cultural resource management in context

Chapter 12

Cultuva~ Resource Management in Context

In the United States, much of historic preservation is carried out in a framework of cultural resource management. Cultural resource management is increasingly being conducted as heritage management in the larger context of ecosystem management or ecological stewardship. Cultural resources are an important factor in the human environment, and must be managed in the context of all other biological, social, and geophysical elements in that environment or ecosystem. Good environmental stewardship requires affirmative resource management, including management of our tangible and intangible cultural resources. Many scientists are involved in cultural resource management, either directly or indirectly and either consciously or unconsciously There is increased public awareness of the value of cultural resources, and their protection involves the knowledgeable and caring collaboration of resource specialists (c.g., anthropologists. archaeologists, architects, archivists, engineers, folklorists, historians), material scientists, decision-making land managers, and the living community with ties to the heritage resources. This in turn involves each participating community and individual (including the scientists) managing the interfaces among themselves. This is done by learning something about (and learning to appreciate) other groups' values and special languages and their operating constraints and opportunities, and

Srirn<c ond Teilrlrology In Historic Prerrrvalios, edited by Williamson and Nickens Kluwer AcadcmicIPlenum Publishers New York. 2000.

267

In "Science and Technolology in Historic Preservation," edited by Ray A. Williamson and Paul R. Nickens, pp. 267-290. Klewer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

268 RUTHANN KNUDSON

about the overall public benefits and costs of cultural resource management decisions.

INTRODUCTION

As discussed earlier by Williamson (chapter 11, historic preservation and the science and technology used in that preservation are done in a public context. Who owns the resource, who preserves or manages its use, and the manner of its preservation, use, or destruction, are almost always issues of public interest (Cleere 1989; Knudson 1986; 1991a; 1995, forthcoming; Messenger 1989; Shanks and Tilley 1993). The most obvious public context in which historic preservation is conducted is most frequently referred to as cultural resource management (CRM; Johnson and Schene 1987; Knudson 1986; McGimsey 1991; Schiffer and Gumerman 1977). In the United States, CRM is based in the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) as much as in historic preservation legislation such as the National Historic Preservation Act or the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

Cultural resources began to be managed in a more explicitly ecological land-management framework in the 1990s, as part of ecosystem management (Church 1997; Knudson 1998; Knudson and Caldwell 1995; Knudson and Hamson 1995; Lipe 1995; Periman et al., in press; Wood 1994; Woodley 1993; cf. Carmen et al. 1995). In that context, CRM is often referred to as heritage or heritage resource management (Forney and Witt 1994; cf. Fowler and Boniface 1993).

Into the next century, CRM will be more explicitly inter- as well as multidisciplinary, more driven by general concerns about quality of life than about specific preservation issues (cf. Lee 1992). Society will require it to do work, to provide information usable in directing social, physical, and natural resource management to meet goals of sustainability CRM's practitioners will need to pay more attention to the community historically associated with specific cultural resources, and give more consideration to the community affected by the preservation decisions; they will have to be more accountable economically (cf. FASAB 1996). In complement, CRM will require technical support systems that are time- and cost-effective as well as provide reliable and valid information, and make more use of heritage resources themselves and their derived information for recreation and tourism and for understanding past human adaptations to environmental change. There will be more attention, worldwide, to management and use, not warehouse preservation. The scientific base of CRM will involve more synthesis and better-founded analyses of the reliability, validity, and meaning of cultural resource data. To do this, better integration of applied, public practice, and the research of academic scientists will be needed (cf. Bonnichsen et al. 1995). Finally, it will have to be more

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN CONTEXT 269

internationally based, with better communication across legal and cultural boundaries.

Definition of Cultural Resources and Cultural Resource Management

In 1986. 1 stated (p. 400) that: "Today, in most contexts (generally federal, state, or local environmental planning studies) CRM involves the things and behavior patterns that are important reflections of our traditional culture, the "complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, act, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired [by a human1 as a member of society.. ." 1 went on to list cultural resources as: "1. Terrestrial and marine prehistoric, historic, industrial, and commercial archaeological resources; 2. Formal and vernacular historic buildings or architecture, engineered construction, and cultural landscapes (including scientific and/or technical facilities); and 3. Traditional or cultural "intangible" values, which include language and lifeways." To which I would like now to add: 4. Museum collections (Cantwell et al. 1984; Pearce 1990); and 5. Documentary, oral, and electronic records and imagery (Daniels and Walch 1984; NARS 1974; cf. Neumann et al. 1993; DoD 1994).

For the most part, cultural resources are things that are place-related; they tie past and present cultural systems to geographic markers as an organizing construct. However, some relate only to broad geographical units, e.g., Lakota traditional cultural significance. More than one cultural system may have ties to the same geographical place, at a single point in time or across time. Also. many cultural resources are the remnants of interactions between two or more cultural systems, so who claims priority in the management of these resources (cf. Carmichael et al. 1994; Gathercole and Lowenthal 1994; Layton et al. 1994)?

Management of something is controlling it insofar as is humanly possible. Daft (1988: 5) defined management as "the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, leading, and controlling organizational resources." The goal of cultural resource management is the conservation of culturally valued information and/or aesthetic and spiritual experiences inherent in a cultural resource, in a context of associated public values (e.g., physical environment, economics, community needs). An archaeological site that is allowed to deteriorate naturally by falling into a river with the silt block in which it is incorporated is not managed-unless there was a specific management decision to allow such destruction. A historic shipwreck that is salvaged but later allowed to rust away is not well managed. A historic log cabin that has been stabilized in a manner consistent with its original vernacular architecture and is now used as a trailside shelter is probably being well managed. The recordation and demoli-

2 70 RUTHANN KNUDSON

tion of an aging urban church with architectural significance and associated with a historic figure may be good management, if the activities and decisions leading to a choice of a public transportation facility rather than the church were appropriate to the public good. Good management frequently involves the appropriate use of contemporary science and technology to preserve the cultural pastoften to include the record of past science and technology

Of necessity, cultural resource management is a multidisciplinary activ- it

y

It also involves significant interface management (Archibald 1976: 66-68; Knudson 1991b). Peter Drucker (1977: 25-26) noted that "Management.is a social function, embedded in a tradition of values, customs, and beliefs and in governmental and political systems. Management isand should beculture- conditioned; in turn, management is an organized body of knowledge and as such applicable everywhere, it is also "culture". It is not "value-free" science. . . . [Ilt is a practice. . .and performance. . .based both on knowledge and responsibility."

Whether or not science is indeed "value free", each scientist carries her or his own personal cultural values as well as the corporate cultural values (Deal and Kennedy 1982; cf. Carlo et al. 1992; Daft 1988: 492-513; White 1997) of a discipline, practice, andlor institution. The multidisciplinary mix of CRM means that a lot of different cultures are represented in the interper- sonal and inter-institutional interactions required for good resource management. This requires that the connections among those cul~ural values, which have both differences and common ground, musL themselves be well managed. This can involve the interrelationships among lawyers, bureaucrats, field archaeologists, laboratory scientists, local jurisdiction planners, and ethnic communities.

An example of the complexity and sensitivity of managing these interfaces has been displayed in the U.S. Department of Defense's (DoD) Legacy Resource Management Program ("Legacy"; DoD 1992), whose Congression- ally mandated task throughout the 1990s is to enhance the Departmenti management of its cultural and natural resources. Legacy is a multi-million dollar task, initiated in 1991 and projected to run through 1999, to involve broad departmental and military service program assessments as well as specific conservation projects that demonstrate good stewardship. It involves the varying corporate cultures of the U S . Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as the programs of the civilian defense agencies. The US. Army Corps of Engineers is involved, with its civil works perspective, and the state-based Army and Air Force components of the National Guard Bureau. Archaeologists and historic engineers have to function effectively within these organizations, whose wartime and peacetime mission are at first glance not related to historic preservation. Ye1 the funds, technical resources, and nationavinternational authority of the DoD, make it a major potential partner in good heritage conservation.


