TE A-6.6 - Fort Gordon Integrated Cultural Resources Plan.pdf

INTEGRATED CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR FORT GORDON, GEORGIA

January 2011 john.p.arthur Typewritten Text Fort Gordon BASOPS Technical Exhibit A-6.6 john.p.arthur Typewritten Text Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Implementation of the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

Fort Gordon, GA

1.0 Name and Purpose of Action: The proposed action is to implement the Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) on Fort Gordon pursuant to Federal, State and Army regulation. The ICRMP is required for lands owned or leased by the Army.

Implementation of the ICRMP as proposed would enable the effective management of cultural resources and protect the cultural setting. Plan implementation would support Fort Gordon’s continuing need to ensure the safety and efficiency of the facility’s mission while practicing sound resource stewardship and complying with environmental policies and regulations.

2.0 Description: The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to identify and assess the potential environmental impacts resulting from Implementation of an ICRMP on Fort Gordon. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4715.16 and Army Regulation 200- 1 direct each installation to develop an ICRMP. The proposed action is to carry out specific management measures developed in the ICRMP. It focuses on a 5-year period beginning in FY 2011 and continuing through FY 2016. The plan specifically includes archaeological and architectural inventory and evaluation, developing a MOA with Federally recognized Indian Tribes, and pursuing more outreach opportunities. The plan also establishes Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for reoccurring installation activities, and annual inspection and reporting requirements.

3.0 Alternatives Considered: Two alternatives were considered:

Alternative I: Implementation of the ICRMP on Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Under this alternative, Fort Gordon would carry out specific management measures developed in the ICRMP. It focuses on a 5-year planning period, beginning in FY 2011 and ending in FY 2016, consistent with the timeframe for the management measures as described in the ICRMP. The plan specifically includes archaeological and architectural inventory and evaluation, developing a MOA with Federally recognized Indian Tribes, and pursuing more outreach opportunities. The plan also establishes Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for reoccurring installation activities, and annual inspection and reporting requirements.

Alternative II:: No Action/Status QuoAlternative II This alternative refers to continuation of the existing cultural resource management approach without implementation of the proposed action. Implementation of the no action alternative means that Fort Gordon would continue to operate under the 2005 ICRMP, and any updates to the ICRMP, would not be enacted. Current management measures for cultural resources would remain in effect and the existing cultural resource status would continue. In addition, selection of this alternative would preclude Fort Gordon from meeting the DODI 4715.16 and AR 200-1 objectives of updating an ICRMP every five years.

INTEGRATED CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR FORT

GORDON, GEORGIA

Prepared by:

TRC 3772 Pleasantdale Road Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30340

Updated by:

Fort Gordon Environmental Division/ Natural Resources Branch

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

1.2 USING THE ICRMP

1.2.1 Organization and Structure

1.3 OVERVIEW OF FORT GORDON

1.3.1 Location and Size

1.3.3 Mission

1.3.4 Training

1.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CRMP)

1.4.1 CRMP Summary

1.4.2 CRMP Goals

1.4.3 CRMP Integration

2.0 REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

2.1 FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

2.1.1 Antiquities Act

2.1.2 Historic Sites Act

2.1.3 National Historic Preservation Act

2.1.4 Archaeological Resources Protection Act

2.1.5 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

2.1.6 American Indian Religious Freedom Act

2.1.7 Religious Freedom Restoration Act

2.1.8 Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act

2.1.9 Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act

2.2 EXECUTIVE ORDERS

2.2.1 Executive Order 13007

2.2.2 Executive Order 13175

2.2.3 Executive Order 13287

2.3 PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDA AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVES

2.3.1 Government-to-Government Relations with Federally-Recognized Native American Tribes

2.3.2 Department of Defense American Indian and Alaska Native Policy (Annotated Policy)

2.3.3 Department of Defense Directive 4710.1

2.3.4 Department of Defense Instruction 4715.16

2.4 ARMY REGULATIONS/PUBLICATIONS

2.4.3 Army Regulation 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement

2.5 OVERLAPPING AUTHORITIES

2.6 PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE

2.7 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

3.0 PLANNING LEVEL SURVEY

3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES

3.1.1 Archaeology

3.1.2 Architectural Studies

3.2 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL CONTEXT

3.2.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 12,000–8000 B.C.)

3.2.2 Archaic Period (ca. 8000–1000 B.C.)

3.2.3 Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.–A.D. 1150)

3.2.4 Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1150–1550)

3.3 HISTORY OF EASTERN GEORGIA IN THE VICINITY OF FORT GORDON

3.4 HISTORY OF FORT GORDON

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY

4.1 DISCLOSURE GUIDELINES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, TRADITIONAL

CULTURAL PROPERTIES, AND SACRED SITES

4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY SCHEDULE

4.3 ACTIONS THAT MAY IMPACT CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGMENT

4.3.1 NEPA Actions and NHPA Undertakings

4.3.2 Military Training Actions

4.3.3 ARPA Violations

4.3.4 Potential Threats to Archaeological Resources

4.3.4 NAGPRA Compliance

4.3.5 Document Management

4.3 PLANNED UNDERTAKINGS FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS

4.4 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS

4.5 FIVE YEAR WORKPLAN

5.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.1 FORT GORDON STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES

5.2. SOP #1: INTEGRATE AND IMPLEMENT THE FORT GORDON CULTURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

5.2.1 Description

5.2.2 Policy

5.2.3 Procedure

5.3 SOP #2 SECTION 106 COMPLIANCE

5.3.1 Description

5.3.2 Policy

5.3.3 Procedure

5.4 SOP #3 SECTION 110 COMPLIANCE

5.4.1 Description

5.4.2 Policy

5.4.3 Procedure

5.5 SOP #4: INADVERTENT OR EMERGENCY DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL

DEPOSITS

5.5.1 Description

5.5.2 Policy

5.5.3 Procedure

5.6 SOP #5: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT (ARPA) COMPLIANCE 86

5.6.1 Description

5.6.2 Policy

5.6.3 Procedure

5.7 SOP #6: CURATION PROCEDURES

5.7.1 Description

5.7.2 Policy

5.7.3 Procedure

5.8 SOP #7: NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVE PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT

(NAGPRA) COMPLIANCE

5.8.1 Description

5.8.2 Policy

5.8.3 Procedure

5.9 SOP #8: ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE TO CEMETERIES

5.9.1 Description

5.9.2. Policy

5.9.3. Procedure

5.10 SOP #9: ACTIONS IN REGARD TO EXTENSIVE ALTERATIONS TO INSTALLATION

MISSION

5.10.1 Description

5.10.2 Policy

5.10.3 Procedure

6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN

6.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

6.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION LIST

6.3 CONSULTATION WITH FEDERALLY-RECOGNIZED NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

6.3.1 Description of Undertaking

6.3.2 Purpose of Tribal Consultation

6.3.3 Current Status of Consultation with Federally-Recognized Tribes

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

7.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION

7.1.1 Proposed Action: Implementation of the ICRMP

7.1.2 Integration with Other Environmental Statutes and Regulations

7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

7.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

7.3.1 Land Use

7.3.2 Climate

7.3.3 Air Quality

7.3.4 Noise Environment

7.3.5 Geology and Soils

7.3.6 Water Resources

7.3.6.1. Groundwater

7.3.6.2 Surface Water

7.3.7 Biological Resources

7.3.7.1 Vegetation

7.3.7.2 Wildlife

7.3.7.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

7.3.8 Cultural Resources

7.3.9 Socioeconomics

7.3.10 Solid Waste

7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

7.4.1 Land Use

7.4.1.1 Proposed Action

7.4.1.2 No Action

7.4.2 Climate

7.4.2.1 Proposed Action

7.4.2.2 No Action

7.4.3 Air Quality

7.4.3.1 Proposed Action

7.4.3.2 No Action

7.4.4 Noise Environment

7.4.4.1 Proposed Action

7.4.4.2 No Action

7.4.5 Geology and Soils

7.4.5.1 Proposed Action

7.4.5.2 No Action

7.4.6 Water Resources

7.4.6.1 Proposed Action

7.4.6.2 No Action

7.4.7 Biological Resources

7.4.7.1 Proposed Action

7.4.7.2 No Action

7.4.8 Cultural Resources

7.4.8.1 Proposed Action

7.4.8.2 No Action

7.4.9 Socioeconomics

7.4.9.1 Proposed Action

7.4.9.2 No Action

7.4.10 Solid Waste

7.4.10.1 Proposed Action

7.4.10.2 No Action

7.4.11 Environmental Justice

7.4.12 Protection of Children

7.4.13 Cumulative Impacts

7.4.14 Finding of No Significant Impact

7.4.15 Consultation and Coordination

7.4.16 Mitigation Measures

7.4.17 List of Preparers

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

APPENDIX B. LIST OF ELIGIBLE AND POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE SITES AND BUILDINGS .

APPENDIX C: LIST OF TRIBAL CONSULTATION CONTACTS

APPENDIX D: SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT OF

HISTORIC STRUCTURES

APPENDIX E. NATION-WIDE AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX F: FORT GORDON PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

LIST OF FIGURES

1: FORT GORDON LOCATION MAP

2: FORT GORDON GARRISON ORGANIZATION CHART

3: CRMP INTEGRATION PROCEDURES

4: UNSURVEYED AREAS ON FORT GORDON

5: TRAINING AREA 23 UNSURVEYED AREA

6: TRAINING AREA 1 UNSURVEYED AREA

LIST OF TABLES

1: ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES CONDUCTED ON FORT GORDON

2: ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES CONDUCTED ON FORT GORDON

3: DOD AND DA NATIONWIDE AGREEMENTS

4: GENERAL CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY FOR THE PREHISTORIC OCCUPATION OF

THE FORT GORDON REGION

7-1: NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

7.2: NOISE LIMITS FOR NOISE ZONES

7.3: RISK OF NOISE COMPLAINTS BY NOISE LEVEL

7-4: SOIL SERIES OCCURRING ON FORT GORDON

7-5: FEDERAL AND STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF FORT

GORDON

7.6: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

7-7: LIST OF PREPARERS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) has been prepared in compliance with Army Regulation 200-1 and Department of Defense Instruction 4715.16. It is a five-year plan for the integrated management of cultural resources at Fort Gordon, Georgia. This ICRMP is not a decision document, but it provides the Commander, and those responsible for implementing his decisions, with the information needed to make appropriate decisions about the management of the cultural resources at Fort Gordon. A brief overview of each section of the ICRMP is provided in the Introduction (Section 1) of this document.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires the Army to consider the effect of its actions on cultural resources that are eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This document focuses on specific actions Fort Gordon must take in order to gain and maintain compliance status with applicable cultural resource protection laws and regulations. Section 2 of this document provides an overview of the basic requirements of federal statutes and regulations applicable to Army activities at Fort Gordon. This document outlines specific actions that must be taken to integrate the military mission of Fort Gordon with the cultural resources program to minimize potential effects to historic properties.

Cultural resources at Fort Gordon include archeological sites and potentially historic structures/buildings. Most of Fort Gordon’s property has been surveyed for the presence of archaeological sites and the NRHP eligibility of buildings and structures built between 1942 and 1989. There are 41 archaeological sites that are eligible for the NRHP, while 114 sites are potentially eligible for the NRHP. The historic building surveys determined that no buildings on Fort Gordon were determined eligible for the NRHP. However, the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (GA SHPO) recommends Building 33500, Woodworth Library, as eligible for its local and regional architectural significance as few buildings of this style remain intact in Georgia. According to the survey, 42 buildings will need to be reevaluated when they reach 50 years old. Appendix B provides a list of sites (without location data) and building numbers considered eligible or potentially eligible.

The Army is required to protect all of its NRHP eligible properties from any adverse effects related to undertakings, planned or inadvertent, at Fort Gordon. A major element of this ICRMP is a Management Plan (Section 5), which lists 9 Standing Operating Procedures (SOPs) designed to ensure that Fort Gordon stays in regulatory compliance in terms of cultural resource protection. The Environmental Division/Natural Resources Branch (ED/NRB) and the Cultural Resources Manager (CRM) are responsible for implementing the SOPs and will coordinate these efforts with the Installation Commander, Training Unit Field Officers, and the Directorate of Public Works (DPW). These SOPs cover the following topics:

1. Integrate and implement the Fort Gordon Cultural Resource Management Program

2. Section 106 Compliance

3. Section 110 Compliance

4. Inadvertent or Emergency Discovery of Archaeological Deposits Resources

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 64

5. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) Compliance

6. Curation Procedures

7. Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Compliance

8. Maintenance and Access to Cemeteries

9. Actions in Regard to Extensive Alterations to the Facility Mission

The following list of projects will require funding during the five years covered under this ICRMP based on the Five Year Work Plan (Section 4.5):

• Phase I of 119 acres in training areas 23 and 1 missed on previous survey coverage of the installation

• Phase II of sites currently determined potentially eligible

• Survey of historic sites that maintain their integrity causing a discrepancy in the Phase I survey recommendations

• Develop a Memorandum of Agreement or Comprehensive Agreement with affiliated Federally recognized Tribes

• Evaluate the Signal School Headquarters and Classroom Campus for its eligibility as a district

• Outreach tools such as a portable artifact case

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

The Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) is an operational plan for the integrated management of cultural resources located on lands owned or leased by the Army to ensure compliance with federal laws. The ICRMP is not a decision document, but it provides the Commander, and those responsible for implementing his decisions, with the information needed to make appropriate decisions about the management of the cultural resources located on lands owned or leased by the Army. The ICRMP is the installation commander’s primary tool for planning and integrating cultural resources compliance and management activities into the military mission.

A cultural resource is any prehistoric or historic place, site, building, structure, or object that was built or fashioned by human beings (see Appendix A for a full discussion of this definition).

Various federal statutes and regulations use other wording as interchangeable with the term cultural resource, including historic property, cultural item, archaeological resource, sacred site, and curated collection. A cultural resource can be something as simple as a single arrowhead or broken dish through something as complex as an entire village, town, or city neighborhood. A cultural resource can be very tangible and easy to physically define, as in the case of a Native American mound or a church cemetery. It can also be very intangible, as in the case of Traditional Cultural Properties, which is a cultural resource associated with the traditional beliefs of a particular cultural group.

The ICRMP is designed to assist commanders and staff at Fort Gordon in identifying procedures required to comply with appropriate federal laws and implementing regulations. Among the laws with special consequence to Fort Gordon are the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), Executive Order (EO) 13007 Indian Sacred Sites dated May 24, 1996, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1995, as amended (NAGPRA), Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA). These are individually reviewed in Section 2, Statutes and Regulations. Failure to comply with these laws can result in formal notification from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to the Secretary of the Army. Such notice can be used by litigants against the Army in a manner that can halt or delay critical mission activities.

