Source: http://dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch204f/chap20.htm
Timestamp: 2015-05-24 07:14:21
Document Index: 175992752

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 303', '§ 460', 'art 800', '§ 303', '§ 138', '§774']

SER - Chapter 20 - Section 4(f)
Vol 1 > Chapter 20 - Section 4(f) and Related Requirements
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 10:12 AM
Chapter 20 - Section 4(f) and Related Requirements
The chapter dealing with Section 6(f) issues has been merged
with this chapter. What Does This Topic Include?
Section 4(f) Decision Tree
Section 4(f) Constructive Use Decision Tree
Definition of Terms Used in Section 4(f)
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation Procedures
Consideration of Park and Recreation Properties Funded under
Federal Highway Administration - Washington D.C.
Determining the Significance of Section 4(f) Resource and Other Coordination
with Official with Jurisdiction
Feasible and Prudent Avoidance Alternative
Selecting the Alternative with the Least Overall Harm Reporting
The Technical Report: Section 4(f) Evaluation
Section 4(f) Evaluation Processing and Approval
Distribution List for Draft Section 4(f) Evaluations
Information for the Environmental Document Construction Impacts
This chapter discusses the application and requirements of
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 USC 303). Responsibility
for compliance with Section 4(f) have been assigned to the Department pursuant
to the NEPA Assignment (23 USC 327) and CE Assignment (23 USC 326) MOUs (see SER, Volume 1, Chapter 38 for additional details regarding NEPA Assignment).
Section 4(f) properties include:
Publicly-Owned Public Parks, Recreational Areas, or Wildlife or Waterfowl
Refuges Historic sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places and archaeological sites on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places and which warrant preservation in place
as determined by the Department and the official(s) with jurisdiction.
Parks and recreation areas must be open to the entire public
during its hours of operation. Section 4(f) can apply to publicly-owned school
playgrounds or publicly-owned fairgrounds under certain circumstances. After
consultation (and in the absence of an official designation of purpose or function
by the officials having jurisdiction), the Department will base its decision
on its own examination of the actual functions that exist. Section 4(f) applies to those portions of federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers that are otherwise eligible as historic sites, or that are publicly owned and function as, or are designated in a management plan as, a significant park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge (See
SER Chapter 19 and FHWA guidance). This section also addresses conversion of park and recreational
properties funded wholly or in part under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act (L&WCFA).
SECTION 4(f) CONSTRUCTIVE
USE DECISION TREE [NOTE: THE FINDING OF CONSTRUCTIVE
USE IS EXTREMELY RARE] LAWS, REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE - See Also Chapter 1 - Federal Requirements
49 USC § 303: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 as amended
§ 460l – 8(f) Land and Water Conservation Fund Act [PL 88-578] (Note: 460”l” is lower case “L”. Section was re-numbered from original 6(f))
23 CFR 774 - Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites (Section 4(f))
4(f) Checklist (FHWA Western Resource Center)
FHWA Section 4(f) Nationwide Programmatics:
Independent Bikeway or Walkway Construction Projects, May 23,
1977 FHWA
Projects that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges, July 5, 1983 Federally-aided Highway Projects with Minor Involvements with
Historic Sites, December 23, 1986 Federally-aided Highway Projects with Minor Involvements with
Public Parks, Recreation Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, December
23, 1986 Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation Procedures for Projects that have a Net Benefit to Section 4(f) Properties, April 20, 2005 Section 4(f) Involvement- Wild and Scenic Rivers May 26, 1981
Policy Memo Section 4(f) Involvement- Wild and Scenic Rivers June 6, 1978
Applicability of Section 4(f) to Wetlands under USFWS Easement
May 3, 1983 Policy Memo
Section 4(f) Final Rule: New Guidance on a Complex Regulation, FHWA Newsletter, March 2008 FHWA
Guidebook on Section 4(f)
36 CFR 59.3 Land and Water Conservation Fund Program of Assistance to States; Post-Completion Compliance Responsibilities DEFINITION OF TERMS
USED IN SECTION 4(f)
“De Minimis Impact”
For the purposes of Section 4(f), a de minimis impact is a minimal impact
to a 4(f) resource that is not considered to be adverse. For historic sites, a de minimis impact means that no historic property is affected or that there is a "no adverse effect" finding under 36 CFR Part 800. For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis impact is one that will not adversely affect the qualities or activities that give the property protection under Section 4(f). For more information
see the section on Determining De Minimis Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources.
