Technical Brief 21: Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and 

Programs

Bennie Keel, Barbara J. Little, Martha Graham, Mary Carroll, Francis P. McManamon 

National Park Service 

Published by the DOI Departmental Consulting Archeologist/NPS Archeology Program,

National Park Service, Washington, DC, March 2007. 

This Technical Brief describes objectives, organization, and methods that have been used to 

conduct peer reviews in public archeology projects and programs. In describing this process, we 

draw upon recent peer reviews managed by several of the authors of this publication, as well as 

experiences from earlier reviews described in Keel (1993). Thus, this Technical Brief updates

guidance and suggested procedures for government agencies and other archeological resources 

management organizations regarding the use of the peer review process as a means of improving 

the effectiveness of their projects and programs. 

Introduction 

The review of research by peers is a hallmark of scholarship. Peer reviews are the conscience of 

science and scholarship; they provide a necessary check on practitioners and an explicit 

evaluation of their efforts. Although most often thought of in relation to grant reviews and 

publication, peer review is also valuable in enhancing the quality of the full range of activities in 

archeological projects and programs. 

The focus of the peer reviews described in this technical brief may vary. In some instances, 

agencies have requested the review of specific archeological projects. These investigations have 

ranged from survey projects to identify sites (see for example, the Scope of Work for the Fort 

Campbell peer review in Appendix B) to projects that involve data recovery or excavation 

activities as well as identification and evaluation investigations (see for example, the Scope of 

Work for the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway peer review in Appendix C). In other instances, 

agencies have requested peer review of a more general scope, looking at archeological programs 

that include several projects or other components. The 1995 peer review of the Bureau of 

Reclamation Phoenix Area Office cultural resource program is an example of this programmatic 

focus for a peer review (see Appendix A, the letter requesting this program peer review). 

This Technical Brief provides guidance to governmental agencies and other programs on the peer 

review process. Such peer reviews may be full-scale versions, similar to ones completed by the 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

1
Departmental Consulting Archeologist (DCA), or they may be smaller, to fit the needs of more 

localized projects. In either case, the results can lead to cost savings through efficiency, increased

effectiveness, and increased support for archeology among members of the public and within 

agencies. The government agencies and the professionals who participate in these reviews 

recognize that peer reviews can provide an important contribution to project design and 

management. 

This Technical Brief describes the peer review process within the Federal archeological arena. It 

also supplies information about the planning, design, and implementation of peer reviews. 

Purpose and Goals

In many academic research projects the principal investigator(s) develops a research design, 

identifies and obtains permission to investigate the resources that fit the project's goals, and raises 

the necessary funds by obtaining a grant. The researcher plans and conducts the work and 

publishes the results. Review of the scientific merits of the proposed work by the researcher's 

peers occurs during the grant application process, in the review of the results by the granting

organization, as part of the publication process, and in the reception of the product by the 

scientific community. 

Archeology conducted to comply with Federal historic and archeological preservation laws must 

follow sound archeological practice and also the regulations, procedures, and guidelines 

mandated by and developed from those laws. Under these laws archeology is conducted to benefit

the American people generally through the preservation of important archeological resources and 

information. 

The first objective of research in public archeology is to identify, evaluate, record and document 

significant archeological resources. Research may also involve treatment, including excavation 

for data recovery. The resulting information is used for a variety of practical purposes, including 

education and fostering an appreciation of the nation's heritage among its citizens. The 

concomitant benefits that individual archeologists may derive from these endeavors with regard 

to professional standing and career advancement are secondary. 

The principal difference between an exclusively academic research design and one developed for 

a public project is that the former develops from scientific curiosity while in the latter research

needs are conditioned by management requirements for compliance with law, regulation, and 

policy. Therefore, there are constraints on federal archeology projects that may not apply to 

academic projects. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

2
However, federal projects involve the same general steps of any research project and have 

theoretical, methodological and/or substantive goals. The development of the archeological 

project within Federal historic preservation is a consultative process in the hands of Federal 

archeologists and their counterparts in the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (SHPO or 

THPO, respectively). Project plans and archeological results also may be reviewed by 

archeologists and historic preservation professionals of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP). Frequently suggestions made during these consultations result in design 

improvements. As a result of this coordination, the project has a firm, defensible foundation. 

Federal archeological project research design is open to evaluation and criticism. Evaluations 

occur as part of memoranda of agreement, National Register of Historic Places nominations or

determinations of eligibility, determinations of effect, reviews of scopes of work for data 

recovery plans, and requests for proposals that form the bases for contracts. Depending on the 

specifics of the project, these evaluations are performed by archeologists, other cultural resources

specialists, and perhaps officials of various agencies. These reviews represent a broad range of

scientific and legal compliance concerns. 

Because such evaluations improve the agency proposal, stipulations for formal peer reviews are

often specifically included in memoranda of agreement or agency contracts. In the case of data

recovery projects designed to mitigate the loss of important information, such evaluation is done 

by the agency before a project is announced for bidding. As part of the proposal, the winning

bidder also prepares a research design or work plan which provides refinements for conducting 

the research. It also defines the protocols that will serve as project guides. 

Figure 1. Archeologists explaining excavation of a Hohokam pioneer period pithouse, CAP 

peer review, 1986. (Photo courtesy Bureau of Reclamation/Tom Lincoln) 

Before the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), rescue or salvage 

archeology was handled without input from States, Tribes, or the ACHP. Archeological rescue 

work was usually controlled by the time and money available rather than by the development of 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

3
thoughtful and explicit research designs. Today Federal agency archeologists or contractors from

the public and private sectors conduct Federal archeological projects. Competition among 

archeological contractors is the norm unless the work is done by agency personnel. It does not

matter who does the project for the peer review process described here to work. 

The primary goal of the peer review process is to evaluate the conduct of Federal archeological

projects and assess the competence and efficiency of projects relative to archeological practice

and legal compliance. An academic peer review rates a project on its scientific merits. Academic 

reviewers evaluate the theoretical basis, methodologies for data collection and analysis, and how

these contribute to the research goals. 

In Federal archeology, the peer review examines additional topics as well as these. Is the agency

following the stipulations of the compliance documents agreed to under the Section 106 process 

of NHPA and other regulatory requirements? Are Secretary of Interior Standards being met? Is 

there an appropriate plan for curation? Have data fulfilled the needs of the research design? Have

unexpected data or research domains come to light that need additional investigation? Does the 

project need to be changed or redesigned to take these findings into consideration?

Federal archeology project peer reviews have been undertaken for a variety of reasons. In some

cases, reviews were undertaken when controversy stirred about an undertaking or the archeology

associated with it. Some reviews have been conducted because of major disagreement between 

the agency and the contractor about the work. Allegations or questions may have come from the

archeological profession, Indian tribes, the media, special interest groups, or members of 

Congress. Although the peer review may address conflicts or disagreements, it is not a forum for

mediation or adjudication. Agencies have requested reviews by the DCA to investigate whether 

projects were adequate. Review may be conducted when an agency wishes to improve a project.

Appendix A provides an example of a request from an agency for an archeological peer review. 

This memorandum is the request from the Area Manager, Phoenix Area Office, Bureau of 

Reclamation for a peer review of the area office cultural resource program.

In addition to improving specific projects or resolving disagreements, the use of the peer review

process in public archeology also serves other purposes: 

1. Demonstrating to the professional community, Congress, the Administration, and others 

that the Federal archeology program produces excellent results;

2. Creating networks for communication among government and academic archeologists 

that improve archeology; 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

4
3. Helping resolve disputes among Federal agencies, contractors, Indian tribes, special 

interest groups, and the media; 

4. Providing Federal archeologists with professional credibility among their managers and

the academic community. 

Peer Review Topics 

The peer review manager in consultation with the agency representative—usually the agency

archeologist—establishes a project review agenda and develops a list of suggested review topics 

to aid the peer review team in their examination. The peer review evaluates the project according 

to selected criteria, which will vary according to the circumstances. Often the following questions 

will help frame the peer review. 

1. Is the archeological research consistent with the contract, memorandum of agreement, 

and other covering directives?

2. Is the project within time and budget constraints? 

3. Are the agency and the contractor fulfilling the requirements of the contract? 

4. Are there unresolved disputes or disagreements between the contractor and the agency

related to the archeological work? 

5. Are the research and the materials and data recovered consistent with the needs of the 

research design? 

6. Are there gaps in the data? If so, is it possible to fill them? 

7. Based upon new findings, should other lines of research be pursued in place of or in 

addition to those identified in the research design? Is it desirable to suspend a particular line

of research? 

8. Are the public education and outreach aspects of the project adequate and effective? 

9. Are the requirements for consultation with affected parties being met adequately and 

effectively? 

10. Are Federal standards for the cleaning, cataloging, description, analysis, and curation of

the material and data recovered being met? 

11. Are there adequate and sustainable methods for data management? 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

5
This approach accepts previous decisions made by the various consulting parties about the 

treatment of archeological resources. It also provides an occasion to assess the project to 

determine if any changes are desirable. This approach steers clear of second-guessing earlier 

decisions or trying to identify all of the approaches for conducting archeological investigations. 

The DCA conducts a limited number of peer reviews. Table 1 lists the peer reviews that the DCA

has conducted and summarizes the reasons for them. 

Table 1. Peer Review Projects Done by the Departmental Consulting Archeologist, National

Park Service, as of 2006 

Project/Location/reason for review Year Agency

Dolores Project, McPhee Reservoir, CO

Problems between the contractor and the 

agency about the scope of

1981 Bureau of Reclamation 

the investigation

and project management 

f Reclamation

Teton National

lated archeological 

1987 National Park Service 

a,

s and

ere being met 

1988 Fish and Wildlife Service 

T

ncy's historic 

of the

rvice

s Archeological acy Program 

Central Arizona Project, AZ 

Agency wanted to confirm that the scope

and focus of the archeological project were 

appropriate. 

Jackson Lake Dam, Grand

1986 Bureau o

Park, WY 

Demonstrate to the members of the 

Wyoming Congressional delegation that 

the project-re

investigations were adequate and satisfied 

State interests

Stillwater Wildlife Management Are

Carson Desert, NV 

Address Native American concern

evaluate whether historic preservation 

requirements w

Libby Dam Project, Lake Koocanusa, M

Confirm that the age

preservation responsibilities were being 

fulfilled in a manner sensitive to Native

American religious concerns 

1989 Corps of Engineers 

Alkali Creek Project, ND

Provide an independent assessment

quality, adequacy, and importance of 

archeological investigations of a flood 

control system 

1990 Soil Conservation Se

Central and Northern Plain

Overview, conducted by the Arkansas 

1992 Department of Defense Leg

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

6
Archeological Survey. Provide an 

objective review of the results of this pi

study that synth

lot 

esized archeological 

information from the middle third of the 

United States

Phoenix Area Office, AZ 

Provide an objective review of the results 

of archeological projects conducted 

through this Bureau of Reclamation 

program in anticipation of additional work 

1995 Bureau of Reclamation 

ke 

heological resource

2004 Department of Army

ns

of sites and 

2006 Corps of Engineers, Department of the 

Army

being conducted 

Fort Campbell, KY and TN 

Examine dispute between the Fort, 

contractor and sub-contractor and ma

recommendations regarding use of 

contracting for arc

management investigations

Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway

Archeological Peer Review, Missouri 

Provide an objective evaluation of 

archeological investigations and decisio

made regarding significance

how to use data recovery for impact 

mitigation 

Conducting Peer Reviews 

A peer review is an activity that must be developed as a partnership between the peer review 

manager and the agency. The DCA, or one of the senior archeologists in his or her office, serves 

as the peer review manager. The agency representative is usually the archeologist responsible for 

the administration and conduct of the agency's archeological program, although another agency 

official may serve in this role. For the purposes of the following discussion, the “agency

archeologist” also is assumed to be the “agency representative.” No matter who serves in them, 

these roles are essential components of the peer review process. 

The peer review manager and the agency archeologist work together to coordinate all aspects of

the peer review. In undertaking a peer review, one of the peer review manager's goals is to create 

a partnership with the agency. The creation of such a partnership is the principal ingredient that

has made the peer review process successful. Both parties must agree on the scope of the peer 

review. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

7
Frequent and clear communication between the peer review manager and the agency archeologist

is critical to the success of the peer review. Communication bolsters the commitment made by

both parties to assure that the necessary actions are completed in a timely manner. For example,

the peer review manager provides the agency archeologist with information about the progress of 

the peer review team's efforts, thereby allowing the agency archeologist to plan appropriately. 

