Unauthorized cultural resource alterations range from looting and grave robbing to contract violations and wildland fires. Such alterations degrade cultural resources’ spiritual, communal, ecological, economic, and scientific values. Alterations often violate communal senses of place, security, and belonging. Alterations complicate jurisdiction-specific management, which is premised on up-to-date information on resource sizes, conditions, and significance. Cultural resource damage assessment protocols based on proven forensic practices distil to eight fieldwork steps: verify the alteration, assemble the team, survey the scene, document the evidence, gather the evidence, assess the archaeological value and the cost of repair and restoration, prescribe emergency remediation, and confirm evidence documentation and custody. The eight steps give special consideration to local communities and Indigenous Territories, where unauthorized alterations are as common as they are elsewhere, whereas impacts to spiritual and cultural values are generally greater. Adapted to jurisdiction- and incident-specific circumstances, the steps will guide responses to alterations by community leaders, land managers, regulators, law enforcement agents, and archaeologists, including preparation of excellent damage assessment reports. Damage assessment practitioners and land managers should refine these practices to deter alterations, engage Tribes and other affected communities, halt postalteration degradation, ensure accountability, and enable jurisdiction-scale curation of cultural resources and their unique value constellations.

A quick search on antonyms for “creative” yields obvious results such as “uncreative,” “unimaginative,” and “uninspired,” but also terms such as “dull,” “derivative,” and “stodgy.” In the world of cultural resources and mitigation of adverse effects, “creative” is most often opposed to “standard.” That sounds like a good thing, right? Good old, reliable, dependable, predictable standard mitigation. But as we will see from the articles in this special issue, remarkable things can happen when those designing mitigation programs replace or augment “standard” approaches. What is it about a mitigation measure or program that leads us to term it “creative”? How can we expand those defining qualities of creative mitigation measures and programs to enhance the quality of standard mitigation approaches? How can we make the standard approaches, if not creative, at least not stodgy?

Standard mitigation treatment for adverse effects to significant cultural resources has historically been a combination of data recovery excavation along with artifact analysis, reporting, and curation, whose purpose is to move the undertaking forward. Over the past several decades, there has been increased interest and understanding of alternative, or creative, mitigation options in these situations, which may, in the end, be the best option for the resource and more meaningful to both project stakeholders and the public. This article, the first in this special issue on creative mitigation, introduces the regulatory and conceptual framework for creative mitigation and weaves themes introduced in subsequent articles in this issue.

This article presents a case study of the process of developing and implementing mitigation as the result of adverse effects to cultural resources from the drawdown of Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. Signs of a dam failure in early 2007 triggered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement the emergency drawdown. While the drawdown prevented a life safety catastrophe, it created a new erosion zone and exposed archaeological sites to looters. When it became clear that conventional Section 106 procedures to identify and evaluate these endangered archaeological resources were not an option, alternative and creative mitigation became a necessary approach for the Corps to meet its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act. This article discusses the creative brainstorming among the Corps, Kentucky state historic preservation officer, and tribes that led to three alternative mitigation measures aimed at educational outreach, raising public awareness, and staff training. Furthermore, the article identifies challenges encountered during the implementation of the mitigation measures. Through the presentation of our mitigation journey, we share some of our lessons learned to improve awareness of the challenges and successes one may encounter during the execution of such alternative measures.

For historic property types such as archaeological sites and historic buildings, data recovery is often the main part of mitigation plans offered by federal agencies with undertakings that will destroy part or all of a cultural resource. In theory, by extracting important information before destruction, we recover some part of a historic resource's cultural value. In some situations, however, data recovery is impossible or otherwise undesirable, and “creative” or off-site mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate adverse effects. In such circumstances, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has accepted funding from federal agencies to create, implement, and enhance an online digital information system for cultural resources. This article describes the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) and provides an example of a federal agency funding WISAARD development as creative mitigation for the transfer of archaeological sites out of federal ownership. We discuss the benefits of such systems and address how their development meets preservation goals established by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.