draft resource report no. 4 - ak-lng.comak-lng.com/.../08/...000_0-resource-report-no-4.pdf ·...

DOCKET NO. PF14-21-000

DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT NO. 4

CULTURAL RESOURCES

PUBLIC

Document Number: USAI-PE-SRREG-00-000004-000

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES

DOC NO: USAI-PE-SRREG-00-

000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-i

RESOURCE REPORT NO. 4

SUMMARY OF FILING INFORMATION 1

Filing Requirement Found in Section

1. Initial cultural resources consultation and documentation, and documentation of consultation with Native Americans. (18 C.F.R. § 380.12(f)(1)(i) & (2))

See 18 C.F.R. § 380.14 for specific procedures.

4.2.3

Table 4.2.3-1

Appendix C

2. Overview/Survey Report(s). (18 C.F.R. § 380.12(f)(1)(ii) & (2)

See 18 C.F.R. § 380.14 for specific procedures.

For the offshore area this will usually require completion of geophysical and other underwater surveys before filing.

4.4

Appendix B

Additional Information Often Missing and Resulting in Data Requests

Provide a Project map with mileposts (MP), clearly showing boundaries of all areas surveyed (ROW, extra work areas, access roads, etc.) and to be surveyed with corridor widths clearly specified.

Appendix A

Provide documentation of consultation with SHPOs, THPOs, and applicable land-managing agencies regarding the need for and required extent of cultural resource surveys.

4.2

Appendix C

Provide a narrative summary of overview results, cultural resource surveys completed, identified cultural resources and any cultural resource issues.

4.4

4.5

Provide a Project specific Ethnographic Analysis (can be part of Overview/Survey Report).

Interim report available in Appendix B of this report. Will be updated for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) application.

Identify by mileposts any areas requiring survey for which the landowner denied access. Appendix D

Provide written comments on the Overview and Survey Reports, if available, from the SHPOs or THPOs, as appropriate, and applicable land-managing agencies.

Appendix C

Provide a Summary Table of completion status of cultural resource surveys, and SHPO or THPO and land-managing agency comments on the reports.

Table 4.4-2, Appendix D

Provide a Summary Table of identified cultural resources, and SHPO or THPO and land-managing agency comments on the eligibility recommendations for those resources.

Table 4.5-1, Appendix E

Provide a brief summary of the status of Native American consultation, including copies of all related correspondence and records of verbal communications.

4.2.3

Appendix C

Provide a schedule for completing any outstanding cultural resource studies.

Remaining areas requiring survey will be completed for the FERC application where survey permission has been

1 Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation (FERC, 2002). Available online at:

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/erpman.pdf.

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/erpman.pdf

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-ii

RESOURCE REPORT NO. 4

SUMMARY OF FILING INFORMATION 1

Filing Requirement Found in Section

granted.

Provide an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for the Project area, referencing appropriate state statutes.

Appendix F

Additional Information Sometimes Requested

Identify the project APE in terms of direct or indirect effects to known cultural resources. 4.3.1

Resource Report No. 4 Agency Comments and Requests for Information Concerning Cultural Resources

Agency Date Comment Response/Resource Report

Location

Alaska

Department of

Natural

Resources

(ADNR)/Office

of History and

Archaeology

(OHA)/State

Historic

Preservation

Office (SHPO)

3-Apr-15 Section 4.2. Table 4.2.1-1 - We have record of

participating in more of these consultation meetings

than is shown in the table. We have record of our

participation in the 2/25-2/27/2014 and 3/4/14

meetings; as well as additional informal consultation

meetings on 5/15, 6/27, 8/27, and 12/17.

Comment acknowledged. Tables 4.2.1-

1 and 4.2.2-1 have been updated.

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 ALL. Please explain up front that the Alaska State

Historic Preservation Office(r) (SHPO) is housed

within the State’s Office of History and Archaeology

(OHA). Then, throughout, refer to our office as

OHA/SHPO. These are used interchangeably in the

document (and mostly it refers to OHA), which is

confusing for the reader.

Comment acknowledged. For the

SHPO/OHA explanation, see Section

4.1.2. The text also modified

throughout to read “OHA/SHPO.”

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.3.1 - Does the APE include borrow

areas/material sources?

Section 4.3.1 has been updated.

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.3.2 - Third full paragraph, second

sentence: change “data was” to “data were”

The text has been revised.

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.4 - End of second sentence: remove extra

comma behind “i.e.,”


ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.5.1 - End of first paragraph: It is curious

why BET-00137 is called out specifically regarding

not having a formal NRHP eligibility determination

when the beginning of the fourth paragraph states

that the majority of the sites identified have not been

formally evaluated.

Comment acknowledged. The site was

originally included as a point of interest;

however, it has now been removed to

stay consistent with the text.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-iii



Location

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.5.2 - Near end of first paragraph, the

acronym for Federal Highway Administration is

FHWA.


ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.5.2 - Second to final paragraph, change

“low” to “lower.”

This edit was made. The paragraph on

CHN-00025 was changed to reflect the

determination that the site was eligible

for the NRHP.

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.7 - First paragraph, fifth sentence should

read: “Project redesign to avoid effects may be an

option, depending on SHPO, FERC, and/or BLM

concurrence or requirements.”

This edit was made. The sentence is

now in the fourth paragraph of this

section.

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.7 - First paragraph, third sentence from

end. Change “Criterion D” to “NRHP Criterion D.”

This edit was made. The sentence is

now in the fourth paragraph of this

section.

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.7 - Second paragraph, change “effected”

to “affected.”

This edit was made. See revised text in

Section 4.7, paragraph 5, sentence 2.

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.7 - This entire section needs work to

introduce and explain the need for and purpose of a

Programmatic Agreement. The second paragraph

refers to a Memorandum of Agreement, which would

not be appropriate for a project of this magnitude.

Any treatment approaches, including avoidance,

minimization, and mitigation measures would all be

built into a PA for the project as a whole. Please

provide much more detail on the consultation that

goes into a PA and the anticipated outcomes.

The Section 4.7 text was revised per

guidance from the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) that it

would not advance a Programmatic

Agreement (PA), but rather a

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), for

any National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP)-eligible sites that cannot be

avoided by construction of the Alaska

LNG Project (Project).

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Section 4.9 - The Discoveries Plan will be

incorporated into or appended to the PA. In addition,

we recommend, for a project of this site, that the

Discoveries Plan should either clearly delineate the

discovery and notification process for cultural

resources versus human remains, or perhaps that a

separate Human Remains Discoveries Plan be

developed. This section, like 4.7 and 4.8 before it,

needs a great deal more detail on the need for and

purpose of a PA.

Please see the response above

regarding the use of an MOA rather

than a PA for this Project. The

Unanticipated Discovery Plan in

Appendix F has been revised to

address the individual processes for

discovery of cultural resources (Section

3) and human remains (Section 4). It is

anticipated that it would be incorporated

into the MOA for the Project.

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Appendix F - The table that provides a list of

potential impacts is nearly useless for consideration

of potential impacts to cultural resources and historic

properties. It does nothing to explain how things like

erosion, or spills/releases, for example, actually

affect cultural resources. Furthermore, the List of

Potential Plans that follows does not include the

primary tool which will be used to address cultural

resource/historic properties impacts on this project:

the PA.

Appendix F has been replaced with a

discussion of impacts and mitigation

(Sections 4.7 and 4.8) in the body of the

Resource Report. As noted above,

FERC would not advance a PA on this

Project, but would use an MOA. Text in

Section 4.7 has been updated to better

reflect the importance of the MOA.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-iv



Location

ADNR/OHA/

SHPO

3-Apr-15 Appendix G - This plan should be much more

robust. Also, we recommend not combining the

procedures for cultural resources and human

remains. These should be separated out in this plan

or two separate plans should be developed. It does

not address if/when archaeological monitors will be

on site nor provide sufficient detail on how personnel

will be appropriately trained in cultural resource and

human remains sensitivity. Under item 1 on first

page, change “material of potential cultural

significance” to “material culture.” Under item 5 on

the second page, change “fine” to “find.” Laurie

Boros’s name and email address are incorrect

throughout. Under item 6.A.4., change “’not

significant’ finding” to “the recommended

determination of eligibility.” This section also needs

to specify that consultation with FERC and SHPO

regarding any eligibility determinations shall occur

before moving forward with assessing effect. Under

item 6.A.5, change “as directed by the SHPO or

FERC.” to “as directed by FERC, in consultation with

the SHPO.” Under item 6.A.6, please list FERC first,

then SHPO. Under item 6.A.6, please note that

through the development of the PA, ideally these

Treatment Plans will be prepared in advance, rather

than on a case-by-case basis. This approach would

be incredibly time-consuming and potentially cause

substantial project delays (case-by-case

consultation and development of individualized

treatment plans for each discovery). Under item

6.A.7, please list FERC first, then SHPO. Under item

6.B.3, please change “’not significant’ finding” to “the

recommended determination of eligibility.” Under

item 6.B.5 and 6.B.6, FERC should be included first

in the list of parties that are consulted. The human

remains section should be much more robust. Also,

for State and private lands, please discuss this with

Richard VanderHoek, State Archaeologist. Under

item 6.C.3, a discussion of consultation should be

included in this section; that it is required before any

decisions are made to excavate or re-inter any

human remains. Finally, for the Federal lands within

the project area, each Federal agency will likely be

preparing a NAGPRA Plan of Action (POA) for their

portion of the project. This should be addressed,

discussed, and explained.

The Unanticipated Discoveries Plan has

been revised, based on a plan that was

previously approved by OHA/SHPO for

geotechnical and geophysical work. It

is now included as Appendix F. The

Project would be happy to continue

consultation with OHA/SHPO to

improve on the existing plan as needed.

Treatment plans will be developed once

FERC and the agencies have agreed to

the determination of eligibility that has

been provided with this draft. See

Appendix B, Reports# USAI-P1-

SRZZZ-00-000007-000, USAI-P1-

SRZZZ-00-000005-000, and USAI-P1-

SRZZZ-00-000004-000.

OHA/SHPO provided comments on the

determination of eligibility (DOE) reports

in a letter dated Feb 11, 2016.

FERC 15-May-15 General - 1. Include citations for sources and

referenced materials, including web-based data.

Attachment B includes a list of identified missing

citations/references; however, this list is not

considered all-inclusive.

Comment acknowledged; please see

the updated Section 4.10. All

references cited in the text have been

checked. Attachment B does not

include specific comments on Resource

Report 4.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-v



Location

FERC 15-May-15 General - 2. Include complete reports and

appendices, without placeholders for data or

information required to meet the minimum filing

requirements. Also, resolve each acknowledged

data gap and each location where a placeholder

indicates information is forthcoming. Attachment C

provides a summary of the identified data gaps and

forthcoming information that Alaska LNG has

already confirmed is pending.

Comment acknowledged. Most blank

appendices have been filed with this

draft; the remainder are planned for the

FERC application. Attachment C gaps

are provided in each Resource Report

pointing where data gaps have been

addressed.

FERC 15-May-15 General - 3. Address/respond to the comments

provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management (BLM); U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA); National Park Service; U.S. Coast

Guard (USCG), and State of Alaska. These

comments are included as attachment D.

See Agency Comment response tables

in each Resource Report.

FERC 15-May-15 General - 4. Include cross references between

resource reports for information applicable to

multiple reports so it is clear where the information

can be found.

Comment acknowledged. See above.

FERC 15-May-15 All material filed with the Commission containing

location, character, and ownership information about

cultural resources must have the cover and any

relevant pages therein clearly labeled in bold

lettering: “CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION

– DO NOT RELEASE.”

Comment acknowledged. This draft

has been labeled accordingly.

FERC 15-May-15 1. Update correspondence (including any

enclosures/attachments, in color if originally

provided in color), meeting notes, phone logs, etc.,

to and from the:

a. SHPO (section 4.2.2.1, page 4-6), including:

i. any comments regarding the definition of the direct

and indirect Area of Potential Effects (APE);

ii. any comments on the Unanticipated Discovery

Plan (appendix G of Resource Report 4);

iii. revise communications with the SHPO that are

not listed in table 4.2.2-1; but are listed in appendix

D, table D-2 of Resource Report 1 (for example

OHA, 3/12/2014); and

iv. comments on the reports produced to date;

Comments received have been

included in Section 4.2.1.1; Resource

Report 1, Appendix D; and Resource

Report 4, Appendix C.

FERC 15-May-15 b. BLM and other consulting federal agencies

(section 4.2.1.2, page 4-5), including comments on

the reports produced to date;

Comments received have been

included in Section 4.2.1.2.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-vi



Location

FERC 15-May-15 c. federally recognized Indian tribes in Alaska, local

and regional corporations as defined in the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA; Title 43

United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 1602), and

non-profit Alaska Native organizations (section

4.2.3, page 4-6), including any comments on the

reports produced to date; and

Text revised to include available

correspondence. See Section 4.2.3.

FERC 15-May-15 d. parties that have an interest in cultural resources

that may be affected by the Project. (Section 4.2.4,

page 4-7)

No correspondence or comments from

other parties have been received.

FERC 15-May-15 2. As defined in 36 CFR 800.16 (m) “Indian tribe”

means an Indian tribe, band, nation, or other

organized group or community, including a native

village, regional corporation or village corporation,

as those terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602).

Define the parties included in “Alaska Native

Organizations and Groups” (section 4.2.3, page 4-

6). Revise sections 4.1.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4 to

address the Knik Tribal Council’s comments of

February 20, 2015.

Section 4.2.3 has been revised to

include comments from Knik Tribal

Council received February 20, 2015.

FERC 15-May-15 3. The preliminary direct APE is defined as a 300-

foot-wide cultural resource corridor. (Section 4.3.1,

page 4-8)

a. The 2010, 2011, and 2013 Phase I Cultural

Resource Summary Report: Archaeological Survey

and Site Documentation (USAKE-UR-SRZZZ-00-

0017) states that the APE includes a 300- to 600-

foot right-of-way corridor. Clarify the apparent

discrepancy with the definition of the preliminary

direct APE.


explain that the first studies for the

Project anticipated a 300–600-foot-wide

right-of-way (ROW) corridor and this

was narrowed to a 300-foot-wide

corridor for the 2014 field season.

FERC 15-May-15 b. Identify the survey corridor width inventoried

along planned Project access roads.


indicate that the survey corridor was

150 feet centered on the access road

centerline.

FERC 15-May-15 c. Clarify whether surveys for submerged cultural

resources are planned where alteration of the

seabed may occur. Include the report for any

planned submerged cultural resources survey and

the SHPO’s and other appropriate agencies’

comments on the report.

Geophysical survey data were reviewed

and the results are included in Sections

4.2.4.1.2 and 4.2.4.2.8; the report is

included in Appendix B. Text added

summarizing the proposed methods for

evaluating the presence of submerged

cultural resources in Cook Inlet has

been provided in Section 4.3.2.

FERC 15-May-15 d. Include a final definition of the direct and indirect

APE (terrestrial and marine).

The direct Area of Potential Effect

(APE) is discussed in Section 4.3.1.

The indirect APE will be defined upon

further consultation with agencies after

their review of this Draft.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-vii



Location

FERC 15-May-15 4. Clarify whether artifacts identified at the ground

surface were collected for curation and where all

materials collected would be curated. (Section 4.3.2,

page 4-10)

The Section 4.3.2 text has been

clarified. Diagnostic artifacts, stone

tools, and unique artifacts were

collected. A curation agreement with

University of Alaska Museum of the

North (UAMN) is in place.

FERC 15-May-15 5. Research on previous surveys and known sites

was documented within a 2,000-foot-wide study

corridor (section 4.4.3, page 4-11). The Phase I

survey reports (in appendix B of Resource Report 4),

USAKE-UR-SRZZZ-00-0017 and USAKE-UR-

SRZZZ-00-0021, discuss previously recorded

resources within a 1-mile buffer. Report USAI-UUR-

SRZZZ-00-000014-000 includes a 3-mile buffer for

the background research. Clarify the apparent

discrepancy between the buffer(s) used for

conducting background research.

The background study areas varied

between the pipeline and Liquefaction

Facility. The buffer was larger at the

Liquefaction Facility due to the need to

eventually consider indirect effects.

See Section 4.4.3.

FERC 15-May-15 6. Regarding the 2010, 2011, and 2013 Phase I

Cultural Resource Summary Report: Archaeological

Survey and Site Documentation (USAKE-UR-

SRZZZ-00-0017), 90 sites were identified in the

survey corridor, including 47 prehistoric and 13

historic sites (page 11). Clarify the temporal

affiliation for the remaining 30 sites.

All sites located within the direct APE

are listed in Tables E-2 and E-3.

Because the Project footprint has

changed since cultural resource

investigations began, not all sites

discussed in the technical reports would

be located within the direct APE. The

maps in Appendix A and tables in

Appendix E provide information about

all resources found as well as depict the

direct APE.

FERC 15-May-15 7. Regarding the 2013 Phase I Cultural Resource

Report: Archaeological Survey and Site

Documentation (USAKE-UR-SRZZZ-00-0021):

a. about 122 acres were reported as excluded from

survey due to a desktop review or based upon

proximity to previously surveyed land (page 33).

Clarify if this acreage was excluded from survey

based on the geomorphic context;

See Appendix B, Report (USAKE-UR-

SRZZZ-00-0021), Page 32, for

clarification. The text notes that very

small parcels were considered low

potential areas due to steep slope, low

topographic relief, long distances to

water, and restricted vistas.

FERC 15-May-15 b. page 3 indicates 9 previously recorded sites were

revisited, page 38 indicates 14, tables 6-3 to 6-5 list

10, and table 8-1 lists 8. Clarify the number of sites

revisited; and

c. define what constitutes an “anomalous landform”

(page 49).

An anomalous landform could include

prominent rock feature, such as a tor or

bedrock outcrop, in an area where

others are not found.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-viii



Location

FERC 15-May-15 8. The 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory

Report for the Proposed Liquefaction Facility

Component of the Alaska LNG Project, Nikiski,

Alaska (USAI-UUR-SRZZZ-00-000014-000) states

that the archaeological survey was in part intended

to develop a preliminary list of aboveground

resources that would be assessed for historic and/or

architectural significance (page 22). Clarify whether

aboveground resources were identified for

assessment or were excluded from further

assessment as a result of this survey.

The report of the Liquefaction Facility

indicates that the buildings within the

direct APE that were surveyed are

modern and were, therefore, excluded

from further assessment (see Appendix

B).

FERC 15-May-15 9. Include a copy of the 2014 Cultural Resources

Data Gap Analysis and Sensitivity Model (USAKE-

UR-SRZZZ-00-0033) report, which was missing from

appendix B of Resource Report 4.

See Appendix B.

FERC 15-May-15 10. In tables E-2 and E-3 of appendix D of Resource

Report 4, include a column for Alaska LNG’s

recommended future action.

See Tables E-2 and E-3. The

requested columns were added.

FERC 15-May-15 11. Include the Ethnographic Study referenced in

section 4.6 (page 4-17).

The ethnographic study conducted to

date is described in Section 4.6. An

interim report is available in Appendix

B. The final report will be filed with the

FERC application.

FERC 15-May-15 12. In section 4.1.1, note the National Historic

Preservation Act has moved from 16 U.S.C. 470 to

54 U.S.C. 300101.

The text in section 4.1.1 has been

updated.

FERC 15-May-15 13. Delete the last sentence in section 4.7. Clarify

that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

may participate in consultation to resolve adverse

effects to historic properties and that a

Memorandum of Agreement outlining the measures

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on

historic properties would be prepared in consultation

with the SHPO and others such as Alaska Native

tribes.

See Section 4.7 for the revised text.

FERC 15-May-15 14. Clarify what types of impacts on cultural

resources Alaska LNG anticipates from operation of

the Project, and why these would not have been

addressed during the survey, evaluation, and

impacts assessment phases of the Project.

See Section 4.8.

FERC 15-May-15 15. Ensure that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough

receives all required information and updates (see

comment of April 16, 2015).

Comment acknowledged.

FERC 15-May-15 16. In the Unanticipated Discovery Plan (appendix G

of Resource Report 4), correct the FERC contact to:

Laurie Boros, Archaeologist; [email protected].

The text has been corrected. The

appendix numbering has changed; now

the Unanticipated Discovery Plan is

Appendix F.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-ix



Location

FERC 15-May-15 17. Include the enclosures (in color, if originally

provided in color) to Alaska LNG’s October 23, 2014

letters to the tribes (contained in Resource Report 1,

appendix D).

Correspondence is provided in

Appendix D of Resource Report No. 1.

FERC 15-May-15 18. The land required to construct the GTP facility is

estimated to be 1,000 acres (Resource Report 1,

section 1.4, table 1.4-1, page 1-20). The Alaska

Pipeline Project surveyed about 743 acres between

2010 and 2012 within the current footprint of the

GTP. Alaska LNG surveyed an additional 8 acres of

the GTP in 2013, but has not yet surveyed the

associated facilities (sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, page

4-11 and table 4.4-1, page 4-13). Confirm whether

the unsurveyed portions of the GTP depicted in

appendix 4A, sheets T1 and T2 require survey and,

if not, explain why additional survey is not needed.

