Good morning,









  I am writing to bring your attention to proposed legislation in the Massachusetts State House, now in committee, that would restrict the authority of the Massachusetts Historical Commission oversight to only those sites listed on the State or National Register of Historic Place (http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S02053). ; This legislation, which is aimed at eliminating the MHC's authority to require mitigation for a single business property (MediTech; see http://www.medi-talk.com/tag/massachusetts-historical-commission) (see also http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2011/10/25/sides-differ-over-meditech-derailed-freetown-expansion-plan/AqhPlgYMVK0NGrwXowEfoO/story.html), would if passed eliminate oversight protection for nearly 140,000 historical and archaeological sights in Massachusetts that have been inventoried by the MHC but are not listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places.  This includes some 12,000 known archaeological sites, and would also eliminate the protections afforded by MHC oversight of development involving state or federal funding, licensing, or permitting from archaeological sites that have not yet been identified.    
  To date, there has been very little public notice of this bill, so I urge you to share this email with colleagues and to add your voice in opposition to this bill.  A copy of a letter of concern submitted by the Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology is copied below.

Sincerely,
Karen Metheny
Chair, Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology (www.cneha.org)







----------- 
 The Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology
 
 
November 7, 2011
Senator KennethJ. Donnelly
RepresentativePeter V. Kocot
Chairmen, JointCommittee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight
 
Dear SenatorDonnelly and Representative Kocot,
 
On behalf of theExecutive Board of the Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology and all ofour members, I wish to express our deep concern with proposed legislation thatwould remove critical protection from archaeological and historical sites inthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Specifically, the proposed bill, S. 02053, will eliminate key protections for archaeological andhistorical resources in the Commonwealth that are not on the State Register ofHistoric Places.  The proposednarrowing of state regulations and the elimination or restriction of stateoversight for construction or renovation projects that involve state or federalfunding, permitting, or direct involvement of a state or federal agencyimperils the Commonwealth’s historical and archaeological sites andresources.  Further, this proposalundermines the legislated function of the Massachusetts Historical Commissionas the permitting and oversight authority for mandated archaeological surveywithin the Commonwealth and as steward and manager of irreplaceable culturalresources.  Finally, the loss ofprotection for archaeological and historical resources in the Commonwealth willhave an adverse economic impact in Massachusetts through its effects on theheritage tourism industry.
 
Theproposed bill, S. 02053, would limit mandated state development review andoversight to only those archaeological and historical sites listed on the StateRegister of Historic Places and will consequently undermine the authority andeffectiveness of all previous reviews and recommendations for mitigation issuedby the MHC for historical and archaeological sites that have been evaluated andinventoried through the review process but are not on the State Register.  Passage of S. 02053 will disproportionatelyaffect archaeological sites in the Commonwealth for a number of reasons.  First, few archaeological sites arenominated for the State Register. There is little incentive for property owners to file for Registerstatus.  Existing tax creditsbenefit owners who are seeking to restore or rehabilitate extant structures,not owners of sites with below-ground archaeological resources.  The number of archaeological andhistorical sites on the State Register of Historic Places (60,000 sites; see http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcstreg/streg.htm)represents barely one third of all sites in the MHC’s inventory (200,000archaeological and historical sites combined; see Massachusetts State HistoricPreservation Plan 2011-2015 [2011]; http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/).  Under the current proposal, anestimated 140,000 sites (historic buildings, structures, cemeteries, andarchaeological sites) will lose protections afforded to them through stateoversight and review because they are listed in the MHC’s inventory of sitesbut are not on the State Register of Historic Places.  Crucially, some 8000 Native American archaeological sitesand 4600 historical-period archaeological sites in Massachusetts willeffectively be removed from the oversight of the MHC if this bill ispassed.  Of equal concern, S. 02053will undercut the review process through which potential dangers to 
as yetundiscovered archaeological sites are mitigated.  If passed, this legislation will undermine the MHC’sauthority and the Commonwealth’s mandated responsibility to protect culturalresources; further, it will place responsibility for site protection ormitigation in the hands of owners and builders, and it will leave residents ofthe Commonwealth in the unfortunate position of relying upon the goodintentions of owners and developers for the protection of irreplaceablecultural resources and heritage sites that belong collectively to all of theCommonwealth’s residents.  
 
