Create a Research Design for Submerged Cultural Resources

Create a Research Design for Submerged Cultural Resources. A. Create a Research Design: An explicit research design should govern all archaeological work, especially Phase II and III investigations. This design or plan should ask questions regarding the justification and legitimacy of the proposed field work, what is to be gained from this work prior to going into the field, and what techniques will be employed to complete the task. Furthermore, the research design should reflect the needs of the sponsor, such as “how much area to look at and how much and what kinds of data to record” (Davis 1982:B-5). In addition, each archaeologist must submit a scope of work to MDAH-SHPO for comment prior to conducting Phase I cultural resource surveys of 200 hectares (500 acres) or more. The proposed scope of work must also be submitted to MDAH-SHPO for comment before conducting any Phase II or III investigations. These documents should specify the types of cultural resources known or anticipated to be in the project’s area of potential effects, the field and/or archival techniques proposed, the projected number of field personnel required for the project, and the estimated time in the field. B. Conduct Literature Review/Records Check: Prior to investigations of submerged cultural resources, historical and archaeological records, literature (e.g., Ways Packet Directory, 1848-1994), and archival sources should be examined to provide a cultural/historical context for the study area, and to identify previously recorded archaeological or historical properties in or near the project area. The following is a brief list of sources maintained by MDAH-SHPO that should be consulted prior to conducting Phase I, II, and III submerged cultural resources investigations: 1. Mississippi Archaeological Site File (contains information on known sites) 2. Archaeological Maps (15’ and 7.5’ USGS Topographic Quadrangles), which contain information on known site locations, previous cultural resource surveys, etc. 3. Cultural Resources Survey reports and other applicable literature, such as H.P. Owen’s Steamboats and the Cotton Economy, Mississippi Archaeology, Louisiana Archaeology, Journal of Alabama Archaeology, Tennessee Anthropologist, Southeastern Archaeology, American Antiquity, etc. 4. Archaeological Subject File (supplemental data to recorded sites, such as artifact illustrations and photographs, site maps, newspaper articles, correspondence, etc.). 5. Deeds, Historic Maps, and Aerial Photographs. 6. National Register of Historic Places Files. C. Recordation: 1. Field notes should be maintained during the entire investigation and for all aspects of the project. If possible, all notes should be written or copied onto acid- free paper. 2. Significant archaeological sites and prominent features (e.g., shipwrecks, docking facilities) with good visibility (e.g., low tide; clear water) should be photographed with color and black and white film. Although most black and white film types are fairly stable, most color films are not. Due to color film’s instability and short life expectancy, archaeologists are strongly encouraged to use Kodachrome film when photodocumenting the site and research for the permanent record. All photographs should be printed with a standard finish, such as matte, glossy, or satin and should be at least 3½ x 5 inches. Each photograph should be labeled with a permanent audio-visual marking pen or pencil. Adhesive labels should not be used on photographs because the labels can become detached. All original photos, negatives, and transparencies should be included with the curated materials. Digital images, regardless of the media, are not appropriate for the permanent record. For further advice concerning photographing significant archaeological sites refer to National Register Bulletin 16A (How to Complete the National Register Form and National Register), 20 (Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places), 23 (How to Improve the Quality of Photos for National Register Nominations). 3. Maps and scaled drawings of the project area and recorded anomalies should be maintained throughout the investigation. This is particularly important since many submerged cultural resources in Mississippi can not be photodocumented due to poor visibility associated with water turbidity. D. Phase I: 1. Submerged Cultural Resources Survey: The overall goal of a Phase I submerged cultural resources survey is to locate and evaluate archaeological resources within the project’s area of potential effects. During this phase of research, archaeologists need to recover sufficient information to determine whether further investigations at the site/s is necessary to address National Register eligibility. Specific objectives of the Phase I submerged cultural resources survey include: a. a review and search of the archaeological and historical records pertaining to the general project area; b.a field inspection and complete Phase I survey to determine the presence, nature and degree of integrity, if possible, of archaeological remains within the project’s area of potential effect; and c. an evaluation of the potential impact of the project on the identified archaeological resources. 