Also, include comments from the Alaska SHPO

regarding the adequacy of the previous Alaska

Pipeline Project survey coverage of the GTP.

Calculations for survey of the Gas

Treatment Plant (GTP) and facilities are

included in the updated survey status

Table 4.4-2. The Project did not obtain

any correspondence from OHA/SHPO

on the adequacy of the Alaska Pipeline

Project (APP) survey data. However,

because the methodology is the same

for the Alaska LNG Project, and the

OHA/SHPO has concurred with the

current methodology, the prior survey

data is consistent and can be applied to

this Project.

FERC 15-May-15 19. Two paleontological sites are reported within the

preliminary APE (section 4.5.2, page 4-15 and

appendix E, table E-1). Clarify whether these sites

are archaeological in nature. Also, include the

regulatory context or guidance for assigning state

archaeological site numbers to paleontological sites

identified on non-federal lands. (Section 4.1.2, page

4-4).

The text was revised to clarify that

paleontological sites are not

archaeological and not regulated under

Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA). The report

mentions them only in that the SHPO

issues site numbers to “some

paleontological sites.” See Section 4.5

text and footnote.

FERC 15-May-15 20. Confirm that Alaska LNG would avoid all

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible

sites.

The text in Section 4.7, Paragraph 4,

was revised to indicate that the Project

would avoid NRHP-eligible sites to the

extent practicable.

FERC 15-May-15 21. Include copies of all cultural resources reports

prepared for surveys undertaken by Alaska LNG in

2013 and 2014. The results of these surveys should

be included in a report(s) prepared in accordance

with FERC and applicable state guidelines. Also

include the Phase II report. Include the SHPO’s and

other appropriate agencies’ comments on the

reports.

Copies of the reports and SHPO

correspondence are provided in

Appendix B (reports) and Appendix C

(correspondence).

Resource Report No. 4: Cultural Resources Scoping Comments

Date Type Individual/

Organization Comment

Resource Report Location

4-Dec-15 Letter Sattler (Tanana Chiefs Conference)

2. Cultural resources review should include extensive outreach on traditional and customary use areas and develop mitigation measures to minimize impacts to subsistence

Outreach to Alaska Natives and other interested parties has been occurring since 2013 and is documented in Resource Report No. 4, Appendix C. Consultation will continue through the

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-x





economies where incomes are low and unemployment high. ...Particularly concerning are issues posed by user conflicts, trespassing and encroachment through the pioneering corridor in the eastern Minto Flats area.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. Traditional knowledge surveys are included in Appendix D of Resource Report No. 5.

16-Oct-15 Letter Call (Knik Tribal Council)

Concerns about Project impacts on Knik tribe people, tribal lands and resources

Both Resource Reports Nos. 4 (Cultural Resources) and 5 (Socioeconomics) provide assessments of potential Project impacts to Alaska Native tribes. Additional information will be provided in the FERC application and EIS as consultation continues through the review process.

27-Oct-15 Meeting Transcript

FERC Public Scoping Meeting – Nikiski

Families have spread ashes off the bluff, it is sacred ground.

Project representatives, as the non-federal representative for Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), have initiated information outreach to consulting parties and provided the information gathered in that process in Appendix C of Resource Report No. 4. Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) would be developed by FERC with the appropriate consulting parties prior the start of construction to mitigate, minimize, or avoid potential adverse effects from the Project to properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

18-Nov-15 Meeting Transcript

FERC Public Scoping Meeting – Tyonek

The Chuitna River is the area of our ancestors.

By following the Parks Highway for a significant portion of the crossing of the Chulitna River basin, new impacts would be minimized and a new corridor through the region would be avoided.

4-Dec-15 Letter EPA – Seattle, WA

Historical and Cultural Resources - We recommend that you consult with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and impacted tribal governments, respecting tribal sovereignty and the G2G relationship between the Federal and tribal governments. We recommend that this consultation process run concurrently with the NEPA and Federal/State permitting processes. If adverse effects to traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, or other areas of cultural resource concerns are identified, we recommend that any Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) developed to resolve these concerns be developed prior to issuance of and included in

The Project representatives, as the non-federal representative for Section 106 consultation under the NHPA, have conducted information outreach to all affected parties and provided the information gathered in that process in Appendix C of Resource Report No. 4. FERC has initiated the government-to-government consultation process and will continue to do so through the EIS process. MOAs would be developed by FERC with the appropriate parties prior the start of construction for any eligible properties that may be impacted by the Project.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-xi





the Record of Decision (ROD) for this EIS


Historical and Cultural Resources - Consider the perspectives of the tribal government(s) to determine whether the area of potential effects would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Include significant events that may have taken place in the past (tribal wars, establishment of trade routes, etc.)

Results of the cultural field studies are shared with the Office of History and Archaeology (OHA)/State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which determines whether a site is eligible for listing under the NRHP. Areas of Potential Effects (APEs) (direct and indirect) are discussed in Section 4.3.1 of this report. FERC will also continue the government-to-government consultation process started in 2015.


Historical and Cultural Resources - Consult with tribal governments, local governments, the public, in addition to SHPO on historic preservation issues

The Project representatives, as the non-federal representative for Section 106 consultation under the NHPA, have conducted information outreach to all affected parties, including those mentioned, and provided the information gathered in that process in Appendix C of Resource Report No. 4. FERC has initiated the government-to-government consultation process and will continue to do so through the EIS process. MOAs would be developed by FERC with the appropriate parties prior the start of construction for any eligible properties that may be impacted by the Project.


Historical and Cultural Resources - Evaluate the Native Alaskan historical and traditional significance of the project area, the importance of ethno botany, hunting, fishing, and gathering uses of the area by Alaska Natives, any long term traditional ecological management of the area, and any significant historic events that took place in the area

A Traditional Knowledge survey has been conducted by the Project and is included in Appendix D of Resource Report No. 5.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-xii






Historical and Cultural Resources - The scope of impacts to these resources would include the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to sacred sites; traditional cultural properties or landscapes; hunting, fishing, gathering areas; access to traditional and current hunting, fishing, and gathering areas and species; changes in hydrology or ecological composition of springs, seeps, wetlands, and streams, that could be considered sacred or have traditional resource use association; historical and currently used travel and migration routes; and historic properties, districts or landscapes

A preliminary assessment of impacts to historic properties is provided in Sections 4.7 (Potential Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures) and 4.8 (Potential Operational Impacts and Mitigation Measures) of Resource Report No. 4. A Traditional Knowledge survey, including subsistence hunting and fishing, has been conducted and is included in Appendix D of Resource Report No. 5. A Subsistence Impact Analysis will also be completed for the FERC application. Details about the methodology for this analysis are in Appendix E of Resource Report No. 5. FERC’s government–to-government consultation would reveal if any traditional cultural properties or landscapes are within the Project footprint and would address those in the EIS process.


Historical and Cultural Resources - Conduct the review of historic preservation issues concurrently with the EIS process. Complete the review prior to issuing the ROD, which would provide for the implementation of the MOA terms

FERC would complete the 106 consultation process in the course of developing the EIS as indicated in this comment.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.0 RESOURCE REPORT NO. 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................ 4-1 4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Purpose of Resource Report ............................................................................... 4-3 4.1.2 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................. 4-4

4.2 AGENCY AND ORGANIZATION CONSULTATION ............................................ 4-5 Consultation with Federal Land Managing Agencies ......................................... 4-5

4.2.1.1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) .................................................. 4-5 4.2.1.2 Other Federal Agencies ....................................................................... 4-6

Consultation with State Agencies ....................................................................... 4-7 4.2.2.1 Office of History and Archaeology (OHA)/State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO) .................................................................................................... 4-7 4.2.3 Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native

Corporations..................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.3.1 Comments from Specific Tribes and Alaska Native Organizations .... 4-9 4.2.3.2 Cultural Resource Advisor Program .................................................. 4-10

4.2.4 Consultations with Other Interested Parties ...................................................... 4-14 4.3 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY ............... 4-15

4.3.1 Area of Potential Effect (APE) ......................................................................... 4-15 4.3.2 Survey Methodology......................................................................................... 4-18

4.3.2.1 Existing Data/Desktop Study ............................................................. 4-18 4.3.2.2 Current Project Field Studies ............................................................. 4-19

4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AAND ABOVEGROUND RESOURCES BACKGROUND

RESEARCH AND SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................... 4-21 4.4.1 ASAP Project .................................................................................................... 4-21 4.4.2 Alaska Pipeline Project (APP) .......................................................................... 4-22 4.4.3 Point Thomson Project ...................................................................................... 4-22 4.4.4 Project Survey Summary and Status ................................................................. 4-22

4.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL, MARINE, AND ABOVEGROUND RESOURCES:

BACKGROUND AND SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................ 4-26 4.5.1 Sites Located within the 2,000-Foot-Wide Study Area .................................... 4-26 4.5.2 Results of Surveys within the Preliminary APE ............................................... 4-28

4.5.2.1 Liquefaction Facility .......................................................................... 4-30 4.5.2.2 Mainline ............................................................................................. 4-31

4.5.3 Sites Located within Mainline Associated Infrastructure ................................. 4-37 4.5.3.1 Pipe Storage Yards ............................................................................. 4-37 4.5.3.2 Compressor Stations .......................................................................... 4-38 4.5.3.3 Camps ................................................................................................ 4-38 4.5.3.4 Additional Temporary Workspace (ATWS) ...................................... 4-38 4.5.3.5 Material Sites ..................................................................................... 4-39 4.5.3.6 Access Roads ..................................................................................... 4-39

4.5.4 Non-Jurisdictional Facilities ............................................................................. 4-40 4.6 ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY ........................................................................................ 4-41 4.7 POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4-42

4.7.1 Liquefaction Facility ......................................................................................... 4-43

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-xiv

4.7.1.1 Cultural Resource Treatment Plans ................................................... 4-43 4.7.2 Interdependent Facilities ................................................................................... 4-44

4.7.2.1 Pipeline .............................................................................................. 4-44 4.7.2.2 GTP and Associated Infrastructure .................................................... 4-46

4.7.3 Non Jurisdictional Facilities ............................................................................. 4-46 4.8 POTENTIAL OPERATIONAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .. 4-46

4.8.1 Liquefaction Facility ......................................................................................... 4-47 4.8.2 Interdependent Facilities ................................................................................... 4-47

4.8.2.1 Pipelines ............................................................................................. 4-47 4.8.2.2 Gas Treatment Plant (GTP) ............................................................... 4-48

4.8.3 Non Jurisdictional Facilities ............................................................................. 4-48 4.9 UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES PLAN ............................................................. 4-48 4.10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 4-48

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 4.2.1-1 Summary of Consultation with Federal Agencies (Through March 31, 2016) .............. 4-5 TABLE 4.2.2-1 Summary of Meetings and Communication with State of Alaska and Local Agencies

(Through March 31, 2016) ............................................................................................. 4-7 TABLE 4.2.3-1 Summary of Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native

Corporations (Through March 31, 2016) .................................................................... 4-11 TABLE 4.2.4-1 Summary of Consultation with Other Interested Parties (through March 31, 2016) ... 4-14 TABLE 4.4-1 Cultural Resource Survey Completed within the Direct APE by Field Season

(acres) ........................................................................................................................... 4-23 TABLE 4-5-1 Cultural Resources Identified in the Direct APE by Project Component and NRHP

Status* .......................................................................................................................... 4-28

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Cultural Resources Mapping (CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT

RELEASE) (provided under separate cover) Appendix B Cultural Resources Reports (CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT

RELEASE) (provided under separate cover) Appendix C Agency Correspondence (CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT

RELEASE) (provided under separate cover) Appendix D Table of Survey Coverage

Appendix E Cultural Resources within the Preliminary Area of Potential Effect (APE) and the Study Area (CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT RELEASE) (provided

under separate cover) Appendix F Plan for Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources and Human Remains

Appendix G Site Cultural Resource Data Recovery/Treatment Plans (TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FERC APPLICATION)

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-xv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION DEFINITION

AAC Alaska Administrative Code

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources

ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

AGI Apex Gas Injection

AGPPT Alaska Gas Pipeline Producers Team

AHPA Alaska Historic Preservation Act

AHRS Alaska Heritage Resources Survey

Alaska LNG Project Plan

Alaska LNG Project Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan

Alaska LNG Project Procedures

Alaska LNG Project Wetland and Waterbody Construction, and Mitigation Procedures

ANGTS Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

APE Area of Potential Effect

APP Alaska Pipeline Project

Applicants Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, BP Alaska LNG LLC, ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG Company, and ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

ARRC Alaska Railroad Corporation

ASAP Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline

ATWS additional temporary workspace

AY Atigun Pass to Yukon River

BIA United States Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

BOEM/MMS United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management/Minerals Management Service

BP Before Present

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CGF Central Gas Facility

CLG Certified Local Government

CRA Cultural Resource Advisor

CVTC Chickaloon Village Traditional Council

DOE Determination of Eligibility

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMALL ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FEED front-end engineering design

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GIS Geographic information system

GPS Global Positioning System

GTP Gas Treatment Plant

HT Healy to Trapper Creek

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-xvi


IN Marine crossing of Cook Inlet to Kenai Peninsula, and Kenai Peninsula to the Liquefaction Plant in Nikiski

IPS Initial Production System

LH Livengood to Healy

Liquefaction Facility natural gas liquefaction facility

LNG liquefied natural gas

LNGC liquefied natural gas carrier

Mainline an approximately 804-mile-long, large-diameter gas pipeline

MGS Major Gas Sales

MLBV Mainline block valve

MMTPA Million metric tons per annum

MOF Material Offloading Facility

MP milepost

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGA Natural Gas Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NLURA Northern Land Use Research Alaska, LLC

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA AWOIS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coast Survey’s Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System

North Slope Alaska North Slope

NPS United States Department of Interior, National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OHA Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Office of History and Archaeology

PA Prudhoe Bay to Atigun Pass

PBTL Prudhoe Bay Gas Transmission Line

PBU Prudhoe Bay Unit

PL Public Law

Project Alaska LNG Project

PTTL Point Thomson Gas Transmission Line

PTU Point Thomson Unit

ROW right-of-way

SHPO Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Office of History and Archaeology, State Historic Preservation Office

SPCS Alaska State Pipeline Coordinator’s Section

TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

TCC Tanana Chiefs Conference

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office

TI Trapper Creek to Cook Inlet

U.S. United States

UAMN University of Alaska, Museum of the North

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCG United States Coast Guard

USFWS United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Department of the Interior, United State Geological Survey

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-xvii


VSM vertical support member

YL Yukon River to Livengood

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-1

4.0 RESOURCE REPORT NO. 4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, BP Alaska LNG LLC, ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG

Company, and ExxonMobil Alaska LNG (Applicants) plan to construct one integrated liquefied natural

gas (LNG) Project (Project) with interdependent facilities for the purpose of liquefying supplies of natural

gas from Alaska, in particular from the Point Thomson Unit (PTU) and Prudhoe Bay Unit (PBU)

production fields on the Alaska North Slope (North Slope), for export in foreign commerce and for in-

state deliveries of natural gas.

The Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. § 717a(11) (2006), and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 153.2(d) (2014), define “LNG terminal”

to include “all natural gas facilities located onshore or in State waters that are used to receive, unload,

load, store, transport, gasify, liquefy, or process natural gas that is ... exported to a foreign country from

the United States.” With respect to this Project, the “LNG Terminal” includes the following: a

liquefaction facility (Liquefaction Facility) in Southcentral Alaska; an approximately 804-mile gas

pipeline (Mainline); a gas treatment plant (GTP) within the PBU on the North Slope; an approximately

62-mile gas transmission line connecting the GTP to the PTU gas production facility (PTU Gas

Transmission Line or PTTL); and an approximately 1-mile gas transmission line connecting the GTP to

the PBU gas production facility (PBU Gas Transmission Line or PBTL). All of these facilities are

essential to export natural gas in foreign commerce and will have a nominal design life of 30 years.

These components are shown in Resource Report No. 1, Figure 1.1-1, as well as the maps found in

Appendices A and B of Resource Report No. 1. Their proposed basis for design is described as follows.

The new Liquefaction Facility would be constructed on the eastern shore of Cook Inlet just south of the

existing Agrium fertilizer plant on the Kenai Peninsula, approximately 3 miles southwest of Nikiski and

8.5 miles north of Kenai. The Liquefaction Facility would include the structures, equipment, underlying

access rights, and all other associated systems for final processing and liquefaction of natural gas, as well

as storage and loading of LNG, including terminal facilities and auxiliary marine vessels used to support

Marine Terminal operations (excluding LNG carriers [LNGCs]). The Liquefaction Facility would

include three liquefaction trains combining to process up to approximately 20 million metric tons per

annum (MMTPA) of LNG. Two 240,000-cubic-meter tanks would be constructed to store the LNG. The

Liquefaction Facility would be capable of accommodating two LNGCs. The size of LNGCs that the

Liquefaction Facility would accommodate would range between 125,000–216,000-cubic-meter vessels.

In addition to the Liquefaction Facility, the LNG Terminal would include the following interdependent

facilities:

Mainline: A new 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline approximately 804 miles in length would

extend from the Liquefaction Facility to the GTP in the PBU, including the structures, equipment,

and all other associated systems. The proposed design anticipates up to eight compressor

stations; one standalone heater station, one heater station collocated with a compressor station,

and six cooling stations associated with six of the compressor stations; four meter stations; 53

Mainline block valves (MLBVs); one pig launcher facility at the GTP meter station, one pig

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-2

receiver facility at the Nikiski meter station, and combined pig launcher and receiver facilities at

each of the compressor stations; and associated infrastructure facilities.

Associated infrastructure facilities would include additional temporary workspace (ATWS), access roads, helipads, construction camps, pipe storage areas, material extraction sites, and material disposal sites.

Along the Mainline route, there would be at least five gas interconnection points to allow for future in-state deliveries of natural gas. The approximate locations of three of the gas interconnection points have been tentatively identified as follows: milepost (MP) 441 to serve Fairbanks, MP 763 to serve the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and Anchorage, and MP 804 to serve the Kenai Peninsula. The size and location of other interconnection points are unknown at this time. None of the potential third-party facilities used to condition, if required, or move natural gas away from these gas interconnection points are part of the Project. Potential third-party facilities are addressed in the Cumulative Impacts analysis found in Appendix L of Resource Report No. 1;

GTP: A new GTP and associated facilities in the PBU would receive natural gas from the PBU

Gas Transmission Line and the PTU Gas Transmission Line. The GTP would treat/process the

natural gas for delivery into the Mainline. There would be custody transfer, verification, and

process metering between the GTP and PBU for fuel gas, propane makeup, and byproducts. All

of these would be on the GTP or PBU pads;

PBU Gas Transmission Line: A new 60-inch natural gas transmission line would extend

approximately 1 mile from the outlet flange of the PBU gas production facility to the inlet flange

of the GTP. The PBU Gas Transmission Line would include one meter station on the GTP pad;

and

PTU Gas Transmission Line: A new 32-inch natural gas transmission line would extend

approximately 62 miles from the outlet flange of the PTU gas production facility to the inlet

flange of the GTP. The PTU Gas Transmission Line would include one meter station on the GTP

pad, four MLBVs, and two pig launcher and receiver facilities—one each at the PTU and GTP

pads.

Existing State of Alaska transportation infrastructure would be used during the construction of these new

facilities including ports, airports, roads, railroads, and airstrips (potentially including previously

abandoned airstrips). A preliminary assessment of potential new infrastructure and modifications or

additions to these existing in-state facilities is provided in Resource Report No. 1, Appendix L. The

Liquefaction Facility, Mainline, and GTP would require the construction of modules that may or may not

take place at existing or new manufacturing facilities in the United States.

Draft Resource Report No. 1, Appendix A, contains maps of the Project footprint. Appendices B and E

of Resource Report No. 1 depict the footprint, plot plans of the aboveground facilities, and typical layout

of aboveground facilities.

Outside the scope of the Project, but in support of or related to the Project, additional facilities or

expansion/modification of existing facilities would be needed to be constructed. These other projects

may include:

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-3

Modifications/new facilities at the PTU (PTU Expansion project);

Modifications/new facilities at the PBU (PBU Major Gas Sales [MGS] project); and

Relocation of the Kenai Spur Highway.

4.1.1 Purpose of Resource Report

As required by 18 C.F.R. § 380.12, this Resource Report has been prepared in support of a future

application under Section 3 of the NGA to construct and operate the Project facilities. The purpose of this

Resource Report is to:

Describe consultations with regulatory agencies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, and

Alaska Native Corporations with land or other responsibilities in reasonable proximity to the

Project;

Identify the preliminary area of potential effect (APE) and cultural resource survey

methodology;

Describe the status of cultural resource investigations conducted within the Project survey

corridor;

Identify historic properties and cultural resources within the preliminary APE and the Project

area;

Assess potential Project effects to cultural resources and historic properties and preliminary

potential mitigation measures that are based on best practices; and

Address how unexpected discoveries would be managed if encountered during Project

construction activities.

