Table Of Content

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Information for Parks, Federal Agencies, Indian Tribes, States, Local Governrhents, and the Private Sector VOLUME 21 NO. 10 19986 - The Power ee asc ale Public PNo ilcel(eray rave Move.) Government - - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Seryw Cultural Resource PUBLISHED BY THE Contents VOLUME 2! =NO.10 1998 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE The PowerTo Preserve To promote and maintain high standards for preserving and managing cultural resources Public Archeology and Local Government DIRECTOR Robert Stanton I cosnactee wih 5 605-0504 0.6 055595405465 86950805 0 08 08 88008 8 ee 3 ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR William D. Lipe CULTURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIPS Public Archeology and Local Land Use Law ......60.0 c.ece. ce.ce 0eee. ee e 4 Katherine H. Stevenson David W. Cushman EDITOR Ronald M. Greenberg Community Archeology—Working with Local Governments ................55 5 Brona G. Simon and Edward L. Bell ASSOCIATE EDITOR Janice C. McCoy Planning and Zoning Strategies—Protecting Connecticut's Archeological Resources 2.0.6... 6. ccc ccc eee eee eee ene eee nena 9 GUEST EDITOR Nicholas F. Bellantoni and William R. Haase David W. Cushman ADVISORS Archeological Review in Ann Arbor, MI. ......00. c.cc. c.ece0 e0ee0 ee e 12 John M. O’Shea and William Parkinson Passing the Ordinance is Not Enough—Two Examples from lowa ............ 15 Kerry C. McGrath Archeological Site Protection in La Quinta, CA ......0.0.0.. .ec .ece. ee e 18 Leslie J. Mouriquand Preserving Our Options—Public Archeology in Santa Fe, New Mexico......... 20 David W. Cushman Preservation Policy and Procedures—Public and Private Sector Development Review in Pima County, Arizona ..........00.00. e. ee.e6 e ee 23 Linda L. Mayro Miami Underground—Dade County's Archeological Success Story ............ 26 Robert S. Carr The Soapstone Local Historic Preservation District, Georgia ................ 28 Thomas R. Wheaton ASSISTANTS When Archeological Ordinances Fail—Protecting the Resource Denise M. Mayo . ss TSO TETTEEPSTETELEE Lee rErrT riEerR rEie r 30 Jessica Oliveri Aleta Lawrence CO Se + Geen Sae Gees tas anee and archeological investigations to document itsd evelopmental history. Beneath the asphalt of a parking lot instainl thle e195d0s , archeological features and materials were found tho’ dated from the prehistoric, colonial, Mexican, American Territorial, and early Statehood periods. Photo courLtineda sMayyr o. Statements of fact and views are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect an opinion or endorsement on the part of the editors, the CRM advisors and consultants, or the National Park Service. Send articles and correspondence to the Editor, CRM, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, |8 49 C Street, NW, Suite 350NC, Washington, DC 20240; 202-343-8 |6 4, fax 202-343-5260; email: <[email protected]> 2 CRM No 10—1998 Foreword here is widespread interest in archeology among the American public—and I am not talking about New Age or Fantastic treatments of the subject. Witness the popularity of magazines, television shows, newspaper reports, museum exhibits, site tours, and adult education Or et aniateientinokamtiane and citizen activists have tapped this widespread interest to staan tak enteiaoen endian federal and state agencies to include scales eouuatie talons tata to'sc anted anata planning and execution. At the local level, however, public interest in archeology has seldom been translated into effective preservation of sites. Decisions by local governments and actions by private developers that result in destruction of archeological resources have more often been met by mere laments from the archeological community than by effective action to address the problems. Yet the wide- must do to gain similar consideration for archeological resources at the local level. There is no single magic approach that will work everywhere. Each success must be built from the grassroots up on the basis of hard and patient work that takes the specific character of each community into account. Because archeological sites, unlike historic buildings, are seldom highly visible, proponents of archeological preservation must work doubly hard to show what can be learned from sites if they are protected. These papers provide tools and models that archeological preservationists can adapt to their own communities. They will also stimulate com- the nation. CRM N> 10—1998 David W. Cushman Public Archeology and Local Land Use Law his issue of CRM presents 10 papers for these laws derives from the powers given the that were originally prepared for a States under the U.S. Constitution to regulate the session entitled “Public