3A INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
3C MITIGATION AND TYPES OF MITIGATION
1. Project Redesign3D REPORT CONTENT AND RECOMMENDED FORMAT
2. Active Site Protection
3. Systematic Data Recovery
STAGE 3- IMPACT MANAGEMENT: MITIGATION
3A INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
In Stage 2 the development proponent identified various options for managing unavoidable adverse impacts on historic resources and assisted the Historic Resources Division in determining which of these are most viable in the context of the public good. By Stage 3 plans for managing adverse impacts have been incorporated as terms and conditions for project "approval in principle." From a management perspective, project construction (Stage 4) is now contingent only upon satisfactory implementation of approved impact management actions.
Impact management in Stage 3 follows directly from previous assessment studies and may include a broad range of activities (discussed below). By acting upon results and recommendation of detailed impact assessment, Stage 3 shall involve effective, professional management of endangered historic resources within the project area. The primary objectives at this stage are:
(a) to commence implementing acceptable measures for mitigating unavoidable adverse impacts on historic sites before project implementation,Mitigative activities are designed to achieve a mutually acceptable balance between project development and provincial historic resource management goals. With regard to the latter, emphasis should normally be placed on efforts to conserve or protect the resource.(b) where appropriate, to report the objectives, methods, and results of implementing the impact management actions, and
(c) to recommend and discuss the nature and general scope of any follow-up surveillance, wherever this activity is required.
Mitigation is the basic management activity at this stage in the historic resource assessment process. Cost and implementation are entirely the responsibility of the development proponent causing the impact.
Some degree of impact management is normally warranted in all cases where significant historic resources will be entirely or partially disturbed or destroyed by a development action. "No management action" may also be warranted under these conditions provided that a clear statement justifying the resource loss as acceptable was made in Stage 2 and was subsequently approved by the Historic Resources Division. Implementation of all site-specific mitigation measures must be formally authorized by the Division.
In principle, the level or amount of mitigation to be undertaken will generally depend on two basic factors; the significance of the site as discussed in Section 2D. 1 and the type and level of adverse effect imposed by a development action. Considering the latter, it is conceivable that adverse effects on sites resulting from different types of impacts, for example, direct, indirect, and potential, may have to be treated or managed differently.
Mitigation should be implemented as soon as possible in Stage 3. Although usually restricted to preconstruction phases of the development, certain mitigative measures may extend into Stage 4 so long as construction does not affect or interfere with the mitigation operation.
3C MITIGATION AND TYPES OF MITIGATION
Mitigation refers to measures or actions undertaken during preconstruction phases of project planning to reduce any deleterious effects on historic resource values. For present purposes, actions designed to prevent or avoid adverse impacts may be regarded as a particular form of mitigation.
In the past, data recovery or excavation was frequently considered the only solution to alleviating adverse impacts on historic resources. In actual fact, mitigation implies consideration of a wide range of options including various forms of proj ect redesign, various types of active site protection or preservation, as well as different intensities of and approaches to systematic data recovery.
Decisions as to which mitigative measure should be implemented in any specific case should depend on simultaneous consideration of a variety of factors, including:
- the nature and significance of the resource,Finally, where actions are taken to lessen adverse impacts on historic resources, particularly where avoidance or site protection measures are concerned, some level of "surveillance" in Stage 4 will normally also be required. The latter activity must be undertaken during and occasionally following project construction in order to determine the results or success of the mitigatory action.
- the nature of the impact,
- the relative cost-effectiveness of various options under site-specific conditions,
- research and resource management priorities and needs, and
- relevant development project objectives, conditions and constraints.An important means of mitigating historic resource impacts is to alter the level of development intensity, or to institute changes in the structural design, orientation, or location of proposed project facilities. Unlike other mitigative strategies, project redesign is not actually undertaken in Stage 3. The mitigation recommendations are initially made and incorporated into the final project design in Stage 2, but are not subsequently acted upon until project implementation in Stage 4. Naturally, there is also no need or reason to report project redesign mitigation at this time. In fact, the results of this mitigatory strategy need only be reported where follow-up surveillance activity is required in Stage 4.
Depending upon the nature of the development activity, project redesign may have one of two basic effects on historic resources. Projects can be modified or altered so as to effectually avoid impacting a site or merely to minimize or lessen adverse impacts.