The data for this Resource Report were compiled based on a review of:

Pre-front-end engineering design (FEED), to the extent available;

United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps;

Recent aerial photography;

Field survey data;

State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO’s) state archaeological database and review of

other studies and surveys pertinent to the proposed Project footprint;

Agency-supplied comments and data;

Feedback from FERC;

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-4

Scientific literature; and

Geographic information system (GIS) data from federal and state agencies.

The results of the cultural resource investigations are presented in Appendices A and B (labeled as

Privileged and Confidential—Do Not Release). Appendix A shows the results of the archaeological

surveys on USGS quadrangles. Appendix B provides the technical survey reports on these investigations.

Because these appendices contain information on the location, character, and ownership of cultural

resources, they are marked privileged and are not for public release in accordance with FERC guidance

for environmental report preparation (FERC, 2002). Archaeological information is restricted and

confidential under state and federal law including AS 40.25.120(a)(4), Alaska State Parks Policy and

Procedure No. 50200, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) [Public Law (PL) 89-665, 54

United States Code (U.S.C.) 300101], and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)[PL 96-

95].

4.1.2 Regulatory Context

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to assess the environmental

impacts of proposed federal actions, including impacts to historic and cultural resources. FERC, as the

lead federal agency for this Project responsible for compliance with NEPA, is required to assess potential

impacts to historic and cultural resources.

In addition, Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 and its implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800)

require federal agencies to take into consideration the effects of their undertakings upon historic

properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to

comment on such undertakings. Historic properties are cultural resources that are listed or eligible for

listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 C.F.R. Part 60). The Section 106 process

seeks to balance historic preservation concerns with the requirements of the federal undertaking through

consultation among the responsible lead federal agency (in this case, FERC) and other parties, including

SHPO, federal land-managing agencies, federally recognized tribes and other Alaska Native groups,

representatives of local government, and other potentially interested parties (36 C.F.R. § 800.2). The goal

of such consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess the

effects of the undertaking, and seek measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic

properties.

Legislation addressing cultural resources and historic properties in the State of Alaska includes the Alaska

Historic Preservation Act of 1971 (AHPA) (Alaska Statute 41.35.010-41.35.240). The AHPA established

state policy to preserve and protect the historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources of Alaska from

loss, desecration, and destruction so that the scientific, historic, and cultural heritage embodied in those

resources may pass undiminished to future generations. The AHPA, administered by SHPO under the

authority of the Alaska Historical Commission, affords protection to cultural resources on lands owned

and administered by the state.

SHPO is housed within the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor

Recreation, Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) and serves and administers historic preservation

programs pursuant to the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) (11 AAC 16.010-16.090). OHA/SHPO is

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-5

responsible for the issuance of Alaska Cultural Resource Permits authorizing the investigation,

excavation, gathering, or removal of cultural resources from state-owned or state-administered lands

(Alaska Statute 41.35.080 and 11 AAC 16.030). Professional qualifications and the structure for cultural

resource surveys and reporting are established through the permitting system.

4.2 AGENCY AND ORGANIZATION CONSULTATION

Consultation with Federal Land Managing Agencies

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would be a cooperating agency for this Project under NEPA

and a consulting party for the Project throughout the NHPA Section 106 process. The BLM manages a

large portion of the land traversed by the Project. Informal consultation with the BLM on the Project was

initiated in October 2014; however, discussions and meetings with the BLM regarding cultural resources

have been ongoing since 2013. These discussions focused on obtaining permits under the ARPA, the

Antiquities Act of 1906, and BLM’s specific statutory and regulatory authority over lands that it manages

along the proposed Project route. The consultation efforts are summarized in Table 4.2.1-1 and are

provided with additional detail in Appendix C. Also included in Appendix C are copies of

correspondence associated with archaeological permit applications, discussion of survey protocols, and

date of permit issuance for the 2013 and 2014 summer archaeological field sessions. An informal

discussion was held on December 2014 to discuss sites recorded during cultural resource investigations

prior to the Project. The BLM staff offered preliminary unofficial recommendations and comments on

the eligibility of these sites for the NRHP. Prior to the 2015 field season, consultation regarding cultural

resources on BLM property continued for the protocols for survey and site-specific evaluations. The

2015 Desktop Determination of Eligibility (DOE) and Phase II Cultural Resource Evaluation reports were

submitted to the BLM on January 26, 2016.

TABLE 4.2.1-1

Summary of Consultation with Federal Agencies (Through March 31, 2016)

Agency Date Contacted Summary

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

2/25–2/27/2014 and 3/4/2014

Multi-agency meeting to discuss Project right-of-way (ROW) and permitting with state and federal agencies (also included Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Office of History and Archaeology (OHA)/State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), State Pipeline Coordinator’s Section (SPCS), Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)

BLM, USACE 6/9/2014 Discussion regarding historical field survey data and protocols (also included OHA/SHPO and ADF&G)

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-6

TABLE 4.2.1-1

Summary of Consultation with Federal Agencies (Through March 31, 2016)

Agency Date Contacted Summary

BLM 6/3/2013

6/21/2013

7/3/2013

4/22/2014

5/23/2014

Discussions regarding archaeological permit

06/14/2013

06/21/2013

Discussion with the BLM regarding status of Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit application

Discussion with BLM regarding Archaeological Collection Permit

6/27/2013 Letter to the BLM regarding request for 2002 cultural resources GIS data

12/10/2013 Discussion regarding 2014 field study scope

2/18/2014 Submittal of Project 2013 Phase I Cultural Resource Report

10/3/2014 Discussion of FERC, OHA/SHPO, and SPCS regarding pre-filing schedule and Section 106 consultation

12/16/2014 Discussion of preliminary recommendations for sites located with the preliminary Area of Potential Effect (APE); planning for 2015 fieldwork

8/13/2014 Letter to the BLM requesting review of cultural resources reports

8/28/2014 Discussion regarding cultural resource data

5/15/2015 Letter providing the BLM (Mr. Hedman and Dr. King) a copy of site-specific plans for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility evaluations

5/20/2014 Submittal of Cultural Resource Field Study Protocol

10/27/2014 Letter to the BLM (Dr. King) requesting informal consultation under Section 106 of the NRHP

06/10/2015 Meeting to review proposed methodology for NRHP Determinations of Eligibility (DOEs) at specific sites in the Project corridor

07/13/2015 Letter providing the BLM (Nichelle Jacobson) a copy of site-specific plans for NRHP eligibility evaluations

10/23/2015 Letter from the BLM (Nichelle Jacobson) regarding concurrence on proposed Phase II Site-specific Methodology for Evaluation

01/26/2016 Desktop DOE report submitted to the BLM.

01/26/2016 2015 Evaluation Report submitted to the BLM.

Other federal agencies with NHPA Section 106 responsibilities related to the Project include the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG), the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the National Park Service (NPS). No formal

consultations have been initiated with any of these agencies, but informal meetings and discussions about

the Project were held with agency representatives in 2013, 2014, and 2015. A comprehensive summary

of the informal Project discussions is contained in Appendix D of Resource Report No. 1. A multi-

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-7

agency kick-off meeting was held on February 25–27, 2014, and on March 4, 2014, to discuss the 2014

summer field season, the proposed Project right-of-way (ROW), and permitting.

Consultation with State Agencies

As SHPO, OHA would provide input regarding compliance with all relevant state historic preservation

laws and would act as a consulting party throughout the Section 106 process. Although formal

consultation with OHA/SHPO under Section 106 of the NHPA was initiated in October 2014, informal

discussions and meetings with OHA/SHPO have been ongoing since 2013. In addition, applications for

Field Archaeology Permits were submitted and approved by OHA/SHPO for summer field studies in

2013, 2014, and 2015. These applications, associated permit numbers, and other permit correspondence

with OHA/SHPO are listed in Table 4.2.2-1 and included in Appendix C. Other meetings and informal

discussions with OHA/SHPO also are summarized in Table 4.2.2-1.

Meetings with OHA/SHPO have focused on historical field survey data and survey protocols, discussion

regarding cultural resources data, and discussion of the FERC pre-filing schedule and Section 106

consultation. OHA/SHPO and other state and federal agencies were included in a kick-off meeting for

the 2014 summer field season held in Anchorage on February 25–27, 2014. That meeting provided an

introduction to the Project and discussed permitting for the field studies. Project representatives met with

OHA/SHPO in December 2014 and January 2015 to discuss the results of the archaeological survey and

plan for the 2015 field season. OHA/SHPO provided preliminary comments on the eligibility of sites

located within the APE. In March 2015, Project representatives met with OHA/SHPO to discuss methods

for evaluating the presence of submerged cultural resources in Cook Inlet and later provided a letter

outlining the proposed approach. In June 2015, Project representatives met again with OHA/SHPO to

further discuss determinations of eligibility and avoidance and mitigation measures taken by other

projects in the state.

The 2015 Desktop and Phase II Cultural Resource Evaluation reports were submitted to OHA/SHPO on

January 26, 2016. The OHA/SHPO provided comments on the evaluation reports in two letters. A letter

dated February 11, 2016, provided comments on 70 cultural resources and another dated March 21, 2016,

commented on another 24 cultural resources.

TABLE 4.2.2-1

Summary of Meetings and Communication with State of Alaska and Local Agencies (Through March 31, 2016)

Agency Contact Date Contacted Summary

ADNR, SPCS, ARRC, ADF&G

2/25–2/27/2014 and 3/4/2014

Multi-agency kick off meeting to discuss the 2014 summer field season, Project ROW and permitting (also included USACE, USCG, BLM)

ADNR 6/27/2014 Pre-application meeting

OHA/SHPO 4/10/2014 Submittal of GIS geodatabase accompanying 2013 Resource Report

OHA/SHPO 5/20/2014 Submittal of cultural resource field study protocol

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-8

TABLE 4.2.2-1



OHA/SHPO, ADF&G 6/9/2014 Discussion regarding historical field survey data and protocols (also included BLM and USACE)

SPCS, OHA/SHPO, ADNR Office of Project Management and Permitting

6/10/2014 Discussion regarding cultural resources survey protocols and data

OHA/SHPO, SPCS 8/27/2014 Discussion regarding cultural resource data

OHA/SHPO, SPCS 10/3/2014 Discussion of FERC pre-filing schedule and Section 106 consultation (also included BLM)

OHA/SHPO, SPCS 12/17/2014

01/07/2015

Discussion of preliminary recommendations for sites located within the preliminary APE; planning for 2015 fieldwork

OHA/SHPO 6/21/2013, 4/22/2014, 6/2/2014, 8/25/2014

Discussions regarding archaeological permits (see Appendix C)

2/18/2014 Submittal of Project 2013 Phase I Cultural Resource Report

4/15/2014 OHA/SHPO review of ADNR Temporary Land Use Permit (see Appendix C)

5/15/2014 Discuss 2014 Cultural Resource survey program with OHA/SHPO

8/13/2014 Letter requesting review of cultural resource reports

8/27/2014 Meeting to discuss prior cultural data north of Livengood

10/27/2014 Letter request for informal consultation under Section 106 of NHPA

11/11/2014 Letter to OHA/SHPO regarding cultural resource evaluation for proposed 2014 Ambient Air Quality Station

11/12/2014 Letter from OHA/SHPO regarding cultural resource evaluation for proposed 2014 Ambient Air Quality Station

12/17/2014 Meeting to discuss prior cultural data north of Livengood

2/3/2015 Letter to OHA/SHPO submitting 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory report

2/5/2014

Meeting to discuss 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Report, Nikiski, Alaska, report and recommendations.

2/12/2015 Letter from OHA/SHPO indicating concurrence on eligibility for the Nikiski LNG Facility

4/17/2015 Discussion regarding a methodology for evaluating the presence of submerged cultural resources in Cook Inlet

4/27/2015

Letter to OHA/SHPO providing methodology for evaluating the presence of submerged cultural resources in Cook Inlet

5/15/2015 Letters to OHA/SHPO and SPCS with Phase II site-specific plans for NRHP Eligibility Evaluations

05/27/2015

Meeting to review proposed methodology for NRHP DOEs at specific sites in the Project corridor

5/29/2015 Letter to OHA/SHPO re proposed Phase II site-specific methodology for evaluation of NRHP eligibility

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-9

TABLE 4.2.2-1



06/08/2015

Memo indicating that OHA/SHPO has no objection to the proposed methodology for evaluating the NRHP eligibility of select sites in the Project corridor

07/2/2015

Letter indicating that OHA/SHPO has no objection to the proposed methodology for evaluating presence of submerged cultural resources in Cook Inlet

7/29/2015 Discussion regarding strategy schedule, and approach to Programmatic Agreements, NRHP eligibility

01/26/2016 Project representatives submitted a copy of the desktop DOE and 2015 evaluation reports to OHA/SHPO

02/11/2016 SHPO provided comments on eligibility recommendations for 70 cultural resource sites within Project Area.

03/21/2016 SHPO provided comments on eligibility recommendations for 24 cultural resource sites within the Project Area

4.2.3 Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations

Acting as FERC’s non-federal representative for the Project for purposes of information Section 106

consultation, Project representatives contacted federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native

Corporations in October 2014. In May 2015, FERC initiated formal government-to-government

consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations under Section 106

of the NHPA with introductory letters. Most of the affected Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations

had been contacted by Project representatives by letter in October 2014, and by telephone and email in

September 2015. Project representatives held numerous informal informational meetings with individual

federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations between 2013 and 2015. In addition,

an informational meeting was held with the ANCSA Regional Association in January and February,

2015. FERC participated in government-to-government consultation with several recognized Indian

Tribes in October 2015. This included the Chickaloon Native Village, the Knik Tribe, Kenaitze Indian

Tribe, and Native Village of Tyonek. Appendix C of this Resource Report provides information on the

meetings held with these groups. A list of federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native

Corporations that may have knowledge of, or an interest in, cultural resources potentially affected by the

Project is included in Table 4.2.3-1. Additional information regarding consultations with these groups

will be included in this table in the FERC application.

Project representatives began consultation with the Native Village of Tyonek in October 2014 and

continued engagement with the Village in several public meetings in April and May 2015 and calls and

emails in September 2015. FERC initiated government-to-government consultation on October 16, 2015,

and were informed that the Tribe is interested in understanding the impacts of the Project on cultural

resources. The Tribe recommended that alternative routes be analyzed near Cook Inlet.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-10

Consultation with the Kenaitze Indian Tribe was initiated by Project representatives in October 2014 and

follow-up calls and emails were placed in September 2015. A public meeting was held by Project

representatives, and FERC sent an introductory letter in May 2015. Discussions with Project

representatives continued in May 2015 and FERC initiated government-to-government consultation on

October 15, 2015. The Tribe noted concerns about social justice and the environmental and economic

impacts of the Project.

In October 2015, the Knik Tribe wrote to FERC to express concerns about the lack of consultation and

information exchange about cultural resource investigations, historic sites, and environmental and

conservation outcomes. Of particular concern to the Knik Tribe are areas between Cantwell and the

Tsi’lutnu (Chulitna River) drainage through Dengiht’u (Broad Pass) to the Suyitnu (Susitna River)

drainage. The Knik Tribe requested government-to-government consultation with FERC regarding the

project. FERC initiated consultation on October 16, 2015, shortly after the comments were received. The

Knik Tribe requested that Project representatives actively engage the Nation to use its expertise in cultural

and natural resources.

In November 2015, the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council (CVTC) wrote to FERC recommending

that the Project use field reports from other projects, such as the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP)

Project, for cultural and ecological resources and potential impacts of the Project. CVTC requested

government-to-government consultation under the Section 106 process for the Project.

In December 2015, the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) wrote to FERC to provide scoping comments on

the Project. The letter noted that the Project poses impacts to several federally recognized Tribes in the

TCC region and traverses traditional lands of the villages of Allakaket, Alatna, Evansville, Stevens

Village, Rampart, Minto, Nenana, and possibly others. The TCC requested that FERC and Project

representatives meaningfully engage those villages in the federal environmental review. With regard to

cultural resources, TCC noted that the review should include extensive outreach to traditional and

customary use areas and develop mitigation measures to minimize impacts to subsistence economies

where incomes are low and unemployment is high.

In addition to correspondence, email, telephone, and community meetings, the Cultural Resource Advisor

(CRA) program was developed as a way to involve local Alaska Natives in the cultural resources field

programs (exp 2015). This helped expose tribal members to the 106 process and encourage Alaska

Natives to pursue an interest in archaeology or cultural resource management, and to provide the local

villages and tribal entities a way to be involved in the cultural resources program and provide feedback

and input as the work progresses. CRAs were chosen from candidates that identified as members of tribal

organizations, villages, and/or corporations. The CRAs provide insight to archaeology crews on

subsistence, cultural, and traditional knowledge in particular areas and in general during surveys. They

observe and participate in cultural investigations, documenting what is being studied, and assist the

Project in reporting information about the investigations to Alaska Native entities. CRAs include

members of the following Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Regional Corporations and

federally recognized Tribes: Doyon (Gana-A’Yoo [Galena]), Bean Ridge Corporation (Manley Hot

Springs), Cook Inlet Region Inc. (Native Village or Tyonek), Calista Corporation (Algaaciq Native

Village [Saint Mary’s]), and NANA Regional Corporation (Native Village of Kotzebue). A summary of

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-11

the CRA program and the results of this effort are presented in a summary report that is included in

Appendix B (exp 2015).

TABLE 4.2.3-1

Summary of Consultation with Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (Through March 31, 2016)

Organization Date Description

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Regional Association

1/30/2015 Project representatives gave a Project update presentation in Juneau.

2/3/2015 Project representatives gave a Project update at board meeting in Juneau.

Alatna Village 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.

9/21–25/2015 Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email (could not leave message); the Corporation was not successfully contacted.

Allakaket Village 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.

9/21–25/2015 Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email; indicated that the tribe would have a council meeting and share information.

Chickaloon Native Village 5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter.

10/13/2015 FERC held a government-to-government meeting; noted that the Project crosses the western edge of the Tribe’s traditional use area; would like the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) Project’s field results to be used.

11/25/2015 The Chickaloon Village Traditional Council sent comments to FERC and requested government to government consultation.

Circle Native Community 5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter.

Eklutna Native Village 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.

5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter.

1/31/2015 A presentation was given at the Native Village of Eklutna annual shareholder meeting.

9/21–23/2015

Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email; Project representatives received a response that they did not have enough information to provide comments.

Evansville Tribal Council 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.


9/21/2015 Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email. The Council stated that the pipeline is its neighbor and it had already reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the ASAP Project pipeline.

Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.


9/21–25/2015 Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email.

Kaktovik Village 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter

1/14/2015 Project representatives held a public meeting.

5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter


Kenaitze Indian Tribe 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-12

TABLE 4.2.3-1



9/21–22/2015 Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email; received a response that Ms. Brenda Trefonas is the point of contact for future Section 106 correspondence.



5/22/2015 Project representatives discussed subsistence activities in Cook Inlet.

10/15/2015 FERC held a government-to-government Meeting; concerns about social justice, environmental, and economic impacts of the Project were discussed.

Knik Tribe 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.


2/20/2015 The Knik Tribe formally requests FERC initiate government-to-government consultation under Section 106.

2/20/2015

The Knik Tribal Council provided comments on Draft Resource Report No. 4 to FERC.

10/16/2015 FERC held a government-to-government meeting; the Knik Tribe requested that the Project representatives actively engage the Nation to use its expertise in cultural and natural resources.

10/16/2015

The Knik Tribal Council sent a letter to FERC with comments and concerns.

10/26/2015 FERC sent a response to the comments from the Knik Tribal Council.

Nagsragmuit Traditional Council 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.

(Anaktuvuk Pass Federally Recognized Tribe)



Native Village of Barrow Inupiat

Traditional Government

10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.



11/12/2015 Project representatives held a public meeting and FERC representatives attended.

Native Village of Cantwell 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.




Native Village of Chenega 5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter.

Native Village of Eyak 5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter.

Native Village of Fort Yukon 5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter.

Native Village of Gakona 5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-13

TABLE 4.2.3-1



Native Village of Kluti-Kaah 5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter.

Native Village of Minto 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.




Native Village of Nuiqsut 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.




Native Village of Port Graham 5/20/2015 FERC sent an introductory letter.

Native Village of Stevens 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.

9/21–25/2015 Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email—could not leave message; not successfully contacted.

Native Village of Tyonek

(Tyonek Native Corporation)



5/15/2015 Project representatives held a public meeting with Tyonek Native Corporation.

5/21/2015 Project representatives held a public meeting with the Native Village of Tyonek.


10/16/2015 FERC held a government-to-government meeting; concerns about cultural resources, including archaeological sites and cultural landscape were discussed.

10/29/2015 Project representatives held a community meeting, and FERC representatives attended.

Nenana Native Association

(Toghotthele Corporation)


11/6/2014 Project representatives held a public meeting, and FERC representatives attended.

4/20/2015 Project representatives held a public meeting with the Toghotthele Corporation.

