This section includes information needed for projects that will affect Section 4(f) public lands and Section 6(f) outdoor recreation lands. These requirements often overlap with those for projects affecting historic properties (Section 106), and cultural and archaeological resources, which are discussed in Section 1800. See also Section 200.07 for guidance on preparing Section 4(f) and Section 106 reports for NEPA projects. The section also includes information needed for projects affecting state and national forest lands, which are designated for timber harvest. Projects affecting public forestlands are not subject to Section 4(f) or Section 6(f); however, other regulations apply.

1710.01 Summary of Requirements. The major legislative mandates and requirements discussed in this section are:

Public Lands – Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) applies to projects using a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site (23 CFR 771.135). Section 4(f) may also apply to Wild and Scenic Rivers (see Section 1500). Section 4(f) is a federal requirement and needs to be considered in any NEPA document [see Section 300.07 and Section 1800.02(2)(a)].

However, a NEPA action does not always require a 4(f) evaluation. For example, if there is no Section 4(f) nexus, the NEPA document need only explain that Section 4(f) does not apply to the project. Always consult with the HQ Cultural Historian if it is not clear whether or not Section 4(f) applies to a specific project.

Outdoor Recreation – Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) Act applies to conversion of outdoor recreation property acquired or developed with grant assistance from an inter-agency Committee for Outdoor Recreation.

Forest Lands – An MOU between FHWA and the United States Forest Service (USFS) establishes procedures for coordinating transportation activities on National Forest Lands.

1710.02 Abbreviations and Acronyms. Abbreviations and acronyms used in this section are listed below. Others are found in the general

list in the appendix.

DEQ	Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
DOI	United States Department of Interior
NF	National Forest
USFS	United States Forest Service
LWCF	Land and Water Conversation Funds

Section 1720.00 - Applicable Statutes and Regulations

Projects that involve impacts to public lands and/or national forest are subject to the state and federal regulations summarized below. Note that some of the following laws and regulations apply to historic and archeological sites as well as to other public lands. See Section 1800.02 for laws and regulations applying specifically to historic sites.

1720.01 National Environmental Policy Act. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 USC Section 4231, requires that all actions sponsored, funded, permitted, or approved by federal agencies undergo planning to ensure that environmental considerations such as impacts related to public lands are given due weight in project decision-making. Federal implementing regulations are at 23 CFR 771 (FHWA) and 40 CFR 1500-1508 (CEQ).). For details see Section 200, and Section 300.07.

1720.02 Section 4(f) - Department of Transportation Act and Implementing Regulations. Protection of certain public lands and all historic sites was originally mandated in Section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act. This section was repealed in 1983 and later codified without substantive changes as 49 USC 303. However, it is still referred to as Section 4(f) in the FHWA Environmental Procedures (23 CFR 771) and popularly by many ITD staff. Section 4(f) declares a national policy to preserve, where possible, “the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.” (Historic properties are identified through consultation with SHPO under Sec. 106 of National Historic Preservation Act. (36 CFR 800)

Highway projects can cross these special lands only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative and the sponsoring agency demonstrates that all possible planning to minimize harm has been accomplished.

The term feasible relates to practicable (doable) in that the action is capable of being done. The intent of the above statement appears to mean that if avoidance is possible, it must be used. The restrictor is the term “prudent” that implies care or reason. Care and reason are subjective terms that may mean different things depending on perspective. Using the term “extraordinary magnitude” from the 4(f) structure avoidance format, it would seem that a cost or engineering effort of extraordinary magnitude is not required to avoid a 4(f) property. Here again, extraordinary magnitude is subjective but may be easier quantified. For instance doubling the cost of an action may constitute an extraordinary magnitude. Rerouting an alignment to miss an abandoned historic building may be extraordinary magnitude and may not be prudent although it is feasible.

Any time a new alignment or expansion of an existing alignment threaten to impact a 4(f) property, the proposed alternatives must include an avoidance alternative. The avoidance design will document the information needed to determine if avoidance is feasible and prudent and if it may exhibit cost considerations of extraordinary magnitude.

In addition, before approving use of these lands for a transportation project, supporting information must demonstrate that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic and environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitude. In addition to mandating protection of certain land uses, FHWA rules require that when the project’s impacts in the proximity of the protected area are so severe that the resources’ activities, features, or attributes are substantially impaired, then Section 4(f) is also called into effect even if the project does not actually intrude into the protected use. Impacts may include:

Ø Resources affected by noise levels.