Under Army Regulation 200-1, the Installation Commander is responsible for compliance with federal cultural resource laws. Installation commanders are directed to:

• Establish an ICRMP to be used as a planning tool ;

• Designate an installation Cultural Resources Manager (CRM) to coordinate the installation cultural resources management program;

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 3

• Contact (via written format) all Federally-recognized Native American tribes with an interest in lands currently occupied by Fort Gordon. Such correspondence must be addressed on a government-to-government level;

• Establish early coordination between the CRM and other installation staff elements, tenants, and others early in the planning of projects and activities that may affect cultural resources;

• Ensure that cultural resources management is integrated with installation training and testing activities;

• Establish funding priorities and program funds for cultural resources compliance and management activities into the Environmental Program Requirements report;

• Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the installation cultural resources management program;

• Prepare and implement NHPA Section 106 Programmatic Agreements (PA) and Memoranda of Agreements (MOAs), NAGPRA Cooperative Agreements (CA) and Plans of Action, and other documents as appropriate to address NHPA and NAGRPA compliance procedures. Coordinate such documents with the South Eastern Regional Office (SERO) of the Installation Management Agency (IMA) and Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA);

• Serve as the agency official as defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800 with responsibility for installation compliance with NHPA;

• Serve as the federal land manager as defined in 32 CFR 229 with responsibility for installation compliance with ARPA;

• Serve as the federal agency official as defined in 36 CFR 79 with management authority over archaeological collections and associated records;

• Sign NHPA PAs and MOAs, and NAGPRA CAs and Plans of Action and other installation cultural resources agreements after MACOM and HQDA comments have been addressed.

1.2 USING THE ICRMP

1.2.1 Organization and Structure

This ICRMP is organized into the following eight sections.

Section 1 (Introduction) contains primary discussions including the purpose of the ICRMP and how to use the plan. This section also introduces Fort Gordon and reviews its location, history, and military mission. It also provides an overview of the Fort Gordon Cultural Resources Program.

Section 2 (Regulations and Statutes) contains a brief review of preservation laws and regulations that pertain to Fort Gordon, including federal laws, EOs, Presidential Memoranda and Department of Defense (DoD) Directives. This section also discusses penalties for

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 4 noncompliance and reviews alternative management options for ensuring compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Section 3 (Planning Level Survey) includes a literature review, site and map file searches to determine the range and types of resources known to be present at Fort Gordon, development of archaeological sensitivity assessments, and historic contexts. Existing inventory results (including NRHP eligibility) are summarized in this section.

Section 4 (Cultural Resources Inventory) addresses the need for any additional field survey or inventory of cultural resources at the base, and proposes schedules for completing such work.

The location of specific archaeological sites, historic resources, and traditional cultural properties, and Native American sacred sites are protected from disclosure and such information is excluded from the ICRMP, however these and related disclosure issues are discussed. An inventory schedule is provided to address NHPA undertakings and other compliance requirements, and the development of a baseline inventory for management purposes is also discussed. Installation activities that may affect cultural resources over the 5-year period of the ICRMP are addressed within this section.

Section 5 (Management Plan) addresses the cultural resources requirements of the installation activities discussed in the previous section. Standing operating procedures (SOPs) in regard to the management of cultural resources are discussed within this section of the document.

Standard procedures are provided for inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, for emergency actions that could affect cultural resources, and standard treatment measures for cultural resources such as historic buildings and structures.

Section 6 (Public Involvement Plan) several cultural resources statutes and regulations require public and Indian tribal participation in the compliance process. This section provides such a plan, in terms of a list of specific individuals or parties to be contacted and the necessary timing and scheduling of such consultation. To save costs and time, the public involvement plan should be integrated with such efforts associated with NEPA compliance activities, and be coordinated through the installation Public Affairs Office.

Section 7 (Environmental Assessment) the EA is included here as an integral part of the ICRMP and as a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA includes the purpose and need for the proposed action; a determination of whether or not significant effects would occur from implementing the proposed action; a description of the proposed action and its alternatives; a characterization of existing conditions (the affected environment); known, potential, and reasonably foreseeable environmental consequences (both beneficial and negative) related to the proposed action and its alternatives, including cumulative effects. The public comment process is also described in the EA and in more specific detail in Section 6.

Finally, the following four appendices are included: (A) Glossary of Key Terms, (B) List of Eligible and Potentially Eligible Archaeological Sites and buildings on Fort Gordon (C) List of Tribal Consultation Contacts, and (D) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation.

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 5

1.3 OVERVIEW OF FORT GORDON

1.3.1 Location and Size

Fort Gordon encompasses approximately 55,600 acres in east central Georgia. Fort Gordon’s central installation is located at approximately latitude 33°20’N, longitude 82°15’W. The majority of the installation and the entire cantonment area lie within Richmond County, with a small portion of the training area in Jefferson, Columbia, and McDuffie counties. Fort Gordon is located approximately 145 miles east of Atlanta, Georgia and approximately 115 miles northwest of Savannah, Georgia. Augusta, Georgia is the nearest urban center and is located approximately 9 miles northeast of the installation. Fort Gordon is bound to the north by U.S. Highway 78, on the east and south by U.S. Highway 1, and on its western perimeter by U.S. Highway 221.

Interstate 20 (I-20), located 2 miles north of the installation, and Interstate 520 (Bobby Jones Expressway, I-520), located 2 miles east of Gate One, provide access to the installation. There are no public roads or highways on the installation (Figure 1.1).

