National Academies Press: OpenBook

Managing Archaeological Investigations (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Internal Business Practices and Project Delivery

« Previous: Chapter Two - Communication
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Internal Business Practices and Project Delivery." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Internal Business Practices and Project Delivery." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Internal Business Practices and Project Delivery." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Internal Business Practices and Project Delivery." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Internal Business Practices and Project Delivery." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 20

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.

17 It became evident from the DOT survey responses that inter- nal business practices within a transportation agency have an impact on an agency’s ability to streamline the management of archaeological investigations and to enhance the results of these efforts. Internal practices include the size and make-up of DOT staff, the structure of consultant contracting, and the location of decision-making authority. Another important aspect of internal practices is the way in which archaeologi- cal investigations (and Section 106 compliance) are inte- grated into project design and the NEPA decision-making process. If these investigations are not appropriately inte- grated into the NEPA process and project design, delays and conflicts result. INTERNAL BUSINESS PRACTICES Staffing and Consultant Contracting State DOTs use private-sector firms or sister state agencies to perform the majority of archaeological investigations. Cal- trans district offices typically use an on-call contracting for- mat to hire outside consultants. Individual task orders are written for specific projects and given to one of the on-call consultants. This results in a faster project start-up because the district does not have to go through the procurement process to obtain a consultant for each project. For smaller projects, Caltrans’ districts and headquarters have on-call arrangements (interagency agreements) with state universi- ties. The agency also uses in-house staff or a combination of in-house staff and outside consultants for these small projects. The Wyoming DOT uses master consultant contracts for survey and site evaluation projects, keeping consultants on retainer. This agency uses a standardized scope of work and a two-page task order so that contractors can immediately begin to work on a project. The Delaware DOT uses cultural resource management Parent Agreements, setting up a dollar ceiling for each 3-year consultant contract. Then, the agency negotiates the scope and budget for each task order with the consultants. Because the contract funds have already been established, the DOT’s CRM staff simply requests the specific task amount from the department’s financial management office, sets up the task- specific funds, and then authorizes the consultant to begin work. In this system, it takes 1 week to have a funded task order in place. The Delaware DOT also uses environmental or engineering firms as the prime consultant on projects, and the prime consultant hires CRM firms as their subconsul- tants. In such cases, there is less flexibility in conducting archaeological investigations, as changes in a scope of work involve a level of administration that does not exist under the Parent Agreements with CRM firms. Some of the DOTs voiced concerns about outsourcing the majority of their archaeological investigations. For example, in the past, the Nevada DOT conducted most of its work in-house and, as a result, it was able to “get out in front” of the projects during the development phase, conducting archaeological surveys before the engineers got too far along on design. DOT archaeologists were able to influence design and avoid significant sites. Given the openness of the land in western states, the agency had the flexibility to change the design to avoid sites. This minimized the number of large- scale mitigation projects that were needed. Staff archaeolo- gists worked with design engineers on a one-to-one basis, so that there was continual communication between the archae- ologists and designers. With recent increases in outsourcing, this type of close interaction with the project designers is no longer possible, particularly when design is also done by outside contractors. This linkage between design and the results of archaeologi- cal studies is diminished even more when the designers work for one firm, the environmental and NEPA specialists work as a subcontractor to the design firm, and the archaeologists are in yet another firm, working as a subcontractor to the NEPA firm. Given the almost exclusive use of contractors and the reduction of in-house archaeological staff, Nevada DOT’s CRM staff focuses on managing contracts and consultants. The Utah DOT has in-house archaeological expertise in each regional office. Agency engineers and planners believe that in-house staff is more responsive to project needs than outside experts. There is also more consistency when regional archaeologists do the work. The Utah DOT does outsource large archaeological projects. In these cases, the regional archaeological staff oversees the outsourced work to ensure quality and consistency. PennDOT found that hiring in-house professional archae- ologists (whom the agency refers to as “qualified profession- als”), and placing these individuals in the district offices, has CHAPTER THREE INTERNAL BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PROJECT DELIVERY