Archeology activities of private individuals for the purpose of and the Power of Local Preservation protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. Law” that I organized for the 63rd meeting of the This authority may be conveyed to local govern- Society for American Archaeology held in Seattle, ments through enabling state legislation that estab- Washington, in March 1998. The session partici- lishes the requirements for planning, zoning, and pants, all archeologists by training, were i vited to other land use controls. Thus, the local governments speak about their experiences working wi 1 local that have met these requirements and have chosen governments (counties and municipalities) that are to protect archeological sites have accepted the using their legal authority to regulate land use and argument that it is in the public interest to do so. development to protect archeological sites. The threat to the archeological record is real, Protecting the archeological record has always the problems are identifiable, and solutions do exist, been a land use and planning problem. Federal laws as demonstrated by the papers in this issue. The such as the National Historic Preservation Act, and papers are organized roughly by region and illus- similar state laws, specifically require consideration trate a wide range of approaches to archeological of cultural resources during the planning and design site preservation on the local level. The emphasis is phases of government undertakings. Most develop- on the practical and information is presented to ment in this country, however, is private, and not demonstrate what works, and in some cases, what subject to state or federal preservation requirements doesn't. Many of the authors are state agency because no public lands or financing are involved, employees who work every day with local govern- and no permits or other authorizations are re- ments (Simon, Bellantoni, McGrath, Cushman, quired—except for those issued by local governments. O’Shea). Others are local government planners or The explosive growth of sprawl occurring program staff who have to make preservation work throughout the country is a direct threat to the for their communities (Mayro, Mouriquand, Carr). archeological record. Last year alone there were over One author is a member of a local preservation com- a million new housing starts involving disturbance mission that just recently succeeded in establishing to thousands of acres of land and the cultural protection for a large archeological district resources they contain. Sadly, because most local (Wheaton). And another is a professional planner governments have no requirements to consider with a background in archeology who provides valu- archeological sites in planning for either public able insights on where site protection can be works projects or private development, much of the inserted in the planning and development review record of the past is in danger of being lost without process (Lawrence). Each author emphasizes some- our even knowing what we are losing in the process. thing different about their experiences; however, the Ironically, many communities do have some form of message that we want to convey to you is the preservation advisory board or commission, but pro- same—local land use law can be a powerful tool for tecting archeological sites is not a part of their man- protecting archeological sites. Use it. dates. A recent survey of 2,000 local historic preservation commissions in the country conducted by the Notes National Alliance of Preservation Commissions ! Pratt Cassity, personal communication with author. found that 91% of the respondents do not in any 2 Susan L. Henry. Protecting Archeological Sites on way consider the effects of development on archeo- Private Lands. U.S. Department of the Interior, logical sites. ! National Park Service. Preservation Planning Branch, The purpose of this issue of CRM is to high- Interagency Resources Division, 1993. light this growing preservation problem and to pre- sent examples of some of the few local governments David W. Cushman is Cultural Resources Program Coordinator, Pima County, Arizona. He is guest editor that are doing something about it. 