Technical Brief, No. 14: The Peer Review of Public Archeology Project: A Procedure Developed by the Departmental Consulting Archeologist

16 Pages·1993·1.1 MB·English

by  Keel, Bennie

item
:y
129.59/6:14 NOV 30 1993
U.S. Department oftheInterior _... .-* Technical BriefNo. 14
National Park Service September 1993
ClemsonUniversity Cultural Resources LiriAARl ISSN 1057-1574
Departmental ConsultingArcheologist • ArcheologieatlAssistance
3 1604 019 774 092
The Peer Review of Public Archeology
A
Projects: Procedure Developed by the
Departmental Consulting Archeologist
BennieC.Keel,SoutheastArcheologicalCenter,NationalParkService
This TechnicalBriefdescribesobjectives,organization, andothertypesofpublicarcheology.TheSecretary
and methods that could be usedfor conducting peer is assigned these roles by several statutes including
reviews in public archeology projects. Each ofthese the Antiquities Act, Historic Sites Act of 1935,
elements isillustratedwithexamplesdrawnfrompeer National Historic Preservation Act, and Archae-
reviewsconductedby theDepartmentoftheInterior's ologicalResourcesProtectionAct. Thepeerreview
Departmental ConsultingArcheologist between 1981 of selected Federal archeological projects is one
and 1990. The purpose ofthis Technical Briefis to among a number of DCA programs that provide
provide guidance to government agencies and other leadership and coordination (Canouts 1992;
archeological resources managementprogramson use CanoutsandMcManamon 1991;Knoll 1991;Knud-
ofthepeer reviewprocess as one tool to improve the son and McManamon 1992; McManamon, Smith,
effectiveness oftheiractivities. It may bean especially andWaldbauer 199C).
importanttooltohelpresolveconflictswhichmayarise
due to the needfor interagency cooperation, the com- ThisTechnical Briefdescribesthepurposesandthe
plexity ofthe archeological work, orprofessional dis- goalsoftheFederal archeologypeerreviewprocess
DCA
agreements. This Technical Briefdemonstrates how as conducted by the between 1981 and 1990.
peer reviews can address these typicalproblems and The government agencies and the professionals
explainsways theprocesscan be implemented. who have been inthesereviewsrecognizethatpeer
reviews can provide an important contribution to
projectdesignand management,therebyadvancing
Introduction
Americanarcheology. Thisbriefprovidesanexam-
The review of research by peers has been one hall- pleofthepeerreviewprocessintheFederalarcheo-
mark of science throughout its history. Peer re- logical arena, as opposed to the academic domain.
views are the conscience ofscience; they provide a It also supplies information about the planning,
necessary check on its practitioners and an explicit design, and implementation of peer reviews. Four
evaluation of their efforts. Other professions have appendiceswithexamplesofdocumentsillustrating
recognized the importance of peer reviews for ap- efforts at planning and implementing peer reviews
plied sciences as well. For example, the American are provided.
Society of Civil Engineers and American Consult-
ing Engineers Council (ACEC) have developed a
Purposes and Goals of the Federal
program that offers peer review services for engi-
neering projects and programs (ACEC 1990 Peer Review Process
a,b,c,d). In an academic research framework, as opposed to
typical public archeology projects, the principal
TheDepartmentalConsultingArcheologist(DCA) investigator develops a research program to inves-
and his staff in the Archeological Assistance Pro- tigate problems that are of theoretical, methodo-
gramareauthorizedbytheSecretaryoftheInterior logical, and/orsubstantive interest. The researcher
to provide leadership and coordination for Federal develops a research design, identifies and obtains
permission to investigate the sites that fit the pro- Several parameters have been defined for Federal
ject'sscientific needs, andraisesthenecessaryfunds archeological projects that constrain the scientific
by obtaining a grant. The researcher plans and freedom to develop research topics. The principal
conducts the work and publishes the results. Re- difference between an exclusively academic re-
view ofthe scientific merits ofthe proposed work searchdesignandonedevelopedforapublicproject
by his or her peers occurs duringthe grant applica- isthattheformerdevelops fromscientificcuriosity
tion process, in the review of the results by the while in the latter scientific research needs are con-
granting organization, as part of the publication ditionedbythepotentialdatacontentofthearcheo-
process, and in the reception ofthe product bythe logical site being impacted by the public
scientific community. undertaking.
On the other hand, archeology conducted to com- These constraints on the opportunity for an indi-
ply with Federal historic and archeological preser- vidual researcher to develop theoretical, methodo-
vation laws must follow sound archeological logical, orsubstantiveaspectsoftheresearchdesign
practice as well as the regulations, procedures, and donotmeanthatFederalprojectsaredevoidofsuch
guidelines mandated by and developed from those concerns. On the contrary, the process ofdevelop-
laws. Archeologyconducted by these authorities is ingaresearchdesignandastrategyto implementit,
to benefit the American people generally through completing the work, and reporting are the same
the preservation of important archeological re- generalstepsofanyscientificresearchproject.Also,
sources and information. The first objective of re- thedevelopmentofthearcheologicalprojectwithin
search in public archeology is to identify, evaluate, Federal historicpreservation is a consultativeproc-
and record significant archeological resources. The ess in the hands of Federal archeologists and their
scientific information is used for a variety ofprac- counterparts in the SHPO office. Project plans and
tical purposes, including education and creating an archeological results also may be reviewed by
appreciation ofthe nation's heritage among its citi- archeologists and historic preservation profession-
zens. The concomitant benefits that individual als of the ACHP. Frequently suggestions made
archeologistsmayderivefromtheseendeavorswith duringtheseconsultationsresult indesignimprove-
regard to professional standing and careeradvance- ments. As a result ofthis coordination, the project
ment are secondary. has a firm scientific foundation.
Early in the historic preservation process, the Fed- Before the passage ofthe National Historic Preser-
eral agency identifies archeological properties vation Act of 1966 (NHPA), rescue or salvage ar-
within the boundaries of an undertaking. This is cheology was handled without input from the
accomplished through literature reviews, records States or the ACHP. Archeological rescue work
checks, and field surveys. The significance of the was usually controlled by the time and money
sites, especiallyforthe importantarcheological and available rather than by the development of
historical data they contain, is determined based thoughtful and explicit research designs. The Na-
upon eligibility for the National Register of His- tional Park Service (NPS), operating with its own
toric Places. Significance commonly is assessed in professional staff through the River Basin Survey
reference to State comprehensive historic preserva- program of the Smithsonian Institution or with
tion plans or historic contexts used by the State academic contractors, conducted the archeological
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). salvage program of the nation. Private energy de-
velopersandStatehighwaydepartmentscontracted
If important data will be lost because ofthe under- directly with academic institutions to completesal-
taking, the Federal agency must consider this po- vage archeology in their construction projects.
tential andconsult withtheSHPOtodevelopways Competition among academic institutions for gov-
to mitigate the loss. The agency also may have to ernment, private utility company, or highway de-
get the comments of the Advisory Council on partment contracts for archeological work did not
Historic Preservation (ACHP) before moving for- exist during this period. Normally the NPS, the
ward with the undertaking. utility company, or highway department ap-
proached an academic institution and asked the
Archeologists atsite ofHohokampioneerperiodpithouse.
