Assessment
of Impacts - Route 66
The following provides a general analysis of the conceptual impacts that could result
from implementation of the alternative concepts described in this special resource study.
The alternatives do not propose general or specific development activities. To comply with
the purpose and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act and other related laws,
the impacts of site-specific development actions would have to be evaluated and assessed
prior to implementation of an alternative with accompanying general management plan and/or
development actions. Identified impacts would be avoided or mitigated.
IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 1
Potential conflict between presentation and resource protection and visitor use would
increase because driving the road is essential to retain the historic use and character of
Route 66.
Resources not selected would be more likely to suffer neglect because they would be
perceived as less important.
Alternative 2
Adequate signs would increase visitation to the designated routes.
By focusing on various alignments use would be dispersed and might result in decreased
resource deterioration.
Alternative 3
Signing the entire route would result in increased visitation.
There would be no coordinated effort to preserve resources associated with the highway.
Resource deterioration would continue and would increase as a result of expanded
visitation.
Alternative 4
Visitor use would increase as a result of the extensive use of signs.
Increased visitation would impact resources and might result in increased
deterioration.
Alternative 5
Visitor use would increase as a result of the extensive use of signs.
This alternative would encourage local preservation projects.
Certain resources would be lost if owners were to decline participation in the project.
IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Alternative 1
Restoration and adaptive use of structures would not have long- term impact on natural
resources. Development of new structures could have an impact on natural resources. These
impacts would be evaluated, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
other applicable regulations would be necessary for federal or federally assisted actions.
If new structures were built, construction could include both temporary and permanent
soil disturbance, compaction, and displacement.
Construction activities and removal of vegetation would temporarily displace resident
bird, small mammal, amphibian, and reptile populations. Some small ground-dwelling species
might be permanently displaced, but this would not be likely to adversely affect
populations.
Alternative 2
Restoration and adaptive use of structures would not have long- term impact on natural
resources. Development of new structures could have an impact on natural resources. These
impacts would be evaluated, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
other applicable regulations would be necessary for federal or federally assisted actions.
If new structures were developed, construction could include both temporary and
permanent soil disturbance; compaction, and displacement.
Construction activities and removal of vegetation would temporarily displace resident
bird, small mammal, amphibian, and reptile populations. Some small ground-dwelling species
might be permanently displaced, but this would not be likely to adversely affect
populations.
Alternative 3
Present impacts on natural resources would remain unchanged.
Alternative 4
Present impacts on other natural resources would remain unchanged.
Alternative 5
Restoration and adaptive use of structures would not have long- term impact on natural
resources. Development of new structures could have an impact on natural resources. These
impacts would be evaluated, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
other applicable regulations would be necessary for federal or federally assisted actions.
If new structures were built, construction could include both temporary and permanent
soil disturbance, compaction, and displacement.
Construction activities and removal of vegetation would temporarily displace resident
bird, small mammal, amphibian, and reptile populations. Some small ground-dwelling species
might be permanently displaced, but this would not be likely to adversely affect
populations.
IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Alternative 1
Implementation of this alternative would not result in significant impacts on social or
economic conditions on a regional or national scale. Some impacts on the socioeconomic
environment along the route would occur on a local basis.
There would be a permanent commitment of federal funds to support the staff and
activities of the commission. The commission would serve to coordinate preservation
efforts by using its own staff and partnership arrangements with private groups as well as
local and state governments. The commission would coordinate federal funding for grants or
loans to private groups and local and state governments. Local efforts to preserve and
promote Route 66 would be influenced by the federal government through the workings of the
commission.
Federal funds would be required to acquire property and preserve resources. Some
resources and property would change ownership. Short-term positive economic impacts would
occur in the areas along Route 66 where selected sites are purchased and managed.
Development of some sites would provide a small number of additional jobs. These
expenditures along with administration and maintenance related disbursements within local
economies would result in some long-term positive economic impacts. However, these impacts
are not expected to significantly alter or improve local economies.
Tourism related to Route 66 could increase for some locations/sites along the route due
to preservation efforts.
Alternative 2
There would be no significant impacts on social or economic conditions on a national or
regional scale. No significant change in local social and economic conditions would be
expected. There could be isolated local economic benefits, but this would not be
anticipated.
There would be a permanent commitment of federal funds to support the activities and
staff of the trail's management agency. Federal expenditures to acquire property and
preserve resources would also be required.
Tourism along Route 66 would increase due to the national historic trail designation.
Related management and preservation efforts would be encouraged and supported under this
alternative.
Success of this alternative would depend upon the many cooperative agreements and
partnerships necessary between federal, state, and local agencies, grassroots
organizations, private landowners and the administering federal agency. The direction and
tone of presentation and promotion efforts for Route 66 could be greatly affected by
federal involvement.
Alternative 3
There would be no change to local, regional, or national socioeconomic conditions.
Existing efforts to preserve or promote the preservation and use of Route 66 would not
be aided or hindered.
Alternative 4
Re-designation of Route 66 would not result in significant impacts on social or
economic conditions on a regional or national scale. Minimal positive impacts on the
socioeconomic environment along the route could occur on a local basis.
There would be a one time, short-term expenditure of federal funds to provide for the
sign program. Existing efforts to preserve or promote the preservation and use of Route 66
would be aided by consistent signs along the route.
Tourism along Route 66 could increase due to standardized signs along the route. Some
localized positive economic impacts could take place if Route 66 related tourism increases
significantly.
Alternative 5
Implementation of this alternative would not result in significant impacts on social or
economic conditions on a regional or national scale. Some impacts on the socioeconomic
environment along the route would occur on a local basis.
There would be a 10-year commitment of federal funds to support technical assistance,
cost-sharing programs, grants, and loans to local groups, counties, and states. Federal
assistance would focus on programs to preserve important resources. Actual implementation
would rely on state and local entities and private organizations and individuals.
Individual initiatives would guide and sustain preservation efforts. Federal involvement
would not result in significant federal control or guidance regarding policy.
Tourism along Route 66 would increase due to the national heritage highway designation,
and consistent signs. Related management and presentation efforts by nonfederal entities
would be encouraged and supported under this alternative.
IMPACTS ON MANAGING ENTITY
Alternative 1
This alternative would require substantial long-term federal funds to purchase
property, develop facilities, and support the commission s staff and programs.
Developing a criteria for selecting sites would be difficult and time-consuming because
it would depend on a comprehensive inventory of the road's resources.
This alternative would require the development of a preservation strategy for those
segments of the road that would receive increased use. Improvements and maintenance would
have to preserve the resource.
Lack of signs throughout the entire road would result in increased fragmentation of the
driving experience.
Alternative 2
This alternative would allow for a gradual development of site certification and for
flexible criteria that could be modified as perceptions of resource significance evolved
with time.
Alternative 3
Cooperation among the various state Route 66 associations and the highway departments
would require concerted effort on the part of the consortium.
The consortium s responsibilities would require a substantial amount of time
commitment, which might mean that only those with substantial means could afford to serve.
Funding for the consortium, its staff and programs might not be easily obtained.
Alternative 4
Cooperation among the different agencies and organizations would be difficult.
Establishing a Route 66 board would be quite difficult unless a federal agency was
identified to facilitate the process.
Local interpretation input might result in fragmentation and in varying degrees of
accuracy of information presented to visitors.
Alternative 5
Preservation assistance and research program would require a substantial commitment of
funds.
Development of criteria for the preservation of those road segments with historic
integrity would be necessary.
IMPACTS ON NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MANAGEMENT
Alternative 1
The management entity proposed under alternative 1 is a congressionally established
Route 66 commission. Because there is no National Park Service involvement proposed in
this management entity, there would not necessarily be an impact on National Park Service
management through the implementation of this alternative. Congress would determine what
role, if any, the secretary of the interior would play in implementation.
Alternative 2
Although most established national historic trails are administered by the National
Park Service, Congress could designate another agency to administer the Route 66 National
Historic Trail. If another agency is designated, National Park Service management would
not be affected.
Should Congress designate the National Park Service as the administering agency, this
alternative would have the greatest impact on National Park Service management. It would
require the establishment of an administrative office and staff to carry out the mandates
of the National Trails System Act as applicable to the Route 66 National Historic Trail.
In addition, funds to manage and operate the trail would be the responsibility of the
National Park Service.
Alternative 3
This alternative proposes no new federal action, and would therefore cause no new
impact on NPS management. The National Park Service does, however, administer some of the
grant programs that are currently available to implement some of the concepts described
under this alternative, and it would be assumed that the consortium would seek such grants
to implement these programs. Because those requests would be handled as any other similar
grant request, current National Park Service staff that administers those grants would not
have to be increased.
Alternative 4
As in alternative 3, there would be no impact on NPS management through the
implementation of alternative 4.
Alternative 5
As in alternative 1, alternative 5 does not specifically propose any direct National
Park Service involvement in implementation of this alternative. Therefore, NPS management
would not necessarily be affected if this alternative were to be implemented. Congress
would determine what role, if any, the secretary of the interior would play in
implementation.
However as described in alternative 2. Congress could determine that the National Park
Service should be the appropriate federal agency to administer the Heritage Highway. In
that event operations and management and funding for these activities would become the
responsibility of the National Park Service, thereby impacting National Park Service
management.
Reprinted from:
Special Resource Study Route 66
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service (See Credits)
NPS D-4 July 1995.
|
