National Academies Press: OpenBook

Managing Archaeological Investigations (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Pre-Project Planning

« Previous: Chapter Three - Internal Business Practices and Project Delivery
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Pre-Project Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Pre-Project Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Pre-Project Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Pre-Project Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Pre-Project Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Pre-Project Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Pre-Project Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Managing Archaeological Investigations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13848.
×
Page 27

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.

Pre-project planning efforts establish frameworks and proce- dures that guide future project development and associated historic preservation reviews. These efforts include, but are not limited to, PAs, IT and information management tools, and syntheses and treatment guidance for categories of archaeo- logical resources. PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENTS PAs are formal, legally binding agreements between a fed- eral agency and the ACHP stipulating the process for com- pliance with Section 106. Most people are familiar with “project-specific” PAs, which are used to manage compli- ance for large, complex projects and situations where it is dif- ficult to determine the effects on historic properties before a federal action. Pre-project planning often involves proce- dural PAs that establish a process through which the agen- cies will meet their Section 106 compliance responsibilities for an agency program, a category of projects, or a particular type of resource. In the case of transportation projects, state DOTs are often parties to these agreements. Procedural PAs, especially those that delegate review authority to the state DOT, are viewed by DOTs and FHWA as one of the most effective tools to streamline and enhance the Section 106 process, including archaeological investigations. These PAs result in reduced project timelines and greater certainty in project development outcomes (17,22,23). Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington State, and Wyoming have what is referred to as a “minor projects” PA (17,23). These PAs pro- vide a list of transportation-related activities that will have no effect on historic properties (including archaeological sites) and allow the DOT to proceed with such activities without consultation with the SHPO or ACHP. These PAs decrease the amount of project-by-project Section 106 review, reduc- ing the work loads of SHPOs and DOTs and shortening DOT project delivery time. PennDOT has a PA that moves beyond the normal minor projects agreement. Like most minor project PAs, Pennsyl- vania’s includes a list of projects exempt from Section 106 review. The PA also has provisions allowing the DOT’s “qualified professionals” to review, without consultation with the SHPO or ACHP, certain categories of projects that have no affect on historic properties and are CEs under 22 FHWA’s NEPA regulations (17). Having the PA in place reduces paperwork and moves the project more quickly through the project development process. The DOT is also doing a better job of historic preservation, as staff is a little more careful because the requirements of the PA are so tightly written. Caltrans has a procedural PA, executed in January 2004, which delegates extensive review authority to the DOT. The PA includes lists of “screenable” undertakings, which can be exempted from further Section 106 review, and a list of resource categories that are exempt from evaluation. The latter includes archaeological sites such as isolated prehistoric or his- toric finds, isolated historic refuse dumps and scatters that lack specific historic associations, and isolated mining prospect pits. Under the PA, Caltrans also has the review authority to make findings of “no historic properties affected” or “no adverse effect with standard conditions.” In terms of the lat- ter finding, Caltrans can assume that a site is eligible for the National Register “for the purpose of the undertaking,” with- out conducting subsurface testing. These site areas are then defined as Environmentally Sensitive Areas and are protected from project construction activities. Caltrans notifies the con- sulting parties, including the SHPO, of these findings and makes the findings documentation available to all parties. The PA has reduced the paperwork handled by Caltrans, the SHPO, and FHWA; and Caltrans can move projects more quickly through the review process. Furthermore, as a result of the training that is required as part of the implementation of the PA, the quality of the products produced by Caltrans staff has greatly improved. The New Jersey SHPO, DOT, and FHWA state office have a minor project PA, a PA that specifies the terms and responsibilities of all three parties in the Section 106 consul- tation process, and an unofficial agreement for the develop- ment of abbreviated archaeological survey reports. The latter agreement is for situations where background research indi- cates a low potential for National Register-eligible archaeo- logical resources within a project’s area of potential effects. This agreement only applies to surveys conducted by in-house DOT staff. One of the most comprehensive PAs developed to date is Vermont’s delegation PA. Under this agreement, the Vermont CHAPTER FOUR PRE-PROJECT PLANNING

