+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##                                | S. Terry Childs and Karolyn       |
| A SURVEY OF SHPO ARCHEOLOGICAL RE | Kinsey                            |
| PORTS BIBLIOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS, 2002 |                                   |
|                                   | Archeology and Ethnography        |
| *Studies in Archeology and        | Program                           |
| Ethnography #5*                   |                                   |
|                                   | National Center for Cultural      |
| \<http://www.cr.nps.g             | Resources                         |
| ov/aad/pubs/studies/study5a.htm\> |                                   |
|                                   | National Park Service,            |
| ##                                | Washington, DC                    |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 2004                              |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Introduction

The National Archeological Database (NADB) was created in 1984. The
primary purpose of NADB is to efficiently share archeological
information about publicly sponsored investigations thereby helping to
eliminate unnecessary redundancy among public agency efforts. Presently,
the Archeology and Ethnography Program (AEP) of the National Park
Service manages three NADB modules, one of which is the National
Archeological Database, Reports module (NADB-R).

NADB-R is a bibliographic inventory of reports about archeological
investigations and planning across the United States. AEP works with the
State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to collect the bibliographic
data recorded for each state for national access and use. The Center for
Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST) at the University of Arkansas hosts
the searchable, online NADB-R database
\<http://web.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nadb/nadb.mul.html\> that currently
holds approximately 240,000 bibliographic records. The majority of these
records document the archeological "gray literature," typically the
unpublished and narrowly distributed reports that are hard to access by
researchers, CRM contractors, and government agencies. This literature,
however, provides a large share of the data on archeological sites and
projects nationwide. Recently the Society for American Archaeology cited
NADB and particularly NADB-Reports in its initiative for renewing
national archeology. NADB-R is considered an important tool for cultural
resource management efforts and an important step in reporting on
archeological work.

There are gaps in the online NADB-R database because it has not been
updated since 1998. The NADB-R data entry application, which was
provided to the SHPOs for standardized data entry in the late 1980s, is
still in the DOS operating system and has not been upgraded as computer
software has advanced. Due to technological advances, reorganizations of
federal programs, and limited federal and state staff, the current
operational and maintenance procedures of NADB-R require
reconsideration. Solutions are needed to maximize service to the
historic preservation community as a whole, while recognizing current
and future staffing and funding levels.

To help determine the best future directions of NADB-R, AEP staff
conducted a nationwide survey of the SHPOs in the fall of 2002. The
survey focused on the current bibliographic systems and procedures used
by the SHPOs for recording archeological project reports related to
their state. In addition, the survey asked for feedback on possible
enhancements to NADB-R. Specifically, the short survey sought
information about:

-   The nature and description of the system used by each SHPO to
    collect information about archeological reports, including database
    application.

-   The current level of knowledge and use of NADB-R by each SHPO.

-   Whether the SHPOs would be willing to contribute their bibliographic
    records to an update of NADB-R.

-   Whether the SHPOs would be willing to review a planned Access
    version of the NADB-R application.

-   Any comments and suggestions on a possible online data entry module
    for NADB-R whereby CRM firms would enter the bibliographic data
    about contracted archeological reports and the SHPO would approve
    and submit online the citation.

# Survey Coverage and Response

Between August and December 2002, attempts were made to contact 74
offices via telephone and/or email. These contacts included 50 SHPOs in
49 states and the District of Columbia, 12 California Information
Centers (ICs), and eight U.S. territories. Four SHPOs were contacted
that do not house the state's archeological records and/or site files.
These institutions are not included in the survey results.

Response to the survey was excellent. Of the 70 offices reached, only
ten (14%) did not respond in some fashion. Due to extreme distances and
phone and email interruptions, only four of the SHPOs in the U.S.
territories were able to respond. The staff member in the SHPO who
responded to the survey was usually the State Historic Preservation
Officer or the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer and, in a few
instances, the State Archeologist or Director.

