To all,

Over the last few years the Department of Defense has funded a Legacy
Resource Management project to identify potential partners throughout the
U.S. that might be interested in providing collections management services
and long term care for DoD's (Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines)
archaeological collections.  The project is the only department wide
investigation to address the curation of archaeological collections across
an entire organization of the federal government.

Phase I of the project is now finished.  The final report for Phase I (the
western U.S. and Virginia and Maryland), including identification of
potential curation partners and suggestions for different approaches to
choosing those partners, is available on the Public Menu of the Defense
Environmental Network and Information Exchange web site at

<http://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/ES-Programs/Conservation/Legacy/Curat
ions/title.html>


The Executive Summary for the report follows.

Department of Defense and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Curation Options Project, Western and Mid-Atlantic States
Executive Summary
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD), through its major land-managing agencies,
U.S. Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Navy and Marine
Corps, and U.S. Air Force, is required by federal laws and regulations to
curate archaeological materials and associated documentation recovered from
federally-owned or managed property. As a result of over 50 years of
archaeological fieldwork required under statute, large quantities of
archaeological collections from DoD and USACE lands have been generated.
Unfortunately, the proper curation of these materials has not been
integrated into cultural resources programs and their funding. Thus,
long-term collections care has in most cases been inadequate. Federal laws
require that these materials be curated so that they do not deteriorate,
and that they are readily available for study and exhibit. The most
pertinent regulation is 36 CFR Part 79-Curation of Federally-Owned and
Administered Archeological Collections, which took effect in October 1990.
The lack of overall funding, lack of the integration of curation into
existing yearly funding cycles, and the unequal weight between curation and
fieldwork and report preparation have all worked against the proper
curation of archaeological collections throughout the federal government,
including DoD and USACE.
In response to this inequity, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security), the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Director of Civil Works
requested that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mandatory Center of
Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections
(MCX-CMAC), located in the St. Louis District, undertake a nationwide
technical study of potential partners that might be interested in serving
as long-term repositories for DoD and USACE archaeological collections. The
mission was to identify potential partners, evaluate their capabilities to
manage the archaeological collections, and to collect baseline
administrative information associated with such an endeavor. At the
direction of DoD, some baseline financial information collected for this
project has not been included in this report.
As an initial step in finding a solution to the long-term care of DoD
archaeological collections through the Curation Options Project, St. Louis
District began a process to identify potential partners. The process
consists of the creation of a master list of institutions to contact by
telephone, and a secondary screening to determine which institutions
warrant a visit after reviewing a preliminary questionnaire returned by
those institutions that were interested in providing information. The
final, and most important step, is an on-site visit to collect more
fine-grained information on an institution's curation capabilities.
Potential partners consist of institutions that either currently curate
archaeological collections, or have an interest in curating archaeological
collections. Military installations or other DoD/USACE facilities were not
included on the list of potential partners since these institutions'
primary mission is not the long-term curation of archaeological
collections; their primary function is not archaeological collections
management, staff are not always available to care for the collections, and
public education and use of the collections cannot always be assured.
Private, for profit archaeological contracting companies were also not
contacted because they are considered temporary curators, not permanent
repositories.
Summary of Methods
To conduct the project, St. Louis District divided the U.S. into two parts:
east and west. The western part, or Phase I, of the Curation Options
Project encompasses the western U.S. and Maryland and Virginia. The project
area was in part defined by the project area of a concurrent national
inventory of DoD Archaeological collections, also conducted by the St.
Louis District. Staff from the St. Louis District visited 50 potential
partners out of the 311 that were contacted in 22 states (Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) during 1996 and 1997. Phase
II continued with the on-site visits, beginning in March of 1998, and is
concentrating on the remaining 28 states in the eastern and central
portions of the U.S., the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
During a visit to each institution, St. Louis District assessment teams
collected information on; 1) the architecture and building systems, 2)
collections management practices and policies, and 3) administrative
structure of each institution. Chapters for each state (Chapters 4 to 25),
present a summary of each potential partner visited in that state.
Editor's Note:
As previously mentioned, fieldwork for this project was conducted during
1996 and 1997. Information presented in this report includes institutional
facility improvement plans, if they existed, as they were described to the
St. Louis District during the fieldwork phase in 1996 and 1997. During
Summer 1999 St. Louis District staff contacted each of 16 institutions that
had indicated some form of near-future improvement activities. This updated
facilities information is presented at the end of each applicable
institution summary.
Curation Options
The original guidance for the project required that all states in the Phase
I project area be visited so that at least one potential partner could be
identified. Based on this guidance, St. Louis District assessment teams
performed field visits to individual institutions between July 1996 and
October 1997. Of the 50 institutions visited, a total of 25 are suggested
to potentially serve as partners. Some of these institutions would require
modifications to their existing facilities, collection management
practices, or staff. Twenty-four institutions constitute St. Louis
District's "Individual State Option" recommendation. The "Individual State
Option," in addition to identifying one repository per state, also suggests
two potential partnering institutions each for California and Texas (a
total of 24 institutions), because of the volume of DoD/USACE
archaeological material within those states and the states' size and
diversity. Arizona has two institutions that have good potential for
partnership - either could be chosen and both are suggested as a potential
partner. A "Northern" California partner option is not provided since the
only institution that was visited there, the Phoebe Hearst Museum, later
withdrew from the project after the on-site visit.
In addition to the "Individual State Option," St. Louis District also
suggests that two additional options be considered: (1) Mixed Option and
(2) Regional Option. Both scenarios are based on the assumption that one
partner in each state, and potentially multiple partners in California and