23 Transportation Agency (VTrans) completes all of the follow- ing activities without additional consultation with the Vermont SHPO and ACHP: • Identifies historic properties, • Determines National Register eligibility, • Makes formal findings of “no historic properties affected,” • Makes formal findings of “no adverse effect” or “adverse effect,” and • Implements standard mitigation measures to resolve adverse effects to historic properties (22,23). To implement this PA, VTrans has on staff two full-time historic preservation professionals. These individuals serve as Deputy Historic Preservation Officers within the DOT, one responsible for archaeological resources and the other the built environment. The PA also establishes a process whereby the SHPO or any other party can intervene in the process if they have a concern. All VTrans decisions are fully documented using standardized procedures and forms, and these documents are readily accessible to all parties. Since its execution in 2000, the PA has worked extremely well and has extensively streamlined and short- ened the project review process (G. Peebles, personal com- munication, 2002; Scott Newman, personal communica- tion, 2002). As noted previously, procedural PAs can be used to address a category of resource. The Illinois DOT has a PA for resolv- ing adverse effects to prehistoric habitation sites in the state. The PA involves only sites that are significant solely for their information potential. These sites do not have the potential to contain human remains nor do they possess traditional cultural values for Native Americans or other traditional communities. These habitation sites are the most common archaeological sites encountered on Illinois DOT projects and usually involve the use of data recovery to mitigate project impacts. The pro- cedures stipulated in the PA eliminate the need for individual project-by-project MOAs (4). The AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence website provides an on-line “how-to” tool kit for creating Section 106 programmatic agreements (17). The tool kit serves as a step-by- step tutorial, presenting information, guidance, and recommen- dations on developing and implementing agreements among state DOTs, FHWA, SHPOs, and ACHP. The tool kit not only describes how to write an agreement, but also provides guidance on how to build trust among parties to create an effective agree- ment that streamlines and enhances Section 106 compliance. COLLECTION AND CURATION STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES A growing problem area associated with archaeological investigations is artifact curation. Many repositories for archaeological materials are reaching their storage capacity, and a few have stopped taking in any new collections (24). To address this issue, several states have instituted innovative approaches to artifact collection and analysis, both in the field and in laboratories. The Nevada DOT has stopped collecting artifacts during survey. This was initially done at the behest of federal land managing agencies when a DOT project crossed federal lands. The DOT has also developed sampling methods for certain categories of material that occur in high frequencies, such as waste flakes and some types of historic artifacts. In addition, the DOT analyzes some categories of material in the field, such as ground stone and bulk historic materials, and leaves these materials on the site. When testing for National Register eligibility, the DOT collects only enough material to support a decision on eligibility. Oklahoma DOT’s preliminary National Register eligi- bility evaluations often involve the use of shovel testing. In such cases, artifact analyses are performed in the field and the artifacts are placed back into the shovel test pits, unless a landowner has specifically given the DOT the right to remove artifacts from their private property. When National Register evaluation efforts involve excavation of test units and trenching, the artifacts are returned to the landowner, if he or she wishes, after laboratory analyses are completed. For the past 20 years, some federal land managing agen- cies in Wyoming have required the collection of only diag- nostic artifacts during surveys. On nonfederal lands, the Wyoming DOT uses the same process and requests that the landowner sign a donation agreement for the curation of diagnostic materials at the University of Wyoming’s curation facility. For test excavations evaluating National Register eligibility, the DOT uses the professional standards in federal regulations dealing with collections (36 CFR Part 79); how- ever, bulk materials such as brick on historic period sites are measured and discarded in the field. In Oregon, according to Archaeological Investigations NW, Inc., a local CRM consulting firm, state policy allows survey teams to take digital photographs of artifacts in the field rather than collecting them. This process, however, requires that the team include highly skilled individuals who can identify and record these materials in the field. This process reduces subse- quent laboratory analysis time and curation costs. The Montana DOT, in two instances, conducted extensive testing and data recovery on a group of sites and agreed to turn the artifacts over to tribes after the analyses were completed. The tribes reburied the artifacts near the sites, and the locations of the reburied materials were recorded using a Global Posi- tioning System device. In some cases on tribal land, the DOT has put artifacts back into test units after testing is completed. The New Jersey DOT has an Archeological Collections Donation Agreement, which offers local repositories the