Ø Aesthetic features of the resource compromised by the transportation facility.

Ø Access restricted, substantially diminishing the utility of the resource.

Ø Vibrations impair use of the resource and diminish the value of wildlife habitat.

1720.03 Section 6(f)—Land and Water Conservation Funds Act. This statute applies to all projects that impact recreational lands purchased or improved with land and water conservation funds. The Secretary of the Interior must approve any conversion of property acquired or developed with assistance under this act to other than public, outdoor recreation use.

1720.04 DOT Design, Arts, and Architecture Program. To further implement NEPA, Section 106(h) and Section 4(f), the Department of Transportation inaugurated its Design, Arts, and Architecture in Transportation Program in 1978. Outlined in DOT Order 5610.1C, revised Attachment 2, the program requires that environmental impact statements document the consideration of design quality in projects which involve public use areas or sensitive locations such as parks or historic districts.

Section 1730.00 - Policy Guidance

1730.01 USFS Forest Management Plan. USFS is responsible for managing the national forests for the state, through the various trust funds associated with timberlands. This responsibility includes issuing permits for alterations to forestlands.

1730.02 Local Plans and Policies. City and county comprehensive plans and parks and recreation plans may contain policy guidance on public lands, including significant trees or groves, wildlife habitat, parks, and recreation areas. These documents should be considered in preparing the public lands section of environmental documents. Also Consider State Parks and Rec. Dept., Idaho Dept .of Fish and Game and State Dept. of Lands

Section 1740.00 - Technical Guidance

1740.01 Section 4(f) Evaluations. The Section 4(f) evaluation is a separate analysis of impacts to covered resources that could result from one or more alternatives being considered for a transportation project. In addition to property acquisition, “constructive use” of Section 4(f) land may include impacts on aesthetics, access, air quality, noise levels, water quality, or land use in the area.

The use of Section 4(f) land may involve concurrent requirements of other federal agencies. Examples include consistency determinations for the use of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), compatibility determinations for the use of land in the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Park System, determinations of direct and adverse effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers (see Section 1500.05), and approval of land conversion under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. Mitigations planned for the project should include measures to satisfy all such requirements. Nationwide or programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations and approvals have been prepared for certain transportation projects having minor impacts (see below).

1740.01.01 ITD Section 4(f) Evaluation Checklist. The ITD checklist for preparing Section 4(f) Evaluations is attached as Exhibit 1700-1. The report should cover the basic NEPA requirements for affected environment, impacts, and studies and coordination as related to Section 4(f). An outline for a Section 4(f) Evaluation is attached as Exhibit 1700-2. For additional guidance, see Section 300.07.

1740.01.02 FHWA Guidance. FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A (Exhibit 300-4) gives guidelines for preparing environmental documents and Section 4(f). Section IX gives detailed guidance on format and content of Section 4(f) evaluations. For details, see FHWA’s home page: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ Click on Legislation and Regulations, then FHWA Directives and Policy Memorandums, then FHWA Technical Advisories, then T6640.8A. or http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t664008a.htm

FHWA’s Complete Section 4(f) Policy Paper as Revised June 7, 1989 provides comprehensive guidance on preparing Section 4(f) evaluations. The complete paper (html format), and the October 5, 1987 version plus 1989 revisions (pdf format) is available on FHWA’s web site: - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ Click on FHWA Programs, then Environment, then Environmental Guidebook, then Section 4(f) or http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/contents.htm

1740.01.03 Section 4(f) Programmatic Evaluations. As an alternative to preparing an individual Section 4(f) evaluation, ITD may in certain circumstances have the option of applying a programmatic evaluation. A programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation specifies conditions that, if met, will satisfy the requirements of Section 4(f) that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives and that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm. These conditions generally relate to the type of project, the severity of impacts to Section 4(f) property, the evaluation of alternatives, the establishment of a procedure for minimizing harm to the Section 4(f) property, and adequate coordination with appropriate entities. Section 4(f) park and recreation areas may have national, district, statewide or local significance.

FHWA has prepared four programmatic evaluations to be used for projects having impacts on resources covered by Section 4(f). A separate 4(f) evaluation is not needed for projects meeting the criteria set forth in these programmatic evaluations:

Historic sites – Final Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Federally Aided Projects with Minor Involvements with Historic Sites (December 23, 1986).

