# 

## APPENDIX C

## Scope of Work for the Peer Review Team, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,       Memphis District, Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway Project

### Purpose.

At the request of the Memphis District Corp of Engineers (Memphis District),       the Departmental Consulting Archeologist (DCA), National Park Service (NPS)       will conduct a peer review of the archeological work in the Birds Point-New       Madrid Floodway in southeast Missouri. The peer review will consider the       cultural resources work that the Memphis District conducted in the upper       portions (O'Bryan's and Rush Ridges) and Barns and Sugar Tree Ridges of       the New Madrid Floodway between 1989 and 2004. In order to comply with various       Federal laws and regulations , the Corp of Engineers had to identify archeological       resources (historic properties) within the project impact area; determine       whether they were significant (eligible for the National Register of Historic       Places); and if so, develop, in consultation with the Missouri State Historic       Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other consulting parties, a plan to avoid       or mitigate adverse impacts.

The peer review will assess the choice of archeological resource identification,       evaluation, and data recovery methods and techniques, the effectiveness       of their application in the project area, and whether they were appropriate       for compliance with required archeological and historic preservation procedures.

The Memphis District has been conducting archeological work (surveying,       testing, and mitigation) in the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway since 1989.       During this period, the Memphis District identified and tested approximately       250 sites. The Memphis District, SHPO, and Advisory Council signed a Programmatic       Agreement in November 1995/May 1996 regarding the project. The SHPO and       Memphis District determined that it should mitigate adverse impacts to 25       sites. Currently, four sites remain to have adverse impacts mitigated.

In 2003, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma contacted the Memphis District with       concerns about the professional quality of the archeological work. Subsequently,       the Memphis District asked the DCA to conduct a peer review of the Memphis       District's archeological work to date in the New Madrid Floodway. The peer       review report may also serve as a planning tool by providing guidance for       future archeological survey, testing, and mitigation in the floodway.

### Duties of the Peer Review Team.

The peer review team will review existing reports, records, and other materials       relevant to the administration, method, strategy, techniques and results       of archeological projects carried out under the Programmatic Agreement among       the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Memphis District; the Advisory Council       On Historic Preservation; and the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office       regarding implementation of the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway Project.       The peer review team also may request other documents that it deems pertinent       to its review. The review will include -
      - The Programmatic Agreement, and the Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), Scopes         of Work (SOWs), contracts, research designs, and statements of work for         specific projects;
      - Relevant correspondence;
      - Final archeological reports, or draft reports when no final has been         completed;
      - Curation materials including maps, field forms, photographs and associated         records;
      - Visits to field locations, as necessary.

The peer review team also will meet and interview the Corps district archeologist       in charge of the project, project managers, and archeologists who designed       and carried out the investigation; representatives of the contracting firms       that contracted the archeological work, SHPO, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma,       and Advisory Council; and other agencies or individuals who are relevant       and necessary in the opinion of the review team, including other tribes,       landowners, and the general public. If meeting in person is not feasible,       the peer review team may conduct interviews by telephone conference calls       or by e-mail.

The peer review team will compile and present a written report that describes       in detail the observations and recommendations of the team (see suggested       outline below). The DCA will provide a hard copy and an electronic copy       of the final report to the Commander, Memphis District.

The peer review manager will be the point of contact between the peer review       team and any person having comments related to the peer review. Discussions       between peer review team members and anyone associated with the peer review       or the New Madrid Floodway project will be limited to information gathering       contexts and interviews (no independent phone calls, letters, etc.).

### Duties of the Memphis District Corp of Engineers.

The district archeologist for the project will serve as the Memphis District       representative for the peer review. The district archeologist will develop       the scope of work in consultation with the DCA and peer review manager and       assist in identifying potential members of the peer review team. The district       archeologist will coordinate with other officials of the Memphis District       and others as necessary, including the Quapaw Tribe, Missouri SHPO, Advisory       Council, and archeological contractors. The district archeologist will provide       the peer review manager with materials for the peer review team, including       maps showing the area of the peer review and all relevant documents produced       to date.

The Memphis District will make the travel and logistical arrangements for       the on-site visit.