Avoidance ensures the complete, in situ protection of the resource from development. Avoidance through project redesign is considered the preferred mitigative option as it accords fully with Historic Resources Division policy on resource conservation. It should be recommended wherever this strategy is physically and economically feasible. Examples of site avoidance typically involve the relocation or repositioning of facilities such as construction camps, maintenance complexes, stockpiles, transmission tower pads, or linear right-of-ways for oil and gas pipelines, railways, transmission lines, or access and service roads. Use of an alternative maximum reservoir inundation level may also serve to prevent impacts on historic sites.
In most cases where avoidance is proposed, it may be necessary to erect a fence or other suitable barrier around the site to ensure its protection. This is particularly true when the avoided site is situated reasonably close to the construction or development area. The protective measure should allow provision for an appropriate "buffer zone" around the historic site within which no land modification or other activity is permitted to occur. In any specific case, the buffer may vary in width depending on the level of uncertainty regarding the site's horizontal distribution, as well as the degree to which the site's integrity of setting or location will be adversely affected. The development proponent shall be responsible for maintaining and respecting these protected areas throughout the life of the project.
Reducing or lessening adverse impacts on historic sites through project redesign may be accomplished by instituting particular restrictions on the type and manner of construction, by reducing the level of development intensity, and additionally, by changing the structural design or location of a project facility. Specific examples may include restricting the use of heavy construction machinery on or near a site, requiring that timber harvesting activity occur only over snow, reducing the size or number of development facilities, or designing structures and employing construction practices which cause the least ground disturbance. In other cases, impacts may be reduced by relocating project facilities so that the site will not experience the fill impact of construction or post-construction activity.
Active protection measures are applied in cases where it is impossible to avoid resource impacts through project redesign. However, like avoidance, protection measures area also intended to either prevent or reduce site damage from development-related actions. Their effects may be either temporary or permanent. Protection measures are an appropriate form of mitigation in so far as their application will detract little, if at all, from a site's physical condition or integrity.
Stabilization may prevent or forestall the deterioration or destruction of historic sites form development actions. These measures are particularly appropriate in areas where high slope or shoreline instability will likely be exacerbated by development. In these cases, the use of various landscaping practices such as differential forest clearing, retainment of suitable buffer strips, or terracing and sloping banks, may serve to stabilize the ground and reduce erosion of sites. With regard to historic and architectural sites, stabilization may involve rehabilitating or enhancing the structural stability of the site in order to place it in a better position to withstand development project impacts.
Another protection measure is to cover physically or shield a site from disturbance or injury. Site capping or "burial" involves judiciously peat, concrete, plastic, or other material. Once capped," project construction or other activity may be permitted to occur unimpeded over the site. Protection may also be accomplished by carefully placing buildings, trailers, other structures which lack a subsurface foundation over sites. Site capping is an appropriate mitigative strategy provided it can be demonstrated that the measure is indeed protective or beneficial and nondestructive. In other words, it must be shown that by burying the site important data will not be irrevocably lost through compaction, accelerated decomposition, horizontal displacement, or subtle changes in soil chemistry. In addition, site capping must also take into account the degree to which future scientific investigation or development may be foreclosed because of the site's inaccessibility.
Other protection measures for preventing or reducing adverse impact include the placement of various physical barriers such as fences, dams, dykes, gabions, or groynes. Water diversion channels or streams designed to moderate erosional processes might also be regarded as a particular type of protective barrier.
Efforts to protect a site from project construction or its effects usually requires disclosing its precise location. Ironically, this may have a detrimental impact on the site by precipitating unlicensed artifact collection and "digging." Vandalism of this sort may also be brought about, as a consequence of a development project, where public access to the area is increased or facilitated. In either case, sites within the project areas, especially those in close proximity to existing or proposed construction camps, town sites, work areas, or roads must be protected from both construction activities and vandalism. In most cases, it will be possible to satisfy both objectives simultaneously by applying one or more site protection measures such as the erection of physical barriers or site burial. On the other hand, vandalism in itself is primarily an educational problem and can often be managed differently. One approach to its control might be for development proponents, who activities will result in site vandalism or other direct impacts, to support local community programs or other educational devices that promote concern for historic resource conservation and discourage vandalism. The development of sites as special interest areas might also serve this purpose while allowing the resources to be of some direct public benefit. In other cases, vandalism within project areas can be controlled by conducting worker-orientation seminars whose purpose is to inform project personnel of the value of historic sites and of laws concerning their protection. Consideration should also be given to developing an ongoing program of patrolling or monitoring sites to deter vandalism, preferably in combination with other protection measures. The proponent must address this question in regard to any sites discovered during Stages 1 and 2, considering the proposals mentioned above, or additionally, others which might have relevance to the particular development.
