by Jeffrey H. Altschul, P.h.D., Terry H. Klein,

SRI Foundationadvancing historic preservation through education, training, and research

byJeffrey H. Altschul, P.h.D., Terry H. Klein,and Lynne Sebastian, Ph.D.

SRI Foundation333 Rio Rancho Dr. NE #103 • Rio Rancho, NM 87124

www.srifoundation.org

Preservation Research Series 4Legacy Project

A WORKSHOP ONPREDICTIVE MODELING AND

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ONMILITARY INSTALLATIONS

SANTA FE, NEW MEXICONOVEMBER 15-18, 2004

Legacy Resource Management Program, Project #03-167

By

Jeffrey H. Altschul, Ph.D., Terry H. Klein, and Lynne Sebastian, Ph.D.,

SRI FoundationRio Rancho, New Mexico

Prepared through a grant from the Legacy Program to Air Force Materiel Command,Martyn D. Tagg, Investigator

Submitted to:

Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command4225 Logistics AvenueWright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433-5747

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District819 Taylor Street, P.O. Box 17800Fort Worth, Texas 76102-1012

Prewitt & Associates, Inc.2105 Donely Drive, Suite 400Austin, Texas 78758-4513

Foundation Preservation Research Series 4August 2005

Advancing historic preservation through education, training, and researchRio Rancho, New Mexico2005

ii • Legacy Resource Management Program, Project #03-167

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Department of Defense (DoD) Legacy Resource Management Programprovides a mechanism to develop creative and innovative approaches to thestudy and management of cultural and natural resources. We feel particu-

larly fortunate to have been awarded two Legacy grants (Projects #01-167 and #03-167). One examined and assessed the use of models for predicting archaeologicalsite locations on military lands. The second evaluated the potential for modeling toenhance our ability to understand the past and manage the archaeological recordwithin DoD installations. In particular, we want to thank the personnel and man-agers of the Legacy program for administering these grants (DACA63-00-D-0006,Order Nos. 0012 and 0023). We also want to acknowledge Marty Tagg ofHeadquarters Air Force Materiel Command for not only sponsoring the grants, butalso providing insight into the issues associated with cultural resource compliancewithin DoD. Dr. Jay Newman of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort WorthDistrict and, Karen Gardner of Prewitt and Associates, Inc., provided contractualsupport. Finally, we wish to thank all the workshop participants who gave theirtime, energy, and considerable expertise to this project. Their efforts will help toensure that those components of the cultural heritage of our nation that lie onDoD lands are managed for the benefit of our generation and those to come.

iii • Legacy Resource Management Program, Project #03-167

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

In 2003, Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI) and theSRI Foundation, funded by a Department ofDefense (DoD) Legacy Resource Management

Program grant (#01-167), evaluated the use ofarchaeological predictive models on military installa-tions. The project team first sent a questionnaire toinstallations representing all branches of the service,to determine how often military installations developpredictive models and whether or not model predic-tions are incorporated into the management of cul-tural resources. The second step was to choose mod-els from four of the responding installations for an in-depth evaluation of their technical quality, accuracy,and general utility as a cultural resource managementtool. This evaluation included suggestions about waysto improve the utility of each model. The final step inthe project was to take the results of the evaluationand design a follow-up program that could directlycontribute to more effective use of predictive model-ing by military installations.

SRI and SRI Foundation proposed that the follow-upprogram should be a workshop where installationarchaeologists and cultural resource managers couldshare their collective knowledge and outline a strate-gy on how the military can more fully incorporatepredictive modeling into cultural resource manage-ment programs. The workshop would address fourtopics: database issues, modeling techniques, model-ing and compliance, and the role of spatial analysis.

The SRI Foundation, under a second Legacy Programgrant (#03-167), held the workshop in Santa Fe, New

Mexico on November 15-16, 2004. Workshop atten-dees included participants with a variety of expertisein modeling, managing cultural resources on militaryinstallations, and compliance with environmentaland historic preservation laws. Workshop participantsexamined key issues associated with model develop-ment and use, discussed successful approaches toimproving modeling efforts nationwide, and createdsome initial guidance for installations planning to usemodeling for the first time or hoping to improve orrevitalize their use of modeling. Spatial modeling forDoD as well as for most federal land managing agen-cies has traditionally focused on predicting site loca-tions; however, modeling experts and managersattending the workshop agreed that models must nowaddress more pressing issues of evaluating site signifi-cance and historic property treatment.

Over the past several decades, DoD installations haveidentified tens of thousands of archaeological sites.Installations have used predictive models of archaeo-logical site locations to assist in determining wheresites will be and understanding the distribution ofsites within installations. The National Register eligi-bility of most of these sites, however, remains uneval-uated because on most installations, archaeologicalsites could be found and then avoided during militaryactivities. As a result, there was no need to expendtime or money to evaluate their National Register eli-gibility. The large numbers of unevaluated archaeo-logical sites within installations have now begun toimpose a constraint on military missions, however.

iv • Legacy Resource Management Program, Project #03-167

With the shift in military training toward jointactions, areas previously left undisturbed will now besubject to land disturbing activities. It is quite possi-ble that large numbers of archaeological sites willhave to be evaluated in the near future, which will beboth costly and time consuming. Furthermore, baserealignments and closures (BRAC) also require largeinvestments of time and money in the evaluation ofcultural resources with little military payoff (i.e., theland once cleared is not available for use by militaryactivities). Finally, pressure from a variety of stake-holders, particularly tribes, has put renewed empha-sis on DoD’s stewardship responsibilities underSection 110 of the National Historic Preservation Actand Executive Order 13287.

To address this situation, it will be necessary to alterthe current practice of evaluating and, potentiallyresolving, adverse effects on every eligible site affect-ed by military activities. Installations need a programthrough which dollars and effort are focused on themost important sites. Such a program would savemoney and time while meeting the DoD’s compli-ance and stewardship responsibilities. Installationsshould use modeling as atool for decision-making,focusing their efforts onfewer, more important,archaeological sites.Modeling, as it is practicedon military installations,needs to be broadened so itcan become a tool for siteevaluations and resolvingadverse effects, in additionto its traditional use for pre-dicting site locations.

By broadening the focus to include site evaluationand treatment and incorporating modeling into exist-ing military environmental programs, it will be pos-sible to achieve significant savings. Figure 1 illustrateshow these savings can be measured. In Figure 1, thesolid line represents the trend of actual cumulativeexpenditures. Costs have increased at more-or-less afixed rate. With no change to existing programs, costswill continue to increase at this rate or at an evenhigher rate as site avoidance becomes increasinglyimpossible. Alternatively, by incorporating modelingtechniques into installation programs, costs could belower substantially. In the short term, costs will rise toaccommodate data requirements and analytical pro-cedures associated with modeling, but in the longrun, costs would drop dramatically below the currenttrend line as the number of sites evaluated and treat-ed is substantially reduced.

