DOCSLIB.ORG

Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation September 1986 NTIS order #PB87-140166 .. Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation, OTA-E-319 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1986). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 86-600574 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 — Foreword Archaeological remains and historic structures and landscapes are important tan- gible reminders of this Nation’s rich and diverse cultural heritage, They provide a sense of our past and contribute in other ways to our quality of life. Yet, in recent years, as the resuIt primarily of population shifts, urban growth, and energy development, the stresses on these unique, nonrenewable cultural resources have increased dramat- ically. As this assessment makes clear, the appropriate use of a wide variety of preser- vation technologies, many of which were originally developed for applications in natural science and engineering, could reduce many of these stresses. This report presents the primary findings of an assessment requested by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The Subcommittee on Public Lands is carry- ing out a major review of how Federal agencies implement Federal preservation pol- icy. This assessment directly supports the Committee’s review by showing how the uses of certain methods, techniques, as well as tools and equipment can assist Feder- al, State, and local preservation efforts. The assessment takes the unusual step of focusing on the applications of preserva- tion technologies rather than preservation disciplines. It examines the current use of preservation technologies and identifies research and development needs. It also ex- plores how improvements in Federal policy and implementation can facilitate the more effective use of technologies appropriate for managing this country’s prehistoric and historic cultural resources. In undertaking this assessment, OTA sought the contributions of a wide spectrum of knowledgeable and interested individuals. Some provided information and guidance, others reviewed drafts of the report. OTA gratefully acknowledges their contributions of time and intellectual effort. OTA also appreciates the timely help rendered by a num- ber of individuals from the National Park Service. JOHN H. GIBBONS Director ///. Review Panel Robert Baboian John H. Myers Corrosion Laboratory College of Architecture Texas Instruments Georgia Institute of Technology Attleboro, MA Atlanta, GA Carole L. Crumley Patricia O’Donnell Department of Anthropology Walmsley & Co. University of North Carolina New York, NY Chapel Hill, NC Mimi Rodden Hiroshi Daifuku Carson City, NV Historic Preservation Consultant Reynold Ruppe Washington, DC Department of Anthropology James Ebert Arizona State University Ebert & Associates Tempe, AZ Albuquerque, NM Susan E. Schur Joel Grossman Technology and Conservation Grossman & Associates, Inc. Boston, MA New York, NY Thomas Spiers Robert Harvey Benatec Associates Department of Landscape Architecture Harrisburg, PA Iowa State University M. Jane Young Ames, 1A Department of Anthropology Ruthann Knudson University of Texas Woodward-Clyde Consultants Austin, TX Walnut Creek, CA Charles Mazel Klein Associates Salem, NH NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the review panel and workshop participants. The panel and workshops do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents. iv OTA Project Staff on Prehistoric and Historic Preservation Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager Richard E. Rowberg, Energy and Materials Program Manager until December 1985 Ray Williamson, Project Director Mary Lee Jefferson, Analyst Jannelle Warren-Findley, Contractor Administrative Staff Lillian Chapman Linda Long Workshop Participants Technologies for the Preservation of Archaeological Sites and Structures, Dec. 3-4, 1985 Dena Dincauze, Chair Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA Annetta Cheek Mark Leone Thomas Sever Archeology Assistance Division Department of Anthropology National Aeronautics and Space Office of Surface Mining University of Maryland Administration Washington, DC College Park, MD National Space Technology Laboratories Bay St. Louis, MS James Ebert Charles Pearson Ebert & Associates Coastal Environments, Inc. R.E. Taylor Albuquerque, NM Baton Rouge, LA Department of Anthropology University of California Jeffrey Eighmy G.R. Rapp, Jr. Riverside, CA Department of Anthropology College of Science and Engineering Colorado State University University of Minnesota Leslie Wildesen Fort Collins, CO Duluth, MN Colorado Heritage Center State Historic Preservation Office James Judge Joseph Schuldenrein Denver, CO Fort Burgwin Research Center Commonwealth Associates Southern Methodist University Jackson, Ml Dallas, TX Timothy Kohler Department of Anthropology Washington State University Pullman, WA Technologies for the Presentation of Historic Structures, Jan. 28-29, 1986 James Marston Fitch, Chair Department of Historic