The management of cultural resources by federal land-managing agencies in the United States is moving in the direction of programmatic approaches that consider archaeological resources on a regional or landscape level. In 2014, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), in response to meetings with federal agencies, established three task forces on issues related to landscape-scale cultural resource management (CRM). The task forces focused on: (1) survey data quality, durability, and use; (2) incorporating archaeological resources in regional land-use plans; and (3) valuing archaeological resources. Revised reports of the task forces are being published in this issue of Advances in Archaeological Practice. This paper provides the context and history of the task forces, particularly the CRM challenges facing federal land-managing agencies leading to the selection of topics that are subjects of the published articles.

High-quality archaeological surveys and data are vital to preservation planning and mitigation efforts. Federal and state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) are accumulating and reviewing more data at an ever-faster pace. Given the critical nature of this information, a SAA task force was charged with assessing current survey practices and concerns. Our review indicates that survey policies and archaeological standards have improved substantially over the last two decades, but SHPOs remain challenged by insufficient professional training for field archaeologists, the need for standardization and integration of new technologies in field work, reporting, and review, as well as the sheer quantity and variety of digital data. A number of analytical tools and metrics are available to assess data quality, but seemingly there is not time or money for states to evaluate how to improve existing and future survey data. We draw upon a survey of SHPOs, a review of current literature, and our own experience to assess archaeological survey quality, data utility and durability for current and anticipated future uses. We offer suggestions on how to move forward, including consideration of an e-106 system for streamlining transfer and exchange of digital data and upgrading current approaches to survey and planning.

The increasing importance of landscape-scale research and preservation goals within the archaeological profession coincides with expanded threats to the archaeological record through massive energy exploration and infrastructure projects and through the cumulative effects of smaller-scale development. It is further stimulated by the recognition that conservation strategies that span multiple resource classes and disciplines are best formulated at multiple and larger spatial scales. These are key drivers behind efforts to improve the ways that archaeological resources are considered in the context of development-related planning and implementation, including mitigation measures. In a prominent example, recent department-level direction from the Secretary of the Interior calls specifically for landscape-level planning as a critical component of responses to both large-scale development and climate change. This article reviews three current approaches to landscape-level planning in archaeology and calls for increased commitment to advancing their development and effectiveness.

Public agencies at all levels of government and other organizations that manage archaeological resources often face the problem of many undertakings that collectively impact large numbers of individually significant archaeological resources. Such situations arise when an agency is managing a large area, such as a national forest, land management district, park unit, wildlife refuge, or military installation. These situations also may arise in regard to large-scale development projects, such as energy developments, highways, reservoirs, transmission lines, and other major infrastructure projects that cover substantial areas. Over time, the accumulation of impacts from small-scale projects to individual archaeological resources may degrade landscape or regional-scale cultural phenomena. Typically, these impacts are mitigated at the site level without regard to how the impacts to individual resources affect the broader population of resources. Actions to mitigate impacts rarely are designed to do more than avoid resources or ensure some level of data recovery at single sites. Such mitigation activities are incapable of addressing research question at a landscape or regional scale.

The Permian Basin Programmatic Agreement (PA) is an alternative form of Section 106 compliance offered mainly to the oil and gas industry in southeastern New Mexico for projects located on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. Proponents of projects within the PA area may contribute to a dedicated archaeological research fund in lieu of contracting for project specific archaeological surveys, provided their proposed projects avoid recorded archaeological sites. Dedicated funding goes toward research on the archaeology and history of southeastern New Mexico. The PA calls for the consulting parties to evaluate its effectiveness during its seventh year of implementation. As a result of that recent evaluation in May 2015, the PA will be extended for 10 additional years. We discuss the reasons for the PA, successes and missteps during its first seven years, and ways that the Permian Basin PA might be used as a model elsewhere.