Predictive modeling should no longer be a stand-alone program within DoD with no link to the mis-sion and stewardship requirements of installations.Modeling needs to be incorporated into the fabric of

$150million

$100million

$50million

00 100%

Complete

COSTSAVINGS

MODELINGINVESTMENT

Inventory Evaluation

Cu

mu

lati

veC

ost

s

Cultural Resources Compliance (percent)

Cumulativ

e Costs

Proposed CRM program

Data Recovery

Figure 1. Cost Savings from Shifting

Modeling Focus to Site Evaluationand Treatment.

v • Legacy Resource Management Program, Project #03-167

compliance with historic preservation laws, proce-dures, and regulations.

The constraints on the military mission created bythe presence of large numbers of identified butunevaluated archaeological sites on DoD lands andthe potential cost of continuing with currentapproaches to evaluation and mitigation areapproaching crisis proportions. The SRIFoundation, with assistance from the workshopattendees, will provide information to senior DoD

management about this impending crisis and aboutways to effectively address it. This will be accom-plished by distributing this report; presenting theresults of the workshop at various DoD conferenceand meeting venues; and, creating a PowerPoint pres-entation on the results of the workshop to show tosenior DoD management. We will also documentcurrent efforts within installations that have shiftedto using models as a site evaluation tool, and presentthe results of these efforts to DoD management aswell.

vi • Legacy Resource Management Program, Project #03-167

TABLE OFCONTENTS

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND FORMAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

WORKSHOP RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS – NEXT STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

APPENDIX A – List of Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

APPENDIX B – Fort Irwin Cultural Resource Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

APPENDIX C – Programmatic Agreement from Camp Ripley, Minnesota . . . . . .21

APPENDIX D – Meeting of Workshop Participants during the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City, Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

1 • Legacy Resource Management Program, Project #03-167

1BACKGROUND

Results of the First Predictive Modeling Study

In 2003, Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI) and theSRI Foundation evaluated the use of archaeolog-ical predictive models on military installations.1

Although varying widely in composition, archaeolog-ical predictive models generally manipulate a numberof independent variables, in a replicable and logicalmanner, to yield a relative measure of the likelihoodthat a specified geographic area will or will not con-tain an archaeological sites. Natural environmentalfeatures are most often used as the independent vari-ables in these models. Since the late 1970s and early1980s, many military installations have developedarchaeological predictive models on the assumptionthat these models will assist in the identification andmanagement of cultural resources. Prior to 2003,there had been no comprehensive military-wide eval-uation of the success of these models in either pre-dicting sites or in managing resources.

The SRI and SRI Foundation evaluation effort, fund-ed by a Department of Defense (DoD) LegacyResource Management Program grant, was designedto answer four questions:

• Do predictive models created for militaryinstallations work?

• Can they be refined to work better?

• Are they sufficiently accurate so that land man-agers and State Historic Preservation Officers(SHPOs) can use them in evaluating manage-ment decisions about installation resources?

• Can a predictive model be integrated into a

more dynamic operational model that would beuseful across the DoD to increase cost efficiencyof cultural resource management at large instal-lations?

To address these questions the project team first triedto determine, through a questionnaire sent to militaryinstallations representing all branches of the service,how often installations develop predictive models,and whether installations incorporate them in themanagement of cultural resources. Although notintended to be a complete canvassing of the militaryuse of predictive models, the objective of the ques-tionnaire was to achieve a reasonable sample fromwhich inferences could be drawn. The second stepwas to choose models from four of the respondinginstallations for an in-depth evaluation of their tech-nical quality, accuracy, and general utility as a cultur-al resource management tool. The four selected instal-lations were Fort Bliss in Texas/New Mexico, FortDrum in New York, Eglin Air Force Base in Florida,and Fort Stewart in Georgia.

Several important realizations about DoD use of pre-dictive modeling came out of this study:

1. Despite all the interest in predictive modeling inthe military, there is no centralized instruction.Each installation is left to surmount the difficul-ties associated with site recording, GeographicInformation System (GIS) development, andpredictive modeling on its own. This approachhas encouraged innovation and led to the devel-opment of a wide variety of models. The poten-


tial of many of these models, however, is restrict-ed because of decisions made early in the modelcreation process. All surveyed installationsagreed that they could have profited greatly fromone another’s miscalculations and successes.

2. Most models are rudimentary in nature. Inmany respects, predictive modeling has wit-nessed a loss of sophistication in the modelsdeveloped in recent years. Most models are sim-ple intersection models or simple correlationmodels. Few models are based on multivariatestatistical techniques or theoretically based con-structs, such as optimal foraging. Because of thesimplistic nature of the models, some installa-tions have added judgmental criteria into theirmodels to increase their accuracy, even thoughby doing so they reduce their systematic andobjective character of the models.

3. Models tend to be restricted to predicting sitesthat exhibit surface manifestations. Despite theimportance and predictability of buried sites,geomorphology is not a component of mostmodeling efforts, and neither are remote sensingtechniques. The rare use of satellite imagery isparticularly noticeable. Such imagery can be auseful proxy for ground cover and land surfaces.The imagery exists in digital form that can easi-ly be included as a separate theme in an installa-tion’s GIS. Importantly, much of this imagery isavailable to the military at little or no cost.

4. In most cases, models are not integral to the cul-tural resources management compliance process.In part, this results from a tendency to viewmodels as end products rather than as a processrequiring ongoing commitment. Consequently,many models go out of date. This is unfortunatebecause so much effort goes into creating mod-els, and relatively little effort is required to refineand improve them. But even for models thathave been refined and kept current, decisionsregarding level of archaeological inventory,determinations of National Register eligibility,and resolution of adverse effects rarely includemodel predictions. Yet, this does not have to bethe case. How many acres should we survey?

Where should survey areas be placed? Howshould we identify sites (e.g., shovel tests orpedestrian survey)? These are questions that pre-dictive models can assist in answering.Determinations of eligibility require archaeolo-gists to state why a site is significant, and whatwe may learn from it. Models could be used tohighlight why a particular site’s location isunusual or typical of a class of behaviors. Datarecovery plans could incorporate model predic-tions about the type of site and the resourcesavailable to its residents as testable hypotheses.

The initial SRI/SRI Foundation study concluded as follows:

Twenty years after the advent of predictive mod-els, we believe it is time for the military to reacha consensus on how predictive modeling will beused to comply with cultural resource laws andregulations. We are not suggesting a top-downapproach in which the Department of Defensein Washington issues another set of regulations.Indeed, in the case of predictive modeling, theexpertise lies with the individual installationsthat have been struggling to realize the potentialof this technique for the last several decades. Inthe course of this study, we have been profound-ly impressed by the knowledge and creativityexhibited at the installation level. The absence ofa mechanism for sharing this expertise beyondthe installation is unfortunate.

