[NPS Arrowhead] U.S. Dept. of Interior National Park Service Archeology Program
Quick Menu Features
* Sitemap * Home
Technical Brief 14 The Peer Review of Public Archeology Projects


Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, September, 1993.

APPENDIX A
Suggested Peer Review Topics from Carson Desert Archeological Project Peer Review (Stillwater Wildlife Management Area)

  • History of archeological project development
  • Management and administration of project
  • Project planning and sequencing
  • Interagency/group cooperation and coordination
  • Compliance with Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act--how handled
  • Maintenance of quality control
  • Budget and financing of archeological program, estimate, cumulative cost, projected finishing cost

  • Status and summary of past archeological work
  • Public benefits
  • Volunteer program
  • Curation
  • Dissemination of reports to professional community
  • Value of peer review



APPENDIX B
Examples of Lists of Background Material Supplied to Peer Review Teams

List of Central Arizona Project Background Documents

  1. Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act case report >
  2. Central Arizona Project Overview (in press) background and general management plan
  3. Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement
  4. Plan 6
  5. Selected feature descriptions of archeological projects:
    1. Cave Creek feature (an early archeological project-Survey 7)
      1. Case report List of Carson Desert Background Documents
      2. Memorandum of Agreement
      3. Scope of work
      4. Contract
      5. Product (report)
    2. Granite Reef of Salt River Aqueduct feature
      1. Case report
      2. Memorandum of Agreement
      3. Scope of work
      4. Contract
      5. Product (report)
    3. Current feature (Waddell Dam)
      1. Survey report
      2. Mitigation plan
      3. Memorandum of Agreement or PMOA
      4. Scope of work
      5. Contract
      6. Progress reports
  6. Research design for historic archeology
  7. Copies of report reviews published in professional journals, if any
  8. Curation agreement-Western Archeological and Conservation Center and Arizona State Museum agreements
  9. Copies of letters from State Historic Preservation Officers and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in reference to their reviews of mitigation activities in various features
  10. Maps of Central Arizona Project

List of Carson Desert Background Documents

  1. Peer Review Team
  2. Preliminary Agenda
  3. Involved individuals/organizations
  4. Plan of action for cultural resource management at Stillwater Wildlife Management Area
  5. Selected chapters from Preliminary Investigations in Stillwater Marsh: Human Prehistory and Geoarcheology, Volume 1
  6. Osteological analysis of human remains removed from Stillwater Marsh
  7. Newlands Project information
    1. Secretary of the Interior's decision document
    2. Operating criteria and procedures
    3. Map of Newlands Project
  8. Final Report on 1987 Fieldwork Conducted on Stillwater Marsh Sites


APPENDIX C
Examples of "Charges" to Peer Review Team

Central Arizona Project Charge
The Central Arizona Project archeological program is currently the largest archeological rescue project in the land. Its completion will take several more years of field work, analysis, and report writing. The object of the review of the program you are about to undertake is to assess the project at the level of detail you deem appropriate in order to provide a written report to the Departmental Consulting Archeologist and the Bureau of Reclamation. We want to know the weaknesses as well as the strengths of the program. We want you to know that we will seriously consider all of the recommendations the team may make to improve the program. Consequently, no aspect of the program is off-limits to your review. You have already been provided with a weighty set of documents related to the program and over the next couple of days you will have the opportunity to meet with Bureau of Reclamation personnel, several contractors, representatives of the State Historic Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. We have developed a list of topics in which we think that you will be interested. Some of these topics are covered in the documents we have provided. Today and tomorrow we, and others, will provide you with additional information as your review progresses. Additionally, we have prepared a suggested outline for your report. Hopefully the efforts we have put forth will make your job easier and your work efficient. In closing we want to emphasize that your review of the project is to be thorough and comprehensive. Be assured that we are here to provide you with the facts and the contexts in which the program has been developed and managed.

Carson Desert Archeological Peer Review Charge
The objective of the review of the program you are about to undertake is to assess the project at the level of detail you deem appropriate in order to provide a written report to the Departmental Consulting Archeologist. We want to know the weaknesses as well as the strengths of the program. We want you to know that we will seriously consider all of the recommendations the team may make to improve the program. Consequently, no aspect of the program is off-limits to your review. You have already been provided with a weighty set of documents related to the program and over the next couple of days you will have the opportunity to meet with interested individuals and organizational personnel from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Museum, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Anthropology Department University of Reno, Intermountain Research, Churchill County Museum and Archives, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Officer.

We have developed a list of topics which we suggest that you review. Some of these topics are covered in the documents we have provided. Additionally, we have prepared a suggested outline for the report. Hopefully the efforts we have put forth will make your job easier and your work efficient.

I would like to emphasize that your review of the project is to be thorough and comprehensive and is not restricted to the suggested topics if the team determines that other matters are pertinent. Be assured that we are here to provide you with the facts and the context in which the program has been developed and managed.

We expect a formal written report of the Peer Review Team. This report will constitute the Peer Review Team's official findings and recommendations. The following outline is offered only as guidance to the Peer Review Team. The Peer Review Team may develop its own report format but we expect that it will provide objective criteria and your evaluation of them by which the program can be judged in respect to its aims, costs, productivity, quality, etc.

Bennie C. Keel
Departmental Consulting Archeologist
September 16, 1988



APPENDIX D
Examples of Peer Review Report Outlines

Suggested Outline for Peer Review Report, Central Arizona Project

  1. Introduction
  2. General Evaluation
    1. Research Design(s)
    2. General Statements, which tie research design and its implementation together
    3. Evaluation of Performance
      1. Bureau of Reclamation Management and Administration
      2. Contractor Performance
        1. Field work
        2. Laboratory processing
        3. Analysis
        4. Report writing production
      3. Quality versus Cost versus Results
      4. Dissemination of Program Results
        1. Public
        2. Scientific community
        3. States
        4. Other Federal land manager
      5. Curation and Conservation
      6. Resource Preservation
  3. Findings
  4. Recommendations

Proposed Report Outline for Carson Desert Report

  1. Introduction
  2. General Evaluation
    1. Research Design-Appropriateness
    2. Translation of Research Design into Work Elements
    3. Evaluation of Program
      1. Bureau of Reclamation Management and Administration
      2. Fish and Wildlife Service Management, Administration, and Performance
        1. Field work
        2. Laboratory processing
        3. Analysis
        4. Report writing production
      3. Participation by Other Organizations
        1. Field work
        2. Laboratory processing
        3. Analysis
        4. Report writing production
      4. Quality versus Cost versus Results
      5. Dissemination of Program Results
        1. Public
        2. Scientific community
        3. States
        4. Other Federal land managers
      6. Curation and Conservation
      7. Resource Preservation
  3. Findings, a general summary of review
  4. Recommendations

Return to Technical Briefs | Text | Reports and References | Appendices


MJB/EJL

Quick Menu