Appendix G 

Federal Highway Administration Concurrence 

that DEIS is Valid 

DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

G - 1
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

G - 2
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

G - 3
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

G - 4
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evalua

G - 5

DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluatio

G - 7

Table 1 

Summary of DIFT Impacts – DEIS Practical Alternative vs. Preferred 

Impact ALT 1 - 2025 NO ACTION ALT 2 - 2025 IMPROVE/EXPAND ALT 3 - 2025 CONSOLIDATE ALT 4 - 2025 CO

Terminal Area LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPb CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPc LIV-JCT-CP/EXPd 

Traffic and Safety 

• Normal, non-DIFT 

traffic of all kinds increases. Truck traffic continues to use neighborhood streets. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections, except at the Dix/Waterman/ Vernor intersection. 

• Continued rail/vehicle 

conflicts at Central and at Lonyo. 

• Normal, non-DIFT 

traffic of all kinds increases. Truck traffic continues to use neighborhood streets. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections. 

• Normal, non-DIFT 

traffic of all kinds increases. Truck traffic continues to use neighborhood streets. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections. 

• Grade separation of 

Central will reduce vehicle-rail conflicts and crashes. 

• I-94/Livernois 

interchange improvement will improve safety. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections but Dix/Waterman/ Vernor under Option A. 

• Intermodal truck traffic 

on Artesian, Southfield Freeway service drive and other local roads reduced/eliminated. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections. 

• Intermodal truck traffic 

and idling eliminated from Fair and Chesterfield. 

• Acceptable 

volume/capacity conditions at all intersections. 

• Grade separation of 

Central will reduce vehicle-rail conflicts and crashes. 

• I-94/Livernois 

interchange improvement will improve safety. 

• Reduced truck traffic on 

local roads. 

• Acceptable volume/ 

capacity conditions at all intersections but five which can be made acceptable with modified signal phasing.

• Grade separation of 

Central will reduce vehicle-rail conflicts and crashes. 

• I-94/Livernois 

interchange improvement will improve safety. 

• Reduced truck traffic on 

local roads. 

• Acceptable volume/ 

capacity conditions at all intersections but five which can be made acceptable with modified signal phasing. 

• • 

Community 

Cohesion 

• Industrial/ commercial 

uses will continue to be mixed with residential uses. 

• Continued rail/vehicle 

conflicts at Central/Lonyo. 

• Industrial/ commercial 

uses will continue to be mixed with residential uses. 

• Industrial/ commercial 

uses will continue to be mixed with residential uses. 

• Lonyo closed. Central 

Avenue railroad crossing grade separated. 

• Truck traffic reduced on 

neighborhood streets. 

• Truck traffic reduced on 

neighborhood streets. 

• Truck traffic reduced on 

neighborhood streets. 

• Lonyo closed. Central 

Avenue railroad crossing grade separated. 

• Truck traffic reduced on 

neighborhood streets. 

• Lonyo closed. Central 

Avenue railroad crossing grade separated. 

• Truck traffic reduced on 

neighborhood streets. 

• 

Environmental 

Justice 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected. 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected. 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact. 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact. 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact.

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected. 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected. 

• No adverse 

disproportionate impact expected. 

• 

Land Use 

• Maintains existing land 

use pattern. 

• Maintains existing land 

use pattern. 

• Maintains existing land 

use pattern. 

• Consistent with Detroit 

and Dearborn land use plans. 

• Detroit land use plan 

does not mention terminal. 

• Consistent with Detroit 

and Ferndale land use plans. 

• Consistent with Detroit 

and Dearborn land use plans. 

• Consistent with Detroit 

and Dearborn land use plans. 

• 

No. of Residential Units Affected (Acquisitions) 

0 0 0 • Option A=0 

• Option B = 0 • Option C = 0 

• Option A=0 • Option B = 0 

0 • 71 single-family plus 

12 apartment units 

• 29 single-family plus 

4 apartment units 

No. of Business Units Affected (Acquisitions) 

0 0 0 • Option A = 8 

• Option B = 11 • Option C = 8 

• Option A = 5 • Option B = 6 

0 • 64 • 51 

Relocations 

Other Affected Properties (Acquisitions) 

N/A N/A N/A • One institutional 

property at CP/Expressway 

N/A • Approx. 35 acres of 

Fairgrounds property 

None N/A • 

a Included the Livernois-Junction Yard, CP/Expressway, and NS/Delray and Triple Crown terminals. The CP/Expressway terminal closed in June 2005. b Included the existing Livernois-Junction Yard and CP/Expressway terminals. The intermodal operations of NS will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard. Terminals that once served intermodal activities would serve non-intermodal railroad bc Included the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway, CP/Oak and CN/Moterm. These latter three terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad business. The CP/Expressway terminal closed d Included the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway and CP/Oak. These latter two terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad business. The CP/Expressway terminal closed in June 2005. e Only the Livernois-Junction Yard is involved in the Preferred Alternative. There are no project impacts at other terminals f Jobs relocated are those moved from within a terminal area to outside it due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” around each existing intermodal terminal. g NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. h Funding will be a combination of government and railroad investment. i DRIC is the Detroit River International Crossing, proposing a new bridge to Canada. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluatio

G - 8

Table 1 (continued) 

Summary of DIFT Impacts – DEIS Practical Alternative vs. Preferred 

Impact ALT 1 - 2025 NO ACTION ALT 2 - 2025 IMPROVE/EXPAND ALT 3 - 2025 CONSOLIDATE ALT 4 - 2025 CO

Terminal Area LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPb CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPc LIV-JCT-CP/EXPd 

Farmland/Part 

361 Lands 

• No active farmland, or 

Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, or 

Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, or 

Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, or 

Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, or 

Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, or 

Pat 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, or 

Part 361 land needed. 

• No active farmland, or 

Part 361 land needed. 

• 

Economic 

Impacts 

Jobsf in terminal area

• Jobs Relocated: 0 • Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 194 • Overall 1,029 

• Jobs Relocated: 0 • Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 130 • Overall 1,029 

• Jobs Relocated: 0• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 88• Overall 1,029

• Jobs Relocated: 0 • Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 786 • Overall 4,950 

• Jobs Relocated: 596• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 187• Overall 4,950

• Jobs Relocated: 0• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 390• Overall 4,950

• Jobs Relocated: 286• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 2,245• Overall 9,050

• Jobs Relocated: 275• Net Jobs Gained: 

• Terminal Area 1,956• Overall 8,819

• • 

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots 

• No violations of CO 

standards at intersections. 

• No violations of CO 

standards at intersections. 

• No violations of CO 

standards at intersections. 

• No violations of CO 

standards at intersections. 

• No violations of CO 

standards at intersections. 

• No violations of CO 

standards at intersections. 

• No violations of CO 

standards at intersections. 

• No violations of CO 

standards at intersections. 

• 

Air Quality Pollutant Burden 

• Terminal burdens less 

than existing conditions except for PM10 and 

PM2.5. 

• Roadway burdens less 

than existing conditions because of cleaner engines and fuels. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• Terminal burdens less 

than existing conditions except for PM10 and 

PM2.5. 

• Roadway burdens less 

than existing conditions because of cleaner engines and fuels. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• Terminal burdens less 

than existing conditions except for PM10 and 

PM2.5. 

• Roadway burdens less 

than existing conditions because of cleaner engines and fuels. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• Terminal burdens 

increase over No Action due to increased intermodal activity. 

• Roadway burdens 

virtually same as No Action. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• Terminal burdens 

increase over No Action due to increased intermodal activity. 

• Roadway burdens 

virtually same as No Action. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• Terminal burdens 

increase over No Action due to increased intermodal activity. 

• Roadway burdens 

virtually same as No Action. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced 

• Terminal burdens 

increase over No Action due to increased intermodal activity. 

• Roadway burdens 

slightly less than No Action. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• Terminal burdens about 

same as No Action even with increased intermodal activity. 

• Roadway burdens 

slightly less than No Action. 

• Regional burdens are 

reduced. 

• • • 

Noise 

Considerations 

• No perceptible increase. • No perceptible increase. • No perceptible increase. • No perceptible increase 

with planned barrier walls. 

• No perceptible increase 

with planned barrier walls. 

• No perceptible increase 

with planned barrier walls. 

• No perceptible increase 

with planned barrier walls. 

• No perceptible increase 

with planned barrier walls. 

• 

Surface Water 

Impacts 

• No change • No change • No change • Yard paving will 

improve drainage. 

• Storm drainage subject 

of NPDESg permitting. 

• Spill prevention plans 

will be in place. 

• Particulate matter that 

clogs sewers will be reduced. 

• Yard paving will 

improve drainage. 

• Storm drainage subject 

of NPDESg permitting. 

• Spill prevention plans 

will be in place. 

• Yard paving will 

improve drainage. 

• Storm drainage subject 

of NPDESg permitting. 

• Spill prevention plans 

will be in place. 

• Yard paving will 

improve drainage. 

• Storm drainage subject 

of NPDESg permitting. 

• Spill prevention plans 

will be in place. 

• Particulate matter that 

clogs sewers will be reduced. 

• Yard paving will 

improve drainage. 

• Storm drainage subject 

of NPDESg permitting. 

• Spill prevention plans 

will be in place. 

• Particulate matter that 

clogs sewers will be reduced. 

• • 

• 

Wetlands 

• None • None • None • 0.01 acres of Palustrine 

Emergent wetland of low quality 

• None • 0.07 acres of Palustrine 

Emergent wetland of low quality 

• 0.01 acres of Palustrine 

Emergent wetland of low quality 

• 0.01 acres of Palustrine 

Emergent wetland of low quality 

• 

a Included the Livernois-Junction Yard, CP/Expressway, and NS/Delray and Triple Crown terminals. The CP/Expressway terminal closed in June 2005. b Included the existing Livernois-Junction Yard and CP/Expressway terminals. The intermodal operations of NS will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard. Terminals that once served intermodal activities would serve non-intermodal railroad bc Included the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway, CP/Oak and CN/Moterm. These latter three terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad business. The CP/Expressway terminal closed d Included the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway and CP/Oak. These latter two terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad business. The CP/Expressway terminal closed in June 2005. e Only the Livernois-Junction Yard is involved in the Preferred Alternative. There are no project impacts at other terminals f Jobs relocated are those moved from within a terminal area to outside it due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” around each existing intermodal terminal. g NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. h Funding will be a combination of government and railroad investment. i DRIC is the Detroit River International Crossing, proposing a new bridge to Canada. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluatio

G - 9

Table 1 (continued) 

Summary of DIFT Impacts – DEIS Practical Alternative vs. Preferred 

Impact ALT 1 - 2025 NO ACTION ALT 2 - 2025 IMPROVE/EXPAND ALT 3 - 2025 CONSOLIDATE ALT 4 - 2025 CO

Terminal Area LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPb CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPc LIV-JCT-CP/EXPd 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

• None • None • None • None • None • None • None • None • 

Historic/Archaeological 

4(f) Resources 

• No effect • No effect • No effect • Adverse effect on 

bridge deck at Michigan 

Central Depot. 

• No effect • No effect • Removal of Michigan 

Box Company building and Federal Screw Works factory. Potential adverse effect on Markey and Tomms Houses. 

• Removal of Michigan 

Box Company building.

• 

Parklands/

Recreational Land 

4(f) Resources 

• No effect • No effect • No effect • No effect • No effect • Approx. 35 acres from 

State Fairgrounds, a 4(f) resource would be leased to CN. 

• No direct effects, 

indirect or cumulative negative effects. 

• Potential for park 

improvements with project. 

• No direct effects, 

indirect or cumulative negative effects. 

• Potential for park 

improvements with project. 

• 

Visual 

Effects 

• Unsightly properties 

and streetscapes remain. 

• No change • No change • Unsightly properties 

and streetscapes remain, except for improvements along Kronk with barrier walls. 

• Barrier wall along north 

edge of terminal. 

• Barrier wall along east 

edge of terminal. 

• Removal of some 

unsightly properties through acquisition. 

• Barrier wall along north 

edge of terminal. 

• Directional lighting near 

residential areas will be used to reduce/avoid light intrusion. 

• Removal of some 

unsightly properties through acquisition. 

• Barrier wall along north 

edge of terminal. 

• Directional lighting near 

residential areas will be used to reduce/avoid light intrusion. 

• 

Contaminated 

Sites 

• No sites around terminal 

area expected to change 

• Potential to remediate 

up to 10 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• No sites around terminal 

area expected to change 

• Potential to remediate 

up to 5 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• No sites around terminal

area expected to change 

• Potential to remediate 

up to 5 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• 9 sites around terminal 

area need additional testing 

• Potential to remediate 

up to 40 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• 6 sites around terminal 

area need additional testing 

• Potential to remediate 

up to 15 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• No sites involved • Potential to remediate 

up to 20 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• 45 sites need additional 

testing 

• Potential to remediate 

up to 120 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• 37 sites need additional 

testing 

• Potential to remediate 

up to 100 acres for nonterminal intermodal activity 

• • 

Soils 

• No change • No change • No change • Former clay pits would 

need geotechnical testing prior to any construction of structures. 

• No change • No change • Former clay pits would 

need geotechnical testing prior to any construction of structures. 

• Former clay pits would 

need geotechnical testing prior to any construction of structures. 