Our suggestion for a follow-up to the currentstudy involves creating a mechanism to capital-ize on this expertise. We propose to work withthe military to convene a workshop in whichinstallation archaeologists and cultural resourcemanagers share their collective knowledge andcome to a consensus on how the military canmore fully incorporate predictive modeling intocultural resource management programs. Fourtopics would need to be addressed at this work-shop: database issues, modeling techniques,modeling and compliance, and the role of spatialanalysis:

Database issues: We have found that manypredictive models fail before they start.


Decisions about how sites will be representedin the installation’s GIS, how the environ-ment will be characterized, and what culturalattributes will be coded greatly affect the typeand usefulness of a predictive model. Manyinstallations delegate these decisions to GISspecialists, with the result often being thatsites of all types are lumped together and thatthe environment is too crudely represented tobe of much use as a predictor. And sometimeseven these data-structure decisions can be toolate in the process to ensure a successfulmodel. Failure to impose quality assurancestandards on the collection of field data oftenresults in site locations being incorrectly plot-ted, features and artifacts being misidentified,and sites being assigned to incorrect types orperiods. Each installation has a history ofaddressing these problems, which can be ofgreat benefit to others.

Modeling Techniques: The intersectionmethod, in which the greatest number ofsites is placed in the smallest area by overlap-ping polygons of environmental variables, iscurrently the modeling technique of choiceamong military installations. This develop-ment is not necessarily a welcome one. Theintersection method is easy and generallyaccurate. It does not, however, tell us muchmore than we already know. Intersectionmodels have not been usefully integratedinto compliance with historic preservationlaws, largely because managers and SHPOsdo not have enough confidence in the accu-racy and reliability of the results. In part, thislack of confidence stems from the fact thatintersection models are not based on princi-ples of human behavior. They simply reflectthe correlation of environmental featureswith archaeological sites. As such, managersare forced to develop ad hoc explanations ofsite locations, which heretofore have failedto convince SHPOs, tribes, and other partiesinvolved in the historic preservation compli-ance process, leaving the installation nochoice but to continue inventorying their

lands. To move beyond survey, we need athorough discussion of the range of model-ing techniques available to installations,along with guidelines about the level ofexpertise needed to put them into operation.

Modeling and Compliance: The goal of thewhole modeling process is not to create pre-dictive models, but to provide a useful toolto assist installations to comply with lawsand regulations more efficiently and moreeffectively. The emphasis should not be onmodels as end products, but on modeling asa process that assists with compliance.Although most installations have a long his-tory of developing models, few have inte-grated the modeling process effectively intotheir CRM [Cultural Resource Manage-ment] programs. We need to explore whythis has been the case and how the militarycan better use predictive modeling in deci-sions regarding inventory, evaluations of eli-gibility, and resolution of adverse effects.

Spatial Analysis: At the risk of having installa-tion commander’s resort to Ronald Reagan’sadmonition, “There you go again,” we raisethe need for predictive models to be useful inunderstanding the past. Correlation is notexplanation. Knowing that archaeologicalsites can be predicted by a set of environmen-tal features is not the same as knowing whyhumans chose those areas. Until militaryinstallations are able to demonstrate that theyhave programs focused less on identifyingand avoiding and more on predicting andunderstanding, the military will continue tomeet resistance when they propose not to sur-vey every acre or test every site. Finding theappropriate approach to integrating researchwith compliance continues to haunt eachinstallation. Answers will undoubtedly differdepending on the region and the nature ofthe resources, but common ground may befound that will enable all installations todevelop strategies for integrating manage-ment and research.1


As noted above, the SRI and SRI Foundation

researchers recommended that installation archaeolo-

gists and cultural resource managers attend a work-

shop at which they could share their experiences and

identify strategies to more fully integrate modeling

into DoD cultural resource management programs.

The four topics listed above (database issues, model-

ing techniques, modeling and compliance, and the

role of spatial analysis) were suggested as the frame-

work for this workshop.

The SRI Foundation, under a second LegacyResource Management Program grant (#03-167),organized a workshop in Santa Fe, New Mexico onNovember 15-16, 2004. Workshop attendeesincluded participants with expertise in modeling,managing cultural resources on military installations,and compliance with environmental and historicpreservation laws. A list of participants is provided inAppendix A. The remainder of this report presentsthe results and recommendations of the Santa Feworkshop.


2WORKSHOP

OBJECTIVES AND FORMAT

The first Legacy study found that, despite con-siderable interest in predictive modeling aspart of archaeological resource management

in the military, there is no centralized instruction onhow to develop models and use modeling effectively.There is also no collective body of knowledge aboutprevious efforts to develop and use models. The pur-pose of the Santa Fe workshop was to identify andpossibly create products or tools that would assistinstallations in developing models, improving exist-ing models, or using models to more effectively dothe following three things:

• Manage resources,

• Improve stewardship, and

• Facilitate compliance with environmental and historic preservation laws.

The workshop products would be a manual, web-based tutorial, or other products that present variousapproaches to creating and using models more effec-tively. These products would also describe sourcesthat installations can consult for help and guidance.The workshop products would not serve as a cook-book or text on predictive modeling. The greatstrength of current modeling efforts is their diversity.Archaeologists and managers have struggled withproblems and crafted solutions that are peculiar totheir installation. Any workshop products must rec-ognize this diversity and the need for each installationto tailor predictive modeling to its own situation.

To facilitate the identification and creation of appro-priate products and tools, workshop participants were

divided into three breakout groups. One group wastasked to identify ways to build better models. Thisgroup considered several topics:

• Appropriate use of technology

• Database design

• Data quality

• Incorporation of remote sensing, geomorphology,and subsurface data into model development

• Modeling techniques

• Modeling as a process not a product

A second group looked at modeling and resourcemanagement, focusing on:

Planning – using models to develop IntegratedCultural Resource Management Plans(ICRMPs) and other DoD managementdocuments

Compliance – linking models to NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) andSection 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act compliance

Tribal consultation – addressing tribal con-cerns during model development and imple-mentation

Supporting the mission – implementing strate-gies that balance cultural resource manage-ment and installation mission activities

The third group discussed modeling, archaeology,and stewardship. This group examined:


• The role of archaeological research in resourcemanagement

• Synthesizing existing information and using itto inform management decisions

• Focusing preservation activities on the “important” sites and/or a representative sample of sites

• The public benefits of taxpayer-funded archaeology

Based on the knowledge and experience of the break-out group members, with input from the rest of theworkshop participants, each group identified:

• key issues

• successful approaches

• available guidance and assistance

• other information that would be helpful to

installations planning to use modeling for the

first time or hoping to improve or revitalize

their use of modeling.

The groups also identified appropriate mechanisms

for conveying this information to potential DoD

users.


