Section 4f

This project example illustrates various challenges inherent in determining Section 4(f) applicability and documenting impacts to parklands. 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 parkland resources and allow you to decide which is the best alternative.

CRITERIA
Keep in mind that in order to qualify as a Section 4(f) resource, a park or recreation area must meet the following criteria:

It must be publicly owned
It must be open to the public
Its major purpose must be recreation
It must be significant as a park or recreation area

PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED
The state transportation agency was proposing transportation improvements in a small town. The town consisted of a main cross street, running east and west, and a main through street, running north and south. The through street, which served as a major commuter route for the region, was failing to provide adequate levels of service at peak hours during the morning and evening. The project purpose was to improve traffic capacity through the town and decrease the number of accidents.

RESOURCES
Based on a review of existing resources within the project area, the state transportation agency determined that there were several resources that had to be evaluated for Section 4(f) applicability: a cemetery, a county park, a state park, a historic farm, and a school.

From meetings and correspondence with officials with jurisdiction, the state transportation agency discovered the following about each resource:

Cemetery - The state transportation agency consulted with the cemetery owner and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to determine whether or not the cemetery was a historic resource. They determined that it was not on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and that it was not of local significance. Therefore, it was not considered a Section 4(f) resource

County Park - This park was owned by the county and open to the public. It served as a significant recreation area for the surrounding community because of its soccer fields, tennis courts and basketball courts. Thus, it met all four criteria for the protection of Section 4(f) parks and recreation areas, and was considered a Section 4(f) resource.

State Park - This park was owned by the state and open to the public. Portions of it were purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) funds. It served as a significant recreational area for the surrounding community because of its picnic areas and hiking trails. Like the county park, it met all four criteria for the protection of Section 4(f) parks and recreation areas, and was therefore considered a Section 4(f) resource.

Historic Farm - Coordination with the SHPO confirmed the historic significance of the farm, which was eligible for the NRHP. Because of its eligibility, it was considered a Section 4(f) resource.

School - The school was privately owned and included a playground that was used regularly by the surrounding community. However, coordination with school officials confirmed that the government had no proprietary interest in the school property (including the playground). Although the playground was open to the public and its major purpose was recreation, it was not publicly owned and was not considered significant as a recreation area. It was therefore not considered a Section 4(f) resource.

In addition to gathering information about each of these resources, the state transportation agency staff produced written documentation on them, recording concurrent findings with the SHPO, the local officials, and other relevant parties.

QUESTION: Based on the state transportation agency's coordination with the officials with jurisdiction, do you agree that Section 4(f) applies to all the resources that have been identified as Section 4(f) qualifiers? What other steps might the state transportation agency consider in identifying potential Section 4(f) resources?

After gathering information from the various agencies with jurisdiction, the state transportation agency made the following recommendations to FHWA about the Section 4(f) applicability of each resource:

Resource	Section 4(f)?	Reason
Cemetery	No	No historic value
County park	Yes	Publicly owned, open to the public, major purpose is recreation, significant as recreation area
State Park	Yes	Publicly owned, open to the public, major purpose is recreation, significant as recreation area
Historic Farm	Yes	Eligible for NRHP (even though privately owned)
School	No	Privately owned, despite playground used by public; not considered significant as a recreation area

FHWA agreed with the state transportation agency's assessment that the county park, state park and historic farm should be protected under Section 4(f). Coordination between the two agencies reduced the likelihood of either party overlooking a Section 4(f) resource or mistaking a non-Section 4(f) resource for one that is protected by the statute.

ALTERNATIVES
The state transportation agency worked with town officials, environmental resource agencies, and the public to develop four project alternatives:

No-Build Alternative —This option entailed maintenance to the existing roadway system through town and re-striping within the town limits to allow for pedestrian crosswalks. It did not meet the project purpose and need, but it was carried forward for further study because it served as an avoidance alternative.
Upgrade Alternative — This option entailed widening of the existing road. In addition, it would improve roadway geometry by providing new turning lanes throughout the town, and it added minor improvements such as sidewalks and better signaling and signs. It met the project purpose and need, and was therefore carried forward for further study.

Alternative 1 — This option entailed a new roadway alignment to the east of the existing alignment. It met the project purpose and need, and was carried forward for further study.

Alternative 2 — This option entailed a new roadway alignment to the west of the existing alignment. It met the project purpose and need, and was carried forward for further study.

USE
The state transportation agency staff continued its coordination with the officials with jurisdiction for each resource. They anticipated Section 4(f) use for several resources. They examined each of the four alternatives that were carried forward, in order to assess the probable impacts and to see if the project could qualify for a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation. The possibility of a programmatic evaluation was ruled out, however, because FHWA determined that the project would require an environmental impact statement (see criteria for programmatic evaluations for parklands).

Here is a summary of Section 4(f) use as it applies to each of the four alternatives that were carried forward:

No Build Alternative — This option did not not require the use of any Section 4(f) resources in the project area.

Upgrade Alternative — This option required the use of approximately 1.5 acres of land from the historic farm and 1.5 acres of land from the state park.

