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

Gathering Information
The agency gathered as much information as possible about each potential Section 4(f) resource in order to ensure that no resources were overlooked.

Developing a Range of Alternatives
The agency developed a broad range of alternatives, including avoidance options. Even though two of these alternatives did not meet the project purpose and/or were not considered feasible and prudent, it demonstrated the agency's effort to consider all opportunities to avoid Section 4(f) resources.

Researching Property Funding
The agency researched the funding of each Section 4(f) property in the project area to see how it was acquired. They discovered that the state park received Section 6(f) funding, which required one-to-one replacement lands as part of mitigation.

Producing Solid Documentation
The agency's goal for the draft and final evaluations was to meet FHWA's legal sufficiency review and to demonstrate their coordination efforts with all interested parties, including the officials with jurisdiction.

Assessing Minimization Alternatives
Once the avoidance alternatives were ruled out, the agency's focus shifted to minimization alternatives. These options were assessed in an effort to determine which one caused least harm.