This project example illustrates various challenges inherent in assessing and documenting potential impacts to Section 4(f) wildlife and waterfowl refuges. 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 refuges.

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

As you read through this project example, pay especially close attention to major purpose, as it plays an important role in the determination of the selected alternative.

PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED
The state transportation agency was evaluating an existing roadway system through a national wildlife refuge. The roadway included a bridge that crossed a river and was damaged in a storm. The existing road provided a poor level of service, including a substandard westbound line of site immediately before the bridge, resulting in a high accident rate. The project purpose was to improve traffic capacity and improve safety conditions.

RESOURCES
The entire project area was located within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge, so the refuge was the only Section 4(f) resource, per se, to be evaluated (the bridge was not historic). However, within the refuge there were several areas whose value as important refuge elements had to be assessed and compared.

Based on a review of the refuge master plan and meetings with officials with jurisdiction at the Department of the Interior (DOI), the state transportation agency discovered the following:

The state transportation agency concluded that some portions of the refuge—namely, the critical forest habitat and wetlands—were more valuable than others, in terms of the resource's major purpose. Nevertheless, Section 4(f) protection still applied to the refuge as a whole.

ALTERNATIVES
The state transportation agency worked with the FHWA, the DOI officials with jurisdiction, and various environmental resource agencies to develop four project alternatives:

USE
With the exception of the No-Build option, all of the alternatives entailed Section 4(f) use, since they involved impacts to property within the refuge boundary. Here is a brief assessment of each alternative and its impacts:

The state transportation agency evaluated all of these impacts to see if the project qualified for a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation. The project did not qualify, because it involved the consideration of new alignments.

AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION

Avoidance
The state transportation agency staff re-evaluated the study area to see if there was a potential avoidance alternative besides the No-Build option. They considered modifying the upgrade alternative, but realized that any widening of the existing roadway would require additional right-of-way and therefore constitute use.

The state transportation agency also considered bypass alternatives to the north and south of the refuge, but neither of these represented a serious option. A northern bypass would result in severe impacts to ten acres of forested land and twenty acres of farmland just north of the refuge, and a southern bypass alternative would result in 12 business displacements in a new development immediately south of the refuge. Both would require radical shifts in roadway geometry.

Minimization
As required, the state transportation agency staff developed a plan to minimize Section 4(f) impacts along the Upgrade Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2.

Upgrade Alternative — Minimization efforts for this option entailed adding retaining walls and narrowing the typical section to minimize impacts to critical forest habitat.

Alternative 1 — In addition, the state transportation agency focused on shifting the alignment closer to the existing road in order to take a narrower section of the critical forest habitat and wetlands. Retaining walls were also considered.

Alternative 2 — Minimization efforts for this option required additional coordination with the official with jurisdiction to determine which of the refuge's resources along this alignment were more valuable in light of the refuge's major purpose. The officials indicated that the campground was of greater value than the maintenance area, so minimization efforts focused on shifting the alignment to the south at the campground and narrowing the typical section. Retaining walls were also considered.

MITIGATION
Because the Upgrade Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 required use of the refuge, they also required mitigation. For the Upgrade Alternative and Alternative 1, the state transportation agency considered reforestation, habitat restoration and enhancements. For Alternative 2, the agency considered the construction of new recreational and maintenance facilities, and on-site building relocation.

Replacement lands, consisting mainly of farmland, were considered to the north of the refuge for all three minimization alternatives. Final mitigation measures were determined through coordination with the official with jurisdiction.

It is worth noting that the state transportation agency did not limit itself to the mitigation measures that were readily apparent to them; rather, they asked the official with jurisdiction to offer specific mitigation needs beyond those related to the impacted land.

Although the agreed-upon measures in this case were closely related to the affected resources, they could have included a variety of options such as educational opportunities; the construction of trails, wildlife passages, and interpretive signs; stream stabilization projects; and the reconfiguration of campgrounds and other infrastructure improvements.

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:

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.

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

SUMMARY
The state transportation agency and FHWA agreed that there was no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. The only avoidance alternative that was seriously considered was the No-Build option, which did not meet the project purpose and need, so it was not feasible and prudent. The complete avoidance alternatives to the north and south were never fully developed because (a) they would present community disruption of an extraordinary magnitude and interfere substantially with farming operations, and (b) as bypass options, they did not meet the project purpose and need.

Consequently, the state transportation agency had to select either the Upgrade Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2. All three of these options involved impacts to the refuge.

Of the three, Alternative 2 was the option that presented the least harm to the refuge. Although it would impact two buildings in the maintenance area and a small portion of the campground, the state transportation agency determined that these elements of the refuge could be satisfactorily replaced through mitigation, whereas the critical forest habitat and wetlands—which would be affected by the Upgrade Alternative and Alternative 1—could not. Furthermore, given the overall purpose of the refuge, the state transportation agency determined that the critical forest habitat had greater value than the campground and maintenance facilities. Thus, Alternative 2 was the state transportation agency's selected alternative.