Historic Bridges – Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for FHWA Projects that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges (July 5, 1983).

Public parks, recreation lands, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges – Final Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Federally Aided Projects with Minor Involvements with Public Parks, Recreation Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges (December 23, 1989)

Bikeways and walkways – Negative Declaration/Section 4(f) Statement for Independent Bikeway or Walkway Construction Projects (May 23, 1977). These documents are available online on FHWA’s web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ Click on FHWA Programs, then Environment, then Environmental Guidebook, then Section 4(f) or: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/contents.htm

The fact that the nationwide programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations are approved does not mean that these types of projects are exempt from or have advance compliance with the requirements of Section 4(f). Section 4(f) does apply to each of the types of projects addressed by the programmatic evaluations. Furthermore, the programmatic Section 4(f) does not relax the Section 4(f) standards; i.e., the same considerations apply to a programmatic 4(f) as do to an individual Section 4(f) land with the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation as it is with an individual Section 4(f) evaluation.

These programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations may be applied only to projects meeting the applicable criteria. How the project meets the criteria must be documented. The documentation needed to support the conclusions required by the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation is comparable to the documentation needed for an individual Section 4(f) evaluation. These programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations streamline the amount of interagency coordination that is required for an individual Section 4(f) evaluation. Interagency coordination is required only with the official(s) with jurisdiction and not with the federal Department of Interior (DOI), Department of Agriculture, or Department of Housing and Urban Development (unless the federal agency has a specific action to take, such as DOI approval of a conversion of land acquired using Land and Water Conservation Funds). See Exhibit 1800-3 for Transportation Enhancement 4(f) Programmatic MOU.

1740.01.04 Projects in Wild and Scenic River Corridors. An FHWA Administrator Memorandum (June 6, 1978) discusses the applicability of Section 4(f) to projects in Wild and Scenic River Corridors. The document is online at FHWA’s web site: http://fhwa.dot.gov/ Click on FHWA Programs, then Environment, then Environmental guidebook, then Section 4(f) or http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/ contents.htm

1740.02 Section 6(f) Evaluations.

1740.02.01 ITD Report, Outdoor Recreation Property (6(f)). The Checklist for studies done in compliance with the Land and Water Conservation Funds Act, Section 6(f) for conversion of IAC Outdoor Recreation Property is attached as Exhibit 1700-1.

1740.02.02 FHWA Guidance. FHWA’s online Environmental Guidebook contains documents on wilderness areas and Section 6(f) properties. Available on FHWA’s web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ Click on FHWA Programs, then Environment, then Environmental Guidebook, then Wilderness Areas/Section 6(f) Properties or: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/contents.htm

1740.03 ITD Environmental GIS Workbench.

(Currently under construction)

1740.04 Forest Practices Application. This application is required when project activities affect forest lands, defined as land capable of supporting a merchantable stand of timber and is not being actively used for a use incompatible with timber growing.

Section 1750.00 - Non-Road Project Requirements

Rail, airport, and non-motorized transport systems are generally subject to the same policies, procedures, or permits that apply to road systems.

Section 1760.00 - Exhibits

Exhibit 1700-1 Public Lands Checklist.

Public Lands, Section 4(f)

This checklist is not required for any submittal by any agency. It is included here as an aid to the preparor of the Environmental document to ensure that coverage of the issues involved with Public Lands are covered.

Project Name:___________________________________________________________

Job Number______________________________ Key Number:____________________

(SAT = Satisfactory; INC = Incomplete; MIS = Missing; N/A = Not Applicable)

Answers are required for questions that have no N/A box.

I. Introduction

Reports should include a brief introduction that identifies:

SAT INC MIS N/A

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] A. The basic requirements of Section 4(f).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] B. The Section 4(f) resource(s) affected.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] C. The alternatives under consideration that would affect

the Section 4(f) resource(s).