THE LEGAL BASIS FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

In the United States

The lederal legal basis for U.S. CRM is diverse (Table 12.1). Several regionally specific laws provide cultural resource management statements requiring that all CRM activities be conducted in the spirit of the overall land use designation, which frequently will require "hi tech" applications. These include many laws establishing National Park System parks, monuments, and historic sites, or other public land designations such as required in the Bureau of Land Management authorizing legislation (FLPMA; see Table 12.1). The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 Section 14(h)(l) (P.L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 188, 43 USC 1613) authorized the conveyance of "existing cemetery sites and historical places" to Alaska Native Corporations, and the identification of those sites and places has required extensive research. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (EL. 96-487,94 Stat. 2371, 16 USC 3101) provisions for Native assistance and planning have also required significant CRM activities. The law establishing the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness (Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980; PL. 96-312, 94 Stat. 948, 16 USC 1131 et seq.) requires the U.S. Forest Service to conduct a program to manage the archaeological and architectural resources there with activities that "are compatible with the preservation of the values for which the wilderness and wild and scenic river were designated to protect" (Sec. 8(a)(2)). The law specifies that a cultural resource management plan be developed for the wilderness, and that the plan encourage scientific research and be based on adequate inventory "supplemented by test excavation data where appropriate" and "include a public interpretation program" (Sec. 8(a)(3)(C,D)). The 1987 law establishing the Bureau of Land Management's El Malpais National Conservation Area (NCA; P.L. 100-225, 101 Stat. 1539, 16 USC 460uu) also required the development of an NCA management plan that put special emphasis on the management of archaeological resources and American Indian uses in the context of multiple use. Legislation establishing reserves such as the Chacoan Outliers and Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area have comparable language.

In addition to this suite of federal laws, in the United Slates a variety of Tribal, State, and local laws, statutes, regulations, and zoning requirements support CRM (Howard 1988; Lyon 1988; McGimsey 1972).

Outside the United States

Cleere (1989) points out that archaeological heritage management began in the world with an 1666 Swedish Royal Proclamation that claimed "all objects from antiquity" as Crown property, but that most such management activities have developed since the end of World War 11. This is complemented

2 72 RLlTHANN KNUDSON

Table 12.1. Federal Lecal Basis for U.S. Cultural Resource Manaeement

Ab.adard Ship& Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-298.102 Stat. 432,43 USC 2101 d s q . ) . AmQim Folklife Raavation Adof 1976 (P.L. 74-201.86 Stat. 1129.20 USC 2101) M c a n Indian Religiws Fresdan A d of 1978 (AIRFA; P.L. 95-192,92 Stat. 469, 16 usc 2001) iiti&ities Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-209.34 Stat. 225.16 USC431-433) Archamlogid R M m b t i o n Act of 1979 (ARPA, P.L. %-95,93 Stat 721, 16 USC 470a- II) as mended in 1988 by P.L. 100-555 (102 Stat. 2778.16 USC 4 7 h ) and P.L. 100.588 (I02 Stat. 2983, 16 USC 470bb,ee,ii) C h W a t a AQof 1977P.L. 95-217.91 Stat. 1566.33 USC IZ5IL) Sections 402 [33 USC 13432; NPDES permit] and 404 [33 USC 1344; dredge and fill pennit] - Convention on Culhlral P m W ImplmKntauon Ad of 1982 (P.L. 97-446.96 Stat. 2329 Title 3, 1911SC 2601) ... panmo molt oi~ransportdbm AU of 1966 ~ccllon 4(0 (P L 89-670.80 Stat 574.23 USC I n req) . bndanpered Spccm Act of 1973 (P L 'J3.205.17 Stat 884. 16 llSC 1531) Fakral Land P o l q and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, P 1. 94-579.90 Slat 2743.43 USC 1701) Federal Remrds Act of1950 (P.L. 754 S d m 501-51 1.64 Slat 583,s USC 849) - G e x d Aufhnities Act Amendments of 1976 Section 8 (basic law idnihwlg potential national histoncludmarkr, W L s ] ; P.L. 94458.90 Stal. 1939, 16USC 1-5) . Govmmmnt PerfmanceandResults Ad(GPRA, P.L. 106-62.31 USC IIOl,107 Slat 285) Histonc Sites Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-292.49 Stat. 666.16 USC 461467) . I n t c d Surface TmpmhtimEfficicncy Act of 1991 (ISTEA, P.L. 102-240; LO5 Stat. 1914; 49 USC 101;23 USC 101,104,311) Intmal Revenue Code of 1986 (P.L. 99-514.90 Stat. 1519 as amnded by 100 Stat. 2085,26 USC 48(g) [&xed rehabilitations] and 94 Stat. 32M,26 USC 17001) [wnsavation sssemnts]) MarkProtenion, Research, and San&es Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532.86 Stat. 1052.33 USC 1401 ct w.1 - Mining in Lbe National Pa& Act of 1976 Setion 9 (rcquks mullation with Ihe Advisory b e i l on Hiilaric Pmsmation prim to potential surface &g impacts to NHLs; P.L. 94429, 90 Stat. 1362. 16 USC 1908) National ~nv&nmentsl ~ r a & t i o n ~ d o f I969 WEPA; P.L. 90-l90,83 Stat. 852,42 USC 4321) . National Historic Preservation Act of 1%6 (NHPA, P.L. 89-665.80 Stat. 915.16 USC 470) as amended by the National Histonc P rewa t im Act Amedm& of 1980 (P.L. 96-5 15.94 Stat. 2987; Section 208 provides a mechanism for wiving the 1% limitation of P.L. 93-291) and Ihe N a t i d HistoricPrcservation Act Ammdnwts of 1992 (P.L. 102-575 TiUcXL., I96 Stat. 4753) - Natimal Museum of the Amcrim Indian Ad (P.L. 101-185.103 Stat. 1336.20 USC 800) . Native Amcrican Graves Protection and ~ e ~ a h i a t i o ~ l ~ c t of 1990 (NAGPRA; P.L. 101-6l?l, 104 Stat 3048 25 USC 3000-3013. 18 USC 1170) - ~ - - ~ ~. -~ ~ ~ - ~ ~. -~~ . Public Buildings C-ative Use Act of 1976'~eetim 101-102 (P.L. 94-541; 90 Stat. 2505; 40 USC 490,601~606,611,6I2a) Religiour FrccdomRestoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-141; 107 Stat. 1488; 42 USC 2000bb) - W o i r Salvare Act of I960 (P.L. 86423.74 Stat. 220.16USC 16946%) as amaded bv Lhe Anhmloeical ~d~ i s tor i c~rcservat im~cto f 1974 (Moss-BmwU: P.L. 93-291.88 Stal. lj4. USC

. h\aadHarborAclof 1899Srnoo lU(PL 55425 IMmh 3, l8991.3OStat 1151.33 USC401). as a Fednal wdnta*~ng, hs requ~rcs~anpl~ance mththc NHPA)

C U L N R A L RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN CONTEXT 2 73

by historic preservation activities everywhere (e.g., Lowenthal and Binney 1981), and the combined package of natural and cultural resources whose conservation in England is called "heritage management" (Saunders 1989: 152) akin to U.S. "CRM" in the context of ecosystem management. The legal basis differs from country to country, often reflecting each nation's economic status and desire to define or retain its cultural patrimony (cf. Magne 1995; McGimsey 1995). In 1972 the United Nations passed the Convention Con- cerning the Protection oJ the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and in January, 1990, 111 nations were party to the convention (including the United States in 1982; UNESCO 1990). The UNESCO International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) has 64 National Committees; ICOMOS committees on archaeological heritage management, cultural tourism, economics of conservation, historic gardens and sites, historic towns and villages, earthen structure conservation, photogrammetry, rock art, stained glass, stone, training, underwater cultural heritage, vernacular architecture, and wood (ICOMOS 1994) cut across national boundaries. Scientists are heavily involved in cultural resource management worldwide.

