Click for next page ( 11

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
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 10
11 CHAPTER TWO COMMUNICATION FHWA's May 2004 Success in Streamlining newsletter notes thing, in addition to asking for levels of effort that the state that 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- Common to many of these streamlining methods is the need for interagency cooperation. When agencies have strong ticularly when dealing with sites that appear to have very lim- working relationships based on mutual trust and open com- ited research value. Another DOT complained that SHPO munication, they are better able to effectively negotiate dif- staff micromanage every DOT archaeological project, strain- ferences, make compromises, and reach agreements. How- ing the two agencies' relationship. ever, when one party is hesitant to trust the other, working relationships break down (16). Most DOTs have a good relationship with their respective Communication is clearly one of the most important fac- FHWA state division offices. Two DOTs noted that their tors in environmental streamlining and stewardship efforts, relationship with FHWA was strained; however, both agen- especially those associated with the Section 106 process. The cies have good relations with their SHPOs. Another DOT core of Section 106 is a consultative process that balances characterized its relationship as good, but not of the same cal- historic preservation concerns with project delivery needs. iber as its relationship with the SHPO. A fourth DOT stated This consultation process, which involves structured and that their division office was a "non-player" in terms of cul- continual interaction among state DOTs, FHWA, SHPOs, tural resource decision making. Most saw the division offices tribes, and the general public, requires good communication as supportive and also a source for guidance on national among the parties to be successful. 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 Given the importance of communication, this synthesis report begins with a discussion of effective practices that pro- not understand local situations and existing working arrange- mote and maintain good communication among the Section ments with the SHPO. New staff also assumed that every 106 parties involved in managing archaeological investiga- project would be problematic. As a result, FHWA required tions. The discussion first examines relationships among investigations that were too extensive or believed to be state DOTs, SHPOs, and FHWA, then reviews effective unnecessary by the DOTs, simply as a way to avoid all pos- practices associated with tribal consultation and public out- sible problems in the future, even though such problems had reach. not occurred on past projects. One DOT noted that a point of conflict with FHWA was a lack of consistency in FHWA's requirements. RELATIONSHIPS AMONG AGENCIES Five of the seven responding SHPOs reported that they The key is just communication and constant communica- have good relationships with their respective DOTs. One tion. Make sure everyone stays in communication (from SHPO noted that although the relationship with the DOT was interview with Paul Graham, Ohio DOT, 2004). good it could be improved with more regularly scheduled meetings. This would require, however, that both the SHPO Of the 34 DOTs responding to the survey questionnaire, the and DOT make such meetings a higher priority. Another majority reported that their relationships with their respective SHPO stated that its relationship with the DOT was improv- SHPOs were good. Two of the DOTs stated that their rela- ing as a result of two new DOT-funded positions within the tionship was poor, whereas two noted that it was mixed. The SHPO. SHPO staff now had the time and ability to meet reg- negative and mixed state DOT responses provide a view of ularly with the DOT, FHWA, and its consultants to discuss what to avoid when working toward effective approaches to program and project issues. One SHPO characterized its rela- communication. The primary conflict between these agencies tionship with the DOT as not particularly good, owing to is differing interpretations of the letter and intent of Section mutual mistrust and ongoing "turf wars" between the agen- 106 and 36 CFR Part 800. The view of some DOTs is that the cies. This SHPO has the same problem with its state FHWA SHPO's goal is to conduct archaeological research on every- division office.