II. Affected Environment

Report should include a description of each Section 4(f) resource:

SAT INC MIS N/A

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] A. A detailed map or drawing of sufficient scale to identify

the relationship of the alternatives to the Section 4(f) property(ies).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] B. Size (acres or square feet) and location (maps, sketches,

etc.) of the affected Section 4(f) property(ies).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] C. Type of property(ies) (recreation, historic, etc.) and

ownership (city, county, state, etc.).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D. Function of or available activities on the property(ies)

(swimming, golfing, baseball, etc.).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] E. Description and location of all existing and planned

facilities (tennis courts, baseball diamonds, etc.).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] F. Access (pedestrian, vehicular) and usage (approximate

number of users/visitors, etc.).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] G. Relationship to other similarly used lands in the vicinity.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] H. Applicable clauses affecting the ownership, such as

lease, easement, covenants, restrictions, or conditions,

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] I. Unusual characteristics (flooding problems, terrain

conditions, or other features) that either reduce or enhance the value of all or part of the property(ies).

III. Impacts

Report should identify and discuss the environmental impacts during construction for each alternative on each Section 4(f) property (quantify where possible).

SAT INC MIS N/A

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] A. Acquisition of land (acres or square feet), facilities

(include map), and functions.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] B. Access.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] C. Aesthetics.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D. Air quality.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] E. Noise (quantified).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] F. Water.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] G. Land use in the vicinity.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] H. Functions of or available activities on the property.

Report should identify and discuss the environmental impacts during operation for each

alternative on each Section 4(f) property:

SAT INC MIS N/A

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] I. Acquisition of land (acres or square feet), if different

from construction impact, and facilities (include map).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] J. Access.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] K. Aesthetics.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] L. Air quality.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] M. Noise (quantified).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] N. Water.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] O. Land use in the vicinity. Included impacts of growth

induced by project.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] P. Functions of or available activities on the property.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Q. Identified and evaluated location and design

alternatives which would avoid each and all Section

4(f) property(ies).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] R. Explained whether any avoidance alternatives which

were eliminated from further detailed study are “feasible

and prudent,” and, if not, stated the reasons why.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] S. Discussed all possible measures which are available to

minimize the impacts of the proposed action on the Section 4(f) property(ies), commitments made and monitored procedures to minimize harm. (Detailed discussions of mitigation measures in the EIS or EA may be referenced and appropriately summarized, rather than repeated. (T 6640.8A, p. 46.)

IV. Studies and Coordination

Included discussion of specific coordination with the following agencies and persons concerning avoidance alternatives, impacts, measures to minimize harm, joint development (if applicable) with the following as appropriate:

SAT INC MIS N/A (for 106)

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] A State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] B. Local officials with jurisdiction.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] C. Historic societies, museums, or academic institutions

[DOT 5610.1C, Attachment 2, paragraph 5(a)].

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D. Historic consultant.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] E. Archaeological consultant.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] F. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] G. Indian tribes.

Included the determination that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives (not normally addressed in the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (T 6640.8A, p. 46). Final Section 4(f) Evaluation: (Required when the preferred alternative includes the use of Section 4(f) property(ies)). Included all the information required for the draft evaluation.

Included discussion of why there are no feasible and prudent alternatives for each Section 4(f) property involved. The discussion shall include supporting information that demonstrates that “there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community distribution resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes” (23 CFR 771.135(a)(2)). Used the language in the previous paragraph to introduce the supporting evidence.

V. Feasibility and Prudence

Described all the following factors that apply to the feasibility and prudence of the alternatives:

SAT INC MIS N/A

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] A. Unique engineering or construction problems.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] B. Extraordinary costs.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] C. Community disruption of extraordinary magnitude.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D. Severe adverse environmental impacts.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] E. Greater impacts on this or other 4(f) resources.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] F. Failure to fulfill urgent public needs.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] G. Alternatives avoiding 4(f) resources cause

deterioration of property or prevent development.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] H. Other truly unusual factors.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] I. Included a discussion of the basis for concluding that the

proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] J. If there are no feasible and prudent alternatives which

avoid the use of Section 4(f) land, the final Section 4(f) evaluation demonstrated that the preferred alternative is a feasible and prudent alternative with the least harm on the Section 4(f) resources after considering mitigation to the Section 4(f) resources and FHWA legal sufficiency.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] K. Included copies of all formal coordination comments

received and an analysis and response to any questions raised.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] L. If Section 6(f) land is involved, documented the

Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation and National Parks Service’s position on the land transfer.

Included the following concluding statement:

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] M. Based upon the above considerations, there is no

feasible, and prudent alternative to the use of land from the (Section 4(f) property) and the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the (Section 4(f) property) resulting from such use.

