Tweet
It's not over yet folks!!
From the National Trust for Historic Preservation
ACT NOW TO SAVE 4(f) PROTECTIONS!
ADVOCACY NEEDED ON HOUSE TRANSPORTATION BILL!
Urge the House of Representatives to Adopt Language Protecting Section 4(f)
BACKGROUND
Historic and cultural resources have been endangered by road-building and highway projects since the inception of the Interstate Highway System over fifty years ago. Such threats prompted Congress in 1966 to create special protections for historic, cultural, recreational, wildlife and park resources under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The protections prevent transportation agencies from using land from those resources for road building “unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use, and if all possible planning is done to minimize harm.” If not for this section, the French Quarter in New Orleans would not be the thriving historic destination it is today – much of that area would have succumbed to demolition for an interstate highway. There are other communities nationwide with similar stories.
THREAT
Opponents of Section 4(f) are committed to weakening the substantive and effective Section 4(f) protections for historic and cultural resources during the 108th Congress during reauthorization of surface transportation spending under TEA-21 – the “Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.” Our opponents are capitalizing on the overall frustrations with the delays in completing complex and expensive highway projects, and are spreading the misconception that environmental and historic preservation reviews are the primary cause of big delays.
COMMON GROUND REACHED
The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) reached an agreement to amend Section 4(f) to streamline historic preservation reviews of transportation projects and, at the same time, maintain Section 4(f)’s strong standards of protection for historic places. Preservation Action and NCSHPO also support the agreement. The United States Senate adopted this agreement in section 1514 of S.1072, the transportation reauthorization measure that the Senate approved on February 12th. The House of Representatives is now considering its own version of the bill.
This agreement would allow for the satisfaction of Section 4(f) requirements only for cases in where there would be a properly developed finding under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that a transportation project would have no adverse effect on a historic site even though the project would use a small portion of the historic site. The agreement includes numerous safeguards like the written concurrence of state historic preservation officers and public involvement through consulting parties.
ACTION NEEDED
Now that the Senate has acted to protect Section 4(f), it is time to focus advocacy efforts on the House of Representatives. Please write to Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and ask them to adopt the compromise reached between the historic preservation community and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A list of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Members follows and a sample letter is provided.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Republicans: Don Young (AK), chairman; Thomas Petri (WI); Sherwood Boehlert (NY); Howard Coble (NC); John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN); Wayne T. Gilchrest (MD); John L. Mica (FL); Peter Hoekstra (MI); Jack Quinn (NY); Vernon J. Ehlers (MI); Spencer Bachus (AL); Steven C. LaTourette (OH); Sue W. Kelly (NY); Richard H. Baker (LA); Robert W. Ney (OH); Frank LoBiondo (NJ); Jerry Moran (KS); Gary Miller (CA); Jim DeMint (SC); Doug Bereuter (NE); Johnny Isakson (GA); Robin Hayes (NC); Rob Simmons (CT); Shelley Moore Capito (WV); Henry E. Brown, Jr., (SC); Timothy V. Johnson (IL); Dennis R. Rehberg (MT); Todd Russell Platts (PA); Sam Graves (MO); Mark R. Kennedy (MN); Bill Shuster (PA); John Boozman (AR); John Sullivan (OK); Chris Chocola (IN); Bob Beauprez (CO); Michael Burgess (TX); Max Burns (GA); Steve Pearce (NM); Jim Gerlach (PA); Mario Diaz-Balart (FL); Jon Porter (NV).
Democrats: James L. Oberstar (MN), ranking member; Nick J. Rahall, II (WV); William O. Lipinski (IL); Peter A. DeFazio (OR); Jerry F. Costello (IL); Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Jerrold Nadler (NY); Robert Menendez (NJ); Corrine Brown (FL); Bob Filner (CA); Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX); Gene Taylor (MS); Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA); Elijah E. Cummings (MD); Earl Blumenauer (OR); Ellen O. Tauscher (CA); Bill Pascrell, Jr. (NJ); Leonard L. Boswell (IA); Tim Holden (PA); Nick Lampson (TX); Brian Baird (WA); Shelley Berkley (NV); Brad Carson (OK); Jim Matheson (UT); Michael M. Honda (CA); Rick Larsen (WA); Michael E. Capuano (MA); Anthony D. Weiner (NY); Julia Carson (IN); Joseph M. Hoeffel (PA); Mike Thompson (CA); Timothy H. Bishop (NY); Michael H. Michaud (ME): Linc oln Davis (TN).