significantly improved management of archaeological inves- tigations and project delivery. The primary reason for this improvement is that the cultural resource decision makers are in-house, and the designers and engineers within the depart- ment respond better to this in-house expertise than to outside reviews and comments. This is particularly the case after some trust building has occurred among internal archaeolog- ical staff and DOT engineers and designers. Another benefit is the improved communication among agency staff working on a project. There is no need to schedule every meeting or interaction, as would be the case if an outside consultant were used. Having the qualified professionals serve as both Sec- tion 106 process managers and liaisons with archaeological consultants also results in a consistency in approaches and standards used within the districts. The Wyoming DOT also stressed the importance of hav- ing qualified in-house staff. New archaeologists hired by a DOT should have a demonstrated record of research, publi- cation, and standing in the larger professional community within the state. This approach results in better decision mak- ing, because decisions are based on a depth of experience. Some DOTs use state universities to conduct their archae- ological investigations, rather than contracting with private CRM firms. The Oklahoma DOT, for example, has an inter- agency agreement with the University of Oklahoma. The university does the bulk of the agencies’ work (85% to 95%), and the university’s staff, which is assigned to do only DOT work, is under the direction of the agencies’ archaeologist. Flexibility and decreased administrative and contractual bur- dens are the primary reasons why DOTs like to work with state universities. With this type of arrangement, the univer- sity can easily respond to changes in project design and NEPA issues early in the project development phases. The Oregon DOT also noted that their university contractor is well known and respected by the SHPO and the state’s tribes. As a result, archaeological consultations proceed very smoothly because of this high level of trust. In New York, the State Museum (part of the state’s Department of Education) provides archaeological services to the New York State DOT. The museum has a large staff available for DOT work. Regional DOT offices develop estimates of the department’s annual needs in terms of archaeological work and forward this information to the DOTs’ Cultural Resources Section of the Environmental Analysis Bureau (located in Albany), which then coordinates these needs with the museum. The museum works with the agency to set up an annual CRM program based on the regions’ needs. Approximately 50% of the DOT annual work program is done by museum staff and crews. The other half is accomplished through subcontractual arrangements the museum has made with four universities and three private firms. The DOT participates in the subconsultant selection process, which takes place every 3 to 5 years. The partner- ship with the museum saves time; when the agency needs the 18 museum, it is available and can quickly respond. The museum also handles all of the day-to-day management of the archaeological investigations and is responsible for con- trolling the quality of work performed by its subconsultants. DOT CRM staff can then focus on project design, NEPA and New York State Environmental Quality Act decision mak- ing, and Section 106 compliance. The New York State DOT noted that their program with the State Museum results in standardization in reporting and documentation, which facil- itates and streamlines SHPO reviews, because the SHPO is comfortable with the standards that are used. This program is also cost-effective for the DOT, as they do not have to deal with layers of engineering or environmental consultants to reach the CRM professionals who do the work. Funding of Positions for SHPOs One approach that some DOTs have used to streamline the review of archaeological projects is to fund a project review position(s) within their respective SHPO. Eight of the DOTs and FHWA division offices responding to this survey cur- rently fund review positions at SHPOs. The Ohio DOT funds two positions at its SHPO and this staff works only on DOT projects. Having these two dedicated positions facilitates Sec- tion 106 consultation, because these individuals can easily attend field and office meetings and immediately respond to project needs as they arise. Unlike other SHPO staff, these individuals do not have conflicting project review priorities. The DOT oversees the work load of these two individuals and sets their work priorities. The DOT and FHWA meet every month with the two funded SHPO reviewers. It should be noted that even though these individuals are dedicated to DOT projects and work under the direction of the agency, they do not always agree with the DOT’s positions. Because there is a constant dialogue between the agency and SHPO staff, how- ever, they can more easily resolve any differences of opinion. The Idaho DOT has a cooperative agreement with the Idaho SHPO to help fund a position at the SHPO. The indi- vidual in this position reviews the DOT’s cultural resource reports, and the SHPO charges the DOT an hourly rate for these reviews. The Louisiana DOT funds both a review posi- tion and a student worker at the SHPO through an interagency agreement. The Arkansas DOT and FHWA have an MOA with the SHPO that establishes a SHPO review position. This individual does not review DOT projects to avoid any conflict of interest, but assumes a significant portion of the workload from the other SHPO reviewer, allowing the latter to devote more time to DOT reviews. The Kentucky FHWA division office funds a position within the SHPO. FHWA noted that having a person dedicated to transportation activities has helped expedite the project review process, and that no other approach has been as successful within the state. Caltrans has an exchange program with the SHPO wherein three or four Caltrans employees go to the SHPO on