VI. Summary

Summarize the analysis done and conclusions reached. The summary should include enough detail so that it can be included in the EIS with only minor modification.

The summary should include:

SAT INC MIS N/A

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] A. The objectives of the project.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] B. Current land use in project area.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] C. Unique problems requiring use of 4(f) property.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D. Impacts of all alternatives including the no-build

alternative.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] E. Recommended mitigation.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] F. Comparison of alternatives based on impacts and cost

effectiveness of mitigation.

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] G. Agency coordination.

General Comments:

Exhibit 1700-2 NEPA/Section 4(f) Evaluation Outline

IDAHO STATE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

NEPA SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION OUTLINE

SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

(Refer to FHWA T 6640.8A, p. 44; 23 CFR 771.135; 49 USC 303.)

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act states that the FHWA will not approve the use of land from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless a determination is made that:

(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property; and

(2) The proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use.

The Section 4(f) evaluation is a separate analysis of impacts to Section 4(f) resources that would be caused by the various alternatives under consideration. “Use” of Section 4(f) land is not limited to property acquisition. Significant impacts on aesthetics, access, air quality, noise levels, water quality, land use in the area, etc., may constitute “constructive use” of Section 4(f) land.

The FHWA has approved nationwide programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations for certain types of projects: projects which use minor amounts of land from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowls refuges; projects which use minor amounts of land from historic sites which are on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; projects involving historic bridges; and bikeway projects. These programmatic evaluations may be used for individual projects; however, programmatic evaluations are NOT always applicable to projects for which an EIS is prepared, unless the use of Section 4(f) lands is discovered after approval of the final EIS. Individual Section 4(f) evaluations must be prepared for projects for which one of the programmatic evaluations can not be used. (See Section 3-6 of this manual for guidance regarding the use of programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations.)

For projects processed with an EIS or an EA, the Section 4(f) evaluation should be included as a separate section of the document. For projects processed as categorical exclusions, the Section 4(f) evaluation should be a separate document. Pertinent information from various sections of the EIS or EA may be summarized in the Section 4(f) evaluation to avoid duplication. Care should be taken in documenting impacts due to constructive use. Should the FHWA decide that constructive use impacts are not substantial, and therefore, do not require a Section 4(f) evaluation, the EIS/EA must contain sufficient analysis and information to demonstrate that the resource is not substantially impaired.

The use of Section 4(f) land may involve concurrent requirements of other Federal agencies. Examples include consistency determinations for the use of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, compatibility determinations for the use of land in the National Wildlife Refuge System and the National Park System, determinations of direct and adverse effects for Wild and Scenic Rivers, and approval of land conversions under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. The mitigation plan developed for the project should include measures that would satisfy the various requirements. For example, Section 6(f) directs the Department of the Interior (National Park Service) to assure that replacement lands of equal value, location, and usefulness are provided as conditions to approval of land conversions.

Therefore, where a Section 6(f) land conversion is proposed for a highway project, replacement land will be necessary. Regardless of the mitigation proposed, the draft and final Section 4(f) evaluations should discuss the results of coordination with the public official having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) land and document the National Park Service’s position on the Section 6(f) land transfer, respectively. (T 6640.8A, p. 44.)

The Section 4(f) evaluation must provide supporting information to demonstrate that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that would avoid these properties, or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes (23 CFR 771.135(a)(2)).

A. The following information should be included as appropriate in the Draft Section 4(f)

Evaluation

1. When a separate Section 4(f) evaluation is prepared, for processing with a categorical exclusion (CE) for example, describe the proposed project, including the purpose and need for the project.

2. A brief introduction that identifies:

a. The basic requirements of Section 4(f).

b. The Section 4(f) resource(s) affected.

c. The alternatives under consideration that would affect the Section 4(f) resource(s).

3. Description of each Section 4(f) resource:

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

b. Size (acres or square feet) and location (maps, sketches, etc.) of the affected Section 4(f) property.

c.Type of property (recreation, historic, etc.) and ownership (public, private etc.).

d. Function of or available activities on the property (swimming, golfing, baseball, etc.).

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

f. Access (pedestrian, vehicular) and usage (approximate number of users/visitors, etc.).

g. Relationship to other similarly used lands in the vicinity.

