Improving 4(f) Reviews

Historic preservation reviews are an essential element of transportation development. By ensuring that government officials consider historic buildings and landscapes during project planning, reviews protect the country's heritage.

For some time, however, a small number of people have been calling for changes in the laws governing historic reviews of federally funded transportation projects. They claim that historic reviews are causing unnecessary delays, and among their suggestions are the removal of historic sites from the resources protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of l966, an end to protection for certain classes of historic resources, and statutory definitions for the words "prudent" and "feasible."

Yet there is little evidence that historic preservation reviews are a major source of delays. Before any changes are made, therefore, there should be a comprehensive review that considers all of the key elements in project delivery that may be creating problems. Only then will it be possible to decide if any changes are necessary.

Remedies

A Best Practices Response

Historic preservation reviews work well in many states. It is important to learn more about why they are more successful in some places than others, since discovering "best practices" will show ways to make reviews less time consuming and more effective without changing federal laws and regulations.

There are models for this kind of research. In 2000, the National Trust joined with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in its search for outstanding state transportation enhancement programs. Thirty states applied for excellence awards, and the application review uncovered features common to the best enhancement programs. The AASHTO publication, TEA-21 Challenge Leading the Way, lists them as "Winning Elements."

A similar multi-state study can produce a blueprint for better state historic preservation reviews. The "winning elements" of outstanding review procedures would also provide criteria for judging the quality of state environmental stewardship and create the common ground essential for evaluating state requests to perform historic preservation reviews on behalf of federal agencies.

The Early and Continuous Public Involvement Response

The first chapter in the Federal Highway Administration's book, Flexibility in Highway Design, provides an overview of highway development and explains that early and continuous public involvement produces better projects and increases public support for them. The earlier the public is involved, the greater the chances for community consensus about the need for a project, about how it should be designed, and about whether there will be any adverse impacts.

Historic preservation reviews should therefore begin as soon as planning does, since that is when what is discovered can most easily influence a project. It makes sense to discover early that a project may harm highly valued historic resources, since that threat is likely to prevent development of a community consensus. Impact assessments and an understanding of local lands can help designers see how a project will affect the area before substantial investments are made, and the early identification of constraints likely to slow work will save time and money.

Public involvement is the best way to help find answers about the relative significance of sites on national, state, or local historic registers. Proposals to limit the number of historic sites protected by Sections 106 and 4(f) by redefining significance reduces protection for historic resources and violates the general understanding that these protections will not be diminished as a result of streamlining the review process.

The More Balanced Approach Response

Some states do need relief from an inflexibly applied Section 4(f) of the 1966 DOT act, an inflexibility that flows in part from court rulings and from the Federal Highway Administration's reaction to them. There ought to be a way - without changing the unambiguous language of Section 4(f) - to conduct historic reviews that shows states early in planning that historic resources are present near a project and that ignoring them at this critical point will raise costs and delay completion later on. Once historic resources are identified, planners can work with citizens to find prudent and feasible alternatives that will minimize harm to historic sites.

The Better Melding of Sections 4(f) and 106 Response

There may be some promise in the idea that the requirements of Section 4(f) could be met by all parties signing a memorandum of agreement under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. While there is some overlap between 4(f) and 106, they are not redundant.