9/21–22/2015 Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email; the Corporation indicated that they it had set up a FERC meeting on October 16, 2015, in Anchorage.

10/16/2015 FERC held government-to-government meeting.

Ninilchik Traditional Council 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.


9/21–24/2015 Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email; the Council responded by email to indicate that it did not have a need for a tribal consultation at this time.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-14

TABLE 4.2.3-1



Rampart Traditional Council 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.


Village of Salamatof 10/23/2014 Project representatives sent a consultation request letter.

5/5/2015 Project representatives held a meeting regarding subsistence activities in Cook Inlet.

5/26/2015 Project representatives held a meeting regarding subsistence activities in Cook Inlet.

9/21–24/2015 Project representatives called and sent a follow-up email; the Village responded that Chris Monfor is the president and point of contact. The Village is supportive of the Project and does not request tribal consultation at this time.

Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) 12/4/2015 TCC provided comments on the Project.

4.2.4 Consultations with Other Interested Parties

In addition to state agencies, federal agencies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, and Alaska Native

Corporations, the Section 106 process includes consultation with other parties that may have an interest in

the Project and the cultural resources that may be affected by the Project. These may include local

governmental organizations, Certified Local Governments (CLGs), boroughs, municipalities, and other

groups. To date, representatives of the Project have held informational meetings with a number of CLGs

that may qualify as consulting parties for Section 106. These are the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the

City of Fairbanks, the City of Kenai, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the City of Seward, the Matanuska-

Susitna Borough, the Municipality of Anchorage, and the North Slope Borough. Although the Denali

Borough is not listed as a CLG it may qualify as a consulting party for Section 106.

Project representatives have held numerous workshops and public meetings along the Project route in

Alaska. Consultation with communities with CLGs and with the Alaska Gasline Development

Corporation is summarized in Table 4.2.4-1. Project representatives have met with the Kenai Peninsula

Borough, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and North Slope Borough multiple times about the Project.

TABLE 4.2.4-1

Summary of Consultation with Other Interested Parties (through March 31, 2016)


Anaktuvuk Pass 1/29/2015 Open House regarding the Project

Kenai Peninsula Borough 6/4/2014 Discussion regarding 2014 field activities

8/19/2015 Cook Inlet Routing and Construction Review

9/02/2015 Liquefaction Facility footprint review

Matanuska-Susitna Borough 8/19/2015 Cook Inlet Routing and Construction Review

4/16/2015 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Cultural Resources Division requests that agencies performing cultural investigations consult and keep the Borough informed on progress.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-15

TABLE 4.2.4-1

Summary of Consultation with Other Interested Parties (through March 31, 2016)


North Slope Borough 7/9/2014 North Slope Borough Iñupiat History Language and Culture permitting requirements

1/29/2015 Open House regarding the Project

6/24/2015 Part of multi-agency pipeline construction execution workshop

4.3 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY

4.3.1 Area of Potential Effect (APE)

The APE is the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause

changes in the character of or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist” (36 C.F.R. §

800.16(d)). The APE for archaeological resources includes all areas where the ground or seabed may be

disturbed. The APE for historic architectural properties includes areas where direct and indirect impacts

have the potential to alter character-defining features of a property’s significance.

The APE for direct impacts to archaeological resources from the Project includes all areas that would be

impacted during construction of the Project facilities (Appendix A). The APE encompasses the

workspace needed for construction of the Liquefaction Facility, pipeline and aboveground facilities,

access roads, pipe storage areas, contractor yards, additional temporary work areas, and other associated

facility locations. This includes submerged and submersible land offshore across Cook Inlet and from the

Liquefaction Facility, GTP, and West Dock on the North Slope, where dredging or alteration of the

seabed might occur. For purposes of the Project, the APE has been defined to include the following:

A Liquefaction Facility consisting of the 982-acre LNG Plant and temporary construction camp

site onshore and an 82-acre Marine Terminal offshore. The offshore facilities include a Product

Loading Facility, a temporary Material Offloading Facility (MOF), the Dredging Area for the

MOF, and a shoreline protection area. Offshore activities also will require a dredge disposal area

of approximately 1,200 acres, the location of the disposal area has not been sited yet;

An approximately 804-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter, natural gas pipeline (the Mainline),

extending from the GTP on the North Slope to the Liquefaction Facility on the shore of Cook

Inlet near Nikiski, including an offshore pipeline section crossing Cook Inlet. Onshore the APE

consisting of the permanent and construction rights-of-way (ROWs) and ATWS would be located

within a 300-foot-wide (91.4-meter) cultural survey. Offshore the marine permanent and

construction ROWs, measuring 100 feet and 1 to 2.5 miles wide respectively, would be reviewed

for cultural resources. The expanded cultural study area is intended to encompass the impacts of

direct lay of the pipe and anchors for the lay barge;

Additional infrastructure in the area of the permanent Mainline ROW would be required during

construction and operation of the pipeline. The associated infrastructure may include the

following facilities:

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-16

o Temporary workspace for construction activities totaling approximately 1,090 acres (e.g.,

staging areas, truck turnarounds, and utility crossovers);

o Access roads totaling approximately 2,969 acres would be located within a 150-foot-wide

(45.7-meter) cultural resource survey corridor centered on the centerline of the proposed road

(many of these would be improvements to existing roads, See Resource Report No. 1);

o Compressor and heater stations totaling approximately 218 acres;

o Compressor station camp totaling approximately 27 acres;

o Helipads and airstrips, mainly at existing facilities;

o Mainline Construction camps totaling approximately 602 acres;

o Pipe storage and contractor yards totaling approximately 476 acres;

o Rail spurs and rail workpads totaling approximately 48 acres;

o Material sites to supply sand, granular material, and rock/stone totaling approximately 5,625

acres;

o Disposal sites for excavated material, stumps, blast rock, acid drainage rock, and slash

removed from the permanent pipeline ROW (yet to be defined);

o A Mainline MOF measuring 15 acres (located on the North side of Cook Inlet);

o Pipe coating yards and concrete coating facilities (locations to be defined); and

o Other associated facilities such as Mainline block valves (MLBVs), launchers and receivers,

cathodic protection facilities, pipeline corrosion protection system, stray current interference

mitigation facilities, alternating current mitigation, telluric current dampening systems, and

cathodic protection system test stations (found mainly within the footprint of other facilities).

An approximately 62.5-mile, 32-inch-diameter aboveground PTTL pipeline to transport natural

gas from the PTU to the GTP and associated facilities. A 300-foot-wide (91.4-meter) cultural

survey corridor encompassed an APE consisting of the permanent and construction ROWs,

including ATWS;

Additional infrastructure in the area of the permanent PTTL ROW would be required during

construction and operation of the pipeline. The associated infrastructure may include the

following facilities:

o Temporary workspace for construction activities totaling approximately 22 acres (e.g.,

staging areas, truck turnarounds, and utility crossovers);

o Helipads and airstrips totaling approximately 19 acres;

o PTTL Construction camps totaling approximately 111 acres;

o Pipe storage and rail work pads totaling approximately 48 acres.

An approximately 1-mile, 60-inch-diameter aboveground PBTL pipeline to transport natural gas

from the Central Gas Facility (CGF) to the GTP. A 300-foot-wide (91.4-meter) cultural survey

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-17

corridor encompassed an APE consisting of the permanent and construction ROWs, including

ATWS.

An approximately 284-acre GTP would be located in the PBU near the Beaufort Sea coast. This

facility would include the GTP Pad and associated facilities such as a control building,

Operations Center, inlet facilities, and module haul road. The GTP and facilities would be

located near existing PBU facilities; and

Several facilities associated with construction of the GTP are planned including:

o West Dock Causeway modifications including construction of the approximately 3-acre Dock

Head 4 to facilitate offloading of modules arriving by sealift. Dredging of approximately 67

acres would be necessary to provide a sufficient channel and turning basin. The proposed

dredge disposal area for the dredge spoil is estimated at approximately 255 acres;

o A new module staging area measuring approximately 86 acres would be constructed adjacent

to an existing West Dock staging area;

o A 47-acre water reservoir site and pump facility pad;

o Approximately 70 acres of associated transfer pipelines;

o Material site totaling approximately 141 acres;

o Access roads totaling approximately 168 acres; and

o Construction of two camps including a Pioneer camp to support development of construction

infrastructure during GTP construction and a construction and operations camp to support

Project construction, and eventually operations. The preference would be to locate the

Pioneer camp (approximately 30 acres) on an existing granular pad in the PBU or in the

Deadhorse area. The construction and operations camp would be located on site on the

Operations Center granular pad.

Indirect impacts are defined in FERC guidance as “…those effects on historic properties which are

removed in time and/or space from their proximate causes” (FERC 2002). The APE for indirect impacts

is generally defined as the area in which a project could affect the qualities for which a historic property is

eligible or listed in the NRHP. The potential indirect impacts associated with construction of the Project

are often visual in nature, but could include noise and vibration from construction or operating activities.

Indirect effects could also include the greater potential for vandalism to historic properties as a result of

the Project increasing access to the remote areas. The APE for indirect effects would be established in

consultation with OHA/SHPO and federal agencies when more engineering details are available about the

aboveground facilities.

The indirect impacts of the three non-jurisdictional facilities must be analyzed as part of the

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project because they are considered “connected” actions

under NEPA. These non-jurisdictional areas include:

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-18

Point Thomson Gas Expansion Project (PTU Expansion Project) – Granular expansion of existing

Central and West Pads; construction of an East Pad and associated granular access road;

gathering line connecting East Pad wells to Central Processing Facility; new granular material

mine to support infrastructure construction; minor dredging of sealift bulkhead berths;

PBU Major Gas Sales (MGS) Project – expansion of two granular pads, construction of a new 10-

mile gas pipeline connecting the Apex Gas Injection (AGI) Pad with Gathering Center #1;

construction of new pipelines to deliver GTP Byproduct to Well Pad W, Well Pad Z, the AGI

Pad, Drill Site 9, and Drill Site 16; and

Relocation of the Kenai Spur Highway – several proposed routes are under consideration to

relocate the Kenai Spur Highway east of the Liquefaction Facility.

4.3.2 Survey Methodology

Prior to initiating cultural surveys for the Project, meetings were held with representatives from various

agencies (Table 4.2.2-1) to review data collection methodologies, protocols, and scope for the 2013, 2014,

and 2015 field seasons. Subsequent to agreement on the path forward, existing data were compiled from

relevant cultural resource surveys previously completed along the proposed Project corridor. The results

of these investigations provided the basis for predictive models and survey methods employed during the

Project studies to date. A discussion of the source of these datasets follows.

Two previous pipeline projects conducted surveys that covered portions of the Project corridor between

Prudhoe Bay and Livengood and provided preliminary information on a number of archaeological sites

recorded in the vicinity of the Project route. Investigations for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS),

which coincides in part with the Mainline study corridor, were conducted between 1969 and 1977 by the

University of Alaska Fairbanks and Alaska Methodist University (now Alaska Pacific University).

Surveys for the proposed Northwest Alaska Pipeline Project were conducted in the late 1970s along a

study corridor that generally follows the Project route from Prudhoe Bay to Livengood before turning east

toward the United States-Canada border. Concerns expressed by OHA/SHPO about the quality of the

archaeological information available from older surveys caused the most recent investigations to re-

examine areas that may have been included in previous surveys. The early surveys often lack accurate

site locations and sufficient data to determine the NRHP eligibility of those sites.

Subsequent pipeline projects resulted in additional cultural investigations along the proposed Project

corridor. In 2001, investigations for the Alaska Gas Pipeline Producers Team (AGPPT) pipeline were

conducted by Northern Land Use Research Alaska, LLC, (NLURA) and Chumis Cultural Resources

Services (NLURA/Chumis) along a corridor from Prudhoe Bay and the United States-Canada border

(Port Alcan) (Potter et al., 2001). A predictive model based on geomorphic variables ranked the potential

of finding culturally significant sites and was used to structure the field investigations. Portions of the

route were ranked as Type A (low potential), Type B (moderate potential), or Types C and D (high

potential). Type A locations were spot-checked by helicopter survey whereas Types B, C, and D were

examined via pedestrian surveys and shovel testing. Approximately 624 miles of the AGPPT route were

surveyed with 122 cultural resources identified during those investigations. Because the northern portion

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-19

of the 2001 AGPPT corridor (Prudhoe Bay to Livengood) is similar to the proposed Mainline route for

this Project, the results of those surveys provided the foundation for the Project study area and the site

location sensitivity mapping effort.

In 2008, Denali-The Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC (Denali Project) proposed to construct a gas pipeline from

Prudhoe Bay to Alberta, Canada. The northern portion of the route followed the route of the AGPPT.

Cultural resources survey data from three previous major pipelines within or immediately adjacent to the

Denali Project area were reviewed. Researchers determined that the data from the TAPS and Alaska

Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS) projects were “questionable due to the change in standards

for site identification, location, and analysis as well as survey methodology, location and coverage”

(NRG, 2008). They concluded that most TAPS and ANGTS site information or survey areas within the

Denali Project area would require resurveying and updated location information and analysis using

current archaeological standards (NRG, 2008). Data collected in 2001 as part of the AGPPT Project was

deemed satisfactory for reconnaissance level survey, but that focused delineation of site boundaries and

testing areas within areas with high potential to contain buried archaeological sites was necessary.

Cultural resource reconnaissance surveys conducted in 2008 were focused on the portion of the project

between Delta Junction and the Canadian border.

In 2010, the Alaska Pipeline Project (APP) applied the results of the 2001 AGPPT archaeological

sensitivity model using GIS data and observations from pre-field survey helicopter overflights to develop

a generalized sensitivity map of the entire proposed pipeline facilities corridor (Higgs et al. 2011a, 2011b,

2012). This essential step enabled stratification of the 2010 pipeline facilities corridor into areas of

cultural resource sensitivity (Type A or Type B, described subsequently) based on relationships between

known sites and key environmental variables. The APP did not maintain the distinction between Type B,

C, and D survey methods and reported pedestrian and shovel testing as Type B. The 2010 Phase I

cultural resource surveys for the APP were completed within a nominal 328-foot-wide (100-meter)

corridor, with some areas expanded to up to 2,625 feet wide (800 meters).

South of Livengood, the Project used survey results of the ASAP Project for surveys ASAP conducted

between 2010 and 2014. These data were made available by OHA/SHPO and consist primarily of Type

A and B surveys, site locations, and site form information. The ASAP Project conducted surveys in a

200-foot corridor centered over its proposed centerline; portions of their route overlap with that of this

Project. Building on approaches developed for other earlier projects, a sensitivity model was developed

for the Project that allowed field surveys to effectively target high-sensitivity areas while still providing

data on areas deemed to have low potential of containing cultural resources. The sensitivity maps

developed for the Project were based on data from overflights, previous surveys, recorded site locations,

geomorphologic setting, and other environmental variables. These data were combined to define areas of

low and high potential for cultural resources.

Field investigations were designed based on the mapped sensitivity or archaeological potential of areas

along the Project corridor. Pre-survey helicopter overflights were employed to demarcate generally high

or low potential segments and note any visible historic buildings or structures. A desktop review of the

corridor, which applied the predictive model, identified areas with very low to no potential for cultural

resources and those areas were eliminated from field surveys. The remaining areas were segregated into

low potential (Type A) and high potential (Type B) areas. For Type A areas, helicopter or vehicular

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-20

surveys of segments not previously surveyed were used to identify isolated higher-potential areas for

targeted field survey. For Type B areas, field investigations were implemented, including pedestrian

transect surveys with systematic shovel testing of previously un-surveyed areas, as well as targeted

surveys where the previous surveys (e.g., Denali Pipeline Project, AGPPT, APP, or ASAP) were

considered inadequate.

As previously stated, the field investigations included a combination of walkover, surface inspection, and

shovel testing. Of these techniques, walkover transects or vehicular/aerial surveys were used most

frequently in Type A survey areas, with visual inspection of areas where previous surveys were conducted

or where topography and vegetation cover suggested a lower potential for cultural resources. These areas

included wetlands or inundated areas, previously disturbed locations, and areas where the slope exceeded

15 percent. Shovel testing was the primary survey method for Type B areas. Shovel tests were placed at

a maximum interval of 15 meters and assigned a unique identification number. Location data were

collected using handheld global positioning system (GPS) units; both location data and survey results

were recorded on survey forms. The shovel tests were excavated to a depth below which cultural

materials might be found, as little as 10 centimeters below the base of the Type A horizon or over 100

centimeters in alluvial or colluvial settings. To investigate strata below the base of standard shovel tests,

1-inch-diameter cores were used. Selected prehistoric and historic period artifacts were collected from

the surface and in shovel tests. Prehistoric artifacts found on the surface in shovel tests were recorded

using GPS and documented in photographs and notes. Diagnostic items and tools were collected for

further analysis. Unique diagnostic historic artifacts also were retained for analysis, however non-

diagnostic or mass-produced items were recorded and left at the site. A provisional artifact curation

agreement was obtained with the University of Alaska, Museum of the North (UAMN) in Fairbanks for

the eventual disposition of the artifacts. The UAMN is the repository for all archaeological collections

made on federal and state lands in Alaska. A deed of gift would be obtained for any collections from

private lands to be curated at UAMN.

Surface inspection was conducted along transects spaced at 5- to 10-meter intervals. This survey method

was principally used on historic-age sites where surface materials were sufficiently abundant to determine

the approximate age, function, and limits of the site. Provenience2 information on diagnostic items or

tools found on the surface was recorded using GPS units and documented in photographs and notes. This

method also was used on prehistoric sites, but was supplemented by shovel tests on landforms where

there was also a strong potential for subsurface prehistoric components.

Investigations to determine the potential for deeply buried cultural deposits within the APE for the Project

footprint were initiated during the 2015 field season (Proue, 2016a). Recent studies documented stratified

Late Pleistocene and Holocene sites in dune fields of the Tanana Valley. Project representatives sought to

investigate eolian landforms similar to these where deeply stratified cultural materials were recorded.

Dune deposits in the lower Nenana River and the loess deposit mantling the lower foothills bordering the

east side of the Tolovana River were selected for deep testing (Proue et al., 2016a; Appendix F). Field

investigations included excavation of 1-meter by 1-meter test units to a depth of at least 1.2 meters into

dune and loess deposits to search for cultural materials and to collect charcoal and sediment samples.

Sediments were excavated with shovels and trowels, then passed through 1/8-inch mesh screens.

2 Provenience refers to the three-dimensional location or find spot of an artifact of feature within an archaeological

site.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-21

Deposits below 1.2 meters were examined using a 1-inch soil probe with extensions to permit sampling to

5 meters belowground surface (Greiser et al., 2015a; Appendix F).

Cultural resource investigations in Cook Inlet reviewed information in databases maintained by the U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management/Minerals Management Service

(BOEM/MMS), OHA/SHPO, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as

geological, geotechnical coring, and available remote sensing data. The potential for encountering

historic period resources in Cook Inlet was assessed by reviewing information on potential and specific

submerged shipwreck sites in: (1) the Alaska Shipwreck Database maintained by BOEM/MMS; (2) the

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) site files; and, (3) the NOAA Office of Coast Survey’s

Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System (NOAA AWOIS). The potential for prehistoric

period resources was evaluated based on prehistoric site databases, Pleistocene/Holocene geology, known

geomorphological features, available geotechnical cores and available acoustic remote sensing data (i.e.,

side-scan and multi-beam sonar, sub-bottom profiling) (Alaska LNG Project, 2015).

4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AAND ABOVEGROUND RESOURCES BACKGROUND

RESEARCH AND SURVEY RESULTS

File searches and literature reviews were conducted to identify previous cultural resource surveys and

previously recorded cultural resources in the Project vicinity. The previous surveys and data then were

used to form the foundation for the research and field methodology for the Liquefaction Facility and

interdependent facilities (i.e., Mainline, GTP, PBTL, and PTTL). Data sources from previous large-scale

survey efforts that have occurred in or adjacent to the Project corridor provided the most substantive data

on the corridor and include TAPS data summaries, Northwest Alaska Pipeline data summaries, AGPPT

data and summaries, APP data and summaries, and AHRS inventory data, which contains supplemental

information on cultural resources that were located during other surveys not associated with pipeline

projects. The background research is described in detail in the 2010, 2011, and 2013 Phase I Cultural

Resources Summary Report for the Project, located in Appendix B, and is summarized in Section 4.4.3.

4.4.1 ASAP Project

The ASAP Project is a pipeline project that has been under consideration since 2010 and has generated

additional cultural resources data (ASRC 2011, 2012). Project researchers examined ASAP Project data

from surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011 and identified areas where the two projects would be

collocated. Large-scale maps were available to Project researchers and used to compare the ASAP

Project gross centerline to the Project’s preliminary base route. Initial reviews of the ASAP Project data

indicated that approximately 25 miles of the ASAP Project 2010 and 2011 survey coverage between

Livengood and the Susitna River Crossing were adequately surveyed (Greiser et al. 2014: Table 4-6).

