# Section 4(f) Checklist

The attached section 4(f) checklist was developed by Dan Harris (FHWA,
San Francisco). It includes the items he looks for when reviewing
section 4(f) evaluations, and is based on 2 CFR 771.15, the FHWA
Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, the FHWA Guidebook Section 24, and project
experience.

Comments and suggestions regarding the checklist are encouraged; please
send them to Dan Harris via the internet or FHWA email. The checklist
has been in use for some time; however, it is a working document subject
to change and improvement.

> Dan R. Harris
>
> Environmental Specialist
>
> FHWA Western Resource Center
>
> 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100
>
> San Francisco 94105-188
>
> tel: 415.744.2611
>
> dan.harris@fhwa.dot.gov
>
> May 1997

**Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation**

**General**

Is the section 4(f) evaluation contained in a separate section, chapter,
or appendix?

For EIS\'s, is the environmental document entitled Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation@ on the EIS title page?

> For EA\'s, is it entitled Draft Environmental Assessment and Section
> 4(f) Evaluation@?

Does the title page include the citation: Submitted Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 42(2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 0@?

Does the introduction to the section 4(f) evaluation include the
following boiler plate description of section 4(f):

> Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified
> in Federal law at 49 U.S.C. \'0, declares that A\[i\]t is the policy
> of the United States Government that special effort should be made to
> preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and
> recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.
>
> Section 4(f) specifies that A\[t\]he Secretary \[of Transportation\]
> may approve a transportation program or project . . . requiring the
> use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or
> wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local
> significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local
> significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials
> having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if:
>
> \(1\) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land;
> and
>
> \(2\) the program or project includes all possible planning to
> minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl
> refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.
>
> Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Department of the
> Interior and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the Departments
> of Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development in developing
> transportation projects and programs which use lands protected by
> section 4(f).

Is Asection 4(f) listed in the EIS index with correct page numbers?

**Proposed Action**

Are the proposed project and the project purpose and need briefly
described with the corresponding EIS/EA text discussions properly
referenced for additional information?

**Description of Section 4(f) Property(ies)**

Does the description of **[each]{.underline}** section 4(f) resource
which would be used by any alternative include all of the applicable
information outlined in Attachment A?

**Impacts on the Section 4(f) Property(ies)**

Does the impact evaluation discussion address the following impacts on
**[each]{.underline}** section 4(f) property for **[each]{.underline}**
alternative?

> the amount of land to be used?
>
> the facilities, functions, and/or activities affected?
>
> accessibility?
>
> visual?
>
> noise?
>
> vegetation?
>
> wildlife?
>
> air quality?
>
> water quality?

If there is not an impact in one of the above areas, does the evaluation
state such with adequate supportive information?

Does the evaluation include an impact summary table when:

> \(1\) more than one section 4(f) property is involved and
>
> \(2\) such a table would be useful in comparing the various impacts of
> the alternatives?

**Alternatives**

Does the section 4(f) evaluation of alternatives
**[identify]{.underline}** and **[summarize]{.underline}** the
alternatives addressed in the EIS/EA and include specific references to
those discussions?

> *Detailed discussions of alternatives in an EIS/EA do not need to be
> repeated in the section 4(f) portion of the document if they are
> identified and summarized with specific references to the EIS/EA
> discussions of alternatives.*

Do both the section 4(f) evaluation and the EIS/EA discussion of
alternatives include the same location alternatives?

Are location alternatives and site-specific design variations which
avoid section 4(f) property(ies) identified and evaluated?

Does the section 4(f) evaluation of alternatives

> include at least one build alternative which avoids
> **[each]{.underline}** and **[all]{.underline}** section 4(f)
> resources
>
> *or*
>
> explain why there are not any such avoidance alternatives with
> adequate supportive information?

**Measures to Minimize Harm**

Are all possible measures which are available to minimize the impacts to
the section 4(f) property(ies) discussed?

> *Detailed discussions of mitigation measures in the EIS/EA may be
> referenced and appropriately summarized rather than repeated.*

If the section 4(f) property includes lands or facilities developed
under section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, does the
mitigation discussion address the section 6(f) requirements? See
Attachment C.