Preservation, Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners, New York, NY Terry Amburgey Tomas H. Spiers John H. Myers Forest Products Laboratory Benatec Associates Center for Architectural Conservation Mississippi State University Harrisburg, PA College of Architecture Mississippi State, MS Georgia Institute of Technology Geoffrey Frohnsdorff Atlanta, GA Jan C.K. Anderson Center for Building Technology RESTORE National Bureau of Standards Susan E. Schur New York, NY Gaithersburg, MD Technology and Conservation Boston, MA Robert Baboian Larry Jones Corrosion Laboratory Old House Journal Norman Weiss Texas Instruments Brooklyn, NY Center for Preservation Research Attleboro, MA Columbia University Robert Kapsch New York, NY Hiroshi Daifuku National Park Service Historic Preservation Consultant Washington, DC Washington, DC Judith Kitchen Ohio State Historic Preservation Office Columbus, OH vi Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation, Feb. 20,1986 Reynold Ruppe, Chair Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ J. Barto Arnold Daniel Lenihan J.K. Orzech Texas Antiquities Committee Submerged Cultural Resources Unit Scripps Institute of Oceanography Austin, TX National Park Service La Jolla, CA Santa Fe, NM Frank Busby Sheli O. Smith Busby Associates, Inc. Charles Mazel Mariners Museum Arlington, VA Klein Associates Mariners Drive Salem, NH Newport News, VA Calvin R. Cummings National Park Service Craig Mullen Denver, CO Eastport International Upper Marlboro, MD Anne G. Giesecke Underwater Archaeologist Carol Olsen Arlington, VA Department of Maritime Preservation National Trust for Historic Preservation Washington, DC Technologies for the Preservation of Planned Landscapes and Other Outdoor Sites, Feb. 27=28, 1986 Patricia O’Donnell, Chair Walmsley & Co., Inc., New York, NY Shary P. Berg Thomas J. Kane Darwina L. Neal Frederick Law Olmsted National Kane, Liede, and Ratyna, PC. National Park Service Historic Site Pleasantville, NY National Capital Region Brookline, MA Washington, DC Timothy Keller Carole L. Crumley Land and Community Associates Ford Peatross Department of Anthropology Charlottesville, VA Prints and Photographs Division University of North Carolina Library of Congress Setha M. Low Chapel Hill, NC Washington, DC Department of Landscape Architecture Nomi Greber and Regional Planning Scott Weinberg Cleveland Museum of Natural History University of Pennsylvania School of Environmental Design Cleveland, OH Philadelphia, PA University of Georgia Athens, GA Robert Harvey Martin McGann College of Design Institute of Historic Horticulture M. Jane Young lowa State University Sleepy Hollow Restorations Department of Anthropology Ames, 1A Tarrytown, NY University of Texas Austin, TX Catherine Hewett Hugh C. Miller Bunting Institute Historic Architecture Division Radcliffe College National Park Service Cambridge, MA Washington, DC vii . Technologies for the Physical Protection of Prehistoric and Historic Sites, Apr. 14=15, 1986 Mimi Redden, Chair Carson City, NV David G. Battle Richard Haines Felix Lavicka National Park Service Bureau of Land Management Analytics, Inc. Denver CO Division of Lands and Renewable Tinton Falls, NJ Resources J. Rodney Little Richard Bierce Portland, OR National Trust for Historic Preservation State Historic Preservation Office Washington, DC James Hester Annapolis, MD Waterways Experiment Station Constance Ramirez Fred Blackburn U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of the Army White Mesa Institute Vicksburg, MS College of Eastern Utah Washington, DC Blanding, UT Captain Alvin Hinton Tupper Thomas U.S. Park Police Prospect Park Joel Grossman Washington, DC Grossman & Associates, Inc. Brooklyn, NY New York, NY Tom King Office of Cultural Resource Preservation Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Washington, DC Ruthann Knudson Woodward-Clyde Consultants Walnut Creek, CA . Vlll Acknowledgments The following individuals contributed to this study in a variety of ways. OTA is grateful for their assistance: Mary Lee Allen James R. Druzik Ken Ireland Gunston Hall The Getty Conservation Institute National Park Service Bruce Anderson Robert Dunnell
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fixing Historic Preservation: a Constructive Critique of “Significance”
    Peer Reviewed Title: Fixing Historic Preservation: A Constructive Critique of "Significance" [Research and Debate] Journal Issue: Places, 16(1) Author: Mason, Randall Publication Date: 2004 Publication Info: Places Permalink: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/74q0j4j2 Acknowledgements: This article was originally produced in Places Journal. To subscribe, visit www.places-journal.org. For reprint information, contact [email protected]. Keywords: places, placemaking, architecture, environment, landscape, urban design, public realm, planning, design, research, debate, historic, preservation, contructive, critique, significance, Randall Mason Copyright Information: All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for any necessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn more at http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reuse eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic research platform to scholars worldwide. Fixing Historic Preservation: A Constructive Critique of “Significance” Randall Mason The idea of “significance” is exceed- Second, once judgments are made projects that tell their particular sto- ingly important to the practice of about a site, its significance is regarded ries. The broadening of preservation historic preservation. In significance, as largely fixed. Such inertia needs to from its curatorial roots has been a preservationists pack all their theory, be overcome, and