“USDOT Action”
Department of Transportation Act “Section 4(f)” [49 USC § 303]
and the Federal-aid Highway Act [23 USC § 138] require that all administrations
under the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Federal Highway
Administration, respectively, preserve and protect certain types of resources
when approving transportation projects. The two laws are essentially identical
and the Section 4(f) evaluation serves to comply with both for Federal-aid
highway projects. Section 4(f) applies whenever a federal (USDOT) action
involves the use of a publicly-owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl
refuge, or land from a historic site. Such land may be used for Federal-aid
highway projects only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative and
all possible planning has been taken to avoid the use of a 4(f) property
or to minimize harm to any 4(f) property affected by the project. Each project
proposal must include a 4(f) avoidance alternative which will be subject to the balancing test described below.
“No Feasible And Prudent Avoidance Alternative” A Section 4(f) Evaluation documents the considerations, consultations,
and alternative studies supporting the conclusion that there are no feasible
and prudent avoidance alternatives to the use of a 4(f) resource and that the proposed
action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the affected resource.
As defined in 23 CFR 774, a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative "avoids using any Section 4(f) property and does not cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweighs the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property." The regulations consider the relative value of the particular resource in light of the preservation purpose of the statute. “Feasible”
For an alternative to be considered NOT FEASIBLE, "it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment.”
“Prudent” For an alternative to be considered NOT PRUDENT, “it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need; it results in unacceptable safety or operation problems; after reasonable mitigation, it still causes: severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; severe disruption to established communities; severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low-income populations; or severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other federal statutes; it results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude; it causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or it involves multiple factors (in this definition) that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. ”
“Section 4(f) Resources”
There are two steps in determining whether Section 4(f) applies
to a federal transportation project: 1) the project must involve a resource
that is protected by the provisions of Section 4(f), and 2) that there is a “use” of
Protected resources include publicly-owned public parks, recreational areas of national, state or local significance, wildlife or waterfowl refuges; or lands from a historic site of national, state or local significance. “Recreational areas” include formal and informal
facilities, including after-school public use of school playgrounds and recreational
facilities. FHWA has determined that Section 4(f) does not apply to the National
Section 4(f) can apply to the federal Wild and Scenic River
System under certain conditions. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act does not in itself invoke Section 4(f) in the absence of the specified
4(f) land use categories. Section 4(f) only applies to those portions of a federally designated Wild and Scenic river that are eligible as a historic site or are designated in a management plan as being a significant park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge. “Historic sites” mean properties listed on or
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Archaeological
sites may be protected under Section 4(f) only if all consulting parties have
agreed that the site’s primary value warrants preservation in place.
An archaeological site whose value is in the data it contains, whether or not
the data are recovered, and has minimal value for preservation in place, is not protected by Section 4(f). There are special
considerations for treating historic districts under Section 4(f). The Interstate Highway System is not considered to be a historic site under Section 4(f) except for those individual elements of the system specifically identified for 4(f) protection by FHWA. In California, those individual elements are:
San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (I-80) Truckee River Canyon (I-80) Glenn Anderson (Century) Freeway (I-105) Chicano Park (I-5) Pine Valley Creek Bridge (I-8) Pit River Bridge (I-5)
For complete information on these individual elements of the Interstate Highway System in California, see Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System in California.
Section 4(f) applies to Transportation Enhancement Activities
(TEA) projects.
23 CFR 774.17 defines “use” in three ways: When land from a Section 4(f) resource is permanently incorporated
into a transportation facility or project (actual use); When there is a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) resource
that does not meet the five criteria of temporary use; and When there is constructive use of the Section 4(f) resource. “Actual Use”
Under Section 4(f)
Actual use is the most common application of Section 4(f).
As the term implies, the action involves the actual use of Section 4(f) lands
by permanent incorporation of such lands into a transportation facility. There
are special applications of the “actual use” type of 4(f):
Multiple use lands: this type of application refers to lands
such as national forests, state forests, Bureau of Land Management lands, etc.
When multiple use lands are involved, Section 4(f) will apply only to those
portions of such lands which now function as, or are designated in an official
management plan as being for significant 4(f) purposes. Section 4(f) applies
to the federal Wild and Scenic River System, but only to the portions of the
wild and scenic areas which are in fact being used, or designated on an approved
land management plan for use, as a park; recreational area; wildlife or waterfowl
refuge; or is a historic site. Those specific land uses must apply on the land
“Temporary Occupancy”
Special consideration is also given to the temporary occupancy
of 4(f) land. If the following five conditions set forth in 23 CFR 774.13(d) can be satisfied, Section 4(f)
will not apply:
Duration of occupancy must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed
for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership
of the land; Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and magnitude of
the changes to the 4(f) resource must be minimal; There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there
be interference with the activities or purposes of the resource, on either
a temporary or permanent basis; The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be
returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior
to the project, and There must be documented agreement of the appropriate federal, state, or
local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above
conditions. “Constructive Use”
Constructive use (23 CFR 774.15) involves the evaluation
of indirect or “proximity impacts” to a 4(f) resource. No actual
use or “take” is involved. A constructive use occurs when the
project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities,
features or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section
4(f) are “substantially impaired.” Substantial impairment occurs only when the protected activities, features
or attributes are substantially diminished by the proposed project.
