Political Action/Compliance
The most pressing political issue for PAC over the last several years has been Pennsylvania Act 70.

What is Act 70?  Act 70 was passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1995 and shifts the burden of archaeological protection from developers and other State-permit applicants to the taxpayer. As under previous law, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) reviews projects and evaluates the potential effects to archaeological sites. In the past, the PHMC would recommend archaeological surveys in areas with known sites or with a high probability for containing sites. The permit applicant was required to perform the survey and report the results to the PHMC. Act 70 shifts the burden of performing archaeological surveys from the applicant responsible for the ground-disturbing activity to the PHMC, which is now required perform any and all field testing and data recovery it considers warranted. The Act provides limited time periods within which to perform the work, with a maximum of 120 days to complete work at sites important enough to warrant data recovery through intensive excavations. Only a fraction of the financial resources considered necessary by the archaeological community have been allocated for this work by the State Legislature. PAC's Position on Act 70. PAC actively worked against passage of Act 70. The position of the organization was that the financial costs of archaeological site protection should fall on the individual or company whose project threatens the site rather than on the taxpayer. In addition, the legislation included no dedicated source of funding, so that the establishment and maintenance of an archaeological testing and mitigation program is subject to the vagaries of the budgetary process. Indeed, in its first year the PHMC was allocated only about $250,000 for this work, although estimates by the professional community suggested that from $1 to 2 million would be required for adequate site projection. In addition to funding issues, the legislation established timetables for the conduct of archaeological investigations that PAC considers unrealistic. Also, the legislation gives the landowner, who is usually also the permit applicant, the power to deny access to the property on which the survey would be performed. Seven of the thirteen sites that have been destroyed since Act 70 went into effect were lost because access was denied by the landowner. What are the Consequences of Act 70?  The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission maintains a list of sites that have been or are likely to be affected by State-permitted projects.  Please check the Act 70 Projects Status Report for a list of currently threatened sites. If you believe any of these sites are located near you, please volunteer to monitor the site's status and provide information to newspapers, public officials, and the archaeological community. To provide PAC with information on Act 70 sites, please contact: Sarah Neusius Department of Anthropology 126 Keith Hall Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA 15705 Phone (412)357-2133 FAX (412)357-4842 e-mail sawn @grove.iup.edu PAC's Current Focus. Now that Act 70 has been enacted, PAC is focusing on two issues--securing an increase in funding for the PHMC program and documenting sites that have been lost as a result of the legislation.   Other issues that PAC has been concerned with include: The Programmatic Agreement for Minor Transportation Projects - PAC was provided an opportunity to comment on drafts of this agreement, which has been established between the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PADOT). The agreement deals with projects whose effects are minor and provides for documentation of No Resource or No Effect findings by a qualified PADOT professional without routine review by PHMC. The Prehistoric Settlement Pattern Research Priorities - Through evaluation of recorded prehistoric sites, the PHMC has identified 19 watersheds that it considers to have sufficient data for upland prehistoric sites. PHMC review of projects in these watersheds will indicate that Phase I survey is not required for upland areas, defined as distant from 3rd order or higher streams. In addition to riverine settings, other height probability settings have been defined in specific regions of the state. If recorded, standing structures were present within the project area, survey would be required in the vicinity of the structure only. PAC has made two recommendations to the PHMC regarding the survey priorities: 1) that a system of tracking the implementation of the priorities model be established and 2) that historic-period maps and atlases be consulted to identify areas of high probability for historic sites.