Attachment_5_NHPA_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

NRHP Archaeological Determination of Eligibility of 45KL328 within the USACE Portland District, John Day Project Boundaries

Attachment 6

EVALUATING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ARCHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES

NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and:

A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A National Register property must meet at least one of the above National Register criteria; it may meet more than one. Each criterion that is checked on the nomination form must be fully justified. For example, if a Civil War battlefield qualifies under Criteria A and D, then both the battle and its importance and the important information that archeological investigations would likely yield need to be addressed.

Properties nominated to the National Register under Criteria A, B, or C often contain archeological deposits. For example, a nineteenth‐century farmstead (including the main houses and outbuildings) that qualifies for listing under Criteria A, B, or C may have intact archeological deposits. In many cases, however, these deposits are undocumented. In such cases, the preparer should clearly note the potential for archeological deposits in the text of the nomination. Unless the significance of the property is justified under Criterion D, Criterion D should not be checked on the nomination form. Once additional studies are done to document the archeological information retained from the site, then the nomination form should be amended to add Criterion D.

In a case, such as that noted above, the archeological deposits need not relate to the significance of the documented standing structures. For example, the Henderson Hill Historic District in West Virginia is a large nineteenth‐century farm complex eligible under A, B, C, and D. The archeological component of the farm itself has not been evaluated but three Woodland period mounds on the property are likely to yield important information.

If additional documentation were to be added to demonstrate the information potential of the nineteenth‐century archeological deposits, both significant contexts (the relevant, nineteenth‐century historic context, and the Woodland period) should be justified.

CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS

Unless certain special requirements (known as the criteria considerations) are met, moved properties; birthplaces;

cemeteries; reconstructed buildings, structures, or objects; commemorative properties; and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not generally eligible for the National Register. The criteria considerations, or exceptions to these rules, are found in How to Complete the National Register Registration Form and How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

The National Register criteria considerations are:

NRHP Archaeological Determination of Eligibility of 45KL328 within the USACE Portland District, John Day Project Boundaries

A. A religious property may be eligible if it derives its primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

B. A property removed from its original or historically significant location can be eligible if it is significant primarily for its architectural value or it is the surviving property most importantly associated with a historic person or event.

C. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure may be eligible if the person is of outstanding importance and if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life.

D. A cemetery may be eligible if it derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events.

E. A reconstructed property may be eligible when it is accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no other building or structure with the same associations has survived.

F. A property primarily commemorative in intent can be eligible if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historic significance.

G. A property achieving significance within the last 50 years may be eligible if it is of exceptional importance

Note: if a property is an integral part of a district or site that meets the criteria, then do not apply the criteria considerations to the individual property. For example, a nomination for an archeological district consisting of archeological sites, some above‐ground ruins, several standing structures, and two historically associated cemeteries need not address the criterion consideration for cemeteries because the two cemeteries are an integral part of the district. For more information on cemeteries and burial places, see the National Register bulletin Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. A cemetery that is nominated under Criterion D for information potential does not need to meet Criteria Consideration D.

It is also important to consider significance before considering integrity. At Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, Smith (1994:96) developed a regional context through a combined cultural, historical, and landscape approach. The context assists in identifying sites that best represent the range and variety of culture history. Smith found that the most difficult part in devising such a context was the integration of the historic context with the archeological remains. Smith used site types as the key in an approach that could be used as a model for approaching the evaluation and management of common site types. In developing the context for the Fort Leonard Wood settler community, Smith identified different types of settlers with purposes ranging from subsistence to cash cropping and characterized associated sites according to their archeological visibility, signature, and sensitivity. Some sites, such as twentieth‐century tenant sites, have high visibility, easily identified signatures, and low sensitivity. It would be important to examine some but by no means all of this common type of site. (See also Peacock and Patrick 1997 for a discussion of common site types and information potential). Other sites, such as those of early squatters, have very low visibility, low signatures (that is, they are difficult to identify), and very high sensitivity because they are extremely rare and would provide important information. Even a damaged site could address research questions if it were a less common type. In a region that is very poorly known, for example, the investigation even of deflated sites may yield information potential for 1) basic archeological questions about use of the region and 2) baseline data on site condition with which to evaluate other similar sites in the region.