◽  
Project Planning ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
National Register ◽  
Planning Stage ◽  
Cultural Resources Management ◽  
Resources Management ◽  
National Historic Preservation Act

The inventory, evaluation and treatment of cultural resources represent a significant challenge for siting and permitting natural gas pipelines. Project sponsors assist the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of Energy Projects with meeting its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The increasing sophistication of compliance with Section 106 is reflected in the Office of Energy Project’s 2002 Guidelines for Reporting on Cultural Resources Investigations for Pipeline Projects. Recent pipeline projects in the United States have involved environmental study corridors that are both wide and extensive, a combination that results in the identification of large numbers of cultural properties. The process of cultural resources management begins in the project planning stage with the development of site location modeling, analysis of previous investigations within or near Areas of Potential Effect, and consideration of the likelihood for encountering potentially eligible National Register of Historic Places properties. Using this information, site detection survey strategies can be developed that intensively target only sensitive portions of the Area of Potential Effect. During the survey, identification of archaeological sites, historic structures, or cultural landscapes requires prompt evaluation of National Register eligibility status for the purposes of avoidance or development of treatment plans. This presentation considers the Section 106 compliance process and how project sponsors can effectively manage cultural resources to ensure cost effectiveness and maintenance of restricted project schedules, while meeting the objectives of the National Historic Preservation Act.

scholarly journals Cultural Resources Intensive Pedestrian Survey within the Dayton Loop Pipeline Project, Harris and Liberty Counties, Texas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Scott ◽  
Amanda Kloepfer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Historic Preservation ◽  
United States Army ◽  
The United States ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Corps Of Engineers ◽  
United States Army Corps ◽  
National Historic Preservation Act

Gray & Pape, Inc., of Houston, Texas, conducted an intensive pedestrian cultural resources survey of jurisdictional portions of survey corridor within a proposed pipeline alignment measuring a total of approximately 30 kilometers (18.5 miles) located in Harris and Liberty Counties, Texas. The pipeline route is on privately-owned property; therefore, a Texas Antiquities Permit was not required prior to survey. In total, the surveyed property totals approximately 2.8 hectares (7 acres) which defines the Area of Potential Effects. The goals of the survey were to establish whether or not previously unidentified archaeological resources were located within the project area, also defined as the project’s Area of Potential Effects, and whether the pipeline alignment would affect any previously identified cultural resources. The lead agency for the project has been identified as the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District. The procedures to be followed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to fulfill the requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act, other applicable historic preservation laws, and Presidential directives as they relate to the regulatory program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (33 CFR Parts 320-334) are articulated in the Regulatory Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Part 325 -Processing of Department of the Army Permits, Appendix C -Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties. All fieldwork and reporting activities were completed following accepted standards set forth by the Texas Historical Commission and the Council of Texas Archeologists and in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Fieldwork took place in March 2019 and required 32 work hours to complete. Field investigation consisted of intensive pedestrian inspection, subsurface shovel testing, photographic documentation, and mapping. A total of 20 shovel tests were excavated, of which none were positive for buried cultural materials. No historic structures were identified as a result of survey. Based on the results of the survey, Gray & Pape, Inc. recommends that no further cultural resources work be required and that the project be cleared to proceed as currently planned.

For Your Information

1984 ◽  
Vol 6 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 9-9
Author(s):  
Linda Valleroy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Cultural Resources Management ◽  
Resources Management

A Guide to Contractors in Cultural Resources Management has been issued by ArchaeoPress. The guide provides "profiles of approximately 100 CR organizations from across the United States."

Traditional Cultural Properties

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.J. Ferguson ◽  
Leigh Kuwanwisiwma
Keyword(s):  
Historic Preservation ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Building Structure ◽  
National Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Cultural Properties ◽  
Traditional Cultural Properties ◽  
National Historic Preservation Act

Traditional cultural properties are significant because of the role they play in the retention and transmission of historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices of a living traditional community. They are routinely identified and evaluated as historic properties during research activities needed for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on cultural resources. To be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, traditional cultural properties need to be tangible places (a district, site, building, structure or object), must meet one or more of the National Register eligibility criteria, must have integrity of relationship and condition, must have been important for at least fifty years, and must have definable boundaries. The methods and concepts pertinent to research of traditional cultural properties in the Southwest are reviewed in this chapter.

scholarly journals Cultural Resources Survey of the Lone Star Express II Pipeline – Loop 3, in Eastland, Comanche, Erath, and Bosque Counties, Texas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Scott ◽  
Amanda Kloepfer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Historic Preservation ◽  
United States Army ◽  
The United States ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Corps Of Engineers ◽  
United States Army Corps ◽  
National Historic Preservation Act

