ClawHub

Phase 1 Archaeological Survey Report

Other

Use this skill when a CRM archaeologist, principal investigator, or cultural resource specialist needs to draft a Phase I Archaeological Survey (Cultural Resources Assessment Survey) report for a development project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or a state CEQA/SEPA equivalent. Covers background research, field methodology, site documentation, and NRHP eligibility recommendations. Produces a DRAFT report for principal investigator review before SHPO or agency submission.

Install

openclaw skills install phase-1-archaeological-survey-report

Phase I Archaeological Survey Report

Draft a Phase I Archaeological Survey (CRAS) report documenting background research, field methods, findings, and NRHP eligibility recommendations for a development project's Area of Potential Effect — the standard deliverable required before ground-disturbing federal or state undertakings may proceed.

Flow

  1. Project intake — Confirm: project name, location (county, state, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle), project type (linear corridor, areal development, point-source structure), total survey acreage, federal or state undertaking agency or lead applicant, regulatory trigger (Section 106 NHPA; state CEQA, SEPA, MEPA, or equivalent; state-only permit with cultural resource condition), and whether a SHPO-approved or agency-approved scope of work (SOW) already exists. Ask one clarifying question at a time.

  2. Area of Potential Effect (APE) definition — Describe the direct APE (area of physical ground disturbance) and indirect APE (areas subject to visual, atmospheric, audible, or access effects). Confirm the coordinate system and datum used (NAD83 / WGS84), method of boundary delineation (GIS polygon, legal description, survey plat), and total acreage of each APE component.

  3. Background research — Document all of the following data sources reviewed, with access dates:

    • State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) site files and statewide survey atlas
    • National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) database and National Historic Landmarks list
    • USGS topographic maps (7.5-minute quadrangles), current and historical series
    • USDA Web Soil Survey (parent material, drainage class, geomorphic position)
    • General Land Office (GLO) / BLM original survey plats and surveyors' notes
    • Historic aerial photographs (USGS EarthExplorer, university collections, state archives)
    • Historic maps (Sanborn fire insurance maps, county plat maps, military maps)
    • Environmental databases (National Wetlands Inventory, FEMA floodplain maps, USGS StreamStats)
    • Previously conducted archaeological surveys within a 1-mile buffer, with survey results noted List known archaeological sites within or adjacent to the APE with state trinomial, site type, and eligibility status.

  4. Environmental and cultural context — Summarize:

    • Physiographic setting and geomorphic landform position (upland, terrace, alluvial fan, etc.)
    • Paleoenvironmental setting and site-formation processes (alluviation, colluviation, soil development)
    • Regional culture history summary covering all relevant periods: Paleo-Indian, Archaic (Early/Middle/Late), Woodland or regional equivalent, Mississippian or Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic. Reference the applicable state prehistoric context document or regional synthesis.
    • Known site types, site-density patterns, and archaeological sensitivity zones for the study area.

  5. Field methodology — Document the survey protocol used:

    • Survey type: pedestrian survey, shovel testing, mechanical trenching, augering, or combination
    • Shovel-test interval (standard: 30 m in low-sensitivity; 15 m or less in high-sensitivity zones); note any deviations from approved SOW and rationale
    • Shovel-test dimensions (standard: 40 × 40 cm or 50 × 50 cm) and depth (excavated to culturally sterile matrix or refusal; note maximum depth)
    • Screen mesh size (¼-inch / 6 mm standard; 1/8-inch / 3 mm for palynological or faunal recovery)
    • Transect bearing, spacing, and total linear distance walked
    • Any remote sensing or geophysical methods used (ground-penetrating radar, magnetometry, LiDAR)
    • Survey dates, weather conditions, ground visibility, and ground disturbance notes
    • Principal investigator credentials and crew qualifications

  6. Results — negative survey (if no cultural resources were identified): Report total number of shovel tests excavated, total linear distance of pedestrian coverage, recovery counts by provenience (counts only — no PII), depth at which culturally sterile matrix or subsoil was encountered, and basis for concluding no cultural resources are present within the APE. Recommend no further archaeological work unless the project scope or APE changes.

  7. Results — site recording (if archaeological sites or isolated finds were documented): For each site or isolate, record:

    • State trinomial number (assigned, pending, or "to be requested")
    • Site type (lithic scatter, ceramic scatter, historic structure, multicomponent, isolate, etc.)
    • Site boundaries (general description; precise GPS coordinates to be included in confidential appendix per ARPA/state requirements)
    • Integrity assessment: surface visibility, subsurface integrity, extent of disturbance
    • Artifact assemblage summary (type counts, temporal indicators, diagnostic items — no exact GPS)
    • Feature description (if present: pit, hearth, post mold, midden, structural remains)
    • NRHP Criteria A/B/C/D evaluation and rationale
    • Recommended eligibility determination: Eligible / Not Eligible / Insufficient Data — Phase II Recommended / Unevaluated
    • Data potential assessment

  8. Summary and recommendations — State the overall survey result:

    • No cultural resources identified — No Further Work required unless project scope changes.
    • Cultural resources identified — no adverse effect — Sites identified are not eligible or are not affected; no mitigation required.
    • Cultural resources identified — further evaluation recommended — Phase II testing needed to determine NRHP eligibility.
    • Adverse Effect finding — Eligible property is adversely affected; data recovery or avoidance required; consultation with SHPO/THPO is required per 36 CFR Part 800. List all required regulatory next steps by agency and deadline.

