Work_Statement.docx

ARIZONA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

CLASS I CULTURAL INVENTORY, PREDICTIVE MODELING, AND

TARGETED ARCHEOLOGICAL CLASS III SURVEY

FOR TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Introduction

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona (BLM), is currently developing 6 Travel Management Plans in various Field Offices. Court decisions in other states have demonstrated the need for BLM to conduct comprehensive Class I surveys along with targeted class III surveys of high probability areas. The Class I inventories will form the foundation of the BLM’s identification efforts as part of the Section 106 process that the agency is required to conduct under the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, the Class I inventories will help inform analysis conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approves travel and transportation management decisions in conformance with the BLM’s Designation of Areas and Trails regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 8342. Travel and transportation management (TTM) is an interdisciplinary process. In accordance with 43 CFR Subpart 8342, designation of routes and OHV use areas shall be done in such a way as to minimize damage to resources of the public lands, including cultural resources. Cultural resource information and potential impacts to historic properties must be considered when analyzing alternatives and assessing impacts for designation of a travel network and/or OHV areas in a TMP.

Task 1: Inventory of Existing Literature and Data

An inventory of existing literature and data (literature review) is most useful for gaining a comprehensive view of all the known archaeological, historic, cultural, and traditional places within a large area, such as the area to be covered by travel management planning. A thorough literature review is a professionally prepared study that includes a compilation and analysis of all reasonably available cultural resource data and literature, and a management-focused, interpretive, narrative overview, and synthesis of the data. Existing cultural resource data are obtained from published and unpublished documents, BLM cultural resource inventory records, institutional site files, the statewide AZSITE cultural resources online database, State and National registers, and other information sources. General information about sacred sites and other places of traditional cultural or religious importance to Native Americans or other cultural groups (including "traditional cultural properties" as discussed in National Register Bulletin No. 38) should be included in the inventory.

1.1 The successful bidder will prepare the inventory of existing literature and data, buffered to one quarter mile of each designated area, or linear transportation feature (i.e., road, primitive road or trail). The successful bidder should inventory existing literature and data within these buffered analyses areas. This includes reviewing current professional literature, regional overviews, appropriate historic contexts, and checking files and databases to learn if any surveys have been conducted and cultural resources recorded within the TMP analysis area. Extrapolation of information from inventories adjacent to route designations or on similar historic properties (i.e., site types and anticipated or documented impacts) in the general area is appropriate. The intent in this analysis is to identify analogous survey and site data that can be used in the evaluation of unsurveyed route designations that have little or no survey data. The extrapolation of analogous data should include a rationale as to why the data is comparable to the affected route designation.

1.2 The successful bidder should review previous archaeological survey data to ensure that it is adequate and meets modern standards. The AZ SHPO has issued guidance to Federal agencies regarding old archaeological data (State Historic Preservation Office Guidance Point No. 5, 2004; http://www.azstateparks.com/SHPO/review.html). Many older surveys were conducted prior to state and Federal standards that help ensure the adequacy of these studies, such as the survey transect interval or width as it applies to the definition of a 100 percent intensive survey, or the definition of what constitutes an archaeological site. Thus, many older surveys may not be adequate under current standards for archaeological investigations.

The successful bidder shall evaluate the adequacy of old surveys, and ascertain if the methods used meet current standards, according to SHPO Guidance Point No. 5. Specific criteria to consider include:

1.2.1. Was the survey transect interval too wide, so that sites may have been missed? Modern standards require that transect intervals do not exceed 20 meters in width.

1.2.2. Was the survey conducted on foot, on horseback, or through the windshield of a moving vehicle? These methods have widely different degrees of reliability. Modern standards require pedestrian surveys.

1.2.3. How were isolated artifact (IO) and/or feature occurrences treated, and is it possible that materials originally recorded as IOs meet current site definitions?

1.2.4. Were identified sites plotted accurately? With the advent of Global Positioning Satellite technology, re-identifying sites and getting precise plots is essential for management purposes.