From the National Trust for Historic Preservation
ACT NOW TO SAVE 4(f) PROTECTIONS!
ADVOCACY NEEDED ON HOUSE TRANSPORTATION BILL!
Urge the House of Representatives to Adopt Language Protecting Section 4(f)
BACKGROUND
Historic and cultural resources have been endangered by road-building and highway projects since the inception of the Interstate Highway System over fifty years ago. Such threats prompted Congress in 1966 to create special protections for historic, cultural, recreational, wildlife and park resources under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The protections prevent transportation agencies from using land from those resources for road building “unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use, and if all possible planning is done to minimize harm.” If not for this section, the French Quarter in New Orleans would not be the thriving historic destination it is today – much of that area would have succumbed to demolition for an interstate highway. There are other communities nationwide with similar stories.
THREAT
Opponents of Section 4(f) are committed to weakening the substantive and effective Section 4(f) protections for historic and cultural resources during the 108th Congress during reauthorization of surface transportation spending under TEA-21 – the “Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.” Our opponents are capitalizing on the overall frustrations with the delays in completing complex and expensive highway projects, and are spreading the misconception that environmental and historic preservation reviews are the primary cause of big delays.
COMMON GROUND REACHED
The National Trust for Historic Preservation and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) reached an agreement to amend Section 4(f) to streamline historic preservation reviews of transportation projects and, at the same time, maintain Section 4(f)’s strong standards of protection for historic places. Preservation Action and NCSHPO also support the agreement. The United States Senate adopted this agreement in section 1514 of S.1072, the transportation reauthorization measure that the Senate approved on February 12th. The House of Representatives is now considering its own version of the bill.
This agreement would allow for the satisfaction of Section 4(f) requirements only for cases in where there would be a properly developed finding under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that a transportation project would have no adverse effect on a historic site even though the project would use a small portion of the historic site. The agreement includes numerous safeguards like the written concurrence of state historic preservation officers and public involvement through consulting parties.
ACTION NEEDED
Now that the Senate has acted to protect Section 4(f), it is time to focus advocacy efforts on the House of Representatives. Please write to Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and ask them to adopt the compromise reached between the historic preservation community and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A list of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Members follows and a sample letter is provided.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Republicans: Don Young (AK), chairman; Thomas Petri (WI); Sherwood Boehlert (NY); Howard Coble (NC); John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN); Wayne T. Gilchrest (MD); John L. Mica (FL); Peter Hoekstra (MI); Jack Quinn (NY); Vernon J. Ehlers (MI); Spencer Bachus (AL); Steven C. LaTourette (OH); Sue W. Kelly (NY); Richard H. Baker (LA); Robert W. Ney (OH); Frank LoBiondo (NJ); Jerry Moran (KS); Gary Miller (CA); Jim DeMint (SC); Doug Bereuter (NE); Johnny Isakson (GA); Robin Hayes (NC); Rob Simmons (CT); Shelley Moore Capito (WV); Henry E. Brown, Jr., (SC); Timothy V. Johnson (IL); Dennis R. Rehberg (MT); Todd Russell Platts (PA); Sam Graves (MO); Mark R. Kennedy (MN); Bill Shuster (PA); John Boozman (AR); John Sullivan (OK); Chris Chocola (IN); Bob Beauprez (CO); Michael Burgess (TX); Max Burns (GA); Steve Pearce (NM); Jim Gerlach (PA); Mario Diaz-Balart (FL); Jon Porter (NV).
Democrats: James L. Oberstar (MN), ranking member; Nick J. Rahall, II (WV); William O. Lipinski (IL); Peter A. DeFazio (OR); Jerry F. Costello (IL); Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC); Jerrold Nadler (NY); Robert Menendez (NJ); Corrine Brown (FL); Bob Filner (CA); Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX); Gene Taylor (MS); Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA); Elijah E. Cummings (MD); Earl Blumenauer (OR); Ellen O. Tauscher (CA); Bill Pascrell, Jr. (NJ); Leonard L. Boswell (IA); Tim Holden (PA); Nick Lampson (TX); Brian Baird (WA); Shelley Berkley (NV); Brad Carson (OK); Jim Matheson (UT); Michael M. Honda (CA); Rick Larsen (WA); Michael E. Capuano (MA); Anthony D. Weiner (NY); Julia Carson (IN); Joseph M. Hoeffel (PA); Mike Thompson (CA); Timothy H. Bishop (NY); Michael H. Michaud (ME): Linc oln Davis (TN).