Constructive use could include a variety of impacts to the
resource depending on the reasons that the property is protected under Section
4(f) and the severity of the project impacts on those particular qualities.
FHWA has determined that constructive use may occur
The projected noise level increase attributable to the project substantially
interferes with the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a
resource protected by Section 4(f), such as hearing the performances at an
outdoor amphitheater, sleeping in the sleeping area of a campground, enjoyment
of a historic site where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature
or attribute of the site’s significance, enjoyment of an urban park
where serenity and quiet are significant attributes, or viewing wildlife in an area of a wildlife and waterfowl refuge intended for such viewing. [23CFR 774.15(e)(1)] The proximity of the proposed project substantially impairs esthetic features
or attributes of a resource protected by Section 4(f), where such features
or attributes are considered important contributing elements to the value
of the resource. Examples of substantial impairment to visual or esthetic
qualities would be the location of a proposed transportation facility in
such proximity that it obstructs or eliminates the primary view of an architecturally
significant historical building, or substantially detracts from the setting
of a park or historic site which derives its value in substantial part due
to its setting. [23CFR 774.15(e)(2)] The project results in a restriction on access which substantially diminishes
the utility of a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or historic
site. [23 CFR 774.15(e)(3)] The vibration impact from operation of the project substantially impairs
the use of a Section 4(f) resource, such as projected vibration levels that are great enough to physically damage a historic building or substantially diminish the utility of the building, unless the damage is repaired and fully restored consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, in other words, the integrity of the contributing features must be returned to a condition that is substantially similar to that prior to the project. [23 CFR 774.15(e)(4)] The ecological intrusion of the project substantially diminishes the value
of wildlife habitat in a wildlife or waterfowl refuge adjacent to the project
substantially interferes with the access to a wildlife or waterfowl refuge,
when such access is necessary for established wildlife migration or critical
life cycle processes, or substantially reduces the wildlife use of a wildlife and waterfowl refuge. [23 CFR 774.15(e)(5)]. FHWA has determined that a constructive use does not occur when:
Section 106 compliance for proximity impacts (36 CFR 800.5) resulted in an agreement of "no historic properties affected" or " no adverse effect",
The projected traffic noise levels of the proposed highway project on noise-sensitive Section 4(f) activities do not exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (NAC) described in 23 CFR 772, or if the projected noise levels exceed the NAC but the increase is barely perceptible (3 dBA or less), There are proximity impacts, but the location of the transportation project was officially approved before the designation of the Section 4(f) property, except that "potential" historic sites should be treated as historic sites for Section 4(f) purposes. [23 CFR 774.15(f)(4)], The combined proximity impacts do not substantially impair the characteristics that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f),
The proximity impacts will be mitigated to a condition equivalent or better than prior to the project, as determined by the official with jurisdiction,
A change to access will not substantially diminish the use of the property, or
The vibration impacts are mitigated to avoid substantial impairment of protected characteristics of the property. The analysis should also include likely future conditions to the property if the project was not implemented so that those conditions are not attributed to the project. It is important to note that substantial impairment is a very
stringent standard and the finding of constructive use is almost never made. “Proximity Impacts”
Proximity impacts must be evaluated for each Section 4(f)
property on each project alternative. The impact evaluation shall address the
The facilities, functions, and/or activities potentially affected Access Visual impacts Noise Vibration Vegetation Wildlife Air quality Water quality If there are no proximity impacts to Section 4(f) resources,
the evaluation must also state that conclusion.
The Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation must address all proximity
impacts to determine whether they will substantially impair the qualities of
the 4(f) property, resulting in constructive use. The substantial impairment
test is applied after consideration of proposed mitigation measures. At a national
level, FHWA considers the issue of constructive use very carefully; substantial
impairment is a strict standard and constructive use is rarely found. The Washington
DC Office of FHWA makes all determinations of constructive use, so close coordination
is required to avoid any delays; this remains true under the NEPA Assignment (23 USC 327) and CE Assignment (23 USC 326) MOUs. If constructive use is
a potential issue for a project, consult with the HQ
District Environmental Coordinator assigned to the region/district. Department
district/region staff will forward the document to the HQ District Environmental
Coordinator, who will in turn forward it to Washington DC.