1.2.5. Were site numbers assigned to all identified sites?

1.2.6. Were National Register-eligibility recommendations provided for the identified sites?

1.2.7. Was the survey conducted by professional archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards? Surveys conducted by volunteers or para-archaeologists are not considered valid surveys by modern standards.

1.2.8. Was the survey subject to tribal consultation to identify sites or areas of concern to Indian tribal governments? If consultations did occur, do they need updating? Modern standards and the ACHP’s regulations that implement section 106 require tribal consultation as part of the agency’s identification efforts.

1.2.9. Has the level of knowledge about the archaeology in the area changed (grown) since the old survey?

The successful bidder shall ascertain if more recent surveys completed in or around proposed designated routes resulted in the identification of different site types, site components, or settlement patterns from those discussed in older survey reports. If they did, then it may be necessary to conduct additional surveys in these areas in an effort to identify these possibly under-represented properties.

1.3 Raw Data. Upon completion of the records search, the successful bidder will enter the known cultural resources and previous investigations into either an Microsoft Access or Excel database. Information recorded within the database should include site number(s), site name, site type/function, temporal affiliation, cultural affiliation, associated project number and report reference, NRHP status, NRHP Criterion, SHPO concurrence, spatial relationship to nearest route, and data source. The various site types should be examined and classified according to the distribution present in the analysis area. Common site types present on lands managed by the BLM Arizona include: Prehistoric artifact scatters, historic artifact scatters, burials or cemeteries, Non-habitation features without associated artifacts (e.g. rock features, bedrock grinding stone, corrals), habitation (e.g. pit houses, masonry architecture, house foundations, cabins), mining (e.g. prospect pits, mines, shafts, adits, mining camps), quarry (lithic procurement areas), petroglyphs and pictographs, buildings (standing non-habitation buildings), transportation (roads, trails, railroads), Unknown, Utility (telephone and transmission lines).

The successful bidder will provide BLM with the Microsoft Access or Excel database of raw data as the first deliverable for use in route evaluation and in the early phases of the National Environmental Policy Act process.

Task 2: Preparation of Predictive Model and Cultural Sensitivity Maps

Using the raw data described in task 1.3, the successful bidder will produce “cultural sensitivity maps” using GIS to present a visual depiction of areas within the TMP planning area that contain, or may contain sensitive cultural resources. The maps should be at a larger scale and depict low, medium, and high site density areas, in addition to identifying those areas without survey data that are suitable for human occupation. The BLM has previously conducted this type of analysis using a maximum entropy frame work for identifying the spatial environmental factors that matter most in the distribution of archaeological site types. The BLM prefers this framework because of its ability to model spatial distributions from presence-only data, such as archaeological data. For that reason, the BLM requires that the successful bidder develop each predictive model using MaxEnt Software Version 3.4.1 or later.

2.1 Using MaxEnt Software Version 3.4.1 or later, the successful bidder will develop a predictive model based on the maximum entropy framework and create cultural sensitivity maps that visually depicts low, medium, and high site density areas in addition to identifying those areas without data that are suitable for human occupation. The cultural sensitivity maps should be overlaid with the routes layer to analyze any potential effects from route designation, and to ascertain whether additional cultural inventory may be warranted. The BLM requests that the model be developed to identify, and the cultural sensitivity maps depict, the archaeological site types identified in the analysis as described in task 1.3. If represented, the BLM requests cultural sensitivity maps for each site type, split out based on temporal affiliation. For example:

