4fconstr - Memorandum US. Department of Transportation...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Memorandum US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Subject: Section 4(f) - Constructive Use Date: NOV 12 1985 Reply to Attn: of: From: Director, Office of Environmental Policy HEV-11 Washington, D.C. 20590 To: Regional Federal Highway Administrators Regions 1-10, and Direct Federal Program Administrator Concern has been expressed from several State highway agencies and from several Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) offices about the results of litigation on constructive use of Section 4(f) lands. The two most notable cases are I-CARE in Fort Worth, Texas, and H-3 in Hawaii. While each of these decisions represented major setbacks for the respective projects and may present formidable obstacles from the standpoint of nationwide precedent, we believe that FHWA can construct a defensible position on the proper application of the constructive use doctrine on future projects. The first step in the defense is a recognition that a constructive use can occur. The second step is to establish a threshold or standard for determining when the constructive use occurs. The FHWA has determined the threshold for constructive use is proximity impacts which substantially impair the function of a park, recreation area, or waterfowl or wildlife refuge, or substantially impair the historic integrity of a historic site. Steps 3, 4, and 5 are project specific and should be applied whenever there is a likelihood that constructive use could occur or will be an issue on a project. The third step is to identify the functions, activities, and qualities of the Section 4(f) resource which may be sensitive to proximity impacts. The fourth step is to analyze the proximity impacts on the Section 4(f) resource. Impacts (such as noise, water runoff, etc.) which can be quantified, should be quantified. Other proximity impacts (such as visual intrusion) which lend themselves to qualitative analysis should be qualified. The fifth step is to determine whether these impacts substantially impair the function of the Section 4(f) resource or the historic integrity of a historic site. This determination on impairment should, of course, be coordinated with the public agency which owns the park, recreation area, or refuge, or with the State Historic Preservation Officer in the case of historic sites. If it is concluded that the proximity effects do not cause a substantial impairment, the FHWA can reasonably conclude that there is no constructive use. Project documents should, of course, contain the analysis of proximity effects and whether there is substantial impairment to a Section 4(f) resource. Except for responding to review comments in environmental documents which specifically address
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

4fconstr - Memorandum US. Department of Transportation...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online