Approximately 50,000 acres (90 percent) of Fort Gordon is used for training missions. The installation is subdivided into 49 training areas (TAs), two restricted impact areas (small arms and artillery), and two cantonment areas (main and industrial). Impact areas occupy approximately 13,000 acres and on-post maneuver and TAs occupy approximately 37,000 acres.

The remaining 5,590 acres is occupied by cantonment areas which include military housing, administrative offices, community facilities, medical facilities, industrial facilities maintenance facilities, supply/storage facilities, lakes and ponds, recreational areas, and forested areas.

The installation operates 14 live fire ranges, one dud impact area, one demolition pit, one indoor shoot house, one convoy live fire familiarization course, two military operations on urban terrain (MOUT) site/building clearings and one nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) chamber.

Training primarily consists of advanced individual signal training and unit employment of tactical communications/electronics operations. Additionally, artillery demolition, aerial gunnery load master drop zone, and airborne troop training are conducted on Fort Gordon.

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 6

Figure 1: Fort Gordon Location Map

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 7

1.3.3 Mission

Fort Gordon is the largest communications training facility (130 courses/16,000 troops per year) in the Armed Forces, and is the focal point for the development of tactical communications and information systems (Fort Gordon 2005). The installation trains soldiers with the most sophisticated communications equipment and technology in existence. The Leader College of information Technology is the U.S. Army’s premiere site for all automation training and home to the Regimental Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Academy. Fort Gordon is also the home to the U.S. Army Garrison, the Gordon Regional Security Operations Center (GRSOC, including the 706th Military Intelligence Group, the Naval Security Group Activity (NSA), USAF 480th Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Group), 63rd Signal Battalion, the Southeast Region Medical Command, the Southeast Region Dental Command, Southeast Region Veterinary Command, DDEAMC, U.S. Army’s only Dental Laboratory, 67th Signal Battalion, Regional Training Site-Medical, National Science Center-Army, two deployable brigades (35th Signal Brigade and 513th Military Intelligence Brigade), a Georgia National Guard Youth Challenge Academy.

As specified in USASC&FG Regulation 10-8, Manual of Organization, Missions, and Functions, the general mission assigned the Fort Gordon Command Element is:

Command the U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon and other U.S. Army personnel and units assigned except those under separate command as specified by higher headquarters. This includes provision of base operations support to tenant and satellite units and activities, organizations, units, and personnel of other military departments and commands; and other departments or agencies of the Government as prescribed in appropriate regulations, directives, and agreements.

More specifically, the installation Mission includes:

• Command and support all assigned TRADOC, Medical Command (MEDCOM), Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM), and Forces Command (FORSCOM) Army Signal School.

• Accomplish planning, training, and coordination as directed for the mobilization mission, and prepare administrative and logical support for mobilization forces, including U.S.

Reserve Forces.

• Provide base operations support to tenant and satellite units and activities of other military departments and commands.

At present, there are 27 tenant activities, the largest and most permanent being DDEAMC activities.

1.3.4 Training

The following is a general description of Fort Gordon's training mission. It was developed for use in the installation’s Range Development Master Plan and the Army Compatible Use Buffer

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 8

(ACUB) proposal. The ITAM Coordinator, DPTMS coordinates mission requirements to be included in the program element plans (e.g., ESMC).

In 2006 a total of 34,594 personnel zeroed and qualified weapons, firing 2.1 million rounds on Fort Gordon ranges. In addition, 68,423 personnel utilized Fort Gordon TAs. Training, maneuver and exercise areas within Fort Gordon boundaries generally occur in the western portion of the installation. Several lakes and ponds are scattered among the woodlands and open areas. This portion of the installation supports abundant wildlife habitats.

Mechanized training historically occurred on Fort Gordon and is currently restricted to the GANGB use. Heavy training impacts on Fort Gordon have been limited to two principal areas.

The small arms impact area (SAIA) is located in the center of the installation and encompasses 14 active firing ranges. Heavy artillery detonation occurs in the artillery impact area (AIA) located on the western end of the installation.

Range requirements are based on the training strategies and requirements of Fort Gordon units which include a deployable Theater Tactical Signal Brigade, a Strategic Military Intelligence Brigade, the U.S. Army Signal Center with an organic Signal Brigade (IET), Regimental Noncommissioned Officer and Officer Academies, the School of Information Technology, a Tactical Signal Battalion (non-deployable), and a deployable Military Police Detachment. There is also a Joint Regional Security Operation Center, a U.S. Army Reserve Theater Tactical Signal Brigade, and an Army National Guard Engineer Battalion and Military Police Company (re-stationing effort) on the installation. In addition, three Reserve Component brigade sized medical units and an artillery battalion train on Fort Gordon and utilize its range and TA assets.