The peer review manager judges what is needed by the peer review team to make its assessment 

and may discuss the peer review with the SHPO or THPO and the ACHP to gather information 

that should be supplied to the peer review team. 

Once the DCA accepts a project for peer review, the peer review manager works with the agency

archeologist to undertake the following tasks, at a minimum, in conducting the peer review. Many

of the tasks may be done concurrently. 

1. Define the peer review's scope, appropriate topics, and schedule. 

2. Determine the peer review's cost and secure funds.

3. Plan the peer review team's composition and choose its members. 

4. Compile documentation and send it to the peer review team. 

5. Schedule the on-site visit. 

a. Arrange travel and lodging. 

b. Reserve meeting space. 

c. Make appointments for interviews. 

d. Prepare the agenda and itinerary. 

e. Arrange for logistical support for the peer review team. 

f. Make arrangements for office space. 

g. Secure equipment for the peer review team's use. 

6. Conduct the on-site visit. 

7. Prepare the draft report. 

a. Assemble the peer review team member's revisions to the draft report. 

b. Revise the manuscript. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

8
c. Obtain the peer review team's approval of final report. 

d. Produce the final report.

e. Compile recommendations for the agency. 

f. Complete remaining administrative tasks. 

8. Provide final report to the agency official who requested the peer review.

The tasks listed above are described in the following sections of this Technical Brief. The 

examples cited are drawn from peer reviews conducted by the DCA. 

1. Scope of Work 

The reasons for selecting a project for peer review normally define the scope of the peer review. 

If charges of inadequacy have been made, for example, then the peer review will focus on the 

conduct of the archeological investigations under the agreements and documents covering the 

project. If the peer review is a response to problems between the agency and the contractor, then 

the peer review will focus on these matters. 

The scope of the peer review should focus on identifying solutions to problems and not foster 

inappropriate or adversarial investigative roles. In some cases it will be appropriate to broaden the 

peer review's scope of work to focus on discerning general principles from specific case 

examples. For example, review of a contracting dispute may yield insights into best practices for 

contracting. 

Appendices B and C provide as examples the scopes of work and suggested topics for the 

archeological peer reviews done for Fort Campbell and for the Birds Point-New Madrid 

Floodway

2. Cost and Funding 

The peer review manager and agency archeologist must make arrangements to fund the various

costs for the peer review and establish the budget parameters within which the peer review 

manager must operate. For recent peer reviews conducted by the DCA, the requesting agency has 

provided funds for the peer review team and all travel and logistical costs for the on-site review.

Generally there also are administrative costs that the requesting agency has funded. The DCA and

DCA staff salaries expended in planning, coordinating, and completing the peer review have not 

been charged to the requesting agency. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

9
Costs include transportation and per diem expenses of the peer review team members. Other costs

are reproduction and postage to provide project information to the peer review team; on-site 

equipment, materials, and work space for the peer review team; administrative support; peer 

review report preparation and distribution, and in some cases honoraria. Many of these costs may

be covered in-kind by the agency. 

3. The Peer Review Team 

Ideally, members of the peer review team should be familiar with the requirements of the 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA), the NHPA process, general Federal 

archeological and historic preservation, current professional standards, and Federal procurement 

and contracting regulations so that they can readily identify efficient, effective solutions to

problems related to these topics. 

The number of peer review team members may vary, but experience recommends a team of three. 

A balanced peer review team typically consists of one public archeologist from an agency other 

than the one responsible for the project, an expert in the archeology of the project area or region, 

and an expert from outside the research area. Experts may be drawn from the academic, public, or 

private sectors. 

To identify potential peer review team members, the peer review manager compiles lists of 

suggested reviewers and requests the same from the agency archeologist. The peer review 

manager also may request independent lists from other involved parties. The peer review manager 

is responsible for selecting the peer review team and makes every effort to ensure that all 

reviewers are acceptable to all involved. 

Beyond a candidate's professional credentials and availability, other elements to consider may

include the following. 

1. Does the candidate have a reputation for completing work in a reasonable time? 

2. Is the candidate willing to commit the time necessary before the on-site visit to read and 

review documents and after the visit to review and finish the final report? 

3. Does the candidate have a previous relationship or any other consideration with the 

agency or the project that could be construed as a conflict of interest? 

4. Was the candidate an unsuccessful bidder for the contract? 

5. Does the candidate work well with others? 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

10
While these elements may seem straightforward, ignoring them could make completing an 

acceptable peer review difficult or affect its timeliness. 

Once the peer review manager selects the candidates and establishes a schedule for the peer 

review, the peer review manager contacts the candidates to determine their willingness to 

participate and their availability. The peer review manager follows up on a candidate's acceptance 

to provide information about the project, the schedule, and other details. 

4. Documentation 

The agency responsible for the archeological project under review compiles and furnishes 

members of the peer review team with the appropriate documents that describe the peer review's 

scope of work, the archeological project, research questions, the archeological resources and their

significance, the nature of the disagreement/dispute (if any), and background information about 

local archeology. 

The peer review manager may request additional information from other involved parties. In 

some cases the agency archeologist may send material to the peer review manager, who compiles 

it to send to the peer review team. The agency archeologist, peer review manager, and others who

provide information should compile detailed lists of materials so that all parties know what the 

peer review team has received. 

Appendix D provides an example of the documentation provided or available to the peer review

team during the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway peer review

By the time of the on-site visit, the peer review team should have a thorough knowledge of the 

project. The peer review team must receive all documentation at least 3 weeks before the on-site 

visit. Less time would not give the peer review team adequate time to become familiar with the

archeological project and the issues included in the peer review's scope of work.

The package of material compiled for the orientation of the peer review team will vary from

project to project. For example, material may consist of survey and evaluation reports, NHPA 

Section 106 documentation, scope of work or request for proposal, research design, and interim

or annual progress project reports, if available. Relevant correspondence and internal documents 

also may be included. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

11
Figure 2. Archeologists sharing information at site of Hohokam village during the CAP peer 

review, 1986. (Photo courtesy Bureau of Reclamation/ Tom Lincoln) 

5. Scheduling 

Peer reviews may be most helpful at the midpoint of a project. Typically, field and laboratory

work has proceeded to the stage where the peer review team can make a reasonable evaluation of 

the results. A peer review at the beginning of a project in most cases would be premature because 

there would be few results to assess. If a project is near completion, the recommendations of the 

peer review team would be difficult to implement because time and money usually are short at 

this stage. However, in some cases, a peer review at the end of a project or series of projects can 

provide an agency with valuable feedback on the design and process of future projects. 

In scheduling the on-site visit, it is of course important to find a time that is acceptable to 

potential team members. The peer review manager should begin developing a schedule for the 

peer review at least 3 months in advance of the on-site visit. Within such a time frame it is usually 

possible to accommodate the schedules of all involved and other situations that can affect the

timing of the on-site visit. College and university calendars or special events like conventions or

athletic contests in the project area, for example, can affect lodging and other travel 

arrangements. The schedules and commitments of the individuals representing the various 

organizations who will be interviewed by the peer review team must be considered. The on-site 

visit must be scheduled so that those who will travel from outside the project area can participate. 

Although face-to-face interviews often are preferable, telephone or electronic interviews may

suffice for short interviews. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

12
6. On-Site Visit 

The peer review manager and the agency archeologist plan the on-site visit to use everyone's time 

efficiently. The peer review manager, usually in consultation with the agency archeologist, 

develops an agenda for the peer review team's on-site visit. A detailed agenda assures that the onsite visit is carefully structured. Usually the peer review manager, agency personnel, and peer 

review team arrive the day before the on-site visit begins. 

Appendix E provides an example of the agenda developed and used for the Phoenix Area Office, 

Bureau of Reclamation peer review

During the first session of the on-site visit the peer review manager, the agency archeologist, and 

the peer review team discuss the agenda in detail and modify it as necessary. Implementing 

modifications in the agenda may require complex changes in the interview schedule. It is 

important to determine the final agenda as early as possible. However, it also is desirable to 

maintain some flexibility and allow for additional follow-up of important issues or topics. 

The peer review team can examine any aspects of the project related to the archeological work. 

The peer review team may request specific interviews in addition to the ones suggested by the 

peer review manager and agency archeologist; a reasonable effort should be made to 

accommodate these requests. 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. 

The peer review manager and the agency archeologist provide the necessary administrative 

support to the peer review team to ensure an efficient review. Meeting facilities, telephones, 

transportation, and lodging and dining facilities must be available. Secretarial assistance, 

equipment, and supplies should be available, as needed. The purpose of making these 

arrangements in advance is to ensure that the peer review team can devote its energies to the peer 

review. In providing these kinds of administrative support, the peer review manager and agency

function as aides to the peer review team. 

The first part of the on-site visit is devoted to briefings by the peer review manager and agency 

personnel. The peer review manager describes and then emphasizes the specific scope of work of 

the peer review. In some cases, the orientation may be accomplished prior to the on-site visit 

through conference calls and email. The plan for the rest of the on-site visit will depend on the 

issues or topics to be reviewed, schedules of individuals, the weather, field conditions, and other 

variables. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

13
During week-long peer reviews, personnel interviews and field visits normally are concluded by

the end of the third day so the peer review team can review its findings and draft its report. 

Typically the draft report is completed by the evening of the fourth day. Exit interviews with the 

DCA, agency personnel, and other interested parties are conducted on the fifth day. 

The peer review team normally interviews agency personnel such as the project engineer, 

environmental staff, and archeologists. They may also interview historic preservation officers or 

staff, other historic preservation specialists, the contracting officer, or contracting officer's 

technical representative. The peer review team may meet with the contractor or principal 

investigator and the principal investigator's senior staff, such as field directors, crew chiefs, data

control manager, and laboratory director. The peer review team also may meet with the 

interdisciplinary consultants or members of the professional community, such as geologists, 

geomorphologists, pedologists, paleobotanists, and paleozoologists. They may also meet with 

ethnographers and consulting parties such as Indian tribes or their representatives. The peer 

review team also may interview interested members of the public and Congressional staffers.

Interviews may be conducted in person, by telephone, or electronically (such as via email, instant 

messaging, web camera, or video conference). 

The peer review team usually will visit the site or sites currently under investigation and the 

laboratory facilities of the contractor to get a feel for the day-to-day operation and management of 

the project. 

Figure 3. Discussions at one of the archeological sites between the archeological contractor 

and peer review team, Central Arizona project, 1986. (Photo courtesy Bureau of 

Reclamation/ Dan McKeever) 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

14
Each on-site visit will vary regarding the parties interviewed because the focus of the peer review 

will be different in each project. It may be useful to provide the SHPO or THPO and ACHP with 

a chance to meet with the peer review team due to the regulatory roles of these agencies in 

historic preservation. Furthermore, the professional staff of the appropriate Historic Preservation 

Offices are especially knowledgeable about their jurisdiction's archeological resources and can 

provide important perspectives to the peer review team. 

The scope of the peer review and the specific circumstances will determine whether or not the 

agency archeologist or official attends all of the interviews conducted by the peer review team 

during the on-site visit. In cases where problems exist among the agency and the contractor, 

SHPO, THPO, ACHP, or other parties, it may be prudent for the peer review team to meet both 

with and without the agency personnel. The absence of agency personnel may allow for open and 

candid discussion that otherwise would be difficult. 

The on-site visit is a period of intense work by the peer review team. The peer review manager 

and agency personnel provide all reasonable support requested to assure that the peer review 

team's tasks are completed by the scheduled time and make every effort to keep the peer review

team on schedule and focused on its task. 

7. The Draft Report 

The peer review manager and the agency archeologist prepare a proposed outline for the report,

making it clear to the peer review team that the topics and proposed outline are only suggestions. 

The peer review team determines the content of the final report. The purpose of the proposed 

report outline is to provide the peer review team with guidance. The interviews provide specific 

and important information and views from a variety of perspectives. The peer review manager 

always assures the peer review team in each review that the content and recommendations of the 

final report are entirely the peer review team's responsibility. The peer review team is welcome to 

change or reorganize the outline and format. Peer Review team members may add or drop topics 

as they think necessary or appropriate, though departures from the model usually concern format 

or organization. 

The importance of the peer review manager's coordination and careful attention to details in 

production of the final draft report cannot be overestimated. If the peer review team spends an 

intensive week interviewing various parties concerned with the project but does not prepare a 

draft report by the end of that week, it is likely that the completion of the report will be delayed 

considerably. It is most efficient for the peer review team to complete a draft report by the end of 

the on-site visit. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

15
Appendices B and C provide examples of suggested report outlines for the Fort Campbell and 

Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway peer reviews.

8. The Final Report 

The production of the final report of the peer review can be a rather simple, but intense task. The 

peer review manager edits the peer review team's draft report for grammar, style and format, but 

makes no changes in content. It is best to use the edit-tracking feature of a word processing 

program so that edits are clear to each peer review team member. The peer review manager sends 

a revised draft to the authors for revision, with questions as necessary. The authors return marked 

and revised copies to the peer review manager, who reconciles and enters the revisions. The time

it takes to produce the final version depends on the quality of the draft report. 

The peer review manager may include separate recommendations in the final report, which is sent 

to the agency, peer review team members, and other interested parties. While the peer review 

manager normally endorses most of the recommendations made by the peer review team, 

occasionally it will be determined that the recommendations do not really improve the project 

when compared to costs by the agency to implement them. Irrespective of whether the peer 

review manager supports or rejects the recommendations of the peer review team, a clear 

explanation should be provided. 

Conclusion 

Peer reviews for public archeology projects have been and will continue to be important tools for 

improving both research and preservation activities. They assist agencies in meeting the 

objectives for which public archeology projects are undertaken. 

In addition, peer reviews can help improve public awareness of the value of contributions to 

knowledge about the nation's cultural past that are central to such projects. When conducted in 

this comprehensive way, peer reviews have had two important long-term results. First, the agency

gains a better perspective on the impacts of sound archeological resources management and 

therefore can develop effective means to improve its programs. Second, the benefits of public 

archeology research are clarified for the academic disciplines and therefore can be incorporated 

appropriately into the most current theoretical and interpretive developments for explaining the 

archeological record. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

16
DCA Peer Review Reports 

Aiken, C. Melvin, Jerald T. Milanich, and Douglas D. Scott 

1988 Carson Desert Archaeological Peer Review. Report on file, Archeology Program, National 

Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Anderson, David G. Tristram R. Kidder, and Signa Larralde 

2006 Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway Archeological Peer Review. Report on file, Archeology

Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Crespi, Muriel, and Hester A. Davis 

1989 Libby Dam Historic Preservation: A Peer Review. Report on file, Archeology Program,

National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Dean, Jeffrey, Jefferson Chapman, and Douglas W. Schwartz 

1981 Report to Bureau of Reclamation on the Dolores Archaeological Project. Report on file, 

Archeology Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Gradwohl, David M., Timothy A. Kohler, and Gary P. Smith 

1994 The Central and Northern Plains Overview: A Peer Review. Report on file, Archeology

Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Green, Thomas, Michael Polk, and Lynne Sullivan 

2005 Peer Review of Archeological Investigations at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Tennessee. 

Report on file, Archeology Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC. 

Hannus, Adrien, Terry Del Bene, and Jack Hofman 

1990 Peer Review, Alkali Creek Project, Soil Conservation Service, Dunn County, North Dakota. 

Report on file, Archeology Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC. 

Judge, W. James, Bruce D. Smith, George S. Smith, and Jeffrey Zippen 

1995 Peer Review - Cultural Resource Program Phoenix Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Report on file, Archeology Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC. 

Knudson, Ruthann, Frank C. Leonhardy, John S. Sigstad, and Stephen Williams 

1987 Peer Review Committee Report for the Jackson Lake Archeological Project. Report on file, 

Archeology Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

17
Wendorf, Fred D., George J. Gumerman, and Larry Banks 

1986 Peer Review Committee Report on the Central Arizona Archeological Project. Report on 

file, Archeology Program, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

References 

Keel, Bennie C. 

1993 The Peer Review of Public Archeology Projects. Technical Brief 14, Archeology Program, 

National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 

< http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/tch14A.htm > 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

18
APPENDIX A 

Memorandum to Departmental Consulting Archeologist from Area Manager, Phoenix Area 

Office, Bureau of Reclamation, 10 April 1995; Request for Archeological Peer Review of

Phoenix Area Office Cultural Resource 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

19
T

echnicalBrief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

20 Program.
APPENDIX B 

Scope for the Peer Review Team, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Tennessee

SCOPE FOR THE PEER REVIEW TEAM 

FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTING ARCHEOLOGIST 

ARCHEOLOGY PROGRAM, NPS

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

August 28, 2003

Purpose 

The objective of this review is to assess, at the request of Fort Campbell, the overall quality and 

effectiveness of archaeological surveys performed at Fort Campbell as technical assistance

delivered through the National Park Service Southeastern Archaeological Center (SEAC). In 

order to make this assessment, the review is expected to consider the purposes that the 

archaeological surveys were intended to serve, and any other aspects of the projects and the 

circumstances in which they were performed that are found to have a bearing on the strengths and 

weaknesses of these projects as they were conceived, organized, and actually implemented. 

Several aspects of these projects are disputed between Fort Campbell and SEAC. 

Other contemporaneous contracts for archaeological services at Fort Campbell, including others 

administered through SEAC and some administered through other agencies, have not produced 

similar disputes. The review team should consider comparing the other contracts and their results 

in order to make comments or recommendations of more general interest regarding the strengths 

and weaknesses that may be inherent in the general method of IDIQ contracting in addition to

comments or recommendations specifically applicable to the contract and projects from which the 

disputes have arisen. 

In order to make this assessment, the review is expected to examine the intended purposes of the 

contracted projects, the implementation, monitoring, final products, and any other aspects of 

contract performance and oversight that are found to have a bearing on the quality and adequacy 

of the resulting studies. The team must independently assess whether or not contracted projects 

met the goals established by the contracts and how the investigations conducted through contracts 

contributed to the overall cultural resource management program of the fort. 

The scope of the review extends to assessment of the general appropriateness and design of the 

agreements and contracts used by SEAC at Fort Campbell, the effectiveness of the contracting 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

21
vehicles and organization, and how future contracts and technical assistance relationships can be 

structured to be most effective and less likely to produce further disputes. 