Systematic data recovery represents a third mitigative option. This strategy involves the scientific and systematic investigation of unavoidable historic resource losses using accepted data recovery techniques. All data must be fully analysed and interpreted, and lead to publication and dissemination of the research results. All phases of the investigation must be performed by qualified professionals. Data recovery must also include provision for proper curation of all recovered materials, for final deposit with the collections of the Provincial Museum in St. John's. In particular, all the recovered materials, as well as all relevant records of the investigation, must be made available and accessible to future investigators.
In principle, all systematic data recovery operations, regardless of the scale of the development project, should be designed within a problem-oriented research framework. In other words, data recovery should be approached with testable hypotheses in mind, capable of generating further scientific understanding or enhancing public appreciation and awareness. In this respect, systematic data recovery differs significantly from "salvage" operations which typically have only minimal opportunity for problem-oriented research. Salvage operations, as defined in these guidelines, are normally undertaken only when the resource is discovered during project implementation in Stage 4 and could not reasonably have been predicted.
Systematic data recovery is normally the least desirable mitigative option for several reasons. Firstly, this option invariably results in the destruction of the resource either by the data recovery operation itself or by the development actions which follow. Data recovery is therefore a less acceptable means of "preserving" data since it leaves little, if any, for future investigators who should be more skilled and have access to better recovery and analytical methods. Secondly, even the most intensive recovery programs are seldom able to retrieve all the information or value in a heritage site. In most cases, only a relatively small percentage of the total data is ever recovered and preserved. A final reason, and possibly the most persuasive, concerns the necessarily high time and cost expenditures usually involved. Proper data recovery and analysis, particularly where archaeological resources are concerned, can be extremely time consuming and expensive. For these reasons, systematic data recovery should be considered an option only as a last resort - when both avoidance through project redesign and active site protection measures are impractical or impossible. An exception to this general formula occurs when a site's maximum potential can be best realized only by immediate data recovery. Data recovery may be seen as a preferred strategy in the event a particular resource can be efficiently and effectively accommodate the current priorities and needs of both resource management and scientific research.
The systematic recovery of archaeological, historical, architectural, or pal eontological data must be designed to achieve the fullest possible understanding of the resource. In any specific case, the general scope and level of intensity of the recovery operation will vary depending on such factors as the number of sites involved, their significance, size and depositional character, the level of adverse effect, and research and management priorities. Large scale data recovery operations involving numerous sites should be characterized by problem-oriented research, vigorous sampling, a multi-stage research plan, and multidisciplinary collaboration.
Systematic data recovery of archaeological and paleontological sites shall include:
- a complete or partial systematic surface collection, "controlled" excavation, or both,Systematic data recovery of historical and architectural sites shall include one or more of the following activities, as necessary:
- a comparative analysis and interpretation of content and contextual information,
- production of an investigative report.- the production of measured drawings and photographs,Because the proper interpretation of a site relies on knowledge of the larger system into which it fits, adequate mitigation may require investigation of other unaffected sites. However, the systematic recovery of data from unaffected sites, or from sites outside the project area, may be more appropriately seen as a form of compensating resource losses within the project area.
- disassembling and removal of all or part of a structure,
- the collection of specimens.
- a comparative analysis and interpretation of the site, and production of an investigative report.3D REPORT CONTENT AND RECOMMENDED FORMAT
Report production is generally required, as a condition for obtaining "Ministerial" authorization, whenever mitigation measures are applied or implemented. The development proponent shall be fully responsible for the preparation and timely submission of the mitigation report. Reports are submitted directly to the Historic Resources Division.