2.1.1 Prehistoric artifact scatters

2.1.2 Prehistoric features

2.1.3 Prehistoric habitation

2.1.4 Prehistoric mining

2.1.5 Prehistoric petroglyphs or pictographs

2.1.6 Historic Artifact Scatter

2.1.7 Historic burial/cemetery

2.1.8 Historic features

2.1.9 Historic buildings

2.1.10 Historic mining

2.1.11 Historic transportation

2.1.12 Historic utilities

2.1.13 Prehistoric composite (for sites with multiple site types)

2.1.14 Historic composite (for sites with multiple site types)

2.2 All data should be converted to NAD 83 UTM Zone 12 north for consistency. Results of predictive model should be output as site type raster ASCII files with continuous values from 0 to 1 indicating the suitability of each 30-m cell for site type locations. Convert these into Geodatabase raster files, classified as high, medium, and low risk for cultural site type locations. Further convert these to polygons in order to determine acreage and overlay on a series of output maps that can be viewed according to the site types listed in tasks 2.1.1 – 2.1.14.

2.2.2 The model should be run using the following environmental data sources:

BLM General Land Office (GLO) Survey Plats

¹P = prehistoric, H = historic Task 3: Targeted Archeological Class III Survey

The successful bidder will conduct, in addition to the Class I Inventory defined Task 1 above, a specified number of miles of targeted Class III survey of select routes, as described in the deliverable schedule in Task 5.0. This survey will be a focused or special-purpose survey that meets BLM’s Class III survey standards. The results of the class I will dictate which routes are selected for survey, as described in Task 3.1. Survey width shall be 200 feet (100 feet on either side of the centerline). In order to gain a broad geographic sample, the BLM requires a minimum of ten to fifteen separate survey units per study area, depending on circumstances; please bid accordingly.

These surveys may be used, among other purposes, for:

· Checking the adequacy of previous surveys

· Developing recommendations about inventory needs in previously unsurveyed areas

· Verifying assumed conditions that would warrant a waiver of more intensive survey

· Locating architectural or other high-profile properties

· Inspecting sites located near or within roads or trails

· Filling in data gaps

· Verifying the accuracy of a predictive model

3.1 The successful bidder will schedule a virtual meeting with BLM to go over the preliminary results of the Class I inventory and the results of the predictive model. The successful bidder should be prepared to present draft versions of the cultural sensitivity maps and provide suggestions for BLM on which routes should be selected to receive reconnaissance survey. The priority for routes selected for targeted survey is as follows:

· Routes that the model predicted as medium to high cultural probability that contain no previous survey or known historic properties that are proposed by BLM as designated open to motorized vehicles (highest priority)

· Routes that the model predicted as low cultural probability that contain no previous survey or known historic properties that are proposed by BLM as designated open to motorized vehicles (medium priority)

· Routes with previous survey and known site locations that are situated within 100 feet of either side of the centerline of routes that are proposed by BLM as designated open to motorized vehicles (medium priority)

· Routes that the model predicted as medium to high cultural probability that contain no previous survey or known historic properties that are proposed as designated open to equestrian or other types of users (lowest priority)

3.2 The successful bidder will conduct a pedestrian survey of the identified routes using 20-m transect intervals. The successful bidder will fully record all newly discovered cultural resources using the Arizona State Museum (ASM) site recording manual and the BLM Arizona fieldwork guidelines (attached). The BLM will issue quadratic site numbers for any newly discovered cultural resources; ASM-issued site numbers are not required.

Task 4: Preparation of Report for Submission to SHPO

The successful bidder will prepare a professional report describing the results of the inventory of existing literature and data. Do not summarize results of the inventory in the form of a technical memorandum. Instead, follow the Standards for Inventory Documents Submitted for SHPO Review in Compliance with Historic Preservation Laws (State Historic Preservation Office SHPO Survey Report Standards, revised January 2015; http://www.azstateparks.com/SHPO/review.html).

