Message #191:
From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG
To:   "'Matthias Giessler'" 
Subject: Recommendations on NM Statewide CRM Issues
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 96 10:58:00 MST
Encoding: 341 TEXT

From: AlShal 
The report's attachments are not included herewith due to handling 
considerations. Note that Attachments I and II are posted on SWA, however. 
Also note that this material will probably be easiest to read if viewed 
using a monospace typeface (such as Courier). Full copies of the 50+ page 
report will be available for $8.00 to cover production and mailing costs. We 
invite comments. They should be directed to me for compilation.  Alan 
Committee on the Future of New Mexico's Cultural Resources
c/o Alan M. Shalette 5294 Mesa del Oso NE Albuquerque, NM  87111
(505) 291-9653  AlShal

May 29, 1996

Dr. Lynne Sebastian, State Archaeologist
New Mexico State Historic Preservation Division
228 East Palace Avenue
Santa Fe, NM  87503

Dear Lynne:

Following are recommendations aimed at improving  cultural resource 
management in New Mexico. They result from a series of meetings of contract 
and avocational archaeologists, government agency representatives, 
historians, museum management, and others in the northcentral area of the 
state. The meetings were held between October, 1995 and May, 1996 in 
response to your August, 1995 open letter on the subject. We also undertook 
a follow-up attempt to gather responses your open Letter of August, 1995. 
This involved extracting and reformatting your key questions and issues into 
two parts - qualitative and quantitative - and sending them to each of the 
contract archae-ology firms we could identify in the north central area of 
the state. The results are contained in the attachments to this report.

The principles underlying our recommendations following from the foregoing 
activities are that:

The state's cultural properties are among its most important resources.

Without proper, ongoing attention and protection, the state's cultural 
properties will deteriorate and are in danger of being lost.

Well-reasoned actions should be taken to reduce pressures on CRM laws and 
regulations that may result in federal- and state-level political and 
legislative actions that can seriously undermine protection of our state's 
cultural resources.

The quality of public archaeology should be improved and its results should 
be made more broadly available.

The philosophies and goals underpinning existing CRM laws have not fully 
been supported due to inadequate funding and lack of understanding of the 
requirements necessary to do so.

The aims, processes, and results of CRM should be more clearly and 
emphatically presented to the public who are CRM's ultimate sponsors and 

Though currently addressed to professionals in New Mexico's Historic 
Preservation Division in somewhat technical terms, the group feels the 
following recommendations should be more broadly disseminated to the various 
other constituencies both involved in their implementation and having an 
interest in their outcome.

Further collaboration on the ways and means to disseminate these 
recommendations and to initiate actions for their implementation are 
required to achieve their aims. We seek your aid in doing so.

This document is organized as follows.

Recommendations On Statewide Cultural Resource Issues.

       I. Report on the February, 1996 Tempe Conference: "Renewing
          Our National Archaeological Program."
      II. Overview of the Arizona Archaeology Advisory Commission.
     III. Revised survey corresponding to information sought in the
          State Archaeologist's open letter (in two parts - quantita-
          tive and qualitative), along with distribution list.
      IV. Qualitative survey responses received.
       V. Summary of quantitative survey responses received.


Steering Committee, Committee on the Future of New Mexico's Cultural 
  Alan Shalette, Chair
  John Acklen, TRC/Mariah, Inc.
  Carol Condie, Quivira Research Center/Associates
  Pat Hogan, UNM Office of Contract Archaeology
  David Phillips, SWCA, Inc.
  Tim Seaman, OCA/HPD ARMS

Committee on the Future of New Mexico's Cultural Resources (In association 
with the North-Central Working Group)

I. Make regulatory CRM processes more predictable, faster, and
easier to fulfill, without losing current laws and control.

   A. Greater consistency will make the compliance process more
      predictable for developers.

      1. Current lack of uniform application of "under-
         taking" causes some projects to undergo Section
         106 or counterpart procedures while other, simi-
         lar projects are not - occurs at both the state
         & federal levels. The SHPO can work with other
         agencies to ensure greater uniformity in deter-
         mining which projects are subjected to historic
         preservation review.
      2. Set uniform standards for including and/or ex-
         cluding projects that constitute undertakings
         but are carried out by private parties on pri-
         vate land.
      3. Define more specifically, agency oversight of
         private activities on  private land leading to
         Section 106 regulation.

   B. More predictable agency response times to regulatory filings
      would make developers feel they could extrapolate from prior
      experience in trying to schedule projects with predictable
      time and costs.

      1. For permits: Agencies should have a fixed period
         (45 days max.) in which to review/evaluate appli-
         cations for ARPA and other archaeological permits
         and for development projects. Treatment plans,
         Native American reviews, and ARPA permit appli-
         cations should be processed concurrently.
      2. Clearance after completion of fieldwork should
         be automatic after five working days unless the
         agency determines there is a problem with the work.
      3. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
         should not involve itself in Section 106 reviews
         for projects taking place within a single state
         unless requested to do so by one of the parties,
         but should restrict itself to auditing the effec-
         tiveness of the state historic preservation pro-
         grams. Thus, in most cases, the review period for
         an undertaking should come to an end once SHPO
         concurrence has been obtained.

   C. Ease paperwork burdens to reduce the cost of doing contract

      1. Require a standard "short form" for negative
         surveys in lieu of formal reports.
      2. Seek pan-agency agreement on standard report
         requirements. Allow contractors to expand on
         the minimum report based upon project nature
         and findings
      3. Scale reporting requirements to project size
         (e.g. 40-acre break-point) and nature (e.g.,
         BLM format) and reduce unnecessary background
         documentation (e.g., environment and culture
         history) for small surveys, even those which
         encounter cultural resources.

