National Academies Press: OpenBook

Managing Archaeological Investigations (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Communication

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Communication." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Communication." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Communication." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Communication." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Communication." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Communication." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 15

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

11 FHWA’s May 2004 Success in Streamlining newsletter notes that Common to many of these streamlining methods is the need for interagency cooperation. When agencies have strong working relationships based on mutual trust and open com- munication, they are better able to effectively negotiate dif- ferences, make compromises, and reach agreements. How- ever, when one party is hesitant to trust the other, working relationships break down (16). Communication is clearly one of the most important fac- tors in environmental streamlining and stewardship efforts, especially those associated with the Section 106 process. The core of Section 106 is a consultative process that balances historic preservation concerns with project delivery needs. This consultation process, which involves structured and continual interaction among state DOTs, FHWA, SHPOs, tribes, and the general public, requires good communication among the parties to be successful. Given the importance of communication, this synthesis report begins with a discussion of effective practices that pro- mote and maintain good communication among the Section 106 parties involved in managing archaeological investiga- tions. The discussion first examines relationships among state DOTs, SHPOs, and FHWA, then reviews effective practices associated with tribal consultation and public out- reach. RELATIONSHIPS AMONG AGENCIES The key is just communication and constant communica- tion. Make sure everyone stays in communication (from interview with Paul Graham, Ohio DOT, 2004). Of the 34 DOTs responding to the survey questionnaire, the majority reported that their relationships with their respective SHPOs were good. Two of the DOTs stated that their rela- tionship was poor, whereas two noted that it was mixed. The negative and mixed state DOT responses provide a view of what to avoid when working toward effective approaches to communication. The primary conflict between these agencies is differing interpretations of the letter and intent of Section 106 and 36 CFR Part 800. The view of some DOTs is that the SHPO’s goal is to conduct archaeological research on every- thing, in addition to asking for levels of effort that the state DOTs find unreasonable and unnecessary. For example, one DOT noted that the main point of conflict involves decisions about what constitutes adequate archaeological testing, par- ticularly when dealing with sites that appear to have very lim- ited research value. Another DOT complained that SHPO staff micromanage every DOT archaeological project, strain- ing the two agencies’ relationship. Most DOTs have a good relationship with their respective FHWA state division offices. Two DOTs noted that their relationship with FHWA was strained; however, both agen- cies have good relations with their SHPOs. Another DOT characterized its relationship as good, but not of the same cal- iber as its relationship with the SHPO. A fourth DOT stated that their division office was a “non-player” in terms of cul- tural resource decision making. Most saw the division offices as supportive and also a source for guidance on national streamlining and stewardship initiatives. The two reports of strained relationships identified the cause as new out-of-state staff working in the FHWA division office. The new staff did not understand local situations and existing working arrange- ments with the SHPO. New staff also assumed that every project would be problematic. As a result, FHWA required investigations that were too extensive or believed to be unnecessary by the DOTs, simply as a way to avoid all pos- sible problems in the future, even though such problems had not occurred on past projects. One DOT noted that a point of conflict with FHWA was a lack of consistency in FHWA’s requirements. Five of the seven responding SHPOs reported that they have good relationships with their respective DOTs. One SHPO noted that although the relationship with the DOT was good it could be improved with more regularly scheduled meetings. This would require, however, that both the SHPO and DOT make such meetings a higher priority. Another SHPO stated that its relationship with the DOT was improv- ing as a result of two new DOT-funded positions within the SHPO. SHPO staff now had the time and ability to meet reg- ularly with the DOT, FHWA, and its consultants to discuss program and project issues. One SHPO characterized its rela- tionship with the DOT as not particularly good, owing to mutual mistrust and ongoing “turf wars” between the agen- cies. This SHPO has the same problem with its state FHWA division office. CHAPTER TWO COMMUNICATION