Determining De Minimis Impacts to Section
4(f) Resources SAFETEA-LU Section 6009(a) amended 49 USC 303 and 23 USC 138 to allow the USDOT to determine that certain uses of 4(f) land will have
only de minimis impacts on a protected Section 4(f) resource. When this is the case, and the
responsible official with jurisdiction over the resource agrees in writing,
the 4(f) process is now simplified. When the Department determines
that a transportation use of Section 4(f) property, after consideration of
any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures,
results in a de minimis impact on that property, no further Section
4(f) evaluation is required. The Department district/region Senior Environmental
Planner is authorized to approve de minimis findings. The district/region
is strongly encouraged to request the input of their HQ District
Environmental Coordinator in completing these evaluations. De minimis impact findings must be made for the individual
4(f) resources when there are multiple resources present on a property. De
minimis impact criteria and associated determination requirements are different
for historic sites than for parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl
refuges. De minimis impact findings are made in the Section 4(f) Appendix of the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. If a publicly circulated environmental document is not prepared for a project, then the De minimis impact findings are documented in a memo to file, which must include the information required in the NEPA Assignment Tracking Worksheet for Section 4(f) de minimis finding.
Applicability of Section 4(f) to the park, recreation, refuge or historic property proposed to be used by the project.
A description of the use of the 4(f) property.
An explanation of why the use is de minimis.
Records of public involvement, or Section 106 consultation.
Any avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation, measures that were relied upon to make the de minimis finding.
Results of coordination with the official(s) with jurisdiction including the written concurrence from official(s) with jurisdiction.
De minimis impacts on historic sites are defined as the determination
of either "no adverse effect" or "no historic properties impacted" in
compliance with Section 106 regulations, including SHPO's written concurrence
and ACHP's written concurrence, when applicable. With the Programmatic Agreement
in place for Section 106, the Department must inform the SHPO
in writing that a non-response for the purposes of a "no adverse affect" or
a "no historic properties affected" determination will be treated
as the written concurrence for the de minimis determination; to
streamline the process this may be combined with the Section 106 PA notification
letter to SHPO regarding the finding of effect. No separate noticing or public review is required.
Publicly-owned Parks, Recreation Areas, and Wildlife and Waterfowl
Refuges De minimis impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas,
and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not adversely
affect the activities, features, or attributes of the 4(f) resource. The public must be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the identified 4(f) resource(s). After the public comment period, the
official(s) with jurisdiction over the property must provide written concurrence
that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection under 4(f). When identifying de minimis impacts
on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
it's important to distinguish the activities, features, or attributes of
a Section 4(f) resource that are important to protect from those that can
be "used" without adverse effects. For example, when identifying
impacts to a public park, portions of the resource, such as playground equipment,
should be distinguished from areas such as parking facilities. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation or Enhancement Measures The de minimis impact finding is based on the degree or level
of impact including any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement
measures that are included in the project to address the Section 4(f) use. De
minimis impact findings must be expressly conditioned upon the implementation
of any measures that were relied upon to reduce the impact to a de minimis level. Not for Constructive Use A de minimis finding cannot be made for a constructive use of
a 4(f) property. A constructive use, by definition, involves impacts such
that the protected activities, features or attributes would be substantially
impaired. A de minimis finding can sometimes be made for a temporary
occupancy of a 4(f) property, when the project does not already meet the
FHWA's temporary occupancy exception criteria. The Department Makes the Determination Local agencies must work with the district/region Senior Environmental
Planner to complete the analysis. The Department's Senior Environmental Planner
is responsible for making the de minimis impact finding. Consultation
with the HQ District Environmental
Coordinator is strongly recommended. Public Notice Required In most cases, a separate public review process, with a public notice or
opportunity to comment, is not necessary. The information supporting the de
minimis impact finding will be included in the NEPA document and the
public will be afforded an opportunity to comment during the formal NEPA
process. However, for those actions that do not usually require public review
and comment, such as reevaluations and categorical exclusions, a public notice
and opportunity for review and comment will be needed. For historic properties,
the Section 106 consultation process fulfills this requirement; nothing additional
is needed. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION PROCEDURES The Federal Highway Administration developed five nationwide
programmatic evaluations for Section 4(f) properties that may be used only
for projects designed to improve operational characteristics, safety and/or
the physical condition of an existing highway on essentially the same alignment
(i.e. the 4(f) lands must be located adjacent to the existing highway). The
five types of programmatic evaluations are: Minor Involvements with Parklands, Recreation Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl
Refuges Minor Involvements with Historic Sites Historic Bridges Bikeways and Walkways Net Benefit Each of the five programmatic evaluations has its own applicability criteria, alternatives, findings and coordination requirements; detailed information regarding each of the five programmatic evaluations can be found on the FHWA Section 4(f) website. The advantage of using a programmatic evaluation is that there is no requirement to circulate the evaluation to the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There is also no need for a legal sufficiency review. However, coordination with the official with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property is required. An annotated outline has been developed for use in preparing a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation. Complete Section 4(f) documentation shall be retained in the project file as a matter of public record. The District/Region Senior Environmental Planner is authorized to approve programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations. The District/Region is strongly encouraged to request the input of their HQ District Environmental Coordinator in completing these evaluations.