Photo courtesyBureau ofReclamation/Tom Lincoln
institution to carry out whatever archeology was other cultural resources specialists, and perhaps
needed within the time and funding available. officials of various agencies. These reviews repre-
sentabroadrangeofscientificandlegal compliance
Today Federal agency archeologists or contractors concerns. Frequently the evaluations improve the
fromthepublicandprivatesectorsconductFederal agency proposal to mitigate the loss of important
archeologicalprojects. Competitionamongarcheo- information, and stipulations for formal peer re-
logical contractors is the norm unless the work is views areoftenspecifically included in memoranda
done by agency personnel. It does not matter who of agreement or agency contracts. This is all done
doestheprojectfortheFederalpeerreviewprocess before a project is announced for bidding. As part
to work. ofthe proposal, the winning bidder also prepares a
research design orworkplan. This provides refine-
Theperception has existedthat Federal archeologi- ments for conducting the research. It also defines
cal project research design islessopento evaluation the protocols that will serve as project guides.
and criticism than an academic research project
fundedbyagrantingagency.Thisishardlythecase. The primary goal ofthe peer review process devel-
As mentioned, evaluations occur as part of memo- oped by the DCA is to evaluate the conduct of
randa of agreement, National Register of Historic Federal archeological projects and assess the com-
Places nominations, determinations of effect, re- petenceandefficiencyofprojects relativetoarcheo-
viewsofscopesofworkfordatarecoveryplans,and logical practice and legal compliance. An academic
requests for proposals that form the bases for con- peer review rates a project on its scientific merits
tracts. Depending on the specifics of the project, alone; reviewers examine the theoretical basis for
these evaluations are performed by archeologists, the research, the data needed, and how they con-
tribute to the research goals. They evaluate the and used. Furthermore, the research goals and pri-
methodology used to get needed data and the ana- orities and the stated applications of archeological
lytical methodology. They determine if the re- methodology also are accepted and used. The peer
search wasconductedin an appropriate manner. In review evaluates the project using the following
Federal archeology, thepeerreviewexamines addi- criteria:
tionaltopicsaswellasthese.Istheagencyfollowing
the stipulations of the compliance documents (1) Is the archeological research consistent with the
agreedto underthe Section 106 process ofNHPA? needs ofthe research design?
Havedatafulfilledtheneeds ofthe researchdesign? (2) Is it consistent with the contract, memorandum
Haveunexpecteddataorresearchdomainscometo ofagreement, and other covering directives?
light that need additional investigation? Does the
project need to be changed or redesigned to take (3) Is the project on schedule?
these findings into consideration? (4) Is the project within budget?
During the 1980s, Federal archeology project peer (5) Arethe agency and the contractor fulfillingthe
requirements ofthe contract?
reviews wereundertaken when controversystirred
about an undertaking or the archeology associated (6) Arethere unresolveddisputes ordisagreements
with it. Some reviews were conducted because of between the contractor andthe agency related to
major disagreement between the agency and the the archeological work?
contractor about the work. Allegations or ques- (7) Are the materials and data recovered consistent
tionsmayhavecomefromthearcheologicalprofes- with the needs ofthe research design?
sion,themedia,specialinterestgroups,ormembers
ofCongress.Morerecentlyagencieshaverequested (8) Are there gaps in the data? Ifso, is it possible to
reviewsbytheDCAtoinvestigatewhetherprojects fill them?
were adequate. One review was conducted for an (9) Is it desirable to suspend aparticularline of
agency that wished to improve aproject. research?
(10) Based upon new findings, should other lines of
In public archeology the use of the peer review
research bepursued in place ofor in addition to
process also serves other purposes:
those identified in the research design?
(1) Demonstrating to the professional community, (11) Are thepublic education and outreach aspects
Congress, the Administration, and others that the of the project being done adequately and
Federal archeology program produces excellent effectively?
results; (12) Do the steps beingtaken to clean, catalog,
(2) Creating networks for communication between describe, and analyze excavated material conform
government and academic archeologists that to the plans for ultimate, long-term curation of
improve archeology; the material and data?
(3) Helping resolve disputes between Federal This approach accepts previous decisions made by
agencies, contractors, special interest groups, and
thevariousconsultingpartiesto mitigatethelossof
the media;
important archeological information caused by a
(4) ProvidingFederal archeologists with Federalundertaking. Italsoprovidesanoccasionto
professional credibility among their managers and assess the project to determine if any changes are
the academic community. desirable. This approach steers clear of second-
guessingearlierdecisionsortryingto identifyall of
the approaches for conducting archeological inves-
Philosophy of Peer Reviews for
tigations. The manager of the peer review and the
Public Projects
agency archeologist establish a project review
In designing the peer review process the scientific agendaanddevelopalistofsuggestedreviewtopics.
value ofan archeological project, as determined by Theseaidthepeerreviewpanel inexaminingarche-
the NHPA Section 106 consultation, is accepted ology defined by the NHPA Section 106 process.
