Act 250 is once again under attack.  This time, it’s the language protecting archaeological evidence from permanent loss.  Already the developer’s best friend,  Jim Douglas is well on his way to adding another label to his dubious legacy: Governor Eraserhead. Why, he’s practically a deskset.

Under the current language of the law, any project that comes under Act 250 review and has the potential for archaeological significance, must be investigated for evidence before development begins. The cost of that preliminary investigation is assumed by the developer.  In another bid to weaken the law and strengthen the developer’s position in the process, the Governor proposes to change that language so that unless a site has already yielded evidence of archaeological significance, no matter how great the potential, no investigation will be required.  Furthermore, the cost of such investigation, should it be required on the basis of previous evidence,  would be shifted from the developer to a state pool funded by a levy on all development.  

The Governor’s argument is that this would direct resources to archaeological investigations where there is the greatest likelihood of positive results.  Except in rare cases,  this alteration would effectively eliminate the criteria from  developer’s requirements.  In reality, it would also mean that any important archaeological site that has not already been found, never would be found and would potentially be damaged beyond recovery in the development process. The Vermont Professional Archaeologists Association (VPAA) also points out that a state pool funded in the manner the Governor suggests might well run out of resources leaving a site unexplored, and the developer would not be required to contribute further.

While everyone stands to lose when archaeological evidence is destroyed, the significance of the proposed change must be particularly bitter for the Abenaki, since so much of their history in particular remains undiscovered in the earth.

In a statement released today, the VPPA announced it’s intention to raise the proposed change to Act 250 in the upcoming gubernatorial election.  

Rob Ingraham, Co-Chair of the (VPAA) had the folllowing comment:

“Perhaps the best way to understand the changes being proposed to Act 250 is to examine the work conducted in Vermont by multiple cultural resource management

groups.  Under the new rule changes, sites would only be eligible for investigation if they were previously registered with the state as a historic site.  Simply put, the rule changes would be a ‘no new site’ policy.  Exceptions would be made under ‘exceptional’

circumstances and the projections for annual investigations under these criteria drops

dramatically.  The opportunity for truly significant and informative sites to undergo study would be lost; sites like the eleven-thousand year old hunting camp (one of the few in the state) at Okemo would have been lost to irresponsible development.”

The entire VPPA statement  follows the fold.

Montpelier, VT- Governor Jim Douglas is advocating radical and regressive changes to Vermont’s Act 250 process, specifically changes in the wording  surrounding archaeological investigations within the state.  These changes are being touted by Douglas and

his representatives as semantically void.  This is simply not the case.

Currently the Act 250 process requires, under limited conditions, developers to contract with professional archaeologists in order to make sure unregistered historic and prehistoric sites, such as Native American burial grounds, are not damaged during the construction process without first being excavated and studied. Land forms are required to undergo testing if they meet the criteria of scientifically proven predictive models, such as proximity to water, lack of slope, etc.. Presently less than three percent of Act 250 applications require such testing. When such phase one testing is required, the average cost to individual developers is $5000-10,000. Douglas is seeking to eradicate this process.    

Rob Ingraham, Co-Chair of the Vermont Professional Archaeologists’ Association says,  “Perhaps the best way to understand the changes being proposed to Act 250 is to examine the work conducted in Vermont by multiple cultural resource management

groups.  Under the new rule changes, sites would only be eligible for investigation if they were previously registered with the state as a historic site.  Simply put, the rule changes would be a ‘no new site’ policy.  Exceptions would be made under ‘exceptional’

circumstances and the projections for annual investigations under these criteria drops

dramatically.  The opportunity for truly significant and informative sites to undergo study would be lost; sites like the eleven-thousand year old hunting camp (one of the few in the state) at Okemo would have been lost to irresponsible development.”

The Vermont Professional Archaeologists’ Association, representing the majority of working archaeologists across the state, has fully reviewed the proposed Act 250 rule changes and flatly condemns the Douglas administration’s proposals concerning

cultural preservation as short sighted and against the common interest of Vermonters. The VPAA does not accept the administration’s assertion that the changes will not weaken cultural preservation, or interfere with the investigation of Abenaki prehistory. The VPAA holds that public statements made to that effect by a Douglas appointee Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Economic, Housing and Community Development Tayt Brooks are politically motivated fabrications aimed at misleading Vermonters.

