-I applaud James Wettstaed's message on this subject in which he commented that
the National Register cut-off date for potentially eligible archaeological
properties is 50 years.  Furthermore, NR Bulletin 36 ["Guidelines for Evaluating
and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts" p. 4] makes this
statement quite explicitly.   Thus, no one can suggest that the NR Criteria
Considerations were never intended to include relatively modern archaeological
sites in the 50 year rule, but that this cut-off was actually meant to apply to
architectural properties - yes, I've actually heard this said by someone who
shall remain nameless.
- However, my point isn't based on NHPA, but ARPA.  While sites have to be
"important" in order to qualify for listing on the National Register, the same
is not true for protection under ARPA.  The latter is intended to protect (in
contrast to the NRHP which merely lists properties) all sites on federal/tribal
land that are "of archaeological interest" and at least 100 years old.  Judge
Sheri Hutt has an interesting interpretation of the term "of archaeological
interest"  which is based on actual court cases and published in her book
Archaeological Resources Protection.  According to Hutt, the courts have
interpreted the phase quite broadly; that is, it is only necessary for a site to
have SOME research potential for it to qualify for ARPA protection. A site does
not have to have been assessed as NRHP-eligible to be protected under ARPA, and
it certainly doesn't have to be listed.  It follows that if a site is eligible
for protection under ARPA it should be eligible for a site number which, after
all, is only a recognition of its existance, not an evaluation of its
significance.
- It seems to me that it is not up to individual states to make these kinds of
arbitrary decisions, since the National Register program folks and, by
extension, the National Park Service, have already settled the case:  In
relation to inventories that are mandated under Section 106, 50 years is the
legal cut-off;  this is not a matter of debate.  For sites that are on federal
or tribal land that are have been recorded for other than 106 compliance, a site
number should be assigned on the basis of ARPA to every site over 100 years old.
It is strange to suggest that these "non-sites" will clutter up the system,
since they are explicitly protected under the law to the same degree as older
properties. If my ARPA arguement holds water, then the NRHP status of these
sites is irrelevent outside of the Section 106 context.
- I suppose that any SHPOs who don't take NPS money to administer federal
programs and review projects on federal land could opt out and continue to
implement recording policies based on their own criteria, but my experience
suggests that he who pays the piper calls the tune.  In fact,  I'd like to hear
from NPS folks who do SHPO program reviews to hear what their reviews say about
agencies that do not follow NPS guidelines.
 
Adrian Praetzellis
[log in to unmask]