The relationship between SHPOs and their respective FHWA division offices is more variable, depending on whether the SHPO routinely interacts with FHWA. Three of the SHPO respondents do not have regular interaction with FHWA division offices. One SHPO participates in monthly meetings with FHWA and DOT. These meetings help main- tain a strong working relationship between the agencies. Two SHPOs report good relationships between the agencies, and one SHPO has a poor relationship, owing to mistrust between the agencies (as discussed earlier). The Kentucky FHWA division office noted that as a result of decreasing agency budgets and their concerns about the cost and scope of archaeological investigations, its’ relationship with the SHPO had become strained. As a means to resolve conflict between the agencies, the division office will be meeting with the SHPO and state DOT to discuss a range of alterna- tive approaches for archaeological studies. They will also review how other states are dealing with these issues. Based on the survey questionnaire responses, effective practices to counter or prevent poor interagency relations include • Having regular meetings that review ongoing and future projects; • Participating in collaborative efforts, such as joint training; • Establishing joint objectives, goals, and processes; and • Having upper management support and directives to improve and maintain good relations. Such practices are also highlighted in an on-line “how-to” tool kit for developing programmatic agreements. The tool kit is posted on the AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence website (17). The tool kit also provides some additional practices for building trust and improving com- munication, such as • Avoiding obvious trust killers, • Expressing appreciation, • Being professional, • Investing in your staff’s knowledge, and • Investing time and effort in building relationships. Three of the DOTs responding to the survey noted that they have regular meetings with their respective SHPOs to discuss projects and programs, particularly those that may be controversial. Five other DOTs reported that they have fre- quent discussions with the SHPO through telephone calls, e-mail, and periodic meetings. These discussions address levels of effort for surveys and National Register evaluations, the results of these evaluations, and approaches to resolving adverse effects on significant archaeological sites. When conflicts do occur, these meetings are used as the means to address any problems and, if necessary, these issues can be elevated to upper management. Several of the DOTs noted that although they do not always agree with the SHPO’s 12 views, these disagreements are understood to be professional disagreements, not personal. New South Associates, Inc., a Georgia CRM firm, noted that collaborative efforts among DOTs and SHPOs often resulted in improved working relationships among the DOT, SHPO, and consultants hired to assist in these efforts. The development of historic contexts for archaeological resources was described as one such collaborative effort. The attitude of a DOT is also important. The Texas DOT (TxDOT) noted that its agency is enthusiastic about compli- ance with the law and regulations, and that they are not the enemy. The agency is also being more proactive in doing their job, thus earning the respect of the SHPO by “doing the right thing.” The need for improved relationships was forced on both agencies by a large increase in the number of proj- ects. The two agencies had to communicate more effectively to deal with the increasing work load. The Iowa DOT formally codified their responsibilities and those of the SHPO as collaborators in Section 106 compli- ance. The Iowa DOT, FHWA, and SHPO held a partnering workshop in 1997, and all of the participants signed a charter to form a Cultural Interchange Team (CIT) that worked to resolve process issues among the agencies. If the CIT cannot immediately resolve a process issue that is brought to the team, the issue is taken to the CIT members’ supervisors for suggestions and/or instructions. These suggestions or instruc- tions are brought back to the CIT during its next meeting. If there is still no agreement, then the CIT members take the issue to their agency’s upper management for resolution. The Iowa DOT noted that “as the partnership progressed and the number of issues declined, meeting frequency was decreased from the initial monthly to bi-monthly, and recently to quar- terly.” In addition, the agency stated that issues are rarely ele- vated beyond the team. TRIBAL CONSULTATION AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS Tribal consultation is an evolving field with special legal issues (e.g., government-to-government relationships, tribal sovereignty, and federal agency trust responsibilities), and successful consultation requires an awareness of the differ- ent world views and cultural traditions of the parties involved. As is evident from the survey responses, and from a recently posted AASHTO website on tribal consultation (18), many state DOTs have taken to heart the need to improve their tribal consultation efforts, particularly with regard to archaeological investigations. The Oregon DOT has quarterly meetings with three of the state’s tribes, and annual meetings with others, to review project schedules and provide a regular forum for discussing upcoming projects. These regular meetings are in addition to case-by-case proj- ect consultations. The Wisconsin DOT has a Native Ameri-

13 can liaison committee consisting of 11 state tribes and 4 DOT representatives. The committee, which meets two to three times a year, discusses concerns of both the DOTs and the tribes. One important issue that was resolved by this liaison committee was the development of a protocol for the treat- ment of burials encountered during archaeological studies. The committee also provided an opportunity to build trust with the tribes through face-to-face communication. To streamline the consultation process, some FHWA division offices (e.g., Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington State, and Wyoming) have assigned certain tribal consultation activities to the state DOT. This dele- gation of activities is always done in close consultation with the tribes, and FHWA ultimately remains responsible for government-to-government consultation efforts. This delegation to the state DOTs has resulted in improved and continuous communication with the tribes, because state DOT staff is usually larger than FHWA’s, and DOTs have the expertise in both tribal consultation and archaeological investigations. The FHWA state division offices often do not have this expertise in-house. The primary effective practices associated with tribal con- sultation, highlighted in the literature review and survey, include • PAs, • Memoranda of understanding (MOUs), • Pre-project consultation, and • Tribal summits and conferences. TxDOT has PAs with 12 tribes, 10 located outside the state and 2 in-state. The PAs stipulate when the DOT is to consult with a tribe and which types of projects require con- sultation. For example, under the PA with the Tonkawa Tribe (4), the DOT directly coordinates with the tribe on behalf of FHWA, with FHWA approving all outcomes. The agency contacts the tribe only when a site with Native American arti- facts has been found in an area of concern to the tribe. The PA also clarifies for the tribe TxDOT’s consultation process on evaluating National Register eligibility, effects assess- ments and mitigation, and clarifies for the agency tribal pref- erences for consultation about discoveries of human remains. Traveling outside of the state, TxDOT met with the tribe to initiate the development of this PA. The use of this PA reduces and focuses consultation on projects truly of concern to the tribe. Before the PA, TxDOT consulted annually with the Tonkawa Tribe on each of the department’s approxi- mately 1,000 projects (4). A copy of this PA and other exam- ple agreements between DOTs and tribes are available on AASHTO’s website on tribal consultation (18). The Minnesota and Rhode Island DOTs have PAs with tribes similar to the ones in Texas. The Rhode Island DOT PA with the Narragansett THPO applies to transportation undertakings that have “no effect” on historic properties (4). The Louisiana DOT has a PA with the Caddo Nation for proj- ects in those parishes identified as areas of concern to the Caddo Nation. The development of this PA resulted from the Louisiana DOT’s participation in the Advisory Council’s Pilot Study for Tribal Consultation (which has been can- celled and was not completed). During this study, Louisiana identified the parishes within the state that had the potential to contain properties of concern to federally recognized tribes. The Georgia DOT has developed MOUs with 7 of the 15 nonresident tribes that have historical or cultural links with the state. The MOUs specify when the tribes are to be consulted and what types of documents and reports the tribes want to review. The MOUs were developed through corre- spondence and telephone calls with the tribes, as well as through meetings with some of the tribes. The DOT also con- tacts all tribes quarterly to see if the consultation process is working well and meeting the tribes’ needs. Participating tribes receive the state’s Transportation Improvement Plan each year and are given an opportunity to comment on the plan, indicating which projects may be of concern to them. The Georgia DOT notes that these MOUs have saved the department money and time, reducing the amount of docu- mentation sent to the tribes and streamlining what the agency needs to do in terms of tribal consultation. Other states that have MOUs with tribes include Iowa and Oklahoma. Development of MOUs with Iowa’s nonresident tribes came out of a conference held in Ames, Iowa, in May 2001, which focused on consultation issues and needs. The DOT provided lodging, meals, and mileage reimbursement for con- ference participants. Approximately one-third of the 27 invited tribes attended the conference. A follow-up seminar was held to provide tribes with information about Iowa DOT’s planning and construction processes. This seminar included a field trip to two ongoing archaeology data recovery projects. Similar tribal summits have been held across the country in Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Washington State. In September 2003, the Pennsylvania FHWA and DOT hosted an Intertribal Summit on Section 106 issues. The pri- mary goal of the summit was to establish a foundation for future consultation with nonresident, federally recognized tribes who had ancestral lands in Pennsylvania (18). Georgia DOT’s New Echota Traditional Cultural Prop- erty Study is an example of a proactive, pre-project tribal consultation that involved archaeological investigations (18). New Echota was the first capitol of the Cherokee Nation, dat- ing from 1825 to 1838. This site is a National Historic Land- mark. The Georgia DOT had long-term plans to replace two bridges and conduct road improvements near New Echota. In anticipation of these future projects, FHWA implemented a study to assess the site’s traditional cultural significance. His- torical research, archaeological investigations, and ethno- graphic studies were used to define this potential traditional cultural property. The study involved extensive consultation