   D. Scale back selected/unneeded protections.

      1. Adapt the BLM Category 1 concept of sites spe-
         cifically exempt from the National Register of
         Historic Places (NHRP) more broadly for prop-
         erties dating after NM statehood - there are
         historic resources less than 100 years old that
         are important but too much money is being spent
         on unimportant sites.
      2. Allow less intensive survey for rugged lands to
         reduce the cost and time to do contract archaeol-
         ogy. Rugged lands should be excluded by the State
         Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on a case-by-
         case basis only. Use of geomorphology can allow
         evaluation of the potential for subsurface deposits.

   E. Make it easier to identify previously studied areas (i.e. sur-
      veyed space) and reduce costs to developers and other land
      users by comprehensively coding GIS data on all past, present,
      and future surveys and making the survey data available via
      remote computer inquiry.

   F. Seek interagency agreement on mandatory and optional definitions
      of what constitutes a site.

   G. All agencies should allow testing during survey to make possible,
      more informed NRHP recommendations.

   H. Allow a broader definition of Category 1 sites (see D.1 above) on
      a project-by-project basis. Use in-field artifact analysis to
      eliminate sites from further consideration. when the artifacts
      are not diagnostic, are limited in number, and are surficial.

   I. Use professional archaeologist monitoring as an alternative to
      prior survey as determined by the SHPO on a project-by-project

   J. Provide pro bono, professional relief for small property owners
      encumbered by regulations designed for large developers/developments.

   K. Use MOA's (Memorandums of Agreement) like the Fruitland agreement,
      to move beyond undertaking-driven compliance into coherent, broad-
      area research to:

      1. Establish an umbrella research design for a regional
         area, using uniform methods.
      2. Use this to potentially limit the scope of work necessary
         for any given undertaking or location within the region.

II. Improve the quality of cultural resource contract research.

   A. Ensure better monitoring of contract field work and reporting.
      Follow through by enforcing published guidelines for withdrawing
      permits to do work on public land.

   B. Overcome data loss due to academic studies never completed - new
      permits should not be issued to academics in arrears on their
      requirements to prepare reports on prior fieldwork.

   C. Establish state licensing (board) for professional archaeologists
      (cf. SAA/SOPA/ROPA?) with licensing as a prerequisite for being
      granted permits. Consider professional licensing to do publicly regu-
      lated work on private land. Encourage federal agencies to require the
      state license.

   D. Establish a mechanism to keep archaeological permittees up to date.
      E.g., short courses or workshops on technical subjects with certi-
      ficates of completion provided by an authorized educational 

III. Improve the quality of curation by museums.

   A. Provide more adequate funding for curation of public artifacts and
      project documents in perpetuity. Require greater commonality in
      information management and access  across all public repositories
      to facilitate research on collections. In addition, the federal
      government should construct a regional curation facility in New 

   B. Provide more adequate funding for NMCRIS/ARMS as the central research
      tool for retrieval of primary archaeological information in NM. ARMS
      should be given a higher priority for funding by federal agencies,
      state agencies, and tribes.

IV. Adopt uniform policies/guidelines governing extraction and commerce
    of artifacts taken from private lands.

   A. Professional/licensed archaeologists ought not be involved in the
      taking of antiquities from private lands except under regulated cir-
      cumstances - e.g., under a voluntary permit issued by a public agency.

   B. Those involved in the antiquities trade should devise means to reduce
      illegal looting through artifact registration and dealer licensing.

   C. Museums should realize that displaying artifacts without appropriate
      cultural interpretation merely encourages the public to view anti-
      quities as treasures.

V. Improve cultural resource protection at the county and local levels.

   A. Encourage adoption of local ordinances.

   B. SHPO should take the lead in developing model local ordinances.

   C. Provide pass-through funds for site protection, in conjunction with
      the Certified Local Government (CLG) program.

VI. Increase the direct public benefits of cultural resource management.

   A. Providing information to the public is the primary justification for
      government to be involved in archaeology. Hence, it is imperative that
      a greater share of public funds be devoted to providing direct public
      benefits in the form of guided site tours, museum displays, popular
      reports, and visual media [as per the related discussion in Attachment
      II, Draft 2.0 of the Tempe Conference Report on "Renewing Our Nation-
      al Archaeological Program].

  B. At present the loss of archaeological sites is "mitigated" by the re-
     covery of scientific information which rarely reaches the public. Regu-
     lations should provide that taking new knowledge back to the public is
     a mandatory part of mitigating the loss of cultural resources.

  C. Federal and state agencies should institute public programs to inter-
     pret and explain the cultural importance of the cultural resources
     they manage, where these programs do not already exist.

VII. Involve professionals and others in the field in building political
     support for historic preservation.

  A. Build grassroots support for historic preservation.

     1. Develop public understandings of the importance of supporting
        historic preservation:
        a) Preserving America?s heritage
        b) Economic benefits to New Mexico.
        c) Increased knowledge about the past.
     2. Encourage coalition-building between professional and avo-
        cationnal/amateur archaeologists.
     3. Support teacher training and other forms of public education.

   B. Build awareness of the need for historic preservation among
        elected federal, state, and local officials (as per section VII.A).

   C. Establish an organization similar to the Arizona Archaeological
        Advisory Commission (see Attachment II) - an activist organization
        to support and protect the state's important archaeological re-
        sources. One possibility is to develop such an organization from,
        or as an adjunct to the existing Cultural Properties Review 

   D. Hold an annual conference of individuals and groups interested in sup-
       porting historic preservation - including historical societies, 
       archaeological societies, planners, architects, and elected 
       representatives - to examine current efforts to build grassroots 
       support for historic preservation, to promote establishment of new 
       alliances among supporters, and to address existing and emerging