Click for next page ( 9


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 8
9 actions. At times, the preparation of an EA results in a find- The CRM consultant community was contacted through ing that the proposed action will have a significant impact on the American Cultural Resource Association's (ACRA) the environment. In these cases, the federal agency will file "MembersOnly" listserve. Consultants who are not ACRA a public Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and will proceed members but were recommended by the NCHRP Topic with the development of the EIS. Panel and DOTs and FHWA offices participating in this study were also contacted. Five CRM firms responded. SYNTHESIS RESEARCH METHODS Twelve Native American tribes were also contacted to par- ticipate in this study. This list of tribes was created based on Information on effective practices discussed in this report recommendations from state DOT and FHWA division office was obtained through a literature search and a survey of a staff, and the SRI Foundation's tribal consultant, Dr. Joe variety of agencies, organizations, and tribes. Sources con- Watkins. Dr. Watkins is a member of the Choctaw Nation and, sulted during the literature search included the FHWA's at the time of this report, an Associate Professor of Anthro- historic preservation website, FHWA's environmental pology at the University of New Mexico. Six of the 12 tribes streamlining websites, and the websites of individual state responded to the survey. The interviews of tribal representa- DOTs and SHPOs. Other sources included TRB reports and tives involved only one question: Can you describe for us a documents. DOT project, in which you were directly involved, where the archaeological investigations went really well from a tribal The literature search was followed by a survey of state point of view, and resulted in a new, innovative way of deal- DOT archaeologists and FHWA state division office staff, ing with tribal issues associated with archaeological sites? tribal representatives, SHPOs, and CRM firms. The survey was conducted from April 2004 to September 2004. The Results from the interviews and survey questionnaires questionnaires used in this survey can be found in Appendix were compiled. Transcriptions of the interviews were sent to A. Some respondents preferred to be interviewed, rather than the respondents for review and comment. In addition, each complete and submit the questionnaire. Interviews were con- survey respondent and individual interviewed was given an ducted by telephone, and at times involved multiple mem- opportunity to review the report sections that were based on bers of an agency's staff. The survey questionnaire provided their responses. the structure for these interviews. An important part of the survey was obtaining information on the benefits of practices The work plan for this study included a preliminary syn- in terms of time, cost, and enhanced archaeological resource thesis report outline. This outline focused on the four steps of conservation. Every attempt was made, therefore, to obtain the Section 106 process. It was anticipated that the survey quantitative information on time and cost savings resulting responses would focus on effective practices to streamline and from the use of these practices. enhance the four steps. However, this was not the case. Rather, the survey respondents focused on the following four topics, DOT participation was solicited through the Association which in general are used uniformly across the country: of Transportation Archaeologists e-mail group of all state DOT archaeological staff, maintained by Kevin Cunningham 1. Communication (including tribal consultation and of the Delaware DOT. This was followed-up by direct e-mail engaging the public), requests to the heads of all DOT environmental divisions. 2. Internal business practices and project delivery, FHWA staff was contacted directly, using a list of division 3. Pre-project planning, and offices recommended by FHWA headquarters. A total of 4. Innovative approaches to Section 106 steps. 34 state DOTs and 5 FHWA offices responded to requests to participate in this study. Interestingly, a similar change in focus occurred during a February 2004 historic preservation and transportation con- Separate questionnaires were developed for SHPOs and ference held in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The primary objec- consultants (see Appendix A). An inquiry was sent out to tive of this conference was to develop effective strategies that SHPOs through the National Conference of State Historic enhance and streamline Section 106 compliance and trans- Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) listserve. The posting on portation project delivery. the listserve was followed-up with direct e-mails to deputy SHPOs of each office or the individual overseeing Section The focus of the conference, identified in consultation 106 compliance. Seven SHPOs responded. The low SHPO with the conference sponsors, was originally an exploration response can be attributed to recent reductions in SHPO of how to improve the integration of the four steps in the Sec- funds and staff. SHPOs do not have time to respond to the tion 106 process and the transportation project delivery multiple surveys that are continually sent to their offices process. The conference products were to include recom- given reduction in staff and, in some cases, increased work- mendations on how to improve this integration. As discus- load within these offices (N. Schamu, National Conference sions proceeded, the conference's focus shifted from the of SHPOs, personal communication, 2004). specifics of the Section 106 process to the following topics,