“It is no mistake that the only archaeology folkthat you see supporting these rule changes are appointees of the Governor and state officials with a vested interest in towing the line. Administration cheerleaders aside, working archeologists are united

in their opposition to these rule changes,” said VPAA Political Director, David Van Deusen.    

At issue is the Douglas proposal to drop the word “potential” from the 250 criteria as it relates to required archaeological investigations prior to development; a move that professional rank and file archaeologists charge would result in the end of all

meaningful archaeology reviews prior to major development projects, as well as catastrophic job cuts in their profession.

In addition, the VPAA is questioning the Douglas proposal to shift the funding source for archaeology surveys from the private developer, to a statewide funding pool. Douglas appointees are currently proposing that a tax be placed on all major development projects at the level of 50 cents for each $1000 of projected value, and that money be made available to any and all developers who are required to perform basic, “phase one” archaeological surveys. While the VPAA is not opposed to the spirit of this

funding shift, they are concerned that this fund would be small, subject to reallocation by the Legislator, and could spell the end of archaeological testing when it inevitably runs dry.  

“What the VPAA needs to see is an agreement, in writing, that states that if and when this fund runs dry, any further archaeological field testing, as required by Act 250, be paid for by the private developer. This is how the system currently operates, and we need this guarantee so that we know that Douglas is not trying to underfund us out of

existence,” said VPAA Co-Chair Jeremy Ripin, a resident of Moretown.

In addition to defending their jobs, the VPAA contends that it is fighting on behalf of all Vermonters who believe our common past is something with intrinsic value.

“The underlying history of Vermont is unchanging, but our basic understanding of that history relies on field studies. Without systematic archaeological studies, as required by Act 250, our ability to understand our past (be it that of the Green Mountain Boys or the Abenaki) runs the risk of being forever destroyed by irresponsible development. As a professional archaeologist, and as a Vermonter, I understand the proposed rule changes to amount to the end of field studies, the end of our profession, and the end of the road as far as understanding our past is concerned,” said VPAA Co-Chair Jeremy Ripin.

Mr. Ripin continued, “Working Vermont archaeologists will fight back against the gutting of our common cultural heritage by building a grassroots, broad-based movement of concerned citizens. We have already gained the support of the United Staff at UVM, and have talked with the Vermont Workers’ Center. We will continue to reach out, not

only to organized labor, but also to the hundreds of local historical societies across the state, and all Vermonters who believe our common past is something that we need to preserve for future generations.”

Maryann Beaupre, 65, a resident of the Northeast Kingdom, member of the Morgan Historical Society, and firm supporter of the VPAA said,   “As a member of a Vermont Historical Society I believe that it is important to maintain the cultural heritage of the

state.  I support the ideals of the VPAA and their campaign to protect Vermont’s history.”

The VPAA intends on endorsing candidates for Governor and LT Governor based on the candidates commitment to preserving archaeology and historic preservation as a core element of the Act 250 process. As part of this process, the VPAA will also be looking to back candidates that are supportive of the Abenaki cause.  

“While we recognize that folks will be voting for Governor based on many issues, we contend that thousands of Vermonters care very deeply about the preservation of our Abenaki and colonial past. This is a serious campaign issue. Therefore we intend to

inform the one hundred plus historical societies, the many members of the amateurVermont Archaeology Society, and other interested persons as to which candidates are opposed to preserving Vermont history, and which are supportive of Vermont history. It is our intention to have a small hand in electing who our next Governor is,” said VPAA Political Director, David Van Deusen.

To date the VPAA has been in dialogue with democratic candidate for Governor Deb Markowitz, as well as Progressive David Zuckerman, a Burlington Representitive to the VT House, and possible candidate for Lt Governor.  While the VPAA has yet make any official endorsements, leaders in the organization state that Zuckerman has been very

supportive of their cause, and has said that he would be willing to make a public statement of support if asked. The VPAA intends to open dialogue with other campaigns, including Brian Dubie and the various Democratic contenders, as early as this week.