'n each case, of this issue of CRM. preservation is achieved by means of local laws con- trolling land use and development. The legal basis 4 CRM No 10—1998 Brona G. Simon and Edward L. Bell Community Archeology Working with Local Governments ocal governments in the Somerville, and Lowell, have a paid professional Commonwealth of Massachusetts historic preservation staff. Only Boston has a City have great flexibility in establishing Archeologist on staff. archeological programs tailored to The Massachusetts Historical Commission's their particular needs and desires by drawing on (MHC) assistance to LHCs includes giving advice local interests, resources, and talent; and by seek- on integrating preservation planning within local ing advice from professional and responsible avo- governments through the development of local his- cational archeologists. Because the majority of toric preservation review by-laws; providing grarts- construction projects that jeopardize historic and in-aid for the preparation of model guidance docu- archeological resources in Massachusetts are only ments,! preservation plans, and archeological sen- reviewed by local agencies, communities must sitivity maps; encouraging civic volunteerism take the initiative in historic preservation plan- through local archeology projects; developing a ning. Not all communities choose to exercise local bibliography on archeology and historic preserva- historic preservation review authority over spe- tion planning; and fostering public outreach and cific projects. In fact, the most successful local educational efforts through workshops and confer- archeology programs also embrace pro-active ences, and coordinating events and publicity for preservation planning activities that emphasize Massachusetts Archaeology Week. broad and long-term identification and preserva- Results tion goals and public educational initiatives to Twelve towns and cities in Massachusetts foster a local preservation constituency. have decided to include archeology in their local Each town in Massachusetts is authorized governments in various ways, resulting in a diver- under state enabling legislation (Mass. General sity of regulatory review and planning programs Laws Chapter 40C) to establish a local historical [see list p. 6]. Some towns allow LHC review of commission (LHC). LHCs maintain inventories of subdivision approvals, wetlands permits, gravel pit historic and archeological properties and advise permits, or local historic district reviews. In addi- local governing boards and agencies about historic tion, many of these towns have published archeo- preservation. The LHCs are, in majority, staffed by logical preservation plans, or have incorporated volunteer citizens who are appointed by the town’s archeology into their historic preservation plans. board of selecumen, mayor, or city council (depend- As a result of local regulatory review for ing on the organization of the local government). A archeology, many archeological surveys and a few few large cities, such as Boston, Cambridge, data recovery excavations have been conducted. Site preservation has also occurred in open space areas of numerous subdivisions. Many acres of land with archeological sites have been acquired for conservation, preservation, and passive recre- ation by towns and land trusts through private donations, and by using local, state, and federal land conservation funds.> The statewide inventory of archeological sites and collections has also been supplemented through local research efforts. Public education efforts and publicity have reached thousands of residents. The chiefly volunteer structure of LHCs and public misperceptions about archeology and development projects can pose problems. Like other volunteer organizations, problems occur when key members depart or when enthusiasm wanes. Often, while LHCs are enthusiastic about archeology, there is little or no professional expertise. CRM No 10—1998 Consequently, LHCs rely heavily on the State and fears that archeological discoveries will pro- Archeologist for technical expertise to initially hibit construction altogether. One member of a review and comment on proposed projects, and local historical commission recently told us, “We then to review, consult, and comment on archeo- don’t want to be regulators, we want to do archeol- logical investigation proposals, results, reports, ogy!” Although easily discouraged by negative and recommendations. experiences with local regulatory review, interested Local governments also have to respond to volunteers seemingly thrive on discovering new public constituencies who are wary of too much details about the archeology of their towns, and government interference; or the relatively high cost learning new skills. of archeology for private land owners with modest More active local groups engage in a variety construction budgets; project delays and 1 1th-hour of tasks, such as examining private artifact collec- crises caused by poor planning or late notification; tions, reporting site information, visiting and |Local Archeology Programs and Preservation Plans in Massachusetts! BarnstabHlisetor—icLal oCocmmaisslio n sitivity map and plan completreedco;m - (LHC) comments on subdivisainod nwest - mends adoption of local ordinance (by- lands permits througthhe toowun tan d law) all local boartdo ssee k assists Sandy Neck boardi n comments