3WORKSHOP

RESULTS

The Building Better Models breakout grouprecommended the creation of web-basedguidance. This guidance would provide sug-

gestions for creating models and for writing scopes ofwork for model development. This guidance wouldalso address areas critical to improving the modelingprocess:

• Defining the purpose of modeling

• Implementing model development

• Maintaining and upgrading models

The Modeling and Resource Management groupidentified three objectives for improving the balancebetween resource stewardship and an installation’smilitary mission:

• Streamline compliance to make it better,faster, and cheaper

• Achieve better stewardship by focusing timeand money on the most important resources

• Balance resource management and military mis-sion by integrating archaeological models intoDoD planning and management processes

The Modeling, Archaeology, and Stewardship break-out group discussed the utility of different modeltypes. The appropriateness of each type is dependenton existing baseline archaeological data. Commonsense models, for example, can be developed usingminimal archaeological inventory data, whereas mod-els that explain why humans settle specific locales

require fairly complete installation inventory or a reliable and valid understanding of the causes ofhuman settlement.

The model types defined by the third breakoutgroup include:

• Experiential (judgmental, common sense, qualitative)

• Formal (trait list, intersection, Boolean)

• Correlative (weighted, regression)

• Explanatory (optimal foraging, cultural ecology, risk management, etc.)

This group stressed that modeling needs to be used toidentify those archaeological resources that are worthyof preservation, moving beyond simply predicting sitelocations. Modeling should be used as a tool for deter-mining which sites are truly significant (i.e., NationalRegister eligible). Causal and explanatory models areneeded to define the most important archaeologicalresources. The creation of such models requires syn-theses of existing archaeological data and studies.

Using the results of the first Legacy study as a frame-work, and incorporating the key issues identified bythe breakout groups at this follow-up conference,workshop participants:

• identified helpful guidance for those planningto develop models or improve existing models;

• made recommendations as to how to use exist-ing best practices to assist installations in model


development, implementation, and mainte-nance; and

• identified mechanisms to disseminate guidanceand recommendations to installations.

The following are the guidance and recommenda-tions developed by workshop attendees. Mechanismsfor sharing this information with installations are dis-cussed later in this report.

Guidance on Model Development and Improvement

• The process for model development includes thefollowing components: defining a model’s func-tion, particularly as it relates to an installation’smission and strategic plan; compiling and assess-ing data needs for model development and, ifnecessary, acquiring additional data; developingand implementing the model; and evaluating themodel in terms of how well it assists manage-ment decisions about identifying and treatingarchaeological sites. Figure 2 provides a recom-mended approach to model development, link-ing development with an installation’s mission.

• The type of model developed (experiential, for-mal, correlative, and explanatory) depends onthe purpose of the modeling effort and thenature of available archaeological data sets.

• Model development may require the use of datafrom multiple study areas, some of which mayextend beyond the boundaries of an installation.For example, a variable such as “level of distur-bance” will be restricted to an installation, whilea variable such as “rarity of site type” may requireresearch beyond an installation’s boundaries inorder to encompass the cultural and naturalregion in which this site type is known to occur.

• Existing two-dimensional locational modelsshould be supplemented with geomorphologymodels that show the history of landform evolu-tion. Geomorphological models should be usedto project areas subject to natural erosion anddeposition, providing insight on likely locationsof the most intact sites as well as buried sites.

• As part of all model development, one mustinclude an explicit discussion of the factors thatmay limit a model’s utility as a basis for compli-ance decisions (e.g., potential for buried sites,historical period changes in vegetation, lumpingof sites from very different adaptive systems intoa single model, etc.).

• For existing models, it is important to identifyand make explicit the models’ limitations as sup-porting evidence for compliance/managementdecisions.

• Use local and traditional knowledge to supple-ment models where needed, but do this in doc-umented and consistent ways. For example,develop a matrix for determining the level ofinventory needed: “The area of potential effect(APE) for an undertaking is in a location identi-fied by the model as having a low probability ofcontaining archaeological sites. In addition, thefollowing factors make sites even less likely to befound: extensive disturbance, high level of ero-sion, distance from water, and particular land-forms. Therefore, survey will be limited to A, B,and C.” Or, “The APE is in a low probabilityzone but evidence from oral traditions indicateshigh potential for sites, therefore survey intensi-ty will be increased beyond what is the norm forlow probability areas.”

• Sites found in areas predicted to have few or nosites tend to have great research potential, as theypoint to human behaviors that are relativelyinfrequent or rarely preserved in the archaeolog-ical record.

• To build partner and stakeholder confidence andtrust in the use of models:

• Establish early coordination with other agen-cies, State Historic Preservation Offices(SHPO), and the Advisory Council onHistoric Preservation (ACHP)

• Involve partners and stakeholders in select-ing variables, model design, etc.

• Provide examples of best practices and suc-cessful applications of modeling


• Use a written protocol (Section 106 pro-grammatic agreement [PA]) or other mecha-nism) covering how and when modeling willbe used and how consultation will continue

• Build in feedback to partners and stakeholderson the results of model development and use

• Disseminate results of the modeling effort tothe public as appropriate

• To address tribal concerns when using models:

• Establish formal consultation early in theprocess

• Provide clear explanations about what isbeing done and why

• Use a written protocol (PA or other mecha-nism) for how and when modeling will beused and how consultation will continue

• Develop mechanisms for incorporating trib-al values associated with archaeological sitesinto modeling and model-based decisions

• Develop mechanisms for incorporating tra-ditional knowledge into models

• Identify funding sources for tribal consult-ants (that is, for those providing expertknowledge)

• Identify tribes that have experience withmodeling projects to serve as a resource fortribes to whom this is a new issue

• Build in feedback to the tribe about themodeling results

• To ensure that the modeling process is an inte-gral part of resource management at an installa-tion, independent of personnel changes,

• Write the modeling process into some formof planning or management document thatcontinues to operate over the long term

• Define a clear purpose and use for any newor revised model; communicate this to man-agement

• Ensure that maintenance and use of themodel is included in position descriptions,

written guidance, or job requirements forinstallation cultural resource managers

• Use policy letters to ensure continuity ofmodel use and maintenance

• Make the model so useful for resource man-agement that cultural resource staff and mid-dle management will ensure that the modelcontinues to be used and refined

One way for modeling to become an integral part ofinstallation operations is to incorporate archaeologi-cal resource management programs into modelingefforts. One example program is Fort Irwin’sAutomated Tool for Monitoring Archaeological sites(ATMAS). This program prioritizes sites using threefactors: information potential (as specified in theinstallation’s Integrated Cultural ResourceManagement Plan), observed risk of future impacts(assumes evidence for past impacts is a good predic-tor for similar impacts in the future), and predictedrisk for impacts (based on planned changes in train-ing activities, construction or other actions thatmight affect sites).2 By incorporating componentslike ATMAS, modeling efforts will include explicitmanagement outcomes.