Gray & Pape, Inc., of Houston, Texas, on behalf of Lone Star NGL Pipeline, LP, conducted an intensive pedestrian cultural resources survey within permitted areas of the 142.27-kilometer (88.4mile) long Lone Star Express II Pipeline Project – Loop 3, in Eastland, Comanche, Erath, and Bosque Counties, Texas. The lead agency for the project has been identified as the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (Permit No. SWF-2019-00091). Thus, survey efforts concentrated on areas anticipated to be under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (permit areas). Within Loop 3, the total Area of Potential Effects within the permit areas measures approximately 209.9 hectares (518.6 acres). This area encapsulates approximately 52.8 kilometers (32.8 miles) of proposed project alignment. The procedures to be followed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to fulfill the requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act, other applicable historic preservation laws, and Presidential directives as they relate to the regulatory program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (33 CFR Parts 320-334) are articulated in the Regulatory Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Part 325 - Processing of Department of the Army Permits, Appendix C - Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties. All fieldwork and reporting activities were completed according to a scope of work submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Texas Historical Commission and accepted standards set forth by the Texas Historical Commission and the Council of Texas Archeologists and in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A records and literature review of the project location prior to survey identified 13 previously recorded archaeological sites, four historic markers, five cemeteries, and five previously conducted surveys within a 0.8-kilometer (0.5-mile) radius of Loop 3. Of those, the mapped locations for one recorded archaeological site and three previous surveys intersect the project corridor. An additional three archaeological sites are located within 91 meters (300 feet) of the project’s Areas of Potential Effects. Fieldwork on Loop 3 was conducted in the Spring of 2019 with supplemental survey in August, October, and November of 2019 and required approximately 3,680-person hours to complete. Survey involved archaeological reconnaissance and shovel testing throughout anticipated permit areas within the project corridor. In total, approximately 901 shovel tests were excavated within permit areas, of which four were positive for cultural material. No portions of previously recorded resources: 41ER48, 41ER49, 41ER50, or 41ER56, were re-identified; however, two new previously unrecorded resources, 41BQ358 and 41BQ359, and one isolate, BQ-07-ISO-01, were discovered. The newly recorded resources consist of sparse Prehistoric lithic scatters, consisting mainly of debitage and lacking temporally or culturally diagnostic artifacts. The lone diagnostic artifact, Isolate BQ-07-ISO-01, consists of an Ellis or Godley type projectile point dating to the Late to Transitional Archaic. The resource areas within the pipeline corridor showed clear disturbance from the adjacent pipeline right-of-way. Indications of soil deflation, erosion, and past land modifications such as agriculture or terracing were also observed. Further, Resource 41BQ358 and Isolate BQ-07-ISO-01 are located on very spatially limited topographic settings surrounded by slopes of 30 degrees or greater. The workspace at the location of 41BQ359 has been revised to avoid the site thus removing it from permitting. The workspace where it passes the site will be marked by orange fencing. Shovel test results at nearly all permit areas identified subsoils, cemented soils, or bedrock. Alarm Creek in Erath County, Permit Area Number 65, was targeted for deep testing based on geomorphological data, and field results and discussions with the field archaeologist. Deep test results indicated a lack of deeply buried A horizon soils and showed no potential for deeply buried cultural material or paleosols. No cultural features or historic-age standing resources were encountered in the field. No artifacts were collected as a result of survey. It is the opinion of Gray & Pape Inc. that none of the recorded resources retain the potential to provide significant research value and are thus recommended not eligible for the National Register, under Evaluation Criterion D. In addition, the resources are recommended not eligible for State Antiquities Landmark status. Gray & Pape, Inc. recommends no additional archaeological work for these resources or surveyed portions of the project. However, Gray & Pape, Inc. recommends that an unanticipated discoveries plan be put into place in the event that such discoveries take place during construction.

scholarly journals Cultural Resources Survey of the Lone Star Express II Pipeline Project - Loop 1, in Midland, Martin, Howard, Mitchell, and Nolan Counties, Texas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Scott ◽  
Amanda Kloepfer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Historic Preservation ◽  
United States Army ◽  
The United States ◽  
Army Corps ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Army Corps Of Engineers ◽  
Corps Of Engineers ◽  
United States Army Corps ◽  
National Historic Preservation Act