The proposedlegislation has negative, broad-reaching impact for many of the Commonwealth’scitizens, and we ask that you consider the following:
 
•S. 02053 will disproportionately affect Native American sites because so feware identified or preserved.  Itrequires applied technical effort to locate prehistoric archaeological sitesand list them the State and National Registers;
•S. 02053 will have a devastating effect on archaeological sites that are notlisted at the state and national levels because there is not yet enoughinformation about them to do so;
•S. 02053 reduces the power of local historical societies and towns that havelisted sites as locally important but have not yet completed the applicationprocess at the state and/or federal levels.  Massachusetts prides itself on the importance of local towngovernment, so it is important that communities be allowed to recognize,advocate for, and protect locally significant sites when they deem itnecessary;
•S. 02053 will undermine the intent of existing federal and state legislationthat makes federal and/or state funding, licensing, or permitting, or state orfederal agency involvement the trigger for site review; the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 9, sections26-27C, are written specifically to include sites that are not on the State or National registers; 
•Given the role of the Commonwealth in reviewing development, issuing permits,and collecting fees, there is sufficient justification for continued stateregulatory influence; 
•While the State Register of Historic Places is important, it does not list allof the places of historical importance to the residents of the Commonwealth.
 
The proposedchanges in S. 02053 will also have a detrimental impact to the economy.   The Commonwealth’s archaeologicaland historical resources are the basis for a growing and vital heritage tourismindustry, one that already generates significant revenues for local and stateeconomies across the country. Heritage tourism contributes jobs, raises income levels, increases taxrevenue, and contributes to overall economic wellbeing.  In Massachusetts, spending related toheritage tourism in 2002 was estimated to be 2.5 billion dollars (EconomicImpacts of Historic Preservation in Massachusetts,
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcpdf/Economic_Impacts_2002.pdf).  This is not an insignificantcontribution, especially in light of the current recession.  The Commonwealth’s commitment to theprotection of its resources, or its failure to do so, will impact the vacationand recreational plans of residents and out-of-state visitors, as well as thoseof participants in the many educational, historical, and museum programs thatare built upon access to and enjoyment of those resources.  
 
The Council forNortheast Historical Archaeology (CNEHA) is a non-profit educationalorganization with over 400 members in the eastern United States andCanada.  Our membership comprisesprofessional archaeologists, historians, educators, and cultural resourcespecialists.  The sole purpose ofthe Council is to stimulate and encourage the collection, preservation,advancement, and dissemination of knowledge gained through the study andpractice of historical archaeology. The Council specifically encourages fieldwork, collections research,conservation, education, and public outreach.  This organization was founded in 1966 by professional andavocational archaeologists and historians who were alarmed by the destructionand loss of historical and archaeological resources in the Northeast.  The Council evolved out of an awarenessof the need to preserve and protect the historical archaeological record and toshare that past with others.  It isthat awareness that compels us to now express our deepest concern for thefuture of archaeological and historical resources in the Commonwealth, and ourconviction that the protection of these important resources is jeopardized bythe proposed legislative changes.  
 
We understandthat many in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are confronted with difficultiesas a result of a poor economy, while others question the role of government andthe need for government regulation. Those acting on behalf of the Commonwealth must be far-sighted enough,however, to see that the state’s legislated role as steward and protector of all its many resources must not besacrificed.  S. 02053 is a misguidedattempt to streamline the development review process; the proposal isshort-sighted and will not only eliminate essential protections for theCommonwealth’s precious cultural resources but also adversely affect a powerfuleconomic engine in the form of heritage tourism.  Massachusetts residents would be better served by increasedefficiency and coordination in the development review process, not bylegislation that effectively abrogates the Commonwealth’s responsibility toprotect irreplaceable historical, archaeological, and cultural resources forits citizens.  We ask that thecommittee carefully weigh the effects of this proposed legislation, with fullunderstanding of the risks to the Commonwealth’s heritage resources and to itsalready fragile economy.  In short,we ask you to bring a thoughtful and responsible approach to the issue athand.  We urge you to vote against S.02053.
 
Thank you foryour time and consideration.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. KarenMetheny
Chair, Councilfor Northeast Historical Archaeology