Table 1. Projects for Which Peer Reviews Were Done by the Departmental Consulting Archeologist, Archeological
Assistance Division, National Park Service
Project/Location Year Agency
DoloresProject, McPheeReservoir, CO 1981 Bureau ofReclamation
Central ArizonaProject, AZ 1986 BureauofReclamation
WY
JacksonLakeDam, GrandTetonsNationalPark, 1987 NationalParkService
NV
StillwaterWildlifeManagement Area, CarsonDesert, 1988 Fish andWildlife Service
LibbyDamProject, LakeKoocanusa,MT 1989 Corps ofEngineers
ND
Alkali CreekProject, 1990 Soil Conservation Service
DCA
Project Selection all but the Alkali Creek peer review, the
DCA servedaspeerreview manager. In thecaseofAlkali
S(iTnacbele1918).1,Tthhee experhiaesncceonfdruocmtecdosnidxupceteirnrgevtiheewsse Creek, a senior NPS archeologist well acquaDinCteAd
with the project area was designated by the
reviews is the basis for this Technical Brief. These
projects were selected for a variety of reasons. The as peer review manager. Normally the agency rep-
resentativehasbeenthearcheologistresponsiblefor
Dolores ReservoirProjectwas reviewedbecauseof
the administration and conduct of the agency's
problems between the contractor and the agency
archeological program, although another agency
about the scope of the investigation and project
management. The Central Arizona Project was se- officialmayserveinthisrole.Theneedforfrequent
and clear communication between the peer review
lected because the Bureau of Reclamation wanted
manager and the agency archeologist or other offi-
to confirm that the scope and focus ofthe archeo-
logical project were appropriate. TheJackson Lake cial in charge of the project is mandatory. Good
Dam Project was evaluated to demonstrate to the communication is an absolute necessity for a suc-
members of the Wyoming Congressional delega- cessful peerreview. No matterwho serves inthem,
tion that the work was adequate and satisfied State these roles are essential components of the peer
review process.
interests. The Fish and Wildlife Service sought a
peer review to address Native American concerns
All aspects of the peer review are developed
and to assure that historic preservation require-
ments were being met in the Stillwater Wildlife through close coordination between the peer re-
Management Area Project. The U.S. Army Corps view manager and the agency. Both parties must
agreeonthescopeofthereview.Frequentandopen
of Engineers wanted to confirm that its historic
preservation responsibilities were being fulfilled in communication is necessary in all aspects of the
project. Theagencyarcheologistneedsinformation
a manner sensitive to Native American religious
concerns in the Libby Dam Project. The Soil Con- abouttheprogressoftheplanningeffortbythepeer
review manager to develop agency plans. The peer
servationServicewantedanevaluationoftheAlkali
Creek Project in light of SHPO and professional trheeviSewHPmaOnaagnedrAalCsoHdPisctuossgeasthtehreipneefrorrmeavtiieownwtihtaht
community concerns.
should be supplied to the team. Frequent commu-
nication bolsters the commitment made by both
Organizing and Conducting partiestoassurethat the necessaryactions arecom-
Peer Reviews pleted in a timely manner. In undertaking a peer
A peer review of a project is an activity that must crreevaiteew,aopnaertonfertshheippeewritrhevtiheewamgaenncayg.erT'hsegocarlesatisiotno
be developed harmoniously as a partnership be-
ofsuchapartnership istheprincipal ingredientthat
tweenthepeerreviewmanagerandtheagency. For
has made the process, as conducted by the DCA, ing the project. If the peer review is a response to
successful. problems between the agency and the contractor,
the peer review will focus on these matters. The
Once a project is selected, the following tasks, at a topics identified for review forthe StillwaterWild-
minimum, mustbeundertakentoconductthepeer life Management Area are provided as examples in
review: Appendix A; those for theJackson Lake Dam pro-
ject were similar. In any case, the scope ofthe peer
(1) Defining the review's scope andschedule. review should focus on identifying solutions to
Determining the review's cost andsecuring problems and not foster inappropriate or adversar-
(2)
funds. ial investigative roles.
