SAFETEALU and Section 4f De Minimis Impacts Feasible and Prudent Standard Implementation Study

1
SAFETEA-LU and Section 4(f)De Minimis
ImpactsFeasible and Prudent StandardImplementati
on Study
2
De Minimis Impacts

• Substantive revision to existing 4(f) law
• 23 USC 138 and 49 USC 303
• Alternatives analysis not required for project
  use determined to be a de minimis impact
• All possible planning to minimize harm to Section
  4(f) resource is required

3
De minimis Impact Determination

• Historic Properties
• Section 106 of NHPA no adverse effect or no
  historic properties affected
• Developed in consultation with the Section 106
  consulting parties
• Written concurrence of the SHPO or THPO and the
  ACHP, if participating

4
De minimis Impact Determination

• Parks, Recreation Areas, and Refuges
• No adverse affect on activities, features or
  attributes
• Including consideration of avoidance,
  minimization, and mitigation or enhancement
  measures
• Developed in consultation with the official(s)
  with jurisdiction
• Public notice and opportunity for review/comment
• Written concurrence of official(s) with
  jurisdiction

5
Prudent and Feasible Standard

• Rulemaking required to
• Clarify the prudent and feasible avoidance
  alternatives standards
• Clarify the application of legal standards to
  avariety of transportation programs and projects

Bardwells Ferry Bridge, Massachusetts
6
Implementation Study

• Evaluation of the first 3 years 8/10/08
• Implementation processes andresulting
  efficiencies
• Post-construction effectiveness of impact
  mitigation and avoidance commitments
• Number, location, size, and cost of the projects
  with de minimis impacts