Duties of the Peer Review Team 

The Peer Review Team shall review documents and other materials relevant to the administration, 

method, strategy, techniques and results of projects carried out through the Fort Campbell-SEAC 

contract and others at Fort Campbell as needed for comparison. The peer review team also may 

request other documents that it deems pertinent to its review. Review will include: 

• Memorandum of Understanding between Fort Campbell and SEAC; 

• Contracts; 

• Statements of work for specific projects; 

• Delivery orders and correspondence related to delivery orders; 

• Other relevant correspondence; 

• Draft and final archeological survey reports; 

• Curation materials including maps, field forms, photographs and associated records; 

• Field locations as necessary. 

The Peer Review Team shall also meet and interview individuals from Fort Campbell, SEAC, 

related NPS offices such as the contracting office, Panamerican Consultants Incorporated (PCI, 

the consulting firm that conducted the investigations under the SEAC arrangement), and other 

agencies or individuals who are relevant and necessary in the opinion of the review team. If 

meeting in person is not feasible, interviews may be conducted by telephone conference calls or 

by e-mail at the discretion of the review team. 

The Peer Review Team shall compile and present a written report that describes in detail the 

observations and recommendations of the team (see suggested outline below). 

Suggested Topics 

Fort Campbell Management of Archeological Resources As Related to These Projects 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

22
 What is the structure and organization of Fort Campbell's cultural resources management 

program? 

 Have some aspects of the organization and structure of the program particularly affected 

any of the strengths or weaknesses identified in the projects under review? 

 Did the structure and organization of the CRM program help, detract from, or not affect 

the outcomes of these projects? 

 What communications within and from Fort Campbell were necessary for proper

description and conduct of these projects, and were these communications effective? 

Contract Organization and Structure 

 Do the contracts adequately or clearly address specific Section 106 and Section 110 

compliance and coordination efforts? 

 How are scopes of work written for individual projects undertaken within the contracts? 

 Would other forms of contracts have provided better organization and oversight of the 

technical assistance delivered to Fort Campbell? 

 Were the proposed methods for fieldwork, laboratory analysis, curation and reporting 

adequate and effective? 

Contract Oversight and Administration 

 Are there adequate internal checks and balances? 

 Is fiscal accountability maintained? 

 How is communication handled among the participants: Fort Campbell, SEAC and 

related NPS offices such as the contracting office, PCI, and the COE? 

 How were proposed contract modifications handled? 

 Were the statements of concern from Fort Campbell plausible and reasonable, and did 

SEAC response adequately and effectively address the concerns based on the information 

available to SEAC? 

Assessment Topics 

 Is data management being handled effectively and efficiently? 

 Are appropriate and sufficient reports and maps being produced adequately? 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

23
 Is the approach to consultation with affected parties, including Indian tribes, appropriate 

and sufficient? 

 Is the approach to public education and outreach appropriate and sufficient? 

 Are the contributions of the program to the advancement of local, regional, and national 

archeological research and interpretation appropriate and sufficient? 

 What future program requirements should be considered? 

 Has peer review been utilized appropriately in the program? 

 What procedures were used to verify that results as reported were actually accomplished? 

Suggested Report Outline 

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

• INTRODUCTION 

• INTERVIEWS AND ACTIVITIES DURING THE PEER REVIEW 

• EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 

Fort Campbell Cultural Management of Archeological Resources 

Structure and organization 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Communication and internal support 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Contract Organization and Structure 

Section 106 and Section 110 compliance and coordination 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Scopes of Work 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Contract Oversight and Administration 

Internal checks and balances 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

24
Fiscal accountability 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

 Communication 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Response to concerns 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Assessment 

 Fieldwork 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

 Laboratory analysis 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

 Curation 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

 Data management 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Reports and maps 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Project Monitoring 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Contributions of the program to archeological research and interpretation 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

• OTHER ISSUES 

Consultation with affected parties and Indian tribes 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Public education and outreach 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

25
 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Future program initiatives 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

Use of peer review in contract projects 

 Discussion 

 Recommendations 

References 

Appendix 1: Memorandum Requesting Peer Review 

Appendix 2: Brief Biographies of the Peer Review Team 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

26
APPENDIX C 

Scope of Work for the Peer Review Team, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis 

District, Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway Project 

SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE PEER REVIEW TEAM U.S. ARMY CORP OF 

ENGINEERS, MEMPHIS DISTRICT 

DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTING ARCHEOLOGIST ARCHEOLOGY PROGRAM, 

NPS DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR July 11, 2005

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 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

27
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.). 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

28
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. complete 

Plan the peer review team's composition and choose its 

members. 

June - July 2005 

Compile documentation and send it to the peer review 

team. 

July 2005 

Schedule the on-site visit. July - August 2005 

Make 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 2005 

Conduct the on-site visit. October - November 

2005 

Prepare the draft report. October - November 

2005 

Assemble the peer review team member's revisions to 

the draft report. 

October - November 

2005 

Revise the manuscript. November 2005 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

29
Obtain the peer review team's approval of final report. November 2005 

Produce the final report. November 2005 

Compile recommendations for the agency. November 2005 

Complete remaining administrative tasks. November - December 

2005 

Provide final report to agency officials. December 2005 

Suggested Topics. 

The review team will address the following questions - 

1. Were the archeological methods used for identification and evaluation of sites 

appropriate? 

2. Were the archeological methods for mitigation of adverse impacts appropriate? 

3. Considering the operational plan for the floodway and landowner restrictions, what other 

forms of mitigation, besides data recovery have been feasible? 

4. Given the operational plan for the floodway were the sites chosen for mitigation chosen 

properly? 

5. Were the data and materials recovered consistent with the needs of the research designs? 

6. 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? 

7. Did artifact analysis and preparation of the archeological materials and data conform to 

the plans for ultimate, long-term curation? 

8. Are the technical reports and any public outreach products or programs adequate and 

appropriate? 

9. Taking into account the SOWs, research designs, and MOAs, was the proper 

archeological work conducted for each site? What could have been done differently? 

10. 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? 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

30
11. Were appropriate consulting parties brought into the process once their concerns were 

made known? 

Suggested Report Outline 

• Executive Summary 

 Introduction 

Interviews aAnd 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 Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

31
APPENDIX D 

Documents Available for the Peer Review Team, Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway 

Archeological Investigations 

Documents available for the peer review team's review prior to the on-site visit. 