Special Operations Forces utilize the AIA for aerial gunnery, and the USAF conducts heavy cargo drop training on the Fort Gordon’s drop zone day and night, 6 days a week. The unit marksmanship strategies are based on guidance found in U.S. Army Pamphlet (PAM) 350-38, theater deployment and mobilization orders including those defining Soldier Focus Area/Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills requirements, and local command guidance. The units that specifically utilize Fort Gordon are:

• TRADOC – deployable and fixed units with an average strength of 14,500 Soldiers o 15th Signal Brigade (15 Companies) o 73rd OD Battalion (Three Companies) o 442d Signal Battalion / LCIT (Three Companies) o Regimental Non-Commissioned Officers Academy (RNCOA, Two Company equivalents) o 35th Military Police Company (One Company) o 434th Army Band (1 Detachment)

• FORSCOM/NETCOM – deployable units with an average strength of 1,500 Soldiers o 35th Signal Brigade (13 Companies)

• Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) – fixed and deployable joint units with an average strength of 3,500 service personnel o 706th Military Intelligence (MI) GP/National Security Agency Georgia (NSA- GA) (Three Companies) o 513th MI Brigade (12 Companies)

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 9

• MEDCOM – fixed and deployable with an average strength at 3,000 personnel o Eisenhower Medical Center Troop Command (Two Companies)

• 3/160 Special Operations Aviation Regiment (1 Company)

• IMCOM – Headquarters and Headquarters Company U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) (One

Company)

• National Guard/Army Reserve – deployable with average strength of 13,200 Soldiers

(135 Companies)

• USAF Training Squadron C-130/C-17 Heavy Drops/Pilot/Load Master Training

The Fort Gordon Range and TA complex consists of 14 active ranges including a Convoy Live Fire Course and 12 artillery firing points, with over 700 fixed targets. The ranges are supported by a 7,645-acre SAIA and a 5,217 acre AIA. Adjacent to the ranges are 49 maneuver TAs covering 32,037 acres which is capable of Battalion and Brigade Combat Support, Service Support, Heavy/Light Company level maneuver or Light Airborne Battalion level maneuver.

There is sufficient area on the installation to construct a Multi Purpose Range Complex capable of supporting Company and below Stryker operations, although funding would be required to execute ITAM projects in order to make the area more accessible. There is a company sized drop zone embedded in TA 23 that is heavily utilized by the USAF Training Squadrons out of Dobbins Air Force Base (AFB). Fort Gordon’s AIA is covered by Restricted Air Space R3004 which supports live fire in the AIA. The range staff is pursuing expansion of R3004, or a SARSA, to enable small arms firing in aircraft over flight areas. Presently, ground observation is used in concert with R3004 to provide early warning to aircraft in the Fort Gordon airspace. Fort Gordon’s range staff is comprised of 15 personnel, including five ITAM personnel, that perform management, scheduling, safety oversight, maintenance, land management, LRAM and supply functions for the ranges and maneuver lands.

To add to the list of regular users, there is also field testing of U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center robotic vehicles. Assorted Federal agencies and local law enforcement personnel (city, county and state) also utilize the training ranges. The annual summer training period sees a large influx of reserve medical training units for the Golden Medic exercise. The Golden Medic exercise occurs over a 3-month period and involves reserve and National Guard medical training units from across the U.S. One of the battalions that comprise the 93rd Signal Brigade may be restationed to Fort Bragg; however, the overall resultant manpower remaining in the 35th Theater Tactical Signal Brigade on Fort Gordon will grow slightly from its present end-strength. The Georgia Army National Guard (GARNG) is going to position a Military Police Company and a Combat Engineer Battalion on the installation as well.

In addition changing mission and training requirements are causing the range and TAs of Fort Gordon to be used in increasingly different ways. Some of the new and expanded mission requirements include:

• Convoy training, including convoy live fire, and qualification record fire (QRF) response (in the future this will include night operations on major training complex roads with the use of night vision devices;

• Improvised Explosive Device situations ingrained into all tactical ground training events;

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 10

• Training in a projectile based environment (paintball and Special Effects Small Arms Marking System); and

• Weapons qualifications for all Advanced Infantry Training soldiers.

While the recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) law and Integrated Global Presence Basing Strategy (IGPBS), 2006 – 2011 did not cause major changes in Fort Gordon’s mission, there are mission expansions that can greatly increase the need for housing and lead to development in the local areas. The National Security Agency – Georgia (NSAGA) expansion and construction of a new facility will include approximately 3,500 new jobs when completed in FY 2012. Also, as range and facility availability becomes scarcer on larger installations, Army units will increasingly look to installations like Fort Gordon to meet their training needs.

1.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

(CRMP)

AR 200-1 requires each Army installation to have an assigned office and individual responsible for overall management of cultural resources. The Environmental Division/Natural Resource Branch(ED/NRB) within the Directorate of Public Works (DPW), is responsible for compliance with all applicable environmental, natural, cultural, and archaeological Federal, State, and local laws and regulations on Fort Gordon.