(3) Planningthe team's composition and choosing 2. Cost ofthe Peer Review and Funding
members.
Arrangements must be made to fund the various
Compiling documentation and mailing to the costs for peer reviews and establish the budget
(4)
team. parameters within which the peer review manager
must operate. The costs ofpeer reviews conducted
(5) Scheduling the on-sitevisit. by the DCA, for instance, have been covered by
(a) Arrangingtravel and lodging.
various means, includingtheDCA'sannualoperat-
(b) Reserving meeting space. DCA
(c) Making appointments for interviews. ing budget, shared expenses of the and the
(d) Preparing the agenda and itinerary. agency, and full funding by the agency. When an
(e) Identifying review topics. agency shares or covers the costs, the funds typi-
(f) Developing support for the team. cally come from the project budget. Cost sharing
DCA
Making arrangements foroffice space, betweenthe andtheagencyhasbeenthemost
(g)
(h) Securing equipment for team use. common arrangement.
(6) Conductingthe on-sitevisit. Honorariaorconsulting fees have not been paidto
(7) Preparing the draft final report (bypeer review members ofthe DCApeerreviewpanels. Payment
manager). of honoraria to non-Federal members of the team
(a) Obtaining revisions to the final draft is legal, but it is illegal to pay a Federal team
report from the review team. member. It seemed inappropriate to compensate
(b) Revising manuscript. some team members but not others. Furthermore,
(c) Obtaining review team approval offinal there was concern that if honoraria were paid the
report. peer review team might not feel that it could be
(d) Producingthe final report. critical andcandidin its assessment. Therewas also
(e) Compiling recommendations for the a potential for the review to appear prejudiced.
agency.
(f) Completing remaining administrative Thecostsoftransportationandperdiemofthepeer
tasks. review members must beconsidered. Thepurchase
(8) Providingfinal report to agency officials. of airline tickets may take a large portion of the
funds available. Other costs include: reproduction
The following sections of this Technical Briefwill and postage to provide project information to the
provide information about each ofthesetasks. The peerreviewteam;on-siteequipment, materials,and
examples cited are drawn from peer reviews con- work space for the team; administrative support;
ducted in the past by the DCA. andfinalreportpreparationanddistribution.Many
ofthese costs can be covered in-kind by the agency
1. Defining the Scope ofthe Peer Review or the peer review manager.
The reasons for selecting a project for peer review
normallydefines thescopeofthe review. Ifcharges 3. Composition and Selection ofthe
ofinadequacyhavebeen made,thepeerreviewwill Peer Review Team
DCA
focus onthe conduct ofthearcheological investiga- The first peer review team assembled by the
tions under the agreements and documents cover- consisted of three nationally recognized archeolo-
gistsfrom academicpositions. Two wereexpertsin While these elements may seem straightforward,
the archeology of the project region. One was an ignoring them could make completing an accept-
expert fromoutsidethearea. Thiscompositionwas able peer review difficult or affect its timeliness.
modified for later peer reviews. It was learned that
academic archeologists were unfamiliar with the Once the peer review manager and agency arche-
NHPA Section 106 process and unaware of many ologistagreeonthecandidatesandtheapproximate
ofthe legal requirements ofFederal historic preser- dates for the review, the peer review manager tele-
vation. They had little or no knowledge ofFederal phones the candidates to determine their willing-
procurement and contracting regulations and, ness and availability. Acceptance of the invitation
therefore, they found it difficult to readily identify is followed by a formal letter from the peer review
efficient, effective solutions to problems related to manager providing information about the project,
these topics. the schedule, and other details.