CONSIDERATION OF PARK
AND RECREATIONAL PROPERTIES FUNDED UNDER SECTION 6(F) OF THE LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND ACT
SECTION 6(F) DECISION TREE State and local governments often obtain grants through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to acquire or make improvements to parks
and recreational areas. Section 6(f) of this Act prohibits the conversion of
property acquired or developed with these grants to a non recreational purpose
without the approval of Department of Interior’s (DOI) National Park
Service. Section 6(f) directs DOI to assure that replacement lands of equal
value, location and usefulness are provided as conditions to such conversions.
Consequently, where conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed for highway
projects, replacements will be necessary.
In order to determine whether Land and Water Conservation
Fund (L&WCF) funds were involved in the acquisition or improvement of a
4(f) property, the park authority having jurisdiction over the property should
be interviewed. If L&WCF funds were utilized for acquisition or improvement,
All practical alternatives to the proposed conversion must be evaluated The fair market value of the property to be converted must be established The replacement property must be of at least equal value The replacement property must be of reasonably equivalent usefulness and
location to that be converted The property proposed for substitution meets the eligibility requirements
for L&WCF assisted acquisition In the case of assisted sites that are partially rather than wholly converted,
the impact of the converted portion on the remainder shall be considered.
If such a conversion is approved the unconverted area must remain recreationally
viable or be replaced as well The National Park Service (NPS) Regional Office is assured that all environmental
review requirements related to the proposed project have been met The state intergovernmental clearinghouse review procedures have been adhered
to if the proposed conversion and substitution constitute significant changes
to the original L&WCF project The proposed conversion and substitution are in accordance with the Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and/or equivalent recreation
plans In order to convert Section 6(f) properties to non recreation
uses, the conversion must meet the prerequisites above and be approved by the
appropriate NPS Regional Director in writing. The authority with the jurisdiction
over the 6(f) property must agree to the conversion and acceptability of the
replacement property. The authority must submit a request for conversion to
the State Liaison Officer (Chief, Planning and Local Assistance Unit within
the Department of Parks and Recreation) who in turn seeks NPS approval of the
conversion and proposed acquisition of replacement property. Regardless of
the mitigation proposed, the Section 4(f) evaluation and environmental document
should document the NPS position relative to Section 6(f) conversion. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Early Coordination During the preliminary assessment of the project (the Preliminary Environmental
Study (PES) step for local assistance projects or the Preliminary Environmental
Analysis Report (PEAR) for projects on the State Highway System), the analyst
should conduct a site visit of the project area and/or identify potential
Section 4(f) resources through GIS research or other literature/data research.
The agency or agencies with jurisdiction should be identified at this point and
the Department must consult with them regarding the use and Section 4(f) values
The FHWA Headquarters office makes the decision as to whether there is
a constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource; this remains true even under
the NEPA Assignment and CE Assignment
MOUs. Determining the Significance of
Section 4(f) Resource and Other Coordination with Official with Jurisdiction Consultation and coordination with the official(s) of the
agency or agencies with jurisdiction is a critical step in defining the whether the property is significant for purposes of Section 4(f), for determining
use and in developing measures to avoid or minimize harm. The "official with jurisdiction" is defined in 23 CFR 774 as follows:
(3) In the case of portions of Wild and Scenic Rivers to which Section 4(f) applies, the official(s) with jurisdiction are the official(s) of the federal agency or agencies that own or administer the affected portion of the river corridor in question. For state administered, federally designated rivers (section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 USC 1273(a)(ii)), the officials with jurisdiction include both the state agency designated by the respective Governor and the Secretary of the Interior.
Coordination is especially important for multiple-use areas (see definition
of Section 4(f) resources, above) and recreational areas, such as school playgrounds.
Initial contacts with DOI, USDA, or HUD shall take place at the regional level
for identification of the uses of the resource, which may involve subordinate
agencies such as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management or
the appropriate National Forest Supervisor.
Prior to making Section 4(f) approvals under §774.3(a), the Section 4(f) evaluation must be provided for coordination and comment to the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) resource and to the Department of the Interior, and as appropriate to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A minimum of 45 days for receipt of comments is mandated in the regulation. If comments are not received within 15 days after the comment deadline, a lack of objection may be assumed and the action may proceed.
