While there are legal handles to force the federal agency client to provide  
security (Section 106, NEPA, etc.), you are dealing with agencies who simply  
want to build new post office buildings and care zero for archaeology. I saw  
this with a federal HUD grant elderly care facility in the City of San  
Bernardino. No crusader (agency wishing to carry out their  mission to build 
something new) will help you charge them big time for an  impediment to their 
crusade; hence, they have a conflict of interest. You see,  this is what is called a 
"conflict of interest." The crusader would accuse the  archaeologist as having 
a conflict of interest and being an obstacle. The  Advisory Council and SHPO 
are supposed to be the "arms-length reviewer" with no  financial ties or 
interest other than the resource. Government agencies know  their consultant is not 
going to sue them for failure to provide security  because that would violate 
contractor agreements and upset the apple cart for  future contracts, so they 
simply open the gates and invite the pot/bottle  hunters inside. In historic 
preservation (architecture) that is called  "demolition by neglect" and it 
happens all the time. Some of my colleagues  clandestinely slip the story to 
newspapers or advocacy groups who become their  "spear carriers" in fighting to 
preserve or force Section 106 or protect  archaeology sites. The problem for 
contractors like Mike, Mary or myself is that  we are in the middle of a pyramid 
of decision-makers.
 
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.