PHILOSOPHY

Case-specific cultural resource management decision-making is done within a broad philosophical context. In the United States, the Historic Sites Act of 1935 states that "it is a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States" (Section 1). The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended states (Sec. l(b)) that: "(2) the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people; . . . [and] (4) the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans; . . ."

Its statement of policy (Sec. 2) declares that the federal government will: "(3) administer federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration and benefit of present and future generations; . . ."

In complement, the NEPA (Table 12.1) of 1969 declares (Sec. 101(b)) that: ". . . i t is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government. . . to the end that the Nation may-(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations, (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;. . . [and] (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural

274 RUTHANN KNUDSON

aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; . . ."

The Public Trust Doctrine

In 1970, Joseph Sax wrote a seminal paper on the puhlic trust doctrine. which holds that there are some things so important to the entire human community (e.g., water, air, access to public resources) that they cannot be allocated just as private property. Governments are the trustees for publicly held resources and values. In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation." Some of the most significant U.S. cultural resources are Paleoindian archaeological sites and historic buildings on private lands, and are not protected by the National Historic Preservation Act, Archae- ological Resources Protection Act, or the Native American Graves Protection and Repatrication Act. A critical factor in the "takings issue" (Bossellman et ol. 1973) is what property rights can he privately allocated, and which are unalienably public-those public values that do not require compensation.

The application of this doctrine to archaeological resource management has recently been articulated (Knudson 1991a; 1995; Knudson and Hamson 19951, and in the early 1990s there is considerable controversy about how much historic preservation is or is not a public trust (cf. Frobouck 1992: Sax 1992). Cultural resource lnanagement is the context in which this public vs. private interest issue is actively addressed. and research and applied scientists involved in historic preservation, archaeological conservation, and CRM will of necessity be drawn into the discussions. Scientists may be able to provide significant technological answers to finding common ground between the protection of publicly valued information and privately valued land.

Passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 gave ownership and hence management control of Native American human remains, funerary and sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony to U.S. federally recognized tribes. Traditional tribal values frequently are based on a public trust principle that is focused on the tribal group, which does not incorporate a belief in the worldwide public benefit of shared information. Scientists whose social construction of information sharing is that of value to a global community will inevitably conflict with such traditional intra-group perspectives, as in the case of The Ancient One or Kennewick Man (Gihbons 1996). A basic tenant of science is the broadest public use of gained knowledge. Whatever the outcome of legal challenges to the treatment of human remains such as those found in Kennewick, the message is clear that scientists involved in CRM must consider the values of any community within which they work, or whose materials they investigate-they must function in the appropriate sociocultural context of the immediate client, finding common ground wherever possible.


The Context of Multi-Resource Environmental Management

A fundamental tenet of the social sciences is the systemic nature of human communities, and the biological sciences focus on the concept of ecological systems. The NEPA (Caldwell 1982) states that it is policy (Sec. 101(b) to: "(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended con- sequences; . . ." And, further (Sec. 102(2)), that the federal government shall: "(a) Utilize a syslematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the inte- grated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on man's environment;. . ."

Much of CRM is conducted in the context of NEPA compliance as well as in the context of compliance with Sections 106 or 110 of the National His- toric Preservation Act. Thus, CRM is frequently multidisciplinary and involved in a decision-making context of multiple resources (e.g., mines, forests, grazing lands, urban development). Scientists involved in CRM frequently find themselves having to understand the interests and values of people who rely on commodities produced on the public lands, as well as those concerned about the vernacular architecture whose aging timbers the scientists are trying to help conserve.

Cultural Resource Management Benefits and Costs

In August 1993 the U.S. Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA; PL. 106-62, 31 USC 1101, 107 Stat. 285) to improve federal program effectiveness and efficiency (GAO 1997). Implementation of this law will affect the way in which the costs and performance of CRM in response to federal laws are evaluated and used in Congressional and agency decision-making. This is discussed briefly in the following section. However. as of this volume's press time, there is no guidance on how to evaluate the suite of cultural resources for whose management federal agencies must now account. The GPRA also applies only to federal agencies. Consequently, a discussion of the past and current approaches to benefit-cost evaluations remains appropriate in discussing the current context of CRM.

A major task for the CRM community is to participate in the benefit-cost analysis exercises of public administration (Schmid 1989). particularly when such analyses are completed as part of environmental impact evaluations in compliance with NEPA Section 102(2)(B) (see below) and its accompanying regulation 40 CFR 1502.23. Benefit-cost analyses are critical in helping to find common ground in discussions of the management of the cultural heritage public trust, in the confrontations of private rights and public values.

In response to the diminution of federal historic rehabilitation tax incentives, the historic architecture community has begun to collect good data on

276 RUTHANNKNUDSON

the benefits (jobs, leveraging, secondary and multiplier impacts) of such rehabilitation. The 1979 and 1980 symposia sponsored by the National Trust on Historic Preservation (1980) had some discussion of preservation benefits and costs, but those discussions were very general. The Internal Revenue Service allows a deduction from federal income taxes for conservation easements, which can be written for "the preservation of an historically important land area.or a certified historic structure" (IRC [Table 12.11 170(h)(4)(9v)), which includes any property listed on the National Register of Historic Places (LTA/NTHP 1990; cf. Henry et al. 1993: 59-62). The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) requires that, in prosecuting people from ARPA viola- tions, the damage from looting be stated in economic terms of the cost of restoration and repair of the damaged archaeological material (Carnes et al. 1986; Hutt 1994: 4; Hutt et al. 1992). Scientists are needed to evaluate the importance of damaged archaeological materials and what fieldwork and laboratory analyses (including the personnel, time, facilities, and related costs) are needed to compensate for the loss of information through vandalism and looting. These are key factors in criminal and civil prosecutions of ARPA vio- lators. This method of economic evaluation has not been included in deter- minations of externality values in assessing energy benefits-costs (cf. Cantor et a1 1991), nor have the economics of historic rehabilitation, though these and other economic factors are pertinent to such evaluations of sociopolitical costs.

The lack of attention to cultural resource values in such assessments is probably because the historic preservation community has not taken the ini- tiative to participate in these difficult discussions, if not even refused to do so because that would put a dollar value on resources as if they were commodities in an open economic system (thus appearing to validate the illegal artifact market (see subsequent discussion of GPRA)). However, without such participation in economically based appraisals, the archaeological and architectural resources are always on the negative side of the equation, the "soft, warm, fuzzy" expensive things for which there is no value in traditional economic terms.

Can information from archaeological sites, with their time-sensitive associations of biological, cultural, and geophysical resources, provide clues to ecosystem changes over time that are not well modeled in current computerized designs of changing climates? If so, can they serve as substitute values (cf. Schmid 1989) for the costs of building those computer models, or can one assess in dollars the value of their use in "fine-tuning" such models to address more realistically how human communities are affected by long-term atmos- pheric changes? What other contributions are made by information derived from archaeological sites, historic engineered or designed structures, and the artifacts and associated records derived from these properties? A critical con- tribution to the conservation of our cultural resources, in their sociopolitical as well as biologicallgeophysical context, would be the development of social

CULTURAL RESOURCE MAGEMENT IN CONTWT 277

science methods and techniques for systematic cultural resource benefit-cost analyses that are recognized publicly as having economic validity and reliability. Some recent analyses of the economic value of old-growth timber in the U.S. Pacific Northwest had to be based on the assumption that timber resource was nonrenewable, because these trees take so long to grow, hut the published reports only infrequently specify the assumptions behind the analyses (Gorte 1992). What implication does thal model have for assessing nonrenewable archaeological site values? The field of mineral economics might also have val- uations of nonrenewable minerals that serve as useful models for assessing nonrenewable cultural heritage benefits and costs.