For later reviews, an archeologist from a public 4. Compiling Documentation for the
agency, but one different from the one under re- Peer Review Team
view, was added to the team. This served the addi- Bythetimeoftheon-sitevisitthepeerreviewteam
tional goal of increasing the interaction among should have a thorough knowledge of the project.
government archeologists and their academic col- Theagencyresponsiblefortheprojectcompilesand
leagues. This was a way to improve the credibility furnishes the panel with the documents that de-
of the government archeologists with their aca- scribethe undertaking,thearcheological resources,
demiccounterparts. We havefoundthat abalanced theirsignificance, the research questions, andback-
peer review teams consists ofone public archeolo- ground information about the local archeology.
gist from an agency other than the one responsible Acquisitionofthisnecessaryknowledgebythepeer
for the project, an academic expert in the archeol- reviewteam isfacilitated byprovidingall thedocu-
ogy ofthe project area or region, and an academic mentation to team members at least three weeks
expert from outside the research area. before the on-site visit. If it is provided with less
time before the on-site visit the peer review team
To identify potential review team members the will not havetimeto reviewthisbasic information.
peer review manager and the agency archeologist
independentlycompilethreelists ofcandidates for: The package of material compiled for the orienta-
(1) the regional academic expert, (2) the outside tion ofthepeerreviewteam will vary from project
academic expert, and (3) the public agency arche- to project. Typically it will consist of survey and
ologist. They consolidate their lists and decide evaluation reports and NHPA Section 106 docu-
which candidates and alternates to invite. mentation,suchastheMemorandumofAgreement
or Determination ofNo Adverse Impact, scope of
Care is to be given in selecting members of the work or request for proposal, and research design.
panel. Beyond a candidate's scientific credentials Interim or annual progress project reports, ifavail-
and availability, other elements are considered, for able, also are provided. Additionally, correspon-
example: dence and internal documents may be included. (A
listofthekindsofmaterialssuppliedfortheCentral
(1) Does the candidate have a reputation for Arizona Project and Stillwater National Wildlife
completing work in a reasonable time? Management Area peer reviews is provided in Ap-
(2) Does the candidate have a previous relationship pendix B.)
or any other consideration with the agency orthe
project that could be construed as a conflict of 5. Scheduling the Peer Review
interest? The ideal time for a peer review is at the midpoint
of a project. Typically, field and laboratory work
Was the candidate an unsuccessful bidderforthe
(3) has proceeded to the stage where the review team
contract? can make a reasonable evaluation of the results. A
(4) Does the candidate work well with others? peer review at the beginning of a project is prema-
turebecausetherewill befew resultstoassess. Ifthe
review team must be considered. The on-site visit
must be scheduled so that those who will travel
from outside the project area, the SHPO or appro-
ACHP
priate staff, personnel, and other interested
parties, can participate.
The peer review manager, in consultation with the
agencyarcheologist,developsanagendaforthepeer
A
reviewteam'son-sitevisit. detailedagendaassures
that the on-site visit is carefully structured. Each
interview focuses on a specific task or topic. Each
interview session is allotted a specific amount of
time. Sessions usually do not exceed two hours
without a break. Maintaining strict adherence to
the agenda assures that the peer review team stays
focused on the task and adheres to the schedule.
During the first session ofthe on-site visit the peer
review manager, the agency archeologist, and the
peer review team discuss the agenda in detail and
modifyitasnecessary.Implementingmodifications
in the agenda may require complex changes in the
interviewschedule. Itisimportanttodeterminethe
final agenda as early as possible.
6. On-Site Visit
The peer review manager andthe agency archeolo-
Archeologists sharing information at site of Hohokam gist plan the on-site visit to use everyone's time
efficiently. Usually the peer review manager,
village.