It is usually not feasible, nor is it necessary, to submit a mitigation report before the end of Stage 3. This is especially true where certain mitigative actions such as project redesign and active site protection are concerned. Neither measure can be satisfactorily reported prior to the completion of surveillance activity in Stage 4. As explained earlier, it is necessary to produce a report of site avoidance through project redesign only in the event follow-up surveillance is required. With regard to site protection measures, reporting shall be considered incomplete unless the results of the mitigation, as observed and recorded during project implementation/operation, are also provided. Consequently, these types of mitigation are more suitably reported in Stage 4 in conjunction with surveillance.
As a general guideline, the submission deadline for a final mitigation report is six months
following completion of the fieldwork phase of the impact management operation. Of course, mitigation reports involving systematic data recovery may require a considerably greater length of time for proper analysis and interpretation. In such cases, the Historic Resources Division may request a preliminary report and/or a series of progress reports, submitted on a periodic basis.In view of the wide range of mitigation activities which may be included in any one report, the following report content guidelines are necessarily general. However, for any specific development project a final mitigation report should be presented in approximately the same format outlined below and contain the following sections:
1. Letter of Transmittal3D.1 Letter of Transmittal
2. Title Page
3. Credit Sheet
4. Management Summary
5. Table of Contents
6. List of Figures, Plates, Tables, Appendices
7. Introduction
8. Study Area
9. Materials and Methods
10. Results and Discussion
11. Interpretation
12. Conclusions and Recommendations
13. References Cited
14. AppendicesThe title page should include:
(a) the type and title of the impact management report,3D.3 Credit Sheet
(b) the official development project name and location,
(c) the name and address of the development proponent or agency sponsoring the study,
(d) the number of the permit under which the mitigation activities were authorized,
(e) the date of the report, and
(f) the author's signature and titleThe credit sheet should indicate the names, addresses, and professional affiliations of all principal contributors or participants of the mitigation study.
The management summary consists of a brief overview of the study. Important findings or results and major conclusions and recommendations should be emphasized.
The table of contents must be arranged in accordance with the sequence of topical headings and their corresponding page numbers.
3D.6 List of Figures, Plates, Tables, Appendices
All figures, plates, tables, and appendices must be referenced by title and page number, and listed according to the order in which they appear in the text of the report.
Minimally, the introductory statement should include:
(a) the name of the proponent, and the general nature of the development project with which the mitigation study is associated,
(b) the purpose, objectives (including specific research problems), and scope of the impact management operation,
(c) the manner in which the study integrates or coordinates with development project planning and scheduling,
(d) the dates and duration of the study,
(e) the person(s) conducting the mitigation study and the kinds of professional expertise involved, and
(f) the organizational format of the report.This section shall provide a succinct description of the location and boundaries of the study area. Study area is used here in a narrow sense to refer to specific areas in which mitigation activities have been conducted. Proper references to previous studies which provide a thorough biophysical description of the study area in the broad sense will generally suffice. However, biophysical, socioeconomic, political, or cultural factors which have a direct and pertinent bearing on the following discussion should be explicitly stated.
The methodology section shall outline the basic research design or plan of study, and document the precise methods and equipment used to implement the plan. All relevant aspects of the operating environment should be discussed.
This section shall present and discuss the results of various mitigation actions, as well as surveillance activity wherever appropriate. Where systematic data recovery was undertaken, this section shall also provide a thorough analysis of all recovered data. The data should be compiled and tabulated as necessary.
The interpretation section is primarily reserved for systematic data recovery operations of an investigative nature. This section shall provide an interpretation of the results, especially in terms of cultural processes and the regional context. Particular attention should be given to the research problems and study objectives which were initially specified.
3D.12 Conclusions/Recommendations
This section shall provide a synthesis of all research results in relation to the objectives of the mitigation project or the original research problems and hypotheses. New research problems and hypotheses generated by systematic data recovery or other investigations should be discussed. Management recommendations as well as directions for future research should also be included in this section.
This section shall provide a comprehensive list of all literary sources cited in the mitigation report such as publications, documents, and records. The reference list shall also include the names of persons consulted and cited in the report, as well as the date on which each communication was made.
A variety of informational items may be appended to the mitigation report. Minimally, this section should include:
(a) appropriate tables, charts, graphs, maps, and other illustrative materials,
(b) a list of recorded historic sites, referenced by their appropriate Borden classification number, which are of direct relevance to the study, and
(c) a complete catalogue of all cultural materials, faunal and floral remains, and ancillary samples collected during systematic data recovery operations.