The email addresses are on the MA legislature website listed in the letter, along with information on the bill, but here are the addresses for the two joint chairs of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:

 [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]

Thanks--

 
Karen Metheny

 



 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gaye <[log in to unmask]>
To: HISTARCH <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Nov 11, 2011 3:02 am
Subject: Re: letter of concern re S. 02053, Mass bill threatens archaeological sites


If you want folk to forward your letter, with a note of support for its 
contents, to the right people it would be best if you supplied e-mail addresses 
for the purpose.

Gaye

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of 
[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2011 10:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: letter of concern re S. 02053, Mass bill threatens archaeological sites

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 al
 so 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 site
 s; 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 M
 HC’sauthority and the Commonwealth’s mandated responsib!
 ility 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 orfede
 ral 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