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.

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

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:

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

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:

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

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: