PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN MASSACHUSETTS
Several towns and commissions in Massachusetts review potential impacts to archaeological and historical resources. In addition to the procedures established by the towns and municipalities, there exist federal, state, and regional protections for archaeological resources. For example, any undertaking that is reviewed under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, or Massachusetts burial legislation could be required to conduct an archaeological survey. In most cases, the local historical commission would be contacted for review, and copies of reports can be requested by the local commissions. The following section presents a discussion of several towns that have archaeological legislation or personnel, the manner in which reviews are triggered, and the procedures
that are followed for cultural resources. The discussion is provided to give the Bolton Historical Commission models upon which to base an appropriate system of archaeological site protection.
Aquinnah
In 2000, by-laws to protect cultural resources were established by the town of Aquinnah (formerly Gay Head) on Martha=s Vineyard. As a part of the establishment of a District of Critical Planning Concern (or DCPC), the town instituted a by-law that requires the Planning Board Plan Review Committee to determine what steps must be taken to Alocate, identify and evaluate@ any archaeological and historical resources that may be significant (Herbster and Cherau 2000). If it is determined that a significant site may be impacted by a proposed project, the project proponent must fund an archaeological survey that would be conducted by a professional consultant. The process is similar to that followed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. If sites are located during the survey that may be significant, subsequent archaeological
surveys may be funded and conducted that will determine the significance of the site, and to mitigate impacts to it. The Review Committee consults with the Aquinnah Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, the MHC, and other appropriate agencies.
Barnstable
Archaeological resources are protected in Barnstable through the Conservation Commission. Under town by-laws the Commission has the authority to require archaeological surveys where proposed work within resource areas may have an impact on archaeological sites. The Conservation Commission works with the Historical Commission to determine which projects are likely to impact sites. The Historical Commission scans the Conservation Commission agenda in advance. If impacts are determined, the Conservation Commission is notified and it takes over the review.
In recent years the frequency of archaeological surveys has been reduced because of a regulation that archaeological resources must be in the resource area and must be listed in the state inventory or other lists. The resource area is defined as a surface water body, vegetated wetland or un-vegetated wetland, any land under said waters, and any land subject to flooding or inundation by ground water, surface water, tidal action, or coastal storm flowage (such as a coastal bank), but not the 100-ft upland buffer. Unfortunately, the 100-ft buffer is the area most likely to contain prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. Unless the wetland resource is artificial (for example, a formerly dry area dammed by a railroad or highway), the wetland area itself has a low potential to contain sites. If sites did exist in these
areas, the cost for their survey and recovery would be high. Another drawback with this system is that only those areas within wetlands and streams are protected. There are many other areas in the town that contain important archaeological resources that are not covered under the Conservation Commission=s jurisdiction.
The issue of protection only within the resource area is the result of the unfortunate wording of the by-law definitions. The intent is to protect areas with Ahistorical values.@ The statement is as follows:
Historical Values: The importance of wetlands and adjoining land areas as sites often used for prehistoric and historic occupation, subsistence, industry, trade, agriculture, burial and other cultural purposes. Resource areas which are known to contain sites of historic or archaeological resources (as being listed on the State Register of Historic Places, the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth, and/or the Barnstable Historical Commission=s Historic Properties Inventory) are deemed to have historic value. Activities in or within 100 feet of resource areas shall not have a significant effect on historical values (Town of Barnstable: Special Conditions of Approval).
When sites are found within a resource area, the Conservation Commission recommends an archaeological survey according to the three-phase approach defined in the state permit regulations. The Conservation Commission then confers with the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and includes the requirements in the Order of Conditions of the wetland permit.
The contact person for the Barnstable Conservation Commission is Robb Gatewood, Conservation Department (508-790-6245).
Brewster
Under town regulations new construction is reviewed by a development Plan Review Committee, which coordinates the review of Asubstantial@ development proposals (Brewster Code, Development Plan Review, Chapter 83). The purpose of the committee is to facilitate communication among several regulatory boards and committees. The committee is made up of the Building Commissioner and one member from each of the various town commissions including the Historical Commission. Projects that trigger a review are those that: 1) propose construction other than single-family or two-family homes and include a new principal building; 2) involve an increase in lot coverage by more that 800 square feet through construction of a new accessory building, or increase coverage of the lot by 10 percent or more; 3) involve
substantial alteration of a parking facility having ten or more spaces; 4) require removal of vegetation from more than 10,000 square feet; or 5) involve any subdivision of land into two or more lots.
The archaeological clauses make it clear that the purpose is to avoid damage to the historic or archaeological value of sites. The clause states that project proponents may be required to provide documentation concerning cultural resources within their area of development to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The clause reads as follows:
Historic and Archaeologic Resources. Location and design shall not cause avoidable damage or impairment of the historic or archaeologic value of buildings or resources. Applicants may be required to submit documentation from the Massachusetts Historical Commission that the site either contains no such buildings or resources or that all feasible efforts to avoid, minimize or compensate for any potential damage or impairment have been made (Amended 5-1-1995 ATM, Art. 17, Section 83-9).
The contact person for the Town of Brewster is Jillian Douglass, Chief Procurement Officer=s Designee (508-896-3701).
Chilmark
The town of Chilmark completed a community-wide archaeological reconnaissance survey in 1998, conducted by the University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services. It was recommended that in the course of its duties, the Chilmark Planning Board flag sites that require review by the Chilmark Historical Commission. The key to the system is the use of two archaeological sensitivity maps (one for historic sites and the other for prehistoric) that were produced by the survey. The maps indicate areas of archaeological concern. The prehistoric survey map was made on the basis of the location of previously recorded sites, and a predictive model based on forest change, landform, and potential subsistence resources. Should a construction project be located within an area of moderate to high potential to contain
sites, the Planning Board would send the project to the Historical Commission for review. The historic sensitivity map was based on distance to roads, streams (for hydropower industries), agriculturally suitable soils, population and commercial centers, and areas otherwise suitable for historic industry and commerce.
An issue that is presently being considered concerns thresholds established to trigger the review process. It was recommended that Chilmark use their own version of the process developed by the regional Martha=s Vineyard Commission, in which projects of specific sizes and impact trigger historical review (see below). It was recommended that review not be redundant with the review of the MVC or other review processes (such as Historic District Commission, Massachusetts Historical Commission, or other state and federal agencies).
At this time, the historical commission is considering implementation.
The contact person for the Chilmark Historical Commission is Harriette Ottesen.
Falmouth
In 1995 and 1996, a town-wide archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted for the town of Falmouth, by Archaeological Services. The project was co-funded by the Falmouth Historical Commission and the Massachusetts Historical Commission. It was recommended that the Falmouth Historical Commission (FHC) implement a program with the purpose of archaeological site protection, and adopt a by-law allowing the review of project plans to determine impacts to archaeological sites. It was further recommended that the town use models such as used by the regional Martha=s Vineyard and Cape Cod Commissions, that review projects that meet certain criteria or thresholds and then be referred to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The program that was recommended involves the establishment of town-sanctioned
regulations spelling out the FHC=s responsibility and jurisdiction to review certain construction projects in advance with the intent of minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts to archaeological resources. In the proposed program, the legislation would clearly address the responsibility of key town boards and departments that would notify the Commission in advance of construction and the actions that the Commission would be authorized to take. It was urged that the Commission be allowed to review any town-sponsored, private, or commercial construction of a pre-determined size and nature, and that as early as possible the FHC and cooperative departments identify review thresholds. In the Falmouth program, the Commission would determine if the area of proposed construction is within a town archaeological-historical sensitivity map. If the project area is located within an area of concern, the Commission would be able to review the project area and determine whether or not the area
requires a professional survey. If a survey appeared to be necessary, the Commission would solicit the advice of the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
To-date this program has not been implemented. The contact for the Falmouth Historical Commission is Anne Sears (508-548-7611).
Marion
The town of Marion was the subject of a community-wide archaeological reconnaissance survey conducted by PAL (Binzen et al. 1998). This project also was conducted as a Survey and Planning Grant. The project was co-sponsored by the Sippican Historical Society because a historical commission does not exist in the town. Matching funds were provided by the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The town was provided with a report covering the archaeological potential of the town, as well as several maps showing high, moderate, and low archaeological potential. Maps were divided by prehistory, history, and topographic zones. It was recommended that the maps be used as planning documents to assess the archaeological potential of construction projects in order to avoid destruction of important archaeological
sites. It was recommended that the town consider a town by-law that the Planning Board could use to request that development in a high potential areas require an archaeological survey. The Planning Board would be the sole review organization for the town.