I. Relevant correspondence 

1. 2/24/2004 Letter from Jack V. Schere, Colonel, COE District Engineer, DOD, to

Dr. Janet S. Matthews, Associate Director for Cultural Resources, NPS 

2. 6/22/2004 Letter from Dr. Janet Snyder Matthews to Col. Jack v. Schere 

3. 7/11/2005 Electronic Memorandum from FP McManamon, Departmental 

Consulting Archeologist, Department of the Interior to Colonel Charles O. Smithers III, 

Colonel, Memphis District Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army 

II. Background materials, Programmatic Agreement, and miscellaneous draft 

documents 

1. Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway: A Short Background 

2. “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”(signed November 1995 and May 1996). 

3. “Draft Amendment to Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Memphis District, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the 

Missouri State Historic Preservation Office, and the _____ Tribe Regarding 

Implementation of the Mitigation of Archeological Sites 23NM176/272, 23NM566, 

23MI630, and 23MI714, Within the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway Project.” 

4. “Appendix F - Scopes of work and mitigation proposals for remaining sites.” 

COE, Memphis District, no date 

5. “Data Recovery at 23MI714 New Madrid Floodway, Missouri.” COE, Memphis 

District, no date 

6. “Sites 23MI272/167 and 23NM566.” COE, Memphis District, no date 

III. Final archeological reports 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

32
1. Probability of Archaeological Site Occurrence in the Northern Portion of the 

Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway: An Analysis of the Distribution of Cultural 

Resources and Environmental Features, by Niemczycki, Mary Ann Palmer; principal 

investigator Duncan C. Wilkie / Cultural Resources Consultants. 1987 

2. Archeological Investigations in the New Madrid Floodway, Volume I, by

Lafferty, Robert H. III, and Kathleen M. Hess, eds. / Mid-Continental Research

Associates, Inc. 1996 

3. Archeological Investigations in the New Madrid Floodway, Volume II, by MidContinental Research Associates, Inc. 1996 

4. Archeological Investigations in the New Madrid Floodway, Volume III, by MidContinental Research Associates, Inc. 1996 

5. Data Recovery (Mitigation) of Sites 23MI578, 23MI605, 23MI651, 23MI652,

and 23MI797, Final Report, by Chapman, Shawn, Emanuel Breitberg, and Neal Lopinot

/ Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 1999 

6. Investigations in the New Madrid Floodway: Data Recovery at 23MI706, the 

Alfred Rush Site and 23MI709, the Hillhouse II Site, Mississippi County, Missouri, by 

Brown, Sharon, L. Janice Campbell, and Prentice M. Thomas, eds. / Prentice Thomas 

and Associates, Inc. 2000 

7. Historic Archaeology in the New Madrid Floodway: Data Recovery Excavations 

at the Moxley Farm Site (23MI722), Mississippi County, Missouri, Final Report, by

Buchner, C. Andrew, and Emanuel Breitburg / Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2000 

8. Data Recovery at the Hillhouse Site, by Lafferty, Robert H. III, Michael C. 

Sierzchula, Gina Powell, Neal Lopinot, Carol Spears, Barbara Carter, and Lawrence g. 

Santeford / Mid-Continental Research Associates, Inc. 2002 

9. The St. John's Bayou-Bird's Point-new Madrid Floodway - A Historical Account 

of the United States Army Corp of Engineer's Efforts in Mississippi River Flood Control 

in Southeastern Missouri by Banks, Larry D. and Givens, Douglas R./ Documents 

Archaeology, Incorporated. 2003 

10. Data Recovery Excavations at the Clifford LaPlant Site (23NM561) on Barnes 

Ridge, New Madrid County, Missouri, by Buchner, C. Andrew, Eric S. Alberson, 

Emmanuel Breitburg, Gina S. Powell, and Neal H. Lopinot/ PanAmerican Consultants, 

Inc. 2003 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

33
11. Investigations in the New Madrid Floodway: Data Recovery at 23MI20, The 

Burkett Site, Mississippi County, Missouri, Volume I: Final Report, by Thomas Jr., 

Prentice M. and L. Janice Campbell/ Prentice Thomas and Associates, Inc. 2005 

IV. Maps 

1. Wyatt and Wickliffe SW Quadrangle topographic maps, showing sites on Rush 

Ridge and O'Bryan Ridge. 

2. Henderson Mound Quadrangle topographic map, showing sites on Barnes Ridge 

and Sugar Tree Ridge. 

3. Henderson Mound Quadrangle topographic map, at larger magnification, 

showing sites on Barnes Ridge 

4. Sketch of BPNM Floodway, “Current Plan of Operation” 

5. Photocopies of 3 portions of the La Grange Quadrangle topographic maps 

(included separately and also listed above) 

V. CDs 

1. New Madrid #1 - Archeological Investigations of the New Madrid Floodway

Volumes I - III 

2. New Madrid #2 - Probability of ... and Historic Archaeology ...(pdf files) 

3. New Madrid #3 - Data Recovery at 23 MI578 ... 

4. New Madrid #4 - Investigations ... at 23MI20, the Burkett site (pdf files) 

5. New Madrid #5 - 706-709 FINAL.pdf and Burkett draft.pdf 

Documents and information made available during or after the peer review team's on-site

visit. 

I. Correspondence, background materials and miscellaneous draft documents 

1. Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway Plan of Operation. PowerPoint presentation 

presented to the New Madrid Peer Review Team March 20, 2006. Corps of Engineers, 

Readiness Branch, Memphis District. (See Appendix 7) 

2. Investigations in the New Madrid Floodway: Data Recovery at 23MI25, the 

Weems Site, Mississippi County, Missouri. Volume I: Draft Report. Prentice M. 