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

i. Unusual characteristics (flooding problems, terrain conditions, or other features) that reduce or enhance the value of all or part of the property.

4. Environmental impacts during construction for each alternative on each Section 4(f) property (quantify where possible):

a. Acquisition of land (acres or square feet) and facilities (include map).

b. Access.

c. Aesthetics.

d. Air Quality.

e. Noise.

f. Water.

g. Land use in the vicinity.

5. Environmental impacts during operation for each alternative on each Section 4(f) property:

a. Acquisition of land (acres or square feet), if different from construction impact, and facilities (include map).

b. Access.

c. Aesthetics.

d. Air Quality.

e. Noise.

f. Water.

g. Land use in the vicinity. Include impacts of growth induced by project.

6. Avoidance alternatives and their impacts.

Identify and evaluate location and design alternatives that would avoid the Section 4(f) property. Generally, this would include alternatives to either side of the property. Where an alternative would use land from more than one Section 4(f) property, the analysis needs to evaluate alternatives which avoid each and all properties (23 CFR 771.135(i)). The design alternatives should be in the immediate area of the property and consider minor alignment shifts, a reduced facility, retaining structures, etc., individually or in combination, as appropriate.

Detailed discussions of alternatives in an EIS or EA need not be repeated in the Section 4(f) portion of the document, but should be referenced and summarized. However, when alternatives (avoiding Section 4(f) resources) have been eliminated from detailed study the discussion should also explain whether these alternative are feasible and prudent and, if not, the reasons why. (T 6640.8A, p. 45.)

7. Mitigation measures, commitments, and monitoring procedures to minimize harm. Discuss all possible measures which are available to minimize the impacts of the proposed action on the Section 4(f) property(ies). Detailed discussions of mitigation measures in the EIS or EA may be referenced and appropriately summarized, rather than repeated. (T 6640.8A, p. 46.)

8. Coordination with other agencies (for 106). The coordination should include a discussion of avoidance alternatives, impacts, and measures to minimize harm:

a. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

b. Local officials with jurisdiction.

c. Historic societies, museums, or academic institutions [DOT 5610.1C, Attachment 2, paragraph 5 (a)].

d. Historic consultant.

e. Archaeological consultant.

f. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

G. Indian Tribes

The determination that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives is not normally addressed in the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (T 6640.8A, p. 46).

B. Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

When the Preferred Alternative includes the use of Section 4(f) land, a Final Section 4(f) Evaluation shall be included as a separate section of the Final EIS, or for an EA, in the FONSI. The final Section 4(f) evaluation must contain:

1. All the information required for the draft evaluation.

2. A discussion of why there are no feasible and prudent alternatives for each Section 4(f) property involved. The discussion shall include supporting information that demonstrates that “there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes” (23 CFR 771.135(a)(2)).

Use this language to introduce supporting evidence. The following factors should be considered in the development of the discussion:

(a) Feasible means that it’s possible to construct using sound engineering practices. Disregard limitations and cost. The question is: Is there an alternative that avoids the 4(f) property?

(b) Prudent means that an alternative doesn’t involve extraordinary cost or community disruption. For example, if an avoidance alternative cost ten times more than other alternatives and would cause severe community disruption, it probably wouldn’t be prudent. (But it would be feasible).

Factors to be considered are: (Describe all that apply.)

(1) Unique engineering or construction problems.

(2) Extraordinary costs.

(3) Community disruption of extraordinary magnitude.

(4) Severe adverse environmental impacts.

(5) Greater impacts on this or other 4(f) lands.

(6) Failure to fulfill urgent public needs.

(7) Alternatives that avoid 4(f) lands cause deterioration of property or prevent development.

(8) Other truly unusual factors.

3. A discussion of the basis for concluding that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. When there are no feasible and prudent alternatives that avoid the use of Section 4(f) land, the final Section 4(f) evaluation must demonstrate that the preferred alternative is a feasible and prudent alternative with the least harm on the Section 4(f) resources after considering mitigation to the Section 4(f) resources.

4. A summary of the appropriate formal coordination with and concurrence by DOI, and as appropriate, USDA and HUD.

5. Copies of all formal coordination comments received and an analysis and response to any questions raised. Where Section 6(f) land is involved, document the National Park Service position on the land transfer.

6. Concluding statement as follows: “Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the (Section 4(f)) property) and the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the (Section 4(f) property) resulting from such use.”