The report shall at a minimum contain the following sections:

1. SHPO Abstract

2. Introduction and Project Description

3. Methods (Literature review, Predictive Modeling, Reconnaissance survey)

4. Results of Literature Review

5. Results of Reconnaissance Survey

6. GIS cultural sensitivity modeling

7. Data gaps

8. Summary of Cultural Resources in analysis area and Management Recommendations

9. References

4.1 Introduction and Project Description

The Project Description section should provide all pertinent information regarding the TMP and associated decisions made by BLM. The Project Description provides a full description of the undertaking (including project dimension, duration, land status, legal description, county, and dates of literature searches conducted at field office and off-site locations), identification of the APE (or analysis area), and level of inventory completed, and the agency’s efforts to identify historic properties and obtain and consider the view of affected local governments, Indian tribes, the public, and other interested parties. At a minimum, the project description will include the following information:

· Name of TMP

· Location of TMP

· Summary metrics that include the number, size, and length of areas, roads, and trails proposed for designation

· Description of seasonal designations, if applicable

· Relevant maps depicting TMP analysis area(s)

· Summary of NEPA and planning timelines

· Description(s) of the physical environment (topography and ecotones)

4.2 Methods

The methods section should describe the methods and steps taken to conduct the comprehensive literature review. The methods section should describe how the successful bidder performed the inventory of existing literature and data. List all of the sources of information reviewed and included in the comprehensive literature review. The successful bidder shall also describe the methods used to develop the GIS predictive model and cultural sensitivity maps, and the methods for identifying routes for reconnaissance survey.

4.2.1 Method for Class I data gathering phase. Describe all sources of information consulted, when, where, and by whom. Also include how data was gathered and organized for future retrieval and use.

4.2.2 Method for developing Maximum Entropy predictive model.

4.2.3 Provide a summary of environmental variables used in the MaxEnt model (elevation, slope, aspect, precipitation, distance to water, etc.)

4.2.4 Describe the MaxEnt Parameters so that BLM can continue to use and refine the model in the future. It is important to provide a summary of the MaxEnt calculation features, MaxEnt environmental variable assessment, MaxEnt output format, MaxEnt settings, and final model parameters.

4.2.5 Describe the method for selecting routes for targeted reconnaissance survey, and explain the reason why each route was selected.

4.2.6 Describe fieldwork methods employed during the target reconnaissance survey (including survey and site recording procedures).

4.3 Results of Literature Review

This section presents the results of the Comprehensive Inventory of Existing Data and Literature. Cultural resources will be described, with tables used to summarize large quantities of sites or other cultural data. The successful bidder will present a discussion that summarizes archaeological site density and the nature and distribution of archaeological sites within the travel management planning area. The literature review section should describe all previous surveys and list all previously recorded sites within the TMP analysis area.

The tabular format to document previous surveys should at a minimum consist of the following information:

· Project name

· Project type (range improvement, road maintenance, transmission, etc.)

· Project year

· Number of acres – if linear also include length in miles

· Report number

· Author(s) or principal investigator(s)

· Number of historic properties including National Register status (Eligible, Not Eligible, Undetermined, or Unevaluated)

· Number of Isolated Occurrences recorded

· SHPO consultation / concurrence date OR whether project was subsumed under previous Protocol

The tabular format to document previously sites should at a minimum consist of the following information:

· ASM Site Number

· Temporal Affiliation (prehistoric, historic, multi-component)

· Cultural Affiliation (see ASM site recording manual)

· Site Type/Function (Artifact Scatter, Artifact Scatter with Features, Structural, etc.)

· National Register Status (eligible, not eligible, undetermined, unevaluated)

· National Register Criterion

· Associated report reference

· SHPO concurrence date, if applicable

Previous survey and previously recorded site information may be presented in the report in tabular format. However, both tables must have an accompanying textual narrative summarizing the information presented in the table. The textual narrative should summarize and capture site distribution, and the nature and types of sites present within the TMP analysis area.

4.4. Results of targeted class III. It is not required to produce a separate document presenting the results of the targeted class III survey. Please include a section in the Class I report that describes the results of the survey. Present descriptions of all newly discovered cultural resources, and any previously recorded cultural resources that were revisited.

4.5 Results of the GIS cultural sensitivity modeling. A critical assessment of the model’s integrity is imperative to its future utility. Assess the efficacy and utility of the model for each of the site types described in tasks 2.1.1 – 2.1.14 and present a narrative discussion.