**SHPO Bibliographic Systems**

Fifty-three SHPOs have an electronic bibliographic system to record
approved archeological reports. However, only eight (15%) of these, use
the NADB-R application or a related version in Access. They are Alabama,
American Samoa, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, and the California ICs for
Central California, Eastern California, and San Bernardino. Delaware is
converting to Access and intends to use the NADB-R data standards.
Forty-five SHPOs use a variety of independent database formats. The
majority (63%), either use a version of Access or are converting to
Access and do not follow the NADB-R data standards. The remaining seven
keep track of their bibliographic records in Word or Word Perfect files,
Excel spreadsheets, or GLAS, a library cataloging system.

At least one SHPO currently has their bibliographic database online.
Four SHPOs are developing online access to their bibliographic database,
while another is working on a grant to develop such a system. One SHPO
plans to develop a web site on which bibliographic data will be
accessible in the future, while another SHPO is progressing towards
having CRM firms submit records online. Finally, one SHPO said that it
can only provide published reports to requestors and it provides a
bibliography of those reports on its web site.

Twenty-four SHPOs said their office personnel have never used the NADB-R
application, which the National Park Service sent to all SHPOs in the
late 1980s. A few individuals were not aware of its existence because
they are new to the array of SHPO responsibilities. The reasons cited
most often for not using the DOS-based NADB-R application are that it is
cumbersome, it often crashes or times out, and no technical service is
provided. Other reasons given include concern that the keywords are
uncontrolled and not standardized, and the list of work types is too
long and contains redundant values. Some SHPOs also felt that NADB-R is
duplicative of the state's system, out of date, poorly conceived and
executed, and disruptive in the day to day routines of SHPOs with their
limited staff and time. Many SHPOs prefer regional versions of the
NADB-R application tailored to their specific requirements instead of a
large national system. One SHPO also mistakenly believed that NADB-R
only recorded bibliographic citations about federal agency projects.
(See Appendix A for responses to these concerns and other issues.)

All of the SHPOs contacted said they are interested in reviewing and
testing a new version of NADB-R in Access. Three SHPOs expressed
interest in and the capability to convert the DOS version of NADB-R into
an Access version, but were not able to send their current application
to the AEP as requested for review.

**SHPO Data for NADB-R**

Of the 60 SHPOs that responded to the survey, 45 (75%) said they were
willing to contribute records to the NADB-R update. Since then, forty
(67%) of them have sent data to be included in the update. Of the
remaining 20 SHPOs, four needed approval to send their data, and four
said they will send their data later. One SHPO could send their data but
preferred to map it into the standardized NADB-R fields prior to sending
it to AEP. Nine are unwilling to provide data to the NADB-R update for
several reasons (see below). The remaining two have been re-contacted
and asked to send their records. Two noted that they have set up export
routines so they will be able to send regular updates.

Of the four SHPOs in the U.S. territories that responded, all were able
to provide records for the NADB-R update. American Samoa submitted both
new and old records and Palau sent 400 new records. Palau and the
National Park Service submitted bibliographic records for work in
Micronesia. The database for the U.S. Virgin Islands is still being
developed.

Based on the information collected during the survey of SHPOs, over
465,200 records of archeological reports are currently held by the
SHPOs. The SHPOs indicated that there are probably well over 100,000
backlog reports that need to be entered into SHPO bibliographic systems.
Since August 2002, the AEP has received over 262,000 records, including
approximately 81,000 old or updated records and approximately 127,000
new ones. Combined with the 240,000 records currently in NADB-R, the
online database will contain some 350,000 records once the update is
completed. Not all datasets will be included in the 2004 update due to
problems with converting the data into the NADB-R system.

Several SHPOs did not submit records to the NADB-R update for one or
more of the following reasons:

-   Needs financial assistance and leadership from the federal
    government to provide records.

-   Does not have a bibliographic database or it is under development.

-   Does not provide information to the public that may affect tribes
    with whom they work. Most archeological reports for activity on or
    near tribal land contain some information that is sensitive to
    tribes.

-   State laws prohibit the release of archeological report information
    to the public.

-   The NADB-R data is duplicative of the state database.

# Proposed NADB-R Online Data Entry System

It has become clear in recent years that there are staffing and funding
constraints at SHPO offices that prevent them from regularly updating
NADB-R, despite enthusiastic use of the online database by researchers
and contractors as a first step in researching the archeological gray
literature. A proposal to develop an online data entry system is being
considered by the AEP to facilitate the entry of up-to-date
bibliographic information into NADB-R. Feedback on this proposal was
sought during the survey of SHPOs.

The proposed online data entry system has two modules. CRM contractors
who prepare archeological reports would use the first module. The
contractor would enter standardized bibliographic information about a
report that has been approved by a SHPO. This Contractor module includes
new fields for an abstract and a URL to an online version of the report,
if available. Fields for site location are intended to enhance use in a
GIS environment by SHPOs. The second module would be used by the SHPOs
to review and approve bibliographic records entered by CRM firms in the
Contractor module. The system would notify the SHPO once a month about
the number of records submitted for review. SHPO staff would access the
SHPO module via password, review the entries, correct any problems, and,
once approved, submit them to the live and publicly accessible NADB-R
database. Any entries that are not approved would be deleted from the
module and not submitted to the online NADB-R. Also proposed is to
interface the new version of the NADB-R application in Access with the
online SHPO module so the SHPO could download the submitted
bibliographic records to their local database. This way SHPO staff would
not have to do bibliographic data entry for every report.

Among the SHPOs contacted for the survey, nine (15%) expressed their
general concurrence with the proposal. These include American Samoa,
District of Columbia, Maryland, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Palau, West
Virginia, and the Northeast California IC. Nine (15%) said they support
the proposal but have some reservations or issues, including Delaware,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Vermont,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the South Coastal California IC. Thirty-six
(60%) SHPOs were not in favor of the proposed data entry system. Two
SHPOs are developing their own online data entry system. The remainder
did not respond.

Some of the issues posed by the SHPOs who are positively inclined toward
the NADB-R online data entry system include:

-   The online data entry system should provide the opportunity to use
    locational information to integrate bibliographic information with
    other archeological site information on a GIS platform. Must be
    careful to maintain spatial cross-references when downloading a
    citation from the SHPO module.

-   Some SHPO databases have integrated the bibliographic data with
    other site information, often in an Access-based application. Need
    to determine how to download a bibliographic citation so that it
    does not interfere with the non-NADB-R data fields or result in
    piecemeal data collection.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The NADB-R data structure needs to be as simple as possible to keep
    it easy to mesh with local SHPO databases. If the NADB-R fields
    don't match the SHPO fields, then two systems would have to be
    maintained. This is not possible due to staff and financial
    constraints.

-   Agrees with the idea of shifting more responsibility on to the CRM
    consultants who write the reports, but SHPOs will still have a
    considerable amount of work to review and authorize the NADB-R
    records.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Might be a way to help track reports and provide the SHPO with
    information about reports that have not been filed with their
    offices.

-   Need to help SHPOs figure out which reports the CRM contractors have
    entered online and are downloaded to the local SHPO system and which
    reports need to be entered by the SHPO.

-   How will draft reports as opposed to final reports be handled?

-   Not all reports are approved by the SHPO. How will reports that a
    SHPO does not review or approve be handled?

-   How will duplicate records be handled, especially in a state like
    California with 12 ICs?

The majority of comments from SHPOs that are not inclined towards the
NADB-R online data entry system focused on the lack of resources to
adequately develop and maintain SHPO databases, in part due to staff
reductions. This same reason would also affect review and approval of
bibliographic records in the NADB-R database. Concern also was expressed
about the need to check records for accuracy and make corrections prior
to SHPO approval and submittal to the NADB-R database. Other concerns
are bulleted below (see Appendix B for responses to these and other
concerns):

-   Several years of backlogged reports need to be entered before doing
    this work. Relatedly, there is a danger that agencies and
    consultants rely heavily on a database that isn't comprehensive or
    frequently updated.

-   How will this system save time for staff who are already
    over-extended?

-   Some SHPOs deal with agencies rather than CRM firms in report
    processing and do less approving than commenting. They do not have
    staff to support data entry or verification in two different, yet
    duplicative systems.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some SHPOs are heavily reliant upon fees collected for assisting
    government agencies and CRM firms with project planning, which is
    largely based upon bibliographic searches. CRM firms might only look
    online and not come into the SHPO office, as they are supposed to,
    to review all related information, especially when on tight
    deadlines. If this scenario were to come about, NADB-R has the
    potential to reduce SHPO revenues.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Concerned about receiving multiple requests for access to reports
    listed in NADB-R that the SHPO would have to refuse, because the
    reports either have limited usefulness or access to reports is
    limited by state statute.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Do not believe that CRM firms would enter standardized bibliographic
    data into NADB-R.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Expect that there would be marginal benefits if there were an uneven
    representation of reports from CRM firms. How many firms would be
    willing to enter reports online? Would they enter information about
    a report that has been rejected by the SHPO?

-   Believe federal agencies rather than contractors should populate the
    online data entry.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Concerned about tribal issues related to information in
    archeological reports.

**Current and Future Plans for NADB-R**

The SHPO survey provided critical data that informed both current
activities of NADB-R and future plans. These include three primary
efforts: the current NADB-R update, the release of a new version of
NADB-R in Access, and development of an online data entry system for
NADB-R.

The current update of NADB-R is progressing very well due to the
overwhelming support by the many SHPOs that provided their bibliographic
data. However, although most of the datasets were submitted to AEP by
the spring of 2003, the final compilation of data has not been sent to
CAST at the University of Arkansas for inclusion into the online system.
This is due to several reasons. First, the datasets are being cleaned up
by AEP (e.g., typographic errors and difficult to interpret acronyms).
Second, since only eight out of the 40 datasets used the standardized
NADB-R fields, considerable mapping between fields is necessary for most
datasets. A few datasets are being excluded from this update due to the
complexity of the mapping process. Third, NADB-R uses keywords to help
users search for reports in the online version, but there is no
thesaurus of keyword terms for use by either the people doing data entry
or online users. Although this is a criticism of NADB-R, no thesaurus of
terms currently exists for archeological resources management that AEP
could use. As a result, much effort is being expended on checking the
thousands of submitted keywords for spelling errors and appropriateness.

AEP anticipates that approximately 120,000 new bibliographic records
will be available after the update in 2004 for a total of approximately
350,000 records in the searchable NADB-R database. As soon as this
update is completed, AEP plans to begin work on the next update.

The development of a new version of NADB-R in Access is the second
activity that is progressing well. The beta version will be sent to a
number of SHPOs for testing before the final version is released to all
SHPOs. SHPOs that sent in a dataset for the current update will be asked
to test the new application, which will include their cleaned up data
that is mapped to the NADB-R standards. This way each SHPO tester will
be able to see how their data maps to NADB-R, learn about the types of
errors that existed in their data, and test the new version for ease of
data entry.

Furthermore, several new standardized fields will be available for
comment in the Access version of NADB-R. One new field is an abstract
field for a short summary of the report. This field may be used for a
professional summary or an abstract in a style that is less technical
and designed for public outreach and education. A second new field is
for a URL of the report, if it is available on the web. In such cases,
all specific locational information about sites should have been removed
before an archeological report is posted on the web. A third new field
will allow input of digitized locational data for the archeological site
or survey area mentioned in the report. Although some SHPOs might not
want to use this field, it will be available to maximize the possibility
of linking bibliographic information to a site on a GIS platform.
Lastly, it should be noted that the keyword field will still be
available in NADB-R. Due to the expense and the expertise required to
create a thesaurus for keywords about cultural resources management, the
AEP will not attempt to create such a thesaurus. However, a picklist of
the 200 most commonly used keywords currently found in NADB-R will be
provided which a SHPO can both add to and delete.

The final activity involving NADB-R upon which the SHPO survey provided
input is the idea of developing an online data entry system. Although
many SHPOs are not comfortable with the proposal, enough thought there
was merit that AEP has decided to proceed with its development. The data
entry modules will be password protected. The same set of standardized
data fields that are in the new version of NADB-R in Access will be in
the online data entry system. Guidance will be issued that requests the
entry only of SHPO approved reports, not drafts or unapproved reports.
If either of the latter is submitted, the SHPO will have the opportunity
to delete them. Upon approval and submission of a NADB-R record to the
online system by a SHPO, an automated analysis will be conducted to
determine if it is a duplicate record.