opportunity to take on long-term curation of collections recovered from DOT property. The agreement includes a set of criteria that the repository must adhere to before receiving the collection. INNOVATIVE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE GUIDELINES A search of all of the SHPO websites identified only one state (Vermont) that had moved beyond the standard approaches to archaeological investigations. It should be noted that not all SHPOs have posted their state’s guidelines on their web- sites. What makes the Vermont guidelines unique is inclu- sion of explicit guidance on establishing the significance of prehistoric sites, listing the characteristics that make a site eligible for listing in the National Register. The guidelines also indicate the categories of data that sites must contain to address the important research topics for the state. These questions are included in a historic context on “Vermont’s Prehistoric Cultural Heritage.” The Vermont guidelines also include extensive discussions on integrating public outreach and education into archaeological investigations and sets standards for this outreach. The guidelines also include a list- ing of recommended projects and programs for public out- reach. Finally, the guidelines stress many times that one of the goals for Vermont archaeology is to increase creativity and flexibility in the conduct of archaeological studies (25). INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS State DOTs are using various IT tools to manage archaeo- logical resource data. The most common tools are GIS and database programs such as Microsoft Access (13). These IT tools are used to maintain site inventories and develop com- puterized archaeological predictive models. Archaeological Predictive Modeling One of the most comprehensive and longest operating, transportation-related archaeological GIS databases and predictive models is Minnesota DOT’s Mn/Model. From 1995 to 1998, using funds from FHWA, the Minnesota DOT developed Mn/Model to improve the ability of archaeolo- gists to assess the likelihood of finding archaeological sites throughout the state. Creation of the model involved the collection and mapping of both environmental and archaeo- logical site data for the entire state. Mn/Model is a statisti- cally based predictive model that displays the probability of finding a pre-1821 archaeological site at any given location. Probability categories are based on statistical correlations between known archaeological site locations and environ- mental attributes. The model maps low, medium, high, and unknown probabilities of finding an archaeological site in a particular area (13,26). 24 Mn/Model also includes three-dimensional, GIS-format geomorphic maps for a number of the state’s major river valleys, in addition to a bog region and several small upland locations. These maps are used to define Landscape Suit- ability Ratings. These ratings indicate the potential for and possible depth of buried sites, in addition to whether or not the surface of an area is disturbed. By consulting the Land- scape Suitability Rating maps, the DOT determines whether a subsurface survey is necessary and if a proposed project might disturb buried sites. The North Carolina DOT, with funding from FHWA, has completed the first stage of a GIS-based Archaeological Pre- dictive Model (APM) for seven counties in the state. This first phase of work involved collecting digital environmental data, digitizing and georeferencing data from archaeological sites and historical maps, and creating a Microsoft Access database. The next task will be to create a predictive model that will indicate whether any given 30-m-square area within a project corridor has a high, medium, or low probability for containing archaeological sites. The model is currently focused on prehistoric sites. This predictive model will allow the DOT to choose highway alternatives that have the least costs for complying with NEPA and Section 106. Eventually, the APM, which is housed in the Office of State Archaeol- ogy (located within the state’s HPO), will be developed for the entire state of North Carolina (27). The North Carolina DOT noted that once in place, the models will be continu- ously tested and refined through future transportation proj- ects within the areas covered by the APM. The use of archaeological predictive models is relatively new to the transportation project development process. Sev- eral military installations across the country developed such models in the 1980s and 1990s and have used these models with mixed success. In 2002–2003, Statistical Research, Inc., and the SRI Foundation carried out a project, funded by a Department of Defense (DoD) Legacy Grant, to evaluate the use of archaeological predictive models on military installa- tions (28). The project was designed to answer four questions: • Do predictive models that have been created for mili- tary installations work? • Can they be refined to work better? • Are they sufficiently accurate so that land managers and SHPOs can use them in evaluating management deci- sions about installation of archaeological resources? • Can a predictive model be integrated into a more dynamic operational model that would be useful across the DoD to increase cost-efficiency of cultural resource management at large installations? To address these questions the project team first tried to determine the pervasiveness of predictive modeling in the mil- itary through a questionnaire sent to installations representing all branches of the service. Although not intended to be a com- plete canvassing of the military use of predictive models, the

