U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
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:
1. Do nothing.
2. Improve the highway without using the adjacent public park,
recreational land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge.
3. 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