|
This project example illustrates the various challenges inherent in
assessing and documenting potential impacts to cultural resources. It
presents a number of realistic scenarios that you should consider, as
though you were conducting an actual Section 4(f) evaluation. With this
project example, we will walk you through the general decision-making
process established under Section 4(f) for cultural resources.
Note on Section 106: Be aware that while Section 4(f) may resemble
Section 106 with respect to its application to cultural resources, the
two statutes are distinct laws with distinct processes that should be
observed separately. The following project example relates to Section
4(f) only. (For more information, see Related
Statutes.)
CRITERIA
Keep in mind that in order to qualify as a Section 4(f) resource,
a cultural resource must meet the following criteria:
Keep in mind that a cultural resource may be publicly
or privately owned.
PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED
The state transportation agency has identified two operational concerns
regarding an existing roadway running through a small town: high vehicular
and pedestrian accident rates, and through-traffic capacity deficiencies.
The purpose of their project was to improve the safety problems and
through-traffic operations.
RESOURCES
Through public meetings and correspondence with the SHPO, the state
transportation agency concluded that the town's central historic district
would qualify for Section 4(f) protection because it was eligible for
listing on the NRHP. In addition, they identified six resources within
the district—two of which were individually eligible (the hotel
and the tavern), and the rest of which were contributing elements. Here
are the six resources:
-
Hotel
-
Cemetery
-
Store
-
Tavern
-
Bridge
-
Mill Archeological Site
ALTERNATIVES
The state transportation agency worked with the public and town officials,
as well as environmental resource agencies, to develop five project
alternatives:
No Build Alternative —This option entailed
maintenance to the existing bridge and roadway, and included re-striping
within the town limits to allow for pedestrian crosswalks. However,
it did not address the level of service or capacity issues and therefore
did not meet the project purpose and need. Nevertheless, it was carried
forward as an avoidance alternative.
Upgrade Alternative —This option entailed widening of
the existing roadway and replacement of the existing bridge on the east
side of town. It met the project purpose and need, and was carried forward
for further study.
Alternative 1 —This option consisted of a new roadway and bridge
to the south of the existing roadway. It met the project purpose and
need, and was carried forward for further study.
Alternative 2 — This option consisted of a new roadway and
bridge to the north of the existing roadway. It met the project purpose
and need, and was carried forward for further study.
Alternative 3 — This option consisted of a new roadway
and bridge to the north of the existing roadway, but south of Alternative
2. It met the project purpose and need, and was carried forward for
further study.
USE
The state transportation agency staff continued coordination with
the SHPO and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) in order to assess probable impacts to the Section
4(f) resources within each alignment. Here's what they found:
No Build Alternative — This option did not
require the use of any Section 4(f) resources in the project area.
Upgrade Alternative — This option required the use of sidewalk
frontage throughout the town, as well as the removal and demolition
of the hotel, the store, and the tavern in order to widen the existing
road and improve roadway vertical geometry.
Alternative 1 — This option required use of 1.5 acres
of the cemetery and two acres of the historic district along the southern
border. It also required use of a quarter acre of the mill archeological
site, although preservation in place was not warranted for this resource,
according to town officials and the SHPO.
Alternative 2 — This option did not require
use of Section 4(f) resources. However, it did require the use of one
acre of sensitive wetlands, as well as a half acre of threatened and
endangered species habitat.
Alternative 3 — This option required the
use of property in the northeast corner of the historic district, although
it did not require the use of any contributing or individually historic
elements within the district boundaries.
AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION
Avoidance
The state transportation agency concluded that the only avoidance options
were the No-Build Alternative and Alternative 2. They investigated an
avoidance option to the south of the historic district, but concluded
that it was not an option because it would require direct impacts to
an entire community. Here is a brief assessment of the two avoidance
alternatives:
No-Build Alternative — As indicated
in the Alternatives section, this option clearly avoided Section 4(f)
impacts but did not meet the project purpose and need.
Alternative 2 — This option clearly avoided Section 4(f)
impacts and met the project purpose and need; however, coordination
with environmental resource agencies indicated that there were unique
problems associated with it. The Fish and Wildlife Service and state
and federal environmental agencies determined that the proposed alignment
would impact threatened and endangered species habitat, and wetlands
of special state concern. While it would not impact any Section 4(f)
resources, it would impact other sensitive resources.
Minimization
Because the Upgrade Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 3 involved
impacts to Section 4(f) resources—or, in the case of Alternative
3, what appeared to be possible impacts—minimization efforts for
these alternatives were required.
Upgrade Alternative — Minimization efforts
initially focused on reducing direct impacts to the hotel, the store
and the tavern. However, the state transportation agency determined
that such measures were not possible because the three resources are
in close proximity to the existing street and to each other. The alignment
could not be shifted in either direction without adversely affecting
one or more of them. In addition, the typical section could not be narrowed
while still fulfilling the project purpose and need.