Archaeological projects that are described as orphaned or legacy collections are generally older materials that do not meet modern “best practice” curation standards and require considerable resources to be preserved for future research. Rehabilitation and curation of these projects allows for better inventory control of the artifacts, and accompanying documentation ensures that cultural heritage is preserved and plays an important part in the repatriation process. Procedures and methods for rehousing archaeological legacy collections are outlined. Using the 1984–1987 Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society (AAHS) volunteer excavations at Redtail Village (AZ AA:12:149 [ASM]) as a case study, we propose a process for rehabilitating legacy collections and offer solutions for preserving important archaeological resources for future research.

Archaeological documentation is in the midst of a technological shift as recording systems transition from paper-based forms to digital formats. Digital systems effectively replicate the information recorded on paper forms, while also offering recording advantages for archaeologists in the field. In addition to such logistical contributions to archaeological workflows, digital technology also has tremendous potential to transform the ways that archaeology is done by shifting how we see our sites, and how we document them through diverse data types. With the goal of exploring this potential, we developed a tablet-based relational database, using FileMaker, which provides the ability to simultaneously record specific characteristics of artifacts and features according to two cultural perspectives—modern archaeological understandings and also those of the Classic Maya. In this article, we describe the database and discuss the results of a pilot field season using the database to record excavations at the site of Say Kah, Belize. Our experiences yield several broader reflections on the impact of using digital recording systems both for practical advantage and for productive shifts in perception.

Archaeological tunneling is a standard excavation strategy in Mesoamerica. The ancient Maya built new structures atop older ones that were no longer deemed usable, whether for logistical or ideological reasons. This means that as archaeologists excavate horizontal tunnels into ancient Maya structures, they are essentially moving back in time. As earlier constructions are encountered, these tunnels may deviate in many directions in order to document architectural remains. The resultant excavations often become intricate labyrinths, extending dozens of meters. Traditional forms of archaeological documentation, such as photographs, plan views, and profile drawings, are limited in their ability to convey the complexity of tunnel excavations. Terrestrial Lidar (light detection and ranging) instruments are able to generate precise 3D models of tunnel excavations. This article presents the results of a model created with a Faro™ Focus 3D 120 Scanner of tunneling excavations at the site of El Zotz, Guatemala. The lidar data document the excavations inside a large mortuary pyramid, including intricately decorated architecture from an Early Classic (A.D. 300–600) platform buried within the present form of the structure. Increased collaboration between archaeologists and scholars with technical expertise maximizes the effectiveness of 3D models, as does presenting digital results in tandem with traditional forms of documentation.

Archaeological site tours are a common form of public outreach, but are they done as well as possible? Do they convey the information that is intended and are they effective in teaching about archaeology, culture, professionalism, and ethics? Over the years, I’ve been asked by cultural resource management (CRM) firms and university anthropology department field school directors for information on how to construct and give site tours. In the past, responding to this request meant cobbling together information from various sources and adding commentary. The intent of this article is to bring all of that information, along with 25-plus years of experience, together into one comprehensive narrative with the intention of providing guidance for those who have trepidations about offering site tours as a form of public outreach.

Are you an avid fan of Instagramed excavation finds, or YouTube clips of archaeologists? Ever visited an archaeologically-themed virtual museum? Or have you taken a tour of a historic site with a mobile app as your guide? Have you searched for the best Minecraft games deployed in the name of heritage? Or are you regularly on the lookout for blogs to keep you up-to-date on new archaeological thinking?

Beginning with our next issue, Advances in Archaeological Practice (AAP) will become the first major archaeological journal in the English-speaking world to to regularly review the highs and lows, the practicalities, personal experiences and audience impacts of the full range of digital media applied to our discipline. Moving beyond standard book or exhibition reviews, here we will explore any (and all) current digital initiatives produced to engage both general and specialist audiences. Our concern is to push on the boundaries of the review format, turning it into a space where the increasing array of digital outputs being developed and marketed in archaeology are compared and subjected to critical reflection.