4.6. Data gaps. Present a straightforward analysis of any data gaps identified in the project area that may affect the BLM’s ability to 1) understand the nature, density, and distribution of cultural resources in the analysis area; and 2) limit BLM’s ability to appropriately assess effects. Data gaps can include but are not limited to: 1) lack of survey coverage; 2) biased data sets; 3) NRHP status information; 4) Studies of Traditional Cultural Properties.

4.7 Summary of Impacts and Management Recommendations

In the Summary of Impacts and Management Recommendations section, the successful bidder should present a discussion of designation of travel routes and motorized use on historic properties based on the density, nature, and distribution of archaeological sites documented by the comprehensive literature review. A consideration and analysis shall be given to direct, indirect, and cumulative effects (present an evaluation of the potential for travel and transportation management to directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect NRHP-eligible properties).

The Direct Area of Potential Effect (APE) consists of the geographical extent that is proposed in a BLM Land Use Plan (LUP) that has the potential to cause effects to historic properties. In Arizona, the Direct APE consists of 200 feet (100 feet off each side of the centerline of the route) where visitors are allowed to pull off, park, camp, or engage in other allowable uses on public lands. The APE for indirect effects should consider potential visual, audible, and atmospheric elements that could diminish the integrity of historic properties for which setting, feeling, and/or association are aspects of such integrity, and sensitive properties at risk for looting, vandalism, or erosion.

Evaluate effects to NRHP listed, eligible, and unevaluated sites and make suggestions for avoiding, minimizing, or reducing any potential adverse effects to historic properties. These could include, but are not limited to, avoidance measures, fencing, capping, re-routing, monitoring, and mitigation (data recovery) if avoidance is not possible. Monitoring recommendations could include pre– and post– travel management designations. The discussion of treatment or mitigation measures should include those that were considered but not chosen, and the reasons for selecting the preferred measure. The Management Recommendations should also discuss alternative actions (including avoidance) considered, and the proposed treatment of any Register-eligible properties in order to reduce the potential adverse effects of the undertaking on those properties.

5.0 Study Areas, Deliverable Schedule, and Standards

The following six Travel Management Plans will be awarded at the government’s discretion. Not all areas will be funded with the initial request for bids. As funding becomes available, BLM will exercise bid options. In order to meet strict time deadlines required by the NEPA process, the BLM may choose to award bids to more than one vendor. Accompanying map shows the areas to be including in this request. Each area is shown in size (acres) and miles of existing routes and AZ BLM Field Office.

Note: Due to public comments during NEPA, total miles analyzed may increase or decrease by 10 percent. Please consider this ten percent variability in your bid. If this is unclear, vendors should contact the COR to discuss prior to submitting bid. Please submit bids for all six Travel Management Plans.

5.1 Deliverable Schedule

The BLM requires a Microsoft Access database containing raw data described in task 1.3 as the first deliverable so that BLM can begin route evaluation and NEPA planning. The final deliverables will consist of raw data in a Microsoft Access database or Excel spreadsheet, the model, digital copy of the drafted final report all digital data associated with this project to include: 1) digital version of the report; 2) digital versions of newly recorded site cards, maps, images, and associated documentation; 3) all GIS data including the model.

The Contractor shall provide the following deliverables according to the following task schedule (presented in terms of days from award):

TMP Name

Transmit Class I Raw Data Predictive Model/ Sensitivity Maps

Final Report to BLM Period of Performance (POP)

Due to the critical and urgent nature of timely compliance, the Government may award multiple contracts under this task order to ensure all work associated with all tasks are completed in time to assist the Field Offices in finalizing compliance documentation. If multiple contractors are chosen, the Contractor(s) will be awarded the above listed Travel Management Plans as determined by the Government, based on submitted proposals conforming to the schedule requirements.