The significance of the potential Section 4(f) property is determined by the official with jurisdiction over that property. Significance is discussed in 23 CFR 774.11 and its determination varies on the type of Section 4(f) property in question. Except for certain multiple-use land holdings and federally-designated wild and scenic rivers, significance determinations
must consider the entire property and not just the portion of the property proposed
for use by the project. The meaning of the term "significance", for purposes of Section 4(f), should be explained to
the officials having jurisdiction. If a determination
from the official with jurisdiction cannot be obtained, and a management plan
is not available or does not address the significance of the potential 4(f) property, it will be
presumed to be significant until the Department reviews the determination
and reaches a different conclusion. All determinations, whether stated or presumed,
are subject to review by the Department for reasonableness. The significance determination
letter from the official with jurisdiction must be included in the Section 4(f)
Evaluation. Department of the
The approved draft Section 4(f) Evaluation shall be provided
(as part of the draft EIS, environmental assessment, or in a separate document
for projects classified as categorical exclusions) for coordination and comment
to the officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property and to
the Department of the Interior, and, as appropriate, to the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (see below). A minimum
of 45 days shall be established for the receipt of comments [23 CFR 774.5(a)]. The number of copies of the draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
sent to the Department of the Interior is indicated in the table below. The
Department of the Interior also receives copies of the final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
Department of Interior review of the Section 4(f) Evaluation does not occur
when using the Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation procedures.
For the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Section
6(f) of the L&WCFA, approval of the proposed conversion and replacement
property must be obtained from the appropriate National Park Service Regional
In addition to the Department of the Interior, the approved draft Section
4(f) evaluation shall be provided (as part of the draft EIS, environmental
assessment, or in a separate document for projects classified as categorical
exclusions) for coordination and comment to the Department of Agriculture
when one of its subordinate bureaus is the official with jurisdiction. A minimum
of 45 days shall be established for the receipt of comments [23 CFR 774.5(a)].
Department of Agriculture review of the Section 4(f) Evaluation does not
occur when using the Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation procedures.
Coordination with HUD shall occur when a project uses land for which or
on which HUD funding had been used, except for funding under the Neighborhood
Facilities Program or the Open Space Program. The approved draft Section
exclusions) for coordination and comment to the agency with jurisdiction,
the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
A minimum of 45 days shall be established for the receipt of comments [23
CFR 774.5(a)]. Department of Housing and Urban Development review
Section 4(f) Evaluation does not occur when using the Programmatic Section
4(f) Evaluation procedures.
Regarding historical sites:
The Department, in cooperation with the applicant,
will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and appropriate local
officials to identify properties on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places [23 CFR 774.5 (b)].
Regarding archaeological sites:
will (1) consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and appropriate
local officials to identify archaeological sites on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, and (2) if on or eligible, will further consult
with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (if ACHP is participating in the consultation) to determine whether the archaeological resource is important
chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value
for preservation in place [23 CFR 774.11(f) and 774.13(b)].
Note that the Department has a Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 and an associated addendum for Section 106 compliance which streamlines many of the consultation requirements.
The Department, in cooperation with the applicant
and the SHPO, will consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if the ACHP is participating in the consultation,
to determine whether an archaeological resource, listed on or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, is important chiefly
because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation
in place [23 CFR 774.11(f) and 774.13(b)].
Note that the Department has a Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 and associated addenda for Section 106 compliance which streamlines many of the consultation requirements.
BALANCING TESTS Feasible and Prudent Avoidance Alternative
If the project uses a Section 4(f) resource and the use in not de minimis or does not qualify for a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation, then one must determine whether there is a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of the Section 4(f) property(ies). Feasibility is an engineering test; is it feasible to build the alternative as a matter of sound engineering. Prudency is more subjective; the regulations provide a balancing test to determine whether an avoidance alternative is prudent using six factors. The following is the text from 23 CFR 774.17:
This test balances the Section 4(f) property (including consideration of its relative value) against the 6 factors. When considering impacts to non-Section 4(f) properties protected by other federal laws, the level of impact used must include all reasonable mitigation. Document the consideration of the 6 factors above and remember that this analysis puts a “thumb on the scale” in favor of protecting the Section 4(f) property, although the regulations do allow consideration of the relative value of the resource for 4(f) purposes. The No Build alternative must always be included among the avoidance alternatives. The application of the above factors to the No Build alternative will likely result in the conclusion that it does not meet the project purpose and need. If there is a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, it MUST be selected and therefore the project will have no Section 4(f) use. It is not necessary to develop an avoidance alternative when the project is found to have a de minimis impact on the Section 4(f) property(ies).
Selecting the Alternative with the Least Overall Harm
If there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative to the use of Section 4(f) property, and there is more than one viable alternative, the next step is to identify the alternative with the "least overall harm in light of the statute's preservation purpose". The Administration (Caltrans as assigned) may only select the alternative with the least overall harm. 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1) provides the factors that must be balanced to identify this alternative:
This analysis considers all the impacts and circumstances involved and is applied separately to each remaining, viable alternative. This discussion in the Section 4(f) Evaluation provides the basis for selecting the alternative. Once the alternative with the least overall harm is selected, then the evaluation must also document all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property(ies) [23 CFR 774.17].
This section has been updated to reflect NEPA Assignment and CE Assignment. For a separate discussion of the assignment of Section 4(f) responsibilities, please see SER, Volume 1, Chapter 38, Section 4(f).
