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.

33 Survey respondents noted that one of the main obstacles to the use of new, innovative approaches to archaeological investi- gations is a lack of funds. Several of the respondents reported that as a result of this constraint they were not able to • Develop historic contexts; • Improve tribal consultation, which often requires meet- ing tribes outside the state or paying for tribes to travel to meetings and conferences (this is especially difficult given current state government restrictions on travel); and • Conduct research on new field and analytical methods, such as remote sensing. Some DOTs and FHWA division offices identified their SHPO’s reluctance to concur with nonstandard approaches as a stumbling block to creativity in managing archaeologi- cal investigations. The DOTs also noted that the culture of their own agencies constrained the use of innovative and effective practices. Their colleagues and managers often take the attitude that we have always done it this way, so why do we need to change and try something new? DOT staff is sometimes too focused on day-to-day Section 106 compli- ance activities and therefore are not open to approaches that move beyond the standard compliance process. Making changes to existing agency procedures and processes is given a low priority. One DOT noted that from time to time their CRM consultants are resistant to innovative approaches. These approaches often do not conform to the types of things that their contractors are interested in or want to do. One SHPO noted that the biggest constraint to implementing innovative practices was a lack of talented, capable archaeo- logical consultants to work with FHWA and the DOT, as well as inadequate project funding and restricted project schedules. Another constraint is DOT staff turnover. The North Car- olina DOT noted that it was experiencing a high turnover in environmental and engineering staff, and that incoming staff are not familiar with the requirements for archaeology and how it is done in the department. As a result, there is a need to continually train new staff to keep existing effective prac- tices moving forward. This is very important to maintain trust with other agencies, such as the SHPO. Another constraint results from the use of an innovative approach that does not work well. In such cases, the event should be used as a lesson to improve how the practice is applied in the future, not a reason for abandoning the prac- tice. For example, the Oregon DOT had a situation where a flexible data recovery design contained unclear wording that lead to contentious and open-ended discussions about when the data recovery plan was fulfilled. This caused conflicts with the CRM contracting firm, the municipality where the project took place, the DOT, the SHPO, and the tribes who were consulted about the project. Ultimately, these issues were resolved, but it was a long process and one that could have been handled much more effectively if the data recov- ery plan and anticipated project impacts had been more fully defined at the initiation of the work. The DOT noted that data recovery plans must always allow some flexibility, but that they can become a source of contention when the objec- tives of the data recovery are not clearly delineated and included in the data recovery plan and associated Section 106 agreement. Ways identified to address these types of obstacles are similar to the practices that improve and maintain good com- munication among the Section 106 parties. As demonstrated by the many examples discussed in the previous chapters, the following practices counter, or at least soften, resistance to innovation and change: • Having regular meetings that review ongoing and future projects and programs; • Participating in collaborative efforts; • Establishing joint agency objectives, goals, and processes; and • Having upper management support and directives to implement and maintain effective, innovative practices. The Oklahoma DOT noted that it is helpful to work slowly rather than propose major changes all at once. Inter- nal proposals for innovative practices are best received by upper management when it can be determined that, in addi- tion to benefiting the goals of historic preservation or being required by the “letter of the law,” they would effectively address identified DOT needs in terms of quicker project delivery or maintaining smooth relationships with the SHPO and other state regulatory agencies. When such processes are already working well, upper management is generally unlikely to support large-scale innovation solely because it better serves historic preservation goals or is perceived as a best practice by historic preservation professionals. CHAPTER SIX OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTING INNOVATIVE AND EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS