Lloyd Olsen did not want to touch an importance piece of “Mike the Headless Chicken.”
It happened a long time ago in Fruita, Colo. Trying to impress a neck-hungry mother-in-law, Olsen grabbed the nearest fowl and steadied the hand for the perfect chop. Stretching the neck for every available tasty inch, the fatal blow was precise. The attempt, however, turned fruitless when the chicken miraculously survived and went back to his routine of pecking for food.
The farmer was determined to get something for his initial investment, and soon launched “Mike the Headless Chicken” on a freak-show tour. With the assistance of daily hand-feeders, the disabled star survived for almost two years.
His services have been somewhat memorialized in Fruita, where every year they hold a festival in his name. You can even find a headless replica in the town’s business district. These are the things you see and hear while on a service call deep in the Rocky Mountains.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) wants to preserve a whole in a couple of years, and its trying to make an exception for some of the more special pieces.
A group of state transportation officials recently met with FHWA Administrator Mary Peters to cover concerns about the possible impact of a programmatic agreement marking the interstate highway system as eligible for the National Historic Register when it turns 50.
This agreement would treat the interstate system historic as a whole. However, it would provide states with ways for exemption from Section 106 and 4(f) historic reviews for certain activities on individual sections identified as not historically significant. To put it in exact words, the agreement, drafted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), states that, “FHWA will regard the Interstate System as a whole and agrees to treat the system as eligible for inclusion in the National Register.” Furthermore, the FHWA division offices could prepare statewide significance reports, corridor significance reports and evaluations of individually eligible elements on a project-by-project basis. The reports would provide the basis for determining which portions of the interstate would be made eligible or ineligible for exemptions from Section 106 historic reviews.
State leaders have a chunk of concern here. According to the AASHTO Journal, Ohio Director of Transportation Gordon Proctor would prefer that FHWA work with Congress to exempt the interstate system from Section 106 and 4(f). Throwing certain sections under the light for examination would lead to lengthy reviews, restrictions and mitigation costs.
The ACHP waived the national oil and gas pipeline system from such historic restrictions, and those at the state level are demanding the FHWA to seek the same with the interstate. Peters’ group responded that by pursuing the programmatic agreement the secretary could indeed waive 4(f) for activities involving restoration, rehabilitation or maintenance if the 106 review resulted in a finding of no adverse impact.
Peters impressed me when she first pulled into the desk of the administrator. At the top of her list was eliminating the marathon process some projects must endure to clear the environmental review process. But her push for the programmatic agreement is quite puzzling. The states have every right to unravel their list of concerns. Executing the FHWA’s strategy will not only launch projects into additional delay, but also will throw depleted staffs into further turmoil. Peters seems to be choking on fumes which once gassed her momentum.
With the amount of maintenance and expansion that needs to be done to preserve and upgrade one of the most important systems in the world, an exception to this historic designation is a must-have.
Mike had a brain, and I’m confident the FHWA has one, too. However, regarding the preservation of the interstate system, it’s not quite in the right place.