Thomas, Jr., and L. Janice Campbell, eds. Prentice Thomas and Associates, Inc. 2006. 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

34
3. Files pertaining to the New Madrid-Birds Point Floodway Archeological 

Program 

4. Additional information regarding the impact mitigation work at 23MI25, the 

Weems Site, including - 

 “Data recovery at 23MI25, New Madrid Floodway, Missouri, Scope of 

Work” 

 “Mitigation Proposal for Site 23MI25 (Weems Site), New Madrid 

Floodway, Mississippi County, Missouri” 

 8/5/1998 Letter from Jimmy McNeil, District Archeologist, to Claire 

Blackwell, Director and Depute State Historic Preservation Officer, Missouri 

 12/15/1999 (approx.) E-mail from Jimmy McNeil to Judith Deel 

 2/15/2000 (approx.) E-mail from Jimmy McNeil to Judith Deel 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

35
APPENDIX E 

AGENDA AND SCHEDULE FOR PEER REVIEW TEAM FIELD VISIT, CULTURAL

RESOURCE PROGRAM REVIEW, PHOENIX AREA OFFICE, BUREAU OF 

RECLAMATION 

Peer Review

Cultural Resource Program 

Phoenix Area Office 

Bureau of Reclamation

Peer Review Team Agenda, 17-22 July 1995 

Monday, 17 July 

8:00-8:10 Welcome—Dennis Schroeder, Area Manager 

8:10-8:20 Introductions—All 

8:20-8:45 Scope of Work for the Peer Review—Frank McManamon, DCA 

8:45-9:00 Brief overview of CAP and PXAO Cultural Resource Program—Lincoln 

9:00-9:20 Break 

9:20-11:30 Topical Discussion of the Aspects of the Program being Considered by the Peer 

Review—PXAO staff. Goal is to provide Review Team with as much background information as 

possible, building upon and referring to the written material already provided to the team

members, and to enable the team members to request additional information that had not been 

provided.

11:30-1:00Lunch 

1:00-2:30 Interviews w/ PXAO management—Dennis Schroeder (Area Manager), John Newman 

(Assistant Area Manager, Resources Management), Larry Morton (Assistant Area Manager, 

Management Services and Human Resources), Jerri Tharp (Finance Officer), etc. Topics here will 

include: 

 the expectations of management for the CRM program and how it fits into overall area 

office goals, objectives, and functions; 

 management perspective on fiscal and internal controls on program; 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

36
 future needs seen by management for cultural resources currently being managed,

including archeological collections and records, as well as CRM activities anticipated. 

2:30-2:45 Break 

Interviews with partners, colleagues, contractors, and constituents. Reclamation staff will 

participate in some of these discussions, but at least part of the time interviews will be with only 

the Peer Review team and the partners, etc. 

2:45-3:45 State Historic Preservation Officer and staff—Jim Garrison, Bob Gasser, Ann Howard 

Discuss PXAO Section 106 and Section 110 compliance and coordination efforts. 

3:45-4:15 Tonto National Forest—Scott Wood, Forest Archaeologist. PXAO's largest Federal 

partner in developing and executing the Theodore Roosevelt Dam and Verde River Safety of 

Dams mitigation projects. Topics should include research, coordination, and public education. 

4:15-4:30 Break 

4:30-5:30 Teff Rodeffer—Chief, Collections Management, National Park Service, Western 

Archaeological and Conservation Center. The PXAO current curation program should be the 

focus of this interview, future curation needs also might be discussed. 

5:30-6:30 Peer Review Team meeting to take stock of the day's events, plan for development of 

recommendations and report preparation. 

Tuesday, 18 July 

8:30-9:30 Research, Funding, and Internal Program—PXAO CRM staff. Topics will include: 

PXAO mitigation approach with case studies from Roosevelt Projects, Verde River, and Lake 

Pleasant. May wish to spend some time discussing data management. 

9:30-9:45 Break 

9:45-10:15 Jeff Dean, Tree Ring Laboratory, University of Arizona—Jeff serves as ongoing peer 

reviewer for the program. He will join the Review Team at the Pointe, Monday evening and will 

be available through Wednesday. 

10:15-11:00 Bill Doelle—Desert Archaeology (Roosevelt Community Development Contract 

11:00-11:45 Jeff Altschul—Statistical Research, Inc. (Roosevelt Rural Sites Study and Verde 

River SOD Study)

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

37
11:45-1:15 Lunch 

1:15-2:15 Glen Rice & Chuck Redman—ASU (Roosevelt Platform Mound Study)

2:15-3:00 Open discussion with CRM staff. This might be a good time to discuss Reclamation's 

“new” mission and where the CRM program fits in it. Discuss PXAO relationship with the Salt

River Project, Reclamation's potential sale of the Salt River Project and implications for CRM, 

PXAO Section 110 program.

3:00-3:15 Break 

3:15-4:00 Continuation of Curation discussion—CRM staff 

4:00-5:30 Open time. Might be used to continue discussion with PXAO CRM staff or for Peer 

Review team to meet alone, with others, to review additional documents, or to begin working on 

report. 

Wednesday, 19 July

7:00 Leave for Tonto Basin. Tour excavation of Salado sites, Visit Platform Mound, Tour 

Roosevelt Dam Construction Site, Tour Tonto National Forest Visitor Center (Time Permitting). 

After return to the hotel, brief meeting of the Peer Review team to discuss and consider day's 

events and any implications for work during following days. Discussion of actions needed for 

recommendations, report, and Friday's presentation. 

Thursday, 20 July 

7:00 Leave for Gila River Indian Community. Tour Hohokam and Pima Sites, Inspect GRIC 

Cultural Program facilities, interview John Ravesloot and staff, meet with tribal government 

representatives; plan for interviews includes meeting with Cecil Antone, one topic that can be 

pursued during this meeting is the consultation with and involvement of Native Americans in the 

cultural resource program. 

3:00 (approx.) Visit Arizona Historical Society. Meet with Director, Central Arizona Division 

Paul Piazza and staff Nancy Dallett and James Hadden. Tour facility, review exhibits, and 

Discussion of Public Education Program.

Following return to hotel, Peer Review team meeting to discuss day's events and actions needed 

for recommendations, report, and Friday presentation. 

Friday, 21 July 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

38
8:30-9:30 Wrap up interviews discussion w/ CRM Staff 

9:30-9:45 Break 

9:45-10:45 Peer Review Team discussions and final preparations for presentation to PXAO 

management 

10:45-11:30 Exit interview with PXAO Management 

11:30-1:00 Lunch 

1:00-5:00 Review Team complete draft of report—CRM staff available for additional questions 

and input 

Saturday, 22 July 

Departures as scheduled 

Technical Brief 21 

Peer Review of Federal Archeological Projects and Programs

http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/techBr/TCH21.htm 

39