Without such analytical approaches, explicit assumptions, and accepted techniques, the cost is high. For example, the 1970s economic evaluations of the costs and benefits of a proposed High Mountain Sheep Dam in the depths of Hell's Canyon of Oregon-ldaho (Tietenberg 1992: 78) addressed the value of people spending money for recreation there, without a formal assessment of the value of the scientific information held in the dense array of prehistoric and historic culcural resources found in the proposed dam embayment, much less their value in supporting public education or the costs of losing them because of increased tourist pressure. The Forest Service's Timber Sale Program Information Reporting System (TSPIRS; Loomis 1989; Schuster and Jones 19891, initiated in 1987, included CRM costs but did not calculate any benefits to the cultural resource management expenditures; cultural resources are not addressed in the Forest Service's 1897 enabling legislation or subsequent forest management laws.

In the early 1980s the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) received an application to build a hydroelectric project at Kootenai Falls, Montana. At the Falls, the Salish and Kootenai tribes of Canada, Montana, and ldaho asserted that the proposed project area had traditional religious value to them, including the archaeological sites as well as unaltered natural features. The Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation evaluated the costs and benefits of the proposed project and its altcrnative power supply options in compliance w i ~ h NEPA, and their draft environmental impact statement (EIS; MDNRC 1982) was filed as an addendum to the FERC final EIS for the project. The state study included history and archaeology, and sacred and cultural areas, as non-monetary values in its economic analysis, and con- cluded that the non-monetary effects would be substanlially worse given the proposed project. The FERC (1987) ultimately denied the application on the basis of the effect o n the non-monetary. including cultural, values.

The Environmental Protection Agency's 1990 summary of The Cost o j a Clean Environment (Carlin 1990) did not include cultural resources within its evaluations. This is.probably because the Clean Water Act (CWA), Compre- hensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Oil Pollution Act (OPA) specifically address the issue of natural resource damages but do not mention cultural resources (Knudson and Hamson 1995).

2 78 RUTHANN KNUDSON

In the absence of specific language referring to cultural resources in the CWA and CERCLA, complemented by the explicit inclusion of natural resources in those laws, the National Park Service had to rely on other laws such as ARPA (Table 12.1) to derive a quantified basis for assessing damages to the archaeological component of the cultural resources impacted by the E u o n Valdez oil spill (Dekin 1993; Jesperson and Griffen 1992; Kurtz 1994; McAllister 1992; cf. Carson et al. 1992). This meant that the archaeological component of cultural resources damaged by the massive oil spill in Prince William Sound and down the coast could be quantified and included in settlements with Exxon Company, but other cultural resource values could not be addressed in and of themselves.

Contingency valuation (CV) is a method for ascribing monetary values to environmental resources that do not have commodity market values- assessments of willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WAC) have been used to measure changes in social welfare (Bohm 1994; Freeman 1993; Pearce 1993).

To date, CV has been used in at least two major cost-benefit assessments that involved cultural resources, and in both cases this method has not been used for the cultural values. One case is the Exwon Valdez oil spill mentioned above, where the language of CERCLA was interpreted to exclude cultural resource damage assessments; the CV study of lost passive use values (Carson et al. 1992) is a useful model for designing a cultural resource study component. Recently, the Bureau of Reclamation used CV methods in its analysis of impacts of the Glen Canyon Dam but did not specifically address cultural values, although the Bureau of Reclamation is legally mandated to protect the archaeological and traditional cultural values downstream of the dam (BR 1995; Welsh et al. 1995).

The Archaeological Conservancy values archaeological resources at their appraised real estate values. Recently, the Department of Defense$ Legacy Resource Management Program developed an overview (DoD 1994a) and resource book (DoD 1994b) on cultural resource conservation benefits, which generally addressed economic, energy, science and education, and sociocultural values, but did not deal with "benefits" in traditional economic terms.

Historic or cultural resource values are usually referred to by econo- mists as "externalities" (Ragan and Thomas 1990: 768-795; Schmid 1988: Tietenberg 1992: 72-74): environmental costs associated with production of some economically accountable resources or services, but for which there are no standard market values. The evaluation of the consumptive and noncon- sumptive values of cultural resources as defined in this paper, whether by substitute or contingent values, is a critical concern. The NEPA (Sec. 102(2)) states that all federal agencies shall: "(B) Identify and develop methods anc procedures, in consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ. . . . , which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenitie:


and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations;. . ."

Neither the National Park Service nor any other federal agency (including the CEQ) hasresponded to this directive. The 1986 Office of Technology Assessment study of historic preservation technologies mentioned cost factors incidentally through its report, but did not specifically address that issue. The involvement of cultural resource scientists will be a critical factor in the development of cultural resource valuation methods and techniques.

Cultural Resource Management and GPRA

As mentioned in the previous section, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was passed in 1993 to enhance federal agency programs (GAO 1996). When fully implemented, it will provide a primary context for many CRM programs.

The GPRA was a Congressional landmark counterpart to the Clinton Administration's 1993 National Performance Review, which was directed to developing results-oriented management of federal agencies. It was a Con- gressional statement that that institution needed sound performance and financial information for its decision-making. It complements or was supplemented by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government Man- agement Reform Act of 1994, and the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. The U.S. General Accounting Office and the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) combined efforts to provide guidance in agency compliance with the new GPRA and related laws, which at its most basic level meant developing new accounting standards and performance measures. There are a series of reports available from these two agencies that document this development process, most of which have no direct information about CRM.

Within the OMB an Office of Federal Financial Management was organized, as was a Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). As FASAB began to develop the needed standards, e.g., Selected Assets and Lia- bilities, Loans and Loan Guarantees, Inventory, and Cost Accounting, the Board had to deal with the reality that there are certain things for which the government has responsibility but which should not be on a balance sheet. Consequently, FASAB developed a recommended accounting standard (No. 8) on Supplementary Stewardship Reporting. This statement addresses Heritage Assets ("property, plant, and equipment of historical, natural, cultural, educational, or artistic significance" [FASAB 1996: 111) and notes that (FASAB 1996: 46): "Heritage assets shall be quantified in terms of physical units (lor example, number of items in collections or the number of national parks). No asset amount shall be shown on the balance sheet of the Federal financial statements for heritage assets."

Minimal reporting of these assets is required, but by early 1997, the FASAB staff readily admitted that they did not know much about what these

assets actually were and how to address them in federal financial management (Telephone conversation, Ruthann Knudson with FASAB staff, January 1997) Passage and implementation of GPRA and its complementary laws, regulations, and policies provide both an opportunity and a hazard by approximately accounting for cultural assets and values in U.S. federal land management.

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PARTICIPANTS

Almost any scientist involved in some aspect of CRM, whether it be in conserving historic metal ships or prehistoric submerged wooden fishweirs, is directly or indirectly affected by the schedules, budgets, or personal interests of many other individuals and institutions.

Land and Other Resource Managers

There are three types of individuals and organizations involved in the management of lands on which archaeological resources are found: (1) public resource managers, (2) private landowners, and (3) land developers and resource users. Most publicly or privately owned land and its included resources are managed in response to an immediate as well as long-range economic mission. The mission is less clearly economic for some resource management programs, such as in the authorization of the National Park Service: "The Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations here- inafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations (Section I)."

However, even in Mesa Verde and Yellowstone National Parks, conservation of the natural and historic objects must be done in a public context of taxpayer dollars and real world schedules and costs. Thus, the park's lands must be surveyed to identify their archaeological resources using the most cost- efficient survey system and technology, to justify spending the money for such a survey (whether legally required or not) when money is needed to maintain trails for tax-paying visitors. The public element in such a conservation program results in "provide for the enjoyment" having priority over "leave them unimpaired" oftentimes. In complement, the Bureau of Land Manage- ment District Manager will seek to spend funds for technologies that serve multiple purposesperhaps buying remote sensing services that will allow the identification of tipi ring sites, vegetation cover, overgrazing areas, and areas of excessive visitor use with one set of images.