The Technical Report: Section
The report for Section 4(f) Properties is the Section 4(f) Evaluation.
The Section 4(f) Evaluation is incorporated into an EIS or EA as an appendix
in the document. When a Section 4(f) Evaluation is required for a CE under NEPA Assignment and CE Assignment, the
Section 4(f) Evaluation is prepared as a separate document and reviewed,
approved, and circulated by the Department. Any draft individual Section 4(f) evaluation
must be reviewed and recommended for signature by the appropriate HQ District Environmental
Coordinator and Legal Office. The Deputy District Director or designee then signs and
approves the individual Section 4(f) evaluation. Any final individual Section 4(f) evaluation must be reviewed and recommended for signature by the appropriate HQ District Environmental Coordinator. The appropriate Legal Office must provide Legal Sufficiency. The Deputy District Director or designee then signs and approves the individual Section 4(f) evaluation. Programmatic Section 4(f)
evaluations and de minimis impact findings can be made by the district/region
Senior Environmental Planner; in those cases, consultation with the HQ District
Environmental Coordinator is strongly recommended. Please see the appropriate annotated outline for the structure and content of the Section 4(f) Evaluation. For projects that are not assigned to the Department by FHWA, approval and circulation is completed by FHWA.
Section 4(f) Evaluation Processing
All Section 4(f) Evaluations are reviewed by the Department Environmental staff.
Please see SER, Volume 1, Chapter 38, Section 4(f) for a separate discussion of Section
4(f) review and approval procedures under NEPA Assignment. Preparer Qualifications
There are no specified qualifications for persons preparing Section 4(f)
evaluations. Typically, the Environmental Generalist prepares the Section
4(f) Evaluation. If historic resources, including archaeological resources,
are involved, the Generalist works in close coordination with the cultural
Please see SER, Volume 1, Chapter 38, Section 4(f) for Section 4(f) review and approval
procedures under NEPA Assignment. Section 4(f) Evaluations that are incorporated
into an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement are reviewed,
approved, and distributed in the same manner as the EA or EIS. Draft environmental
documents that incorporate a Section 4(f) Evaluation are distributed to the
Department of the Interior, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
or the Department of Agriculture in addition to the normal environmental
document distribution. When the 4(f) Evaluation is processed with an Environmental
Assessment (EA), use the Draft Section 4(f) Distribution List in addition to the normal
EA distribution. Including Section 4(f) Evaluations within environmental documents serves
two key purposes: (1) They are subject to essentially the same public review
process as an EIS; and (2) Section 4(f) approval will be automatic with approval
of the environmental document. In the case of an EIS, the 4(f) approval is
summarized in the Record of Decision (ROD).This practice is an excellent
example of the benefit to be gained by implementing environmental processes
If there appears to be constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource, then
Pre-draft Section 4(f) Evaluation must be reviewed and approved by FHWA Headquarters
Office in Washington, DC prior to circulation of the draft environmental
document; this is still the case under NEPA Assignment and CE Assignment. The Department district/region staff will forward the document to the HQ District Environmental
Coordinator, who will in turn forward it to Washington DC. If FHWA Headquarters
approves the determination of constructive use, the draft environmental document
shall be processed normally.
If the project qualifies for Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation, the
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation is prepared as part of the EA or EIS or as a separate
document for a CE. An annotated outline has been developed for use in preparing a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation. Please see SER, Volume 1, Chapter 38, Section 4(f) for Section 4(f) review and approval
procedures under NEPA Assignment. The Programmatic
Section (4) Evaluations are not distributed to the Department of the Interior,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the Department of Agriculture
Separate Section 4(f) Evaluation (CE or late discovery)
When the project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion or if the Section
4(f) resource is discovered after circulation of the environmental document,
a separate Section 4(f) Evaluation must be prepared. It is reviewed and approved
following the same procedures as if it was discovered during the environmental
process. Please see SER, Volume 1, Chapter 38, Section 4(f) for Section 4(f) review and approval
procedures under NEPA Assignment. Distribution List for Draft
Manager of the public park, school district, wildlife
or waterfowl refuge, SHPO, as appropriate.
Forest Supervisor of Affected National Forest*
When it has jurisdiction over Section 4(f) lands
Area Director *
600 Harrison Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107-6400
Los Angeles, CA 90017 1
Send to appropriate Area Director. When Block Grant
funding has been used, it should be identified before Draft ED is circulated.
All "north" counties and Tulare County
to San Francisco office
All "south" counties except Tulare County
to Los Angeles office
Main Interior Bldg. MS 2340
7, 9, or
Send 7 copies of separate Evaluations (for CEs);
18 copies of Draft Environmental Documents that include Section 4(f)
Evaluations; and 9 for Final Environmental Documents Director
1111 Jackson Street, Suite 700 Jackson Center One
Only when NPS land is involved. When Section 6(f)
funds are used, coordination with NPS must occur prior to the circulation
of the Draft 4(f) Evaluation.