of MAAC on projeinc artchseo - pr arms hasten CRM No 10—1998 inspecting sites, and nominating sites to the National Register; these activities are more typical of preservation planning than environmental review. Support and patient guidance on our part will go far to foster tne growth and well-being of an interested cadre of local citizens, who typically also have other jobs and responsibilities. ls More Control Better? Not Necessarily! Instead of more “control,” consider better ways of “doing vusiness” by blending pro-active planning and public education into the regulatory mix. Each community should develop an excluded from Freedom of Information demands by archeological preservation plan, as it does for his- looters. But, LHCs can share this critical archeolog- toric resources. Local archeological preservation ical information with the owners of significant sites plans can be funded through Survey and Planning and with local review authorities. Archeological (S&P) grants from the State Historic Preservation sensitivity maps are a critical component of a local Office (SHPO). MHC has awarded S&P grants to review program, defining which areas are subject eight towns (Barnstable, Boston, Chilmark, to local regulatory attention. The maps must be Falmouth, Marion, Medfield, Salem, and accurate, preferably based on local zoning maps as Wayland—see listing p.6) to produce archeological well as USGS quadrangle maps. Meaningful and preservation planning reports with recommenda- accurate archeological sensitivity maps help tions for each town’s local archeology program, landowners, developers, engineers, and town per- catered to the unique characteristics of each partic- mitting authorities better anticipate which project ular locality. With an S&P grant, in accordance areas may involve archeological impact review. with National Park Service guidelines, professional Local regulatory controls must be clear-cut, time- archeologists prepare a plan that typically includes sensitive, predictable, defensible from legal chal- (NR/NHL). Photo the results of a town-wide reconnaissance survey lenge, and respectful of private property and due by T.C. Fitzgeraid., identifying known prehistoric and historic site process rights. courtesy Massachusetts locations and archeologically sensitive areas on Preservation planning for archeological sites Historical town maps using professionally accepted predictive is most successful when done pro-actively, rather Commission, Office models. The LHC’s copy of archeological site and than through regulatory review of proposed con- sensitivity maps are not a public record under state struction projects. Important archeological sites law (Mass. General Laws Chapter 40C), and are identified by a town reconnaissance survey can be targeted for preservation. LHCs can assist town conservation commissions by including archeological sites in open space plans and on a list of acqui- sition priorities by the town or a conservation organization such as land trust or The Archeological Conservancy.* LHCs can advocate for town planning boards to adopt cluster zoning options for subdivision developments to protect sites within open space areas. >: © Public educational initiatives are a critical component of any local archeology program. To increase the number of active members of LHCs involved in local archeology programs, basic archeological skills and knowledge can be acquired through reading, coursework, and field and labora- tory training. The close involvement of professional and responsible avocational archeologists in basic archeological training and technical assistance to CRM No 10—1998 ~ LHCs are crucial. Adept media relations, publicity 3 Brona G. Simon, “The Carrot Not the Stick: efforts, and programs geared to the general public Strategies for Protecting Archaeological Sites on broaden the constituency of support for local Private Property,” Cultural Resource Management preservation efforts—always an important consid- Archaeological Research, Preservation Planning, and Public Education in the Northeastern United States, eration in local politics. edited by J.E. Kerber (Westport: Bergin and Garvey, In summary, local archeological review pro- 1994), p. 191-208. grams offer opportunities and challenges in devel- Ibid. oping and fostering a local review process that will Ibid. be managed properly and embraced by 'ocal citi- QvQi t Susan L. Henry, Protecting Archeological Sites on zens. As unique as each community is, no single Private Lands, National Park Service, Preservation set of regulatory controls will be universally practi- Planning Branch, Interagency Resources Division, cal. Rather, each town should be encouraged to Washington, DC, 1993. establish a local archeology program by choosing from a variety of regulatory, planning, and educa- References tional tools that meet their particular circum- “Archeological Site Conservation on Private stances and interests. Property”. In CRM 18(3):35-39, special issue, Archeology and the Public, edited by D. Poirier and N. Bellantoni, National Park Service, Washington, Notes 1 Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic DC, 1995. Development District, Protecting Historic Resources: A Guide for Loca! Government Action, (Taunton: Brona G. Simon is State Archeologist and Deputy SERPEDD, 1984). 