First, I apologize for the cross listing. I have been asked by an individual
not on the list to post this for the preservation community. I believe that
this press release will be of widespread interest since it deals with a court
challenge to the Army Corps' application of historic preservation law to
their Nationwide Permitting. Anyone interested in learning more is encouraged
to contact the listed attorneys directly.
 
Thanks for your patience.
 
Best,
 
Michael Trinkley, Ph.D.
Director
Chicora Foundation, Inc.
PO Box 8664
Columbia, SC  29202-8664
803/787-6910
Email: [log in to unmask]
 
 
February 19, 1997
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
CHARLESTON, SC -- A S.C. couple has filed suit in U.S. District Court today
challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorization of a Nationwide
Permit to County of Charleston for roadway construction through wetlands on
property known as "the Sheppard Tract."
 
     Oak Hall Plantation owners Russ and Lee Pye have filed suit, alleging
the Corps authorization violated provisions of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered
Species Act.
 
     Charleston County officials chose a historic 750 acre rice plantation
south of Charleston, near the pristine Edisto River (part of the
federally-funded ACE Basin Project, for a proposed hazardous ash
monofil/landfill site. The plantation has documented archaeological and
cultural resources and is habitat to endangered species. More than half of
the site, former rice fields of the plantation, are considered wetlands. The
property's only access is by a 50 foot right-of-way off U.S. Highway 17
requiring wetlands fill for road construction.
 
     Area residents became concerned when they learned permits issued for
this project failed to consider, among other things, the historical
significance of the area and the environmental impacts to the adjacent
wetlands.
 
     The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when asked to comment on the
undertaking, recommended that an environmental assessment be conducted on the
entire 750 acre site, rather than considering only the proposed wetland
crossing, with particular attention given to potential impacts to endangered
species. The suit alleges that the Corps permit is a federal undertaking that
would significantly alter the human environment and the Corps failed to
prepare an environmental impact statement as required by law.
 
     Additionally, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation had
contacted the Corps regarding the Corps responsibilities to identify and
assess impacts on historical properties. Despite those concerns, the Corps
authorized the road construction under their Nationwide Permitting authority,
citing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' South Atlantic Division memorandum
("Sanders Ruling") that prohibits consideration of historical and natural
resources when they may be located outside the "footprint of the project
site."
However, with the only legal access to the property requiring the federal
permit, development of the property cannot occur but for the federal
involvement.
 
     The suit challenges the Corps of Engineers as having implemented
guidelines that are contrary to public law and petitions the court for
declaratory relief.
 
     This matter should be of particular interest to cultural resource
management professionals and environmentalists who wish to see the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Nationwide permit program comply with historic
preservation and environmental laws.
 
     Inquiries may be directed to the attorneys for the Plaintiffs: C.C.
"Cotton" Harness, Esq., Perrin Q. Dargan, Esq., and Jack D. Todd, Esq. with
the firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart at 803/853-1300 or
William A. Scott, Esq. with the firm of Pederson & Scott at 803/762-7500.
 
--30--