Most of the concerns raised by SHPOs about the proposed online data
entry system focused on some aspect of the workload involved for the
SHPO and lack of interest and use by the CRM firms. Therefore, once
workable data entry (Contractor) and approval (SHPO) modules are
developed, the system will be presented to and tested by willing
volunteers from both the SHPO and CRM worlds. It is hoped that some of
the SHPOs who help test the version of NADB-R in Access with their own
data also will be willing to test the online data entry system. This way
the ability to take a bibliographic record entered by a CRM firm and
download it into the new version of NADB-R located at the SHPO can also
be tested. Not only will bugs to the systems be sought, but also careful
analysis of the effects on SHPO workload will be conducted.

**Appendix A**

One important result of the SHPO Survey was the discovery that 24
offices have never used the NADB-R application that was sent to all
SHPOs in the late 1980s. A few individuals were not aware of the
existence of NADB-R, mainly due to being new to their job. Many SHPOs
offered observations about why they do not use NADB-R. These comments
provide a forum for response by the Archeology and Ethnography Program
(AEP). Each bolded statement below is the SHPO concern, which is
followed by a brief answer.

> **The NADB-R application is too cumbersome.**

The original DOS version of NADB-R was cumbersome, especially as off-the
shelf, Windows-based database applications became available in the
1990s. Users of the new NADB-R version 3.0 in Access will find it easy
to use, however.

**The NADB-R application often crashes or times out with no technical
service provided.**

Occasionally, NADB-R does crash or time out, but technical service can
be readily obtained by contacting Terry Childs <terry_childs@nps.gov> in
the AEP. A network of regional NADB-R coordinators once existed to help
with both technical and non-technical questions. After the
reorganization of National Park Service staff in 1996, however, this
active network was mostly disbanded.

**NADB-R keywords are uncontrolled and not standardized.**

This is true. A system of standardized keywords was highly desired
during the development of NADB-R in the late 1980s. However, no adequate
thesaurus of archeological terms existed that related to either cultural
resources management (CRM) or the diversity of taxonomic terms for
cultural areas, time periods, and artifact types across the United
States. The NADB-R developers considered keywords offered in *The
History and Prehistory in the National Park System and the National
Historic Landmarks Program* (1987), produced by the History Division of
the National Park Service. Several grant proposals were written by AEP
in the mid-1990s to develop a thesaurus, but were not funded. More
recently, AEP examined the possibility of using the Library of Congress'
subject index for archeological and CRM terms as a thesaurus, but it was
not found to be adequately thorough or easy to use for NADB-R. The *Art
& Architecture Thesaurus* created by the Getty Research Institute was
also considered, but it is inadequate for terms related to CRM.

> Although development of NADB-R proceeded without a thesaurus, some
> control over the entry of keywords into the database was attempted by
> using eight keyword categories:

-   Types of Resources and Features

-   Generic Terms/Research Questions/Specialized Studies

-   Archeological Taxonomic Names

-   Defined Artifact Types/Material Classes

-   Geographic Names or Locations

-   Time Periods

-   Project Name/Study Unit

-   Other

> These categories provide some guidance concerning types of keywords to
> enter about an archeological report, but they may be discontinued in
> the Access version of NADB-R because they are a source of confusion
> for some. Terry Childs \<terry_childs@nps.gov\> is interested in
> receiving additional ideas and comments on NADB-R keywords.

**The list of work types is too long.**

This is true. When NADB-R was first launched, only seven primary work
types existed. Eighty-four additional work types were added in the early
1990s as a result of the work by the Arkansas Archaeological Survey for
the *South-Central States Overview* and the *Central and Northern Plains
Overview* sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Legacy
Program of the Department of Defense. Since the Arkansas Archaeological
Survey was a partner in the development of NADB-R, AEP decided to offer
the additional set of standardized work types to provide greater detail
about the work described in an archeological report, if so desired. At
this time, AEP encourages regular use of the seven primary work types
and use of the additional terms only when greater detail is needed or
appropriate.