2 Edward L. Bell, A Bibliography on Archaeology and State Historic Preservation Officer, and Edward L. Beli is Senior Archeologist at the Massachusetts Historic Preservation for Local Historical Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Commissions (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Commission, 1997). VEASSACHUSETTS ° ARCHAEOLOG) WEEK Hyminate the Past Qctober 3-12, 1998 Statewide Even Open Digs, Workshiogps, Livtiig History lemonstrations, Lechanes ara] fochibité ra free calendar of eventscall =~, ~? > _g47 DD 21-500. 780 400m . oe vw state ma ns/Sec/mirc * CRM No |0—1998 Nicholas F. Bellantoni and William R. Haase Planning and Zoning Strategies Protecting Connecticut's Archeological Resources rch viogical resource protection preservation approach. While projects are usually mechanisms in the state of of a smaller scale than their federally permitted or Connecticut are guided by a funded counterparts, compliance is more difficult to twofold strategy. The State Historic monitor due to a lack of legislative mandate or pro- Preservation Office (SHPO) was established in the fessional staff at the local level. 1970s to administer federal and state historic The OSA has worked with every municipality preservation programs. The Office of State in the state on preservation issues, often when writ- Archaeology (OSA) was created in the 1980s to ten planning and zoning regulations are lacking. provide technical assistance in the preservation of Without these regulatory mandates, cogent argu- cultural resources to municipalities in the review ments must be made to members of the local land of privately funded development projects that do use commission. The success of our arguments is not require compliance with federal or state often determined by the commitment of town offi- preservation legislation, but are subject to local cials and commission members to effectively bal- regulations. ance the dual pressures of preservation and eco- By abandoning the county government sys- nomic development. “Grassroots” advocacy from tem, the state gave municipalities virtual autonomy the locai community plays an extremely important in land use decision-making. As a result, 169 sepa- role in convincing town officials to support cultural rate local governments regulate, through planning resource protection. State officials can tesiify about and zoning and/or conservation commissions, the the resource and the need, but it takes local resi- review of proposed development projects. To assist dents and voters campaigning for archeological the town governments, state enabling statutes guide preservation to make it happen. municipalities as to what they can regulate; and The general statutes of neariy 20 states con- zoning commissions have been given the ability to tain enabling language either requiring, or encour- develop regulations for the “protection of historic aging, written comprehensive land use and devel- factors.” * opment plans by local government. These local area Members of the “Historic factors” has been broadly inter- plans serve as a guide not only for planning and Arthur Basto preted to include archeological resources. Hence, zoning boards when adopting land use regulations, Archaeological Society conducting the OSA provides technical assistance to town offi- but they can also assist the judicial system in deter- Phase | survey for cials, landowners, developers, and others for evalu- mining the constitutionality of a local regulation a subdivision ating private or town-sponsored development pro- should it be challenged in court. approved by the jects for impacts to cultural resources. OSA encour- For example, the Connecticut Supreme C.urt Woodstock, CT, ages Connecticut towns to develop a local review has established that planning and zoning boards planning commission. process that is structured similar to the federal may consider historic preservation issues in their local land use regulations and decisions, provided that preservation has first been adequately addressed in the town’s comprehensive plan. In Smith vs. Town of Greenwich Zoning Board of Appeals (227 Conn. 71, 1993), the courts ruled in favor of a municipality that was challenged by a developer who was obligated to comply with cultural resource protection measures. The