Dave, This trend of the Corps has the sanction of Headquarters DA and the
Corps. Currently, HQDA is developing a "Counterpart Regulation" that will
allow (with the approval of the ACHP and without SHPO input) Army
installations to manage all their historic properties for five years at a
time without any case by case project review at all and only require an
annual report of what they did. I mention this because the excuse given for
all of this is to rid their projects of unwarranted interference from the
public (which doesn't understand the way the Army conducts business or the
Army mission) and to streamline "the process" as required by Congress. I
think you'll find the same excuse at the heart of the Corps' actions.

John Dendy
Dynamac Corporation
Fort Riley, KS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 8:07 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Section 106 problems in Maryland
>
> Dear List members:
>     Yesterday I received the newsletter of the Archaeological Society of
> Maryland (ASM Ink) and read the following section entitled Archaeology
> Action
> Alert (please excuse any typos as they are my own):
>
>     "Your help is urgently needed to resolve a very serious problem in
> Maryland, resulting in the destruction of archeological resources.  This
> is a
> state-wide problem with national implications.  We urge you to call, fax,
> or
> write your congressional representatives as detailed below.
>     More than a year ago, a serious disagreement developed between the
> Maryland Historical Trust (Trust) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
> concerning the Corps' failure to fully and properly consider the impact
> non-tidal wetland and waterway projects have on archeological resources in
> Maryland (the Corps issues Federal Wetlands permits and must comply with
> certain federal regulations including the National Historic Preservation
> Act
> (NHPA) - NHPA requires the Corps to take into account a project's full
> impact
> on archeological and historic sites).  The Corps has consistently ignored
> Trust recommendations, and in June 1998, the Trust suspended its review of
> Corps non-tidal wetland and waterway projects.  Consequently, significant
> and
> irreplaceable archeological sites are threatened and some may have been
> destroyed."
>
>     After a description of some of the sites that will be negatively
> impacted
> by construction allowed by the Corps permits, the article continues "In
> sum,
> a number of sites which are or may be eligible for listing in the National
> Register of Historic Places are threatened as a result of a permit issued
> by
> the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, out of compliance with the law.  Of
> course,
> there have been a lot more than three development projects in Maryland
> this
> past year!
>     The Baltimore District of the Corps of Engineers has been issuing
> permits
> for non-tidal wetland and waterway projects in Maryland without taking
> into
> account a project's full impact on archeological and historic sites.  The
> Corps' regulations (33 CFR part 325, Appendix C) spell out procedures for
> the
> protection of historic (including archeological properties).  The
> regulations
> do not limit archeology to the wetland impact, but include other parts of
> the
> project that could not be developed 'but for' the wetland permit.  Thus,
> if a
> development is only possible if a wetland crossing allows access to the
> project, it could not be developed 'but for' the wetland permit.
>     However, the Baltimore District of the Corps has chosen to interpret
> the
> 'but for' test very narrowly.  They argue that a developer could
> conceivable
> bridge the wetland without directly impacting it, and therefore not
> require a
> wetland permit.  This is a most disingenuous argument, since a bridge
> large
> enough to bridge all wetland impacts would not be economically feasible
> for
> most developers.
>     It is most distressing that the Corps has been violating the National
> Historic Preservation Act by failing to properly consider the impact
> non-tidal wetland projects have on Maryland's archeological resources, and
> that the Baltimore District has not engaged its national policy staff from
> Washington to meet with the Advisory Council and the Trust.  Equally
> distressing is the fact that dozens of letters have been written since
> March
> 4th to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the federal agency
> tasked with 'advocating full consideration of historic values in federal
> decision-making and reviewing federal programs and policies to further
> preservation'), and no responses have been received."
>     Friends of archeology should be extremely concerned by the direction
> this
> problem has taken.  The Society for Historical Archaeology and the Council
> for Northeast Historical Archaeology, two premier professional
> organizations
> with national and regional focuses, have written to the Chairman of the
> Advisory Council as well as to all of Maryland's congressional leaders.
> The
> Society for Historical Archaeology is filing suit.  But more is needed,
> particularly since the Advisory Council's director has failed to respond.
> Maryland's congressional leaders need to hear archeology's voice loud and
> clear from their constituents."
>
>     Please forgive me for not including the remainder of the article.  It
> describes additional ways to voice your concerns to Maryland's
> congressional
> leaders, including addresses and phone numbers.  Anyone interested in this
> information should reference ASM Ink (vol. 25 no. 8 pp. 4).  The reason I
> have brought this up, beyond the need to increase public awareness
> concerning
> this situation, is because I wonder if this happens throughout the United
> States?  Its hard enough for archaeologists to protect sites as it is, but
> if
> our own federal agencies are working against us what kind of precedent is
> it
> setting for the future of Section 106 review?
>     In contrast, the Army Corps of Engineers closer to my home, near
> Williamsburg, Virginia, have rejected permit applications for a reservoir
> in
> King William County that will flood and destroy nearly 100 significant
> historic and prehistoric sites.  While the permit rejection wasn't based
> solely on the archaeological resources, it at least was listed as a
> concern.
> While the City of Newport News is resubmitting the permit for approval,
> the
> Corps seems to be standing by its original conclusion.
>     I would like to know what other individuals think of these situations.
> What experiences have you had and what can we do, as archaeologists, to
> help
> remedy these situations?
>
> Sincerely,
> Dave Brown