Investigating the Role of Archaeological Information and Practice in Landscape Conservation Design and Planning in North America

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to discuss the challenges and opportunities for integrating archaeological information in landscape-scale conservation design while aligning archaeological practice with design and planning focused on cultural resources. Targeting this opportunity begins with statewide archaeological databases. Here, we compare the structure and content of Pennsylvania's and Florida's statewide archaeological databases, identifying opportunities for leveraging these data in landscape conservation design and planning. The research discussed here was part of a broader project, which was working through the lens of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives in order to develop processes for integrating broadly conceived cultural resources with natural resources as part of multistate or regional landscape conservation design efforts. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives offer new ways to think about archaeological information in practice and potentially new ways for archaeology to contribute to design and planning. Statewide archaeological databases, in particular, offer transformative potential for integrating cultural resource priorities in landscape conservation design. Targeted coordination across state boundaries along with the development of accessible derivative databases are two priorities to advance their utility.

The National Cultural Resources Information Management System (NCRIMS)

“…The need for standardized cultural data has a long history as detailed here and in an earlier BLM report by Clark and Ingbar (2005). The core issues and challenges identified have not changed over the years and are reiterated by more recent discussions (Altschul 2016; BLM 2012; Doelle et al 2016; Halford 2019; Heilen and Altschul 2019; McCarthy 2009; McManamon et al 2016: Murtha et al 2019), and the reader is referred to their (Clark and Ingbar 2005) report for a comprehensive treatment. As elucidated by Clark and Ingbar (2005), we have been at the business of finding data management solutions for a long time.…”

“…The need for a national-level cultural resources database has long been recognized by BLM and other agencies (such as the National Park Service [NPS], United States Forest Service, State Historic Preservation Offices [SHPO], etc.) to facilitate normalization of common attributes for analytical applications to support planning decisions and preservation (Altschul 2016; Heilen and Altschul 2019; Ingbar et al 2000; McManamon et al 2016: Murtha et al 2019). In 2015, after many years of development of an initial data standard (see history below), two pilot projects were undertaken to test the applicability and usefulness of the standard—first on a small scale in the Four Corners area within the Colorado Plateau Rapid Ecoregional Assessment zone (established to identify important resource values and patterns of environmental change: ), and subsequently, in the BLM western states.…”

“…This is mainly due to the myriad of participants with established yet disparate data systems and database structures. Murtha and colleagues (2019) note the challenges in their comparison of two states, Florida and Pennsylvania, showing their inconsistencies. Extrapolate that 100- fold to include all states, federal agencies, Tribes, and other partners, and one begins to understand the challenges.…”

“…Large landscape-scale planning efforts, policies (see Secretarial Orders [SO] 3330 and , and interstate undertakings have brought to the forefront the need for effective and efficient ways to manage and analyze spatial information on archaeological and historic sites for cultural resources management (CRM). Over the past several years, more calls for landscape-level approaches to analyzing the past have been promoted (Altschul 2016; Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 2012; Doelle et al 2016; Halford 2019; Heilen and Altschul 2019; McManamon et al 2016; Murtha et al 2019) versus “site-centric” methods, which have been the historic norm in CRM. Site-centric approaches are due, in part, to the fact that CRM has been caught in a sort of “methodological stagnancy” (Halford 2019:17) applying Section 106–driven, risk adverse, Class III rote inventory (viewed as “complete” inventory) that often lacks comprehensive evaluation of the resources and landscapes upon which they occur.…”

The Role of Modeling and Synthesis in Creative Mitigation

“…Archaeological modeling is a key way to proactively integrate cultural and natural resource planning at a landscape level (Heilen and Altschul 2019). Leveraging and revising state databases using a problem-oriented approach that folds consideration of cultural resources into landscape conservation design will also be important (Murtha et al 2019). Doing so would allow cultural and natural resources to be considered together in landscape-level conservation and management and provide an arena for collaboration and cross-fertilization among social science and environmental disciplines.…”