Phase I.
The first step is the identification process where the “project area,” is usually identified. This in the investigation of any cultural resource archeology involves location of existing archeological sites in the region. It is also referred to as the survey area or area of potential effects.
The investigations are classified into three stages where the first stage is intended to establish the existence of the archeological sites in the region. The significance of these sites is subject to subsequent stages. This first stage allowed archeologists establish the scope of the survey area, classifying the kind of the construction effect regarding the environment perspective.
The next action was conducting a background study to ascertain the ranging settlement patterns, occupation and how the region and its environs were used the prehistoric, contact, and historical times. The existence of acknowledged ancient and contact period archeological sites within the survey area is documented including the growth of its environs. A review of the history of the town and county, availability of local maps and any other significant but readily available details constitutes the historical study. Examples are preceding CRM or SHPO survey reports etc.
This background study aids the researcher to determine the potential discovery of archeological sites within the region. These assessment frameworks constitute of thematic, chronological, and geographical constituents, for instance the 17th-century local sites located in the basin of River Charles in Boston. They are referred to as historical contexts. A field inspection of the survey area follows. First hand assessment of the area by the survey team is carried out to document any disturbances and also identification of apparent proof of cultural resources. These may include foundations, ancient exterior artifacts, etc.
After the establishment of the presence of sites by archeologists from the background and reconnaissance studies, the significant parts of the sites with possibilities of discovery of ancient archeological sites can now be selected. These are pin pointed on the schematic maps and test pits are then shoveled at set standards, 10 meters in Massachusetts.
There was absence of ancient cultural remains in the excavated pits in the projects for reconstruction of roads cited above, see appendix for a catalog of recovered artifacts. The remnants of four structures in the 19th-century in near proximity to each other, were discovered but they were located exteriorly to the survey area and so required no extra additional work.
Had archeological sites been discovered within the survey area, the initial phase survey would not have proceeded to assess the significance and veracity of those cultural resources. As an alternative, the report from this phase would have probably recommended a follow up of the second phase survey, for evaluation of the latent importance of the identified cultural resources.

Phase II
I. The Basics of Phase II Evaluation Surveys
A. The Stage 2nd  among a process with three steps.
It is vital to evaluate the identified cultural resources from phase I survey which according to section 106 of NEPA, entails the figuring out of the likely hood of the significance of the properties in satisfying the criteria’s set by the National Register. In order for the properties to be regarded as significant, they must possess the following. Location integrity, workmanship, design, association, and feeling as well as fulfilling one or more of the famous eligibility A-D criterion as listed below.
a) Sites linked to significant events.
b) Sites related to significant people.
c) Sites embodying a period, method or construction type; or a master’s work representation; or possession of great artistic values; or representation of a vital, discernible entity.
d) Sites having yielded, or showing likely hood of yielding, significant information in prehistory or history.
The last criterion is usually evoked for most archeological sites but any of the other criteria archeological resources may be employed to designate archeological resources.
For instance, under Criterion a), Gettysburg battlefield could be definitely significant whereas under criterion b), the fields at Mount Vernon, due to their connection to George Washington, could definitely meet the criteria. Under the c) criterion, an Iroquois village site having longhouse architecture archetypal of the period may be eligible.