**Other Park, Recreational Facilities, Wildlife Refuges, and Historic
Properties Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f)**

This section evaluates other park, recreational facilities, wildlife
refuges, and historic sites in the project vicinity that do not involve
a section 4(f) use.

It needs to include the information outlined in Attachment B. This
discussion is necessary to explain why some resources or facilities are
not protected by provisions of section 4(f) and to document that any
proximity impacts to section 4(f) resources do not result in a
constructive use.

**Coordination**

Does the summary discussion of preliminary coordination with the public
official having jurisdiction over the section 4(f) resource address the
following:

> avoidance alternatives,
>
> impacts to the property,
>
> measures to minimize harm, and
>
> where necessary, the significance and primary use of the property?

If section 6(f) lands are involved, does the summary discussion include
preliminary coordination with the National Park Service Region Office?

**Final Section 4(f) Evaluation**

Is the information contained in the draft section 4(f) evaluation
included in the final evaluation with appropriate revisions to reflect
comments received on the draft document and any changed conditions, new
information, or project refinements?

Does the final evaluation provide the basis for concluding that there
are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of section 4(f)
land(s)?

> *The supporting information must demonstrate that there are unique
> problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that
> avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic, and
> environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such
> alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes 2 CFR \'771.15(a)(2).*

Does the final evaluation provide the basis for concluding that the
preferred alternative includes all possible planning to minimize harm to
the section 4(f) property(ies)?

Does the final evaluation demonstrate that the preferred alternative is
the feasible and prudent alternative with the least harm on the section
4(f) resources after considering mitigation?

Does the ACoordination Section@ summarize the formal section 4(f)
coordination with the Department of the Interior and, as appropriate,
the involved offices of the Departments of Agriculture (usually the
Forest Service) and Housing and Urban Development?

Are copies of the section 4(f) comments included in the final
evaluation, or if contained in the Draft EIS Comment and Response
Section, are they accurately referenced?

Have each of the section 4(f) comments received a full and adequate
response?

> *Where new alternatives or modifications to existing alternatives are
> identified and will not be given further consideration, the basis for
> dismissing the alternatives/modifications needs to be provided and
> supported by factual information.*

Where section 6(f) land is involved, is the National Park Service\'s
position on the land transfer summarized in the text and documented with
a copy of an NPS letter?

Does the final section 4(f) evaluation conclude with the following
statement?

> Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent
> alternative to the use of land from the \[name(s) of the section 4(f)
> property(ies)\] and the proposed action includes all possible planning
> to minimize harm to the \[names(s) of the section 4(f) property(ies)\]
> resulting from such use.

**EIS/EA\'s Without a Section 4(f) Use**

All EIS\'s (and EA\'s only if appropriate) need to include a
subsection/subchapter within the Environmental Consequences
section/chapter entitled:

Park, Recreational Facilities, Wildlife Refuges, and Historic Properties

Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f)

that addresses the information outlined in Attachment B.

This discussion is necessary to explain why some resources or facilities
are not protected by provisions of section 4(f) and to document that any
proximity impacts to section 4(f) resources do not result in a
constructive use.

Attachment A

**Description of Section 4(f) Property(ies)**

A detailed map or drawing of sufficient scale to identify the
relationship of the alternatives to the section 4(f) property.

Size of the section 4(f) property (hectares or square meters (with acres
or square feet following parenthesis)).

Location of the section 4(f) property (maps or other exhibits such as
photographs and/or sketches).

Ownership (e.g., private, city, county, State, Federal agency).

Type of section 4(f) property (e.g., park, recreation, historic).

Available activities or function of the property (e.g., ball playing,
swimming, golfing).

Description and location of all existing and planned facilities (e.g.,
ball diamonds, tennis courts).

Type of access to the property (e.g., pedestrian, vehicular).

Usage of the section 4(f) resource (e.g., approximate number of
users/visitors).

Relationship to other similarly used lands in the vicinity.