The Contractor(s) shall have no more than the number of days from the date of contract award specified in the Period of Performance (POP) column in the table above to complete all work outlined in this Scope of Work for each individual Travel Management Plan. As a result of these project completion dates requirements, a minimum of two priority areas must be completed simultaneously to meet this schedule. Contractors who wish to solely complete all priority areas outlined above shall take note of this schedule requirement and bid accordingly.

5.2 Fieldwork Standards on BLM Lands

The following are BLM Arizona’s expectations for how to conduct field work and record archaeological sites on BLM Arizona-managed lands. The BLM standards either meet or exceed the standards described in the Arizona State Museum Archaeological Site Recording Manual, Version 1.1 (December 1, 1993).

Field Survey Standards

1. Survey transects should be compass-controlled and not exceed 20 meter spacing unless otherwise stated.

a. GPS or other methods should be used for quality assurance purposes to assure that the appropriate survey acreage is thoroughly surveyed and there are no gaps in survey coverage.

2. If surveying in the winter months at higher altitudes, consultant will contact the local BLM archaeologist and / or contracting officer’s representative for approval to survey in snowy conditions.

a. Failure to contact appropriate BLM archaeologist regarding ground visibility may result in a request to re-survey portions of the project acreage.

3. Level of effort to relocate previously documented historic properties.

a. If previously documented historic properties are not relocated:

i. Expand search radius around supposed coordinates several hundred meters.

ii. Consider datum conversions (i.e. the offset between NAD 1927 and 1983).

iii. Contact local Field Office archaeologists before going into field regarding their knowledge of the sites in question.

iv. Use photographs or other documentation to locate site based on topography or major landmarks.

b. If site cannot be relocated, thoroughly document the effort exerted by the field crews and the steps taken to relocate.

i. Provide some explanation as to why the site cannot be relocated.

1. For instance, perhaps site was misplotted originally. Or perhaps the site has since been buried or obscured by heavy vegetation growth, etc.

Site Documentation Standards

4. Use the ASM revised site definition policy:

a. Physical remains of past human activity are at least 50 years old.

b. 30+ artifacts of a single class (e.g. 30 sherds, 30 lithics, 30 tin cans) within and area 15 meters (50 feet) in diameter, except when all pieces appear to originate from a single source (i.e. once ceramic pot, one core, one glass bottle).

c. 20+ artifacts which include at least 2 classes of artifact types (i.e. sherds, groundstone, nails, glass) within an area 15 meters (50 feet) in diameter.

d. One or more archaeological features in temporal association with any number of artifacts.

e. Two or more temporally associated archaeological features without artifacts.

f. Isolated features are defined as a feature that does not have any other features within a 100 meter (325 feet) diameter (e.g. isolated rock piles, mine shafts, prospecting pits or unidentified depressions without artifact associations.

5. All previously documented historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) will be visited and a site update performed. If a revisited site does not appear as originally recorded (artifact density or distribution has changed significantly, new features are observed, site condition has changed significantly, etc.) a full re-record must be performed. A full re-record is defined as:

a. ASM Site Card completed

i. Procedures and quality standards for ASM Site Cards must conform to the ASM Site Recording Manual and the most current SHPO Reporting Standards. Both documents can be downloaded here:

1. http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/crservices/forms.shtml

b. Plan view drawing / map of the site

c. Plan view drawing / map of structures and prominent features

d. Photographic documentation

e. Site location map with site plotted on a USGS 7.5’ quadrangle at 1:24,000 scale

f. An assessment of the site’s current condition

g. A recommendation of site’s National Register of Eligibility

6. Plan view drawings / maps should minimally include:

a. Site boundary that depicts the geographic extent of surficial material remains

i. Site boundary depicted on plan view drawing should have an accompanying GIS polygon shape file (i.e. the two should be the same)

