Dear List members:
    Yesterday I received the newsletter of the Archaeological Society of
Maryland (ASM Ink) and read the following section entitled Archaeology Action
Alert (please excuse any typos as they are my own):

    "Your help is urgently needed to resolve a very serious problem in
Maryland, resulting in the destruction of archeological resources.  This is a
state-wide problem with national implications.  We urge you to call, fax, or
write your congressional representatives as detailed below.
    More than a year ago, a serious disagreement developed between the
Maryland Historical Trust (Trust) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
concerning the Corps' failure to fully and properly consider the impact
non-tidal wetland and waterway projects have on archeological resources in
Maryland (the Corps issues Federal Wetlands permits and must comply with
certain federal regulations including the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) - NHPA requires the Corps to take into account a project's full impact
on archeological and historic sites).  The Corps has consistently ignored
Trust recommendations, and in June 1998, the Trust suspended its review of
Corps non-tidal wetland and waterway projects.  Consequently, significant and
irreplaceable archeological sites are threatened and some may have been
destroyed."

    After a description of some of the sites that will be negatively impacted
by construction allowed by the Corps permits, the article continues "In sum,
a number of sites which are or may be eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places are threatened as a result of a permit issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, out of compliance with the law.  Of course,
there have been a lot more than three development projects in Maryland this
past year!
    The Baltimore District of the Corps of Engineers has been issuing permits
for non-tidal wetland and waterway projects in Maryland without taking into
account a project's full impact on archeological and historic sites.  The
Corps' regulations (33 CFR part 325, Appendix C) spell out procedures for the
protection of historic (including archeological properties).  The regulations
do not limit archeology to the wetland impact, but include other parts of the
project that could not be developed 'but for' the wetland permit.  Thus, if a
development is only possible if a wetland crossing allows access to the
project, it could not be developed 'but for' the wetland permit.
    However, the Baltimore District of the Corps has chosen to interpret the
'but for' test very narrowly.  They argue that a developer could conceivable
bridge the wetland without directly impacting it, and therefore not require a
wetland permit.  This is a most disingenuous argument, since a bridge large
enough to bridge all wetland impacts would not be economically feasible for
most developers.
    It is most distressing that the Corps has been violating the National
Historic Preservation Act by failing to properly consider the impact
non-tidal wetland projects have on Maryland's archeological resources, and
that the Baltimore District has not engaged its national policy staff from
Washington to meet with the Advisory Council and the Trust.  Equally
distressing is the fact that dozens of letters have been written since March
4th to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the federal agency
tasked with 'advocating full consideration of historic values in federal
decision-making and reviewing federal programs and policies to further
preservation'), and no responses have been received."
    Friends of archeology should be extremely concerned by the direction this
problem has taken.  The Society for Historical Archaeology and the Council
for Northeast Historical Archaeology, two premier professional organizations
with national and regional focuses, have written to the Chairman of the
Advisory Council as well as to all of Maryland's congressional leaders.  The
Society for Historical Archaeology is filing suit.  But more is needed,
particularly since the Advisory Council's director has failed to respond.
Maryland's congressional leaders need to hear archeology's voice loud and
clear from their constituents."

    Please forgive me for not including the remainder of the article.  It
describes additional ways to voice your concerns to Maryland's congressional
leaders, including addresses and phone numbers.  Anyone interested in this
information should reference ASM Ink (vol. 25 no. 8 pp. 4).  The reason I
have brought this up, beyond the need to increase public awareness concerning
this situation, is because I wonder if this happens throughout the United
States?  Its hard enough for archaeologists to protect sites as it is, but if
our own federal agencies are working against us what kind of precedent is it
setting for the future of Section 106 review?
    In contrast, the Army Corps of Engineers closer to my home, near
Williamsburg, Virginia, have rejected permit applications for a reservoir in
King William County that will flood and destroy nearly 100 significant
historic and prehistoric sites.  While the permit rejection wasn't based
solely on the archaeological resources, it at least was listed as a concern.
While the City of Newport News is resubmitting the permit for approval, the
Corps seems to be standing by its original conclusion.
    I would like to know what other individuals think of these situations.
What experiences have you had and what can we do, as archaeologists, to help
remedy these situations?

Sincerely,
Dave Brown