Photo courtesyBureauofReclamation/TomLincoln agency personnel, and peer review team arrive the
day before the on-site visit begins.
project is near completion the important recom-
mendationsofthepeerreviewteamwill bedifficult The peer review manager andthe agency archeolo-
to implement; usually time and money have be- gistprovidethenecessaryadministrativesupportto
come short at this stage. the peer review team. This assures that an efficient
review occurs. Meeting facilities, telephones, trans-
A
second consideration in scheduling the peer re- portation, andlodginganddining facilities must be
viewisforatimethatisacceptabletopotentialteam available. Secretarial assistance, equipment, and
members. It is useful to identify a 3- to 4-week supplies may be needed. The object of taking care
periodforthepeerreviewapproximately3 months ofthesenecessities isto allowtheteamto devoteits
in advance of the on-site visit. Within such a time energies to the peer review. Personal computers
frame it is usually possible to fittheschedules ofall have been very useful. In providing these kinds of
personnel involved. Situations that can affect the administrative support, the peer review manager
schedulingofthereviewmust beconsidered. These and agency function as aides to the team.
include college and university calendars or special
events like conventions or athletic contests in the The first part of the agenda is devoted to briefings
project area. These situations can affect travel ar- by the peer review manager and agency personnel.
rangements, as lodging may be difficult to find in The peer review manager describes and then em-
such circumstances. The schedules and commit- phasizes the specific scope of work of the peer
ments of the individuals representing the various review (see Appendix C for examples). The peer
organizations who will be interviewed by the peer reviewteam can examine anyaspects oftheproject
related to the archeological work. The plan forthe interviews conducted by the team. In cases where
rest oftheon-sitevisit will dependontheschedules problemsexistbetweentheagencyandthecontrac-
of individuals, the weather, field conditions, and tor, SHPO, ACHP, or other parties, it has been
othervariables. Duringtheweek-longpeerreviews found prudent forthe team to meet both with and
conducted by the DCA, personnel interviews and without the agency personnel. The absence of
field visits normally were concluded by the end of agency personnel may allow for open and candid
the third day so the team could review its findings discussion that otherwise would be difficult.
and draft its report. Typically the draft report was
completed by the evening of the fourth day. Exit The on-site visit is a period ofintense work by the
interviews with the DCA, agency personnel, and peer review team. Every effort is made to keep the
otherinterestedpartieswereconductedonthefifth
day.
The peer review team normally interviews agency
personnel such as the project engineer, environ-
mental staff, and the archeologist. Other historic
preservation specialists, the contracting officer, or
contracting officer's technical representative may
beinterviewed.Theteammeetswiththecontractor
or principal investigator and the principal investi-
gator's senior staff, such as field directors, crew
chiefs, data control manager, and laboratory direc-
tor. Theteam also meets with the interdisciplinary
consultants, such as geologists, geomorphologists,
pedologists, paleobotanists, paleozoologists, and
physical anthropologists. The team usually will
visit the site or sites currently under investigation
andthe laboratoryfacilitiesofthecontractorto get
afeelfortheday-to-dayoperationandmanagement
ofthe project. In some instancesthepeerreviewers
will meet with some members of the professional
community and Indian Tribes or their repre-
sentatives. The team also may interview interested
members ofthe public and Congressional staffers.
Each peer review will vary regarding the parties
interviewed because the focus of the peer review
will bedifferent ineachproject. Inthepeerreviews Re-excavation conference with contractor and peer re-
conducted by the DCA, it was standard procedure Pvhioewtotecaoumr,teCseyntBruarleaAuriozfoRneaclparomjaetcit.on/Dan McKeever
to provide the SHPO and ACHP with a chance to
meet with the peer review team. Sometimes this team on schedule and focused on its task. The peer
was done by telephone interviews. This considera- review manager and agency personnel provide all
tion is based on the regulatory roles of these agen- reasonable support requested to assure that the
cies in historic preservation. Furthermore, the team's tasks are completed by the scheduled time.