The contact person for the project was Judith Rosbe of the Sippican Historical Society.
Medfield
The town of Medfield has a formal archaeological committee that functions within the Medfield Historical Commission. Through an established process, notice of building permits and other reviewed projects are sent to the various review committees of the town, including the Medfield Archaeological Committee. The committee reviews projects that may impact archaeological sites and refers them to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for comment. At the Town Meeting of April 1995, the Archaeological Committee was established and charged with producing a site sensitivity map. The committee is allowed to review development projects that fall within the mapped potential areas. If development occurs outside a sensitive area, there is no review. If proposed projects are likely to impact archaeological resources,
the Archaeological Committee can establish an order of conditions governing the steps to be taken to protect them. The Committee can require that the project proponent conduct an archaeological survey prior to construction; there is no size threshold that triggers a survey. In one recent case, a private developer was asked to conduct an intensive (locational) archaeological survey. The Massachusetts Historical Commission was asked to provide a review of the archaeological scope of work. When a potentially significant site was found on the property, a site examination was recommended. The town opted to provide the funding for the second phase of archaeological survey. Thus far, if a private landowner is conducting a small-scale project, the Commission persuades the owner to watch for archaeological materials and, if necessary, dig test pits while the construction is ongoing. Members of the Archaeology Committee visit the site prior to construction to show the owner how to observe.
There is no specific legislation in the town relating to archaeology. The jurisdiction of the committee was approved in Town Meeting, but as a part of the Medfield Historical Commission. The Archaeology Committee functions within the Historical Commission and comes under the legislation governing the Commission. The Committee writes its own internal regulations. In 1996-1997, the town of Medfield provided matching funds for a Survey and Planning Grant that was awarded to the Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. The purpose of the project was to formalize the sensitivity map and provide guidance in managing the town=s cultural resources.
The Archaeological Committee conducts projects of archaeological interest. Presently the Committee is planning to conduct some limited testing on geological features that are believed to have archaeological potential.
In 1996-1997, the Public Archaeology Laboratory conducted a community-wide reconnaissance study for a Planning and Review project in Medfield under contract with the town. Four archaeologically sensitive areas were identified and put under an Archaeological Protection District. A Ademolition delay@ by-law was adopted by the town to protect archaeological sites within the district (Ritchie 1997).
The contact persons for the Medfield Historical Commission are Charlotte Reineman (508-359-6871) and John Thompson (617-769-7600).
Wayland
The town of Wayland has an informal system for avoiding damage to archaeological sites when threatened by development. At present there are no formal town by-laws or other regulations concerning archaeological resources. If construction in the vicinity of an archaeological site is reported, the Wayland Historical Commission will review the project. If the project is a small private development, the Historical Commission may monitor construction. If the site is a larger development, the Commission will seek the advice of the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The Wayland Commission does not prescribe archaeological surveys on its own.
Since 1983, the Wayland Historical Commission has been conducting excavations at the Sand Hill site, a prehistoric site within a town-owned gravel pit. The Historical Commission is provided a modest budget by the town to purchase equipment and determine radiocarbon dates. Space for curation of artifacts is provided in the town hall.
Contacts for the town of Wayland are Gretchen Schuler (617-358-5238) or Paul Gardescue (617-358-5238).
West Tisbury
The town of West Tisbury completed a community-wide archaeological reconnaissance survey in 1999 (submitted to the Commission at the same time as the Oak Bluffs study). The study was conducted by the University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services under a Survey and Planning Grant funded by the Martha=s Vineyard Commission and the Massachusetts Historical Commission. It was recommended that in the course of its duties the Chilmark Planning Board should identify parcels that require review by the Chilmark Historical Commission. The key to the system is the use of two archaeological sensitivity maps (one for historic sites and the other for prehistoric) that were produced by the survey. The maps indicate areas of archaeological potential. As with the Chilmark study, the prehistoric survey map was made on the basis of the
location of previously recorded sites, and a predictive model based on forest change, landform, potential subsistence resources, and patterns evident in other parts of the region. The historic sensitivity map was based on distance to roads, streams (for hydropower industries), agriculturally suitable soils, population and commercial centers, and areas otherwise suitable for historic industry and commerce. If a project proponent proposes a construction project to be located within an area of moderate to high potential to contain sites, the West Tisbury Planning Board would send the project to the West Tisbury Historical Commission for review.
