Once a preferred alternative has been identified, a final Section 4(f) evaluation must be developed, containing all the information included in the draft evaluations, plus the following:

1. A discussion of the preferred alternative, including graphics to illustrate resources and any use (if applicable) associated with the preferred alternative.
2. A discussion of the basis for concluding that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the Section 4(f) land. The supporting information must demonstrate that one of the following scenarios exists:
   • There are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of avoidance alternatives.
   • The cost; the social, economic and environmental impacts; or the community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes.
     
     
3. A discussion of the basis for concluding that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property.
4. When there are no feasible and prudent alternatives that avoid use, the final Section 4(f) evaluation must demonstrate that the preferred alternative causes the least harm of any alternative after considering mitigation measures.
5. A summary of the official coordination with the Headquarters Offices of the Department of the Interior (DOI) (or appropriate agency under that Department) and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Housing and Urban Developement (HUD), as well as evidence of continuing coordination with the Official with Jurisdiction.
6. Copies of all official coordination comments and a summary of other relevant Section 4(f) comments received, with an analysis and response to any questions raised. Where new alternatives or modifications to existing alternatives are identified and given no further consideration, the basis for dismissing these alternatives should be provided and supported by factual information. When Section 6(f) land is involved, the National Park Service's (NPS) position on the land transfer should be documented.
7. Concluding statement as follows:
   

   Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the [identify Section 4(f) property] and the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the [identify Section 4(f) property] resulting from such use.

8. The final evaluation should be included in the FEIS or FONSI.