Alternative 1 — The state transportation agency considered
efforts to minimize impacts to the cemetery and the historic district
by shifting the alignment slightly to the south, and by using retaining
walls and landscape buffers.
Alternative 3 — This option required a portion of the
historic district in the northeast corner, possibly constituting Section
4(f) use. However, coordination with the state transportation agency
and FHWA raised doubts about whether this option did constitute use,
when the SHPO indicated that the impacted property was not individually
historic and was not a contributing element of the historic district.
After circulation of the draft Section 4(f) evaluation, and as part
of coordination, the state transportation agency committed to visual
screening and depression of the roadway to minimize visual impacts
to the historic district. The SHPO and FHWA ultimately determined
that, with these minimization measures, Alternative 3 would have no
adverse effect on the historic district itself and therefore did not
constitute Section 4(f) use.
| QUESTION:
If the SHPO and FHWA determined that Alternative 3 did have an adverse
effect on the historic district, would there be Section 4(f) use?
|
In this case, an adverse effect ruling by the SHPO and FHWA would
constitute Section 4(f) use; however, it is important to note that adverse
effect is a Section 106 term that does not necessarily equate to
Section 4(f) use in all cases.
MITIGATION
The state transportation agency considered potential mitigation measures
for the Upgrade Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3.
Upgrade Alternative — The state transportation agency
considered fully documenting the cultural resources that would be
affected, including the hotel, tavern, and store. This documentation
would be included on a plaque describing the historic significance
of the resources. Another option was to provide the documentation
as part of an exhibit panel to be housed somewhere within the historic
district.
Relocation of these structures was considered, but initial studies
indicated that this measure was not possible, due to the age and condition
of the structures.
Alternative 1 — For this alternative, mitigation efforts
focused on fully documenting the importance of both the cemetery and
the archeological mill site. Options included interpretive plaques
to be placed near each resource. The cemetery plaque would commemorate
the important people buried there.
Alternative 3 — No Section 4(f) mitigation
measures were developed for this alternative, since the portion of the
district affected was neither a contributing element of the historic
district nor individually historic.
DRAFT EVALUATION
Before preparing a draft evaluation, the state transportation agency
considered the possibility of using two Section 4(f) programmatic evaluations
that have been prepared for use nationwide—one for historic sites,
the other for historic bridges. However, when they examined the programmatic
agreements, they discovered that neither of the programmatic evaluations
was applicable to the project, because the project did not meet all
the criteria. Consequently, neither of the two was used.
| QUESTION:
Why, specifically, were the programmatic evaluations for historic
sites and bridges considered not applicable to this project? Which
criteria were not met? |
(For help with the above question, see Applicability under historic
sites and historic
bridges.)
With the programmatic options excluded, the state transportation agency
developed an individual draft evaluation comprised of the following
elements:
-
Introduction
-
Description of the Proposed Action
-
Description of the Section 4(f) Resources
-
Description of Impacts
-
Avoidance and Minimization Alternatives
-
Mitigation
-
Coordination
The state transportation agency's goal was to develop a document that
would (a) provide enough data to pass an FHWA legal sufficiency review
and (b) reflect the state transportation agency's effort in coordinating
with the official with jurisdiction, the various agencies, and other
interested parties. Potential minimization and mitigation efforts were
included.
FINAL EVALUATION
Through coordination with the FHWA, the state transportation agency
determined that the project had a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative—Alternative
3. Their next step was to developed a final evaluation, in which
they discussed the basis for making this determination. Here is an overview
of what the final evaluation included:
-
A
discussion of the basis for concluding that Alternative 3 was a feasible
and prudent avoidance alternative
-
Evidence
of coordination with the local officials, SHPO and FHWA in making
Section 4(f) resource determinations
-
Copies
of all official coordination and a summary of other relevant Section
4(f) comments received, with an analysis and response to any questions
raised
- A Memorandum
of Agreement
(MOA) with the SHPO, detailing any necessary Section 106
compliance and mitigation measures
-
A
concluding statement
SUMMARY
The state transportation agency and FHWA determined that this project
did have a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. The No-Build
option would have avoided Section 4(f) impacts but was not feasible
and prudent because it did not meet the project purpose and need. The
other avoidance option, Alternative 2, was not feasible and prudent
because it presented unique problems—namely, impacts to sensitive
environmental resources. An avoidance option to the south was was never
fully developed because it clearly would have impacted the entire community.
The Upgrade Alternative was eliminated because of the severe impacts
it would have on the historic tavern, store, and hotel. Likewise, Alternative
1 was eliminated because of the severe impacts it would have on the
cemetery and archeological mill site.
Although Alternative 3 would clip the northeast boundary of the historic
district, it would not directly impact any contributing elements of
the district or any elements that were individually historic, and any
visual impacts associated with it would be minimized. Because Alternative
3 had no adverse effect, it was determined not to be a Section 4(f)
use and was therefore the selected avoidance alternative.
| |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
_newnav_bar.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