19 a rotating basis to assist in the review of other agencies’ proj- ects. Owing to the size of the state and the volume of Caltrans projects, Caltrans reviewers may also assist in the review of agency projects from outside their own DOT district. SHPO supervisory staff also ensure that a “firewall” remains in place between the Caltrans staff and other SHPO review staff. In the past, SHPO staff has also worked for Caltrans on a temporary basis. This exchange effort helps the SHPO with their workload, and it also promotes a good relationship between the agencies as staff get to experience the “other side” of the Section 106 consultation process. Who Are the Decision Makers? The survey showed that internally, decisions to implement innovative archaeological studies were made by the DOT staff archaeologist or CRM specialist. If the approach was new and required funds not originally budgeted for a project, the ultimate decision was made by upper project management. The survey responses also showed that the majority of DOTs made decisions on both standard and innovative archaeological investigations in consultation with the SHPO, and that a consensus on these approaches was usually reached. The Ohio DOT noted that every decision on com- plex projects is a multidisciplinary decision, where all aspects of design and resource review associated with a proj- ect are considered. The DOT needs to ensure that they do not create problems in other areas when they make a decision about one particular resource category or project design action. As noted previously, some DOTs reported having poor relationships with their SHPOs. One of these DOTs stated that it tended to give the SHPO’s views precedence and that the state’s FHWA division office took the same position. The agency did not attempt to negotiate a solution with the SHPO when there was a disagreement, because this took too much time and affected project delivery schedules. Another DOT commented that recently their SHPO was becoming more resistant to innovative approaches; there- fore, it was difficult to reach a consensus on using these approaches. A third DOT noted that the use of creative mitigation for archaeological resources was generally opposed by its SHPO. The SHPO was not willing, for example, to “sacri- fice” portions of an archaeological resource to gain a higher public benefit on a project. This same DOT also stated that there was a general feeling within the department and FHWA that the SHPO “must be appeased” to avoid project delays. Any disagreement could affect a project’s schedule. One of the responding FHWA division offices made the same obser- vations in terms of the relationship between its DOT and the SHPO. In addition, one of the CRM firms responding to the survey noted that in its state the DOT believed that it was important to always please the SHPO. PROJECT DELIVERY—INTEGRATION OF SECTION 106, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, AND PROJECT DESIGN As noted in chapter one, an important aspect of environmen- tal streamlining is the reduction and elimination of delays and unnecessary duplication in environmental review procedures. The survey, therefore, asked that DOTs and FHWA describe effective practices that integrate the timing and scope of archaeological investigations into the NEPA and project development processes. The focus was on practices that resulted in expedited project reviews and reduction of costs. On widening projects and bridge replacements where NEPA compliance often involves an EA, the majority of DOTs conducted comprehensive archaeological surveys early in project development because alternatives for these projects are spatially restricted. National Register evalua- tions and the development of plans for mitigation of adverse effects are frequently finished by the time a FONSI is issued. On widening projects in Georgia, the DOT generally con- ducts an intensive level survey at the conceptual design stage. At times, however, fieldwork is not done until after the completion of the analysis to identify practical and reason- able alternatives. Archaeology is rarely an issue during the alternative screening process. Rather, alternatives are selected for further detailed environmental study on the basis of his- toric architecture, Section 4(f), and ecological issues. For projects that are CEs under NEPA, the DOTs generally complete archaeological surveys and National Register site evaluations before the release of the CE document. In Pennsyl- vania, however, the DOT has problems integrating archaeo- logical studies into CE level projects, because the CE process moves very quickly. To deal with this situation and with proj- ects where access to private property is not granted before the conclusion of NEPA compliance, the agency executes individ- ual Section 106 programmatic agreements for CEs. The PAs stipulate the process to be followed once the DOT purchases the ROW for the project. PennDOT recognizes that this process results in the execution of too many project-specific PAs. On large projects with multiple alternatives, the DOTs often use a phased approach to archaeological survey. The DOTs conduct a literature and records search of the alterna- tives being studied, followed by a field survey of high prob- ability areas; that is, areas that may contain a fatal flaw such as sites with burials. A comprehensive survey is done only on the preferred alternative, before the final EIS or release of an EA for public review and comment. In most cases, the DOTs noted that their FHWA division offices wanted National Register eligibility evaluations conducted on all sites within the preferred alternative before the final EIS or before issuing a FONSI.

