Click for next page ( 40


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 39
40 APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaires NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM PROJECT 20-5, SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-09 MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STATE DOTs AND FHWA Innovative and Nontraditional Approaches to Geographic information systems (GIS) and other infor- Archaeological Investigations mation technology used for developing archaeological predictive models. The following is a list of innovative and nontraditional tools, Archaeological predictive models used as a planning tool. approaches, and procedures that have been used across the Active use of historic contexts for archaeological country to improve and enhance archaeological investiga- resources. tions in the context of Section 106 compliance. Prioritization of archaeological research goals. Guidance for defining what is "important" information in Programmatic approaches to Section 106 compliance history or prehistory (i.e., National Register criterion D). (e.g., using Section 106 programmatic agreements to Flexibility in contracting practices (e.g., cost-plus ver- implement nontraditional approaches that deal with a sus fixed-fee contracts, use of in-house staff as opposed category of projects or category of archaeological to outsourcing, etc.). resources). Creative mitigation (e.g., "off-site mitigation," which There are other practices that also have an impact on the effi- includes analysis of existing collections, development cacy of archaeological resource investigations. These prac- of local or regional archaeological or historical synthe- tices include: ses, and writing of nontechnical reports, in lieu of or supplemental to site data recovery). Building good relationships and trust among state Creative approaches to integrating tribal consultation departments of transportation (DOTs) and resource into archaeological investigations and considering agencies, such as state historic preservation offices tribal cultural values in assessing significance of (SHPOs). archaeological resources. Integrating the Section 106 process with the steps in the Innovative public outreach and education (i.e., whereby National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process public outreach is not simply an add-on to an investi- (e.g., phasing archaeological investigations to mesh gation and goes beyond site tours, temporary exhibits, with timing of NEPA analyses, particularly for cate- brochures, and public lectures). gorical exclusion-level projects). Remote sensing to identify archaeological resources. Integrating the Section 106 process with the steps in the Geomorphological data used as a planning and National project design process (e.g., determining appropriate Register evaluation tool. level of effort for archaeological investigations during Innovative and nontraditional artifact collection methods. preliminary design, postponing site identification Innovative approaches that address the growing cura- phases until final design, developing investigation tion problem. strategies that mesh with design/build projects, etc.). Flexible data recovery research designs. Funding of project review positions within SHPOs. Flexibility in spatial or artifact sampling during site Training to improve the skills of both agency and con- identification, evaluation, and data recovery. sultant staffs.

OCR for page 39
41 1. Has your agency successfully used any of the above practices? If so, briefly describe how these practices were used and why they were successful. Are there other creative measures that you have developed that streamline the Section 106 process and enhance archaeological conservation efforts? Briefly describe these other measures. 2. What types of constraints have you encountered while implementing these types of practices? How did you overcome these constraints? 3. Has the use of any of these nontraditional approaches not been successful? Briefly describe why they were not successful. 4. Can you provide us with written summaries, articles, reports, or other documents that describe your use of these practices? DECISION MAKING 5. Who within your agency makes the final decision on the scope of work for traditional archaeological investigations, including data recovery? 6. Who within your agency makes recommendations as to whether or not to use innovative and nontraditional approaches to archaeological resource investigations and Section 106 compliance? Who makes the final decision as to whether or not to use these nontraditional approaches? 7. In making these decisions on level of effort for archaeological investigations or to use nontraditional and innovative approaches, how much weight is given to the views of the SHPO? Do the views of the SHPO generally take precedence over views within your agency or FHWA? RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SECTION 106 PARTIES 8. How would you characterize your relationship with your SHPO? If you have a good relationship, how did you establish and maintain this relationship? What specific things did you do (e.g., regularly scheduled meetings)? 9. If you characterize your relationship as not very good, what are the main points of conflict between your agency and your SHPO? When conflicts arise between you and the SHPO, how do you resolve these conflicts? 10. Please also answer Questions 8 and 9 in terms of your relationship with your FHWA division office and the tribes you consult with under the Section 106 process. EVALUATION AND FUTURE STUDIES 11. Have you quantified the benefits of using any of these nontraditional approaches? If so, what measures did you use? Cost? Time? Number of sites avoided? Other measures? If possible, please provide quantitative information on how specific approaches you use have saved time and reduced costs. 12. What types of studies or research do you feel are needed to improve current best practices in archaeological investigations con- ducted under the Section 106 process? Who should conduct such studies or research? Who should fund these efforts? Respondent Information Agency: Name: Title: Street address: City: State: Zip code: Telephone: Fax: E-mail:

OCR for page 39
42 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM PROJECT 20-5, SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-09 MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRIVATE SECTOR CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FIRMS Innovative and Nontraditional Approaches to Innovative approaches that address the growing cura- Archaeological Investigations tion problem. Flexible data recovery research designs. The following is a list of innovative and nontraditional tools, Flexibility in spatial or artifact sampling during site approaches, and procedures that have been used across the identification, evaluation, and data recovery. country to improve and enhance archaeological investiga- GIS and other information technology used for devel- tions in the context of Section 106 compliance. oping archaeological predictive models. Archaeological predictive models used as a planning Programmatic approaches to Section 106 compliance tool. (e.g., using Section 106 programmatic agreements to Active use of historic contexts for archaeological implement nontraditional approaches that deal with a resources. category of projects or category of archaeological Prioritization of archaeological research goals. resources). Guidance for defining what is "important" information in Creative mitigation (e.g., "off-site mitigation," which history or prehistory (i.e., National Register criterion D). includes analysis of existing collections, development Flexibility in contracting practices (e.g., cost-plus ver- of local or regional archaeological or historical synthe- sus fixed-fee contracts, use of in-house staff as opposed ses, and writing of nontechnical reports, in lieu of or to outsourcing, etc.). supplemental to site data recovery). Creative approaches to integrating tribal consultation There are other practices that also have an impact on the into archaeological investigations and considering tribal efficacy of archaeological resource investigations. These cultural values in assessing significance of archaeologi- practices include: cal resources. Innovative public outreach and education (i.e., whereby Integrating the Section 106 process with the steps in the public outreach is not simply an add-on to an investi- NEPA process (e.g., phasing archaeological investiga- gation and goes beyond site tours, temporary exhibits, tions to mesh with timing of NEPA analyses, particu- brochures, and public lectures). larly for categorical exclusion-level projects). Remote sensing to identify and map archaeological Integrating the Section 106 process with the steps in the resources. project design process (e.g., determining appropriate Geomorphological data used as a planning and National level of effort for archaeological investigations during Register evaluation tool. preliminary design, postponing site identification Innovative site documentation strategies such as the use phases until final design, developing investigation of electronic field notebooks, digital on-site mapping, strategies that mesh with design/build projects, etc.). and recordation, etc. Training to improve the skills of both agency and con- Innovative and nontraditional artifact collection methods. sultant staffs.

OCR for page 39
43 1. Has your firm been employed to implement or use any of the above practices? If so, briefly describe how these practices were used and if they were successful. Are there other creative measures that you used/developed that streamline the Sec- tion 106 process and enhance archaeological conservation efforts? Briefly describe these other measures. 2. What types of constraints have you encountered while implementing these types of practices? How did you overcome these constraints? 3. Has the use of any of these nontraditional approaches not been successful? Briefly describe why they were not success- ful. If they were not successful, was the DOT aware that they were not successful and did the DOT modify future deliv- erables to accommodate the problem(s) encountered? 4. Can you provide us with written summaries, articles, reports, or other documents that describe your use of these practices? DECISION MAKING 5. Based on your experience, who within the state DOTs you work with makes the final decision on the scope of work for traditional archaeological investigations, including data recovery? 6. Who within the DOTs you work with makes recommendations as to whether or not to use innovative and nontraditional approaches to archaeological resource investigations and Section 106 compliance? Who within the DOTs makes the final deci- sion as to whether or not to use these nontraditional approaches? What role has your firm played in these decisions? Has your firm recommended that DOTs use such approaches and were these recommendations subsequently implemented? 7. In making these decisions on level of effort for archaeological investigations or to use nontraditional and innovative approaches, how much weight is given to the views of the SHPO? Do the views of the SHPO generally take precedence over views within the DOT or FHWA? RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SECTION 106 PARTIES 8. How would you characterize the relationship between the DOTs and SHPOs you work with? If they have a good relation- ship, how did they establish and maintain this relationship? What specific things did they do? Has your firm been involved in their efforts to establish and maintain this relationship? 9. If you characterize these relationships as not very good, what are the main points of conflict between these agencies? When conflicts arise between these agencies, how do they resolve these conflicts? Has your firm been involved in their efforts to resolve these conflicts? EVALUATION AND FUTURE STUDIES 10. Have you quantified the benefits of using any of these nontraditional approaches? If so, what measures did you use? Cost? Time? Number of sites avoided? Other measures? If possible, please provide quantitative information on how specific approaches you use have saved time and reduced costs. 11. What types of studies or research do you feel are needed to improve current best practices in archaeological investigations con- ducted under the Section 106 process? Who should conduct such studies or research? Who should fund these efforts? Respondent Information Firm: Name: Title: Street address: City: State: Zip code: Telephone: Fax: E-mail:

OCR for page 39
44 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM PROJECT 20-5, SYNTHESIS TOPIC 35-09 MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICES Innovative and Nontraditional Approaches to Innovative approaches that address the growing cura- Archaeological Investigations tion problem. Flexible data recovery research designs. The following is a list of innovative and nontraditional tools, Flexibility in spatial or artifact sampling during site approaches, and procedures that have been used across the identification, evaluation, and data recovery. country to improve and enhance archaeological investiga- GIS and other information technology used for devel- tions in the context of Section 106 compliance. oping archaeological predictive models. Use of secure web-based GIS archaeological databases Programmatic approaches to Section 106 compliance as a tool for obtaining agency and tribal input on proj- (e.g., using Section 106 programmatic agreements to ect planning and project review. implement nontraditional approaches that deal with a Archaeological predictive models used as a planning category of projects or category of archaeological tool. resources). Active use of historic contexts for archaeological Creative mitigation (e.g., "off-site mitigation," which resources. includes analysis of existing collections, development Prioritization of archaeological research goals. of local or regional archaeological or historical synthe- Guidance for defining what is "important" information in ses, writing of nontechnical reports, in lieu of or sup- history or prehistory (i.e., National Register criterion D). plemental to site data recovery). Flexibility in contracting practices (e.g., cost-plus ver- Creative approaches to integrating tribal consultation sus fixed-fee contracts, use of in-house staff as opposed into archaeological investigations and considering to outsourcing, etc.). tribal cultural values in assessing significance of archaeological resources. There are other practices that also have an impact on the Innovative public outreach and education (i.e., whereby efficacy of archaeological resource investigations. These public outreach is not simply an add-on to an investi- practices include: gation and goes beyond site tours, temporary exhibits, brochures, and public lectures). Building good relationships and trust among state Remote sensing to identify archaeological resources. DOTs and SHPOs and the FHWA. Geomorphological data used as a planning and National Funding of project review positions within SHPOs. Register evaluation tool. Training to improve the skills of both agency and con- Innovative and nontraditional artifact collection methods. sultant staffs.

OCR for page 39
45 1. Have you worked successfully with federal agencies to implement any of the above practices? If so, briefly describe how these practices were used and why they were successful. Are there other creative measures that you have developed that streamline the Section 106 process and enhance archaeological conservation efforts? Briefly describe these other measures. 2. What types of constraints have you encountered while implementing these types of practices? How did you overcome these constraints? 3. Has the use of any of these nontraditional approaches not been successful? Briefly describe why they were not suc- cessful. 4. Can you direct us to written summaries, articles, reports or other documents that describe the use of these practices in your state? RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SECTION 106 PARTIES 5. How would you characterize your relationship with your DOT? If you have a good relationship, how did you establish and maintain this relationship? What specific things did you do (e.g., regularly scheduled meetings)? 6. If you characterize your relationship as not very good, what are the main points of conflict between your agency and your DOT? When conflicts arise between you and the DOT, how do you resolve these conflicts? 7. Please also answer Questions 5 and 6 in terms of your relationship with your state's FHWA division office. EVALUATION AND FUTURE STUDIES 8. Do you have any way of quantifying the benefits of using any of these nontraditional approaches? That is, savings in cost or time? Numbers of sites avoided? Other measures such as members of the public reached with information? If you have any such quantitative data, could we have access to them? 9. What types of studies or research do you feel are needed to improve current best practices in archaeological investigations conducted under the Section 106 process? Who should conduct such studies or research? How could these efforts be funded? Respondent Information: Agency: Name: Title: Street address: City: State: Zip code: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: