Managing Archaeological Investigations (2005)

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.

29 In addition to employing innovative approaches to pre- project planning, several DOTs apply project-specific practices that enhance and streamline archaeological inves- tigations and project review. These practices are applied to several stages of the Section 106 process—identification, National Register evaluations, and resolution of adverse effects. IDENTIFICATION Among the responding DOTs only one innovative method was discussed, that in their view enhanced the identification and evaluation of archaeological resources: remote sensing/ geophysical studies. The Alabama DOT, for example, con- ducts remote sensing during the early stages of site evalua- tions. The goal of these studies is to locate signatures of potential burials, especially on historic period Native Ameri- can sites. The resulting information is used to plan subsequent work. The DOT has found that methods such as ground pen- etrating radar (GPR) work well on such sites. The DOT is also contracting with the University of Mississippi to conduct a suite of remote sensing tests for DOT projects. The university is very well known for its geophysical and archaeological work, and the Alabama DOT expects that contracting with the university will both expand the use and efficacy of these remote sensing methods on transportation projects and enhance the DOT’s credibility in the eyes of the SHPO. Caltrans has in-house remote sensing capabilities; although the use of remote sensing is still in the experimen- tal stages and the agency is evaluating which types of geo- physical methods work best within different environmental settings and conditions. When remote sensing is used early in a project, it is anticipated that the DOT will be able to bet- ter target locations for subsequent work. The agency also plans to test the utility of remote sensing for reducing sub- surface excavations during site evaluations and identifying internal site patterning without extensive subsurface testing. The Oregon DOT is also testing the efficacy of various geo- physical methods in different regional contexts. For exam- ple, the DOT is conducting GPR surveys of known house pit sites to identify the signature of these subsurface features. This information will be used to identify these features dur- ing future surveys. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (CRAI), a CRM firm located in Lexington, Kentucky, routinely employs geophys- ical survey methods and is working with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (the state DOT) to demonstrate the value of these methods on transportation projects. CRAI has successfully used conductivity surveys to locate buried struc- tures and features on historic period archaeological sites. They have also used this method, along with a site magnetic susceptibility study, to locate and define subsurface struc- tures on complex Mississippian village sites (32). NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATIONS In his response to the survey questionnaire, the Minnesota SHPO archaeologist raised concerns about the value and ade- quacy of archaeological mitigation projects. Based on a pre- liminary study of major mitigation projects undertaken in the state during the 1990s, he found that the majority of these projects failed to fulfill most of the objectives listed in the projects’ research designs. The reasons for this problem were (1) inadequate assessments of research potential during the site testing/evaluation phase, and (2) a lack of understanding of what National Register criterion D really means. The Min- nesota SHPO recommended that states carefully evaluate previous archaeological investigations to learn from past work and improve future site evaluation efforts. The Montana DOT has implemented a new approach for dealing with one of the state’s problematic archaeological sites—tipi rings. The agency noted that the technique for evaluating these sites has not changed over the past 30 years. On one occasion, in consultation with the SHPO, the DOT spent additional time and money to more fully test a tipi ring site than had been done in the past. The entire ring was exca- vated in a detailed study to determine whether anything was present that had research value. The DOT may do this a few more times, focusing on single tipi rings, to learn more about these types of sites. It is hoped that the results of this work will aid in future National Register evaluations of these types of sites and streamline future projects. The Kentucky FHWA division office noted that most evaluation studies, which use standard test excavations, resulted in findings that sites were not National Register eli- gible. Given the consistency of these findings, the FHWA felt that less costly site evaluation methods should be employed. Such approaches might include better sampling techniques and use of available information. The Kentucky Transporta- tion Cabinet noted that as a result of discussions among CHAPTER FIVE INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO STEPS IN SECTION 106 PROCESS

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

31 context or producing educational brochures. These products are intended to provide information on how to deal with this site type in the future and educate the public. The DOT still samples the site to be affected by the project as part of the mitigation. Creative mitigation is also used on projects where proposed ROWs affect only a small portion of a site. In these cases, the agency does some traditional data recov- ery of the site in addition to developing a context for the type of site being affected. The Alabama DOT is developing a PA to establish a creative mitigation process for dealing with submerged archaeological sites. The DOT is currently reviewing previ- ously recorded sites that have been submerged for several years by past Tennessee Valley Authority projects. Given the extremely high cost and complex logistics associated with testing inundated sites, the PA calls for the DOT to pay for the analysis of existing collections that were excavated before the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority lakes, as opposed to conducting archaeological investigations of these submerged sites. In some cases, these collections date back to the days of the Works Progress Administration. The impetus for the PA was the presence of a recorded, inun- dated shell midden site within a DOT project area. The PA only involves sites that do not have the potential to contain human remains. The Alabama DOT, in consultation with the SHPO and FHWA, is also looking into ways to improve the National Register evaluations of sites for which no archaeological or historic contexts currently exist. One approach involves using data recovery funds (or portions of funds) to conduct surveys of the drainages where these sites are located. The purpose of these surveys is to develop predictive models and historic contexts, defining settlement patterns and site types within the drainages. These contexts also identify the research potential and value of the various site types within a given drainage. TxDOT has funded the development of general archaeo- logical research themes, resource evaluation methodologies, historic contexts, etc., as part of data recovery deliverables. These funds are added onto the general cost for data recover- ies. One example was the development of a protocol for deal- ing with burned rock middens. The Nevada DOT has also taken this approach. The rock circle synthesis discussed in chapter two was developed using funds from data recovery projects. The Nevada DOT is also working with experts in the state to develop lithic sourcing data and is funding the chemi- cal analyses required to source these materials. This research is done in the context of Section 106 compliance for specific projects, where the DOT directs project monies into this type of study. These studies demonstrate the agencies’ commitment to the archaeology of the state, and enhance its credibility in the eyes of the SHPO and federal land managing agencies. These studies also help in the evaluation and interpretation of archaeological resources encountered on DOT projects. The Montana DOT has worked closely with some tribes in the state to employ nontraditional approaches to archaeo- logical data recovery. For example, on one project the Con- federated Salish and Kootenai Tribes reported that a group of sites were eligible for the National Register, but that these sites were marginal in the view of the DOT. Because the tribe expressed interest in the sites, the agency approved limited standard data recovery on the sites, and then took the balance of the money that would have been required for a more com- prehensive data recovery and funded an oral history project for the tribe to research and record place names in the area of the sites. This project resulted in a product that met the con- cerns of the tribe and the compliance needs of the DOT. Some DOTs have purchased significant archaeological sites as a form of mitigation. The Wisconsin DOT purchased the privately owned portion of a burial mound located both inside and outside of its ROW. This mitigation plan protected the mound from future impacts. The DOT took a similar approach to a burial site located in a proposed project corri- dor. In this case, the DOT changed the project design to avoid the burial site, but ensured its preservation by purchasing the site, which was located on private property and adjacent to the ROW. The agency used project funds to make these pur- chases. The Arkansas DOT has also purchased sites that extended outside project ROWs. In one case, the DOT pur- chased and now owns two sites located in agricultural fields and incorporated the sites into a wetland mitigation area associated with the project. This removed the sites from impacts resulting from continuous cultivation. The Georgia DOT assumed stewardship responsibility for a Civil War era battery located in a wetland mitigation site for a widening project. The DOT hired Southeastern Archeolog- ical Services to assess the integrity of the site and develop a preservation and stabilization plan. After consulting with the National Park Service and the National Clearinghouse for Archaeological Site Stabilization at the University of Missis- sippi, the DOT and Southeastern Archaeological Services determined that the best course of action to maintain and sta- bilize the site would be a pro-active but passive approach of annual monitoring and revegetation with native plant species. The DOT will administer the plan with assistance from National Park Service staff at Fort Pulaski National Monu- ment in Chatham County, Georgia, and from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Law Enforcement (33,34). SUMMARY DOTs, SHPOs, and CRM firms expressed a general enthu- siasm for geophysical technology. Geophysical techniques are viewed as cost-effective ways of improving archaeolog- ical resource identification and evaluation efforts and, because they are nondestructive, they are appropriate for properties about which tribes have cultural or religious con- cerns. Respondents noted, however, that the use of different

geophysical methods is still considered to be experimental. As a result, some DOTs are testing the efficacy of geophys- ical investigations in the context of different environmental settings and site types. In terms of future research needs, the Oregon DOT recommended a study on GPR. The study might, for example, involve the application of GPR to dif- ferent site types across the state, providing a baseline for future use of GPR during archaeological surveys and site evaluations. This type of study could reduce the time and cost for future projects in which these types of sites were encountered. Most importantly, this is a noninvasive approach to archaeological investigations. The state’s tribes are supportive of this type of work. Several DOTs also supported creative approaches that deal with marginally eligible sites or sites for which no his- toric context exists. A number of states have turned the chal- lenge of dealing with these types of sites into opportunities for creative mitigation measures. By dealing expeditiously (or not at all) with marginal sites and sliver takes of more 32 significant sites, a number of DOTs have found a way to fund historic context development and other studies that are needed for better evaluation and management of archaeo- logical sites that will be affected by transportation projects. Other creative mitigation efforts used by DOTs include the development of resource syntheses as part of data recovery efforts and the purchase of significant archaeological sites within and outside DOT project ROWs. In terms of additional suggestions for future studies, the Nevada DOT and the Arizona FHWA division office identi- fied the need for a nationwide study on the use of site burial as a form of mitigation. This study would examine, on a regional basis, when and how site burials can be used given different types of soils and geomorphological environments, and different types of sites. The results of this research would be made operational through a nationwide programmatic agreement on when it is appropriate to bury sites and when it is not. The New Mexico DOT recommended that FHWA fund a study on the benefits of using creative mitigation.