clear message of the Connecticut Supreme Court, however, is that communities must be pro-active and possess an adopted comprehensive master plan that specifically addresses local historic preservation concerns. Both SHPO and OSA routinely promote the Town of Ledyard’s archeological review process (see regulations, p. 10) to other communities as a workable and successful approach. Ledyard’s CRM No 10—1998 preservation plan contains maps and a list depict- fied archeological sites to parks and open ing all properties on t..e National Register of space. In this regard, the OSA has coordi- Historic Places. It has four basic objectives: nated with landscape architects and engi- e Identify and avoid historic and archeolog- neers to incorporate cultural resource pro- ical sites prior to construction. This is tection into their initial subdivision designs. accomplished either pro-actively through List adc..tional properties on the National broad, town-wide cultural resource surveys, Register. Although most listed properties in or by detailed archeological investigations Ledyard are 18th- and 19th-century homes of individual properties that are proposed and farmsteads; this serves to create greater for private development or municipal capital public awareness and broader respect for projects. local preservation initiatives. e Preserve archeological sites in situ rather Obtain Certified Local Government (CLG) than excavate or salvage identified designation from the SHPO and National remains. Developers are encouraged to Park Service, thus becoming eligible for realign or relocate proposed roads, buried matching federal grants for local preparation utilities and buildings, or to dedicate identi- of National Register nominations. historic archaeological sites and standing structures; cemeteries, human burials, human skeletal remains, and associated In making “his determination, the Commission shail seek funerary objects; and distributions of cultural remains and arti- advice and comment from the Office of State facts. and/or State Historic Preservation Officer. \ letter seeking such SEC 4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION. advice shail be mailed within two (2) working days after the Subdivisions and resubdishvaiil sbei laoidn oust to Commission's subdivision preliminary review, as defined in preserve significant cultural resources anc unique nat- Section 3.1.2 of those regulations. ural features. Suitable public access to any cemetery SEC 4.7.4 MANAGEMEPLNANTS. Cultural resource man- may be required by the Commission. agement plans submitted to the Commission by the SEC 4.7.1 CEMETAND EHUMRAN IBUERIALSS. All applsihalcl aconnsistt o f: cemeteries within a subdivisshiaiol nb e a sre Snap amomun w nl deeded either to the Town of Ledyard, an existing sional archaeologist, containing appropriate historic cemetery association, a homeowners association, or documa edescrniptiton aof rteseaircho desnign, met h- other responsible party, as deemed appropriate by the ods and techniques, and a description of sites, fea- er— permienee Foto As ede og tures, and artifacts discovered as a result of the buffer, as measured from stone walls archainveestiogatilon. oA lgist iof acccreaditeld p ro- cumin, oxG amay thutiedhendhibahh este fessional archaeoilso maginitasinteds by SHPO and absenofc weai l or other demarcated boundary. OSA; b) an evaluation of impact of the proposed subdivision SEC 4.7.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT. An on-site on identified cemeteries, human burials, archaeologi- archaeassoesslmenot gshaiil bce raequlire d, if int he cal sites and historsiitces ; opinion of the Commission, there is likelihood that sig- c) a description of measures to be undertaken by the nificant cultural resources or undetected human buri- applicant to mitigate adverse impacts of construction ais will be adversely impacted by construction activi- activities, on identified cultural resources. This may ties associated with the The include an estimate of mitigation costs and time assessment shail be conducted in accordance with standards outlined in the EnvironmenRt.a vile w Primer for Connecticut's Resources. Permanent reference copies are on file at theS HPO and Ledyard Planniofnfigce s. features, orb uildings so ast o minimize adverse or excavanda retmovial oofn cusltur al SEC 4.7.3 DETERMOIF NNEEDA. TThe IComOmissNion 's remains by a professional archaeologist: d) copieosf all invesrtepoirtsg aandt mainavgemeen t plans shail be submitted to the Office of State and State Historic PreservaOftfiiceor nfo r review and comprimor teo anny Pltanni ng Commission public hearing. Comments received from orw atercourses, soils, slope, aspect orr ocks helters, state officials shail be incorporated into the public hearing record. 10 CRM No |o—1998