23CFR771(f) states:

In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated in each EIS or finding of no significant impact (FONSI) shall:

1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope;

2. Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and

3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.

Although staff at the Virginia Division of FHWA state that an interchange project in Charlottesville Virginia ( Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road [website at 250interchange.org]) complies with these three requirements, there appears to be no written determination as to this project being in compliance with items 1 and 2 above. Use of the term 'shall' in 23CFR771(f) suggests that some determination of compliance is required.

Logical Termini Issue: I have reviewed FHWA guidance on logical termini and questions and responses on Re: NEPA. But, on this particular project the termini appear to differ among various alternatives and correspond to where each particular alternative design would join a yet unconstructed roadway that is a state funded project. Shouldn't there be specific termini identified for the project as a whole that apply to all alternatives under consideration? And shouldn't these project termini correspond to the next intersection in each of the legs of the interchange to ensure adequate environmental consideration?

Independent Utility Issue: To determine that this interchange has independent utility it appears that there ought to be at least one alternative that shows that the interchange could provide utility without the state funded project being built (else the state funded road project and the interchange should be considered one project – not two). But, the only independent interchange designs were identified as part of the Section 4(f) review (the interchange and state funded roadway are in Charlottesville's McIntire Park – a section 4(f) property). Three alternatives were studied and all were determined not to be reasonable or practicable alternatives and dropped from consideration. Wouldn't this fact that all of the interchange only alternatives are unsuitable mean that this interchange does not have independent utility? The draft environmental assessment clearly states that the independent interchange is not even consistent with the stated project purpose and need.

Please let me know what the FHWA minimum documentation standard is that addresses the specification of logical termini, and the level of demonstration that a project has independent utility (and is a reasonable expenditure even if other projects are not constructed). And, please let me know if there is any relevant case law on these issues.