1. Produced on metric 1/10” grid paper.

ii. Site datum (NAD 1983 Zone 12N)

iii. Point-provenience for diagnostics artifacts

iv. Location(s) of features and structures

v. Location of artifact concentrations

vi. Location of artifact sampling or testing units

vii. Location of photographic points

viii. Location of long-lived vegetation or tree species (e.g. Saguaro, old growth ponderosa, etc.)

ix. Location of drainage(s) within or near site or any other natural areas of erosion

x. Location(s) of human-caused impacts (e.g. modern campfires rings, off-road vehicle tracks, modern trash, collector’s piles, unauthorized excavations, any evidence of human visitation).

xi. Location of other impacts such as cattle trailing or de-vegetated areas

xii. Contour lines

xiii. Existing roads or trails

xiv. Date, scale text, scale bar, north arrow, site number, project name, site recorders, legend of symbols

b. For a site that is located in a flat, barren, non-descript area, draw two or more arrows on the map depicting distance and azimuth from the datum to major markers on the landscape such as named topographic features, roads, power lines, campgrounds, washes, etc. For example, “Face Mountain 245 meters at 185˚ or County Road 18 600 meters at 45˚.” The intent of providing this information is to aid in the future relocation of the site.

7. Structures or prominent features should be mapped at a larger scale in a separate drawing using the Cartesian grid method (x and y coordinates plotted with metric reel tapes). Structure or feature plan view drawings will minimally include:

i. Mapping datum

ii. Point-provenience for diagnostics artifacts

iii. Location(s) of human-caused impacts (e.g. modern trash, collector’s piles, unauthorized excavations)

iv. Date, scale text, scale bar, north arrow, site number, project name, site recorders, legend of symbols

8. Photographic documentation at each site will minimally include:

a. Site overview from a minimum of two locations

i. Site overview photographs should contain pin flags to illustrate the distribution of artifacts.

ii. Site overview photographs should be framed in such a way that prominent land features (e.g. distant mountain peaks, mesas, rock out crops, old growth vegetation, major drainages or arroyos) are included within the view. This technique facilitates relocation of the site for future archaeological investigations.

iii. Site overview photographs should include a north arrow; photo board is advisable.

b. Features and Structures should be photographed:

i. From a minimum of two views:

1. Include a close-up that depicts details

a. Try to document details that relate to National Register eligibility and illustrates the structure or feature’s ability to convey integrity of workmanship, materials, or design.

2. Include a contextual overview photograph

a. Try to document elements that relate to National Register eligibility and illustrate the structure or feature’s ability to convey integrity of setting, location, association, or feeling.

ii. Photographs of features and structures should be framed in such a way that prominent land features (e.g. distant mountain peaks, mesas, rock out crops, old growth vegetation, major drainages or arroyos) are included within the view. This technique facilitates relocation of the features and structures for future archaeological investigations.

iii. Photographs of structures and features should include a photo board and a north arrow.

c. For historic properties that are considered Not Eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, try to photographically document:

i. Evidence that the site does not convey integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, materials, workmanship, or association that supports a Not Eligible recommendation.

ii. Evidence of impacts (human and natural) that support a Not Eligible recommendation.

d. Photographic log

i. Each photograph must be listed on a photographic log that describes:

1. Photographic identification number

2. Description of the photograph

3. Direction of photograph

4. Date and time

5. Light conditions

a. Full sun, partly cloudy, full overcast

6. Relevant site information (site number, feature or structure number)

7. Photographer’s name

9. Site location maps

a. Each historic property will include a site location map that depicts:

i. The location of the site on a USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle at 1:24,000 scale

ii. A legend that communicates to the reader:

1. Site number

2. Name of Quadrangle

3. Datum (Should be NAD 1983 Zone 12)

4. County

5. Township, Range, Section

6. Contour interval

7. North arrow

8. Scale text

9. Scale bar

10. Date map was made

11. Name or initials of person who made the map

iii. Disclosure of site location prohibited disclaimer in Bold Font on all accompanying maps and cover pages:

1. “For Official Use Only. Disclosure of site location prohibited (43 CFR 7.18)”.