25 objective of the questionnaire was to achieve a reasonable sample from which inferences could be drawn. The second step was to choose models from four of the responding instal- lations for an in-depth evaluation of their technical quality, accuracy, and general utility as a cultural resource manage- ment tool. The four installations included Fort Bliss in Texas/New Mexico, Fort Drum in New York, Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, and Fort Stewart in Georgia (28). The study produced several important findings about the use of predictive archaeological modeling at military installa- tions. These findings, which follow, are presented in this syn- thesis report because they provide transportation planners and historic preservation specialists working with state DOTs with valuable guidance and lessons about archaeological pre- dictive models. Despite all the interest in predictive modeling in the mili- tary, there is no centralized instruction on how to create, use, and maintain these models. Each installation is left to sur- mount the difficulties associated with site recording, GIS development, and predictive modeling by itself. This approach has encouraged innovation and led to the develop- ment of a wide variety of models, but the potential of many of these models is restricted because of decisions made early in the process. It was clear that installations could have profited greatly from one another’s miscalculations and successes. Most models are rudimentary in nature. In many respects, predictive modeling has witnessed a loss of sophistication in the models developed in recent years. Most models are simple intersection models or simple correlation models. Few models are based on multivariate statistical techniques or theoretically based constructs about past human behavior. Because of the simplistic nature of the models, some instal- lations have added judgmental criteria into their models to increase their accuracy; even though by doing so they reduce their systematic and objective character. Models tend to be restricted to predicting surface manifes- tations. Despite the importance and predictability of buried sites, geomorphology is not a component of most modeling efforts, and neither are remote sensing techniques. The lack of satellite imagery is particularly noticeable. Such imagery can be a useful proxy for ground cover and land surfaces. The imagery exists in digital form that can easily be included as a separate theme in an installation’s GIS. Impor- tantly, much of this imagery is available to the military at lit- tle or no cost. In most cases, models are not integral to the historic preser- vation compliance process. In part this may be a result of models going out of date. While much effort has gone into creating models, little effort has been expended in refining them. Models are treated as final products rather than being viewed as a process that involves continual modification and improvement. But even for models that have been refined and kept current, decisions regarding level of inventory, determinations of National Register eligibility, and resolu- tion of adverse effects rarely include model predictions. Yet, this does not have to be the case. How many acres should be surveyed? Where should they be conducted? How should sites be identified (e.g., shovel testing or pedestrian survey)? These are questions that predictive models can assist in answering. Determinations of eligibility require archaeolo- gists to state why a site is significant, and what can be learned from the site. Models could be used to highlight why a particular site’s location is unusual or typical of a class of past behaviors. Data recovery plans could incorporate model predictions about the type of site and the resources available to its residents (28). Archaeological Resource Inventories and Portals Several states have computerized archaeological resource inventories (13). For example, the Ohio DOT, working with the Ohio SHPO, developed a GIS program based on the National Park Service’s MAPIT (Mapping and Preservation Information Technology) software. The Ohio database includes more than 120,000 cultural resources, including archaeological sites. The DOT funded the development of this GIS. The database allows DOT staff to electronically plot archaeological site locations and make early evaluations of potential impacts from proposed transportation project alignments. The GIS has become a valuable project planning tool and is used for the analysis of alternatives within the NEPA process (4). Florida DOT’s Efficient Transportation Decision-Making (ETDM) process links land use, transportation, and environmental resource planning and facilitates early interactive involvement to pro- duce better and more consensual environmental outcomes. Through electronic data sharing and comment entry, maps can be viewed and comments filed and read by others on-line at various stages in the process (4). ETDM includes an interactive, user-friendly GIS database that is accessed through the Internet. The ETDM database contains all of the state’s computerized archaeological resource data, in addition to a wide range of environmental and land use data. Through the use of ETDM, the Florida DOT can identify potential impacts to archaeological resources and develop management strategies during the transportation planning process and during the early phases of project development. All management decisions are documented electronically and can be accessed by trans- portation and resource agencies involved in the Section 106 process, facilitating concurrent agency reviews and approvals. Agencies also use the system to exchange infor- mation (4,13). The Florida DOT noted that the Seminole Tribe of Florida is currently participating in the ETDM process. The DOT is working with several other tribes about participating in the ETDM process. One area where IT tools have become very important to DOTs is in the recordation and management of archaeologi- cal sites located in DOT ROWs. The Oregon DOT has a GIS mapping program that locates archaeological sites within its ROWs. The GIS also indicates areas of high archaeological

