Section 4(f)
Final Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Federally-Aided Highway Projects with Minor Involvements with Public Parks, Recreation Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges
This programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation has been prepared for projects which improve existing
highways and use minor amounts of publicly owned public parks, recreation
lands, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges that are adjacent to existing
highways. This programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements
of Section 4(f) for all projects that meet the applicability criteria
listed below. No individual Section 4(f) evaluations need be prepared
for such projects. (Note: a similar programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
has been prepared for projects which use minor amounts of land from historic
sites).
The FHWA Division
Administrator is responsible for reviewing each individual project to
determine that it meets the criteria and procedures of this programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation. The Division Administrator's determinations will
be thorough and will clearly document the items that have been reviewed.
The written analysis and determinations will be combined in a single document
and placed in the project record and will be made available to the public
upon request. This programmatic evaluation will not change the existing
procedures for project compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) or with public involvement requirements.
Applicability
This programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation may be applied by FHWA only to projects meeting
the following criteria:
- The proposed project
is designed to improve the operational characteristics, safety, and/or
physical condition of existing highway facilities on essentially the
same alignment. This includes "4R" work (resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction), safety improvements, such as shoulder
widening and the correction of substandard curves and intersections;
traffic operation improvements, such as signalization, channelization,
and turning or climbing lanes; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; bridge
replacements on essentially the same alignment; and the construction
of additional lanes. This programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation does
not apply to the construction of a highway on a new location.
- The Section 4(f)
lands are publicly owned public parks, recreation lands, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuges located adjacent to the existing highway.
- The amount and
location of the land to be used shall not impair the use of the remaining
Section 4(f) land, in whole or in part, for its intended purpose. This
determination is to be made by the FHWA in concurrence with the officials
having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) lands, and will be documented
in relation to the size, use, and/or other characteristics deemed relevant.
The total amount of land to be acquired from any Section 4(f) site
shall not exceed the values in the following Table:
|
Total Size of Section 4(f) Site |
Maximum to Be Acquired |
| <
10 acres |
10 percent of site |
| 10
acres - 100 acres |
1 acre |
| >
100 acres |
1 percent of site |
- The proximity
impacts of the project on the remaining Section 4(f) land shall not
impair the use of such land for its intended purpose. This determination
is to be made by the FHWA in concurrence with the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) lands, and will be documented with regard to noise,
air and water pollution, wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic values,
and/or other impacts deemed relevant.
- The officials
having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) lands must agree, in writing,
with the assessment of the impacts of the proposed project on, and the
proposed mitigation for, the Section 4(f) lands.
- For projects using
land from a site purchased or improved with funds under the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act
(Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson
Act), or similar laws, or the lands are otherwise encumbered with a
Federal interest (e.g., former Federal surplus property), coordination
with the appropriate Federal agency is required to ascertain the agency's
position on the land conversion or transfer. The programmatic Section
4(f) evaluation does not apply if the agency objects to the land conversion
or transfer.
- This programmatic
evaluation does not apply to projects for which an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is prepared, unless the use of Section 4(f) lands is
discovered after the approval of the final EIS. Should any of the above
criteria not be met, this programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation cannot
be used, and an individual Section 4(f) evaluation rust be prepared.
Alternatives
The following alternatives
avoid any use of the public park land, recreational area, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge:
- Do nothing.
- Improve the highway
without using the adjacent public park, recreational land, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge.
- Build an improved
facility on new location without using the public park, recreation land,
or wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
This list is intended
to be all-inclusive. The programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation does not
apply if a feasible and prudent alternative is identified that is not
discussed in this document. The project record must clearly demonstrate
that each of the above alternatives was fully evaluated before the FHWA
Division Administrator concluded that the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
applied to the project.
Findings
In order for this
programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation to be applied to a project, each
of the following findings must be supported by the circumstances, studies,
and consultations on the project:
- Do Nothing
Alternative. The Do Nothing Alternative is not feasible and prudent
because: (a) it would not correct existing or projected capacity deficiencies;
or (b) it would not correct existing safety hazards; or (c) it would
not correct existing deteriorated conditions and maintenance problems;
and (d) not providing such correction would constitute a cost or community
impact of extraordinary magnitude, or would result in truly unusual
or unique problems, when compared with the proposed use of the Section
4(f) lands.
- Improvement
without Using the Adjacent Section 4(f) Lands. It is not feasible
and prudent to avoid Section 4(f) lands by roadway design or transportation
system management techniques (including, but not limited to, minor alignment
shifts, changes in geometric design standards, use of retaining walls
and/or other structures, and traffic diversions or other traffic management
measures) because implementing such measures would result in: (a) substantial
adverse community impacts to adjacent homes, businesses or other improved
properties; or (b) substantially increased roadway or structure cost;
or (c) unique engineering, traffic, maintenance, or safety problems;
or (d) substantial adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts;
or (e) the project not meeting identified transportation needs; and
(f) the impacts, costs, or problems would be truly unusual or unique,
or of extraordinary magnitude when compared with the proposed use of
Section 4(f) lands. Flexibility in the application of American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) geometric standards
should be exercised, as permitted in 23 CFR 625, during the analysis
of this alternative.