professionalstaffoftheSHPOareespeciallyknowl-
edgeable about their State's archeological resources 7. Peer Review Draft Report
andcanprovideimportantperspectivestotheteam. The peer review manager and the agency archeolo-
gistprepareaproposed outlineforthe report, mak-
The scope of the peer review and the specific cir- ing it clear to the peer review team that the topics
cumstances will determine whether or not the and proposed outline are only suggestions. The
agency archeologist or official attends all of the contentofthefinal report isdeterminedbythepeer
review team. The purpose of the proposed report mat, but made no changes in content. A revised
outline is to provide the team with guidance. The draft was mailed simultaneously to the authors for
interviewsprovidespecificandimportant informa- revision. Marked and revised copy was returned to
tion and views from a variety ofperspectives. The the DCA and changes made. The final report was
peer review manager always assures the team in producedanddistributedtotheBureauofReclama-
each reviewthatthecontentandrecommendations tion in a short period along with the DCA's own
ofthe final report are entirely their responsibility. recommendations. Other interested parties were
The team is welcome to change or reorganize the sent copies as part ofthis distribution. The Central
outline and format. Team members may add or ArizonaProjectpeerreviewdemonstratedtheclear
drop topics as they think necessary or appropriate, value of requiring the team to complete a draft
though departures fromthe model usuallyconcern report by the end ofthe on-site visit.
format or organization.
Appendix D provides examples of report outlines
The importance of coordination and careful atten- presented to the peer review teams for the Central
tiontodetailsinproductionofthefinaldraftreport Arizona and Carson Desert projects.
cannot be overestimated by the peer review man-
ager. Some cautionary examples are cited from the 8. The Final Report
DCA
peer reviews conducted by the to demon- The production of the final report of the peer
strate the importance of organized, considered ac- reviewcan bearathersimple, but intensetask. The
tivities and then continuing to learn from draft report is edited for style and format and
experience. unclear language is revised. All changes in the
manuscript are made using the "strikeout," "bold"
The peer review team for the Dolores Project at or other options of the chosen word processing
McPhee Reservoir spent an intensive week inter- program. This allows the author to identify easily
viewingvariouspartiesconcernedwiththeproject. thechangesthathavebeen madeintherevisedtext.
After the on-site visit the team members returned This draft is mailed simultaneously to the authors
totheirregularemploymentandpreparedthedraft fortheircorrectionsandapproval. Thepeerreview
final report. As a long-distance effort, completion managermakesthechangesrequiredbytheauthors
of the draft was delayed considerably. This delay and produces the final report. Depending on the
was caused by factors such as lack of communica- quality of the draft report, production of the final
tion between the members of the team, the time version requires some 16 to 24 person hours of
takentocirculatedraftsandcommentssequentially effort.
through the mail, and other commitments or pri-
orities ofthe panel members. The Dolores Project The peer review manager transmits the report and
peerreviewteamwasnotprovidedwithaproposed recommendations foraction to the agency forcon-
report outline, so team members hadto develop an sideration. The peer review manager may wish to
outlineandreport format, whichprovedtobevery include his or her own recommendations, which
DCA
time-consuming. Basedonthisexperiencethe address the findings and recommendations of the
determined it would be helpful in the future to peer review team and may be mandated according
provide guidance and suggested topics to cover. to the authorities by which the peer review man-
Thispractice has expeditedthepreparationofdraft ager undertook this task. While the peer review
peer review reports. managernormallyendorses mostoftherecommen-
dations madebythepeerreviewteam, occasionally
The Central Arizona Project peer review team it will be determinedthat the recommendations do
decidedthat itwouldcompleteadraft reportbythe not really improve the project when compared to
end ofthe on-site visit. Despite certain misgivings, costs by the agency to implement them. Irrespec-
this proposal was encouraged and the draft report tive of whether the peer review manager supports
was delivered as promised. The DCA edited the orrejects the recommendations oftheteam, a clear
draft report for grammar andworked with the for- explanation is always provided.
10