Laserfiche WebLink
• .`:IANAG%CrIENT RECOi:1PilENDATIOi~IS <br />Tlie recommendations included with this report are illustrated in Tables 1 and 2 <br />I <br />which were adapted from Rlunson and 1lurson (1980). The recommendations made are <br />based on criteria used for determining eligibility to the National Register of Historic <br />Places (36 CFP. 60.G), and recommendations for determination of effect (36 CFP. 800.3). <br />The recommendation given for both of the sites found in the study area is no <br />further work. Sites 6:tiIF1200 and SItIF1201 are considered not eligible to the National <br />Register of Y,istoric Places. <br />Table 1. Optional Responses to National Register Criteria <br />is RHP Eli~ibiiity Optional Response <br />l.lntegrity of Location a. questionable <br />b. Yes: site location is impaired, site location <br />is original. <br />c. No: Site location is impaired; site has been <br />moved. <br />2. Integrity of Design a. NA (not applicable) for sites lacking design <br />• features such as rock art, architectural <br />ornamentation, cairns, or diagnostic tools. <br />b. Yes: site design characteristics are <br />unimpaired. <br />c. No: design characteristics are impaired. <br />d_ Un'icnown <br />3. Inte;rity of Setting a. L'n!tnown <br />b. Yes: site setting is unimpaired. <br />c. No: site setting has been altered or <br />changed by other than natural agents. <br />(Setting is usually not applicable for <br />cultural sites important for their <br />information content.) <br />4. Integrity of ivlaterial a. E~cellent._ cultural materials, levels, <br />features, are unimpaired and have not been <br />collected. <br />b. Good: some disturbance, alteration or <br />modification has taken plaee. <br />c. Poor: considerably disturbed <br />u <br />11 <br />