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    This PDF is a simplified version of the original article published in Internet Archaeology. All links also go to the online version. Please cite this as: Nicholson, C., Fernandez, R. and Irwin, J. 2021 Digital Archaeological Data in the Wild West: the challenge of practising responsible digital data archiving and access in the United States, Internet Archaeology 58. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.58.22 Digital Archaeological Data in the Wild West: the challenge of practising responsible digital data archiving and access in the United States Christopher Nicholson, Rachel Fernandez and Jessica Irwin Summary Archaeology in the United States is conducted by a number of different sorts of entities under a variety of legal mandates that lack uniform standards for data archiving. The difficulty of accessing data from projects in which one was not directly involved indicates an apparent reluctance to archive raw data and supplemental information with digital repositories to be reused in the future. There is hope that additional legislation, guidelines from professional organisations, and educational efforts will change these practices. 1. Introduction Though we are well into the 21st century, responsible digital archiving of archaeological data in the United States is not common practice. Digital archiving of cultural resource management reports in State Historic Preservation Offices, where they are often available by request though perhaps at a cost, is common; however, digitally archiving the datasets and other supporting materials that went into the creation of those documents is not. Though a vocal minority advocates for responsible digital archiving practices (Kansa and Kansa 2013; 2018; Kansa et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Laws and Regulations Requiring Curation of Digital Archaeological Documents and Data
    Federal Laws and Regulations Requiring Curation of Digital Archaeological Documents and Data Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC Prepared for: Arizona State University October 25th, 2012 © 2012 Arizona State University. All rights reserved. This report by Cultural Heritage Partners, PLLC describes and analyzes federal requirements for the access to and long-term preservation of digital archaeological data. We conclude that the relevant federal laws, regulations, and policies mandate that digital archaeological data generated by federal agencies must be deposited in an appropriate repository with the capability of providing appropriate long-term digital curation and accessibility to qualified users. Federal Agency Responsibilities for Preservation and Access to Archaeological Records in Digital Form Federal requirements for appropriate management of archaeological data are set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (“ARPA”), the regulations regarding curation of data promulgated pursuant to those statutes (36 C.F.R. 79), and the regulations promulgated by the National Archives and Records Administration (36 C.F.R. 1220.1-1220.20) that apply to all federal agencies. We discuss each of these authorities in turn. Statutory Authority: Maintenance of Archaeological Data Archaeological data can be generated from many sources, including investigations or studies undertaken for compliance with the NHPA, ARPA, and other environmental protection laws. The NHPA was adopted in 1966, and strongly
    [Show full text]
  • DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION for HISTORIC RESOURCES By
    DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES by MELISSA EVE GOGO Under the Direction of Mark Reinberger ABSTRACT This paper briefly analyzes the current documentation standards for Federal programs and creates an argument for the use of digital technologies in historic documentation. The technologies of photogrammetry, and laser scanning are addressed as methods for three dimensional modeling and compared to the current standard. Additionally, the issues posed by archiving on digital media are presented and courses of action suggested. Finally, the feasibility of a universal file format for archival purposes is addressed, and current progression toward this goal discussed. INDEX WORDS: Historic resource documentation, Photogrammetry, Laser scanning, Digital photography, HABS documentation guidelines, Digital storage media, Universal file format DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES by MELISSA EVE GOGO B.S., State University of New York at New Paltz, 2005 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ATHENS, GEORGIA 2011 © 2011 Melissa Eve Gogo All Rights Reserved DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES by MELISSA EVE GOGO Major Professor: Mark Reinberger Committee: Wayde Brown Ashley Calabria Christine Perkins Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2011 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge my major professor, Mark Reinberger, for agreeing
