Incorporating Archaeological Resources in Landscape-Level Planning and Management

Abstract

The increasing importance of landscape-scale research and preservation goals within the archaeological profession coincides with expanded threats to the archaeological record through massive energy exploration and infrastructure projects and through the cumulative effects of smaller-scale development. It is further stimulated by the recognition that conservation strategies that span multiple resource classes and disciplines are best formulated at multiple and larger spatial scales. These are key drivers behind efforts to improve the ways that archaeological resources are considered in the context of development-related planning and implementation, including mitigation measures. In a prominent example, recent department-level direction from the Secretary of the Interior calls specifically for landscape-level planning as a critical component of responses to both large-scale development and climate change. This article reviews three current approaches to landscape-level planning in archaeology and calls for increased commitment to advancing their development and effectiveness.

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

“…As we initiated our landscape cooperative study, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) published the important findings of its three task forces created to address issues related to landscape-scale cultural resource management and archaeological resources (Altschul 2016; Doelle et al 2016; McManamon et al 2016; Wilshusen et al 2016). These task forces individually addressed three separate but interrelated issues: “1) survey data quality, durability, and use; 2) incorporating archaeological resources in regional land-use plans; and 3) valuing archaeological resources” (Altschul 2016:102).…”

Balancing the Scales: Harmonizing Heritage Management, Site-Specific Research, and the Mitigation of Adverse Effects

“…Contexts should aid us not only with identifying, evaluating, and registering properties, but also in assessing treatment and preservation options and heritage priorities. As mentioned earlier, there are some very promising initial significance modeling approaches that integrate multi-dimensional data to create adaptable, and yet accountable, historic preservation plans (Doelle et al 2016;Heilen et al 2016;Laurenzi et al 2013;Sebastian 2009). We need to accelerate the testing, utilization, and refinement of these "outside-the-box" heritage management models by federal agencies and SHPO if we are to do more than triage.…”

“…We have to be able to distill what we presently know about the past landscape if we are to decide what our heritage management priorities should be as we make land use decisions today and tomorrow. These priorities will be critical for creating guidelines to help us make day-to-day judgments about what to preserve and what to cede in the future (Doelle et al 2016). By more clearly defining our values and our priorities we also will have to acknowledge the diversity of our long-term preservation needs, ranging from education to research to even the sacredness of certain claims (Colwell and Ferguson 2014).…”

“…With modern site databases and tools such as geographic information systems (GIS), we can now focus our historic preservation efforts at a larger scale such as the landscape. If we are to make meaningful sense of the past, much less to have any recognizable elements of the historic landscape intact thirty years from now (Doelle et al 2016), we must turn our attention to this level. To do this we need to embrace a range of National Register criteria beyond Criterion D and give weight to new research themes in our archaeological investigations and planning.…”

Introducing Reviews in Colorado Archaeology, a New Online Journal for Archaeological Research and Cultural Resources Management

“…The NHPA was enacted at a time when archaeologists' research and preservation efforts commonly focused on the largest, most complex sites in a region. We now recognize that significance determinations may need to consider the broader cultural landscape, including both large and small sites as well as sites that reflect the varied ways people manifest their lives in different settings (Doelle et al 2016). The large energy exploration and infrastructure projects of the last 50 years, as well as the cumulative effects of smaller-scale development, have shifted federal and some state resource planning to the landscape level.…”