*Do not circulate to these agencies when processing a Programmatic
Section 4(f) Evaluation.
In addition to the above distribution to be made by the district/region,
send one copy to Headquarters Environmental, and copies to any local agency
or public agency that requests it.
Information for Environmental
Because the Section 4(f) Evaluation is incorporated into the
environmental document as a separate appendix, its conclusions are summarized
only in an Executive Summary of the document.
For a CE, a separate Section 4(f) Evaluation is prepared and
a brief summary of the conclusions shall be attached to the CE form.
If a potential Section 4(f) resource is discovered during
construction of the project, a separate Section 4(f) Evaluation must be prepared
to address the resource. Construction activities must halt until the Department
makes its determination as to whether Section 4(f) is involved. The Department
will make a determination as to whether it is necessary to address alternatives
to avoid the resource at this stage of project development.
INFORMATION NEEDED FOR PROJECT
Ideally, the following information should be documented in
the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Regional Transportation Plan
and serve as a building block in subsequent decision making.
A Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) requires the preparation
of a CEQA environmental document, normally a program or master Environmental
Impact Report. The Department encourages the MPO/RTPAs to include the following information,
as appropriate, in the environmental document for the plan: Publicly-owned wildlife/waterfowl refuges in corridor or subarea; Publicly-owned public parks and recreation areas in corridor or subarea; Public schools in corridor or subarea (for potential after hours recreational
use of playgrounds); Any known historical resources of national, state, or local significance
in corridor or subarea; Project Initiation Document
The “Guidelines for the Preparation of Project Study
Reports” dated November 3, 1999 stipulate that PSRs and project study report equivalents
contain an “inventory of environmental resources, identification of potential
environmental issues and anticipated environmental processing type. Potential
mitigation requirements and associated costs should also be identified. “
Environmental Assessment (PES) form. The information required for the PES satisfies
the environmental requirement for the PSR equivalent.
of information should be included in the Preliminary Environmental Analysis
Report (PEAR) prepared as part of the Project Initiation Document (PID).
Verification of all information from the RTP stage and: Publicly-owned wildlife/waterfowl refuges in project area; Publicly-owned public parks and recreation areas in project area; Public schools in project area (for potential after hours recreational
in project area; Any known archaeological sites that may warrant preservation in place as
defined by Section 4(f) in project area. Do not disclose site locations in
the PEAR or PID. Site locations are confidential. Any park or recreation property acquired or improved utilizing L&WCF
funds. Draft Project Report
This information should be presented in the Draft Environmental
Document or used as supporting documentation for a Categorical Exemption, as
Verification of all information from the RTP and PID stages and: Description of each Section 4(f) resource on each alternative; A detailed map or drawing of sufficient scale to identify the relationship
of the alternatives to the Section 4(f) resource; The amount of land of each resource required for each alternative; The type(s) of Section 4(f) resource(s) involved; Ownership of the resource and information on leases, easements, etc. The existing and planned facilities, functions or activities that are affected
by the project for each Section 4(f) resource; Type of public access to the resource; Use of the resource; Analysis of impacts required to be considered, and, if there is no impact,
documentation to support that conclusion (Refer to Content of Section 4(f)
Evaluation for the required issues to be analyzed); Potential for conversion of Section 6(f) funded park or recreational property
for each alternative under consideration; Evidence of coordination and consultation with the agency with jurisdiction
for each Section 4(f) Resource; A build alternative that avoids each Section 4(f) resource or the reasons
why such an avoidance alternative is not feasible or prudent. See Section 4(f) Checklist.
Verification of all information from the RTP, PID, and DPR stages and: Comments received after the circulation of the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation; Adequate responses to comments; Documentation that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm
to Section 4(f) resources; Summary of coordination with Department of the Interior, and as appropriate,
the Department of Agriculture or Department of Housing and Urban Development; Updated documentation of coordination and consultation with the agency
having jurisdiction over the resource; Documentation that the preferred alternative has the least net impact on
Section 4(f) resources. If FHWA Headquarters has determined there is "Constructive Use" include
documentation to that effect. Documentation that the authority having jurisdiction over the Section 6(f)
property agrees with conversion and acceptability of the replacement property; Documentation that the NPS Regional Director has approved the conversion
of the 6(f) property and replacement Identifies commitment to acquire 6(f) replacement property. PERMITS REQUIRED
There is no permit associated with Section 4(f).
The Department must make a formal determination
that 1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the use of Section
4(f) resources, and 2) all possible planning has been taken to avoid the use
of a 4(f) property or to minimize harm to any 4(f) property affected by the