The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program and Historic Property Mitigation

Part of: Society for American Archaeology 82nd Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC (2017)

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Regulatory Program is one of the oldest regulatory agencies in the Federal Government. Its mission is to protect the Nation's aquatic resources while allowing reasonable development through fair and balanced permit decisions under the authority of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972, and Section 103 of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Fulfilling its mission, the Regulatory Program must consider the potential effects of its permitting actions on historic properties in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. When adverse effects to historic properties cannot be avoided, the Corps consults with the permit applicant and other consulting parties, in a collaborative effort, to develop appropriate mitigation measures. Increasingly, agencies, State Historic Preservation Officers, tribes, and the public are becoming dissatisfied with simple "document and destroy" mitigation. Stakeholders want relevant, nuanced, collaborative mitigation with tangible products that speak to their concerns. This session explores efforts by the Corps’ Regulatory Program, including the consultation process with stakeholders, to develop innovative and meaningful mitigation.

Resources Inside This Collection (Viewing 1-5 of 5)

  • Documents (5)

Documents
  • Beyond "Document and Destroy" Mitigation: Fill in the Blank (2017)
    DOCUMENT Citation Only Chris Jenkins. Lance Lundquist.

    The National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties. In contrast to many other federal agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch does not initiate undertakings on its own behalf. Rather, it is tasked with verifying permit applications from other agencies and the public. The Regulatory Branch is neither a proponent nor opponent of the permitted action. As a neutral party, one of the more challenging...

  • Circumstance and Scale in After-the-Fact Applications: Maximizing Fair and Equitable Compliance for Stakeholders through Mitigation (2017)
    DOCUMENT Citation Only Trent Stockton.

    Recent efforts by the Corps of Engineers New Orleans District in achieving compliance with Federal laws and regulations within the Regulatory Program are reviewed. Special emphasis is given to the role(s) of stakeholders in the Section 106 process in reviewing after-the-fact applications. The role mitigation in these scenarios is also reviewed and discussed.

  • Ho! To the Land of Sunshine: Mitigation and Public Outreach for the BNSF Abó Canyon Double Track Project in Central New Mexico and The Ute Lake Subdivision Project in Northeastern New Mexico: Lawsuits, Artifacts, and an Archaeological Right-of-Entry Agreement (2017)
    DOCUMENT Citation Only Chris Parrish.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Program initially served a fairly simple, straightforward purpose: to protect and maintain the navigable capacity of the nation's waters. Time, changing public needs, evolving policy, case law, and new statutory mandates have changed the purview of the program, adding to its breadth, complexity, and authority. Prior to the issuance or authorization of any Department of the Army permit under Corps regulatory authorities (e.g. the Clean Water...

  • Mitigation of the Alder Creek Mining District, Sacramento County, California (2017)
    DOCUMENT Citation Only Erin Hess.

    The mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Regulatory Program is to protect the Nation's aquatic resources while allowing reasonable development through fair and balanced permit decisions. The Corps consults with permit applicants and other consulting parties, in a collaborative effort, to develop appropriate mitigation measures when adverse effects to historic properties cannot be avoided. A new development was proposed that would adversely affect the National Register of Historic...

  • Section 106 Mitigation in Memoradum of Agreements: A View From the Corps (2017)
    DOCUMENT Citation Only Lance Lundquist. Chris Jenkins.

    What constitutes acceptable Section 106 mitigation to resolve adverse effects under the National Historic Preservation Act? Stipulations in a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) need to be enforceable, with sufficient specificity and accountability for an Agency to monitor compliance. Are there limits to what is possible in Stipulations in Section 106 MOAs? This paper uses examples from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Regulatory Program-permitted projects to explore the concept and...