1 / 70

Section 4(f) Overview Workshop

Section 4(f) Overview Workshop. Fairbanks, AK July 2, 2008. My contact info:. Tim Haugh, Environmental Program Manager FHWA Alaska Division P.O. Box 21648 Juneau, AK 99802 Phone: 907-586-7430 Fax: 907-586-7420 email: tim.haugh@dot.gov. Agenda. Background Transportation Decisionmaking

villanueva
Télécharger la présentation

Section 4(f) Overview Workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Section 4(f) Overview Workshop Fairbanks, AK July 2, 2008

  2. My contact info: Tim Haugh, Environmental Program Manager FHWA Alaska Division P.O. Box 21648 Juneau, AK 99802 Phone: 907-586-7430 Fax: 907-586-7420 email: tim.haugh@dot.gov

  3. Agenda • Background • Transportation Decisionmaking • Environmental Laws • Section 4(f) • Eligibility • Use • Alternatives Analysis • Open Discussion, Q & A

  4. Introductions • Name • Employer • Job Description / Experience • Questions / Discussion Items

  5. Overview of the Transportation Decisionmaking Process and Select Environmental Laws

  6. Evolution of Decisionmaking 1966 DOT Act 1987 FHWA Regs. 1966 NHPA 1969 NEPA 2005 SAFETEA-LU 1978 CEQ Regs. 1956 FaHA 1991 ISTEA 1998 TEA-21 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

  7. Environmental Laws and EO’sAffecting our Decisionmaking E0 13274 TEA-21 EO 13061 EO 13007 NAGPRA SDWA EO 13186 ADA CBRA EO 13112 STURRA EO 12898 ISTEA FPPA CERCLA EO 11990 CZMA ANILCA ESA CWA NHPA ARPA HBA NEPA HSBAA MBTA RHAA CAA AA 4(f) GBA FWCA CRA LWCFA FAHA 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

  8. Hierarchy • Laws • Regulations • Other • Executive Orders • Policy • Guidance

  9. Hierarchy (cont.) From the preamble to 23 CFR 774 regarding comments on including the 12/13/05 Section 4(f) de minimis guidance in Part 774.5: “…The joint FHWA/FTA guidance for determining de minimis impacts to section 4f resources remains in effect, but the Administration may review it and make clarifying revisions some time in the future. The FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper, March 2, 2005, was written prior to enactment of the SAFETEA-LU amendment to the Section 4(f) statute, remains in effect except where it could be interpreted to conflict with this regulation, in which case the regulation takes precedence.”

  10. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) • Declare a NATIONAL POLICY which will encourage a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment … • NEPA applies to all Federal undertakings • NEPA is a procedural statute

  11. NEPA Decisionmaking Framework • Use a systematic and interdisciplinary approach • Environment given appropriate consideration with economic and technical considerations • Include in proposals, a detailed statement on: • Environmental impacts of the action • Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided • Alternatives to the proposed action • Consequences of taking the proposed action • Consult with Federal agencies • Involve the public

  12. FHWA NEPA Regulations “Environmental Impact and Related Procedures”23 CFR Section 771

  13. 23 CFR 771.105 - Policy • Environmental reviews be coordinated as a single process • Compliance with all applicable environmental regulations • Evaluation of alternative courses of action • Balance transportation need with environmental considerations • Public and agency involvement • Mitigation of impacts

  14. NEPA Process Options Early Project Development Activities Significant Impact ? No Unsure Yes Categorical Exclusion Environmental Assessment EIS Yes Significant Impact ? No FONSI ROD

  15. EIS 2.4 % EA 6.1 % CE 91.5 % FHWA Projects by Class of Action

  16. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) • Does not mandate preservation, but seeks to resolve conflicts via consultation process among stakeholders • Applies to all Federal undertakings • Participants – Federal agencies, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), SHPO/THPO, other consulting parties • ACHP Regulations – 36 CFR 800

  17. Section 106 of NHPA • Federal agencies must consider the effect of their undertakings prior to granting approval or funding • Must provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment

  18. What are Historic Sites? • Buildings, bridges, roadways, canals, railways & related facilities • Farms, landscapes, districts • Battlefields • Industrial sites • Traditional cultural properties

  19. What Makes a Site Historic? • Must meet National Register eligibility criteria • 4 Eligibility Criteria • Must have integrity • 7 Aspects of Integrity

  20. Section 4(f) of the 1966 DOT Act • From a highway project in San Antonio, TX through Brackenridge Park • A law separate from NEPA, NHPA… • Applies ONLY to the actions of DOT agencies • Goal is total avoidance and preservation • Controversial and often challenged part of FHWA’s project development process

  21. Section 4(f) - The Law: The Secretary may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site of National, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction)only if - 49 U.S.C. 303

  22. Only If - • there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the land; and • the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the … Section 4(f) resource(s). • Or, the FHWA makes a finding that the project has a de minimis impact on the Section 4 (f) resource. 49 U.S.C. 303

  23. The Section 4(f) Process 4(f) property and use identified Prepare 4(f) Evaluation Consultation/coordination w/DOI, HUD, DOA, and agencies with jurisdiction and Section 106 for Historic Resources FHWA Approves Draft 4(f) Evaluation for Circulation Review Comments Prepare Final 4(f) Legal Sufficiency Review FHWA Division Office Approves Final 4(f) Evaluation

  24. Section 4(f)Processing Options • Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation • Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation • Finding of de minimis impact

  25. Procedural vs. Substantive • NEPA is procedural • Considers the process used to make the decision. • No specific outcome required. In theory, any alternative can be selected. • Section 4(f) is substantive • More than a process • Requires a certain outcome

  26. Section 4(f)ResourceEligibility

  27. What are Section 4(f) Resources? • Parks • Recreation Areas • Wildlife & Waterfowl Refuges ** (Must be publicly-owned) • Historic Sites ** (Public or private ownership) “ Parks+ “

  28. Parks+ • Publicly owned • Public park • Major purpose • Significant

  29. Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges • Major Purpose conservation, restoration, or management of endangered species, their habitat, and other wildlife and waterfowl resources • Publicly owned

  30. Historic Sites • Land of National, State or Local Significance • public ownership not required • on or eligible for the National Register, or • locally significant • determined by FHWA when an Official provides adequate information to show a property is of local significance • 4(f) Policy Paper Question 3A

  31. Interstate Exemption per SAFETEA-LU • Interstate system is not to be considered to be a historic site subject to Section 4(f), with the exception of those individual elements of the Interstate system formally identified by FHWA on the basis of national or exceptional historic significance. • Examples – historic bridge or highly significant engineering feature

  32. Other Eligibility Issues • Multiple use properties • Planned facilities • Joint development • School playgrounds • Trails and bikeways • Archaeological sites • Air rights • Golf courses • Entrance fees • Mitigation sites • TE projects

  33. Use ofSection 4(f) Resources

  34. Use of Land • Fee simple • Permanent Easement • Temporary Easement • Constructive Use • De minimis Impact (Use)

  35. FEE SIMPLE USE Highway R-O-W Park

  36. Permanent & Temporary Easements Culvert ROUTE 52 Highway ROW Line AND Park Boundary Easement PARK

  37. Constructive Use • No actual incorporation of land • Proximity impacts substantially impair the activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for Section 4(f) protection

  38. De Minimis Impact (Use)per SAFETEA-LU • de minimis: • Latin for “of minimum importance” or “trifling” - Must pass the “red faced test”

  39. De Minimis Impact (Use)per SAFETEA-LU • May be applied to any project • De minimis impact findings are based on the degree of impact including any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures included in the project • Have different criteria / impact thresholds for Parks+ and historic sites

  40. De Minimis for Parks+ Section 4(f) requirements are satisfied if: • Project does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f) • Written concurrence from officials with jurisdiction • Public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment

  41. De Minimis for Historic Sites Section 4(f) requirements are satisfied if: • Section 106 consultation process results in a determination of: • No effect , or • no adverse effect • Written concurrence necessary from SHPO (must be made aware of FHWA’s intent) • Lead agency has considered views of any consulting parties

  42. Use of De Minimis Impact Provision • 41 States have made a de minimis impact finding • 70% of these involve historic resources

  43. Other De Minimis Issues • Applied to each individual Section 4(f) resource • May be applied to temporary occupancy situations • May not be applied to Section 4(f) Constructive use situations • Lead agency makes de minimis finding • Only satisfies the Section 4(f) requirement

  44. ProgrammaticSection 4(f) Evaluations

  45. Questions? Does a Section 4(f) use of land always equate to a Section 106 adverse effect?or Does a Section 106 adverse effect determination always equate to a Section 4(f) use?

  46. AlternativesAnalysis

  47. Consideration of Location Alternatives to Avoid 4(f) Property 3 1 Rte 64 2 Rte 22 2b 2a 1 Mile 4 10 Miles 4(f) Property

  48. Consideration of Design Shifts to Avoid a 4(f) Property Existing: Two-Lane Highway Proposed: Four-Lane Divided Highway With 44’ Grassed Median NR Boundary Proposed Roadway Existing Roadway ABC Industries

  49. Feasible & Prudent • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402 (1971) The Supreme Court established a high standard for the “prudent and feasible” statutory language

  50. IF AN ALTERNATIVE IS NOT FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT, IT MUST CREATE TRULY UNIQUE PROBLEMS COMMUNITY DISRUPTION OF EXTR. MAGNITUDE TRULY UNIQUE FACTORS COST OF EXTRAORDINARY MAGNITUDE ONE FACTOR OR THE SUM OF MANY FACTORS

More Related