• 

a Included the Livernois-Junction Yard, CP/Expressway, and NS/Delray and Triple Crown terminals. The CP/Expressway terminal closed in June 2005. b Included the existing Livernois-Junction Yard and CP/Expressway terminals. The intermodal operations of NS will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard. Terminals that once served intermodal activities would serve non-intermodal railroad bc Included the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway, CP/Oak and CN/Moterm. These latter three terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad business. The CP/Expressway terminal closed d Included the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway and CP/Oak. These latter two terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad business. The CP/Expressway terminal closed in June 2005. e Only the Livernois-Junction Yard is involved in the Preferred Alternative. There are no project impacts at other terminals f Jobs relocated are those moved from within a terminal area to outside it due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” around each existing intermodal terminal. g NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. h Funding will be a combination of government and railroad investment. i DRIC is the Detroit River International Crossing, proposing a new bridge to Canada. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluatio

G - 10

Table 1 (continued) 

Summary of DIFT Impacts – DEIS Practical Alternative vs. Preferred 

Impact ALT 1 - 2025 NO ACTION ALT 2 - 2025 IMPROVE/EXPAND ALT 3 - 2025 CONSOLIDATE ALT 4 - 2025 CO

Terminal Area LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa CP/OAK CN/MOTERM LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa LIV-JCT-CP/EXPa 

Indirect and 

Cumulative 

• Perpetuates current 

conditions/trends in traffic, economics, land use, community effects, noise, cultural resources, contaminated sites and water quality. Pollution reduced by cleaner engines/fuel. 

• Perpetuates current 

conditions/trends in traffic, economics, land use, community effects, noise, cultural resources, contaminated sites and water quality. Pollution reduced by cleaner engines/fuel. 

• Perpetuates current 

conditions/trends in traffic, economics, land use, community effects, noise, cultural resources, contaminated sites and water quality. Pollution reduced by cleaner engines/fuel. 

• No negative traffic 

congestion 

• Some business 

expansion expected. 

• Unwanted mixing of 

land uses must be resisted. 

• No adverse air quality 

effects. 

• Ambient noise levels 

may increase. 

• Existing controls must 

be enforced to avoid adverse cultural resource impacts. 

• Some contaminated 

property reclaimed. 

• Available infrastructure 

will be able to handle stormwater from additional development, but no certainty exists. 

• No negative traffic 

congestion. 

• Some business 

expansion expected. 

• Unwanted mixing of 

land uses must be resisted. 

• No adverse air quality 

effects. 

• Ambient noise levels 

may increase. 

• Existing controls must 

be enforced to avoid adverse cultural resource impacts. 

• Some contaminated 

property reclaimed. 

• Available infrastructure 

will be able to handle stormwater from additional development, but no certainty exists. 

• No negative traffic 

congestion. 

• Some business 

expansion expected. 

• Unwanted mixing of 

land uses must be resisted. 

• No adverse air quality 

effects. 

• Ambient noise levels 

may increase. 

• Existing controls must 

be enforced to avoid adverse cultural resource impacts. 

• Some contaminated 

property reclaimed. 

• Available infrastructure 

will be able to handle stormwater from additional development, but no certainty exists. 

• No negative traffic 

congestion. 

• Some business 

expansion expected. 

• Unwanted mixing of 

land uses must be resisted. 

• No adverse air quality 

effects. 

• Ambient noise levels 

may increase. 

• Existing controls must 

be enforced to avoid adverse cultural resource impacts. 

• Some contaminated 

property reclaimed. 

• Available infrastructure 

will be able to handle stormwater from additional development, but no certainty exists. 

• No negative traffic 

congestion. 

• Some business 

expansion expected. 

• Unwanted mixing of 

land uses must be resisted. 

• No adverse air quality 

effects. 

• Ambient noise levels 

may increase. 

• Existing controls must 

be enforced to avoid adverse cultural resource impacts. 

• Some contaminated 

property reclaimed. 

• Available infrastructure 

will be able to handle stormwater from additional development, but no certainty exists. 

• • 

• 

• • • • • 

Energy 

• Continues past trends. • Continues past trends. • Continues past trends. • Energy used during 

construction. 

• Improved efficiencies 

from conversion of some freight shipments from truck to rail. 

• Energy used during 

construction. 

• Improved efficiencies 

from conversion of some freight shipments from truck to rail. 

• Energy used during 

construction. 

• Improved efficiencies 

from conversion of some freight shipments from truck to rail. 

• Energy used during 

construction. 

• Improved efficiencies 

from conversion of some freight shipments from truck to rail. 

• Energy used during 

construction. 