CULTCIML RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN CON= 281

Cultural Resource Management Specialists

The specialists directly involved in CRM fall into a continuum that ranges from scientist at one end to manager at another; graduate degrees in chemistry and public administration are both used in CRM. Cultural resource managers need to know enough about good science and technology to know how it can and should be applied cost-effectively, and have the expertise to do archaeology or architectural evaluations or oral history. However, such managers should have even stronger skills and interest in making social, economic, and political decisions. Cultural resource managers are the brokers for cultural resources, intermediaries between the resources themselves and the sociopolitical context in which they are managed, or not.

People with scientific training who function primarily as scientists rather than managers need to recognize the differences between the two ends of this cultural resource management professional continuum, and the validity of the different paradigms for decision-making about the treatment of individual cultural resources (c t Bonnichsen et al. 1995). The cultural resource manager is the broker negotiating decisions about the treatment of a cultural resource among the land manager, the scientists, the resource-related community, and the unrelated community that is still affected by a CRM decision, all of whom are taxpayers.

Preservation Scientists

The scientists developing and using preservation technologies may not have much understanding of the public context in which the remote sensing or non-destructive structural analysis data or the wood, concrete, waterlogged material conservation technologies will be used. However, generally they should, for the job they have done to have public value commensurate with the time and effort (usually, ultimately public funds) put into it. These individuals provide the information to the resource managers that is used in management decision-making. The wood conservator may be needed in public meetings to provide information in lay language about what is involved in a recommended conservation program. The physical anthropologist or DNA specialist may be needed in a meeting between land managers and involved American Indian tribal members to help negotiate a preservation agreement.

Heritage Resource-Related Community

Since CRM is always about human cultural values, there is almost always a modem human community behind each set of values involved in CRM decision-making. In our culturally diverse society, that means that each prehistoric or historic archaeological or architectural site is associated with one or more people who may or may not want to be involved in CRM decisions.

282 RUTHANN KNUDSON

It should be assumed that the associated community does want to be involved until they explicitly deny that. This does not mean that there should be token "consultation" with the heritage-related individuals, such as a form letter that requests a response within 30 days. Cultural resource managers are the brokers; they should be identifying any related community and communicating with them in a manner and language appropriate to that community's cultural expectations insofar as is possible. For example, the archaeological scholar's desire to have a human bone sample sent for DNA analysis would probably have to be negotiated with a culturally, if not genetically related community, even for a 10,000-year-old set of skeletal remains. Cultural values are legally required to be given priority in most instances that involve religious values, but in the United States, the Constitution-driven direction to "promote the general welfare" is more frequently being treated as a call to search for common ground in promoting affirmative treatment of varying cultural values.

Non-Heritage Resource Affected Community

NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) has become the public interest call of the late twentieth century As US. citizens have become more knowledgeable about natural and sociocultural environmental costs of certain public and private political decisions, they have become more protective of their own interests. Such citizens are generally technologically illiterate and risk averse, and are more frequently reactive than proactive. The print and electronic media today provide most citizens with more information than they can absorb and comprehend, and consequently many cultural resource management decisions involve careful management of the affected community.

In most cases, the taxpaying public needs to be educated about the benefits of restoring and using century-old housing. Tearing down old housing may be seen by many voters as beneficial, as it removes a "blight" and a socially undesirable set of people. Conservation of 300-year-old cedar boxes from a previously water-logged American lndian village needs to be marketed to the non-Indian community as an opportunity to retain the "lessons of the past" about technology and a specific environmental adaptation, as well as a significant part of the world's cultural heritage. The scientist involved in that wood conservation program can help support the program by communicating to the general public what the conservation activities are, from giving chemistry lessons to 4th graders to discussing wood structure at a meeting of professional structural engineers.

METHODS

The application of scientific and technological advances to cultural resource management activities is a critical factor in the success of this public


program. Methods, techniques, and research models that support more efficient, effective, and value-laden activities are important to a program that has relatively inflexible staff, budget, and schedule constraints. Coates (1992: 9) has noted that "[in the twenty-first century] business, industry, and government have strong incentives and wider means at their disposal than every before for averting, preventing, or neutralizing what could otherwise become a negative situation." Coates notes that public issues go through five stages of development: latent concerns, potential issue, framed issue, communicated issue, and public issue. Cultural resource management as a factor in benefit- cost analyses and in the public-private compensation issue was at the "framed issue" stage in the mid-1990s. and its affirmative development requires communication and development of a committed public constituency such as has never been thought necessary Scientific innovation and public communication is a critical factor in this issue development sequence.

Resource Identification

Anything that makes resource identification and evaluation more valid, reliable, and less costly is useful. Over the past decade low-level, aerial, or even spatial remote sensing (chapter 2) has aided CRM projects throughout the world. The use of ground-penetrating radar or side-scanning sonar (chapter 3) are becoming standard requirements on federally permitted cultural resource inventories. There are probably several if not many techniques developed to assist in the definition of hazardous waste sites and their management needs that have direct applicability to archaeological surveys and resource evaluations. The development of predictive modeling strategies (e.g., Judge and Sebastian 1988) is important, particularly when used with computerized geographic information systems (chapter 10) that can model past landforms, then based on climatic information, model past habitats and associated fauna.

Resource Recovery and Analysis

Cultural resources are best conserved in place (cf. Lipe 1974); excavat- ing the archaeological site, or remaking the historic bridge, destroys some of the context or fabric of the resource. However, in order even to understand the characteristics of most sites and structures, we have to take them apart in some way to understand the stratigraphic variation held in the prehistoric village, or the technological creativity represented by the nineteenth century mill. Striking the balance between scientific curiosity on one hand and long- term conservation for future use is a task that requires a knowledge of state- of-the-art analytical techniques and the ability to assess future information yields now. In complement, the ability to apply the most up-to-date recovery and analytical techniques to a cultural resource whose partial or complete destruction is sanctioned publicly is a critical skill. Field use of computer-

284 RUTHANN KNUDSON

linked survey instruments supports efficient and accurate piece plotting of individual artifacts and the mapping of features; three-dimensional imaging of artifacts and distribution of those images on the "information highway" can support more efficient comparative analyses of collections and their contents. We can look forward to more reliable use of materials analysis for dating (chapter 4) and materials sourcing (chapter 7), and for DNA analysis to provide information for modeling human genetics and distribution patterns.

Resource Conservation, Curation, and Archiving

Too frequently in the past the emphasis in public archaeological resource treatment has been to dig it up, let the highway construction stay on schedule, store the collected materials in the basement of an old otherwise-unused building, write up enough of a report to satisfy the excavation permit andlor contract, and stop. The 1991 promulgation of 36 CFR 79. federal regulations on Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections, provides new rules about the preservation of prehistoric and historic material remains and associated records collected during federal cultural resource recovery projects. While the initial compliance with these rules requires funds to provide the appropriate facilities, ultimately the development of new conservation methods will support longer conservation life and can reduce curation costs. Compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is requiring greater federal agency accountability for the collections and records generated under agency authority, and new part- nerships of agencies, cultural resource specialists, and culturally related communities are forming to address curation issues. The National Archaeological Database (NADB; Canouts 1992a) is being developed in the United States with several interrelated modules to identify the relatively unpublished reports from federal CRM activities (NADB-Reports), NAGPRA-related inventory data and reference documents (NADB-NAGPRA), an inventory of federal archaeological permits (NADB-PERMITS), and the display of geographic information system maps showing archaeological and environmental data by state and county levels (NADB-MAPS). It is an invaluable tool. The computerized linkage of artifacts, field and laboratory records, and electronic data will support greater data preservation of nonrenewable resources at acceptable costs.