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Preservation
    Historic Preservation Request We urge Congress to: • support FY 2021 funding of $61 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and $22 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). • provide $18 million for Save America's Treasures. • provide $28 million for competitive grants to preserve the sites and stories of the Civil Rights Movement. • support $10 million for Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization grants for the rehabilitation of historic properties and economic development of rural communities. • continue to support the Historic Tax Credit by cosponsoring the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R. 2825/S. 2615). • support the legislative proposals recommended by the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission in its report to the President on the country’s 250th commemoration. Introduction State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) carry out the work of the federal government in the states and tribal communities: finding America’s historic places, making nominations to the National Register of Historic Places, reviewing impacts of federal projects, providing assistance to developers seeking a rehabilitation tax credit, creating alliances with local government preservation commissions and conducting preservation education and planning. This federal-state-local foundation of America’s historic preservation program was established by the National Historic Preservation Act. Established in 1998, Save America's Treasures is a public-private partnership that includes the National Park Service, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and other federal cultural agencies. The grant program helps preserve nationally significant historic properties and collections that convey our nation's rich heritage to future generations of Americans. Since 1999, there have been almost 4,000 requests for funding totaling $1.54 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resource Management U.S. National Park Service Presented To
    Cultural Resource Management U.S. National Park Service Presented to The Institute for Parks, People and Biodiversity University of California September 6, 2019 Stephanie Toothman, Ph.D. Kalaupapa National Historical Park Cultural Resource Management The National Park Service will protect, preserve, and foster appreciation of the cultural resources in its custody and demonstrate its respect for the peoples traditionally associated with Big Hole National Battlefield those resources through appropriate programs of research, planning, and stewardship. National Park Service Management Policies 2006, Cultural Resource Management, Chapter Five. Cultural Resources: Tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems, both living and dead, that are valued by or representative of a given culture or that contain information about a culture. Effigy Mounds National Monument Independence National Historical Park Culture/Nature: Natural resources such as fish, clean water, and plant materials may be considered as cultural resources if they support a way of life. Salmon returning to the Elwha River, Olympic National Park Musselshell Meadows, Nez Perce National Historical Park NPS Cultural Resources Classifications • Archeological Resources • Cultural Landscapes • Ethnographic Resources • Historic and Prehistoric Structures • Museum Collections Fort Monroe National Monument Archeological Resources are the sites and material remains of past human life or activities which are of archeological interest such as tools, pottery, rock carvings, and human remains. Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site Jamestown, Colonial National Historical Park Biscayne National Park Petrified Forest National Park Cultural Landscapes represent the combined works of nature and man. They are geographic areas, including both cultural and natural resources associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Update