Alternative 1 — This option required the use of 5 acres of land from the state park.

Alternative 2 — This option required the use of 3 acres of land from the county park.

AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION

Avoidance
Although the No-Build Alternative was carried forward as the Section 4(f) avoidance option, it ended up being eliminated because it did not meet the project purpose and need. While this alternative is not considered feasible and prudent with respect to Section 4(f), it still must be retained in the EIS as as a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of the remaining options—the Upgrade Alternative, and Alternatives 1 and 2—none was an avoidance alternative.

So the state transportation agency engineering and environmental staff worked together to determine whether or not these alternatives could be modified to avoid the affected parklands. They explored the possibility of extending Alternative 1 to the east so it would completely avoid the state park, but they quickly dismissed this option because the park extended five miles to the east of the existing alignment. By contrast, they were able to modify Alternative 2 so it completely avoided the Section 4(f) resource to the west of the existing alignment—namely, the county park. The Upgrade Alternative could not be modified without significant impacts to the historic farm and state park, because the existing roadway was so close to the resources' boundaries.

Of the three options, Alternative 2 Modified became the state transportation agency's avoidance alternative.

This alternative was not without its problems, however. While it avoided the Section 4(f) county park, it displaced five houses, as well as a section of sensitive wetlands. (Note that the wetlands would be affected by Alternative 2, as well.)

After coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corp of Engineers, the local planning office, and Section 4(f) officials with jurisdiction, the state transportation agency was unable to produce an alternative that would avoid the county park, the wetlands and the homes. Here is a summary of the alternatives, their ability to meet the project purpose and need, and their impacts:

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES	MEETS P & N?	SECTION 4(F) IMPACTS	NON-SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS
No-Build Alt.	No	None	None
Upgrade Alt.	Yes	Farm, State Park	Cemetery, businesses
Alternative 1	Yes	State Park	Private school playground; 2 homes
Alternative 2	Yes	County Park	Wetlands
Alt. 2 Modified	Yes	None	Wetlands/5 homes

Minimization
As required, the state transportation agency staff developed a plan to minimize the Section 4(f) resources along the Upgrade Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2, while giving consideration to the non-Section 4(f) wetlands and houses. Minimization efforts for the Upgrade Alternative focused primarily on the narrrowing of the typical section. For Alternatives 1 and 2 they focused on the narrowing of the typical section, as well as minor alignment shifts.

No minimization efforts were required for Alternative 2 Modified, since it avoided all Section 4(f) resources.

MITIGATION

Mitigation
The state transportation agency considered potential mitigation measures for the Upgrade Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2.

Upgrade Alternative — For the state park, the state transportation agency considered the construction of cabins and a campground, as well as restoration of an ampitheater (not shown on map). For the historic farm, they considered relocation of the barn, as well as recordation of the property.

Alternative 1 — Since the impacted portions of the park were purchased or improved with LWCFA funds, replacement lands of equal or greater value were required by the Department of the Interior (DOI). The state transportation agency was obligated to coordinate with state park officials in identifying other parcels that could serve as viable replacement lands. Other mitigation efforts for this alternative included the re-alignment of hiking trails to provide a safer road crossing, and plantings along the picnic area to provide a visual screen.

Alternative 2 — The state transportation agency worked with county park officials to determine which portions of the park would be impacted and what type of enhancements or compensation were appropriate. Options included the relocation of the ball fields and parking lot, and plantings along the athletic fields as a visual screen.

DRAFT EVALUATION
After a thorough evaluation of the resources and coordination with the agencies, the state transportation agency was able to develop a draft evaluation that included 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 officials with jurisdiction, the various agencies, and other interested parties. Potential minimization and mitigation efforts were included.

QUESTION: Judging by the information available, do you think Alternative 2 Modified is feasible and prudent?

FINAL EVALUATION
Following the agency coordination and comment period, the state transportation agency prepared a final evaluation, which included all the elements of the draft evaluation, plus the following:

A discussion of the selected alternative
A discussion of the basis for concluding that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm
Information demonstrating that the selected alternative causes the least harm and is also feasible and prudent
A summary of the official coordination
Copies of all official coordination and a summary of other relevant Section 4(f) comments received
A concluding statement

SUMMARY
The state transportation agency and FHWA determined that of the five alternatives, two of them were not feasible and prudent—the No-Build option and Alternative 2 Modified. In addition, the complete avoidance alternative to the east of the existing alignment (which was never fully developed) was not feasible and prudent, either.

The No-Build option and the eastern avoidance alternative were not feasible and prudent because they did not meet the project purpose and need—that is, they would not improve traffic capacity through town and decrease the number of accidents. Alternative 2 Modified was not feasible and prudent because it resulted in unique problems and community impacts of an extraordinary magnitude—the displacement of five homes.

Of the three options that remained—Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and the Upgrade Alternative—the state transportation agency had to decide which one would cause the least harm to Section 4(f) resources.

So which of these three would you recommend to FHWA as the selected Alternative?