Additional review of available data from the ASAP Project revealed several issues with using the data for

this Project. Discrepancies in the survey methods, a narrower survey corridor (200 feet wide), and

incomplete GIS data limited the utility of the ASAP Project data; therefore, none of the surveys

completed for the ASAP Project were used for this Project.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-22

4.4.2 Alaska Pipeline Project (APP)

A majority of the northern spreads3 of the Project Mainline, as well as the GTP area and PTTL, were

surveyed as part of the APP 2010–2012 field work. These surveys examined a 300- to 600-foot-wide

corridor within which the APE for the planned pipeline would be located. This survey corridor width is

designed to accommodate the construction ROW footprint and additional temporary work areas, but is

larger than the footprint that would be impacted by the Project. Associated facilities such as pipe yards,

ATWS, and access roads also were surveyed. A review of the cultural resources survey data from the

APP (Greiser et al., 2013a) indicated:

3,539 acres were surveyed on the Mainline;

1,697 acres were surveyed for facilities and pipeline segments that were off the ROW for the

Mainline;

42 acres were surveyed for the GTP in the PBU;

352 acres were surveyed along the PTTL route; and

27 acres were surveyed for facilities associated with the PTTL.

4.4.3 Point Thomson Project

A part of the PTTL route was examined in 2008 as part of the cultural resource investigations for the

Point Thomson Project (USACE 2012). The study examined four alternatives for construction of a 22-

mile-long gas condensate export pipeline, as well as associated facilities within the Point Thomson Unit

including a central granular pad for wells and facilities, two outlying granular pads for wells, an airstrip, a

service pier, a sealift facility, a granular material mine site, infield granular roads, and infield gathering

pipelines. According to the EIS, there were no direct impacts to cultural resources associated with the

preferred alternative (Alternative B) and one site might be potentially directly affected by one of the other

three alternatives. The EIS notes that 43 sites would be potentially indirectly affected by Alternative B.

Available map information indicates that the PTTL closely follows the route of Alternative B for the 22

miles where PTTL parallels the gas condensate pipeline.

4.4.4 Project Survey Summary and Status

Cultural resource investigations included background research and field investigations. Background

research compiled information on previously recorded cultural resources located within 1 mile of the

pipeline centerline and within 3 miles of the proposed Liquefaction Facility to provide regional data to

study settlement patterns and develop historic context for cultural resources identified during the

investigations. Data were gathered in a larger area in the vicinity of the Liquefaction Facility due to its

greater size and visibility on the landscape. A subset of the data collected for this context is presented in

this Resource Report; cultural resources located within a 2,000-foot-wide study corridor centered on the

3 Spreads are manageable lengths of a pipeline used to coordinate crews during construction. The northern spreads of the Mainline refers to the

following: Prudhoe Bay to Atigun Pass (PA), Atigun Pass to Yukon River (AY), and Yukon River to Livengood (YL).

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-23

proposed Project corridor are presented subsequently. Field investigations sought to identify cultural

resources located within the provisional 300-foot-wide study corridor or, in some cases, a 600-foot-wide

study corridor (Greiser et al., 2013a). Cultural resource surveys conducted after the 2013 field season

were narrowed to a 300-foot-wide study corridor. These investigations were conducted in accordance

with standards and guidelines issued by FERC and OHA/SHPO (FERC, 2002; OHA/SHPO, 2003). The

field investigations conducted for the Project’s Mainline in 2013 focused on completing surveys of those

few areas where the Project centerline diverged from the APP route north of Livengood. The results of

those investigations are presented in separate reports for work on BLM lands (Greiser et al., 2013b) and

on private and state lands (Greiser et al., 2013c).

South of Livengood, the Mainline diverges from the APP route. Although portions of the Project corridor

are collocated with the ASAP Project, differences in survey methods and GIS data quality have precluded

use of the ASAP Project data from the areas that overlap with the proposed Project route between

Livengood and the Susitna River crossing (Greiser et al., 2014).

TABLE 4.4-1

Cultural Resource Survey Completed within the Direct APE by Field Season (acres)

Facility APP

2010–2012

Alaska LNG 2013

Alaska LNG 2014

Alaska LNG 2015

Total

GTP 42 252 - 151 445

Liquefaction Facility (LNG Plant and Marine Terminal)

- - 464 72 536

Mainline ROW 3,539 368 3,177 27,849 34,933

Mainline Facilities 1,697 778 708 1,833 5,016

PBTL - - - 0 0

PTTL 352 1 - 1,137 1,490

PTTL Facilities 27 2 - 16 45

Total 5,656 1,401 4,349 31,059 42,465

Cultural resource surveys conducted in 2014 examined select survey target areas along the Mainline

corridor south of Livengood and the proposed Liquefaction Facility site near Nikiski (Greiser et al., 2014;

URS/AECOM, 2015). In 2015, the investigations included additional cultural resource surveys of the

Mainline corridor and additional off-ROW facilities required for the Project, and evaluation of a large

number of resources identified during previous investigations (Greiser et al., 2015; Proue et al., 2016a,

2016b, 2016c, 2016d, 2016e). Additional surveys were conducted at the Liquefaction Facility in

connection with some geophysical and geotechnical activities (URS/AECOM, 2015). A summary of the

status of cultural resource surveys completed through the 2015 field season is presented in Table 4.4-2.

The status of cultural resource surveys along the Project footprint is varied. Cultural resource surveys

conducted to date have focused primarily on the northern half of the Mainline route and other northern

Project facilities. Approximately 93 to 100 percent of the route north of Cook Inlet is complete.

Examination of remote sensing data obtained during geotechnical surveys along the Mainline route across

Cook Inlet will be completed in 2016. Surveys on the spread south of Cook Inlet are approximately 82

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-24

percent complete. The surveys for the proposed GTP and PTTL were substantially complete prior to

recent engineering adjustments to the Project route; approximately 45 and 86 percent, respectively, of the

footprint is surveyed on those components of the Project. More than 61 percent (42,465 acres) of the

70,150-acre direct APE for the Project were surveyed to date. Survey is complete for nearly 74 percent

(28,812 acres) of the terrestrial portion of the APE and more than 52 percent (41,338 acres) of the marine

APE.

TABLE 4.4-2

Status of Cultural Resource Survey through 2015 (acres)

Project Component Undefined

Survey Typea

Type A Survey

Type B Survey

Marine Not

Surveyedb

No Survey Accessc

APE (footprint)

Percent APE

Completed

LIQUEFACTION FACILITY

LNG Plant e 462 - - 0 521 - 983 47.0%

Marine Terminal f 3 - - 72 8 - 82 90.3%

PIPELINES

Mainline Operations and Construction ROW (by Survey Spread)

Point Thomson to Prudhoe Bay

6 2 - - - - 8 100.0%

Prudhoe Bay to Atigun Pass 1,134 675 1,059 - - - 2,869 100.0%

Atigun Pass to Yukon River 1,880 33 1,250 - 6 - 3,168 99.8%

Yukon River to Livengood 503 30 271 - 0 - 805 100.0%

Livengood to Healy 16 133 2,034 - 8 5 2,196 99.6%

Healy to Trapper Creek - 503 2,009 - 51 171 2,734 98.1%

Trapper Creek to Cook Inlet - 131 1,644 - 3 50 1,829 99.8%

Trapper Creek to Cook Inlet (Marine)

- - 3 - 2 - 5 62.8%

Cook Inlet (Marine) - - 0 21,563 19,775 - 41,338 52.2%

Cook Inlet to Nikiski - - 52 104 189 85 577 82.0%

MAINLINE FACILITIES

Access Road ROW 215 418 940 - 1,352 45 2,969 54.5%

ATWS 273 98 574 - 120 25 1,090 89.0%

Material Site 1,007 34 472 - 4,103 8 5,625 27.1%

Camp 88 52 301 - 159 1 602 73.5%

Compressor and Heater Stations

29 1 169 - 0 18 218 100.0%

Compressor Station Camp 3 0 22 - 0 2 27 100.0%

MLBV 7 2 12 - 1 1 24 95.7%

Meter Station - 0 - 0 - 0 69.0%

Pipe Storage Yard 73 28 196 - 141 39 476 70.4%

Railroad Spur - - - - 5 6 11 57.7%

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-25

TABLE 4.4-2

Status of Cultural Resource Survey through 2015 (acres)

Project Component Undefined

Survey Typea

Type A Survey

Type B Survey

Marine Not

Surveyedb

No Survey Accessc

APE (footprint)

Percent APE

Completed

Railroad Workpad - - - - 12 25 37 67.7%

PTTL

PTTL ROW d 352 1,138 0 - 241 - 1,731 86.1%

PTTL ATWS 2 14 - - 5 - 22 76.4%

PTTL Camp 16 2 - - 94 - 111 15.9%

PTTL East Pad - 2 - - 17 - 19 9.6%

PTTL Helipad 1 - - - - - 1 100.0%

PTTL Mainline Block Valve (MLBV)

0 0 - - - - 0 100.0%

PTTL Meter Station - 0 - - - - 0 100.0%

PTTL Pipe Storage Yard 8 - - - 20 - 28 27.1%

GTP

GTP Pipeline ROW d 7 24 - - 39 - 70 44.5%

GTP Access Road 5 55 0 - 108 - 168 35.9%

GTP Barge Bridge - - - - 3 - 3 0.0%

GTP Camp - 13 - - 43 - 57 23.7%

GTP West Dock - - - - 28 - 28 0.0%

GTP Dredge f - - - 67 - 67 0.0%

GTP Material Site 26 43 - - 72 - 141 49.1%

GTP Module Staging Area - 62 3 - 21 - 86 75.7%

GTP Pad 2 178 13 - 35 - 228 84.7%

GTP Reservoir 1 11 - - 33 - 45 27.5%

GTP River Intake 0 0 - - 2 - 2 4.3%

PBTL

PBTL Pipeline ROW - 0 - - 7 - 7 5.8%

GRAND TOTAL e 6,121 3,684 11,025 21,635 27,203 482 70,150 61.2%

Notes:

Type A (low potential; reconnaissance survey), Type B (moderate-high potential; pedestrian or shovel testing survey) a Survey undefined includes a mixture of Types A and B. b Not surveyed does not include areas where there was no access. c No access data only available for 2014 and 2015 season. d Percent complete includes area for which there was no access for survey. e Total summary removes overlapping features. f Total does not include estimated area for dredge disposal area.

“0” indicates acreage less than 0.5 acre but greater than 0; “-“ indicates that there are no acres

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-26

4.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL, MARINE, AND ABOVEGROUND RESOURCES:

BACKGROUND AND SURVEY RESULTS

4.5.1 Sites Located within the 2,000-Foot-Wide Study Area

Table E-1 in Appendix E provides a list of archaeological sites that are located within the 2,000-foot-wide

study area for the Project, but are not within the 300-foot-wide preliminary APE. These sites include

those identified during cultural resource surveys conducted for the Project, as well as previously recorded

sites listed in the AHRS database maintained by SHPO. All of these resources are depicted on maps in

Appendix A of this report. These data and the data in Appendix E provide information to assist in

defining a route that minimizes impacts to known historic resources. Data collected on sites in the study

area are also intended to provide information on the types of cultural resources recorded in the vicinity of

the Project. Of the 207 sites recorded in this study area, 146 are described as prehistoric, 3 have both

prehistoric and historic components, 48 are historic and/or modern, 1 is recent, and 9 lack sufficient data

to identify them temporally as either prehistoric or historic and are undetermined. Another three sites

included in the AHRS data are identified as paleontological and are not cultural resources.4 Of the

prehistoric sites, the majority are characterized as lithic scatters. Other sites are described as villages,

camp sites, a rock shelter, house pits and cache pits, and artifact and bone scatters.

The majority of the sites identified within the 2,000-foot-wide study area have not formally been

evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Fifty-seven of the sites are eligible or listed in the NRHP and eight trails

or highways are recorded as “treat as eligible” meaning that, in all likelihood, the portion of site crossed is

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One site, a prehistoric lithic scatter (WIS-00426), has been

recommended as eligible for the NRHP, pending review by OHA/SHPO. One isolated lithic site (LIV-

00719) has been determined not eligible for the NRHP. Most of the sites are located along the Mainline

of the Project, none are within the GTP, and only two are within the PTTL study corridor.

There is only one site in the vicinity of the Project that is listed as a National Historic Landmark. This

Paleoarctic site (PSM-00050) is considered one of the oldest on the North Slope. Although it is not

located within the proposed footprint of the Project, it should be noted to ensure protection during

construction.

Two sites along the PTTL study corridor are noteworthy. Both were located on a previous alignment of

the PTTL ROW, but are avoided in the proposed Project route. Site XBP-00020 is an Inupiat winter sod

house located along the bank of the Sagavanirktok River. Several cache pits and depressions were

identified, along with the remains of a boat rack, caribou bone, and a scatter of cans. The site has not

been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Site XFI-00036 is also located between Point Thomson and

Prudhoe Bay. It has been described as a domestic trash scatter dating from the 1960s, probably associated

either with U.S. military activity, or with oil exploration in the 1960s.

A portion of the Atigun Archaeological District (PSM-00204) is located within the study area in the

Prudhoe to Atigun Pass spread, in the vicinity of Galbraith Lake on the north slope of the Brooks

4 Paleontological sites recorded are noted in the text since they are recorded in AHRS inventory. They are not cultural in origin and are not

regulated under Section 106 of the NRHP. For additional information on the Project’s paleontological studies, please refer to Resource Report No. 6, Section 6.6.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-27

Range. This district, most recently investigated in 1981, is attributed to the late prehistoric Athapaskan

Kavik culture. The complex of sites has undergone damage from haul road and pipeline

construction. Site PSM-00074, Atigun I, is a prehistoric camp dating from Before Present (BP) 360+/-

100 and 310+/-140 containing a scatter of Kavik material including chert flakes, fire-cracked rock, and

animal bones. Located within sand dunes that extend along the Atigun River, the site consists of several

discrete loci that include hearths. NRHP nomination has been closed for the district and for PSM-00074,

pending reevaluation.

Also within the study area are several sites associated with the Rosebud Knob Archaeological District

(LIV-00284, listed in Table E-2). Site LIV-00030 is a small primary workshop-quarry locus, Site LIV-

00040 is a scatter of lithic artifacts adjacent to a chert outcrop, and Site LIV-00043 is a large prehistoric

camp site including a variety of points, edge tools, cores, microblades and burins, as well as two small

hearths/charcoal smears and two circular piles of ochre-covered stones. All of these sites would need to

be reevaluated for NRHP eligibility if they would be impacted by the Project.

Site PSM-00049, Mosquito Lake Archaeological Site, is a prehistoric camp consisting of about 24 small

isolated loci scattered over an area measuring 400 by 1,200 feet on the east side of Mosquito Lake. The

site includes a variety of lithic materials representing Denbigh and probably later occupations;

radiocarbon dates indicate that the site was occupied about 600 to 500 BC, a late date for a Denbigh site.

The Mosquito Lake and Atigun I Sites are two of several sites that comprise the proposed Atigun

Archaeological District (PSM-00204; Table E-1), which is considered significant for its association with

the Kavik Phase (AD 1500–1800), a late prehistoric complex that most archaeologists attribute to the

ancestors of modern Athapaskans (AHRS Card accessed Oct 17, 2014). A National Register nomination

form was prepared for the district, but it has not yet been formally evaluated, and the sites associated with

the district are currently listed in the AHRS files as “Nomination Closed.”

One other noteworthy site is the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field Discovery Well site (XBP-00056), located

adjacent to the GTP facility (Wooley, 1999). This NRHP listed site is the location where explorers from

the Atlantic Richfield Corporation and Humble Oil Company made a major oil discovery in 1968. The

discovery of the largest oil field in the United States “…brought unexpected and almost unimaginable

prosperity to the financially strapped new State of Alaska” (Wooley, 1999:13). Efforts to exploit these

newfound oil deposits led to a wave of activity on the North Slope, including construction of the Hickel

Highway and later the Dalton Highway to transport equipment and other materials to the oil fields. The

discovery altered the Inupiat people’s use of the land in the Prudhoe Bay area and the employment and

tax base funded basic village infrastructure. TAPS was completed in 1977 to efficiently deliver the oil to

the port of Valdez for shipment to refineries.

The Ch’u’itnu Archaeological District (TYO-00132) is located approximately 1 mile south of the

proposed Mainline corridor. The district contains 48 rectangular house pits that are grouped into 16

clusters that may represent concurrent or sequential occupations (AHRS 2016). The smaller depressions

attached to the house pits are interpreted as side rooms or steam baths. More than 277 smaller cache pits

are located near the house pits. The district was considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under

Criterion A because it clearly conveys its significance as a place that represents the broad patterns of

history regarding the uninterrupted use, from pre-contact times to the present, of salmon subsistence not

merely as a dietary supplement, but as an integral part of contemporary Tyonek culture. The district also

was “considered eligible under Criterion D for its potential to expand knowledge of Dena’ina seasonal

winter residences for the historic and prehistoric periods” (AHRS 2016). According the DOE form, “the

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-28

concentration of undisturbed house pits and number of associated food processing and storage pits

exceeds that of most known Dena’ina winter residential sites” (AHRS Card accessed February 9, 2016).

4.5.2 Results of Surveys within the Preliminary APE

To date, 207 cultural sites and three paleontological sites have been recorded within the direct APE for

the Project (Table 4.5-1; Appendix E, Tables E-2 and E-3). Two previously identified cultural sites were

not relocated in the APE during the survey; it is likely that these sites were misplotted in the AHRS data.

Of the sites identified within the direct APE, 128 are classified as prehistoric sites, 63 date from the

historic or modern periods, 4 have both prehistoric and historic components, and 2 others date from the

protohistoric and prehistoric/historic periods. Ten additional sites did not have sufficient data for

classification by temporal period. The eligibility for listing in the NRHP has been assessed for more than

half of the sites. About 30 percent of the sites are recommended or determined eligible for listing on the

NRHP. Fifty-four sites are recorded as eligible and nine more are treated as eligible for listing in the

NRHP. The prehistoric sites include isolated lithic finds, lithic scatters, artifact scatters, house pits, cache

pits, and camp sites. Historic sites include domestic refuse scatters, house sites, camp sites, trails, a road,

a tunnel, mine sites, and other historic or modern cultural materials. Numerous segments of the Dalton

Highway, which parallels the proposed Project centerline between Prudhoe to Livengood, are treated as

eligible for the NRHP under the terms of a Programmatic Agreement with the Federal Highway

Administration. In addition, two other roads and several trails cross the proposed centerline of the

Project; the eligibility of these other transportation features has not been evaluated (Appendix E, Table E-

2).

Table E-2 in Appendix E indicates the distribution of the identified sites within each of the eight spreads.

Twelve sites were identified in the surveyed portions of the Liquefaction Facility near Nikiski. Most of

the sites are located along the Mainline. The distribution is weighted to the northern portion of the

Mainline partially because there are more gaps in the survey in this section of the route but may also

relate to the type and duration of settlement in these regions. No sites were recorded within the GTP or

PTTL pipeline route.

TABLE 4-5-1

Cultural Resources Identified in the Direct APE by Project Component and NRHP Status*

Project Component Eligible Treat as eligible

Avoid Phase I Phase II Ineligible Grand Total

LIQUEFACTION FACILITY 1 - - ** - 11 12

LNG Facility 1 - - - - 11 12

Marine Terminal - - - ** - - **

MAINLINE - TERRESTRIAL 50 7 0 3 55 36 150

Prudhoe Bay to Atigun Pass 9 3 - 3 13 7 35

Atigun Pass to Yukon River 9 4 - - 12 6 31

Yukon River to Livengood 6 - - 1 3 5 16

Livengood to Healy 9 - - 1 12 10 32

Healy to Trapper Creek 2 - - - 2 6 10

Trapper Creek to Cook Inlet 7 - - - 6 1 14

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-29

TABLE 4-5-1




Cook Inlet to Nikiski 9 - - - 5 - 14

MAINLINE - MARINE - - - ** - - **

Cook Inlet Crossing - - - ** - - **

MAINLINE FACILITIES 17 18 1 8 19 22 85

Access Roads 8 8 - 2 6 3 27

ATWS 18 6 - 2 9 2 37

Material Sites 8 0 - 2 1 3 14

Camps 1 1 - - 1 1 4

Compressor Stations - 1 - - 1 - 2

MLBV - - - - - - 0

Meter Station - - - - - - 0

Pipe Storage Yards 1 1 - - - - 2

Railroad Spurs - - - - - - 0

Railroad Workpads - - - - - - 0

PTTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PTTL ATWS - - - - - - 0

PTTL Camp - - - - - - 0

PTTL East Pad - - - - - - 0

PTTL Helipad - - - - - - 0

PTTL MLBV - - - - - - 0

PTTL Meter Station - - - - - - 0

PTTL Pipe Storage Yards - - - - - - 0

PTTL ROW - - - - - - 0

GTP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GTP Access Roads - - - - - - 0

GTP Camp - - - - - - 0

GTP West Dock - - - - - - 0

GTP Material Site - - - - - - 0

GTP Module Staging Area - - - - - - 0

GTP Pad - - - - - - 0

GTP ROW - - - - - - 0

GTP Reservoir - - - - - - 0

GRAND TOTAL 68 25 1 10 74 69 247

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-30

TABLE 4-5-1




Notes:

Large linear sites such as trails and highways may have more than one AHRS number (i.e., Dalton Highway).

