Category HIGHWAY ENGINEERING HANDBOOK

Design of proper containment requires the participation of specialists in structural engi­neering, coatings, ventilation, and exhaust. The following considerations should be

addressed in the development of a containment system:

• The environmental media (air, water, soil) that are vulnerable and the containment methods that will provide the best protection

• Durability

• Compatibility with the selected removal method, and potential for interference with the productive removal of the paint, mill scale, and rust and the application of a new coat of paint

• Ease of construction, disassembly, and moving from one area of the structure to another

• Local climate conditions

• Continued usability of the structure and proximity of nearby structures and people

• Cost-effectiveness

• Compliance with applicable regulations

Materials used to construct containments include rigid panels or flexible materials such as tarpaulins. The selected materials should be fire-retardant, given the sparking hazard, high dust, and high ventilation aspects of the procedure.

The checklist provided in Table 1.16 may be followed in designing an appropriate con­tainment system. Various debris-recovery assessment methods are underdevelopment. Some, such as air monitoring and analysis of soil and water samples to evaluate whether

TABLE 1.16 Containment Design Checklist

1. Review drawings and specifications for project familiarity.

2. Investigate OSHA and EPA regulations affecting worker protection and control over emissions.

3. Determine method of surface preparation to be employed.

4. Examine the structure to be prepared:

• Confirm that the selected method of preparation is suitable.

• Determine if any coats of paint will be applied in containment.

• Assess the load-bearing capacity of the structure to support containment.

• Examine the structure for attachment points for the containment.

• Divide large structures into logical containment units according to size and configuration. Consider the air movement requirements and the need to have a large enough area for pro­ductive surface preparation and painting.

• Determine if a working platform should be used on elevated projects. Determine how far ground covers should extend beneath or around the removal operation.

• When working over water, determine if a barge is going to be used for spent abrasive collec­tion or staging, and assess the need for water booms to minimize problems due to inadvertent spills. Determine the need for U. S. Coast Guard approval and navigation restrictions.

• Determine methods for conveying the debris for recycling or disposal.

5. Determine project-specific ventilation requirements.

• Consult Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice (Committee on Industrial Ventilation, American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati; 20th ed., 1988) for engineering guidance.

• Select the air velocity (air speed) throughout the work area and exhaust volume required.

• Determine the necessary transport velocity through the exhaust ductwork required to avoid dropout of debris.

• Lay out the ductwork as short as practical with as few bends as possible. Do not use bends with a centerline radius less than 2 times the duct diameter. Include the use of exhaust hoods or plenums within containment.

• Select the air-cleaning device (dust collector) on the basis of the volume of air and dust load­ing of the airstream (air-to-cloth ratio).

• Select the fan that will provide an adequate volume of air, and that is able to overcome the resistance throughout the system.

• Provide adequate makeup air (supply air), properly distributed to provide a uniform airflow. Include properly balanced forced air if required.

• Confirm that all of the above will provide ample airflow throughout the work area. If not, con­sider the use of localized ventilation and exhaust.

6. Obtain and review equipment manufacturers’ technical information.

7. Complete the design package. Utilize the expertise of structural and mechanical engineers,

industrial hygienists, coatings specialists, and equipment specialists.

Source: From K. A. Trimbler, Industrial Lead Paint Removal Handbook, 2d ed., Steel Structures Painting

Council/KTA-Tator, Inc., Pittsburgh, 1993, with permission.

lead content has increased as a result of paint removal activities, have been codified in regulations.

A method for calculating debris recovery that has been used by the South Carolina Department of Transportation is found in the Struchual Steel Painting Council (SSPC) Guide 61, Guide for Containing Debris Generated during Paint Removal Operations (SSPC 92-07, March 1992). The following equation is used in the SSPC guideline for esti­mating debris recovery:

where RE = efficiency of recovery

Wd = dry weight of abrasive and paint debris collected

Wa = dry weight of abrasive used

Wp = calculated weight of paint to be removed

This estimation procedure has the limitation of not incorporating the weight of the var­ious release media (air, soil, water), which influence the effectiveness of a containment. A 1 percent debris loss into the soil is not as significant as a 1 percent debris loss into the air. Care must be taken when using this method to measure only the abrasive and paint from the project and not to measure soil that may have come into contact with the debris.

