Heritage marketing already makes the question of cultural resource management relevant - although probably at the expense of  historicity and alternative, subcultural discourse including that of ethnic identities. The whole proto-Napoleonic project of building galleries and museums reflects that tendency. At the same time the past, including the environment, cannot be preserved. Like so many things, progress in given domains has to follow a path of compromise and synergy, based on predictive research.  

Cultural resource management should always be based on previous scientific research. Particularly, that is the case of rock art sites. In general, for all archaeological sites the state of preservation should be defined by scientific methods, so that adequate strategies, based in a precise scientific knowledge can be designed for preservation and resource management purposes. That’s the only way sites can be properly preserved. This should be an international practice, extended all over the world. UNESCO is especially concerned with this question and has elaborated thorough methodologies for preservation and cultural resource management that should be consulted for every case, worldwide.

Alan, obviously cultural resource management can be compatible with productive scientific research, the question is whether overall CRM practice accomplishes that goal and contributes to the growth of knowledge. There are many excellent CRM archaeologists,  organizations, regulators, and state historic preservation offices  trying to do high-quality archaeological work. I think all of us recognize that the overall direction of CRM does not have the close connection to academic archaeology that it did in its infancy during the 1960s and 1970s. As we know, at that time, there was a close relationship between the burgeoning optimism and interest in scientific methodological advances, and the quantity and landscape scale of of CRM work being done that provided "laboratory" opportunities to test notions about sampling, settlement patterns, and a range of finer-grained views of archaeological materials. I am disheartened to see the schism that has developed between academic and CRM archaeology. The Society for American Archaeology actively promotes attention to CRM issues, work, and the legal logistics of the work, but I do not always see a movement to make certain that the quality of CRM improves. I would like to see SAA promote more critical evaluations of the general success of CRM to protect  the record and promote state-of-the-art research (not just the use of the latest gizmos, but informed and sophisticated research designs) producing comparable data across the entire country (and comparing it with other countries CRM practices) and how it is or could be used by academics. While some graduate students do work with CRM data, there is still a premium on original excavation, survey, or analyses produced by academic research. The inherent problems in some CRM work poisons the well for more academic support of this largest amount of archeological work being done in the US and in some other countries. Greater encouragement of students to use CRM data could also help develop more sophisticated oversight of data collection methodologies, rigor, and attention to comparability in those date. We all know that some CRM work is not done with an eye toward research beyond classification or culture history, and the methodologies more eagerly embrace technological sophistication for its cost savings but are not always congruent with academic research goals or data needs. Certainly many regulators and standard methods promote a recognition only of the most "spectacular" or culture historically "important" sites, dismissing smaller manifestations as similar to a whole slew of already minimally described kinds of archaeological records. The variant phrases used in many CRM report that "nothing more can be learned from X kind of sites" certainly has no bearing to a scientific perspectives that ALL manifestations of past behavior represent part of the sample we need to better understand to advance our knowledge of those records, especially when "non-significant sites" are subject to potential destruction and permanent loss. A priori assumptions about importance or relevance to a range of archaeological questions is absolutely anti-scientifc. Some of this can be side-stepped through complying with the regulators views that particular kinds of sites cannot be protected, but taking the time to present what potential such sites do possess to advance our understanding of regional archaeology and larger research questions. If we only identify cool stuff, big sites, or those dating to particular periods of interest to some scholars as worth investigating or protecting, we are editing the nature of our recording of the sample we can encounter through our current survey methods. When I worked for George Frison in the High Plains he clearly recognized a range of problems in developing a more complete view of his particular interests, Paleoindian adaptations. Doc Frison worried that sites without Paleoindian points got minimal attention and no expensive efforts at dating that could potentially identify them as part of Paleoindian site variation. He was certain that Paleoindians also had to have some small game components, or plant collection, that we were missing because we assumed that sites without the "diagnostic" artifacts were not part of the Paleoindian record and received minimal attention. The problem he recognized applies to thousands of archaeological sites that receive minimal documentation because of the structure of CRM concerns about "significance" and the demands from all levels of the business to keep costs down and not interfere with development schedules. I worry that our own dismissal of particular kinds of archaeology can someday (perhaps under the new Trump administration) be used against the legal protections that enable modern CRM to be funded and practiced. CRM is an important employment opportunity for many archaeologists who want to be able to pursue this career. All of us can improve the quality of the CRM we do to some extent, but it seems that academic departments, the SAA, as well as concerned states and regulators need a larger voice about how to improve the standards for publically funded archaeology.