    Cultural Resources Update Department of Defense Cultural Resources Program Newsletter Volume 11, No 1, Spring/Summer 2015 The NHPA’s New Home in the US Code—Title 54 By Michelle Volkema with contributions from John Renaud, NPS As you’ve probably already heard, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) has a new home in the United States Code. The NHPA’s previous home was in Title 16 – Conservation, 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq. Its new location is Title 54 – National Park Service and Related Programs, 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq. While the name “National Historic Preservation Act” has been removed from Title 54, the NHPA remains a valid statute of law, P.L. 89-665. As such, referring to sections of the NHPA as “Section 106” or “Section 110” is still correct, as those are sections of the statute and not the code, however their legal citations have changed. While the code revision was a surprise to many, it is actually just another step in a long effort to clean up the U.S. Code undertaken by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (OLRC) beginning in 1974. The OLRC is an office within the US House of Representatives, and is tasked with maintaining, revising, and updating the U.S. Code. More about the OLRC here: http:// uscode.house.gov/about_office.xhtml;jsessionid=DC0095D711738160D197FBB4B0466803 Signed in 1974, Public Law 93-554 (2 U.S.C. 285b(1)) directed the OLRC to begin cleaning up the U.S. Code, including revision and reorganization. So, in December 2014, when President Obama signed P.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Report No Available from Edrs Price Document
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 280 782 SO 018 051 TITLE Technologies for Prehistoric & Historic Preservation. INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Office of Technology Assessment. REPORT NO OTA-E-319 PUB DATE Sep 86 NOTE 209p. AVAILABLE FROMSuperintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. .PUB TYPE Reports General (140) -- Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Archaeology; Architectural Character; *Architecture; Building Conversion; Building Obsolescence; *Buildings; Conservation (Environment); Construction Materials; Facilities; Facility Guidelines; *Preservation; *Repair; Resources; *Technological Advancement ABSTRACT Archaeological remains and historic structures and landscapes are important tangible reminders of the United States' rich and diverse cultural heritage. In recent years the stresses on these unique, nonrenewable cultural resources have increased dramatically. This report presents the primary findings of an assessment requested by the House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Focus is on the applications of preservation technologies rather than preservation disciplines. The study examines the current use of preservation technologies and identifies research and development needs. It also explores how improvements in Federal policy and implementation can make more effective use of technologies appropriate for managing this country's prehistoric and historic cultural resources. Appendices are: (1) "Cultural
    [Show full text]
  • Best Cultural Heritage Stewardship Practices by and for the White
    conservation and mgmt of arch. sites, Vol. 11 No. 2, May, 2009, 148–60 Best Cultural Heritage Stewardship Practices by and for the White Mountain Apache Tribe John R Welch White Mountain Apache Tribe Heritage Program, Arizona, US and Simon Fraser University, Canada Mark K Altaha White Mountain Apache Tribe Historic Preservation Offi ce, Arizona, US Karl A Hoerig and Ramon Riley White Mountain Apache Tribe Heritage Program, Arizona, US As is true for most indigenous programmes concerned with cultural heritage management, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Historic Preservation Offi ce (THPO) operates at dynamic and contested intersections of expanding popu- lations and economies, shrinking budgets, diversifying international interests in heritage issues, and increasing indigenous demands for self-governance, self-reliance, self-determination, and self-representation. Faced with limited funds, large mandates, and land users having variable support for cultural heritage protection, the White Mountain Apache THPO has harnessed long- standing and emergent community heritage values as authentic foundations for ‘actionable’ rules promoting consultation, identifi cation, documentation, and protection for tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Developed on the basis of a decade of interactions with elders and other cultural experts, foresters, hydrologists, engineers, and planners, the Tribe’s Best Cultural Heritage Stewardship Practices illuminate challenges and opportunities faced by many THPOs and illustrate the crafting of appropriate institutional frameworks for community-based historic preservation initiatives. keywords White Mountain Apache Tribe, tribal historic preservation offi cers, community participation, best practice Introduction Tribal historic preservation offi cers (THPOs) were the last parties invited to join the federal historic preservation partnership envisioned ‘to give a sense of orientation to © W.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Cultural and Historical Preservation Is Important for Keeping an Archive of Artifacts Replicas That Can Be Used for Accurate Measuring (Richardson Et Al