The project designer should incorporate an environmental monitoring plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the containment methods. Reporting and record keeping within the plan should include the following data:

• Name and location of the site, along with a site plot plan

• Identification of the individual or company that is conducting the monitoring

• Name and qualifications of the analytical laboratory used

• Criteria and rationale for selecting monitoring and sampling sites and duration of sampling

• Descriptions of sampling and monitoring methods

• Quality assurance and quality control plans

• Examples of reporting forms

• Acceptance criteria

• Reporting procedures and corrective actions if acceptance criteria are not met

K. A. Trimbler has described and compared methods of lead paint removal. His findings are summarized in Table 1.15 and described below. (K. A. Trimbler, Industrial Lead Paint Removal Handbook, 2d ed., Steel Structures Painting Council/KTA-Tator, Inc., Pittsburgh, 1993, and personal communication, August 2002.)

Quality of preparation Debris created

a5, very inexpensive; 4, inexpensive; 3, moderately expensive; 2, expensive; 1, very expensive.

b5, highly effective; 4, effective; 3, moderately effective; 2, poor; 1, very poor (ineffective).

c5, excellent; 4, good; 3, marginal; 2, poor; 1, very poor.

d5, no/none; 4, little/low; 3, moderate; 2, sizable; 1, substantial.

e5, very high; 4, high; 3, moderate; 2, low; 1, very low.

fMost contractors already own much of this equipment. Therefore, even though the purchase price is high, little additional investment may be needed.

£ Additional methods supplied by K. A. Trimbler, 2002, with ratings for these specific methods developed based on general experience.

Source: From K. A. Trimbler, Industrial Lead Paint Removal Handbook, 2d ed., Steel Structures Painting Counci 1/KTA-Tator, Inc., Pittsburgh, 1993, with permission, and

personal communication, 2002.

Open Abrasive Blast Cleaning with Expendable Abrasives. In this method, compressed air propels blasting grit against the coated surface. The spent blasting grit is then collected for disposal. The major advantages of this method are that contractors are familiar with this long-practiced method, it is very effective in creating a superior surface preparation, it reaches areas otherwise difficult to access, and it is relatively quick (seperate con­tainment considerations). The major disadvantage of this method is that it creates a high level of leaded dust and large quantities of debris that typically must be disposed of as haz­ardous waste. The additional containment requirements, hygiene training, and personal protection equipment requirements increase the cost of removal.

Open Abrasive Blast Cleaning with Recyclable Abrasives. In this method, metallic abra­sives are used to remove the paint. The abrasives can be separated from the debris (paint, rust, mill scale) and reused. The volume of dust and debris is reduced as compared to open abra­sive blast cleaning with expendable abrasives, but the effectiveness and the ability to reach inaccessible areas are the same. Additional disadvantages are contractors’ unfamiliarity with the method and the special care that must be taken to keep the blasting grit moisture-free to avoid rusting and clumping. Should the abrasive dust escape containment, it may cause rust spots on the surfaces where it settles. Because the grit is recycled, higher concentrations of airborne lead dust within the containment area will have to be considered for worker safety.

Closed Abrasive Blast Cleaning with Vacuum. A third method is to apply a compressed-air propellant from a nozzle fitted with a localized containment assembly that employs a vacuum. The recycled metallic grit, dust, and debris are vacuumed as the surface is blasted. This method is rated as highly effective, both in surface preparation and in containment of dust and debris, but the rate of cleaning is slow. The greatest limitation of this method is that the containment mask must be held tightly to the surface of the structure, reducing the method’s effectiveness on irregular and inaccessible surfaces. The containment method confines the blast spray pat­tern so that only small surface areas are being blasted at any one time. This requirement, along with the need to maintain a tight seal, is arduous and leads to operator fatigue.

Wet Abrasive Blast Cleaning. In the wet abrasive method, water is injected into a stream of slag abrasive propelled by compressed air. This method is effective both in dust control and in the quality of surface preparation; however, the amount of waste produced is sub­stantial and difficult to clean up. Inhalation hazard is greatly reduced with this method, but the potential for ingestion still exists.

High-Pressure Water Jetting. High pressure water (20,000 lb/in2 or 138 MPa) propelled against the surface is effective without the use of grit. This method reduces dust to negli­gible levels; however, the potential for ingestion still exists. The water is voluminous and difficult to capture in containment. The method is not effective in removing paint from rel­atively inaccessible areas or in removing mill scale. A rust inhibitor is usually used as part of this method, which may affect the applied coating.

High-Pressure Water Jetting with Abrasive Injection. Combining the previous method with abrasive injection results in all the advantages and disadvantages of the previous methods but with the additional complication of having grit in the disposal water. It is con­sidered highly effective in removing mill scale and paint from inaccessible areas.

Ultrahigh-Pressure Water Jetting. Even more highly pressurized water (up to 40,000 lb/in2 or 276 MPa) can be propelled against the surface without the use of grit. This method is more efficient in removing paint than the high-pressure water jetting method; however, the main advantages and disadvantages of the high-pressure water jetting method still apply.

Ultrahigh-Pressure Water Jetting with Abrasive Injection. The ultrahigh-pressure water jet method can be enhanced by the addition of disposable abrasives to the jet stream. The result is rated highly effective, with advantages and disadvantages similar to those of the previously described water jetting methods.

Hand-Tool Cleaning. Manually operated impact tools and scrapers can be used to remove paint and mill scale. This method is relatively inexpensive, but is relatively ineffec­tive compared to other methods. Since only small amounts of localized dust and debris are created, workers may have a false sense of security about exposure, thus making it difficult to enforce personal protective equipment requirements.

Power-Tool Cleaning. Power tools such as chippers, needle guns, descalers, wire brushes, sanding disks, and grinding wheels can be used to remove paint, rust, and scale from the bridge surface. This is a labor-intensive method. The resulting quality of preparation of the surface may be inadequate, depending on the condition of the coating being removed. Airborne dust is generated, and workers must be properly protected.

Power-Tool Cleaning with Vacuum Attachment. In another version of the previous method, a vacuum attachment is added around power tools and debris. This has the disad­vantage that accessibility in tight areas is reduced because of the shroud and vacuum attach­ment. On irregular surfaces, a seal may be difficult to maintain, and airborne leaded dust may be present. Because a seal typically minimizes dust, workers may not be aware when it has slipped and they thus require additional respiratory protection.

Power-Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal. Power tools can also be used to clean to the bare metal. This method adds such tools as scarifiers (rotary peening tools) to the power-tool set and can achieve a generally higher level of surface preparation. More dust is created, and higher levels of worker protection and training are required. Productivity is low, and a high quality of surface preparation may not be achieved in inaccessible or heavily pitted areas.

Power-Tool Cleaning to Bare Metal with Vacuum Attachment. A modification of the previous method contains dust and debris using a shroud and a vacuum attachment around the scarifying power tools, creating a seal with the bridge surface. This has the same dis­advantages as the method of power-tool cleaning with vacuum attachment, but with addi­tional training required on the equipment and greater cost to achieve bare-metal standards.

Chemical Stripping. Chemical stripping agents can be applied to the surface, left in place for several hours, and then scraped off along with paint, rust, and scale. The surface must then be flushed with water and the chemical agent neutralized. The rinse material must be contained and disposed of properly. This method virtually eliminates airborne debris. Personal protective clothing must be worn during the removal process to prevent dermal contact with leaded debris. However, not all chemicals are effective on all paints, and few will remove all the rust and scale.

Sponge Jetting. In the sponge jetting method, compressed air is used to propel polyurethane particles (sponge) that may be seeded with abrasives against the bridge surface. The debris and sponges are collected and sorted. The sponges can then be reused. The quality of surface preparation is similar to that from other blast cleaning methods, but the productivity is lower. The amount of debris is significantly reduced because of the recycling of the sponges. Visible dust is reduced, although containment and personal protection gear must be maintained as in other blasting methods. Costs of the equipment and abrasives are high.

Sodium Bicarbonate Blast Cleaning. Either jetted water or compressed air can be used to propel water-soluble sodium bicarbonate against the bridge surface. This method does not remove mill scale or rust effectively. Dust is significantly reduced when jetted with water, thereby reducing the potential for lead inhalation, but lead ingestion remains a hazard. Containment of the water is difficult. It may be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis that the sodium bicarbonate serves to stabilize lead in the paint so that it does not leach into the water in concentrations great enough to render the blasting water a hazardous waste. There is no grit waste. This method requires inhibitors to prevent flash rust from forming when the paint is removed.

Carbon Dioxide Blast Cleaning. Small pellets of dry ice can be propelled using com­pressed air against the bridge surface. This method does not remove mill scale or heavy rust, and production is slow. This method reduces the volume of waste to only the actual paint being removed. It also greatly reduces sparking risk, and dust is reduced. Worker exposure is reduced, though it must still be controlled. The equipment and materials for this method are relatively expensive.

Combinations of Removal Methods. Combining methods, if done effectively, may reduce the volume of waste or increase productivity or the quality of surface preparation. The objec­tive is to select methods that are complementary. An example would be first using a chemi­cal stripper, which yields low dust and minimizes the need for containment. The chemicals will remove the leaded paint but not the mill scale. Once the hazardous substances are removed, another method, such as wet blasting, can remove the mill scale and rust without necessitating further hazardous waste disposal.

Abrasive Blasting with Proprietary Additive for Lead Stabilization. The equipment and procedures used are identical to open abrasive blasting, except that the abrasive is pre­blended with a proprietary material that stabilizes the lead, typically creating a nonhazardous waste for disposal.

Thermal Spray Vitrification. This method involves the application of molten glass to the surface that binds with the coating. Upon cooling, the glass/paint composite cracks, and spontaneously disbonds from the surface.

Laser Paint Removal. This method involves the use of lasers to instantaneously vapor­ize the paint, turning it into an ash that is vacuumed for disposal.

Workers involved in removal, containment, and handling of lead-based paint must be pro­tected against lead hazards. Blood poisoning has historically been a serious job hazard dur­ing bridge painting and likewise dangerous during the removal of lead-based paint. In addition, enclosing the work area to capture the blasting grit and waste paint creates a con­fined area for the workers, increasing the potential level of exposure and health risk.

Guidance developed by the U. S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) included in its publication Lead in Construction identifies proper health and safety procedures to be observed by painting contractors. The procedures generally require train­ing of employees, enclosure of the work area, decontamination of workers, the use of per­sonal protection and monitoring equipment, and decontamination of personnel and equipment when leaving the work space.

Unconfined removal of paint regardless of lead content presents environmental, health, and safety concerns. It has the potential to result in unacceptable deposition of dust and debris in roadways, streams, and communities, as well as presenting a hazard to workers.

A number of methods have been advanced to effectively contain blasting debris and to min­imize the amount of waste generated from the management of lead-based paint from steel bridges. These methods are discussed in Art. 1.5.5 of this chapter. They can be broadly characterized as follows.

Deferring Maintenance. This approach does not serve to protect the bridge, and is the least satisfactory approach to protecting the large public investment represented by a major steel bridge.

Overcoating. This method consists of applying new layers of nonleaded paint over lead – based paint with the intent of extending the coating system for another 5 years or so. This method may reduce short-term costs and provide an agency more time while new innova­tions in lead paint removal are being developed. However, worker safety and environmen­tal issues still remain with the structure until the lead-based paint is removed. For example, the volume of unleaded paint increases with each coat, and thus a greater quan­tity of lead-contaminated paint must be disposed of as hazardous waste in many cases. Additionally, performance of the overcoating products has been highly variable, depend­ing on operator skill and experience, application conditions, existing paint that is being overcoated, and product consistency.

Removal and Repainting. This strategy requires the use of abrasive blasting or other means to remove the existing lead-based paint, followed by application of a coating system. This would provide the most durable and effective protection for steel bridge structures. However, its cost-effectiveness is diminished due to the need to collect and dispose of the spent paint and blasting grit of as hazardous waste. Worker safety during removal is a sig­nificant consideration.

Removing and Replacing Steel Members. This strategy involves removing members of the bridge during major rehabilitation efforts; removal of the lead-based paint within an enclosed workplace such as a fabricating shop; repainting, and restoring the members to their original location. Containment of the lead paint and blasting grit is more easily achieved with this approach. This method is generally cost-effective only on major reha­bilitation projects.

Hazardous waste is regulated under the RCRA if more than 220 lb (100 kg) of hazardous waste is generated each month, as is the case in most bridge paint removal projects. RCRA defines the concentrations of a waste that should be considered hazardous and establishes procedures for handling and disposing of hazardous waste. Disposing of waste is the responsibility of the waste generator. The lead-based paint and blasting grit recovered in bridge paint removal projects may contain concentrations of lead sufficient to classify it as hazardous, waste in all instances, the owner of the structure is considered the generator (in some states the contractor removing the paint may be considered a cogenerator). Subtitle C under RCRA is relevant to lead removal activities. Table 1.11 provides a listing of the per­tinent RCRA regulations.

Methods of testing wastes to determine whether the waste is hazardous are described in 40 CFR 261. Appendix II of that regulation describes the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP, Method 1311) that must be used to analyze for hazardous constituents such as lead. Leachable levels of various elements that will establish waste as hazardous are found in Table 1 of 40 CFR 261.24 and are presented in Table 1.11. Wastes with any of the characteristics listed in Table 1.12 would be considered hazardous. For example,

using the TCLP testing method, if 5.0 mg/L or more of lead can be extracted from debris, the debris would be considered to be toxic and hazardous.

EPA regulates the amount of hazardous substances and waste that can be released into the environment under both CERCLA and SARA. Under these requirements, an owner is required to contain lead-based paint removed from a structure. A response could be initi­ated at a paint removal project if improper containment of dust or debris results in a release of lead to the environment. A reportable quantity of released leaded waste is 10 lb (4.5 kg). The report must be made to the National Response Center [(800) 424-8802] and to state and local regulatory authorities within 24 hours. The calculations presented in Table 1.13 demonstrate how to estimate the unit area of paint on a bridge surface that would equate to a reportable CERCLA release of lead.

CERLA and SARA regulations are found in 40 CPR 300 through 373. Discharges into the air and water area are also regulated by the CAA and CWA, respectively. EPA has man­dated enforcement of regulations to the states, leading to nonuniformity in the procedures to be followed and the stringency of requirements. Permits for blasting are required in some states but not others.

Because of the joint and several liability provision of CERCLA, it is possible that any one generator (or responsible party) may be liable for the entire waste disposal site cleanup. This is true even if there is no negligence on the part of the highway agency or its contrac­tors. Regulatory agencies do not recognize contractual obligations among responsible parties and will seek financial compensation from whoever has funds and can be connected to the contamination.

OSHA also has established several regulations applicable to worker protection during lead paint removal. These regulations are summarized in Table 1.14.

TABLE 1.13 Example Calculation of Surface Area Required to Generate a Unit Weight of Lead

Assumptions:

Lead in paint = 1% (10,000 ppm)

Dry film thickness (DFT) = 10 mil (0.010 in)

Density of dried paint = 1.5 g/cm3 (can range from 1.1 to 2.5)

Calculations:

1. Calculate volume of paint in 1 ft2 (1 ft2 = 929 cm2):

Volume = 929 cm2 (DFT X 2.54 cm/in)

= 929 cm2 (0.010 in X 2.54 cm/in)

