Cultural Resources in Multiple Resource
Management Settings
My original plan was to have a multi-day class exercise with the students broken into teams. Each team was to be given a real life case study where they had to come up with a resource protection plan regarding a site that was facing impact but was also the location of other potentially impacted natural resources. In fact because of the small class size, and failure to get all of the case studies from different agencies I was working with I ended up having one quasi-real world case and the class (n=10) broke into four groups and came up with different plans for the same situation. The situation was described as follows.
Human remains were found eroding onto a beach along the Snake River. Artifacts found in the area suggest the burials are 19 th century in age. The land is managed by the Corps of Engineers. They first consulted the local tribes, under the terms of their inadvertent discovery protocol for NAGPRA. The tribe requested that the remains be re-interred at the same location and that the beach be stabilized and monitored to prevent further erosion and possible looting. The beach is accessible only by boat and is in fact one of the only, and most popular remote beaches along the river drawing lots of family picnickers and swimmers. The location was also described as being near important for salmon nesting. It was stated that engineers examined the site and said that the only way to stabilize the beach was to either cover it would boulders or plant it to grass that would require irrigation to maintain. The cost estimates they gave for the two engineers alternatives were between $150,000 and $500,000 dollars. The issues were summarized as follows:
Alternative 1: Do nothing, no cost, no protection. Completely unacceptable to the tribes and not in compliance with cultural resource protection laws.
Alternative 2: Archaeologically excavate the burials and re-bury, after analysis, at a different location. Completely unacceptable to the tribes.
Alternative 3: Plant grass and install an irrigation system. The initial costs would be around $150,000 but maintenance costs could be as much as $50,000 per year. This could encourage increased recreation use. Because this would entail excavation and for the water system and greater potential for human activity at the site the Tribes have very strong objections. Changing the plant and water circumstances could accelerate the deterioration of buried archaeological materials potentially associated with the human remains.
Alternative 4: Place stabilizing boulders over the beach. The cost for this would be at least $500,000. The recreation use of the site would be lost, and the salmon nesting areas might be impacted.
The students broke into their teams and discussed the options, choosing their preferred and then the class as a whole compared the teams decisions. The results were bad news for archaeology!
The class was unanimous in considering the wishes of the tribes as paramount. Fish and recreation came out about evenly. Cost was considered unimportant. This, I believe, is a reflection of this decision being abstract. In a real life situation I think the costs would have been a bigger factor because it would have meant real choices for a resource program they might be managing or they may simply have ben told by a superior that there were not funds available. Most distressing was the attitude toward the archaeological resources. All of the students considered these to be the most expendable of all the resources considered. I will rethink this exercise to try and make the choices more difficult and try and gain greater support for the archaeological resources.