GARRISON COMMANDER

Figure 2: Fort Gordon Garrison Organization Chart

1.4.1 CRMP Summary

Fort Gordon has had a CRMP since 1989, when it began a program of surveying timber tracts for

HUMAN

RESOURCES

(DHR)

PLANS, TRAINING,

MOBILIZATION, AND

SECURITY (DPTMS)

LOGISTICS

(DOL)

PUBLIC

WORKS

(DPW)

INFORMATION

MANGEMENT

(DOIM)

EMERGENCY

SERVICES

(DES)

MORAL

(DMWR)

PUBLIC

AFFAIRS

OFFICE

(PAO)

RELIGIOUS

SUPPORT

LEGAL

(OSJA)

EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY

(EEO)

INTERNAL

REVIEW AUDIT

COMPLIANCE

INSTALLATION

SAFETY OFFICE

CONTRACTING

(DOC)

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 11 archaeological resources. The CRMP program originally was managed by the Fort Gordon Head Forester. In 2004, the program was moved under the supervision of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) program manager. Throughout its history, the mission of the CRMP has been to facilitate compliance with applicable legal requirements in order to maintain the availability of Army land areas necessary to sustain a state of combat readiness.

This ICRMP is structured around the assumption that the CRMP staff will consist of one full time Cultural Resource Manager (CRM) augmented by contract personnel on a project by project basis. The CRM must be a government employee who is responsible for overall operations and activities of the CRMP to include developing budget plans, compliance project over site, commander briefings, and strategic planning meetings. The CRM at a minimum will have training in historic preservation compliance law and procedures. The contract personnel are qualified professionals that meet the Secretary of Interiors Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR 61: 48 FR 44738-9) in disciplines appropriate to the installation’s historic properties, and serve as technical support in survey, identification and evaluation of historic properties. In accordance with Fort Gordon’s Section 106 PA with the Georgia SHPO, Stipulation 1(A) states that Fort Gordon will employ, maintain a contract with, or, obtain though other means, qualified professionals that meet the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards.

Currently contract personnel fulfill the professional requirements.

1.4.2 CRMP Goals

• To establish specific procedures for compliance with all Federal laws and regulations governing the protection and preservation of historic resources with least degradation of the primary military mission and ongoing training activities.

• To minimize adverse effects upon all historic properties (i.e., both above-ground resources and archaeological sites) located on Fort Gordon that meet the criteria for listing on the NRHP.

• To locate and evaluate the significance of archaeological sites on Fort Gordon and to identify all those that meet the criteria for inclusion on the NRHP.

• To give priority to the evaluation of sites in areas that are heavily used for training maneuvers, both to identify and devise protective strategies for NRHP eligible sites located in areas of high maneuver impact and to reduce the number of non-evaluated or potentially eligible sites that must be avoided by training activities.

• To enforce Federal laws that prohibit willful vandalism and casual collection of antiquities from sites located on Fort Gordon through a program of selective site surveillance and a parallel program promoting public awareness.

• To coordinate and interact with Native Americans regarding cultural resources, including traditional cultural properties.

• To include public outreach and involvement in cultural resources projects.

• To continue meeting the curation standards set forth in 36 CFR § 79.

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 12

1.4.3 CRMP Integration

The over-arching objective of the CRMP is integrating with internal and external stakeholders to protect and manage cultural resources in support to the military mission. Timely integration allows for consideration of impacts to cultural resources within the planning stages of projects and helps balance compliance of cultural resource integration with concerns of all stakeholders.

The lack of integration of the CRMP with its stakeholders can lead to delays in projects and military training activities, litigation by external stakeholders, and loss or damage of irreplaceable cultural resources.

This ICRMP lays out procedures for integration with both internal and external stakeholders.

SOP#1 Integrate the CRMP, lays out the responsibilities of the various offices on Fort Gordon that have a major role in cultural resource compliance. A procedure to involve the general public and consult with the Tribes is included in Section 6.0 Public Involvement Plan. The Section 106 procedure, laid out in SOP#2, combines both internal and external stakeholders in the process of cultural resource compliance.

External Stakeholders

Internal Stakeholders

Integrate the

CRMP

(SOP#1)

Public Involvement Plan (Section 6.0)

Section 106 Compliance

(SOP#2)

Figure 3: CRMP Integration Procedures

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 13

2.0 REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

This section contains brief summaries of the scope and intent of cultural resource laws and regulations that pertain to Fort Gordon. Primary discussions apply to Federal Statutes, Regulations, EOs, Presidential Memoranda, and Department of Defense Directives. State and local cultural resources laws and regulations do not apply to Army property because there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity in this area.

2.1 FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

2.1.1 Antiquities Act

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433; 32 Stat. 225) allows the President of the United States to set aside federally owned lands as historic landmarks. It also allows for the federal government to acquire private land for historic preservation. The Act requires that excavation of archaeological sites on federal land be conducted by qualified individuals under federally issued permits, and requires that artifacts and objects be preserved permanently in museums.

The Act establishes penalties for any person who excavates, injures, or destroys any historic property or monument on federal land without permission from the appropriate federal department. The procedures for issuing permits, and instructions for seizure of illegally acquired archaeological objects are provided in implementing regulation 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3 (43 CFR 3).

2.1.2 Historic Sites Act

The Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461-467) establishes as national policy the preservation of historic resources for public use by giving the Secretary of the Interior the power to conduct historic surveys and to document, evaluate, acquire, and preserve archaeological and historic properties. This act led to the creation of the Historic Sites Survey, the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), and the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) within the National Park Service (NPS). The Historic Landmarks Program is implemented under this act by 36 CFR 65.

