According to our hypothetical project example for Cultural Resources, the following key points were critical in guiding the state transportation agency through the Section 4(f) process:

Distinguishing Sections 4(f) and 106
Although the processes for Sections 4(f) and 106 entail some overlap with respect to certain issues (e.g., eligibility and determination of purpose), the agency was careful to avoid any confusion in language between the two statues throughout the Section 4(f) process.

Coordinating with the SHPO
The agency's coordination with the SHPO was critical for determining the Section 4(f) status of the historic district and its structures.

Coordination with the SHPO also enabled the agency to get a Section 4(f) determination on the impacts associated with Alternative 3 (see Minimization).

Finally, coordination with the SHPO was necessary in order for the agency to develop an MOA, which detailed all necessary 106 compliance and mitigation measures.

Reviewing Programmatic Evaluations
Only after reviewing the programmatic evaluations for historic bridges and historic sites did the agency discover that the project did not qualify.