Public Participation and Education

The involvement of preservation scientists in the public awareness activities of CRM is critical to the success of heritage preservation programs. Most U.S. citizens avoid what they perceive as arcane jargon. They are concerned about kids in school, paying for college, and saving for retirement, not the requirements of metal conservation of an old Civil War gunboat. But they are

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN CONTEXI 285

fascinated with the past and enjoy fictional accounts, ranging from Indiana Jones movies to Jean. Auel's novels. Many are also fascinated with the modern technologies (e.g., biochemical analyses of blood residues on Clovis spear points) that provide information about the mysteries of the past. It is the responsibility of everyone involved in CRM, from scientists to managers, to give to the public some of the information and humanistic values that are being managed as a public trust.

Public involvement in CRM has a long history in the United States, having arisen from a Euroamerican fascination with the past (e.g., Thomas Jefferson) that has supported preservation of heritage resources for public appreciation and use. Over the past century public preservation pressure has included lobbying of the late nineteenth century that led to the passage of the Antiquities Act, establishment of the National Park Service to protect cultural as well as natural resources, NEPAk 1969 requirements for public participation, authorization of Certified Local Governments in the 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act, and requirements for archaeological public awareness activities in the 1988 amendments to the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. At the opening of the 1990s, the National Park Service had published LEAP (Listing of Education in Archaeological Projects; Knoll 1991; 1992). series of Archaeological Assistance and Preservation Assis- tance Technical Briefs, the journals CRM and Federal Archeology Report, and a series of Nalional Register Bulletins for general public consumption. Land- managing agencies supported a variety of public participation programs (e.g., Forest Service's Passport in Time, Bureau of Land Management's Adventures in the Past, National Park Service's Volunteers in Parks), and there were several private archaeological participation programs (e.g., Earth Watch, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center). The involvement of preservation scientists in these activities, explaining approaches and research in lay language, is an important element in communicating the conservation ethic that underlies the public trust concept.

The National Association of Interpreters provides guidance for communication with the public, as does a widely used textbook on public relations for natural resource managers (Fazio and Gilbert 1981). Pearce (1990) provides a thoughtful discussion of the relationship of "museums, the public and the past." The Society for American Archaeology's Public Education Commit- tee newsletter, Archaeology and Education, is becoming a useful source of information about public education.

SUMMARY

The success of CRM into the next century, in the United States and elsewhere in the world, is in part dependent on advances in science and technology to support more effective, efficient, and cost-cutting management

286 RVTHANN KNUDSON

activities. Effective communication with a varieties of corporate cultures and communities, including those directly related to the resources requiring management decisions andihose affected by those decisions, is a responsibility of scientists as they participate in, and professionally benefit from, CRM. Carry- ing out the responsibilities of being part of the cultural resource trustee team needs to be explicitly recognized by all involved scientists and managers.

REFERENCES

Archibald. R.D. 1976 Managing High-Trrhnolos). Programs and Pmjrcfr. New York. NY, John Wilcy & Sons, Inc.

Bohm, E 1994 CVM Spells Responses to Hypothetical Questions. Nalurol Re~ourcssJournal 34(1): 39-50.

Bonmchsen, R., Dillehay. T.. Frison. G.C., ikawa-Smith, F. Knudson. R.. Steele, D.G.. Taylor. A,. and Tomenchuk, J. 1995 Future Directions in First Americans Research and Management. In Knudson. R. and Keel, B.C., eds., The Public Fur t and the First Americans. Corvallis. OR. Oregon State University Press for The Center for the Sludy of the First Americans: 30-71.

Bonnichsen, T.M.. Anderson, K. , Kay, C.E.. Knudson, R., and Lewis, H.T. In Press Native American Role in ihe Development of Nonh America'sNativc Forest Ecosystems. In Serton. W and Szaro. R.. eds. Ecological Stewarding Handbook. Washington, DC. US Forcsr Service.

Bossellman. F. Callies, D., and Ranta, J. 1973 The Taking Issue. Washingtoil. DC. Council on Environmental Quality.

Caldwell. L.K. 1982 Science and the Nalional Environmrnral Policy Act. Redirectinr Policy throurh - . Pmcpdural Refotmt University, AL. The University of Alabama Press.

Canouts, V 1991 Computcrired information Exchange on the Local and National Levels in USA. In Silos & Monuments. National A~haeological Records. Copenhagen, Denmark, The Narional Museum of Denmark.

-1992 N A D L T h e National Archaeological Database. Fedrral Archaeologj Report 5(3): 1.6-9. Cantor, R., Krupnick, A , and Riry. C. 1991 Beyond the Market: Reccnt Regulatory Responses to

the Eaternalitnes of Energy Pmduction. In Proceedings, 1991 Confercncc "1 the Nalional Arrocialion oJEnvironmmtal P ~ ~ j ~ s s i o n u l r : G-51 to G-61.

Cantwcll, A ~ M . , Griffin, J.B., and Rothschild, N.A. 1981 The Research Potenlial of Anthropolog- ical Museum Collections. Annals of the New York Academy o/Scicncer: Vol 376.

Carlin, A. 1990 Environmmlal Invrrlrn~nls: Thr Cost of a Clran Environmmt. A Summary. Washington, DC. US. Enviranrnrnial Protection Agency

Carlo. G.L., Lee. N.L., Sund, KG. , and Pettygmve. S.D. 1992 The Interplay of Science, Values, and Experiences Among Scientists Asked to Evaluate the Hazards of Dioxin, Radon. and Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Risk Analysis 12(1): 37113.

Carmen. J.. Firth. A,, and Wheatley, D.. e d s . with Gamble, C. 1995 Managing Archaeologv. New York. NY. Routledge.

Carmichael, D.L.. Hubert. J.. Rcevcs, B.. and Schanche. A. 1994 Sacred Sites. Sacred Placer. New York. NY Routledge.

Carnes. L.F. Dickens, R.S.. J r , France. L.. and Long, A. 1986 Cost Analysis o j Archavological Artivities a1 Eight Soutlreuslrrn Siler. Archaeological Assistance Studies, No. 1. Washington, DC. U S . Department of the lnlcrior, National Park Service, Archaeological Assistance Division.

Carson. R.T., Milchell. R.C., Hanemann, WM., Kapp, R.J., Presser. S., and Ruud, PA. 1992 A Conlingent Valuation Study o l Lost Passive Use Values Resulting fmm the Enxon Valder Oil Spill. Juneau. AK, Report to thc Attorney General or the State or Alaska.

Cleere. H. 1989 Introduction: The Rationale of Archaeological Heritage Management. In Cleere.


H.E. ed.. Alrliarologicol Heritage Managrmrnr in iiir Modern' WorLl. London, England, Unwin Hyman. 1-19.

Coales, J F 1992 Impacts We Will Bc Assessing in the 2lst Cenlury lmyucl Assrss~?ient Bulktin 9(4): 9-25.

Daft. R.L. 1988 Monagemrnr. Chicago. IL, The Drydcn Press Daniels. M.E and Walch, T., eds, 1984 A Modern Anhivrs Reader: Basic Rradiass on Archival Thciny

ond Practice. Washington. DC. General Services Administration, National Archives snd Records Service.

Desl. TE. and Kennedy, A.A, I982 Corpol-arc Cultuvcr: The Rights onrl Riirralr qf Coy,amlc I.!Je. Reading, MA. Addison-Wesley

Drkin, A.A.. Jr. 1993 Euorl Valdez Oil Spill Alrharologiral Dalnogr Arrcssment Mnnugrarr~~l Summary. Rrport hy The Rcsearch Foundation of thr State University of New York, Binghamion Universily, to ihc US. Forest Service, Alaska R~gional Office. Juneau. AK.

