Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D970A62 -10C1- 4949 - 9224- E9F2ADB7D568 <br />c. Phase I Identification Survey <br />1. Objective <br />The goals of a Phase I archaeological survey are to identify archaeological sites, define their <br />boundaries within a project area, and provide National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) <br />eligibility assessments for all identified sites. The assessments are presented in the survey <br />report as recommendations (e.g., not eligible, no further work recommended; portion within <br />project area not eligible; unassessed, additional work recommended; eligible, recommend <br />avoidance; etc.). If a site extends outside of the boundary of the project area, an NRHP <br />eligibility recommendation should only be made for the portion of the site that was actually <br />investigated. NRHP eligibility assessments should also be made for any previously recorded <br />site or portion of a previously recorded site in the project area that was formerly unassessed. <br />2. Description <br />Subsurface investigation through systematic shovel testing is the most commonly employed <br />Phase I survey strategy. Systematic pedestrian reconnaissance is another commonly used <br />methodology, and often the two methodologies are used in conjunction. In certain <br />depositional environments, Phase I investigations may also include remote sensing, stripping, <br />and /or deep testing. Detailed guidelines for undertaking these activities are presented in <br />Section III, Field Methodologies. <br />d. Phase II Evaluation /Testing <br />1. Objective <br />The primary goal of Phase II evaluation /testing is to render a definitive determination of <br />NRHP eligibility. This is achieved by documenting whether the site has both significance <br />and integrity as defined by the NRHP guidelines. If a site is recommended as eligible for <br />listing in the NRHP as a result of Phase II investigations, the project archaeologist should <br />evaluate potential adverse effects to the site, both direct and indirect, resulting from any <br />undertakings that might damage its integrity. The Phase II work should collect enough <br />information to provide specific recommendations regarding mitigation activities, including a <br />research design that identifies the datasets that would be created as a result of data recovery <br />and the questions this data could be used to answer. <br />2. Description <br />All methods employed during Phase II evaluation /testing should be directed toward <br />achieving the primary goal discussed above. These methods should focus on documentation <br />of site integrity and assessment of site significance. As a result, attention should be directed <br />toward documenting infra -site structure and subsurface integrity. This is generally <br />accomplished by a set of close - interval shovel tests and larger, formal excavation units. The <br />primary focus of unit excavation should be to document and evaluate features and /or <br />culturally derived stratigraphy, and the number and placement of test units should be <br />adequate to provide definitive information regarding site integrity. Remote sensing, <br />mechanical stripping, and specialized analyses (e.g. soil micromorphology, radiometric <br />dating) may also be necessary to assess NRHP eligibility. <br />North Carolina Oce of State Archaeology — Archaeological Investigation Standard and Guidelines December 2017) Page 7 <br />