Section 4(f) is a Federal requirement that only applies to projects or programs involving funding or approvals from an agency of the US Department of Transportation (USDOT). Section 4(f) was originally enacted as part of the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 (49 USC 1653(f)). It provided that the Secretary of USDOT may approve a transportation program or project requiring use of publicly owned land of a public 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 officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge or site) only if:
- there is no feasible and prudent alternative to using that land; and
- 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.
A similar provision with somewhat different wording was codified in 23 UCS 138 and applies only to the Federal-aid highway program. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 amended the wording in both sections to make them consistent. In 1983, 49 USC 1653(f) was re-codified in 49 USC 303 without substantive revision. As a result of that action, the original provision from the 1966 DOT Act no longer exists; however, the requirement is still commonly referred to as Section 4(f).
In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) enacted the first substantive change in the Section 4(f) provisions since the 1966 DOT Act. Section 6009(a) of SAFETEA-LU amended 49 USC 303 and 23 USC 138 to address de minimis impacts on Section 4(f) properties. De minimis impacts are effects that are so minor there is no need for a Section 4(f) evaluation. Under the revised provisions, when USDOT determines a transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a de minimis impact, analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required and the Section 4(f) process is complete.
Section 6007 of SAFETEA-LU amended 23 USC 103(c) to exempt the Interstate System from consideration as a historic site under Section 4(f) except for individual elements identified by the Secretary of USDOT that possess national or exceptional historic significance (e.g., a historic bridge or a highly significant engineering feature). The “Final List of Nationally and Exceptionally Significant Features of the Federal Interstate Highway System,” accessible via the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) webpage, includes no items for the Interstate System in Montana.
Section 4(f) typically is addressed as a part of the process for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321, et seq.) and the analyses and conclusions generally are included in the NEPA documentation.
Laws and Regulations
Title 49 U.S.C. Section 303
Title 23 U.S.C. Section 138
23 CFR 774
Final Rule on Section 4(f)
Technical Correction to Final Rule on Section 4(f)
For more information
FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper
FHWA Section 4(f) Nationwide Programmatic Evaluations
FHWA Section 4(f) at a Glance
FHWA Section 4(f) Tutorial