Section 4f Checklist.docx

1、Section 4f Checklist Section 4(f) ChecklistThe attached section 4(f) checklist was developed by Dan Harris (FHWA, San Francisco). It includes the items he looks for when reviewing section 4(f) evaluations, and is based on 2 CFR 771.15, the FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, the FHWA Guidebook Sectio

2、n 24, and project experience.Comments and suggestions regarding the checklist are encouraged; please send them to Dan Harris via the internet or FHWA email. The checklist has been in use for some time; however, it is a working document subject to change and improvement.Dan R. HarrisEnvironmental Spe

3、cialistFHWA Western Resource Center201 Mission Street, Suite 2100San Francisco 94105-188tel: 415.744.2611dan.harrisfhwa.dot.govMay 1997 Draft Section 4(f) EvaluationGeneral Is the section 4(f) evaluation contained in a separate section, chapter, or appendix? For EISs, is the environmental document e

4、ntitled Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation on the EIS title page?For EAs, is it entitled Draft Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation? Does the title page include the citation: Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 42(2)(c) and 49 U.S.C. 0? Does the introduction

5、 to the section 4(f) evaluation include the following boiler plate description of section 4(f):Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in Federal law at 49 U.S.C. 0, declares that Ait is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to p

6、reserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.Section 4(f) specifies that Athe Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project . . . requiring the use of publicly owned land of a publ

7、ic park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if:(1) t

8、here is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and(2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Depar

9、tment of the Interior and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the Departments of Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development in developing transportation projects and programs which use lands protected by section 4(f). Is Asection 4(f) listed in the EIS index with correct page numbers?Propose

10、d Action Are the proposed project and the project purpose and need briefly described with the corresponding EIS/EA text discussions properly referenced for additional information?Description of Section 4(f) Property(ies) Does the description of each section 4(f) resource which would be used by any a

11、lternative include all of the applicable information outlined in Attachment A?Impacts on the Section 4(f) Property(ies) Does the impact evaluation discussion address the following impacts on each section 4(f) property for each alternative? the amount of land to be used? the facilities, functions, an

12、d/or activities affected? accessibility? visual? noise? vegetation? wildlife? air quality? water quality? If there is not an impact in one of the above areas, does the evaluation state such with adequate supportive information? Does the evaluation include an impact summary table when:(1) more than o

13、ne section 4(f) property is involved and(2) such a table would be useful in comparing the various impacts of the alternatives?Alternatives Does the section 4(f) evaluation of alternatives identify and summarize the alternatives addressed in the EIS/EA and include specific references to those discuss

14、ions?Detailed discussions of alternatives in an EIS/EA do not need to be repeated in the section 4(f) portion of the document if they are identified and summarized with specific references to the EIS/EA discussions of alternatives. Do both the section 4(f) evaluation and the EIS/EA discussion of alt

15、ernatives include the same location alternatives? Are location alternatives and site-specific design variations which avoid section 4(f) property(ies) identified and evaluated? Does the section 4(f) evaluation of alternativesinclude at least one build alternative which avoids each and all section 4(

16、f) resourcesorexplain why there are not any such avoidance alternatives with adequate supportive information?Measures to Minimize Harm Are all possible measures which are available to minimize the impacts to the section 4(f) property(ies) discussed?Detailed discussions of mitigation measures in the

17、EIS/EA may be referenced and appropriately summarized rather than repeated. If the section 4(f) property includes lands or facilities developed under section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, does the mitigation discussion address the section 6(f) requirements? See Attachment C.Other

18、 Park, Recreational Facilities, Wildlife Refuges, and Historic Properties Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f)This section evaluates other park, recreational facilities, wildlife refuges, and historic sites in the project vicinity that do not involve a section 4(f) use.It needs to

19、include the information outlined in Attachment B. This discussion is necessary to explain why some resources or facilities are not protected by provisions of section 4(f) and to document that any proximity impacts to section 4(f) resources do not result in a constructive use.Coordination Does the su

20、mmary discussion of preliminary coordination with the public official having jurisdiction over the section 4(f) resource address the following: avoidance alternatives, impacts to the property, measures to minimize harm, and where necessary, the significance and primary use of the property? If sectio

21、n 6(f) lands are involved, does the summary discussion include preliminary coordination with the National Park Service Region Office? Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Is the information contained in the draft section 4(f) evaluation included in the final evaluation with appropriate revisions to reflect

22、 comments received on the draft document and any changed conditions, new information, or project refinements? Does the final evaluation provide the basis for concluding that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of section 4(f) land(s)?The supporting information must demonstrate

23、that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes 2 CFR 771.15(a)(2). Does the final

24、evaluation provide the basis for concluding that the preferred alternative includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the section 4(f) property(ies)? Does the final evaluation demonstrate that the preferred alternative is the feasible and prudent alternative with the least harm on the sectio

25、n 4(f) resources after considering mitigation? Does the ACoordination Section summarize the formal section 4(f) coordination with the Department of the Interior and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the Departments of Agriculture (usually the Forest Service) and Housing and Urban Development?

26、 Are copies of the section 4(f) comments included in the final evaluation, or if contained in the Draft EIS Comment and Response Section, are they accurately referenced? Have each of the section 4(f) comments received a full and adequate response?Where new alternatives or modifications to existing a

27、lternatives are identified and will not be given further consideration, the basis for dismissing the alternatives/modifications needs to be provided and supported by factual information. Where section 6(f) land is involved, is the National Park Services position on the land transfer summarized in th

28、e text and documented with a copy of an NPS letter? Does the final section 4(f) evaluation conclude with the following statement?Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the name(s) of the section 4(f) property(ies) and the proposed ac

29、tion includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the names(s) of the section 4(f) property(ies) resulting from such use. EIS/EAs Without a Section 4(f) UseAll EISs (and EAs only if appropriate) need to include a subsection/subchapter within the Environmental Consequences section/chapter entit

30、led: Park, Recreational Facilities, Wildlife Refuges, and Historic Properties Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f)that addresses the information outlined in Attachment B.This discussion is necessary to explain why some resources or facilities are not protected by provisions of sect

31、ion 4(f) and to document that any proximity impacts to section 4(f) resources do not result in a constructive use. Attachment A Description of Section 4(f) Property(ies) A detailed map or drawing of sufficient scale to identify the relationship of the alternatives to the section 4(f) property. Size

32、of the section 4(f) property (hectares or square meters (with acres or square feet following parenthesis). Location of the section 4(f) property (maps or other exhibits such as photographs and/or sketches). Ownership (e.g., private, city, county, State, Federal agency). Type of section 4(f) property (e.g., park, recreation, historic). Available activities or function of the property (e.g., ball pla