Idaho National Laboratory Cultural Resource Management Plan

IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY
CULTURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
This section summarizes the overall approach
to managing cultural resources at INL. Topics
include the effects of activities on cultural
resources, management responsibility, and overall
management of cultural resources—identification,
evaluation, and protection. Appendices C and D
complement this general description by providing
strategies and procedures for the management of
archaeological and historic architectural resources.
Future priorities for the INL CRM Program are
outlined in Appendix K.
Past, Present, and Potential
Effects of INL Activities on
Cultural Resources
INL remains an active scientific facility where
programs and projects are undergoing near
constant change. Historically, INL missions have
also varied tremendously, resulting in a variety of
needs by multiple tenants and organizations.
INL-related activities have had an undeniable
impact on cultural resources of all types. In some
cases, the impacts have been beneficial. For
instance, restrictions on grazing and other public
access and development for portions of INL have
protected exposed surface artifacts at thousands of
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, and
general maintenance activities and reuse have
prolonged the life of many historic buildings and
structures.
However, some impacts have been damaging
to INL cultural resources. For example, at times
reuse of buildings where historically important
activities took place has meant the removal of
original equipment and systems associated with
those activities. In other instances, historic
buildings have been demolished to eliminate or
reduce maintenance costs and potential
contamination problems or to make room for
newer facilities, while archaeological sites and
sensitive American Indian sites have been
adversely affected by ground disturbance
associated with facility and infrastructure
construction.
In general, the potential impacts to cultural
resources at INL fall into the following categories:
Natural forces (e.g., wind erosion, water
erosion, flooding, range fires, animal activity,
and gravity)
Vandalism (e.g., graffiti, unauthorized artifact
collection, unrestricted offroad vehicle use,
and neglect)
Construction (e.g., facilities, roads, utilities,
wells, landfills, borrow pits, fencing,
trenching, and other structures that disturb the
ground and impact the landscape)
Maintenance and renovation (e.g., scavenging
equipment, neglect, and removal or alteration
of historic features)
Deactivation, decontamination, and
dismantlement (e.g., asbestos abatement,
landscape changes, demolition of buildings
and other structures, and disposal of historic
data)
Habitat modification (e.g., spread of noxious
and/or exotic weeds, flood control, fire
rehabilitation, introduction of hazardous
materials, artificial changes such as manmade
ponds, and grazing)
Contamination (e.g., radiological, industrial,
and mixed waste pollutants)
Operations (e.g., security activities,
environmental monitoring, and cleanup)
Emergency response (e.g. fire fighting and
containment, and flood control).
Depending on facility missions over time,
some activities tend to have greater cumulative
impacts on cultural resources than others.
After initial passage of the National Historic
Preservation Act in 1966 and the National
Environmental Policy Act in 1969, INL began to
incorporate cultural resource concerns into land
use and management decisions. Today they are
routinely considered an integral part of operations
and environmental stewardship at the Laboratory
(Environmental Policies, Appendix A).
35