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

Consulting the Master Plan
Although the refuge as a whole was considered a Section 4(f) resource, the agency consulted the refuge's master plan to see which portions were most valuable, enabling them to develop the alternatives appropriately.

Coordinating with the Officials with Jurisdiction
Coordination with officials with jurisdiction was especially important for the agency in its efforts to evaluate different alternatives and their impacts throughout the refuge.

Considering Avoidance Alternatives
The agency developed a no-build alternative and considered two bypass alternatives—none of which met the project purpose and need or was considered feasible and prudent—in an effort to demonstrate that they had considered all avoidance options.

Addressing Specific Mitigation Needs
As a part of their effort to develop a mitigation plan, the agency approached the officials with jurisdiction to see if they had any specific mitigation needs, which they did. These needs were incorporated into the plan.

Minimizing for Least Harm
The agency's minimization efforts were based on the concept of least harm, an effort to reduce impacts as much as possible to portions of the refuge with critical forest habitat and sensitive wetlands.