As with Chilmark, an issue that is presently being considered is thresholds established to trigger the review process. It was recommended that Chilmark use their own version of the process developed by the Martha=s Vineyard Commission, in which projects of specific sizes and impact trigger historical review (see below). It was recommended that review not be redundant with the review of the MVC or other review processes (such as Historic District Commission, Massachusetts Historical Commission, or other state and federal agencies). The review processes now in place by these organizations provide consideration of archaeological and historic resources.
The contact persons for the Chilmark Historical Commission are Jill Bouck and Sean Conley.
Westborough
When development is proposed in Westborough, the Westborough Historical Commission is notified by the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Building Inspector. The Commission then reviews the project plans for potential impacts to historic sites. Dr. Curtiss Hoffman of Bridgewater State University reviews projects for prehistoric sites. If the project is sponsored by the municipality or state, the Commission refers review to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. If the project is proposed by a private developer and areas of archaeological potential are to be impacted, the Westborough Historical Commission recommends that an archaeological survey be conducted at the developer=s expense. If the development is small and to be conducted by a private landowner, a survey is often conducted by the
Historical Commission (for historic sites) or Dr. Curtiss Hoffman (for prehistoric sites). Dr. Hoffman does not charge for his services. However, the Historical Commission funds an archaeology laboratory that is used by the Ekblaw Chapter of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society of which Dr. Hoffman is a leading member. The laboratory is located in the Nathan-Fisher House, a town-owned historic building. The Historical Commission is assisted in funding the laboratory through the efforts of the Friends of the Nathan-Fisher House, a private fundraising organization. The town pays for heat and electricity and the Chapter is not charged for rent. If a survey is required, the Historical Commission notifies the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
There is no size threshold that triggers the jurisdiction of the Westborough Historical Commission. Areas of historic and archaeological potential have been predetermined and mapped by the Commission and Dr. Hoffman. The maps are used in the review, but any size project can trigger a recommendation for archaeological survey.
Interestingly, the Historical Commission has been reviewing archaeological projects since 1977, yet there is no legislation in the town concerning archaeological resources. There is ample public interest among the townspeople and local government to protect their archaeological sites.
The contact person for the Westborough Historical Commission is Jacqueline Tidman (508-366-2351).
Cape Cod Commission
The Cape Cod Commission (CCC) is a regional commission that reviews projects determined to have regional impact. If CCC review is triggered through its checklist of review thresholds, sites or potential sites identified by the Massachusetts Historical Commission or a local historical commission may be protected from proposed construction or land alteration. Review by the Commission is triggered for 1) a proposed demolition or substantial alteration that is to occur to a historical or archaeological site that is listed in the National or State Register of Historic Places, or site outside a historic district (the CCC does not review existing historic districts or sites that are already under the jurisdiction of a historic district commission or other review body); 2) construction or expansion of a bridge,
ramp, road, or other vehicular access to a water body; 3) subdivisions or developments of 30 acres or more; 4) any development that will divide a parcel into 30 or more lots; 5) any commercial, health, recreational or educational development that includes new construction or use changes of 10,000 square feet or more on indoor facilities, or 40,000 square feet on outdoor facilities; and 6) any development providing transportation facilities. The CCC=s Minimum Performance Standards related to archaeology are as follows:
7.1.3 Where development is proposed on or adjacent to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites as identified by the Massachusetts Historical Commission or local historic commissions, it shall be configured so as to maintain and/or enhance such resources where possible. A pre-development investigation of such sites shall be required before a final design proposal is submitted. This will minimize difficulties and expense should the site be of archaeological or historic importance.
