Archaeologist's office may be moved

Rep. Bradley T. Johnson is going after the state archaeologist's office again, and Utah's archaeologists are concerned.

Last year, the Republican from Aurora, Sevier County, tried to transfer the state archaeologist and staff out of the Utah Division of State History and into the Division of Wildlife Resources. The bill turned into an interim study measure, and the notion of moving the office fizzled.

This year, Johnson has introduced HB139, "State Antiquities and Historic Sites Amendments." On Friday his substitute version of the bill was endorsed by the House Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Committee by a vote of 10 for, 3 against and 2 absent.

The bill would have the state's Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office — not the archaeologists of the History Division's Antiquities Section — "issue survey and excavation permits for archaeological resources" and "delegate the authority to issue an excavation permit to an agency."

It also requires the state's historic preservation officer to consult with the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office about comments on state projects affecting historic property.

Until now, the Antiquities Section has issued archaeological excavation permits on state land (other than school trust lands), and such work was under the supervision of the state archaeologist. HB139 would have the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office issue permits, and a project's "principal investigator . . . may allow other individuals to assist . . . in a survey or excavation," says the bill.

This assistant must have a graduate degree in anthropology, archaeology or history or "experience equivalent to a graduate degree" and have a year of supervised experience in archaeology.

Another provision is that before spending money or approving archaeology projects, state agencies must take into account their costs. If the Antiquities Section doesn't like what's going on, it can complain to the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office.

Johnson said the bill is intended to "provide balance in this decision" concerning protecting archaeological resources. "I do believe really strongly that we need to protect the archaeological resources of the state, but there are some out there, be it chippings or whatever it is, that we probably don't need every one of these minor sites."

He said important sites like Range Creek and other areas need protection.

"The archaeological people out there are kind of prone to protect every site, at all cost," Johnson added. "And so this agency (public lands office) . . . has the ability to make more of a balanced judgment."