• Improved efficiencies 

from conversion of some freight shipments from truck to rail. 

• • 

Land Acquisition and Remediation 

No government investment $97.5h $125.0h $114.

Construction No government investment $169.7h $457.7h $436.0Community Benefits NA NA NA NA 

Implementation Project Cost 

(millions 2004) 

Total No government investment $267.2h $582.7h $550.

a Included the Livernois-Junction Yard, CP/Expressway, and NS/Delray and Triple Crown terminals. The CP/Expressway terminal closed in June 2005. b Included the existing Livernois-Junction Yard and CP/Expressway terminals. The intermodal operations of NS will be transferred to the Livernois-Junction Yard. Terminals that once served intermodal activities would serve non-intermodal railroad bc Included the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway, CP/Oak and CN/Moterm. These latter three terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad business. The CP/Expressway terminal closed d Included the expanded Livernois-Junction Yard to accommodate the intermodal operations of CP/Expressway and CP/Oak. These latter two terminals would serve non-intermodal railroad business. The CP/Expressway terminal closed in June 2005. e Only the Livernois-Junction Yard is involved in the Preferred Alternative. There are no project impacts at other terminals f Jobs relocated are those moved from within a terminal area to outside it due to terminal expansion. Net jobs are those gained in terminal area. Each terminal area is defined as an “impact zone” around each existing intermodal terminal. g NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. h Funding will be a combination of government and railroad investment. i DRIC is the Detroit River International Crossing, proposing a new bridge to Canada. 

Source: The Corradino Group of Michigan, Inc. 

i:\projects\2846-a-from l\wp\reports\deis reevaluation\impact summary prac vs preferred.doc
Appendix H 

Environmental Justice Analysis Approach 

DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

H - 1

Environmental Justice 

Analysis Approach 

The methodology that was used to conduct an Environmental Justice analysis of the 

study area followed MDOT and FHWA guidelines (U.S. DOT Order 5610.2). That 

methodology has several steps that need to be followed along with a series of questions 

that need to be asked and answered in order to determine if there will be 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority population groups or low-income 

population groups in the study area. 

Step One: Determine if a minority population group or low-income population group is 

present in the study area. 

Step Two: Determine whether project impacts associated with the identified low-income 

and minority populations are disproportionately high and adverse. The questions that 

need to be asked are: 

Question 1: Is the anticipated adverse impact high? Any impact which exceeds a state 

or federal standard should be considered high. If an impact is determined to be 

“significant” per NEPA, it would also be considered high. In some areas there may be 

quantitative standards to draw upon, e.g. noise, air quality, water quality, contamination, 

etc. In other impact areas the decision will be based on qualitative standards. A public 

involvement effort will often be necessary to address qualitative impacts thoroughly. 

Question 2: Is the high and adverse impact anticipated to fall disproportionately on a 

low-income or minority population? 

Both questions need to be answered to determine whether there may be 

disproportionate impacts. The first question is whether the overall adverse impact is 

predominantly borne by the minority or low-income group? If the answer is "NO," then 

the impact may not be disproportionate in nature. The second question is whether the 

adverse effect is “appreciably more severe” than that experienced by a non-minority or 

non-low-income person. If it is determined that there are disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts to minority and/or low-income populations, then proceed to Step 

Three. 

Step Three: Propose measures that will avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts and provide offsetting benefits and 

opportunities to enhance communities, neighborhoods and individuals affected by the 

proposed project. 

Step Four: If after further mitigation, enhancements, and off-setting benefits to the 

affected populations, there remains a high and disproportionate adverse impact to 

minority populations or low-income populations then the following questions must be 

considered: 
DIFT Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

H - 2

Question 1: Are there further mitigation measures that could be implemented to avoid 

or reduce the adverse effect? If further mitigation measures exist, then those measures 

must be implemented unless they are “not practicable.” 

Question 2: Are there other additional alternatives to the proposed action that would 

avoid or reduce the impact to low-income or minority populations? If such an 

alternative(s) exists, and it is “practicable,” then that alternative must be selected. If 

further mitigation or alternatives that avoid the impact are judged to be not practicable, 

that conclusion must be documented, supported by evidence, and included in the NEPA 

document. 

Question 3: Considering the overall public interest is there a substantial need for the 

project? 

Question 4: Will the alternatives that would still satisfy the need for the project and have 

less impact on the protected populations have other impacts that are more severe than 

the proposed action, or have increased costs of extraordinary magnitude. 

Step Five: Include all findings, determinations, or demonstrations in the environmental 

document prepared for the project.