dusty27
03-12-2004, 08:17 PM
This is what Matthew has been telling us about!
http://member.nationaltrust.org/images/content/pagebuilder/18979.jpg
ADVOCACY NEEDED ON HOUSE TRANSPORTATION BILL!
Urge the House of Representatives to Adopt Language
Protecting Section 4(f) as it Relates to Historic <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:PersonName>Sites</st1:PersonName>
<st1:PersonName>CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION NOW! (http://member.nationaltrust.org/site/R?i=VouA8YYTvtx-nHDghdTflw..)
</st1:PersonName>
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 199px; HEIGHT: 135px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=199 align=left bgColor=#003399 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE style="WIDTH: 193px; HEIGHT: 131px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=193 align=left bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://member.nationaltrust.org/images/content/pagebuilder/21414.jpg
US 93 as it heads through the Flathead Indian Reservation.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Thank You to the thousands of you who have contacted your Senators in support of this critical legislation!
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.
Opponents of Section 4(f) are still 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.
Now that the Senate has acted to protect Section 4(f), we must focus our efforts on the House of Representatives. Pleasewrite to Members of the House of Representatives and ask them to adopt the compromise reached between the historic preservation community and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
http://member.nationaltrust.org/images/content/pagebuilder/18979.jpg
ADVOCACY NEEDED ON HOUSE TRANSPORTATION BILL!
Urge the House of Representatives to Adopt Language
Protecting Section 4(f) as it Relates to Historic <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:PersonName>Sites</st1:PersonName>
<st1:PersonName>CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION NOW! (http://member.nationaltrust.org/site/R?i=VouA8YYTvtx-nHDghdTflw..)
</st1:PersonName>
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 199px; HEIGHT: 135px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=199 align=left bgColor=#003399 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE style="WIDTH: 193px; HEIGHT: 131px" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=193 align=left bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://member.nationaltrust.org/images/content/pagebuilder/21414.jpg
US 93 as it heads through the Flathead Indian Reservation.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Thank You to the thousands of you who have contacted your Senators in support of this critical legislation!
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.
Opponents of Section 4(f) are still 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.
Now that the Senate has acted to protect Section 4(f), we must focus our efforts on the House of Representatives. Pleasewrite to Members of the House of Representatives and ask them to adopt the compromise reached between the historic preservation community and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.