Paleontological sites with AHRS numbers are not included in these counts since they are not cultural resources.

Totals reflect the number of AHRS sites for each Project component; because sites may be located in more than one Project component footprint, the totals reflect the actual number of sites regardless of how many facilities it intersects.

* The NRHP status of many sites is a recommendation rather than a DOE (although OHA/SHPO has provided comments on 94 sites, BLM or FERC have not provided comments on the recommendations of the cultural resource consultant).

** Acoustic targets identified in remote sensing data identified as anthropogenic in origin however data was insufficient to determine whether they may be cultural resources that should be considered for eligibility to the NRHP

Twelve cultural resources were identified within the areas surveyed for the Liquefaction Facility at

Nikiski (URS/AECOM, 2014, 2015). Of these sites, one dates from the prehistoric period, one has both

prehistoric and historic components, and eight date from the historic or modern period. The sites with

prehistoric components are characterized by pit features, whereas the historic/modern sites are the

remains of mid-20th century domestic and industrial activity. Only one site (KEN-00656) was

recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP. The remaining sites were determined ineligible for

listing in the NRHP.

Site KEN-00656 consists of four house pit depressions and about 11 cache pit depressions in two clusters

on a flat terrace overlooking a wetland and a small unnamed lake. Both rectangular and circular house

depressions are present. Although four pit depressions were tested, no artifacts, faunal materials, birch

bark, or other cultural materials were recovered.

Review of remote sensing data from the Marine Terminal and approach channel identified 12 sonar

targets and 77 magnetic anomalies (Rogers 2016). Three of the 12 sonar targets (Sonar Targets 1, 2, 3)

were coincident with weak magnetic anomalies (<30 gammas) and three larger sonar targets (Sonar

Targets 5, 7, 8) likely represent objects lost or dropped from the existing dock structure. Target number 5

is a rectangular object measuring approximately 6.5 by 23 feet (1.98 by 7 meters) flush with the seafloor.

Target number 7 is a rectangular object measuring approximately 9 by 31 feet (2.7 by 9.4 meters) with

ladder-like form. Target number 8 is a linear object measuring approximately 3.5 by 38 feet (1.1 by 11.6

meters) and probably represents a section of pipe or cable. The remaining targets were considered likely

geologic features such as boulders or outcrops. Forty of the 77 magnetic anomalies had high amplitudes.

The analysts noted that the surveyors indicated that operating conditions produced rather noisy profile

data but considered them to be legitimate anomalies. Anecdotal evidence suggests that at least some of

the anomalies may be related to fishing practices on the coast where seaward gill-net ends are often

secured to the seabed with steel anchors. Other anomaly clusters are clearly associated with existing piers

and berthing facilities.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-31

The submerged cultural resources report indicated that the existing data indicates that Sonar Targets 5, 7,

and 8 are located next to existing dock facilities north of the proposed Marine Terminal and were most

certainly anthropogenic in origin. The marine report implies that these targets are modern in origin and

unlikely to be considered eligible for the NRHP. The report also notes that although none of the magnetic

anomalies were coincident with sonar targets, the anomalies probably represent materials that are buried

in sediment and should be investigated further prior to Project-related ground-disturbing activities in the

vicinity of these anomalies. Most of the anomalies are located adjacent to existing dock facilities north of

the proposed Marine Terminal area. The two magnetic targets mapped in the Terminal area are located

along the shoreline northeast of the Project footprint. Further investigation of these targets and anomalies

with appropriate techniques is recommended if it appears that final routing and Project design would

result in ground-disturbing impacts in these locations (Rogers 2016).

The Project plans to locate the Marine Terminal and facilities (MOF, MOF dredge, shoreline protection,

etc.) adjacent to the planned onshore LNG Plant and south of the of the existing dock facilities. All of the

sonar targets and most of the magnetic anomalies are located outside of the facility locations and are

unlikely to be directly affected by construction of these facilities. Further investigation of some of the

targets/anomalies may be necessary should Project plans change, or anchor plans might result in ground-

disturbing impacts in these locations.

A total of 35 cultural resources were identified along the pipeline corridor between Prudhoe Bay and

Atigun Pass. Thirty-one of these resources are prehistoric and four are historic or historic/modern. One

AHRS site is paleontological and is not counted among the cultural resources. These sites include nine

archaeological sites that are eligible or recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP and three

properties that are treated as eligible for the NRHP. Eight of the remaining sites were determined or

recommended ineligible for NRHP listing and 13 sites are recommended for Phase II evaluation. Two

other sites require additional Phase I investigation to evaluate their eligibility for the NRHP.

Ten prehistoric sites in the Prudhoe Bay to Atigun Pass spread were determined or recommended eligible

for listing in the NRHP. Most of these sites (PSM-00049, PSM-00501, PSM-00572, PSM-00573, PSM-

00578, and PSM-00604) consist of scatters of lithic artifacts, occasionally with animal bone (PSM-00075,

PSM-00192). Two sites (PSM-00075 and PSM-00076) may be campsites because evidence of cooking in

the form of fire-cracked rock also was found. Two of the sites are part of the Atigun Archaeological

District (PSM-00204), a collection of sites in the vicinity of Galbraith Lake that are associated with the

late prehistoric Kavik groups believed to be the ancestors of the modern northern Athapaskan people

(Proue, 2016a). The concentration of sites recorded in the Galbraith Lake and Atigun River area include

several lookout and camp sites with integrity and research potential.

The Project would cross two highways that were constructed to facilitate trucking access to the Prudhoe

Bay oil discovery in the late 1960s (Greiser, 2013a). The Project APE intersects the Hickel Highway

(SAG-00098, BET-00201) several times in the two northernmost spreads. The highway was a winter trail

that was constructed in the winter of 1968 from Stevens Village (north of Livengood) to Sagwon (south

of Deadhorse). The 550-mile highway was constructed in just over 100 days; even though it was quickly

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-32

abandoned in favor of the Dalton Highway, the profound changes to the region initiated by the

construction of the road accelerated in the decades that followed.

The 415-mile-long Dalton Highway (SAG-00097, PSM-00570, XBP-00114, BET-00200, CHN-00070,

LIV-00501, TAN-00118, and WIS-00408) extends from the Elliott Highway at Livengood to Prudhoe

Bay and is crossed numerous times by the Mainline and a large number of the related facilities. The

Dalton Highway was constructed during the early 1970s as a more permanent trucking route to the North

Slope. Both the Hickel Highway and the Dalton Highway are treated as eligible for listing in the NRHP

by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF), a status that requires that

projects must evaluate the portion of the resource that may be impacted by an undertaking (ADOT&PF,

2012).

A total of 31 cultural resources are recorded within the APE for the pipeline corridor between Atigun Pass

and the Yukon River. Twenty of the sites date from the prehistoric or protohistoric period, 10 are

historic, and one is historic/modern in age. Nine of the resources are eligible or recommended eligible for

listing in the NRHP, and four are treated as eligible. Of the remaining sites, six were determined or

recommended ineligible for NRHP listing and 12 were recommended for Phase II evaluation.

The resources determined, recommended, or treated as eligible for the NRHP include five prehistoric

lithic scatters, one prehistoric site with stone and bone tools, one prehistoric site with bone tools (BET-

00074), as well as several listings for the Dalton Highway (CHN-00070, WIS-00408, BET-00200, LIV-

00501) and mining-related sites dating from the early and mid-20th century (CHN-00025 and CHN-

0018).

The NRHP-eligible lithic scatter sites all exhibit intact and well-preserved subsurface deposits that

contain artifacts that suggest the site has the potential to yield significant information about prehistoric

activities in the area. Minimal testing conducted during the survey and Phase II evaluation, at the behest

of the BLM, resulted in the recovery of few chronologically diagnostic artifacts from some of these sites,

even though the evidence from the site indicated that they may be present (Proue et al., 2016e).

CHN-00025 is a historic trash scatter adjacent to Gold Creek dating from ca. 1899–1918 during the gold

rush period in the Koyukuk Historic Mining District. The site was determined eligible for the NRHP

under Criteria A and D for its association with the historic mining district and its potential to yield

information as a contributing element to the Koyukuk Historic Mining District (WIS-00386) (Proue et al.,

2016c).

CHN-0018 is a shelter camp occupied by Ross Brockman, a prominent resident of Wiseman and the

Upper Koyukuk region who moved there shortly after WWII to pursue gold prospecting and the remote

subsistence lifestyle. The site consists of a small shelter, a small stack of firewood, some poles leaned

against a tree, and associated artifacts. The structure and associated artifacts represent a unique post-

WWII period site type that may only exist at the local Koyukuk River region and was determined eligible

for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D (Proue et al., 2016e).

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-33

South of the Yukon River, 16 cultural resources and one paleontological site were identified within the

pipeline corridor. Eleven of the resources are prehistoric, three are historic, and two are undetermined.

Six of the resources are eligible or recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP and three sites are

recommended for Phase II evaluation. A majority of the resources are prehistoric sites that were

temporary hunting or resource procurement camps, or lithic extraction and processing sites. All three

historic resources are trails and roads. These trail and road features include the Elliott Highway

(LIV00752), the Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Trail (LIV-00556), and the Livengood Tram Road (LIV-

00392). The Elliott Highway was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP in 2015, the Dunbar-

Brooks Terminal Trail was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, and Phase I survey is

recommended for the Livengood Tram Road (LIV-00392) (Proue et al., 2016c).

Several archaeological sites (LIV00055, LIV-00104, LIV-00047, LIV-00284, LIV-00402) associated

with the Rosebud Knob Archaeological District were identified south of Livengood. That district (LIV-

00284) consists of a dense concentration of prehistoric archaeological sites associated with exposed layers

of chert, which were extracted and used in tool manufacture. The sites range from lookouts and flaking

stations to complex, multi-component camps. Archaeological testing and/or excavation was completed at

many of the Rosebud Knob Archaeological District sites, and most of the sites are considered eligible for

listing on the NRHP for their ability to contribute to an understanding of land and resource use by Interior

aboriginal peoples. The Rosebud Knob Archaeological District was determined eligible for listing in the

NRHP in March 2015.

The Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Trail (Alaska Railroad Corporation [ARRC] Route 63) (LIV-00556, FAI-

02102) was constructed by locals in 1915–1916 connecting the Happy Creek Station on the Alaska

Railroad to Livengood via Moose Creek Summit and Minto Flats. The trail was recommended eligible

for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A at the local level for its association with the ARRC road system

development and its association with transportation of people and goods for gold mining in the Livengood

area of the Tolovana Mining District. The trail's character defining feature is that it is a simple, single-

lane sled and wagon trail with minimal developed grade, often only distinguished by a cleared brush trail

through the lowland spruce/birch forest. The portion of the trail crossed by the Project retains essential

features to convey its historic significance and the integrity necessary to be eligible for listing in the

NRHP.

A total of 32 cultural resources were identified within the Mainline corridor between Livengood and

Healy. Seventeen of the cultural resources along this segment of the Mainline are prehistoric, 12

resources are historic, 1 resource contains both prehistoric and historic components, 1 is modern, and 1 is

of undetermined age. Nine of these resources are eligible or recommended eligible for listing in the

NRHP. Twelve resources are recommended for Phase II evaluation, 10 are ineligible for the NRHP, 1

site requires additional Phase I investigation, and 1 site was not relocated. The nine resources eligible for

the NRHP include four prehistoric lithic scatters (LIV-00748, LIV-00749, LIV-00776, HEA-595), a

multi-component site with a prehistoric Athapaskan component and an early 20th century historic

component (HEA-00062), and four trails or highways.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-34

LIV-000748 is a lithic scatter with a diverse assemblage that includes microblades that may be indicative

of a Holocene or late Pleistocene period occupation focused on subsistence activities. LIV-00749 is one

of the few archaeological sites located on the Minto Flats and contains artifacts like a grooved manuport

and possible red ochre that indicate a varied activity set. LIV-00776 is a lithic scatter identified during

subsurface testing at exposed granite outcrop on ridge system between the Tolovana and Tatlina rivers.

HEA-595 is a multi-component prehistoric site with a lower component dating from the Early to Middle

Archaic period with debitage and an ungulate tooth, and an upper component marked by debitage that

was probably occupied a few thousand years later (Proue et al., 2016c, 2016d). Site HEA-00062 is a

multi-component site with a prehistoric Athapaskan (AD 1495–1687) camp site with a large

concentration of fire-cracked rock and calcined bone, and a historic component that was apparently

associated with construction of the Alaska Railroad during the 1920s.

The Dunbar-Minto-Tolovana Trail (FAI-02177) was a 121-mile-long sled road from 1910 to 1935 and

was used to transport goods and people between Dunbar and Tolovana. The trail connected the Dunbar

Railroad Station with many small communities and was instrumental in the 1925 serum run from Nenana

to Nome, a significant event in the history of Alaska. The Nenana-Knights Roadhouse Trail (also known

as the Nenana-Kantishna Trail) (FAI-02366) was cut in 1920 and formed an important transportation

route between the Kantishna Mining District and the railroad at Nenana. The trail was the primary route

to the mining district from Fairbanks. The proposed Mainline would also cross the Dunbar Brooks

Terminal Trail (LIV-00556, FAI-02102) in three additional locations on the Livengood to Healy

construction spread. The rise of aviation in the 1930s led to the decline of this and other trails throughout

the state. The trail’s character-defining features are distinguished by a cleared brush trail through the

lowland spruce/birch forest (Proue et al., 2016c).

The 135-mile-long Denali Highway (HEA-00450) extends from the Richardson Highway at Paxson west

to Cantwell Road at the George Parks Highway. The road is currently treated as eligible for the NRHP by

the ADOT&PF, a status that requires that projects must evaluate the portion of the resource that may be

impacted by an undertaking (ADOT&PF, 2012). The highway would be crossed multiple times by

various components of the Project, including the pipeline at MP 566.22 and access roads near MP 566.17,

MP 566.25, and MP 566.52. A desktop DOE recommended that these portions of the Denali Highway

were eligible for the NRHP (Proue et al., 2016c).

The 10 cultural resources identified within the Mainline APE between Healy and Trapper Creek include

two prehistoric/protohistoric, two historic, two historic/modern, two modern, and two of undetermined

age. Two of the sites are recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP and Phase II evaluation is

recommended at two other sites; the remaining six sites are determined or recommended ineligible for

NRHP listing. One eligible site is a subsurface lithic scatter (TLM-00327), and is characterized by fine

silts that may derive from tephra from a Hayes volcano eruption event that may date from 3,500 to 3,800

years ago. Although limited Phase II testing at the site yielded only a few pieces of debitage, the integrity

and research potential of this site led researchers to recommend that the site is eligible for listing in the

NRHP (Proue et al., 2016c). The other eligible site (TAL-00180) is a historic period domestic site located

on the eastern bank of the Chulitna River. The site consists of several historic features and artifacts

including a semi-subterranean structure with associated borrow pits and artifact assemblage dating to the

mid-20th century. Phase II investigations indicated that these features are largely intact and although the

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-35

ethnicity of its occupants could not be distinguished, the site has the potential to yield information

valuable in addressing a variety of research questions. OHA/SHPO concurred that the site is eligible for

the NRHP under Criterion D.

The 14 cultural resources identified along the pipeline corridor between Trapper Creek and Cook Inlet

include seven sites that date from the prehistoric/protohistoric period, four sites from the historic period,

and three sites of undetermined age. Two of the prehistoric sites, four of the historic sites, and one

undetermined age site are eligible or recommended eligible for the NRHP. Another five prehistoric sites

and one undetermined age site require Phase II evaluation to assess their NRHP statuses. One of the

undetermined sites is ineligible for listing in the NRHP.

Nearly all of the sites attributed to the prehistoric and undefined periods appear to represent pit houses

and/or cache pits, which are most concentrated in the Deshka River-Alexander Creek area. Site TYO-

00320 consists of a single rectangular semi-subterranean house pit depression with antechamber and

formal entryway, along with four associated cache pits. The site was recommended eligible under

Criterion A for reflecting broad patterns of Dena’ina subsistence patterns and culture and under Criterion

D for the archaeological features and probable archaeological materials that have the potential to shed

light on Dena’ina habitation site selection (Proue et al., 2016c). Sites TYO-00337 and TYO-00338, also

located in the area exhibit similar features and are also considered eligible for listing in the NRHP even

though they are not yet formally evaluated (Proue et al., 2016a). Site TYO-00337 consists of several

surface depressions including two small square house pits, nine small circular pit features (likely cache

pits), and one indeterminate square pit with a circular pit attached. The smaller depressions are clustered

around both house pit features, creating two distinct concentrations. Site TYO-00338 is a habitation site

consisting of a large house pit depression, two small cache pits, and a possible double-celled cache pit.

Four of the five sites recommended for Phase II evaluation are characterized by surface features similar to

other Deshka River area sites, many of which are eligible for listing in the NRHP. These include sites

with depressions that look like cache pits (TYO-00350), ovoid features and a possible hearth (TYO-

00341), five circular or oval depressions (TYO-00348), and ovoid surface expressions with charcoal

(TYO-00340). The last site (TYO-00343) recommended for Phase II evaluation is a subsurface lithic

scatter (Proue et al., 2016a).

Site TAL-00181 is a historic log cabin with associated features and artifacts dating from 1920 to 1940.

According to a local historian, the cabin was constructed by Oliver and Noah Rabideaux in the early

1920s as a trapping cabin shelter and was used by other area trappers following their deaths in 1932 and

1936. The setting, construction features, and style are consistent with cabins constructed by the

Rabideaux brothers. The cabin and associated archaeological materials were determined eligible for

listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for their association with the earliest Euroamerican settlement in

the Trapper Creek area and under Criterion D for the research potential of the archaeological assemblage

that remains (Proue et al., 2016d).

Two trails associated with the Iditarod National Historic Trail system are crossed by the proposed

pipeline. The Knik-Rainy Pass Trail (TYO-00084) is currently mapped in the AHRS on the east side of

the Susitna River, but cultural resource surveys conducted in 2014 recorded a portion of the trail crossing

the Mainline corridor at MP 725.19 (Greiser et al., 2014). The Susitna River-Old Skwentna Connecting

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-36

Trail (TYO-00086) was identified at MP 720.57 (Greiser et al. 2014). Both of these trails were

determined eligible for the NRHP as part of the Iditarod National Historic Trail system that includes

resources from Seward to Nome (BLM, 1986; Proue, 2016a).

A third trail, the USGS Base Winter Trail 1 (TYO-00228), is crossed by the proposed pipeline at MP

702.13 in the Big Lake community area. Portions of this trail were recognized as eligible for the NRHP

due to its association with the recent listing of the Iditarod Dog Sledding Historic District/Historic

Vernacular Landscape (ANC-03326/TYO-00203) (Braund, 2009). The OHA/SHPO concurred with the

desktop determination of eligibility study’s recommendation that the portion of the trail crossed by the

Project is eligible for the NRHP (Proue, 2016a).

All 14 of the cultural resources identified on the Kenai Peninsula between Cook Inlet and the

Liquefaction Facility near Nikiski are prehistoric or of undetermined age. All nine of the sites that are

recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP have depressions indicative of pit houses and/or cache

pits. The remaining five sites are lithic scatters with indications of subsurface deposits that warrant

additional Phase II evaluation to assess their eligibility for listing in the NRHP (Proue et al., 2016a).

A cluster of seven sites on the north shore of the Kenai Peninsula all exhibit surface depressions

indicative of pit houses and/or cache pits. Although all of the sites include depressions characterized as

pit houses, some are circular (KEN-00681, KEN-00680), others are rectangular (KEN-00685, KEN-

00686, KEN-00682, KEN-00601), and some are ill-defined (KEN-00683, KEN-00684). Although no

subsurface testing was conducted at these sites during the cultural resources survey, the similarity to other

pit house sites in the region led researchers to conclude that these sites are eligible for listing in the NRHP

(Proue et al., 2016a).

An eighth pit house site is located a short distance from the group of sites on the shores of Cook Inlet.

Site KEN-00601 is a large prehistoric and historic period site that consists of three rectangular depression

features that could either be remains of prehistoric house pits or remains of earthen foundations for a log

or timber frame structure; a stovepipe fragment was recovered from one of these features, but no other

structural evidence could be located. In addition to the pit features, approximately 15 possible cache pits

were also present (Proue et al., 2016a). A pedestrian reconnaissance survey in 2015 located two

additional house pit features and 11 cache pits extending north and east of the previously recorded

boundaries. The evidence suggests the remains are of a Dena’ina habitation that could either date to

historic or prehistoric/protohistoric time periods, and was therefore determined eligible for the NRHP

under Criterion D.

