Abstract
ABSTRACTThis article presents a case study of the process of developing and implementing mitigation as the result of adverse effects to cultural resources from the drawdown of Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. Signs of a dam failure in early 2007 triggered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement the emergency drawdown. While the drawdown prevented a life safety catastrophe, it created a new erosion zone and exposed archaeological sites to looters. When it became clear that conventional Section 106 procedures to identify and evaluate these endangered archaeological resources were not an option, alternative and creative mitigation became a necessary approach for the Corps to meet its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act. This article discusses the creative brainstorming among the Corps, Kentucky state historic preservation officer, and tribes that led to three alternative mitigation measures aimed at educational outreach, raising public awareness, and staff training. Furthermore, the article identifies challenges encountered during the implementation of the mitigation measures. Through the presentation of our mitigation journey, we share some of our lessons learned to improve awareness of the challenges and successes one may encounter during the execution of such alternative measures.
Highlights
This article presents a case study of the process of developing and implementing mitigation as the result of adverse effects to cultural resources from the drawdown of Lake Cumberland, Kentucky
The Nashville District and the Kentucky Heritage Council (KHC) engaged an alternative mitigation strategy to address the effects of the management on archaeological sites
That the implementation is complete, we are in a position to share some lessons learned with agencies, organizations, tribes, companies, and the public that may be considering engaging in alternative mitigation strategies
Summary
The electronic monitoring system at Wolf Creek Dam, Jamestown, Kentucky, alerted the Corps to a potential dam failure on January 7, 2007. Lake Cumberland, like many dams and reservoirs, is managed through an annual seasonal operational drawdown. In late spring the cycle begins again as water flowing into the reservoir is held back to create the summer pool (USACE, LRN 2011). This cyclical management serves to meet multiple purposes including flood control, hydropower production, and recreational uses. While the exposure of the shoreline during an annual operational drawdown is a familiar situation to many Section 106 practitioners working with water resource agencies, the Lake Cumberland emergency drawdown differed in a number of ways. There was no time to consider the effects of the emergency drawdown on cultural and natural resources This emergency drawdown was not within the normal operating range of 210.3– 220.0 m asl. The emergency drawdown exposed land that had been inundated and inaccessible for more than half a century
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
