skip
general nav links
About ACHP

ACHP News

National Historic
Preservation
Program

Working with
Section 106

Federal, State, & Tribal Programs

Training & Education

Publications

Search |
 |
skip
specific nav links
Home Working
with Section 106 Section
106 in Action Archive
of Prominent Section 106 Cases West Virginia: Redevelopment of
Murphy Farm, Harpers Ferry
West
Virginia: Redevelopment of Murphy Farm, Harpers Ferry
Agencies: Environmental Protection Agency
and National Park Service
Criteria for ACHP Involvement:
- This undertaking poses serious and unresolved ad-verse effects to
the historic character of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park,
through the introduction of incompatible new construction that conflicts
with the historic setting, and intrudes upon its historic vistas (Criterion
1).
- This case raises important policy issues regarding the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Section 106 responsibilities for the State-delegated National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program (Criterion 2).
- There is considerable public concern for the potential effects of the proposed
undertaking. In addition, congressional interest in preserving the
property has led to appropriation of funds for purchase, a proposal
that directly conflicts with proposed plans for development (Criterion
3).
Recent Developments
In December 2001, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened
a Section 106 consultation meeting at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia,
to discuss the proposed development of nearby Murphy Farm and the projects
required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Murphy Farm, Harpers Ferry, WV (photo courtesy
of Historic Photo Collection, Harpers Ferry NHP)
Participants included representatives of ACHP, the West Virginia
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the National Park Service (NPS),
the Harpers Ferry Conservancy, the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
the National Parks Conservation Association, and the town of Harpers Ferry.
The group helped EPA to identify existing information (as well as additional
information needs) regarding affected historic properties and to map a
course for future actions toward full consideration of such properties
in EPAs permit review. ACHP anticipates that EPA will be
providing additional information to the West Virginia SHPO and the other
consulting parties in the near future.
Background
Private developers propose construction of a 188-unit housing development
immediately adjacent to Harpers Ferry National Historical Park on Murphy
Farm, a property identified by NPS as a contributing element of the parks
cultural landscape. To proceed with the project, the developers need authorization
from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for an NPDES
permit for a sewage treatment plant.
The project is controversial, with more than 7,000 objections lodged
by members of the public and organizations, including the West Virginia
and Jefferson County Chapters of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP), the National Parks Conservation Association,
the Harpers Ferry Conservancy, the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
and the Civil War Preservation Trust.
The 100-acre site is historically important as a Civil War battlefield
and for its association with John Browns Fort, the building seized
by radical abolitionist Brown in a famous effort to free American slaves.
In 1891, the building was disassembled and later rebuilt at several locations,
including Murphy Farm.
It there became a place of pilgrimage and inspiration for W.E.B. DuBois
and other members of the Niagara Movement, a civil rights organization
that was instrumental in the founding of the NAACP. Although John Browns
Fort is no longer located on the property, the site remains of great significance
to NAACP members.
At the urgent request of the West Virginia SHPO, the National Trust for
Historic Preservation, and others, ACHP contacted EPA in April
2001 and requested its evaluation of its responsibilities to comply with
Section 106 for this undertaking. ACHPs inquiry brought to
the attention of EPA that a congressional appropriation has been obtained
to advance plans for purchasing, through NPSs Land and Water Conservation
Fund program, this and other Civil War battlefield properties associated
with Harpers Ferry National Historical Park.
The correspondence stressed that should NPS and the property owners reach
agreement on purchase of the property as park land, Murphy Farm could
become an important cultural and economic asset to the State of West Virginia
and the Nation.
The following month, EPA withdrew its waiver of review of the proposed
NPDES permit associated with the Murphy Farm redevelopment, thus exercising
its prerogative to require Federal review of the permit. Based on its
initial review, EPA notified the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection of its interim objection to the draft permit, requested additional
information, and indicated that Section 106 consultation would need to
be carried out. In June 2001, ACHP notified EPA Administrator Christine
Todd Whitman of its intention to participate in the Section 106 consultation.
On another front, in May 2001, the Harpers Ferry Conservancy filed suit
against the Jefferson County Planning Commission, challenging a number
of decisions made as part of the local planning process for the proposed
development.
Policy Highlights
The NPDES permit program implements a part of the Clean Water Act that
EPA has delegated to States certified by EPA for purposes of administration
of this program. Because NPDES permits are authorized at the State level,
EPA routinely depends upon informal coordination between the State permitting
agency and the SHPO to address any effects to historic properties.
In the absence of any approved program alternatives such as a Programmatic
Agreement, such efforts fail to satisfy EPAs Section 106 responsibilities
and complicate consideration of the effect of NPDES permits on important
historic properties such as Murphy Farm.
Staff contact: Martha
Catlin
Updated
May 6, 2003
Return to Top |