Section 4(F) Programmatic Agreements

Any questions? For historical resources, please contact the Section 4 (f) specialist at (512) 416-2619. For parks and recreation areas, please contact The Section 4 (f) specialist at (512) 416-2644. Currently, agencies do not use section 4 programmatic assessments, point (f), and rely on individual assessments to meet Section 4, point f requirements for proposed rail and transit projects using the characteristics of point 4 (f). However, agencies have been given greater flexibility in developing programmatic approaches to accelerate the entire environmental control process, in accordance with Section 1305 of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The language “programmatic approaches” of MAP-21 is codified at 23 U.S.C 139 (b) (3) and transposed by agencies in Regulation 23 CFR 771.105. In addition, the FRA assessed, as described in the final rule, in which FRA 23 CFR 771 agreed whether any of the fhWA evaluations should be accepted in whole or in part. Based on this evaluation, the FRA found that the net benefit of the FHWA and the programmatic evaluation of the historic bridge were appropriate for its programs. See 83 FR 54480, 54484 (29 October 2018). Similarly, the FTA was again considered part of the net benefits and programmatic evaluations of the bridge, following the review of projects that followed Section 4 (f) that could have benefited from the application of programmatic evaluations. As a result, agencies are adopting these two federal programmatic assessments with minor technical changes, as described below. Technical changes are limited to replacing references to FHWA with agencies and the definitions needed for both rail and transit projects. The fra and the ESTV provide the full text of section 4 (f) Programmatic evaluations, as amended below, on their websites. In order for a project to be subject to a different programmatic assessment than the Net Benefit assessment, the following conditions must be met: 2.

The proposed project includes all appropriate measures to minimize the damage and mitigation required to preserve and enhance the characteristics and values of the property that originally qualified the property for protection under Section 4(f). There are five federal programmatic evaluations 4 (f) that can be used in place of individual evaluations for certain types of highway projects and specific uses. The main advantage of a programmatic evaluation is to save time. Unlike an individual evaluation, a programmatic evaluation does not require a project, comment period or obligation, since its framework and basic approach have already been put into circulation and approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). Project-specific details are then applied to the programmed application to determine if they can be used. Programmatic evaluations are generally approved much faster than individual evaluations. In the case of projects with one or more public meetings or hearings, information on the proposed use of Section 4, point f) is provided to the public. Unlike the historical bridge and programmatic assessments of beneficial use, the project should not be treated with an EIS. Despite their differences, programmatic and individual evaluations are similar in their coordination with FHWA and relevant officials. The legal representative of the Agency owns or owns the resource, unless the Agency has delegated or waived that authority by a formal agreement. For historical objects, the official with the jurisdiction of the state or tribal Historic Preservation Officer.

Other similarities are required for formatting, detailing and analysis. It is important to note that scheduled evaluations are not exceptions to compliance with Clause 4, point f). 1. The proposed transportation project uses a Section 4 (f) park, recreation area, game or game water reserve or historic site.