In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Southeastern Geographer Vol. 26, No. 2, November 1986, pp. 114-125 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION: EXAMPLES FROM GEORGIA Catherine Ross and David Brown INTRODUCTION. In 1966, Congress passed two pieces of legislation that seemingly had little in common: the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (U.S. DOT Act) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). However, nineteen years later, proponents of both actions are working together to try and change sections of the laws that are duplicative , time-consuming, and at odds with the best interest of both transportation and preservation. The development of this situation is an interesting study of bureaucratic misunderstanding and the problems of single-issue legislation. This article begins by reviewing the legislative and regulatory background of the U.S. DOT Act and NHPA. This is followed by an analysis of the issues involved. Four cases are cited as examples of poor planning resulting from conflicting regulations. Finally, a number of reforms are suggested. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK. The passage of single-issue legislation is common practice for the U.S. Congress. Such legislation, often included within larger bills, is frequently designed to address some grievance of a segment of society or to reinforce a national priority. While the laws often have good intent, implementation is usually difficult if not impossible. Consequently, comprehensive planning may be hampered as a single factor is given precedence over others. A former state official in Massachusetts suggests that while Congress considers and writes single issues into law this frequently results in a climate not conducive to the comprehensive consideration of the full set of impacts of the laws. (i) One such piece of single-issue legislation is Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act. It reads in part: Dr. Ross is Associate Professor ofCity Planning, Georgia Institute ofTechnology , Atlanta, GA 30332. Mr. Brown is Executive Director of the Historic Staunton Foundation, Staunton, VA 24401. Vol. XXVI, No. 2 115 After August 23, 1968, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of . . . any land from an historic site of national, state or local significance . . . unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such . . . historic sites resulting from such use. (2) This piece of legislation clearly states Congress' intention to minimize the impact of highway construction on historic sites. However, it has been argued that Congress simply intended to protect publically owned historic sites, and that this intent has been expanded through U.S. DOT regulations. (3) Other parts of Section 4(f) refer to Congress's desire to protect parklands, which will not be considered here. As is often the case with legislation, Section 4(f) is actually interpreted and administered through a U.S. DOT Order. While the law does not require formal findings, U.S. DOT guidelines provide for documentation of this process through the preparation of a 4(f) statement. A Tennessee court case noted that "the obligation to prepare a Section 4(f) statement arises, if at all, only by virtue of U.S. DOT regulations. (4) In this same case, the inflexibility of Section 4(f) was alluded to when the court noted that the Secretary of Transportation, under Section 4(f), is to either approve or disapprove the project as designed. He is not to consider various project options which could work to mitigate any adverse effect upon the historic resource. Both the U.S. DOT Act and NHPA facilitated consideration of the impact of transportation planning on historic preservation. With the passage of the NHPA, Congress instituted a review process for all federally funded, licensed, or regulated projects to assess their impact on the nation's historic resources. This act established planning requirements and served to underscore national support for historic preservation. The consideration of historic resources has lead to what is often referred to as the "106 process," as it comes from Section 106 of the NHPA. This section requires the head of any federal agency, department, or independent agency having jurisdiction over a federal undertaking in any state to take into account the impact...

pdf

Share