9629

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9629
• Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Title: Selected NEPA Documents.
• USFW Year: 1993.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

100
(a) Service Refuge Managers should be aware that it is improper to issue a
permit for a transportation project granting use of 4(f) lands under our
jurisdiction, or in which we have grant-in-aid interest, until the Service,
through DOI, has reviewed and commented on the section 4(f) statement, and
section 4(f) approval has been granted by DOT. These reviews are either
controlled through OEPC and are signed at that level, or they may be
controlled- and signed at the Service Regional Director level, depending
upon the level of impact on section 4(f) lands (see 4.3.K).
(b) In coordinating with a transportation agency relative to proposed use
of section 4(f) lands under Service jurisdiction, the Service should
determine if there may be feasible and prudent alternatives to use of those
lands. The compatibility of the proposed use with the purposes for which
the lands were acquired and are being managed must also be determined under
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. Assuming
both findings are satisfactory, the next step is to determine measures to
minimize harm that could occur as a result of the proposed action. These
required steps should be made known to the transportation agency as early
as possible so they may be included in the section 4(f) statement and any
NEPA documentation.
(2) National Fish Hatchery System Lands. The words "wildlife" and
"refuge" under the DOT Act of 1966 have broader meaning than under the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act [Brooks v. Volpe, 460
F.2d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1972)]. It is DOI's position that all lands and
interests therein authorized, established, or administered as part of the
National Fish Hatchery System are subject to the provisions of section
4(f). However, such lands are not part of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, unless so specified by Congress. This is stated in a DOI
Solicitor's Opinion, December 24, 1975; and in a letter from the Secretary,
DOI, to Secretary, DOT, June 20, 1980 (refer to Service NEPA Reference
Handbook). The protection provided by this Act, and others, such as the
Refuge Recreation Act, are extended by regulation to the National Fish
Hatchery system (50 CFR 25-29, 31-36, 60, and 70-71).
H. Protection of Wetlands on Section 4(f} Properties. See also 507 FW 2,
regarding the protection of privately-owned wetlands affected by federally-
aided highway projects.
(1) The FHWA has agreed that components of the National Wildlife Refuge
System (i.e., national wildlife refuges and waterfowl production areas),
recreational (but not scenic) segments of Federal wild and scenic rivers,
and national parks usually require section 4(f) approval by DOI if any use
is required of such lands. This also applies to any Federal or State park
or recreation lands acquired under section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act, section 6 of the ESA, Anadromous Fish Act of 1965, lands
acquired or managed under the P-R or D-J grant-in-aid program, and under
several other wetlands funding legis]ation.
(2) In practice, based on section 4(f) and related case law, wetlands that
occur on section 4(f) lands usually are afforded a higher degree of
protection for proposed use by FHWA than privately-owned wetlands.
Mitigation, including the replacement of such lands, generally must be