A review of historic and database inventory records, geophysical remote-sensing data, and geotechnical

sample materials collected for the Project engineering indicated that although there was little potential for

submerged prehistoric cultural resources, historic period resources may be present (Rogers 2016).

Database records in the BOEM/MMS Shipwreck Database indicate the potential for shipwrecks in the

portion of Cook Inlet crossed by the proposed pipeline but is of limited value in identifying wrecks within

the APE because the locations are based on reported shipwreck positions that are often described only in

terms of general landmarks in historical literature and have not been ground-truthed. Information

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-37

included in the AWOIS database does not contain the full record of information that may be of interest to

this Project because it is a compilation of data on wrecks and obstructions that may pose a hazard to

surface navigation. Finally, the AHRS inventory was consulted and it was determined that there are no

records of known shipwrecks located in the study area.

Remote sensing data and geophysical samples collected to identify and characterized seafloor features

and hydrographic conditions was reviewed for cultural and anthropogenic potential. Data from single-

and multibeam bathymetry, side-scan solar imagery, magnetometry, and chirp and boomer sub-bottom

profiles were examined. Side-scan targets were regular or symmetrical shape of size, or patterns of

clustering or regular placement were identified as most likely of anthropogenic origin. Magnetometer

anomalies with high signal strength also were noted. The study examined data along two marine routes

across Cook Inlet but only the western Optional Route (Route 2) is currently under consideration. The

area examined along Route 2 (Western Route) encompassed an area measuring 2,066 feet (630 meters)

wide and approximately 27 miles (43 kilometers) long (Rogers 2016).

Two of 14 sonar targets identified in geophysical data collected in study area exhibit regular or

symmetrical size and shape and are potentially of anthropogenic origin. Sonar Target 2 is a rectangular

object measuring approximately 8.5 by 12.1 feet (2.6 by 3.7 meters) standing 6.6 feet (2 meters) above the

sea floor. Sonar Target 7 is a wedge-shaped symmetrical object measuring 17.7 by 29.2 feet (5.4 by 8.9

meters) with virtually no relief above the seafloor. Only two of the 22 magnetic anomalies identified had

high signal strength, with peak-to-peak amplitudes exceeding 500 gammas. None of the magnetic

anomalies were coincident with sonar targets.

The submerged cultural resources report indicated that although the existing data indicates that Sonar

Targets 2 and 7 were most certainly anthropogenic in origin, they do not provide sufficient information to

determine whether they may be resources that should be considered of eligibility to the NRHP. The

report also notes that although none of the magnetic anomalies were coincident with sonar targets, they

probably represent materials that are buried in sediment and should be investigated further prior to

Project-related ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of these anomalies. Further investigation of

these targets and anomalies is recommended if it appears that final routing and Project design would

result in ground-disturbing impacts in these locations (Rogers 2016).

4.5.3 Sites Located within Mainline Associated Infrastructure

Cultural resources identified within the areas proposed for Mainline compressor stations, extra

workspaces, storage yards, construction camp sites, access roads, and other facilities are summarized in

Table 4-5-1 and are listed in Table E-3. A total of 79 AHRS sites are located within the direct APE for

the facilities where cultural resource investigations were conducted. Like the Mainline sites, lithic

scatters predominate in the north while pit house and cache pit depressions are more common in the

south. Linear transportation sites including trails and highways are often recorded under multiple AHRS

numbers and would be intersected multiple times by the Project.

A total of two cultural resources were identified within the areas surveyed for pipe storage yards. One of

these resources are prehistoric and one is historic. The historic site is treated as eligible for the NRHP and

the prehistoric sites was determined eligible by OHA/SHPO. The prehistoric resource eligible for the

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-38

NRHP (LIV-00284) is one of at least 17 sites associated with the Rosebud Knob Archaeological District.

The historic site (LIV-00501) is a portion of the Dalton Highway, a site treated as eligible for listing in

the NRHP by ADOT&PF, which is a status that requires that projects evaluate the portion of the resource

that may be impacted by an undertaking.

Two cultural resources were identified within the areas surveyed for the Ray River Compressor Station,

one of which is historic and the other prehistoric. The prehistoric resource (BET-00252) is a surface lithic

scatter and is recommended for Phase II evaluation. The historic site (BET-00200) is a portion of the

Dalton Highway, a site treated as eligible for listing in the NRHP by ADOT&PF, which is a status that

requires that projects must evaluate the portion of the resource that may be impacted by an undertaking.

A total of four cultural resources were identified within the areas surveyed for camps, one of which is

prehistoric and the remaining three historic. The prehistoric site has been determined eligible by

OHA/SHPO, one of the historic sites is treated as eligible for the NRHP, one historic site is recommended

for avoidance, and the final site was determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP by OHA/SHPO.

The prehistoric resource (LIV-00284) is one of at least 17 sites associated with the Rosebud Knob

Archaeological District. The Dalton Highway (BET-00200) is treated as eligible for listing in the NRHP

by ADOT&PF, a status that requires that projects evaluate the portion of the resource that may be

impacted by an undertaking. Site HEA-00292 is the historic burial site of Frank Secondchief’s mother,

Fanny; while no determination has been made for inclusion in the NRHP, avoidance of this cultural

resource has been recommended.

Thirty-seven cultural resources were identified within ATWS areas. Fourteen of these sites are historic,

19 are prehistoric, 1 has both prehistoric and historic components, and 3 are of undetermined age.

Eighteen of the sites are eligible or recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP and another 6 are

treated as eligible for listing. Nine sites were recommended for Phase II evaluation and one site was

recommended for additional Phase I investigation. The remaining three sites were determined or

recommended ineligible for the NRHP. One paleontological site (LIV-00170) was assigned an AHRS

number but is not cultural in origin.

The sites determined or recommended eligible for the NRHP include 10 prehistoric, 6 historic, 1

prehistoric and historic, and 1 site of undetermined age. Several of the sites, including PSM-000578,

LIV-00284, LIV-00553, LIV-00749, and HEA-00595 consist of prehistoric lithic scatters with intact

subsurface deposits. The most extensive of these sites is the Rosebud Knob Archaeological District (LIV-

00284), which consists of a cluster of sites associated with exposed chert used for stone tool manufacture.

Site BET-00074 is a prehistoric site consisting of three loci containing bone tools. Four other sites are

characterized by surface depressions consistent with pit houses and cache pits located in the vicinity of

the Deshka River (TYO-00338) and Cook Inlet on the Kenai Peninsula (KEN-00682, KEN-00685, KEN-

00686). A fifth pit house site of undetermined age is located on a terrace east of Alexander Creek (TYO-

00326). The site is characterized by a very large concentration of pit house and cache pits.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-39

The historic period sites include a domestic sites including a can scatter (CHN-00025), an early 20th-

century log cabin (TAL-00181), and transportation routes such as the Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Trail

(FAI-02102), the Denali Highway (HEA-00450), the Knik-Rainy Pass Trail (TYO-00084), and a

connecting trail to the Iditarod Historic Trail (TYO-00086).

CHN-00025 is a widely spread historic can scatter originally located in 2001 and verified in 2010, which

consists of cans with manufacturing features before the 1920s, one of which was identified as a Lipton

Tea canister dating between 1900 and 1930. Also noted to the east of the Lipton Tea can was an axe-

hewn post that may have been a mining claim post from more recent activities. A survey in 2011

recovered terrestrial animal bone in a shovel test located just below the root mat. The site is

recommended eligible under Criterion A for its association with the boom period of mining and resource

development of the Koyukuk Historic Mining District, and is also eligible under Criterion D for its

potential to yield further information from intact surface and subsurface deposits.

Site HEA-00062 is a multi-component site with a prehistoric Athapaskan (AD 1495-1687) camp site with

a historic component that was apparently associated with construction of the Alaska Railroad during the

1920s.

A total of 16 cultural resources were identified within the areas surveyed for material sites. Nine of the

cultural resources are historic, 6 are prehistoric, and 1 has both historic and prehistoric components. Four

of these resources were eligible or recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. Three resources were

recommended Phase II evaluation, and two resources were recommended additional Phase I investigation.

Finally, three resources were determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The four resources

eligible for the NRHP include three linear historic transportation features (LIV-00556, FAI-02102, LIV-

00764) and a multi-component site featuring three rectangular depression features and approximately 15

cache pits (KEN-00601). KEN-00601 is discussed in detail in Section 4.5.3.4 (ATWS). Four material

sites intercept the Dalton Highway (PSM-00570, CHN-00070, WIS-00408, BET-00200), a cultural

resource that is treated as eligible for listing in the NRHP by ADOT&PF, a status that requires that

projects evaluate the portion of the resource that may be impacted by an undertaking.

The Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Trail (LIV-00556, FAI-02102) is crossed a total of three times within

Borrow areas, and has been described in detail within the Mainline section of this report. The Elliott

Highway (LIV-00764) is crossed one time, and although a large portion of the highway has been altered

sufficiently to not retain its integrity, this portion was bypassed by later alteration and therefore does

retain its integrity under Criterion A and was determined eligible.

A total of 28 cultural resources were identified within the areas surveyed for access roads. Eighteen of

the cultural resources are historic, nine are prehistoric, and one resource is modern; two other resources

are paleontological and do not constitute cultural resources. Eight of these resources are eligible or

recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP and another eight are treated as eligible by OHA/SHPO.

Six resources were recommended Phase II evaluation, and one was recommended Phase I evaluation.

Four resources were determined ineligible for the NRHP. The nine resources eligible for the NRHP

include one site (LIV-00284) associated with the Rosebud Knob Archaeological District, two lithic

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-40

scatters (PSM-00578, LIV-00748), an Alaska Railroad station (HEA-00066), and three trails and two

highways.

Site PSM-00578 is described in the discussion of sites in the Material Sites. LIV-00748 is an isolated,

subsurface lithic find of one quartz flake recovered from a depth of 5 to 8 centimeters discovered in 2014.

A Phase II survey in 2015 expanded the survey area, recovering a further 26 artifacts from the site,

including a biface fragment, three microblades, 13 flakes, and 10 flake fragments. The biface material

was obsidian, which was sourced to an area roughly 270 kilometers (167.5 miles) north of the site. Based

on its potential to yield further information on site use, subsistence patterns, and lithic organization along

the upland ridges east of the Minto Flats, the site was determined eligible under Criterion D.

Site HEA-00066 was a water and coal Alaska Railroad station called the Broad Pass railroad section

facility. The station and more than 20 associated structures were built between 1918 and the 1970s.

While survey of the site in 2005 discovered that the station and associated buildings had been removed,

numerous historic artifacts associated with railway activity were recovered nearby, and the site was

ultimately determined eligible by SHPO under Criterion A.

The three trails crossed by access roads include the Dunbar-Brooks Terminal Trail (LIV-00556) crossed

one time, the Dunbar-Minto-Tolovana Trail (FAI-02177) crossed one time, and the Susitna River-Old

Skwentna Connecting Trail (TYO-00086) also crossed one time. The Denali Highway (HEA-00450) is

crossed a total of three times, and the Dalton Highway (XBP-00114, SAG-00097, PSM-00570, CHN-

00070, WIS-00408, BET-00200, LIV-00501) is crossed by access roads a total of 233 times. All of these

resources are described in detail in the Mainline section of this report.

4.5.4 Non-Jurisdictional Facilities

Non-jurisdictional facilities identified as connected actions include the PTU Expansion Project and the

PBU MGS Project as well as relocation of the Kenai Spur Highway. Modifications to or construction of

manufacturing facilities to fabricate Project components outside of Alaska and third-party pipelines and

associated infrastructure to transport natural gas from interconnection points to markets in Alaska are not

yet known and cannot be analyzed at this time, but may be considered as part of a future analysis of

cumulative impacts in the final Environmental Report (Resource Report No. 1, Appendix M).

The PTU Expansion would include granular expansions of the existing Central and West Pads, a new

granular material mine to support infrastructure construction, and construction of a new gathering line

connecting the West Pad to the Central Pad. An East Pad, road, and a gathering line from the East Pad to

the Central Pad was previously permitted by the Initial Production System (IPS) Project. Comprehensive

cultural resource investigations were conducted for the PTU facilities to support the NEPA review

conducted for the Point Thomson Project IPS Final EIS (USACE, 2012). These surveys remain valid and

indicate that newly proposed infrastructure at Point Thomson would not affect any known cultural

resource sites. In addition, the new West Gathering Line is proposed to be installed on vertical support

members (VSMs) shared with PTTL, the route for which was surveyed by this Project in 2015. The

AHRS inventory additionally confirms that previously recorded cultural resources sites are more than

2,000 feet from proposed facilities at the PTU.

The PBU MGS Project includes: pad expansion at the CGF Pad and Skid 50 Pad; construction of new

feed gas and propane pipelines; construction of new byproduct pipelines, and drilling and tie-in of

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-41

approximately 10 new production and injection wells. Although cultural resource surveys have not been

completed for these facilities, an approximately 3.9-mile segment of the approximately 25-mile

Byproduct pipeline connecting the CGF module route to the GTP area was surveyed in 2013 for the

Project. A review of data on previously recorded cultural resources indicates that there are three sites in

the AHRS inventory within 2,000 feet of the non-jurisdictional facilities to be constructed at the PBU.

The Prudhoe Bay Oil Field Discovery Well site (XBP-00056) is located adjacent to the GTP facility and

approximately 800 feet from a non-jurisdictional connecting line. The NRHP-eligible site is discussed in

greater detail previously in Section 4.5.1. The Putuligayuk River Delta Overlook Site (XBP-00007) is

located approximately 815 feet from a PBU expansion pipeline ROW east of the GTP. The site is a

prehistoric site consisting of nine fire hearths and surface scatters of lithic debitage with artifacts from the

Arctic Small Tool tradition, Northern Archaic tradition, and Paleoarctic tradition dating from between BP

4000 and 8000 (AHRS 2016). Site XBP-00109 is located approximately 1,980 feet south of the ROW for

the Byproduct line connecting the GTP to Well Pads Z and W west of the facility. The site consists of the

remains of a hearth adjacent to a pingo.5 All three sites appear to be located outside of the APE for the

non-jurisdictional facilities to be constructed at the PBU.

Several alternate routes are under consideration for the relocation of the Kenai Spur Highway between

Kenai Spur Highway MP 18 and MP 25. These routes all move the existing highway east of the

Liquefaction Facility to be constructed for the Project. Project representatives are working with the

ADOT&PF and the Kenai Peninsula Borough to identify a route and complete environmental studies. At

present, no cultural resource investigations have been completed for the relocation of the Kenai Spur

Highway. A review of data indicates that only 1 of the 11 previously recorded sites located within 2,000

feet of the alternate routes under consideration is located outside of the Liquefaction Facility. Nine of the

10 sites located in the Liquefaction Facility areas were determined ineligible for listing on the NRHP

(KEN-00643, KEN-00644, KEN-00645, KEN-00647, KEN-00648, KEN-00649, KEN-00650, KEN-

00652, and KEN-00651). The 10th site (KEN-00656) was recommended eligible by the investigators

(URS/AECOM 2015b). The sole site located outside of the Liquefaction Facility (KEN-00011) is

described as two well-defined house depressions with extra rooms and tunnels overlooking a small lake

north of the Liquefaction Facility. Revisited in 2012, the site was found to be totally destroyed by

modern construction (AHRS 2016). Additional information on the relocation of the Kenai Spur Highway

will be provided in the FERC application.

4.6 ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY

An ethnographic analysis is underway to identify Alaska Native groups or other groups with ties to the

Project area and to identify properties of traditional, religious, or cultural importance to those

organizations, interested parties, and ethnic groups. The study will provide an ethnographic overview of

Native cultures within the North Slope, Yukon River, Tanana River, Copper River, Southcentral Alaska,

Prince William Sound, and the Kenai Peninsula. The primary cultures within these regions are the

Inupiat, Athabascan, and Sugpiat (also called Alutit). The Athabascans in the study regions are further

divided into the Koyukon, Gwich’in, Tanana, Ahtna, and Dena’ina cultural groups. The study will

describe selected ethnographic topics that characterize the Native study communities and their inhabitants

5 A pingo is a periglacial landform consisting of a mound of earth covered ice formed as a result of hydrostatic pressure on water from

permafrost.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-42

within a region, identify agents of change, and address cultural themes that have the potential to be

affected by the Project. It is anticipated that the ethnographic report will be completed in the fall of 2016.

An interim version of the ethnographic report (Braund 2015) is available in Appendix B of this report; the

complete ethnographic study will be included with the FERC application.

4.7 POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Preliminary plans indicate that the Project has potential to impact cultural resources that are eligible for

listing in the NRHP. A total of 149 cultural resources were identified within the direct APE for the

Mainline, 12 resources in the direct APE for the Liquefaction Facility, and 84 resources within the direct

APE for facilities associated with the Project. These resources were evaluated applying the National

Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]) and 53 of the cultural resources were listed,

determined eligible, or recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Another nine resources are treated as

eligible by OHA/SHPO and other Alaska state agencies. These resources are varied, including prehistoric

camps and pit house villages, historic gold rush related sites, Iditarod trails, and trails/highways built as a

result of the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay. The potential construction impacts of the Project on these

resources depend on the specific type of construction activity, as well as the features and character-

defining attributes of each resource.

FERC, in consultation with OHA/SHPO, makes an assessment of adverse effects on the identified historic

properties (listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP) based on criteria found in ACHP’s regulations. If

FERC determines that there would be an adverse effect, it would begin consultation to seek ways to

avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. An adverse effect results when an aspect of the proposed

Project would negatively affect any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify it or make it

eligible for listing in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.5). Physical destruction of a historic property or

diminishment of the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,

or association are considered an adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5; NPS, 2002).

In general, any ground-disturbing activity, including such activities as removal of the vegetative mat,

grading, trenching, earth-moving, blasting, and driving equipment across a site, may result in direct

adverse effects to cultural resources. Indirect effects on cultural resources also must be considered.

Indirect effects may result from changes in the landscape that could impact the viewshed of historic or

traditional cultural properties or by increasing access to areas with sensitive NRHP-eligible cultural

resources. Because the plans for aboveground facilities are still developing, consultation with FERC,

OHA/SHPO, and BLM to define the APE for indirect effects is ongoing.

Although the Project plans to avoid affecting NRHP-eligible resources to the extent practicable, it is

unlikely that it would be possible to avoid impacting all resources. An engineering review would be

conducted for each resource to determine which resources could be avoided and which would require

treatment or mitigation plans. A variety of treatment approaches might be applied to avoid, minimize, or

mitigate these effects. Project redesign may be an option, depending on SHPO, FERC, and/or BLM

concurrence or requirements. Should engineering treatment options be pursued, plans would be prepared

and presented in the treatment plans for the Project. Treatments for direct effects may include

construction during the winter when the ground is frozen, horizontal directional drilling, reconfiguration

of workspaces, and/or necking down the construction workspace to avoid impacts. Treatments for

indirect visual effects might include vegetative screening or sympathetic building design. Finally, if other

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-43

options are not practical, data recovery might be suitable for archaeological sites that are significant under

NRHP Criterion D for the information that they contain. Data recovery plans would be developed for

these archaeological sites. These plans would identify research questions to be addressed by

archaeological investigations at the site and specify field and laboratory methods to ensure that the

necessary data would be collected.

Once engineering studies and planning are complete, a detailed assessment of the potential Project

construction impacts would be conducted on those cultural resources that are eligible for or listed in the

NRHP. A list of potentially affected resources and treatment plans would be prepared for review and

comment by FERC, OHA/SHPO, BLM, other appropriate state and federal agencies, relevant federally

recognized Indian Tribes, and consulting parties on the Project. It is anticipated that drafts of these

documents will be prepared in 2016/7 for eligible sites identified to date that cannot be avoided. A

Memorandum of Agreement would be prepared that would outline the measures to avoid, minimize, or

mitigate adverse effects on historic properties in consultation with OHA/SHPO and others, such as

federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. If necessary, ACHP may participate

in the consultation to resolve adverse effects.

Although most cultural resources are identified through surveys conducted for the Project, it is possible

that some historic resources could escape detection and would be discovered during construction. For this

reason, the Unanticipated Discovery Plan was prepared to provide protocols for identifying cultural

resources and human remains discovered during construction, evaluating their eligibility for listing in the

NRHP, and resolving effects if necessary (see Section 4.9 and Appendix F).

4.7.1 Liquefaction Facility

The Liquefaction Facility would be a new facility constructed on the eastern shore of Cook Inlet in the

Nikiski area of the Kenai Peninsula. The facility would consist of the LNG Plant and Marine Terminal.

Only 1 of the 12 cultural resources recorded within the Liquefaction Facility is recommended eligible for

the NRHP. Site KEN-00656 is a prehistoric and historic period cluster of four house pit depressions and

11 cache pit depressions, and is located in the southern portion of the Liquefaction Facility. Additional

offshore surveys are required to address magnetic and sonar anomalies identified to date.