- Alternatives
on New Location. It is not feasible and prudent to avoid Section
4(f) lands by constructing on new alignment because (a) the new location
would not solve existing transportation, safety, or maintenance problems;
or (b) the new location would result in substantial adverse social,
economic, or environmental impacts (including such impacts as extensive
severing of productive farmlands, displacement of a substantial number
of families or businesses, serious disruption of established patterns,
substantial damage to wetlands or other sensitive natural areas, or
greater impacts to other Section 4(f) lands or (c) the new location
would substantially increase costs or engineering difficulties (such
as an inability to achieve minimum design standards, or to meet the
requirements of various permitting agencies such as those involved with
navigation, pollution, and the environment); and (d) such problems,
impacts, costs, or difficulties would be truly unusual or unique, or
of extraordinary magnitude when compared with the proposed use of Section
4(f) lands. Flexibility in the application of AASHTO geometric standards
should be exercised, as permitted in 23 CFR 625, during the analysis
of this alternative.
Measures to Minimize
Harm
This programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation and approval may be used only for projects where
the FHWA Division Administrator, in accordance with this evaluation, ensures
that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm.
This has occurred when the officials having jurisdiction over the Section
4(f) property have agreed, in writing, with the assessment of impacts
resulting from the use of the Section 4(f) property and with the mitigation
measures to be provided. Mitigation measures shall include one or more
of the following:
- Replacement of
lands used with lands of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location
and of at least comparable value.
- Replacement of
facilities impacted by the project including sidewalks, paths, benches,
lights, trees, and other facilities.
- Restoration and
landscaping of disturbed areas.
- Incorporation
of design features (e.g., reduction in right-of-way width, modifications
to the roadway section, retaining walls, curb and gutter sections, and
minor alignment shifts); and habitat features (e.g., construction of
new, or enhancement of existing, wetlands or other special habitat types);
where necessary to reduce or minimize impacts to the Section 4(f) property.
Such features should be designed in a manner that will not adversely
affect the safety of the highway facility. Flexibility in the application
of AASHTO geometric standards should be exercised, as permitted in 23
CFR 625, during such design.
- Payment of the
fair market value of the land and improvements taken or improvements
to the remaining Section 4(f) site equal to the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken.
- Such additional
or alternative mitigation measures as may be determined necessary based
on consultation with, the officials having jurisdiction over the parkland,
recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
If the project uses
Section 4(f) lands that are encumbered with a Federal interest (see Applicability),
coordination is required with the appropriate agency to ascertain what
special measures to minimize harm, or other requirements, may be necessary
under that agency's regulations. To the extent possible, commitments to
accomplish such special measures and/or requirements shall be included
in the project record.
Coordination
Each project will
require coordination in the early stages of project development with the
Federal, state and/or local agency officials having jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) lands. In the case of non-Federal Section 4(f) lands,
the official with jurisdiction will be asked to identify any Federal encumbrances.
Where such encumbrances exist coordination will be required with the Federal
agency responsible for the encumbrance.
For the interests
of the Department of Interior, Federal agency coordination will be initiated
with the Regional Directors of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation; the State Directors
of the Bureau of Land Management, and the Area Directors of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. In the case of Indian lands, there will also be coordination
with appropriate Indian Tribal officials.
Before applying this
programmatic evaluation to projects requiring an individual bridge permit
the Division Administrator shall coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard
District Commander.
Copies of the final
written analysis and determinations required under this programmatic Section
4(f) evaluation shall be provided to the officials having jurisdiction
over the involved Section 4(f) area and to other parties upon request.
Approval Procedure
This programmatic
Section 4(f) approval applies only after the FHWA Division Administrator
has:
- Determined that
the project meets the applicability criteria set forth above;
- Determined that
all of the alternatives set forth in the Findings section have been
fully evaluated;
- Determined that
the findings in this document (which conclude that there are no feasible
and prudent alternatives to the use of the publicly owned public park,
recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge) are clearly applicable
to the project;
- Determined that
the project complies with the Measures to Minimize Harm section of this
document;
- Determined that
the coordination called for in this programmatic evaluation has been
successfully completed;
- Assured that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project; and
- Documented the
project file clearly identifying the basis for the above determinations
and assurances.
Issued on: 12/23/86
Approved: /Original Signed By/ Ali F. Sevin Office of Environmental Policy
Federal Highway Administration