  9. DRAFT report assembly — Compile all sections into the structured output below. Mark the document DRAFT — NOT SUBMITTED TO SHPO OR AGENCY. Include bibliography stubs, appendix placeholders, and an unsigned Principal Investigator review block.

Key Rules

  • Always mark the output DRAFT — NOT SUBMITTED TO SHPO OR AGENCY.
  • Never finalize NRHP eligibility determinations without PI review and SHPO concurrence; eligibility is a regulatory determination.
  • Document all data limitations explicitly: inaccessible parcels, low surface visibility, active crops, subsurface disturbance, or any area not surveyed at the required interval.
  • Do not deviate from an approved SOW without noting the deviation and its rationale.
  • Do not include precise GPS coordinates for archaeological sites in any DRAFT distributed outside the project team; reference a confidential appendix per ARPA and state confidentiality requirements.
  • Tribal consultation records, THPO communications, and Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) information are confidential and must not be incorporated into the DRAFT without PI and agency authorization.
  • Ask one clarifying question at a time; confirm APE definition and regulatory trigger before beginning background research.

Output Format

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT — DRAFT
Project: [name]
Location: [county, state | USGS quad]
Survey Acreage: [XX acres direct APE / YY acres indirect APE]
Agency / Applicant: [role only]
Regulatory Trigger: [Section 106 NHPA / state equivalent]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]

────────────────────────────────────────
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
────────────────────────────────────────
[2–3 sentences: survey result, site count, and recommendation stated plainly]

────────────────────────────────────────
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND APE
────────────────────────────────────────
Undertaking description: [type, scale, purpose]
Direct APE: [acreage, datum, delineation method]
Indirect APE: [acreage or "not applicable"]
Coordinate system: [NAD83 / WGS84]

────────────────────────────────────────
3. BACKGROUND RESEARCH
────────────────────────────────────────
Sources consulted: [bulleted list with access dates]
Previous surveys within 1-mile buffer: [survey ID | year | result]
Known sites within / adjacent to APE: [trinomial | type | eligibility | distance]

────────────────────────────────────────
4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT
────────────────────────────────────────
Physiographic setting: [landform, drainage, soils summary]
Paleoenvironmental notes: [site-formation processes relevant to site preservation]
Regional culture history: [chronological period summaries]
Archaeological sensitivity: [high / moderate / low, with rationale]

────────────────────────────────────────
5. FIELD METHODS
────────────────────────────────────────
Survey type: [pedestrian / shovel-testing / combination / remote sensing]
Shovel-test interval: [XX m; deviation from SOW if any]
Shovel-test dimensions and depth: [cm × cm; max depth; basis for termination]
Screen mesh: [¼-inch / 1/8-inch]
Transect bearing and spacing: [degrees / meters]
Remote sensing: [method or "None"]
Survey dates and conditions: [date range, weather, visibility]
PI credentials: [role and qualification, no personal contact info]

────────────────────────────────────────
6. RESULTS
────────────────────────────────────────
6a. Survey Coverage
   Shovel tests excavated: [n]
   Pedestrian coverage: [linear km or acres walked]
   Subsurface findings: [recovery summary by provenience, counts only]

6b. Cultural Resources Identified
   Site / Isolate | Trinomial | Type | Integrity | NRHP Evaluation | Recommendation
   [row per site, or "No cultural resources identified"]

────────────────────────────────────────
7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
────────────────────────────────────────
Overall result: [No Resources / No Adverse Effect / Phase II Recommended / Adverse Effect]
Required actions:
  [ ] No further archaeological work required
  [ ] Phase II testing — Site(s): [trinomials]
  [ ] Data recovery — Site(s): [trinomials]
  [ ] SHPO / THPO consultation required
  [ ] Avoidance / redesign recommended
Next steps and responsible parties: [list]

────────────────────────────────────────
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
────────────────────────────────────────
[References cited — author-date format]

────────────────────────────────────────
APPENDICES (placeholders in DRAFT)
────────────────────────────────────────
Appendix A: Shovel Test Log (provenience, depth, screen fraction, recovery counts)
Appendix B: Site Forms (to be included in confidential distribution only)
Appendix C: Photograph Log (catalog number, subject, direction, date)
Appendix D: Figures (project vicinity, APE, shovel-test locations — confidential site coordinates in separate version)

────────────────────────────────────────
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR REVIEW
────────────────────────────────────────
Principal Investigator: _________________________ Date: __________
[ ] Approved for SHPO / Agency Submission
[ ] Revisions Required — See Comments
[ ] Confidential site coordinate appendix prepared separately: [ ] Yes  [ ] No

Feedback

If the user expresses an unmet need, limitation, or dissatisfaction with this skill, surface the contribution link only at that moment: https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues