Environmental Review Toolkit
Section 4(f)

Back to SAFETEA-LU Section 6009 Implementation Study, Phase II Report

Appendix E. Survey Results For Feasible and Prudent Questions

Effect of Assessment Criteria on the Determination of Whether an Avoidance Alternative is Feasible and Prudent (Question 16)

Note: Shading indicates the response with the highest percentage

Federal respondents (n=63)* 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment. - 2% 37% 29% 32% 2%
An alternative is not prudent if it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. 2% - 37% 40% 21% 2%
An alternative is not prudent if it results in unacceptable safety or operational problems - - 29% 49% 21% 2%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe social, economic, or environmental impacts - 5% 33% 43% 19% -
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe disruption to established communities - 5% 35% 41% 19% -
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations. - 3% 40% 39% 18% -
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes. - 5% 27% 44% 24% -
An alternative is not prudent if it results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude. 2% 8% 27% 43% 21% -
An alternative is not prudent if it causes other unique problems or unusual factors. 5% 11% 46% 29% 10% -
An alternative is not prudent if it involves multiple factors, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. - 10% 35% 43% 13% -

*n=62 for “An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations.”

Project Sponsor (n=17) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment. - 6% 18% 24% 41% 12%
An alternative is not prudent if it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. - - 12% 35% 41% 12%
An alternative is not prudent if it results in unacceptable safety or operational problems - - 6% 29% 47% 18%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe social, economic, or environmental impacts - 6% 24% 24% 35% 12%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe disruption to established communities - 6% 24% 35% 18% 18%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations. - 6% 18% 41% 18% 18%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes. - 6% 12% 35% 35% 12%
An alternative is not prudent if it results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude. - 6% - 41% 35% 18%
An alternative is not prudent if it causes other unique problems or unusual factors. 6% 6% 29% 29% 12% 18%
An alternative is not prudent if it involves multiple factors, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. - 6% 24% 35% 18% 18%
Officials with Jurisdiction (n=5) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment. - - 20% 20% 20% 40%
An alternative is not prudent if it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. - 20% 20% - 20% 40%
An alternative is not prudent if it results in unacceptable safety or operational problems 20% 20% 20% - - 40%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe social, economic, or environmental impacts - 20% 20% - 20% 40%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe disruption to established communities - 20% 20% - 20% 40%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations. - - 40% - 20% 40%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes. - 20% 20% - 20% 40%
An alternative is not prudent if it results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude. 20% 20% 20% - - 40%
An alternative is not prudent if it causes other unique problems or unusual factors. 20% 20% 20% - - 40%
An alternative is not prudent if it involves multiple factors, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. - 20% - 20% 20% 40%
Citizen/Advocacy Groups (n=3) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment.   -     -   67%   -   - 33%
An alternative is not prudent if it compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need. - - 33% - 33% 33%
An alternative is not prudent if it results in unacceptable safety or operational problems - - 33% - 33% 33%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe social, economic, or environmental impacts - - 33% - 33% 33%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe disruption to established communities - - 33% - 33% 33%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations. - - 33% - 33% 33%
An alternative is not prudent if, after reasonable mitigation, it still causes severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes. - - 33% - 33% 33%
An alternative is not prudent if it results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude. - - 67% - - 33%
An alternative is not prudent if it causes other unique problems or unusual factors. - - 67% - - 33%
An alternative is not prudent if it involves multiple factors, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. - - 33% - 33% 33%

Effect of “Least Overall Harm” Determination Factors When Considered Individually (Question 17)

Note: Shading indicates the response with the highest percentage

Federal (n=62) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any measures that result in benefits to the property).   -   2% 23% 45% 24% 6%
The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection. - 6% 27% 44% 15% 8%
The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property - 6% 26% 47% 16% 5%
The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property. - 2% 24% 52% 18% 5%
The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project. - - 29% 35% 31% 5%
After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f). - 5% 31% 42% 18% 5%
Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. - 5% 35% 40% 15% 5%
Project Sponsor (n=16) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any measures that result in benefits to the property). - - 25% 31% 25% 19%
The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection. - 6% 38% 19% 19% 19%
The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property 6% 6% 31% 31% 6% 19%
The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property. 6% - 25% 31% 19% 19%
The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project. - - 13% 25% 44% 19%
After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f). 6% - 19% 38% 19% 19%
Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. - - 31% 31% 19% 19%
Officials with Jurisdiction (n=5) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any measures that result in benefits to the property).   -   - 20% 20% - 60%
The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection. - - 40% - - 60%
The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property - - 20% - - 80%
The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property. - 20% 20% - - 60%
The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project. - 20% 20% - - 60%
After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f). - - 40% - - 60%
Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. - - 20% - 20% 60%
Citizen/Advocacy Groups (n=3) 1 2 3 4 5 N/A
The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any measures that result in benefits to the property). -   -   33% 33%   -   33%
The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection. - - 67% - - 33%
The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property - - 67% - - 33%
The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property. 33% - 33% - - 33%
The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project. - - 67% - - 33%
After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f). - - 33% 33% - 33%
Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. - - 67% - - 33%

Back to SAFETEA-LU Section 6009 Implementation Study, Phase II Report


For questions or feedback on this subject matter content, please contact MaryAnn Naber. For general questions or web problems, please send feedback to the web administrator.

HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000