= 23.60 cm3

2. Calculate weight of paint in 1 ft2:

Paint weight = density X volume

= 1.5 g/cm3 X 23.60 cm3 = 35.4 g

3. Calculate weight of lead in 1 ft2 of paint (1 ppm = 1 p. g/g):

Lead weight = ppm lead X paint wt/ft2 = 10,000 p. g/g X 35.4 g/ft2 = 354,000 p. g/ft2

4. Calculate square feet required to generate 1 lb of lead (1 lb 454,000,000 p. g/g):

Area = 1 lb f wt of lead/ft2

= 454,000,000 p. g f 354,000 p. g/ft2 = 1282 ft2

Source: Adapted from K. A. Trimbler, Industrial Lead Paint Removal Handbook, 2d ed., Steel Structures

Painting Council/KTA-Tator, Inc., Pittsburgh, 1993.

A bioaccumulative substance such as lead can be stored in various organs and tissues of the body. As lead-containing tissues are consumed by larger organisms in the food chain, a cumulative effect occurs in each subsequent organism. For example, a fish in a lead-contaminated environment may be exposed to lead in the water and in the organ­isms that it eats, which have accumulated lead from their food source, and so on down the chain. Organisms at the top of the food chain are, therefore, exposed to higher con­centrations of lead.

In humans, long-term exposure can result in brain and nerve disorders, anemia, elevate blood pressure, reproductive problems, decreases in red blood cell formation, and slower reflexes. In high enough doses or after long-term bioaccumulation, lead exposure can cause death. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Interim Final Rule on Lead Exposure in Construction (29 CFR 1926.62) describes long-term overexposure effects of lead and provides uniform inspection and compliance guidance for lead exposure in construction.

The primary methods of exposure to toxic levels of lead are through inhalation and ingestion. For example, paint removal workers may inhale leaded dust or, in the absence of proper cleaning and preventative measures, may ingest lead after it has settled on food, cigarettes, utensils, or other items placed in their mouths.

A significant number of state-maintained steel bridges are coated with lead-based paint. Steel bridges were coated with lead-based paint for more than 40 years. The coating sys­tems have an expected effective life of 15 to 25 years, and those on many bridges are now deteriorating. Life extension and overall protection of the bridges from corrosion are dependent on refurbishing deteriorating coatings.

The public has become increasingly aware that lead can represent a significant human health and environmental threat. When intact and in good condition, the paint does not pose a significant health risk. It is when paint is removed to prepare the surface for coating replacement, or as the paint deteriorates, that the risk of significant health risks escalates.

Many highway structures are located in urban areas where lead-based paint removal has the potential to affect adjacent properties and to expose the public to hazardous concentra­tions of lead. Bridges are often constructed over water bodies where lead-containing dust from removal operations can affect water quality and the aquatic environment.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964 (42 USC 2000d et seq.). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was arguably the most instrumental piece of legislation in providing an opportunity voice for minorities to participate in the review of federal capital programs. The Act pro­hibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in projects or programs receiving federal financial assistance.

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646). The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act provides benefits and protection for persons whose real property is acquired or who would be displaced from acquired property because of a project or program that receives federal funds. A displaced person may be an individual, family, business, farm, or nonprofit organization. Just compensation is required, and guidelines exist for ensuring fair treatment.

Environmental Justice—Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environ­mental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations (February 11, 1994). Executive Order 12898 was issued to address disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts on low-income and minority populations. The U. S. DOT issued DOT Order 5680.1 on April 15, 1997, to ensure that each modal agency within the DOT complies with this executive order. A number of state agencies have adopted analogous procedures requiring an evaluation of projects to determine whether they would result in a disproportionate adverse impact on minority or low-income populations.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The purpose of the NHPA is to protect the historical and cultural foundations of the nation. The NHPA created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and provides for the review of federal projects that may affect a significant historic site. Section 106 of the NHPA requires all federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on significant historic properties. In the Section 106 process, a federal agency must identify affected historic properties, evaluate the effects of an action on such properties, and explore ways to avoid or mitigate those effects.

The NHPA established a partnership with the states, as administered through State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) appointed by the governor of each state, to estab­lish a statewide cultural resources preservation program tailored to state and local needs. The federal agency often conducts the Section 106 process with the ACHP, SHPOs, repre­sentatives of Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, and other interested parties.

On large projects, a programmatic agreement (PA) or a memorandum of agreement (MOA) is often needed. A PA clarifies roles, responsibilities, and expectations of all par­ties engaged in federal projects that may have an effect on a historic property. An MOA specifies the mitigation measures that the lead federal agency must take to ensure the pro­tection of a property’s historic values.

While the NHPA is the principal federal law concerning the preservation of significant historic resources, there are other statutes that relate to various aspects of the federal his­toric preservation program. These range from the protection of archeological sites on fed­eral lands, to the recognition of properties of traditional cultural or religious significance to Native Americans. These include

• Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA)

• Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA)

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA)

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA)

The ACHP has established implementing regulations for the protection of historic prop­erties (36 CFR 800). These procedures must be followed for federal undertakings. An undertaking is defined as any project, activity, or program that can result in changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such historic properties are located in a defined area of potential effects (APE).

Under these procedures, an opportunity for early public involvement must be provided for federal actions during the phase of the project development process. For categorically excluded projects, when properties eligible for inclusion on the National Register of

Historic Places are present or potentially present (such as in an archaeologically sensitive area), there must be early public involvement. Projects are excepted from this requirement if (1) they have been defined as having a minimal APE and therefore do not fall within the Section 106 definition of undertakings and (2) no known historic resources are present. Opportunity for involvement by the public generally occurs at the identification, evalua­tion, and consultation stages for projects categorically excluded from review under NEPA.

For those actions requiring evaluation in an EA, notices concerning the initiation of the environmental review process or opportunities for public review must state whether any alternatives could potentially involve historic properties. If this uncertain then the notices must request the names of those persons who may have information relating to historic properties that may be affected or who may be interested in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties. At any hearing, the effects of any alternatives on such properties must be identified.

For projects where an EA or EIS has been prepared, documentation of completion of the Section 106 process should be included in the completed document. For categorically excluded projects, Section 106 documentation is completed separately when resources have been identified.

Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (73 USC §4201 et seq.) requires that a federal agency evaluate the effects a project may have on prime farmland before that agency can approve any action that may result in the conversion of farmland from agricultural use to nonagricultural use. The FFPA requires that before any federal action that would result in conversion of prime farmland is approved, the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must examine the effects of the action using criteria set forth in the FFPA. If it is determined that there are adverse effects, alternatives to lessen them must be considered. This process requires an inventory, description, and classification of affected farmlands be completed in consultation with the U. S. Soil Conservation Service within the USDA.

The evaluation of land for agricultural use includes productivity, proximity to other land uses, impacts on remaining farmland after the conversion, and indirect or secondary effects of the project on agricultural and other local factors.

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC §§1451-1464) requires states with coastlines to develop and implement federally approved coastal zone management programs (CZMPs). Once a state has an approved management program, federal projects or federally permitted development affecting the coastal zone must conform to the requirements of the state program “to the maximum extent practicable.” A determination of consistency with the approved CZMP is required from the state before federal approval can be granted.

Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC §§1271-1287) provides that rivers and their immediate environment that meet specified criteria shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future gener­ations. A river placed in the Wild and Scenic River System may not be degraded in its wild and scenic value as a consequence of an action by a federal project or agency. Any pro­posed federal construction projects on the river or in its immediate environment must be brought before Congress with an explanation of how the river can maintain its wild and scenic recreation value despite the proposed construction activity.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC

§§661-666) requires coordination and consultation among (1) the agency proposing the highway project, (2) the FWS, and (3) the state agency responsible for protecting wildlife resources whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise modified. Full consideration and evaluation of the costs and benefits on a resource and public welfare must be performed including proposed miti­gation measures for potential impacts.

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of1965. 16 USC 460-4 to -11,

Public Law 88-578, protects public recreational land developed using federal funds under this act. Replacement lands converted to nonrecreational uses must be approved by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.