It was also recommended that installations assemblethe right team for model formation and synthesis ofdata. The team should include archaeologists withmanagement expertise, and team member roles andduties need to be clearly defined. It would also bebeneficial to solicit assistance from others (military,academic, civilian contractors, state preservationagency representatives, tribes, etc.) or create a steeringgroup to guide model development.

Guidance on Using Non-Archaeological Data in Model Development

• Recognize that most of these datasets are them-selves models, with the attendant issues of scale,accuracy, quality, generalization, and automa-tion. One must know the map scale at whichdata can be considered reliable.


• Dataset sources vary in quality and nature.

• Most datasets require some form of categoriza-tion. One should consider the categorizationneeds and whether the quality of a given datasetwill support the sorts of categories desired. Somecategories of a particular dataset may have spe-cial importance and be worthy of becomingtheir own datasets. For example, a surficial geol-ogy category of “clay” polygon(s) might need tobe moved into its own “clay sources” dataset.

• Common data for modeling and landscape char-acterization include:

DEM (Digital Elevation Models)

• Most installations have data that are moreaccurate and more precise than USGSDEMs

• DEMs may need manipulation to be incor-porated into modeling efforts

• Derived layers from DEM include: Slope,aspect, local relief, visibility, drainage,ridge/aspect, landform

Surface (or accessible) water

• One may need to distinguish man-made andnatural surface waters.

• Consider carefully the best way to obtainsurface water information. In desert environ-ments it may be soil moisture, in other areasit may be soil taxon. Other areas may be ableto utilize USGS mapping directly orNational Wetland Inventory (NWI) infor-mation.

Geomorphology

• Geomorphic data may be useful for definingpotential buried sites, but they may need tobe adapted from the geological uses forwhich they were created in order to meetarchaeological needs

• These data may be used to define site types(e.g., quarries)

• Geomorphic data may allow one to forecastages of surface and buried materials

Soils

• Soils are the outcome of time, climate, geol-ogy, geomorphology, and vegetation history,that is, many of the landscape factors ofinterest to archaeologists.

• Soils are a “model” within a given area. Theyare observed in a few places and generalizedto a map.

• Soil datasets are generated at different levelsof spatial accuracy (called “orders” in soilsurveys)

• Natural Resource Conservation Service soilsare map units plus a suite of associatedtables. They can be complicated to navigateand join correctly.

Vegetation

• Investigators should first examine existinginstallation databases. Many installationshave some baseline vegetation mapping.Check the installation Integrated NaturalResource Management Plan (INRMP).

• Today’s vegetation may not be a good proxyfor prehistoric vegetation. Check historicphotographs to determine changes in vegeta-tion.

• Many vegetation datasets have limited accu-racy on the ground. Boundaries are particu-larly problematic as is distinguishing smallpatches of a particular vegetation class.

Bedrock geology

Surficial geology

Biomass

Wetlands inventories

• The National Wetland Inventory is thenationwide inventory; however, it is basedon photography, so modern reservoirsappear as wetlands/waters and drained (his-toric) wetlands may not be shown.

Past land use (roads, trails, aboriginal pathways,portages, travel routes, mining claims, mining dis-tricts, farmsteads, etc.) is often documented in thehistorical record. Information sources include:


• Ethnographic studies, oral histories, tradi-tional land uses

• Government Land Office records (GLOs)

Fauna

• Migration routes, wintering grounds

Paleoenvironments

• Landforms

• Shorelines

• Paleovegetation

Remote sensing

• Orthophotography, satellite imagery (veryuseful for geomorphological identificationand for detecting change)

Guidance on UsingArchaeological Data in ModelDevelopment

• Reliable spatial information has many usesaside from modeling. Installations need toknow precisely how many sites are under theircontrol, how many acres have been inventoried,how many sites have been identified, and howmany unevaluated sites have been identified. Itis usually cost-effective, though expensive, toautomate this information.

• Quality assurance is essential but costly. If pos-sible, “cleaning” the database should involvenot only a check on accuracy, but also a reviewfor consistency. For example, do the artifactsrecorded fit with the site function, site type, orsite age?

Modeling and data management are linked benefits.Data management, however, precedes model forma-tion.

Additional Guidance andConsiderations in ModelDevelopmentSurveys / Field Investigations

• Knowing which areas do not contain sites is asimportant as knowing which areas do withrespect to modeling

• It is important to have criteria that define whatare adequate inventories and surveys. Adequacyis usually defined by whether or not resourcesand attributes of interest were identified appro-priately.

• For the western U.S., information on tran-sect interval and systematic coverage areimportant to define adequacy

• For the eastern and central U.S., one mayneed to know shovel test intervals, screeningprotocols, etc.

• Spatial Representation

• Polygons should be used for spatial represen-tation. Small investigation areas could bebuffered to create appropriately sized poly-gons

Sites

“Sites” recorded in an inventory are not necessarilythe same “sites” that one uses in creating a model. Forexample, isolated finds may have been recorded as“sites” in an inventory, but may be of no interest inmodel formation. Alternatively, rastor-based GISmodels may divide site areas into many “site” cells. Itis important not to confuse what is in a database withwhat is needed in model development. Also, it isnecessary to consider how to handle multiple record-ings of sites. Model developers need to considerwhether a site recorded multiple times should betreated as one site or as more than one site. Finally,relational databases may require complex queries todraw out model data.


The following are issues that need to be considered interms of site representation and site attributes formodel development:

• Spatial Representation of Sites

• How sites are represented in a GIS mayaffect the kinds of modeling one can do.This is also the case for the unit of analysis(e.g., points, polygons, cells).

• Important Site Attributes for ModelDevelopment

• Site functions

• Site classes (descriptive)

• Cultural/temporal context

• Multi-functionality

• Site depth

• Site size

• Key Site Management Attributes

• National Register status

• Level of investigation

• Date of last investigation

• Condition

• Impacts

• Information potential

[See Appendix B for one example of a site attributedatabase. This database is from Fort Irwin,California]

Recommendations on Using BestPractices to Improve ModelDevelopment and Use

• Identify installations where existing models arebeing used effectively for NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.Can these installations provide information oncost and time savings? Can they serve as mod-els for other installations?

• Collect and make available examples of existingprogrammatic approaches (PAs, standard treat-ments, exempted categories of undertakings,etc.) that are based at least in part on informa-tion from models

• Identify an installation that is using modelingeffectively to assist in site evaluation and findout the procedures and pitfalls involved indeveloping the model.

• For installations that do not have an existingmodel, develop a deductive model, based inpart on a completed historic context. Use thismodel to guide all phases of archaeologicalwork for a large project, determining how iden-tification will be carried out, evaluating thesites that are identified, and guiding testing andexcavation decisions and research design devel-opment.