2. Fieldwork Guidelines: The areas surveyed and the methodologies employed should be decided on an individual project basis. The following list, however, provides basic guidelines that should assist the archaeologist in retrieving adequate information: a. General: i. Each submerged and visible watercraft, as well as other cultural resources (e.g., bridges, structures) identified in the project’s area of potential effects, should be recorded and preliminarily evaluated as to its National Register eligibility. ii. Due to varying levels of survey complexity often associated with riverine and marine environments, such as water depths and poor visibility, remote-sensing technologies should be used. Remote- sensing technologies should include, but not be limited to, systematic magnetometer survey, bathymetric or fathometer survey, and side-scan sonar. All instrument data should be recorded in concert with a Differential Global Positioning System (GPS). iii. A magnetometer survey will detect most anomalies in the project’s area of potential effects. Archaeologists will need to conduct more detailed systematic magnetic surveys for all anomalies thought to be potentially significant. Analyses of the initial and more detailed magnetic surveys should provide the principal investigator with enough information to determine the identity of the anomaly and the potential for further testing. iv. If it is determined that additional testing of an anomaly is needed/required, then a side-scan sonar should be employed to enable the principal investigator to make a more precise determination regarding the anomaly’s National Register potential. Side-scan sonar may be excluded from use when field conditions prohibit or dictate otherwise. In these instances, a justification for not using side-scan sonar must be discussed in the report. It is important that all generated data (side-scan sonar, magnetometer, etc.) be correlated in order to produce as accurate a survey result as possible. v. Systematic water jet probing from the deck of the survey boat or adjacent banklines should be conducted to determine the location and extent of all identified submerged watercraft and other potentially significant underwater resources. vi. All exposed watercraft elements should be fully recorded to the extent possible with a detailed discussion provided in the report. vii. Survey and site/s locations must be depicted on 7.5’ USGS topographic maps. b. Magnetometer, Bathymetric/Fathometer: Magnetometer and Bathymetric/Fathometer are remote sensing instruments that produce survey data capable of being downloaded into a computer database. There are two types of magnetometers currently used in the field of underwater research, a proton precession magnetometer and a cesium magnetometer. The proton precession magnetometer is probably sufficient for the Phase I cultural resource survey. Data collected from the magnetometer survey should be of sufficient precision and quality to allow for interpretations. c. Side-Scan Sonar:Archaeologists are encouraged to use as high a frequency side-scan sonar as possible, such as 500 kHz. Higher frequencies produce superior resolutions thereby allowing for better identification and interpretation of targets. While lower frequency side- scan sonars, such as 100 kHz, can produce good results, they do not produce the high quality results higher frequency side-scan sonars do. Again, archaeologists are encouraged to utilize a side-scan sonar capable of recording data that can be down loaded into a computer database (note: some side-scan sonars are equipped with video monitors, but are incapable of storing the generated data). d. Positioning Systems: A positioning system should be incorporated into all submerged cultural resources surveys, so archaeologists can easily map and relocate any targets encountered. To ensure precision during the remote sensing survey a ±5 meter variance in positioning data is suggested. In order to achieve this accuracy, the archaeologist should use either an on-shore total station or a Differential (or corrected) Global Positioning System (GPS). The on-shore total station may be more practical and feasible if: the survey area is limited in scope, the line of sight between shore and survey vessel is good, and/or there is a single target involved. e. Remote Sensing Survey: i. Transect lane spacing should not exceed 30 meters (100 feet). ii. Positioning control points should be obtained at least every 30 meters (100 feet) along transects. iii. Background noise for the magnetometer data should not exceed ±3 gammas. iv. Magnetic data should be recorded on the 100 gamma scale. v. The magnetometer sensor should be towed a minimum of 2.5 times the length of the boat or projected in front of the survey vessel to avoid vessel noise. vi. The survey should utilize the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid system when providing site and feature locations. vii. Additional, more tightly spaced transects should be run over all potentially significant anomalies. viii. Differential GPS survey control should be used to determine the exact locations of the magnetic anomalies or exposed watercraft. f. Survey Intervals: i. Although interval spacing should be established on a case by case basis, it is recommended that magnetometer spacing not exceed 30 m (100 ft). This spacing increases the possibility of detecting the smallest of targets. A transect spacing justification (e.g., density of archaeological sites in area, inaccessibility) for all forms of remote sensing should accompany the cultural resources survey report. ii. Any magnetic target that produces an anomaly greater than 20 to 25 gammas, covers an area greater than 15 meters, or produces a complex signature should be viewed a second time. A justification for any subsequent viewing, or a decision not to reexamine an anomaly such as this, must accompany the survey report. iii. Additional survey lines (normally perpendicular to the original survey) should be run across targets deemed to be of interest. These supplementary lines provide additional data on the character of the target, as well as aid in the development of magnetic contour maps. g. Terrestrial Surveys: i. In some cases, a terrestrial survey of bank lines may provide supplementary data to the information generated during the underwater survey. Examples of such data include the locations of vessels partially covered by bank lines, associated structures such as docking or landing facilities, and sunken vessels abandoned at or near these facilities. In addition, terrestrial surveys provide access to shore lines deemed inaccessible by boat due to heavy vegetation or low water (For information concerning appropriate survey methods see Terrestrial Cultural Resources Survey section). ii. Archaeologists are also encouraged to use hand-held magnetometers when conducting these bank line and shallow water terrestrial surveys. This is especially true in river settings where magnetic targets are observed trending under the bank. E. Phase II: 1. Submerged Cultural Resource Testing and Evaluation: The primary objective of the Phase II investigation is to determine if the site in question is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (note: Phase I and II underwater investigations are sometimes combined into a single activity. The governing/contracting agency is responsible for ensuring that a scope of work exists in which the specific tasks are outlined and that the proper officials are notified). Unlike terrestrial archaeological sites, National Register eligibility for most submerged cultural resources will be determined using most of the established Criterion, as opposed to just Criterion D (see National Register Bulletin 36). However, as with terrestrial sites, “In order to determine the significance of a site [under Criterion D], enough subsurface investigation must be done to establish the potential for information that can be used to formulate and answer research questions” in regard to a regional context (Bense et al. 1986:56). Investigation objectives include, but are not limited to: a. the vertical and horizontal extent of intact archaeological deposits within each site; b.the density and distribution of the archaeological deposits within each site; c. the cultural affiliation of the components represented at each site; d.the presence of undisturbed submerged features or buried stratified deposits at each site; e. the classes of archaeological remains retrievable; and f. whether the site is eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Phase II investigations should not be initiated without consultation with MDAH- SHPO. 2. Fieldwork Guidelines: The fieldwork methodology and areas to be investigated should be decided on an individual project basis. However, the selected methodology should focus only on data relative to research questions of potential importance as they pertain to evaluating National Register significance. The following list, however, provides basic guidelines that should assist the archaeologist in retrieving adequate information: a. General: i. Since it is practically impossible to adequately identify and assess the significance of submerged cultural resources based solely on the generated remote-sensing data, some form of diving will probably be required during Phase II investigations. Because diver safety is a prime concern, MDAH-SHPO requires that the principal investigator submit an Underwater Dive Safety Plan to the governing/contracting agency for approval prior to any diving activity (For additional information on operating in a safe manner, the principal investigator should become familiar with the 1996 “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Safety and Health Requirements Manual”). This Plan should address: accident management, hazardous activities analyses, operating procedures, and equipment selection and use. Diver standards should meet or exceed the minimum required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, the principal investigator/contracting firm will ensure that: divers are medically fit to dive; experienced at diving depths; experienced at tasks to be performed; and experienced with the equipment to be used. All divers, including standby divers, should be qualified divers, as well as knowledgeable in archaeological methodology for submerged cultural resources. A record of all dives should be kept by a timekeeper. ii. Written records should be maintained throughout the course of the study. Test units and other identification techniques, as well as identified anomalies should be photographically recorded, if possible. iii. All field investigations must use a permanent reference grid. iv. Field methods should employ terrestrial and underwater archaeological methods, as applicable. These methods include, but are not be limited to, remote-sensing surveying, probing, hydroprobing, underwater diving, surface excavation, systematic structural recordation, and the stabilization and conservation of recovered artifacts. v. All instrument data should be recorded in concert with a Differential Global Positioning System (GPS). vi. Provide location of Phase II testing on 7.5’ USGS topographic map. b. Testing: i. Work conducted during the Phase I submerged cultural resources survey should have identified the archaeological property’s boundaries and artifact concentrations. However, due to uncontrollable forces (e.g., current, fishing activities) some targets may move, and therefore the re-establishment of the target’s location via remote-sensing technologies is suggested. ii. Physical examination of the target by a diver may be required in certain situations. If the target is buried, examination of the target with a stainless steel probe or a hydraulic probe can provide insights on target dimensions, configuration, depth, condition, etc. iii. If deemed necessary, excavations should only be to the extent that provides adequate data to make the necessary assessment of the submerged cultural resource. Because underwater investigations can be costly and time-consuming, sampling strategies should be employed, thereby limiting work to the minimum necessary to make the required assessments and determinations. However, each site is different and the archaeological methodology used, the areas of the property tested, and the percentage of the site sampled should be decided on an individual site basis. iv. Equipment (e.g., air lift, water jet, hydraulic venturi dredge) needs should be tailored to the specific project with justifications for the selection and utilization of this equipment outlined in the report. v. Priority should be given to accurately mapping the distribution of submerged resources (e.g., artifact concentrations, vessel features). vi. Information on site conditions, precise limits, chronological placement, structural integrity, dimensional data, and watercraft type and identity, if possible, should be obtained. vii. Data recovery techniques should adhere to professional standards. A primary goal is a physical examination and documentation of vessel construction. It is recommended that at least three cross sections of each hull be completely inspected and documented for the purpose of analyzing construction techniques and materials. viii. Information should be collected regarding historic watercraft known to have traveled the project’s area of potential effects and should include, but not be limited to, newspaper accounts, handbills, and enrollment certificates. Typical schematic drawings of watercraft construction plans that are similar to types located in the project area should be included in the report. ix. A datum must be established at each site and measurements should be controlled and referenced by this point. Probing will be useful in locating hull remains and machinery. Probing by hand or with a water jet will determine the amount of sediment overburden and will aid in optimum placement of excavation units (or trenches). x. Each excavation unit should be cleared until evidence of hull remains or machinery is encountered. The units should be placed in such a manner as to ensure maximum retrieval of data. The inferred locations of the bow and stern should be examined, if possible, to determine the orientation of the vessel/s. The proper location of these test units should reveal construction details about the ship’s hull, deck, and machinery. xi. A detailed and accurate map of the exposed portions of each hull should be made to determine exact horizontal site limits, detect artifact densities, and assess the relationship between areas. Plan drawings or sketches should be made from test excavations to illustrate the location of artifacts, structural members, machinery, and hull layouts. xii. If a vessel type was built for a specific use, its relationship to a specific historical context should be assessed. Documentation of former enrollment records and registries should be researched. The integrity of each vessel needs to be thoroughly documented, discussing original form, materials, workmanship, and changes. xiii. A detailed and accurate map of the extant portions of each hull should be made to determine exact horizontal site limits, detect artifact densities, and assess the relationship between areas. Plan and profile drawings should be made from test excavations to illustrate the location of artifacts, structural members, machinery, and hull layouts. Historic plans, drawings, and photographs should be reproduced or prepared to visually represent each vessel. Views of deck plans, inboard/outboard profiles, and hull and longitudinal sections should be included. These drawings of existing portions and representative samples of each vessel should be drawn to show methods of construction and individual features. See the National Park Service’s Guidelines for Recording Historic Ships (1988) for additional information. F. Phase III: 1. Mitigation of Submerged Cultural Resource: The mitigation of impacts or effects on a significant (i.e., National Register eligible) property can take several forms. For example, relocating, changing, or modifying the proposed project is one way to avoid impacting an eligible archaeological site. Although the site may not be preserved in the long run, this action can eliminate imminent impacts and adverse effects associated with the original project. This step incorporates the property into the project in a non-destructive manner. However, when avoidance of a significant property is impractical and partial or total destruction is unavoidable, an agreement to conduct data recovery (i.e., complete site excavation) is usually reached (see Section 110b of NHPA). This plan is usually a continuation and expansion of Phase II activities. The data recovery plan should be detailed, discussing and justifying the design of the investigation which will retrieve the data, what research questions will be addressed, the proposed analysis and the expected results, and a justification for the expenditure of public money on the data recovery project should be clearly stated. If the recovery plan is unusually complex, then a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between participating agencies should be used. Mitigation recovery projects may not proceed without consultation with MDAH-SHPO and the development of the appropriate written agreement. Whatever is decided, this plan should be consistent with the principles set forth in “Consulting About Archeology Under Section 106,” the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects,” and the “Participants Desk Reference” issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in 1995. 2. Report Guidelines: a. All final cultural resources survey (Phase I), testing (Phase II), and mitigation (Phase III) reports should be in narrative form, including a clear and concise presentation of project purposes, methods, results, and recommendations. Phase I cultural resources surveys should discuss positive and negative findings. Phase II archaeological testing reports should address three aspects: i. a description of the study and results of fieldwork and laboratory analyses, ii. an assessment of the presence and nature of the encountered archaeological deposits, and iii. an evaluation of the National Register of Historic Places eligibility of each site in conjunction with recommendations for further work. In addition to the these three aspects, Phase III archaeological mitigation reports should also iv. answer in detail all research questions outlined in the data recovery plan and the MOA, if applicable. Facsimiles of reports will not be accepted by MDAH-SHPO. In addition, all reports submitted to MDAH-SHPO are subject to peer review prior to approval and clearance. Furthermore, all final reports submitted to MDAH-SHPO for review should adhere to the guidelines listed below or be subject to hold and/or rejection. Whenever it is impossible to follow any guideline, an explanation should be provided in the report. 3. Phase I – Cultural Resources Survey: a. Reports must be in narrative form and fully address the questions proposed in the research design. b.Reports must be submitted on acid free paper. c. Reports must provide survey commencement and termination dates, as well as specify actual number of days in the field. d.Reports must provide number of personnel that participated in field work and lab analysis. e. Reports must provide descriptions of field conditions, such as visibility, for both underwater and terrestrial archaeological investigations. f. Reports must provide total number of hectares (acres) surveyed. g.Reports must provide discussion of field methods and results explicitly addressing negative as well as positive findings. h.Reports must include clear copies of relevant sections of 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle maps with the precise locations and boundaries of areas surveyed and sites discovered prior to and during the course of the survey indicated thereon. This map must be clearly labeled with the quadrangle name. Any possible pre-World War II standing structures located in the project area during the survey must be reported and their locations indicated on the appropriate 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangles. A completed Historic Resources Inventory (e.g., standing structure, monument, bridge) form, including photograph, for each such resource must be submitted as part of the report. Forms can be obtained by writing the: Architectural History Section Mississippi Department of Archives and History P.O. Box 571 Jackson, Mississippi, 39205-0571 or phoning 601-359-6940. i. Use assigned state site number/s (trinomials) when referring to archaeological sites in the report. A completed or updated state archaeological site form for each site must be submitted as part of the report. Archaeological site cards can be obtained by writing the: Archaeology Section Mississippi Department of Archives and History P.O. Box 571 Jackson, MS 39205-0571 or phoning 601-359-6940. Site forms may be submitted to SHPO prior to report preparation for number assignation. j. Descriptions of archaeological sites must include sufficient information on location, setting, extent (length, width, depth, etc.), regional chronological positions and cultural affiliations (when possible), intact deposits encountered, degree and types of disturbances observed, to evaluate whether additional investigation is warranted to determine their National Register eligibility. A statement should be made on how further investigations of the site could lead to a better understanding of the area’s past. k.All newly located and previously recorded sites investigated/revisited during the survey, that are recommended for additional investigations should be illustrated in the report by means of a sketch map/plan with northing arrow and scale, showing topographic features and any identifiable permanent landmarks, as well as the spatial relationship to the project. The spacing of transects and shovel tests (both positive and negative) should also be noted on these maps. l. Reports pertaining to underwater research must also include: a post-plot map illustrating the actual track of the survey vessel; position and contour map of all magnetic targets of interest; examples of pertinent side-scan sonar and bathymetric/fathometer records; and a table providing information on the location and characteristics of each target of interest with recommended treatments. m. Classify artifactual remains using existing regional typologies as applicable. In addition, the report must include a tabulation of all artifacts and archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains collected from the site. n.Illustrate recovered diagnostic artifacts or an appropriate sample. o.Archaeologists should express opinions as to the nature of each site— village, quarry, hunting camp, extinct town, etc.,—and how this opinion was formed. If such a determination cannot be made, an explanation for the lack of determination should be included in the report. p.Archaeologists must evaluate the effects of the project on each site identified. q.Archaeologists should suggest alternatives or steps to avoid or mitigate effects to any potentially eligible or eligible National Register site/s that will be affected by the project. r. The report must be signed and should include the addresses (postal and email, if applicable) and telephone numbers of the principal investigator and field director/s. 4. Phase II – Archaeological Testing: a. Reports should be in narrative form and fully address the questions proposed in the research design. b.Reports must be submitted on acid free paper. c. Reports must provide testing commencement and termination dates, as well as specify actual number of days in the field. d.Reports must provide number of personnel that participated in the field work and lab analysis. e. Reports must provide the percentage of the archaeological property tested, as well as a justification for the sampling strategy. f. Reports must provide discussion of field methods and results explicitly addressing negative as well as positive findings. g.In addition to including 7.5’ USGS topographic maps showing location of testing, reports must also include a large scale topographic map of the site with all controlled surface collection, shovel test, excavation unit, backhoe trench, and other investigative method locations portrayed in relation to permanent datum. A variety of other maps may also be required if conducting underwater research (e.g., magnetic). h.Reports must include plan and profile illustrations for all test excavation units and features encountered. i. Use assigned state site number/s (trinomials) when referring to archaeological sites in the report. j. Classify artifactual remains using existing regional typologies as applicable. In addition, the report must include a tabulation (counts and weights, as applicable) of all artifacts and archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains collected from the site. k.Archaeologists should provide detailed information about the nature of the components represented at site—village, quarry, hunting camp, extinct town, etc.,—state how this opinion was formed, and provide regional cultural designations and chronological positions for encountered deposits and the site as a whole. l. Archaeologists must provide a determination concerning the significance of the site (i.e., is it eligible for the National Register) and whether the site merits preservation. Provide rationale and justification for this determination, as well as explain how the site meets the National Register criteria (e.g. Bulletin 20: Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places). m. Archaeologists must evaluate the effect of the project on each site tested. n.Archaeologists should justify all suggested mitigation measures. If data recovery investigations are recommended, a research design should be provided detailing specific research questions to be addressed, along with citations of relevant literature supporting the importance of these questions to the current body of anthropological knowledge. However, if the site/s under consideration are determined ineligible, reasons supporting this conclusion should also be included. o.The report must be signed and should include the addresses (postal and email, if applicable) and telephone numbers of the principal investigator and field director/s. 5. Phase III – Mitigation: a. Reports must present in detail the investigative methods employed. b.Reports must be in narrative form and fully address the questions proposed in the research design. c. Reports must be written on acid free paper d.Reports must provide mitigation commencement and termination dates, as well as actual days spent in the field. e. Reports must provide the number of personnel that participated in the field work and lab analysis. f. Reports must provide the percentage of the archaeological property mitigated, as well as a justification for this percentage (e.g., Was only a section of the site adversely affected?). g.Reports must provide discussion of field methods and results explicitly addressing negative as well as positive findings. h.In addition to including 7.5’ USGS topographic maps showing location of mitigation, reports must include a large scale topographic (or magnetic, for example, if research pertains to submerged resources) map of the site with all excavation/sampling units portrayed. i. Use the assigned state site number/s (trinomials) when referring to archaeological sites in the report. j. Classify artifactual remains using existing regional typologies as applicable. In addition, the report must include a tabulation (counts and weights, as applicable) of all artifacts and archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains collected from the site. k.Archaeologists should provide detailed information about the nature of the site—village, quarry, hunting camp, extinct town, logging schooner, etc.,—state how this opinion was formed and provide regional cultural designations and chronological positions for encountered deposits and the site as a whole. l. Archaeologists should provide the rationale for the mitigation project. All research questions should be answered in specific detail, along with citations of relevant literature supporting the importance of these questions and their results to the current body of anthropological knowledge. m. The report must be signed and should include the addresses (postal and email, if applicable) and telephone numbers of the principal investigator and field director/s. G. Example Report Outline for Phase I, II, and III Investigations: 1. Title Page (e.g., title; author/s; organization, agency and/or client; contract number; date of report completion) 2. Management Summary 3. Table of Contents 4. Introduction (e.g., project purpose and goals, such as a summary of the scope of work, including applicable regulations or permits as known; project administration and contracting agency; general description, including location, number of person days in the field, and project conditions or constraints). 5. Background Research (e.g., environmental setting; summary of paleoenvironment and present climate and vegetation conditions; past and present land uses and current conditions; overview of prehistoric and historic (including navigation history, if applicable) cultural history, of the local project area, including project specific site; review of known sites, previous investigations and research in the project area and vicinity, and information provided by local collectors; primary documentary research for the project area, including historic maps, deeds, or other pertinent information). This section should provide the context for research questions, survey methods, site evaluations and further recommendations. 6. Research Design (e.g., research objectives and theoretical context, using the historic contexts outlined in the State’s Historic Contexts Document and other relevant references; specific research problems or questions; methods to be employed to address these research objectives and questions; a discussion of the expected results, including hypotheses to be tested as part of the current investigation). 7. Methods (e.g., description of field and laboratory methods employed, including rationale, discussion of biases, problems or obstacles encountered, as applicable; an estimated percentage of total project area investigated, with discussion of sampling design and rationale; discussion of changes made during fieldwork from the stated methods and the rationale for these changes). 8. Field Results (e.g., clear description of all areas investigated, including those where resources were not recovered or observed; discussion of soils and stratigraphy, including areas and types of disturbance, if applicable; site topography and stratigraphy, size, noted structures or features, and artifact types and density; maps, figures, and original photographs of test locations, features, and soil profiles, as needed; original photographs of individual standing building and photographs of streetscapes, if applicable). 9. Artifact Analysis (e.g., detailed descriptions and results of analyses used; original photographs or drawings of selected or representative artifacts, including scale; a complete inventory of artifacts by provenience and class should be included; tables or other summary information; identification of the final artifact collection and project notes repository). 10. Interpretations/Conclusions (e.g., discussion of the results in terms of the background cultural context, research design and goals, and stated research problems; discussion of constraints and reliability of methods; discussion of future potential research problems based on results and conclusions; and assessment on whether further work should be conducted at the site). 11. Recommendations (e.g., a statement on whether the site is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places?).