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 29
30 FHWA, SHPO, and DOT on these issues, it is updating the SHPO, it is usually approved quickly and easily. The Utah state's preservation plan in terms of archaeology. The state DOT has a similar advisory committee, but the committee DOT will synthesize and analyze information collected to also reviews National Register eligibility evaluations and date to determine (1) what knowledge has been gained as a effects determinations before they are submitted to the SHPO result of past archaeological studies, (2) which research ques- for review. The DOT submits eligibility and effects findings tions have been adequately addressed, (3) which research to the committee when a project might have an adverse effect issues have not been addressed, (4) what new and important on a site. research issues require study, and (5) what are the gaps in knowledge concerning the state's prehistory. Creative Mitigation RESOLUTION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS Archaeological data recovery is the standard approach to Data Recovery Research Designs resolving adverse effects on archaeological sites. The survey responses suggest, however, that DOTs and FHWA division Several DOTs discussed how they have improved imple- offices are beginning to turn to alternative and nonstandard mentation of archaeological data recovery projects. The ways to resolve adverse effects. These approaches are gen- approaches used include the use of phased or stepped erally referred to as "creative mitigation." Creative mitiga- research designs and peer review of data recovery plans. The tion was the most frequently identified practice of all of the Alabama DOT, for example, has implemented a stepped data innovative approaches used to improve the steps in the Sec- recovery program for some projects. When there is some tion 106 process. doubt about the potential of a site to yield data, the DOT sets up a stepped review process as part of the initial research PennDOT, in consultation with FHWA and Section 106 design, holding periodic reviews and meetings with the parties, has used creative mitigation on projects involving SHPO and archaeological consultant throughout the data "sliver takes." These types of projects would have required recovery effort. If work at a site does not provide the impor- deep testing in tight places (generally in floodplains and tant information that was originally expected, it may end the involving bridge replacements), where safety requirements fieldwork or alter the field strategy. greatly inflated the cost of the archaeological data recovery. For sliver takes, the DOT often found that the data recover- The Delaware DOT also stages its data recovery. The ies would be costly, yet yield little important new informa- DOT, SHPO, CRM consultant, and consulting parties meet tion given the constraints of the small project area. In addi- and evaluate the direction of the data recovery at each stage tion, it is difficult to interpret the results of such data of the project (fieldwork, laboratory analysis, reporting, etc.) recoveries as it is often unclear how the small excavated area and determine whether or not work should continue and, if represents or relates to the remainder of the site, which so, how. To make this operational in terms of consultant con- extends outside the project limits. Therefore, the DOT has tracting, the DOT does not include full artifact analyses in the proposed and implemented some creative options. Rather original data recovery budget. The original budget only than doing data recovery, the agency has, for example, includes preliminary examination of artifacts. A more com- funded syntheses of the archaeology of the area, developing plete budget is developed after the fieldwork is finished. The a historic context based on previous studies to serve as the same procedure is followed for report preparation. The DOT, foundation for future National Register evaluations. On the in consultation with the other parties and the consultant, City Island project near Harrisburg, PennDOT used the establishes a report budget after the fieldwork and prelimi- monies that would have gone to a data recovery associated nary artifact analysis are complete. The DOT uses work with a sliver take to develop lesson plans for schools on the orders or agreements to handle these changes or continua- prehistory of the island. In another example, the agency used tions in work. This approach has resulted in better project the money to purchase a preservation easement for the outcomes and cost savings. portions of a site outside of the sliver take, thus preserving most of the site. Although these approaches may save a little The Wisconsin DOT uses an advisory committee consist- money, the DOT adopted them because of the improved ing of representatives from the agencies' CRM contractors to preservation outcome and public benefit. review data recovery plans before the plans go to the SHPO for review. Committee members do not review their own The Georgia DOT has used creative mitigation when plans, and the reviewers only make recommendations to the information from a data recovery project involving certain DOT. The purpose of this committee is to get the best and types of National Register eligible sites (e.g., sand dune most cost-effective plans possible. Members of this commit- sites) would neither contribute new important knowledge tee, which at this time had been in place for 4 years, are all about these sites nor assist in subsequent evaluations of volunteers. The agency also invites tribes that are consulting these site types. In such cases, instead of conducting a com- parties for a project to review the data recovery plans. To prehensive, detailed data recovery, the agency directs some date, when a plan reviewed by the committee goes to the of the data recovery monies toward developing a historic