**Many fields either are not used or are redundant.**

The primary bibliographic field in NADB-R follows the *American
Antiquity* format. Each bibliographic record must contain the
publication type, author(s), title, and date. Other fields contain
information to help both the SHPO manager of the database and the user
of the NADB-R online system find a report in the system. These fields
include who submitted the report, to whom the report was submitted,
where the report is filed, keywords, and work type. None of these fields
are internally redundant.

**NADB-R is duplicative.**

If the concern is that the online version of NADB-R is duplicative of
each state bibliographic database, then there is an element of truth in
that statement. However, NADB-R is a national database designed to
promote efficient sharing of archeological information from all states
and territories rather than requiring that a researcher go to each state
database to begin a research project. It is more than a sum of its
parts. State boundaries were nonexistent prior to 1776 and have changed
periodically since then, and archeological projects may cross state
boundaries. For these reasons, archeologists, CRM firms, and students
may need to find information relating to a particular subject from
several SHPOs. The online NADB-R database offers an initial starting
point to do that -- to search for gray literature that otherwise might
not be known. It provides researchers with a means to discover where
reports are located that might otherwise be missed. NADB-R is definitely
not meant to take the place of an on-site visit to a SHPO for detailed
information. Again, NADB-R is a starting place. If we do not make
information about the reports available, then it is as though the
reports do not exist.

**NADB-R is inadequate.**

See the previous answer. The searchable NADB-R database serves as a
starting point to search for gray literature that is largely unknown to
the researcher. It is a useful tool to gather important information,
such as publication dates, author's names, titles, and where a report is
located, prior to conducting research at one or more SHPO.

**NADB-R is out of date.**

This is true. However, NADB-R is a cumulative database that aims to
capture records of all reports over time. As the database grows, it is
an important historical resource as well as a compilation of relatively
recent reports. The online version of NADB-R was last updated in 1998.
Updates were scheduled for at least every two years, but a lack of
funding and staff prevented this from happening. Beginning in 2002, a
commitment was made to fix this situation. The current update of NADB-R
will be followed by an update in one year and biannually thereafter.

**NADB-R is poor in concept and execution.**

This is not true. The concept of NADB was widely supported in the 1980s.
Congress provided funding for its start-up and early years of
development. The Society for American Archaeology has endorsed it on
several occasions as a vital resource for researchers and CRM
contractors and an important step for professional conduct in reporting
on archeological work. Notably, the early concept to capture
standardized data for system-wide use is now basic to most database
development.

NADB-R, however, originated before the advent of many of the latest
technological advances, which facilitate the use of such a database. The
new version of NADB-R in Access will soon be ready for testing by SHPOs.
AEP believes that it will better meet the needs of both SHPOs and
researchers.

**NADB-R is disruptive to the day-to-day work of SHPOs with limited
staff and time.**

This is not true. Data entry to any database is an important workload
that requires careful attention to detail. NADB-R was conceived as a
data system designed to help SHPOs manage and make accessible
information about the archeological reports they approve. Unfortunately,
since AEP did not upgrade the NADB-R data entry application over the
years, many SHPOs developed their own database system and did not use
the NADB-R standard fields. There is justified concern that NADB-R
requires data entry into a duplicative system. This is not the intention
of AEP and every effort will be made to prevent this from happening.

> Another concern is that online use of NADB-R by researchers, CRM
> firms, and students will generate additional work for SHPOs if
> requests for reports or access to reports increase. On the other hand,
> there is concern that online use of NADB-R could reduce SHPO revenues
> because a researcher will not visit a SHPO for more detailed work. If
> the searchable NADB-R database is seen as only a starting point for
> research, as it should be, then staff time and energy is saved when a
> researcher arrives at the SHPO already armed with the bibliographic
> citations. Revenue will not be reduced because quality research
> requires a visit to the SHPO.

**Regional versions of NADB-R are wanted by some SHPOs.**

> The new version of NADB-R in Access may be adapted for regional use.
> SHPOs who want to develop a regional database may take advantage of
> the standardized fields, but also may modify the picklists to include
> more tightly controlled values (e.g., a strict list of relevant
> keywords) and may add additional fields to the application. AEP is not
> able to help develop regional bibliographic databases, but it can
> provide the NADB-R records for a particular region.

**Need a version of NADB-R that is tailored for the SHPOs specific
requirements, rather than trying to fit data into one large national
system.**

> The National Park Service cannot develop individualized versions of
> NADB-R tailored to each SHPOs specific needs. In fact, that is the
> antithesis of the goal of NADB-R, which is to standardize
> bibliographic data on the archeological gray literature in order to
> increase the likelihood of it being found, used, and valued
> nationwide. However, the new version of NADB-R in Access will be a
> flexible system that may be modified to link to other SHPO databases,
> use its data on a GIS platform, and add additional fields. Thus, an
> individual SHPO may tailor it to its specific needs and requirements.

**NADB-R only records federal agency projects.**

This is not true. The bibliographic records in NADB-R are not limited to
reports of federal projects. NADB-R contains records of archeological
investigations conducted on federal, state, territorial, tribal, local,
and private lands. Some records even exist about work in adjacent
countries, including Canada and Mexico. Final unpublished reports,
books, reports in a series, book chapters, journal articles,
dissertations, meeting papers, and letter reports all may be found in
NADB-R. It is meant to be a comprehensive bibliographic reference tool.

Appendix B

The survey of SHPOs concerning archeological report bibliographic
systems elicited some important comments on the proposed online data
entry system for NADB-Reports. Some of the concerns are similar to those
addressed in Appendix A and will not be repeated here. Other
reservations and issues are bolded below followed by a brief response.

**SHPOs have several years of backlogged reports.**

Due to budget cuts and staff reductions, many SHPOs are experiencing
this problem. A growing backlog of records needing entry into the
database is also a problem for NADB-R since AEP has not regularly
updated the database for similar reasons. One advantage to a NADB-R
online data entry system would be the ability of CRM firms to input
their SHPO-approved, backlogged reports that are not yet been entered
into the SHPO bibliographic database. This may relieve part of the
workload of some SHPOs to do backlog data entry themselves.

NADB-R would impose extreme workload difficulties for those staffs
already over-extended and under-funded, and it would not save time.

> The NADB-R online data entry module has the potential, in fact, do the
> opposite. A CRM firm that wrote a report and knows its contents fully
> would be able to enter bibliographic data with ease and efficiency,
> thereby saving the SHPO from having to do this work. Although the SHPO
> would still have to review, possibly edit, and submit each record
> entered by a CRM firm, review is much easier than data entry. The
> ability to download the submitted record to the local NADB-R database
> used by the SHPO would also save time and resources. Also, the use of
> picklists for fields such as keywords and worktypes in both the data
> entry system and the new NADB-R database in Access would facilitate
> data entry.

SHPOs would have to spend a considerable amount of work reviewing and
authorizing the reports submitted online by consultants.

> Consultants or CR firms would only submit online the bibliographic
> information about a report, not the report itself. Furthermore,
> guidance on data entry would emphasize the need to only enter
> information about SHPO approved reports, not draft reports. The
> current SHPO process of reviewing, commenting, and/or approving an
> actual archeological report would not change.

What happens if a SHPO does not have time to review the bibliographic
records of reports submitted online?

The current idea is that each SHPO would be notified once a month about
the number of bibliographic records awaiting approval and submission
into the online system. After three months, if records submitted by a
CRM firm are not reviewed and submitted by a SHPO, the records would be
automatically uploaded into the online NADB-R searchable database. Each
record handled this way, however, would be clearly marked to indicate it
was [not]{.underline} reviewed and submitted by a SHPO.

Tribal issues are a concern.

> An important tribal issue related to archeological reports is the
> possible disclosure of archeological site locations. This is an issue
> for every person concerned about the protection and preservation of
> archeological sites. The searchable NADB-R database does not provide
> any specific locational information, such as UTMs, Section, Township,
> or Range. The database may only be searched by state and county. The
> online data entry system and the NADB-R Access-based application used
> by SHPOs, however, do allow the entry of such locational information.
> This was done to facilitate linking SHPO bibliographic records to
> sites on a GIS platform, when desired. Reports sent to and approved by
> SHPOs are public record and thus available for use by those with a
> legitimate research need. Site location is only revealed via NADB-R or
> a similar bibliographic system when it is used in a SHPO office by a
> qualified researcher or contractor.