4WORKSHOP

RECOMMENDATIONSNEXT STEPS

Workshop participants recommended thedevelopment of a web site (or sites) withinformation and guidance on modeling.

This web site(s) would also provide information onhow to develop scopes of work for creating models forinstallations. Information contained within the website might also include guidance and best practicesfrom individuals and organizations outside of DoD.The site(s) would need to be geared to several level ofexpertise in order to address the needs of new CRMstaff and non-CRM specialists, particularly decision-makers and managers at installations. Web site(s)components might include:

• Introduction to DoD CRM predictive models

• Benefits of models for managers/decision-mak-ers and for fulfilling installation missions

• Model building for CRM professionals (step-by-step guidance)

• Lessons learned from the development and useof existing models (e.g., best practices)

• Links to other sources of information

• A host for the web site would need to be identi-fied, in addition to funding sources for creatingand maintaining the web site.

All workshop participants agreed that installationsneed additional guidance and materials (beyond theguidance developed during the workshop) in order toimprove their modeling efforts. These include:

• Guidance and examples for Army installationson how models can be incorporated in HistoricProperties Components (HPCs) of ICRMPs,pursuant to the Army’s Alternate Procedures,and to develop standard operating procedures(SOPs) that are required as part of HPCs.

• Example proposals for program alternatives(e.g., programmatic agreements, exempted cate-gories of undertakings, approaches to inventoryintensity decisions, etc.) that are based on infor-mation from modeling and can be adapted byinterested installations.

• Guidance on how to incorporate historic con-texts into the selection of variables for modeldevelopment.

• Guidance on how to appropriately combinemorphological characteristics of sites, informa-tion from historic contexts, and environmentalvariables to create a rational process for evaluat-ing National Register eligibility.

These materials and guidance would be included in theproposed web site. Funding sources to create this addi-tional guidance need to be identified and pursued.Development of this guidance, and possibly the website, might be accomplished under future Legacy grants.

Workshop attendees also noted that modeling needs tobecome an integral part of installation operations. Toaccomplish this, workshop participants recommend that

• Models become part of ICRMP mandates. Inaddition, ICRMPs should incorporate reviews


of the cultural and environmental componentsof models. For example, if a new, more accurateDEM has been created for an installation, itshould be addressed in the ICRMP, review andthe new DEM’s effects on the model will needto be assessed.

• Model use and updates should be stipulatedwithin installation Section 106 programmaticagreements (see Appendix C for example fromCamp Ripley, Minnesota).

• Research designs for archaeological data recov-ery should incorporate model predictions aboutthe type of site under investigation. Theseresearch designs could also be used, in part, totest and validate models.

Again, the Legacy program may be an appropriatefunding mechanism to create guidance on how instal-lations can integrate modeling into their planningefforts and to insure that modeling remains an on-going component of strategic planning.

The workshop attendees also suggested other fundingsources and expertise for advancing individual instal-lations’ modeling efforts:

• Use changes in mission and major constructionand training projects within installations as ajustification for funding model development orupdating.

• Use legislative Environmental ImpactStatement requirements for withdrawals andother Congressional actions to get funds formodel development or updating.

One of the workshop’s primary recommendationswas for DoD to shift modeling efforts away from anexclusive focus on predicting site locations. For sever-al decades, DoD installations have been identifyingtens of thousands of archaeological sites. Installationshave used predictive models of archaeological sitelocations to assist in identifying where sites are andunderstanding their distribution within installations.The National Register eligibility of most of thesesites, however, remains unevaluated because, untilrecently, archaeological sites could simply be foundand then avoided during military activities. As a

result, there was no need to expend the time ormoney to evaluate National Register eligibility of thesites. The large number of unevaluated archaeologicalsites within installations has now begun to impose aconstraint on military missions. With changes in mil-itary training toward joint actions, areas previouslyleft undisturbed will now be subject to land disturb-ing activities. Similarly, BRAC actions or consolida-tion of missions will require the evaluation and pos-sibly the treatment of a large numbers of archaeolog-ical sites in the near future, which will be both costlyand time consuming.

To address this situation, it will be necessary to alterthe current practice whereby every site affected bymilitary activities is evaluated and adverse effects areindividually resolved. Installations need a programthrough which dollars and effort can be focused onthe most important sites. Such a program would notonly save money and time, but would also meet theDoD’s compliance and stewardship responsibilities.Installations should use modeling as a tool for deci-sion-making, focusing their efforts on fewer, moreimportant, archaeological sites. Modeling, as it ispracticed on military installations, needs to broadenits focus beyond just predicting site locations.Modeling should also serve as a tool for cost effectivesite evaluations and resolution of adverse effects.

By broadening the focus to include site evaluationand treatment, and by incorporating modeling moreeffectively into existing military environmental pro-grams, it will be possible to achieve significant sav-ings. Figure 1, in the Executive Summary, illustrateshow these savings can be measured. With no changeto existing programs, costs will continue to increaseas site avoidance becomes increasingly impossible.Alternatively, by incorporating modeling techniquesinto installation programs, costs can be lowered sub-stantially. In the short term, costs would rise toaccommodate data requirements and analytical pro-cedures associated with modeling, but costs wouldthen drop dramatically as the number of sites evalu-ated and treated was substantially reduced.

SRI Foundation, with assistance from workshopattendees, will inform senior DoD management


about the impending crisis stemming from unevalu-ated sites on DoD lands and suggest mechanisms toeffectively address this crisis. The distribution of thisreport (with the executive summary) will serve as aninitial means to inform senior DoD management.Subsequent efforts might include

• a PowerPoint presentation on the results of theworkshop, be shown to senior DoD manage-ment staff during face-to-face meetings;

• presentations at DoD environmental confer-ences and other DoD venues; and

• documentation of current efforts within instal-lations that have shifted to using models as asite evaluation tool, and presentation of theresults of these efforts to DoD management.

In addition to informing DoD senior personnel, SRIFoundation and workshop participants will makesure that the results of the workshop are shared withnon-DoD personnel. The SHPO representatives

who attended the workshop will present the work-

shop results and recommendations to the National

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers at

their next annual meeting. Workshop results will also

be sent to the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation and presented at various venues across

the country, especially at meetings of other federal

agencies that use archaeological modeling as a tool for

historic preservation compliance.

Subsequent to the 2004 workshop in Santa Fe, some

of the workshop participants met during the Society

for American Archaeology’s (SAA) 2005 annual

meeting in Salt Lake City. The meeting provided an

opportunity to fine-tune the 2004 workshop recom-

mendations and develop specific strategies for

advancing these recommendations. The results of this

meeting are presented in Appendix D.

