tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post1969544684012095097..comments2024-01-11T22:45:53.276-08:00Comments on Tom King's CRM Plus: Consultation Requirements Under Section 106: Can an Archaeological Opinion Make Them Go Away?Thomas F Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-53018756578669861212009-09-16T17:39:24.271-07:002009-09-16T17:39:24.271-07:00I understand...reminds me of a project back in the...I understand...reminds me of a project back in the 1990s in Kentucky. Just buildings because there are no Indians in Kentucky and "never have been" as we were "politely" told. It is frustrating. I was just lecturing to a group of Native American monitors out here in California and we were discussing the very subject about these old site assessments and the need to "throw them out" or at least reassess them with todays standards. Whether we care to admit or not, our standards have changed because we are now getting imput from the Tribes regarding the significance of certain sites and types of sites. Good luck with it.<br />TrishAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-17261914127912675252009-09-16T16:44:19.390-07:002009-09-16T16:44:19.390-07:00Thanks, Sean and Patricia. Sean, I know the Hawai...Thanks, Sean and Patricia. Sean, I know the Hawai'i SHPD has had a lot of special (if significantly self-created) problems lately; I'll be interested to see your blog. Patricia, my client is actually very reasonable and I'm sure we'll end up doing something that makes sense. What concerns me is that someone in authority could take the position that an archaeological determination -- even a contemporary one, let alone one that's 20 years old -- could unilaterally vitiate the requirement to consult with tribes. The archaeologist, after all, was looking only at the research value of the site; a tribe may ascribe totally different kinds of significance to it. It doesn't make sense to me to let one kind of determination trump another. We might as well say that an architectural historian's decision that a building isn't eligible for the Register as a piece of architecture means that the land it sits on can't be an eligible archaeological site.Thomas F Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-59821382391972409882009-09-16T16:01:39.442-07:002009-09-16T16:01:39.442-07:00Can you recommend pre-construction trenching to te...Can you recommend pre-construction trenching to test the site area for subsurface deposits since it's at the mouth of the river and may contain buried deposits below the plow zone. Would your client go for that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-7669027275013624352009-09-16T12:48:52.006-07:002009-09-16T12:48:52.006-07:00Aloha, I find your situation frightening similar t...Aloha, I find your situation frightening similar to the situation that our cultural resources here in Hawaii. People, well our SHPD offices here in Hawaii who are supposedly in the position to make responsible decisions about our cultural resources, are continually making bad decisions. Probably one of the worst situations currently, and believe me there are many bad situations going on here, but on Kauai at Naue the situation went from bad to worse when SHPD stepped in. I am saddened to think that there is a current of inefficiency with these offices. If anyone is interested my blog (http://kahukuuna.blogspot.com) has some video and current issues that we are facing here in Hawaii. Tom thank you for the highly informative post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08639877625199276778noreply@blogger.com