Faiio. J.R. and Gi1bc1.t. D L . 1981 Puhlir Rclatiuns and Coinmuniiationr Jol- Natuwl Resourir Mnnageli. 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA. KmdallfHunt Publishing Company

Federal Accounrtng Standards Arlvisory Board IFASABI 1996 Supplerncntary Stewardship Reporting. SLnternent of Reci,mrnendcd Accounting S~sndards No. 8. Warhingron, DC. Fedrrnl Accounting Standanls Advisory Bonnl.

Fedcral Enrrgy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 1987 Opinion and Ordcr Affirming Inion1 Dccision Dcnylng License for Kootenai Falls Dcvelapinent. FERC Opiuion No. 276, issucs Junc 15. Northern Lights. Inc., Project No. 2752~000. Washington, DC, Federal Regulatory Commission IAllcraatiuelv. Norrllcl-e Lights, I n i . 39 FCRC & 61.352 (1987) (Pro,. No. 2752)).

Fornry, 5. and Witt. M. 1994 Heritage Resourcrs- Not Just S ~ o n e s (u Bones. Conlacl, USDA For51 SPI.V~<C E~IICI.II Rqinn Nrwrlcilcr May: 1.3.

Fowler, E and Boniface, F 1993 Hvriingc and Tourism. New York. NY. Routiedge. Frccman. A.M., 111 1993 Tllr Measimtnrnt <,f Envimnineatnl ond Rc,roz,vrr Valuer. Tlicoqr olid

Methods Weshington, DC. Resources for the Future. Frobouck, J.A. 1992 The High Pricr of Preservation. Why We Must Pick and Choose What

America Wan,$ io Enshnnr . Thc Warl?i!~gton Port 22 March: C5. Gathercolr. I? and Lawenthal. D.. c'ls. 1994 The Politics oJlhr Past. New Yorh, NY, Rourledg. Gibbons. Ann 1996 DNA Enters Dust Up Over Bones. Sri~n'r 274: 172. Gone, R.W. 1992 Eronomir lrnparts qf Pialeciing Sj?otltd owl^ A Comparisaa and Analysis if

E~isl ing Sludirr. Report 92-'422 CNR. US. Congress. Washington. DC. Library of Congrcss. Congressional Research Service.

Henry, S.. with Gyrisco, G.M.. Vccch, T H . Morris. SA. . Parker, PI., and Rak. J.P 1993 Pm- lrrting Archn~ologicnl Siler on Prirnlr Ln!~rl. Washington. DC. US Department of the Interior, National Psrk Service, Interagency Resources Division. Prcservalion Planning Branch.

Howed,J .M. 19RR Where thc Action Is: Prcsrrvarion and Local Govcrnments. In Stipr. R.E. and Lee, A.J., eds. The American Mosaic: l'rrrmrving a Nal#or?i Hcritdge. Washington, DC, US Committec/lnlcrnatlonal Council a n Monuments and Slies: 113-144.

Huu, 5. 1994 The Civil Prosecution Process of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. US. Deparoneni c!f Ihe Intci-io?; Nnriclnol Pork Serv<re, Alrhnrological Arsistn~lrr Tcrl~,tical Brief No. 16.

Hutr. S., Joncs. E.W., and McAllistcr. M E . 1992 Anherologr<ol Rerourir Plaiirrios. Washington. DC, The Preservarion Press.

Inlemationul Council on Monummls and Sites (ICOMOS) 1994 ICOMOS News 4 ( 1 ) Paris. France, International Council on Monuments and Sites.

Jespcrson, M.M. and Griffin. K. 1992 An Evaluation of Archaeological Injury Documentatic>n, E u o n Vnldez Oil Spill. Report lo the CERCLA Archaeoloeical Steering Committee. ms, on file. Anchorage, AK. US ~ e ~ a r r r n e n t ol the Interior. ~ a t i o i a l Parh Scmice. Alaska Regional Office.

288 RUTHANN KNUDSON

Johnson, R.W. and Schene, M.G., eds. 1987 Cultural Rcsourres Manogonenl. Malabai FL, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company

Judge, WJ, and Sebastian, L.. eds. 1988 Quantqying the Present and Pwdicting the Part: Theory, Method, and Application ojA~haeologica1 Prrdirrivr Modeling. Denver CO, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Knoll, PC.. ed. 1991 LEAP: Listing 01 Education in Archaeological Programs: The LEAP Clearing- house. 1987-1989 Summary Report. Washington, DC, U.S. Department 01 the Interior. National Park Service. Archaeological Assistance Division.

-1992 LEAP: Listing 01 Edlacation in Anhu~ologkal Progiornr: The LEAP Cleoringhoure. 1990-1991 Surnmarj Rrport. Washington. DC, US Deparlment of the Interior, National Park Service. Archaeological Assislance Divis~on.

Knudson, R. 1986 Contemporary Culrural Resource Management. In Meltzrr. D.], Fowler. DD:, and Sablof,J.B., edr, American Archatolog. Past and Future. Washington. DC. Smithsonian Institution P r ~ s r : 395-413.

-1991a The Archaeological Public Trust ~n Context. In Smith. G.S. and Ehrenhard. J.E., eds. Protecting the Past. Boca Raton. FL. CRC Press. Florida: 3-8.

-1991b Interlace Management in Environmental Managemcnt CAEP Nrwr 2(1): 1-3. -1995 The Public Trust and Archaeological Stewardship. In Knudson, R. and Keel, B.C., rdr,

The Public Trust ond the First Americans. Corvallis, OR. Oregon State Univenity Press lor The Center for the Study of the Firs1 Americans: 9-28.

Knudson. R. 1998 Using Cultural Resources to Enhance Ecosystem Management. In Cordcll. H.K. and Bergstrorn. J.C., etls, Inlegroling Social Siicnres with Ecoryst~m Managemmt: Human Dimensions in Assrsrment. Policy. and Manqcmmt. City unknown. Sagamore Publishing: 120-129.

Knudson. R. and Caldwell, L.K. 1995 Cultural Resources, NEPA, and Ecosystem Management. - Presentation at the George Wright Society 8th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands. Suslainablr Soiicry and Protected Areas Pmgram ~uidr-dnd Abstracts: 34.

Knudson, R. and Hamson. D.M. 1995 Cultural Resources Ale Part of (he Public Trust. Presenta- tion at the National Resources Damage Assessment Issues Session, Colorado Springs, CO, US Departmenr of the Interior Conference on the Environment and Safety

Kurtz. R.S. 1994 Lessons lo be Learned: The National Park Service Administrative History and Assessment 01 the E u o n Valdcp Oil Spill. Draft ms. Anchorage. AK. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

The Land Trust Alliance and The National Trust lor Historic Preservation (LTAINTHP) 1990 Appraising Ealements. Guidelines for Valuation oJHirlorir Prrsrrvulion and Land Conrrrva- tion Euslmrntr. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA. The Land Trust Alliance.

Layton, R.. ed. 1994 Conflict in lhe ArrhaeoloXy $Living Trndilionr. New York, NY, Routledge. Lee, A]., ed. I992 Par1 Mrrtr Future. Saving Americak Historic Environmenrr. Washington. DC. The

Preservation Press. Lipe, WD. 1974 A Conrervadon Model for American Archaeology Kiva 39: 21S245 . - 1995 The Archaeology 01 Ecology Federal A,.chaeoIogy 8(1): &13. Loomis, J.B. 1989 A More Complete Accounting of Costs and Benefits from Timber Snles Journal

oJForenv 87(3): 19-23. Lowenthal. D. and Binney, M. 19R1 Our Parl Bqfore Us. Wliy Do We Save It? London, England,

Temple Smith. Lyon. E.A. 1988 The States: Preservation in the Middle. In Stipe, R.E. and Lee, AJ.. eds.. The

American Mosaic: Pnrerving a Nalioni Herilage. Wasllington. DC, U.S. Committee1 International Council a n Monuments and Sites: 81-11 1.