In Ohio, it is standard operating procedure to not conduct archaeological surveys on large-scale or complex projects until a preferred alternative is identified. Rather, a historic context is developed on the area encompassing all of the alternatives, focusing on the identification of potential fatal flaws in the alternatives. The historic context is based on a comprehensive literature study and records review. The DOT has found that doing archaeology in a broad corridor or for multiple alternatives is too costly, and that it is rare to find a significant site requiring a major shift during the NEPA analysis or project design. The DOT found that other envi- ronmental issues had a greater impact on the NEPA and proj- ect design process. The Virginia DOT has an agreement with its SHPO that recognizes the departments’ discretion to con- duct archaeological surveys only on the preferred corridor when projects involve the analysis of multiple alternatives. The DOT takes this position because in Virginia archaeolog- ical resources do not typically influence corridor selection and minor alignment shifts during design can avoid many significant archaeological sites. Some DOTs and FHWA division offices use archaeolog- ical predictive modeling to evaluate multiple alternatives on large projects. This is done because of the expense of con- ducting archaeological surveys of multiple alternatives. The results of these modeling efforts (and field testing of the models) are used to evaluate the potential of all alternatives to affect archaeological resources. Instead of using predic- tive models, some DOTs perform a sample survey of each of the alternatives to document the potential of each alter- native to contain significant archaeological resources. As with predictive modeling, the results of the sample survey are used to compare the potential affects of each alternative. Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc., from Michigan, noted that in its state, modeling is used to predict the number and types of archaeological resources within alternatives. In addition, they conduct deep testing of major water crossings where there is a potential for buried sites. Full identification surveys do not occur until the preferred alternative is selected. Several eastern DOTs postpone archaeological investiga- tions until after the issuance of a FONSI or a Record of Deci- sion (ROD) for an EIS because of private property issues and the high cost of conducting comprehensive surveys in heav- ily wooded or agricultural areas. For example, in Pennsylva- nia, alternatives usually cross private lands and, if FHWA and DOT conduct any archaeological testing, recovered materials belong to private property owners. FHWA and the SHPO (and tribes when prehistoric sites are involved) want to avoid situations where materials are returned to property owners. This, in addition to cost, is the reason why predictive modeling is used to evaluate alternatives in Pennsylvania. For EISs, FHWA and PennDOT conduct archaeological fieldwork only after they have identified the preferred alter- native. In some cases, however, survey and testing work is conducted after the issuance of the ROD and purchase of the 20 ROW. In such situations, the FHWA, DOT, and SHPO exe- cute a project-specific programmatic agreement, before issu- ing the ROD, stipulating how archaeological investigations are to be performed. TxDOT finds it difficult to complete all National Register eligibility evaluations before issuing a FONSI. The DOT’s policy is to decline to do testing until landowners agree to relinquish artifacts found during fieldwork. Otherwise field- work takes place after ROW purchase. For EISs, the agency completes as much of the archaeological survey as possible within the limitations of rights of entry, and may complete the inventory after the ROD. Again, this is done because of issues associated with access to private property. As a result, TxDOT often conducts noninvasive assessments of alterna- tives and uses this information to evaluate the relative impacts to archaeological resources. The North Carolina DOT attempts to conduct National Register evaluations as early as possible in the NEPA and project design processes. The agency does these evaluations on all alternatives subjected to detailed study to adequately evaluate the impacts of the alternatives. The DOT conducts this work up front to avoid having to redesign projects to miss significant sites, which in turn avoids remobilization to do more archaeology on newly included areas resulting from these design changes. The agency works to avoid National Register eligible sites during project development; therefore, they need to know where these sites are. The DOT does not want to make changes in design that end up avoiding non- significant sites. As an example of an effective practice that links archaeo- logical field investigations to ongoing project design, the New Hampshire DOT meets with the SHPO and FHWA once or twice each month. If a project design is being per- formed in-house, DOT highway or bridge design staff par- ticipates in these meetings. If a consultant is responsible for the design, the consultant also attends. Archaeological con- sultants may also be invited. Having these meetings as part of the ongoing design effort allows the DOT to determine how to deal with archaeologically sensitive areas early in the project delivery process. The agency can also examine avoid- ance strategies and evaluate the need for phased archaeolog- ical investigations. SUMMARY Several survey responses discussed how internal business practices can affect the quality and effectiveness of archaeo- logical investigations. These practices include the structure of consultant contracting, funding of SHPO positions, and the way in which archaeological investigations are integrated into project design and the NEPA decision-making process. For example, many DOTs use outside consultants to conduct archaeological investigations. Some DOTs noted that having

21 on-call or master contracts with consultants resulted in rapid initiation of projects with minimal administrative paperwork. Others, however, felt that the use of outside consultants, as opposed to in-house staff, reduced the close interaction between project designers and archaeologists and lessened the ability to quickly respond to changing project needs. Using in-house staff resulted in more consistency in work products and streamlined communication between archaeol- ogists, project engineers, and planners. A few DOTs use universities or other sister state agencies to conduct archae- ological investigations. The benefits of this approach included increased flexibility, decreased administrative and contractual burdens, and consistency in work. Several DOTs fund project review positions within their respective SHPOs as a means to streamline the review of archaeological projects. Both SHPOs and DOTs are pleased with the results, which include reduced project review time, more consistent access to SHPO staff throughout the project planning process, and improved communication and rela- tionships between the agencies. Another internal business practice that streamlines project delivery is effective integra- tion of archaeological investigations with the NEPA and project design process. Although how this integration is specifically accomplished varies from state to state, a com- mon approach is the use of phased archaeological survey and identification.

Next: Chapter Four - Pre-Project Planning »
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!