resource potential. These locations are indicated on highway maps used by maintenance crews, and the GIS program informs maintenance when it needs to coordinate with archaeology staff to ensure that no sites will be affected by its activities. The Wisconsin DOT also has an archaeological database for ROWs in three of its state districts. The database records the National Register status of archaeological sites and indicates site locations that have not been evaluated. The database is used by the DOT’s real estate, utilities, and main- tenance offices. It is also used to a lesser extent by planning and design offices. Caltrans has a Transportation Enhance- ment grant to identify known archaeological sites within its ROW, to carry out surveys to identify new sites in the ROW, and to develop a GIS database on these archaeological resources. The Arizona DOT has developed an internal web-based portal for the storage and retrieval of electronic cultural resource survey data. All CRM-related survey documents (including consultation letters) produced since 1985 have been scanned and entered into the portal. Cultural resource survey data can be retrieved either though a text search engine or through a GIS interface. The GIS also includes the locations of historic properties, including archaeological sites. Portal users can upload new information and add to existing information in the database. With this system in place the Arizona DOT has improved the efficiency of proj- ect planning and design by providing immediate access to CRM data using computers in the DOT’s offices (S. Lane, personal communication, 2004). PREDICTIVE MODELING (NONCOMPUTERIZED) Some states that have not developed computerized archae- ological predictive models use environmentally based cor- relation models to assist in project planning. The Ohio DOT has developed five archaeological predictive models for five physiographic regions of the state, providing a baseline to evaluate archaeological survey and site evaluation needs for projects. Once developed, the models are tested and refined through subsequent survey projects in the regions covered by the models. The results of these surveys are incorporated into the DOT’s and SHPO’s GIS database management systems. The Ohio models are based on the analysis of data from previous archaeological studies and environmental research. The DOT creates two tables to convey the expected correlations between site occurrence and environ- mental setting within a region. The first table predicts which site types will be found in certain settings and the potential National Register eligibility of those sites. The second table outlines the estimated information yields and recommended investigation strategies for sites, given the environmental setting. Using these tables, the DOT outlines where sites are likely to be found in a project area and 26 defines the strategies for future archaeological investiga- tions in these areas (29). GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AS PLANNING TOOL Several state DOTs are using geoarchaeology as a tool for assessing the presence and physical integrity of buried archae- ological sites within proposed project areas. Geoarchaeology links archaeological methods with the concepts and methods of earth sciences, such as geology, pedology (i.e., the study of soils), and sedimentology (i.e., the study of sediments and sedimentation processes). TxDOT, for example, has devel- oped a unique archaeological GIS database and predictive model based on geoarchaeological data. This database, which focuses on the Houston area, is referred to as the Potential Archeological Liability Map (PALM). The database was cre- ated with input from the Texas SHPO and outside peer reviewers. The database does not predict where archaeologi- cal sites will occur, but instead estimates the likelihood of encountering sites within a project’s area of potential effects that will be eligible for listing on the National Register. PALM provides a visual representation of “geoarcheological potential.” Geoarcheological potential refers to the probabil- ity of archaeological sites having enough integrity to make them eligible for the NRHP. The geological conditions of an area reflect its natural formation processes, which in turn affect the integrity of archaeological contexts. By assessing integrity, based on the geological environment, the DOT can estimate the chances of encountering an eligible archaeolog- ical site without conducting fieldwork. This program serves as an effective tool for evaluating the impacts of project alter- natives on significant archaeological resources (30). In Wyoming, the Department of Energy, state Bureau of Land Management, SHPO, Western Wyoming College, and a geoarchaeological consultant are developing a predictive model to assess the probability of encountering buried archaeological site locations. This is being done to improve and streamline environmental compliance and review for oil and gas exploration. The Wyoming DOT is providing tech- nical reviews for the model development. The DOT plans to use the results of this project as a transportation planning tool. The resulting model will be posted on the Internet on a website maintained by the SHPO. The Minnesota DOT is conducting a “Deep Testing Proto- col” project to develop a set of statewide standards for field methods, reporting, and preliminary site evaluations. The proj- ect includes geomorphological and archaeological research and analyses and field testing. An important goal of this proj- ect is to define the most effective geoarchaeological field methods for each of the state’s environmental settings. Once the project is completed, the DOT, SHPO, and state archaeol- ogist will develop an agreement on the implementation of the selected protocols for future archaeological investigations.