In the second phase assessment of archeological sites surveys, which are sometimes referred to as site examination, there must be more than a few definite goals the research is directed to. Firstly, boundaries must be delineated for the purposes of the National Register by determining the extension of the sites both vertically and horizontally. Secondly, establishment of the chronological span and the type of site is performed. For instance, is it a single site or is the site multiple-component? Is it a environment, neighbor hood, industrial, or a particular use site? Thirdly, it is important to access the integrity of the sites archaeologically. Is the maintenance of the site in condition to retain its links? Will there be meaningful data gathered from the site due to its adequate complexity and material culture? Lastly is there data and integrity enough to permit significant research questions be tackled through analysis and excavation?
The second phase archaeological study involves more thorough background surveys, field investigations, historical research, and scrutiny than surveys from Phase I. For instance, this phase’s background study for the sites discovered in first phase studies often in order to determine the property’s occupation and ownership needs deed investigation.
Additional research will be conducted in appropriate study area if the type of the site is known. For instance, the discovery of a industrial site dating 19th century, would warrant the second phase to determine the industry, its growth and how the site influenced it. The meter-unit is distinctive of the second phase study as compared to the test pits for the first phase. In order to be certain, several test pits might have to be excavated for the sake of locating where the boundaries of the site lie. However, in order to be certain that the ite contains enough integrity, it might be necessary to excavate more units carefully for the recovery of viable information to conclude the site is of significance. The archeologist, in phase two has to utilize several methods as well as analyses in order to understand the recovered data. Subsurface walls as well as foundations are delineated by use of geophysical remote sensing and identification of features. The chronology of the sites is determined through radiocarbon dating at the site. During this second process the is also use of other methods. For example, soil analysis, faunal and floral analysis. This is all vital in order to determine the significance and research potential of the site.
c). Evaluation of Potential Significance.
The archeologist must approve that the site once sufficiently tested and researched, meets the eligibility criterion set by the National Register.
The site has sufficient potential to respond to significant queries especially if proposed using the final criterion (d) if it is an ancient site. The archaeologist therefore must clear those significant study inquiries and portray how the analysis and excavation data from the site as comprehended based on investigations in the second phase, effectively addresses the questions. That is only possible if the archeologist is aware of data from identical sites and the general inquiries in the field. It is vital to point out that recommendations of the archeologist the report of the second phase should not state that a specific site is viable for the National register. Other parties will determine that, according to section 106 process of the official from the agency after consultations with SPHO/TPHO and other persons. The archeologist proposes eligibility of the property for entry into the National register. The recommendation might say that the site has been approved to be included in the National register under the fourth criterion and that the proposed project should avoid the site and if that is unavoidable then a project to recover data should be embarked to moderate the extreme effects of onsite projects.
Phase III:  Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
Assuming during the first phase, cultural resources were discovered and these were deemed of significance during the second phase, the official has to decide if there will be extreme effects of the project proposed on the site. If there might be, efforts must then be made to avoid, mitigate, minimize these effects. Several ways may be applied.
i. Avoidance.
The project can be altered to make sure that the cultural resources are not impacted. Preservatives advocate for this as the sites are abandoned. It is possible to imagine that it is necessary to excavate the site and learn something but since even in the third phase, full excavation is not performed, it is better to abandon the site. The possibility of redesigning the project may be rare since topology varies and constraints such as land availability etc. It might not be practical and realistic from a financial point of view if the redesigning cost is dear, or from a scheduling position, for instance, if there is need for a survey for impacts both cultural and environmental for the realignment, as these would result in project delays. This is never a perfect solution, since once the decision has been made to avoid the site, the preservation laws no longer apply. Preservation is not guaranteed by this method since after the ancient site has been erased as a project area from section 106, it is left at the liberty of the owner to use it as pleased.

ii)  Site Burial:
Cultural resources may be buried deep to avoid tampering from the project’s construction, however this does not go without being controversial since burying these resources for a long time may affect for example the soil chemistry and these raises concerns. If burial of the site renders the site impossible to ever investigate, the degree to which a cultural resource is preserved may be questionable.  Refer to Robert M. Thorne, “Intentional Site Burial: A Technique to Protect Against Natural or Mechanical Loss,” Archeological Assistance Program, Technical Brief No. 5, Sept. 1989.
II. Phase III Data Recovery
a) The Final Stage in the Three-Step Process:
A full scale investigation crafted for the site’s study through excavation is conducted for mitigation purposes if an assumption is made that it is not practical to avoid  or lessen the effects on important archeological resources. This is the recovery project for data in the third phase. The study design for these recovery projects must address particular study queries from the second report as significant to the site.
A. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA): In Section 106 dictates that the recovery projects are set partially as an in accordance between other parties that wish to consult and federal agency, SHPO/THPO.
B. Research Designs for Data Recovery Projects:
Since each site is unique, it is complicated to generalize about this recovery projects. Contrary to the first and second phased where the surveys conducted are somehow standardized with regard to nature of testing and amount of research, the research design in the third stage must be tailored specifically to the sites particulars and study queries applied to it. This phase’s excavation can be safely termed as both extensive and intensive a compared to any other phase. The techniques used for analysis are detailed and applied more systematically.
C. Phase III Proposals and Budgets:
It is challenging scoping and budgeting for a project in the third phase. Budget proposals, the extent of excavation, scope of applied work, number of artifacts anticipated, the analysis to be employed in the third phase vary greatly as compared to the second and first phase. Huge and complicated projects may incur large cost in terms of millions of dollars as rarely witnessed in the other phases. The extent of the site to be sampled poses as a challenge too. The more complicated phase three projects leads to need for summoning extra personnel. It is of huge significance the public be informed of the archeology during the third phase and the recovery projects advocate public explanation as well as other trendy forms of publicizing the projects’ outcomes, for instance, brochures, exhibits, booklets. Lastly, large scale excavations in the third phase entail.
Finally, large-scale Phase III excavations require thorough dexterity to schedule, manage, and for the coordination of the different project components from beginning to end. Clients with regard to these phase three projects tend to worry more about the approval and timely completion of the project. In terms of competitive bidding for Phase III projects, clients tend to worry less about the budget and more about making sure the project receives the necessary approvals and gets done on time. For this reason they pay close attention to the qualification of the firm and its principals, its reputation, and its previous experience in successfully managing similar projects.
III. Case Study of a Data Recovery Project
Research on a data recovery case study, which should describe the process of the site’s data discovery and evaluation, explaining the process of the project development. Show how implementation of the research design was performed and evaluate the project’s success. Determine whether it made any significant contribution to knowing our past.

Use the order calculator below and get ordering with now! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

Free Quote