10. Site condition assessment

a. Specify all sources of disturbance observed on the site.

b. If the physical evidence is localized, as in potholes or arroyo cuts, include this information on the site plan view drawing.

c. Describe the observations on site condition in the site description narrative.

d. Disturbance sources:

i. Wind erosion. Indicate whether or not the site has been subject to significant wind erosion (e.g. dune blowouts or “lag” artifact scatters).

ii. Water erosion. Indicate whether the site has been subject to significant water erosion (e.g. arroyo cutting or sheet washing).

iii. Bioturbation. Indicate if burrowing rodents, birds, insects have disturbed subsurface deposits.

iv. Grazing. Indicate whether or not there is evidence of grazing impacts (trailing, wallow areas, crushed or displaced artifacts, etc.) by domestic or feral livestock (cattle, sheep, goats, horses, etc.) or other large non-domestic game such as deer, elk, or antelope.

v. Fire. Indicate whether or not the site has sustained impacts from wild land fire, wild land fire suppression efforts, or prescribed burning.

vi. Vandalism. Indicate any evidence of malicious behavior such as unauthorized excavations, graffiti, or other incidents where cultural material remains have been intentionally destroyed or defaced.

vii. Construction/Land development. Indicate if construction or land development (including BLM activities such as timber cutting, road or trail maintenance) activities have damaged the site.

viii. Recreation / Motorized impacts. Indicate whether there are any impacts attributed to off-road motorized vehicles (ATVs, UTVs, motorcycles etc.), camping, or recreational shooting activities. Observe and document impacts such as displaced artifacts, crushing of artifacts, damage to features or architecture, rutting, or the creation of hardened user-created roads or paths. Observe and document signs of human visitation such as the creation of modern campfire rings within site, creation of a hardened campsite, modern trash, or spent ammunition.

e. Discuss whether or not the site retains any of the aspects of integrity that convey the site’s significance for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (See NRB15).

i. Location

ii. Design

iii. Setting

iv. Feeling

v. Association

vi. Materials

vii. Workmanship

National Register Eligibility Recommendations Consultants will evaluate each site for its National Register eligibility and make a professional quality recommendation to the BLM regarding a site’s significance. Consultants will follow the guidelines and procedures described in National Register Bulletin 15 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

11. Consultant National Register recommendations will contain the following three components:

a. Theme (e.g. Mormon expansion)

b. Location (e.g. St. George basin)

c. Time period (e.g. late 19th century)

i. Insufficient recommendations may be rejected by BLM and returned to the consultant.

12. For eligibility recommendations, the following types of cultural resources, provided they are 50 years old or older, and clearly retain integrity, may be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places:

i. Properties with clear evidence for the presence of structures (historic structures, pueblos, pithouses, field houses, etc.).

ii. Properties with hundreds of surface artifacts (provided it is not a single episode can dump).

iii. Properties with clearly visible evidence of in-tact subsurface deposits.

iv. Properties that clearly meet the National Register listing requirements in State historic contexts, or SHPO-approved BLM-level historic contexts.

a. Evaluate each cultural resource site and make a recommendation regarding its eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP using all criteria listed in 36 CFR 60.6, Department of the Interior National Register Bulletin 15.

b. Avoid simply stating that a site is eligible under criterion D - elaborate on the context (e.g. “This site is recommended eligible under criterion D for it potential to yield important information regarding Hohokam occupation of the northern periphery of the Phoenix Basin”).

c. To reiterate, sites should be evaluated within their historic contexts, which should include time, location, and theme. For instance, “Historic mining in the Cooper Butte region of Central Arizona during the mid-to late 19th century.”

i. Recommendations such as “Site is eligible under criterion D for its ability to provide valuable information pertaining to prehistoric resource procurement and land use patterns” are unacceptable.

Additional Note to Vendors:

Please direct any technical/archaeological/GIS modeling questions to the BLM Deputy Preservation Officer, Matt Basham, mbasham@blm.gov