To date, no formal coordination or consultation has been undertaken with state or federal agencies

regarding proposed mitigation measures or treatment plans for any of the cultural resources that are listed

or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. These plans would be developed in consultation with state

and federal agencies and emphasize avoidance as the preferred treatment. If the cultural resource could

not be avoided, efforts would be made to minimize impacts to the site resulting from the Project by

measures such as matting or construction during the winter. The site-specific treatment plans would

provide information and plans on avoidance and minimizing impacts. Should it be impossible to avoid

adversely impacting a cultural resource, a detailed data recovery plan would be developed for review by

state and federal agencies, as appropriate, before submitting to FERC for final review.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-44

4.7.2 Interdependent Facilities

The Mainline would be a 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, approximately 804.3 miles in length from

the GTP on the North Slope to the Liquefaction Facility on the shore of Cook Inlet near Nikiski. A

majority of the proposed Mainline route generally follows the TAPS and adjacent highway infrastructure

corridor south to the vicinity of Livengood, Alaska, where it turns south toward the Liquefaction Facility.

Approximately 36 percent of the proposed Mainline route is collocated with existing ROWs (see

Resource Report No. 1, Section 1.3.2.1). The pipeline would be belowground for most of the route, with

the exception of four planned aerial winter crossings, aboveground crossings of active faults, and the

offshore pipeline.

Fifty-seven of the 149 cultural resources identified within the APE for the Mainline are listed or eligible

for the NRHP. These resources include a variety of types of cultural resources, such as short-term camps

and lookouts, lithic reduction and quarry sites, pit house villages, early 20th-century trapper cabins and

gold rush-related sites, and oil extraction-related sites. Several of the sites are elements of linear trail or

road features such as the Hickel Highway, Dalton Highway, early trails, and the Iditarod National Historic

Trail.

To date, no formal coordination or consultation has been undertaken with state or federal agencies

regarding proposed mitigation measures or treatment plans for any of the cultural resources that are listed

or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. These plans would be developed in consultation with state

and federal agencies and emphasize avoidance as the preferred treatment. If the cultural resource could

not be avoided efforts would be made to minimize impacts to the site resulting from the Project by

measures such as narrowing the construction corridor, directional drilling, or construction during the

winter. The site-specific treatment plans would provide information and plans on avoidance and

minimizing impacts. Should it be impossible to avoid adversely impacting a cultural resource, a detailed

data recovery plan would be developed for review by state and federal agencies as appropriate before

submitting to FERC for final review.

The Mainline includes several types of aboveground facilities. The proposed design includes eight

compressor stations, one standalone heater station, two meter stations, multiple pig launching/receiving

stations, multiple Mainline block valves, and five interconnection points in locations that are currently

unknown at this time. Designs for these aboveground facilities have not yet been made available for

review by SHPO; as such, consultation about the appropriate APE for indirect effects has not yet been

initiated. Once this APE is defined, cultural resource investigation will be undertaken to identify and

evaluate resources in that area. Potential effects of the aboveground facilities may include visual effects

from the new construction, as well as possible effects of vibration and noise.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-45

Construction of the Mainline would require the use of additional temporary facilities and other resources

in the area of the permanent pipeline ROW. The associated infrastructure may include the following

facilities:

Temporary workspace for construction activities (e.g., staging areas truck turnarounds and

utility crossovers);

Access roads and shoo-flies (i.e., temporary roads bypassing constrained sections of the

construction ROW);

Equipment fueling facilities;

Helipads and airstrips;

Construction camps, pipe storage areas, contractor yards, and rail spurs;

Existing and new material sites to supply granular material; and

Disposal sites for excavated material, blast rock, and acid drainage rock removed from the

permanent pipeline ROW.

Since much of the Pipeline Associated Infrastructure would be temporary, the potential effects would be

restricted primarily to historic properties that would be directly affected by the construction activities.

Cultural resource investigations conducted to date have identified 35 cultural resources that are listed,

eligible, or treated as eligible for the NRHP. Many of these are multiple crossings of long linear historic

trails and highways, such as the Dalton Highway. NRHP-eligible sites also include lithic scatter camp

sites, pit house depression sites, historic cabins, and historic artifact scatters.

As proposed, the PTTL would be an approximately 62.5-mile, 32-inch-diameter pipeline installed

aboveground on vertical support members (VSMs), minimizing potential ground disturbance. No cultural

resources are recorded within the direct APE for the proposed alignment of the PTTL.

If the Project were to have an adverse effect on historic properties identified within the APE for the

PTTL, consultation would be initiated to resolve those effects and develop treatment/mitigation plans as

appropriate.

According to the proposed design, the PBTL would be an approximately 1-mile, 60-inch-diameter

aboveground pipeline to transport natural gas from the CGF to the GTP. The Prudhoe Bay Meter Station

would be collocated within the CGF boundary to measure the natural gas entering the PBTL from the

CGF. The PBTL would be installed aboveground on VSMs, minimizing potential ground disturbance.

No cultural resources are recorded within the direct APE for the PBTL.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-46


PBTL, consultation would be initiated to resolve those effects and develop treatment/mitigation plans, as

appropriate.

The proposed GTP is designed to treat natural gas received from the PBU and PTU. The GTP would be

constructed on the North Slope near the Beaufort Sea coast. The GTP would include the GTP pad and

Operations Center pad. The GTP would be built on a granular pad to protect the permafrost.

If the Project were to have an adverse effect on historic properties identified within the APE for the GTP,

consultation would be initiated to resolve those effects and develop treatment/mitigation plans as

appropriate.

Several additional facilities would be constructed to operate the GTP facility, including a new module

staging area, West Dock modifications, a water reservoir, associated transfer pipeline, access roads, ice

roads, construction camps, and a material site.


associated GTP infrastructure, consultation would be initiated to resolve those effects and develop

treatment/mitigation plans, as appropriate.

4.7.3 Non Jurisdictional Facilities

The PTU Expansion project would use information gathered from field and literature cultural resource

surveys to avoid and protect known sites during construction, implement unanticipated discoveries

protocols, and provide training for the construction workforce on the importance of protecting cultural

sites and proper procedures to do so. No sites are known to exist within the proposed footprint.

The PBU MGS project would use available information from previous cultural resource surveys

conducted in the project area and literature sources to identify any known resource sites prior to

construction. PBU MGS project would follow federal, state, and local requirements regarding discovery

of previously unknown cultural resources and provide training for contractors on procedures if such

resources are uncovered during project activities.

4.8 POTENTIAL OPERATIONAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Prior to the FERC issuing the Order for the Project, a cultural resources survey will have been completed

for the entire operational area of the Project. Cultural resources will be identified and evaluated for

NRHP eligibility. Because there would be an inventory of all resources that are listed or eligible for

listing in the NRHP, operational protocols would include information on the location of culturally

sensitive areas and any resources that would be very close to the permanent easement or facilities would

be marked with signage or fencing identifying that the location is an environmentally sensitive area.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-47

Specifics of any operational protocols or mitigation measures to be implemented for operation and

maintenance activities will be presented in the FERC application. In addition, it would be necessary to

make maintenance personnel aware of the procedures for cultural resources and human remains presented

in the Unanticipated Discovery Plan (see Section 4.9 and Appendix F).

4.8.1 Liquefaction Facility

Natural buffer areas around the Liquefaction Facility that would remain undeveloped (i.e., graveled) as

part of facility construction would be maintained during operations. Minimal maintenance would be

conducted in these areas in accordance with the Alaska LNG Project’s Plan and Procedures. All

materials required during maintenance would be transported to the site via existing roads and personnel

would be housed in local accommodations. All maintenance and turn-around activities would be

conducted within plant boundaries.

4.8.2 Interdependent Facilities

After installation of the pipelines, the operations ROW would be maintained to facilitate identification of

surface conditions and serve as a visual indicator of the existence of a pipeline for anyone performing

construction activity nearby. ROW access for maintenance and emergency response in areas subject to

seasonal ground transportation limitations, such as permafrost areas within the North Slope, would use

approved air transport or low pressure tire ground transportation methods. In some cases, this may

include construction of temporary ice roads to access ROW areas in the winter.

Maintenance of the pipeline ROWs would be conducted according to the measures outlined in the Alaska

LNG Project’s Plan and Procedures. The Project entity would be responsible for ensuring successful

revegetation of soils disturbed by Project-related activities. Trees would not be allowed within the

boundaries of the operations ROW, except over horizontal direction drilling crossings or direct pipe

crossings, because tree roots have the potential to damage pipeline coating, which may contribute to the

loss of integrity of the pipeline.

Pipeline patrols would be employed to inspect and observe surface conditions on and adjacent to the

pipeline ROW for indications of leaks, construction activity, and other factors affecting safety and

operation. Inspections are often performed via aerial patrol, with other inspection methods including

vehicle and foot patrols.

Planned maintenance of aboveground facilities would also include routine checks, inspection, and

servicing equipment. Unplanned maintenance would include investigating problems identified by control

and monitoring systems and implementing corrective actions. A fire buffer would be maintained for all

compressor stations and the heater station. This zone would be a cleared strip of land that extends

outward approximately 130 feet from the station fence on three sides. The vegetation in the buffer zone

would be controlled by cutting and removing large trees and brush.

All maintenance and patrol activities would be conducted within the operations ROW and access roads

used during construction activities. Apart from instances where cultural resources remain and are marked

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-48

by fencing/signage, operations/maintenance is expected to have minimal new disturbance and impacts,

particularly considering that these activities would occur within the construction footprint.

Because there are no cultural sites found along the PBTL and PTTL, maintenance activities would have

no impacts.

Because there are no sites found at the GTP site, or in any of the associated infrastructure, there would be

no impacts to cultural resources during operations.

4.8.3 Non Jurisdictional Facilities

No sites are known to occur within the proposed footprint of the PTU Expansion project and therefore

there are no impacts to cultural resources expected during operations.

Information related to the PBU MGS and Kenai Spur Highway relocation will be provided at a later date.

4.9 UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES PLAN

A draft Unanticipated Discoveries Plan has been developed following the regulatory guidance related to

Section 106 of the NHPA. A copy of the draft plan is included as Appendix F. The plan establishes

procedures to be used in the event that an historic property or human remain is found during construction

of the Project. OHA/SHPO, FERC, and the BLM have received the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan for

review and comment. During construction, copies of the Unanticipated Discoveries Plan would be kept

at the main construction office on each spread; construction field management and environmental

inspectors would be trained in its contents.

4.10 REFERENCES

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS). 2014. Site Card for Site PSM-00204, Atigun Archaeological

District. Card on file at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. Accessed October 17,

2014.

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS). 2016. Site Card for Site TYO-00132, Ch’u’itnu

Archaeological District. Card on file at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. Accessed

February 9, 2016.

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS). 2016. Site Card for Site XBP-00007, Putuligayuk River

Delta Overlook Site. Card on file at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. Accessed

March 23, 2016.

Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS). 2016. Site Card for Site KEN-00011. Card on file at the

Alaska Office of History and Archaeology. Accessed March 23, 2016.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-49

Alaska LNG Project 2015. Letter from Charlie Kominas (Alaska LNG) to Office of History and

Archaeology, Alaska Department of Natural Resources from Alaska LNG regarding Evaluating

the Presence of Submerged Cultural Resources in Cook Inlet.

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) 2012 Interim Guidance for

Addressing Alaska Historic Roads Under the February 23, 2010 Programmatic Agreement

Among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the Alaska State Historic

Preservation Officer Regarding Alaska’s Highway System Roads Affected by the Federal-Aid

Highway Program in Alaska. Copy on file, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public

Facilities, Anchorage.

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) 2014 Alaska Roads Historic

Overview, Applied Historic Context of Alaska’s Roads. Mead & Hunt, and Cultural Resource

Consultants, LLC. Anchorage, Alaska.

Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) 2003 Standards and Guidelines for Investigating and

Reporting Archaeological and Historic Properties in Alaska. Historic Preservation Series No. 11.

Alaska Office of History and Archaeology, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage.

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Energy Services (ASRC). 2011. Alaska Stand Alone Gas

Pipeline/ASAP. Cultural Resource Report for the 2010 Field Season. Prepared for Alaska Gasline

Development Corporation. Report on file: OHA, Anchorage.

ASRC. 2012. Alaska Stand Alone Gas Pipeline/ASAP. Cultural Resource Report for the 2010 and 2011

Field Seasons. Prepared for Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. April.

Bittner, Judith E. 2015 Memorandum to Shannon Miller (ADNR, State Pipeline Coordinator’s Office)

regarding 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Report, Nikiski, Alaska, February 12, 2015.

Bittner, Judith E. 2016a Letter to Karen Wuestenfeld regarding National Register of Historic Places

Eligibility Recommendations for 70 Cultural Resource Sites within Alaska LNG Project Area,

February 11, 2016.

Bittner, Judith E. 2016b Letter to Karen Wuestenfeld regarding Phase II Cultural Resources Evaluation

Report, 24 Determinations of Eligibility for the Alaska LNG Project Area, March 21, 2016.

Braund, Stephen R. & Associates (Braund & Associates) 2009 Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Project,

Report for 2008 Cultural Resources Fieldwork. (updated 2010). Prepared for Surface

Transportation Board and ICF International. On file at OHA, Anchorage.

Braund, Stephen R. 2015 Interim Ethnographic Report – Iñupiat. (USAI-UR-BRZZZ-00-000003-000)

Report prepared by Stephen R. Braund for the Alaska LNG Project.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-50

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1986 The Iditarod National Historic Trail, Seward to Nome Route,

Comprehensive Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage District Office,

Anchorage.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 2012 Point Thomson Project Final Environmental

Impact Statement. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, JBER, AK. Available

online at: http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/AlaskaGas/Report3/Report_PtThom_FEIS/index.html

Exp Energy Services, Inc. (exp) 2015 Cultural Resource Advisor Summary Report, Alaska LNG. Report

prepared by exp Energy Services, Inc., for the Alaska LNG Project.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2002. Guidelines for Reporting on Cultural Resources

Investigations for Pipeline Projects. Office of Energy Projects, Washington, DC.

Greiser, T. Weber, Molly Proue, Timothy King, Andrew Higgs, Lindsay Argo, Burr Neely, Michael S.

Kelly, and Michael D. Gray. 2013a. 2010, 2011, and 2013 Phase I Cultural Resource Summary

Report: Archaeological Survey and Site Documentation (USAKE-UR-SRZZZ-00-0017). Report

prepared by Northern Land Use Research Alaska, LLC for the Alaska LNG Project.


Kelly, and Michael D. Gray. 2013b. 2013 Phase I Cultural Resource Report: Archaeological

Survey and Site Documentation on Bureau of Land Management Lands (USAKE-UR-SRZZZ-

00-0020). Report prepared by Northern Land Use Research Alaska, LLC for the Alaska LNG

Project.


Kelly, and Michael D. Gray. 2013c. 2013 Phase I Cultural Resource Report: Archaeological

Survey and Site Documentation (USAKE-UR-SRZZZ-00-0021). Report prepared by Northern

Land Use Research Alaska, LLC for the Alaska LNG Project.


Kelly, and Michael D. Gray. 2014. 2014 Cultural Resources Data Gap Analysis and Sensitivity

Model (USAKE-UR-SRZZZ-00-0033). Report prepared by Northern Land Use Research Alaska,

LLC for the Alaska LNG Project.

Higgs, A. S., T.W. Greiser, L.T. King, and B.J. Neely. 2011a. 2010 Cultural Resource Field Study

Results, Phase I: Identification Cultural Resource Survey of the Alaska Pipeline Project.

Supplemental Report to OHA Permit No. 2010-17. Report USAG-UR-SRZZZ-000011 prepared

for Environmental Regulatory Support Services and TransCanada/ExxonMobil. Prepared by

NHG Alaska LLC, Anchorage, Alaska.

Higgs, A. S., T.W. Greiser, L.T. King, and B.J. Neely. 2011b. Phase I: Identification Cultural Resource

Survey of the Alaska Pipeline Project. Supplemental Report to BLM Permit No. AA-92471.

Report USAG-UR-SRZZZ-000010 prepared for Environmental Regulatory Support Services and

TransCanada/ExxonMobil. Prepared by NHG Alaska LLC, Anchorage, Alaska.

ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-51

Higgs, A., T. W. Greiser, L. T. King, K. Garrad, J. Picklesimer, and B. Neely. 2012. Phase I Cultural

Resources Overview and Survey Report for the Alaska Pipeline Project, Prudhoe Bay, to the

Alaska, United States-Canada Border, 2010-2011. Report USAG-UR-SRZZZ-000030 prepared

for Environmental Regulatory Support Services and TransCanada/ExxonMobil. Prepared by

NHG Alaska LLC, Anchorage, Alaska.

Natural Resource Group 2008. Field Study Plan, Denali – The Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC. Report

prepared for Denali – The Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC.

NPS (National Park Service) 2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National

Register Bulletin 15. National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Office of History and Archaeology (OHA/SHPO). 2003. Standards and Guidelines for Investigation and

Reporting Archaeological and Historic Properties in Alaska. Alaska Department of Natural

Resources, OHA, Historic Preservation Series No. 11.

Potter, B. A., P. M. Bowers, S. C. Gerlach, O. K. Mason, M. Ganley, and S. S. Legge. 2001. Site

Location Model and Survey Strategy for Cultural Resources in the Alaska Gas Producers

Pipeline Project Area. Report Prepared for Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team by Northern

Land Use Research, Inc., and Chumis Cultural Resource Services, Anchorage, AK.

Proue, Molly, Jill Baxter-McIntosh, T. Weber Greiser, Andy Higgs, Hayley Brown, Patrick Hall, Tim

King, and James Gallison 2016a Alaska LNG 2015 Phase I Cultural Resource Report:

Archaeological Survey and Site Documentation. (USAI-P1-SRZZZ-00-000008-000).Report

prepared for AECOM by Northern Land Use Research Alaska, LLC, Fairbanks.

Proue, Molly, Jill Baxter-McIntosh, T. Weber Greiser, Andy Higgs, Hayley Brown, Patrick Hall, Tim

King, and James Gallison 2016b Alaska LNG 2015 Phase I Cultural Resource Report:

Archaeological Survey and Site Documentation. Bureau of Land Management Lands (USAI-P1-

SRZZZ-00-000009-000). Report prepared for AECOM by Northern Land Use Research Alaska,

LLC, Fairbanks.

Proue, Molly, T. Weber Greiser, Lisa Smith, James Whitney, Andy Higgs, and Burr Neely 2016c Alaska

LNG 2015 Cultural Resource Evaluation Report. (USAI-P1-SRZZZ-00-000007-000) Report


Proue, Molly, James Gallison, James Whitney, Lisa Smith, Jill Baxter-McIntosh, Robert Bowman,

Hayley Brown, Patrick Hall, Crystal Glassburn, Mary Ann Sweeney, T. Weber Greiser, Andy

Higgs, and Tim King 2016d Alaska LNG 2015 Phase II Cultural Resource Report: Site

Evaluations. (USAI-P1-SRZZZ-00-000005-000) Report prepared for AECOM by Northern Land

Use Research Alaska, LLC, Fairbanks.

Proue, Molly, James Gallison, James Whitney, Lisa Smith, Jill Baxter-McIntosh, Robert Bowman,

Hayley Brown, Patrick Hall, Crystal Glassburn, Mary Ann Sweeney, T. Weber Greiser, Andy

Higgs, and Tim King 2016e Alaska LNG 2015 Phase II Cultural Resource Report: Site

Evaluations. Bureau of Land Management Lands (USAI-P1-SRZZZ-00-000004-000) Report


ALASKA

LNG PROJECT



CULTURAL RESOURCES


000004-000

DATE: JULY 15, 2016

REVISION: 0

PUBLIC

4-52

Reuther, J.D. 2009. Cultural Resources Survey of the Denali-The Alaska Gas Pipeline Project Proposed

Gas Treatment Plant, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Report Prepared by Northern Land Use Research,

Inc. for Denali-The Alaska Gas Pipeline LLC (Doc Repo Record ID #16068527)

Rogers, Jason with shipwreck analysis by Evguenia Anichtchenko 2016. Alaska LNG Submerged

Cultural Resources Review and Assessment, Cook Inlet, Alaska. (USAI-PI-SRZZZ-00-000021-

000). Report prepared by Northern Land Use Research Alaska, LLC, Fairbanks.

URS/AECOM. 2015a. 2014 Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Liquefaction

Facility Component of the Alaska LNG Project, Nikiski, Alaska. (USAI-UR-SRZZZ-00-000014-

000). Report prepared by URS/AECOM for the Alaska LNG Project. (Doc Repo Record ID

#16274742)

URS/AECOM 2015b, 2015 Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory and Monitoring Report for the

Proposed Liquefaction Facility Component of Alaska LNG, Nikiski, Alaska (USAI-UR-SRZZZ-

00-000071-000). Report prepared by AECOM for the Alaska LNG Project.

Wooley, Christopher B 1999 National Register Nomination for the Prudhoe Bay Oil field Discovery Well

site (XBP-00056). Prepared by Chumis Cultural Resource Services for ARCO Alaska, Inc.

draft resource report no. 4 - ak-lng.comak-lng.com/.../08/...000_0-resource-report-no-4.pdf ·...

Documents