REFERENCES1 Altschul, Jeffrey H., Lynne Sebastian, and

Kurt Heidelberg, Predictive Modeling in theMilitary: Similar Goals, Divergent Paths.Preservation Research Series 1. SRIFoundation, Rio Rancho, New Mexico,2004.

2 Meyer, William D., and Michael Hargrave,ATMAS 2.0 Instruction Manual. Preparedfor Directorate of Public Works, CulturalResources, National Training Center, FortIrwin, California, December 2003.


Strategic Plan(5-year plan for cultural resource management program)

Assess model accuracy and reliability

Develop and implement models

Select study area/contextCompile dataSelect model typesAssess data quality & data gapsObtain needed data

Usingmodels,makeinformeddecisionsin supportof missionand ICRMP

Create synthesison what is knownabout sites.Synthesis used toassist in modelevaluation andto create futuremodels that definesignificant sites.

MISSION

Figure 2. Recommended Process

for Model Development


APPENDIX A

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS LIST

Jeffrey AltschulPresidentStatistical Research, Inc.P. O. Box 31865Tucson, AZ [email protected]

Scott AnfinsonArchaeologistMinnesota State HistoricPreseravation Office345 Kellogg Blvd. W.St. Paul, MN 55102(651) [email protected]

Richard ArnoldExecutive Director, Las Vegas Indian Centerand Chairman, Pahrump Paiute TribeP. O. Box 3411Pahrump, NV 89041702-647-5842, ext 225702-339-7200 (cell)[email protected]

Alice BaldricaState Historic Preservation OfficerHistoric Preservation Office100 North Stewart StreetCapitol ComplexCarson City, NV 89701-4285(775) 684-3444 [email protected]

Tad Britt Senior Research ArcheologistERDC-CERLP. O. Box 9005Champaign, IL 61822-90051-800-872-2375 [email protected]

Jim Bruseth Director, Archeology DivisionTexas Historical CommissionP.O. Box 12276Austin, TX 78711-2276(512) 463-6096jim.bruseth @thc.state.tx.us

Thomas FosterAssociate Director of Cultural ResourcesBHE Environmental, Inc.11733 Chesterdale RoadCincinnati, OH 45246(513) [email protected](representing Fort Benning)

Paul Green HQ ACC/CEVP129 Andrews St, Ste 102Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769(757) [email protected]

Carol Heathington Historic Preservation Officer56 RMO/ESM7224 N. 139th DriveLuke AFB, AZ 85309-1420(623) 856-3823 [email protected]

Eric IngbarDirectorGnomon, Inc.1601 Fairview Drive • Suite FCarson, City, Nevada [email protected]

Laura A. KammererDeputy SHPO for Review and ComplianceDivision of Historical Resources500 South Bronough StreetRoom 423 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250(850) [email protected]

Lorraine Marquez EilerDirectorHia C’ed O’odham Alliance4739 West HaywardGlendale AZ 85301623-939-3449 (home) 623-399-3678 (cell)[email protected]

Duane PeterGeo-Marine, Inc.550 E. 15th StreetPlano, TX 75074(972) [email protected]


Adrianne G. RankinArchaeologist56 RMO/ESM7224 N. 139th DriveLuke Air Force Base, AZ 85309-1420(623) 856-3823 x [email protected].

Marilyn RuizCollege of Veterinary MedicineUIUCVeterinary Diagnostic Laboratory2001 S. LincolnUrbana, IL [email protected](217) 265-5115(representing ERDC-CERL)

Laurie Rush Cultural Resource ManagerPW Cultural Resources85 First Street WestFt. Drum, NY 13602-5097(315) [email protected]

Lynne SebastianDirector of Historic PreservationProgramsSRI Foundation333 Rio Rancho Drive, Suite 103Rio Rancho, NM 87124(505) [email protected]

Mark Stanley Base Archaeologist 96 ABW/EM501 DeLeon Street, Ste 100Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5133(850) [email protected]

Marty TaggCultural Resource ManagerHQ AFMC/MSEVQ4225 Logistics Avenue Room A128Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5747(937) 656 1281

[email protected]

Prentice M. Thomas, Jr.PresidentPrentice Thomas and Associates, Inc.P.O. Box 4246Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549(850) [email protected](also representing Eglin AFB withMark Stanley)

Jim Wilde HQ AFCEE/TDI3300 Sidney BrooksBrooks City-Base TX 78235-5112(210) [email protected]

James ZeidlerColorado State UniversityCEMML (1490)110 Vocational EducationFort Collins, CO 80523(970) [email protected]


APPENDIX B

FORT IRWIN CULTURAL RESOURCE DATABASE


APPENDIX C

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT FROM CAMP RIPLEY, MINNESOTA

Programmatic Agreement Among The Minnesota Army National Guard, theMinnesota State Historic Preservation Officer, the Minnesota State Archeologist,

and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding Use of anArcheological Sensitivity and Settlement Model at Camp Ripley Training Site,

Morrison County, Minnesota

Whereas, the Minnesota Army National Guard (MNARNG) uses Camp Ripley TrainingSite for training; and

Whereas, historic properties at Camp Ripley Training Site, although owned by the State ofMinnesota, may be affected by those MNARNG activities that are Federal undertakings as definedin 36 CFR Part 800.16(y); and

Whereas, the National Guard Bureau, as the source of Federal funding to MNARNG,delegates certain National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 responsibilities toMNARNG; and

Whereas, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer (Minnesota SHPO) and theMinnesota State Archeologist concur that the archeological sensitivity model adequately identifies“low sensitivity” areas within Camp Ripley Training Site, where prehistoric (pre-contact) and earlyhistoric (protohistoric) archeological sites are not likely to occur; and

Whereas, the Minnesota SHPO and the Minnesota State Archeologist concur that geo-graphic information system (GIS) database prepared in 1999 of post-contact archeologicalresources adequately identifies locations associated with post-1837 activity;

Now, Therefore, MNARNG, the Minnesota SHPO, the Minnesota State Archeologist,and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) agree that archeologicalinvestigations shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to satisfyMNARNG’s Section 106 responsibility.

Stipulations

I. The Model and Its Applicability

A. MNARNG shall implement an archeological sensitivity model (Model) comprised ofAn Archaeological Sensitivity Model of Prehistoric and Contact Period Settlement at Camp Ripley,


Morrison County, Minnesota prepared by IMA Consulting (1997) and A Geographic InformationSystem (GIS) Database of Post-Contact Period Cultural Resources at Camp Ripley, Morrison County,Minnesota prepared by BRW (1999).

B. Use of the alternative procedures of this Programmatic Agreement (PA) shall be restrictedto undertakings whose area of potential effects (APE) occurs entirely in low archeological sensitivityareas as identified by the Model.

C. With the exception of 36 CFR Part 800, as described in Paragraph B, the alternative pro-cedures in this PA shall not replace any other required cultural resources procedures, such as thosethat address the Native American Graves Repatriation and Protection Act, the American IndianReligious Freedom Act, Executive Order 13007, or Executive Order 13175.

