Mr. Peter Kleeman, Ph.D.
407 Hedge Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

Dear Mr. Kleeman:

We are in receipt of your letter dated June 26, 2006, concerning the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project being developed by the City of Charlottesville. In your letter, you raised questions about the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project and the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project proceeding independently of one another in light of recent funding decisions made by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) in developing Virginia's Transportation Six-Year Improvement Program (Six-Year Program). You also cited FHWA's response dated April 4, 2005, to your previous inquiry, concluding that because the "criteria" addressed in that letter are no longer satisfied, the Route 250 Bypass/'McIntire Road Interchange project and the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project should be considered one integrated project.

In his recent conversation with you by telephone, Mr. Ken Myers mentioned that funding in the Six-Year Program was one way (and the simplest way) of demonstrating that the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project and the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project are independent of one another. However, it is far from being the only way. By virtue of its inclusion in the United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan 2025 for construction, the Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) for the region, the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project is considered a committed project. When FHWA prepares a NEPA document, the no-build alternative is defined as all committed projects from the CLRP (i.e. those projects funded for construction) minus the project being subjected to NEPA. The Six-Year Program plays no role in defining the no-build alternative, and it has no standing with respect to FHWA's metropolitan or statewide planning requirements; instead, it is the CLRP that is the controlling document for determining whether or not a project is considered committed.

In addition, just because two related projects appear in the same funding document such as the Six-Year Program, this funding document does not dictate the scope of the project being analyzed for purposes of NEPA. In fact, when FHWA completes an environmental document in air quality attainment areas like Charlottesville, there is no regulatory requirement that the project be funded for any subsequent phases in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), CLRP, or Statewide TIP. Therefore, whether projects are funded for any phase beyond NEPA does not dictate the scope of a project for purposes of NEPA analysis in air quality attainment areas. Further, it is impractical to allow funding to play any role in the development of the scope of a project for purposes of NEPA analysis when those funding decisions can change annually. If we were to react to the CTB's decision to remove construction funding for the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project from the Six-Year Program by combining the Route 250 Bypass/Mclntire Road Interchange project and the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project into a single project for purposes of NEPA analysis, it logically follows that if the CTB were to put funding back into the Six-Year Program during the next allocation cycle, we would then have cause to separate the two projects again.

Neither does NEPA dictate the sequence in which projects are to be constructed. Even though we maintain our position that the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project remains a committed project by virtue of its inclusion in the CLRP, nothing requires VDOT to construct it in advance of the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project. Notwithstanding, based on recent discussions with VDOT and the City of Charlottesville, it is their intent to advertise and construct both the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project and the Route 250 Bypass/Mclntire Road Interchange project at the same time to minimize disruption to the adjacent communities and the traveling public. Therefore, while funding to construct the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project is not currently included in the Six-Year Program, VDOT and the City are working to put the funding back into the Six-Year Program to complete the project on a timetable consistent with the schedule for the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project.

In your letter you also made a couple of references to segmentation implying that FHWA, in proceeding with the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project as a separate project in light of recent funding decisions by the CTB, is segmenting the interchange project from the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project. Segmentation occurs when a federal agency artificially divides a larger project into smaller projects with the intent of evading NEPA requirements such as the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. When the McIntire Road Extended project was developed in the early 1990s, it was developed with an at-grade intersection at the Route 250 Bypass demonstrating that the interchange was not needed for the extension to function properly in the design year of the extension. When FHWA issued a FONSI for the McIntire Road Extended project in 1995 before VDOT made a decision to fund the project with state funds, an interchange was not included as part of the improvement. Therefore, FHWA never segmented a larger project (i.e. the McIntire Road Extended project) by removing the interchange. It was only recently that an interchange project using federal funds was initiated, approximatdy 10 years after the FONSI for McIntire Road Extended was issued. In contrast, the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project is currently in the right-of-way acquisition/utility relocation phase. Besides, if FHWA were to add the Route 250 Bypass interchange to the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project, FHWA would merely re-evaluate the Environmental Assessment/FONSI that was already completed for the McIntire Road Extended project before it was de-federalized; we would not re-initiate the NEPA process all over again.

The principal issue here is whether a group of related actions constitute a single federal action for purposes of NEPA. While the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project is not considered a federal action that FHWA has jurisdiction over, FHWA has developed its own guidelines to follow when determining if segmentation is an issue related to a particular project, which takes into account court decisions on the matter. These guidelines, which are found in the 1993 paper titled Guidance on the Development of Logical Project Termini, address the concept of logical termini and independent utility. The concepts of logical termini and independent utility are closely tied to the purpose and need of a project. A review of the purpose and need for the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project demonstrates that it is fundamentally different than the purpose and need that is being developed for the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project. If FHWA were to determine that the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project was integral to whether or not the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project satisfied its purpose and need, then there would be cause to consider the two projects in a single NEPA document. However, the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project will serve its purpose and need whether or not the interchange is constructed. Accordingly, FHWA has determined that the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project and the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project each have independent utility and the development of the former does not federalize the later.

In conclusion, FHWA has considered your concerns and not found cause to consider the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project and the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project as a single project subject to NEPA. In other words, the development of the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project does not federalize the non-federally funded McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project. The funding decisions made by the CTB do not dictate the scope of a project being analyzed for purposes of NEPA, and projects included in a CLRP for construction are considered committed projects by FHWA. Finally, both the Route 250 Bypass/McIntire Road Interchange project and the McIntire Road Extended/Meadow Creek Parkway project have independent utility and will serve a purpose even if the other improvement isn't implemented. We hope you find this information and explanation helpful. If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact me at (804) 775-3338.