with three federally recognized Cherokee tribal govern- ments. The three tribal governments were appreciative of the proactive consultation and, as a result, developed a good working relationship with the DOT and FHWA. Another example of the Georgia DOT’s innovative tribal consultation efforts involves a roadway widening project through the Etowah Valley Historic District in Bartow County. The DOT and FHWA determined that the proposed project would not adversely affect the district. The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians (EBCI), however, believed that the district could be indirectly affected by increased res- idential development resulting from the road widening. The EBCI (who reside in North Carolina) was willing to accept the proposed improvements provided the county implement a plan to limit development in the historic district or develop a plan to minimize impacts to archaeological resources in the district. Because of EBCI concerns, the DOT made a com- mitment to facilitate development of an MOA between Bar- tow County, the EBCI, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, requiring archaeological surveys on all new pri- vate development within the historic district. The county also amended its zoning ordinance to recognize both the impor- tance of the Etowah Valley Historic District and the need for archaeological survey and tribal consultation before any pri- vate development activities. The long-term preservation ben- efits of the MOA and zoning ordinance amendment extend well beyond the immediate road improvement project, and serve as examples of how innovative approaches to consul- tation can be successfully incorporated into the project devel- opment process. The literature search and survey highlighted several addi- tional innovative approaches to tribal consultation. For example, for one project, the Pennsylvania FHWA division office created a limited-access website that reports on the sta- tus of ongoing excavations that involved burials. Access is limited to ACHP, tribes, SHPO, DOT, and FHWA. The web- site allows key parties to have immediate and equal access to the results of fieldwork. FHWA also promptly posts meeting minutes on the website. FHWA notes that the website has been very effective and streamlines the consultation process. In another example, the California Department of Trans- portation (Caltrans) regularly requests Native American input on all phases of archaeological investigations. In some cases, reports or chapters in reports are written by tribal members and incorporate traditional knowledge and con- temporary ethnohistories, linking archaeology to present day tribal descendants. As noted in chapter one, several tribes were contacted about this synthesis study, and six responded. Robert Cast, THPO of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, provided one example project. Cast notes that the development of the PA between TxDOT and the Caddo Nation was triggered by a pending archeological project at a cemetery associated with the Caddo, located in the right-of-way (ROW) of a widening 14 project. TxDOT did not anticipate that any burials remained because of extensive avocational and professional excava- tions at this site in the past. As part of the consultation process, the Caddo commented on the project’s effect on the site and on the resulting mitigation effort (additional burials sites were found). The tribe also suggested wording for a Texas Historical Commission state highway marker near the site to commemorate the Caddo that had lived in the area. As part of the mitigation effort, the Caddo were provided the opportunity to perform all necessary ceremonies at the ceme- tery. Currently, the Caddo are in the process of negotiating an agreement with the state and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the reburial of the remains at a set-aside Caddo cemetery on USACE property. The tribe considers this project an excellent example of successful consultation. Cast also described the tribe’s relationship with the Arkansas Highway Department and FHWA. The folks that work for these two agencies are unique. From the very beginning of our consultations with them, they have gone far above and beyond what may have been required for the Section 106 process. They have involved the Nation in training workshops, face-to face meetings (here at the tribal complex and there), on-site tours of the highway projects and archaeological sites that may be impacted, and have always asked for our input at every juncture of the process (R. Cast, personal communication, 2004). The Shoshone–Bannock Tribe in Idaho also stressed the importance of continuous and effective communication. On the Bear River Bridge Replacement project, FHWA, Idaho DOT, and the tribe’s Cultural Resources Office communi- cated by means of letters, telephone conversations, and meet- ings throughout the duration of the project. The tribe’s cultural resources staff also met with multiple departments within the agency, in addition to the project’s archaeological contractor. The tribe noted that this continual communication resulted in the agencies becoming more sensitive to and respectful of the traditions and history of the Shoshone– Bannock Tribe. The Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma described their involvement with the Kansas DOT on a project in Arkansas City, Kansas. The tribe’s historic preservation rep- resentative, Virgil Swift, noted that the project involved an archaeological site to be affected by a highway and levee improvement along the Arkansas River. The Kansas DOT ini- tially met with the Wichita Tribe at the Tribal Complex in Anadarko, Oklahoma, to address Wichita tribal issues. Not all tribal issues were addressed by the DOT, however, because of the many competing interests involved with the project, and Swift felt that the agency did not live up to some agreements that were made with the tribe. In general, however, the Wichita Tribe believed that its concerns were met. The tribe sees the project as a success, because the project was com- pleted, it helped the economy of the Arkansas City area, and

15 the archaeology done on the site will help strengthen the archaeological and historical fabric of the area. Swift noted that the DOT tried their best to meet the many demands of the multiple groups involved. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reserva- tion in Oregon developed a good, cooperative relationship with the Oregon DOT as a result of the inadvertent destruc- tion by that agency of an archaeological site 8 years before. After the site had been destroyed, the tribe monitored the bal- ance of the project to prevent further archaeological site destruction. The tribe also negotiated with the DOT to per- form more “traditional use area” identification efforts. Cur- rently, the tribe and DOT are working closely together on a number of bridge projects that have the potential to affect important archaeological sites. One valuable result of this collaboration is the willingness of the DOT to use ethno- graphic research during initial National Register eligibility evaluations. The tribe feels that this approach is a less destructive method for assessing potential archaeological site significance. During the Arizona State Road 85 project between Gila Bend and Buckeye, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) consulted with the Arizona DOT to minimize impacts to resources of value to the tribe. Previous cultural resource surveys identified 47 prehistoric and historic trails running across the existing highway. Inventories conducted by GRIC’s Cultural Resource Management Pro- gram showed that many of the trails were traditional cul- tural properties. GRIC’s Cultural Resource Management Program mapped and recorded a sample of the trails on either side of the highway to assist in evaluating potential impacts from proposed road improvements. As a result, 49 miles of trails were examined, and the results of this study were used to create an exhibit at the tribe’s new her- itage facility. Russell Townsend, the EBCI’s THPO, provided another case from Tennessee that illustrates how an initially negative situation resulted in a more collaborative relationship between a tribe and a DOT. The Tennessee DOT began a road widening project in the late 1990s, but never consulted with the tribe. Construction was eventually halted owing to tribal concerns. The EBCI, FHWA, and Tennessee DOT sub- sequently executed an MOA outlining how archaeological investigations would be conducted, and required that human remains be left in place. A cement cap would be placed over the remains to protect them from heavy equipment. Since this project, the Tennessee DOT has begun to work more closely with the EBCI. The tribe now sends representatives and tra- ditional leaders to Tennessee to rebury materials encountered on agency projects. The tribe, FHWA, and Tennessee DOT are also meeting more regularly. These meetings are used to review the status of ongoing projects. The EBCI attributes these improved relations with the Tennessee DOT to three factors: increased FHWA involvement with the DOT on tribal issues, tribal pressure during the above-mentioned project, and programmatic approaches to consultation. ENGAGING THE PUBLIC The majority of the DOTs’ public outreach efforts are project- specific and often ad hoc, involving the development of a temporary exhibit on an excavation, a brochure, site tours, or public lectures. A few states, however, have strategically placed public outreach as an important component of their archaeological investigations. The Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) regularly publishes, through the Department’s Byways to the Past series, small, publicly oriented booklets on its archaeological data recov- ery projects. The DOT also has a Byways to the Past Techni- cal Publication Series. The latter distributes the results of PennDOT-sponsored research in archaeology, including large-scale data recovery projects, to professional archaeol- ogists and the interested public. The reports in this series are distributed on CDs. In the past, the Delaware DOT has printed and distributed 500 copies of its archaeological reports for both the public and professionals. Currently, the Delaware DOT is focusing on distributing reports through the Internet and the use of CDs. The New Jersey DOT, in consultation with the SHPO, created a publicly oriented website reporting on all phases of an archaeological data recovery within the Raritan Landing Archaeological Historic District, near New Brunswick, New Jersey. The website was continually updated as the project generated new information. This website experienced approximately 57,000 visits during the 4-year project. The New Jersey SHPO noted that this and similar websites are popular with the general public and with professional and avocational archaeologists. The primary data recovery report for the Raritan Landing project is being written in a public- friendly narrative form in contrast with the normal, volumi- nous, jargon-filled technical report. Technical information is provided in stand-alone reports for both professional archae- ologists and the interested public. Caltrans has produced documentary videos as part of sev- eral major data recovery projects. One example is “Privies to the Past,” a documentary on historic archaeology in West Oakland. This video was produced as part of the rebuilding of the Cypress Freeway after an earthquake. A second exam- ple is “The Obsidian Trail,” a video on the archaeology of the Owens Valley, with special emphasis on information gained from the study of obsidian artifacts. This video was produced in conjunction with a series of mitigation projects for the widening of Highway 395. Both videos have been shown nationally on public broadcasting stations. Some DOTs also publish small, publicly oriented book- lets as part of their data recovery efforts. Two examples are

