Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 297
2) What are their direct impacts on the immediate area? 3) What are their direct impacts on the community at large? 4) What are their indirect impacts on the immediate area? 5) What are their indirect impacts on the community at large? 6) What attributes of the immediate area would be affected or lost as a result of this project? 7) What attributes of the community at large would be affected or lost as a result of this project? After gathering the responses to each of these questions, the participants rank the comments in order of importance or effect. This can be done (depending on the group dynamic) either as a group or individually with the group's final list being a consensus of individual lists. Respondents, having been provided with a list of protected populations and demographic or neighborhood maps of a demographic nature, would then be encouraged to comment on questions as to how their findings might impact specific demographic groups or communities. Findings that, according to the group, would have a disproportionate effect on a protected population would be highlighted. Finally, the group would prepare a statement of findings. This narrative document would highlight their ideas and responses in each area. This document, along with the lists generated, can be used to present the group's findings at public meetings. Data from the group can be synthesized into a single table that can accompany the statement of findings. It may be useful to highlight those ranked items that each group identified as having disproportionate effects on protected populations. One can then make a qualitative assessment of overall impacts by viewing the chart and taking note of how many cells are highlighted. Assessment. The key to an effective charrette is including an appropriate mix of participants. Among the considerations that should be taken into account in designing a charrette are ensuring that protected populations are represented and that people are included who have a good working knowledge of the area's cultural resources. With the right participants involved, a charrette can be an effective method of fostering dialogue that can point to the cultural resources that are valuable and would be affected by a proposed transportation project. REFERENCES American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA). Public Law 95-341, 42 U.S. Code 1996 and 1996a, August 11, 1978. Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ADPA). Public Law 96-95, 16 U.S. Code 470aa-mm. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2002. "Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs." Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 134 (July 12, 2002), p. 46328. 304
OCR for page 298
King, Thomas F. 2003. Places that Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Management. New York: AltaMira Press. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), Public Law 86-665, 16 U.S. Code 470, Section 470. 36 CFR 800: Part 800-Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). Public Law 100- 601, 25 U.C. Code 3001-3013. Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 232 (December 4, 1995), pp. 62133-62169. President, Proclamation. 1996. "Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Preservation Properties in Our Nation's Central Cities." Executive Order 13006. Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 102 (May 21), pp. 26071-26072. President, Proclamation. 1996. "Indian Sacred Sites." Executive Order 13007. Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 104 (May 24), 26771-26772. 305