### Peer Review Schedule.

***Task******Schedule***Define the peer review's scope and schedule.completePlan the peer review team's composition and choose its           members.June - July 2005Compile documentation and send it to the peer review           team.July 2005Schedule the on-site visit.July - August 2005Make on-site visit arrangements, including -           - travel and lodging,
- identify peer review topics,
- appointments for interviews,
- agenda and itinerary,
- arrange for office and meeting space,
- arrange for office and field support for the peer review team,
- identify and arrange for necessary equipment, and
- arrange to visit field locations, as necessary.
July - September 2005Conduct the on-site visit.October - November 2005Prepare the draft report.October - November 2005Assemble the peer review team member's revisions to the           draft report.October - November 2005Revise the manuscript.November 2005Obtain the peer review team's approval of final report.November 2005Produce the final report.November 2005Compile recommendations for the agency.November 2005Complete remaining administrative tasks.November - December 2005Provide final report to agency officials.December 2005

### Suggested Topics.

The review team will address the following questions -
      - Were the archeological methods used for identification and evaluation         of sites appropriate?
      - Were the archeological methods for mitigation of adverse impacts appropriate?
      - Considering the operational plan for the floodway and landowner restrictions,         what other forms of mitigation, besides data recovery have been feasible?       
      - Given the operational plan for the floodway were the sites chosen for         mitigation chosen properly?
      - Were the data and materials recovered consistent with the needs of the         research designs?
      - Was the approach to treatment of archeological human remains adequately         planned for and addressed in the Programmatic Agreement, Memoranda of         Agreement, and Scopes of Work?
      - Did artifact analysis and preparation of the archeological materials         and data conform to the plans for ultimate, long-term curation?
      - Are the technical reports and any public outreach products or programs         adequate and appropriate?
      - Taking into account the SOWs, research designs, and MOAs, was the proper         archeological work conducted for each site? What could have been done         differently?
      - Based on the peer review, what are the peer review team's recommendations         for how the SOWs, research designs, MOAs, or Programmatic Agreement might         be modified before work begins on the remaining sites? What factors does         the peer review team recommend that the Memphis District consider for         future cultural resources work in the floodway?
      - Were appropriate consulting parties brought into the process once their         concerns were made known?

### Suggested Report Outline

      - Executive Summary                  - Introduction
        - Interviews and Activities During The Peer Review
        - Evaluation of Performance - Memphis District Cultural Management             Of Archeological Resources in The Bird Point-New Madrid Floodway                        - Identification                              - Discussion
            - Recommendations 
          - Evaluation                              - Discussion
            - Recommendations 
          - Data Recovery                              - Discussion
            - Recommendations 
      - Considerations Future Cultural Resources Work in the Floodway
      - Other Issues
      - References

Appendix 1: Memorandum Requesting Peer Review      Appendix 2: Scope of Work for the Peer Review      Appendix 3: Brief Biographies of the Peer Review Team

Technical       Briefs|back|next

      -  Introduction 
      -  Purpose and Goals 
      -  Peer Review Topics 
      -  Conducting Peer Reviews 
      -  Conclusion 
      -  DCA Peer Review Reports 
      -  References 
      -  Appendix A: Memorandum to DCA 
      -  Appendix B: Scope of Work for Fort Campbell 
      -  Appendix C: scope of work for birds point-new         madrid floodway 
      -  Appendix D: documents for birds point-new madrid         floodway 
      -  Appendix E: Agenda and Schedule for Peer Review         Team Field Visit 
      - print         version  
      -  technical briefs index 

    -  DOI 
    -  History & Culture 
    -  Search 
    -  Contact 
    -  FOIA 
    -  Privacy 
    -  Disclaimer 
    -  USA.gov 

    - archeology       in the parks  
    - archeology       nationwide  
    - professional       tools  
    - for       the public  
    - kennewick       man
    - the       antiquities act
    - what's       new

    -  
    -  
    - technical assistance
    - databases
    - standards & guidelines
    - training & education
    - reports
    - publications

    -  
    -  
    -  
    - features
    - learn and participate
    - for teachers