2.1.3 National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470-470w), is the cornerstone of federal preservation law and is the most important piece of legislation for the care

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 14 of cultural resources at Fort Gordon. The Act sets forth a general policy of preserving historic properties by the federal government for the benefit and education of the people of the United States. The Act directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) in creating and maintaining the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which is a national listing of districts, buildings, sites, structures, and objects considered to be of local, state, or national significant for their contributions to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and/or culture. The Secretary is directed to establish criteria for nominating properties to the NRHP and making determinations of NRHP eligibility.

The NHPA establishes a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) responsible for the identification of historic properties within each state. The SHPO also ensures that NRHP-eligible and listed properties are taken into account during planning and development. The Act further establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) as an independent federal agency that advises the President and Congress on concerns of historic preservation. The key provisions of the Act are provided in Sections 106 and 110 of NHPA.

Section 106 of NHPA forms the basis for most of the work conducted under an installation ICRMP. Federal agencies are required to take into account the effect of their undertakings on properties listed or eligible for inclusion to the NRHP, and the ACHP may choose to comment on installation activities that have the potential to affect historic properties (i.e., properties that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP). Federal agencies must take into account the effects of undertakings during the planning stage and must provide protective or mitigative measures for historic resources that may be affected by its activities. This process is detailed in implementing regulations 36 CFR 60, 36 CFR 63, 36 CFR 79, and 36 CFR 800. Section 106 requires that reasonable efforts be made to minimize harm to NRHP-eligible and -listed properties until the Section 106 consultation process is complete.

The NHPA was most recently revised in 2001 under Part II, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 36 CFR 800: Protection of Historic Properties. One of the most significant changes was an expanded role for Native American tribes and Hawaiian organizations in the Section 106 process. In addition, the ACHP removed itself from reviewing determinations of no adverse effect and routine Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), placing the primary role of regulating Section 106 with the agency and the SHPO.

Section 110 of NHPA outlines affirmative responsibilities with respect to historic properties.

Federal agencies are required to assume responsibility for the preservation of historic properties owned or controlled by the respective agency. Federal agencies are required to locate, inventory, and recommend as eligible all properties that appear to qualify for inclusion on the NRHP. Costs of preservation may be included in the planning efforts of agency undertakings. Waiver of Federal Agency Responsibility is implemented at 36 CFR 78.

Section 110 expands the role of tribal historic preservation programs. Under this section, the Secretary is authorized to coordinate preservation efforts with Federally-recognized Indian tribes and native Hawaiian organizations, SHPOs, and federal agencies. NRHP significance criteria include “properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or native Hawaiian organization.” This is important because it affords legal protection to traditional

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 15 cultural properties (TCPs) under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA).

TCPs were previously recognized as important, but were not afforded legal protection.

Amendments to Section 110 obligate federal agencies to withhold federal assistance from nonfederal applicants when historic properties have been intentionally damaged prior to the completion of the Section 106 process.

Section 111 of the Act requires that federal agencies implement alternatives, including adaptive reuse, for historic properties that are not needed for current or projected agency purposes.

Agencies may also lease or exchange historic properties if the lease or exchange is compatible with preservation.

Section 112 requires that all research, preservation, and protection activities be done by persons meeting professional standards developed by the Secretary of the Interior, including both agency and contractor personnel.

Section 113 calls for a study to help control illegal interstate and international traffic in antiquities.

Section 304 allows the head of a federal agency to withhold from disclosure information concerning the location or character of historic resources.

Sections 401–407 establish the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training as a part of the NPS. The Center is charged with development and distribution of preservation and conservation technologies for historic resources.

2.1.4 Archaeological Resources Protection Act

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, as amended (16 USC 470aa- 47011) establishes that archaeological resources on public lands are part of the heritage of the nation and should be preserved for the benefit of the American people. Unauthorized excavation, removal, damage, or alteration of any archaeological resource on public lands is prohibited, and the law provides criminal and civil penalties for violation. Qualified individuals who want to excavate or remove archaeological resources from federally owned land might obtain permits from the appropriate federal agency. The proposed work must be undertaken strictly for the purpose of furthering archaeological knowledge. All archaeological artifacts and resources are to remain the property of the United States. Regulations for the curation of federally owned and administered archaeological collections are provided in 36 CFR 79.

Federal agencies may not disclose any information pertaining to the location of archaeological sites unless the disclosure would not create a risk to the condition of archaeological resources.

Federal agencies must develop plans for surveying lands not scheduled for specific undertakings, must record and report archaeological violations, and must develop public awareness programs.

ARPA implementing regulations for the DoD (32 CFR 229) specify that protected resources must be at least 100 years old. The implementing regulations also outline the process for

Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan, Fort Gordon 16 granting excavation permits. Supplemental regulations are provided in 43 CFR 7.2.

2.1.5 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

The purpose and intent of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 as amended (25 USC 3001-3013) is to acknowledge the ownership of certain human remains, funerary objects, and sacred artifacts by Federally-recognized Native American tribes. In addition, the Act requires the objects to be treated in a way that is agreeable to these tribes. NAGPRA implementing regulations are found in 43 CFR 10.

NAGPRA provides for the repatriation of Native American remains upon the request of culturally affiliated…