Magne. M.PR 1995 Government Support of Archaeology in Canada. In Knudson. R. and Keel, B.C.. eds, The Public Trurt and the F r s t Amrricans. Corvallis. OR, Oregon State University Press for The Center lor the Study of rhe First Americans: 93-105.

CULTLIRAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN CONTEXT 289

McAllister. M.E. 1992 Monetary Damage Assessment lor Archaeological Injuries Documented in the E u o n Vald~r Oil Spill. Report to the US Department 01 the Interior. National Park Srr\,ice, Alaska Regional Orfice, Anchorage. AK. Duluth. MN, Archaralogical Resource Investigations.

McGimsey. C.R. 111 1972 Puhljc Arhocolo~y. New York. NY, Seminar Press. -1991 Protecting the Pasl: Cultural Resource Management: A Personal Perspective. In

Smith, G.S. and Ehrenhard. J.E., rds. Proircring tile Posl Boca Raton. FL. CRC Press: xvii-xxiii.

- 1995 Archaeology's World: The Legal Environment in Asia and Latin America. In Knudson. R. and Keel, B.C., eds. Tltr Public Pur l and the First Americans. Corvallis, OR. Oregon State University Press lor The Center lor the Study of the Fin1 Americans: 87-92.

Messenger, PM. 1989 The Elhiis oJCollccliog Culrural Proprlty Albuquerque. NM, University of New Mexico Press.

Montana Depaitmcnt of Natural Resources & Conservation (MDNRC) 1982 Drafl Envirrlnmenial lmpacr S l n l ~ s ~ ~ n t on lhr Pmposrd Koolrnai Rivcr Hvdrorlc~lric Plojerl a1 Kootenai Falls. Addenrlu!n to thr Frdtrnl Energy Rrgulatory Con~ntirrion Final E8tvironmental Impar[ Slate- lnrnl. Helena, MT. Montsns D e p a n m e ~ u o l Natural Resources.

Nauonal Archives and Records Service (NARS) 1974 Guide lo (he Nvlional Anhives oj lhe Unilrd Sialer. Washington. DC. General Services Administration. Nauonal Archives and Records Service.

National Trust lor Historic Preservation (NTHP) 1980 Pwsnvalion: Toward an Ethic in the 1980s. Washington, DC, The Preservation Press.

Ncumann. L.. King. T F , Bell. C.R.. Culbertson, J.D.. and Gibber. J . 1993 Arlionr /or Cullu!ul Rerou~rr Strwatdship. DraR report submitted by the US Department of the Interior. National Park Service, Washington, DC. to the US Depanment o r Dclense Legacy Resourcc man^ agement Program Cultural Rcsourccs Program Development Task Area. Washington. DC: November 19, 1993.

Olficc 01 Technology Assessmen1 (OTA) 1986 Teihnologier jol- Prchirlor-ii Hislol-ir Pnrrrualion. Washington, DC, US Congress. Of icc or Technology Assessment.

Pearcc. D.W. 1993 Economic Valuer and rhr Narural World. Cambridge. MA. The MIT Press. Pearce, 5. 1990 Arrhaeological Camlozrhip. Washington. DC, Smichsonian Institution Press. Prriman. R.. Reid. C., Zweilel. M.. McVickee. G.. Huff, D.. and Knudson. R. In Dress Inte-

grating Ecosystem Management with Knowledge of Prehistoric and Historic lnnuencer on the Evolution of Landscapes. In Sexton. W~lliam and Szaro. Roben. rds, Ecolofiral Stewardrhip Handbook. Washington. DC. US Forest Service.

Ragan, J.F. Jr and Thomas. L.B.,Jr 1990 Principles oJEcono~nics. Ssn Diego, CA, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich

Saunders, A. 1989 Heritage Management and Training in England. In Cleere, H.F , ed.. Archaeo- logirol Hrritag? Mnncrgement in lht Modern World. London. England. Unwin Hyrnan: 152-163.

Sax, J.L. 1970 The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Rcsource Law: ElfectiveJudicial In~ervention. Michi~an Law Revirw 68: 471-566.

- 1992 Property Rights and Public Benefits. In Lee. A.J., ed.. Port Merts Fulurr. Saving Amel-icai Historic Environrnmts. Washxngton. DC. The Prescnmion Press: 137-143.

Schillcr, M.B. and Gumerman, G.J. edr. 1977 Conrrrration Arrhueology: A Guidr Jor Culli~ral Rerourcc Maaagemunt Sludies. New York. NY, Academic Press.

Schmid, A.A. 1989 Benefil-Cos1 Analysis: A Political Economy Approach. Boulder, CO. Westview Press.

Schus~er, E G , and Jones, J.G. 1989 TSPIRS: Meet the Ncw Kid on the Block. Journal oJFowrtty R7(3): 31-35.

Shanks. M. and Tilley, C. 1993 Reconsll-arlirig Avcharology: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. New York. NY, Routledge.

290 RUTHANN KNUDSON

Society for American Archaeology (SAA) 1990-present. Arrltaeolngv and Public Education. Washington. DC, Society lor American Archaeology. Public Education Commiuee.

Tietenberg. T 1992 Envimnm~ntal and Natural R m u n r Economics. 3rd ed. New York. NY. Harper Collins Publishers. Inc.

United Nations Educational. Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1990 Tltc World Hnilafe List. Paris. France, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

US Bureau of Reclamation (BR) 1995 Glen Canyon Dam Finol Environmtntal rntpact Statemmt. Salt Lake City. UT. US Bumu ol Reclamation. Colorado River Studies Office.

US Department of Dele- (DoD) I992 L r g q Rcso.ne Monagenrenl Program Repon to Confinrs. Washington. DC, US Department of Defense, Office, o l the Deputy h i s t a n t Secretary a l Defcnre for the Environment.

-1994a Tltr Bencjtr ojCulturoi Rcrouno Conurvaian. Commander$ Guidr. Washington. DC, US Department of Delense. Legacy Resource Management Program.

-1994b Thc Bendts of Cultural Resource Con-arion. Resorrrc Book. United Slaler Nuvy. . . Washtngton, DC. US Drprunrnt ol Drlmu. 1.rgac-y Kewurce Managcmcnt Program.

- 1994~ Cnmlnp. en lrtmt thr Cold Milatary 1lcnlaf.r in ihr Cold War. IRcpon on ihe Drpanmrnl . ~ - o l Defense Legacy Cold War Project.1 Washington. DC. US Depanment of Defense. iegacy Resource Management Pmgram.

US General Accounting Office (GAO) 1996 Expcutivr Guidr E&livrlj lmplemc~tling ihr Government Perjomance and Results Ad. GAOIGDD-96-118. Washington, DC. US General Accounting Office.

-1997 Managing Jor Results GPRA lo Assist Con,qrrrrional and Execulivc Branch Decisionmuk- ing. Washington. DC, GAOn-GGD-9743.

Welsh. M.. Bishop. RC.. Phillips. M.L., and Baumganner. R.M. 1995 GCES Non-Ure Volztc Stmtdy: Finol Repon. Prepared by Haglcr Bailly Consulling Madison. W. for the US Bureau ol Reclamation. Colorado River Sludies Office. Salt Lake City. UT.

White, R 1997 The Natural is Cultural and the Cultural is Natural. Keynote p-nration of Making Pmteuion Work: Parks and Reserves in a Crowded. Changing World. 9th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands, Albuquerque, NM. The George Wrighl Society.

Woad. C.A. 1994 Ecosystem Management: Achieving the New Land Ethic. Rmovablc Rsnsrrcr Joumai 12(1): 6 1 2 .

Woodley, S.. Francis, G.. and Kay. I.. eds. 1993 Ecologiml Infcgrity oztd the Management of

Ecoryrlonr. Delray Beach. FL. St. Lucie Press.

cultural resource management in context

Documents