Texas, is willing and capable of entering into a long-term agreement with
the federal government, and that negotiations for such an agreement result
in the successful formation of a partnership. The Mixed Option, as
presented in this report, is composed of both individual state and regional
partners and includes 18 suggested institutions. The Regional Option, as
presented in this report, is composed of potential regional partners and
consists of 10 suggested institutions. For both the Mixed Option and the
Regional Option, a number of scenarios are possible, although only one
scenario for each option is presented in this report. Implementation
decisions may require consideration of a number of variables, including
some outside the scope of this project. Proposed state partners in the
Individual State Option are as follows.
Individual State Option
AlaskaUniversity of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks
ArizonaMuseum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff
or Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson
CaliforniaNorthern: Not Determined
Central: Bowers Museum of Cultural Art, Santa Ana
Southern: San Diego Archaeological Center
ColoradoUniversity of Colorado Museum, Boulder
Hawai'iBernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu
IdahoIdaho Museum of Natural History, Idaho State University,Pocatello
KansasMuseum of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence
LouisianaLouisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge
MarylandMaryland Archaeological Conservation Facility, Jefferson Patterson
Park, St. Leonard
MontanaMuseum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman
NebraskaUniversity of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln
NevadaDesert Research Institute, Las Vegas
New MexicoThe Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Santa Fe
North DakotaNorth Dakota Heritage Center, Bismarck
OklahomaMuseum of the Great Plains, Lawton
OregonOregon Museum of Natural History, University of Oregon, Eugene
South DakotaSouth Dakota State Archaeological Research Center, Rapid City
TexasWestern: Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Eastern: Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin
UtahUtah Museum of Natural History, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
VirginiaVirginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond
WashingtonThomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of
Washington, Seattle
WyomingDepartment of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie
Mixed Option
The first alternative to designating at least one partner in each of the 22
states visited by St. Louis District is the Mixed Option. The Mixed Option
would designate 18 institutions to serve the 22 states evaluated.
Institutions presented as potential partners in this option have been
suggested based on several considerations. These considerations include
volume of DoD/USACE collections recovered in each state, and the
suitability of potential partners in each state, as compared with
neighboring states. Proposed regional partners in Montana and Washington
would provide curation services for DoD/USACE archaeological collections
from one or more nearby states in addition to DoD/USACE archaeological
collections from Montana and Washington, respectively. All other proposed
partners would provide curation services for DoD/USACE archaeological
collections only from the state in which the partner is located. Proposed
partners in the Mixed Option are as follows.
AlaskaUniversity of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks
Arizona/UtahMuseum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff
or Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson
CaliforniaNorthern: Not Determined
Central: Bowers Museum of Cultural Art, Santa Ana
Southern: San Diego Archaeological Center
ColoradoUniversity of Colorado Museum, Boulder
Hawai'iBernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu
IdahoIdaho Museum of Natural History, Idaho State University, Pocatello
KansasMuseum of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence
LouisianaLouisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge
MarylandMaryland Archaeological Conservation Facility, Jefferson Patterson
Park, St. Leonard
Montana/
Nebraska/
North Dakota/
South Dakota/
WyomingMuseum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman
NevadaDesert Research Institute, Las Vegas
New MexicoThe Museum of Indian Arts and Culture, Santa Fe
OklahomaMuseum of the Great Plains, Lawton
TexasWestern: Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Eastern: Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin
VirginiaVirginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond
Washington/OregonThomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University
of Washington, Seattle
Regional Option
The second alternative to designating at least one partner in each of the
22 states visited by St. Louis District is the Regional Option. The
Regional Option would designate 10 institutions to serve the 22 states in
Phase I. Again, institutions presented as potential partners in this option
have been suggested based on several considerations. These considerations
include volume of DoD/USACE collections recovered in each state,
suitability of potential partners in each state, as compared with
neighboring states, and economy of scale achieved by consolidation. The
proposed partners in Arizona, California, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Texas,
Utah, and Washington would provide curation services for DoD/USACE
archaeological collections from one or more nearby states in addition to
DoD/USACE archaeological collections from the state within which the
partner is located. Only Alaska and Hawaii would provide curation services
for DoD/USACE archaeological collections from a single state. Proposed
partners in the Regional Option are as follows.
AlaskaUniversity of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks
Arizona/New MexicoMuseum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff
or Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson
California/NevadaSan Diego Archaeological Center
Hawai'iBernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu
Kansas/OklahomaMuseum of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence
Maryland/VirginiaMaryland Archaeological Conservation Facility, Jefferson
Patterson Park, St. Leonard
Montana/
Nebraska/
North Dakota/
South Dakota/
WyomingMuseum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman
Texas/LouisianaTexas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of
Texas, Austin
Utah/ColoradoUtah Museum of Natural History, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Washington/Idaho/
OregonThomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of
Washington, Seattle
The central reason for proposing two additional curation scenarios is the
economy of scale, primarily in cost savings, to be realized in long-term
collections management. Although the Mixed Option and the Regional Option
may not appear to provide much short-term savings, the funds saved in
annual maintenance should be considerable over the long-term. All three
scenarios and the associated proposed institutions are summarized in
Chapter 26 Summary and Options, Table 26.1.
The St. Louis District suggests that these potential partners would provide
high-quality professional collections management services to DoD and USACE,
pending modifications to their existing curation programs and/or
facilities. All partners have the capability to manage the collections for
DoD/USACE and ensure their safety. In addition, DoD/USACE would increase or
in some cases create administrative control over their archaeological
collections. Finally, adopting any of the options presented would not only
ensure long-term curation, but provide access for Native Americans,
national education programs, interpretive programs, and the general public
who have invested considerably in these national heritage collections.