The project proponent must include an Environmental Notification Plan (ENF) with the application. The application is considered incomplete by the CCC if not included. If the historical review is required, the CCC requests a review from the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
The contact person for the Cape Cod Commission is Sarah Korjeff (508-362-3828).
Boston
The City of Boston funds a City Archaeologist, but there are no overriding archaeological regulations in the City. Reviews of archaeological projects are provided to the City Archaeologist by the Massachusetts Historical Commission for comment. Any project notifications or private inquiries to the City Archaeologist are sent to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for review. Thus, the MHC is the reviewing agency, with comment from the City Archaeologist. Much of the City Archaeologist=s time is spent reviewing archaeological issues related to the Central Artery project and in maintaining the City=s archaeological laboratory. The remainder is spent in education programs which enhance the public appreciation of archaeology and the importance of preserving the City=s important archaeological sites. The
contact person is Ellen Birkland (617-635-3850).
Martha's Vineyard Commission
There are no formal regulations concerning archaeology in any of the towns on Martha=s Vineyard. However, the Martha=s Vineyard Commission, the first regional commission formed in Massachusetts, has review over projects that reach a specific threshold. The Commission has as its mandate the provision of health, safety, and general welfare of Martha=s Vineyard residents and visitors. Among the areas of interest covered by their Achecklist standard@ is the enhancement of historical and scientific values in light of developments of regional impact. Developments of regional impact concerning archaeological or historical resources include demolition of historic structures as determined by the Historical Commission in areas that are not already within a recognized historical district (and subsequently reviewed
by a historic district commission), the Martha=s Vineyard Camp Meeting Association, and in towns where no historical boundaries exist. Sites to be protected include those that are listed in the National and State Registers of Historic places. The Commission also considers any subdivision that is identified as having archaeological significance by any state, federal, or local agency (Standards and Criteria Pursuant to Section 12 of Chapter 831 of the Acts of 1977 as Amended).
Archaeological and historic resources are explicitly included in the Commission=s checklist. There is a requirement that if there is a site of archaeological significance within a project area, the project must be referred to the Commission for review. The project is then referred to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. A survey can then be required prior to construction. The thresholds include 1) developments which divide a parcel of contiguous ownership of 30 acres or more into six or more parcels; 2) any subdivision of 15 acres or more that was the result of earlier subdivision within eight years; 3) developments that divide land into ten or more lots; 4) any division of land in a business, commercial, or light industrial zone; 5) any subdivision on active farmland or land identified as prime agricultural land; 6) any
development of ten or more dwellings or rental rooms, or four or more businesses. Commercial developments triggering Commission review include new commercial construction of 2,000 square feet or more, additions or auxiliary buildings of 1,500 square feet or more, outdoor commercial space of 6,000 square feet or more, and change of use of floor space of 2,000 square feet or more. Certain piers or harbor facilities, public facilities of 2,000 square feet or greater, and transportation facilities also require review by the Commission.
Contact for the Martha=s Vineyard Commission is Charles Clifford (508-693-3453).
Summary
All of the towns and commissions discussed above are far ahead of the hundreds of communities statewide that have no provision for protecting archaeological and historic resources. There are advantages and disadvantages to many of the systems. Towns with procedures that are not included in town regulations protect sites in an unsystematic, opportunistic manner. If a development is brought to the attention of the commission, there is some hope of protection. If not, nothing happens. There is no legal compliance involved and many resources are not protected. Towns that rely on local volunteers or landowners to monitor impacts to archaeological resources have similar shortcomings, unless the volunteers have the proper qualifications to recognize all forms of archaeological resources. Medfield, for example,
actually trains developing landowners to monitor their own construction in some circumstances, a practice that limits protection. At the same time their Archaeology Committee has been instrumental in securing funding for professional surveys in the town. Westborough, for example, has as a volunteer, Dr. Curtiss Hoffman, who is a trained archaeologist. On the other hand, Westborough has no formal regulations related to archaeological resources. On the positive side, in all of these situations the public is brought into the process in an informative and supportive manner.
The most effective processes are those used by the two regional commissions. A clear checklist is used to identify projects requiring archaeological and historical review. Once a review is necessary, the project is referred to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for review and recommendations. The MHC=s established survey protocol and archaeological permit system ensure consistency and a high quality of results.
| 
