Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DocuSign Envelope ID: 16F7E188 -42F5- 4144- AF1B- 934E4ACOFE59 <br />g. Description and photograph(s) of features if present; and <br />7. Effects of project on individual sites. <br />g. Significance Evaluations and Recommendations <br />This section of the report establishes the framework for evaluating the significance of <br />the sites identified during the survey. Significance evaluations must be presented with <br />explicit reference to the eligibility criteria for listing in the NRHP (htip://www.achp. <br />gov /nrcriteria.html), and should be consistent with contemporary research interests of <br />the archaeological community. While archaeological sites are most frequently <br />considered eligible under criterion (d) for their ability to yield important information <br />about the past, all four criteria should be considered when developing a <br />recommendation. In some cases, multiple criteria may be applicable. As a site must also <br />retain integrity to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register, significance <br />evaluations should also include assessments of integrity, which according to the NPS <br />has seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and <br />association (https: / /www.nps. gov /nr /publications /bulletins /nrbl5 /nrbl5 8.htm). <br />Clearly, it is insufficient to merely state that a site is or is not significant. Evaluation of <br />each site must be framed by the information potential for local, regional, statewide, or <br />national research problems, and /or the historical importance of the resources with <br />regard to important people and events. All evaluations of "eligible" and "not eligible" <br />should be accompanied by a justification that applies the NRHP eligibility criteria and <br />assesses site integrity. <br />Recommendations regarding the treatment of sites will usually be phrased in terms of <br />"further work," "no further work," or "avoidance" (i.e., preservation in place). <br />Appropriate recommendations should be clearly presented for each site recorded during <br />the survey, and should be consistent with the site significance evaluations. <br />Sites recorded during the survey that are not located within the proposed area of <br />ground disturbance, or that will not be affected by the project, should also be <br />considered in the recommendations, since it is possible that the proposed location or <br />alignment may be moved at a later stage in the project design. Discussions should also <br />include, as appropriate, estimates of the amount and types of further work <br />recommended (e.g., 10 2 -x -2 -meter test units), or a description of the recommended <br />avoidance, management, and preservation procedures to be followed. <br />The significance evaluations and recommendations should include: <br />1. An evaluation of each site located during the survey according to the criteria for <br />listing in the NRHP, including a contextualized justification for each evaluation; <br />and <br />2. Site - specific recommendations for further work, including: <br />a. Description of type(s) and amount(s) of further work if recommended; <br />or <br />b. Description of recommended avoidance, management, and preservation <br />procedures if recommended. <br />North Carolina Oce of State Archaeology — Archaeological Investigation Standard and Guidelines December 2017) Page 26 <br />