Gray & Pape, Inc., of Houston, Texas, on behalf of Lone Star NGL Pipeline, LP, conducted an intensive pedestrian cultural resources survey within permitted areas of the 174.36-kilometer (108.34-mile) long Lone Star Express II Pipeline Project – Loop 1, in Midland, Martin, Howard, Mitchell, and Nolan Counties, Texas. The lead agency for the project has been identified as the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District (Permit No. SWG-2019-00091). Thus, survey efforts concentrated on areas anticipated to be under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (permit areas). Within Loop 1, the total Area of Potential Effects within the permit areas measures approximately 125.6 hectares (310.3 acres). This area encapsulates approximately 29.6 kilometers (18.4 miles) of proposed project alignment. In addition, approximately 2.3 kilometers (1.4 miles) or 8.9 hectares (21.9 acres) of the proposed route are controlled by the City of Colorado City and thus required the issuance of a Texas Antiquities Code Permit. Permit number 8896 was issued for the project. The procedures to be followed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to fulfill the requirements set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act, other applicable historic preservation laws, and Presidential directives as they relate to the regulatory program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (33 CFR Parts 320-334) are articulated in the Regulatory Program of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Part 325 - Processing of Department of the Army Permits, Appendix C - Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties. All fieldwork and reporting activities were completed according to a scope of work submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Texas Historical Commission and accepted standards set forth by the Texas Historical Commission and the Council of Texas Archeologists and in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Gray & Pape, Inc. submitted project records to the Center of Archaeological Studies at Texas State University. A records and literature review of the project location prior to survey identified 62 previously recorded archaeological resources, one cemetery, one historic marker, and 22 previously conducted surveys within a 0.8-kilometer (0.5-mile) radius of the Loop 1 segment. Of those, 10 recorded archaeological resources and six previous surveys intersect anticipated permit areas. Fieldwork on Loop 1 was conducted in the Spring of 2019 with supplemental survey in July, August, and September 2019. Survey of Loop 1 required approximately 1,200 Gray & Pape, Inc. person-hours to complete and involved archaeological reconnaissance and shovel testing throughout anticipated permit areas within the project corridor. In total, approximately 664 shovel tests were excavated within permit areas, 25 of which were positive for cultural materials. An additional 122 shovel tests were conducted as part of resource delineation efforts. Field effort also included the excavation of a total of 13 deep tests. Nine previously recorded resources: 41NL6, 41NL313, 41NL314, 41NL315, 41NL316, 41NL320, 41NL321, 41NL323, and 41NL326; eight new previously unrecorded resources: 41HW142, 41MH128, 41MH130, 41NL377, 41NL378, 41NL379, 41NL380, and 41NL392; and four isolate finds were identified within Loop 1 permit areas. An additional 10 previously recorded resources: 41MD41, 41HW8, 41HW104, 41HW105, 41HW106, 41NL310, 41NL312, 41NL322, 41NL324, and 41NL325; and one newly identified resource, 41MH129, were identified within the Area of Potential Effects but outside of jurisdictional areas. These sites largely exhibited surface scatters of lithics which are typical for the area and were consistent with the resources identified within jurisdictional permit areas.

Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne F. Loechl ◽  
Manroop Chawla ◽  
Bethanie C. Grashof ◽  
Marcus Griffin ◽  
Adam Smith
Keyword(s):  
Management Plan ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Cultural Resources Management ◽  
Resources Management

The Opportunities and Limitations of Tribal Consultation in Studies Conducted Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

1998 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-8
Author(s):  
Gail Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Historic Preservation ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
National Park ◽  
National Park Service ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Cultural Properties ◽  
Park Service ◽  
Traditional Cultural Properties ◽  
National Historic Preservation Act

Proposed construction and development projects that require Federal permits are subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires that the Federal decision-maker take into account the project's potential effects on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Over the years and especially after 1990 when the National Park Service released Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), Section 106 review has increased the consideration of designating TCPs and consultation with the Indian tribal organizations that value them. Bulletin 38 defines TCPs as places that have been historically important in maintaining the cultural identify of a community.

The 1983 Excavations at 19BN281. Christopher L. Borstel. Chapters in the Archeology of Cape Cod, II. Francis P. McManamon, series editor. Cultural Resources Management Study No. 12. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Boston, 1985. xix + 186 pp., tables, figures, appendices, references. $5.00 (paper). - Chapters in the Archeology of Cape Cod, III: The Historic Period and Historic Period Archeology. Francis P. McManamon, editor with contributions by Patricia E. Rubertone, S. Terry Childs, and Francis P. McManamon. Cultural Resources Management Study No. 13. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Boston, 1985. xi + 157 pp., figures, tables, references. $5.00 (paper). - The Indian Neck Ossuary: Chapters in the Archeology of Cape Cod, V. Francis P. McManamon, James W. Bradley, and Ann L. Magennis. Cultural Resources Management Study No. 17. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Boston, 1986. xiv + 183 pp., figures, tables, references. $5.00 (paper).

1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 199-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet S. Pollak
Keyword(s):  
North Atlantic ◽  
National Park ◽  
National Park Service ◽  
Cape Cod ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Regional Office ◽  
Cultural Resources Management ◽  
Management Study ◽  
Resources Management ◽  
Park Service

Religion as Cultural Resource

2020 ◽  
pp. 127-170
Author(s):  
Michael D. McNally
Keyword(s):  
Historic Preservation ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Cultural Resources ◽  
Cultural Resource ◽  
Tribal Governments ◽  
Preservation Law ◽  
Traditional Cultural Properties ◽  
National Historic Preservation Act ◽  
Sacred Lands

This chapter explores what results when Native peoples articulate religious claims in the language of culture and cultural resources under environmental and historic preservation law. It argues that cultural resource laws have become more fruitful in two respects. First, there is more emphatic insistence on government-to-government consultation between federal agencies and tribes. Second, in 1990, National Historic Preservation Act regulations were clarified by designating “Traditional Cultural Properties” as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and in 1992, that law was amended to formally engage tribal governments in the review process. In light of these developments, protection under the categories of culture and cultural resource have proved more capacious for distinctive Native practices and beliefs about sacred lands, but it has come at the expense of the clearer edge of religious freedom protections, while still being haunted, and arguably bedraggled, by the category of religion from which these categories ostensibly have been formally disentangled.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document