    Introduction Digital Historical and Cultural Abstract It is now possible to digitally preserve and share artifacts and historical sites through the internet with the use The intent of this research is to test the effectiveness of different 3D model-making methods for digital of digital preservation techniques (Vincent et al 2017). Archaeologists and researchers can more easily collect, historical and cultural preservation. The case studies presented are of two historic pots, a lithic, a bitumen analyze, and disseminate information with the use of photogrammetry software and 3D scanning (Porter, sample, a shipwreck, and an historic windmill. The 3D models were created with the photogrammetry Roussel, & Soressi 2016). With the availability of this newer technology and the creation of 3D models, the Preservation software Agisoft Metashape and the 3D mapping Structure Sensor Mark II. Equipment used in this research public’s cultural heritage has become more assessable (McCarthy & Benjamin, J. 2014). The techniques included a DSLR camera, tripod, photo box, lazy Susan, a scale for the small objects, and a drone for the discussed in this research provide an opportunity to go beyond photographic recording and create virtual Natalie Heacock, Mark Schwartz, Ph. D. windmill project. Digital cultural and historical preservation is important for keeping an archive of artifacts replicas that can be used for accurate measuring (Richardson et al. 2012) and even printing for education and heritage sites, not only for the sake of analysis, education, and public availability, but in case of damage purposes (Pollalis et al. 2018). This exciting newer technology opens many doors for archaeologists and or loss to the sites in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Management Element
    CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Cultural Resources Management No city can hope to understand its present or to forecast its future if it fails to recognize its past. For by tracing the past, a city can gain a clear sense of the process by which it achieved its present form and substance; and, even more importantly, how it is likely to continue to evolve. For these reasons, efforts directed to identifying and preserving San Diego's historic and archaeological resources - with their inherent ability to evoke the past - are most advisably pursued. Cultural resources are physical features, both natural and man-made, associated with human activity. These may include such physical objects and features as archaeological sites and artifacts, buildings, groups of buildings, street furniture, signs, and planted materials; in short, almost anything that connotes man's past presence. For purposes of this element, a distinction is made between "archaeological" and "historic" sites. This distinction is based on the authoritative work of the State Archeological, Paleontological and Historical Task Force, appointed by former Governor Ronald Reagan in 1971, whose work culminated in the publication “The Status of California's Heritage: A report to the Governor and Legislature of California,” by W.R. Green, et. al., September 1, 1973. The California Task Force used the term "archeological site" to mean any mound, midden, burial ground, mine, trail, rock art, or other location containing evidence of human activities which took place before 1750 A.D. An "historic site" is any structure, place, or feature which is or may be significant in the state's past (1542 A.D.) history, architecture, or culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 18: Lead-Based Paint and Historic Preservation
    Chapter 18: Lead-Based Paint and Historic Preservation HOW TO DO IT ............................................................................................................................. 18–3 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 18–6 II. Use of Lead-Based Paint in Historic Properties ................................................................... 18–6 III. Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ............................................................. 18–6 IV. Property Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 18–8 A. Evaluating the Significance of a Property ....................................................................... 18–8 B. Risk Assessment/Paint Inspection ................................................................................. 18–10 V. Establishing Priorities for Intervention ................................................................................ 18–10 VI. Selecting Interim Controls or Abatement ........................................................................... 18–10 VII. Selecting Abatement Methods Other Than Paint Stabilization ........................................ 18–11 A. Paint Removal ................................................................................................................... 18–11 B. Component Removal and Replacement .......................................................................
    [Show full text]