Applicable clauses affecting the ownership, such as lease, easement,
covenants, restrictions, or conditions, including forfeiture.

Unusual characteristics of the section 4(f) property that either reduce
or enhance the value of all or part of the property (e.g., flooding
problems, terrain conditions, or other features).

If the section 4(f) property includes lands or facilities developed
under section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the
description of the section 4(f) resource will need to indicate such. See
Attachment C.

Attachment B

**Park, Recreational Facilities, Wildlife Refuges,**

**and Historic Properties**

**Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f)**

This section evaluates parks, recreational facilities, wildlife refuges,
and historic sites in the project vicinity that do not involve a use of
section 4(f) land. It describes each resource and then either:

> \(1\) explains why it is not protected by section 4(f), or
>
> \(2\) demonstrates that the proximity impacts do not rise to a level
> that substantially impairs the activities, features, or attributes
> that qualified the resource for protection under section 4(f).

All archaeological and historic sites within the section 106 area of
potential effect (APE) and all public and private parks, recreational
facilities, and wildlife refuges within approximately 0.8 km (one-half
mile) of any of the project alternatives should be included. It is
usually unlikely that such resources would be affected at greater
distances; however, if there is an issue or question whether they would
be affected, they should also be included.

Does the introduction to this discussion include:

> a listing of the parks, recreational facilities, wildlife refuges, and
> historic properties being addressed in this section?
>
> if a section 4(f) resource type (i.e., a park, recreational facility,
> wildlife refuge, or historic property) does not exist in the project
> vicinity, does the discussion state such?
>
> the following statement, edited as appropriate for the types of
> resources involved:
>
> The purpose of this discussion is to address section 4(f) requirements
> relative to other park, recreational facilities, wildlife refuges, and
> historical properties in the project vicinity. As indicated below,
> none of the alternatives under consideration result in a section 4(f)
> use of these other park, recreational, wildlife refuges, or historical
> resources. The discussion of each resource either documents (1) why
> the resource is not protected by the provisions of section 4(f) or (2)
> if it is protected by section 4(f), why none of the alternatives under
> consideration cause a section 4(f) use by (a) permanently
> incorporating land into the project, (b) by temporarily occupying land
> that is adverse to the preservationist purposes of section 4(f), or
> (c) by constructively using land from the resource.

Does the description of **[each]{.underline}** resource include:

> all of the applicable information outlined in Attachment A?
>
> documentation of whether it is or is not protected by the provisions
> of section 4(f)?

For each of the resources protected by section 4(f), does the impact
evaluation:

> address the following for **[each]{.underline}** alternative:
>
> the facilities, functions, and/or activities potentially affected?
>
> accessibility?
>
> visual?
>
> noise?
>
> vegetation?
>
> wildlife?
>
> air quality?
>
> water quality?
>
> conclude, based on the above discussion, whether any of the
> alternatives under consideration would cause a section 4(f) use?

If there is not an impact in one of the above areas, does the evaluation
state such with adequate supportive information?

Concluding discussions of section 4(f) **[must not use]{.underline}**
phrases such as Atherefore, section 4(f) does not apply.@ Section 4(f)
is applicable to all US Department of Transportation actions.

> **[Rather, use]{.underline}**:
>
> Therefore, the provisions of section 4(f) are not triggered,
>
> Therefore, the provisions of section 4(f) do not come into play,
>
> *or*
>
> The proposed project \[\<preferred alternative= for final
> evaluations\] will not cause a constructive use of \[name of section
> 4(f) resource\] because the proximity impacts will not substantially
> impair the protected activities, features, or attributes of \[type of
> resource, e.g., park, historic site, future park\].

Attachment C

**Section 6(f)**

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act directs the
Department of the Interior (National Park Service) to assure that
replacement lands of equal value, location, and usefulness are provided
as conditions to their approval of the section 6(f) land conversion.
Therefore, where a section 6(f) land conversion is proposed, replacement
land will be necessary. Regardless of the mitigation proposed, the draft
and final section 4(f) evaluations need to document the National Park
Service\'s position on the section 6(f) land transfer.