II. Alternative Procedures

A. Upon initiating review of a proposed MNARNG undertaking, the EnvironmentalSupervisor at Camp Ripley Training Site shall:

1. Determine if there are any known historic properties or traditional cultural properties inthe undertaking’s APE;

2. Refer to the Model to determine if the undertaking’s APE is within low sensitivity areasand if there are any historic site leads from the post-1837 GIS database; and

3. Determine whether the APE occurs within areas of Camp Ripley Training Site for whichNative American Tribes have expressed interest or concern through consultation.

B. If the APE is entirely within areas for which there are no known historic properties/ tra-ditional cultural properties, there is low archeological sensitivity, there are no post-1837 site leads,and there are no Native American concerns identified through consultation, then MNARNG mayproceed without seeking Minnesota SHPO or Minnesota State Archeologist comments.

C. If the APE includes known historic properties/traditional cultural properties, locations ofmoderate or high archeological sensitivity, post-1837 site leads, or area of concern to NativeAmerican Tribes, then MNARNG shall proceed in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.

III. Burials, Cemeteries, and Inadvertent Discovery

A. Ground disturbing activities or construction at Camp Ripley Training Site shall avoid allknown burials, cemeteries, and archeological site 21MO22 within 100 meters.

B. If there is an inadvertent discovery of a burial, MNARNG shall proceed in accordancewith 36 CFR Part 800, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (43 U.S.C.3001 et seq.), and Minnesota State Statute 307.08.

IV. Dispute Resolution

A. Any party to this PA or any Native American Tribe that objects to the interpretation orapplication of this PA should contact the Environmental Supervisor in writing. MNRNG shallattempt to resolve the matter by consulting with the objecting party and other signatories.

B. If MNARNG decides that the objection cannot be easily resolved, MNARNG shall pro-ceed with dispute resolution in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.

V. Amendment

Any party to this PA may propose to the other parties that it be amended, whereupon the parties


will consult in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6(c)(7) to consider such an amendment.

VI. Termination

A. Any party to this PA may terminate it by providing thirty (30) days’ notice to the otherparties, provided that the parties will consult during the period prior to termination to seek agree-ment or amendments or other actions that will avoid termination.

B. In the event of termination of this PA, MNARNG will proceed in accordance with 36CFR Part 800, Army and National Guard Bureau policy, and other applicable plans, policy, orstatutes.

VII. Sunset Clause

This PA will continue in full force and effect until November 30, 2006, at which time it may berenewed for an additional 5 years by a letter-based agreement among all the signatories.

Minnesota Army National Guard

_________________________ Date: __________________Eugene R. AndreottiMajor General, MNARNGThe Adjutant General, State of Minnesota

Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer

_________________________ Date: __________________Britta Bloomberg Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Minnesota Historical Society

Minnesota State Archeologist

_________________________ Date: __________________Mark J. DudzikState ArcheologistOffice of the State Archeologist

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

_________________________ Date: __________________Lee KeatingeAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation


APPENDIX DMeeting of Workshop Participants during the

2005 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Salt Lake City, Utah

Subsequent to the 2004 workshop in Santa Fe,New Mexico, some of the workshop partici-pants met during the Society for American

Archaeology’s (SAA) 2005 annual meeting in SaltLake City, Utah. The meeting provided an opportu-nity to fine-tune the 2004 workshop recommenda-tions and develop specific strategies for advancingthese recommendations.

Workshop attendees who met during the SAA meet-ing included Jeffrey Altschul (Statistical Research,Inc.), Thomas Foster (BHE Environmental, Inc.),Carol Heathington ( Luke Air Force Base, Arizona),Eric Ingbar (Gnomon, Inc.), Duane Peter (Geo-Marine, Inc.), Adrianne G. Rankin (Luke Air ForceBase, Arizona), Laurie Rush (Ft. Drum, New York)Lynne Sebastian (SRI Foundation), and Marty Tagg(HQ AFMC/MSEVQ, Wright-Patterson Air ForceBase, Ohio).

The meeting participants discussed the developmentof a web site, guidance, approaches for integratingmodels with installation management efforts, andadvancing a third Legacy Resource ManagementProgram project on modeling.

Web Site Content

• Introduction to predictive models and DoD Cultural Resource Management (CRM) programs

• Benefits of modeling for management decisions and missions

• Step-by-step guidance on model-building

• Best practices and lessons learned

• Links to sources of information on modeling

Guidance (made available on the web site)

• Using models in Historic PropertiesComponents (HPC) of the Army’s IntegratedCultural Resource Management Plans (ICRMP)

• Using Section 106 program alternatives, basedon modeling, to streamline compliance

• Using historic contexts to guide variable selec-tion for models

• Combining site morphology, environmentalvariables, and historic context information inorder to make rational determinations ofNational Register eligibility

Integrating Models into InstallationManagement Programs

• Integrate models into ICRMPs, requiring model use and updating

• Integrate models into Section 106 programmatic agreements (PAs)

• Integrate models into research designs for data recovery projects


• Use models to evaluate the larger number of unevaluated sites

Third Legacy Resource Management Program Project

• Pick two (2) installations, and take existingmodels and enhance them so they can be usedfor site evaluations as well as for predicting sitelocations

• Apply for Legacy program grant funding

• Include development of web site and guidancein third Legacy program grant

Also, all agreed it was important to carry out, as soonas possible, the following tasks:

• Determine the appropriate military host for theweb site. Work with the host, during the sum-mer of 2005, to outline the elements of theweb site so that costs and a schedule can beprovided in the third Legacy Program grant.

• Write a letter transmitting the 2004 Santa Feworkshop report to appropriate individualswithin DoD, including managers inWashington, D.C. Individuals to target includeMaureen Sullivan (Federal Preservation Officer,ODUSD(I&E)/ESOH), Jim Cobb and ChrisMcDade (Regional Army Cultural ResourceManagers), Jim Wilde (US Air Force, HQAFCEE/TDI) and a program manager withinthe US Navy. The letter will focus on the work-shop’s primary recommendations and how theywill result in cost savings DoD-wide. The letterwill ask DoD managers if they find value in theworkshop’s findings and recommendations, andif they want to participate in implementing therecommendations.

• Take a joint service team to meet and talk topolicy level staff within DoD in order to obtainsupport for implementing the workshop’s rec-ommendations.

SRI Foundationadvancing historic preservation through education, training,and research

SRI Foundation333 Rio Rancho Dr. NE #103 Rio Rancho, NM 87124www.srifoundation.org

by Jeffrey H. Altschul, P.h.D., Terry H. Klein,

Documents

Transcript of by Jeffrey H. Altschul, P.h.D., Terry H. Klein,