27 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE SYNTHESES A few DOTs are creating syntheses to assist in evaluating and managing problematic types of archaeological resources. Some site types are problematic because they cannot be easily associated with a particular time period or culture; others are so numerous that they are encountered in high frequencies in almost every transportation project. The purpose of these syn- theses is to establish a framework for determining the National Register eligibility of these sites and to develop guidance for their treatment if they are affected by DOT projects. The Nevada DOT, in consultation with the SHPO, has developed syntheses for several types of archaeological resources in different parts of the state. A synthesis of infor- mation on rock circle sites in Nevada and surrounding states allowed the DOT to identify categories of this site type for which a lot of data had already been collected, and categories that were not well understood. This information guides investigations and National Register evaluations for this site type. The Nevada rock circle synthesis included a literature review, compilation of an annotated bibliography, construc- tion of a database, and plotting of rock circle sites on U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps. The synthesis report contained written descriptions and photographs of rock cir- cle features to aid future identification efforts. The report also included a recordation form for this site type so that future documentation would be standardized (31). The Nevada syntheses, including the one for the rock cir- cle sites, were funded through project-specific programs. When a National Register eligible site was going to be affected by a project, the DOT examined the expected scien- tific contributions and public benefit if the site was to be excavated through a data recovery program. If the data recovery would not result in a valuable contribution, funds that would have been used for the data recovery were applied to a synthesis for that category of site. SUMMARY PAs, APM, and computerized inventories and GIS databases are the most common tools used by DOTs, FHWA, and SHPOs to streamline and enhance archaeological investiga- tions. PAs, in particular, are viewed as one of the best tools for streamlining the Section 106 process (16). Use of these agreements reduces project costs and review time; allows greater flexibility in Section 106 compliance; focuses Sec- tion 106 compliance on substantive issues and site types; and results in predictable project and preservation outcomes. It should be noted, however, that creating and maintaining these agreements takes both time and a strong commitment from agency staff, including upper management. The Ver- mont delegation agreement, for example, took several years to develop and the how to manual for implementing the agreement took an additional year (16). Although several DOTs employ some form of predictive modeling as a planning tool, there has been no consistent approach to the creation, use, and maintenance of these mod- els, which is also the case for modeling efforts among DoD installations. In addition, at times these models do not oper- ate as originally expected. The Minnesota SHPO archaeolo- gist, for example, noted that neither the SHPO nor the DOT exclusively relies on the Mn/Model to determine where archaeological surveys should or should not be conducted. It was determined that if the model was exclusively relied on, more surveys would be required than those suggested by experience-based judgmental models. One of the goals of this synthesis study was to identify future research needs for improving the management of archaeological investigations. The survey questionnaires asked respondents to list the types of tools and research they would like to see in the future. Interestingly, the majority of the DOTs’ responses focused on pre-project planning. Several called for the development of historic contexts. The Pennsylvania FHWA division office, for example, would like to see a historic context on lithic scatters. FHWA is consider- ing a 2-year study to develop a historic context for this site type. Context development would involve testing and analyz- ing a sample of these sites across the state. The goal of this effort would be to address issues of eligibility and to define standard treatment plans. Several DOTs identified the need for historic contexts on lithic scatters. The DOTs also recommended the develop- ment of historic contexts for 19th-century farmstead sites and 20th-century archaeological sites. If state DOTs fund the cre- ation of historic contexts, the Nevada DOT cautioned, they must ensure that the resulting historic contexts are linked to transportation project and development needs rather than serving academic research needs. Additional areas of research and study recommended by the DOTs included improving access to archaeological infor- mation, data, and documentation through a web-based repos- itory or clearinghouse. They also recommended that the repository include information from neighboring states. PennDOT recommended that the creation of a repository or clearinghouse include breaking out important components of project reports and organizing these components into use- ful units that are easily accessible. SHPO respondents echoed many of the DOTs’ recom- mendations. These included the call for regularly updated his- toric contexts and regional syntheses. The Pennsylvania SHPO commented that the professionals developing historic contexts must be in touch with the realities of cultural resource management. As noted earlier, the Nevada DOT had the same concern. Other SHPO recommendations included greater use of geophysical investigations during identification and evaluation phases, development of statewide archaeolog- ical predictive models, continual updating of computerized

site locational models, and publication of an ACHP annual report on the past year’s best practices. SHPO and DOT calls for creating historic contexts mirror the recommendations of the 1999 National Forum on Assess- ing Historic Significance for Transportation Programs, spon- sored by TRB. One of the top three recommendations was the need to develop regional and statewide historic contexts of mutual benefit to transportation agencies, SHPOs, tribes, and other interested agencies (3). Similar recommendations came out of TRB’s 1996 Environmental Research Needs Confer- ence. One of the research needs identified during the confer- ence, the need to improve existing procedures for evaluating 28 cultural resource significance, became a research project funded in 2000 through TRB and NCHRP (3,12). This research project, completed in 2002, examined how DOTs, FHWA, and SHPOs use historic contexts, and provided rec- ommendations on how historic context use can be improved and expanded through IT applications (12). The development of historic contexts continues to be a critical issue. At the 2004 historic preservation and trans- portation conference held in Santa Fe (discussed in chapter one), conference participants identified several action items. One was to re-energize agencies and communities to develop and appropriately use historic contexts (see Appendix C).

Next: Chapter Five - Innovative Approaches to Steps in Section 106 Process »
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!