the booklets on Boston’s “Big Dig” (19) and an introduction to Vermont archaeology based on archaeological work along the Chittenden County Circumferential Highway (20). The creation of publications and other public outreach efforts are often included in the Section 106 agreement documents and budgets associated with data recovery projects. These types of publications share the results of publicly funded archaeol- ogy with the public, demonstrating to the public the value of this work. TxDOT’s public outreach efforts have been very suc- cessful; so successful that the SHPO strongly endorses the inclusion of public outreach as an integral part of all data recovery projects in the state. One of the DOT’s key public outreach efforts was the development of two history mod- ules for use in schools, based on transportation-related data recovery projects. Each of the agencies’ data recovery proj- ects includes contract deliverables that feed information into the modules. The DOT has also funded the authoring of manuscripts for professional and avocational publications (these publications are included as one of the deliverables for data recovery projects). The Georgia DOT has created “educational trunks” on archaeology for high school and 8th grade students, and the agency is in the process of developing one for 4th graders. The DOT is also in the process of developing an African– American archaeology educational trunk for high school students. Funding for these trunks comes from data recovery projects, and they are given to county school systems where the projects take place. These trunks are also available on loan from the DOT to other county school districts throughout the state and the Southeast region. Consultants performing the data recovery projects developed the trunks. Another example of outreach to school children is the West Virginia DOT’s “Kids Dig Reed,” an educational web- site on the Reed Farmstead property. This interactive website includes a history of the property, information on the prop- erty’s archaeology and artifacts, games, and a place for chil- dren to submit questions about archaeology (21). The North Dakota DOT is using Transportation Enhancement funds to produce an educational video and curriculum based on a data recovery project at an earthlodge village near Bismarck. This public outreach effort also includes interpretive displays at the Mandan Public Library. A few DOTs also seek the active involvement of the public during archaeological investigations. On a bridge replacement project that affected a circa 3000–750 B.C. site, 16 the Missouri DOT invited local citizens to participate in parts of the site’s data recovery. More than 400 people, including students, participated in the excavation. As a result, the local community learned about the history of the site and why the DOT was involved in such historic preser- vation efforts (4). SUMMARY Good, consistent communication among parties is clearly the key to productive archaeological investigations. Effective communication practices include • Having regular meetings that review ongoing and future projects; • Participating in collaborative, proactive efforts; • Establishing joint objectives, goals, and processes; and • Having upper management support and directives to improve and maintain good relations. Discussions and consultations held outside of the require- ments of individual projects are an effective means of build- ing trust and communication. This is certainly the case with tribal consultation, where general discussions on protocols and important issues are best held without the constraints and potential conflicts inherent in specific transportation projects. As discussed, several FHWA offices, state DOTs, and tribes have codified these protocols in MOUs and PAs. Poor communication among agencies and between agen- cies and tribes results in conflict, mistrust, project delays, and increased project costs. Practices that improve and maintain good communication, however, take time and a commitment from all parties involved. They also require activities that are not linked to specific projects. It is often difficult for DOT staff to participate in nonproject-specific activities given scheduling constraints and agency priorities. DOT, SHPO, FHWA, and tribal representative responses to the NCHRP synthesis survey demonstrate, however, the long-term bene- fits of these nonproject-specific efforts. Few states have strategically placed public outreach as an important component of their archaeological investigations. Rather, the majority of public outreach efforts are project- specific and often ad hoc. The survey responses did not pro- vide specific information on why this was the case. It can be inferred from the responses, however, that the need to keep project costs low is most likely the primary reason (see chapter six).

Next: Chapter Three - Internal Business Practices and Project Delivery »
Managing Archaeological Investigations Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 347: Managing Archaeological Investigations addresses practices that improve archaeological investigations by both streamlining the overall transportation project delivery process and enhancing the stewardship of archaeological resources. The report examines practices that improve and maintain good communication and coordination at all stages of transportation programs, including that between agencies and Native Americans and efforts at public outreach. It also reviews internal state department of transportation (DOT) business practices, and examines effective and innovative practices for complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and project design. The synthesis also examines pre-project planning efforts, including programmatic agreements, treatment guidance and specifications on specific archaeological resources, creative mitigation, and effective collection methods.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!