There may be numerous duplication problems in California since NADB-R
responsibilities have been subcontracted out to 12 Information Centers
(ICs).

The ICs act like individual SHPOs in other parts of the country
regarding the maintenance of bibliographic information about the gray
literature pertaining to their designated region. Thus, there should not
be any duplication of the reports entered into NADB-R by each IC, unless
an archeological investigation crossed more than one region. The ICs
presumably have already worked out a process to handle this situation.
Also, the CRM firms are presumably familiar with the ICs and know to
whom reports must be sent for approval and subsequent entry into their
bibliographic database. If this is not true, AEP needs to be notified
about the correct procedures.

The word "draft" would have to be noted in titles that are entered into
NADB-R until the final report is received and approved.

Guidance for the online system will state that only final reports should
be entered into NADB-R. If a draft report is entered for a special
reason, it must be well marked as "Draft" in the title.

**Who would be responsible for correcting the errors in NADB-R?**

Guidance for the online data entry system will stress that every effort
should be made to enter error-free information. If any errors do occur,
the SHPO will have final authority to correct them. Some additional
checks also will be put in place in the NADB-R database at the
University of Arkansas.

AEP may have more success in approaching agencies about online NADB-R
data entry and verification.

Partnerships with the SHPOs were set up at the inception of NADB-R
because of the SHPOs' duties to review archeological activities in their
state and, for many, review and approve project reports. Most SHPOs are
also repositories for the gray literature reports and are where project
planning and research is conducted by contractors and researchers.
Although some federal agencies have a bibliographic database of their
archeological reports, this information should be a duplication of the
much richer information held by the SHPOs about activities on state,
tribal, local, private, and federal land.

An online system needs lots of built-in safeguards.

The NADB-R online data entry system will have secure password protection
so that only a limited number of registrants may access the system. The
database managers will have some ability to monitor use to make sure
that no unauthorized users are in the system. Site locational
information entered online only for SHPO use will be carefully guarded
and monitored. No locational information other than state and county
will be available on the public, searchable NADB-R database.

**It is doubtful that CRM firms will enter bibliographic data into
NADB-R. Expect there will be marginal benefits if there is an uneven
representation of reports from CRM firms. How many firms would be
willing to enter reports online? Will they enter information about a
report that has been rejected by the SHPO?**

AEP staff members have talked to staff at some CRM firms about the idea
of an online data entry system for NADB-R, including a discussion at the
2003 American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA) annual conference.
In general, there has been enthusiastic response to the idea. Of course,
there are many small firms, including ones with only one or two
employees, which may not be able to do this work due to various
constraints. Thus, there will be uneven representation of CRM firms.
Although SHPOs will have to fill in the gaps, hopefully this will
involve much less data entry for the SHPOs when all the system
components are in place. Also, AEP intends to work closely with
organizations such as ACRA, the Society for American Archeology, and the
Register of Professional Archaeologists, to advocate the benefits of
doing the online data entry of SHPO approved reports. For the CRM firms,
it will make the results of research efforts better known to other firms
and to government agencies, which will minimize future duplication of
effort. For the SHPOs, it will reduce their NADB-R workload and free up
time for other duties. Guidance for the NADB-R data entry system will
explicitly say to only enter reports that have already been approved by
a SHPO.

Minor or negative surveys should not be in NADB-R. These are considered
difficult and repetitive for consultants.

> The goal of NADB-R is to provide basic information about as much of
> the archeological gray literature in the United States as possible.
> This is done to eliminate unnecessary redundancy in planning and
> performing archeological activities (e.g., redoing work in an area
> because previous work was unknown) and to efficiently share
> archeological information. The gray literature includes letter
> reports, minor survey reports, and negative survey reports, as well as
> dissertations, Masters theses, and conference papers. Negative survey
> reports are critical to inform future project planners and researchers
> about areas where work was completed but no archeological resources
> were found. If these reports are not known and accessible, the same
> land could be surveyed a number of times. Again, the goal of NADB-R is
> to provide an important first step in meeting a researcher's
> requirements for project planning and other needs.